Content uploaded by Ekaterina Stampa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ekaterina Stampa on Aug 23, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Cleaner Production 370 (2022) 133471
Available online 9 August 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Backing biodiversity? German consumers’ views on a multi-level
biodiversity-labeling scheme for beef from grazing-based
production systems
Ekaterina Stampa
*
, Katrin Zander
University of Kassel, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agricultural and Food Marketing, Steinstraße 19, 37213, Witzenhausen, Germany
ARTICLE INFO
Handling Editor: Shen Qu
Keywords:
Animal welfare
Biodiversity conservation
Consumer perception
Multi-level labeling
Online focus groups
Pasture-raised beef
ABSTRACT
Biodiversity loss driven by intensive livestock farming constitutes a major threat to the resilience of food systems.
Grazing-based beef production, by contrast, supports ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation.
Communicating these benets to consumers is vital to stimulate demand for pasture-raised beef, with labels
being a key means of conveying such credence attributes. Despite extensive research on eco-labels and sus-
tainability certication, however, we know little about consumer perceptions of labels designed to certify and
highlight the biodiversity benets of cattle products. To address this gap, we conducted six audio-only online
focus group discussions with forty buyers of beef in Germany to explore consumer perceptions of a multi-level
labeling system of labeling designed to differentiate between the conservation measures applied in pasture-
raised beef production. Our ndings indicate signicant challenges for the implementation of such labeling,
including low levels of understanding of biodiversity among consumers. Most participants struggled to
discriminate between different levels of biodiversity conservation measures and placed little value on the
biodiversity benets of different products. Gaining trust in certication and control procedures is problematic
due to the profusion of labeling schemes on the market, especially given consumers’ time pressures. However,
our ndings also highlight consumers’ appreciation for biodiversity conservation at local level and higher levels
of trust in short supply chains, suggesting opportunities for selling pasture-raised beef at local level. The dif-
ferences we identify in consumers’ use of labeling can inform further segmentation research and targeted
communications to market beef from grazing-based production systems.
1. Introduction
Our survival depends on our ability and determination to build
resilient food systems. However, we cannot develop sustainable food
supply chains without tackling biodiversity loss (Quarshie et al., 2019;
Rockstr¨
om et al., 2020; van Amstel et al., 2008). Today, unsustainable
agricultural practices are driving biodiversity loss on a catastrophic
scale, meaning wide-ranging changes are urgently needed to transition
to sustainable food systems. In addition to actions by governments and
private companies, major shifts in consumer behaviour are needed to
achieve these changes, which entails effective communication to raise
public awareness of the importance of preserving biodiversity (Bickford
et al., 2012; Chaudhary et al., 2018; Quarshie et al., 2019; van Amstel
et al., 2008).
Research on the environmental impacts of different livestock
production systems shows that pasture grazing is a sustainable form of
cattle husbandry that contributes both to improved animal welfare and
the conservation of biodiversity (Angerer et al., 2021; Bragaglio et al.,
2020; Dawson et al., 2011; Gjerris et al., 2016; Kok et al., 2020).
Research in Central and Northern Europe in particular, as well as in
Alpine regions, has documented the overall biodiversity benets of
well-managed cattle grazing in terms of the abundance and richness of
plants and such insects as butteries and ground beetles (Angerer et al.,
2021; T¨
alle et al., 2016). However, the high costs associated with
pasture grazing constitute an obstacle to its adoption by farmers (Becker
et al., 2018). These costs can be overcome through government subsidies
and/or a signicant increase in consumer demand and willingness to
pay (WTP) for sustainable livestock products.
Numerous policies have been developed to promote sustainable food
choices and raise consumer awareness of the importance of preserving
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: stampa@uni-kassel.de (E. Stampa).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133471
Received 8 February 2022; Received in revised form 7 June 2022; Accepted 4 August 2022
Journal of Cleaner Production 370 (2022) 133471
2
biodiversity. These efforts may be reected in part by the nding of
European Commission (2019) report of a signicant increase from 2015
to 19 in the proportion of European citizens who recognize the need for
urgent actions to stop biodiversity loss. The number of consumers
seeking information about the impact of food systems on biodiversity is
also growing (Tulloch et al., 2021; Zaharia et al., 2021). Notwith-
standing these positive policy efforts and the evidence of increased
public consciousness of biodiversity loss, however, science has long
established a “citizen-consumer-attitude-behaviour gap” between the
declared attitudes of consumers and their actual purchase behaviour
(Gjerris et al., 2016; Vigors, 2018). While recent scientic evidence
shows substantial interest in pasture-raised products among consumers
and a WTP for these products (Schulze et al., 2021; Stampa et al. 2020a),
the question remains whether the link between valuing biodiversity and
purchasing biodiversity-friendly meat is sufciently strong to suggest
that raising consumer awareness could be an effective way to drive
farmers to implement conservation practices.
Effectively communicating the biodiversity benets of grazing-based
food production to increase consumer demand has been found to involve
signicant challenges (Markova-Nenova and W¨
atzold, 2018; R¨
o¨
os et al.,
2014; Spendrup et al., 2017). One key challenge is that these benets are
credence attributes which cannot be directly experienced by consumers
before, during or after consumption (Caswell, 1998; Torma and
Thøgersen, 2021). Stimulating demand for products whose specic
value is based on credence attributes related to process qualities requires
transparency and effective information transfer throughout the supply
chain. Credence attributes are typically communicated through labeling
based on certication schemes such as eco-labeling schemes that eval-
uate a product’s ecological and social characteristics and provide this
information to consumers (Nunes and Riyanto, 2005). Encouragingly, a
recent nationwide report found that consumers in Germany are paying
growing attention to labels and certication schemes (BMEL, 2021).
This suggests that trusted sustainability labels can aid consumer
decision-making and motivate consumers to make environmentally
friendly choices (Edenbrandt and Lagerkvist, 2021; Risius and Hamm,
2018; Torma and Thøgersen, 2021; van Amstel et al., 2008; Zaharia
et al., 2021).
Consumer perceptions of eco-labeling are inuenced by multiple
factors. In addition to levels of consumer trust, knowledge, awareness,
motivation and involvement, these factors include the perceived per-
sonal benets, relevance and use value of eco-labels, which are inu-
enced by the design and comprehensibility of the labels and the
information they convey (Grunert et al., 2014; Tauque et al., 2019).
Initial trust in the source of label information is also essential for con-
sumers to engage with and use a label for purchase decisions (Verbeke,
2008). These factors are closely intertwined and mutually inuential,
moreover, making consumer perceptions of labeling constitute a com-
plex construct (Tauque et al., 2019). Despite this complexity, there is
evidence that increasing consumers’ awareness and knowledge about an
issue, can increase label use and thereby promote purchase decisions
(Peschel et al., 2016). In addition to the perceived importance or per-
sonal relevance of the attributes communicated by the labeling, con-
sumers’ decision-making about sustainable products also depends on the
context of the purchase (Bangsa and Schlegelmilch, 2019; Torma and
Thøgersen, 2021). For example, contextual factors such as time pressure
and product price may pose barriers to label use (Horne, 2009; Torma
and Thøgersen, 2021). The successful implementation of a new biodi-
versity label would thus need to address all these challenges.
In Germany there are various private labeling schemes for food that
include biodiversity conservation in their criteria, e.g., the Pro Weide-
land label for pasture-raised dairy and beef products. At European level,
besides regulations on organic production, there are relevant regulations
dening “hay milk” and “mountain products”,
1
e.g. for beef from cattle
grazing on mountain pastures. Although these regulations make pro-
visions for labeling schemes relevant for pasture-raised products, they
do not specically address biodiversity conservation (Oliveira et al.,
2021). Specic biodiversity labeling for pasture-raised products is
presently unavailable on the German market. Most existing initiatives
make use of “binary labeling”, granting labels only to fully certied
products without differentiating between degrees of compliance. There
are also various multi-level labeling systems that indicate the different
extent to which a product meets certain criteria. In the EU egg market,
for example, such a system is used to communicate different levels of
animal welfare applied in laying hen husbandry (Janssen et al., 2016).
Given their capacity to convey a wider range of attributes and
communicate more information than binary systems, multi-level label-
ing schemes might be more appropriate for marking attributes such as
the biodiversity benets of a product according to different levels of
conservation measures applied by farmers (Meyerding et al., 2019;
Tonsor and Wolf, 2011; Torma and Thøgersen, 2021; Weinrich and
Spiller, 2016a; Weinrich et al., 2016). A multi-level approach to labeling
sustainably produced beef would enable consumers to make more
informed judgements about the benets of pasture-raised products,
further serving to differentiate pasture-raised products and to justify
premium prices (Spendrup et al., 2017; Torma and Thøgersen, 2021). By
targeting consumers with different levels of WTP for biodiversity con-
servation, multi-level labeling could help farmers recoup the additional
costs of their conservation measures.
Extensive research has been conducted into the labeling of credence
attributes including organic production, local origin, animal welfare,
and carbon footprint. Some of this research has touched on issues related
to the communication of biodiversity benets, including consumers’
WTP for products with labels highlighting the valuable ecosystem ser-
vices supported through the conservation of biodiversity (e.g., Jaung
et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018). Biodiversity conservation was identied as a
promising characteristic for labels in a study on consumer choice pref-
erences regarding milk with ethical attributes, including support of
biodiversity, animal welfare and nancial support for small farms
(Markova-Nenova and W¨
atzold, 2018). Little research has focused on
biodiversity labeling, however, especially in relation to communicating
the biodiversity benets of pasture-grazing.
Addressing this gap in the literature, we aimed to investigate the
potential advantages of including biodiversity conservation on labels as
a positive attribute of grazing-based cattle husbandry. We explored
consumer perceptions of a multi-level labeling system for beef from
biodiversity-friendly grazing systems to answer the following three
research questions: (i) “How do consumers understand grazing, pasture-
raised products, and biodiversity?”; (ii) “How do consumers perceive a
multi-level biodiversity labeling system?”; and (iii) “What recommen-
dations can be given regarding biodiversity labeling?”.
The following section presents the theoretical background of our
study, focusing on multi-level labeling and factors affecting consumer
perception of labels. We then present our methodical approach and the
empirical results of our explorative study, discussing each nding before
spelling out their implications in our conclusion section. We nish by
outlining the study’s limitations and possible directions for future
research.
2. Theoretical background
In conveying the environmental benets of sustainably produced
products, a core aim of eco-labeling schemes is to reduce information
1
Commission Delegated Regulation (eu) No 665/2014 (http://data.europa.
eu/eli/reg_del/2014/665/oj) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)
2016/304 (http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2016/304/oj).
E. Stampa and K. Zander
Journal of Cleaner Production 370 (2022) 133471
3
asymmetry between consumers and producers (van Amstel et al., 2008).
Biodiversity is an important element in the criteria of these schemes for
assessing the sustainability of food systems (Chaudhary et al., 2018; van
Amstel et al., 2008). Although sustainability is a complex and multi-
faceted concept, consumers often equate this term with general notions
of environmental protection (Grunert et al., 2014). The lack of speci-
city in current environmental discourse has opened the way for large
companies to create their own sustainability labels as a means of
differentiating themselves from competitors and appealing to con-
sumers’ different environmental concerns (Tauque et al., 2019; van
Amstel et al., 2007), including concerns about biodiversity loss (Skogen
et al., 2018). Numerous multi-level labeling schemes have thus been
introduced as a way of communicating differences between particular
sustainability attributes valued by consumers, albeit mostly in non-food
sectors to date (van Amstel et al., 2008; Weinrich et al., 2016).
Our study proceeds from the premise that adopting such multi-level
labeling schemes to highlight the biodiversity benets of purchasing
pasture-raised beef could have a number of important advantages. By
avoiding the use of overly general terms, for example, such a scheme
could increase the perceived credibility of the label and gain consumers’
trust (Torma and Thøgersen, 2021). Multi-level labeling could also
support a wider range of sustainably produced meat to address the de-
mands of consumers with different environmental priorities and WTP
(Janssen et al., 2016; Zander et al., 2018).
From the existing literature on multi-level labeling, the study closest
to our present research aims is an evaluation by Spendrup et al. (2017)
of consumer understanding of a Swedish meat guide that used a
three-level approach to communicate the biodiversity benets of meat
products alongside three other attributes. Although the target group of
this study, i.e. interested consumers well aware of the environmental
footprint of food products, were found to have a good understanding of
the biodiversity impact of grazing; the meat guide was perceived as too
complex for consumers less concerned about the impacts of food pro-
duction. In addition to the comprehensibility of labels and levels of
consumer understanding of the information they contain, other factors
shown to inuence consumer perceptions and usage of a new biodi-
versity label include levels of knowledge and awareness, the perceived
personal relevance of information on labels, current levels of use and
trust in labeling, as well as the specic purchase context (Grunert et al.,
2014; Tauque et al., 2019; Verbeke, 2008).
While it goes without saying that consumers will only value biodi-
versity benets of grazing if they are aware of these benets, consumer
knowledge and awareness is also vital in relation to labeling because
consumers can only make conscious use of a biodiversity label if they
understand the labeling and the potential benets of their product
choices for biodiversity (Peschel et al., 2016). Providing detailed in-
formation to increase consumers’ knowledge and awareness of the
importance of biodiversity is a key potential advantage of multi-level
labeling (Bangsa and Schlegelmilch, 2019). Such differentiation can
help justify higher prices for eco-labelled products (Donato and D’An-
iello, 2021). Although additional information can improve consumers’
understanding and stimulate their use of labels in purchase decisions, it
carries the risk of overloading them with information in a market
already saturated with private labels and certication programs, espe-
cially in the case of consumers with low levels of involvement with
biodiversity and/or the given product (Emberger-Klein and Menrad,
2018; Tonsor and Wolf, 2011; Verbeke, 2008; Weinrich and Spiller,
2016b). Here, “involvement” refers to the perceived personal relevance
of environmental issues and sustainability labeling to individual con-
sumers, which in turn is reected in different levels of interest in and
demand for information about products (Cho, 2015; Verbeke, 2008).
Higher levels of consumer involvement are connected with greater label
use (Grunert et al., 2014), as measured by the amount of attention
consumers pay to label information when making purchase decisions
(Steiner et al., 2017). Importantly, eco-labels are perceived as highly
relevant by a signicant minority of German consumers (Janβen and
Langen, 2017).
Research has conrmed that easily comprehensible labels increase
levels of consumer satisfaction, trust, and liking for products (Samant
and Seo, 2016; Weinrich and Spiller, 2016b). A clearly understandable
differentiation between levels in multi-level labeling systems can have a
positive effect on consumers’ WTP for products associated with
ecosystem services and high animal welfare standards; this effect can be
even stronger if brief additional information is provided on labeling (Li
et al., 2018; Weinrich et al., 2016). Studies have further conrmed the
importance of label information being perceived as accurate in order to
gain consumer trust in the labelled product (Tonsor and Wolf, 2011).
The extent of consumers’ involvement and label use is often be
constrained by internal and external factors affecting their attention
priorities. Time pressure during shopping signicantly complicate
decision-making, leading otherwise environmentally conscious con-
sumers to resort to heuristics that compromise their own values (Gjerris
et al., 2016; Grunert et al., 2014; Verbeke, 2008). Considering such
factors is all the more important in a context of numerous competing
sustainability and eco-labels (Asioli et al., 2020; Janβen and Langen,
2017). A large and growing number of sustainability labels on the
market can itself have negative effects, including greater consumer
skepticism and lower levels of trust due to unfamiliarity with labeling
schemes, unspecic claims, unfavourable combinations of different la-
bels on products, or negative associations of a label with a disliked
and/or distrusted brand (Sirieix et al., 2013).
While textual information can help consumers comprehend the
rationale behind a multi-level label, it is the visual saliency of a label
that attracts consumers’ attention in the rst place and can positively
affect their evaluation of the product (Peschel et al., 2019). As
eye-tracking studies have conrmed, logos are more prominent to cus-
tomers than text on packaging, capturing their visual attention more
quickly and holding it for longer, thereby helping to stimulate purchases
(Katz et al., 2019; Rihn et al., 2019). An easily recognizable label design
may be especially important to ensure less environmentally oriented
consumers can understand the label (Tauque et al., 2019). In an
explorative study of consumers’ responses to label images for
pasture-raised dairy, for example, Getter et al. (2015) found that a
picture of a cow grazing on pasture was preferred by the participants.
These ndings formed the basis for our development and design of the
multi-level labeling concept explored in this study.
3. Material and methods
3.1. Study approach
As a common instrument for eliciting a variety of views on a specic
issue and exploring consumers’ perceptions and attitudes (Bryman,
2016; Nyumba et al., 2018), focus groups have been used in previous
research on sustainable food labels (Sirieix et al., 2013), including for
sustainable aquaculture products (Zander et al., 2018). The major
advantage of focus groups over individual in-depth interviews is the
opportunity they afford for interactions between participants and for
observing such interactions (Halkier, 2010; Zander et al., 2018).
Listening to the answers of others allows the participants to deeper
reect on their own views and to question the reasons of other partici-
pants for a particular opinion (Bryman, 2016).
Although in-person focus groups are more common, online-based
methods of data collection have the advantage of involving partici-
pants otherwise reluctant to attend face-to-face meetings (Guerrero and
Xicola, 2018), especially at a time of social distancing due to the coro-
navirus pandemic (Lobe et al., 2020). Online methods also enable the
simultaneous participation of people from different regions without
incurring travel costs. In synchronous online focus groups, the re-
searchers and all the participants join the discussion at the same time,
enabling spontaneous interactions and reducing the risks of participants
researching the subject on the Internet during the discussion, thereby
E. Stampa and K. Zander
Journal of Cleaner Production 370 (2022) 133471
4
improving the reliability of the results as compared to asynchronous
approaches (Guerrero and Xicola, 2018).
Synchronous online focus groups can be conducted in the form of
chats, video conferences, or audio-only discussions. The benets of an
audio-only approach not only include less need for equipment, Internet
bandwidth, and typing skills (unlike texting chats), but also greater
anonymity which can have a positive effect on the openness of partici-
pants in voicing their opinions (Cheng et al., 2009; Lobe, 2017; Stewart
and Shamdasani, 2014; Woodyatt et al., 2016). On the other hand,
audio-only focus groups have the disadvantage of reducing interactions
among participants due to the lack of non-verbal signals and facial ex-
pressions, which also complicates moderation (Stewart and Shamdasani,
2017). Overall, audio-only online focus groups have been found a solid
alternative to face-to-face focus groups (Cheng et al., 2009). Having
weighed these merits and demerits, we adjudged this method most
suitable for the purposes of this study.
The focus group discussions followed semi-structured guidelines
designed and pre-tested to answer our research questions. The discus-
sions began by investigating the study participants’ general under-
standing and knowledge of pasture grazing, pasture-raised products, and
biodiversity, as well as their levels of trust in and use of labels. We then
elicited their evaluations of the relevance and comprehensibility of the
three-level biodiversity labeling scheme we developed to reect
different agri-environmental measures applied in pasture management
to preserve biodiversity (Fig. 1). The logos of the three different levels of
the label were rst presented to the participants alongside brief
explanatory information prior to being displayed without text. In this
way we were able to explore perceptions regarding the relative
comprehensibility of different labeling levels. Our ndings subsequently
informed the recommendations we propose in this paper for biodiversity
labeling.
Six online focus groups were conducted in October–November 2020,
with participants recruited through an online questionnaire by a market
research agency contracted to screen participants according to four pre-
dened eligibility criteria: (i) that they had full or partial responsibility
for household food purchases; (ii) that they made regular purchases of
beef; (iii) that they were aged between 18 and 80 years old; and (iv) that
they had no afliation with agriculture, the food industry, or market
research. A quota was set of at least one person from the North, East,
South and West regions of Germany in each group. Potential participants
were informed of the condentiality of the study, their right to withdraw
from the study at any time without consequence, and the monetary
compensation they would receive for their time and effort. An equal
number of females and males participated in the discussion (see
Table 1). Despite efforts to organize the groups with a similar balance of
ages, only 40% of the participants were aged 50 and over.
Cisco Webex web conference software was used to conduct and
audio-record the discussions. The recordings lasted 75–85 min and
commenced once the participants had been greeted and informed about
data protection. The recordings were anonymized and transcribed
verbatim by a trained assistant.
3.2. Data analysis and interpretation
To extract meaning from the transcripts, we applied thematic qual-
itative text analysis (Kuckartz, 2014), creating a coding frame of
concept- and data-driven codes and categories using MAXQDA 2020
software to classify the retrieved information (see Table 2). The
concept-driven categories emerged from the discussion guidelines and
the rst author added data-driven categories to the coding frame during
the preliminary reading and editing of the transcribed interviews. The
smallest coded segment was dened as a complete thought expressed in
at least a single sentence. Certain segments were coded with multiple
categories. The rst author and a trained assistant coded two transcripts
to check the intercoder reliability and subsequently discussed any
questionable codes and improved the coding frame. In line with the
method recommended by Stewart and Shamdasani (2014), any topics
that spontaneously emerged among the rst topics discussed and which
repeatedly recurred were considered particularly important during the
data interpretation.
4. Consumer perspectives on grazing, pasture-raised beef, and
multi-level biodiversity labeling
4.1. Knowledge and associations regarding grazing, pasture-raised beef,
and biodiversity
The focus group participants associated pasture grazing with high-
quality products, higher standards of animal welfare, and preferable
environments in terms of both landscape and biodiversity. Grazing was
perceived as being more “natural” for cows, e.g., “denitely more natural
than standing in a stall all day” (P5.6:41).
2
Although some participants
associated grazing with healthier animals, others expressed doubts
about this outcome: “even when it’s standing in a meadow, it can still be
pumped up with chemicals” (P3.2:111). Importantly, four participants
voiced concerns about the lack of regulations for labeling pasture-raised
beef products in Germany:
There are so many labels and anyone can make their label or anything
else. There are no legal regulations. … This means you don’t know exactly
what is behind this pasture grazing. (P7.3:66)
In the majority of discussion groups, the participants agreed that
taste was the most important factor in their decisions about purchasing
meat, though some also reported experiencing pangs of conscience
about the suffering of animals. In one discussion group the participants
agreed that the value of pasture-based production lay not in its taste but
in its benets for animal welfare:
Well, I assume that pasture grazing is something for animal welfare – that
I am doing something good for the cow if it can stand around outdoors. …
But that it necessarily tastes better? No, I don’t think that at all. I’m rather
ready to pay a little more for that, because I really think that it [grazing] is
not quite so brutal towards the animals. (P2.6:48)
Most participants had heard of the term biodiversity and understood
it as denoting an abundance of plant, insect and animal species, though
two participants conated the concept of biodiversity with the diversity
of animal breeds. Even participants who reportedly consumed pasture-
raised beef were unaware of the specic benecial effects of pasture
grazing for biodiversity: “Biodiversity, it was … well, although I always buy
pasture-raised meat it was never clear to me that there’s also this aspect”
(P8.3:89). In evaluating these benets, the responses of some 25% of the
participants highlighted the importance of “personal relevance” and
accordingly valued biodiversity more in connection with short supply
chains, local production, and conservation measures at local level rather
than as a stand-alone feature of grazing:
The cow comes maybe from Bavaria and I live in Berlin. The meat is
moved six hundred kilometres around the place, absolutely pointless. And
then I have this thought about the environment at the back of my mind
[…], we do something for biodiversity … this must be local, right? The
distances must be short, and I must do something too. I don’t want to hear
that the cow comes from Italy. I make sure that pastures in Italy are doing
well and the biodiversity is preserved, but I want this to happen in my
region. (P2.2:139)
Our ndings regarding consumers’ associations with pasture grazing
are in line with earlier research (Henchion et al., 2017; Stampa et al.,
2
Here and in the following, the citations from the transcripts translated into
English are given in italics with the source coded in the form ‘Px.y:z’, where Px
is the number of the participant, y is the number of the online focus group, and
z is the number of the paragraph in the transcript.
E. Stampa and K. Zander
Journal of Cleaner Production 370 (2022) 133471
5
2020b). In ethical meat purchases, biodiversity was reportedly less
important to the participants than either animal welfare or local pro-
duction, which also conrms previous ndings on consumer priorities
(Bangsa and Schlegelmilch, 2019; Markova-Nenova and W¨
atzold, 2018;
Zander and Hamm, 2010). While this prioritization may be attributed
partly to the prominence of animal welfare issues in public discourse,
the participants’ lack of knowledge about the benets of cattle grazing
for biodiversity was also a key factor, further highlighting the need to
convey this information to consumers more effectively (R¨
o¨
os et al.,
2014; Markova-Nenova and W¨
atzold, 2018; Schulze et al., 2021).
Although most participants took it for granted that biodiversity is an
intrinsic aspect of pasture grazing, they were either unaware of or
assigned little value to the specic biodiversity benets of pasturing,
including the benets of grazing on conservation areas, which again
conrms ndings from prior research (Sanchez-Sabate and Sabat´
e,
2019; Schulze et al., 2021). The doubts expressed by some participants
as to whether pasture grazing necessarily ensures freedom from hor-
mones and antibiotics further differences between consumers’ individ-
ual priorities regarding aspects of beef production (Spendrup et al.,
2017). Importantly, these doubts indicate that some consumer groups
are unlikely to view pasture grazing as interchangeable with organic
production even if they associate such grazing with greater “natural-
ness” and higher animal welfare standards (Pirsich and Weinrich, 2018).
In sum, our ndings conrm the importance to consumers of environ-
mental benets perceived as personally relevant to them, as in the case
of the high value consumers place on local nature protection measures,
which is a factor often mentioned in connection with greater readiness
to buy products (Cho, 2015; Gjerris et al., 2016; Tauque et al., 2019).
4.2. General label use among the participants and the relevance of a
biodiversity label
The participants differed in their levels of general label use and
involvement with labels and biodiversity. In four of the focus groups, the
participants spontaneously named familiar labels referring to organic
products and organic certication (EU organic and German BioSiegel),
organic associations (Demeter and Naturland) and the private label of a
large discounter chain. A quarter of all participants reported paying
attention to labels when making purchase decisions as well as using
other available means to obtain more detailed information than that
given on packaging. These consumers declared that searching for
additional information and gaining knowledge about the background of
labels helped them build trust in certain labels. These participants were
supportive of the proposal for a new biodiversity labeling scheme, e.g.,
“Actually, I pay attention to such things, and this kind of labeling would be
really helpful for me” (P3.6:126). While nearly half the participants
Fig. 1. Labeling concept and brief explana-
tory information of the label’s levels for the
study participants
Fig. 1 description: The label prototype was
designed in the form of two non-concentric
circles, one placed within another. The
inner circle contains a symbolic depiction of
a black-and-white cow. In the white space
between this depiction and the outer circle,
we inserted the word ‘Weidehaltung’,
meaning ‘pasture grazing’, in green font. The
second level is designed in the same way but
also contains the word ‘Artenvielfalt’
(biodiversity) in red font, with two plus (+)
signs: one in red and the other empty. The
third level contains a second red plus sign
and a symbolic depiction of a red bird.
Table 1
Demographic composition of the online focus groups.
Online
focus
group
Female Male Total number of
participants
Age
group
18–49 50–80 18–49 50–80
1 2 1 2 2 7
2 1 1 1 2 5
3 2 2 4 0 8
4 3 2 1 1 7
5 2 1 2 2 7
6 2 1 2 1 6
Total 12 8 12 8 40
Table 2
Categories and codes based on the issues discussed in the focus groups.
Categories Codes Number of
coded segments
Pasture grazing Denition, occurrence, time spent indoors,
fresh air, happy cows, naturalness, healthier
animals, staying inside in winter, fodder,
lack of pasture areas, carbon footprint
83
Pasture-raised
products
Taste, quality, origin, availability,
traceability
59
Biodiversity Conservation measures, effect of grazing,
(mis)understanding of the term, willingness
to pay for biodiversity conservation
37
Animal welfare Animal-friendly, freedom of movement,
stress, indoor cattle housing, intensive cattle
farming, slaughter, transport
61
Information
relevance
Need or lack of need for more information,
importance of education, information search
42
General label
use
Attention to labels, information on the
packaging, point-of-sale information, QR
codes, social media, customer magazines,
TV, workshops
87
Labeling
perception
Multiple levels, comprehensibility, trust,
transparency, familiarity, number of labels
on the market, institution issuing the label,
control body, certication body, label design
129
Contextual
factors
Store format, time pressure, local, meat
consumption frequency, conscious
consumption, good conscience, local, vegan
and vegetarian, appreciation, meat prices,
affordability, pasture price premium
114
Other Organic, greenwashing, urban vs. rural,
reduced packaging, other animal species
28
E. Stampa and K. Zander
Journal of Cleaner Production 370 (2022) 133471
6
acknowledged the importance of labeling for information provision, e.
g., “When it really is a controlled label, where you can be sure that it is as it is,
I would nd it good. I think it is good to stimulate people to reconsider what
they consume” (P6.4:109), these same consumers also admitted that la-
bels had little relevance for their usual purchase decisions and that they
were thus less likely to make use of a new biodiversity label. The
remaining participants raised objections to labeling in general, with
many criticizing the large number of labels already in the market. These
consumers also specically opposed the introduction of a new biodi-
versity label for various reasons, including lack of comprehension or
interest in information about biodiversity and lack of time to read such
labels:
I hardly know any label and nor do I look into them. It is only by coin-
cidence that I read something like that on a yoghurt or a juice carton
during breakfast. And that’s why, even more labels? I don’t even look at
them when shopping. (P3.4:115)
Among those participants who rejected labeling, some reported only
using the most prominent and salient information on packaging to
inform their purchase decision, including bold claims on packaging such
as “pasture-raised” or “organic”, and designations of origin. These par-
ticipants tended to place their trust instead in local butchers, relying on
these familiar shops to meet their requirements for quality, ethical
production, and price.
When asked to name which sources of information they considered
most useful when buying meat, the participants mentioned packaging,
the Internet, yers, brochures and posters at the point of sale, personal
communications with the store’s staff, television documentaries, news
and advertisements, videos and social media. The participants said they
generally appreciated the provision of such information and considered
it important to connect consumers with agriculture and biodiversity.
Although nearly a quarter of the participants were interested in
accessing additional information about products, including by scanning
QR codes, others insisted that labeling must “speak for itself”. When
asked to offer examples of how concise message about the environ-
mental and ethical value of a meat product could be conveyed effec-
tively, some participants proposed the placement of such products
among other ethical products on a designated supermarket shelf. Many
participants said they considered the mere fact of pasture grazing as
sufcient in itself as essential information on the packaging of pasture-
raised products. However, some participants insisted that labels must
also indicate the geographical origin of the product and include the
name of a trusted institution or certication body issuing the label to
help inform their purchase decisions.
The fact that the participants who denied making use of labeling also
reported buying organic products may indicate that label use is not al-
ways conscious. This accords with the fact that while the majority of
these participants claimed not to differentiate between labels, they
nevertheless appreciated the presence of a label (Janβen and Langen,
2017). Another possible explanation as to why some of these consumers
reported not using labels and not feeling a strong responsibility
regarding biodiversity conservation is that they may feel that buying
local or organic products itself constitutes a sufcient contribution to the
environment (Jansson et al., 2010).
As previous studies have shown, acknowledging and factoring in the
heterogeneity of consumers’ perceptions and use of labels is crucial for
the development of customized and targeted approaches to information
provision to support labeling (Grebitus et al., 2015; Janβen and Langen,
2017; Pirsich and Weinrich, 2018). Information provision may be
necessary, for instance, to explain specic conservation measures and to
communicate the unique selling point of a new biodiversity label, since
these aspects may well not be self-explanatory or effectively conveyed
solely by adding the term ‘biodiversity’ to packaging (Flinzberger et al.,
2020). While some consumers will nd such additional information
necessary, others will overlook these details and pay much more
attention to external attributes and heuristics such as the use of logos on
packaging or the placement of such products on a particular shelf, since
processing information requires a cognitive effort (Horne, 2009).
Given these ndings, and bearing in mind that only information
which is read and correctly understood by consumers can instigate a
desired pro-environmental behaviour, it is clear that any information
provided must not only be brief and factual and conveyed in a manner
accessible to consumers lacking specic knowledge, but also sufciently
detailed to engage more environmentally conscious consumers (Donato
and D’Aniello, 2021; Golan et al., 2001; Herbes et al., 2020). Even if
such an approach is adapted, however, comprehensibility challenges
and the unwillingness of consumers to engage with complex topics in
stores or at home can compromise the effectiveness of such communi-
cation, leading consumers to resort to habitual purchasing (Verbeke,
2008).
4.3. The comprehensibility of multi-level biodiversity labeling
Regarding the comprehensibility of multi-level labeling for biodi-
versity, two key aspects emerged from the online focus group discussion:
(i) the need to indicate different levels of biodiversity conservation
measures, and (ii) the importance of label design. The participants
agreed that a multi-level labeling system could be comprehensible for a
layperson if sufcient explanatory information was made available
about the different measures indicated by the different label levels.
However, dening precisely what would constitute a necessary amount
of information proved difcult. Nearly a quarter of participants objected
to the proposed multi-level labeling system as being superuous and
difcult to understand and memorize, especially those unwilling to seek
out background information or interact with the information provided,
e.g. “Well, biodiversity, that would be too complicated for me to deeply look
into it” (P6.3:104). This objection was associated with unwillingness to
pay more for higher levels of biodiversity conservation: “I don’t think
that consumers are ready to pay even more, whether there’s one, two or three
plus-signs on the logo” (P4.2:97).
In response to the question “What could make this labeling more
comprehensible?”, some participants suggested reducing the number of
levels, while participants in four of the six groups suggested a trafc-
light system would be “simply clear to everyone” (P7.1:294). From a
different perspective, some participants regarded the explicit mention of
biodiversity as redundant since they already perceived pasture grazing
as an indicator of sustainable production and understood this to imply
benets for biodiversity, meaning for them it was sufcient to know a
product came from pasture-grazing in order to make a purchase
decision:
I generally expect from pasture grazing that simply everything is included,
so to speak. All that comes with these levels … I get all this when I buy
[products from] pasture grazing. (P6.1:217)
Our ndings suggest that when consumers are uncertain about a
product or a label, they will typically opt for a label they understand and
reject products with less obvious ethical and/or environmental features
(Verbeke, 2008). Although the participants intuitively grasped the logic
of a multi-level labeling system, they struggled to differentiate between
the levels and required additional explanatory information, which ac-
cords with ndings from earlier studies (Herbes et al., 2020; Janβen and
Langen, 2017; Weinrich et al., 2016). The participants’ proposal of a
trafc-light system of labeling for biodiversity as a generally under-
standable code for conveying information about biodiversity benets
likewise reects similar suggestions made in studies on carbon footprint
and other sustainability indicators (Emberger-Klein and Menrad, 2018;
Feucht and Zander, 2018; Meyerding et al., 2019; Spendrup et al.,
2017). The application of trafc-light coding to biodiversity would
require further research to dene a comprehensible and valid reference
point for biodiversity impact of grazing (see also R¨
o¨
os et al., 2014).
While this question is beyond the scope of the present study, it may be
relevant for comprehensive sustainability labels emerging on the
E. Stampa and K. Zander
Journal of Cleaner Production 370 (2022) 133471
7
European market that seek to account for biodiversity, including the
new Planet-Score label (Southey, 2021).
4.4. General trust in labeling and trust in a new biodiversity label
When discussing trust in labeling and the factors that inuence their
levels of trust, the participants emphasized the importance of the cer-
tication and control bodies behind the introduction of new labels:
I believe it is one of the prerequisites for positively assessing a label that
you can trust the institution issuing the label. A label alone says nothing at
all. But the institution which issues the label must be independent from the
producers. It must be rather from the side of consumer protection.
(P4.2:164)
The credibility of certication and control bodies was among the rst
topics raised by the participants and one that recurred throughout the
discussions. The participants emphasized the need for independent and
impartial third-party control organizations, preferably in the form of
long-established bodies acting at community level. The actors or bodies
they considered most trustworthy to control the implementation of a
new label were farmers’ associations, the German Federal Ministry of
Agriculture, NGOs, and veterinarians. However, several participants
considered small butcher’s shops to be more trustworthy than any cer-
tication bodies, basing this preference on their personal acquaintance
with the seller, the butcher’s long history of consistent performance, and
the fact that the butcher’s reputation was at stake. In the case of products
purchased in supermarkets, the participants reported being usually un-
able to recognize the certifying organization by the label alone, hence
trust was mostly related to label familiarity in these contexts. Another
aspect of trust that emerged from the discussions relates to product
origin and traceability systems, with participants viewing short supply
chains as more transparent and more likely to guarantee the qualities
they desired in accordance with their ethical values.
Although “familiarity” was often cited as being a prerequisite for
trust in a label, not all familiar labels were equally trusted by the par-
ticipants. Indeed, certain private labels and supermarket labels were
regarded as distinctly untrustworthy, especially in the case of organic
brands sold by discount stores. In all but one of the focus groups the
participants emphasized the “unmanageable” number of labels as a
barrier to trust. This objection included the risk of information overload
and the cognitive efforts needed to make a choice between multiple
labels: “There are so many labels, I trust none of them. … How should a
consumer know the differences among all these labels?” (P4.3:69).
The novelty of a particular label was not directly associated with
lower or higher levels of trust, however, since other factors appeared to
be more important, including the institution issuing the label and the
monitoring authority. The introduction of new labels was nonetheless
negatively associated with suspicions of greenwashing and the need to
invest more time in searching information. On the positive side, ve
participants noted that a trustworthy new label could become a helpful
decision-making tool and a means of informing the broader population
about biodiversity and ethical beef consumption.
In sum, these ndings conrm previous research results that the
current multiplicity of labels for ethical products reduces trust and ex-
acerbates the complexity involved in making meat-purchasing choices
(Gjerris et al., 2016; Torma and Thøgersen, 2021). Participants often
cited the abundance of labels as a cause of frustration and even un-
willingness to engage with information, with many saying they lacked
the time and other resources to prioritize ethical options consistently,
leading them to prefer labeling schemes that facilitate simple
decision-making (Verbeke, 2008). Opting for familiar labels can thus be
understood in part as a strategy to deal with information overload. From
this we can conclude, in line with the ndings of previous research
(Sirieix et al., 2013), that a new and unfamiliar biodiversity label is
likely to be met with skepticism. However, out ndings also conrm that
the indication of a known and trusted institution behind a label can
increase its perceived credibility, especially in the case of
state-controlled mandatory certication, thereby increasing consumer
trust in the label (Horne, 2009; Janβen and Langen, 2017; Janssen and
Hamm, 2014; Torma and Thøgersen, 2021).
4.5. Contextual factors relevant for multi-level biodiversity labeling
4.5.1. Time pressure
Among those participants who did not consider labels relevant in
their purchase decisions, many saw shopping for food as a functional
activity that should take no longer than necessary, even when shopping
for more expensive items such as meat. For those who made an extra
effort to visit a butcher’s shop or a farmer’s market, however, time
pressure seemed to be less relevant. Time pressure when shopping was
also linked to label comprehensibility and knowledge, since many par-
ticipants reported lacking the time to learn more about the different
levels of labeling. The number of food labels available was regarded as
time-consuming due to the need to check the background of these labels
and the traceability of the product:
I don’t want to run around and check everything with my smartphone,
rst scanning and then following up on everything. That way I would
never be done with my purchases. (P1.2:73)
The participants’ frequent references to having insufcient time to
research the background of food products conrms earlier ndings that
time pressure affects consumers’ choices in favour of familiar, trusted,
and easily available products (Horne, 2009; Verbeke, 2008). The
importance of this factor further indicates the difculty experienced by
consumers in striving to act consistently in accordance with their own
ethical values when shopping for food (Gjerris et al., 2016). The fact that
so many participants alluded to a lack of time to learn about the different
levels of a multi-level biodiversity label scheme suggests these different
levels would probably be ignored by many consumers and that any
potential positive effect of such a scheme could be attributed to the mere
presence of an eco-label regardless of its specic content (Janβen and
Langen, 2017).
4.5.2. Store format
The perceived relevance of labels to the participants further varied
according to the particular format of stores and the packaging or absence
of packaging of products. While biodiversity labeling could be helpful in
large retail settings, it may be of less relevance in local butchers’ shops
where higher value is placed on trustworthy personal communications
that satisfy consumers’ need for information:
I think such a label only makes sense when such products are available in
large discount stores. I don’t need such a label in my butcher’s shop
around the corner because I already assume the meat is pasture-grazed.
(P4.1:190)
On the one hand, the participants’ preference for personal commu-
nications with butchers as a trustworthy and sufcient source of infor-
mation suggests opportunities for direct selling. On the other hand, this
preference also renders the effective communication of biodiversity-
related attributes through labels in retail stores even more complex.
For example, our nding that many participants perceive certain private
labels of retailers and discounters as untrustworthy suggests there may
be a risk of consumer choices being negatively affected if they associate
a biodiversity label with a retailer perceived as being less caring about
the environment (Sirieix et al., 2013).
4.5.3. Price
A common opinion voiced by the study participants was that labeling
beef as pasture-raised signies better quality and thus helps them un-
derstand and accept higher prices for such products. However, the factor
cited as most important to justify higher prices for pasture-raised beef
was that of “improved animal welfare”:
E. Stampa and K. Zander
Journal of Cleaner Production 370 (2022) 133471
8
“I have already said that pasture grazing denitely is an animal-friendlier
husbandry system than keeping cattle in stalls. … It should be clear to us
as consumers that we have to pay an appropriate price for this”
(P1.5:46).
In the opinion of several participants, differentiated pricing for
livestock products according to levels of biodiversity conservation could
be appealing to consumers who are both concerned about the environ-
ment and also budget-conscious.
Our ndings thus show that high product quality and animal welfare
are widely perceived as justifying a higher price for pasture-raised beef,
since both of these attributes are associated with pasture grazing.
Biodiversity conservation, meanwhile, is perceived rather as a collateral
effect of pasture grazing that only brings low additional value to the
product (Schulze et al., 2021). Nevertheless, consumers with high levels
of both environmental and price consciousness may appreciate a
multi-level label indicating different levels of biodiversity conservation
measures since such a scheme would enable them to make ethical beef
purchases and a positive environmental contribution in different price
segments (Spendrup et al., 2017; Torma and Thøgersen, 2021).
4.5.4. Local origin
Conrming the relevance of local biodiversity to consumers, over a
quarter of the study participants emphasized the importance of local
origins in their purchase decisions, stating they would appreciate in-
formation on biodiversity conservation at local level: “When I buy an
apple, locally grown but not necessarily certied organic, it has more value to
me than an organic apple from Spain” (P3.2:107). Accordingly, six par-
ticipants regarded local production as the most important factor in
making purchase decisions:
It’s simply too much effort for me to read all this and to nd out what it
actually means. That’s why I buy local and make sure that I feel good
about it. (P8.3:68)
The availability of meat from local origins is closely related to con-
sumers’ place of residence, however, hence those participants who lived
in large cities felt disconnected from beef production and complained
about the lack of local butchers in whom they could trust.
In sum, given the value consumers place on local production (Feld-
mann and Hamm, 2015; Katz et al., 2019), together with the increased
perceived utility value of certain label combinations for consumers
(Sirieix et al., 2013; Janβen and Langen, 2017), designating the local
origins of meat on labels alongside its biodiversity benets could be an
effective way to appeal to these consumers and the appreciation they
appear to have for local conservation measures.
5. Conclusions
This paper has presented the ndings of an online focus group study
exploring consumer perceptions of a multi-level labeling system for
biodiversity-friendly pasture-raised beef. With regard to our rst
research question, we found that although consumers in Germany
associate pasture grazing with high-quality beef and with valuable an-
imal welfare and environmental attributes, there is little awareness of
the benets of pasture-grazing for biodiversity. This is one reason why
biodiversity is not currently a priority for most consumers in their beef-
purchasing decisions. Gaining consumer acceptance of a new biodiver-
sity label in Germany at present would thus be challenging, therefore,
especially given the predominance of habitual decision-making in food
purchases and low levels of consumer knowledge about or involvement
with food systems, as well as the time pressures.
Regarding our second research question about consumer perceptions
of a multi-level labeling system, we found that the proposed multi-level
approach to biodiversity labeling tended to confuse the participants
rather than serving as a useful aid to decision-making. From this we
conclude that the introduction of a multi-level biodiversity labeling
scheme would probably have little or no success in engaging consumers
currently uninterested in ethical or eco-labeling. However, such a
scheme may well be appreciated by consumers already conscious of the
effects of food consumption on biodiversity.
Regarding our third research question about recommendations for
biodiversity labeling, we conclude that a binary pasture-grazing label
would probably be sufcient to satisfy consumers already concerned
about the environmental impacts of meat consumption and the effect of
grazing on biodiversity. Our study conrms previous research ndings
that consumers are overwhelmed by the sheer number and diversity of
sustainability labels on the market, which they claim renders it difcult
for them to select information that is personally relevant to them. For a
signicant proportion of consumers, ethical topics such as biodiversity
conservation rank rather low on their personal list of priorities, resulting
in a lack of interest in additional information about these issues. A le-
gally binding denition of pasture-based production could help address
current levels of confusion and lack of trust in labels. in addition, we
suggest that efforts to facilitate more direct communications between
consumers and farmers might be an effective alternative to the intro-
duction of a new label. This alternative may yield additional opportu-
nities not only to stimulate changes in consumption behaviour but also
to engage citizens more actively in the environmental consequences of
their behaviour. In sum, our ndings indicate that current levels of
confusion and lack of trust in labels need to be addressed through stricter
policies at state level, including a legally binding denition of pasture-
based production and a well-designed and communicated labeling
system.
The limitations of this study relate primarily to its explorative design
and its consequent incapacity to quantify predominant opinions. The use
of audio-only online focus groups probably resulted in less uent in-
teractions than a conversation held in full presence, thus raising the
question of whether the benets of maximizing anonymity through
audio-only techniques outweigh the costs of hindering the natural in-
teractions so important in focus groups.
To identify likely target groups for beef from grazing-based pro-
duction, future quantitative research should analyze the combined ef-
fects of biodiversity and other ethical labels and consumer preferences
for different levels of biodiversity conservation in pasture grazing. Given
our study’s conrmation of the importance of purchasing contexts,
future research should include consumers in different kinds of food
shopping locations.
Funding
This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Edu-
cation and Research (BMBF), grant number 031B0734D, as part of the
consortium research project “GreenGrass” within the BMBF initiative
“Agricultural Systems in the Future (Agrarsysteme der Zukunft)”.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ekaterina Stampa: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. The
article is the authors’ original work, hasn’t received prior publication
and isn’t under consideration for publication elsewhere. Katrin Zander:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervi-
sion, Project administration, All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript. The article is the authors’ original
work, hasn’t received prior publication and isn’t under consideration for
publication elsewhere.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
E. Stampa and K. Zander
Journal of Cleaner Production 370 (2022) 133471
9
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge Matt Jones for proofreading and making
valuable comments on the manuscript. We are also grateful to the three
anonymous reviewers who provided constructive feedback and helped
us to improve the manuscript in many ways.
References
Angerer, V., Sabia, E., K¨
onig von Borstel, U., Gauly, M., 2021. Environmental and
biodiversity effects of different beef production systems. J. Environ. Manag. 289,
112523 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112523.
Asioli, D., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Nayga Jr., R.M., 2020. Sustainability-related food
labels. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12 (1), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
resource-100518-094103.
Bangsa, A.B., Schlegelmilch, B.B., 2019. Linking sustainable product attributes and
consumer decision-making: insights from a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 245,
118902 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118902.
Becker, T., Kayser, M., Tonn, B., Isselstein, J., 2018. How German dairy farmers perceive
advantages and disadvantages of grazing and how it relates to their milk production
systems. Livest. Sci. 214, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2018.05.018.
Bickford, D., Posa, M.R.C., Qie, L., Campos-Arceiz, A., Kudavidanage, E.P., 2012. Science
communication for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 151 (1), 74–76. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.016.
BMEL, 2021. Deutschland, Wie Es Isst: Der BMEL-Ern¨
ahrungsreport 2021 [Germany as it
eats: The German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture Nutrition Report 2021].
Bundesministerium für Ern¨
ahrung und Landwirtschaft. https://www.bmel.de/Shar
edDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/ernaehrungsreport-2021.pdf?__blob=publica
tionFile&v=4.
Bragaglio, A., Braghieri, A., Pacelli, C., Napolitano, F., 2020. Environmental impacts of
beef as corrected for the provision of ecosystem services. Sustainability-Basel 12 (9),
3828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093828.
Bryman, A., 2016. Social Research Methods, fth ed. Oxford University Press, New York.
Caswell, J.A., 1998. How labeling of safety and process attributes affects markets for
food. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 27 (2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S106828050000647X.
Chaudhary, A., Gustafson, D., Mathys, A., 2018. Multi-indicator sustainability assessment
of global food systems. Nat. Commun. 9 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-
018-03308-7.
Cheng, C.C., Krumwiede, D., Sheu, C., 2009. Online audio group discussions: a
comparison with face-to-face methods. Int. J. Mark. Res. 51 (2), 1–18. https://doi.
org/10.1177/147078530905100211.
Cho, Y.N., 2015. Different shades of green consciousness: the interplay of sustainability
labeling and environmental impact on product evaluations. J. Bus. Ethics 128 (1),
73–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2080-4.
Dawson, L.E.R., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., Vipond, J.E., Wylie, A.R.G., Carson, A.F.,
Hyslop, J., 2011. Grassland systems of red meat production: integration between
biodiversity, plant nutrient utilisation, greenhouse gas emissions and meat
nutritional quality. Animal 5 (9), 1432–1441. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S175173111100053X.
Donato, C., D’Aniello, A., 2021. Tell me more and make me feel proud: the role of eco-
labels and informational cues on consumers’ food perceptions. In: Brit. Food J.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2021-0416.
Edenbrandt, A.K., Lagerkvist, C.-J., 2021. Is food labelling effective in reducing climate
impact by encouraging the substitution of protein sources? Food Pol. 101, 102097
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102097.
Emberger-Klein, A., Menrad, K., 2018. The effect of information provision on
supermarket consumers’ use of and preferences for carbon labels in Germany.
J. Clean. Prod. 172, 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.105.
European Commission, 2019. Attitudes of Europeans towards biodiversity: special
Eurobarometer481. Available at: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/api/deliverable
/download/le?deliverableId=69106. (Accessed 30 May 2022).
Feldmann, C., Hamm, U., 2015. Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: a
review. Food Qual. Prefer. 40, 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2014.09.014.
Feucht, Y., Zander, K., 2018. Consumers’ preferences for carbon labels and the
underlying reasoning: a mixed methods approach in 6 European countries. J. Clean.
Prod. 178, 740–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.236.
Flinzberger, L., Zinngrebe, Y., Plieninger, T., 2020. Labelling in Mediterranean
agroforestry landscapes: a Delphi study on relevant sustainability indicators. Sustain.
Sci. 15 (5), 1369–1382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00800-2.
Getter, K.L., Behe, B.K., Howard, P.H., Conner, D.S., Spaniolo, L.M., 2015. Increasing
demand for pasture-based dairy: what attributes and images do consumers want?. In:
Freyer, B., Bingen, R.J. (Eds.), Re-thinking Organic Food and Farming in a Changing
World (The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics,
vol. 22. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-
9190-8_7.
Gjerris, M., Gamborg, C., Saxe, H., 2016. What to buy? On the complexity of being a
critical consumer. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 29 (1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10806-015-9591-6.
Golan, E., Kuchler, F., Mitchell, L., Greene, C., Jessup, A., 2001. Economics of food
labeling. J. Consum. Pol. 24 (2), 117–184. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1012272504846.
Grebitus, C., Steiner, B., Veeman, M., 2015. The roles of human values and generalized
trust on stated preferences when food is labeled with environmental footprints:
insights from Germany. Food Pol. 52, 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodpol.2014.06.011.
Grunert, K.G., Hieke, S., Wills, J., 2014. Sustainability labels on food products: consumer
motivation, understanding and use. Food Pol. 44, 177–189. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001.
Guerrero, L., Xicola, J., 2018. New approaches to focus groups. In: Ares, G., Varela-
Tomasco, P. (Eds.), Methods in Consumer Research, Volume 1: New Approaches to
Classic Methods. Woodhead Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp. 49–77. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-08-102089-0.00003-0.
Halkier, B., 2010. Focus groups as social enactments: integrating interaction and content
in the analysis of focus groups data. Qual. Res. 10 (1), 71–89. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1468794109348683.
Henchion, M.M., McCarthy, M., Resconi, V.C., 2017. Beef quality attributes: a systematic
review of consumer perspectives. Meat Sci. 128, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
meatsci.2017.01.006.
Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., Ramme, I., 2020. How green is your packaging: a comparative
international study of cues consumers use to recognize environmentally friendly
packaging. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 44 (3), 258–271.
Horne, R.E., 2009. Limits to labels: the role of eco-labels in the assessment of product
sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 33 (2),
175–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00752.x.
Janssen, M., Hamm, U., 2014. Governmental and private certication labels for organic
food: consumer attitudes and preferences in Germany. Food Pol. 49, 437–448.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.05.011.
Janssen, M., R¨
odiger, M., Hamm, U., 2016. Labels for animal husbandry systems meet
consumer preferences: results from a meta-analysis of consumer studies. J. Agric.
Environ. Ethics 29 (6), 1071–1100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9647-2.
Janßen, D., Langen, N., 2017. The bunch of sustainability labels: do consumers
differentiate? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 1233–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.11.171.
Jansson, J., Marell, A., Nordlund, A., 2010. Green consumer behavior: determinants of
curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. J. Consum. Market. 27 (4), 358–370.
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761011052396.
Jaung, W., Putzel, L., Naito, D., 2019. Can ecosystem services certication enhance
brand competitiveness of certied products? Sustain. Prod. Consum. 18, 53–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.12.003.
Katz, M., Campbell, B., Liu, Y., 2019. Local and organic preference: logo versus text.
J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 51 (2), 328–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2019.4.
Kok, A., de Olde, E.M., de Boer, I., Ripoll-Bosch, R., 2020. European biodiversity
assessments in livestock science: a review of research characteristics and indicators.
Ecol. Indicat. 112, 105902 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105902.
Kuckartz, U., 2014. Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice and Using
Software. SAGE, London. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288719.
Li, T., Kecinski, M., Messer, K.D., 2018. Behavioural responses to science-based eco-
labelling: gold, silver, or bronze. Appl. Econ. 50 (39), 4250–4263. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00036846.2018.1441522.
Lobe, B., 2017. Best practices for synchronous online focus groups. In: Barbour, R.S.,
Morgan, D.L. (Eds.), A New Era in Focus Group Research. Palgrave Macmillan,
London, pp. 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58614-8_11.
Lobe, B., Morgan, D., Hoffman, K.A., 2020. Qualitative data collection in an era of social
distancing. Int. J. Qual. Methods 19, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1609406920937875.
Markova-Nenova, N., W¨
atzold, F., 2018. Fair to the cow or fair to the farmer? The
preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk. Land Use Pol.
79, 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.045.
Meyerding, S., Schaffmann, A.-L., Lehberger, M., 2019. Consumer preferences for
different designs of carbon footprint labelling on tomatoes in Germany: does design
matter? Sustainability 11 (6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061587.
Nunes, P.A., Riyanto, Y.E., 2005. Information as a regulatory instrument to price
biodiversity benets: certication and ecolabeling policy practices. Biodivers.
Conserv. 14 (8), 2009–2027. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-2529-3.
Nyumba, T.O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C.J., Mukherjee, N., 2018. The use of focus group
discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in conservation.
Methods Ecol. Evol. 9 (1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860.
Oliveira, M., Sidali, K.L., Busch, G., 2021. Mountain beef and wine: Italian consumers’
denitions and opinions on the mountain labelling-scheme. Econ. Agro-Alimentare
23 (1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.3280/ECAG1-2021OA11549.
Peschel, A.O., Grebitus, C., Steiner, B., Veeman, M., 2016. How does consumer
knowledge affect environmentally sustainable choices? Evidence from a cross-
country latent class analysis of food labels. Appetite 106, 78–91. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.162.
Peschel, A.O., Orquin, J.L., Loose, S.M., 2019. Increasing consumers’ attention capture
and food choice through bottom-up effects. Appetite 132, 1–7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.015.
Pirsich, W., Weinrich, R., 2018. The impact of sustainability aspects in the meat sector: a
cluster analysis based on consumer attitudes and store format choice. J. Int. Food &
Agribus. Mark. 8 (2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2018.1494076.
E. Stampa and K. Zander
Journal of Cleaner Production 370 (2022) 133471
10
Quarshie, A., Salmi, A., Scott-Kennel, J., K¨
ahk¨
onen, A.-K., 2019. Biodiversity as integral
to strongly sustainable supply chains: review and exemplars in the natural resources
sector. In: Bonnedahl, K.J., Heikkurinen, P. (Eds.), Strongly Sustainable Societies:
Organising Human Activities on a Hot and Full Earth. Routledge, New York,
pp. 192–208.
Rihn, A., Wei, X., Khachatryan, H., 2019. Text vs. logo: does eco-label format inuence
consumers’ visual attention and willingness-to-pay for fruit plants? An experimental
auction approach. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 82, 101452 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
socec.2019.101452.
Risius, A., Hamm, U., 2018. Exploring inuences of different communication approaches
on consumer target groups for ethically produced beef. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 31,
325–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9727-6.
Rockstr¨
om, J., Edenhofer, O., Gaertner, J., DeClerck, F., 2020. Planet-proong the global
food system. Nat. Food 1 (1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-019-0010-4.
R¨
o¨
os, E., Ekelund, L., Tj¨
arnemo, H., 2014. Communicating the environmental impact of
meat production: challenges in the development of a Swedish meat guide. J. Clean.
Prod. 73, 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.037.
Samant, S.S., Seo, H.-S., 2016. Effects of label understanding level on consumers’ visual
attention toward sustainability and process-related label claims found on chicken
meat products. Food Qual. Prefer. 50, 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2016.01.002.
Sanchez-Sabate, R., Sabat´
e, J., 2019. Consumer attitudes towards environmental
concerns of meat consumption: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ.
Health 16 (7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071220.
Schulze, M., Spiller, A., Risius, A., 2021. Do consumers prefer pasture-raised dual-
purpose cattle when considering meat products? A hypothetical discrete choice
experiment for the case of minced beef. Meat Sci. 177, 108494 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108494.
Sirieix, L., Delanchy, M., Remaud, H., Zepeda, L., Gurviez, P., 2013. Consumers’
perceptions of individual and combined sustainable food labels: a UK pilot
investigation. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 37 (2), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1470-6431.2012.01109.x.
Skogen, K., Helland, H., Kaltenborn, B., 2018. Concern about climate change,
biodiversity loss, habitat degradation and landscape change: embedded in different
packages of environmental concern? J. Nat. Conserv. 44, 12–20. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jnc.2018.06.001.
Southey, F., 2021. Planet-Score: New Eco-Label Factors in Pesticides, Biodiversity and
Animal Welfare. July 29, Foodnavigator. Available at: https://www.foodnavigator.
com/Article/2021/07/29/Planet-Score-New-eco-label-factors-in-pesticides-biodi
versity-and-animal-welfare. (Accessed 30 May 2022). Last accessed.
Spendrup, S., R¨
o¨
os, E., Schütt, E., 2017. Evaluating consumer understanding of the
Swedish meat guide: a multi-layered environmental information tool communicating
trade-offs when choosing food. Environ. Commun. 13 (1), 87–103. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17524032.2017.1308402.
Stampa, E., Schipmann-Schwarze, C., Hamm, U., 2020a. Consumer perceptions,
preferences, and behavior regarding pasture-raised livestock products: a review.
Food Qual. Prefer. 82, 103872 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103872.
Stampa, E., Zander, K., Hamm, U., 2020b. Insights into German consumers’ perceptions
of virtual fencing in grassland-based beef and dairy systems: recommendations for
communication. Animals 10 (12), 2267. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122267.
Steiner, B.E., Peschel, A.O., Grebitus, C., 2017. Multi-product category choices labeled
for ecological footprints: exploring psychographics and evolved psychological biases
for characterizing latent consumer classes. Ecol. Econ. 140, 251–264. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.009.
Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, P.N., 2014. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, third ed.
SAGE, Washington DC.
Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, P., 2017. Online focus groups. J. Advert. 46 (1), 48–60.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1252288.
T¨
alle, M., De´
ak, B., Poschlod, P., Valk´
o, O., Westerberg, L., Milberg, P., 2016. Grazing vs.
mowing: a meta-analysis of biodiversity benets for grassland management. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 222, 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.02.008.
Tauque, K.M.R., Polonsky, M.J., Vocino, A., Siwar, C., 2019. Measuring consumer
understanding and perception of eco-labelling: item selection and scale validation.
Int. J. Consum. Stud. 43 (3), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12510.
Tonsor, G.T., Wolf, C.A., 2011. On mandatory labeling of animal welfare attributes. Food
Pol. 36 (3), 430–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.02.001.
Torma, G., Thøgersen, J., 2021. A systematic literature review on meta sustainability
labeling: what do we (not) know? J. Clean. Prod. 293, 126194 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126194.
Tulloch, A.I.T., Miller, A., Dean, A.J., 2021. Does scientic interest in the nature impacts
of food align with consumer information-seeking behavior? Sustain. Sci. 16 (3),
1029–1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00920-3.
van Amstel, M., Brauw, C. de, Driessen, P., Glasbergen, P., 2007. The reliability of
product-specic eco-labels as an agrobiodiversity management instrument.
Biodivers. Conserv. 16 (14), 4109–4129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-
9210-6.
van Amstel, M., Driessen, P., Glasbergen, P., 2008. Eco-labeling and information
asymmetry: a comparison of ve eco-labels in The Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod. 16
(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.039.
Verbeke, W., 2008. Impact of communication on consumers’ food choices. Proc. Nutr.
Soc. 67 (3), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665108007179.
Vigors, B., 2018. Reducing the consumer attitude-behaviour gap in animal welfare: the
potential role of ‘nudges. Animals 8 (12), 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ani8120232.
Weinrich, R., Franz, A., Spiller, A., 2016. Multi-level labelling: too complex for
consumers? Econ. Agro-Aliment 2, 155–172. https://doi.org/10.3280/ECAG2016-
002004.
Weinrich, R., Spiller, A., 2016a. Can a multi-level label do better than a binary label for
animal welfare? A PLS-Analysis of Consumer Satisfaction. Int. Food Agribus. Manag.
Rev. 19 (3), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.244646.
Weinrich, R., Spiller, A., 2016b. Developing food labelling strategies: multi-level
labelling. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1138–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.07.156.
Woodyatt, C.R., Finneran, C.A., Stephenson, R., 2016. In-person versus online focus
group discussions: a comparative analysis of data quality. Qual. Health Res. 26 (6),
741–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316631510.
Zaharia, A., Diaconeasa, M.-C., Maehle, N., Szolnoki, G., Capitello, R., 2021. Developing
sustainable food systems in Europe: national policies and stakeholder perspectives in
a four-country analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 18 (14), 7701. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph18147701.
Zander, K., Hamm, U., 2010. Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of
organic food. Food Qual. Prefer. 21 (5), 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2010.01.006.
Zander, K., Risius, A., Feucht, Y., Janssen, M., Hamm, U., 2018. Sustainable aquaculture
products: implications of consumer awareness and of consumer preferences for
promising market communication in Germany. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 27 (1),
5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10498850.2017.1390028.
E. Stampa and K. Zander
