i

i

Thesis supervisor(s) Drs. Ynte van Dam Prof.dr.ir. JCM Hans van Trijp MCB - Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group Author Lorenzo Locci MSc Organic Agriculture - Consumer and Market Reg. No. 861226524080 Wageningen University December 2014

ii

Preface

This thesis is written as part of the MSc Organic Agriculture, specialization in Consumer and Market, at Wageningen University. I enrolled in this programme after completing a BSc in Agricultural Biotechnology at the University of Perugia in Italy, and after one year of Msc in Plant Biotechnology at Wageningen. My background oriented me more towards sustainability, food production and consumption impacts on society and environment, than it did to genetic engineering. The MSc in Organic Agriculture gave me great market and social views about sustainability and responsible consumption. This scientific research project has been a great opportunity to gain knowledge and understanding of consumer studies. I would like to thank my supervisors Ynte van Dam, for the fruitful and animated discussions that helped me to develop the concepts of this thesis and go beyond my assumptions, and Hans Van Trijp, for his precise and valuable instructions on how to deal with specific issues and how to clarify them. They provided me with valuable insights for my research. I also thank the secretary of the MCB group Ellen Vossen, for setting up the meetings with the supervisors, my family, for supporting my studies with sacrifices, my partner Guillermo, for his encouragements, my friends, housemates, and Soka Gakkai Buddhist group. Even though the research topic could have been approached from a different perspective, the concept of bounded rationality made a good fit towards the phenomenon of sustainability labels and it provided valuable considerations for an effective use and enhancement of these labels. I hope that this information will be used in practice to make sustainable products more recognizable and to guide consumers with making more sustainable choices. Lorenzo Locci

Wageningen, December 2014

iii

Abstract

The use and number of sustainability labels, mostly ecological and fair trade, is increasing on a variety of food products. These labels seem to be not very effective for consumers which have difficulties in understanding them and in distinguishing sustainable products from the mainstream ones. Actual purchases of labelled products are still low compared to declared intentions to buy and to attitudes towards green products. This study aimed to investigate how to improve the effectiveness of sustainability food labels by identifying when consumers are more likely to notice them and what would make these labels more satisficing. In order to understand the underlying mechanisms of decision making and effectiveness of labelling, bounded rationality theory and followed heuristics were explained and applied to the case of sustainability labels. Additionally, the limitations of heuristics were accounted and a model on consumer choice-making was developed. Hypotheses, concerning the process of choice and effective format and use of labels, have been formulated and empirically tested in a qualitative study using think aloud technique. A selection of 5 current products (4 labelled, different for amount and type of label logos, and 1 not labelled) was presented to 20 participants, half familiar with green food products and half non familiar. They verbalized their choice processes, with and without condition of time pressure. The results showed that the recognition principle is likely to be the first driver of participants’ choices because the most familiar product, the one not labelled, was the first alternative recognized and the most chosen. The process of refined evaluation was reduced under time pressure because the information items consulted and the numbers of criteria of choice tend to be less, and the level of abstraction in inference tends to be lower. Organic attribute of a products, together with origin, was a secondary decision criterion with a positive valence for those familiar and a negative valence for those not familiar. Familiars with sustainable products mentioned more sustainability labels and showed a higher level of abstraction in inferences for their choices; while, non-familiars were less likely to mention sustainability labels and more likely to have a lower level of abstraction in inferences. At last, the majority of the participants showed preference for products with few labels and sustainability information. And, participants inferred more from textual labels than from pure figure labels. In the discussion, the research limitations were mentioned and the findings have been elaborated and discussed in relation to the context of choice where labels can be noticed and accounted, the time and mental costs in information acquisition, and the processes of changing current choice. Furthermore, different current examples of products with sustainability labels and sustainability label information have been reported in order to discuss their effectiveness and the ways to improve them in light of the results of this research. As a result, consumers are more likely to notice sustainability labels when they are considering products outside their familiar set of choices and when time is not pressing. Sustainability is a secondary reason of choice which can play a role when consumers are in situation of variety seeking. In these situations, products with few labels (preferably textual) and claims are more effective. Therefore, effective labels should reduce considerably the time and the degree of cognitive effort spent in acquiring and processing information by being accessible in an easily understandable manner, transparent, and not potentially misleading. Accordingly, a number of recommendations has been given order to develop feasible and effective marketing strategies. Keywords: labels, sustainability labels, bounded rationality, heuristics, decision making, product choice.

iv

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Contextual Background ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Problem Statement and Description ........................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Research Objectives and Questions .......................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 8

1.5 Structure of the report .............................................................................................................................. 9

2 Bounded Rationality Approach ...................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Rational Model and Utility Maximization ............................................................................................... 10

2.2 Bounded Rationality Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 11

2.2.1 Satisficing Heuristic for Sequential Search ...................................................................................... 12

2.2.2 Simple Heuristics ............................................................................................................................. 13

One-Reason Decision Making .................................................................................................................... 13

Recognition Heuristic ................................................................................................................................ 14

2.3 The Process of Choice ............................................................................................................................. 15

2.4 Shortcoming of Non-compensatory Decision Rules ............................................................................... 15

2.4.1 Dual-Process .................................................................................................................................... 16

2.5 Level of Decision Making ........................................................................................................................ 16

2.6 Conceptual Model ................................................................................................................................... 18

2.7 The Role of Labels in Bounded Rationality Decision-Making .................................................................. 21

2.8 Hypotheses Development ....................................................................................................................... 22

3 Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................................. 23

3.1 Think-aloud protocol ............................................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Participants ............................................................................................................................................. 23

3.3 Procedure ................................................................................................................................................ 24

3.4 Measurements ........................................................................................................................................ 27

4 Results............................................................................................................................................................ 28

4.1 Hypotheses testing ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Testing Hypothesis 1 .................................................................................................................................. 29

Testing Hypothesis 2 .................................................................................................................................. 30

Testing Hypothesis 3 .................................................................................................................................. 30

Testing Hypothesis 4 .................................................................................................................................. 31

Testing Hypothesis 5 .................................................................................................................................. 32

v

5 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

5.1 Sustainability Labels in their Context of Choice ...................................................................................... 33

5.2 Cost of Acquiring Information ................................................................................................................. 34

5.3 Changing Current Choice ........................................................................................................................ 35

5.4 Improve the Current Use of Sustainability Labels................................................................................... 35

6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 39

6.1 Marketing Recommendations................................................................................................................. 39

References ......................................................................................................................................................... 40

Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................ 51

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................................ 51

Appendix B ......................................................................................................................................................... 52

1

1 Introduction

General concerns about sustainability are increasing. Sustainability refers to long-term balance between ecological, economic and social processes at the level of society as a whole (Pezzey, 1992). The rise of sustainable development indicates a growing social concern around production and consumption (Marsden et al., 1993). There is an increasing tendency of social responsible consumption, a more ethical consumerism under which consumers’ interest focuses on social-, environmental- and health-friendly production systems (Rousseau, Vranken, 2013). The green market is emerging as “marketing activities which attempt to reduce the negative social and environmental impacts of existing products and production systems, and which promote less damaging products and services” (Rousseau, Vranken, 2013; Peattie, 2001). Sustainable market is a view of marketing management that includes ecological, societal, and market orientations (Mitchell et al., 2010). Companies differentiate their brands and try to create added value for their products in order to capture consumer demand for sustainability (Peattie, 2001b; Verghese et al., 2012). Many businesses have an environmental or ethical policy outlining their corporate values and objectives (Verghese et al., 2012), which often includes adoption of sustainability certifications. Ethical and fair trade, ecological and green, environmental and organic products are tangible manifestations of the sustainable orientation on the market. Locally produced products, as traditional guaranteed specialties in Europe, are also commonly referred to as green or sustainable (Verghese et al, 2012) because they improve the natural and social environment in the region of origin, by protecting traditional agricultural products against unfair competition (Cheftel, 2005). Green products reflect what is achieved to prevent, limit, reduce, or correct harmful environmental impacts on water, air, and soil (OECD, 2009). In the EU foodstuffs regulations, organic products are designed to limit the impact of production on the social and natural environment, by promoting biological diversity and improving fair competition (Cheftel, 2005). Ethical products stress more the human factor, as welfare of disadvantaged producers in the developing world (Fair Trade Labelling Organizations International, 2014; Rattvisemarkt, 2006). Fair trade trading partnership seeks greater equity in international trade by securing the rights of marginalised producers and workers mostly oriented towards the European market (IFAT, 2006; Grankvist et al., 2007). Green and social labels can be both referred to as sustainability labels, considering the concept of sustainability and sustainable market. Both ethical consumerism and green market are consumption orientations taking into account social and environmental concerns of products (E.g.: Browne et al., 2000; Carrigan et al., 2004). In fact, some ethical aspects are also covered by the EU 834/2007 Regulation about organic farming and labelling (Zander, Hamm, 2010). These labelling schemes emerged as main sustainability marketing strategies aiming to well-inform and to generate consumer trust on sustainability goodness of a product (Deloitte, 2009), through symbols or logos that attempt to convey an array of such information (Borin et al., 2011). These distinctive symbols reveal differences between conventional products and products with environmental and moral advantages, as improvement of biodiversity and contribution to social justice, which consumers might have been aware of but which they could not identify in the market (De Boer, 2003). Environmental and social labels are important tools for companies because they are the main marketing technique to communicate to consumers, a way to gain competitive and strategic advantage with incentives as price premium for higher quality products, as well as a way to improve relationships with business partners, customers and their wider environment (Miles, Covin, 2000). In some cases, trusted brands may be reluctant to use an additional label, even if sustainable, because it could undermine consumer confidence (Zadek et al., 1998). As direct shopping aids and as background quality assurances, sustainability food labels should aid in the adoption of sustainable practices in daily consumption, by reducing uncertainty about the environmental performance of products and assisting consumers in their decision-making (Pedersen, Neergaard, 2006). Green labels can be a useful tool for consumers when choosing the most sustainable product from those in a category (Thøgersen et al., 2010) because they make sustainable products recognizable from the

2

mainstream ones. Based on that, consumers may contribute to sustainable development by choosing sustainable labelled products. However, there will be reported several studies showing a general lack of consumer’s understanding and recognition for sustainability food labels. These evidences indicate that labels need to be improved in their effectiveness in order to fully pursuit their main objectives, to make green products recognizable and to influence consumers in their choice. Label failure in recognition is indicated as one of the main reasons for never buying green products (Pei-Chun, Yi-Hsuan, 2012). Thus, this study aims to investigate how the effectiveness of these labels on food choice can be improved from the consumer behaviour perspective of bounded rationality theory.

1.1 Contextual Background

In generic terms, labels are defined as any display of information about a product on its container, or packaging, (Yadin, 2002) which has been designed to transmit a message and inform consumers, to draw attention and to help to sell the product (Lefébure, Muñoz, 2011). The EU Directive 2000/13/EC formally defines labelling as: ‘‘any words, particulars, trademarks, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol relating to a foodstuff and placed on any packaging, document, notice, label, ring or collar accompanying or referring to such foodstuff’’. Labels are particularly important because they give a communication at the point of purchase, where the vast majority of the purchase decisions are made (Point Of Purchase Advertising Institute, 2012; Park et. al., 1989; Dijksterhuis et. al., 2005). Product labels transform credence attributes, as organic or fair trade, in search attributes (Saunders et al., 2010; Darby, Karni, 1973). Especially in the food industry, labels are one of the major key communication channels to consumers (Urbany et al., 1996). The information conveyed by food labels has evolved over time according to market needs, legislations, and increasing consumer demand for food quality (Fotopoulos, Krystallis, 2003). Labels’ objectives became more numerous and more complex under the influence of various pressure groups as food companies, retail groups, public authorities, and consumer organisations (Cheftel, 2005; Fotopoulos, Krystallis, 2003). The type of labels and information provided, number of potential logos and information required by regulation or for marketing purposes (Cheftel, 2005), considerably increased up to the point that competition for label space is high (Verghese et al., 2012). Quality labels emerged as assurance schemes able to catch consumer quality demand, since expenditures for products with these labels are consistent in the European market (Fotopoulos, Krystallis, 2003). Quality labels can be used as extrinsic quality cues and they can create added values, which may lead to competitive advantage (De Chernatony, Harris, 2000). In recent times, eco and fair trade emerged as quality labels covering environmental and social concerns and identifying credence attributes of sustainability (Cheftel, 2005; De Boer, 2003). Conventional labelling schemes neglect these qualities which are, instead, increasingly recognized by all the actors in the marketplace, including investors, workers, non-governmental organisations, and governments (Diller, 1999; Reinhardt, 1998). Eco labels are often designed as a benchmark of excellence, claiming to disclose the top 5% to 30% of the products in a certain category from the perspective of environmental performance (De Boer, 2003). They are considered important means to enhance transparency and consumer trust in environmental claims (Commission of the European Communities, 2007; Iraldo et al., 2005; Thøgersen, 2000). As such, eco labelling has long been considered an important tool for improving the sustainability of consumption patterns (Sitarz, 1994) without compromising consumer freedom of choice and, presumably, reducing consumers information search costs (Grunert, Wills, 2007). Also social, fair trade, labels are often designed to become the bottom-line in the market, claiming to disclose those products created in a socially acceptable manner (De Boer, 2003). These schemes refer to qualities of products, production processes, or services, relevant from a private and a public perspective, as human health and issues of biodiversity and social justice.

3

Sustainability labels are a simple way of conveying sustainability type of information (Lohr, 1998), because the message of sustainability is often complicated to be fully specified at the level of quality attribute in a product (De Boer, 2003). Positioning products and brands as sustainable on the market is done mostly through packaging information and label design (Verghese et al., 2012). In fact, governmental, corporate, and independent green label symbols are proliferating on a wide variety of products (Bhaskaran et al., 2006; Terrachoice Environmental Marketing, 2009; Iraldo et al., 2005), especially in the food sector (Pedersen, Neergaard, 2006). Their amount is high and increasing (Borin et al., 2011; Thøgersen, 2000; Thøgersen et al., 2010; Harbaugh et al., 2011; OECD, 1997) and, according to Ecolabel Index (2014), nowadays in Europe there are more than fifty sustainability certification logos that can be on food packages. There are several different symbols indicating different sustainability aspects of a product which can regard environmental and social attributes, each one can be indicated by one or more sustainability certification logo (Fig. 1.1). The proliferation of eco-labels is accompanied by a high level of redundancy among labels. In fact, in some cases different green labels can all indicate that a product is organic and be in the package at the same time (Fig. 1.1).

Figure 1.1: the product on the left reports two organic certification logos (EKO, the most well-known quality mark for organic products in Netherlands, and EuroLeaf, the most authoritative symbol for organic product in the EU) and one indicating ethical/social credentials (FAIRTRADE) (Janssen, Hamm, 2012; EKO, 2014). The product on the right has five different organic labels, in order: EuroLeaf, AB - Agriculture Biologique (France's national logo for organic products), Bio-Siegel (German certification), Produkt Ekologického Zemědělství (Czech Republic organic certification), and Biogarantie (from Belgium) (Eco Label Index, 2014).

According to the type of sustainability of a certain product, different information can be found on the packaging (Fig. 1.2):

labels referring only to sustainability attributes of the packaging, as recycling arrows symbol, or to its raw material (Fig. 1.2, “Box made of paper from sustainably managed forests”) which, in some cases, are obtained up to meeting of certain certification standards;

sustainability labels that refer to different certification schemes, with more or less extensive information about sustainability aspects of production, raw material, and labour conditions (EU Organic and Fair trade logo, for example);

other symbols and logos attaining a green image to the product but without referring to any label scheme.

A first distinction of labels can be done according to the entity that provides, sets, and verifies the certification standards (Global Ecolabelling Network, 2004; FAO, 2003). First party labelling programs are performed by marketers on their own behalf to promote the positive environmental and/or ethical attributes of their products. The producer or first party can set the standards, in which case the producers' interests are likely to be reflected. Meanwhile, third party label schemes are generally considered the most reliable because they are founded on independent testing and verified by a certification body. The number of first party labelling schemes is unknown, but it is growing and considerably outnumbers the third party labelling schemes, which is expanding as well (Thøgersen, 2000; Organic Monitor, 2014). Third-party labelling programs can be further classified as either mandatory, developed by governmental organisations and prescribed by law, or voluntary (Horne, 2009), which can also be subjected to legal restrictions (Cheftel, 2005). According to the International Organization for Standardisation (ISO), three broad types of voluntary labels

are identified (Cheftel, 2005):

4

- Type I labels are simple symbols certified and awarded by third-party public or private agencies and mostly used within one country, region, or area (Horne, 2009);

- Type II labels are informative environmental self-declaration claims that represent a whole host of labels and symbols, not officially certified, self-declarations of retailers or manufacturers not scientifically based (most of the time), a way of advertising (Horne, 2009) to differentiate products in the marketplace as green or sustainable (Pedersen, Neergaard, 2006). Some of these sign/labels do not prove any environmental or ethical characteristics of the products, which many consumers might think (Thøgersen, 2000).

- Type III labels provide comprehensive product information based on quantitative life cycle assessment, these are used less compared to type II and type I labels (Horne, 2009).

There are even cases of trusted and established brands which engage other marketing activities to communicate the sustainability of their products, without referring to any certification scheme or self-declaration (Peck et al., 2004).

Figure 1.2: chocolate with different sustainability attributes and different types of labels. Labels related to sustainability of the package (“Foil4Soil” and “PEFC” symbols), production system and raw materials (EU organic logo, type I label), raw material and labour conditions (“100% Produced from Ecuador”, type II label). The information related to each symbol are also reported and described in words.

Therefore, consumers can face various sustainability labels on a product because different forms of information can be used to specify the concept of sustainability at the level of product attributes (Pezzey, 1992). In this study, sustainability labels will refer to third party, type III and type I, certification schemes and logos that address ethical and environmental qualities of the manufacture, raw material, and labour conditions of the food product.

1.2 Problem Statement and Description

From self-reports, consumers appear to be very concerned about sustainability issues, declaring increasing attention on environment and health aspects related to food products (Gil et al., 2000; Vindigni et al., 2002). Consumers report concerns for ethical and moral aspects present in production and delivery of goods, as use of child labour, suppressing or preventing labour unions, animal welfare, regional production, and fair prices to farmers (Uusitalo, Oksanen, 2004; Zander, Hamm, 2010). Consumers seem to have adopted a positive attitude towards the environment and they express willingness to incorporate environmental information into their consumption decisions (Thøgersen, 2000). Europeans feel that they can take useful actions regarding sustainability (Eurobarometer, 2002). Consumer willingness to pay higher prices for sustainable labelled product has been shown by several studies (Fotopoulos,

5

Krystallis, 2003; Van Amstel et al., 2008; Mc Cluskey, Loureiro, 2003). Generally, it seems that social and ecological aspects can be relevant product attributes for consumers (Deloitte, 2009) but such positive perceptions for sustainable products do not necessarily translate into purchase decision (Verghese et al., 2012). It is uncertain to which extent consumers actually behave in accordance with their attitudes. Environmental consciousness does not necessarily lead to environmentally friendly behaviour, and positive attitudes towards green products can neither describe nor predict actual consumer behaviour (Gallarotti, 1995; Beckmann et al., 2001). Even though consumers may be concerned, it cannot be assumed that behaviour changes accordingly. Particularly when products present conflict between environmental soundness and other perceived benefits, such as convenience, performance, and various quality attributes (Uusitalo, 1990). Comparing the level of self-reported concerns with the actual buying behaviour, sustainable consumption patterns are not very widespread (Grunert-Beckmann et al., 1997). Potential sales of green products are lost on the path to purchase because there is degradation of intention to buy from declared intentions to the point of purchase decisions (Fig. 1.3) (Deloitte, 2009). There is no automatic correspondence between expressed attitudes and actual buying behaviour (Pedersen, Neergaard 2006), a lack of consistency between environmental social consciousness and product choice (Pedersen, Neergaard, 2006). Actual purchases are still disappointing for many companies that have tried to create green market segments (Peattie, 2001b). In fact, most of the environmentally labelled products are not market leaders (OECD, 1997). In Europe, one of the continents more committed to organic agriculture (Yussefi-Menzler et al., 2008), “Consumer food demand grows at a fast pace in the largest EU markets, yet the organic sector does not represent more than 2% of total food expenses in the EU- 15 in 2007. In the EU-12 organic food consumption stands at lower level” (European Commission, 2010). Also, fair trade and animal welfare product represent only 5% of food sales (Young et al., 2010). The attitude-behaviour gap in green consumerism is well-documented (E.g.: Rousseau, Vranken, 2013; Uusitalo, Oksanen, 2004). It is a common trend in USA and Europe, including UK (Verghese et al., 2012). The gap is between favourable attitude towards sustainable behaviour and behavioural intention to purchase sustainable food products (Vermeir, Verbeke, 2006).

Figure 1.3: the lost opportunity on the path to purchase. While 63% had searched for a green product, only 47% had found one. 47% had seen/recognized a green product, but only 22% had actually purchased one (Deloitte, 2009).

There are different hurdles that might hold consumers back from making a well-informed choice between more and less sustainable practices (De Boer, 2003). Consumer choice behaviour is generally influenced by the degree of compromise, having to pay more to buy a more sustainable product or to sacrifice some aspect of performance, and the degree of confidence, how sure the consumer is that the product addresses a genuine sustainability issue, that the product is superior in its sustainability performance, and there will be a worthwhile benefit from the purchase (Peattie, 1999). Thus, the size of the premium price often charged for the green labelled products, combined with difficulties in obtaining information, are obvious causes of the opportunity lost on the path to purchase (Gino, Margolis, 2011; Uusitalo, Oksanen, 2004; Cope, Winward, 1991). Anyway, it has to be considered that consumers often use price as an indicator of overall quality (Oliver, 2001), which is partially true because sustainability labels imply additional costs of

6

certifications that are likely to make the final products more expensive than not labelled (Giovannucci, Potts 2008; UNEP, 2013; Potts et al., 2010). Consumer failure in recognition of sustainable labelled products is indicated as one of the main reasons for never buying green products (Pei-Chun, Yi-Hsuan, 2012). A survey indicates that most of the more popular used green labels failed to have any consumer recognition with only two, Energy Star and the widespread recycling arrows, changing consumer behaviours (Green Biz Staff, 2009). Pickett-Baker and Ozaki (2008) found that, except for cleaning products, most consumers cannot identify greener products. Also for the established and popular European Flower label, only one third of Danish respondents were able to identify the EU flower, and only some of them knew that it was an eco-label (MAPP, 2001). Several studies showed that consumers experience difficulties in understanding information stated, on the packaging and on the labels, and in distinguishing between the meaning of different labels (D'Souza et al., 2006; Nguyen, Du, 2010; Nilsson et al., 2004; Harper, Makatouni, 2002). Signpost labels appeared to be difficult because quite a lot of the information found on labels does not match cognitive structures on the consumer side (Sørensen et. al., 2013). Consumers often misinterpret different eco-labels (D’Souza et al., 2006; Nordic Council of Ministers, 2001). Their difficulties regard understanding what the labels intend to communicate (Thøgersen, 2000), the meaning, and the content of the different labelling schemes (MAPP, 2001). They also have virtually limited understanding of frequently used environmental terms, such as ‘recycled’ (Morris et al., 1995). The level of consumer informedness and knowledge contributes to the recognition of different sustainability label symbols and to the appreciation for green products (Pei-Chun, Yi-Hsuan, 2012; Sørensen et al., 2013; Hoogland et al., 2007). Consumers knowledge of the content of environmental labels is often limited (De Boer, 2003) as is their awareness for the trustworthiness of the different symbols (De Magistris, Gracia, 2012). They may recognize a popular green label but they are unable to explain the meaning (Pedersen, Neergaard, 2006). In any case, if the consumer level of informedness is not sufficient for understanding logos and signs, any subsequent inferences and buying decisions that they may make will be hazardous (Sørensen et al., 2013). Labelling schemes can counteract these hurdles through the offer of effective information about the product’s sustainability (Harper, Henson, 2001), which may lead to higher willingness to pay (Mc Cluskey, Loureiro 2003; Rousseau, Vranken, 2013). Sustainability label information can increase consumer perceived quality (Napolitano et al., 2013), perceived availability of sustainable food, certainty and involvement, particularly to the extent to which the consumer believes that his/her personal efforts can contribute to the solution of a problem (Vermeir, Verbeke, 2006). Since their main aim is to make sustainable products recognizable, sustainability labels should be designed in order to: improve the visibility of green products, drawing shopper attention, influencing consumers at point of sale by providing information on environmental credentials and providing them with more inspiration to buy (Deloitte, 2009). However, their effectiveness is questioned by several empirical evidences (E.g.: Pedersen, Neergaard, 2006) which indicate that most green labels are flat in the sense that they fail in making an impression in the minds of shoppers (Green Biz Staff, 2009). Consumers can learn to cope with complex choice processes but sustainability issues are often complicated or contested by pressure groups (De Boer, 2003; MAPP, 2001). Information given through green symbols and logos lacks of unity, resulting in a variety of disparate logos and symbols (Fig. 1.4), and many consumers reported confusion over the increasing plethora of labels (Bhaskaran et al., 2006; Terrachoice Environmental Marketing, 2009; Iraldo et al., 2005).

7

Figure 1.4: in the Spanish market, organic food can be recognized by one and, often, two of these logos on the packaging. Most of them are exclusively for regional organic food.

In the EU context, few studies investigated consumer knowledge, understanding, and awareness for sustainability labels mostly in Northern European countries (Lefébure, Muñoz, 2011; Sørensen et al., 2013; Hoogland et al., 2007), where consumers purchasing power (Euromonitor International, 2013; GfK, 2013) and level of information about environment and ethics are higher compared to Southern Europe (Eurobarometer, 2002). Thus, consumers from different countries may respond differently to the same label (Mc Cluskey, Loureiro, 2003) Instead, several studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of nutritional labels and health claims, their comprehension and understanding, factors that affect their use, the types of people who use them, the desired format and detail of information, and their impacts on dietary changes and purchase behaviour (Nørgaard, Brunsø, 2009; Sharf et al., 2012; Van Herpen, Van Trijp, 2011; Petrovici et al., 2012; Nocella, Kennedy, 2012; Biing-Hwan, Yen, 2008; Sullivan, 2003). Also some of these studies evidenced attitude-behaviour gaps, and reported consumer problems and difficulties in understanding and use these labels. In other cases, instead, labels are read, understood and acted upon, for example a health claim on the reduction of disease risk in EU (Przyrembel, 2004). Sustainability labelling has been recently introduced as an innovation in the field of trademarks, compared to nutritional labels and health claims (Thøgersen et al., 2010; De Boer, 2003). Consumers may be aware of sustainability labels, however, their understanding can be still low (Leire, Thidell, 2005; Hoogland et al., 2007). The type of research conducted on nutritional labels and health claims is just at the beginning in green labelling, but it will likely continue as key stakeholders explore the numerous possibilities for communicating accurate information in a cost-efficient and effective manner (Borin et al., 2011). The general assumption that label information is readable and understandable cannot be taken for granted (Rothman et al., 2006). Especially in the European context, it is often questioned whether the information provided on food labels is efficacious for consumers (Cheftel, 2005). There is the necessity to address the question whether environmental and ethical labels sufficiently diminish the information gap between seller and buyer (Van Amstel et al., 2008). The State of Green Business Forum 2010 reported that green information needed to be “accessible in an easily understandable manner right at the point of purchase” (Mazur, 2010). Thus, clearer communication is needed about sustainable products (Pickett-Baker, Ozaki, 2008)

8

1.3 Research Objectives and Questions

The aim of this study is giving a direction for an effective use and enhancement of these labels. The reasons for improving the effectiveness of sustainability food labels are grounded in the attitude-behaviour gap, between what consumers declare as important and how they actually make their individual food choices. In fact, the main causes for never buying sustainable products, besides motivational reasons, are failing in recognition of green products and difficulties in obtaining information. In many cases, even if consumers are becoming increasingly conscious about the impacts of the products that they demand, they would not be aware of the credential sustainability quality. Sustainability labels should supposedly make a product recognizable for ethical and/or environmental attributes, by providing information through logos and symbols at the time consumers make choices. A label will be successful and effective when it enables consumers to distinguish green products from the mainstream ones. However, several empirical evidences showed that these labels need to be improved in order to help consumers and influence their choice process. Thus, this study is going to address the following main question:

I. How to improve the effectiveness of sustainability food labels?

And sub-questions, that have to be answered in order to give an answer to the main research question:

II. When are consumers more likely to notice sustainability labels? III. What would make sustainability labels more satisficing?

These research questions refer mostly to consumers not habitual to opt for sustainable labelled products. Heavy consumers, that frequently purchase and use green labelled product, are excluded from this research because it is assumed that they have reasonable prior knowledge, past experience, and commitment. This condition makes them capable to notice sustainability labels in any case. Prior knowledge and past experience link with involvement, and during decision making process the information that would be taken into consideration depends on the involvement of consumers in the specific situation (Herr, Fazio, 1993). Quality labels covering credence attributes, like sustainability, have an important role in marketing communication. Sustainability labels could be a determinant for the adoption of sustainable practices in daily consumption, especially in frequent product choices as foodstuff. Therefore, this study is expected to give interesting directions for different stakeholders attempting to promulgate sustainable food consumptions, to enhance these labels, or to develop new ones: consumers and their organizations, authorities and especially certifiers, institutions and especially the European Commission, manufactures and food producers including designers of labels. Also, marketers and managers should consider these findings and develop a good strategy of communications because most of the purchase decisions are made at the point-of-purchase (POPAI, 2012; Cheftel, 2005). The theoretical framework for this study calls on bounded rationality theory which predicts that the quality of the decisions consumers make are limited by the availability of information, and time, and by their ability to synthesize that information. The process of making choices has to be spelled out in consumer behavioural innate tendencies and influencing contextual factors (Scheibehenne et al., 2007). For this reason, bounded rationality appears a suitable theory because it describes how the process of making choice conducted by consumer in realistic conditions is shaped by the environment where the choices occur.

1.4 Methodology

This study will apply bounded rationality to the decision making process regarding sustainability food labels. It has been found that this theory has not yet been applied to this context. However, it appears realistic for

9

frequent, repetitive, and low involvement food choices in situations of time pressure and other constraints, as the grocery environment. H. A. Simon started to develop the concept of bounded rationality in the 1940-50s. Later on, several other studies build on his theory by elaborating decision making models applied to various fields. Simon’s theory developed into satisficing heuristics, for searching through a sequence of available alternatives, and simple (or fast and frugal) heuristics, that use little information and computation to make a variety of kinds of decisions. A literature review has been conducted starting from Simon’s articles to the later developed heuristics. Additional studies on grocery behaviour, shopping environment, food labelling and packaging have been accounted in order to refer to the typical grocery context where consumers make food choices. Moreover, a research on current European labels and their use have been done in order to report meaningful examples. Qualitative content analysis has been a useful method during data collection processes. It classifies textual sources in order to reduce it to more useful and to-the-point data. This research tool allows to include a large amount of textual information and to make inferences from data to its context (Krippendorff, 1980). Content analysis can be “objective, systematic, and quantitative”, and is “a description of the content of the communication” (Berelson, 1952). This research applies deductive content analysis because this approach is suggested to verify an existing theory or describing a particular phenomenon. A deductive approach is useful if the general aim is to test a previous theory in a different situation. Since it is based on an earlier theory or model, it moves from the general to the specific (Kassarjian, 1977). In this case, the research will move from the decision making process to food choice and to specific cases of sustainability labels.

1.5 Structure of the report

In this report, the theory of bounded rationality and following heuristics will be presented in the chapter 2 in order to explain the process of choice and in order to develop a simplified model of how consumers make product choice decisions. This theoretical background will serve as a basis to develop hypotheses. Then, a qualitative consumer research has been conducted in order to validate the hypotheses developed. In the chapter 3, materials and method are presented. The results of the study will be given in chapter 4, and interpreted and discussed in chapter 5. Finally, chapter 6 includes a conclusion of the present study and marketing recommendations.

10

2 Bounded Rationality Approach

In this chapter, the theoretical background of the underlying mechanisms of decision making and effectiveness of labelling will be discussed. At first, the rational model, the assumptions of bounded rationality, the derived heuristics will be presented and, then, the vision of the process of choice under bounded rationality approach is summarized (paragraphs 2.1 - 2.3). After that, attention will be paid to the limitations of heuristic non-compensatory rules and to different approaches to problem solving (paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5). Thus, a conceptual model on how consumers make product choice decisions is proposed and the role of sustainability labels is discussed in details (paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7). Finally, hypotheses regarding the process of choice and the effectiveness of sustainability labels are developed (paragraph 2.8).

2.1 Rational Model and Utility Maximization

In many economic theories, humans and consumers are seen as fully rational and narrowly self-interested in their decision behaviour. Consumers attempt to maximize utility, their decisions are driven by self-serving behaviours (Diekmann, 1997), and they often are unable to get beyond this tendency (Gilovich et al., 2000). Rationality is instrumental because it seeks the most cost-effective means to achieve a specific goal without reflecting on the worthiness of that goal. Under this utilitarian perspective, goods are purchased mostly for the utility they provide rather than for ethical or environmental reasons (Thøgersen, 2000). Individuals seek to maximize their own welfare (Russell, Russell, 2010). The welfare of society and the natural world are excluded unless they are embedded in individuals values, that is, people integrate these issues and concerns in their decision-making (Polonsky, 2011). Rational choice, for long a dominant paradigm, explained all social phenomena in terms of how self-interested individuals make choices. According to this theory, individuals make prudent and logical decisions that provide them with the greatest satisfaction and that are in their highest self-interest. Decision makers define the problem, identify the decision criteria, allocate weights to the criteria, then, develop and evaluate the alternatives, to select the best ones. In the rational decision-making model, consumers are expected to have full rational economic behaviour where choice is consistent with the utility maximization principle. Choice preference results from a mathematical utility function that assigns a value to each possible alternative, a sort of decision rule. In this view of decision-making strategies, many and various aspects of an alternative are added up, possibly with each aspect scaled differently according to its importance, to form an overall value or utility (Scheibehenne et al., 2007). The rational model is based on the following assumptions:

- The decision problem is clear and unambiguous.

- The information about choice alternatives is complete and the decision-maker can identify all relevant criteria and viable alternatives.

- Preferences are clear, the criteria and alternatives can be ranked and weighted, and constant, specific decision criteria are constant and the weights assigned to them are stable over time.

- There are no time or cost constraints, to assess all the relevant attributes and to combine them into an overall judgment for each choice alternative.

- The alternative chosen will yield the highest perceived value. Moreover, the concept of full rationality requires sufficient cognitive capabilities (Selten, 1999) to analyse all the possibilities and options, weighting risks, benefits, and outcomes in a perfect rational decision process in order to choose the most optimal option, the alternative with the highest expected utility (Keeney, Raiffa, 1976; Lombardini-Riipinen, Lankoski, 2010).

11

2.2 Bounded Rationality Assumptions

Individuals do not always make rational economic, utility-maximizing, decisions. Certain social phenomena are not only driven by utilitarian and self-serving motives (Quiñones-Rosado, 2007; Fauland-Weckmann et al., 2014). Even for choices that consider the environment and society (Mc Donald et al., 2006), decision makers rarely behave with perfect rationality (Simon, 1956) by evaluating all possible alternatives, their future consequences and their expected utilities. Maximization of utility loses relevance for a good deal of real-world problems because the assumptions of the rational model are not realistic conditions of choice (Mousavi, Gigerenzer 2014). The concept of absolute rationality in rational choice theory is replaced by bounded rationality which points to the difficulties of data-processing and decision-making associated with many choices. Decision makers, irrespectively from their level of intelligence, work under unavoidable constraints that challenge, or bound, their full rationality: limited cognitive resources and time, and imperfect information (Simon, 1982; Simon, 1987). These can be seen as undeniable, both psychological-cognitive and contextual-ecological, related conditions on our ability to apply utility maximization in the real world (Lombardini-Riipinen, Lankoski, 2010; Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996):

- Real minds have cognitive limitations (Simon, 1945), their computational capacities are limited or inadequate to account for all the information that is available (Lombardini-Riipinen, Lankoski, 2010; Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). Behaviour of human beings cannot conform to the ideal of perfect rationality (Selten, 1999) because humans are limited information processors (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). People have incomplete knowledge of the choice objects and/or limited knowledge of the cue values, they can rarely know all the information on which an inference could be based (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996)

- There is often absence of perfect knowledge and measurable probabilities. Information available regarding possible alternatives and their consequences is limited, and often unreliable (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996).

- People might make economically rational decisions if only they could gather enough information but there is limited amount of time available to make a decision (Lombardini-Riipinen, Lankoski, 2010), as relevant cost of acquiring information (Simon, 1982).

Consumers are unable to have full information available because the choice environment is crowed of competing stimuli-info, the clutter of competitive products and claims. Consumers face a huge amount of products offered by the typical store (Scheibehenne et al., 2010; Schwartz, 2004; Tootelian, Ross, 2000), especially in Western societies (Schwartz, 2004). In the context of purchase choice, labels are only one element in a broader set of product information (Caswell, Padberg, 1992). The paradox of choice refers not only to the product alternatives but, also, to the high number of product attributes (Carmeci, Misuraca, 2009). Several point-of-purchase communications, as advertising, claiming, display material on show at the point of sale can be available for each product (Yadin, 2002). One single product is likely to carry a variety of information on tangible or intangible aspects to possibly evaluate, as price, brand, nutrition, date of durability, ingredients, origin, and often different claims like tasty, natural, healthy, etc. (Keller, 2001). Limits on consumer processing abilities and knowledge stem for several related sources (Caswell, Padberg, 1992), from competing stimuli, to unfamiliarity, and time pressure. Human behaviour is shaped by the computational capabilities of the actor and the structure of task environment, referring to the choice information environment (Simon, 1990). According to Simon's theory, minds of living systems are adapted to real-world environment (Simon, 1956). Thus, choice processes should be understood relatively to the environment, or conditions, in which choices are made (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). Cognitive and contextual constraints prevent decision makers from making optimal decisions. Individuals make decisions with bounded rationality because of the costs of acquiring information: they optimize their decision under constraints with good-enough choices rather than trying to determine the best option

12

(Schwartz, 2004; Simon, 1982; Simon, 1955). Thus, bounded rationality refers to rational principles underlying non-optimizing adaptive behaviour of real people choosing suboptimal alternatives (Selten, 1999). People make decision in an uncertain role, optimizing optimum solution under constraints and, still, optimizing their cognitive limitations (Gigerenzer, 2005).

2.2.1 Satisficing Heuristic for Sequential Search

In many real-world situations, optimal strategies are unknown or unknowable (Simon, 1987). In such situations, there may be no optimal method for stopping searching for further alternatives. Because of the mind’s limitations, humans "must use approximate methods to handle most tasks" (Simon, 1990). Moreover, information gathering is costly, and hence there is always a trade-off between allocating time and resources to gathering further information and proceeding to act on the basis of current information (Foxon, 2007). Bounded rationality proposed the principle of satisficing as a decision-making strategy or cognitive heuristic. Satisficing is “simple, alternative-based and selective” (Payne et al., 1993). Satisficing takes the shortcut of setting an aspiration level and ending the search for alternatives as soon as one is found that exceeds the aspiration level (Simon, 1956, 1990). A person would choose the first object that satisfies his/her aspiration level, instead of following an intractable sequence of taking time to survey all possible alternatives, estimating probabilities, and choosing the alternative that scores highest (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). In the process of satisficing, decision alternatives are not given but found one after the other in a search process. The search goes on until a satisfactory alternative is found which reaches or surpasses the aspiration levels on the goal variables and, then, this alternative is taken (Selten, 1999; Lombardini-Riipinen, Lankoski, 2010). The information sampling process, the search for alternatives, is sequential and stops as soon as a discriminating attribute/cue is found (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). Agents search for actions until they find one that achieves a payoff that provides them with at least some aspiration level. Data processing stops when it finds a product above the expected level of utility, otherwise search would continue within the full set of choices (Caplin et al., 2011). An aspiration level is a predetermined cut-off level set by agents (Simon, 1955). Aspiration levels refer to the particular achievement of a goal for which the person strives. It is a value of a goal variable which must be reached or surpassed by a satisfactory decision alternative (Simon, 1957; Selten, 1999). Aspiration or adaptation levels reflect situational compromises, as goals can change according to situational cues and affordances. Aspiration levels dynamically adjust to the situation (Selten, 1999). They are raised, if it is easy to find satisfactory alternatives and lowered if satisfactory alternatives are hard to come by (Lombardini-Riipinen, Lankoski, 2010). As soon as new alternative comes into sight, the choice might be changed. In case no option is found, the aspiration level has to be relaxed and the search repeats. Additionally, aspiration level and level of uncertainty may engage consumers in different cognitive process in deciding how to behave. This implies the comparison of own behaviour with the previous behaviours or with the behaviour of consumers having about similar abilities, and selecting that behaviour that yields a maximal level of need satisfaction. When consumers have a high level of need satisfaction, but also a high level of uncertainty, they will imitate the behaviour of others. While, consumers having a high level of need satisfaction and low level of uncertainty simply repeat their previous behaviour (Vindigni et al., 2002). Aspiration levels are also characteristic of different types of consumers. Generally, early adopters appear to have a higher aspiration level and search more actively for information, whereas, late majority consumers appear to have a lower aspiration level and search less for information (Rogers, 2003). Early adopters might also have more articulated searching process, to seek alternatives and to satisfy their higher aspiration levels, than late majority. Satisficing works in a simple model of sequential search with costs. People have been found to use this kind of decision mechanisms in situations, as grocery, where information is costly, time is pressing, or the cost of making mistakes is low (Gigerenzer et al., 1999; Payne et al., 1993).

13

Information-processing systems typically need to satisfy rather than optimize in order to successfully deal with realistic conditions of choice (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). Thus, the decision-maker is a “satisficer”, one seeking a satisfactory solution rather than the optimal one (Lombardini-Riipinen, Lankoski 2010). Especially in complex situations where a choice is made among several alternatives available, even individuals who intend to make rational choices are bounded to make satisficing decisions, rather than maximizing (Simon, 1982).

2.2.2 Simple Heuristics

There are rules governing sequential search because satisficing can still require a large amount of deliberation to set an appropriate aspiration level in the first place, or to calculate how a current option compares to the aspiration level (Simon, 1956). These rules are simple tactics or heuristics which explore the structure of environmental information available and are adapted to this structure (Todd, Gigerenzer, 2003). Individuals often employ simple strategies that minimize the amount of information considered and the mental effort invested in a decision. Heuristics refer to useful, even indispensable, cognitive processes for solving problems that cannot be handled by logic and probability theory alone. Heuristics serve the purpose of guiding the search for information in the environment and of restructuring the problem by internal processes. Research on simple heuristics is in the spirit of Simon’s theory (Gigerenzer et al. 1999). Its perspective proposes plausible psychological mechanisms of inference under the assumptions of bounded rationality (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). These simple mechanisms, possibly arisen through evolution, might be designed to be fast and frugal without a significant loss of inferential accuracy (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). One-reason decision making and recognition heuristics simplify the environment of choice and limit cue inference, since only a part of all the information potentially available is used and variables are not integrate in a complex way. Both realize limited search by defining stopping points/rules that are crucial for inference under limited time, as in Simon's examples of satisficing where search among alternatives terminates when a certain aspiration level is met (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). Simple heuristics can actually rely on the lack of knowledge to make appropriate decisions (Todd, Gigerenzer, 2003). This can postulate conditions under which people with little knowledge may make better inferences than those who know more (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). In this view, choices are often ignorance-based because decision making deliberately ignore information although it is available. People are often frugal in terms of the information they assess for a choice, consumers often decide to be not fully informed on all their purchases by attending and processing only a part of the information (Caswell, Padberg, 1992). Ignorance-based can be seen as rational behaviour since the acquisition of information is always costly, especially when the cost of acquiring certain information is greater than the benefits that such information will confer (Nyborg, 2011; Bromberger, 1988). Relying only a fraction of the available information can be as good as integrating it all (Scheibehenne et al., 2007). In decisions under time constraints, individuals predominantly use non compensatory strategies where a decision is determined by some attributes of an object and it cannot be reversed by others. There is no integration, but rather a substitution, of pieces of information (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). It has been found that simple heuristics drive choices across a wide range of situations (Gigerenzer, 2005; Shanteau, 1992) when making repeat decisions which are relatively low in importance or involvement (Gigerenzer, 2005; Hoyer, 1984). The time and effort spent in gathering and considering information is a relevant cost, especially for duty-oriented consumers, and it tends to be lower for low involvement purchases (Belz, Peattie, 2009; Bromberger, 1988).

One-Reason Decision Making

Choices often can be based exclusively on one reason or cue, as price, brand, or origin, which may be different from decision to decision, as context-sensitive (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). This is a specific form

14

of satisficing called one-reason decision making where the inference, or choice, is based on a single good reason. There is no compensation between cues but the first discriminating cue that passes through inhibits any other rays passing through and determines judgment (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). Decision makers follow a simple loop where looking for cues stops as soon as one is found that differentiates between two options considered. This allows to select a cue dimension and to look for the corresponding cue values of each alternative. The two options are compared on their values for that cue dimension; if they differ, the cue discriminates between the alternatives, then the process stops and chooses the option with the cue value indicating the greater value on the choice criterion (disjunctive decision rule), or discard the alternative that fails to meet a minimum level of desirability for at least one of its attributes (conjunctive decision rule); if they do not differ, then another cue dimension is searched and this process repeats (Gigerenzer et al., 1999). Thus, consumers might rank features and choose accordingly (lexicographic), focusing on a few features to accept or eliminate alternatives. There are different search rules for selecting a cue and checking cue values. “Take The Best” searches for cues in the order of their importance. Meanwhile, “Take The Last” is in line with the recognition principle and looks for cues in the order determined by their past success in stopping search, so that the cue that was used for the most recent previous decision is checked first when making the next decision (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). Several aspects of a product can be regarded as important, and there can be conflicts between two or more attributes on some food products (Scheibehenne et al., 2007). Few cues can be considered discriminating and used as simple cut-off criteria, as is often the case. However, people will choose the option that best satisfies their highest ranked distinctive attributes (Scheibehenne et al., 2007; Bettman, 1975). Only the best discriminating cues determine the inference or decision, no combination of other cue values can override this decision (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). Even under the assumption that people have a condition of little knowledge, there always exists a trade-off between commodities or pieces of information (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). In this way, people rely on only a fraction of the available information most relevant in the situation, processed in a quick manner using simple tactics. Thus, difficult trade-offs are avoided (Scheibehenne et al., 2007). Consumers generally use one or few satisficing criteria of choice related to convenience, performance, affect, or normative factors that limit search among alternatives and their characteristics (Hoyer, 1984). Over time, consumers refine these criteria until a satisfactory decision can be made quickly and with very little effort (Hoyer, 1984). For instance, a consumer may use price as a distinctive cues and search for the cheapest product in a category. The consumer may be not satisfied of his/her choice and, thus, refine his/her tactic including brand, as distinctive cue, to distinguish between products with similar prices.

Recognition Heuristic

A version of one-reason decision making is the recognition principle which is a strong force in customer choices. This principle is also one of the rules that guides food preferences in animals (for instance, rats choose the food that they recognize having eaten, or even smelled, before) and avoid novel foods (Gallistel, et al., 1991). Recognition heuristic exploits situations in which partial ignorance is informative. In decisions made under uncertainty, if only one among a range of alternatives is recognized, then the recognized alternative should be chosen (Goldstein, Gigerenzer, 2002). If one of two objects is recognized and the other is not, then it infers that the recognized object has the higher value with respect to the criterion. Consumers tend to rely on their experiences and knowledge. In fact, product alternatives that have already been observed are likely to be inspected first (Zwick et al., 2003). Since consumers cannot know all the products alternatives and characteristics, familiarity is likely to be influential in their food purchase decisions. Thus, experience with the environment of choice imposes a severe bound on the utility maximization problem (Hahn, Warren, 2009; Hills, Hertwig, 2010) by influencing interpretation of information, limiting availability and reliability. In familiar decision problems, the decision maker already knows the optimal way to deal with, (s)he knows what to do from prior experiences and, so, the problem is

15

simple that a suitable method immediately suggests itself (Selten, 1999). In other words, prior knowledge and familiarity can facilitate decision making because the decision maker may have already useful information for that task in that choice environment. Moreover, relevant prior knowledge facilitates encoding and retrieval processes, because it guides information processing in sensory and working memory by providing easy-to-access to retrieval structures (Alexander, 2003; Ericsson, 2003).

2.3 The Process of Choice

By shaping human rationality around the environment, the bounded rationality approach necessarily involves non-optimizing procedures and it appears a realistic theory of human decision making (Selten, 1999). Bounded rationality and following heuristics lead to the idea that individuals make decisions by constructing simplified models that extract the essential features from problems without capturing all their complexity. Decision makers rarely seek optimum solutions but satisficing ones: efforts made are simple and confined to the familiar; efforts are also incremental rather than comprehensive; and, many successive limited comparisons rather than calculating values for each alternative. This approach makes it unnecessary for the decision maker to thoroughly examine all the alternatives and their consequences. Thus, the decision making steps are small and limited to comparisons of the current or familiar options. In this view, the process of choice has the following features:

- Satisficing criteria of choice: are simple cut-off to evaluate product alternatives as satisfactory or not, which relate to convenience, performance, affect or normative factors. These criteria dictate the distinctive cues that distinguish product alternatives and provide inference. Consumers are likely to use few criteria, and often only one with a single dimension. Choices can be based exclusively on a single cue as price, resulting in choosing the cheapest product from a category.

- Selective search: rely on only a fraction of the available information most relevant in the situation by limiting search among available alternatives, and limiting information search to the most relevant cues according to the criteria of choice, and according to the influence of familiarity, past experience, and knowledge (recognition heuristic).

- Easy trade-off: between commodities and pieces of information in evaluation of the relative advantages. There is no integration, but rather a substitution, of pieces of information because the acquisition of information is effortful concerning time and mental resources.

- Decision Rule: choose the option that best satisfies the highest ranked distinctive attributes, the first option that satisfies the criteria of choice.

- Refine tactics: the criteria of choice, and thus selective search, are adjusted over time by searching for additional information when current choice does not easily meet these criteria. Tactics are refined as typically rules of thumb develop as a result of practice and experience.

2.4 Shortcoming of Non-compensatory Decision Rules

Generally, there is an attempt to find some optimal integration of all the information available, and to reduce at the minimum search in memory for relevant information (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). However, even if non-compensatory rules lead to minimal effort in decisions, there is good reason to suppose that decision makers may use both compensatory and non-compensatory rules on different occasions or even at different stages in the same task. To some extent, people are inclined to complete their observations. If a product is good on three product attributes, consumers tend to assume that the product will be good on a fourth attribute as well. A consequence of this attitude could be that if a product has one characteristic related to health, consumers assume that it is a healthy product (Sijtsema et al., 2002).

16

In fact, in many real-world situations, multiple pieces of information are not independent but redundant (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996). Consequently, people can infer one attribute from another, according to the principle of completing perceptions (Sijtsema et al., 2002). The construction of subjective positive attribute correlations could also be thought as an unconscious coping strategy to avoid difficult trade-offs in the first place (Lazarus, Folkman, 1984).

2.4.1 Dual-Process

Based on the assumption that humans have a limited budget of attention, dual process gives a more accurate vision on the use of simple heuristics, non-compensatory rules, in judgement and decision making. It provides an account of how decisions can occur in two different ways, or as a result of two different processes (Kahneman, Lovallo, 1993). Two distinctively separate cognitive systems or modes of thought, developed through evolution, underlay thinking and reasoning (Kahneman, Frederick, 2002). Human behaviour and the ways in which human judgment is bounded result from the interaction between these two systems. The two systems can been seen as agents within the mind and described as follows (Kahneman, 2011):

System 1 is the intuitive system, automatic, affective and heuristic-based, which means that it relies on mental shortcuts. For these reasons, it is also referred to suboptimal thinking. This system is typically fast, effortless, implicit, associative and emotional. It quickly proposes intuitive answers to problems as they arise by making as much sense as possible of the situation, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control. System 1 drives many of the choices and judgments. It is elicited for familiar tasks and situations, thus, it is mostly employed in routine decisions because mental activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice.

System 2 corresponds closely with controlled processes. It is slow, effortful, conscious, rule-based, explicit, and logical. It allocates attention to effortful mental activities that demand it, and it also referred as deliberative thinking. In terms of decision-making, the description of System 2 bears a close resemblance to the rational, general-purpose processor presupposed by standard economic theory.

The control of attention is shared by the two systems and, in order to reduce cognitive strains, individuals mostly rely on their intuitive system. In fact, system 1 cannot be switched off because its operations involve no sense of intentional control. Individuals are generally reluctant to invest more effort than strictly necessary (Kahneman, 2011). People often lack of important information regarding a decision, fail to notice available information, face time and cost constraints, and maintain a relatively small amount of information in their usable memory (Stanovich, West’s, 2000). Since time pressure is seen as a driver of effort, the busier people are, the more time constraints they face, the more likely they will rely on System 1 thinking. However, system 2 can be employed to monitor the quality of the answers provided by system 1 and it is capable of correcting or overriding the automatic judgments. System 2 is called onto, when system 1 is not sufficient, when extra effort is required. Thus, it is likely to drive reasoned behaviours (Kahneman, 2011).

2.5 Level of Decision Making

There are different approaches to problem solving which depend on the degree of prior information and experience with the product class, and which affect the nature and the extent of the choice process, the effort spent by consumers, and their involvement. The level of involvement, how interested the consumer is about a product and the level of personal relevance in a product, determines the degree of motivation a consumer has to buy that product. Considering that motivation is probably the most important underlying determinant to change consumer behaviour, the level of consumer decision making can indicate consumer attitude to change their current consumption patterns. The consumer’s level of decision making is typically referred to brands, since consumer are generally considered brand loyal, but it also concerns product classes, and, more generally, it can characterize type of

17

consumers different in their aspiration levels and amount of beforehand knowledge. Consumers typically progress through extended, limited and routine problem solving when they approach a new brand or a product class that is new for them.

• Extensive problem solving The first goal of consumers in this stage is gather information about advantages and about how alternatives perform on the purchase criteria in order to be able to make a choice between considered alternatives (Lantos, 2011). The consumer tries to collect a great deal of information, both from memory (internal search) and from outside sources (external research), to establish a set of criteria on which judging specific brands to be considered (Solomon et al., 2009). Their research processes are longer and more deliberated, probably because there is high purchase involvement (Lantos, 2011). Therefore, in these circumstances consumers can consult additional information goes beyond price and brand, which are the main distinctive cues consulted to make choices. It is considered the first learning stage because it occurs when purchasing a new product, not bought before. It may be also in the case of purchasing items which prior information and experience are either largely forgotten, irrelevant, or never been noticed before (Lantos, 2011). Consumers have little or no prior knowledge and experience with the product class or alternative brands within the product category. Extended problem solving is also likely to characterize early adopter consumers which are attracted by products that are still not widespread in the main stream markets.

• Limited Problem Solving Consumers seek information more selectively than in the first learning stage, often bypassing data on the product category that they already possess. Fewer information sources are consulted, evaluations are limited to one or few vital criteria, and the number of alternatives evaluated is restricted. There is generally less time and effort expended in the decision process (Lantos, 2011). When some product alternatives can be considered satisficing, consumers engage in somewhat restricted (internal and, limited, external) information search for distinctive attributes of few alternatives (Solomon et al., 2009; Hawkins et al., 2004). Purchase involvement is moderate and motivation to spend effort in information search is limited. Concerning brands, research is primarily on performance of some alternatives on the buying criteria in order to acquire brand-attribute information to make a brand choice decision (Lantos, 2011). It also involves simple decision rules on few attributes, and little post-purchase evaluation (Hawkins et al., 2004). Consumers have some familiarity and, perhaps, experience with the product class and one or more of its brands. This approach to problem solving can occur for new products entering the market, emerging new product attributes, or in the case of pioneer brands that are improved, often adding variations, a new style, new options, or varieties (Lantos, 2011). It is likely in situations of repeated problem solving or variety (novelty) seeking when consumers consider buying brands or products different from their current choice because they are searching for something new out of dissatisfaction (Lantos, 2011).

Routinized Problem solving It usually involves little or no information seeking (one reason decision making) and it is performed quickly (Blackwell et al., 2001). This approach is also referred to programmed decisions (Lantos, 2011). Consumers in this stage are considered inert, they tend to buy in a habitual, automatic, and unconscious way, because hardly they switch their current choice, or brand, because they usually find it satisfactory (Lantos, 2011; Blackwell et al., 2001). They buy products and brands that they have repeatedly purchased before (Loudon, Della Bitta 1993). Consumers have extensive information and experience with the product class and with many brands (Lantos, 2011). Accordingly, this is most likely for products in mature categories (Lantos, 2011). Routinized problem solving corresponds to situations of brand (customer) loyalty, with high product involvement but low purchase involvement, or situations of habitual buying, with low involvement for both the product and the purchase situation, because of convenience or indifference (Loudon, Della Bitta 1993; Blackwell et al., 2001). It is far more likely that repeated purchases will be on the basis of habits or routines that enable the consumer to cope more effectively with life pressures because it minimizes time and effort in shopping. This approach to decision making is generally common for most of consumers.

18

The tendency for most of the consumers to approach food choices with routinized responses, or in some cases with limited problem solving approach, is likely due to heuristics and bounded rationality. Heuristic rules might explain the persistent tendency to neither look up nor integrate all information, or more generally to under-search (Gigerenzer, Goldstein, 1996; Scheibehenne et al., 2007; Camerer, 1995). This may be also consequential to the individual’s tendency to stay with the default option, familiar, habitual or current choice, because of loss aversion, endowment effect, and status quo biases (Kahneman, 2011; Kahneman et al., 1991). In fact, one-reason decision making and recognition principle are likely to be predominant cognitive mechanisms in routinized problem solving because they allow quick and effortless choices. People will generally think about alternatives, search and include relative and further information in their decisions, when their current behaviour is not fully satisfactory (Vindigni et al., 2002). Only when consumers engage in more reasoned behaviours, as extensive and also limited problem solving, because their aspiration level is not fulfilled, so, they think about alternatives and they will update the information in their mental map (Vindigni et al., 2002). Therefore, consumers will only consult additional product information (that goes go beyond the most frequent information items consulted for product choice, in order brand, price, origin, sometimes nutrition and sustainability) when their current behaviour, or consumption choice, does not satisfy their aspiration levels, they are no longer happy with their current (habitual) choice. Hence, when they are satisfied with their current behaviour, they rely on previous experience or familiarity and they might remain unaware of products innovation, its (changing) characteristics (e.g. decrease of price, or discounts), and its benefits (Vindigni et al., 2002). This also confirms that people decide to not engage in economic optimization (rational actor type behaviour) but, rather, use more simple heuristic or engage in biased information processing in their evaluation of relative advantages (Vindigni et al., 2002).

2.6 Conceptual Model

Based on bounded rationality vision of the choice process, the model in Figure 2.1 has been developed. It proposes an interactive problem solving strategy based on simple feedback and reaction loops. The model works in a Test-Operate-Test-Adjust-Loop (TOTAL) fashion (Wang, Mukhopadhyay, 2012), a more recent version of the Test-Operate-Test-Exit model (TOTE) (Miller et al., 1960), and it is based on the assumption that short-term memory can only hold 5-9 items of information, as limited computational capacities in bounded rationality. According to the TOTAL model, people constantly revise their strategy to attain goals, adapt their goals based on previous performance and feedback, and the strategy runs their information processing mechanisms. Individuals monitor the extent of their progress towards their goals and adjust the rate of progress and effort inputs, in line with the idea that cognitive processes of real mind are shaped by the structure of the environment (Wang, Mukhopadhyay, 2012). Thus, the model focuses on how people strive towards goals that are considered dynamic and iterative. In this view, heuristics can be seen as tactics forming the strategy. In general, the core view of this class of models is reducing any discrepancy between the current state and the desired goal or the reference value (Wang, Mukhopadhyay, 2012). This is done through a strategy divided into four stages, which are considered simultaneous as part of an automatic response to stimulus (Wang, Mukhopadhyay, 2012; Miller et al., 1960): a first test is a cue or trigger that begins the strategy, the monitoring system tests against a standard, which determines the criteria for the desired state and it is used as norm for a second test; operate stage grants access to details by remembering, creating or collecting the information on the internal and external world; a second test is a comparison of a certain aspect of the data to which access has been obtained by means of the criteria established during the first test; lastly, the exit stage (decision or selection point) is a representation of the results of the test, when there is an agreement (a match) the strategy ends otherwise the strategy starts again from the beginning and the cycle loops back.

19

The last stage, named exit in TOTE and adjust in TOTAL, automatically leads to changing the outcome or redirecting the strategy, adjusting or reorienting the criteria, refining or further specifying the outcome, or to accessing more data. As feedbacks on progress come in, individuals may dynamically adjust their goal targets based on the feedbacks. In other words, the stimulus behind behaviour is the achievement of a goal. In order to achieve the goal, that goal has to be defined thoroughly enough to allow to recognise when it has been achieved. Operate represents moving towards the achievement of that goal, and test assess if that goal has been achieved. The process stops, exit, when the goal is reached, otherwise this cycle of test-operate is repeated until the goal is eventually achieved or abandoned. Mediating organization of experience is necessary somewhere between the stimulus and response, and feedbacks are as monitoring devices that control the stimulus-response relationship in a cognitive process (Wang, Mukhopadhyay, 2012). Thus, as people accumulate experience in a domain, they frequently adjust the expected pacing of their progress. This adjustment may be either upward or downward, depending on the experience (Wang, Mukhopadhyay, 2012). The model in Figure 2.1 describes how consumers make product choice as result from three components: “Consumer side - Desired goal” or response in TOTAL view; “Choice environment - Current state” or stimulus in TOTAL; and the relation between these two “Formation of trial – Progress towards the goal”, or stimulus/response relation in TOTAL, which determines the adjustments or feedbacks to the current strategy.

Figure 2.1: simplified model of how consumers make product choice decisions Consumer side - Desired goal Setting Aspiration/Adaptation Level. Motivation, typically defined as the driving force of behaviour, is positively and significantly related to the level of achievement because it is an inner state of need or desire that activates individuals to do something to satisfy them. Involvement, in a product and in the purchase situation, mediates the degree of motivation that a consumer has to buy that product or product class. Satisfice means that people settle level of achievements which are merely adequate, named aspiration or adaptation levels. Settling for an adequate level of achievement essentially implies downgrading the target to one that is expected to be comfortably achieved (Wang, Mukhopadhyay, 2012).

20

Aspiration levels depend also on the type of consumer. Early adopters are more attracted by products at the growth stage and they should have a higher aspiration level than late majority consumers. The different amounts of beforehand knowledge, degree of prior information and experience within a product class, characterize the type of consumers. Knowledgeable consumers pay more attention to new information given at the point-of-sale, actively seek for a greater amount of information, and are more aware of the available information compared to less knowledgeable consumers (Uniyal, Sinha, 2009). Early adopters might have more experience and knowledge since they search more actively for information than late adopters. Acquiring knowledge and experience can move consumers from early adopters to late majority class. (Satisficing) Criteria of Choice. The aspiration level directly determines the prerequisites for product choice and the minimum level of consumer acceptance for products. The criteria of choice are simple cut-off values to evaluate product alternatives as satisfactory or not, which relate to convenience, performance, affect or normative factors. Consumers are likely to use one or few criteria because of time constraints. Priority Ordering. According to the criteria of choice, consumers form their priority for product alternatives and their relative importance for product attributes. Thus, consumers might rank alternatives and related features and choose accordingly.

Choice environment - Current state Potential Need Satisfaction. Generally, products have the potential to fulfil consumer demand for convenience, quality, health, and sustainability. Set of Considered Alternatives. Among all the available options, only the alternatives that appear as potentially satisficing are considered. In the set of considered products, the recognition principle would have a strong influence and, thus, familiar products are likely to be in this set. Distinctive Product Attributes/Cues. An attribute is discriminating when it can differentiate product alternatives according to consumer reference value or criterion of choice. Discriminating product attributes reflect the most frequent information items consulted to make choices and to provide inferences. These are a fraction of all the available information most relevant in the situation. Sometimes one attribute can be unconsciously correlated to another one, according to the principle of completing perceptions.

Formation of trial – Progress towards the goal Evaluation. In order to be able to make a choice among the considered set of alternatives, products are evaluated based on their performance on the criteria of choice. The considered alternatives are compared on their values for the cue dimensions dictated by the consumer criteria. Satisficing/Not Satisficing. The evaluation results in judging whether a product is satisficing or not. Refine Evaluation. There can be conflicts between two or more attributes on some food products. In these cases, the consumer may be in doubts between two products which seem equivalent on the main distinctive attributes. Thus, the products are compared on another attribute and additional information is consulted to help to distinguish them. In the light of the additional information acquired, if one of the two considered alternatives fails to meet certain consumer acceptability standards, the alternative is discarded and another one is considered. This allows to select a cue dimension and to look for the corresponding cue values of each alternative. The process repeats until the answer is satisfactory, looking for cues terminates as soon as one is found that differentiates between two options considered. Selection. The option with the cue value indicating the greater value on the choice criterion is selected. When there is a match between criteria of choice and product distinctive cues, the product is selected without further investigations of the other product features and information. Often only one, or few distinctive cues, determines the selection as described by one-reason decision making. Feedback. When satisfactory alternatives are easy to find, adaptation levels are raised. If satisfactory alternatives are hard to come by, aspiration levels are lowered. In case no option is found, the aspiration level has to be relaxed and the search repeats. In this way, consumers set their aspiration levels, and criteria of choice, as situational compromises and they revise their search strategy and update the information in

21

their mental map. Based on experience, consumers refine their criteria of choice until a satisfactory decision can be made quickly and with very little effort. In summary, consumers identify their needs by defining aspiration levels, collect information by selective search, evaluate alternatives according to satisficing criteria of choice, and make purchase decision by opting for the product that best satisfies their highest ranked distinctive attributes. The process of sequential search for alternative is governed by simple heuristic rules, and it stops when different satisficing criteria of choice are meet.

2.7 The Role of Labels in Bounded Rationality Decision-Making

Bounded rationality gives a perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Satisficing easily apply to food choices where alternatives are incommensurable, either because they have numerous dimensions of value that cannot be compared, or they have uncertain outcomes that may be more or less favourable or unfavourable (Simon, 1990). Heuristics are means of simplification or effort reduction for consumer dealing with the paradox of choice, especially in the context of sustainability labels on product package where competition for space and information density is high (Verghese et al., 2012). People rely on a limited number of heuristic principles which reduce the complex task of assessing probabilities and predicting values to simpler judgmental operations. In general, these heuristics are quite useful, but sometimes they lead to partial or misperceptions (Tversky, Kahneman, 1974). In order to facilitate their sequential search for alternatives and information, consumers are likely to use simple heuristics, or selective search, and few criteria among which price is likely to be a common parameter in their optimal search strategies. Concerning sustainability, there are some consumers, generally called green consumers, for which it is a chronic goal (Young et al., 2010). Heuristics that people use to satisfy utility are the same that people use to satisfy ethical and moral criteria of choice. However, green consumers may use different criteria of choice in their sequential search among alternatives, perhaps because of different aspiration levels to satisfy. Based on the characteristics of the product, consumers can identify relevant attributes and features in order to infer whether the available alternatives in the assortment match the satisficing criteria of choice. Generally, some attributes of a stimulus are automatically perceived while others must be computed. For experience qualities as taste, for instance, inferences can often be founded on product associations learned from previous experience because these qualities are directly perceivable on consumption (Grunert, Van Trijp, 2014). Thus, consumers form descriptive beliefs as a result of direct observations and experience. However, this is not possible for credence attributes as health and sustainability. For these product qualities, consumers can trust certain information provided by an outside source, as labels or claims on the packaging. This psychological process, known as information belief formation, reduces cognitive effort, especially under time pressure, because it provides a shortcut to choosing a greener product (Grunert, Van Trijp, 2014; Young et al., 2010). Green consumers are most likely to attend and react to this information because motivation is steering their attention (Young et al., 2010). On the other hand, information belief formation concerning sustainability labels is limited for those consumers for which sustainability is not a current choice. The premium price, often charged for sustainable labelled products, is likely to inhibit further researches on others product information and, thus, sustainability labels may not be attended (Soler et al., 2002). Once the decision maker knows that the product fails to meet the threshold on one attribute, there is no reason to continue the search within this product (Stüttgen et al. 2012). Thus, heuristic is reflected in the phenomenon of skipping information even within a product (Stüttgen et al., 2012). In fact, often consumers are not aware of the specific attributes that differentiate sustainable products (Soler et al., 2002). The use of previously learned relationships is another way to make inferences about credence qualities, as described by the principle of completing perceptions for attribute correlations. Generally, individuals adopt

22

the representation that constitutes the most straightforward translation (Simon, Hayes, 1976). In the process of inferential beliefs formation, consumers use their own rules, based on their beforehand knowledge, to establish informative relationships and they make these inferences almost automatically (Grunert, Van Trijp, 2014). Thus, the level of knowledge and competence regarding the product influences consumer inferential beliefs because also those beliefs residing in memory can influence further belief formation. Inferential beliefs are often based on quality signals or quality cues and consumers make inference based on cues with which they feel confident (Grunert, Van Trijp, 2014). Generally, price is easily used as a signal of overall product quality (Oliver, 2001). Green consumers probably search for the most convenient options, as most of the consumers, but they may see higher prices of labelled products as an indicator of higher quality and green credentials. For them, labels give sense for higher prices paid because of the mediating effect of their previous purchases experience and knowledge on the class of sustainable products. This inference is partially justified because certifications costs are likely to make the final products more expensive (Giovannucci, Potts 2008; UNEP, 2013; Potts et al., 2010). In fact, higher prices of organic products are mentioned by a higher percentage of occasional consumers than regular ones, but in the first case, this attribute is linked to unfavourable consequences (Zanoli, Naspetti, 2002). Moreover, when organic credential of a product are recognized, people often easily infer that the product is natural (Briz, Ward, 2009; Soler et al., 2002) and, thus, healthy, since natural contents are assumed to be healthy as well (Sijtsema et al., 2002). Then, country of origin is another attribute that elicit inferential beliefs. Country of origin, and origin labels and claims as PGI and PDO, are often regarded by consumers as cues for quality and safety (Fotopoulos, Krystallis, 2003; Tilman et al., 2000).

2.8 Hypotheses Development

According to what it has been discussed so far, the following hypotheses have been developed. These hypotheses will be tested in an experimental setting described in the following chapter.

H1: The first alternative recognized is likely to be inspected first because the recognition principle is likely to be the first driver of participants’ choices.

H2: The process of refine evaluation is reduced under time pressure because the information items consulted and the numbers of criteria of choice tend to be less and because the level of abstraction in inference tends to be lower.

H3: Participants familiar with sustainable products are more likely to use sustainability as a primary decision criterion; while participants not familiar with sustainable products are more likely to use sustainability as a secondary reason for their choice. H4: Subjects familiar with sustainable products are more likely to mention sustainability labels and to have a higher level of abstraction in inferences for their choice; while subjects not familiar with sustainable products are less likely to mention sustainability labels and more likely to have a lower level of abstraction in inferences for their choices. This tendency is enhanced under time pressure constraints. H5: Subjects not familiar with sustainable products will prefer product alternatives with simple presentation of sustainability information, few labels (preferably textual) and few claims; while consumers habitual to sustainable products will infer more from detailed sustainability information, abundance of sustainability information. Under time pressure, abundance of sustainability information may be preferred also for consumers not familiar with sustainable products.

23

3 Materials and Methods

The current chapter describes the methodology that has been applied for a qualitative research used to test hypotheses formulated from the bounded rationality approach on the way the people solve problems. Think-aloud verbalization technique is used to get an insight of participant’s decision and choice processes about a given selection of current products. First, the think-aloud protocol will be further explained and, then, the participants, the procedure, and the measurement will be described.

3.1 Think-aloud protocol

Think-aloud procedure, originally developed by Newell and Simon (1972) to study problem-solving strategies and to investigate respondents’ choices (Ericsson, Simon, 1984), seems an appropriate method to test the specific hypotheses in an experimental setting. Think-aloud is based on concurrent verbal protocols where data are collected while the participants work on a given task. It is a valuable source of data for consumer research because it is capable of providing detailed observations of the course of behaviour over time (Simon, 1976). The subject is simply asked to give continuous verbal reports, "to think aloud," while performing the task of interest. This request is repeated if necessary during the problem-solving process, thus stimulating the subject to tell what he or she is thinking (Van Someren et al., 1994). There are no interruptions or questions as the subject is encouraged to give a concurrent account of his/her thoughts and to avoid interpretations or explanations of what (s)he is doing (Van Someren et al., 1994). In this way, only the information and intentions that are within the respondent current sphere of conscious awareness are reported (Newell, Simon, 1972). This assumes that as someone solves a problem, a small amount of information, 7 plus or minus items, is retained in the short term memory. The validity of this protocol rests on the assumption that if the content of someone’s short term memory can be accessed while solving a problem, a significant amount about the problem solving processes can be learnt (Van Someren et al., 1994). In principle, when elicited with care and appropriate instructions, talking out loud should not interfere with the task performance and should not lead to much disturbance of the thought process, except for a slight slowing down (Ericsson, Simon, 1984). The subject solves a problem while the talking is executed almost automatically. The data gathered are very direct, there is no delay. Thus, the verbal protocols are treated as a "record of the subject's ongoing behaviour (Newell, Simon, 1972). Think aloud protocols are not necessarily complete because a subject may verbalize only a part of his/her thoughts. However, compared with other type of verbal techniques, the think aloud method facilitates subjects because they are allowed to use their own language (Van Someren et al., 1994). Moreover, the method avoids interpretations by the subject and only assumes that people facing a consumer choice situation are able to verbally formalize the strategy they used to make their decisions (Van Someren et al., 1994).

3.2 Participants

Because of the abundance of data obtained and the labour-intensive nature of this method, the sample size involved in the research is necessarily small. The research process is intensive, so small sample sizes still can provide valid information (Nielson, 1994). It suggested that sample sizes as small as five participants will yield sufficient information about problem solving behaviour (Nielson, 1994). In this study, the subjects involved were a convenience sample of 20 participants in total, 10 familiar with sustainable products and 10 not familiar with this product class. Respondents were recruited among Wageningen University students and a compensation of drink and snack was offered. It was chosen to limit the study to Dutch speaking students in order to increase the reliability of the research since some of the

24

selected products report information only in Dutch. However, the participants verbalized their thoughts in English. It is assumed that they feel enough confident to verbalize their thoughts in English since they are university students.

3.3 Procedure

Instructions. At the beginning of the interview, it was explained to the participants that the data will be handled strictly confidentially and they were asked the permission to audio record them. Then, respondents were instructed to state out loud everything that went through their minds while completing a task of choice. They were asked not to explain or plan what they were saying, but to act as if they were speaking to themselves (Van Someren et al., 1994). Accordingly, the following instructions have been given:

“In a moment, you will make a choice among a set of alternatives. There is not a correct or incorrect choice. You are asked to make this choice in the way you are normally used to do it. It is important that you say aloud everything that you think, everything that comes up in your mind, and that you look at, while making this choice. (Please, make the choice within few minutes)”

Stimulus material. Each participant received exactly the same set of stimuli consisting of five product choices (Fig. 3.1). All the products are rice drinks and have a combination of some ecological and organic labels, expect of product number 5. The option number 1, IsolaBio, has the highest amount of organic labels and claims; the option number 2, RiceDream, has the lowest amount of labels and claims; the option 3 and 4 have a modest amount of labels and claims; while the alternative 5, Alpro, represents the familiar option and has only some sustainability claims. This sub-class of products has been chosen in order to design the task difficult enough that the subjects should not be able to solve the problem in an automated manner (Van Someren et al., 1994). This type of products should be not very familiar for the participants and, in this way, automatic responses should be avoided.

Figure 3.1: set of five products used as stimulus material. The alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 have different label symbols all indicating that the products are organic: product number 1, IsolaBio, reports EuroLeaf, Bio-Siegel, AB -Agriculture Biologique, ICEA (Italian ethical and environmental institute of certification); number 2, RiceDream, has the EuroLeaf and Biogarantie; number 3, Scotti, the EuroLeaf, Produto Organico Brazil and IBD (Brazilian national certification and certifier); number 3, Lima, has the EuroLeaf symbol, Biogarantie, AB -Agriculture Biologique, and Bio-Siegel. The product alternative 5, Alpro, has only sustainability claims (Eco Label Index, 2014; IBD Certification, 2014).

Time pressure manipulation. Half of the respondents from each group, familiar and non-familiar with sustainable products, are asked to make their choice within few minutes and a clock is placed in front of them. Warming up. Prior to the think aloud choice task, a practice session using a similar task was conducted in order to familiarize the subjects with the procedure of thinking aloud. The warming up task consisted of making a choice among four different cans of tomato. If the respondent was silent for a period of time, (s)he was reminded to keep thinking aloud. There was no coaching on how to complete the task. However, if

25

respondents asked for clarification further explanation was provided to maintain respondents’ trust. In the case of psychological study, an explanation can be given about the purpose of the research, in this case the way the people solve problems, and about what is going to happen (Van Someren et al., 1994). Prompting. Interference on the thinking aloud process should only occur when the subject stops talking. The problem of forgetting can be reduced by providing prompts that remind the subjects to continuously think aloud (Nielson, 1994; Van Someren et al., 1994). Thus, one of the following standardized prompts has been used when necessary:

- “ Keep on talking”

- "Remember, say anything that comes to your mind, no matter how unimportant it seems to you"

- "Remember to talk about whatever you see"

- "Talk about what observations you are making"

- "Mention anything that you are thinking about" These prompts are usually enough to keep the subject engaged in thinking aloud for some time. In any way, great care was taken to minimize the amount of prompting and the amount of interactions between observer and subject. Recording and transcription of the verbalizations. Each section was recorded on audio and, later, typed out in order to apply a reliable coding procedure. The transcript contains the thinking aloud of the subject, interruptions by the experimenter, and a simple action protocol to keep track of the product alternatives investigated by the participants (Van Someren et al., 1994) (see Appendix A). Analysis of the transcripts. The transcripts were broken up into single statements or phrases in order to clarify the sequential nature of the observations and to create units of analysis. The verbalizations were further encoded into formal categories. The process of coding is done by defining coding categories and by assessing a code to small set of phrases and statements that belong to the categories (Van Someren et al., 1994). Each phrase and statement in the protocols was assigned one of 16 codes grouped under seven general headings: (1) statements of decision criteria, (2) mentions of sustainability, (3) level of abstraction in inference, (4) information usability, (5) product choice decisions, (6) irrelevant or miscellaneous statements, (7) prompts. The coding category of decision criteria was further specified in: decision criterion of recognition, such as indicating a strong recognition for a familiar alternative, e.g., "Alpro is first one that attract me, I see more often the logo."; decision criterion of price, participants often expressed concerns about price even if this information was not provided, e.g., "I would prefer RiceDream, this one looks a bit cheaper."; decision criterion related to organic, organic attributes of the alternatives were considered criteria to choose or to do not choose a product, e.g., "I do not know this type of products but since I know it is organic it should better.” or "So, normally I don't choose that ones (organic), I prefer cheapest."; decision criterion related to health, e.g., "Choosing this I also get calcium that is good for my bones."; decision criterion related to taste, e.g., "This one with vanilla should taste better than the others."; and decision criterion related to origin, e.g., "Lima is from Europe, I trust it more, I think.". Then, mention of sustainability category was divided in mentions of sustainability labels, mentions of green/bio/organic, and mentions of other sustainability or natural claims. Statements reflecting the level of abstraction were categorized as low or high level of abstraction in inference. A complete coded protocol is reported in the Appendix A and the Table 3.1 describes in details the coding scheme used, with categories, subcategories, relative codes, and example phrases reported for each code. The coding strategy used was developed in order to reflect the nature of the task, choosing among healthy and sustainable type of products, and in order to reflect the theoretical interests and concerns of the research. Thus, coding the statements in terms of decision criteria, mentions of sustainability, level of inference, and information usability emphasizes the use of sustainability criterion and sustainability labels in decision making, and it serves for the purpose of investigating the favourite use of sustainability label information. In this way, the set of coding categories should include the entire range of relevant response.

26

Table 3.1: Coding strategy/scheme used to analyse the transcripts, each code abbreviation has a description and meaningful examples of phrases taken from the coded transcripts.

Categories Code Description Statements Examples

Decision Dc Rec. Decision Criterion of Recognition

Criteria Recognizing an option as really familiar, because "Alpro is the first one that attract me, I see more often the logo."

it has been already observed or heard before, or "I know it's good, It is a familiar brand." "This looks more

even because it has information mostly in subject familiar to me, maybe because it is all in Dutch." "I've tried

native language. before, I know that I like it."

Dc € Decision Criterion of Price

Any reference or suppositions about price, as "First I have to look at the price, and this one gives more

considering a product expensive/cheap, even expensive feelings." "I would prefer RiceDream, this is one

mentions of discount. looks a bit cheaper."

Dc Org Decision Criterion related to Organic

Dc Org + Organic is a reason to choose, it is considered a "I do not know this type of products but since I know it

positive product attribute. is organic it should be better."

Dc Org - Organic is a reason to not choose, it has a "I’m usually not really attracted to organic or bio products."

negative valence. "So, normally I don't choose that ones, I prefer cheapest."

Dc h. Decision Criterion of Health

References to health, health claims, (un)healthy "Choosing this I also get calcium that is good for my bones."

ingredients and components. "I'm looking at the fat content, this is low, so that's good."

Dc t. Decision Criterion of Taste

Phrases or suppositions referring to product taste. "This one with vanilla should taste better than the others."

Dc Ori. Decision Criterion of Origin

Phrases concerning provenience and origin. "From Europe, I trust it more, I think."

Mentions of S.L. Mentions of Sustainability Labels

Sustainability Labels or certifications are explicitly mentioned, "I see here that this is bio organic."

called for their name or recognized as guarantees "it has the European agriculture symbol."

of organic, or indicated when a product is "Here different labels all saying that it is super green."

identified as organic. "IBD organic, I didn't know this but it stands for bio I think."

S.Bio Mentions of Bio/Green/Organic

The alternative is recognized as bio or organic but "It seems bio, it says on the front."

labels are not mentioned or indicated. "IsolaBio, organic rice drink."

S. Claim Mentions of other sustainability or natural claims

Observations about natural, health, and green "Here, it says that it's natural."

which do not refer to any certification scheme. "It says it is good for the planet and for the people."

Level of Low I. Low Level of Abstraction in Inference

Abstraction Use of subject own relations, little reasoning and "Green colours are all natural feeling for me."

in Iference simple inferences. "I like these blue packaging better than the green."

High I. High Level of Abstraction in Inference

Deeper thoughts and reasoning about product “I don’t like this it expires after 7 days you opened it, the other

features and information. after 3-4, so maybe have more preservative. Let’s check.”

Information Inf. Information Ease of Use

Usability Observations about presentation of the "It is so busy the packaging, overwhelming me, and makes

information, and about facility or difficulties in hard for me to find the information I want to know". "This

comprehension. is easy to read and understand, because and it's more set up."

Product Choice Product Choice Decisions

Choice Phrases referring to product choice decision. "So I think I will go for the Scotti and not for that one."

Irrelevant IR Miscellaneous statements

Statements General comments, statements of simple "I like pictures that show what you can do with the product."

awareness, or nonsense phrases. "We have 5 different milk products, rice milks, no rice drinks"

Prompts Pro Standardized phrases used when necessary to "Mention anything that you are thinking about."

remind the subjects to continuously think aloud. "Talk about what observations you are making."

27

3.4 Measurements

The coding categories were defined in order to measure the relevance of recognition, the level of abstraction in inferences, the order and the importance of decision criteria, the number of mentions of sustainability labels, and the usability of the sustainability information reported on the products packaging. Accordingly, several measurements have been taken on the coded transcripts. For each of the four equal subgroups of five participants (familiars with green products without time pressure, familiars under time pressure, non-familiars without time pressure and non-familiars elicited for time pressure) is measured: the number of total statements/observations, the total number of statements for each code, the first quotes related to recognition, the product alternatives chosen, the average number of criteria of choice used, and the average time to make a choice with minimum and maximum. Additionally, the relative percentage of the number of quotes for each code of criterion of choice in each subgroup and the percentages on the total amount of statements for each code are calculated. The first quotes related to recognition, counted among the first three observations of each coded transcript, were distinguished from all the other quotes coded as decision criterion of recognition (see “Dc Rec.”, Tab. 3.1) in order to establish the importance of the recognition principle in participants’ choices. Thus, the percentages of subjects that had thoughts about recognition in their first quotes have been calculated for each group, with and without time restriction. Then, the portion of inferences with high level of abstraction (“High I.”, Tab. 3.1) and the portion of inferences with low level of abstraction (“Low I.”, Tab. 3.1) were calculated on the total amount of quotes related to inference. In this way, the general level of inference could be reveal for each group, with and without time constraint. The average number of criteria of choice used and the amount of statements related to each code in the category of decision criteria (“Dc Rec.”, “Dc €”, “Dc Org”, “Dc h.”, “Dc t.”, “Dc Ori.”, Tab. 3.1) were calculated for each subgroup in order to establish the importance and the order of decision criteria used to make a choice. Then, quotes coded as decision criterion related to organic (“Dc Org”, Tab. 3.1) were divided in statements with positive and statements with negative valence (“Dc Org +” and “Dc Org –“, Tab. 3.1) and their frequencies were counted for each subgroup groups. Also, the number of quotes concerning sustainability labels (“S.L.”, Tab. 3.1) was counted. At last, the contents of information usability quotes (“Inf.”, Tab. 3.1) were analysed in combination with the results of product choice in order to understand whether participants prefer few labels and few claims or abundance of sustainability information on a product. Furthermore, time to choose was measured for each participant in order to test the effect of time pressure manipulation, and a great deal of information was acquired in addition to the verbal protocol data. Shopping behaviour about sustainable food products and demographic data were obtained from a small questionnaire completed by the subjects after the verbalization (Appendix B). A simple scale was developed to measure previous knowledge and experience with green food products. Participants were considered non-familiar with sustainable products when they rated themselves between 1 and 10, and familiar when between 11 and 20. Moreover, as respondents completed the questionnaire the interviewer asked questions and prompted for clarification when necessary (Van Someren et al., 1994). The interviewer asked respondents debriefing questions and, in general, respondents were asked how they found the choices they were presented with.

28

4 Results

The present chapter shows the results from the research described in the previous chapter. First, an overview of the findings is given and, after that, it will be discussed whether the hypotheses should be rejected or supported (paragraph 4.1). A total of 28 students, between 18 and 28 years old, were recruited. Six were discarded because they showed problems in verbalization of their thoughts, some of them reported difficulties to verbalize in English, others had difficulties in solving the task which was considered too much unfamiliar to solve especially under time constraints. These subjects opted for the most familiar product alternative after only few thoughts. Additionally, two respondents were discarded because they declared high familiarity with the task since they were habitual buyers of rice drink. Time pressure manipulation was effective because the time to choose was considerably different between subjects under time constraint and subjects without time limitation: participants not familiar with green products made their choice with an average of 6 minutes (min. 3.5, max.14) and 2 minutes (min. 2, max. 3) under time pressure, while those who declared to be familiar completed the task with an average of 5 minutes (min. 2.5, max. 8.5) and 2 minutes (min. 1.5, max. 2.5) under time pressure. However, differences in time to choose are probably also due to individual ability to verbalize (Van Someren et al., 1994). The results to be presented in the Tables 4.1 and 4.2 are based on the analysis of approximately 800 coded statements from 20 valid transcripts reflecting the behaviour of 20 shoppers. For each group of participants, with and without time pressure manipulation, Table 4.1 shows an overview of results and Table 4.2 reports the most relevant results summarized for each hypothesis.

Table 4.1: overview of the results.

Number of statements

Time to choose (min.) 6.2 (Min. 3.5, Max. 14) 2.3 (Min. 2, Max. 3) 5 (Min. 2.5, Max 8.5) 1.8 (Min. 1.5, Max 2.5)

Choice 3 Alpro, 1 Lima, 1 RiceDream 4 Alpro, 1 Rice Dream 2 Lima, 2 Scotti, 1 RiceDream 3 Alpro, 2RiceDream

Relative Relative Relative Relative

% % % %

Decision Dc h. 36 14.6 15 9.9 50 19.2 15 10.9

Criteria Dc Rec. 27 11.0 26 17.1 20 7.7 18 13.1

1st quotes 4 1 2 2

Dc € 13 5.3 4 2.6 11 4.2 7 5.1

Dc t. 17 6.9 6 3.9 17 6.5 4 2.9

Dc Org 5 2.0 4 2.6 3 1.1 3 2.2

Dc. Ori. 3 1.2 9 5.9 3 1.1 2 1.5

Mentions of S.L. 4 3 13 9

Sustainability S.Bio 7 11 19 10

S.Claim 1 3 5 4

Level of Low I. 34 22 23 16

Abstraction High I. 10 2 36 7in Inference

Information Inf. 20 2 3 0

UsabilityProduct Choice Choice 3 2 4 1

Prompts Pro 4 3 4 2Irrelevant IR 58 39 48 37

Total number

of statement

796

FamiliarNot FamilairNo Time Pressure Time Pressure No Time Pressure Time Pressure

246 152 261 137

% on the Total Amount

of StatementsNumber of quotes Number of quotes Number of quotes Number of quotes

14

12

5

Code Categories

6

2

2

3

6

1.523

2

12

7

3

1

29

Table 4.2: summary of the results reported for each hypothesis.

4.1 Hypotheses testing

Testing Hypothesis 1

H1: The first alternative recognized is likely to be inspected first because the recognition principle is likely to be the first driver of participants’ choices.

The recognition principle has been operationalized by coding the number of first quotes supposedly related to recognition (see “Dc Rec. 1st quote”, Tab. 4.1). Recognition was counted once each time it appears among the first three observations of each coded transcript. The number of first quotes related to recognition has been divided for the number of subjects, and the percentages of subjects that had thoughts about recognition in their first quotes were calculated for each group with and without time restriction (Tab. 4.2). Based on that, 40% of the participants familiar with sustainable products mentioned recognition in their first observations without difference under time pressure manipulation. Meanwhile, the 20% of the not familiar subjects mentioned recognition in their first quotes and the 80% under time pressure. Recognition is among the first observations in 9 out 20 participants. In general, a big part of the participant’s observation was about recognition (“Two of them I know, but the other three I don’t know”; “This one is the first that jumps to my eyes”). Decision criteria based on recognition were strong determinates for choice. In fact, even if two participants not familiar and one familiar with green products discarded the product recognized without further investigations because they had negative experiences with taste or mistrust for the brand (“This one is from soy drink, I wouldn’t trust in a company that make food from soy”; “I have very bad experience with the taste like fla yogurt and milk”), most of the subjects chose the option that they first recognized or mentioned, the product number 5 Alpro (Tab. 4.1). This tendency was stronger under time pressure for both familiar and unfamiliar group, and the total number of thoughts about recognition increased under time pressure for both (see “Relative %” in Tab. 4.1). In general, those familiar with green products shown to be less driven by the recognition principle. Additionally, recognition was also for information reported in subject own language (“This’s better than the other, it’s more familiar to me, it’s in Dutch”). Therefore, the Hypothesis 1 be confirmed and, moreover, it seems that the recognized alternative is also more likely to be chosen.

H1 40% mention Recognition in1 st quotes (2 out of 5) 40% mention Recognition in 1st quotes (2 out of 5)

H2 H4 70% of the all the inferences are Low level of abstraction 39% of the all the inferences are Low level of abstraction

H2 H4 30% is High level of abstraction 61% is High level of abstraction

H2 Average of 2.5 Criteria of choice used by each participant Average of 4 Criteria of choice used by each participant

H3 Order of Criteria of Choice: Order of Criteria of Choice:

1st Recognition, 2nd Health, 3rd Price, 4th Taste, 5th Organic, 6th Origin 1st Health, 2nd Recognition, 3rd Taste, 4th Price, 5th Organic, 6th Origin

H3 All quoted coded Dc Org had positive valence (Dc Org +) All quoted coded Dc Org had positive valence (Dc Org +)

H4 9 Mentions of Sustainability Labels (S.L.) 13 Mentions of Sustainability Labels (S.L.)

H5 No thoughts about information usability Reported explicit preference for less busy packages

H1 20% mention Recognition in1st quotes (1 out of 5) 80% mention Recognition in1st quotes (4 out of 5)

H2 H4 92% of the all the inferences are Low level of abstraction 77% of the all the inferences are Low level of abstraction

H2 H4 8% is High level of abstraction 23% is High level of abstraction

H2 Average of 3 Criteria of choice used by each participant Average of 4.5 Criteria of choice used by each participant

H3 Order of Criteria of Choice: Order of Criteria of choice: Not1st Recognition, 2nd Health, 3rd Origin, 4th Taste, 5th Price, 6th Organic 1st Health, 2nd Recognition, 3rd Taste, 4th Price, 5th Organic, 6th Origin Familiar

H3 All quoted coded Dc Org had negative valence (Dc Org -), few (Dc Org +) All quoted coded Dc Org had negative valence (Dc Org - )

H4 3 Mentions of Sustainability Labels (S.L.) 4 Mentions of Sustainability Labels (S.L.)

H5 Scepticisms and mistrust when facing high amount of labels Excessive amount of labels and claim discourage information search

Time Pressure No Time Pressure

Familiar

30

Testing Hypothesis 2

H2: The process of refine evaluation is reduced under time pressure because the information items consulted and the numbers of criteria of choice tend to be less and because the level of abstraction in inference tends to be lower.

For each subgroup, the level of abstraction in inference was operationalized dividing the total number of quotes coded “Low I.” (low level of abstraction in inference) by the total amount of quotes coded “High I.” (high level of abstraction in inference) and quotes coded “Low I.” (Tab. 4.1). In this way, the percentages of low and high level of inference were calculated (Tab. 4.2). Then, the average number of criteria of choice used by each participant during the verbalization was counted, with and without time pressure (Tab. 4.2). Generally, the level of abstraction in inference was low. This tendency was stronger under time pressure. Under time pressure the level of inference tends to be lower compared with no time pressure elicitation. The familiar group had 70% of inferences with low level of abstraction under time pressure, and 39% without time pressure. Meanwhile, most of the inferences of the not familiar group were low in level of abstraction, 92% under time constraint and 77% with no time pressure manipulation. Health, recognition, taste, price, were reported almost in almost all the cases. Also origin and/or sustainability aspects of the products and thoughts were reported when there was no time limitation. Under time pressure, the criteria of choice used and the information consulted were considerably less. In the familiar group, 2.5 criteria of choice have been use used on average by each participant under time pressure, and 4 without time constraint. Meanwhile, in the not familiar group, 3 criteria of choice have been used on average by each participant under time pressure, and 4.5 without time pressure. Moreover, all the five product alternatives were mentioned or indicated in the majority of the cases but not all the products were mentioned in some cases under time pressure. Therefore, the Hypothesis 2 can be confirmed. Under time pressure, the information items consulted and the numbers of criteria of choice tend to be less, and the level of abstraction in inference tends to be lower. This demonstrates that the process of refined evaluation is reduced.

Testing Hypothesis 3

H3: Participants familiar with sustainable products are more likely to use sustainability as a primary decision criterion; while participants not familiar with sustainable products are more likely to use sustainability as a secondary reason for their choice.

The order of criteria of choice (Tab. 4.2) was deduced from the amount of statements related to each code in the category of decision criteria (Tab. 4.1). Quotes coded as decision criterion related to organic were divided in statements with positive valence (Dc Org +, e.g.: "I do not know this type of products but since I know it is organic it should better."), when organic is a reason to choose and it is considered a positive product attribute, and statements with negative valence (Dc Org -, e.g.: "I’m usually not really attracted to organic or bio products... so, normally I don't choose that ones, I prefer cheapest."), when organic is a reason to not choose (Tab. 4.2). The participants used different strategies to choose. Few of them compared the products for the nutritional values, some for the ingredients, searching for the presence of preservatives or for comparing the percentage of rice contained, one student chose the product that expired later after it has been open. After recognition, the majority of the statements were about health, perhaps, because the task consisted of choosing among all healthy type of products. Then, inferences were mostly about taste. After health, taste, and price, the criteria to choose were based on organic attribute and origin. It is interesting that price emerged as a relevant criterion to choose even if price information was not provided. In fact, often subjects made suppositions about the price or reaffirmed the importance of price in their food choices (“Scotti gives me some more expensive feeling, so I would not choose for this one”; “this looks the cheapest, it looks really cheap, I don’t like it). Therefore, organic and origin seem to be secondary reasons of choice for both groups of participants according to the order of criteria of choice based on the counted amount of quotes (Tab. 4.1 and 4.2).

31

Organic attribute was mentioned by most of the non-familiar participants as a reason to not choose a product (Tab. 4.2) because supposedly it would be more expensive than the others (“Organic... I normally do not choose that ones, I prefer something cheaper”; “Since I don’t know if I like this type of product, I would go for the cheapest which it is not bio”). When mentioned with a positive valence, organic was related to health and, then, taste (“I would choose the organic one… at least I am sure I would taste good”). Moreover, under time pressure, some subjects from the non-familiar and one from the familiar group even failed to recognize the alternative chosen as organic (“I take this, Scotti, it is not organic like the other two but I like it more”; “This and this one are not organic, so I prefer not since I try to buy bio as much as possible”). Concluding, the Hypothesis 3 cannot be accepted as formulated. Considering the total amount of statements of each criterion of choice, both groups of participants used sustainability, organic attribute of the products in this case, as a secondary decision criterion. They generally first mention health and recognition, taste and price, and then organic or origin. However, this criterion has a positive valence for those familiar and a negative valence for those not familiar.

Testing Hypothesis 4

H4: Subjects familiar with sustainable products are more likely to mention sustainability labels and to have a higher level of abstraction in inferences for their choice; while subjects not familiar with sustainable products are less likely to mention sustainability labels and more likely to have a lower level of abstraction in inferences for their choices. This tendency is enhanced under time pressure constraints.

For both groups with and without time pressure, the number of mentions of sustainability labels was obtained by counting the number quotes concerning sustainability labels (S.L. code, Tab. 4.1) and the level of abstraction in inference was operationalized as previously done for the Hypothesis 1 (Tab. 4.2 and 4.1). Participants familiar with sustainable products mentioned few times organic labels for their name but they recalled organic labels, without explicitly mentioning the name ("I see here that this is bio organic."; “This is a guarantee that it is organic”), considerably more time that those non-familiar with green products (Tab. 4.2). Some noticed labels new for them and reported scepticisms (“This etiquette, I don’t know it, I don’t know what to think, they just put it to make it look more bio… I think”). Students non-familiar with sustainable food products rarely spoke about labels, only one recognized the EuroLeaf and only three of them indicated some labels as guarantees or standards of organic, with very few statements (“This one I’m sure it organic, it has this symbol”). Under time pressure, the number of mentions of organic labels did not reduce considerably for both participant groups. Organic labels were few times mentioned with and without time constraints for the non-familiar group. In the familiar group, the number of mentions of organic labels was higher but it did not shown big difference with or without time pressure. In general, the level of inference was low especially for the non-familiars. Only few subjects, mostly familiar with green products, had deep thoughts and reasoning (“Here, it says it’s from Italy, I’m wondering if it’s the rice from Italy, if it’s the processing, or both… because I know that most of the rice is from Asia”). Under time pressure, the level of abstraction in inference was lower for both groups (“I think the... the colours, it looks natural to me”; “Blue means cheap almost all the time”; “This fall apart, it’s vegan, so it’s not for me”). However, under time pressure, the level of abstraction in inference is higher for the familiar group compared to the non-familiar. Therefore, the Hypothesis 4 can be only partially accepted because subjects familiar with sustainable products are more likely to mention sustainability labels and to have a higher level of abstraction in inferences for their choice; while subjects not familiar with sustainable products are less likely to mention sustainability labels and more likely to have a lower level of abstraction in inferences for their choices. However, this tendency is not enhanced under time pressure constraints because the level of inference tends to be lower and because the number of mentions of organic labels did not considerably reduce for both groups.

32

Testing Hypothesis 5

H5: Subjects not familiar with sustainable products will prefer product alternatives with simple presentation of sustainability information, few labels (preferably textual) and few claims; while consumers habitual to sustainable products will infer more from detailed sustainability information, abundance of sustainability information. Under time pressure, abundance of sustainability information may be preferred also for consumers not familiar with sustainable products.

Even if the observations coded as information usability were not so many (Inf. code ,Tab. 4.1), their contents were highly interesting for this research. Thus, the contents of the quotes related to information usability were analysed and combined with the results of product choice in order to deduce participants’ preference for the type of presentation of sustainability information, simple presentation of sustainability information (few labels and few claims) or detailed sustainability information (abundance of sustainability information) (Tab. 4.2). The majority of the subjects opted for their most familiar alternative, 10 out of 20 chose Alpro and two chose RiceDrem after reporting high familiarity for this brand. Then, in order, the options more preferred were RiceDream, Scotti and Lima. In every case, the alternative with most labels and claims, product number 1 (IsolaBio), has never been selected. Some of the students, three non-familiar and one familiar in absence of time limitation, reported that the information on IsolaBio was too overwhelming and discouraging to read (“Here, you don’t see directly what you want to know, this other one is better!”; “it confused me, there are so many things that I cannot concentrate”). Other respondents said that this alternative looks too green for them, another one said too fancy. No one participant explicitly mentioned or indicated any sustainable labels, or standards, on this option, even those familiar with green products. Then, both groups of participants spent some more thoughts about textual labels (“Ah…here it says organic from Brazil”; “Here it proves that it something like bio… says Bio guaranties”; “IBD…umm.. what it would mean?.. let’s check.. certificado organico.. something from a Latin country”) compared with pure figure label. The EuroLeaf has been explicitly mentioned only three times, two times from students familiar with green products, and other three times it was generally indicated as something that stands for European. Therefore, the Hypothesis 5 cannot be accepted because both groups of participants have shown preference for simple presentation of sustainability information even under time pressure. None of them preferred abundance of sustainability information. And, textual labels were generally more attended than pure figure labels.

33

5 Discussion

In this chapter, the results from the consumer research conducted will discussed and the findings from the hypotheses will be interpreted. It would be recommended to further test these findings with a different sample of participants, since Wageningen University students are supposedly a more knowledgeable type of consumers, and with a different product class, since the one used was a peculiar type, and maybe including another option not sustainable labelled. Furthermore, the thinking aloud technique could be used in combination with eye tracking in order to increase the validity of the observation method as it is often recommended (Van Someren et al., 1994).

5.1 Sustainability Labels in their Context of Choice

In line with the principles of adaptive behaviour, the context of grocery and the context of product packaging draw the contextual-ecological conditions under which sustainability labels can be noticed and accounted for by consumers in their decisions. The typical grocery store offers a vast product variety, a typical shopping trip involves numerous decisions, and choices about food are frequently made, more or less consciously (Wansink, Sobal 2007). In general, food choices are low risk and involvement, frequent, and repetitive as fast moving consumer good. Most of the items are purchased under time pressure (Dijksterhuis et. al., 2005) because there is little time to evaluate the overwhelming set of choices and information on different criteria (Caswell, Padberg, 1992). In addition to limited time, consumer budget is another relevant constraint in grocery tasks. In fact, price is the first and main information item consulted for purchase decision making (Cheftel, 2005; Dickson, Sawyer, 1990). It follows that the task of doing grocery is highly routinized and strongly driven by familiarity (Park et al., 1989; Dijksterhuis, et. al., 2005). Consumers tend to rely on previous experiences and knowledge previously acquired in their grocery choices (Stanovich, 2003). Pre-existing information helps consumers in their short cut decision making (De Boer, 2003; Alba, Hutchinson, 1999) especially when the time is pressing and the amount of alternatives and information to cope with is high. In this way, recognition drives consumer approach to the grocery task by identifying the already known alternatives in the vast assortment (Vindigni et al., 2002; Lombardini-Riipinen, Lankoski, 2010). In fact, the Hypothesis 1 has been confirmed by the research conducted. The first alternative recognized is likely to be inspected first, and it might be more likely chosen, because the recognition principle is likely to be the first driver of participants’ choices. Recognition for some products comes from exposure to these products. In this sense, the food environment determines the effort required to consume some foods as opposed to others (Loewenstein et al., 2007) by exposing consumers more to some products than to others. The typical grocery store exposes consumers mostly to products not labelled (Soler et al., 2002) since these are much more widespread in the main stream markets compared to product sustainability labelled, which are still at the growth stage of their life cycle. Exposure, in shop and at home, is a preliminary stage for perception (Thøgersen et al., 2010). Thus, advertisements, one major channel of information in the environment (Caswell, Padberg, 1992), may play an important role in the early stages of choice tactic development (Hoyer 1984). Organic and fair trade products are usually not massively advertised, especially in television which is still by far the most popular medium (Eurobarometer, 2012). Therefore, consumers not familiar with green food products may have been less exposed to sustainable labels and they are more likely to show recognition for products not sustainability labelled. In fact, the Hypothesis 4 confirmed that participants not familiar with green products were less likely to mention organic labels compared with familiar ones, and the results of product choice shown that they were also more likely to opt for the most familiar choice which was the only one not labelled among the selected set of product choice.

34

5.2 Cost of Acquiring Information

The use of simple heuristics and short cut decision rules is enhanced by additional constraints of budget, high amount of alternatives, and related information. As both the number of options and the information about options increases, people tend to apply heuristics (Iyengar, Lepper, 2000). Being faced with high amount of information may induce consumers to avoid difficult trade-offs, that include several sources of information, and to avoid difficulties associated with conflict between personal (price and consumer values) and environmental/social benefits and concerns (Vindigni et al., 2002). Moreover, high familiarity with doing grocery tasks unlikely stimulates consumers to engage in long information search. Thus, consumers mostly narrow down to price, brand, date of durability, place of origin, occasionally also on nutritional information, in order to make faster purchase decisions (Przyrembel, 2004; Sloan, 2003; Cheftel, 2005), maximize their own welfare in consumption (Russell, Russell, 2010), their time, and their budget. The fact that consumers place importance on brands may indicate the relevance of familiarity in grocery behaviour, because consumers trust brands that they already know. Additional information is asked for as long as the marginal benefit equals the marginal costs of information search (Smith et al., 1999; Solomon et al., 2009), which consists of the real costs of time spent on information search and cognitive effort of information acquisition and processing (Smith et al., 1999). It results that the major goal in food decisions is to make satisfactory choices while minimizing cognitive effort. Consumers often do not need, or want, to expend a great deal of mental resources on any one food decision (Hoyer 1984). They do not engage in high levels of active processing when responding to a marketing stimulus (Kotler, Keller, 2008). And, under time pressure, decision-making quality deteriorates (Park et al., 1989) because the general tendency to do fast and frugal choices is enhanced (Scheibehenne et al., 2007). These trends were confirmed by the findings related to the Hypothesis 2. Participants involved in the research demonstrated unwillingness to expend a great deal of mental resources by generally showing a low level of abstraction in their inference. The validation of this hypothesis has also shown that the process of refine evaluation (comparing the products on another attribute and consulting additional information) is reduced under time pressure because the information items consulted and the numbers of criteria of choice tend to be less and because the level of abstraction in inference tends to be lower compared with no time pressure condition. Sustainability is likely to be not the first reason for product choice (Van Trijp, 2014). Once the consumer has decided to investigate a product in question, then, origin and/or ethical and ecological information can play a determinant role in decisions. The results from the Hypothesis 3 also indicated that sustainability is more likely to be a secondary rather than a primary criterion to choose a product. However, it has been shown that this criterion had a positive valence for those familiar while a negative valence for those not familiar. Familiars with sustainable food products indicated organic as a good reason to choose a product because more healthy, more tasty, or more natural. Meanwhile, most of the non-familiars indicated organic as a reason to not choose a product because it likely to be more expensive. These findings may indicate that habitual green consumers overpass premium prices of sustainable products. In some cases humans do not trade everything, some things are supposed to be without a price (Elster, 1979). These consumers probably have high environmental concerns and a great interest in health related aspects of food, since these motives have been found to be major determinants for buying organic food (Vindigni et al., 2002). They may be also more willing to spend additional efforts in acquiring information, as searching for information and comparing products for their sustainability. In fact, the research here conducted showed from the Hypothesis 4 that familiars with green products spent more mental effort in their choice process because they reported more inferences with high level of abstraction compared with subject not familiar. However, they have also been affected by time pressure in their process by showing lower level of abstraction in inference as compared to the non-familiars.

35

5.3 Changing Current Choice

Even though information search is often limited to the familiar alternatives and time pressure induces consumers to opt mostly for their habitual products, consumers can change their habitual choices and strategies of doing grocery. They have dynamic choice processes based on feedbacks and experience, which allows them to refine their searching strategy and criteria of choice in order to make a satisfactory decision with a very little effort (Hoyer 1984). The experience and knowledge gained from each purchase process is a feedback into the consumer’s knowledge and criteria of choice, which influences the next purchase (Young et al., 2010). In situations of variety or novelty seeking, when consumers consider buying brands or products different from their current choice because they are not satisfied, additional alternatives are considered and further information is consulted. Only when consumers engage in reasoned behaviour, because their aspiration level is not fulfilled, and they think about alternatives, then, they refine their search strategy and update the information in their mental map (Vindigni et al., 2002). Therefore, consumers will only consult additional product information when their current behaviour, or consumption choice, does not satisfy their aspiration levels, they are no longer happy with their current (habitual) choice. When consumers engage in reasoned behaviour there is the opportunity of changes on their consumption patterns. In the process of refine evaluation, when considering additional product attributes or when considering non habitual alternatives, secondary reasons for product choice as sustainability can be influential and determinant. In these circumstances, if the relevant information is provided in a transparent way that considerably reduces the degree of cognitive effort, consumers are more likely to catch this information and act upon it. Intuitive judgments occupy a position between the automatic operation of perception and deliberate operation of reasoning, as explained by the dual-process. Individuals are facilitated in their intuitive and heuristics judgements when the costs of time spent on information search and cognitive effort of information acquisition and processing is reduced. Thus, if information about product sustainability involves difficult trade off, because it requires more time and mental resource to be processed, search for additional information about product sustainability may be often inhibited because of the high cost of acquiring information.

5.4 Improve the Current Use of Sustainability Labels

The effectiveness of green labels depends both on how the information is presented and on the ability of the consumer to absorb and act upon it (Teisl et al., 2008). As consumers adapt their decision making strategies to the context, the way the information is formatted and the number of attributes affect what strategies consumers use (Sethuraman et al., 1994). Consumers benefit from ease of information, evaluation and decision making depending on the quantity, content, and format of the information attended and processed (Caswell, Padberg, 1992). The label format can be pure text, pure picture, or combinations. Some products can have one or few labels focusing on a single sustainability attribute and limited amount of information related and claims, simple and synthetic sustainability information, while other products can have an abundance of labels, which can regard diverse sustainability features, and several claims. In this section, different current examples of products with sustainability labels and sustainability label information will be reported in order to discuss their effectiveness in light of the results of this research. Abundance of sustainability label information on a product (Fig. 5.1) might increase the chance that a consumer notices and recognizes some logo, and, perhaps, it can give the overall impression of sustainable or high quality. It may be appropriate for products commercialized in different countries, since the most popular green labels are different according to the country, even within Europe (Ecolabel Index, 2014). For consumers habitual to choose green products, extensive sustainability label information with diverse

36

sustainability certification logos, may expand opportunities for choice. These consumers are also likely to have high degree of knowledge and familiarity about sustainability in food choices (De Magistris, Gracia, 2012), which may enable them to deal with the complexity of this information. In general, more information can improve the perceived credibility of a product, but too much information may confuse consumers (Teisl 2003), and, thus, be skipped. On the other hand, people tend to simplify their choice processes by relying on simple heuristics when the complexity of making choice rises (Iyengar, Lepper, 2000). Hence, adding options, or cues, can make a product less attractive because it creates a seemingly intractable information problem, makes harder to gather information, and goes through deliberations (Schwartz et al., 2002). People encountering extensive choices should make less informed decisions and should be more likely to opt for a default choice (Iyengar, Lepper, 2000). Moreover, if the information systems appear difficult, individuals may stop prematurely to look for information (Prabha et al, 2007). High amount of eco-labels, combined with the lack of knowledge, can restrict consumers in paying attention to the available labels (Horne, 2009). Especially when there are also other claims and figures not referring to any label scheme, consumers that attend these symbols may mistrust because they can perceive it as “a kind of brain washing”, an attempt to give a greener image to a product (Terrachoice Environmental Marketing, 2009; Zadek et al., 1998). In fact, in the research carried out, the validation of the Hypothesis 5 demonstrated that the product alternative with most labels and claims has never been selected. Participants referred that the information on this product (which is also from the same brand line of the one in Fig. 5.1) was too overwhelming and discouraging to read, or that it looks too green for them. No one participant mentioned or indicated any sustainable labels, or standards, on this option, even those declared familiar with green products. Participants have shown preference for simple presentation of sustainability information.

Figure 5.1: this product has different sustainability label symbols all indicating that the product is organic. It reports in order the following organic certification logos: ICEA, EuroLeaf, AB -Agriculture Biologique, and Bio-Siegel.

In general, people might be better off with constrained and limited choices reporting little amount of information (Schwartz, 2004). Information focusing on a single green attribute requires less cognitive recourses to be processed and, thus, makes easier meeting the satisficing criteria. At least in the cosmetic market, for some established brands focusing exclusively on ethical and social issues has been a successful strategy to communicate green company actions (Kent, Stone, 2007). Often, green products focus on a single sustainability attribute and report only one sustainability label. This may help consumers to inferring other relating quality attributes. Even if people have often an imperfect and incomplete knowledge and awareness of sustainability products, they can easily recognize organic as natural (Briz, Ward, 2009; Soler et al., 2002) and natural contents are assumed to be healthy as well (Sijtsema et al., 2002). For instance, an organic product that simply attempts to transmit only this cue to European consumers is likely to use the EuroLeaf logo (EU symbol for organic products, Fig. 5.2) which allows, by law, to sell a product as organic in all the countries of the Union. Generally, people in Europe trust in organic products, trust in the Europe concerning environmental issues (Eurobarometer, 2002), and consider organic as healthy choice (Vindigni et al., 2002; Gil et al., 2000). However, when conveying information to consumers, it is important also to consider the different amounts of beforehand knowledge because this knowledge allows them, in different extents, to attend, interpret and understand information on the sustainability labels (Uniyal, Sinha, 2009). The EuroLeaf (Fig. 5.2B) has been

37

recently introduced in July 2010 and, unlike the previous one (Fig. 5.2A), is a pure figure logo without textual information. Consumers have a lack of familiarity and knowledge for this label (Janssen, Hamm, 2012) and the symbol does not easily lead to infer that it is about organic if consumers do not know what it stands for. Perhaps for this reason, some marketers have used the EuroLeaf in a format with the wording organic agriculture (Figure 5.2C). Also in the research here conducted, participants spent some more thoughts and observations about textual labels compared with pure figure label and only few subjects recognized the European logo for organic agriculture. In other products, the EuroLeaf is placed side by side to another label reporting the wording organic agriculture. In the product in Figure 5.3, the certifier symbol reports the wording organic agriculture and it gives also information about the product provenience, which is among the most frequently recalled and preferred information-cues besides price and brand (Przyrembel, 2004; Sloan, 2003; Cheftel, 2005). Especially when the product is national or local, consumer preference for this information may be due to familiarity. It has been shown that organic and provenience were secondary criteria for choosing a product. It might be that combining these information can make a product more appreciated because consumers save time and effort when investigating the product. However, further research is needed to test this last supposition.

Figure 5.2: On the left, first EU Organic logo introduced (Regulation EEC 2092/91), substituted by the “EuroLeaf” logo in the middle (Commission Regulation EU 271/2010), and a particular format of the logo reporting text on the right (Bio-plus, 2014).

Figure 5.3: Organic Spanish products often report the EuroLeaf next to the regional certifier symbol. In this example, CAECyL label indicates the provenience of the organic product, Region Castilla y León (Consejo de Agricultura Ecológica de Castilla y León) (CAECyL, 2014).

The message of sustainability is already considered difficult for many consumers, because of the complexity of this information related to the product characteristics and to the impact of the mode of production (Vindigni et al., 2002; De Boer, 2003; Alba, Hutchinson, 1999), and some labels may present it in a more puzzling or confusing way. In the last examples (Fig. 5.4 and 5.5.), information attached to labels regarding origin of raw material and minimum percentage of certified product might be misleading for consumers. IFOAM EU Group (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement), which regards origin labelling as important for organic products and as useful information for consumers, considers some of these indication senseless (Fig. 5.5, “EU/non-EU Agriculture” has no meaning as food always has to be produced on this earth) and misleading (IFOAM, 2012). In these cases, comparing more and less sustainable products can require significant cognitive resources, and time, particularly for those consumers often not able to notice and recognise greener products (Pei-Chun, Yi-Hsuan, 2012; Pickett-Baker, Ozaki, 2008). Thus, trade-offs between more and less sustainable products are likely to be avoided because of their complexity. Especially in complex choice situations, even individuals who intend to make rational choices are bounded to make satisficing, rather than maximizing or optimizing (Simon, 1982).

38

Figure 5.4: on the left, Rainforest Alliance certification indicates that at least 37% of this chocolate bar has been grown and harvested using environmentally and socially responsible practices; on the right, acceptable qualifying statements about the minimum percentage of certified product which can be attached to label (Rainforest Alliance Certified, 2012).

Figure 5.5: EuroLeaf additional indications of origin of raw material.

39

6 Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to give a direction for an effective use and enhancement of sustainability food labels. In order to fulfil this aim, the two research sub-questions will be answered first in order to give an answer to the main research question. Then, marketing recommendations to improve the effectiveness of these labels will be given.

II. When are consumers more likely to notice sustainability labels?

The results presented indicated that consumers are more likely to notice sustainability labels when they are considering products outside their familiar set of choices, as non-familiar brands or a new product class for instance, because the recognition principle is the first driver for choices, and when time is not pressing. Sustainability attributes are secondary reasons for choosing a product which can play a role in decisions when consumers are in situation of variety seeking because they are not satisfied of their habitual choices. In these circumstances, consumers have more extensive search processes, they have a higher level of inference, and they are more likely to consider information than goes beyond price and brand.

III. What would make sustainability labels more satisficing?

When considering products with a sustainability attribute, consumers would benefit more in their inference from easy presentation of sustainability information, few labels and claims. Products with few labels and claims were more noticed by participants than products with abundance of labels and claims. Labels are more attended by consumers when there are few on the product packaging. Moreover, it seems that textual labels are preferred over pure figure symbols.

I. How to improve the effectiveness of sustainability food labels?

Green labels attempt to reduce the condition of imperfect information in the choice environment, at least concerning sustainability credentials of a product. Effective labels should aim to satisfy consumers by proving information that reduces considerably the time and the degree of their cognitive effort spent in acquiring and processing that information. Therefore, labels should be accessible in an easily understandable manner, transparent, easily accessible, and not potentially misleading in order to sufficiently diminish the information gap between seller and buyer and to properly inform the consumers. Further explanations on how to practically improve the effectiveness of sustainability food labels are provided in the next section.

6.1 Marketing Recommendations

Based on this study, a number of recommendations can be given. As a consequence of the sequential decision process, consumers will not spend a great deal of time and effort to scan possible alternatives when they recognize an acceptable product and, even if they do it, the first recognized product is still more likely to be inspected and chosen. Therefore, linking brand name to sustainability labels might be a feasible marketing strategy. In other cases, when the brand is not familiar, or well-known, labelled products should not have a higher price than the not labelled ones because higher price and unfamiliarity for the product will lead consumers to discard it without further investigations on other product information. In any case, it is advice to:

- use few labels and related information on a product packaging because, when the information is overwhelming, it results discouraging to read for consumers and, thus, it likely to be skipped;

- focus on single issue labels;

- avoid detailed information attached to the labels, as in the examples of origin of raw materials and minimum amount of certified product, because they can result misleading;

- favour the use of textual labels over pure figure labels, because consumers can make more inferences about the meaning of the specific labels;

- use labels that combine information about origin with information about sustainability attribute of a product, this could be more efficacious because it saves time and mental effort to consumers.

40

References

Alba, J. W., Hutchinson, J. W. (1999). Applied cognition in consumer research. In Durso, F., T., Nickerson, R., S.,

Schwaneveldt, R., W., Dumais, S., T., Lindsay, D., S., Chi, M., T., H. (Eds.): Handbook of applied cognition, 343-373.

Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: the journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational

Researcher, 32, 10–14.

Beckmann, S. C., et al. (2001). Environment-related consumer behaviour in a macro-cultural perspective: an

anthropological approach for revealing consumers’ contemporary worldviews as antecedents of behaviour. Paper at

the 29th

EMAC Conference, Rotterdam, 2001.

Belz, F., M, Peattie, K. (2009). Sustainability marketing: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester.

Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois.

Bettman, J., R., (1975). Issues in designing consumer information environments. Journal of Consumer Research 2, 169-

177.

Bhaskaran, S., Polonsky, M., Cary, J., Fernandez, S. (2006). Environmentally sustainable food production and marketing:

opportunity or hype? British Food Journal, 108(8), 677-90.

Biing-Hwan, L., Yen, S., T. (2008). Consumer knowledge, food label use and grain consumption in the US. Applied

Economics, 40, 437–448.

Bio-plus (2014). Waaraan herken ik een biologisch product?

Retrieved from: www.bio-plus.nl/consument/faq/antwoorden/waaraan-herken-ik-een-biologisch-product

Blackwell, R., D., Miniard, P., W., Engel J., F. (2006). Consumer behavior. Thomson/South-Western.

Borin, N., Cerf, D., C., Krishnan, R. (2011). Consumer effects of environmental impact in product labelling. Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 76–86.

Briz, T., Ward, R., W. (2009). Consumer awareness of organic products in Spain: an application of multinominal logit

models. Food Policy, 34, 295–304.

Bromberger, S. (1988). Rational ignorance. Synthese, 74(1), 47-64.

Browne, A., W., Harris, P., J., C., Hofny-Collins, A., H., Pasiecznik, N., Wallace, R., R. (2000). Organic production and

ethical trade: definition, practice and links. Food Policy, 25, 69-89.

CAECyL (2014). ¿Qué es el CAECyL? Retrieved from: www.caecyl.es/caecyl

Camerer, C. (1995). Individual decision making. In Kagel, J., H. Roth A., E. (Eds.): Handbook of experimental economics.

Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 587-703.

Carmeci B., F., Misuraca, R. (2009). The effect of choice complexity on perception of time spent choosing: when choice

takes longer but feels shorter. Psychology & Marketing, 26(3), 213–228.

Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I., Wright, J. (2004). Shopping for a better world? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21, 401–417.

Caplin, A., Dean, M., Martin, D. (2011). Search and satisficing. American Economic Review, American Economic

Association, 101(7), 2899-2922.

41

Caswell, J., A., Padberg, D., I. (1992). Toward a more comprehensive theory of food labels. American Journal of

Agricultural Economics, 74(2), 460-468.

Cheftel, J., C. (2005). Food and nutrition labelling in the European Union. Food Chemistry, 93, 531–550.

Commission of the European Communities (2007). Accompanying document to the communication from the

Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: progress report on the European Union sustainable

development strategy 2007. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 2nd October.

Cope, D., Winward, J. (1991). Information failures in green consumerism. Consumer Policy Review, 1(3), 83–86.

Darby, M., R., Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16,

67-88.

De Boer, J. (2003). Business sustainability labelling schemes: the logic of their claims and their functions for

stakeholders. Strategy and the Environment, 12(4), 254–264.

De Chernatony, L., Harris, F. (2000). Added value: its nature, roles and sustainability. European Journal of Marketing,

34(1), 39-56.

Deloitte (2009). Finding the green in today’s shoppers: sustainability trends and new shopper insights. Report to the

Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA).

De Magistris, T., Gracia, A. (2012). Chapter 6: Do consumers pay attention to the organic label when shopping organic

food in Italy? In Reed, M.,: Organic Food and Agriculture - New Trends and Developments in the Social Sciences. Intech.

Dickson, P., R., Sawyer, A. (1990). The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing 54 ,

42–53.

Diekmann, K. A. (1997). Implicit justifications and self-serving group allocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

18(1), 3–16.

Dijksterhuis, A., Smith, P., K., Van Baaren, R., B., Wigboldus, D., H., J. (2005). The unconscious consumer: effects of

environment on consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 193-202.

Diller, J. (1999). A social conscience in the global marketplace? Labour dimensions of codes of conduct, social labelling

and investor initiatives. International Labour Review, 138(2), 99-129.

Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the

laws of the member states relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs. Official Journal of the

European Communities.

D'Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., Peretiatkos, R. (2006). Green products and corporate strategy: an empirical

investigation. Society and Business Review, 1(2), 144-157.

Ecolabel Index (2014). All ecolabels in Europe. Retrieved from: www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/?st=region=europe

EKO (2014). EKO-quality mark. Retrieved from: www.eko-keurmerk.nl/eko-quality-labels

Elster, J. (1979). Ulysses and the sirens: studies in rationality and irra-tionality. Cambridge University Press

Ericsson, K. A. (2003). The acquisition of expert performance as problem solving: construction and modification of

mediating mechanisms through deliberate practice. In Davidson, J., E., Sternberg, R,. J. (Eds.): The psychology of

problem solving, 31–83. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

42

Ericsson K., A., Simon H., A. (1984). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. MIT Press: Cambridge.

Eurobarometer (2012). Media use in the European Union report. Standard Eurobarometer 78.

Eurobarometer (2002). The attitudes of Europeans towards the environment. EUROBAROMETER 58.0.

Euromonitor International (2013). Consumer Europe 2013.

European Commission (2010). An analysis of the EU organic sector Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural

Development.

Fair Trade Labelling Organizations International (2014). Retrieved from: www.fairtrade.net

FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2003). Environmental and social Standards,

certification and labelling for cash crops. Chapter 3: The concepts of standards, certifications and labelling. Raw

materials, tropical and horticultural products service (ESCR), Commodities and Trade Division.

Fauland-Weckmann, H., Rahmann, G., Abouleish, H., (2014). Organic 3.0 in the main stream trap. Biofach Nuremberg

2014, Congress 14.02.2014.

Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A.(2003). Quality labels as a marketing advantage. The case of the “PDO Zagora” apples in the

Greek market. European Journal of Marketing, 37(10), 1350-1374.

Foxon, T., J. (2007). Bounded rationality and hierarchical complexity: two paths from Simon to ecological and

evolutionary economics. Ecological Complexity, 3, 361-368.

Gallarotti, G., M. (1995). It pay to be green: the managerial incentive structure and environmentally sounds strategies.

Columbia Journal of World Business, Winter, 38-57.

Gallistel, C., R., Brown, A., L., Carey, S., Gelman, R., Keil, F., C. (1991). Lessons from animal learning for the study of

cognitive development. In Carey. S. , Gelman, R. (Eds.): The epigenesis of mind: Essays on biology and cognition (3-36).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

GfK research company (2013). GfK purchasing power Europe 2013/2014. Retrieved from: www.gfk.com

Gil, J. M., Gracia, A., Sánchez, M. (2000). Market segmentation and willingness to pay for organic products in Spain. The

International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3(2), 207–226.

Gigerenzer, G. (2005). Is the mind irrational or ecologically rational? In Parisi, F., Smith, V., L. (Eds.): The law and

economics of irrational behavior (37–67). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, Roering, K., J., Boush, D. M., Shipp, S.,

H. (1986).

Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P., M., the ABC Research Group (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Gigerenzer, G., Goldstein, D., G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal Way: models of Bounded Rationality.

Psychological Review, 103(4), 650-669.

Gilovich, T., Medvec, V., H., Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgement: an egocentric bias in estimates

of the salience of one's own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 211–222.

Gino, F., Margolis, J., D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence

(Un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 145–156.

43

Giovannucci, D., Potts, J., (2008). Seeking sustainability: COSA preliminary analysis of sustainability. Initiatives in the

coffee Sector. IISD.

Global Ecolabelling Network (2004). Information paper: introduction to ecolabelling. Retrieved from:

www.globalecolabelling.net

Goldstein, D. G., Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. Psychological Review,

109, 75–90.

Grankvist, G., Lekedal, H., Marmendal, M. (2007). Values and eco- and fair-trade labelled products. British Food Journal,

109, 2.

Green Biz Staff (2009). Most green labels fail to catch shoppers’ eyes, survey finds. Retrieved from:

www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/09/23/most-green-labels-missing-mark-survey-finds. GreenBiz Admin Published

September 23.

Grunert, K., G., Van Trijp, H., C., M. (2014). Consumer-oriented new Product development. Encyclopedia of Agriculture

and Food Systems, 2, 375-386, Elsevier.

Grunert, K., G., Wills, J., M. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on

food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15, 385-99.

Grunert-Beckmann, S., C., Grønhøj, A., Pieters, R., van Dam, Y. (1997). The environmental commitment of consumer

organizations in Denmark, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Belgium. Journal of Consumer Policy, 20, 45–67.

Hahn, U., Warren, P. (2009). Perceptions of randomness: why three heads are better than four. Psychological Review,

116 (2), 454-461.

Harbaugh, R., Maxwell, J., W., Roussillon, B. (2011). Label confusion: the Groucho effect of uncertain. Standards

Management Science, 57(9), 1512–1527.

Harper, G., Henson, S. (2001). Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice. Final Report EU

Fair CT98-3678. UK: Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading.

Harper, G., C., Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and animal welfare. British Food

Journal 104(3/4/5), 287-299.

Hawkins, D., Best, R., Coney, K. (2004). The consumer behaviour. Mc Graw Hill.

Herr, P., M., Fazio, R., H. (1993). The attitude-to-behavior process: Implications for consumer behavior. In: Mitchell, A.,

A. (Eds.): Advertising exposure, memory, and choice. Advertising and Consumer Psychology, 119–140.

Hills, T., T., Hertwig, R. (2010). Information search in decisions from experience. Psychological Science, 21 (12), 1787.

Hoogland, C., T., de Boer, J., Boersema, J., J. (2007). Food and sustainability: do consumers recognize, understand and

value on-package information on production standards? Appetite, 49, 47–57.

Horne, R., E. (2009). Limits to labels: The role of eco-labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to

sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 175–182.

Hoyer, W., D. (1984). An examination of consumer decision making for a common repeat purchase product. Journal of

Consumer Research, 11(3), 822-829.

IBD (2014). Certifications organic IBD: organic and Brazil organic. Retrieved from: www.ibd.com

44

IFAT (2006). “Fair trade in Europe 2005: facts and figures on fair trade in 25 European countries”. Retrieved from:

www.ifat.org

IFOAM International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements – EU Regional Group (2012). Position paper on

labelling of origin required on products labelled with the EU organic logo.

Janssen, M., Hamm, U. (2012). The mandatory EU logo for organic food: consumer perceptions. British Food Journal,

114(3), 335-352.

Iyengar, S., S., Lepper, M., R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: can one Desire too much of a good thing? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006.

Iraldo, F., Lanzini, P., Melis, M., Kahlenborn, W., Freier, I., Rubik, F., Ankele, K., Scheer, D., Hertin, J. (2005). EVER:

Evaluation of Emas and Eco-Label for Their Revision. Report 2: Research Findings, IEFE – Universita` Bocconi, Adelphi

Consult, IOEW, SPRU Sussex University, and Valor & Tinge A/S, Milan.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.

Kahneman, D., Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In

Gilovich, T. (Ed); Griffin, Dale (Ed); Kahneman, Daniel (Ed), (2002). Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive

judgment (49-81). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press, xvi, 857.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., L., Thaler R., H. (1991). Anomalies: the Endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias.

The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.

Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risk and risk taking.

Management Science, 39, 17-31.

Kassarjian, H., H (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 8-18.

Keeney, R., K., Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objects. NewYork: Wiley.

Keller, K., L. (2001). Mastering the marketing communications mix: micro and macro perspectives on integrated.

Marketing Communication Programs, Journal of Marketing Management, 17, 819-847.

Kent, T., Stone, D. (2007). The Body Shop and the role of design in retail branding. International Journal of Retail &

Distribution Management, 35(7), 531-543.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: an Introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications, Newbury Park.

Kotler, P., Keller, K., L. (2008). Marketing management. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Lantos, G., P. (2011). Consumer behaviour in action. Real-life application for marketing managers. Chapter 3: Overview

of consumer decision making, 89. M.E.Sharpe.

Lazarus, R., S., Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Lefébure, A., Muñoz, R., R. (2011). Communicating to consumers in Sweden with eco-labels -Is the message getting

through? Master thesis Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Umeå School of Business.

Leire, C., Thidell, Å. (2005). Product-related environmental information to guide consumer purchases – a review and

analysis of research on perceptions, understanding and use among Nordic consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production,

13, 1061-1070.

45

Loewenstein, G., Brennan, T., Volpp, K. (2007). Asymmetric paternalism to improve health behaviors. Journal of the

American Medical Association, 298(20), 2415-2417.

Lohr, L. (1998). Implications of organic certification for market structure and trade. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 80(5), 1125–1129.

Lombardini-Riipinen, C., Lankoski, L. (2010). Take off the heater: utility effect and food environment effect in food

consumption decisions 1st Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar.

Loudon, D., L., Della Bitta, A.,J. (1993). Consumer behavior: concepts and applications. McGraw-Hill.

MAPP 2001. Den forbrugerbaserede værdi af en mærkning: med fokus på svanemærket, Working Paper 79. The Aarhus

School of Business Centre for Research on Customer Relations in the Food Sector (MAPP). Retrieved from:

130.226.203.239/Pub/Mapp/wp/wp79.PDF

Marsden, T., K., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R., Flynn, A. (1993). Constructing the countryside. UCL Press, London.

Mazur, A. (2010). State of green business forum, February 9th. Retrieved from: www.worldchanging.com/

archives/010971.html

Mc Cluskey, J., J., Loureiro, M., L. (2003). Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for food labeling: a discussion of

empirical studies. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 34(3), 95-102.

Mc Donald, S., Oates, C., J., Young, C., W., Hwang, K. (2006). Toward sustainable consumption: researching voluntary

simplifiers. Psychol Mark, 23(6), 515–34.

Miles, M., P., Covin, J., G. (2000). Environmental marketing: a source of reputational, competitive, and financial

advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 299-311.

Miller, G., A., Galanter, E., Pribram, K., H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Mitchell, R., W., Wooliscroft, B., Higham, J. (2010). Sustainable market orientation: a new approach to managing

marketing strategy. Journal of Macromarketing 30(2), 160-170.

Morris, L., A., Hastak, M., Mazis, M., B. (1995). Consumer Comprehension of Environmental Advertising and Labeling

Claims. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 29(2), 328–350.

Mousavi, S., Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1671–1678.

Napolitano, F., Castellini, C., Naspetti, S., Piasentier, E., Girolami, A., Braghieri, A. (2013). Consumer preference for

chicken breast may be more affected by information on organic production than by product sensory properties. Poultry

Science, 92(3), 820-826.

Newell, A., Simon, H., A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Nguyen, L., Q., Du, Q. (2010). Effectiveness of eco-label? A study of Swedish university students' choice on ecological

food (Master’s thesis, Umeå School of Business, Umeå, Sweden). Retrieved from: umu.diva-

portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:327644.

Nielson, J. (1994). Estimating the number of subjects needed for a thinking aloud test. International Journal of Human-

Computer Studies, 41(3), 385–397.

Nilsson, H., Tunçer, B., Thidell, Å. (2004). The use of eco-labelling like initiatives on food products to promote quality

assurance-is there enough credibility? Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 517–526.

46

Nocella, G., Kennedy, O. (2012). Food health claims – What consumers understand. Food Policy, 37, 571–580.

Nordic Council of Ministers (2001). Food labelling: Nordic consumers’ proposal for improvements. A pan-Nordic survey

of consumer behaviour and attitudes towards food labelling. TemaNord573.

Nørgaard, M., K., Brunsø, K. (2009). Families’ use of nutritional information on food labels. Food Quality and

Preference, 20, 597–606.

Nyborg, K. (2011). I don’t want to hear about it: Rational ignorance among duty-oriented consumers. Journal of

Economic Behavior & Organization, 79, 263–274.

OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009). Sustainable manufacturing and eco‑

innovation: towards a green economy. Policy Brief June, 1e8.

OECD (1997). Eco-labelling: actual effects of selected programmes, OECD/GD(97)105. OECD: Paris.

Oliver, R., L. (2001). Satisfaction: a behavioral perspective on the consumers. McGraw-Hill.

Organic Monitor (2014). Retrieved from: www.organicmonitor.com/sustprod.htm

Payne, J., W., Bettman, J., R., Johnson, E., J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Park, C., W., Iyer, E., S., Smith, D., C. (1989). The effects of situational factors on in-store grocery shopping behavior:

the role of store environment and time available for shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 422-433.

Peattie, K. (2001). Towards sustainability: the third age of green marketing. The Marketing Review, 2, 129-146.

Peattie, K. (2001b). Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 10, 187-199.

Peattie, K. (1999). Trappings versus substance in the greening of marketing planning. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7,

131–148.

Peck, H., Christopher, M., Clark, M., Payne, A. (2004). Relationship marketing for competitive advantage. Winning and

keeping customers. Cim Professional.

Pedersen, E., R., Neergaard, P. (2006). Caveat emptor – let the buyer beware! environmental labelling and the

limitations of ‘green’ consumerism. Business Strategy and the Environment 15, 15–29.

Pei-Chun, L., Yi-Hsuan, H. (2012). The influence factors on choice behavior regarding green products based on the

theory of consumption values. Journal of Cleaner Production, 22, 11-18.

Petrovici, D., Fearne, A., Nayga J., R., M., Drolias, D. (2012). Nutritional knowledge, nutritional labels, and health claims

on food. British Food Journal, 114(6), 768-783.

Pezzey, J. (1992). Sustainable development concepts. An economic analysis. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, World

Bank Environment Paper, number 2.

Pickett-Baker, J., Ozaki, R. (2008). Pro-environmental products: marketing influence on consumer purchase decision.

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(5), 281-93.

Point of Purchase Advertising Institute. (2012). 2012 Shopper engagement study: A media topline report. Retrieved

from: www.popai.com/engage/docs/Media-Topline-Final.pdf

47

Polonsky, M.,J. (2011). Transformative green marketing: Impediments and opportunities. Journal of Business Research,

64, 1311–1319.

Potts, J., Meer, J., Van Der, Daitchman, J., (2010). The state of sustainability initiatives review 2010: sustainability and

transparency, 95–104. Retrieved from: www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?id=1197

Prabha, C., Connaway, L., S., Olszewski L., Jenkins, L., R. (2007). What is enough? Satisficing information needs Journal

of Documentation, 63(1), 74-89.

Przyrembel, H. (2004). Food labelling legislation in the EU and consumers information. Trends in Food Science &

Technology, 15, 360–365.

Quiñones-Rosado, R. (2007). Consciousness-in-Action. Ilé Publications.

Rainforest Alliance Certified (2012). Sustainable agriculture use of seal guidelines. Retrieved from: www.rainforest-

alliance.org

Rattvisemarkt (2006). Retrieved from: www.rattvisemarkt.se

Reinhardt, F., L. (1998). Environmental product differentiation: implications for corporate strategy. California

Management Review, 40, 43-73.

Rogers, E., M. (2003), Diffusion of innovations, 5th Eds., The Free Press, New York, NY.

Rothman, R., L., R., Housam, H., Weiss, D., Davis, R., Gregory, T., Gebretsadik, A., Shintani, T., A., E. (2006). Patient

understanding of food labels: The role of literacy and numeracy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31(5), 391–

8.

Rousseau, S., Vranken, L. (2013). Green market expansion by reducing information asymmetries: Evidence for labelled

organic food products. Food Policy 40, 31-43.

Russell, D.,W, Russell, C., A. (2010). Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives:

egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Market Lett, 21, 65–81.

Saunders, C., Guenther, M., Kaye-Blake, W., Miller, S., Tait, P., R. (2010). Consumer attitudes towards sustainability

attributes on food labels. New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Paper presented at the NZARES

Conference.

Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., Todd, P., M. (2010). Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytis review of

choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 409-425.

Scheibehenne, B., Mieslera, L., Todd, P., M. (2007). Fast and frugal food choices: Uncovering individual decision

heuristics. Appetite, 49, 578–589.

Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice. Why more is less. New York: HarperCollins.

Schwartz B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., Lehman, D., R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing:

happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178-1197.

Shanteau, J. (1992). How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Psychologica, 81, 75-86.

Selten, R. (1999). What is Bounded Rationality? SFB Discussion Paper B-454, Dahlem Conference.

Sethuraman, R., Cole, C., Jain, D. (1994). Analyzing the effect of information format and task on cutoff search strategies.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(2),103-136.

48

Sharf, M., Sela, R., Zentner, G., Shoob, H., Shai, I., Stein-Zamir, C. (2012). Figuring out food labels. Young adults’

understanding of nutritional information presented on food labels is inadequate. Appetite, 58, 531–534.

Sijtsema, S., Linnemann, A., van Gaasbeek, T., Dagevos, H., Jongen, W. (2002). Variables influencing food perception

reviewed for consumer-oriented product development. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 42, 565–581.

Sitarz, D. (1994). Agenda 21: the Earth Summit strategy to save our planet. EarthPress,Boulder, CO.

Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1-19.

Simon, H., A. (1987). Bounded Rationality. In Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., Newman, P. The New Palgrave: Utility and

Probability. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 15-8.

Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Simon, H., A. (1976). Discussion: cognition and social behavior. In Carroll, J., S., Payne, J., W. (Eds.) Cognition and Social

Behavior, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Simon, H.A., (1957), Models of man. New York, Wiley & Sons.

Simon. H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Revim, 63, 129-138.

Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.

Simon, H. A. (1945). Administrative behavior: a study of decision making processes in administrative organization. New

York: Free Press.

Simon, H., A., Hayes, J., R. (1976). The understanding process: problem isomorphs. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 165-190.

Sloan, A., E. (2003). What consumers want – and don’t want – on food and beverage labels. Food Technology, 57(11),

26–36.

Smith, G. E., Venkatraman, M. P., Dholakia, R., R. (1999). Diagnosing the search cost effect: waiting time and the

moderating impact of prior category knowledge. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 285–314.

Soler, F., Gil, J., M., Sánchez, M., (2002) Consumers’ acceptability of organic food in Spain: results from an experimental

auction market. British Food Journal, 104(8), 670-687.

Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., Hogg, M., K. (2009). Consumer behaviour. A European perspective. Prentice

Hall International.

Sørensen, H., S., Holm, L., Møgelvang-Hansen, P., Barratt, D., Qvistgaard, F., Smith, V. (2013). Consumer understanding

of food labels: toward a generic tool for identifying the average consumer. The International Review of Retail,

Distribution and Consumer Research, 23(3), 291–304.

Stanovich, K., E. (2003). The fundamental computational biases of human cognition: heuristics that (sometimes) impair

decision making and problem solving. In Davidson, J., E., Sternberg, R., J. (Eds.): The psychology of problem solving

(291–342). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Stanovich, K., E., West, R., F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate.

Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 645-665.

Stüttgen, P., Boatwright, P., Monroe, R., T (2012). A satisficing choice model. Marketing Science, 31(6), 878-899

49

Sullivan, A., D. (2003). Determining how low-income food shoppers perceive, understand, and use food labels.

Dietitians of Canada, 64(1), 25-27.

Teisl, M., F. (2003). What we may have is a failure to communicate: labelling environmentally certified forest products.

Forest Science, 668–680.

Teisl, M., F., Rubin, J., Noblet, C., L. (2008). Non-dirty dancing? Interactions between eco-labels and consumers. Journal

of Economic Psychology, 140–159.

Terrachoice Environmental Marketing (2009). The Seven Sins of Greenwashing.

Thøgersen, T. (2000). Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchase decisions: model

development and multinational validation. Journal of Consumer Policy, 23, 285–313.

Thøgersen, J., Haugaard, P., Olesen, A. (2010). Consumer responses to ecolabels. European Journal of Marketing, 44,

(11-12), 1787-1810.

Tilman, B., Bertil, S., Barjolle D., (2000). Country of origin as a cue for quality and safety of fresh meat. The socio-

economics of origin labelled products in agrifood supply chains: spatial, institutional and co-ordination aspects.

Economie et Sociologie Rurales, 17(1), 187-208.

Todd, P., M., Gigerenzer, G. (2003). Bounding rationality to the world. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 143-165.

Tootelian, D., H., Ross, K. (2000). Product Labels. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 6, 1, 25-38.

Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

UNEP (2013). Green economy and trade: trends, challenges and opportunities. Retrieved

from:www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/GETReport/pdf/FullReport.pdf

Uniyal, D., P., Sinha, P., K. (2009). Point of purchase communication: role of information search, store benefit and

shopping involvement (W.P. No. 2009-11-07). Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India. Retrieved from:

iimahd.iimahd.ernet.in/assets/snippets/workingpaperpdf/2009-11-07Uniyal.pdf

Urbany, E., J., Dickson, P., R., Kalapurakal, R. (1996). Price search in the retail grocery market. Journal of Marketing,

60(2), 91–104.

Uusitalo, L. (1990). Consumer preferences for environmental quality and other social goals. Journal of Consumer Policy,

13, 203-215.

Uusitalo, O., Oksanen, R. (2004). Ethical consumerism: a view from Finland. International Journal of Consumer Studies,

28(3), 214–221.

Van Amstel, M., Driessen, P., Glasbergen, P. (2008). Eco-labeling and information asymmetry: a comparison of five eco-

labels in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 263-276.

Van Herpen, E., Van Trijp, H., C., M. (2011). Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when

consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite, 57, 148–160.

Van Someren, M,. W., Barnard, Y., F., Sandberg, J., A., C (1994). The think aloud method. A practical guide to modelling

cognitive processes. Academic Press.

Van Trijp, H., C., M (2014). Encouraging Sustainable Behavior. Psychology and the environment. In De Jonge, J., Fischer,

A., R., H., Van Trijp, H., C., M. Marketing and sustainable development. A social Marketing Perspective. Psychology

Press.

50

Verghese, K., Lewis H., Fitzpatrick, L. (2012). Packaging for sustainability. Springer.

Vermeir, I., Verbek, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer ‘‘attitude – behavioural gap’’.

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 169–194.

Vindigni, G., Janssen, M., A., Jager, W. (2002). Organic Food Consumption. A multi-theoretical framework. British Food

Journal, 104(8), 624-642.

Wang, C., Mukhopadhyay, A. (2012). The dynamics of goal revision: a cybernetic multiperiod Test-Operate-Test-Adjust-

Loop (TOTAL) Model of Self-Regulation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, (5), 815-832.

Wansink, B., Sobal, J. (2007). Mindless eating: the 200 daily food decisions we overlook. Environment and Behavior,

39(1), 106-123.

Yadin, D. (2002). The international dictionary of marketing. 1st edition London: Kogan Page.

Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., Oates C., J. (2010). Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when

purchasing products. Sustainable Development, 18, 1, 20-31.

Yussefi-Menzler, M., Willer, H., Sorensen, N. (2008). The world of organic agriculture: statistics and emerging trends

2008. Kindle Edition.

Zadek, S., Lingayah, S., Forstater, M. (1998). Social labels: tools for ethical trade. Brussels: New Economics Foundation

for the European Commission, DG Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs.

Zander, K., Hamm, U. (2010). Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Quality and

Preference, 21, 495–503.

Zanoli, R., Naspetti S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food. A means-end approach. British

Food Journal, 104(8), 643-653.

Zwick, R., Rapoport, A., Alison K., C., L., Muthukrishnan, A., V. (2003). Consumer sequential search: not enough or too

much? Marketing Science, 22(4), 503-519.

51

Participant 9

Code Line Action Protocol

Dc Rec. 1 First thing that comes to my mind

Dc Rec. 2 It is that Alpro I know the brand Alpro

Dc Rec. 3 that looks familiar to me

Dc Rec. 4 The other brands I don’t know

S. Bio 5 Here I see directly organic RicreDream

S. Bio 6 Here bio IsolaBio

Dc h. 7 This one also for allergies

Dc h. 8 I don’t have allergies for my selft

IR. 9 this probably not for me Lima

IR. 10 I would pick the…

Pro 11 Talk about what observations you are making

Dc Con. 12 Again I think I kind of interested into price

Dc Con. 13 I would say this one looks cheapest

IR. 14 Probably I would try

Dc Con. 15 The lowest ranking in the supermarket

Dc Con. 16 Looking the prices

Dc Rec. 17 Rice dream I never had before

Dc h. 18 But now I see that here it is also gluten free

Dc h. 19 So probably all are gluten free

Inf. 20 But this one you see directly IsolaBio

Inf. 21 The others you don’t

IR. 22 Not at all

Inf. 23 Or just not at once

Bio. 24 Now I also see that it is organic RiceDream

Inf. 25 It is takes some times to notice it

Pro 26 Keep on talking

Low I. 27 I think it is interesting that this one has some text

Low I. 28 With some text about if you never had it before

IR. 29 I really should try once

Dc h. 30 This one doesn’t have the analysis Lima

IR. 31 That’s…

Low I. 32 I do think it is important analysis it is on it

Low I. 33 Because it fariness

Low I. 34 You know what you are eating

IR. 35 And when it is not on it l ike this

Choice 36 I will probably buy this one and not that one

Dc h. 37 Because the package say what it is in

Dc h. 38 This one does have it Scotti

Dc Rec. 39 This one is almost completely in ducth Alpro

Choice 40 Probably I would pick that one also earlier

Low I. 41 because it is more trusted

Dc h. 42 this has it too

IR. 43 then it depends if you like if it is for breakfast

Dc h. 44 low fat Lima

Dc h. 45 I do sometimes comapare for the energy and fat

IR. 46 If I would be in the supermarket now

Appendices

Appendix A

52

         Please, ready carefully all the following statements and grade yourself from 1 to 20 according

to the statements you feel more close:

0 -1 = I have never bought or consumed Green food products (ecological and/or fair trade), 1

and I do not know so much about these type of products. 2

3

4

5 - 6 = I have rarely bought or considered Green food products (ecological and/or fair trade) 5

but I may have eaten and at least I know something about these products. 6

7

8

9

10 11 = I have bought sometimes Green food products (ecological and/or fair trade) 10

but I have not thoughtfully considered their details and features. 11

12

13

14

15 - 16 = I have often bought Green food products (ecological and/or fair trade) 15

and I thoughtfully considered their details and features. 16

17

18

19 -20 = I have bought Green food products (ecological and/or fair trade) most of the time 19

and I know almost all of the aspect of these type of products. 20

         Do you often buy Rice drinks?

         If yes, when has been last time you bought it? ...............................................................

         Which is your study programme? ...................................................................

         What is your age? ...................................................................

Thank you! :)

YES NO

Appendix B