IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/kucawp/206438.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do labels capture consumers’ actual willingness to pay for Fair Trade characteristics?

Author

Listed:
  • Vlaeminck, Pieter
  • Vranken, Liesbet

Abstract

Labeling schemes are used as a mechanism to inform consumers about products with both public and private characteristics. Consumers are increasingly interested in the ethical characteristics of food products and are willing to pay the premium for it. Nevertheless, market shares of ethically produced food products remain low. Not much research has been directed towards the question whether labels completely incorporate the ethical characteristics they stand for and are able to convey these values to consumers. Using two, partially incentive compatible, stated choice experiments in a natural consumer environment and chocolate as study object, we are able to compare consumers’ willingness to pay for a Fair Trade label and for the label’s underlying characteristics. Results show that dispersion exists between the value of a Fair Trade label and the actual values consumers attach to the underlying characteristics of Fair Trade.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:kucawp:206438
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.206438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/206438/files/BioeconWP_2015_05_submitted.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.206438?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. Lozano, Javier & Blanco, Ester & Rey-Maquieira, Javier, 2010. "Can ecolabels survive in the long run?: The role of initial conditions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2525-2534, October.
    2. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    3. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    4. 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.
    5. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 193-205, October.
    6. Vermeir, Iris & Verbeke, Wim, 2008. "Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 542-553, January.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    8. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    9. 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.
    10. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Vlaeminck, Pieter & Jiang, Ting & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Food labeling and eco-friendly consumption: Experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 180-190.
    17. Jeremy Clark, 2002. "House Money Effects in Public Good Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(3), pages 223-231, December.
    18. Glenn Harrison, 2006. "Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 125-162, May.
    19. Veronika Andorfer & Ulf Liebe, 2012. "Research on Fair Trade Consumption—A Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(4), pages 415-435, April.
    20. Silva, Andres & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Park, John L., 2011. "Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-12, August.
    21. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    22. Grunert, Klaus G. & Hieke, Sophie & Wills, Josephine, 2014. "Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 177-189.
    23. 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.
    24. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    25. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    26. 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.
    27. Tiziana de-Magistris & Azucena Gracia & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2013. "On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1136-1154.
    28. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    29. Riccarda Moser & Roberta Raffaelli & Sandra Notaro, 2014. "Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents' own money," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 25-46, February.
    30. Rousu Matthew C. & Corrigan Jay R., 2008. "Estimating the Welfare Loss to Consumers When Food Labels Do Not Adequately Inform: An Application to Fair Trade Certification," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-26, May.
    31. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2010. "Ecolabeling, consumers' preferences and taxation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2202-2212, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tessitore, Sara & Iraldo, Fabio & Apicella, Andrea & Tarabella, Angela, 2020. "The Link between Food Traceability and Food Labels in the Perception of Young Consumers in Italy," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 12(05), December.
    2. Lefoll, Erwin & Günther, Isabel & Veronesi, Marcella, 2022. "Low Demand for Fair Trade Chocolate: Lack of Efficiency, Attention, Knowledge or Trust?," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264065, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    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 & Jiang, Ting & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Food labeling and eco-friendly consumption: Experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 180-190.
    2. Vlaeminck, Pieter & Jiang, Ting & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Labelling and consumer behaviour: experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182742, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    7. Enoch Owusu-Sekyere & Awudu Abdulai & Henry Jordaan & Helena Hansson, 2020. "Heterogeneous demand for ecologically sustainable products on ensuring environmental sustainability in South Africa," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(1), pages 39-64, January.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.
    11. Volker Lingnau & Florian Fuchs & Florian Beham, 2019. "The impact of sustainability in coffee production on consumers’ willingness to pay–new evidence from the field of ethical consumption," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 65-93, April.
    12. Banerji, A. & Chowdhury, Shyamal K. & de Groote, Hugo & Meenakshi, Jonnalagadda V. & Haleegoah, Joyce & Ewoo, Manfred, 2013. "Using elicitation mechanisms to estimate the demand for nutritious maize: Evidence from experiments in rural Ghana," HarvestPlus working papers 10, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Wendler, Cordula & Liebe, Ulf & Ihle, Rico & von Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan, 2012. "The Willingness to Pay of European Consumers for Jointly Produced Israeli – Palestinian Products," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126727, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John N. Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2017. "Can insects increase food security in developing countries? An analysis of Kenyan consumer preferences and demand for cricket flour buns," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(3), pages 471-484, June.
    15. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    16. Coralie Hellwig & Kim Bolton & Greta Häggblom-Kronlöf & Kamran Rousta, 2022. "Aspects Affecting Food Choice in Daily Life as Well as Drivers and Barriers to Engagement with Fungi-Based Food—A Qualitative Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-25, December.
    17. Hannes Koppel & Günther Schulze, 2013. "The Importance of the Indirect Transfer Mechanism for Consumer Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Products—Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 369-387, December.
    18. Takahashi, Ryo & Todo, Yasuyuki & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2018. "How Can We Motivate Consumers to Purchase Certified Forest Coffee? Evidence From a Laboratory Randomized Experiment Using Eye-trackers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 107-121.
    19. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With A Response To Camerer," Artefactual Field Experiments j0001, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.

    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:kucawp:206438. 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/alkulbe.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.