IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae14/182941.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are labels delivering what they intend? Explicit value of fair-trade labels versus implicit value of fair trade characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • Vlaeminck, Pieter
  • Vandoren, Jana
  • Vranken, Liesbet

Abstract

While consumers are increasingly interested in the ethical characteristics of food products, market shares of these products remains low. So far, not much research has been directed towards the efficacy of labels. Using incentive compatible stated choice experiments in a natural consumer environment, we show that dispersion exists between the explicit value of a fair trade label and the implicit values attached to the underlying characteristics of the label. Our findings thus imply that linking the fair trade label closer with peoples’ values provides opportunities to expand the fair trade market.

Suggested Citation

  • Vlaeminck, Pieter & Vandoren, Jana & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Are labels delivering what they intend? Explicit value of fair-trade labels versus implicit value of fair trade characteristics," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182941, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae14:182941
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.182941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/182941/files/FairTradeLabels.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.182941?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Graeme D. Ruxton, 2006. "The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student's t-test and the Mann--Whitney U test," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(4), pages 688-690, July.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    3. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    4. John A. List & Jason F. Shogren, 1999. "Price Information and Bidding Behavior in Repeated Second-Price Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(4), pages 942-949.
    5. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    6. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Uchida, Hirotsugu & Onozaka, Yuko & Morita, Tamaki & Managi, Shunsuke, 2014. "Demand for ecolabeled seafood in the Japanese market: A conjoint analysis of the impact of information and interaction with other labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 68-76.
    8. F. Bailey Norwood & Jayson L. Lusk, 2011. "Social Desirability Bias in Real, Hypothetical, and Inferred Valuation Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 528-534.
    9. Matthias Benz & Stephan Meier, 2008. "Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—evidence from donations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 268-281, September.
    10. Loureiro, Maria L. & Lotade, Justus, 2005. "Do fair trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 129-138, April.
    11. Lusk, Jayson L. & Roosen, Jutta & Shogren, Jason (ed.), 2011. "The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199569441.
    12. Rousseau, Sandra & Vranken, Liesbet, 2013. "Green market expansion by reducing information asymmetries: Evidence for labeled organic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 31-43.
    13. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    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. Vlaeminck, Pieter & Vranken, Liesbet, 2015. "Do labels capture consumers’ actual willingness to pay for Fair Trade characteristics?," Working Papers 206438, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    2. Wuepper, David & Clemm, Alexandra & Wree, Philipp, 2019. "The preference for sustainable coffee and a new approach for dealing with hypothetical bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 475-486.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. Vlaeminck, Pieter & Jiang, Ting & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "How can environmental information align consumer behaviour with attitude? Evidence from a field experiment," Working Papers 162425, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    6. Mónica Pérez-Ramírez & Marco A. Almendarez-Hernández & Gerzaín Avilés-Polanco & Luis F. Beltrán-Morales, 2015. "Consumer Acceptance of Eco-Labeled Fish: A Mexican Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Jeff Luckstead & Heather A. Snell & Lawton Lanier Nalley & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Joshua Sarpaning, 2022. "A multi‐country study on consumers' valuation for child‐labor‐free chocolate: Implications for child labor in cocoa production," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 1021-1048, June.
    8. Carlos Omar Trejo-Pech & Roselia Servín-Juárez & Álvaro Reyes-Duarte, 2023. "What sets cooperative farmers apart from non-cooperative farmers? A transaction cost economics analysis of coffee farmers in Mexico," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    9. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    10. Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Whittle, Colin, 2022. "Household acceptability of energy efficiency policies in the European Union: Policy characteristics trade-offs and the role of trust in government and environmental identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    11. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    12. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Yahya, Nurul & Musa, Rusmani, 2013. "Status Quo Effect and Preferences Uncertainty: A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value (HEV) Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 47(1), pages 163-172.
    13. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    14. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    15. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    16. repec:eid:wpaper:7/09 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Makiko Nakano, 2019. "Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility by Consumers: Use of Organic Material and Long Working Hours of Employees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-16, September.
    18. Hindsley, Paul & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2020. "Consumer Demand for Ethical Products and the Role of Cultural Worldviews: The Case of Direct-Trade Coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    19. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    20. van der Kroon, Bianca & Brouwer, Roy & van Beukering, Pieter J.H., 2014. "The impact of the household decision environment on fuel choice behavior," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 236-247.
    21. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:eaae14:182941. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.