Performance-based Labeling

  • Robert L. Hicks
Part of the Sustainability and Innovation book series (SUSTAINABILITY)


Fair Trade Child Labor Price Premium Private Benefit Forest Stewardship Council 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adamowicz WL, Louviere J, Williams M (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26:271–292MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auld GB, Cashore B, Newsome D (2001) A look at forest certification through the eyes of the United States wood and paper producers. Paper presented at the Global Initiative and Public Policies: First International Conference on Private Forestry in the 21st Century, Atlanta Georgia, 25–27 MarchGoogle Scholar
  3. Baharuddin HJ, Simula M (1994) Certification schemes for all timber and timber products. International Tropical Timber Association, YokohamaGoogle Scholar
  4. Bass T, Markopoules R, Grah G (2001) Certification’s impacts on forests, stakeholders and supply chains: instruments for sustainable private sector forestry services. International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Basu AK, Chau NH, Grote U (2006) Guaranteed manufactured without child labor: the economics of consumer boycotts, social labeling and trade sanctions. Review of Development Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  6. Basu AK (1999) Child labor: cause, consequence, and cure, with remarks on international labor standards. Journal of Economic Literature 37:1083–1119Google Scholar
  7. Bei LT, Widows R (1999) Product knowledge and product involvement as moderators of the effects of information on purchase decisions: a case study using the perfect information frontier approach. Journal of Consumer Affairs 33:165–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T (1990) Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions. Transportation research 24:485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjorner TB, Hansen LG, Russell CS (2004) Environmental labeling and consumers’ choice-an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic swan. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management: forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  10. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 18:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown D (1999) Can consumer product labels deter foreign child labor exploitation? Department of Economics Working Paper 19, Tufts University, Department of Economics, MedfordGoogle Scholar
  12. DeShazo JR, Fermo G (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44:123–143MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ford GT, Smith RA (1987) Inferential beliefs in consumer valuations: an assessment of alternative processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research 14:363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gudmundssen E, Wessells CR (2000) Ecolabeling seafood for sustainable production: implications for fisheries management. Marine Resource Economics 15:97–113Google Scholar
  15. Hanemann WM (1999) Welfare analysis with discrete choice models. In: Herriges JA, Kling CL (eds) Valuing recreation and the environment. Edward Elgar Publishers, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  16. Hicks RL (2002) Stated preference methods for environmental management: recreational summer flounder angling in the northeastern United States. National Marine Fisheries Service, Siver springs, Scholar
  17. Hoehn, JP, Randall A (2002) The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perception and contingent values. Resource and Energy Economics 24:13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holmes TP, Boyle KJ (2005) Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Economics 81:114–126Google Scholar
  19. Irland LC (2002) The elusive green premium. Paper presented at the Sustainable Wood Supply through Market Based Incentives Workshop, Orono, 17 MayGoogle Scholar
  20. James D (2000) Justice and Java: coffee in a fair trade market. NACLA Report to the Americas 34:11–42Google Scholar
  21. Johnson RD, Levin IP (1985) More than meets the eye: the effects of missing information on purchasing evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research 12:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications with a contribution by Adamowicz W, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, New York and MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  23. Mazzotta J, Opaluch JJ (1995) Decision making when choices are complex: a test of Heiner’s hypothesis. Land Economics 71:500–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitchell RC, Carson, RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method resources for the future. RFF Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Murray DL, Reynolds T, Taylor PL (2003) One cup at a time: poverty alleviation and fair trade coffee in Latin America. The Ford Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Nimon W, Beghin JC (1999) Are eco-labels valuable? Evidence from the apparel industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81:801–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Brien KA, Teisl MF (2004) Eco-information and its effect on consumer values for environmentally certified forest products. Journal of Forest Economics 10:75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roe B, Levey AS, Derby BM (1999) The impact of health claims on consumer search and product evaluation outcomes: results from FDA experimental data. Journal of Public Policy and Management 18:89–105Google Scholar
  29. Ross W, Creyer EH (1992) Making inferences about missing information: the effects of existing information. Journal of Consumer Research 19:14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scammon DL (1977) Information load and consumers. Journal of Consumer Research 4:148–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sedjo RA, Swallow SK (2002) Voluntary eco-labeling and the price premium. Land Economics 78:272–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stecklow S, White E (2004) At what price virtue? At some retailers, ‘fair trade’ carries a very high cost stores charge big markups on goods intended to help farmers in poor countries. The Wall Street Journal, June 8:A1Google Scholar
  33. Swait, J, Adamowicz W (1996) The effect of choice environment and task demands on consumer behavior: discriminating between contribution and confusion. Department of Rural Economy, University of AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  34. Swait J, Louviere JJ, Williams M (1994) A sequential approach to exploiting the combined strengths of SP and RP data: application to freight shipper choice. Transportation 21:135–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor PL (2005) In the market but not of it: fair trade coffee and forest stewardship council certification as market-based social change. World Development 33:129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teisl MF, Roe B, Hicks RL (2002) Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence from dolphin-safe labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43:339–359MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. TransFair USA (2005) 2005 fair trade facts and figures. TransFair USA, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  38. USEPA (1993) Status report on the use of environmental labels worldwide. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  39. USEPA (1994) Determinants of effectiveness of environmental certification and labeling programs office of pollution prevention and toxics. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Waffle R (1997) Forest certification: who profits? Green certification is not needed for sustained forestry. Wood and Wood Products, September:97–101Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Hicks
    • 1
  1. 1.College of William and MaryWilliamsburg

Personalised recommendations