Final Report on the Assessment of Different

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT Directorate A – Green Economy ENV.A.1 – Eco-Innovation & Circular Economy

Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information Request for Specific Services for the implementation of the Framework Contract no. EAHC-2011-CP-01

Final Report

Authors: Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva, Pietro Tornese, Giuseppe A. Veltri and George Gaskell

PRESENTED IN CONSORTIUM: BY LSE & PARTNERS

Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Technical Secretariats of all pilots for their participation in the Pilot phase of this project: Batteries and accumulators; Decorative paints; Hot and cold water supply pipes; Household detergents; Intermediate paper product; IT equipment; Leather; Metal sheets; Footwear; Photovoltaic electricity generation; Stationery; Thermal insulation; T-shirts; Uninterruptible Power Supply; Beer; Coffee; Dairy; Feed for food-producing animals; Marine fish; Meat (bovine, pigs, sheep); Olive oil; Packed water; Pasta; Pet food (cats & dogs); Wine. Ewelina Marek for her contribution at the beginning of the study. Lastly, we would like to thank DG ENV, particularly our EC project officer Imola Bedo for her detailed and relevant comments that helped us improve the final version of this report, as well as Michele Galatola and Benedetta Nucci for their ongoing support throughout the project.

Disclaimer This report was produced in response to the Request for Specific Services for the implementation of the Framework Contract no EAHC-2011-CP-01 for the provision of an “Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information”. The content of this report represents the views of the contractor and is its sole responsibility; it can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission or other body of the European Union. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report, nor does it accept responsibility for any use made by third parties thereof. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

2 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 10 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 13 1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ...... 13 1.2 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 14 1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ...... 15 2 SUPPORT TO PILOTS, ACTIVITIES AND ASSESSMENT ...... 17 2.1 OVERVIEW ...... 17 2.2 PILOTS SUPPORT ...... 18 2.2.1 Wiki space ...... 18 2.2.2 Conference calls ...... 19 2.2.3 Webinars ...... 19 2.3 PILOTS ACTIVITIES ...... 20 2.4 PILOTS COMMUNICATION VEHICLES ...... 21 2.5 ANALYSIS OF THE PILOT TESTS ...... 22 2.6 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PILOT PHASE ...... 24 3 STAKEHOLDERS’ PERSPECTIVES ...... 25 3.1 RETAILERS: WORKSHOP ...... 25 3.1.1 Background and objectives ...... 25 3.1.2 Complementary tests...... 25 3.1.3 The role of retailers and the environmental footprint ...... 26 3.1.4 Remarks ...... 27 3.2 CONSUMERS: FOCUS GROUPS ...... 27 3.2.1 Background and objectives ...... 27 3.2.2 Methodology ...... 27 3.2.3 Environmental Footprint: perceptions, experiences and knowledge ...... 28 3.2.4 Influence of the different communication vehicles for providing environmental footprint information ...... 33 3.3 SMES: ONLINE SURVEY ...... 41 3.3.1 Background, objectives and methodology ...... 41 3.3.2 SMEs characteristics...... 42 3.3.3 Findings ...... 44 3.4 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE STAKEHOLDER TESTING ...... 59 4 WEIGHTING EXERCISE: EXPERT AND LAY KNOWLEDGE ...... 62

4.1 BACKGROUND ...... 62 4.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 63 4.2.1 Design ...... 63 4.2.2 Sample ...... 69 4.2.3 Fieldwork ...... 74 4.3 FINDINGS ...... 75 4.4 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE WEIGHTING EXERCISE ...... 79 5 ONLINE EXPERIMENTS: CERTIFICATION, WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND ECOLABEL 80 5.1 BACKGROUND ...... 80 5.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 81 5.2.1 Study on Certification and Trust ...... 81 5.2.2 Study on Willingness to Pay and PEF ...... 84 5.2.3 Study on Ecolabel...... 86

3 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

5.3 FINDINGS ...... 87 5.3.1 Study on Certification and Trust ...... 87 5.3.2 Study on Willingness to Pay ...... 95 5.3.3 Study on Ecolabel...... 98 5.4 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EXPERIMENTS ...... 100 6 FURTHER STUDIES...... 101 6.1 BRICK AND MORTAR TEST ...... 101 6.1.1 Design ...... 101 6.1.2 Methodology and sample ...... 102 6.1.3 Findings ...... 103 6.2 SMARTPHONES AND APPS: A SCOPING REVIEW ...... 107 6.2.1 Mobile use and access in Europe ...... 107 6.2.2 Mobile in-store shopping ...... 108 6.2.3 QR codes as an example ...... 112 6.3 LESSONS LEARNED ...... 117 7 CONCLUSIONS ...... 120

4 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

List of figures Figure 1 Overall framework ...... 14 Figure 2 Overview of the methods used ...... 15 Figure 3 Support on the communication phase wiki space ...... 18 Figure 4 Overview of pilot feedback by method ...... 20 Figure 5 Overview of pilot tests by target group ...... 20 Figure 6 Overview of pilot tests by method ...... 20 Figure 7 Overview of pilot tests by CV ...... 21 Figure 8 Environmental Footprint Labels ...... 35 Figure 9 Point of Sale example ...... 37 Figure 10 Receipts example ...... 38 Figure 11 Mobile app example ...... 39 Figure 12 Website examples ...... 39 Figure 13 Website example ...... 40 Figure 14 Sectors (Q1) ...... 42 Figure 15 Breakdown by class size (Q2) ...... 42 Figure 16 Level of resources devoted to improving the environmental performance as % of 2016 turnover (Q4) ...... 42 Figure 17 Market scope (Q6) ...... 43 Figure 18 Commercial activity (Q7) ...... 43 Figure 19 B2B type of products (Q8) ...... 43 Figure 20 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q12, Q13) ...... 44 Figure 21 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q12, Q13) by sector ...... 44 Figure 22 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q13) by class size (Q2) ...... 45 Figure 23 Environmental concerns (Q16, Q17) ...... 45 Figure 24 Environmental concerns (Q16, Q17) by sector ...... 46 Figure 25 Environmental concerns (Q17) by class size (Q2) ...... 46 Figure 26 Environmental information demand (Q14, Q15) ...... 47 Figure 27 Environmental information demand (Q14, Q15) by sector ...... 47 Figure 27 Environmental information demand (Q15) by class size (Q2) ...... 47 Figure 29 Environmental policy topics (Q20) ...... 48 Figure 30 Environmental topics: Natural resources (Q22) ...... 49 Figure 31 Environmental topics: Human health (Q21) ...... 50 Figure 32 Environmental topics: Natural resources (Q23) ...... 50 Figure 33 Environmental performance (Q25) ...... 51 Figure 34 Environmental information target (Q27) ...... 51 Figure 35 Environmental information assessment (Q28) ...... 52 Figure 36 B2B Communication vehicles use (Q29) ...... 52 Figure 37 B2B potential Communication vehicles (Q30) ...... 53 Figure 38 B2B communication vehicles effectiveness (Q31) ...... 53 Figure 39 B2C communication vehicles used (Q32) ...... 54 Figure 40 B2C possible communication vehicles (Q33) ...... 54 Figure 41 B2C communication vehicles effectiveness (Q34) ...... 55 Figure 42 LCA drivers (Q36) ...... 56 Figure 43 LCA inhibitors (Q37) ...... 57

5 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 44 Product Environmental Footprint (Q35) ...... 58 Figure 45 General public survey procedure ...... 63 Figure 46 Screen 1 ...... 64 Figure 47 Screen 2 ...... 64 Figure 48 Experts survey procedure ...... 66 Figure 49 Summary of results ...... 78 Figure 50. Experimental design ...... 81 Figure 51 Study on Certification and Trust – Choice example ...... 82 Figure 52 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice example ...... 84 Figure 53 Study on Ecolabel – Choice example ...... 86 Figure 54 Study on Certification and Trust - How much would you trust the following to certify the accuracy of environmental information on consumer products? ...... 90 Figure 55 Study on Certification and Trust - Would the following have the expertise to provide accurate PEF information on consumer products?...... 90 Figure 56 Study on Certification and Trust - Would the following have the expertise to verify accurate PEF information on consumer products?...... 91 Figure 57 Study on Certification and Trust - Do you think they could be relied on to act in the public interest regarding product environmental information? ...... 91 Figure 58 Study on Certification and Trust - In the development of PEF information for consumers, how effective would the following actors be? ...... 92 Figure 59 Study on Certification and Trust - Who should lead the development and introduction of PEF information? ...... 92 Figure 60 Study on Certification and Trust - If it is found that a company has intentionally misinformed the public about the environmental performance of a product, which of the following would be most appropriate? ...... 93 Figure 61 Study on Certification and Trust – Factors (self-declared) that influence the decision of buying a t-shirt ...... 93 Figure 62 Study on Certification and Trust - Factors that influence the decision of buying a laptop ...... 94 Figure 63 Study on Certification and Trust - Factors that influence the decision of buying a milk carton ...... 94 Figure 64 Study on Willingness to Pay – Social context...... 97 Figure 65 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you believe are the following groups of people around you concerned and engaged about environmental issues? ...... 97 Figure 66 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you discuss with the following groups of people around you about environmental issues? ...... 98 Figure 67 Study on Ecolabel –Respondents who have seen the Ecolabel logo before, by country ...... 98 Figure 68 CV logos tested ...... 101 Figure 69 Labels tested in the brick and mortar exercise ...... 101 Figure 70 Poster ...... 102 Figure 71 Sample distribution – exit interviews ...... 103 Figure 72 Reactions to the CVs ...... 103 Figure 73 Most noticed CVs ...... 104 Figure 74 Purchasing drivers ...... 105 Figure 75 Favourite CV ...... 105 Figure 76 Perceptions of the two CV logos ...... 106 Figure 77 Impact on the retailer’s brand image ...... 106

6 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 78: Individuals who used a portable computer or a handheld device to access the internet away from home or work, 2012 and 2016 ...... 107 Figure 79 Product and services m-marketing design ...... 109 Figure 80: Mobile shopper journey and research questions ...... 110 Figure 81 Consumer behavioral drivers and barriers ...... 117 Figure 83 Study on Certification and Trust – choice sets ...... 164 Figure 84 Experiment 1 - Fieldwork ...... 170 Figure 85 Study on Certification and Trust - Variables ...... 171 Figure 86 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice sets ...... 173 Figure 87 Experiment 2 - Fieldwork ...... 177 Figure 88 Study on Willingness to Pay - Variables ...... 177 Figure 89 Study on Ecolabel – Choice sets ...... 180 Figure 90 Experiment 2 - Fieldwork ...... 184 Figure 91 Study on Ecolabel - Variables ...... 184

7 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

List of tables Table 1 Environmental Footprint midpoints definitions ...... 36 Table 2 SMEs fieldwork ...... 41 Table 3 Hierarchical structure of impact categories ...... 62 Table 4 Technical specification of samples for the online survey ...... 69 Table 5 Target sample by country and age group ...... 70 Table 6 Target sample by country and gender ...... 70 Table 7 Target sample by country and education level...... 70 Table 8 Sampling errors by country ...... 71 Table 9 Weights by country ...... 72 Table 10 Technical specification for the experts survey ...... 72 Table 11 Expert respondents by country and gender ...... 72 Table 12 General public fieldwork ...... 74 Table 13 Experts fieldwork ...... 75 Table 14 General Public Summary statistics – Endpoints ...... 75 Table 15 Experts Summary statistics – Endpoints ...... 75 Table 16 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Human Health)...... 76 Table 17 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Human Health) ...... 76 Table 18 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Environment) ...... 77 Table 19 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Environment) ...... 77 Table 20 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Resources) ...... 77 Table 21 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Resources)...... 78 Table 22 Study on Certification and Trust – Sample specification ...... 83 Table 23 Study on Willingness to Pay – Sample specification ...... 85 Table 24 Study on Ecolabel – Sample specification ...... 87 Table 25 Study on Certification and Trust – Most effective labels ...... 88 Table 26 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Laptop) ...... 89 Table 27 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (T-shirt) ...... 89 Table 28 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Milk) ...... 89 Table 29 Study on Willingness to Pay – Most effective labels ...... 95 Table 30 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Laptop) ...... 96 Table 31 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (T-shirt) ...... 96 Table 32 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Yogurt) ...... 96 Table 33 Study on Ecolabel – Most effective labels ...... 99 Table 34 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Laptop) ...... 99 Table 35 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Detergent) ...... 100 Table 36 Research areas and unexplored questions ...... 110 Table 36 Study on Certification and Trust – Target sample by country and age group ...... 169 Table 37 Study on Certification and Trust - Target sample by country and gender ...... 169 Table 38 Study on Certification and Trust - Target sample by country and education level ... 169 Table 39 Study on Willingness to Pay – Target sample by country and age group ...... 176 Table 40 Study on Willingness to Pay - Target sample by country and gender ...... 176 Table 41 Study on Willingness to Pay - Target sample by country and education level ...... 176 Table 42 Study on Ecolabel – Target sample by country and age group ...... 183 Table 43 Study on Ecolabel - Target sample by country and gender ...... 183

8 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Table 44 Study on Ecolabel - Target sample by country and education level ...... 183

9 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Executive Summary The European Commission’s work on the development of the Product/Organisation Environmental Footprint (PEF/OEF) method started in 2010 in reaction to complaints from the business sector about difficulties due to the proliferation of environmental labels/certification schemes and with some companies making unsubstantiated or unverifiable ‘green’ claims. In 2010 the Council adopted the conclusions asking the Commission to develop a harmonised method for the calculation of the life cycle environmental performance of products. In 2013 the College adopted the Communication "Building the Single Market for Green Products" (COM/2013/0196 final). This Communication included a Commission recommendation (179/2013) establishing methods to calculate the environmental footprint of products (PEF) and organisations (OEF). These methods were published in the Official Journal (OJ L 124, 4.5.2013, p. 1–210). In this publication it was asserted that these methods were not intended to directly support comparisons or comparative assertions, i.e. claims of overall superiority or equivalence of the environmental footprint of one product compared to another. It stated that such comparisons would require the development of additional PEF category rules or OEF sector rules to complement the general guidance, in order to further increase methodological harmonisation, specificity, relevance and reproducibility for a given product-type. Such category rules and sector rules were the intended focus of Pilot phase. The development and testing of communication vehicles involved a programme of research spanning three years. It involved sector associations; large, medium and small enterprises; environmental sustainability experts and European citizens. Pilot studies were initiated to develop product environmental footprint category rules (PEFCRs) and to test the effectiveness of different vehicles for communicating PEF information. Of 51 initiatives spanning a wide range of sectors, 27 concerned PEF communication in business to business (B2B) contexts and 24 for business to consumer (B2C). The communication vehicles tested included labels, declarations, reports, web pages and traditional PR – videos, banner, info-graphics, ads and newsletters. The studies used a range of methods including surveys, interviews, workshops and focus groups to assess output measures of target audience attention and understanding; changes in purchaser (B2B) and consumer behaviour/ behavioural intentions (B2C); the influence on attractiveness of the product/reputation of the organisation, and potential environmental impacts from organisational change. Supporting these Pilots, the Consortium (the authors of this report) conducted a number of complementary studies aimed at developing and testing insights from the Pilot studies, filling gaps with studies of stakeholders who were under-represented in the Pilots and providing an evidence base for policy making on some key issues. The complementary studies included a workshop with retailers; focus groups with members of the public, and an online survey with SMEs. Investigations on key issues included studies with experts and citizens assessing the relative importance of different midpoint and endpoint impact categories; experiments to determine the effectiveness of different communication vehicles; the framings of persuasive messages; consumers’ willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable products; confidence in different sources certifying PEF information, and an in vivo study of shoppers. Based on the studies conducted within the PEF/OEF Pilot phase, a number of conclusions concerning communication vehicles, and stakeholders’ views and likely responses to PEF and OEF information can be drawn. Converging lines of enquiry, both quantitative and qualitative, show that the greater majority of European citizens express concerns about sustainability and feel a moral obligation to protect the environment for future generations. While they are interested in receiving information about the environmental impact of products, the environmental performance of products is not among the main criteria affecting consumers’ purchase decisions. Currently price, quality, brand and availability are more relevant considerations in many product categories. In some categories, environmental performance of products is an important attribute, suggesting that, over time, environmental performance has the potential to become more influential. The commercial and business sectors and in particular large and medium sized enterprises acknowledge the inevitability and increasing importance of environmental sustainability,

10 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

anticipate important benefits for both B2B and B2C activities, and support European standardisation. The benefits include improving brand values, the opportunity to compare products on their environmental performance, driving up the quality of products in terms of their environmental products, higher quality of products, and last but not least, a level playing field with common rules for across the EU. Retailers agree on the increasing public awareness of environmental sustainability and appreciate their contribution along with companies and government. With the exception of food, the Retailers’ research points to consumers paying less attention to the environmental footprint of products bought on a regular basis or used within a short timeframe. It is with newly introduced lines, big or expensive purchases items (e.g. cars and household appliances), and products that impact their own or their children’s health that the environmental impact is an issue. Some of the environmental impact categories are beyond comprehension for the public. While they a familiar with impacts such as climate change, CO2 emissions, energy and water consumption, the use of technical/scientific terms such as acidification, terrestrial eutrophication and eco-toxicity is simply not understood. And, the concept and links to products of Life Cycle Analysis is not readily accessible. On the design of communication vehicles, the evidence points to the following characteristics to maximise effectiveness. • An emphasis on clarity, simplicity and transparency. • Avoiding numeric and scientific terms (e.g. kg CO2-eq / kg), these are too complex. • Using graphics, bar charts and colour scales • Emulating the readily understood Traffic light and Energy Labels • Certification from named, independent and trusted sources • Offering QR codes, bar codes, links, websites and banners for those who want further information. • The most effective label is PEF label, A-E rating and an average product score Whether to use positive message framing -‘Protect the environment for our children’ or a negative framing - ‘Our children will suffer if we ignore the environment’ the findings are equivocal. In an experiment the negative frame had a large and significant effect. By contrast, in the field study, the brick and mortar test, it was the positive frame that shoppers thought would have the greatest impact. Other findings on consumers’ decision making are that:  A PEF label has a greater effect on choice that either the Ecolabel or a PEF plus the Ecolabel  4 in 10 shoppers said that they would pay a little more for environmentally sustainable products. The Retailers agreed with this but said the premium should not be large.  Consumer organisations and the European Commission are cited as trusted sources for the certification of PEFs Turning to enterprises, the SMEs’ online survey shows that a significant number of mid-sized SMEs, in particular those in agriculture and industry, with an active commitment to environmental issues. About half of the SMEs consulted have an internal environmental policy in place, often based on LCA indicators and covering topics such as climate change, water use, land use, but also topics related to human health, such as toxicity and cancer, and natural resources. About one third of the SMEs publish information on environmental issues targeted at their clients. In the B2B activities labels are seen as the most effective communication vehicles, followed by PR campaigns, environmental reports, product passports and environmental product declarations. B2C enterprises reported using websites, leaflets and labels to communicate

11 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

environmental information and see websites and POS product advertisement as the most effective vehicles. For SMEs organizational awareness, customer satisfaction and improvements of environmental practices are cited as the motivators of their environmental policies. However, constraints were mentioned including problems collecting data, the costs of personnel and/or external experts. A standardised approach with a common methodology should help to overcome these barriers. The outcomes of the Pilot tests and the complementary studies support the development and implementation of Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) methods. But the findings also flag up a tension. On the one hand the PEF concept based on end and mid points is a scientific approach to LCA. It reflects ‘systemic thinking’ characterised by esoteric terminology, abstraction, quantification and complexity. Necessarily so, as the environmental impacts of a product over the life cycle are complex. On the other hand, the public (and many in enterprises) while committed to environmental sustainability, do not think in systemic terms. They are ‘narrative thinkers’ who are more persuaded by stories, pictures and graphics than by quantified facts. They will switch off from complex information and from information removed from everyday experience. The tension for the roll out of PEFs is how can validity of information be achieved at the same time as simplicity? Without validity consumers who seek to purchase environmentally sustainable products may be misled; but if the PEF information is valid but too complex consumers will ignore it. The challenge for policy is to translate scientific knowledge into public knowledge, to continue to cultivate verbal support for PEFs/OEFs and to provide opportunities and an appropriate decision architecture to convert good intentions into sustainable consumption. This should be seen as an incremental process over time and not the result of a one-off campaign or single policy intervention. To achieve an impact on companies, consumers and Member States there is a need:  For policy makers and scientists to agree an initial and simplified strategy for PEF and OEF measurement bearing in mind that perfection should not be the enemy of the good.  To raise awareness about the agreed PEF/OEF method among all the stakeholders emphasising the beneficial impact of the environmental sustainability for current and future generations.  To achieve consensus about the communication vehicles, guided by simplicity, clarity and transparency, and the benchmarking strategy in order to avoid information overload and the plethora of existing claims;  To integrate and test the selected communication vehicles with other product/business information currently in place.

12 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

1 Introduction 1.1 Background of the study In the EU, consumers are facing a cacophony of diverse and non-comparable environmental information. Many EU citizens think that existing product labels are unclear and do not provide enough information1. The current policy context is characterised by the lack of provision of consistent, reliable and clear environmental information, despite evident interest by consumers and stakeholders. With the aim of enhancing the consistency of environment-related information for consumers and business, the Commission adopted a Communication on “Building the Single Market for Green Products”2 and a Recommendation on “The use of common methods for measuring and communicating the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations”.3 The Recommendation introduced two methods, the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and the Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) – to measure environmental performance throughout the lifecycle, recommending their use to Member States, companies, private organisations and the financial community. The initiative was further developed in a four-year testing period known as the "Pilot Phase”, launched in November 2013 and completed in 2017. During this phase, a voluntary, multi- stakeholder process was launched4 to develop product- and sector-specific rules (known as Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules – PEFCRs and Organisation Environmental Footprint Sectoral Rules – OEFSRs, respectively)5. In addition, the Pilot Phase aimed at testing different approaches to verification and to communicating PEF/OEF information. Communication vehicles (CVs) are defined as means of conveying information on the environmental performance of a product or organisation to business partners, consumers and other stakeholder (e.g. labels, reports, on-shelf stickers/wobblers, product declarations, websites, etc.) Within this context, the current project “Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information” was carried out. Its main objectives have been:  Providing support in the definition, implementation and testing of CVs;  Gathering feedback on the effectiveness and use of CVs in terms of the following dimensions: – Attention and understanding by target audiences, – Changes in purchasing intentions and/or behaviour, – Influence on attractiveness of the product/reputation of the organisation, – Environmental impacts from modifications of organisational internal actions;  Providing input for the evaluation of the communication stage of the Pilot Phase. This report describes the main activities carried out from December 2014 to December 2017 to fulfil these objectives.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/flash_arch_374_361_en.htm#367 2 COM(2013) 196, http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52013DC0196:EN:NOT 3 2013/179/EU, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:124:SOM:EN:HTML 4 PEFCR pilots cover batteries and accumulators, decorative paints, hot and cold water supply pipes, household detergents, intermediate paper product (JRC), IT equipment, leather, metal sheets, non- leather shoes, photovoltaic electricity generation, stationery, thermal insulation, t-shirts, Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS), beer, coffee, dairy, feed, fish, meat, pasta, packed water, pet food, olive oil and wine. OEFSR pilots cover retail and copper3. There are 27 pilots in total. 5 The role of PEFCRs and OEFSRs is to translate the general rules of PEF and OEF to a specific product group or sector. The rules are meant to set methodological choices in a way that it results in reproducible and consistent outcomes, enabling comparisons between the environmental performance of products and organisations, whenever feasible, appropriate and useful.

13 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

1.2 Methodological framework The following figure depicts the overall framework of the project, and the interactions between the activities carried out, the dimensions under analysis as listed above, the methodologies used, and the stakeholders involved in the overall process. Figure 1 Overall framework

Assessment of different communication vehicles Development Feedback Recommendations for providing Environmental Footprint information Communication vehicles How: testing Who Focus What Workshop groups Pilots Understanding and Testing Weighting exercise attention

Randomised experiments Consumers Changes in consumer Pilot testing behaviour Online Survey Consortium Enterprises testing Scoping Brick and Consortium Influence on review mortar test attractiveness and support reputation Retailers How: support Environmental impacts Conference Experts Wiki space Webinars Logbook calls

The development, testing and feedback of the different communication vehicles has been an iterative process aimed at reinforcing the findings as new evidence was generated through the testing activities. In addition to the exhaustive and continuous support and feedback provided to and gathered from the Pilots, a significant portion of the effort throughout the project by the Consortium consisted in carrying out new, complementary studies. These studies, carried out by the Consortium, filled in gaps in the evidence from the tests conducted by the pilots. In addition, they generated valuable novel insights that, during the course of the project, became the cornerstone for the policy recommendations provided. In light of the complexity of the issues and the variable time-frames of the pilot testing, the Consortium opted for a flexible ‘stop & go’ approach. The different studies were designed in a sequence that facilitated the narrowing down of the ‘problem space’. The rationale is that a set of cumulative studies, each one building on the results from the previous studies, is the optimal approach to leveraging the collective insights from the pilots’ assessments of their communication vehicle studies and taking these further with bespoke complementary studies. Complementary testing involved a multi-stakeholder perspective, engaging groups that were underrepresented during the pilot phase – such as SMEs – as well as additional groups who play a particularly crucial role due in relation to the implementation of PEFs – such as retailers. Most importantly, it repeatedly involved the general public as such, through large-scale multi-country quantitative and qualitative methods. The following figure sketches more in detail the different methods used, with the corresponding section of the report, as well as the rationale behind the process.

14 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 2 Overview of the methods used

Input from pilot testing

Online survey of Workshop with Weighting exercise with SMEs (§ 3.3) retailers (§ 3.1) experts (§ 4)

Focus groups with Weighting exercise with Scoping review of consumers (§ 3.2) the general public (§ 4) QR codes (§ 6.2)

Brick and Experiment #1 Experiment #2 Experiment #3 mortar test (Certification (Willingness (Ecolabel) (§ 6.1) and trust) (§ 5) to pay) (§ 5) (§ 5)

Evidence gathered in the tests by pilots was corroborated by an exploratory qualitative study, which included focus groups involving consumers, followed by a workshop with retailers. Two studies aimed at investigating the weighting and relative importance of the different environmental mid and endpoint categories to identify the most relevant impacts, and were directed to field experts as well as the general public. Findings from the exploratory qualitative study and from the weighting exercise helped to narrow down the communication vehicle options, and fed into the design and implementation of three large online experiments. These tested their relative effectiveness of different communication vehicles, the Ecolabel, forms of certification and willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable products. The experimental finding were then validated through a brick and mortar test, conducted in supermarket stores. These studies and the earlier focus groups, signaled a specific interest among some consumers for accessing additional information via QR codes. Therefore, the Consortium carried out a scoping review of the field, the technology, and its uses to understand drivers and barriers for the application to the PEF context. Finally, the consortium implemented a quantitative survey of SMEs to complete the picture given by the pilots, as smaller enterprises tended to be underrepresented in the pilot composition. 1.3 Structure of the report As all the activities carried out have been reported in the previous deliverables to the EC, the aim of this report is to summarise this information as follow:  Chapter 2 addresses the support activities provided to the pilots as well as the description and analysis of the testing conducted by them.  Chapter 3 comprises the different activities conducted by the Consortium to gather insights on PEF information from different stakeholders, including retailers, consumers, and SMEs;  Chapter 4 reviews the study investigating the weighting and relative importance of the different PEF categories, to identify the most relevant impacts;

15 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

 Chapter 5 describes the results of three online experiments investigating the effects of several issues related to consumer decision making including certification, trust, PEF ratings, willingness to pay and a comparison with an existing label.  Chapter 6 provides the results of the two additional studies carried out, the brick and mortar test and the scoping review of QR codes;  Chapter 7 concludes and provides the policy recommendation which will serve as an input to the evaluation of the communication stage of the Pilot Phase.

16 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

2 Support to pilots, activities and assessment 2.1 Overview The objectives of the Pilot Phase included the following:  to set up and validate the process of the development of PEFCRs OEFSRs, including the development of performance benchmarks;  to test different compliance and verification systems, in order to set up and validate proportionate, effective and efficient compliance and verification systems;  to test the effectiveness of different business-to-business and business-to-consumer CVs in collaboration with stakeholders. The tests were informed by the document “Background document for testing of communication vehicles in the environmental footprint phase in 2013-2016”. Each pilot carried out tests and reported to the European Commission and the Consortium responsible for this report. The role of the Consortium was to gather feedback on the effectiveness and use of CVs in terms of:  Attention and understanding target audiences,  Changes in purchasing intentions/behaviour,  Influence on attractiveness of the product/reputation of the organisation,  Environmental impacts from modifications of organisational internal actions. In addition, the Consortium provided support to pilots in their efforts to develop a methodology for testing of communication vehicles. In this context, the European Commission (EC) and the Consortium agreed on 27 January 2015 (during the kick-off meeting) that the support to the pilots would encompass:  Indications on the most appropriate methodological approach,  Advise on statistical tools for the interpretation of findings, and  Literature reviews to gather information on the existing body of knowledge. This support was triggered by requests from the pilots using a project-specific e-mail account, the use of the wiki platform and webinars. The dedicated account (env_footprint@open- evidence.com) was set up shortly thereafter. The e-mail was principally used to disseminate and gather information from the pilots, for instance, about the upcoming webinars. In addition, in May 2015 the European Commission reminded the Pilots that they could seek support from the Consortium using the dedicated email address. With the objective of building trust and fostering collaboration between the Pilot leaders and the Consortium, a workshop was held on 27 February 2015, in Brussels. The Steering Group6 had an opportunity to ask questions regarding the CV testing and share their concerns related to the assessment methodology. In follow-up, a survey was circulated to the Pilots to enquire about the current status of each of the pilot as well as their capabilities and capacities to carry out the CV testing. The results of the survey were reported in the second interim report (D2) in June 2015. During conference calls, held regularly between the EC and the Consortium, it was proposed to explore the Wiki7, which had been used by the Pilots to exchange information on their progress. For that purpose, the EC created a sandbox (i.e., a child page of the space called “EU

6 During the Environmental Footprint Pilot Phase, tests were conducted by volunteers in organisations called Technical Secretariats, each developing the rules for their product or sector. Other actors involved in the Pilot phase included the Steering Committee (SC) and a Technical Advisory Board (TAB). The SC consists of a representative for each Member State, key stakeholder groups (SMEs, consumers, environmental NGOs), representatives of the Environmental Footprint pilots and the EC. The SC was in charge of strategic decisions and approving milestone documents. The TABs comprised experts nominated by the SC and was responsible for proposing solutions to technical challenges and advising the SC on technical issues. 7 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Support+on+the+communication+phase

17 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Environmental Footprint Pilot Phase”). It was a testing page of the Wiki that enabled the Consortium to review the possible technical options and develop a proposal for the Wiki space for support of the pilots. The proposal was presented in D2 and discussed with the EC. At the same time the use of a Logbook was also discussed within the Consortium and with the European Commission. 2.2 Pilots support

2.2.1 Wiki space The Wiki space was launched in October 2015 under the name “Support on the communication phase”, thereby replacing the “Sandbox” (which was a space restricted to the Consortium and the Commission at the early stages of its development). In terms of the structure, it was agreed to keep the content of the Wiki as practical as possible. The Wiki space encompassed six sections, as illustrated in the following figure: Figure 3 Support on the communication phase wiki space

Source: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Support+on+the+communication+phase In the first section, the users could find the Toolkit on CV testing8. The Toolkit provided background information about the communication vehicles, insights from behavioural economics as well as about methods for tests. The second section listed a number of studies, relating to different types of communication vehicles as well as testing methods9. In addition, the methodologies were explained to the users in the third section. In section 4, links to past as well as forthcoming webinars along with the relevant documents were presented. The final version

8 See https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/download/attachments/116736540/Toolkit for CV testing 20150923.pdf?api=v2 9 See https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Studies+overview

18 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

of Logbook was made available in section 510. In the section 6, users were reminded of the generic e-mail address with which to contact the Consortium.

1.1 10 See Background This chapter contains the results from the three online experiments conducted by the Consortium. The experiment were designed based on the feedback gathered during the previous steps (focus groups, workshop, weighting exercise), where the following areas were identified as potential complementary tests:  Certification and Trust: Should PEF labels include a certification? and which institutions do consumers trust more?  Impact categories: To what extent are consumers concerned about different negative impacts (e.g. on the environment, on human health) of product life cycle?  Message framing: Are consumers persuaded more by positive or negative messages?  Willingness to pay: To what extent are consumers willing to pay more for environmentally-friendly product?  Penalisation: Should a company who intentionally misinformed the public about the environmental performance of a product be penalised?  Ecolabel: How should a PEF label relate to the existing Ecolabel? Accordingly, three large online experiments were designed to test the relative effectiveness of CVs in terms of several dimensions, including:  Understanding of PEF information: declared and factual;  Attracting attention for the PEF and OEF information;  Influence on the purchasing intentions in terms of willingness to pay and increased perceived marginal utility of the product with PEF information over one without. Box 1 – Discrete choice experiments

To understand what influences people’s choices we used an established methodology - the discrete choice experiment. The method starts with the idea that a product or a service is a bundle of attributes. Take a car for example, where the attributes contributing to a purchase decision might be (i) number of seats, (ii) engine size and (iii) price. Each attribute may vary: (i) 2 or 4 seats; (ii) more or less than 1500ccs engine size, and (iii) three levels of price low, medium and high. If every combination of the levels of the three attributes is available then we have 2×2×3 = 12 possible cars to choose from. Of course real life is much more complicated – witness the range of car sizes, colours, extras, prices etc. Let us return to the simple life where only 12 cars are available. We take two of the possible 12 cars (combinations of attributes) and ask respondents which one of the two they prefer. We then ask them to choose between another pair of cars. Knowing their preferences for every possible pairing of the 12 cars allows us to determine the relative importance or weight of the three attributes (the number of seats, engine size and price) in their purchase decision.

The discrete choice experiments allows for the testing of several alternatives simultaneously in a multi-country context. There are limitations to the number of CV variants that can be tested because each one requires a separate group of respondents. The detailed nature of the experiment entailed – as this is always the case – some trade-offs between what is desirable and what is feasible.

19 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

1.2 Methodology This section summarises the methodology used in the three experiments conducted. A detailed description is provided as Annex.

1.2.1 Study on Certification and Trust The experiment aimed at understanding the importance of PEF rating certification – the source of certification, framing, and trustworthiness - on consumer decision-making process. To achieve this aim, an online experiment was conducted in four different countries: Sweden, Spain, Germany and Romania. This selection was based on the Special Eurobarometer 416 Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment (2014). Sweden and Spain are countries above the EU28 average while Germany and Romania are below the EU28 average. In addition to the different level of environmentally consciousness, these four countries represent different geographical locations and different levels of per-capita GDP, Sweden and Germany faring above the EU-28 average, Spain and Romania below average. The online experiment was performed in two steps: the experimental part using a discrete choice experiment (Part 1) and the self-reported measures (Part 2), including questions (see sections below) and psychometric scales. A representative sample (age and gender) of 1,500 internet users was targeted in each country to capture variance. Figure 50. Experimental design Part 1: Discrete Part 2: Self-reported choice experiment survey (6'-8') (6'-8')

A discrete choice experiment is a quantitative technique for eliciting preferences, allowing to understand what is important in consumer decision-making process. The decisions that the participants take in the experiment are simple. They were asked to choose a preferable product between two on the basis of its mutually exclusive attributes (in random order). The discrete choice experiment is the simplest of the choice techniques and has the advantage of low cognitive complexity – the degree of task complexity and difficulty arising from the experiment. The discrete choice experiment used two different dimensions, frames and sources of certifications:  Three message frames: one pointing out the positive (e.g. the benefits for our health), one pointing out the negative (e.g. the suffering of our children), and a baseline condition.  Six different sources of certification of the environmental score A total of 10 comparisons between two options were shown to each respondent. In conditions of limited information about products, comparisons mean choosing between two items that have the same rating. As with the rating, the PEF scale was maintained constant (ABCDE-style). The design was replicated for the following three products, with 500 respondents by product:  Laptop (High cost purchase – Low frequency purchase);  T- shirt (Medium cost purchase – Medium frequency purchase);  Milk (Low cost purchase– High frequency purchase). Each product carried an environmental label with the following attributes:  Headline “Environmental impact”;  ABCDE-scale PEF rating, which was maintained constant for all options at “B” level;  Frame, one among the following:

20 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

1. Positive messages with an emphasis on the benefits:  Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children;  Protect our environment to benefit our health; 2. Negative messages with an emphasis on the risks/costs:  Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the environment;  Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment; 3. Baseline condition:  Protect our environment.  Source of certification: 1. None 2. National government 3. The European Commission 4. An Industry body from each country 5. A Consumer Organisation from each country 6. A third party organisation (independent body) As an example, choice set #3 for milk in Spain is shown in the picture below. Figure 51 Study on Certification and Trust – Choice example

A random sample of 6,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (Sweden, Romania, Spain, Germany) to produce the general public survey (1,500 respondents per each of the 4 countries). The randomization was ensured at the country level, meaning that each country was equally represented in the survey. In each country, the total sample was split by the number of products, so that each product shown had the same sample. This was done to avoid task overload. For each product sample, the study took the shape of a within-subject design. Each respondent was tested under each condition. Gathering the data across countries made it possible to ensure the validity and possibility to generalise about awareness and understanding of the impact categories as well as about the broader environmental awareness. The following table summarises the sample specification. Table 22 Study on Certification and Trust – Sample specification

21 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Population General population aged 18 to 74 years old 4 EU Member States: Scope  Sweden  Romania  Spain Germany

Methodology Online survey

Sample size n=6,000 (n=1,500 respondents per country)  Age Quotas  Gender Country

Sampling error 1.29% for overall data and 2.58% for country- specific data

Weighting Weighting by country to be able to interpret the overall data

Sampling Random with quotas

After the experimental part, respondents were asked the following questions, each focusing on a specific aspect:  Certification: How much would you trust the following to certify the accuracy of environmental information about consumer products?  Competence: Do you think the following organisations would have the expertise to provide accurate product environmental information on consumer products? Do you think the following organisations would have the expertise to verify accurate product environmental information on consumer products?  Fiduciary responsibility: Do you think they could be relied on to act in the public interest regarding product environmental information?  Effectiveness: In the development and introduction of product environmental information for consumers how effective do you think the following would be?  Leadership: Who should lead the development and introduction of product environmental information?  Penalties: If it is found that a company has intentionally misinformed the public about the environmental performance of a product, which of the following would be most appropriate?  Importance: Of the following aspects, which one do you consider the most important when buying XXYY? Annex IV. Certification and Trust contains a detailed description of the methodological approach.

1.2.2 Study on Willingness to Pay and PEF This complementary test aimed at understanding the importance of a product’s price, its environmental performance, and the PEF label’s appearance in consumer decision-making. To achieve this aim, an online experiment was conducted in four different countries: France, Germany, Italy and Poland. This selection is based on the same criteria mentioned in the previous complementary test.

22 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

The design of this experiment could be considered as functionally equivalent to the experiment conducted by the French government “The impact of environmental labelling on consumer choices: lessons from a large-sample choice experiment”. In our complementary test, respondents made choices across three product types – Yogurt, t-shirt, and laptop. The characteristics that varied in the products’ descriptions are:  PEF description (3 levels) o Overall PEF score; o Overall PEF score plus three exemplary midpoints; o Only three midpoints  PEF performance o B/better o D/worse  Prices) o Baseline o Plus 7% o Plus 15% The choice of midpoints reflected the work conducted by the Dairy pilot (for yogurt), the T-shirt pilot (for t-shirt), and the IT equipment pilot (for laptops). The following midpoints were accordingly selected:  Yogurt: Climate Change / Water use / Land use  T-shirt: Climate Change / Particular Matter / Freshwater Eutrophication  Laptop: Climate Change / Particular Matter / Resource use: metals and minerals As an example, choice set #4 for a t-shirt in Italy is shown in the picture below. Figure 52 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice example

The target consisted of 1500 individuals per country and 4 countries (France, Germany, Italy and Poland). The selection of the countries followed the same criteria of the previous experiment. The experiment consisted of a repeated measures design for the three products (Yogurt, t-shirt and laptop in random order) followed by a number of questions on the social context in which the environmental concern is discussed by the participants and the socio-demographic characteristics. A list of questions was asked at the end of the choice experiments in all versions of the questionnaire exploring the respondents’ opinion of the current environmental information as they come across it in their daily lives (clarity, usefulness, etc.), their habits in terms of sustainable consumption and their awareness of ecological issues. These questions are asked after the choice experiments so as not to influence the product choices. In total, the average time for answering the questionnaire is 20 minutes. The experiment was conducted over the internet in the context of an on-line purchase, in which boxes of washing powder, yoghurt and

23 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

jeans are offered for sale, with each product bearing a label summarizing its environmental impact (over its life-cycle). A random sample of 6,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (France, Italy, Germany, Poland) to produce the general public survey (1,500 respondents per each of the 4 countries). The randomization was ensured at the country level, meaning that each country was equally represented in the survey. In each country, the total sample has been divided by the number of products, so that each product shown had a similar sample. For each product sample, the study took the shape of a within-subject design. Each respondent was tested under each condition. Gathering the data across countries made it possible to ensure the validity and possibility to generalise about awareness and understanding of the impact categories as well as about the broader environmental awareness. The following table describes the sample specification: Table 23 Study on Willingness to Pay – Sample specification

Population General population aged 18 to 74 years old 4 EU Member States: Scope  Germany  France  Italy Poland

Methodology Online survey

Sample size n=6,000 (n=1,500 respondents per country)  Age Quotas  Gender Country

Sampling error 1.29% for overall data and 2.58% for country- specific data

Weighting Weighting by country to be able to interpret the overall data

Sampling Random with quotas

Annex V. Study on Willingness to Pay contains a detailed description of the methodological approach.

1.2.3 Study on Ecolabel The third experiment was conducted in 4 countries (France, Poland, Sweden and Slovenia). In each country 1,000 people were surveyed. The study aimed at investigating the consumers' choice when presented with a product displaying a PEF label as opposed to the EU Ecolabel, as well as with labels that include both PEF information and the Ecolabel, across two products (laptop and household detergent). It began with a “recognition” stage, where respondents were asked whether they could recall the Ecolabel. The first stage was followed by a discrete-choice experiment, an open-ended question, and socio-demographics. In the experimental stage, the characteristics that varied in the products’ descriptions (laptop and detergent) are: 1. Label (3 levels)

24 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

a) Ecolabel alone b) PEF information alone c) Ecolabel + PEF information 2. Style a) 'Streetlight' 3 ratings (“Environmental impact: compared to similar products, this product is better/average/worse”) b) 5 ratings (ABCDE) 3. PEF performance a. Worst/Red (when presented with three rating style) and D (when presented with the 5 ratings style. b. Average/Yellow (when presented with three rating style) and C (when presented with the 5 ratings style. c. Better/Green (when presented with three rating style) and B (when presented with the 5 ratings style. 4. Price a) Baseline b) Plus 7% c) Plus 15% As an example, choice set #7 for a detergent in France is shown in the picture below. Figure 53 Study on Ecolabel – Choice example

A random sample of 4,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (France, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia) to produce the general public survey (1,000 respondents per each of the 4 countries). The randomization was ensured at the country level, meaning that each country was equally represented in the survey. In each country, the total sample has been divided by the number of products, so that each product shown had a similar sample. For each product sample, the study took the shape of a within-subject design. Each respondent was tested under each condition. Gathering the data across countries made it possible to ensure the validity and possibility to generalise about awareness and understanding of the impact categories as well as about the broader environmental awareness. The following table describes the sample specification: Table 24 Study on Ecolabel – Sample specification

Population General population aged 18 to 74 years old 4 EU Member States: Scope

25 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

 France  Poland  Sweden  Slovenia Methodology Online survey

Sample size n=4,000 (n=1,000 respondents per country)  Age Quotas  Gender  Country Sampling error 1.58% for overall data and 3.16% for country- specific data

Weighting Weighting by country to be able to interpret the overall data

Sampling Random with quotas

Annex VI. Study on Ecolabel contains a detailed description of the methodological approach. 1.3 Findings

1.3.1 Study on Certification and Trust Certification is seen as a trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. In the first experiment, consumer choice is positively correlated with the presence of a message indicating that a product’s environmental rating has been certified. This is especially true among laptop buyers, where the effect is the largest for “independent third party” certification followed by certification issued by the European Commission. Conversely, among milk buyers a certification from the “consumer association” seems to hold the strongest effect. Certification by national governments and industry association are likewise positively affecting choice, but by a lesser margin (compared to the abovementioned sources) across all products. With regards to how the accompanying message is framed, the effect of negative messages on consumer choice (compared to the baseline message) is quite large and significant. The most effective frame across the three products (laptop, t-shirt, milk) seems to be the negative message regarding children, e.g. (in English): “Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the environment”. This seems to discourage consumers from the choice of a given product ceteris paribus, and it is particularly true for t-shirt and milk buyers. The negative message on Health (“Our health will suffer if we ignore the Environment”) has a large (negative) and significant effect on choice as well. The difference across products is negligible. On the other hand, the effect of the “positive” message on children (in English, “Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children”) is not significant. The effect of the “positive” frame on health has an opposite effect: all things equal, respondents are less likely to choose a product whose label contains the baseline message (i.e. “protect our Environment”) compared to a message in the vein of “Protect our environment to benefit our Health”. Summing up, the most effective label seems to be the one combining a negative message about children (across all products) with the third-party certification (for laptop and t-shirt buyers) or the consumer association certification (for milk buyers). Table 25 Study on Certification and Trust – Most effective labels

# Frame # Source

Laptop Laptop

26 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

1 “Our countries’ children will 1 “This rating has been verified by an suffer if we ignore the independent third party” environment” 2 “Our health will suffer if we ignore 2 “This rating has been verified by the the environment” European Commission” 3 “Protect our environment” 3 “This rating has been verified by the [COUNTRY] Consumer Association” T-shirt T-shirt 1 “Our countries’ children will 1 “This rating has been verified by an suffer if we ignore the independent third party” environment” 2 “Our health will suffer if we ignore 2 “This rating has been verified by the the environment” [COUNTRY] Consumer Association” 3 “Protect our environment to benefit 3 “This rating has been verified by the our country’s children” † European Commission”

Milk Milk 1 “Our countries’ children will 1 “This rating has been verified by the suffer if we ignore the [COUNTRY] Consumer Association” environment” 2 “Our health will suffer if we ignore 2 “This rating has been verified by an the environment” independent third party” 3 “Protect our environment to benefit 3 “This rating has been verified by the our country’s children” † European Commission” Note: † not significant A discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show: coefficients, odds ratios, the probability of increasing or decreasing product selection, standard errors, t-values and p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth” estimate, or the utility associated with that attribute. In the analysis, the “baseline” frame (“Protect our environment”) and the lack of certification source (“source = none”) were used as reference points, their part- worth are structural zeroes and therefore do not appear in the following output tables. Two columns in tables 26, 27 and 28 are important to interpret the results, one reports the odds ratio (that is the exponential function of the estimates) and another the directly interpretable positive or negative probability of product selection (e.g. +50% means 50% more chances of selecting a product, -30% less chances of selecting it).

Table 26 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Laptop)

27 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Certification: National 0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0376 6.5099 7.519e-11 *** government Certification: Independent 0.6015 1.80 80% 0.0468 12.8638 < 2.2e-16 *** third Party Certification: Industry 0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0333 7.3474 2.021e-13 *** Table 27 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (T-shirt)

Estimate Odds Probability Std. Error t-value Pr(>|t|) ratio

Message framing negative -0.4340 0.64 -36% 0.0420 -10.3246 < 2.2e-16 *** impact on children

Message framing negative -0.1746 0.83 -17% 0.0349 -4.9986 5.774e-07 *** impact on health

Message framing positive -0.0217 0.97 -3% 0.0349 -0.6203 0.5350482 impact on children

Message framing positive 0.1474 1.15 +15% 0.0398 3.7044 0.0002119 *** impact on health

Certification: Consumer 0.3339 1.40 +40% 0.0309 10.8110 < 2.2e-16 *** association

Certification: EC 0.2911 1.33 +33% 0.0326 4.5904 < 2.2e-16 ***

Certification: National 0.1713 1.18 +18% 0.0373 4.5904 4.424e-06 *** government

Certification: Independent 0.3413 1.40 +40% 0.0454 7.5214 5.418e-14 *** third Party

Certification: Industry 0.1936 1.21 +21% 0.0333 5.8137 6.110e-09 ***

Table 28 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Milk)

Estimate Odds Probability Std. Error t-value Pr(>|t|) ratio Message framing negative -0.4571 0.63 -37% 0.0421 -10.8511 < 2.2e-16 *** impact on children Message framing negative -0.1976 0.82 -18% 0.0350 -5.6548 1.560e-08 *** impact on health Message framing positive -0.0246 0.97 -3% 0.0350 -0.7041 0.4813 impact on children Message framing positive 0.2123 1.23 +23% 0.0399 5.3191 1.043e-07 *** impact on health Certification: Consumer 0.3915 1.48 +48% 0.0311 12.5762 < 2.2e-16 *** association Certification: EC 0.2795 1.32 +32% 0.0329 8.4906 < 2.2e-16 ***

Certification: National 0.1870 1.20 +20% 0.0376 4.9708 6.668e-07 *** government Certification: Independent 0.2900 1.33 +33% 0.0452 6.4174 1.387e-10 *** third Party Certification: Industry 0.2070 1.22 +22% 0.0335 6.1767 6.547e-10 ***

Experimental results seem to be confirmed in the survey analysis. Consumer organisations and the European Commission are the most trusted actors to certify the accuracy of PEF information on products, with the share of respondents trusting “completely” or “a lot” being 72% (Consumer organisation) and 59% (European Commission). Conversely, less than half of respondents would trust their national government (46%) or “an independent third party” (42%). Figure 54 Study on Certification and Trust - How much would you trust the following to certify the accuracy of environmental information on consumer products?

28 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Consumer organisation 22% 50%

European Commission 18% 41%

Industry association 11% 35%

Third party 10% 36%

National government 10% 32%

Completely Quite a lot Not very much Not at all Don’t know

Source: Q2 (n=6,000) In terms of competence, more than three-fourth of respondents believe that a consumer organisation would have the expertise to provide (76%) and verify (74%) accurate PEF information on consumer products. The European Commission is the next most trusted entity, with 67% and 68% of respondents who believe the EC has the competence, respectively, to provide and verify accurate PEF information. The expertise of industry associations, national governments, and independent third parties seems granted for at least half of respondents. Figure 55 Study on Certification and Trust - Would the following have the expertise to provide accurate PEF information on consumer products?

Consumer organisation 26% 50%

European Commission 24% 44%

Industry association 18% 47%

Third party 12% 44%

National government 15% 40%

Yes definitely Yes probably Probably not Definitely not Don’t know

Source: Q3 (n=6,000)

Figure 56 Study on Certification and Trust - Would the following have the expertise to verify accurate PEF information on consumer products?

29 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Consumer organisation 25% 49%

European Commission 25% 42%

Industry association 18% 46%

National government 18% 39%

Third party 12% 44%

Yes definitely Yes probably Probably not Definitely not Don’t know

Source: Q4 (n=6,000) Likewise, respondents rely on consumer organisations and the EC to act in the public interest about PEF information. Around 76% of participants believes that consumer organisations can be relied on, and around 63% thinks the same of the European Commission. Third parties (55%), industry associations (54%) and the national governments (53%) follow. Figure 57 Study on Certification and Trust - Do you think they could be relied on to act in the public interest regarding product environmental information?

Consumer organisation 28% 48%

European Commission 20% 43%

Third party 12% 43%

Industry association 14% 40%

National government 14% 39%

Yes definitely Yes probably Probably not Definitely not Don’t know

Source: Q5 (n=6,000) In the development and introduction of product environmental information for consumer products, a consumer organisation is judged as very or moderately “effective” by 82% of respondents, followed by the European Commission (73%), an industry association (70%), a third party (66%), and the national government (63%). Around the same share of respondents (83%) believes that consumer associations should lead the development and introduction of PEF information, as should the European Commission (76%) and national governments (70%), followed by industry (66%) and third parties (63%).

Figure 58 Study on Certification and Trust - In the development of PEF information for consumers, how effective would the following actors be?

30 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Consumer organisation 31% 51%

European Commission 27% 46%

Industry association 20% 50%

Third party 14% 52%

National government 18% 45%

Very effective Moderately effective Moderately ineffective Very ineffective

Source: Q6 (n=6,000) Figure 59 Study on Certification and Trust - Who should lead the development and introduction of PEF information?

Source: Q7 (n=6,000)

Finally, with regards to penalties, an overwhelming majority agrees with inflicting sanctions on misbehaving companies. Should it be found that “a company has intentionally misinformed the public about the environmental performance of a product”, most respondents believe that the company should be “named and shamed in public” (80% “agree” or “completely agree”) or pay a fine (84% “agree” or “completely agree”).

Figure 60 Study on Certification and Trust - If it is found that a company has intentionally misinformed the public about the environmental performance of a product, which of the following would be most appropriate?

Public shaming Pay a fine

80% 84%

31 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

푛 ∑푖=1(푥푖푤푖) 푥푖푤푖 푥̅ = 푛 ∑푖=1 푤푖 In the formula ‘w’ is the weight of the ranked position, and ‘x’ is the response count for the choice. We have assigned different weights in reverse, giving the largest weight to a respondent’s favourite choice (#1) and a weight of 1 to the least favourite choice (e.g. #5 for laptop, and #6 for t-shirt and milk). This ensures that when the data is presented on a bar chart, it is clear which factor is the most preferred. Quality is the most important factor across the three products; environmental impact is the third highest factor for t-shirt and milk buyers, and the fourth highest for laptop buyers. With regards to t-shirts, quality is the main factor (score of 9,514) followed by price (8,119) and environmental impact (7,424). Quality is the main factor in the purchasing process of a laptop (7,432), although the performance (7,219) is a close second, followed by price (6,475) and environmental impact (5,006). Likewise, milk buyers ranked quality first (score of 9,634) which is clearly distant from the country of origin (6,965) and environmental impact (6,930). Figure 61 Study on Certification and Trust – Factors (self-declared) that influence the decision of buying a t-shirt

Quality 9514

Price 8119

Environmental impact 7424

Organic 6588

Country of origin 5319

Brand 5036

Source: Q9 (n=2,000) Figure 62 Study on Certification and Trust - Factors that influence the decision of buying a laptop

Quality 7432

Performance 7219

Price 6475

Environmental impact 5006

Brand 3868

Source: Q10 (n=2,000) Figure 63 Study on Certification and Trust - Factors that influence the decision of buying a milk carton

32 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Quality 9634

Country of origin 6965

Environmental impact 6930

Organic 6907

Price 6781

Brand 4762

Source: Q11 (n=2,000)

1.3.2 Study on Willingness to Pay In the second experiment, using midpoints to express PEF yields, compared to overall scores, to a higher consumer willingness to pay for a product with a given environmental footprint. The combination of endpoints and midpoints has a significant but negligible effect. Notably, all things equal, a high environmental score on a label (such as a B) has a very large positive and significant effect on consumer choice, regardless of the PEF label style. Effects are similar across products. Finally, the price increase effect is negative and significant. Summing up, the most effective label seems to be the one including midpoints combined with a high score and the baseline price. Table 29 Study on Willingness to Pay – Most effective labels

# PEF style PEF score Price Laptop Laptop Laptop 1 Midpoints Better (B) Baseline 2 Overall and midpoints Worse (D) +7% 3 Overall score +15% T-shirt T-shirt T-shirt 1 Midpoints Better (B) Baseline 2 Overall and midpoints Worse (D) +7% † 3 Overall score +15% Yogurt Yogurt Yogurt 1 Midpoints Better (B) Baseline 2 Overall and midpoints Worse (D) +7% † 3 Overall score +15%

Note: † not significant

33 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

associated with that attribute. Two columns in tables 30, 31 and 32 are important to interpret the results, one reports the odds ratio (that is the exponential function of the estimates) and another the directly interpretable positive or negative probability of product selection. For example, a PEF Score B increases almost three times and half the probability of selection for laptops (table 30). The “endpoints only” PEF style, the “negative” PEF score (D), and the baseline price were used as reference points. Their part-worth are structural zeroes, and therefore they do not appear in the following output tables.

Table 30 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Laptop)

Estimate Odds Probability Std. t-value Pr(>|t|) ratio Error PEF three exemplary mid- 0.2703 1.31 +31% 0.0220 12.2747 < 2.2e-16 points *** Overall PEF score B plus 0.0732 1.07 +7% 0.0216 3.3972 0.0006809 three exemplary mid *** points

Overall PEF score B 1.5022 4.49 +349% 0.0200 75.1190 < 2.2e-16 ***

PRICE +15% -1.0923 0.33 -67% 0.0283 - < 2.2e-16 38.5768 ***

PRICE +7% -0.5497 0.57 -43% 0.0209 - < 2.2e-16 26.2926 ***

Table 31 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (T-shirt)

Estimate Odds Probability Std. t-value Pr(>|t|) ratio Error PEF three exemplary mid- 0.2758 1.31 +31% 0.0214 12.9106 <2e-16 *** points Overall PEF score B plus 0.0371 1.04 +4% 0.0216 1.7163 0.0861 three exemplary mid points

Overall PEF score B 1.3427 3.82 +282% 0.0197 68.2564 <2e-16 ***

PRICE +15% -1.4381 0.23 -77% 0.0294 - <2e-16 *** 48.8561

PRICE +7% -0.7025 0.49 -51% 0.0208 - <2e-16 *** 33.7081

Table 32 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Yogurt)

Estimate Odds Probability Std. t-value Pr(>|t|) ratio Error

34 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

PEF three exemplary mid- 0.1907 1.21 +21% 0.0215 8.8570 <2e-16 *** points Overall PEF score B plus 0.0270 1.02 +2% 0.0216 1.2457 0.2129 three exemplary mid points

Overall PEF score B 1.4017 4.06 +306% 0.0199 70.4158 <2e-16 ***

PRICE +15% -1.3995 0.24 -76% 0.0296 - <2e-16 *** 47.3038

PRICE +7% -0.7074 0.49 -51% 0.0210 - <2e-16 *** 33.6369

Looking at the survey analysis, around seven in ten respondents (71%) think of themselves as “environmentally-friendly” consumers, and around two-thirds (66%) repute themselves as people who are “very concerned with environmental issues”. In terms of social context, most respondents would not be embarrassed to be seen as having an environmentally friendly lifestyle (70% disagree with the opposite), and do not seem to be living in a hostile context towards environmental issues (65% disagree with the statement “I would not want my family or friends to think of me as someone who is concerned about environmental issues”). Figure 64 Study on Willingness to Pay – Social context

I think of myself as an environmentally-friendly 20% 51% consumer

I think of myself as someone who is very concerned 20% 46% with environmental issues I would not want my family or friends to think of me as someone who is concerned about environmental 30% 35% issues I would be embarrassed to be seen as having an 27% 43% environmentally friendly lifestyle

Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree

Source: Q4 (n=6,000) More than two-thirds of respondents (71%) have a family concerned about the environment. More than half of respondents (58%) believe their friends to be engaged with environmental issues. Family (68%) and friends (60%) also seem to be the groups with whom respondents discuss the most about the environment, much more than they do with people in their local community (40%) or with officials in their municipality (30%). Figure 65 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you believe are the following groups of people around you concerned and engaged about environmental issues?

35 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Famiy 21% 50%

Friends 12% 46%

Officials and municipality 8% 35%

People in the community 8% 35%

Very much Quite a lot Not very much Not at all Don’t know

Source: Q2 (n=6,000)

Figure 66 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you discuss with the following groups of people around you about environmental issues?

Famiy 21% 47%

Friends 15% 45%

People in the community 9% 31%

Officials and municipality 7% 23%

Very much Quite a lot Not very much Not at all

Source: Q3 (n=6,000)

1.3.3 Study on Ecolabel In the Ecolabel study, 32.6% of respondents answered positively to the introductory question “Have you seen [the Ecolabel] before? There is a large cross-country variation in the recognition of the label - around half of respondents from France (51%), while less than a third in Poland (20%), Sweden (29%), and Slovenia (31%). Figure 67 Study on Ecolabel –Respondents who have seen the Ecolabel logo before, by country

36 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

France Poland Sweden Slovenia

51% 20% 29% 31%

Source: Q4 (n=4,000) Moving on to the experimental findings of the study, the PEF label is better at influencing consumers' preferences than both the ecolabel, and to the PEF+ecolabel combination. The effect is large and significant. In general, the effect of all attributes is mixed and significant. The PEF label (“Environmental impact” title accompanied by a rating) seems to be preferred over both the “Ecolabel only” and the “mixed” (PEF + Ecolabel) solutions, for both laptops and detergents. Not much difference is found among the two products: the “mixed” label has a slightly higher effect on detergent buyers, while the PEF label has a relatively higher, but negligible, effect on laptop buyers than on detergent buyers. Respondents clearly prefer the presence of a rating, over its absence (“ecolabel only” option). In terms of rating system, the “ABCDE” style is preferred over the “streetlight” (better/average/worse) style. All other things equal, consumers are slightly more likely to pay an extra +15% for environmental-friendly products. The opposite is true for a 7% increase, in both laptops and detergents. In both cases, the price increase effect is negligible. Summing up, the most effective label seems to be the one including the PEF component only, combined with the “ABCDE” 5-rating style, an “average” score and a +15% price increase.

Table 33 Study on Ecolabel – Most effective labels

# Label PEF style Performance Price Laptop Laptop Laptop Laptop 1 PEF only “ABCDE” Average (C) +15% 2 PEF + Ecolabel “Streetlight” Better (B) Baseline 3 Ecolabel only - Worse (D) +7% Detergent Detergent Detergent Detergent 1 PEF only “ABCDE” Average (C) +15% 2 PEF + Ecolabel “Streetlight” Better (B) Baseline 3 Ecolabel only - Worse (D) +7%

37 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

The “ecolabel only” option, the “streetlight” (better/average/worse) style, the negative rating, and the baseline price were used as reference points. Their part-worth are structural zeroes, and therefore they do not appear in the following output tables. Table 34 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Laptop)

Estimate Odds Probability Std. t-value Pr(>|t|) ratio Error Ecolabel + Overall PEF score 0.1939 1.21 +21% 0.0216 8.9899 < 2.2e-16 ***

Overall PEF score only 0.7265 2.06 +106% 0.0217 33.4932 < 2.2e-16 ***

PEF 5 point rating ABCDE 0.6855 1.98 +98% 0.0147 46.7759 < 2.2e-16 *** PEF comparative performance 0.2356 1.26 +26% 0.0207 11.3596 < 2.2e-16 Average/Yellow/C *** PEF performance 0.1582 1.17 +17% 0.0197 8.0289 8.882e-16 Better/Green/B ***

PRICE +15% 0.0830 1.08 +8% 0.0206 4.0312 5.550e-05 ***

PRICE +7% -0.1134 0.89 -11% 0.0196 -5.7907 7.009e-09 ***

Table 35 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Detergent)

Estimate Odds Probability Std. t-value Pr(>|t|) ratio Error Ecolabel + Overall PEF score 0.2201 1.24 +24% 0.0216 10.2114 < 2.2e-16 ***

Overall PEF score only 0.7148 2.04 +104% 0.0217 33.0413 < 2.2e-16 ***

PEF 5 point rating ABCDE 0.7025 2.01 +101% 0.0146 48.0935 < 2.2e-16 *** PEF comparative performance 0.2297 1.25 +25% 0.0207 11.0883 < 2.2e-16 Average/Yellow/C *** PEF performance 0.1559 1.16 +16% 0.0196 7.9494 1.776e-15 Better/Green/B ***

PRICE +15% 0.0872 1.09 +9% 0.0205 4.2507 2.131e-05 ***

PRICE +7% -0.0839 0.92 -8% 0.0196 -4.2836 1.839e-05 ***

1.4 Lessons learned from the experiments Study on Certification and Trust  Certification is seen as a trustworthy label feature across all products and sources.  A large and significant effect of “negative” frames on consumer choice is found.

38 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

 The most effective label is the one combining a negative message about children with the third party (or consumer association) certification. Study on Willingness to Pay  Using midpoints to communicate a product’s environmental performance is more effective compared to both using overall scores and using a mixed approach.  All things being equal, a high environmental score on a label has a very large positive and significant effect on consumer choice, regardless of how the label looks like.  The most effective label is the one displaying midpoints, combined with a high score and the baseline price. Study on Ecolabel  Only a third of respondents, selected through nationally representative samples, recalls having seen Ecolabel before.  The PEF label is preferred to both the Ecolabel, and the “PEF + Ecolabel” combination. The effect is large and significant.  The most effective label is the one combining the PEF label with the “ABCDE” 5-rating style, an “average” score, and a +15% price increase.

2 Further studies 2.1 Brick and mortar test

2.1.1 Design A brick and mortar test was carried out to corroborate the evidence, and to validate the results of the online experiments in an everyday setting. The test was conducted by a research market company (GFK) at a supermarket chain in Belgium (Colruyt), and aimed at answering the following questions:  Do the CVs stand out in the store? Are customers triggered by the CVs to buy the associated products?  Which CVs and formats are more effective and best suited to be tested in the future?  What is the impact of such a communication campaign on the retailer’s brand image? Two logos were prepared for the test. Logo #1 displayed a smiley over a planet-shaped face. Logo #2 displayed a planet Earth icon. Figure 68 CV logos tested

Logo #1 Logo #2

Each logo was tested in the following three formats, for a total of 6 CVs:  Product sticker in the upper right corner on the product;  A pancarte in the middle of the product shelf;  A Wobbler at the beginning and the end of the product shelf. The following figure shows the six CVs displayed. Figure 69 Labels tested in the brick and mortar exercise

39 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Format Logo #1 Logo #2

Sticker

Pancarte

Wobbler

Fieldwork was conducted in six retail stores of the same company in Belgium. Logos and the corresponding CVs were shown in three stores each. Logo #1 was tested in Diest, Woluwe, and Braine l’Alleud stores. Logo #2 was tested in Brasschaat, Ukkel, and Jambes. As an additional CV, each store displayed the following poster at the entrance of their premises: Figure 70 Poster

2.1.2 Methodology and sample Two methodologies were used to gather data: exit interviews and in-store observations. In the former, one interviewer surveyed shoppers at the exit of the store. Respondents were selected based on their answer to the question: “Were you planning to buy one of the following products when entering the store today?” A. Diapers B. Pork meat C. Milk cartons D. None of these Respondents who gave “D” as an answer were screened out. A total of 620 exit interviews were conducted across all stores: 305 respondents saw Logo#1, while 315 respondents saw Logo #2. Although no quota was set, the interviewer took care of sample distribution in terms of gender,

40 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

age group, and shopping habits (i.e. alone or with family). Two-thirds (63%) were women, while the remaining (37%) were men. Around 84% of respondents mainly shop at that retailer. In terms of household composition, more than half was a member of a family with kids.

Figure 71 Sample distribution – exit interviews

Gender Age Household composition

14%2% 10% 42% 17% 37% 53% 37% 63% 25%

Couple/Married with kids living at home

Single Female < 30 Male Couple/Married without kids 30-50 Couple/Married with kids who don’t live at 50+ home Living with parents

In addition, a number of in-store observations were performed. One interviewer observed clients visiting a specific section in the shop. Sections, specifically meat, diapers, and milk cartons, were visited on a rotation basis. The company report that 5,686 observations were performed: 2,602 observed customers saw Logo #1, while 3,084 customers saw Logo #2. Around 61% of the customers were female. Some 19% were shopping with kids at the moment of the observation, while the remaining 81% were shopping without kids. The company estimates that 44% of the observed were aged 30-50, while 19% was younger and 37% was older.

2.1.3 Findings While walking in the store, around half of the customers observed slowed down (53% among those who saw Logo #1, and 49% among those who saw Logo #2), and four in ten customers took a closer look at the environmentally-friendly products (46% among those who saw Logo #1, and 43% among those who saw Logo #2). Around one in four customers took the product in their hands (26% among those who saw Logo #1, and 29% among those who saw Logo #2), and a slightly lower share went on to buy the product carrying the label or placed near one (23% among those who saw Logo #1, and 28% among those who saw Logo #2). Figure 72 Reactions to the CVs

41 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

53% Slowing down 49% 46% Closer look 43% 26% Taking product 29% 23% Buying product 28%

Logo 1 Logo 2

n= 5,686 During their shopping visit, around 29% of respondents to the interview spontaneously noticed the environmental communication. This figure refers to respondents who replied affirmatively to the question “During your visit today, did you notice any communication, signs, labels or marks of environmental responsiveness in this store?”. Respondents were then aided, i.e. they were asked “We now show you the communication labels that were present in this store. Which of the following labels have you noticed?”. The proportion of respondents who saw at least one CV increased to 40%. In terms of which communication vehicle (CV), the affiche (or poster) is noticed most, both spontaneously (10%) and aided (18%). Among the labels, the sticker was noticed by 10% (spontaneously) and 9% (aided) of respondents; the pancarte was noticed by 8% (spontaneously) and 15% (aided) of respondents; and the wobbler was noticed by 1% (spontaneously) and 5% (aided) of respondents. Figure 73 Most noticed CVs

Affiche 10% 18%

Sticker 10% 9%

Pancarte 8% 15%

Wobbler 1% 5%

Spontaneously Aided

42 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

“eco-friendly product”. This is higher among those who saw Logo #1 (37%) than among those who saw Logo #2 (15%). However, only 6% of purchasers were influenced by the CV in their purchasing decision. The figure is slightly higher for Logo #1 viewers (7%) and lower for Logo #2 viewers (3%). Among respondents who saw the label but nonetheless decided not to buy the product, nobody mentioned the CV as a reason not to purchase.

Figure 74 Purchasing drivers

28% Eco-friendly product 37% 15%

16% Other 15% 8%

23% Habit 15% 29%

23% Needed product 15% 29%

8% Is good 10% 3%

6% Influenced by CV 7% 7%

5% Don't know 2% 9%

All Logo 1 Logo 2

n= 620 When asked which type of CV they would hypothetically use to communicate environmental performance, over half of the respondents choose the pancarte label (54%). The sticker was preferred by 27% of respondents, while the wobbler was preferred by 18% of respondents. Reasons to justify their choice – regardless of the format – tend to include clarity, visibility, and simplicity. Figure 75 Favourite CV

43 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

27%

54%

18%

Pancarte Wobbler Sticker

n= 620

Overall, logo #1 is preferred to logo #2. Among all respondents, 54% prefer Logo #1. It is especially popular among women (60%, versus 48% of men) and younger people (74%, versus 50% among those aged 50 or older). Logo #1 is especially liked because of its cheerful and attractive character. Some people also indicate it as more visible. On the other hand, the 46% of respondents who prefer Logo #2 does so in relation to its seriousness. Even though it is more serious, still one out of ten prefer it, because they think it is beautiful. Figure 76 Perceptions of the two CV logos

Positive 73% 78% Approachable 63% 64% Serious 51% 75% Clear 59% 64% Light 54% 58% Convincing 49% 51% Attractive 47% 55% Difficult / heavy 18% 19% Labels Logo A Logo B

n= 620 In addition, the study asked respondents whether taking a stance towards environmental footprint communication positively impacts the retailer’s brand image. Overall, the answer is affirmative. Around 72% of the interviewees indicated that it improves their general opinion of the retailer, and around 68% indicated it fit with the image they already have about the retailer. In addition, around 42% of respondents are prepared to pay more for eco-friendly products. This last figure is especially higher among women (45%, compared to 36% of men) and among environmentally conscious shoppers (54%, versus 36% among low-sensitive shoppers). Logo #2 has a higher impact on the retailer’s image than Logo #1 (72% versus 64%). Likewise,

44 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

respondents who saw Logo #2 tend to have more often an improved opinion of the retailer (76% versus 68%) and are more often prepared to pay more (43% versus 30%). Figure 77 Impact on the retailer’s brand image

Prepared to pay more 15% 16% 28% 25% 17%

Improves my general opinion of the retailer 7% 6% 15% 39% 33%

Fits with image I have about the retailer 6% 8% 18% 42% 26%

Totally disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Totally Agree

n= 620 Finally, respondents were asked to give their opinion on how a CV should look like. With regards to the message, an overwhelming majority (95%) would rather have the CV conveying a positive message (e.g. “Protect the environment for our children”) than a negative message (e.g. “Our children will suffer if we ignore the environment”). There is no clear preference between labels with letters and labels with a three-point scale. Finally, half of the respondents think that having the possibility to access more information, e.g. through an app or website is useful, and one third indicates that it would make them buy the product. 2.2 Smartphones and apps: a scoping review

2.2.1 Mobile use and access in Europe ICTs have become widely available to the general public, both in terms of accessibility as well as costs. Over the last ten years internet access grew steadily across Europe. According to Eurostat, since 2007 the majority of EU-28 households (55%) has had internet access, and this proportion continued to increase over the years. In 2016, the share of EU-28 households with internet access rose to 85%, 30 percentage points higher than in 2007. The last few years have also seen a shift in how individuals access internet. According to Eurostat, in 2012, only 36% of Europeans have used a portable computer or a handheld device to access the internet away from home or work. By 2016 they were 59%. Of the different devises used by individuals, mobile phones or smart phones were the most used devices to browse the internet in 2016, with over three-quarters (79%) of internet users. They were followed by laptops or netbooks (64%), desktop computers (54%) and tablet computers (44%). The EU-28 average does not capture the digital divide found among the different Member States. As reported in Figure 78, the highest proportion (82%) of individuals that have accessed internet remotely was recorded in Denmark, while the United Kingdom, Sweden, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Finland also reported levels above 75% in 2016. Figure 78: Individuals who used a portable computer or a handheld device to access the internet away from home or work, 2012 and 2016

45 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

90% 2016 2012 80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

FI SI

IE IT

EL LT

SE ES

EE SK

FR CZ

NL AT

HU MT

EU-28 Source: Eurostat

The lowest rates of remote internet access among the EU Member States were observed in Italy (29%) and Poland (32%), the only two countries with 2016 levels below 40%. However, if there is still a strong digital divide in terms of remote access to internet across Member States, it is important to notice that the gap between the top performing and the lowest performing country has shrunk from 63 percentage points in 2012 to 53 percentage points in 2016.

2.2.2 Mobile in-store shopping Despite the availability and usage of smart phones research, two different systematic reviews in the field of mobile shopping (m-shopping) show that research is still in its infancy with findings being often geographically and methodologically constrained ,. The current research available has identified four main areas:  m-shopping as an online distribution channel addressing the determinants of technology acceptance and consumer profiling  Marketing viewpoint  Technology perspective tackling mobile IT infrastructure. Mobile user interface and service and technology convergence.  Advanced technology for in-store shopping covering shopping assistant systems: o Decision support systems (DSS), for instance, utilize the users’ request for specific product attributes, which can also include the search for background information, in order to support their decision-making process. o Mobile recommender systems (MRS) aims to provide consumers with meaningful recommendations that might be of interest. o Navigation systems help users to reach any desired destination faster and can be located either inside or outside of a brick-and-mortar shop. o Mobile tracking systems are used to record consumers’ shopping movements and time, which gives retailers new insights into consumer behavior. The focus of this scoping review is advanced technology for in-store shopping. The main applications of the different shopping assistant systems identified above (DSS, MRS,…) could influence customers shopping experience in a brick-and-mortar shop environment by:

46 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

 designing a customized, real-time interaction channel between retailers and consumers;  delivering non-intrusive mobile marketing that caters to their interests, preferences and priorities;  assisting customers in making smart purchasing decisions; and  helping in many other typical shopping situations such as navigation and payment. All these systems and potential influences suggest the emergence of “smart” retail settings including the use of augmented reality to generate greater customer and business value through the use of smartphones. Smart retail settings scenarios envisage the usage of mobile applications (apps) as self-service technology (SST) allowing customers ownership of various aspects of provider–customer relationships such as information seeking, price scanning and actual purchases. Within this context apps’ design becomes a hub for several elements from product view presentation methods to product promotion, informative content and consumer interactions. Since consumers could use their mobile devices for a variety of different shopping- related activities, the mobile channel can be considered the new service frontier of retailers.

Figure 79 Product and services m-marketing design

Source: Magrath and MacCormicj (2013) Nevertheless, when considering the design of m-shopping services, retailers are currently struggling to overcome obstacles regarding the consumers’ risk perception and restrictions of mobile devices in terms of limited capabilities and usability issues. The impact and the role of mobile technologies, such as smartphones and other mobile devices, is a subject still little explored. Enhancing value for customers across physical and digital touchpoints in a synergistic fashion is becoming an increasingly complex task for retailers and many apps are simply not meeting consumers’ needs27. An empirical research29 on the impact of mobile device use on shopper behavior in store points out “in a retail environment, mobile devices and new applications for smartphones allow shoppers to scan product barcodes, compare prices across retailers or obtain digital coupons to be redeemed in store. The usage of technologies in pre-shopping phase could help shoppers to make better decision and being less influenced by the environment while expending less effort inside the store. Therefore, digital tools may have positive effects on both the quality and the efficiency of purchase decisions inside the store”.

47 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

However, despite shoppers' prolific use of mobile and marketers' shift of resources toward mobile marketing, not much is known about the integration of mobile into the shopper funnel and how to influence a shopper along and beyond the path-to-purchase: from a shopping trigger, to purchase, consumption, repurchase, and recommendation stages. The influence of mobile on shopping extends well beyond in-store use of mobile devices. It affects every stage in the shopping cycle of not just the shopper but also his/her social circle.Therefore, a new research agenda is rapidly evolving in the intersection of mobile marketing and shopper marketing. The following figure sketches the mobile shopper journey and the emerging research questions covering the different entities and areas of interest. This journey involves not just the shoppers (their motivations and goals; how they search and discover; how they evaluate the options and choices and how post purchase process is addressed) but also the employees and organisations. Figure 80: Mobile shopper journey and research questions

Source: Venkatesh et al. (2016)30 Each area sketched in the figure above opens unexplored questions that should be addressed when considering the design, diffusion, adoption and assessment of smartphones in-store shopping. The following table lists some of these questions.

Table 36 Research areas and unexplored questions

48 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

RQ-S6 How can mobile enable shoppers to serendipitously discover a potential purchase? RQ-S7 How can marketers design a dream concierge/intelligent avatar–knowledge-based system/expert system–to assist shopping? RQ-S8 In designing intelligent recommendation systems, how can marketers walk the fine line between creating personalized solutions but not being perceived as creepy? RQ-S9 How can mobile create more relevant/valuable relationships with the individual shopper? RQ-S10 How can mobile be used to create context–related and timely value to shoppers? RQ-S11 How can the instantaneity of mobile be exploited to create different forms of instant gratification for the engaged shopper? Post–purchase RQ-S12 How can marketers create a positive network effect among shoppers in a social network after purchase of one category through links across mobile apps? Employee Employee roles RQ-E1 How does mobile change the shopping journey (pre, during, and post) from an employee perspective? RQ-E2 What are the factors that create resistance toward mobile technologies from the employee perspective, and how can firms develop coping strategies to overcome this resistance? RQ-E3 How can employees utilize the mobile device within the shopping journey to created new value propositions? Employee metrics and RQ-E4 How can employees be incentivized to become mobile incentives shopper marketing ambassadors? RQ-E5 How can employees be utilized as co–creators of mobile shopping experiences? RQ-E6 How should employee–mindset metrics be conceptualized, defined, and measured in the context of the mobile shopping journey? RQ-E7 How should employee performance be measured throughout the mobile shopping journey? Organisation Resource allocation RQ-O1 How can firms effectively develop and maintain their social and spending issues capital in the context of mobile shopper marketing? RQ-O2 How should mobile execution capability be conceptualized, defined, and measured to enhance the mobile shopping experience? RQ-O3 How can firms effectively develop and maintain partnering networks relevant to delivering a superior mobile shopper experience? RQ-O4 What are the right conversion metrics relating to mobile shopper marketing relative to other marketing activities? RQ-O5 How can the return on the investment (ROI) or digital yield on mobile shopper marketing initiatives be quantified compared to that for other desktop related digital activities? RQ-O6 How should firms spend their limited marketing budgets? RQ-O7 How much money should be allocated to mobile versus other digital marketing activities? RQ-O8 How should firms determine the proportion of the marketing budget that should be devoted to mobile shopper marketing? Data–related issues– RQ-O9 How can we harness the dynamic (time, location, weather) collection and nature of mobile data? management RQ-O10 How can we leverage the volume, velocity, variety, veracity of mobile data and derive value for the firm? RQ-O11 How can we value mobile data?

49 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

RQ-O12 What is the price of collecting the data that mobile shoppers want to share? RQ-O13 How can we enhance data security in a mobile networked world where firms share (APIs) with their partner organizations? Data–related issues– RQ-O14 How can we formulate effective decision models with mobile modeling and analysis data? RQ-O15 How can we integrate mobile data with other data, including offline activities and demographic data and develop cogent models? RQ-O16 How can we analyze mobile data to formulate models that explain shopper behavior? RQ-O17 How can we develop predictive models that can forecast mobile shopper behavior at both the individual and the aggregate levels? RQ-O18 How should firms use mobile data to assist real time mobile marketing decisions? Mobile Convergence RQ-T1 As shoppers increasingly search on their mobile devices technology through Google and as Google becomes more powerful using shopper data, what technologies can retailers deploy to avoid becoming the fulfillment centers of Google and remain competitive? RQ-T2 How can marketers leverage technology and use data on shoppers' past purchase patterns and voluntarily disclosed preferences for offering anticipatory solutions? RQ-T3 How can marketers use mobile–based virtual currencies in a manner similar to M–pesa, Coke's MyCokeRewards, and China's QQ? RQ-T4 How will new mobile payment technologies (e.g., Apple Pay, Google Wallet) and systems affect shopping? RQ-T5 What differences in mobile shopping will emerge across North America, Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world given the differences in mobile technologies across these geographies? RQ-T6 How can emotion–capture and analyze technology be used to better serve shopper needs? Wearables RQ-T7 How will augmented reality reshape mobile shopping experience? RQ-T8 Will augmented reality lead to a fundamentally different shopping cycle? RQ-T9 How can we measure shopper emotions through wearables? RQ-T10 How can we create compelling shopper experiences based on shopper emotional states?

Source: Venkatesh et al. (2016)30 All these questions raise the challenges that shall be faced to spread the use of mobiles in-store shopping. If we add to these challenges the current state of development and research in the field of environmental footprint information and communication vehicle the level of uncertainty does not allow us to drawn solid extrapolation. On the contrary, if the level of maturity of these applications is low, it could be hypothesised that environmental footprint information and the potential communication vehicles are not the most well-know product’s characteristics to facilitate this take off. The current consumers’ level of awareness about environmental footprint information may not facilitate the engagement with neither mobiles in-store shopping nor with environmental information.

50 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

2.2.3 QR codes as an example During the communication vehicle pilot phase some initiatives were using Quick-response code technology (QR code) as and additional information included in their CVs. QR code allows linking a physical product with additional information displayed in websites or apps. At its simplest, a QR code might be embedded in a performance label printed on the product packaging. However, as it has been described in the previous section, how these codes will be adopted by the consumers is still unknown. The following review was conducted to investigate how consumers react and perceive QR codes, what are the main drivers and barriers to QR codes usage, and how QR codes can shape consumer behavior.

2.2.3.1 Diffusion QR code technology is widely used in East Asia, especially Japan and China. According to Shen Wei, deputy director of a Chinese research institute that specializes in QR codes, more than $1.65 trillion of transactions used the codes in 2016, accounting for about a third of all mobile payments in China. QR codes remain less common in Europe and North America, despite their appearance in many fields, especially transport tickets and shipping labels. QR codes became popular in Japan in 2002, when remote internet access was still at its early stage. Advertisers, publishers and handset-makers teamed up to popularise QR codes as a way to share information with customers. Japan led the field until 2012, when the use of 2D codes in China boomed driven by the mobile payment sector. Two Chinese digital-payment platforms, WeChat Pay and Alibaba’s Alipay, disrupted the mobile payment market by allowing people to make contactless payments by scanning codes. A customer can either scan a merchant’s QR code, or the merchant can scan the customer’s account code. In Europe and North America, popular mobile payment tools are Apple Pay and Android Pay. They use near-field communication (NFC) technology to make contactless payments. This technology is usually only found in higher-end Android and Apple phones. The technology needed to support Apple Pay and Android Pay is too expensive for many shops in poorer countries, while QR code payment technology just requires sellers to provide buyers with a QR code (printed or on a screen). These geographical difference, make QR codes a well-established means to enable payments, website discovery and more in certain parts of the world (East Asia), while its potential it is not fully exploited in others (Europe and North America). These geographic gaps may soon converge. Apple has responded to the codes’ popularity in China by updating the camera app in iOS 11, the latest version of its mobile operating system launched in 2017. The system now automatically recognises QR code that encodes web links, map locations, contact cards and other data. Before the upgrade, users where required to download specific applications to be able to scan QR codes. Apple’s upgrade means that QR-scanning will reach hundreds of millions of users worldwide. Interest in QR codes has grown more rapidly following Apple’s launch. Apps and websites that allow designers to generate codes easily have gained new users. Nevertheless, Apple step towards adopting QR codes as the infrastructure for everything from payment to web traffic may not raise the popularity of QR codes in Europe and North America. Popularity of QR codes in China was driven by its use for mobile payments, while NFC is already the standard for payments In Europe and North America and it will not be challenged.

2.2.3.2 Use cases If QR code-based mobile payments are unlikely to pick up in Europe and North America, QR code technology use may increase using other means and applications. Here below we try to report a

51 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

few examples of recent QR codes applications and trends implemented in Europe and North America. The examples focus on two main topics:  The use of QR codes to provide additional information to consumers;  Increase in popularity of QR code use in widely used apps, especially among millennials. In 2015, the European Medicines Agency has issued guidelines to pharmaceutical companies on how to use QR Codes in the labelling and package leaflet of centrally authorized medicinal products. Pharmaceutical companies have now the possibility to include QR codes on their products to provide users with readily available information extracted from the approved package leaflet, the approved summary of products characteristics (SmPC) and/or the approved additional risk minimisation measures as outlined in the Risk management plan (i.e. educational material). The QR code may also be used to provide any other information or content that is not included in the product information annexes as such, but that it is useful to the patients/users and non-promotional. Additional information provided via QR code should be based on the product information. For the time being, the inclusion of the QR code cannot replace the inclusion of the statutory information (e.g. printed package leaflet). The QR code could be considered a way for providing updated information on medicinal products (i.e. product information updated to the latest variation approved for the medicinal product still not implemented in the printed version). At the moment, there has been no in-depth evaluation and analysis of the impacts and interest of this decision on the QR Codes. The Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA), the network of the heads of the National Competent Authorities (NCA) whose organisations are responsible for the regulation of medicinal products for human and veterinary use in the European Economic Area, stated that once further experience is gained, further analysis will be carried out on the use of QR codes. In 2016 the United States (US) passed a federal law requiring all manufacturers to add a QR Code to their product packaging that will link consumers to detailed GMO disclaimers. A study conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), identify potential technological challenges that may impact whether consumers would have access to the bioengineering (GMO) disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods. While the study recognises that enough shoppers own smartphones, it did admit not all people have the applications or are savvy enough to read a QR code and may not have access to or choose not to use cellular data. The GMO debate in the US also started Smartlabel QR Code initiative by Trading Partner Alliance (TPA), a grocery manufacturers association. The voluntary initiative consists in providing consumers with additional information on food, beverage, household and personal care products by using QR code technology. Another potential driver that might increase the popularity of QR code technology in Europe is its introduction in widely used applications. WhatsApp, the most popular instant messaging application in Europe, introduced QR Codes scanning capabilities in its application. Apart from common uses, the feature allows users to safely login on the desktop application. Snapchat, a popular instant image sharing app, introduced Snapcodes in 2015 and an inbuilt QR Code scanning feature in 2016. Snapcodes are customized 2D code that allow users to add friends on Snapchat. Similarly, in 2017 Facebook introduced a Messenger Code a customised 2D code that allow users to add friends on Messenger.

2.2.3.3 Drivers and barriers As seen in the previous section, geographical differences in the use of the QR code already help us explain some of the key drivers and barriers to QR code use. It may also explain why a mature technology such as QR code may do a comeback after it failed to pick up as a marketing tool in Europe and North America in 2010. The need to download an app to scan QR Codes is one of the main factors in explaining the difference between East Asia and Europe. Contrary to what is happening recently, also with the

52 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

introduction of iOS 11 on the market, almost no smartphone came already equipped with the possibility to scan QR codes in the past. WeChat and Alipay were the two applications that lead to the massive adoption of QR codes in China. Smartphone penetration was much lower in 2010. A survey conducted in 2016 by Eurostat on ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) usage in households and by individuals highlighted the relevance of mobile internet access. More than 80% of persons aged 16 to 74 in the European Union (EU) used the internet in 2016, in many cases via several different devices. Mobile phones or smart phones were the device most used to surf the internet, by over three- quarters (79%) of internet users. The importance of smartphone penetration as a driver of QR code usage is also highlighted by the USDA study. Mobile speed connection was slower in 2010 as 4G technologies were not widely available. According to the 2017 report from the GSA Association (GSMA), Europe is the most highly penetrated mobile region in the world. At the end of 2016, there were 456 million unique mobile subscribers in Europe, equivalent to 84% of the population. This high penetration rate means that there is little room for subscriber growth over the coming years. However, this is being offset by the rapid migration to 4G networks. 4G accounted for a third of mobile connections in Europe at the end of 2016 and is forecast to account for more than 60% of the total by 2020 as more Europeans take up 4G devices amid growing demand for data and as 4G network coverage increases. The increase in mobile access to internet caused as a reaction an increase in availability of mobile optimised websites. This trend self-reinforces the shift from desktop to mobile browsing, easing the access of online information from mobile devices and therefore enabling a better use of QR codes. In terms of usage frequency, a study on college students’ awareness and use of QR codes was carried out by Ozkaya et al. (2015). The findings indicate that the purpose of usage is significantly related to QR code usage rate. Practical users utilise QR codes more than experiential users and there is a positive relationship between electronic device ownership and QR code usage. Interestingly, being an early adopter has a negative relationship with QR code usage. Additionally, perceived usefulness of the QR code and up-to- date electronic device knowledge do not have significant relationships with QR code usage rate. The result of the study somewhat supports the results of the analysis conducted so far. Smartphone penetration, mobile speed connection, easiness to scan QR codes and mobile- optimised websites help to improve QR code technology in terms of usefulness, easiness to use, information quality and system quality. Those good features clearly have an impact on consumers attitude towards QR code and their intention and willingness to use such technology. Behavioural studies show that consumer intentions and behaviours do not always match as other factors may affect a consumer final action. The above-mentioned factors all aim at addressing what ease QR code usage, nevertheless they do not analyse what motivates consumers to turn to this technology to access and gather information. Smartphone-based access to information is a promising vehicle to provide additional information to consumers, especially in retail and point-of-purchase environments, yet what motivates consumers to turn to mobile information is still under research. Since QR code technology relies on pull-based approaches rather than push-style information, it becomes crucial to understand what drives consumer in proactively use such a technology. In the field of advertising, push advertising describes messages that are initiated by the advertiser, whereas pull advertising refers to communication of promotional material initiated by the consumer (Barnes, 2002; Bamba and Barnes, 2007, Unni and Harmon, 2007). By analysing the literature review on the topic, there are various existing theories being applied for the analysis of QR Codes. However, two theories are more frequently used. Those are the Uses & Gratifications Theory (U&G) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, Davis, 1989). A research by Lucy Atkinson (2013), investigates the role of institutional trust, involvement and market mavenism (the extent to which a person enjoys being a source of market-related information for others) in QR code usage to access information before purchasing sustainable products. The study uses a U&G

53 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

analysis. Sustainability claims about products being organic or fair trade are claims that fall under the category of credence attributes, meaning attributes buyers cannot confidently evaluate, even after one or more purchases (after personal experience). Thus, in lack of alternatives, buyers tend to rely on the reputation of the brand name, testimonials from someone they know or respect, service quality, and price (Darby and Karni, 1973; Nelson, 1974). When available, consumers rely on eco-labels (such as the EU organic product label) to affirm the credibility of the credence claim (Klintman, 2006; Kolandai-Matchett, 2009). However, research shows that while consumers are continuously moving towards shopping with a morally guided conscience they have also become more distrustful towards labels that make ethical claims such as organic health labels and others (Kalafatis and Pollard, 1999; D'Souza et al., 2007; Mostafa, 2007; Shrum, McCarty & Lowrey,1995). QR codes can increase consumer trust by providing additional detailed, context-specific information. Atkinson’s study finds that government trust, buycotting (the act of deliberately buying certain products for political, ethical, or environmental reasons) and market mavenism are positively related to consumers’ willingness to use mobile phone-based QR code information. At the same time, corporate trust is negatively related to QR code usage. The results suggest that there is a need to improve institutional trust in QR code usage. According to the author, the relation between institutional trust and QR code usage is twofold: while institutional trust enables QR code usage, the implementation of QR Codes containing more in-depth information concerning the precise meaning of labels and other characteristics of the products will in return also increase the institutional trust. Furthermore, QR code content should be carefully crafted to provide meaningful, usable information for involved consumers. Finally, consumer market mavens’ tendency to share information should be harnessed by providing QR code content that is easily passed on to other consumers. Atkinson’s findings are supported also by other studies in the field of QR code usage. A study by Dong-Hee Shin et al. (2012) examines why people adopt certain new technologies, in this case QR code, while refusing or ignoring others. The authors develop a TAM model to predict users’ intentions to continue using QR codes by integrating the model with interactivity and quality motivations as primary determining factors. According to the study, not only any new technology needs to be perceived as being useful in order to be accepted and assimilated into people’s daily routines, but it also needs to be easy to use. Consumers tend to lack the technological sophistication to understand the complex nature of QR codes, nevertheless the scanning process should be easy. As already described above, some developments such as the automatic inclusion of QR code scanning capabilities in most new mobile operating system has improved the easiness of scanning QR codes. The model from Dong-Hee Shin et al. therefore includes the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use. Other factors considered in the model are information quality, system quality and interactivity. Information quality captures the user perceived value of the output produced by a system and can be measured by information accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness (Lee et al. 2002; Parasuraman et al. 1988). System quality is a measure of the functionality of a system, including usability, availability, reliability and response time (DeLone & McLean, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988). System quality differentiate itself from perceived ease of use as it does not relate to the interaction between the user and the system, but it only considers intrinsic qualities of the system. Interactivity, intended as responsive interaction, is an important feature in QR codes. The authors define interactivity as responsiveness, content sharing and content control. By scanning a QR code, users expect an immediate response. As already seen, QR code are increasingly used on social media and instant messaging platforms (i.e. Facebook, Snapchat and WhatsApp) to enhance social interaction. The model also controls for intrinsic motivation, that the authors define as subjective norm. Dong-Hee Shin et al. finds that all the above-mentioned factors are correlated to QR code adoption. Interactivity in particular stands out as a major driver of QR code user behaviour. Similar results using a TAM model have also been found in Gao et. al. (2013). Furthermore, the results imply that, while users might perceive the good features of QR codes (usefulness, easiness to use, information quality and system quality), they may not intend to use those codes

54 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

unless something is confirmed. They may want to personally ensure that a QR code is secure and dependable. Even if not directly captured by Dong-Hee Shin et al. model, as in Atkinson’s conclusions trust seems to play an important role to transform the intention to use QR code technology into a behaviour. According to Mallat, Rossi, Tuunainen, & Öörni (2008), institutional trust is considered a necessity for mobile communication in general due to the spatial and temporal distance between the communicating organization and the consumer. The figure below sums up the consumer behavioural drivers and barriers extracted from the literature analysed. Figure 81 Consumer behavioral drivers and barriers

2.3 Lessons learned Brick and Mortar test  While walking in the store, half of the customers observed slowed down. Around 40% took a look at the product displaying the environmental CV. One in four took the product in their hands; among them, most ended up buying it.  Once exited the shop, three in ten customers spontaneously recall the CVs. When aided by the interviewer, the number rises to four in ten. Many noticed the affiche/poster. Among the labels, the pancarte (in the middle of the product shelf) and the sticker (embedded in the product packaging) were noted more than the wobbler (at the beginning and the end of the product shelf).  Customers tend to be more aware of the shelf CVs (pancarte and the wobbler) if they included Logo #2 (blue-and-white icon of planet Earth) than Logo #1 (a smiley face

55 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

on top of a coloured planet-Earth icon). Customers tend to be more aware of the product CV (the label) if it included Logo #2.  CVs do not appear to be the main driver to buy products. Among those respondents who noticed one label and bought the product, one in four did so because it was an “eco- friendly product”, but only 6% were influenced by the CV.  When asked which type of CV would they hypothetically use to communicate environmental performance, over half choose the pancarte. The sticker was preferred by 27% of respondents, while the wobbler was preferred by 18% of respondents. Reasons to justify their choice – regardless of the format – tend to include clarity, visibility, and simplicity.  Overall, logo #1 is preferred to logo #2. Among all respondents, 54% prefer Logo #1. It is especially popular among women and younger people. Logo #1 is especially liked because of its cheerful and attractive character. Some people also indicate it as more visible. On the other hand, those who prefer Logo #2 does so in relation to its seriousness.  Taking a stance towards environmental footprint communication positively impacts the retailer’s brand image, according three in four respondents. Most indicated it fit with the image they already have about the retailer. Four in ten are prepared to pay more for eco-friendly products.  Nearly everyone would rather have the CV conveying a positive message (e.g. “Protect the environment for our children”) than a negative message (e.g. “Our children will suffer if we ignore the environment”). Half think that having the possibility to access more information, e.g. through an app or website is useful, and one third indicates that it would make them buy the product. Mobiles and QR Codes  Despite the widespread use of mobiles, the current state of the art of mobile in-store shopping does not seem to support the use of these applications/services among the triggers of the environmental footprint information and its potential communication vehicles. There are still many unsolved questions to be addressed by more mature products/services before applying lessons learned to environmental issues.  The pick-up of QR code technology in specific parts of the world (Asia) has pushed mobile producers and mobile system operator providers to include QR code scanning capabilities into the default settings of new smartphones.  All those factors contribute positively to some of the drivers (usefulness, ease of use and system quality) behind consumer behaviour decision to use QR code technology to retrieve additional information about products.  Studies have shown how other crucial factors are quality of information provided, as well as the interactivity and institutional trust. Ultimately, intrinsic motivation is also a strong driver, that is nevertheless linked mainly to how digital native and used to QR code technology consumers are.  QR code content should be carefully crafted to provide meaningful, usable information for involved consumers, with particular attention to the quality of the information provided.  The information retrieved through QR code technology should be easily sharable (interactivity) through the different social media channels to incentivise consumer willingness to use the technology.  The institution providing the information should build up consumer trust by guaranteeing high level of privacy and reliability of the overall system. If for example Environmental Footprint information would be provided by producers, they might be tempted to collect cookies information about consumers accessing the information. This

56 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

solution could constitute a barrier to certain consumers due to privacy concerns or lack of trust towards the producer.  QR code technology represent a cheap and smart way to provide consumers with additional information about products. So far QR codes are the best technology available in terms of 2D encoding techniques, even if multicolour codes might substitute this technology in the future.  Concerns remain whether or not the technology will fully pick up in Europe even if recent trends have made the technology more accessible. Moreover, as it is the case of mobile in-store shopping more research is needed to transfer the lessons learned to environmental issues.

3 Conclusions The Commission work on the development of the Product/Organisation Environmental Footprint (PEF/OEF) method started in 2010 in reaction to requests from business complaining about difficulties in differentiating themselves based on environmental performance due to the proliferation of environmental labels/certification schemes. Moreover, in 2010 the Council adopted the conclusions asking the Commission to develop a harmonised method for the calculation of the life cycle environmental performance of products. In 2013 the European Commission adopted the Communication "Building the Single Market for Green Products" (COM/2013/0196 final). The Commission Recommendation 179/2013 (OJ L 124, 4.5.2013, p. 1–210) was also adopted establishing and recommending the use of the PEF and OEF methods to calculate the environmental performance of products (PEF) and organisations (OEF). The Recommendation clarified that these methods are not intended to directly support comparisons or comparative assertions, i.e. claims of overall superiority or equivalence of the environmental performance of one product compared to another, and that such comparisons require the development of additional PEF category rules or OEF sector rules that complement the general guidance, in order to further increase methodological harmonisation, specificity, relevance and reproducibility for a given product-type. Such category rules and sector rules were developed during the pilot phase. Based on these rules, different ways of communicating the Environmental Footprint (EF) profile of products and organisations were tested. The pilot phase has provided some valuable insights on the current status of the effectiveness and use and communication vehicles. A number of conclusions can be drawn that prove of particular relevance with view on providing support to different aspects of communication vehicles, stakeholders’ perceptions and behaviours, and their evaluation Overall, the development, testing and feedback of the different communication vehicles has been an iterative process based on exhaustive and continuous support and feedback provided to and gathered from the pilots, and complemented by evidence gathered through a multi-stakeholder process, engaging groups that were underrepresented during the pilot phase – such as SMEs – as well as additional groups who play a particularly crucial role due to the specificities of the project, such as retailers. Through the involvement of the general public within the framework of the complementary tests of both quantitative and qualitative nature, the study could successfully fill evidence gaps left from the tests conducted within the pilots. Communicating EF to consumers Citizens involved in the communication tests were significantly interested in PEF information and in the environmental impact of products in general. Whilst the main criteria driving purchase decisions are price, quality, brand and availability (especially for products bought on a regular basis), consumers involved showed high interest in the environmental impact of products in general, and in PEF information specifically.

57 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Situations where environmental performance becomes a key driver of purchasing decisions include  with prices being equal, a high environmental score on a label has a very large positive and significant effect on consumer choice;  products that are new or big, expensive, durable items (e.g. cars);  products that impact consumers' own or their children's health.

Results from the general public surveyed confirmed that citizens are especially concerned about impacts on health. At the same time, the general public considers impacts on the environment and natural resources as increasingly pressing problems. They also are aware of their individual responsibility in reducing the impact on the environment, a responsibility that they know to share with companies and governments. We can identify a series of lessons learnt on conditions for the effectiveness of communicating environmental footprint information to consumers. Translate complex results into simple information: clarity, readability and transparency are essential. Consumers find many of the Environmental Footprint impact categories difficult to grasp. Whilst consumers have a good understanding of impacts such as climate change, CO2 emissions, energy and water consumption, the use of technical/scientific terms such as acidification, terrestrial eutrophication and ecotoxicity is not understood. In particular, consumers often don't grasp the link of impact categories to the specific product and the meaning of Life Cycle Assessment results. In line with these difficulties, consumers prefer the use of graphics, bars and colour scales to numbers, scientific terms. Consumers gave high support to the traffic light (better, average and worse represented with colours) and to the energy label format (A-E performance scale). Avoid information overload. Consumers indicated that showing 3 midpoints is sufficient. Although only a small portion of consumers consults detailed information, half of those surveyed in the brick and mortar test prefer to have these available, e.g. through an app or website, accessible through a QR code. Certification proves an important element to increase trustworthiness of information. Scepticism and mistrust is one of the main barriers towards being receptive to environmental footprint information. The experimental evidence gathered when testing of the relative effectiveness of communication vehicles on several dimensions demonstrates that certification is seen as a trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. Certification must be third party or come from a consumer association. Framing is important. One statistically significant test identified a large and significant effect of negative frames – messages emphasising negative environmental consequences for people – on consumer choice. The highest impact was registered when including messages on consequences for children. However, this result was not supported by the brick and mortar test, where nearly everyone expressed their preference for CVs conveying a positive message (e.g. “Protect the environment for our children”) over a negative message (e.g. “Our children will suffer if we ignore the environment”). Preferences considering the EU Ecolabel. Options tested were a PEF label, the EU Ecolabel and a combination between PEF and the EU Ecolabel. The PEF label was the most preferred between the three options, with highest preference given to an A-E type label. About one third of the respondents recalled having seen the EU Ecolabel prior to the study, which might have influenced results. Consumers are ready to pay a bit more for environmentally friendly products. A +15% price increase was acceptable for consumers for an average product on the A-E scale. This is supported by the results from the brick and mortar test where four in ten respondents indicated to be willing to pay more for environmental-friendly products. Furthermore, retailers confirmed that consumers are willing to pay some extra costs for environmentally-friendly for certain products,

58 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

but the cost difference should not be significant. A further experiment focussing on willingness to pay, however, found that price increase had a negative, significant effect on purchasing intentions. Communicating to businesses and stakeholders Businesses acknowledge the increasing importance of environmental sustainability for consumers and see important benefits of PEFs both for business-to-business (B2B) and business- to-consumer (B2C) activities, among which are brand valuation, opportunity for comparison of products in terms of their environmental products, higher quality of products, and last but not least, common rules for both manufacturers and industries. More than half of environmentally active SMEs know and use Life Cycle Assessment indicators. The online SMEs’ online survey shows that a significant number of mid-sized SMEs and those operating in agriculture and industry are committed to environmental issues. Environmental concern is likewise higher among medium-sized enterprises and in the primary and secondary sectors. Similarly, the demand for environmental information is lower in the service sector and among micro-sized enterprises. About half of the SMEs consulted have an internal environmental policy in place, often based on LCA indicators and covering topics such as climate change, water use, land use, but also topics related to human health, such as toxicity and cancer, and the future availability of resources. About 30% of the SMEs publish information on environmental issues targeted at clients. An interesting finding is that when communicating in a B2B setting, SMEs see labels as the most effective CV, followed by PR campaigns, environmental reports, product passports and Environmental Product Declarations. As opposed to that, for B2C participants use websites, leaflets and labels to communicate environmental information. They see websites and POS product advertisement as the most effective CVs, followed by PR campaigns. As main drivers for LCA’s, SMEs surveyed indicate that the most important ones cover organizational awareness, customer satisfaction and improvements of environmental practices. Conversely, data collection difficulties, and the costs of personnel, such as involvement of internal human resources or experts constitute main barriers. A common method and the simplification potential of the EF methods will help to overcome these barriers but taking into account the cost of access to both the methods and/or the experts to conduct the assessment. Relevance to decision-making. When communicating in-house or to external partners, clear conclusions and action points are needed. Clarity and simplicity is important. Business partners expect more detailed information and are more likely to have the expertise to understand it. However, often non-experts (e.g. purchasers) are involved, therefore complex technical messages need to be clearly explained or simplified. Graphical information is appreciated. Customers often expect to compare the product with its competitors or to a benchmark. Verification as a guarantee of fair competition. A credible verification scheme and audit regime is needed to guarantee the trustworthiness of information and fair competition. Implications for EU policy development Overall, the study has provided extensive insights into the issue of different communication vehicles for environmental footprint information, providing an evaluation, stakeholders perception and highlighting different design aspects of communication vehicles to increase their effectiveness, while indicating areas for improvement to raise consumer awareness. The exploratory nature of this study does not allow for comprehensive, externally valid conclusions. In an ideal world citizens and business would be presented with reliable and harmonised product environmental performance labels from trusted sources; have the competence to understand the communication vehicles and have the incentives and available alternatives to convert good intentions to changes in behaviour. However, the world is far from ideal, there is a plethora of logos, label designs and information content.

59 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Against this background, the development of an information system for products and organisations through the implementation of the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) methods is undeniable as it could provide a common knowledge to be used by existing policy tools to substantially increase consistency of approaches and coherence of objectives. This may enable innovative companies to design more sustainable products, reduce costs and improve their environmental performance in those areas where it delivers the largest environmental advantages. Furthermore, based on this information, citizens could make more informed choices without flooding them with excessive and non- comprehensible information and Member States could introduce incentives/disincentives linked to the environmental performance of a product along its supply chain. PEF/OEF concept is a scientific approach to LCA characterised by specific terminology, abstraction, quantification and complexity. This is necessarily so, as the environmental impacts of a product over the life cycle are complex. However, the public (and many in businesses) do not think in systemic terms. They are ‘narrative thinkers’ who are more persuaded by stories, pictures and graphics than by quantified facts. Most likely, they will switch off from complex information and from information removed from everyday experience. Therefore, the dilemma for the roll out of PEF/OEF is how can validity of information be achieved at the same time as simplicity? Without validity consumers who seek to purchase environmentally sustainable products may be misled; but if the PEF/OEF information is valid but too complex individuals will ignore it. Solving such a dilemma should be seen as a process over time and not the result of a one off campaign or policy intervention (c.f. two decades for climate change). To achieve an impact on companies, consumers and Member States there is a need:  To raise awareness about the PEF/OEF method among all the stakeholders emphasising the impact of the methods in their daily live/business.  To achieve consensus about the communication vehicle, guided by clarity, readability and transparency, and the benchmarking strategy in order to avoid information overload and the plethora of existing claims;  To integrate and test the selected communication vehicle with other product/business information currently in place.

60 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Barnes, S.J. (2002) Wireless digital advertising: nature and implications. International Journal of Advertising, 21, 399–420. Chandran, A.(2014), Review on Color QR Codes: Decoding Challenges and Security Issues, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 3, Issue 4 D'souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P. & Peretiatko, R. (2007) Green decisions: demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 371–376. Darby, M.R. & Karni, E. (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16, 67–88. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95. EMA (2017), Quick Response (QR) codes in the labelling and package leaflet of centrally authorised medicinal products, available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideli ne/2015/07/WC500190405.pdf

Eurostat (2017), Internet access and use statistics - households and individuals, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/digital-economy-and-society/overview

Gao, T., Rohm, A., Sultan, F. & Pagani, M. (2013). Consumers un-tethered: A three-market empirical study of consumers' mobile marketing acceptance. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), pp.2536-pp.2544. Grillo, A., Lentini, A., Querini, M. and Italiano, G. (2008), High Capacity Colored Two Dimensional Codes, Proceedings of the International Multiconference on Computer Science and Information Technology pp. 709–716 GSMA (2017), The Mobile Economy, Europe 2017, available at: https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/?file=89a59299ac2f37508b252124726a1139&do wnload Kalafatis, S.P. & Pollard, M. (1999) Green marketing and Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour: a cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 441–460. Klintman, M. (2006) Ambiguous framings of political consumerism: means or end, product or process orientation? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 427–438. Kolandai-Matchett, K. (2009) Mediated communication of ‘sustainable consumption’ in the alternative media: a case study exploring a message framing strategy. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 113–125. Lee, Y., Strong, D. M., Khan, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: A methodology for Information quality assessment. Information & Management, 40(2), 33–146. Mallat, N., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V.K. & Öörni, A. (2008). An empirical investigation of mobile ticketing service adoption in public transportation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 12(1), 57-65 Mostafa, M.M. (2007) A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 445–473. Nelson, P. (1974) Advertising as information. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 729–754. Ozkaya et al. (2015), Factors affecting consumer usage of QR codes, Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 16-03, 209-224.

61 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

The Wiki space was accessible to all members of the Technical Secretariat, including external companies involved in the CV testing. This approach enabled a swifter flow of information between the pilots and the testing organisations, as well as the Consortium. The permissions to access a space could be modified at any time. For ease of access to uploaded documents, the Consortium developed an index based on labels (the so-called key words) assigned to the available documents. Each document contained a different number of tags, depending on the needs. The practice of labelling the documents has been used in the Wiki space: EU Environmental Footprint Pilot Phase and its child pages. It was therefore expected that users would be familiar with the approach and would be able to understand and follow the labelling practice.

2.2.2 Conference calls From the beginning of the study the Consortium was informed by the European Commission that the Pilots had posed a number of questions on experimental design and on criteria for selecting a communication vehicle to test. To facilitate communication between the Pilots and the Consortium, a generic e-mail address was established ([email protected]). The Consortium received a number of questions via this e-mail address, notably from the following pilots: footwear, t-shirt, dairy products. In response a teleconferences were organised to be able to better understand the current status of the CV design and testing phase, pose additional questions, and to provide a meaningful advice.

2.2.3 Webinars Furthermore, the Consortium organised webinars to reach a broader audience. The first webinar was held on 25 September 2015. The focus was on CV testing and was aimed at describing the most common methods, along with their advantages and disadvantages. 91 users registered for the webinar and 71 participated. The second webinar took place on 9 December 2015. Here the goal was to explain the steps needed to design a communication vehicle. 94 users registered to this webinar and 66 participated. The dropout rate during the webinars was very low. The Consortium distributed presentations and any related materials in

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. Seema Ahlawat, Dr. Chhavi Rana, Rashmi Sindhu (2017), A Review on QR Codes: Colored and Image Embedded, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science Shin, D., Jung, J. & Chang, B. (2012). The psychology behind QR codes: User experience perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1417-1426 Shin, D.H., Jung, J. and Chang, B. H. (2012), The psychology behind QR codes: User experience perspective, Computers in Human Behaviour 28, 1417–1426 Shrum, L. J., McCarty, J.A. & Lowrey, T.M. (1995) Buyer Characteristics of the Green Consumer and Their Implications for Advertising Strategy. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 71-82 Singh, A. and Singh, P. (2016), A REVIEW: QRCODES AND ITS IMAGE PRE-PROCESSING METHOD, International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR), Volume 5, Issue 6 Unni, R. & Harmon, R. (2007) Perceived effectiveness of push vs. pull mobile location-based advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7, 48–71. USDA (2017), Study of Electronic or Digital Link Disclosure A Third-Party Evaluation of Challenges Impacting Access to Bioengineered Food Disclosure.

Annex I. The final version of Logbook

62 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

advance of the webinars which were recorded and subsequently made available on the wiki space.

63 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

2.3 Pilots activities In early 2016, the Consortium contacted the Pilots to offer support and to better understand the status of the communication phase. The following figure summarises the information gathered from the pilots through conference calls and emails in 2016. We received feedback from 23 out of 25 pilots through the logbook (11), phone calls (10) and email (2) and were able to give advice and support. In addition, the Consortium supported the Nordic Environmental Footprint, attending two workshops and presenting the approach to PEFs and benchmarking. Figure 4 Overview of pilot feedback by method No reply 2 Email 2 Logbooks 11

Phone 10

Source: 25 pilots In March 2017, 19 pilots provided the consortium with final reports of their CV testing phase. Based on this information, we counted 51 initiatives in which several CVs were tested. The number of business-to-business (B2B) initiatives was 27, including initiatives aimed at employees, suppliers, and retailers, while 24 initiatives were business-to-consumer (B2C). Figure 5 Overview of pilot tests by target group

B2C B2B 24 51 initiatives 27

Source: pilots The most common method of testing was surveys (21), either online or in person, as the figure below shows. In addition, interviews were performed in 13 Pilots, with focus groups in 8 cases. Other methods include workshops with stakeholders (5 initiatives), sales information and general presentations. The sample size, and the statistical power in performed surveys ranges from fewer than 20 respondents (Pasta pilot) to over 1,000 respondents (Detergents, Red Meat, Dairy Products, Paints pilots). Many surveys involved multiple countries that variously included Italy, Germany, Poland, Sweden, France, the UK, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Latvia and the Netherlands.

Figure 6 Overview of pilot tests by method

64 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Surveys 21 Interviews 13 Focus groups 8 Workshops 5 Other 4

Source: pilots According to the information collected via pilots, and shown in the figure below, performance labels were tested in 20 initiatives. Other commonly tested CVs included declarations and product passports, which were the subject of 10 initiatives. Reports, such as external communication reports or performance tracking reports, Other CVs that were tested by pilots include webpages as well as PR campaigns, which include videos, banners, infographics, newsletter and ads. Figure 7 Overview of pilot tests by CV

Label 20 Declaration 10 PR campaign 7 Report 7 Webpage 6 Newsletter 1

Source: pilots 2.4 Pilots communication vehicles A total of 47 labels were assessed in the Pilots. Of these, 15 labels included a single performance score, 10 labels included distinct performance scores (“midpoints”), 16 labels included both a single performance score and midpoints, while 6 labels had neither of the two. In the latter category, labels with no score served as controls and contained messages on, among others issues; animal welfare; recycling information and tips on how to use the product. Their design was developed starting from the EC mock-up label in 11 cases. In 36 cases, labels were designed on purpose (or adapted from pre-existing initiatives) by pilots, with varying results in terms of information displayed, features, and visual impact. The most popular headline was “Environmental impact” (12 labels), followed by “Environmental footprint” (8 labels), “Environmental score” (7 labels), “Product Environmental Footprint” (6 labels), “Environmental Info/Information” (4 labels). Half of the labels (23 labels) had a white background; other common background colours were blue (8 labels), grey (5 labels), and green (4 labels). Of the 31 labels that included at least a single performance score (“endpoints”), 18 labels used letters and colours to indicate the scale, while 2 labels had numbers and colours, and the remaining 11 using only colours (in 10 cases) or stars (in 1 pilot). In 1 pilot, each of the 5 numbers in the scale was preceded by an “eco” tag. Among the 18 labels using letters, 15 labels

65 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

used the A-E scale while 3 labels used the A-G scale. With respect to colours, a total of 22 labels used a green-to-red (traffic light) performance scale, while 9 labels used other colour combinations. In all cases, colours correspond to “steps” or letters on the performance scale. Among those displaying the traffic light performance scale: 3 labels had 2 colours; 5 labels had 3 colours; 11 labels had 5 colours; and 3 labels had 7 colours. Among those not displaying the traffic light scale, other combinations included black-white or shades of grey (4 labels), shades of green (2 labels), shades of blue (1 label), a yellow-to-green scale (1 label), as well as a gold- silver-bronze scale (1 label). A total of 11 labels used a relative comparison score, which was “Better-Average-Worse” (4 labels), “Better-Medium-Worse” (4 labels), or “Better-Worse” (3 labels). A total of 6 labels used an absolute score, either “Low-Medium-High” (2 labels) or “Low- High” (4 labels). Of the 26 labels that included distinct performance scores (“midpoints”), 19 labels used 3 midpoints, while 7 labels used 4 midpoints. In most cases (22 labels), categories were selected from the agreed Impact Categories (ICs), while 4 labels used ad-hoc categories. In some cases, ad-hoc categories were simplified ICs (“CO2”, “Water”, “Land”); in others, they measured different aspects (such as “additional aquatic check”). Midpoints indicated at least absolute values in 12 labels, and indicated at least relative values in 22 labels. A total of 10 labels used icons to indicate midpoints. A QR code was used in 10 labels, while a barcode was used in 5 labels and a link to an external URL was featured in 13 labels. Around half of the labels (22) indicated that they were certified, some specified independent experts/third parties (9 labels) while 6 labels indicated “partnership with the EC”. The EU icon was featured in 12 labels. Other messages included a footprint icon (3 labels), a planet icon (3 labels), a leaf icon (1 label), an animal icon (1 label), a T-shirt icon (1 label), an ad-hoc icon (2 labels), recycling information (3 labels), impact on life cycle stages (5 labels), the picture of a beer glass (9 labels), and the message “What you can do” (3 labels). Declarations were tested in 8 pilots. Reports were tested in 3 pilots. They differ in nature, target groups, and impact: some pilots have opted for solutions of high visual impacts, while other pilots, mainly targeting B2B, have preferred more simple layouts. Other CVs include websites, PR campaigns, newsletters, videos and banners, and were tested in 6 pilots. 2.5 Analysis of the pilot tests Any comparative, universal take-home lesson from the cross-CV analysis of PEF/OEF Pilot initiatives would be hard to draw. A number of factors, including differences within and across Pilots, the high variability of test methods, and the variability of the sample sizes of the different target groups militate against comprehensive, externally valid conclusions. Nevertheless, a number of common insights can be drawn on the basis of the information gathered. Citizens tend to be interested in PEF and environmental information about products. This is especially true for B2C customers, but less so for B2B tests. Professional customers are sceptical, though the idea of having all manufacturers and industries adhering to one common set of rules is appreciated. It reportedly increased the perceived transparency of the product. Interest in PEF has found to be higher among older people. However, as findings were self- reported an intention-behaviour gap cannot be excluded. Compared with other factors, PEF is an important purchase driver in both B2B and B2C settings. However, it still lags behind price, brand trust, quality and performance. The particular drivers of purchases are product-dependent. In one pilot, no interviewed company said they would buy a product classified in the worst category on an environmental scale. In another pilot, the majority of respondents claimed that PEF had a direct impact on their purchase decisions. PEF information could also generate a “halo effect” and influence indirectly the purchasing decision, through the positive influence it has on brand trust. Respondents seemed to be influenced by environmental considerations during their purchasing process, especially in household appliances and cars, followed by food, furniture, and sporting products. However, when it comes to detail, the impact categories are hard to understand, even by B2B customers. While respondents are familiar with climate change, CO2 emissions or water use,

66 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

few understand categories such as acidification, terrestrial euthropication or ecotoxicity. While an explanation of the impact categories improved understanding considerably, for some products the relevance of some of the impact categories was unclear to respondents. They appear to have pre-conceived ideas about which categories are important for the product, which did not necessarily correspond to reality. Where used, the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) concept was found difficult to explain in simple terms and to distil into a label at stock-keeping unit level. Some participants suggested the use of more generic names such as “air” or “water”. On the other hand other customers, at a B2B level believe that CVs should break down performance score in yet more dimensions - upstream and core processes. With regards to specific CVs, there is no unambiguous trend on what labels should be used. The traffic light and energy label-type formats were positively received in some pilots, whereas respondents from B2B pilots found them too simplistic. In one test, B2C participants found the similarity to the Energy Label disturbing - they felt it was confusing to see this format on a product that is not energy-related. Those who praised labels similar to the Energy Label argued that since public awareness of the Energy Label is very high, and its visual design is very clear and easy to understand, it should be the model for PEFs. Particularly in B2C, information conveyed through bars and colour scales tend to be preferred and deemed easier to understand as compared to numerical values. Clarity, readability and transparency seem the key factor for performance scores. The certification of PEF information is more appreciated among B2B than B2C. A generic statement on verification by independent experts was judged as insufficient, and not transparent, as no information on the experts and their affiliation was provided. Participants would not trust the government or sector associations, but consumer or environmental associations were preferred. The representation of the environmental performance in absolute terms (e.g. kg CO2-eq / kg) was difficult to understand. In B2B, respondents believe that CVs should include a comparison with a sector benchmark. Furthermore, respondents tend to prefer having a single performance score (endpoint). Among B2C, CVs that include midpoints are seen as carrying too much information. The use of QR codes (in 10 labels), barcodes (5 labels), and links (13 labels) were positively received by respondents. QR codes in particular were praised in two pilots. However, only a few respondents admitted that they would go further and obtain additional information. Lastly, it is worth mentioning that participants in several pilots tended to be more interested in factors that go beyond the Environmental Footprint, such as the geographical origin of ingredients, animal welfare, and information on how to optimize the use of the product in an environmentally respectful way. Among other types of CVs, the public response to the content of reports, declarations and passports varied. B2B stakeholders preferred maximum information and many impact categories. They reported interest in the distribution of impacts along life cycle stages, as well as technical information. Respondents reported that the best approach to responsible sourcing is to build long-term relationships with suppliers and to establish and facilitate dialogue forums. Pilots testing websites had been commended for the quality of the design. The information displayed was considered "relevant, clear and very credible”. However, overall and like the findings of other CVs, interest was not great as PEFs are largely unknown. Respondents appreciated reading tips and suggestions on daily actions, and expressed a desire for more examples of concrete actions and tangible comparisons with across products. Other PR campaigns included high visual impact infographics explaining PEFs/OEFs. However, stakeholders considered that the content focussed too much on methodological and not practical issues. Videos, banners and advertisement gained positive feedback in terms of delivering the PEF/OEF message, but they still struggled to explain fully the different impact categories.

67 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

2.6 Lessons learned from the pilot phase Any comparisons and general conclusions from PEF/OEF Pilot test initiatives must be made with caution. A number of factors, including differences within and between the Pilots, the variability of test methods, and the limited availability of CVs tested militates against comprehensive, externally valid conclusions. Nevertheless, a number of common insights can still be drawn on the basis of the information provided.  The greater majority of European citizens who participated in the Pilot tests expressed concern about environmental sustainability and are interested in PEFs and information about the environmental impact of products.  The majority of commercial/business sectors recognise the inevitability of PEFs and see benefits both for B2B and B2C activities. The benefits include brand valuation; the opportunity of buyers to compare products’ environmental impacts; driving up quality, and common rules for manufacturers and industries.  Environmental performance is not amongst the main criteria driving purchase decisions. For different products price, quality, brand and availability are more important. However, all things being equal many respondents in the Pilot test said that environmental performance would be taken into account.  In particular sectors, environmental performance appears to be a more important product attribute. These include household appliances and cars, followed by food, furniture, and sporting products.  The impact categories are hard to understand, even for B2B customers. People are familiar with impacts such as climate change, CO2 emissions, energy and water consumption. But technical/scientific terms such as acidification, terrestrial eutrophication and eco-toxicity are simply not understood. Linking impact categories to the specific product creates difficulties and the idea of Life Cycle Analysis is not readily accessible.  It is apparent that citizens have preconceived ideas about the environmental impact of certain products that are at variance with reality. On communication vehicles it is clear that for B2C products the use of graphics, bars and colour scales is greatly preferred to numbers, scientific terms and other forms of data. Clarity, readability and transparency should be the key to designing CVs. If the CV is complex people will ignore it. Of the variety of CVs tested, the traffic light and energy label type formats receive majority support.  The certification of PEF information is a welcome feature for B2B products. For B2C products who gives the certification is vital. People have a preference for named and independent experts.  The description of a product’s environmental performance in absolute terms (e.g. kg CO2- eq / kg) is too challenging seemed and a single performance score (endpoint) was preferred to CVs including midpoint information.  QR codes, bar codes, links, websites, banners and other forms of PR are all seen as convenient by the, albeit few, people seeking further information.

68 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

3 Stakeholders’ perspectives 3.1 Retailers: workshop

3.1.1 Background and objectives A workshop with retailers was conducted on Monday 4 July 2016 at DG ENV. The objective of this workshop was to gather insights from retailers on the following questions:  What do customers think about environmental footprint? What does it mean to them?  How might PEF/OEF affect their decision taking?  How important is PEF/OEF information in comparison to other information on a product label?  What could be the role of retailers in communicating horizontally on environmental performance/ PEF towards consumers?  What would change if PEF information became widely available?  What partnership could there be between suppliers and retailers in trying to influence consumers’ behaviour?

3.1.2 Complementary tests Mr. LUPIAÑEZ of the Consortium introduced the “stop-and-go” approach used in this phase of the project. It includes four steps. First, exploratory qualitative studies to be conducted to map and highlight trends that otherwise would be unnoticed. In the second step, preliminary experiments will be carried out, either brick-and-mortar (on-site, in a shop) or in a laboratory. In the third step, online discrete-choice experiments will be conducted. In the final step, the Consortium will run a validation of CVs in a realistic setting (again, brick-and-mortar or in a laboratory) to assess performance. Stop-and-go approaches in studies facilitate a progressive learning from step to step. The design of test will be informed by a number of issues. : the information collected from the pilot tests conducted in the first stage of the project; the nature of the information to be included in the communication vehicles; and the range of products to be considered in the testing, including the following dimensions: B2B – B2C; PEF – OER; Point of sale – Close to point of sale - Beyond the point of sale and On spot - Deferred purchase. Customers and PEF/OEF information Mr. LUPIAÑEZ asked participants for their opinions on the consumers’ perspective of PEF/OEF, in terms of awareness and understanding, and attitude and behavioural change. Awareness and understanding Most of the retailer participants held the view that consumers are not aware of the concept of “environmental footprint”, regardless of the frequency with which they buy environmentally friendly products. With very many environmental labels currently in use11, there seems to be a degree confusion. Labels regarding health issues could easily be misinterpreted as relating to the environment, and vice versa. Furthermore, comparing dimensions of environmental impacts that are very different could lead consumers making sub-optimal decisions. A major challenge emerged from the discussion: “how to convey complex messages in a simple way”. Whereas the existing energy labels comprise a single dimension, the environmental footprint label would feature more than one dimension. However, simplification necessarily excludes some information which might lead to a sub-optimal decision. Moreover, while PEF/OEF strictly relates to the environment, other dimensions may be overlooked, including (as mentioned by participants): risk assessment for toxicity; safety impacts; or societal benefit via assessment tools. One participant worried what will be communicated and the measurement units used will be negative (e.g. quantification of emissions) leading to unfounded negative reactions. What about positive message content such

11 Ecolabel Index: http://www.ecolabelindex.com/

69 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

as biodiversity? Another participant argued that the EU logo on a product would be more effective than any environmental footprint label. Attitudes and behaviour With regards to consumer attitudes, one participant thought that consumers might agree that buying environmentally friendly products is the right thing to do, and that it can make a difference to the real environment. However, s/he warned that there are ambiguities in defining environmental footprint: as an anecdote, a detergent with a lot of water is good for the environment, but doesn’t do its job right, and worse - one needs to use higher temperature, which is bad for the environment and cancels out the intended benefits. Just as attitudes do not necessarily lead to positive environmental impacts, they do not necessarily translate into behavioural change. More than 80% of European citizens sometimes buy environmentally friendly products12, yet consumers may find it difficult to change, even if they would like to do so. Price seems to be one of the key reasons for those who don’t buy environmentally friendly products. As pointed out by one representative, the environmental footprint of a product may fall behind other factors in the choice, such as price or quality. Furthermore, as pointed out by another representative, in certain commodity industries consumers are brand loyal and would be unlikely to be persuaded by new labels from competitors. There was no consensus among the retail representatives on which functional (measurement) unit to feature on a potential label, e.g. value vs. weight. Participants argued that is not always clear which dimension does the European Commission perceive as beneficial, and how to simplify it.

3.1.3 The role of retailers and the environmental footprint Mr. LUPIAÑEZ went on to ask the industry representatives and retailers about the role and the impact of the retail sector in communicating environmental performance/PEF to consumers, what changes might occur if PEF information became widely available, and what new partnerships could emerge in the supply chain. Here, the discussion revolved around one main point, the retailers as gatekeepers. Would it make more sense to let B2B players take over activities of communication for environmental footprint, do much of the work, and translate it to the consumer level? An argument in favor was that retailers know their end-users well. Some will focus on water consumption, others on biodiversity. Single brands could become gatekeepers, as they can more easily speak with suppliers and consumers. Retailers are in the best position to communicate environmental information to consumers, with the exception perhaps of the post-use phase. There is a small minority of consumers who are consistently environmentally friendly on every item they buy, whereas others are more concerned about environmental footprint in, say, food, and less in furniture. Retailers can pick out what they think consumers are most interested in. For example, they could choose to have separate shop corners for green products. One representative argued for not cherry-picking products to put in separate shop corners, but instead to use a rigorous methodology and possibly collect primary data to do so. One retailer argued that they would not sort “green” products in a separate corner, and that it would be a way of turning customers into a false dichotomy: “these products are good therefore the others are bad”; a view that was supported by others. With regards to the possible communication vehicles, many retailers stated that on-shelf information would be difficult to implement, as it would have to be constantly updated. In addition, electronic on-shelf labels are not large enough to host more information other than price. Instead, a single website would be desirable to which all users would be directed. With regards to the message, it was agreed that the main environmental footprint message must be understandable for consumers as only then would we see action and behavioural change.

12 European Commission (2013), Flash Eurobarometer 367. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_367_en.pdf

70 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Another issue is comparability. One representative suggested that if life cycle thinking is embedded across sectors, then products will be compared more by consumers who would be in a position to make better choices. Others argued that LCA should not be used for comparisons between products but rather for looking at the environmental performance of a product over time. One representative pointed out that while the environmental footprint of two milk bottles can be compared, the same is not possible for the footprints of two smartphones because the latter are formed of countless pieces, materials, and different metals.

3.1.4 Remarks  There are multiple, conflicting dimensions behind the concept of environmental footprint;  There is a consensus for not simplifying the message, and instead for respecting the complexity of the subject matter.  There is a consensus for more focus on B2B and retailers for the communication phase.  Comparability: there is a consensus over comparing the same product over 2 periods of time, rather than 2+ products. 3.2 Consumers: focus groups

3.2.1 Background and objectives The aim of the complementary study was to explore consumers' views about environmental information related to products and organisations. On the one hand, the environmental footprint concepts are not widely known across Europe. On the other hand, environmental awareness and policy making has a longer history in some countries than in others, as in countries such as Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Germany compared to countries like Greece, Hungary, Poland or Spain. We may assume that environmental sustainability and environmentally informed consumer choices will increase over time across both groups of countries. As such, there is a case for designing qualitative research that captures both, the present state of modal public opinion and at the same time anticipates what public opinion might be in the coming decade. To have a broader and deeper understanding of consumers’ views on environmental footprint, and the different communication vehicles for providing information about them, focus groups have aimed to understand consumers’ concerns and habits regarding environmental sustainability in general.

3.2.2 Methodology A total of two focus groups were conducted, each lasting 2 hours. Each focus group was conducted in a different European country. Both focus groups comprised 8-10 participants with a balanced gender and age representation (50% aged 25-40 y.o. and 50% aged 41-55 y.o.), and reflecting modal and high levels of environmental concern in each group (50% for each level). The countries selected were Germany, a country with a history of environmentalism, and Spain, a country without such a history. Both groups followed the same discussion guide, but there was a greater focus on understanding the perception of the different communication vehicles for providing environmental footprint information in Germany – at the cost of exploring participants’ habits regarding environmental sustainability in general. This because German consumers are more exposed to this kind of information than are Spanish consumers. Different communication vehicles for providing environmental footprint information were shown as stimuli to explore participants’ reactions. Participants were also shown a set of 32 coded images, as projective input, to facilitate the discussion on environmental footprints. A selection of verbatims to support and illustrate the content of this report can be found in Annex II. This Annex also includes the discussion guide and the materials used.

71 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

3.2.3 Environmental Footprint: perceptions, experiences and knowledge

3.2.3.1 Meaning “Environmental footprint” is generally understood as the negative impact the manufacturing of products and the actions of companies and people have in the environment. Nonetheless, one Spanish participant admitted not to know what this concept meant. The concept of environmental footprint essentially evokes a sense of “future inheritance”, referring to the worse conditions in which we are leaving the planet to future generations. Evocations are based upon three basic dimensions:  Time dimension: What we are doing in the present is having consequences for the future. As long as we have been and we are still damaging the environment, future generations will have to face a spoiled planet that will lead to the extinction of species and eventually even to the extinction of the human race. Participants think it is urgent to react immediately in order to hold back the progressive destruction of Nature and, ultimately, of any kind of life on Earth. This degradation of Nature is also expected to worsen the living conditions of the poorer, who will not have means to deal with it. Participants feel responsible and worried for their descendants, so that this dimension seems to be particularly relevant among participants who have children –or the intention to have them, or participants who have nephews or nieces.  Responsibility dimension: This dimension has two poles, the social one, which is mainly associated with the responsibility of governments and companies, and the individual one, which is related with what each individual can do in order to control her/his impact on the environment. This dimension evokes the need for raising awareness and working at both. At an individual and at a collective level to develop more environmentally sustainable behaviours and reach the aim of holding back the destruction of Nature. This dimension is linked to some sense of guilt, but also empowerment at the same time; each individual and community is damaging Nature, but can also do something to counteract the progressive deterioration of Nature. Participants feel the need to do something to counterbalance their negative impact on the environment and feel disappointed as they think most of people do not have this need. In this sense, they think there is not enough awareness and willingness to change behaviours among most people; they consider themselves as belonging to a group of environmentally sensitive people that is still a minority.  Economic dimension: Firstly, environmental footprints are related to the overproduction and overconsumption of goods and services. Participants think we are consuming much more than we need. This overconsumption is related to the “throwaway society” and it is considered the ultimate cause of environmental damage because it is directly linked to the overexploitation of resources and the contamination of the planet. Participants are aware that the production process of goods, their usage and after-usage leave a great environmental footprint. Secondly, money can act as an incentive for generating environmental footprints as long as having an impact in the environment often turns out to be cheaper than developing environmentally-friendly behaviours, for both, companies and consumers. Finally, dealing with environmental issues is expected to involve some economic cost (e.g. cleaning the dirt, health problems costs), which is expected to be mainly funded by taxpayers and particular investments, such as buying a hybrid or electric car.

3.2.3.2 Concerns The main concerns about environmental sustainability in general are related with air pollution, soil and water contamination, deforestation, ozone depletion, overexploitation of natural resources (e.g. intensive agriculture and farming) and the loss of biodiversity -animals in particular, because they lead to food toxicity and climate change (global warming). Air pollution, which is especially associated with vehicle and gas emissions, and food toxicity are considered particularly threatening due to their direct effect on health –mainly respiratory diseases, cancers and allergies. Participants are particularly concerned about mass produced

72 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

food because it involves making the final products more toxic due to, for example, pesticides, GMOs or hormone-treated animals. The food industry is also considered particularly worrying as long as it involves destroying the ecosystem (e.g. destruction of forests to grow corn). Climate change is considered particularly worrying, not only for the dramatic transformations it is associated with, such as the melting of the poles, droughts, desertification and shortage of water, but also for the negative effects on the body, agriculture and animals, as long as the temperature is becoming warmer and altering the season cycles. In relation to this, Spanish participants are particularly worried about an eventual shortage of water. The over-production of packaging is a great concern because it is producing an overload of garbage that contaminates soil and water, especially the plastic packaging as it is not biodegradable and can contaminate the sea. Participants also show special concern towards the environmental impact generated by vehicle emissions in general and particularly the transportations of goods due to being highly polluting. Other activities that are also expected to generate a greater impact and environmental footprint are the consumption of non-renewable energies, nuclear power, thermal energy, coal industry, oil industry, construction industry, cosmetics industry and the generation of waste - especially the ones made by chemical and the textile industries (e.g. dyes). The perceived short-term consequences of these impacts in the environment are polluting the air, contaminating soils, rivers and seas, which are increasing the greenhouse effect and thus the climate change (i.e. the weather becoming extremely warm) leading to desertification, the melting of the poles, plagues, such as jellyfish, the loss of species and the disappearance of beaches in the long-term. Beyond these concerns, there is a background concern that seems to have become particularly relevant due to the recent victory of Donald Trump as US President-Elect, which is “climate change denial”. Participants show their worry about the consequences of his election on the future environmental politics of the world’s leading power. In this sense, participants think it is important that main world powers, and governments in general, are aware of environmental issues and are strict in implementing environmental protection measures. It is urgent to react immediately; otherwise participants are afraid that it is going to be too late and the destruction of the planet will be inevitable. The expected consequences, in case of not reacting in time, are rather dramatic: the extinction of animals and plants, hunger and wars provoked by conflicts related to people’s survival. Participants foresee the human extinction as the ultimate consequence if environmental-friendly politics and behaviours are not urgently implemented and we keep damaging the environment as we are doing now.

3.2.3.3 Habits Participants think there is not enough awareness and sensitivity with respect to environmental sustainability in general, so that only a minority of people are developing environmentally sustainable habits. This belief is stronger among Spanish participants as they frequently see other people around not recycling (e.g. when throwing away their garbage in the street rubbish containers) and also because they consider that the current Spanish government has no environmental policy at all, and it is even ruining the environmental policy that was being implemented before (e.g. has put taxes on solar energy instead of supporting its development). In this sense, Spanish participants think all the ministries should have an environmentally sustainable perspective and there should be a ministry for environmental policy that should coordinate the rest of ministries in relation to this issue. Educating children on environmental sustainability is considered fundamental, but environmental education at school is rather recent in Spain -only participants under 30 y.o. received education on this issue at school. More public investment on environmental education and research is suggested by Spanish participants –environmental education should be a specific subject matter at school and innovation within the environmental context should be promoted as a priority.

73 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Local and seasonal food should be promoted by governments to avoid long- distance transportation. Companies should be penalized for using certain types of packaging –mainly those derived from oil, and for over-package (e.g. individual packaging of each product within the packaging), and they should use only recyclable packaging. Spanish participants also urge to be encouraged to return the bottles to the supermarket as it used to be done before the 80’s. Participants are suspicious about the agreements governments reach to take care of the environment as they think governments “just sign”, but do not fully implement and follow up these agreements. The TTIP treaty between the US and Europe arises special concerns, as it is expected to legalize products that are banned in Europe. Trading agreements are also considered worrying because they favour the commercialization of foreign products to the detriment of local ones (e.g. fruits, milk). Participants think there is not enough control on companies regarding environmental issues or that these controls are not effective enough. Monitoring of compliance should not be pre-notified to ensure that bad practices are uncovered. Spanish participants are also suspicious about the value of controlling the environmental footprints as long as companies can just pay a fine for the illegal waste discharges they might do and continue damaging the environment anyway. They also think laws are not restrictive enough, so that legal waste discharges can still be very damaging, or individual environmentally unfriendly behaviours are not penalized (e.g. using private jet planes). Investing on renewable energies –mainly solar energy and wind power, and organic agriculture and farming are considered key to avoid damaging the environment. Public transportation should all be electric, driving cars with just one person in the city should be penalized and traffic should be reduced in general. Developing effective environmentally sustainable habits requires the convergence of the following elements from participants’ experience:  Receiving proper environmental education at school or learning from some relative  Becoming aware of the negative impact of our habits in the environment.  Feeling responsible for this impact.  Willingness to make an effort – giving up convenience and spending more money in order to reduce this impact.  Being given specific information and facilitating things (e.g. knowing what kind of rubbish matches with each rubbish container and having rubbish containers close to home).  Receiving rewards or incentives that promote environmentally-friendly behaviours (e.g. not paying taxes for the alternative energies) or penalties for inappropriate behaviours (e.g. paying for plastic bags at shops).  The commitment of the whole society: governments, institutions, companies and citizens. However, participants think sustainability is also becoming a sort of “fashion”, so that companies and brands are using it as a marketing tool to take profit from it (e.g. Krombancher plants rainforests for each bottle that is sold). Using environmental sustainability for marketing purposes seems to have an ambivalent effect; on one hand it helps raising the profile of the issue but on the other hand, it tends to make environmental sustainability more banal and lose some credibility. The participants’ main contribution to environmental sustainability is recycling. They recycle by sorting out their garbage into five categories: bottles, plastic, paper, organic and disposable (everything else). However, some respondents find difficulties in separating the organic garbage in Spain as it takes extra room in the kitchen and it quickly becomes very smelly in summertime. These respondents find it more convenient to put the organic rubbish together with the disposable one and throw them away together, which also facilitates filling one bag per day or every two days –before it gets smelly in summer time. Recycling plastic in Spain is also problematic as long as some participants expect to be able to throw any kind of plastic in the plastic bin, but only packaging should be placed in it. On the other hand, some Spanish participants experience recycling as somehow frustrating because of a rumour that says that

74 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

recycling is just a façade because the content of the different garbage containers is put together again after being collected. Batteries and used cooking oil are also items that some participants take to their particular container as they are known to be very contaminating. Other ways participants recycle is by finding other uses to used items, such as making soap from used cooking oil. Participants try to avoid the accumulation of too many plastic bags and packaging by buying in bulk or loose, buying one family pack instead of several individual packs, and by taking their own reusable bag or shopping cart when going to the supermarket. Spanish participants admit that having to pay for the plastic bag at the supermarket has helped them change their habit. Repairing things instead of buying new items, buying second hand, avoiding the waste of energy (e.g. controlling the use of heating and air conditioning), reducing the use of paper (e.g. by using both sides of sheets), using the bike or public transport for urban commuting, consuming locally produced and season products to avoid long distance transportation –especially when it comes to food (mainly vegetables, fruits and meat), and buying organic food are other habits participants have developed in relation to environmental sustainability. However, some behaviours are more related with looking for benefits on their health than environmental benefits (e.g. consuming organic food, cycling), or even with convenience and saving –public transport is considered cheaper and more convenient for urban commuting, especially due to the lack of available and free park sites. Avoiding the waste of water (e.g. collecting the extra cold water in a bucket when having a shower to water the plants or other uses) is particularly relevant among Spanish participants; they claim buildings should have a system to recycle grey water. On the other hand, collaborative or shared consumption is considered particularly effective in Spain to avoid overconsumption and decrease our environmental impact in general. Energy bills are considered key to encourage energy saving habits; visualizing how much you have saved is expected to help further saving. The main barriers to develop proper environmentally friendly behaviours are linked to:  Convenience, comfort or “laziness”.  Economic reasons: electric cars are more expensive, different types of bags have to be bought for the different types of rubbish, special taxes have to be paid when using solar energy (Spain), organic food is more expensive, etc.  Lack of information of what kind of rubbish should or should not go into the different containers (e.g. some organic items do not go into the organic bin, but into the disposable waste one), as well as where to take some particular items that are known to be very polluting (e.g. batteries or oil).  Lack of space to have five different rubbish bins.  Lack of credibility regarding the management of garbage (Spain): recycling can be considered a business for companies rather than a really environmentally-friendly activity due to different rumours about what is done with the rubbish that is collected from the different bins. These barriers tend to be more relevant in Spain than in Germany –as Spain is a country with no history on environmentalism, probably due to the more spontaneous and present-oriented character of the Spanish culture that tends not to facilitate controlled and future-oriented behaviours.

3.2.3.4 Knowledge Participants are familiar with certifications that they judge to be directly and indirectly related to the environment provided mainly in five product categories: food, electrical household appliances (e.g. refrigerators), light bulbs, cars and buildings:  Energy efficiency label on electrical household appliances and light bulbs: the A++, A+, A, B, C, D, E code  Zero kilometre or local origin

75 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

 Home energy performance certification  CO2 emission stickers on vehicles (the CO2 emission stickers are very new in Spain, not known by all participants yet)  Fair trade label  ISO or AENOR Certificates  Label to certificate fish has been fished without catching other species (Germany)  EU organic label –which is represented by a leaf (Germany) In Germany, participants become aware of environmental issues by being able to pay a supplement to compensate for the emission of CO2 when using some transportation companies, such as Flixbus or Deutsche Bahn –either to commute or send packages. They can also pay a supplement on some products to compensate their impact on animals’ welfare (e.g. bee mortality when buying honey). Participants do not know the criteria per which environmental footprints are determined and how to compare different products. No clear or consistent information about environmental footprint is delivered when purchasing. They claim all products should show the same kind of label and coding. Moreover, participants think that communicating environmental footprint should be compulsory for all companies –in a similar way as cigarette companies are forced to show health warnings on the packaging. They think it is Government’s responsibility to make policies that force companies to be environmentally-friendly, rather than putting all the responsibility on consumers. Soft regulations and marketing strategies related with environmental sustainability have had a negative effect on participants; they have become suspicious and sceptical, and do not know whether they can rely on what is being said about PEFs and OEFs. In the context of food, the “Bio” labelling has been misused raising mistrust towards environmental labelling. Scepticism is the main barrier to be receptive to environmental footprint information. Participants show high levels of mistrust towards the credibility of certifications and labels, and towards the purpose of the supplements they can pay to compensate the environmental footprint when purchasing specific services and products (Germany). On the other hand, regulations regarding environmental issues and labelling are considered too soft or undemanding (e.g. being able to run free 40 days a year is enough for eggs to be labelled free-range in Germany). However, they think environmental footprint controls should not be so extremely strict that they would not allow small farmers and family business keep on with their business. In this sense, they think too much control would favour big companies, which are expected to be able to cope with and afford it, to the detriment of the small ones –which are not. Food, electrical household appliances and light bulbs are the product categories where labels are more common and seem to influence the purchase the most. Regarding food, the country of origin may influence purchasing in favour of choosing locally produced products that are expected not to pollute due to being transported long distances (“Zero kilometre” agriculture). Organic production (i.e. free-range farming, pesticides and GMO free) is also considered an influencing factor. However, the information participants look for in food tends to be more related with the impact on health than on the environment. With regard to electrical household appliances and light bulbs participants tend to choose the A, A+ or A++ because of the expectation of saving energy and money in the long-term –which compensates their higher price when being purchased. However, participants admit they do not always pay attention to this type of information and that other criteria can be more important than the environmental footprint –mainly aesthetics and comfort. Besides, they are willing to pay a little more for eco-friendly products, especially food, but not a big difference. On the other hand, social sensitivity can be more important that environmental sensitivity; checking that a product has not been made by exploiting workers –especially children, can be more relevant than checking its environmental footprint.

76 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Participants may pay less attention to the environmental footprint of products that are bought regularly in a mechanical way (i.e. low involvement) or products that are expected to be used for a very short period of time (i.e. a couple of days). But they may pay more attention when introducing new products in their habits, when purchasing products that are going to be used for a long time, or when purchasing big or expensive items, such as cars or houses. Other items where participants may pay more attention to their environmental footprint information are those related with their own or their children’s health (e.g. babies and children products, food, clothes, hygiene products and cosmetics), with higher energy consumption (e.g. electrical and electronic devices), with pollution or contamination due to its use (e.g. cars, cleaning products) or after-use (e.g. packaging). Companies or brands that show environmental information are considered to be more sensitive, honest and trustworthy so that they improve their image and reputation and are expected to be preferred to those not showing this information. However, previous environmental reputation biases the perception and credibility of environmental certifications, so that brands or companies that already are known to have a great impact on the environment (e.g. Monsanto, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Repsol) would need an extra support from some credible authority, so that participants would believe they are telling the truth with respect to the information provided.

3.2.4 Influence of the different communication vehicles for providing environmental footprint information

3.2.4.1 Labels Environmental footprint information in labelling is expected to have a higher influence on purchasing when:  It is clearly visible and next to items that do not have any environmental label – so that they become more differentiated and outstanding.  It is easily understood: using a well-known code, colours or images and little text –text is not expected to be read as it is more time consuming.  It is certificated by a credible and trustful authority. However, environmental footprint information in labelling has some important problems:  Labels are not always seen as there are other labels (e.g. price) or information that can focus attention on other attributes (e.g. product composition)  Participants do not always understand the meaning of the coding for environmental footprint information.  Environmental labels, and labels in general, are not always supported by a credible authority. Participants complain that labels and certificates can be false; they are not considered as guaranteed due to bad practices and corruption, especially when politicians are working for companies that are not considered environmentally friendly. So they should be issued by some credible authority that should also sanction companies that use false labels or certifications. Participants believe there is not enough control and that this lack of control takes certification and labels’ credibility away. Credible authorities are associated with governmental or public institutions, although they are not fully trusted by respondents due to corruption. Independent institutions, such as The German Environmental Association, Stiftung Warentest, Öko Test, TÜV, WWF (World Wild Life) or health associations seem to be more trustful in Germany. In Spain, credible authorities are also related with independent institutions, such as AENOR, and consumer associations. However, whatever authority issues the certificate, they should be checked by reputable environmental scientists that are supposed to be honest and neutral. Considering the European Commission as an authority is polarizing as some participants are afraid of lobbying in favour of some companies, whereas some other participants still expect it to be neutral and independent from commercial interests. Moreover, in Germany, participants think the different countries in the EU have too different policies regarding environmental issues, so that the EC would apply standards that might be

77 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

too soft in comparison to those in Germany. However, they would like to have a European or even worldwide environmental seal in the future, when all countries have homogenized their environmental policies.  How to label products that are not packed, like meat at the butcher’s, especially because each consignment is expected to vary regarding its PEF. In these cases, participants think labels might not be needed when shopping in eco-friendly shops or farms they rely on, but the problem persists when shopping these items at conventional supermarkets. The traffic-lights performance rating (see L2 in figure 3) is preferred when shopping in a more mechanical and less involved way (i.e. food and other perishable items) due to being a simple and universal coding that anyone, even children, can quickly understand, so that very little time is spent on this issue. In this case, participants think a differentiation in three categories is enough. Whereas when shopping in a more conscious way (i.e. more expensive and durable items), having a 5 levels scale is considered to be more appropriate due to being more differentiating and precise. This 5 levels scale could be either the traditional A-E coding or the traffic-lights coding by adding one gradation in the green and another one in the red colour. However, as consumers progressively become more aware and familiar with the environmental labelling, the ideal performance rating is considered to be a mixture of the A-E combined with the traffic-lights coding to provide both, quickly identifiable, but also precise information –as it is in L1 in figure 3. Participants claim having more detailed information on the label when buying products that can be unhealthy due to toxicity, such as clothes, cosmetics or food. In this case, not only the environmental performance rating code should be displayed, but also any information related with an eventual impact on their health (e.g. containing GMO, type of dyers used). Showing numbers to refer to different environmental footprints met with mixed opinions. (see L2 in figure 3). On one hand, it is preferred because it allows a more precise comparison among different products and getting familiar with comparing quantities (c.f. participants have got used to comparing nutritional values in food). But on the other hand, some participants consider that numbers provide little information, for example, do the numbers mean high or low environmental impacts? Moreover, these numbers are expected to have a different value depending where they are originated. For example, it is not thought that water sustainability would be the same in Africa compared to say Sweden. In the end, participants tend to agree that showing different numbers for different footprints on the label can be too complicated and that is better to show this coding in the same way as the rest of the label (letters if it is letters coding, or colours if it is traffic-light coding). On the other hand, not more than three concrete environmental information should be displayed on the label – as it is in L1 or L2 in figure 3. Participants would like to have further information on environmental footprint when buying groceries that are purchased regularly or when purchasing items that are going to be used over long periods of time, or are more expensive (e.g. electrical home appliances, electronic devices, cars, bikes, houses). In relation to this, they appreciate the QR code (see L2 in Figure 8) or having a website where to look up this information (see L1 and L2 in Figure 8). QR codes are preferred to bar codes in order to have this extra environmental footprint information (see L2 in figure 3). QR codes are considered more popular and more integrated in participants’ lives due to being used for other purposes in smartphones. Bar codes are not usually checked, as most of participants do not know how to interpret them –except some of the participants who have a higher level of environmental awareness “Learn more about this label” (se L2 in Figure 8) seems to be a bit disappointing as participants want to know more about the environmental impact of the product rather than the label itself (so it should say “Read more about environmental impact of this product” instead). Participants in Spain are afraid to be exposed to advertising when checking the QR codes –which would discourage them from checking them. QR codes should display visual information that explains the performance rating of the product (e.g. what “A” or “Green” exactly means) and all the environmental information related to that particular product. Providing this information is expected to encourage or discourage participants from buying the product when the label displayed would not be enough

78 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

to take the decision. It might also be checked just out of curiosity or to learn more about environmental issues. The information about Carbon (see L3 in Figure 8) tends to be considered too overloaded with text and, as such, not inviting to be read. Moreover, it looks too specific and technical, so that it needs further explanation. This kind of information is preferred to be seen apart, when checking the QR code or website, not on the label. Figure 8 Environmental Footprint Labels

Source: Background document for the testing of communication vehicles in the environmental footprint pilot phase 2013-2016 (pp. 20-22)

Participants do not want to feel overloaded by information; they want labels to be simple and easy, so that providing too many symbols or too much information is rejected. In this sense, showing the three most relevant environmental footprint characteristics of a particular product is considered more than enough; the rest of the environmental footprint information would be checked through the QR code, website or app if the consumer wished. The environmental footprint definitions that raise more interest (see Table 1) are those directly related with health (i.e. human toxicity / cancerous effects, radioactive radiation, particles and photochemical air pollution), with contamination of water and soil (i.e. water shortage, fresh water eco-toxicity and acidification) and with global warming (i.e. climate change).

79 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Table 1 Environmental Footprint midpoints definitions

Climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases change temperature and the climate for the worse, impacting indirectly also your health. Ozone depletion. Emissions damage the ozone layer leading to increased ultraviolet radiation resulting to skin cancer and damage to plants. Human Toxicity (cancer). Emissions of toxic substances leading to an increased risk of cancer, via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the water we drink. Human Toxicity (non-cancer). Emissions of toxic substances damaging your health, via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the water we drink. Particulate matter. Emissions of tiny particles that lead to respiratory diseases and the so called “winter smog”. Ionizing radiation. Radiation that increases risk of cancer. Photochemical ozone formation. Emissions creating so called “summer smog” and respiratory diseases. Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changes temperature and the climate for the worse, impacting indirectly also the ecosystems. Acidification. Emission of substance that lead to acid rain and poorer quality of air, water and soil. Eutrophication terrestrial. Too many nutrients in the environment, e.g. by over use of fertilisers in farming, upset the balance of nature. Eutrophication freshwater. Too many nutrients in freshwater, e.g. by the over use of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater, upset the balance of nature, e.g. leading to algal blooms and killing fish. Eutrophication marine. Too many nutrients in marine water, e.g. by the over use of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater, upset the balance of nature, e.g. leading to algal blooms in sea water. Land use. Use of land and soil endanger soil fertility as well as the survival of some species of animals and plants. Ecotoxicity freshwater. Emission of toxic substances that are a danger to organisms like fish, algae and other organisms living in fresh water.

Regarding the ‘production’ vs. the ‘use’ phase, participants are concerned about both phases, but more about the production phase as they cannot have any influence or control of it. Moreover, there are some product categories, such as food, where the ‘use’ phase seems rather irrelevant regarding the environment –except for the packaging. Participants are particularly interested in knowing the environmental footprint of plastic packaging in general, as it is clear to them that plastic is one of the major causes of environmental contamination and damage. The information that participants link with the environmental impacts and that would like to know in order to influence their purchase would cover the following aspects – but varying according to the different product categories specificities:  Production phase – Country of origin – Traceability (i.e. kilometres covered to reach the POS) – Type of energy consumed to produce it – Quantity of energy consumed to produce it – Polluting and contaminating impact – Impact on the global warming – Water usage – Type of feeding of the livestock

80 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

– Habitat of the livestock (e.g. natural vs. fish farm) – GMO content – Level of dioxins  Use phase – Toxicity on the body or health – Energy consumption – How much it pollutes or contaminates – Biodegradability – Potential to be recycled or reused This information should be displayed visually when checking the QR code on the label.

3.2.4.2 Point of sale Green areas in supermarkets or shops are associated with containing eco-friendly products (see 7.2. in figure 7). However, participants think this colour coding can be misleading as green does not necessarily mean the product or service is really environmentally friendly. Moreover, differentiating the eco-friendly products from the conventional products at the point-of-sale generates mixed opinions. Some participants think it helps them buy in a more environmentally- friendly way, whereas other participants prefer eco-friendly products to be integrated within the rest of products of its product category in order not to reject them beforehand due to expecting them to be more expensive. Figure 9 Point of Sale example

Source: Background document for the testing of communication vehicles in the environmental footprint pilot phase 2013-2016 (page 22)

Leaflets providing environmental footprint information are not considered effective as participants said that they do not usually read them, but rather throw them away. Participants prefer being informed by sales staff. The problem is that sales staff do not usually have specific training on environmental issues. Information provided by sales staff should be more specific regarding saving in economic, not only in terms of energy consumption, in order to be more persuasive. Participants would like to see the A, B, C, D, E coding in large size at the eye level when purchasing big items, such as electrical home appliances. Participants in Spain would also like companies to implement a packaging-collection system in which buyers are given money back when they bring back the bottles or cans to the point of sale, or they are given a coupon to get those products again.

81 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Being compared to environmentally-friendly buyers after a purchase (see figure 5) is not regarded as a real incentive, but rather as an anecdote or joke, although it might work if greener purchases were rewarded with some kind of discount. Besides, participants do not understand what the criterion for comparison would be or think the criterion might be irrelevant (i.e. if most of consumers buy items with low prices, then a shopper buying something just a bit better would be considered green). However, it is considered motivating to be compared to one’s earlier purchases, so that in every purchase buyers can check the level of eco-friendliness of their purchase in comparison to the last one, which might help them learn to do a more eco-friendly purchase next time. This kind of information is supposed to get registered through the customer’s loyalty card and then displayed on her/his purchase ticket. Figure 10 Receipts example

Source: Background document for the testing of communication vehicles in the environmental footprint pilot phase 2013-2016 (page 17)

Participants with higher levels of environmental awareness would download an app containing environmental footprint information if it was supported by a trusted institution (i.e. those that are considered competent and credible to certificate this kind of information) and if it was used by scanning the product –not typing in the name of the product. It should be quick and easy to use (e.g. recognizes products that interest the shopper, like Amazon does). They would also like this app to provide practical and applicable information, so that it would help them develop more environmentally sustainable habits. This kind of practical information might include:  Tips to generate less waste.  Tips to save energy and water.  Tips to recycle used items.  Precise instructions on quantities to be used for all chemical products, particularly when being poured into water –including personal hygiene items such as toothpaste.  Where to dispose of different types of rubbish.  A comparison among different products and brands within the same product category (see C2 in figure 6)  The rating of a particular product in comparison to the rest of products within its product category (by scanning the label of the product).  Recommendations on eco-friendly products and shops.  A “favourites section” where to register their favourite (eco-friendly) products in order to be recalled when doing the next purchase. On the other hand, this app would need a communication campaign to increase its awareness among the population. Participants expect they would be able to get it through any app store.

82 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 11 Mobile app example

Source: Background document for the testing of communication vehicles in the environmental footprint pilot phase 2013-2016 (page 27)

Figure 12 Website examples

When buying online, participants do not want to be overloaded with information. They would like to see the environmental performance rating (e.g. “E” or “red”) when clicking the chosen item, but further explanations should be optional (see C1 in figure 6), so that the shopper can click on it if needed. Alternatively, these explanations might be at the very end of the purchasing process and as it happens with the “Terms and conditions agreements” to which users must agree in order to use or access a website or mobile app.

83 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 13 Website example

Source: Background document for the testing of communication vehicles in the environmental footprint pilot phase 2013-2016 (pp. 26-27)

3.2.4.3 Communication Environmental footprint in communications seems to be more effective when participants can directly perceive both the problem and the result of changing their habit to solve the problem (e.g. using the public transport as a way to reduce the emission of pollution). However, with respect to the content of the communication, participants think that making visible the negative impact of their daily actions (e.g. seeing the polluted sky, ruined animals’ habitat, deforestation, melting of the poles, huge dumpsters), especially in their closer environment (i.e. their town) is expected to be more impactful and thus, influencing their habits and purchasing more than seeing the positive consequences of being eco-friendly. In this sense, being exposed to (negative) impactful images and data is considered a way to raise awareness. The screens that are spread all over the public transport network are considered an effective communication vehicle for this kind of information. However, participants also want to feel rewarded by checking the positive impact of behaving in an environmentally- friendly way – not only “persecuted” for behaving “badly”. Participants think information about environmental sustainability should be shown on TV regularly, in prime time. Images of the different environmental impacts should be shown during commercial breaks. Moreover, a flash image showing environmental footprint information should be displayed at the end of every advertisement. They would like to know about the environmental footprint of all products and services, but they assume companies will voluntarily communicate only on the more eco-friendly aspects, not on the ones having a worse environmental impact. Besides, some powerful companies are expected to have shares in the mass media and then be able to manipulate the information that is communicated about them. Revealing the “dark” side of companies is usually done by journalists who use this information to produce TV programs or write books, such as The black book of corporations (Das Schwarzbuch der Markenfirmen). However, communicating the environmental footprint is claimed to be mandatory and controlled for all companies.

84 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

3.3 SMEs: online survey

3.3.1 Background, objectives and methodology The majority of the companies included in the pilots are large companies. As a consequence, there was a need to conduct a quantitative study to better understand current and future use of Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and environmental information by SMEs. The study covered six EU Member States, with a sample size of N=100 SMEs in each of the following countries:  Spain  Germany  France  Portugal  Czech Republic  Romania The survey was conducted using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) targeting those responsible for, or with a good knowledge of, the company’s environmental policy. Among SMEs, the sample was constructed to offer comparable information for micro (1-9 employees), small (10-49 employees) and medium-sized (50-249 employees) enterprises, reflecting the distribution of total employment in these size classes. As regards the sector, the sample was split into six macro-categories: Agriculture, Industry; Construction; Trade, and Services. The stratification is based on economic activities at the one- digit level NACE Rev.2 classification. Firms from mining and quarrying (B), manufacturing (C), and electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (D), and water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities (E) were combined under “Industry”. “Construction” is construction (F). “Trade” includes wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and personal and household goods (G). “Services” includes enterprises in transport and storage (H), financial and insurance activities (K), accommodation and food service activities (I), information and communication (J), real estate activities (L), professional, scientific and technical activities (M), administrative and support service activities (N), arts, entertainment and recreation (R) and other service activities (S), activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods- and services-producing activities of households for own use (T), activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies (U), holding companies (NACE 64.20) and private non-profit institutions. Table 2 SMEs fieldwork

Start Ends Invitations Received Incomplete Speeder Average length (min)

CZ 04/12/2017 08/12/2017 281 115 76 9 13.8

DE 06/12/2017 13/12/2017 670 111 20 9 14.5

FR 05/12/2017 13/12/2017 3,451 118 34 18 20.4

ES 07/12/2017 14/12/2017 6,370 135 80 35 14.9

PT 05/12/2017 13/12/2017 5,351 105 65 5 20.6

RO 12/12/2017 15/12/017 1,230 112 15 9 16.11

Annex III provides the final questionnaire used. The following table summarises the fieldwork process

85 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

3.3.2 SMEs characteristics The SMEs surveyed were operating mainly in the services sector (70%) followed by Industry (12%), Construction (9%), Trade (6%) and Agriculture, forestry and fishing (3%). In addition, 80% of the SMEs were described as for-profit while 20% as no-for-profit (Q5). Figure 14 Sectors (Q1)

Services 70%

Industry 12%

Construction 9%

Trade 6%

Agriculture, forestry and fishing 3%

n=600 Around 51% of the SMEs surveyed can be considered micro-enterprises (between 1 and 9 employees), while around 22% are small enterprises (between 10 and 49 employees) and around 27% are medium enterprises (between 50 and 249 employees). Figure 15 Breakdown by class size (Q2)

Micro 51%

Small 22%

Medium 27%

n=600. Note: “micro” enterprise has 1-9 employees; “small” enterprise has 10-49 employees; a “medium” enterprise has 50-249 employees The following figure shows the level of resources devoted to improving the environmental performance of the operations and/or products/services of the company. Almost 70% of the respondents stated that 20% or less of 2016 turnover was devoted to such an issue. Figure 16 Level of resources devoted to improving the environmental performance as % of 2016 turnover (Q4)

More than 80% 3%

61%-80% 2%

41%-60% 5%

21% and 40% 9%

20% or less 68%

Nothing 13%

n=600

86 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

The market scope of most of the SMEs (see Figure 17) is local (41%), national (40%) or regional (37%). Only a small percentage of SMEs operate at European (15%) or worldwide level (13%). The main commercial activity of the SMEs surveyed is split almost equally among Business to Business (B2B) (34%); Business to Consumer (B2C) (34%) and both (32%) (see Figure 18). Figure 17 Market scope (Q6)

Local 41%

National 40%

Regional 37%

European 15%

Worldwide 13%

n=600 Figure 18 Commercial activity (Q7)

Business to Business (B2B) 34%

Business to Consumers (B2C) 34%

Both 32%

n=600 In the context of B2B activities, SMEs were asked whether they produce intermediate or final products: 32% of the respondents stated that their activities are related to final products/services; 15% intermediate products/services and 20% reported both types. Figure 19 B2B type of products (Q8)

Final products / services 32%

Both intermediate and final products/servicies 20%

Intermediate products / services 15%

n= 396

87 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

3.3.3 Findings

3.3.3.1 Environmental commitment, concern and information More than half of the SMEs interviewed (55%) employ at least one person with explicit responsibility for environmental issues (Q9). Approximately the same percentages of SMEs are committed to environmental sustainability at company level (52% committed or very committed) and at sector level (48%, see Figure 20). There are small, but statistically significant, differences between sectors: on average, Agriculture and Industry are more committed than the other sectors (see Figure 21). In terms of class size, company-level environmental commitment is higher among medium-size enterprises (65% committed or very committed), and lower among micro- (44% committed or very committed) and small-size enterprises (54% committed or very committed). Figure 20 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q12, Q13)

1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5 - Very committed

To what extent is your company committed to 10% 10% 28% 31% 21% environmental sustainability?

To what extent is your sector committed to 11% 11% 30% 29% 19% environmental sustainability?

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n= 600

Figure 21 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q12, Q13) by sector

Sector commitment Company commitment

3,6 3,65 3,66 3,7 3,31 3,4 3,17 3,1 3,19 3,19

Agriculture, Industry Construction Trade Services forestry and fishing

n= 600 (ANOVA, p<0.05)

88 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 22 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q13) by class size (Q2)

All 10% 10% 28% 31% 21%

Medium 1% 7% 26% 44% 21%

Small 8% 8% 30% 35% 19%

Micro 16% 13% 28% 23% 21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 (Yes definitely)

n= 592. Note: “Micro” = 1-9 employees; “Small” = 10-49 employees; “Medium” = 50-249 employees.

SMEs were asked how relevant environmental concerns are to the company and to the sector. More than half of them claimed that they are relevant or very relevant to the company (57%) and to the sector (58%).

89 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 24 shows reveals that Agriculture and Industry are the sectors most concerned. In terms of class size, company-level environmental concern is higher among medium-size enterprises (65% relevant or very relevant), and less high among micro- (49% relevant or very relevant) and small-size enterprises (56% relevant or very relevant). Figure 23 Environmental concerns (Q16, Q17)

1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5- Very

How relevant are environmental concerns to 7% 12% 24% 32% 25% your company?

How relevant are environmental concerns to 8% 11% 24% 33% 25% your sector?

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n= 600

90 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 24 Environmental concerns (Q16, Q17) by sector

Sector Company

4,25 4,2 3,86 3,88 3,62 3,5 3,58 3,58 3,44 3,49

Agriculture, Industry Construction Trade Services forestry and fishing

n= 600 (ANOVA, p<0.005)

Figure 25 Environmental concerns (Q17) by class size (Q2)

All 7% 12% 24% 32% 35%

Medium 1%5% 22% 42% 30%

Small 5% 13% 26% 36% 20%

Micro 11% 15% 25% 25% 24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 (Very)

n= 592. Note: “Micro” = 1-9 employees; “Small” = 10-49 employees; “Medium” = 50-249 employees.

Slightly less than half of all the SMEs surveyed declared that there is a demand for more information about environmental issues in their company (46% “yes” or “yes, definitely”) or sector (47% “yes” or “yes, definitely”, (see believe that in their company there is a demand for environmental information. This share lowers with the size (47% among small enterprises, 37% among micro enterprises).

91 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 26). This demand is higher in Agriculture and Industry, and lower in the service sector (see Figure 27). In terms of class size, 65% of medium enterprises believe that in their company there is a demand for environmental information. This share lowers with the size (47% among small enterprises, 37% among micro enterprises).

92 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 26 Environmental information demand (Q14, Q15)

In your company, is there a demand for more 15% 15% 24% 27% 19% information about environmental issues?

In your sector, is there a demand for more 15% 12% 26% 25% 22% information about environmental issues?

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

1 - No, not at all 2 3 4 5- Yes definitely

n= 600 Figure 27 Environmental information demand (Q14, Q15) by sector

Sector demand Company demand

4,15 4 3,65 3,59 3,31 3,28 3,21 3,04 3 3,13

Agriculture, Industry Construction Trade Services forestry and fishing

n= 600 (ANOVA, p<0.001)

Figure 28 Environmental information demand (Q15) by class size (Q2)

All 15% 15% 24% 27% 19%

Medium 3% 10% 21% 44% 21%

Small 15% 14% 24% 29% 18%

Micro 20% 18% 25% 18% 19%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 (Yes, definitely) n= 592. Note: “Micro” = 1-9 employees; “Small” = 10-49 employees; “Medium” = 50-249 employees.

93 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

3.3.3.2 SME policies on the environment Half of the respondents use an environmental policy. Participants were asked whether their company used an internal environmental policy in the company: 55% of the SMEs declared that they have such a policy (n=330). Environmental policies cover the products/services sold by the companies in 84% of the cases, and cover organisation-related aspects in 54% of the cases. Furthermore, 64% of the SMEs who declared that they use an environmental policy also declared that their policy is based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) indicators. Corporate policies mainly cover environment, health topics. In order to identify which are the topics covered by the environmental policy, participants were asked to select among the following:  Human Health. The negative effects on people’s health, for instance, as a consequence of chemicals or radiation emitted during the life cycle of a product or indirectly as consequence of climate change  Natural Environment. The negative effects on the function and structure of natural ecosystems, for instance, as a consequence of the emission of chemicals or physical interventions that take place during the lifecycle of a product  Natural Resources. The negative effects, for instance, to the use of physical resources such as energy, metals and minerals and water, which results in a decrease in the availability of the total resource stock, as physical resources can be finite and non- renewable. Figure 29 shows that in 73% of the cases, SME policy covered Natural environment, in 72% covered Human health and in 64% it covered Natural resources. Figure 29 Environmental policy topics (Q20)

Natural environment 73% 27%

Human Health 72% 28%

Natural resources 64% 36%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Yes No

n= 330 Climate change is the main environmental aspect covered by SME policies. Those who selected Natural environment were invited to select among the following subtopics or midpoints:  Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the climate for the worse, impacting indirectly on the ecosystems.  Acidification. Emission of substance leading, for instance, to acid rain and poorer quality of air, water and soil.  Eutrophication - terrestrial. Too many nutrients in the environment, for instance by overuse of fertilisers in farming, upsetting the balance of nature.  Eutrophication - freshwater. Too many nutrients in freshwater, for instance by the overuse of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater, upsetting the balance of nature, e.g. leading to algal blooms and killing fish.  Eutrophication - marine. Too many nutrients in marine water, for instance due to overuse of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater, upsetting the balance of nature and leading to algal blooms in seawater.  Ecotoxicity - freshwater. Emission of toxic substances that are a danger to organisms like fish, algae and other organisms living in fresh water.

94 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

 Land use. Use of land and soil endanger, such as soil fertility as well as the wellbeing and survival of some animals and plant species.  Resource use - water. Use of freshwater reducing its availability for needs of the ecosystem. Climate change (66%), Water use (56%) and Land use (46%) were the most frequent items selected. Figure 30 Environmental topics: Natural resources (Q22)

No Yes

Climate change 34% 66%

Resource use - water 44% 56%

Land use 54% 46%

Ecotoxicity - freshwater 58% 42%

Acidification 61% 39%

Eutrophication - terrestrial 61% 39%

Eutrophication - freshwater 63% 37%

Eutrophication - marine 76% 24%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=240 Human toxicity (cancer) and climate change are the main health aspects covered by SME policies. Those who selected Human Health were asked to select among the following subtopics or midpoints:  Climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the climate for the worse, impacting indirectly on your health.  Ozone depletion. Emissions damaging the ozone layer leading to increased ultraviolet radiation resulting in skin cancer.  Human Toxicity - cancer. Emissions of toxic substances leading to an increased risk of cancer, for instance, through the air we breathe and indirectly through the food we eat and the water we drink.  Human Toxicity - non-cancer. Emissions of toxic substances damaging your health, for instance, through the air we breathe and also indirectly through the food we eat and the water we drink.  Particulate matter. Emissions of tiny particle, for instance, leading to respiratory diseases and the so-called “winter smog”.  Ionizing radiation. Radiation increasing the risk of cancer.  Photochemical ozone formation. Emissions creating, for instance, the so called “summer smog” and respiratory diseases. Human toxicity cancer (65%), Climate change (62%) and Human toxicity non-cancer (61%) were selected as the main topics covered. Ionizing radiation and photochemical ozone formation were covered by 32% and 22% respectively.

95 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 31 Environmental topics: Human health (Q21)

No Yes

Human Toxicity - cancer 35% 65%

Climate change 38% 62%

Human Toxicity - non-cancer air 39% 61%

Particulate matter 52% 48%

Ozone depletion 55% 45%

Ionizing radiation 68% 32%

Photochemical ozone formation 78% 22%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=238 Water use is the main resource aspects covered by SME policies. Those who selected Natural resources were invited to select among the following subtopics or midpoints:  Resource use: metals and minerals. Use of minerals, metals and other resources in products reducing their availability for future uses.  Resource use: fossil fuels. Use of fossil fuels, reducing their availability for future uses.  Resource use: water. Use of freshwater reducing its availability for future uses.  Land use. Use of land and soil endanger e.g. soil fertility as well as the survival of some animals and plant species.  Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the climate for the worse, impacting directly and indirectly on natural resources. Water use (77%), Fossil fuels use (60%) and metals and minerals use (56%) were identified as the main topics covered in this area. Figure 32 Environmental topics: Natural resources (Q23)

No Yes

Resource use: water 23% 77%

Resource use: fossil fuels 40% 60%

Resource use: metals and minerals 44% 56%

Climate change 47% 53%

Land use: Use of land and soil endanger 55% 45%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=211

96 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Lastly, participants were asked about the role of environmental performance while purchasing and/or marketing their products. Almost half of the respondents say they are fairly or very important. Figure 33 Environmental performance (Q25)

1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5- Very

Assessing the environmental performance of 17% 15% 22% 27% 20% suppliers

Informing clients of your product/organization's 19% 12% 25% 27% 18% environmental performance

Requiring suppliers to undertake environmental 23% 12% 24% 25% 16% measures

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=600

3.3.3.3 Environmental information Only 30% of the SMEs surveyed publish environmental information, clients are main target. SMEs surveyed who publish information (see Figure 34) are targeting clients (77%), suppliers (53%), public administrators (35%), investors (33%) and NGOs (15%). The information published (see Figure 35) is internally audit (39%); 3rd party certified (34%); 3rd party verified (14%) or provided to a public register (8%). Figure 34 Environmental information target (Q27)

No Yes

Clients 23% 77%

Suppliers 47% 53%

Public administrations 65% 35%

Investors 67% 33%

NGOs 85% 15%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% n=182

97 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 35 Environmental information assessment (Q28)

Provided to a Other 5% public register 8%

3rd party verified 14% Internally audited 39%

3rd party certified 34%

n=182 Product declaration, label and report are the preferred CVs among B2B. B2B participants who publish environmental information (n=118) were asked which type of CV does the company use (see Figure 36): around 49% use Environmental Product Declaration; 38% Environmental report; 38% Environmental label on products and 36% Environmental information on invoices. A minority of SMEs are using ranking/indexes (16%) or other types of reports (4%). The same CVs were indicated by those who do not use any, as potentially useful in the future: Environmental Product Declaration (50%); Environmental label on products (49%), Environmental report (40%) and Environmental information on invoices (39%) as possible communication vehicles to convey environmental information.

Figure 36 B2B Communication vehicles use (Q29)

No Yes

Environmental Product Declaration 51% 49% Environmental report 62% 38% Environmental label on product 62% 38% Environmental information on invoices 64% 36% Product passport 69% 31% Environmental performance tracking report 72% 28% Environmental campaign 76% 24% Public relation effort related to the environment 78% 22% Environmental/sustainability ranking or index 84% 16% Other report 96% 4% Other 97% 3%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=118

98 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 37 B2B potential Communication vehicles (Q30)

No Yes

Environmental Product Declaration 50% 50%

Environmental label on product 51% 49%

Environmental report 60% 40%

Environmental information on invoices 61% 39%

Product passport 70% 30%

Environmental campaign 73% 27%

Environmental performance tracking report 73% 27%

Public relation effort related to the environment 77% 23%

Environmental/sustainability ranking or index 81% 19%

Other report 93% 7%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=118 B2B see labels as the most effective CV, followed by PR campaigns. Figure 38 shows the judged effectiveness of the different B2B communication vehicles. An Environmental label on product (74% effective – very effective) and Public relations effort related to the environment (70% effective – very effective) are considered the most effective communication vehicles followed by an Environmental report, Environmental performance tracking report, Product passport and Environmental Product Declaration (67% effective – very effective).

Figure 38 B2B communication vehicles effectiveness (Q31)

1- Not at all 2 3 4 5- Very effective

Environmental label on product 4% 19% 37% 36%

Environmental Product Declaration 5% 27% 38% 29%

Product passport 5% 25% 40% 27%

Public relation effort related to the environment 9% 17% 44% 26%

Environmental performance tracking report 8% 22% 41% 26%

Environmental report 7% 24% 42% 25%

Environmental information on invoices 9% 28% 33% 25%

Environmental campaign 6% 27% 39% 25%

Environmental/sustainability ranking or index 7% 29% 41% 20%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=118

99 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

B2C SMEs use websites, leaflets and labels to communicate environmental information. SMEs were asked which communication vehicles they are using (see Figure 39): websites (53%), leaflets (49%) and labels (44%) are the most common vehicles reported. Around one third of the SMEs are also using barcodes (36%); POS product advertisement (33%) and QR codes (33%). It is worth mentioning that Apps (20%) and marketing campaigns / advertisement (21%) are at the bottom of the list. The same CVs were indicated by those who do not use any: Figure 40 shows the possible communication vehicles envisaged by B2C SMEs. Leaflets, labels and websites are the most common vehicles. Again, marketing campaigns/advertising are less preferred. Figure 39 B2C communication vehicles used (Q32)

No Yes

Websites 47% 53% Leaflets, catalogues, etc. 51% 49% Label 56% 44% Barcode 64% 36% POS product advertisement 67% 33% QR code 67% 33% Instruction manuals 73% 27% Loyalty schemes 77% 23% Marketing campaigns/ advertising 79% 21% Apps 80% 20%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=133 Figure 40 B2C possible communication vehicles (Q33)

No Yes

Leaflets, catalogues, etc. 47% 53%

Label 54% 46%

Websites 55% 45%

Barcode 63% 37%

Instruction manuals 65% 35%

QR code 65% 35%

POS product advertisement 65% 35%

Loyalty schemes 68% 32%

Marketing campaigns/ advertising 71% 29%

Apps 72% 28%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=133

100 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

B2C see websites and POS product advertisement as the most effective CVs, followed by PR campaigns. Website (75% “effective” or “very effective”) and POS product advertisement (73% “effective” or “very effective”) were selected as the most effective B2C communication vehicles, followed by leaflets (72% “effective” or “very effective”) and labels (70% “effective” or “very effective”). Figure 41 B2C communication vehicles effectiveness (Q34)

1- Not at all 2 3 4 5- Very effective

Websites 2% 22% 37% 38%

Label 5% 24% 35% 35%

Leaflets, catalogues, etc. 2% 24% 41% 31%

Marketing campaigns/ advertising 5% 23% 43% 28%

Instruction manuals 3% 31% 36% 26%

POS product advertisement 5% 20% 47% 26%

App 8% 28% 36% 24%

Barcode 8% 28% 35% 23%

QR code 11% 27% 35% 23%

Loyalty schemes 7% 39% 30% 23%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=133

101 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

3.3.3.4 LCA and PEF: drivers and inhibitors Organizational awareness, customer satisfaction are LCA’s main drivers. Participants in these companies were asked about the drivers (see Figure 42) and inhibitors (see Figure 43) of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). More than two thirds of the SMEs consider that LCA could improve the reputation of the organization; increase awareness of employees in environmental issues; improve customer satisfaction and improve environmental management practices. Figure 42 LCA drivers (Q36)

1- Totally disagree 2 3 4 5- Totally agree

… improve environmental management 5% 23% 41% 29% practices … improve customer satisfaction 6% 23% 36% 33% … increase awareness of employees in 3% 27% 36% 32% environmental issues … improve the reputation of the organization 4% 26% 37% 31% … Increase the differentiation of products/ 6% 27% 40% 26% services … improvement legal compliance 7% 27% 36% 28% … drive environmental improvement in 6% 28% 40% 25% products/organisations … be a tool to define environmental strategies 6% 28% 38% 25% and actions … increase sales of the products 8% 28% 37% 26%

… create new marketing opportunities 9% 27% 40% 22% … improve the competitive advantage of 6% 31% 38% 23% organisations … involve top managers in environmental issues 7% 29% 37% 24% … increase the level of cooperation within the 8% 30% 39% 22% company … be a tool to identify environmental hotspots 6% 31% 36% 24%

… improve the relations with suppliers 7% 31% 34% 25%

… improve the relations with public institutions 9% 29% 35% 24% … improve the relations with the owner or the 9% 31% 36% 22% group … support the implementation of monitoring 9% 31% 34% 23% systems … be useful for product design 10% 31% 32% 24%

… improve financing opportunities 10% 33% 32% 22%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=411

102 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Data collection, HR costs are the main barriers to implement LCA. On the other hand, collection of data from the supply chain, significant involvement of internal human resources, difficulty collecting data from suppliers and the high costs for expert involvement have been selected as the main inhibitors of LCA. It is worth mentioning that almost half of the participants selected ‘Totally agree’ or ‘Agree’ for most of the statements. Figure 43 LCA inhibitors (Q37)

1- Totally disagree 2 3 4 5- Totally agree

High costs for expert involvement 6% 31% 41% 19%

Difficulty collecting data from suppliers 8% 31% 36% 23%

Significant involvement of internal human 8% 34% 36% 20% resources

Collection of data from supply chain 9% 33% 36% 19%

Difficult to assess the quality of data 9% 32% 40% 16%

Definition of system boundaries 10% 32% 38% 17%

Difficult to find good quality data 11% 32% 37% 18%

Too time consuming 9% 34% 32% 22%

Definition of scope and object of the study 8% 36% 36% 17%

Certification/review of the study 7% 39% 34% 19%

Difficulty collecting data inside the organization 12% 33% 39% 12%

Evaluation of data quality 8% 38% 34% 18%

With the analysis and interpretation of the 9% 38% 34% 17% results

Definition of the functional unit 10% 37% 34% 17%

Software is too expensive 10% 36% 33% 17%

Difficulty coordinating internal and external 11% 38% 32% 16% resources

Difficulty to communicate the results 13% 41% 27% 15%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=411

103 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Most SMEs find PEF features as useful, particularly on performance and impacts. Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) has been discussed in 68% of the SMEs surveyed. SMEs having an environmental policy based on LCA were asked about the usefulness of the new features brought by PEF in comparison to LCA. The following figure shows that almost two thirds of the participants consider these new features as useful or very useful. Figure 44 Product Environmental Footprint (Q35)

1- Not useful at all 2 3 4 5- Very useful

The environmental performance of the average product on the market (representative product/ 3% 26% 42% 28% benchmark) is stated in the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules

Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules pre-identify most relevant environmental 3% 26% 40% 29% impacts, processes and life cycle stages for the product group

Secondary data are available for free to users of Product Environmental Footprint Category 5% 25% 36% 31% Rules

It is possible to compare the Environmental Footprint profile of the product with the 4% 26% 38% 29% benchmark

Data quality requirements vary based on 5% 28% 33% 32% environmental relevance and access to data

Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules 5% 30% 37% 27% list secondary data to be used

Primary data gathering is focussed on a limited 5% 32% 35% 25% number of specific processes

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=212

104 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

3.4 Lessons learned from the stakeholder testing Consumers on perceptions, experience and knowledge  “Environmental footprint” is understood as the negative impact the actions of companies and people have in the environment. It evokes a sense of “future inheritance”, or how we leave the planet to future generation. It is associated with the responsibility of individuals, companies, and the government; as well as with the consequence of overproduction and overconsumption of goods and services.  The main concerns are related with air pollution, soil and water contamination, deforestation, ozone depletion, use of natural resources and the loss of biodiversity. Climate change is considered particularly worrying. The over-production of packaging is also a great concern.  Educating children on environmental sustainability is considered fundamental. Consumers are suspicious about the agreements governments reach to take care of the environment, and believe that public transportation should all be electric.  Consumers think sustainability is also becoming a sort of “fashion”, so that companies and brands are using it as a marketing tool to take profit from it.  The participants’ main contribution to environmental sustainability is recycling. Participants try to avoid the accumulation of too many plastic bags and packaging. Repairing things, buying second hand, avoiding energy waste, reducing paper use, using bike or public transport, consuming locally produced and season products and buying organic food are other habits participants have developed in relation to environmental sustainability.  Skepticism is the main barrier to be receptive to environmental footprint information. Participants show high levels of mistrust towards the credibility of certifications and labels.  Consumers are willing to pay a little more for eco-friendly products, especially food, but not a big difference. They may pay less attention to the environmental footprint of products that are bought regularly or products that are expected to be used for a very short period of time. But they may pay more attention when introducing new products in their habits, when purchasing products that are going to be used for a long time, or when purchasing big or expensive items, such as cars or houses. Other items where participants may pay more attention are those related with their own or their children’s health, with higher energy consumption. Consumers on the effects of CVs  Environmental footprint information in labelling is expected to have a higher influence when visible, easily understood, and certified by a credible and trustful authority. Consumers are concerned more about the production phase as they cannot have any influence or control on it.  The traffic-lights performance rating is preferred when shopping in a more mechanical and less involved way. When shopping in a more conscious way, 5 levels scale is more appropriate due to being more differentiating and precise. The ideal performance rating is considered to be a mixture of the A-E combined with the traffic-lights coding. Participants have more detailed information on the label when buying products that can be unhealthy due to toxicity, such as clothes, cosmetics or food.  Consumers do not want to feel overloaded by information. Showing 3 midpoints is more than enough. The rest would be checked through the QR code, website or app if the consumer wished. QR codes are preferred to barcodes. Extra information is especially appreciated when buying groceries that are purchased regularly or for items that are going to be used over long periods of time, or that are more expensive.

105 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

 Green areas at points of sale such as supermarkets or shops are associated with containing eco-friendly products. Color coding can be misleading as green does not necessarily mean the product or service is really environmentally friendly. Separating eco-friendly products from others at the point-of-sale generates mixed opinions. Consumers with higher levels of environmental awareness would download an app containing environmental footprint information if it was supported by a trusted institution and if it was used by scanning the product. The app should also provide practical tips on green habits. Retailers on awareness and understanding  Retailers believe the concept of “environmental footprint” is not well known among consumers. With many labels currently in use, there is confusion. Comparing dimensions of environmental impacts that are very different could lead consumers making unfavorable decisions.  Aspects that are communicated and the measurement units used are often “negative” (e.g. quantification of emissions) leading to unfounded negative reactions. A “positive” message – such as a measure for biodiversity – could be interesting.  Retailers agree that consumers would be led to buy environmentally friendly products as the right thing to do, and that it can make a difference to the real environment. There are ambiguities in defining environmental footprint: as an anecdote, a detergent with a lot of water is good for the environment, but doesn’t do its job right, and worse - one needs to use higher temperature, which is bad for the environment and cancels out the intended benefits.  Attitudes do not necessarily lead to positive environmental impacts, and do not necessarily translate into behavioural change. In some sectors consumers are already loyal to brands, and would be unlikely react to potentially new labels from competitors.  There was no unambiguous consensus on which functional (measurement) unit to feature on a potential label, e.g. value vs. weight. Retailers on their role  Retailers might be gatekeepers, and take over activities of communication for environmental footprint, as they know their end-users well. Some will focus on water consumption, others on biodiversity. Single brands can more easily speak with suppliers and consumers. Retailers are in the best position to communicate environmental footprint to consumers, except perhaps for products where the “use” phase is longer. Retailers can pick out what they think consumers are most interested in. For example, they could choose to have separate shop corners for green products.  Retailers agree that they would not sort “green” products in a separate corner, and that it would be a way of turning customers into a false dichotomy: “these products are good therefore the others are bad”. On-shelf information would be difficult to implement, as it would have to be constantly updated. In addition, electronic on-shelf labels are not large enough to host more information other than price. Instead, a single website would be desirable to which all users would be redirected.  Life cycle methodology should not be used to compare two products. Instead, it is the same product that should be compared over two or more time periods.

SMEs on environmental concerns, environmental policy, LCA and PEF  Most SME surveyed have staff with explicit responsibility for the environment. Many, especially mid-sized and operating in agriculture and industry, are committed to environmental issues. Environmental concern is likewise higher among medium-sized enterprises and in the primary and secondary sectors. Similarly, the demand for environmental information is lower in the service sector and among micro-sized enterprises.

106 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

 Half of the SMEs have an internal environmental policy in place. These policies cover mainly products/services sold. Two-thirds are based on LCA indicators. Topics covered include the environment (climate change, water use, land use), human health (including human toxicity and cancer, as well as climate change), and the future availability of resources (water use, fossil fuels use, and metals and mineral use).  Environmental information is published by 30% of the participants. Clients are the main target. More often than not, information is externally audited, such as by a third party certification body.  Product declaration, label and report are the preferred CVs among B2B participants. B2B see labels as the most effective CV, followed by PR campaigns, environmental reports, product passports and Environmental Product Declarations.  Conversely, B2C participants use websites, leaflets and labels to communicate environmental information. They see websites and POS product advertisement as the most effective CVs, followed by PR campaigns.  Organizational awareness, customer satisfaction and improvements of environmental practices are LCA’s main drivers. Conversely, data collection difficulties, and the costs of personnel (involvement of internal human resources, expert involvement) have been selected as the main inhibitors of LCA. Most SMEs find PEF features as useful, particularly on performance and impacts.

107 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

4 Weighting exercise: expert and lay knowledge 4.1 Background In the context of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), weighting is a process of attributing different levels of importance to different environmental impacts based upon a set of criteria13. As a support to public policy, weighting can help decision makers address environmental policies and strategies, for example by identifying the most relevant impacts and by presenting results as a single score. Currently, the recommendations14 (EC-JRC 2011) as used in the environmental footprint (EF) entail 15 impact categories (ICs) in the form of midpoints, nested in three broader categories in the form of endpoints15. The method selected by JRC for weighting LCA impact categories consists of a hierarchical weighting at the midpoints and at the endpoints. It entails two steps, establishing one set of weighting factors on the midpoint ICs clustered per endpoint and one set of weighting factors on the 3 endpoints. The two sets of weighting factors are combined in an overall scheme. Table 3 Hierarchical structure of impact categories

Endpoint Midpoint Human health Climate change Ozone depletion Human toxicity, cancer effects Human toxicity, non-cancer effects Ionizing radiation, human health Particulate matter/Respiratory inorganics Photochemical ozone formation, human health Natural environment Acidification Climate change Ecotoxicity freshwater Eutrophication terrestrial Eutrophication freshwater Eutrophication marine Land use Resource use: water Natural resources Climate change Land use Resource use: water Resource use: metals and minerals Resource use: fossil fuels

13 Finnveden. G.. M. Z. Hauschild. T. Ekvall. J. Guinée. R. Heijungs. S. Hellweg. A. Koehler. D. Pennington. and S. Suh. 2009. Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 91:1-21. 14 EC-JRC. 2011. Recommendations based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors for life cycle assessment in European context. Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg. 15 EC. 2016. Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase. Version 5.2. European Commission.

108 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

4.2 Methodology

4.2.1 Design The method of hierarchical weighting at midpoints and endpoints aims at developing indicators applicable to the EU context based on respondents’ assessment of the 15 impact categories (midpoints) within the 3 super-ordinate main areas (endpoints). Two different target groups were envisaged: the general population (lay respondents) and experts in the environmental field. Two questionnaires were designed, one for the experts and one for lay respondents. The questionnaires cover similar issues but differ in wording (less technical for lay respondents). Demographic characteristics were elicited for both the public and experts. The general public was accessed using an online panel to recruit a representative sample of 400 Internet users in each country (Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Poland and the UK). The respondents were invited to complete an online survey of circa 15-20 minutes. After answering questions on socio-demographic characteristics, in Step 1 respondents assess the weightings of the three end points, using the ‘swing’ methodology. In this the most important end-point gets 100 points (we will call this number 1) and then participants have to rate the other 2 relative to number 1. Step 2 entails the ranking of the mid points. Participants are asked to rank the mid-points of the number 1 endpoint they selected in step 1. Following the same logic applied in Step 1, the first mid-point in importance gets 100 points and the others are rated relative to number 1. After this exercise is performed, participants were randomly allocated using quotas to perform the same exercise with one of the two other endpoints. Lastly, respondents were asked a battery of questions related to their environmental attitude. The figure below sketches the overall procedure. Figure 45 General public survey procedure

109 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

The questionnaire included the following sentences to describe the end-points:  Human Health. The aim is to quantify the negative effects capturing death and illnesses as consequence of e.g. emitted chemicals or radiation that take place during the life cycle of a product;  Natural Environment. The aim is to quantify the negative effects on the function and structure of natural ecosystems as a consequence of e.g. emitted chemicals or physical interventions that take place during the life cycle of a product;  Natural Resources. The aim is to quantify the negative effects due to the use of abiotic resources which results in a decrease in the availability of the total resource stock. as abiotic resources are usually finite and non-renewable. To perform this task, respondents saw the following screens (the impact categories were randomized to avoid order effects): Figure 46 Screen 1

Figure 47 Screen 2

110 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

To address the midpoints the following explanations were provided. Human Health  Climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases change temperature and the climate for the worse, impacting indirectly also your health.  Ozone depletion. Emissions damage the ozone layer leading to increased ultraviolet radiation resulting to skin cancer and damage to plants.  Human Toxicity (cancer). Emissions of toxic substances leading to an increased risk of cancer via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the water we drink.  Human Toxicity (non-cancer). Emissions of toxic substances damaging your health via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the water we drink.  Particulate matter. Emissions of tiny particles that lead to respiratory diseases and the so called “winter smog”.  Ionizing radiation. Radiation that increases risk of cancer.  Photochemical ozone formation. Emissions creating so called “summer smog” and respiratory diseases. Natural Environment  Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changes temperature and the climate for the worse impacting indirectly also the ecosystems.  Acidification. Emission of substance that lead to acid rain and poorer quality of air, water and soil.  Eutrophication terrestrial. Too many nutrients in the environment e.g. by over use of fertilisers in farming upsetting the balance of nature.  Eutrophication freshwater. Too many nutrients in freshwater e.g. by the over use of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater upsetting the balance of nature e.g. leading to algal blooms and killing fish.  Eutrophication marine. Too many nutrients in marine water e.g. by the over use of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater upsetting the balance of nature e.g. leading to algal blooms in sea water.  Land use. Use of land and soil endanger soil fertility as well as the survival of some species of animals and plants.  Ecotoxicity freshwater. Emission of toxic substances that are a danger to organisms like fish, algae and other organisms living in fresh water. Natural Resources  Land use. Use of land creates pressures on the availability of soil as resource.  Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changes temperature and the climate for the worse impacting indirectly also the natural resource provision.  Resource use: metals and minerals. The use of minerals, metals and other resources in a product affects their availability for future uses.  Resource use: fossil fuels. The use fossil fuels affect their availability for future uses.  Water use. The use of freshwater affects its availability for future uses. The same logic was used with the experts, the second target group. After replying to the questions about socio-demographic characteristics, experts ‘swing’ the weightings of the three end points (Step 1). End-point number 1 is awarded 100 points and then participants have to rate the other 2 relatives to number 1. Step 2 comprises the ranking of the mid points. Participants were randomly allocated to rank the mid-points of either Human Health or Ecosystem Quality. Following the same logic applied in Step 1, the first mid-point is awarded 100 points and the others are rated relative to number 1. After this exercise was performed the experts were asked to weight the resource mid-points and to rate their level of expertise in the domain of each mid-point. Finally, the experts were asked a battery of questions related to their environmental attitudes. The following figure sketches the overall process.

111 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Figure 48 Experts survey procedure

112 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

The experts’ questionnaire included the definition of the 15 impact categories as provided by JRC:  Climate change. Refers to the changes induced to the World’s climate as a consequence of the emissions to the atmosphere of the so-called greenhouse gases, such as CO2, N2O, CH4. The Earth’s atmosphere absorbs part of the energy emitted as infrared radiation from Earth towards space, and is thereby heated. This natural greenhouse effect leading to a warming of the atmosphere has been increased over the past few centuries by human activity leading to accumulation of such compounds as CO2, N2O, CH4 and halocarbons to the atmosphere. The most important human contribution to the emissions of greenhouse gases is attributed to the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. The consequences include increased global average temperatures and sudden regional climatic changes.  Ozone depletion. The stratospheric Ozone (O3) layer (that can stretch from ~8km to ~50 km height) protects us from hazardous ultraviolet radiation (UV-B). Its depletion can have dangerous consequences in the form of increased frequency of skin cancer in humans and damage to plants. Stratospheric O3 is broken down as a consequence of man-made emissions of halocarbons (as CFCs and HCFCs), halons and other long-lived gases containing chloride and bromine. The ozone content of the stratosphere was therefore decreasing, and since 1985 a dramatic temporary thinning of the ozone layer, often referred to as “ozone hole”, has been observed each year, over the South Pole. In recent years the problem has been reduced due to international ban of substances contributing to ozone depletion.  Human toxicity – cancer effects. Chemicals emitted as a consequence of human activities can contribute to cancer in humans via exposure to the environment. For a substance to be regarded as contributing to human toxicity, it must of course cause cancer. In addition, also the substance’s behavior has to be considered in that there can be several routes of exposure to humans. The most important routes of exposure are via the air breathed in or via other materials ingested orally, e.g. food or water.  Human toxicity – non-cancer effects. Chemicals emitted as a consequence of human activities can contribute to human toxicity via exposure to the environment. For a substance to be regarded as contributing to human toxicity, it must of course be poisonous to humans. In addition, also the substance’s behavior has to be considered in that there can be several routes of exposure to humans. The most important routes of exposure looked at in those categories are via the air breathed in or via other materials ingested orally, e.g. food or water.  Particulate matter/respiratory inorganics. Ambient concentrations of “dust” or particulate matter (PM) are elevated by emissions of primary and secondary particulates. The mechanism for the creation of secondary emissions involves emissions of SO2 and NOx that create sulphate and nitrate aerosols. Particulate matter is measured in a variety of ways: total suspended particulates (TSP), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) or particulate matter less than 0.1 microns in diameter (PM0.1). Usually, the smaller the particles are the more dangerous they are as they can get deeper into the lungs.  Ionising radiation, human health. The exposure to ionising radiation (“radioactivity”) can have impacts on human health. The modelling starts with releases at the point of emission, expressed as Becquerel (Bq). The exposure analysis calculates the dose that a human actually absorbs, given the radiation levels that are calculated in the fate analysis. The measure for the effective dose is the Sievert (Sv), based on human body equivalence factors for the different ionising radiation types. It is to be noted, that in Life Cycle Assessment and in the Environmental Footprint only emissions are taken into account that occur under normal operating conditions. The risks due to nuclear accidents are not covered by the EF.  Photochemical ozone formation, human health. While a sufficiently high concentration of ozone up in the stratosphere (8-50 km) is vital to protect the earth from hazardous ultraviolet radiation (UV-B), ozone on the ground (in the troposphere) attacks organic compounds and especially the respiratory tract in humans. This leads to an

113 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

increased frequency of problems of the respiratory tract in humans during periods of photochemical smog in cities (“summer smog”). When solvents and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are released to the atmosphere (e.g. by emissions from combustion processes), they can be degraded within a few days. The reaction involved is an oxidation, which occurs under the influence of light from the sun. In the presence of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) ozone can be formed. NOx are not consumed during ozone formation, but have a catalyst-like function. This process is termed photochemical ozone formation.  Acidification. Acidification has contributed to a decline of coniferous forests and increased fish mortality. Acidification can be caused by emissions to air, water and soil. For instance when gaseous SO2 is released and reaches a water body, it reacts with H2O to form the acid H2SO4. When acids (and compounds that can be converted to acids) are emitted to the atmosphere and deposited in water and soil, the addition of hydrogen ions (H+) may result in a decrease in the pH of the water body. The most significant man- made sources of acidification are combustion processes in electricity, heating production and transport. The contribution to acidification is greatest when the fuels used contain a high content of sulphure.  Eutrophication – terrestrial. Eutrophication is an impact on the ecosystems from substances containing nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P). As a rule, the availability of one of these nutrients will be a limiting factor for growth in the ecosystem, and if this nutrient is added, the growth of algae or specific plants will be increased. On land, ecosystems which need an environment with only little nutrients are gradually disappearing mainly as a result of the addition of nitrogen (N). Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from combustion processes are of significance for both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Eutrophication –freshwater. Eutrophication is an impact on the ecosystems from substances containing nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P). As a rule, the availability of one of these nutrients will be a limiting factor for growth in the ecosystem, and if this nutrient is added, the growth of algae or specific plants will be increased. In lakes and rivers this will be mainly due to the increase of phosphorus (P). Too rapid growth of algae can lead to situations without enough oxygen in the water for fish to survive once the algae die and are degraded (which consumes oxygen). Emissions of nitrogen to the aquatic environment are caused largely by the agricultural use of fertilizers, but oxides of nitrogen from combustion processes are also of significance for both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The most significant sources of emissions of phosphorus are sewage treatment plants for urban and industrial effluents and leaching from agricultural land.  Eutrophication – marine. Eutrophication is an impact on the ecosystems from substances containing nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P). As a rule, the availability of one of these nutrients will be a limiting factor for growth in the ecosystem, and if this nutrient is added, the growth of algae or specific plants will be increased. For the marine environment this will be mainly due to the increase of nitrogen (N). Emissions of nitrogen are caused largely by the agricultural use of fertilizers, but oxides of nitrogen from combustion processes are also of significance for both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.  Ecotoxicity – freshwater. A substance contributing to ecotoxicity, affects the function and structure of the ecosystem by exerting toxic effects on the organisms which live in it. Toxic effects can occur as soon as the substances are released (acute ecotoxicity), or may appear after repeated or long-term exposure to the substances (chronic ecotoxicity). Chronic ecotoxicity is often caused by substances which have a low degradability in the environment and which can therefore remain for a long time after their emission (persistent substances). Some substances also have the tendency of accumulating in living organisms, so that tissues and organs can be exposed to concentrations of the substance which are far higher than the concentration in the surrounding environment. The chronic ecotoxicity of a compound is thus determined by its toxic effects, its biodegradability, and its ability of accumulating in living organisms.  Land use. The impact category Land Use tries to estimate the damage to ecosystems due to the effects of occupation and transformation of land. Examples of land use are agricultural production, mineral extraction and human settlement. Transformation is the conversion of land from one use to another use. The impacts can be various such as loss

114 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

of species, soil organic matter content or reduced primary production or loss of the soil itself (“erosion”).  Resource use – water. The withdrawal of water from lakes, rivers or groundwater can contribute to the “depletion” of the available water, while water itself is seen as a renewable resource. The impact category considers the availability or scarcity of water in the regions where the activity takes place, if this information is known.  Resource use –metals and minerals. The earth contains a finite amount of non- renewable resources, such as metals, minerals. The use of resources may lead to a decrease of availability of potential functions of resources.  Resource use –fossil fuels. The earth contains a finite amount of non-renewable resources, such as fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. The use of resources may lead to a decrease of availability of potential functions of resources.

4.2.2 Sample For the general public, a random sample of 2.400 individuals was drawn from 6 countries (Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, Poland and France) to produce the general public survey (400 respondents per each of the 6 countries). The randomization was implemented at the country level, meaning that each country was equally represented in the survey. Gathering the data across countries made it possible to ensure the validity in making generalisations about awareness and understanding of the impact categories as well as about the broader environmental attitudes. Table 4 Technical specification of samples for the online survey

Population General population. aged 18 to 65 years old

Scope 8 EU Member States:  Germany  Italy  Spain  UK  Poland France

Methodology Online survey

Sample size n=2.400 (n=400 respondents per country)

Quotas  Age  Gender Country

Sampling error 2.04% for overall data and 5.00% for country- specific data

Weighting Weighting by country to be able to interpret the overall data

Sampling Random with quotas

115 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

The following tables show the sample by age, country, gender, and education level. Table 5 Target sample by country and age group

Country From 18 to 24 From 25 to 54 From 55 to 74 Total years years years Germany 46 247 107 400 Spain 48 280 72 400 France 53 247 100 400 Italy 53 269 78 400 Poland 64 269 67 400 UK 52 241 107 400 Total 316 1.553 531 2.400

Table 6 Target sample by country and gender

Country Female Male Total

Germany 195 205 400 Spain 197 203 400 France 203 197 400 Italy 191 209 400 Poland 202 198 400 UK 199 201 400 Total 1.187 1.213 2.400

Table 7 Target sample by country and education level

Country 0-11 years 12 years of Post-graduate Some years University Total of education degree (MA, of degree education (high MS, JD, MD, university (BA, BS) school PhD, etc) (not diploma) completed)

Germany 172 91 70 21 46 400 Spain 11 94 43 77 175 400 France 39 125 81 30 125 400 Italy 25 142 102 87 44 400 Poland 14 114 162 44 66 400 UK 11 94 43 77 175 400 Total 281 703 512 300 604 2,400

116 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

The following table shows the sampling errors. They are calculated for a probability no greater than 95.5% and for the least desired context. i.e. a maximum indeterminate probability (p = q = 50%) for the reference population. The sampling error is the error caused by observing a sample instead of the whole population. The sampling error can be found by subtracting the value of a parameter from the value of a statistic and is calculated with the formula given below:

Where: e = Sampling error Z = Confidence level The value for selected alpha level of .0225 in each tail = 2. The value of Z is set to 2, representing a confidence level of 95.5%. We aim for the highest possible accuracy with the smallest sample size. This confidence level gives us the best trade-off between these two goals. The expected scenario is maximum indetermination (p=q=50) where: p= The conversion rate we expect (estimate of the true conversion rate in the population) q= The conversion rate we don’t expect N= Total population (GP’s) n= Proposed sample (GP’s) These sampling errors, in fact, determine the statistical reliability of the sample and, consequently, it is necessary to take them into consideration. The overall error margin, therefore, is + 2.04%, with a country specific error margin of +5.00%. These errors are in line with the statistical criteria that validate the sample design and, being that the sample is representative and reliable, it is possible to extrapolate the study results to the target population group in the selected countries. Table 8 Sampling errors by country

Country From 18 to 24 From 25 to 54 From 55 to 74 years years years Germany 14.74 6.36 9.67 Spain 14.43 5.98 11.79 France 13.74 6.36 10.00 Italy 13.74 6.10 11.32 Poland 12.50 6.10 12.22 UK 13.87 6.44 9.67 Total 5.63 2.54 4.34

As each country's total population is different, but is sampled in equal measure, weighting was applied to ensure a representative sample for interpretation of the overall data. The following shows the weighting applied by country.

117 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Table 9 Weights by country

Country Weight

Germany 1.5135 Spain 0.7688 France 1.1051 Italy 0.8348 Poland 0.5526 UK 1.2252

The experts were contacted by email using a convenience/snowball sample, selected from the wide network of experts in Life Cycle Assessment. The following tables show the technical specification for the experts survey and the respondents by country and gender Table 10 Technical specification for the experts survey

Population Experts in LCA

Scope 48 countries

Methodology Online survey

Sample size n=518

Sampling Convenience/snowball sample

Table 11 Expert respondents by country and gender Country Female Male Total Argentina 0 1 1 Australia 1 5 6 Austria 2 9 11 Belgium 17 32 49 Brazil 0 3 3 Bulgaria 2 1 3 Chile 0 2 2 Colombia 1 0 1 Czech 1 1 2 Canada 1 8 9 Spain 10 19 29 China 1 2 3 Croatia 0 1 1 Cuba 1 0 1 Cyprus 1 0 1 Germany 21 57 78

118 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Country Female Male Total Denmark 3 9 12 France 12 42 54 Finland 6 5 11 Netherlands 6 28 34 Greece 1 3 4 Hungary 1 2 3 Ireland 5 4 9 Italy 13 23 36 Iceland 0 2 2 India 1 2 3 Iran 0 1 1 Japan 0 3 3 Latvia 1 0 1 Lithuania 1 0 1 Luxembourg 0 1 1 Malaysia 2 1 3 Norway 3 6 9 Poland 5 1 6 Portugal 5 2 7 Romania 1 1 2 Russian 0 1 1 Slovenia 0 1 1 Sweden 5 11 16 Switzerland 5 20 25 Thailand 3 5 8 Taiwan 0 1 1 Turkey 0 1 1 UK 6 17 23 USA 6 11 17 Uzbekistan 0 1 1 Vietnam 0 1 1 Hong Kong 0 1 1 Others/Did 5 15 20 not answer 155 363 518

119 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

4.2.3 Fieldwork For the general population survey, fieldwork commenced on 16 December 2016 with the UK pilot and was completed on 18 January 2017. A total of 14,427 respondents were invited to participate across the 6 countries. Of these, 2,460 completed and 2665 did not. The average duration of the questionnaire was of 18 minutes. The following figure summarizes the fieldwork process. Table 12 General public fieldwork

Age Duration Start End Invited Complete Incomplete Speeder filter (mins)

UK Pilot 16/12/16 16/12/16 307 115 76 18

Field 20/12/16 30/12/16 1,473 401 527 16

Total 1,780 516 603 5 2 16

Germany Pilot 4/1/17 4/1/17 364 21 553 13

Field 5/1/17 18/1/17 7,597 407 0 23

Total 7,961 428 553 6 4 22

France Pilot 10/1/17 10/1/17 138 27 292 25

Field 11/1/17 17/1/17 950 406 11 19

Total 1,088 433 303 5 5 19

Spain Pilot 22/12/16 22/12/16 42 29 279 15

Field 23/12/16 3/1/17 890 403 10 18

Total 932 432 289 3 2 17

Poland Pilot 9/1/17 9/1/17 154 27 262 19

Field 10/1/17 17/1/17 986 401 14 18

Total 1,140 428 276 4 4 18

Italy Pilot 4/1/17 4/1/17 179 27 428 16

Field 5/1/17 16/1/17 1,167 401 8 18

Total 1,346 428 436 1 1 17

TOTAL 14,247 2,665 2,460 24 18 18

The expert survey, commenced on 13 January 2017 and ended on 13 February 2017. A total of 5,820 were contacted. Of these 1,053 opened the questionnaire and 518 completed the questionnaire. The following figure summarizes the fieldwork process.

120 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Table 13 Experts fieldwork

Experts Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Total

E-Mails data-base 5,820

Opened the questionnaire 825 204 21 3 1,053

Completes 428 75 14 1 518

Incompletes 394 129 7 2 532

Don't pass screener (age) 3 0 0 0 3

Reminders 4

Date start of fieldwork 13/1/17 26/1/17 26/1/17 31/1/17

Date end of fieldwork 13/2/17 13/2/17 13/2/17 13/2/17

Average duration (min) 26 23 20 27

4.3 Findings Among endpoints, in the general public survey, the median score for human health is 100. This means that over half of respondents selected Human Health as the category of most concern. The average scores given to health, environment, and natural resources are 88, 73, and 67.3 respectively. Table 14 General Public Summary statistics – Endpoints

Impact category (IC) Mean Median Standard deviation

Human Health 88.0 100.0 21.0

Natural Environment 73.0 80.0 25.4

Natural Resources 67.3 70.0 25.2

n=2400 In the expert survey, “Natural Environment” is the highest scoring endpoint (average of 87.3). The mean scores of Human Health and Natural Resources are 81.7 and 69.9 respectively. Table 15 Experts Summary statistics – Endpoints

Impact category (IC) Mean Median Standard deviation Human Health 81.7 90.0 24.4 Natural Environment 87.3 90.0 16.7 Natural Resources 69.9 77.5 24.9

n=519

With regards to health midpoints, in the general public survey, more than half of respondents picked “Human Toxicity – cancer” as the most worrying impact category, with a mean score of

121 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

81.9. On average, “Human Toxicity – non-cancer” and “Climate change” are the second and third highest ranking categories, with mean scores of 64.9 and 62.6 respectively. Table 16 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Human Health)

Impact category (IC) Mean Median Standard deviation Climate change 62.6 70.0 33.1 Ozone depletion 59.8 60.0 30.4 Human Toxicity - cancer 81.9 100.0 27.6 Human Toxicity - non-cancer 64.9 70.0 28.8 Particulate matter 58.6 60.0 29.2 Ionizing radiation 58.0 60.0 29.6 Photochemical ozone formation 50.2 50.0 29.1

n=2400 Among experts, results mirror the general public survey as “Human toxicity – cancer” ranks first with an average of 81.1, followed by “Particulate matter” (79.0 on average) and “Climate change” (74.6 on average). Table 17 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Human Health)

Impact category (IC) Mean Median Standard deviation Climate change 74.6 80.0 27.2 Ozone depletion 56.2 60.0 28.1 Human Toxicity - cancer 81.1 90.0 25.3 Human Toxicity - non-cancer 69.0 80.0 26.1 Particulate matter 79.0 85.0 21.2 Ionizing radiation 55.8 60.0 28.6 Photochemical ozone formation 61.7 65.0 23.9

n=519 With regards to environmental midpoints, “Climate Change” is the category of most concern for the general public, scoring 71.2 on average, followed by “Eutrophication – freshwater” (mean 63.7) and “Resource use – water” (mean 63.4). It is worth noting that the “Climate change” midpoint is featured in all three groups and is also the single category with the highest amount of variation, as measured by a standard deviation of 33.1 in Health, 32.4 in Environment, and 32.0 in Natural Resources.

122 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Table 18 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Environment)

Impact category (IC) Mean Median Standard deviation Climate change 71.2 85.0 32.4 Acidification 61.3 69.0 29.3 Eutrophication - terrestrial 60.5 65.0 28.2 Eutrophication - freshwater 63.7 70.0 28.7 Eutrophication - marine 57.6 60.0 28.6 Ecotoxicity - freshwater 62.7 70.0 29.8 Land use 59.2 60.0 30.4 Resource use - water 63.4 70.0 32.0

n=2400 Among experts, “Climate change” is also and by far the category of highest concern, with more than half respondents selecting it as first (median of 100) and a mean of 88.5. “Resource use – water” (mean 75.2), “Ecotoxicity – freshwater” (mean 67.7) and “Land use” (mean 67.5) follow. Table 19 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Environment)

Impact category (IC) Mean Median Standard deviation Climate change 88.5 100.0 20.9 Acidification 59.2 65.0 26.4 Eutrophication - terrestrial 53.9 55.0 24.1 Eutrophication - freshwater 64.3 70.0 22.9 Eutrophication - marine 55.9 60.0 25.0 Ecotoxicity - freshwater 67.7 70.0 26.4 Land use 67.5 70.0 25.5 Resource use - water 75.2 80.0 24.1

n=519 With regards to natural resources midpoints, the category “Resource use – fossil fuels” is the highest scoring midpoints among the general public, with a mean of 80.4. The second highest scoring midpoint is “Climate Change” (mean 70.0). Table 20 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Resources)

Impact category (IC) Mean Median Standard deviation Resource use - water 63.5 70.0 27.1 Resource use - metal and minerals 66.3 70.0 27.7 Resource use - fossil fuels 80.4 90.0 26.4 Land use 70.0 80.0 27.4 Climate change 70.7 80.0 30.5

n=2400 Finally, “Resource use – water” (mean 85.2) is the highest scoring midpoint among experts surveyed. The next most worrying categories are “Climate change” (mean 76.8) and “Land use” (73.9).

123 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Table 21 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Resources)

Impact category (IC) Mean Median Standard deviation

Resource use - water 85.3 93.0 20.0

Resource use - metal and minerals 65.5 70.0 24.9

Resource use - fossil fuels 65.8 74.5 28.6

Land use 73.9 80.0 24.0

Climate change 76.8 88.5 27.4

n=519 The following figure summarizes the results on midpoints for the three categories in both surveys – general public and experts. Here, midpoints are ranked according to their means. Figure 49 Summary of results

Human health Natural environment Natural resources 100

General Experts

In the natural environment group, the pattern shows a similarity among the two groups of respondents. In the human health group, both experts and the general public are concerned about cancer the most, while the relative importance of the remaining categories differs. In the natural resources group, priorities differ significantly among the two groups.

124 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

4.4 Lessons learned from the weighting exercise Endpoints Over the life cycle of products, resources and energy are used. This creates emissions into air, water and soil, leading to negative impacts on health, environment and the future availability of resources. The general public surveyed is especially concerned about impacts on health. Experts surveyed are more concerned about impacts on the environment. Midpoints There are many different ways in which the life cycle of products can negatively affect human health, the environment, and the future availability of resources. Health impacts  Emissions of toxic substances can lead to an increased risk of cancer, via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the water we drink. This aspect is of highest concern among both experts and the general public.  Experts are also concerned about particulate matter, emissions of tiny particles that lead to respiratory diseases and the so called “winter smog”, as well as the health consequences of climate change.  The general public is also concerned about human toxicity (other than cancer), the emission of toxic substances damaging health, as well as the health consequences of climate change. Environmental impacts  Climate change refers to the human-driven changes induced to the natural environment as a consequence of the emissions in the atmosphere of the so-called greenhouse gases, such as CO2, N2O, CH4. Climate change is the aspect of highest concern among both experts and the general public.  The withdrawal of water from lakes, rivers or groundwater can contribute to water scarcity. Experts and the general public alike are concerned about the use of water during the life cycle of products.  The emission of toxic substances that are a danger to fish, algae and other organisms living in fresh water, known as eco-toxicity, is also of concern among experts.  Too many nutrients in freshwater, e.g. by the abuse of fertilizers in farming and release of wastewater, upset the balance of nature, leading to algal blooms and killing fish. The general public is concerned about this phenomenon, also known as freshwater eutrophication. Natural resource impacts  Water scarcity, and the use of water during the life cycle of products, is also the main concern among experts in relation of the availability of future resources.  The earth contains a finite amount of non-renewable resources, such as fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. The use of fossil fuels may lead to a decrease of availability of potential functions of resources, and is the aspect of highest concern among the general public.  Both experts and the general public are also concerned with climate change, as well as with land use, which is the damage to ecosystems due to the effects of occupation and transformation of land. Examples of land use are agricultural production, mineral extraction and human settlement. Transformation is the conversion of land from one use to another use. Impacts include loss of species, of soil organic matter, erosion, and reduced primary production.

125 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

5 Online experiments: certification, willingness to pay and Ecolabel 5.1 Background This chapter contains the results from the three online experiments conducted by the Consortium. The experiment were designed based on the feedback gathered during the previous steps (focus groups, workshop, weighting exercise), where the following areas were identified as potential complementary tests:  Certification and Trust: Should PEF labels include a certification? and which institutions do consumers trust more?  Impact categories: To what extent are consumers concerned about different negative impacts (e.g. on the environment, on human health) of product life cycle?  Message framing: Are consumers persuaded more by positive or negative messages?  Willingness to pay: To what extent are consumers willing to pay more for environmentally-friendly product?  Penalisation: Should a company who intentionally misinformed the public about the environmental performance of a product be penalised?  Ecolabel: How should a PEF label relate to the existing Ecolabel? Accordingly, three large online experiments were designed to test the relative effectiveness of CVs in terms of several dimensions, including:  Understanding of PEF information: declared and factual;  Attracting attention for the PEF and OEF information;  Influence on the purchasing intentions in terms of willingness to pay and increased perceived marginal utility of the product with PEF information over one without. Box 1 – Discrete choice experiments

126 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

5.2 Methodology This section summarises the methodology used in the three experiments conducted. A detailed description is provided as Annex.

5.2.1 Study on Certification and Trust The experiment aimed at understanding the importance of PEF rating certification – the source of certification, framing, and trustworthiness - on consumer decision-making process. To achieve this aim, an online experiment was conducted in four different countries: Sweden, Spain, Germany and Romania. This selection was based on the Special Eurobarometer 416 Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment (2014). Sweden and Spain are countries above the EU28 average while Germany and Romania are below the EU28 average. In addition to the different level of environmentally consciousness, these four countries represent different geographical locations and different levels of per-capita GDP, Sweden and Germany faring above the EU-28 average, Spain and Romania below average16. The online experiment was performed in two steps: the experimental part using a discrete choice experiment (Part 1) and the self-reported measures (Part 2), including questions (see sections below) and psychometric scales. A representative sample (age and gender) of 1,500 internet users was targeted in each country to capture variance. Figure 50. Experimental design Part 1: Discrete Part 2: Self-reported choice experiment survey (6'-8') (6'-8')

16 Source: Eurostat [nama_10_pc].

127 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

17 There are two fundamental advantages of the within subjects design: a) power and b) reduction in error variance associated with individual differences. A fundamental inferential statistics principle is that, as the number of subjects grows, statistical power increases, and the probability of beta error decreases (the probability of not finding an effect when one "truly" exists). This is why it is always better to have more subjects. The reason this is so relevant to the within subjects design is that, by using a within-subjects design you have in effect increased the number of "subjects" relative to a between subjects design.

128 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Gathering the data across countries made it possible to ensure the validity and possibility to generalise about awareness and understanding of the impact categories as well as about the broader environmental awareness. The following table summarises the sample specification. Table 22 Study on Certification and Trust – Sample specification

Population General population aged 18 to 74 years old 4 EU Member States: Scope  Sweden  Romania  Spain Germany

Methodology Online survey

Sample size n=6,000 (n=1,500 respondents per country)  Age Quotas  Gender Country

Sampling error 1.29% for overall data and 2.58% for country- specific data

Weighting Weighting by country to be able to interpret the overall data

Sampling Random with quotas

129 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

5.2.2 Study on Willingness to Pay and PEF This complementary test aimed at understanding the importance of a product’s price, its environmental performance, and the PEF label’s appearance in consumer decision-making. To achieve this aim, an online experiment was conducted in four different countries: France, Germany, Italy and Poland. This selection is based on the same criteria mentioned in the previous complementary test. The design of this experiment could be considered as functionally equivalent to the experiment conducted by the French government “The impact of environmental labelling on consumer choices: lessons from a large-sample choice experiment”18. In our complementary test, respondents made choices across three product types – Yogurt, t-shirt, and laptop. The characteristics that varied in the products’ descriptions are:  PEF description (3 levels) o Overall PEF score; o Overall PEF score plus three exemplary midpoints; o Only three midpoints  PEF performance o B/better o D/worse  Prices) o Baseline o Plus 7% o Plus 15% The choice of midpoints reflected the work conducted by the Dairy pilot (for yogurt), the T-shirt pilot (for t-shirt), and the IT equipment pilot (for laptops). The following midpoints were accordingly selected:  Yogurt: Climate Change / Water use / Land use  T-shirt: Climate Change / Particular Matter / Freshwater Eutrophication  Laptop: Climate Change / Particular Matter / Resource use: metals and minerals As an example, choice set #4 for a t-shirt in Italy is shown in the picture below. Figure 52 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice example

The target consisted of 1500 individuals per country and 4 countries (France, Germany, Italy and Poland). The selection of the countries followed the same criteria of the previous experiment.

18 In May 2016, the report published by the French government read that “The aim of environmental labelling is to educate consumers about the environmental impact of the products they buy. Unlike ecolabels, which are manifested by the presence of a logo on consumer products, the principle of environmental labelling is to display quantitative information on the environmental footprint of the products, in the form of a graduated scale for example”. Within this context, the study aimed at analysing the impact of such a scheme on consumer choices, estimating consumers’ willingness to pay for better environmental quality from their product choices. In the French study, the contrasts were (i) voluntary or compulsory labelling (ii) presentation of an aggregate PEF score or not (iii) environmental impact mentioned or not (iv) branded product or not.

130 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

The experiment consisted of a repeated measures design for the three products (Yogurt, t-shirt and laptop in random order) followed by a number of questions on the social context in which the environmental concern is discussed by the participants and the socio-demographic characteristics. A list of questions was asked at the end of the choice experiments in all versions of the questionnaire exploring the respondents’ opinion of the current environmental information as they come across it in their daily lives (clarity, usefulness, etc.), their habits in terms of sustainable consumption and their awareness of ecological issues. These questions are asked after the choice experiments so as not to influence the product choices. In total, the average time for answering the questionnaire is 20 minutes. The experiment was conducted over the internet in the context of an on-line purchase, in which boxes of washing powder, yoghurt and jeans are offered for sale, with each product bearing a label summarizing its environmental impact (over its life-cycle). A random sample of 6,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (France, Italy, Germany, Poland) to produce the general public survey (1,500 respondents per each of the 4 countries). The randomization was ensured at the country level, meaning that each country was equally represented in the survey. In each country, the total sample has been divided by the number of products, so that each product shown had a similar sample. For each product sample, the study took the shape of a within-subject design. Each respondent was tested under each condition. Gathering the data across countries made it possible to ensure the validity and possibility to generalise about awareness and understanding of the impact categories as well as about the broader environmental awareness. The following table describes the sample specification: Table 23 Study on Willingness to Pay – Sample specification

Population General population aged 18 to 74 years old 4 EU Member States: Scope  Germany  France  Italy Poland

Methodology Online survey

Sample size n=6,000 (n=1,500 respondents per country)  Age Quotas  Gender Country

Sampling error 1.29% for overall data and 2.58% for country- specific data

Weighting Weighting by country to be able to interpret the overall data

Sampling Random with quotas

Annex V. Study on Willingness to Pay contains a detailed description of the methodological approach.

131 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

5.2.3 Study on Ecolabel The third experiment was conducted in 4 countries (France, Poland, Sweden and Slovenia). In each country 1,000 people were surveyed. The study aimed at investigating the consumers' choice when presented with a product displaying a PEF label as opposed to the EU Ecolabel, as well as with labels that include both PEF information and the Ecolabel, across two products (laptop and household detergent). It began with a “recognition” stage, where respondents were asked whether they could recall the Ecolabel. The first stage was followed by a discrete-choice experiment, an open-ended question, and socio-demographics. In the experimental stage, the characteristics that varied in the products’ descriptions (laptop and detergent) are: 1. Label (3 levels) a) Ecolabel alone b) PEF information alone c) Ecolabel + PEF information 2. Style a) 'Streetlight' 3 ratings (“Environmental impact: compared to similar products, this product is better/average/worse”) b) 5 ratings (ABCDE) 3. PEF performance a. Worst/Red (when presented with three rating style) and D (when presented with the 5 ratings style. b. Average/Yellow (when presented with three rating style) and C (when presented with the 5 ratings style. c. Better/Green (when presented with three rating style) and B (when presented with the 5 ratings style. 4. Price a) Baseline b) Plus 7% c) Plus 15% As an example, choice set #7 for a detergent in France is shown in the picture below. Figure 53 Study on Ecolabel – Choice example

132 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

represented in the survey. In each country, the total sample has been divided by the number of products, so that each product shown had a similar sample. For each product sample, the study took the shape of a within-subject design. Each respondent was tested under each condition. Gathering the data across countries made it possible to ensure the validity and possibility to generalise about awareness and understanding of the impact categories as well as about the broader environmental awareness. The following table describes the sample specification: Table 24 Study on Ecolabel – Sample specification

Population General population aged 18 to 74 years old 4 EU Member States: Scope  France  Poland  Sweden  Slovenia Methodology Online survey

Sample size n=4,000 (n=1,000 respondents per country)  Age Quotas  Gender  Country Sampling error 1.58% for overall data and 3.16% for country- specific data

Weighting Weighting by country to be able to interpret the overall data

Sampling Random with quotas

Annex VI. Study on Ecolabel contains a detailed description of the methodological approach. 5.3 Findings

5.3.1 Study on Certification and Trust Certification is seen as a trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. In the first experiment, consumer choice is positively correlated with the presence of a message indicating that a product’s environmental rating has been certified. This is especially true among laptop buyers, where the effect is the largest for “independent third party” certification followed by certification issued by the European Commission. Conversely, among milk buyers a certification from the “consumer association” seems to hold the strongest effect. Certification by national governments and industry association are likewise positively affecting choice, but by a lesser margin (compared to the abovementioned sources) across all products. With regards to how the accompanying message is framed, the effect of negative messages on consumer choice (compared to the baseline message) is quite large and significant. The most effective frame across the three products (laptop, t-shirt, milk) seems to be the negative message regarding children, e.g. (in English): “Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the environment”. This seems to discourage consumers from the choice of a given product ceteris paribus, and it is particularly true for t-shirt and milk buyers. The negative message on Health (“Our health will suffer if we ignore the Environment”) has a large (negative) and significant effect on choice as well. The difference across products is negligible. On the other hand, the effect of the “positive” message on children (in English, “Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children”) is not significant.

133 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

The effect of the “positive” frame on health has an opposite effect: all things equal, respondents are less likely to choose a product whose label contains the baseline message (i.e. “protect our Environment”) compared to a message in the vein of “Protect our environment to benefit our Health”. Summing up, the most effective label seems to be the one combining a negative message about children (across all products) with the third-party certification (for laptop and t-shirt buyers) or the consumer association certification (for milk buyers). Table 25 Study on Certification and Trust – Most effective labels

# Frame # Source

Laptop Laptop 1 “Our countries’ children will 1 “This rating has been verified by an suffer if we ignore the independent third party” environment” 2 “Our health will suffer if we ignore 2 “This rating has been verified by the the environment” European Commission” 3 “Protect our environment” 3 “This rating has been verified by the [COUNTRY] Consumer Association” T-shirt T-shirt 1 “Our countries’ children will 1 “This rating has been verified by an suffer if we ignore the independent third party” environment” 2 “Our health will suffer if we ignore 2 “This rating has been verified by the the environment” [COUNTRY] Consumer Association” 3 “Protect our environment to benefit 3 “This rating has been verified by the our country’s children” † European Commission”

134 Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information

Table 26 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Laptop)

Estimate Odds Probability Std. Error t-value Pr(>|t|) ratio Message framing negative -0.3463 0.70 - 30% 0.0420 -8.2417 2.220e-16 *** impact on children Message framing negative -0.1886 0.82 -18% 0.0350 -5.3894 7.068e-08 *** impact on health Message framing positive 0.0178 1.01 +1% 0.0350 0.5077 0.6117 impact on children Message framing positive 0.2201 1.24 +24% 0.0400 5.5030 3.733e-08 *** impact on health Certification: Consumer 0.4106 1.50 +50% 0.0311 13.1940 < 2.2e-16 *** association Certification: EC 0.4429 1.55 +55% 0.0332 13.3294 < 2.2e-16 *** Certification: National 0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0376 6.5099 7.519e-11 *** government Certification: Independent 0.6015 1.80 80% 0.0468 12.8638 < 2.2e-16 *** third Party Certification: Industry 0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0333 7.3474 2.021e-13 *** Table 27 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (T-shirt)