IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i9p3842-d1388160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability Science Communication: Case Study of a True Cost Campaign in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Lennart Stein

    (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Greifswald, Domstraße 11, 17489 Greifswald, Germany
    Faculty for Business Administration, Nuremberg Institute of Technology, Keßlerplatz 12, 90489 Nuremberg, Germany)

  • Amelie Michalke

    (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Greifswald, Domstraße 11, 17489 Greifswald, Germany)

  • Tobias Gaugler

    (Faculty for Business Administration, Nuremberg Institute of Technology, Keßlerplatz 12, 90489 Nuremberg, Germany)

  • Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

    (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Greifswald, Domstraße 11, 17489 Greifswald, Germany)

Abstract

The Anthropocene, marked by human-induced climate change, necessitates urgent action to address climate goals and respect planetary boundaries. While sustainability research provides knowledge, the first challenge lies in communicating the findings in an adequate manner to the public and several stakeholders, such as economic and political actors. Therefore, this study explores the significance of science communication in sustainability science, focusing on a case study—the True Cost Accounting (TCA) campaign by the University of Greifswald, Technical Institute of Nuremberg, and German retailer PENNY. TCA herein serves as a transparency tool, economic incentive, and discussion basis for sustainable consumption. This study investigates consumer perceptions of ecological prices of foods through a face-to-face survey during the 2023 PENNY campaign, comparing results to an informational campaign carried out in 2021. Findings indicate a high awareness of the true cost campaign in 2023, with 50.8% of participants hearing about it. Consumers’ willingness to pay true costs and potential behavior changes were explored. In comparison to results from the informational campaign of 2021, customers showed a decrease in this WTP when the true prices would actually impact their spending, indicating an attitude–behavior gap. In addition, a willingness to reduce the consumption of animal foods—if TCA was implemented—of 60.5% was determined, which suggests that TCA has the potential for sustainable behavior change. This study highlights factors that influence consumer attitudes and preferences regarding the inclusion of TCAs, such as environmental, social, and animal welfare costs. Customers’ understanding of increased prices—like, in this case, the compensation for environmental and social costs—is an argument in favor of true prices. The results emphasize the need for differentiated scientific communication strategies to bridge knowledge and action gaps in sustainability science.

Suggested Citation

  • Lennart Stein & Amelie Michalke & Tobias Gaugler & Susanne Stoll-Kleemann, 2024. "Sustainability Science Communication: Case Study of a True Cost Campaign in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:9:p:3842-:d:1388160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/9/3842/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/9/3842/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Monika Taddicken & Laura Wolff, 2020. "‘Fake News’ in Science Communication: Emotions and Strategies of Coping with Dissonance Online," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 206-217.
    2. Shanto Iyengar & Douglas S. Massey, 2019. "Scientific communication in a post-truth society," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(16), pages 7656-7661, April.
    3. Maddison Smith & Wiebke Finkler & Robert Aitken, 2023. "Connecting People with Science: A Proof-of-Concept Study to Evaluate Action-Based Storytelling for Science Communication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-20, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kim, Hyunjung & Li, Tongzhe, 2024. "Rethinking the Significance of Scientific Information: A Field Experiment with Agricultural Producers," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 344038, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Carlos Carrasco-Farré, 2022. "The fingerprints of misinformation: how deceptive content differs from reliable sources in terms of cognitive effort and appeal to emotions," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Balcaen, Pieter & Buts, Caroline & Bois, Cind Du & Tkacheva, Olesya, 2023. "The effect of disinformation about COVID-19 on consumer confidence: Insights from a survey experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    4. Fassina, Caroline & Jarvis, Diane & Tavares, Silvia & Coggan, Anthea, 2022. "Valuation of ecosystem services through offsets: Why are coastal ecosystems more valuable in Australia than in Brazil?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    5. Oluwaseun Aleshinloye & Majeed Orolade & Olatosimi Fadahunsi, 2024. "Infodemic During Pandemic: Policy Lessons for Nigeria," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(4), pages 760-781, April.
    6. Pascal Schneiders, 2020. "What Remains in Mind? Effectiveness and Efficiency of Explainers at Conveying Information," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 218-231.
    7. Manh-Toan Ho & Manh-Tung Ho & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2021. "Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10, July.
    8. Amy Rudge & Kristen Foley & Belinda Lunnay & Emma R. Miller & Samantha Batchelor & Paul R. Ward, 2021. "How Are the Links between Alcohol Consumption and Breast Cancer Portrayed in Australian Newspapers?: A Paired Thematic and Framing Media Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Abhishek Samantray & Paolo Pin, 2019. "Credibility of climate change denial in social media," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    10. Matúš Medo & Manuel S. Mariani & Linyuan Lü, 2022. "The simple regularities in the dynamics of online news impact," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 629-646, May.
    11. Cliodhna O’Connor & Nicola O’Connell & Emma Burke & Ann Nolan & Martin Dempster & Christopher D. Graham & Gail Nicolson & Joseph Barry & Gabriel Scally & Philip Crowley & Lina Zgaga & Luke Mather & Ca, 2021. "Media Representations of Science during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Analysis of News and Social Media on the Island of Ireland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-23, September.
    12. Ya Yang & Lichao Xiu & Xuejiao Chen & Guoming Yu, 2023. "Do emotions conquer facts? A CCME model for the impact of emotional information on implicit attitudes in the post-truth era," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-7, December.
    13. Monika Taddicken & Laura Wolff, 2020. "‘Fake News’ in Science Communication: Emotions and Strategies of Coping with Dissonance Online," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 206-217.
    14. Adam Brzezinski & Valentin Kecht & David Dijcke & Austin L. Wright, 2021. "Science skepticism reduced compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place policies in the United States," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1519-1527, November.
    15. Kinga Makovi & Manuel Munoz-Herrera, 2020. "The limits of verification in preventing the spread of false information on networks," Working Papers 20200038, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Mar 2020.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:9:p:3842-:d:1388160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.