The Influence of Knowledge and Motivation on Sustainable Label Use

  • Carmen Valor
  • Isabel Carrero
  • Raquel Redondo


Sustainable labels are considered the best way for consumers to identify brands with environmental or social attributes on the shelves, and therefore promoted as a means to develop the so-called “ethical markets”. However, little is known about how consumers use these brands. This paper tries to offer complementary theoretical insights on the determinants of sustainable label use by drawing on the economic model of information search; in particular, it examines the influence of two factors on the purchase of such labels: motivation and knowledge. Information was gathered through a structured questionnaire in personal interviews with 289 primary buyers. The study found that education influences directly knowledge, while Motivation influences Label use both directly and indirectly, via Label knowledge. This study concludes that Motivation is the most powerful factor to explain Label use; knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Even more, consumers may not have a good understanding of sustainable labels and still use them in their purchasing decisions. This suggests that there is a dual processing mode of sustainable labels, both systematic and heuristic.


Responsible consumption Label use Label knowledge Motivation Sustainable labels Economic search theory 



We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Ministerio de Trabajo e Inmigración (BOE 17-02-2010) to complete this research. We would like to thank Jose Manuel Rosa for his help in data collection.


  1. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(May), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armah, P. W. (2002). Setting eco-label standards in the fresh organic vegetable market of Northeast Arkansas. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 33, 35–45.Google Scholar
  3. Baltas, G. (2001). Nutrition labelling: Issues and policies. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 708–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batista-Foguet, J. M., & Coenders, G. (2000). Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Madrid: Hesperides.Google Scholar
  5. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Bonroy, O. & Lemarie, S. (2008). Downstream labelling and upstream competition. Working Paper GAEL; 2008–06, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique—Université Pierre Mendès France.Google Scholar
  7. Boomsma, A., & Hoogland, J. J. (2001). The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited. In R. Cudeck, S. Du Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation models: Present and future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 139–168). Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  8. CECU (2010, 2008 & 2006). La opinión y valoración de los ciudadanos sobre la Responsabilidad Social de la Empresa en España. Madrid: Author.Google Scholar
  9. Cetelem (2010). L’Observatoire Cetelem 2010: Consommer en 2010: pas moins, mais mieux, available at: Accessed March 4th 2010.
  10. D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., & Peritatko, R. (2007). Green decisions: Demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (2007). A model for fair trade buying behaviour: The role of perceived quantity and quality of information and of product-specific attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Pelsmacker, P., Janssens, W., Sterckx, E., & Mielants, C. (2005). Consumer preferences for the marketing of ethically labelled coffee. International Marketing Review, 22, 512–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Tavernier, J. (2012). Food citizenship: Is there a duty for responsible consumption? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(6), 895–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drichoutis, A. C., Lazaridi, S P. & Nayga, R. M. (2006). Consumers′ use of nutritional labels: A review of research studies and issues. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 9, in Accessed on June 12th 2012.
  15. Drichoutis, A. C., Lazaridi, S. P., Nayga, R. M., Kapsokefalou, M., Kapsokefalou, M., & Chryssochoidis, G. (2008). A theoretical and empirical investigation of nutritional label use. The European Journal of Health Economics, 9, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2006). Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs: Making Europe a pole of excellence on CSR (COM(2006)136 final of 22.03.2006), Accessed June 12th 2012.
  17. Fliess, B., Lee, H. J., Dubreuil, O. L. & Agatiello, O. (2007). CSR and trade: Informing consumers about social and environmental conditions of globalised production, Trade Policy Working Paper No. 47 - PART I Working Party of the Trade Committee TD/TC/WP(2006)17/FINAL.Google Scholar
  18. Forética (2008). Informe Forética 2008. Evolución de la responsabilidad social de las empresas en España, available at: Accessed April 20th 2010.
  19. Grail Research (2009). The Green revolution, available at: Accessed June 9th 2011.
  20. Grunert, K. G., & Wills, J. M. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15, 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1999). Análisis multivariante. Madrid: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Hardin, A., Chang, J., & Fuller, M. (2008a). Clarifying the use of formative measurement in the IS discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9, 544–546.Google Scholar
  23. Hardin, A., Chang, J., & Fuller, M. (2008b). Formative versus reflective measurement: Comment on Marakas, Johnson, and Clay (2007). Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9, 519–534.Google Scholar
  24. Howard, P. H., & Allen, P. (2006). Beyond organic: Consumer interest in new labelling schemes in the Central Coast of California. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(5), 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoyer, W. D. (1984). An examination of consumer decision making for a common repeat purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, 822–829.Google Scholar
  26. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption. A review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change. Forres: The Sustainable Development Research Network.Google Scholar
  28. Johnston, J., Szabo, M., & Rodney, A. (2011). Good food, good people: Understanding the cultural repertoire of ethical eating. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11, 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Joreskog, K. G., & Wold, H. (Eds.). (1982). Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  30. Kalshoven, K., & Meijboom, F. L. (2013). Sustainability at the Crossroads of Fish Consumption and Production Ethical Dilemmas of Fish Buyers at Retail Organizations in The Netherlands. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kjærnes, U. (2012). Ethics and action: A relational perspective on consumer choice in the European politics of food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kong, N., Salzmann, O., Steger, U., & Somers, I. (2002). Moving Business/Industry towards sustainable consumption: The role of NGOs. European Management Journal, 20, 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lévy Manguin, J. P. (1999). Modelización con ecuaciones estructurales y variables latentes. Madrid: CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  35. Lupton, S. (2009). Fair trade and signalling: Information and illusion, MPRA Paper No. 14560, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Accessed April 20th 2010.
  36. Manget, J. Roche, C. and Münnich, F. (2009). Capturing the Green advantage for consumer companies, BCG, Available at: Accessed December 22th 2009.
  37. Marakas, G. M., Johnson, R. D., & Clay, P. F. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement: A reply to Hardin. Chang, and Fuller, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9, 535–543.Google Scholar
  38. Marchand, A., & Walker, S. (2008). Product development and responsible consumption: Designing alternatives for sustainable lifestyles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1163–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McEachern, M. G., & Warnaby, G. (2008). Exploring the relationship between consumer knowledge and purchase behaviour of value-based labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 414–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behaviour. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35, 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Geographic and Globescan (2009). Greendex 2009: Consumer choice and the environment—a worldwide tracking survey, available at: Accessed November 23th 2009.
  42. Nayga, R. M., Lipinski, D., & Savur, N. (1998). Consumers’ use of nutritional labels while food shopping and at home. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32, 106–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2007). Studying the ethical consumer: A review of research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31, 623–656.Google Scholar
  45. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Podhorsky, A. S. (2009). Environmental labeling, available at: Accessed 14 February 2010.
  49. Ranilovic, J., & Baric, I. C. (2011). Differences between younger and older populations in nutrition label reading habits. British Food Journal, 113, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rivera, L. M., & Sánchez, M. (2002). Marketing de productos ecológicos. Mediterráneo Económico, 2, 159–176.Google Scholar
  51. Rokka, J., & Uusitalo, L. (2008). Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices—Do consumers care? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 516–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sánchez, M., Gil, J. M., & Gracia, A. (2000). Segmentación del consumidor respecto al alimento ecológico: Diferencias interregionales. Revista de Estudios Regionales, 56, 171–188.Google Scholar
  53. Sánchez, M., Gil, J. M., & Gracia, A. (2001). Diferencias entre los segmentos del mercado en la disposición a pagar por un alimento ecológico: Valoración contingente y análisis conjunto. Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros, 190, 141–163.Google Scholar
  54. Shine, A., O’Reilly, S., & O’Sullivan, K. (1997). Consumer use of nutrition labels. British Food Journal, 99, 290–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Siipi, H., & Uusitalo, S. (2008). Consumer autonomy and sufficiency of GMF labelling. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stigler, G. J. (1961). The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy, 69, 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stø, E., & Strandbakken, P. (2005). Ecolabels and consumers. In F. Rubik & P. Frankl (Eds.), The future of Ecolabelling. Making environmental product information systems effective (pp. 92–119). London: Greenleaf Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thøgersen, J. (2010). Country differences in sustainable consumption: The case of organic food. Journal of Macromarketing, 30, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Uusitalo, O., & Oksanen, R. (2004). Ethical consumerism: A view from Finland. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 214–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Valor, C. (2008). Can consumers buy responsibly? Analysis and solutions of market failures. Journal of Consumer Policy, 31, 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Valor, C., & Calvo, G. (2009). Compra responsable en España. Comunicación de atributos sociales y ecológicos [Responsible buying in Spain: Communication of social and environmental attributes] Información Comercial Española. Boletín Económico, 2971, 33–50.Google Scholar
  62. van Doorn, J., Verhoef, P. C., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2007). The importance of non-linear relationships between attitude and behaviour in policy research. Journal of Consumer Policy, 30(2), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality, traceability and origin: An application of ordered probit models to beef labels. Food Quality and Preference, 17(6), 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude-behavioural intention gap”. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wagner, S. A. (1997). Understanding green consumer behaviour. A qualitative cognitive approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Zadek, S., Lingayah, S., & Forstater, M. (1998). Social labels: Tools for ethical trade. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  67. Zakowska-Biemans, S. (2011). Polish consumer food choices and beliefs about organic food. British Food Journal, 113, 122–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zuckerman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1998). A heuristic-systematic processing analysis of the effectiveness of product warning labels. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 621–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marketing DepartmentUniversidad Pontificia Comillas-ICADEMadridSpain
  2. 2.Quantitative Methods DepartmentUniversidad Pontificia Comillas-ICADEMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations