Nat Resources Trade Flows

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT

Directorate A – Green Economy
ENV.A.1 – Eco-Innovation & Circular Economy
Assessment of different communication vehicles

for providing Environmental Footprint information
Request for Specific Services for the implementation of the Framework Contract no.
EAHC-2011-CP-01
Final Report
Authors:
Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva, Pietro Tornese, Giuseppe A. Veltri and George Gaskell
PRESENTED IN CONSORTIUM: BY LSE & PARTNERS

Assessment of different communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Technical Secretariats of all pilots for their participation in the Pilot
phase of this project: Batteries and accumulators; Decorative paints; Hot and cold water supply
pipes; Household detergents; Intermediate paper product; IT equipment; Leather; Metal sheets;
Footwear; Photovoltaic electricity generation; Stationery; Thermal insulation; T-shirts;
Uninterruptible Power Supply; Beer; Coffee; Dairy; Feed for food-producing animals; Marine
fish; Meat (bovine, pigs, sheep); Olive oil; Packed water; Pasta; Pet food (cats & dogs); Wine.
Ewelina Marek for her contribution at the beginning of the study. Lastly, we would like to thank
DG ENV, particularly our EC project officer Imola Bedo for her detailed and relevant comments
that helped us improve the final version of this report, as well as Michele Galatola and Benedetta
Nucci for their ongoing support throughout the project.
Disclaimer
This report was produced in response to the Request for Specific Services for the implementation
of the Framework Contract no EAHC-2011-CP-01 for the provision of an “Assessment of different
communication vehicles for providing Environmental Footprint information”. The content of this
report represents the views of the contractor and is its sole responsibility; it can in no way be
taken to reflect the views of the European Commission or other body of the European Union.
The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report,
nor does it accept responsibility for any use made by third parties thereof. More information on
the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 10

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 13
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 13
1.2 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................... 14
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ........................................................................................................................... 15
2 SUPPORT TO PILOTS, ACTIVITIES AND ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 17
2.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
2.2 PILOTS SUPPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 18
2.2.1 Wiki space ............................................................................................................................................. 18
2.2.2 Conference calls .................................................................................................................................. 19
2.2.3 Webinars ................................................................................................................................................ 19
2.3 PILOTS ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................................................... 20
2.4 PILOTS COMMUNICATION VEHICLES ............................................................................................................... 21
2.5 ANALYSIS OF THE PILOT TESTS ....................................................................................................................... 22
2.6 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PILOT PHASE .................................................................................................. 24
3 STAKEHOLDERS’ PERSPECTIVES ..................................................................................................... 25
3.1 RETAILERS: WORKSHOP .................................................................................................................................. 25
3.1.1 Background and objectives ............................................................................................................ 25
3.1.2 Complementary tests........................................................................................................................ 25
3.1.3 The role of retailers and the environmental footprint .......................................................... 26
3.1.4 Remarks ................................................................................................................................................. 27
3.2 CONSUMERS: FOCUS GROUPS ........................................................................................................................ 27
3.2.1 Background and objectives ............................................................................................................ 27
3.2.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 27
3.2.3 Environmental Footprint: perceptions, experiences and knowledge .............................. 28
3.2.4 Influence of the different communication vehicles for providing environmental
footprint information ......................................................................................................................................... 33
3.3 SMES: ONLINE SURVEY .................................................................................................................................. 41
3.3.1 Background, objectives and methodology ................................................................................ 41
3.3.2 SMEs characteristics.......................................................................................................................... 42
3.3.3 Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 44
3.4 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE STAKEHOLDER TESTING ................................................................................ 59
4 WEIGHTING EXERCISE: EXPERT AND LAY KNOWLEDGE ..................................................... 62
4.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................... 62
4.2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 63
4.2.1 Design ..................................................................................................................................................... 63
4.2.2 Sample ................................................................................................................................................... 69
4.2.3 Fieldwork ............................................................................................................................................... 74
4.3 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................................... 75
4.4 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE WEIGHTING EXERCISE ................................................................................... 79
5 ONLINE EXPERIMENTS: CERTIFICATION, WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND ECOLABEL 80
5.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................... 80
5.2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 81
5.2.1 Study on Certification and Trust .................................................................................................. 81
5.2.2 Study on Willingness to Pay and PEF ......................................................................................... 84
5.2.3 Study on Ecolabel............................................................................................................................... 86
3
5.3 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................................... 87

5.3.1 Study on Certification and Trust .................................................................................................. 87
5.3.2 Study on Willingness to Pay ........................................................................................................... 95
5.3.3 Study on Ecolabel............................................................................................................................... 98
5.4 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EXPERIMENTS ............................................................................................... 100
6 FURTHER STUDIES................................................................................................................................ 101
6.1 BRICK AND MORTAR TEST ............................................................................................................................. 101
6.1.1 Design ................................................................................................................................................... 101
6.1.2 Methodology and sample .............................................................................................................. 102
6.1.3 Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 103
6.2 SMARTPHONES AND APPS: A SCOPING REVIEW........................................................................................... 107
6.2.1 Mobile use and access in Europe ................................................................................................ 107
6.2.2 Mobile in-store shopping ............................................................................................................... 108
6.2.3 QR codes as an example ............................................................................................................... 112
6.3 LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................................................................................................ 117
7 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 120
4
List of figures
Figure 1 Overall framework ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 2 Overview of the methods used .......................................................................... 15
Figure 3 Support on the communication phase wiki space ................................................. 18
Figure 4 Overview of pilot feedback by method ............................................................... 20
Figure 5 Overview of pilot tests by target group .............................................................. 20
Figure 6 Overview of pilot tests by method ..................................................................... 20
Figure 7 Overview of pilot tests by CV ............................................................................ 21
Figure 8 Environmental Footprint Labels ......................................................................... 35
Figure 9 Point of Sale example ...................................................................................... 37
Figure 10 Receipts example .......................................................................................... 38
Figure 11 Mobile app example ....................................................................................... 39
Figure 12 Website examples ......................................................................................... 39
Figure 13 Website example ........................................................................................... 40
Figure 14 Sectors (Q1) ................................................................................................. 42
Figure 15 Breakdown by class size (Q2) ......................................................................... 42
Figure 16 Level of resources devoted to improving the environmental performance as % of 2016
turnover (Q4) ....................................................................................................... 42
Figure 17 Market scope (Q6) ......................................................................................... 43
Figure 18 Commercial activity (Q7) ................................................................................ 43
Figure 19 B2B type of products (Q8) .............................................................................. 43
Figure 20 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q12, Q13) ........................................ 44
Figure 21 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q12, Q13) by sector .......................... 44
Figure 22 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q13) by class size (Q2) ..................... 45
Figure 23 Environmental concerns (Q16, Q17) ................................................................ 45
Figure 24 Environmental concerns (Q16, Q17) by sector .................................................. 46
Figure 25 Environmental concerns (Q17) by class size (Q2) .............................................. 46
Figure 26 Environmental information demand (Q14, Q15) ................................................ 47
Figure 27 Environmental information demand (Q14, Q15) by sector .................................. 47
Figure 27 Environmental information demand (Q15) by class size (Q2) ............................. 47
Figure 29 Environmental policy topics (Q20) ................................................................... 48
Figure 30 Environmental topics: Natural resources (Q22) ................................................. 49
Figure 31 Environmental topics: Human health (Q21) ...................................................... 50
Figure 32 Environmental topics: Natural resources (Q23) ................................................. 50
Figure 33 Environmental performance (Q25) ................................................................... 51
Figure 34 Environmental information target (Q27) ........................................................... 51
Figure 35 Environmental information assessment (Q28) ................................................... 52
Figure 36 B2B Communication vehicles use (Q29) ........................................................... 52
Figure 37 B2B potential Communication vehicles (Q30) .................................................... 53
Figure 38 B2B communication vehicles effectiveness (Q31) .............................................. 53
Figure 39 B2C communication vehicles used (Q32) .......................................................... 54
Figure 40 B2C possible communication vehicles (Q33) ..................................................... 54
Figure 41 B2C communication vehicles effectiveness (Q34) .............................................. 55
Figure 42 LCA drivers (Q36) ......................................................................................... 56
Figure 43 LCA inhibitors (Q37) ...................................................................................... 57
5
Figure 44 Product Environmental Footprint (Q35) ............................................................ 58

Figure 45 General public survey procedure ..................................................................... 63
Figure 46 Screen 1 ...................................................................................................... 64
Figure 47 Screen 2 ...................................................................................................... 64
Figure 48 Experts survey procedure ............................................................................... 66
Figure 49 Summary of results ....................................................................................... 78
Figure 50. Experimental design ..................................................................................... 81
Figure 51 Study on Certification and Trust – Choice example ............................................ 82
Figure 52 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice example .................................................. 84
Figure 53 Study on Ecolabel – Choice example ................................................................ 86
Figure 54 Study on Certification and Trust - How much would you trust the following to certify
the accuracy of environmental information on consumer products? ............................. 90
Figure 55 Study on Certification and Trust - Would the following have the expertise to provide
accurate PEF information on consumer products?...................................................... 90
Figure 56 Study on Certification and Trust - Would the following have the expertise to verify
accurate PEF information on consumer products?...................................................... 91
Figure 57 Study on Certification and Trust - Do you think they could be relied on to act in the
public interest regarding product environmental information? ..................................... 91
Figure 58 Study on Certification and Trust - In the development of PEF information for
consumers, how effective would the following actors be? ........................................... 92
Figure 59 Study on Certification and Trust - Who should lead the development and introduction
of PEF information? ............................................................................................... 92
Figure 60 Study on Certification and Trust - If it is found that a company has intentionally
misinformed the public about the environmental performance of a product, which of the
following would be most appropriate? ...................................................................... 93
Figure 61 Study on Certification and Trust – Factors (self-declared) that influence the decision
of buying a t-shirt ................................................................................................. 93
Figure 62 Study on Certification and Trust - Factors that influence the decision of buying a laptop
.......................................................................................................................... 94
Figure 63 Study on Certification and Trust - Factors that influence the decision of buying a milk
carton ................................................................................................................. 94
Figure 64 Study on Willingness to Pay – Social context.................................................... 97
Figure 65 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you believe are the following groups
of people around you concerned and engaged about environmental issues? ................. 97
Figure 66 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you discuss with the following groups
of people around you about environmental issues? ................................................... 98
Figure 67 Study on Ecolabel –Respondents who have seen the Ecolabel logo before, by country
.......................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 68 CV logos tested ............................................................................................101
Figure 69 Labels tested in the brick and mortar exercise .................................................101
Figure 70 Poster .........................................................................................................102
Figure 71 Sample distribution – exit interviews ..............................................................103
Figure 72 Reactions to the CVs .....................................................................................103
Figure 73 Most noticed CVs ..........................................................................................104
Figure 74 Purchasing drivers ........................................................................................105
Figure 75 Favourite CV ................................................................................................105
Figure 76 Perceptions of the two CV logos .....................................................................106
Figure 77 Impact on the retailer’s brand image ..............................................................106
6
Figure 78: Individuals who used a portable computer or a handheld device to access the internet
away from home or work, 2012 and 2016 ...............................................................107
Figure 79 Product and services m-marketing design .......................................................109
Figure 80: Mobile shopper journey and research questions ..............................................110
Figure 81 Consumer behavioral drivers and barriers .......................................................117
Figure 83 Study on Certification and Trust – choice sets ..................................................164
Figure 84 Experiment 1 - Fieldwork ..............................................................................170
Figure 85 Study on Certification and Trust - Variables .....................................................171
Figure 86 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice sets .......................................................173
Figure 88 Study on Willingness to Pay - Variables ...........................................................177
Figure 89 Study on Ecolabel – Choice sets .....................................................................180
Figure 91 Study on Ecolabel - Variables .........................................................................184
7
List of tables
Table 1 Environmental Footprint midpoints definitions ...................................................... 36
Table 2 SMEs fieldwork ................................................................................................ 41
Table 3 Hierarchical structure of impact categories .......................................................... 62
Table 4 Technical specification of samples for the online survey ........................................ 69
Table 5 Target sample by country and age group ............................................................ 70
Table 6 Target sample by country and gender ................................................................. 70
Table 7 Target sample by country and education level...................................................... 70
Table 8 Sampling errors by country ............................................................................... 71
Table 9 Weights by country .......................................................................................... 72
Table 10 Technical specification for the experts survey ..................................................... 72
Table 11 Expert respondents by country and gender ........................................................ 72
Table 12 General public fieldwork .................................................................................. 74
Table 13 Experts fieldwork ............................................................................................ 75
Table 14 General Public Summary statistics – Endpoints................................................... 75
Table 15 Experts Summary statistics – Endpoints ............................................................ 75
Table 16 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Human Health)............................ 76
Table 17 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Human Health) ..................................... 76
Table 18 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Environment)................... 77
Table 19 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Environment) ............................ 77
Table 20 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Resources) ...................... 77
Table 21 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Resources)................................ 78
Table 22 Study on Certification and Trust – Sample specification ....................................... 83
Table 23 Study on Willingness to Pay – Sample specification ............................................. 85
Table 24 Study on Ecolabel – Sample specification .......................................................... 87
Table 25 Study on Certification and Trust – Most effective labels ....................................... 88
Table 26 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Laptop) ............................................ 89
Table 27 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (T-shirt) ............................................. 89
Table 28 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Milk) ................................................ 89
Table 29 Study on Willingness to Pay – Most effective labels ............................................ 95
Table 30 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Laptop) ................................................. 96
Table 31 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (T-shirt) .................................................. 96
Table 32 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Yogurt) .................................................. 96
Table 33 Study on Ecolabel – Most effective labels .......................................................... 99
Table 34 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Laptop) ................................................................ 99
Table 35 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Detergent) ..........................................................100
Table 36 Research areas and unexplored questions ........................................................110
Table 36 Study on Certification and Trust – Target sample by country and age group .........169
Table 37 Study on Certification and Trust - Target sample by country and gender ..............169
Table 38 Study on Certification and Trust - Target sample by country and education level ...169
Table 39 Study on Willingness to Pay – Target sample by country and age group ...............176
Table 40 Study on Willingness to Pay - Target sample by country and gender ....................176
Table 41 Study on Willingness to Pay - Target sample by country and education level .........176
Table 42 Study on Ecolabel – Target sample by country and age group .............................183
Table 43 Study on Ecolabel - Target sample by country and gender ..................................183
8
Table 44 Study on Ecolabel - Target sample by country and education level .......................183
9
Executive Summary
The European Commission’s work on the development of the Product/Organisation
Environmental Footprint (PEF/OEF) method started in 2010 in reaction to complaints from the
business sector about difficulties due to the proliferation of environmental labels/certification
schemes and with some companies making unsubstantiated or unverifiable ‘green’ claims. In
2010 the Council adopted the conclusions asking the Commission to develop a harmonised
method for the calculation of the life cycle environmental performance of products. In 2013 the
College adopted the Communication "Building the Single Market for Green Products"
(COM/2013/0196 final). This Communication included a Commission recommendation
(179/2013) establishing methods to calculate the environmental footprint of products (PEF) and
organisations (OEF). These methods were published in the Official Journal (OJ L 124, 4.5.2013,
p. 1–210). In this publication it was asserted that these methods were not intended to directly
support comparisons or comparative assertions, i.e. claims of overall superiority or equivalence
of the environmental footprint of one product compared to another. It stated that such
comparisons would require the development of additional PEF category rules or OEF sector rules
to complement the general guidance, in order to further increase methodological harmonisation,
specificity, relevance and reproducibility for a given product-type. Such category rules and sector
rules were the intended focus of Pilot phase.
The development and testing of communication vehicles involved a programme of research
spanning three years. It involved sector associations; large, medium and small enterprises;
environmental sustainability experts and European citizens. Pilot studies were initiated to
develop product environmental footprint category rules (PEFCRs) and to test the effectiveness
of different vehicles for communicating PEF information. Of 51 initiatives spanning a wide range
of sectors, 27 concerned PEF communication in business to business (B2B) contexts and 24 for
business to consumer (B2C). The communication vehicles tested included labels, declarations,
reports, web pages and traditional PR – videos, banner, info-graphics, ads and newsletters. The
studies used a range of methods including surveys, interviews, workshops and focus groups to
assess output measures of target audience attention and understanding; changes in purchaser
(B2B) and consumer behaviour/ behavioural intentions (B2C); the influence on attractiveness of
the product/reputation of the organisation, and potential environmental impacts from
organisational change.
Supporting these Pilots, the Consortium (the authors of this report) conducted a number of
complementary studies aimed at developing and testing insights from the Pilot studies, filling
gaps with studies of stakeholders who were under-represented in the Pilots and providing an
evidence base for policy making on some key issues. The complementary studies included a
workshop with retailers; focus groups with members of the public, and an online survey with
SMEs. Investigations on key issues included studies with experts and citizens assessing the
relative importance of different midpoint and endpoint impact categories; experiments to
determine the effectiveness of different communication vehicles; the framings of persuasive
messages; consumers’ willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable products; confidence
in different sources certifying PEF information, and an in vivo study of shoppers.
Based on the studies conducted within the PEF/OEF Pilot phase, a number of conclusions
concerning communication vehicles, and stakeholders’ views and likely responses to PEF and
OEF information can be drawn.
Converging lines of enquiry, both quantitative and qualitative, show that the greater majority of
European citizens express concerns about sustainability and feel a moral obligation to protect
the environment for future generations. While they are interested in receiving information about
the environmental impact of products, the environmental performance of products is not among
the main criteria affecting consumers’ purchase decisions. Currently price, quality, brand and
availability are more relevant considerations in many product categories. In some categories,
environmental performance of products is an important attribute, suggesting that, over time,
environmental performance has the potential to become more influential.
The commercial and business sectors and in particular large and medium sized enterprises
acknowledge the inevitability and increasing importance of environmental sustainability,
10
anticipate important benefits for both B2B and B2C activities, and support European
standardisation. The benefits include improving brand values, the opportunity to compare
products on their environmental performance, driving up the quality of products in terms of their
environmental products, higher quality of products, and last but not least, a level playing field
with common rules for across the EU.
Retailers agree on the increasing public awareness of environmental sustainability and
appreciate their contribution along with companies and government. With the exception of food,
the Retailers’ research points to consumers paying less attention to the environmental footprint
of products bought on a regular basis or used within a short timeframe. It is with newly
introduced lines, big or expensive purchases items (e.g. cars and household appliances), and
products that impact their own or their children’s health that the environmental impact is an
issue.
Some of the environmental impact categories are beyond comprehension for the public. While
they a familiar with impacts such as climate change, CO2 emissions, energy and water
consumption, the use of technical/scientific terms such as acidification, terrestrial eutrophication
and eco-toxicity is simply not understood. And, the concept and links to products of Life Cycle
Analysis is not readily accessible.
On the design of communication vehicles, the evidence points to the following characteristics to
maximise effectiveness.
• An emphasis on clarity, simplicity and transparency.
• Avoiding numeric and scientific terms (e.g. kg CO2-eq / kg), these are too complex.
• Using graphics, bar charts and colour scales
• Emulating the readily understood Traffic light and Energy Labels
• Certification from named, independent and trusted sources
• Offering QR codes, bar codes, links, websites and banners for those who want further
information.
• The most effective label is PEF label, A-E rating and an average product score
Whether to use positive message framing -‘Protect the environment for our children’ or a
negative framing - ‘Our children will suffer if we ignore the environment’ the findings are
equivocal. In an experiment the negative frame had a large and significant effect. By contrast,
in the field study, the brick and mortar test, it was the positive frame that shoppers thought
would have the greatest impact.
Other findings on consumers’ decision making are that:
 A PEF label has a greater effect on choice that either the Ecolabel or a PEF plus the
Ecolabel
 4 in 10 shoppers said that they would pay a little more for environmentally sustainable
products. The Retailers agreed with this but said the premium should not be large.
 Consumer organisations and the European Commission are cited as trusted sources for
the certification of PEFs
Turning to enterprises, the SMEs’ online survey shows that a significant number of mid-sized
SMEs, in particular those in agriculture and industry, with an active commitment to
environmental issues. About half of the SMEs consulted have an internal environmental policy
in place, often based on LCA indicators and covering topics such as climate change, water use,
land use, but also topics related to human health, such as toxicity and cancer, and natural
resources. About one third of the SMEs publish information on environmental issues targeted at
their clients. In the B2B activities labels are seen as the most effective communication vehicles,
followed by PR campaigns, environmental reports, product passports and environmental product
declarations. B2C enterprises reported using websites, leaflets and labels to communicate
11
environmental information and see websites and POS product advertisement as the most
effective vehicles.
For SMEs organizational awareness, customer satisfaction and improvements of environmental
practices are cited as the motivators of their environmental policies. However, constraints were
mentioned including problems collecting data, the costs of personnel and/or external experts. A
standardised approach with a common methodology should help to overcome these barriers.
The outcomes of the Pilot tests and the complementary studies support the development and
implementation of Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Organisation Environmental
Footprint (OEF) methods. But the findings also flag up a tension.
On the one hand the PEF concept based on end and mid points is a scientific approach to LCA.
It reflects ‘systemic thinking’ characterised by esoteric terminology, abstraction, quantification
and complexity. Necessarily so, as the environmental impacts of a product over the life cycle
are complex. On the other hand, the public (and many in enterprises) while committed to
environmental sustainability, do not think in systemic terms. They are ‘narrative thinkers’ who
are more persuaded by stories, pictures and graphics than by quantified facts. They will switch
off from complex information and from information removed from everyday experience. The
tension for the roll out of PEFs is how can validity of information be achieved at the same time
as simplicity? Without validity consumers who seek to purchase environmentally sustainable
products may be misled; but if the PEF information is valid but too complex consumers will
ignore it.
The challenge for policy is to translate scientific knowledge into public knowledge, to continue to
cultivate verbal support for PEFs/OEFs and to provide opportunities and an appropriate decision
architecture to convert good intentions into sustainable consumption. This should be seen as
an incremental process over time and not the result of a one-off campaign or single policy
intervention. To achieve an impact on companies, consumers and Member States there is a
need:
 For policy makers and scientists to agree an initial and simplified strategy for PEF and
OEF measurement bearing in mind that perfection should not be the enemy of the good.
 To raise awareness about the agreed PEF/OEF method among all the stakeholders
emphasising the beneficial impact of the environmental sustainability for current and
future generations.
 To achieve consensus about the communication vehicles, guided by simplicity, clarity and
transparency, and the benchmarking strategy in order to avoid information overload and
the plethora of existing claims;
 To integrate and test the selected communication vehicles with other product/business
information currently in place.
12
1 Introduction
1.1 Background of the study
In the EU, consumers are facing a cacophony of diverse and non-comparable environmental
information. Many EU citizens think that existing product labels are unclear and do not provide
enough information1. The current policy context is characterised by the lack of provision of
consistent, reliable and clear environmental information, despite evident interest by consumers
and stakeholders.
With the aim of enhancing the consistency of environment-related information for consumers
and business, the Commission adopted a Communication on “Building the Single Market for
Green Products”2 and a Recommendation on “The use of common methods for measuring and
communicating the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations”. 3 The
Recommendation introduced two methods, the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and the
Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) – to measure environmental performance
throughout the lifecycle, recommending their use to Member States, companies, private
organisations and the financial community.
The initiative was further developed in a four-year testing period known as the "Pilot Phase”,
launched in November 2013 and completed in 2017. During this phase, a voluntary, multi-
stakeholder process was launched4 to develop product- and sector-specific rules (known as
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules – PEFCRs and Organisation Environmental
Footprint Sectoral Rules – OEFSRs, respectively)5. In addition, the Pilot Phase aimed at testing
different approaches to verification and to communicating PEF/OEF information. Communication
vehicles (CVs) are defined as means of conveying information on the environmental performance
of a product or organisation to business partners, consumers and other stakeholder (e.g. labels,
reports, on-shelf stickers/wobblers, product declarations, websites, etc.)
Within this context, the current project “Assessment of different communication vehicles for
providing Environmental Footprint information” was carried out. Its main objectives have been:
 Providing support in the definition, implementation and testing of CVs;
 Gathering feedback on the effectiveness and use of CVs in terms of the following
dimensions:
– Attention and understanding by target audiences,
– Changes in purchasing intentions and/or behaviour,
– Influence on attractiveness of the product/reputation of the organisation,
– Environmental impacts from modifications of organisational internal actions;
 Providing input for the evaluation of the communication stage of the Pilot Phase.
This report describes the main activities carried out from December 2014 to December 2017 to
fulfil these objectives.
1
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/flash_arch_374_361_en.htm#367
2
COM(2013) 196, http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52013DC0196:EN:NOT
3 2013/179/EU, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:124:SOM:EN:HTML
4
PEFCR pilots cover batteries and accumulators, decorative paints, hot and cold water supply pipes, household
detergents, intermediate paper product (JRC), IT equipment, leather, metal sheets, non- leather shoes, photovoltaic
electricity generation, stationery, thermal insulation, t-shirts, Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS), beer, coffee, dairy,
feed, fish, meat, pasta, packed water, pet food, olive oil and wine. OEFSR pilots cover retail and copper3. There are 27
pilots in total.
5
The role of PEFCRs and OEFSRs is to translate the general rules of PEF and OEF to a specific product group or sector.
The rules are meant to set methodological choices in a way that it results in reproducible and consistent outcomes,
enabling comparisons between the environmental performance of products and organisations, whenever feasible,
appropriate and useful.
13
1.2 Methodological framework

The following figure depicts the overall framework of the project, and the interactions between
the activities carried out, the dimensions under analysis as listed above, the methodologies used,
and the stakeholders involved in the overall process.
Figure 1 Overall framework
Assessment of different
communication vehicles Development Feedback Recommendations
for providing
Environmental Footprint
information Communication
vehicles
How: testing Who
What Focus
groups
Workshop
Pilots
Understanding and Testing
Weighting exercise
attention
Randomised experiments Consumers
Changes in consumer Pilot testing

behaviour Online Survey
Consortium
Enterprises
testing
Scoping Brick and
Influence on Consortium
review mortar test
attractiveness and support
reputation Retailers
How: support
Environmental
impacts Conference Experts
Wiki space Webinars Logbook
calls
The development, testing and feedback of the different communication vehicles has been an
iterative process aimed at reinforcing the findings as new evidence was generated through the
testing activities. In addition to the exhaustive and continuous support and feedback provided
to and gathered from the Pilots, a significant portion of the effort throughout the project by the
Consortium consisted in carrying out new, complementary studies.
These studies, carried out by the Consortium, filled in gaps in the evidence from the tests
conducted by the pilots. In addition, they generated valuable novel insights that, during the
course of the project, became the cornerstone for the policy recommendations provided.
In light of the complexity of the issues and the variable time-frames of the pilot testing, the
Consortium opted for a flexible ‘stop & go’ approach. The different studies were designed in a
sequence that facilitated the narrowing down of the ‘problem space’. The rationale is that a set
of cumulative studies, each one building on the results from the previous studies, is the optimal
approach to leveraging the collective insights from the pilots’ assessments of their
communication vehicle studies and taking these further with bespoke complementary studies.
Complementary testing involved a multi-stakeholder perspective, engaging groups that were
underrepresented during the pilot phase – such as SMEs – as well as additional groups who play
a particularly crucial role due in relation to the implementation of PEFs – such as retailers. Most
importantly, it repeatedly involved the general public as such, through large-scale multi-country
quantitative and qualitative methods. The following figure sketches more in detail the different
methods used, with the corresponding section of the report, as well as the rationale behind the
process.
14
Figure 2 Overview of the methods used
Input from pilot testing
Online survey of Workshop with Weighting exercise with

SMEs (§ 3.3) retailers (§ 3.1) experts (§ 4)
Focus groups with Weighting exercise with

Scoping review of consumers (§ 3.2) the general public (§ 4)
QR codes (§ 6.2)
Brick and Experiment #1 Experiment #2 Experiment #3

mortar test (Certification (Willingness (Ecolabel)
(§ 6.1) and trust) (§ 5) to pay) (§ 5) (§ 5)
Evidence gathered in the tests by pilots was corroborated by an exploratory qualitative study,
which included focus groups involving consumers, followed by a workshop with retailers. Two
studies aimed at investigating the weighting and relative importance of the different
environmental mid and endpoint categories to identify the most relevant impacts, and were
directed to field experts as well as the general public.
Findings from the exploratory qualitative study and from the weighting exercise helped to narrow
down the communication vehicle options, and fed into the design and implementation of three
large online experiments. These tested their relative effectiveness of different communication
vehicles, the Ecolabel, forms of certification and willingness to pay for environmentally
sustainable products. The experimental finding were then validated through a brick and mortar
test, conducted in supermarket stores.
These studies and the earlier focus groups, signaled a specific interest among some consumers
for accessing additional information via QR codes. Therefore, the Consortium carried out a
scoping review of the field, the technology, and its uses to understand drivers and barriers for
the application to the PEF context. Finally, the consortium implemented a quantitative survey
of SMEs to complete the picture given by the pilots, as smaller enterprises tended to be
underrepresented in the pilot composition.
1.3 Structure of the report

As all the activities carried out have been reported in the previous deliverables to the EC, the
aim of this report is to summarise this information as follow:
 Chapter 2 addresses the support activities provided to the pilots as well as the description
and analysis of the testing conducted by them.
 Chapter 3 comprises the different activities conducted by the Consortium to gather
insights on PEF information from different stakeholders, including retailers, consumers,
and SMEs;
 Chapter 4 reviews the study investigating the weighting and relative importance of the
different PEF categories, to identify the most relevant impacts;
15
 Chapter 5 describes the results of three online experiments investigating the effects of
several issues related to consumer decision making including certification, trust, PEF
ratings, willingness to pay and a comparison with an existing label.
 Chapter 6 provides the results of the two additional studies carried out, the brick and
mortar test and the scoping review of QR codes;
 Chapter 7 concludes and provides the policy recommendation which will serve as an input
to the evaluation of the communication stage of the Pilot Phase.
16
2 Support to pilots, activities and assessment

2.1 Overview
The objectives of the Pilot Phase included the following:
 to set up and validate the process of the development of PEFCRs OEFSRs, including the
development of performance benchmarks;
 to test different compliance and verification systems, in order to set up and validate
proportionate, effective and efficient compliance and verification systems;
 to test the effectiveness of different business-to-business and business-to-consumer
CVs in collaboration with stakeholders.
The tests were informed by the document “Background document for testing of communication
vehicles in the environmental footprint phase in 2013-2016”. Each pilot carried out tests and
reported to the European Commission and the Consortium responsible for this report. The role
of the Consortium was to gather feedback on the effectiveness and use of CVs in terms of:
 Attention and understanding target audiences,
 Changes in purchasing intentions/behaviour,
 Influence on attractiveness of the product/reputation of the organisation,
 Environmental impacts from modifications of organisational internal actions.
In addition, the Consortium provided support to pilots in their efforts to develop a methodology
for testing of communication vehicles. In this context, the European Commission (EC) and the
Consortium agreed on 27 January 2015 (during the kick-off meeting) that the support to the
pilots would encompass:
 Indications on the most appropriate methodological approach,
 Advise on statistical tools for the interpretation of findings, and
 Literature reviews to gather information on the existing body of knowledge.
This support was triggered by requests from the pilots using a project-specific e-mail account,
the use of the wiki platform and webinars. The dedicated account (env_footprint@open-
evidence.com) was set up shortly thereafter. The e-mail was principally used to disseminate and
gather information from the pilots, for instance, about the upcoming webinars. In addition, in
May 2015 the European Commission reminded the Pilots that they could seek support from the
Consortium using the dedicated email address.
With the objective of building trust and fostering collaboration between the Pilot leaders and the
Consortium, a workshop was held on 27 February 2015, in Brussels. The Steering Group 6 had
an opportunity to ask questions regarding the CV testing and share their concerns related to the
assessment methodology. In follow-up, a survey was circulated to the Pilots to enquire about
the current status of each of the pilot as well as their capabilities and capacities to carry out the
CV testing. The results of the survey were reported in the second interim report (D2) in June
2015.
During conference calls, held regularly between the EC and the Consortium, it was proposed to
explore the Wiki7, which had been used by the Pilots to exchange information on their progress.
For that purpose, the EC created a sandbox (i.e., a child page of the space called “EU
6
During the Environmental Footprint Pilot Phase, tests were conducted by volunteers in organisations called Technical
Secretariats, each developing the rules for their product or sector. Other actors involved in the Pilot phase included the
Steering Committee (SC) and a Technical Advisory Board (TAB). The SC consists of a representative for each Member
State, key stakeholder groups (SMEs, consumers, environmental NGOs), representatives of the Environmental Footprint
pilots and the EC. The SC was in charge of strategic decisions and approving milestone documents. The TABs comprised
experts nominated by the SC and was responsible for proposing solutions to technical challenges and advising the SC
on technical issues.
7
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Support+on+the+communication+phase
17
Environmental Footprint Pilot Phase”). It was a testing page of the Wiki that enabled the
Consortium to review the possible technical options and develop a proposal for the Wiki space
for support of the pilots. The proposal was presented in D2 and discussed with the EC. At the
same time the use of a Logbook was also discussed within the Consortium and with the European
Commission.
2.2 Pilots support

2.2.1 Wiki space
The Wiki space was launched in October 2015 under the name “Support on the communication
phase”, thereby replacing the “Sandbox” (which was a space restricted to the Consortium and
the Commission at the early stages of its development). In terms of the structure, it was agreed
to keep the content of the Wiki as practical as possible. The Wiki space encompassed six sections,
as illustrated in the following figure:
Figure 3 Support on the communication phase wiki space
Source:
In the first section, the users could find the Toolkit on CV testing8. The Toolkit provided
background information about the communication vehicles, insights from behavioural economics
as well as about methods for tests. The second section listed a number of studies, relating to
different types of communication vehicles as well as testing methods 9. In addition, the
methodologies were explained to the users in the third section. In section 4, links to past as well
as forthcoming webinars along with the relevant documents were presented. The final version
8
See https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/download/attachments/116736540/Toolkit for CV testing
20150923.pdf?api=v2
9
See https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Studies+overview
18
of Logbook was made available in section 5 10. In the section 6, users were reminded of the
generic e-mail address with which to contact the Consortium.
1.1 10 See Background

This chapter contains the results from the three online experiments conducted by the
Consortium. The experiment were designed based on the feedback gathered during the previous
steps (focus groups, workshop, weighting exercise), where the following areas were identified
as potential complementary tests:
 Certification and Trust: Should PEF labels include a certification? and which institutions
do consumers trust more?
 Impact categories: To what extent are consumers concerned about different negative
impacts (e.g. on the environment, on human health) of product life cycle?
 Message framing: Are consumers persuaded more by positive or negative messages?
 Willingness to pay: To what extent are consumers willing to pay more for
environmentally-friendly product?
 Penalisation: Should a company who intentionally misinformed the public about the
environmental performance of a product be penalised?
 Ecolabel: How should a PEF label relate to the existing Ecolabel?
Accordingly, three large online experiments were designed to test the relative effectiveness of
CVs in terms of several dimensions, including:
 Understanding of PEF information: declared and factual;
 Attracting attention for the PEF and OEF information;
 Influence on the purchasing intentions in terms of willingness to pay and increased
perceived marginal utility of the product with PEF information over one without.
Box 1 – Discrete choice experiments
To understand what influences people’s choices we used an established methodology - the discrete
choice experiment. The method starts with the idea that a product or a service is a bundle of
attributes. Take a car for example, where the attributes contributing to a purchase decision might
be (i) number of seats, (ii) engine size and (iii) price. Each attribute may vary: (i) 2 or 4 seats; (ii)
more or less than 1500ccs engine size, and (iii) three levels of price low, medium and high.
If every combination of the levels of the three attributes is available then we have 2×2×3 = 12
possible cars to choose from. Of course real life is much more complicated – witness the range of
car sizes, colours, extras, prices etc.
Let us return to the simple life where only 12 cars are available. We take two of the possible 12 cars
(combinations of attributes) and ask respondents which one of the two they prefer. We then ask
them to choose between another pair of cars. Knowing their preferences for every possible pairing
of the 12 cars allows us to determine the relative importance or weight of the three attributes (the
number of seats, engine size and price) in their purchase decision.
The discrete choice experiments allows for the testing of several alternatives simultaneously in
a multi-country context. There are limitations to the number of CV variants that can be tested
because each one requires a separate group of respondents. The detailed nature of the
experiment entailed – as this is always the case – some trade-offs between what is desirable
and what is feasible.
19
1.2 Methodology
This section summarises the methodology used in the three experiments conducted. A detailed
description is provided as Annex.
1.2.1 Study on Certification and Trust

The experiment aimed at understanding the importance of PEF rating certification – the source
of certification, framing, and trustworthiness - on consumer decision-making process. To achieve
this aim, an online experiment was conducted in four different countries: Sweden, Spain,
Germany and Romania. This selection was based on the Special Eurobarometer 416 Attitudes of
European citizens towards the environment (2014). Sweden and Spain are countries above the
EU28 average while Germany and Romania are below the EU28 average. In addition to the
different level of environmentally consciousness, these four countries represent different
geographical locations and different levels of per-capita GDP, Sweden and Germany faring above
the EU-28 average, Spain and Romania below average.
The online experiment was performed in two steps: the experimental part using a discrete choice
experiment (Part 1) and the self-reported measures (Part 2), including questions (see sections
below) and psychometric scales. A representative sample (age and gender) of 1,500 internet
users was targeted in each country to capture variance.
Figure 50. Experimental design
Part 1: Discrete
Part 2: Self-reported
choice experiment
survey (6'-8')
(6'-8')
A discrete choice experiment is a quantitative technique for eliciting preferences, allowing to
understand what is important in consumer decision-making process. The decisions that the
participants take in the experiment are simple. They were asked to choose a preferable product
between two on the basis of its mutually exclusive attributes (in random order). The discrete
choice experiment is the simplest of the choice techniques and has the advantage of low
cognitive complexity – the degree of task complexity and difficulty arising from the experiment.
The discrete choice experiment used two different dimensions, frames and sources of
certifications:
 Three message frames: one pointing out the positive (e.g. the benefits for our health),
one pointing out the negative (e.g. the suffering of our children), and a baseline
condition.
 Six different sources of certification of the environmental score
A total of 10 comparisons between two options were shown to each respondent. In conditions of
limited information about products, comparisons mean choosing between two items that have
the same rating. As with the rating, the PEF scale was maintained constant (ABCDE-style). The
design was replicated for the following three products, with 500 respondents by product:
 Laptop (High cost purchase – Low frequency purchase);
 T- shirt (Medium cost purchase – Medium frequency purchase);
 Milk (Low cost purchase– High frequency purchase).
Each product carried an environmental label with the following attributes:
 Headline “Environmental impact”;
 ABCDE-scale PEF rating, which was maintained constant for all options at “B” level;
 Frame, one among the following:
20
1. Positive messages with an emphasis on the benefits:

 Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children;
 Protect our environment to benefit our health;
2. Negative messages with an emphasis on the risks/costs:
 Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the environment;
 Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment;
3. Baseline condition:
 Protect our environment.
 Source of certification:
1. None
2. National government
3. The European Commission
4. An Industry body from each country
5. A Consumer Organisation from each country
6. A third party organisation (independent body)
As an example, choice set #3 for milk in Spain is shown in the picture below.
Figure 51 Study on Certification and Trust – Choice example
A random sample of 6,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (Sweden, Romania, Spain,
Germany) to produce the general public survey (1,500 respondents per each of the 4 countries).
The randomization was ensured at the country level, meaning that each country was equally
represented in the survey.
In each country, the total sample was split by the number of products, so that each product
shown had the same sample. This was done to avoid task overload. For each product sample,
the study took the shape of a within-subject design. Each respondent was tested under each
condition.
Gathering the data across countries made it possible to ensure the validity and possibility to
generalise about awareness and understanding of the impact categories as well as about the
broader environmental awareness.
The following table summarises the sample specification.
Table 22 Study on Certification and Trust – Sample specification
21
Population General population aged 18 to 74 years old

4 EU Member States:
Scope
 Sweden
 Romania
 Spain
Germany
Methodology Online survey
Sample size n=6,000 (n=1,500 respondents per country)

 Age
Quotas
 Gender
Country
Sampling error 1.29% for overall data and 2.58% for country-
specific data
Weighting Weighting by country to be able to interpret the

overall data
Sampling Random with quotas
After the experimental part, respondents were asked the following questions, each focusing on
a specific aspect:
 Certification: How much would you trust the following to certify the accuracy of
environmental information about consumer products?
 Competence: Do you think the following organisations would have the expertise to
provide accurate product environmental information on consumer products? Do you think
the following organisations would have the expertise to verify accurate product
environmental information on consumer products?
 Fiduciary responsibility: Do you think they could be relied on to act in the public interest
regarding product environmental information?
 Effectiveness: In the development and introduction of product environmental information
for consumers how effective do you think the following would be?
 Leadership: Who should lead the development and introduction of product environmental
information?
 Penalties: If it is found that a company has intentionally misinformed the public about
the environmental performance of a product, which of the following would be most
appropriate?
 Importance: Of the following aspects, which one do you consider the most important
when buying XXYY?
Annex IV. Certification and Trust contains a detailed description of the methodological approach.
1.2.2 Study on Willingness to Pay and PEF

This complementary test aimed at understanding the importance of a product’s price, its
environmental performance, and the PEF label’s appearance in consumer decision-making. To
achieve this aim, an online experiment was conducted in four different countries: France,
Germany, Italy and Poland. This selection is based on the same criteria mentioned in the
previous complementary test.
22
The design of this experiment could be considered as functionally equivalent to the experiment
conducted by the French government “The impact of environmental labelling on consumer
choices: lessons from a large-sample choice experiment”.
In our complementary test, respondents made choices across three product types – Yogurt,
t-shirt, and laptop. The characteristics that varied in the products’ descriptions are:
 PEF description (3 levels)
o Overall PEF score;
o Overall PEF score plus three exemplary midpoints;
o Only three midpoints
 PEF performance
o B/better
o D/worse
 Prices)
o Baseline
o Plus 7%
o Plus 15%
The choice of midpoints reflected the work conducted by the Dairy pilot (for yogurt), the T-shirt
pilot (for t-shirt), and the IT equipment pilot (for laptops). The following midpoints were
accordingly selected:
 Yogurt: Climate Change / Water use / Land use
 T-shirt: Climate Change / Particular Matter / Freshwater Eutrophication
 Laptop: Climate Change / Particular Matter / Resource use: metals and minerals
As an example, choice set #4 for a t-shirt in Italy is shown in the picture below.
Figure 52 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice example
The target consisted of 1500 individuals per country and 4 countries (France, Germany, Italy
and Poland). The selection of the countries followed the same criteria of the previous experiment.
The experiment consisted of a repeated measures design for the three products (Yogurt, t-shirt
and laptop in random order) followed by a number of questions on the social context in which
the environmental concern is discussed by the participants and the socio-demographic
characteristics.
A list of questions was asked at the end of the choice experiments in all versions of the
questionnaire exploring the respondents’ opinion of the current environmental information as
they come across it in their daily lives (clarity, usefulness, etc.), their habits in terms of
sustainable consumption and their awareness of ecological issues. These questions are asked
after the choice experiments so as not to influence the product choices. In total, the average
time for answering the questionnaire is 20 minutes. The experiment was conducted over the
internet in the context of an on-line purchase, in which boxes of washing powder, yoghurt and
23
jeans are offered for sale, with each product bearing a label summarizing its environmental
impact (over its life-cycle).
A random sample of 6,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (France, Italy, Germany,
Poland) to produce the general public survey (1,500 respondents per each of the 4 countries).
represented in the survey. In each country, the total sample has been divided by the number of
products, so that each product shown had a similar sample. For each product sample, the study
took the shape of a within-subject design. Each respondent was tested under each condition.
The following table describes the sample specification:
Table 23 Study on Willingness to Pay – Sample specification

4 EU Member States:
Scope
 Germany
 France
 Italy
Poland

 Age
Quotas
 Gender
Country
specific data

overall data
Annex V. Study on Willingness to Pay contains a detailed description of the methodological

approach.
1.2.3 Study on Ecolabel

The third experiment was conducted in 4 countries (France, Poland, Sweden and Slovenia). In
each country 1,000 people were surveyed. The study aimed at investigating the consumers'
choice when presented with a product displaying a PEF label as opposed to the EU Ecolabel, as
well as with labels that include both PEF information and the Ecolabel, across two products
(laptop and household detergent). It began with a “recognition” stage, where respondents were
asked whether they could recall the Ecolabel. The first stage was followed by a discrete-choice
experiment, an open-ended question, and socio-demographics.
In the experimental stage, the characteristics that varied in the products’ descriptions (laptop
and detergent) are:
1. Label (3 levels)
24
a) Ecolabel alone
b) PEF information alone
c) Ecolabel + PEF information
2. Style
a) 'Streetlight' 3 ratings (“Environmental impact: compared to similar products, this
product is better/average/worse”)
b) 5 ratings (ABCDE)
3. PEF performance
a. Worst/Red (when presented with three rating style) and D (when presented with
the 5 ratings style.
b. Average/Yellow (when presented with three rating style) and C (when presented
with the 5 ratings style.
c. Better/Green (when presented with three rating style) and B (when presented
4. Price
a) Baseline
b) Plus 7%
c) Plus 15%
As an example, choice set #7 for a detergent in France is shown in the picture below.
Figure 53 Study on Ecolabel – Choice example
A random sample of 4,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (France, Poland, Sweden,
Slovenia) to produce the general public survey (1,000 respondents per each of the 4 countries).
broader environmental awareness. The following table describes the sample specification:
Table 24 Study on Ecolabel – Sample specification

4 EU Member States:
Scope
25
 France
 Poland
 Sweden
 Slovenia

 Age
Quotas
 Gender
 Country
specific data

overall data
Annex VI. Study on Ecolabel contains a detailed description of the methodological approach.
1.3 Findings
Certification is seen as a trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. In
the first experiment, consumer choice is positively correlated with the presence of a message
indicating that a product’s environmental rating has been certified. This is especially true among
laptop buyers, where the effect is the largest for “independent third party” certification followed
by certification issued by the European Commission. Conversely, among milk buyers a
certification from the “consumer association” seems to hold the strongest effect. Certification by
national governments and industry association are likewise positively affecting choice, but by a
lesser margin (compared to the abovementioned sources) across all products.
With regards to how the accompanying message is framed, the effect of negative messages on
consumer choice (compared to the baseline message) is quite large and significant. The most
effective frame across the three products (laptop, t-shirt, milk) seems to be the negative
message regarding children, e.g. (in English): “Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the
environment”. This seems to discourage consumers from the choice of a given product ceteris
paribus, and it is particularly true for t-shirt and milk buyers. The negative message on Health
(“Our health will suffer if we ignore the Environment”) has a large (negative) and significant
effect on choice as well. The difference across products is negligible. On the other hand, the
effect of the “positive” message on children (in English, “Protect our environment to benefit our
country’s children”) is not significant.
The effect of the “positive” frame on health has an opposite effect: all things equal, respondents
are less likely to choose a product whose label contains the baseline message (i.e. “protect our
Environment”) compared to a message in the vein of “Protect our environment to benefit our
Health”. Summing up, the most effective label seems to be the one combining a negative
message about children (across all products) with the third-party certification (for laptop
and t-shirt buyers) or the consumer association certification (for milk buyers).
Table 25 Study on Certification and Trust – Most effective labels
# Frame # Source
Laptop Laptop
26
1 “Our countries’ children will 1 “This rating has been verified by an

suffer if we ignore the independent third party”
environment”
2 “Our health will suffer if we ignore 2 “This rating has been verified by the
the environment” European Commission”
3 “Protect our environment” 3 “This rating has been verified by the
[COUNTRY] Consumer Association”
T-shirt T-shirt
environment”
the environment” [COUNTRY] Consumer Association”
3 “Protect our environment to benefit 3 “This rating has been verified by the
our country’s children” † European Commission”
Milk Milk
1 “Our countries’ children will 1 “This rating has been verified by the
suffer if we ignore the [COUNTRY] Consumer Association”
environment”
2 “Our health will suffer if we ignore 2 “This rating has been verified by an
the environment” independent third party”
Note: † not significant
A discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show: coefficients, odds
ratios, the probability of increasing or decreasing product selection, standard errors, t-values
and p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth” estimate, or the utility
associated with that attribute. In the analysis, the “baseline” frame (“Protect our environment”)
and the lack of certification source (“source = none”) were used as reference points, their part-
worth are structural zeroes and therefore do not appear in the following output tables. Two
columns in tables 26, 27 and 28 are important to interpret the results, one reports the odds
ratio (that is the exponential function of the estimates) and another the directly interpretable
positive or negative probability of product selection (e.g. +50% means 50% more chances of
selecting a product, -30% less chances of selecting it).
Table 26 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Laptop)

Estimate Odds Probability Std. Error t-value Pr(>|t|)
ratio
Message framing negative -0.3463 0.70 - 30% 0.0420 -8.2417 2.220e-16 ***
impact on children
Message framing negative -0.1886 0.82 -18% 0.0350 -5.3894 7.068e-08 ***
impact on health
Message framing positive 0.0178 1.01 +1% 0.0350 0.5077 0.6117
impact on children
Message framing positive 0.2201 1.24 +24% 0.0400 5.5030 3.733e-08 ***
impact on health
Certification: Consumer 0.4106 1.50 +50% 0.0311 13.1940 < 2.2e-16 ***
association
Certification: EC 0.4429 1.55 +55% 0.0332 13.3294 < 2.2e-16 ***
27
Certification: National 0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0376 6.5099 7.519e-11 ***

government
Certification: Independent 0.6015 1.80 80% 0.0468 12.8638 < 2.2e-16 ***
third Party
Certification: Industry 0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0333 7.3474 2.021e-13 ***
Table 27 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (T-shirt)

ratio
Message framing negative -0.4340 0.64 -36% 0.0420 -10.3246 < 2.2e-16 ***
impact on children
impact on health
Message framing positive -0.0217 0.97 -3% 0.0349 -0.6203 0.5350482

impact on children
Message framing positive 0.1474 1.15 +15% 0.0398 3.7044 0.0002119 ***
impact on health
association
Certification: National 0.1713 1.18 +18% 0.0373 4.5904 4.424e-06 ***

government
Certification: Independent 0.3413 1.40 +40% 0.0454 7.5214 5.418e-14 ***

third Party
Certification: Industry 0.1936 1.21 +21% 0.0333 5.8137 6.110e-09 ***
Table 28 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Milk)

ratio
impact on children
impact on health
impact on children
impact on health
association

government
third Party
Experimental results seem to be confirmed in the survey analysis. Consumer

organisations and the European Commission are the most trusted actors to certify the accuracy
of PEF information on products, with the share of respondents trusting “completely” or “a lot”
being 72% (Consumer organisation) and 59% (European Commission). Conversely, less than
half of respondents would trust their national government (46%) or “an independent third party”
(42%).
Figure 54 Study on Certification and Trust - How much would you trust the following
to certify the accuracy of environmental information on consumer products?
28
Consumer organisation 22% 50%
European Commission 18% 41%
Industry association 11% 35%
Third party 10% 36%
National government 10% 32%
Completely Quite a lot Not very much Not at all Don’t know
Source: Q2 (n=6,000)
In terms of competence, more than three-fourth of respondents believe that a consumer
organisation would have the expertise to provide (76%) and verify (74%) accurate PEF
information on consumer products. The European Commission is the next most trusted entity,
with 67% and 68% of respondents who believe the EC has the competence, respectively, to
provide and verify accurate PEF information. The expertise of industry associations, national
governments, and independent third parties seems granted for at least half of respondents.
Figure 55 Study on Certification and Trust - Would the following have the expertise
to provide accurate PEF information on consumer products?
Third party 12% 44%
Yes definitely Yes probably Probably not Definitely not Don’t know
to verify accurate PEF information on consumer products?
29
Third party 12% 44%
Likewise, respondents rely on consumer organisations and the EC to act in the public
interest about PEF information. Around 76% of participants believes that consumer
organisations can be relied on, and around 63% thinks the same of the European Commission.
Third parties (55%), industry associations (54%) and the national governments (53%) follow.
Figure 57 Study on Certification and Trust - Do you think they could be relied on to
act in the public interest regarding product environmental information?
Third party 12% 43%
In the development and introduction of product environmental information for
consumer products, a consumer organisation is judged as very or moderately “effective” by
82% of respondents, followed by the European Commission (73%), an industry association
(70%), a third party (66%), and the national government (63%). Around the same share of
respondents (83%) believes that consumer associations should lead the development and
introduction of PEF information, as should the European Commission (76%) and national
governments (70%), followed by industry (66%) and third parties (63%).
Figure 58 Study on Certification and Trust - In the development of PEF information

for consumers, how effective would the following actors be?
30
Third party 14% 52%
Very effective Moderately effective Moderately ineffective Very ineffective
Figure 59 Study on Certification and Trust - Who should lead the development and
introduction of PEF information?
Finally, with regards to penalties, an overwhelming majority agrees with inflicting sanctions on
misbehaving companies. Should it be found that “a company has intentionally misinformed the
public about the environmental performance of a product”, most respondents believe that the
company should be “named and shamed in public” (80% “agree” or “completely agree”) or pay
a fine (84% “agree” or “completely agree”).
Figure 60 Study on Certification and Trust - If it is found that a company has

intentionally misinformed the public about the environmental performance of a
product, which of the following would be most appropriate?
Public shaming Pay a fine
80% 84%
The survey analysis sheds some light on the relative importance to customers of different
factors at the moment of buying a t-shirt, a laptop, and a milk carton. Respondents were asked
to rank a number of factors from first to last. Ranking questions calculate the average ranking
for each choice, so as to determine which factor was most preferred. We define the choice with
the largest average ranking as the most preferred. The following formula shows the calculation
of average ranking:
31
∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 𝑤𝑖 ) 𝑥𝑖 𝑤𝑖
𝑥̅ =
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖
In the formula ‘w’ is the weight of the ranked position, and ‘x’ is the response count for the
choice. We have assigned different weights in reverse, giving the largest weight to a
respondent’s favourite choice (#1) and a weight of 1 to the least favourite choice (e.g. #5 for
laptop, and #6 for t-shirt and milk). This ensures that when the data is presented on a bar chart,
it is clear which factor is the most preferred.
Quality is the most important factor across the three products; environmental impact
is the third highest factor for t-shirt and milk buyers, and the fourth highest for laptop
buyers. With regards to t-shirts, quality is the main factor (score of 9,514) followed by price
(8,119) and environmental impact (7,424). Quality is the main factor in the purchasing process
of a laptop (7,432), although the performance (7,219) is a close second, followed by price
(6,475) and environmental impact (5,006). Likewise, milk buyers ranked quality first (score of
9,634) which is clearly distant from the country of origin (6,965) and environmental impact
(6,930).
Figure 61 Study on Certification and Trust – Factors (self-declared) that influence
the decision of buying a t-shirt
Quality 9514
Price 8119
Environmental impact 7424
Organic 6588
Country of origin 5319
Brand 5036
Figure 62 Study on Certification and Trust - Factors that influence the decision of
buying a laptop
Quality 7432
Performance 7219
Price 6475
Brand 3868
Source: Q10 (n=2,000)

buying a milk carton
32
Quality 9634
Organic 6907
Price 6781
Brand 4762
Source: Q11 (n=2,000)
1.3.2 Study on Willingness to Pay

In the second experiment, using midpoints to express PEF yields, compared to overall scores,
to a higher consumer willingness to pay for a product with a given environmental footprint. The
combination of endpoints and midpoints has a significant but negligible effect. Notably, all things
equal, a high environmental score on a label (such as a B) has a very large positive and
significant effect on consumer choice, regardless of the PEF label style. Effects are similar across
products. Finally, the price increase effect is negative and significant. Summing up, the most
effective label seems to be the one including midpoints combined with a high score and the
baseline price.
Table 29 Study on Willingness to Pay – Most effective labels
# PEF style PEF score Price

Laptop Laptop Laptop
1 Midpoints Better (B) Baseline
2 Overall and midpoints Worse (D) +7%
3 Overall score +15%
T-shirt T-shirt T-shirt
†
Yogurt Yogurt Yogurt
†
In the analysis, a discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show:
coefficients, odds ratio, probability (derived from the odds ratio), standard errors, t-values and
p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth” estimate, or the utility
33
associated with that attribute. Two columns in tables 30, 31 and 32 are important to interpret
the results, one reports the odds ratio (that is the exponential function of the estimates) and
another the directly interpretable positive or negative probability of product selection. For
example, a PEF Score B increases almost three times and half the probability of selection for
laptops (table 30). The “endpoints only” PEF style, the “negative” PEF score (D), and the baseline
price were used as reference points. Their part-worth are structural zeroes, and therefore they
do not appear in the following output tables.
Table 30 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Laptop)

Estimate Odds Probability Std. t-value Pr(>|t|)
ratio Error
PEF three exemplary mid- 0.2703 1.31 +31% 0.0220 12.2747 < 2.2e-16
points ***
Overall PEF score B plus 0.0732 1.07 +7% 0.0216 3.3972 0.0006809
three exemplary mid ***
points
Overall PEF score B 1.5022 4.49 +349% 0.0200 75.1190 < 2.2e-16
***
PRICE +15% -1.0923 0.33 -67% 0.0283 - < 2.2e-16

38.5768 ***
PRICE +7% -0.5497 0.57 -43% 0.0209 - < 2.2e-16

26.2926 ***
Table 31 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (T-shirt)

ratio Error
PEF three exemplary mid- 0.2758 1.31 +31% 0.0214 12.9106 <2e-16 ***
points
three exemplary mid
points
Overall PEF score B 1.3427 3.82 +282% 0.0197 68.2564 <2e-16 ***
PRICE +15% -1.4381 0.23 -77% 0.0294 - <2e-16 ***

48.8561
PRICE +7% -0.7025 0.49 -51% 0.0208 - <2e-16 ***

33.7081
Table 32 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Yogurt)

ratio Error
34
points
three exemplary mid
points
PRICE +15% -1.3995 0.24 -76% 0.0296 - <2e-16 ***

47.3038
PRICE +7% -0.7074 0.49 -51% 0.0210 - <2e-16 ***

33.6369
Looking at the survey analysis, around seven in ten respondents (71%) think of themselves as
“environmentally-friendly” consumers, and around two-thirds (66%) repute themselves as
people who are “very concerned with environmental issues”. In terms of social context, most
respondents would not be embarrassed to be seen as having an environmentally friendly lifestyle
(70% disagree with the opposite), and do not seem to be living in a hostile context towards
environmental issues (65% disagree with the statement “I would not want my family or friends
to think of me as someone who is concerned about environmental issues”).
Figure 64 Study on Willingness to Pay – Social context
I think of myself as an environmentally-friendly

20% 51%
consumer
I think of myself as someone who is very concerned

20% 46%
with environmental issues
I would not want my family or friends to think of me
as someone who is concerned about environmental 30% 35%
issues
I would be embarrassed to be seen as having an
27% 43%
environmentally friendly lifestyle
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree
More than two-thirds of respondents (71%) have a family concerned about the environment.
More than half of respondents (58%) believe their friends to be engaged with environmental
issues. Family (68%) and friends (60%) also seem to be the groups with whom respondents
discuss the most about the environment, much more than they do with people in their local
community (40%) or with officials in their municipality (30%).
Figure 65 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you believe are the
following groups of people around you concerned and engaged about environmental
issues?
35
Famiy 21% 50%
Friends 12% 46%
Officials and municipality 8% 35%
People in the community 8% 35%
Very much Quite a lot Not very much Not at all Don’t know
Figure 66 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you discuss with the
following groups of people around you about environmental issues?
Famiy 21% 47%
Friends 15% 45%
Very much Quite a lot Not very much Not at all

In the Ecolabel study, 32.6% of respondents answered positively to the introductory question
“Have you seen [the Ecolabel] before? There is a large cross-country variation in the recognition
of the label - around half of respondents from France (51%), while less than a third in Poland
(20%), Sweden (29%), and Slovenia (31%).
Figure 67 Study on Ecolabel –Respondents who have seen the Ecolabel logo before,
by country
36
France Poland Sweden Slovenia
51% 20% 29% 31%
Moving on to the experimental findings of the study, the PEF label is better at influencing
consumers' preferences than both the ecolabel, and to the PEF+ecolabel combination.
The effect is large and significant. In general, the effect of all attributes is mixed and significant.
The PEF label (“Environmental impact” title accompanied by a rating) seems to be preferred over
both the “Ecolabel only” and the “mixed” (PEF + Ecolabel) solutions, for both laptops and
detergents. Not much difference is found among the two products: the “mixed” label has a
slightly higher effect on detergent buyers, while the PEF label has a relatively higher, but
negligible, effect on laptop buyers than on detergent buyers. Respondents clearly prefer the
presence of a rating, over its absence (“ecolabel only” option).
In terms of rating system, the “ABCDE” style is preferred over the “streetlight”
(better/average/worse) style. All other things equal, consumers are slightly more likely to pay
an extra +15% for environmental-friendly products. The opposite is true for a 7% increase, in
both laptops and detergents. In both cases, the price increase effect is negligible. Summing up,
the most effective label seems to be the one including the PEF component only, combined
with the “ABCDE” 5-rating style, an “average” score and a +15% price increase.
Table 33 Study on Ecolabel – Most effective labels
# Label PEF style Performance Price

Laptop Laptop Laptop Laptop
1 PEF only “ABCDE” Average (C) +15%
2 PEF + Ecolabel “Streetlight” Better (B) Baseline
3 Ecolabel only - Worse (D) +7%
Detergent Detergent Detergent Detergent
For the analysis, a discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show:
coefficients, odds ratios, probabilities (increased or decreased probability of selection) standard
errors, t-values and p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth”
estimate, or the utility associated with that attribute. Two columns in tables 34 and 35 are
important to interpret the results, one reports the odds ratio (that is the exponential function of
the estimates) and another the directly interpretable positive or negative probability of product
selection. For example, the label PEF increases of 106% the chance of product selection for
laptops and 104% for detergents.
37
The “ecolabel only” option, the “streetlight” (better/average/worse) style, the negative rating,
and the baseline price were used as reference points. Their part-worth are structural zeroes, and
therefore they do not appear in the following output tables.
Table 34 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Laptop)
ratio Error
Ecolabel + Overall PEF score 0.1939 1.21 +21% 0.0216 8.9899 < 2.2e-16
***
Overall PEF score only 0.7265 2.06 +106% 0.0217 33.4932 < 2.2e-16
***
PEF 5 point rating ABCDE 0.6855 1.98 +98% 0.0147 46.7759 < 2.2e-16
***
PEF comparative performance 0.2356 1.26 +26% 0.0207 11.3596 < 2.2e-16
Average/Yellow/C ***
PEF performance 0.1582 1.17 +17% 0.0197 8.0289 8.882e-16

Better/Green/B ***
PRICE +15% 0.0830 1.08 +8% 0.0206 4.0312 5.550e-05

***
PRICE +7% -0.1134 0.89 -11% 0.0196 -5.7907 7.009e-09

***
Table 35 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Detergent)

ratio Error
***
***
***

Better/Green/B ***
PRICE +15% 0.0872 1.09 +9% 0.0205 4.2507 2.131e-05

***
PRICE +7% -0.0839 0.92 -8% 0.0196 -4.2836 1.839e-05

***
1.4 Lessons learned from the experiments

Study on Certification and Trust
 Certification is seen as a trustworthy label feature across all products and sources.
 A large and significant effect of “negative” frames on consumer choice is found.
38
 The most effective label is the one combining a negative message about children with
the third party (or consumer association) certification.
Study on Willingness to Pay
 Using midpoints to communicate a product’s environmental performance is more
effective compared to both using overall scores and using a mixed approach.
 All things being equal, a high environmental score on a label has a very large positive
and significant effect on consumer choice, regardless of how the label looks like.
 The most effective label is the one displaying midpoints, combined with a high score
and the baseline price.
Study on Ecolabel
 Only a third of respondents, selected through nationally representative samples,
recalls having seen Ecolabel before.
 The PEF label is preferred to both the Ecolabel, and the “PEF + Ecolabel” combination.
The effect is large and significant.
 The most effective label is the one combining the PEF label with the “ABCDE” 5-rating
style, an “average” score, and a +15% price increase.
2 Further studies
2.1 Brick and mortar test
2.1.1 Design
A brick and mortar test was carried out to corroborate the evidence, and to validate the
results of the online experiments in an everyday setting. The test was conducted by a research
market company (GFK) at a supermarket chain in Belgium (Colruyt), and aimed at answering
the following questions:
 Do the CVs stand out in the store? Are customers triggered by the CVs to buy the
associated products?
 Which CVs and formats are more effective and best suited to be tested in the future?
 What is the impact of such a communication campaign on the retailer’s brand image?
Two logos were prepared for the test. Logo #1 displayed a smiley over a planet-shaped face.
Logo #2 displayed a planet Earth icon.
Figure 68 CV logos tested
Logo #1 Logo #2
Each logo was tested in the following three formats, for a total of 6 CVs:
 Product sticker in the upper right corner on the product;
 A pancarte in the middle of the product shelf;
 A Wobbler at the beginning and the end of the product shelf.
The following figure shows the six CVs displayed.
Figure 69 Labels tested in the brick and mortar exercise
39
Format Logo #1 Logo #2
Sticker
Pancarte
Wobbler
Fieldwork was conducted in six retail stores of the same company in Belgium. Logos and the
corresponding CVs were shown in three stores each. Logo #1 was tested in Diest, Woluwe,
and Braine l’Alleud stores. Logo #2 was tested in Brasschaat, Ukkel, and Jambes. As an
additional CV, each store displayed the following poster at the entrance of their premises:
Figure 70 Poster
2.1.2 Methodology and sample

Two methodologies were used to gather data: exit interviews and in-store observations. In
the former, one interviewer surveyed shoppers at the exit of the store. Respondents were
selected based on their answer to the question: “Were you planning to buy one of the following
products when entering the store today?”
A. Diapers
B. Pork meat
C. Milk cartons
D. None of these
Respondents who gave “D” as an answer were screened out. A total of 620 exit interviews were
conducted across all stores: 305 respondents saw Logo#1, while 315 respondents saw Logo #2.
Although no quota was set, the interviewer took care of sample distribution in terms of gender,
40
age group, and shopping habits (i.e. alone or with family). Two-thirds (63%) were women, while
the remaining (37%) were men. Around 84% of respondents mainly shop at that retailer. In
terms of household composition, more than half was a member of a family with kids.
Figure 71 Sample distribution – exit interviews
Gender Age Household composition
14%2%
10%
42%
17%
37%
53% 37%
63% 25%
Couple/Married with kids living at home
Single
Female < 30
Male Couple/Married without kids 30-50
Couple/Married with kids who don’t live at 50+
home
Living with parents
In addition, a number of in-store observations were performed. One interviewer observed

clients visiting a specific section in the shop. Sections, specifically meat, diapers, and milk
cartons, were visited on a rotation basis. The company report that 5,686 observations were
performed: 2,602 observed customers saw Logo #1, while 3,084 customers saw Logo #2.
Around 61% of the customers were female. Some 19% were shopping with kids at the moment
of the observation, while the remaining 81% were shopping without kids. The company
estimates that 44% of the observed were aged 30-50, while 19% was younger and 37% was
older.
2.1.3 Findings
While walking in the store, around half of the customers observed slowed down (53% among
those who saw Logo #1, and 49% among those who saw Logo #2), and four in ten customers
took a closer look at the environmentally-friendly products (46% among those who saw Logo
#1, and 43% among those who saw Logo #2). Around one in four customers took the product
in their hands (26% among those who saw Logo #1, and 29% among those who saw Logo #2),
and a slightly lower share went on to buy the product carrying the label or placed near one
(23% among those who saw Logo #1, and 28% among those who saw Logo #2).
Figure 72 Reactions to the CVs
41
Slowing down 53%

49%
Closer look 46%

43%
Taking product 26%

29%
Buying product 23%

28%
Logo 1 Logo 2
n= 5,686
During their shopping visit, around 29% of respondents to the interview spontaneously noticed
the environmental communication. This figure refers to respondents who replied
affirmatively to the question “During your visit today, did you notice any communication, signs,
labels or marks of environmental responsiveness in this store?”. Respondents were then aided,
i.e. they were asked “We now show you the communication labels that were present in this
store. Which of the following labels have you noticed?”. The proportion of respondents who
saw at least one CV increased to 40%.
In terms of which communication vehicle (CV), the affiche (or poster) is noticed most, both
spontaneously (10%) and aided (18%). Among the labels, the sticker was noticed by 10%
(spontaneously) and 9% (aided) of respondents; the pancarte was noticed by 8%
(spontaneously) and 15% (aided) of respondents; and the wobbler was noticed by 1%
(spontaneously) and 5% (aided) of respondents.
Figure 73 Most noticed CVs
Affiche 10%
18%
Sticker 10%
9%
Pancarte 8%
15%
Wobbler 1%
5%
Spontaneously Aided
n= 620
The pancarte fared slightly better among those who saw Logo #2 (16%) than among those who
saw Logo #1 (14%). Similarly, the wobbler was noticed more often (6%) by those who saw Logo
#2 compared to those who saw Logo #1 (4%). Respondents who saw Logo #1 remember having
seen the sticker slightly more often (9%) than those who saw Logo #2 (8%). The pancarte was
also noticed more often by women (18% for Logo #1 viewers, 21% among Logo #2) then by
men (8% in both cases), who anyway are under-represented in the sample as explained before.
Among those who saw Logo #2, the sticker performed particularly better among younger
customers, having been noticed by 13% of people younger than 50 years old as opposed to 5%
among people aged 50 or older.
CVs do not appear to be the main driver to buy products. Among those respondents who
noticed one label and bought the product (n=64), nearly one in four did so because it was an
42
“eco-friendly product”. This is higher among those who saw Logo #1 (37%) than among those
who saw Logo #2 (15%). However, only 6% of purchasers were influenced by the CV in their
purchasing decision. The figure is slightly higher for Logo #1 viewers (7%) and lower for Logo
#2 viewers (3%). Among respondents who saw the label but nonetheless decided not to buy the
product, nobody mentioned the CV as a reason not to purchase.
Figure 74 Purchasing drivers
28%
Eco-friendly product 37%
15%
16%
Other 15%
8%
23%
Habit 15%
29%
23%
Needed product 15%
29%
8%
Is good 10%
3%
6%
Influenced by CV 7%
7%
5%
Don't know 2%
9%
All Logo 1 Logo 2
n= 620
When asked which type of CV they would hypothetically use to communicate environmental
performance, over half of the respondents choose the pancarte label (54%). The sticker was
preferred by 27% of respondents, while the wobbler was preferred by 18% of respondents.
Reasons to justify their choice – regardless of the format – tend to include clarity, visibility, and
simplicity.
Figure 75 Favourite CV
43
27%
54%
18%
Pancarte Wobbler Sticker
n= 620
Overall, logo #1 is preferred to logo #2. Among all respondents, 54% prefer Logo #1. It is
especially popular among women (60%, versus 48% of men) and younger people (74%, versus
50% among those aged 50 or older). Logo #1 is especially liked because of its cheerful and
attractive character. Some people also indicate it as more visible. On the other hand, the 46%
of respondents who prefer Logo #2 does so in relation to its seriousness. Even though it is
more serious, still one out of ten prefer it, because they think it is beautiful.
Figure 76 Perceptions of the two CV logos
Positive 73% 78%

Approachable 63% 64%
Serious 51% 75%
Clear 59% 64%
Light 54% 58%
Convincing 49% 51%
Attractive 47% 55%
Difficult / heavy 18% 19%
Labels Logo A Logo B
n= 620
In addition, the study asked respondents whether taking a stance towards environmental
footprint communication positively impacts the retailer’s brand image. Overall, the answer is
affirmative. Around 72% of the interviewees indicated that it improves their general opinion of
the retailer, and around 68% indicated it fit with the image they already have about the retailer.
In addition, around 42% of respondents are prepared to pay more for eco-friendly products.
This last figure is especially higher among women (45%, compared to 36% of men) and among
environmentally conscious shoppers (54%, versus 36% among low-sensitive shoppers). Logo
#2 has a higher impact on the retailer’s image than Logo #1 (72% versus 64%). Likewise,
44
respondents who saw Logo #2 tend to have more often an improved opinion of the retailer (76%
versus 68%) and are more often prepared to pay more (43% versus 30%).
Figure 77 Impact on the retailer’s brand image
Prepared to pay more 15% 16% 28% 25% 17%
Improves my general opinion of the retailer 7% 6% 15% 39% 33%
Fits with image I have about the retailer 6% 8% 18% 42% 26%
Totally disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Totally Agree
n= 620
Finally, respondents were asked to give their opinion on how a CV should look like. With regards
to the message, an overwhelming majority (95%) would rather have the CV conveying a
positive message (e.g. “Protect the environment for our children”) than a negative message
(e.g. “Our children will suffer if we ignore the environment”). There is no clear preference
between labels with letters and labels with a three-point scale. Finally, half of the respondents
think that having the possibility to access more information, e.g. through an app or
website is useful, and one third indicates that it would make them buy the product.
2.2 Smartphones and apps: a scoping review

2.2.1 Mobile use and access in Europe
ICTs have become widely available to the general public, both in terms of accessibility as well
as costs. Over the last ten years internet access grew steadily across Europe. According to
Eurostat, since 2007 the majority of EU-28 households (55%) has had internet access, and this
proportion continued to increase over the years. In 2016, the share of EU-28 households with
internet access rose to 85%, 30 percentage points higher than in 2007.
The last few years have also seen a shift in how individuals access internet. According to
Eurostat, in 2012, only 36% of Europeans have used a portable computer or a handheld device
to access the internet away from home or work. By 2016 they were 59%. Of the different devises
used by individuals, mobile phones or smart phones were the most used devices to browse the
internet in 2016, with over three-quarters (79%) of internet users. They were followed by
laptops or netbooks (64%), desktop computers (54%) and tablet computers (44%). The EU-28
average does not capture the digital divide found among the different Member States. As
reported in Figure 78, the highest proportion (82%) of individuals that have accessed internet
remotely was recorded in Denmark, while the United Kingdom, Sweden, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands and Finland also reported levels above 75% in 2016.
Figure 78: Individuals who used a portable computer or a handheld device to access
the internet away from home or work, 2012 and 2016
45
90%
2016 2012
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ES
NL
EL
EU-28
EE
HU
LU
HR
IE
PT
LV
LT
PL
IT
DK
SE
FI
DE
AT
MT
SK
SI
UK
FR
BG
BE
RO
CY
CZ
Source: Eurostat
The lowest rates of remote internet access among the EU Member States were observed in Italy
(29%) and Poland (32%), the only two countries with 2016 levels below 40%. However, if there
is still a strong digital divide in terms of remote access to internet across Member States, it is
important to notice that the gap between the top performing and the lowest performing country
has shrunk from 63 percentage points in 2012 to 53 percentage points in 2016.
2.2.2 Mobile in-store shopping

Despite the availability and usage of smart phones research, two different systematic reviews in
the field of mobile shopping (m-shopping) show that research is still in its infancy with findings
being often geographically and methodologically constrained ,. The current research available
has identified four main areas:
 m-shopping as an online distribution channel addressing the determinants of technology
acceptance and consumer profiling
 Marketing viewpoint
 Technology perspective tackling mobile IT infrastructure. Mobile user interface and
service and technology convergence.
 Advanced technology for in-store shopping covering shopping assistant systems:
o Decision support systems (DSS), for instance, utilize the users’ request for specific
product attributes, which can also include the search for background information,
in order to support their decision-making process.
o Mobile recommender systems (MRS) aims to provide consumers with meaningful
recommendations that might be of interest.
o Navigation systems help users to reach any desired destination faster and can be
located either inside or outside of a brick-and-mortar shop.
o Mobile tracking systems are used to record consumers’ shopping movements and
time, which gives retailers new insights into consumer behavior.
The focus of this scoping review is advanced technology for in-store shopping. The main
applications of the different shopping assistant systems identified above (DSS, MRS,…) could
influence customers shopping experience in a brick-and-mortar shop environment by:
46
 designing a customized, real-time interaction channel between retailers and consumers;

 delivering non-intrusive mobile marketing that caters to their interests, preferences and
priorities;
 assisting customers in making smart purchasing decisions; and
 helping in many other typical shopping situations such as navigation and payment.
All these systems and potential influences suggest the emergence of “smart” retail settings
including the use of augmented reality to generate greater customer and business value through
the use of smartphones. Smart retail settings scenarios envisage the usage of mobile
applications (apps) as self-service technology (SST) allowing customers ownership of various
aspects of provider–customer relationships such as information seeking, price scanning and
actual purchases. Within this context apps’ design becomes a hub for several elements from
product view presentation methods to product promotion, informative content and consumer
interactions. Since consumers could use their mobile devices for a variety of different shopping-
related activities, the mobile channel can be considered the new service frontier of retailers.
Figure 79 Product and services m-marketing design
Source: Magrath and MacCormicj (2013)

Nevertheless, when considering the design of m-shopping services, retailers are currently
struggling to overcome obstacles regarding the consumers’ risk perception and restrictions of
mobile devices in terms of limited capabilities and usability issues. The impact and the role of
mobile technologies, such as smartphones and other mobile devices, is a subject still little
explored. Enhancing value for customers across physical and digital touchpoints in a synergistic
fashion is becoming an increasingly complex task for retailers and many apps are simply not
meeting consumers’ needs27.
An empirical research29 on the impact of mobile device use on shopper behavior in store points
out “in a retail environment, mobile devices and new applications for smartphones allow
shoppers to scan product barcodes, compare prices across retailers or obtain digital coupons to
be redeemed in store. The usage of technologies in pre-shopping phase could help shoppers to
make better decision and being less influenced by the environment while expending less effort
inside the store. Therefore, digital tools may have positive effects on both the quality and the
efficiency of purchase decisions inside the store”.
47
However, despite shoppers' prolific use of mobile and marketers' shift of resources toward mobile
marketing, not much is known about the integration of mobile into the shopper funnel and how
to influence a shopper along and beyond the path-to-purchase: from a shopping trigger, to
purchase, consumption, repurchase, and recommendation stages.
The influence of mobile on shopping extends well beyond in-store use of mobile devices. It
affects every stage in the shopping cycle of not just the shopper but also his/her social
circle.Therefore, a new research agenda is rapidly evolving in the intersection of mobile
marketing and shopper marketing. The following figure sketches the mobile shopper journey
and the emerging research questions covering the different entities and areas of interest. This
journey involves not just the shoppers (their motivations and goals; how they search and
discover; how they evaluate the options and choices and how post purchase process is
addressed) but also the employees and organisations.
Figure 80: Mobile shopper journey and research questions
Source: Venkatesh et al. (2016)30
Each area sketched in the figure above opens unexplored questions that should be addressed
when considering the design, diffusion, adoption and assessment of smartphones in-store
shopping. The following table lists some of these questions.
Table 36 Research areas and unexplored questions

Entity Area of interest Research questions
Shopper Motivation/shopping RQ-S1 How do we design mobile apps that tap into goods that are
goals dynamic in relation to the shopping cycle and context?
Search and discovery RQ-S2 How do we better measure and enhance mobile shopper
engagement?
RQ-S3 How can marketers optimize their mobile app design to best
influence shoppers on their path to purchase?
Evaluation, RQ-S4 How should apps be designed to deliver rich experiences
consideration, and across a wide range of devices?
choice
RQ-S5 How can marketers enhance mobile co–creation?
48
RQ-S6 How can mobile enable shoppers to serendipitously discover

a potential purchase?
RQ-S7 How can marketers design a dream concierge/intelligent
avatar–knowledge-based system/expert system–to assist
shopping?
RQ-S8 In designing intelligent recommendation systems, how can
marketers walk the fine line between creating personalized
solutions but not being perceived as creepy?
RQ-S9 How can mobile create more relevant/valuable relationships
with the individual shopper?
RQ-S10 How can mobile be used to create context–related and timely
value to shoppers?
RQ-S11 How can the instantaneity of mobile be exploited to create
different forms of instant gratification for the engaged
shopper?
Post–purchase RQ-S12 How can marketers create a positive network effect among
shoppers in a social network after purchase of one category
through links across mobile apps?
Employee Employee roles RQ-E1 How does mobile change the shopping journey (pre, during,
and post) from an employee perspective?
RQ-E2 What are the factors that create resistance toward mobile
technologies from the employee perspective, and how can
firms develop coping strategies to overcome this resistance?
RQ-E3 How can employees utilize the mobile device within the
shopping journey to created new value propositions?
Employee metrics and RQ-E4 How can employees be incentivized to become mobile
incentives shopper marketing ambassadors?
RQ-E5 How can employees be utilized as co–creators of mobile
shopping experiences?
RQ-E6 How should employee–mindset metrics be conceptualized,
defined, and measured in the context of the mobile shopping
journey?
RQ-E7 How should employee performance be measured throughout
the mobile shopping journey?
Organisation Resource allocation RQ-O1 How can firms effectively develop and maintain their social
and spending issues capital in the context of mobile shopper marketing?
RQ-O2 How should mobile execution capability be conceptualized,
defined, and measured to enhance the mobile shopping
experience?
RQ-O3 How can firms effectively develop and maintain partnering
networks relevant to delivering a superior mobile shopper
experience?
RQ-O4 What are the right conversion metrics relating to mobile
shopper marketing relative to other marketing activities?
RQ-O5 How can the return on the investment (ROI) or digital yield
on mobile shopper marketing initiatives be quantified
compared to that for other desktop related digital activities?
RQ-O6 How should firms spend their limited marketing budgets?
RQ-O7 How much money should be allocated to mobile versus other
digital marketing activities?
RQ-O8 How should firms determine the proportion of the marketing
budget that should be devoted to mobile shopper marketing?
Data–related issues– RQ-O9 How can we harness the dynamic (time, location, weather)
collection and nature of mobile data?
management
RQ-O10 How can we leverage the volume, velocity, variety, veracity
of mobile data and derive value for the firm?
RQ-O11 How can we value mobile data?
49
RQ-O12 What is the price of collecting the data that mobile shoppers
want to share?
RQ-O13 How can we enhance data security in a mobile networked
world where firms share (APIs) with their partner
organizations?
Data–related issues– RQ-O14 How can we formulate effective decision models with mobile
modeling and analysis data?
RQ-O15 How can we integrate mobile data with other data, including
offline activities and demographic data and develop cogent
models?
RQ-O16 How can we analyze mobile data to formulate models that
explain shopper behavior?
RQ-O17 How can we develop predictive models that can forecast
mobile shopper behavior at both the individual and the
aggregate levels?
RQ-O18 How should firms use mobile data to assist real time mobile
marketing decisions?
Mobile Convergence RQ-T1 As shoppers increasingly search on their mobile devices
technology through Google and as Google becomes more powerful using
shopper data, what technologies can retailers deploy to avoid
becoming the fulfillment centers of Google and remain
competitive?
RQ-T2 How can marketers leverage technology and use data on
shoppers' past purchase patterns and voluntarily disclosed
preferences for offering anticipatory solutions?
RQ-T3 How can marketers use mobile–based virtual currencies in a
manner similar to M–pesa, Coke's MyCokeRewards, and
China's QQ?
RQ-T4 How will new mobile payment technologies (e.g., Apple Pay,
Google Wallet) and systems affect shopping?
RQ-T5 What differences in mobile shopping will emerge across North
America, Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world given the
differences in mobile technologies across these geographies?
RQ-T6 How can emotion–capture and analyze technology be used to
better serve shopper needs?
Wearables RQ-T7 How will augmented reality reshape mobile shopping
experience?
RQ-T8 Will augmented reality lead to a fundamentally different
shopping cycle?
RQ-T9 How can we measure shopper emotions through wearables?
RQ-T10 How can we create compelling shopper experiences based on
shopper emotional states?
All these questions raise the challenges that shall be faced to spread the use of mobiles
in-store shopping. If we add to these challenges the current state of development and
research in the field of environmental footprint information and communication vehicle
the level of uncertainty does not allow us to drawn solid extrapolation. On the contrary,
if the level of maturity of these applications is low, it could be hypothesised that
environmental footprint information and the potential communication vehicles are not
the most well-know product’s characteristics to facilitate this take off. The current
consumers’ level of awareness about environmental footprint information may not
facilitate the engagement with neither mobiles in-store shopping nor with
environmental information.
50
2.2.3 QR codes as an example

During the communication vehicle pilot phase some initiatives were using Quick-response code
technology (QR code) as and additional information included in their CVs. QR code allows linking
a physical product with additional information displayed in websites or apps. At its simplest,
a QR code might be embedded in a performance label printed on the product packaging.
However, as it has been described in the previous section, how these codes will be adopted by
the consumers is still unknown. The following review was conducted to investigate how
consumers react and perceive QR codes, what are the main drivers and barriers to QR codes
usage, and how QR codes can shape consumer behavior.
2.2.3.1 Diffusion
QR code technology is widely used in East Asia, especially Japan and China. According to
Shen Wei, deputy director of a Chinese research institute that specializes in QR codes, more
than $1.65 trillion of transactions used the codes in 2016, accounting for about a third of all
mobile payments in China. QR codes remain less common in Europe and North America,
despite their appearance in many fields, especially transport tickets and shipping labels.
QR codes became popular in Japan in 2002, when remote internet access was still at its early
stage. Advertisers, publishers and handset-makers teamed up to popularise QR codes as a way
to share information with customers. Japan led the field until 2012, when the use of 2D codes
in China boomed driven by the mobile payment sector. Two Chinese digital-payment platforms,
WeChat Pay and Alibaba’s Alipay, disrupted the mobile payment market by allowing people to
make contactless payments by scanning codes. A customer can either scan a merchant’s QR
code, or the merchant can scan the customer’s account code.
In Europe and North America, popular mobile payment tools are Apple Pay and Android Pay.
They use near-field communication (NFC) technology to make contactless payments. This
technology is usually only found in higher-end Android and Apple phones. The technology needed
to support Apple Pay and Android Pay is too expensive for many shops in poorer countries, while
QR code payment technology just requires sellers to provide buyers with a QR code (printed or
on a screen).
These geographical difference, make QR codes a well-established means to enable payments,
website discovery and more in certain parts of the world (East Asia), while its potential it is not
fully exploited in others (Europe and North America). These geographic gaps may soon
converge. Apple has responded to the codes’ popularity in China by updating the camera app in
iOS 11, the latest version of its mobile operating system launched in 2017. The system now
automatically recognises QR code that encodes web links, map locations, contact cards and other
data. Before the upgrade, users where required to download specific applications to be able to
scan QR codes. Apple’s upgrade means that QR-scanning will reach hundreds of millions of users
worldwide.
Interest in QR codes has grown more rapidly following Apple’s launch. Apps and websites that
allow designers to generate codes easily have gained new users. Nevertheless, Apple step
towards adopting QR codes as the infrastructure for everything from payment to web traffic may
not raise the popularity of QR codes in Europe and North America. Popularity of QR codes in
China was driven by its use for mobile payments, while NFC is already the standard for payments
In Europe and North America and it will not be challenged.
2.2.3.2 Use cases

If QR code-based mobile payments are unlikely to pick up in Europe and North America, QR code
technology use may increase using other means and applications. Here below we try to report a
51
few examples of recent QR codes applications and trends implemented in Europe and North
America. The examples focus on two main topics:
 The use of QR codes to provide additional information to consumers;
 Increase in popularity of QR code use in widely used apps, especially among millennials.
In 2015, the European Medicines Agency has issued guidelines to pharmaceutical companies
on how to use QR Codes in the labelling and package leaflet of centrally authorized medicinal
products. Pharmaceutical companies have now the possibility to include QR codes on their
products to provide users with readily available information extracted from the approved
package leaflet, the approved summary of products characteristics (SmPC) and/or the approved
additional risk minimisation measures as outlined in the Risk management plan (i.e. educational
material).
The QR code may also be used to provide any other information or content that is not
included in the product information annexes as such, but that it is useful to the patients/users
and non-promotional. Additional information provided via QR code should be based on the
product information. For the time being, the inclusion of the QR code cannot replace the
inclusion of the statutory information (e.g. printed package leaflet). The QR code could be
considered a way for providing updated information on medicinal products (i.e. product
information updated to the latest variation approved for the medicinal product still not
implemented in the printed version). At the moment, there has been no in-depth evaluation and
analysis of the impacts and interest of this decision on the QR Codes. The Heads of Medicines
Agencies (HMA), the network of the heads of the National Competent Authorities (NCA) whose
organisations are responsible for the regulation of medicinal products for human and veterinary
use in the European Economic Area, stated that once further experience is gained, further
analysis will be carried out on the use of QR codes.
In 2016 the United States (US) passed a federal law requiring all manufacturers to add a QR
Code to their product packaging that will link consumers to detailed GMO disclaimers.
A study conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), identify potential
technological challenges that may impact whether consumers would have access to the
bioengineering (GMO) disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods.
While the study recognises that enough shoppers own smartphones, it did admit not all people
have the applications or are savvy enough to read a QR code and may not have access to or
choose not to use cellular data.
The GMO debate in the US also started Smartlabel QR Code initiative by Trading Partner Alliance
(TPA), a grocery manufacturers association. The voluntary initiative consists in providing
consumers with additional information on food, beverage, household and personal care products
by using QR code technology.
Another potential driver that might increase the popularity of QR code technology in Europe is
its introduction in widely used applications. WhatsApp, the most popular instant messaging
application in Europe, introduced QR Codes scanning capabilities in its application. Apart from
common uses, the feature allows users to safely login on the desktop application. Snapchat, a
popular instant image sharing app, introduced Snapcodes in 2015 and an inbuilt QR Code
scanning feature in 2016. Snapcodes are customized 2D code that allow users to add friends on
Snapchat. Similarly, in 2017 Facebook introduced a Messenger Code a customised 2D code that
allow users to add friends on Messenger.
2.2.3.3 Drivers and barriers

As seen in the previous section, geographical differences in the use of the QR code already help
us explain some of the key drivers and barriers to QR code use. It may also explain why a mature
technology such as QR code may do a comeback after it failed to pick up as a marketing tool in
Europe and North America in 2010.
The need to download an app to scan QR Codes is one of the main factors in explaining the
difference between East Asia and Europe. Contrary to what is happening recently, also with the
52
introduction of iOS 11 on the market, almost no smartphone came already equipped with the
possibility to scan QR codes in the past. WeChat and Alipay were the two applications that lead
to the massive adoption of QR codes in China.
Smartphone penetration was much lower in 2010. A survey conducted in 2016 by Eurostat
on ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) usage in households and by individuals
highlighted the relevance of mobile internet access. More than 80% of persons aged 16 to 74 in
the European Union (EU) used the internet in 2016, in many cases via several different devices.
Mobile phones or smart phones were the device most used to surf the internet, by over three-
quarters (79%) of internet users. The importance of smartphone penetration as a driver of QR
code usage is also highlighted by the USDA study.
Mobile speed connection was slower in 2010 as 4G technologies were not widely available.
According to the 2017 report from the GSA Association (GSMA), Europe is the most highly
penetrated mobile region in the world. At the end of 2016, there were 456 million unique mobile
subscribers in Europe, equivalent to 84% of the population. This high penetration rate means
that there is little room for subscriber growth over the coming years. However, this is being
offset by the rapid migration to 4G networks. 4G accounted for a third of mobile connections in
Europe at the end of 2016 and is forecast to account for more than 60% of the total by 2020 as
more Europeans take up 4G devices amid growing demand for data and as 4G network coverage
increases.
The increase in mobile access to internet caused as a reaction an increase in availability of
mobile optimised websites. This trend self-reinforces the shift from desktop to mobile
browsing, easing the access of online information from mobile devices and therefore enabling a
better use of QR codes.
In terms of usage frequency, a study on college students’ awareness and use of QR codes was
carried out by Ozkaya et al. (2015). The findings indicate that the purpose of usage is
significantly related to QR code usage rate. Practical users utilise QR codes more than
experiential users and there is a positive relationship between electronic device
ownership and QR code usage. Interestingly, being an early adopter has a negative
relationship with QR code usage. Additionally, perceived usefulness of the QR code and up-to-
date electronic device knowledge do not have significant relationships with QR code usage rate.
The result of the study somewhat supports the results of the analysis conducted so far.
Smartphone penetration, mobile speed connection, easiness to scan QR codes and mobile-
optimised websites help to improve QR code technology in terms of usefulness, easiness to use,
information quality and system quality. Those good features clearly have an impact on
consumers attitude towards QR code and their intention and willingness to use such technology.
Behavioural studies show that consumer intentions and behaviours do not always match as other
factors may affect a consumer final action. The above-mentioned factors all aim at addressing
what ease QR code usage, nevertheless they do not analyse what motivates consumers to
turn to this technology to access and gather information. Smartphone-based access to
information is a promising vehicle to provide additional information to consumers, especially in
retail and point-of-purchase environments, yet what motivates consumers to turn to mobile
information is still under research. Since QR code technology relies on pull-based approaches
rather than push-style information, it becomes crucial to understand what drives consumer in
proactively use such a technology. In the field of advertising, push advertising describes
messages that are initiated by the advertiser, whereas pull advertising refers to communication
of promotional material initiated by the consumer (Barnes, 2002; Bamba and Barnes, 2007,
Unni and Harmon, 2007). By analysing the literature review on the topic, there are various
existing theories being applied for the analysis of QR Codes.
However, two theories are more frequently used. Those are the Uses & Gratifications Theory
(U&G) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, Davis, 1989). A research by Lucy Atkinson
(2013), investigates the role of institutional trust, involvement and market mavenism (the
extent to which a person enjoys being a source of market-related information for others) in QR
code usage to access information before purchasing sustainable products. The study uses a U&G
53
analysis. Sustainability claims about products being organic or fair trade are claims that fall
under the category of credence attributes, meaning attributes buyers cannot confidently
evaluate, even after one or more purchases (after personal experience). Thus, in lack of
alternatives, buyers tend to rely on the reputation of the brand name, testimonials from someone
they know or respect, service quality, and price (Darby and Karni, 1973; Nelson, 1974). When
available, consumers rely on eco-labels (such as the EU organic product label) to affirm the
credibility of the credence claim (Klintman, 2006; Kolandai-Matchett, 2009). However, research
shows that while consumers are continuously moving towards shopping with a morally guided
conscience they have also become more distrustful towards labels that make ethical claims such
as organic health labels and others (Kalafatis and Pollard, 1999; D'Souza et al., 2007; Mostafa,
2007; Shrum, McCarty & Lowrey,1995). QR codes can increase consumer trust by providing
additional detailed, context-specific information.
Atkinson’s study finds that government trust, buycotting (the act of deliberately buying certain
products for political, ethical, or environmental reasons) and market mavenism are positively
related to consumers’ willingness to use mobile phone-based QR code information. At the same
time, corporate trust is negatively related to QR code usage. The results suggest that there is a
need to improve institutional trust in QR code usage. According to the author, the relation
between institutional trust and QR code usage is twofold: while institutional trust enables QR
code usage, the implementation of QR Codes containing more in-depth information concerning
the precise meaning of labels and other characteristics of the products will in return also increase
the institutional trust. Furthermore, QR code content should be carefully crafted to provide
meaningful, usable information for involved consumers. Finally, consumer market mavens’
tendency to share information should be harnessed by providing QR code content that is easily
passed on to other consumers.
Atkinson’s findings are supported also by other studies in the field of QR code usage. A study by
Dong-Hee Shin et al. (2012) examines why people adopt certain new technologies, in this case
QR code, while refusing or ignoring others. The authors develop a TAM model to predict users’
intentions to continue using QR codes by integrating the model with interactivity and quality
motivations as primary determining factors. According to the study, not only any new
technology needs to be perceived as being useful in order to be accepted and assimilated
into people’s daily routines, but it also needs to be easy to use. Consumers tend to lack the
technological sophistication to understand the complex nature of QR codes, nevertheless the
scanning process should be easy. As already described above, some developments such as the
automatic inclusion of QR code scanning capabilities in most new mobile operating system has
improved the easiness of scanning QR codes. The model from Dong-Hee Shin et al. therefore
includes the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use.
Other factors considered in the model are information quality, system quality and interactivity.
Information quality captures the user perceived value of the output produced by a system
and can be measured by information accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness (Lee et
al. 2002; Parasuraman et al. 1988). System quality is a measure of the functionality of a
system, including usability, availability, reliability and response time (DeLone & McLean, 1992;
Parasuraman et al., 1988). System quality differentiate itself from perceived ease of use as it
does not relate to the interaction between the user and the system, but it only considers intrinsic
qualities of the system. Interactivity, intended as responsive interaction, is an important
feature in QR codes. The authors define interactivity as responsiveness, content sharing and
content control. By scanning a QR code, users expect an immediate response. As already seen,
QR code are increasingly used on social media and instant messaging platforms (i.e. Facebook,
Snapchat and WhatsApp) to enhance social interaction. The model also controls for intrinsic
motivation, that the authors define as subjective norm.
Dong-Hee Shin et al. finds that all the above-mentioned factors are correlated to QR code
adoption. Interactivity in particular stands out as a major driver of QR code user behaviour.
Similar results using a TAM model have also been found in Gao et. al. (2013). Furthermore, the
results imply that, while users might perceive the good features of QR codes (usefulness,
easiness to use, information quality and system quality), they may not intend to use those codes
54
unless something is confirmed. They may want to personally ensure that a QR code is secure
and dependable. Even if not directly captured by Dong-Hee Shin et al. model, as in Atkinson’s
conclusions trust seems to play an important role to transform the intention to use QR code
technology into a behaviour. According to Mallat, Rossi, Tuunainen, & Öörni (2008), institutional
trust is considered a necessity for mobile communication in general due to the spatial and
temporal distance between the communicating organization and the consumer.
The figure below sums up the consumer behavioural drivers and barriers extracted from the
literature analysed.
Figure 81 Consumer behavioral drivers and barriers
2.3 Lessons learned

Brick and Mortar test
 While walking in the store, half of the customers observed slowed down. Around 40%
took a look at the product displaying the environmental CV. One in four took the
product in their hands; among them, most ended up buying it.
 Once exited the shop, three in ten customers spontaneously recall the CVs. When
aided by the interviewer, the number rises to four in ten. Many noticed the affiche/poster.
Among the labels, the pancarte (in the middle of the product shelf) and the sticker
(embedded in the product packaging) were noted more than the wobbler (at the
beginning and the end of the product shelf).
 Customers tend to be more aware of the shelf CVs (pancarte and the wobbler) if they
included Logo #2 (blue-and-white icon of planet Earth) than Logo #1 (a smiley face
55
on top of a coloured planet-Earth icon). Customers tend to be more aware of the product
CV (the label) if it included Logo #2.
 CVs do not appear to be the main driver to buy products. Among those respondents
who noticed one label and bought the product, one in four did so because it was an “eco-
friendly product”, but only 6% were influenced by the CV.
 When asked which type of CV would they hypothetically use to communicate
environmental performance, over half choose the pancarte. The sticker was preferred
by 27% of respondents, while the wobbler was preferred by 18% of respondents. Reasons
to justify their choice – regardless of the format – tend to include clarity, visibility, and
simplicity.
 Overall, logo #1 is preferred to logo #2. Among all respondents, 54% prefer Logo #1.
It is especially popular among women and younger people. Logo #1 is especially liked
because of its cheerful and attractive character. Some people also indicate it as more
visible. On the other hand, those who prefer Logo #2 does so in relation to its seriousness.
 Taking a stance towards environmental footprint communication positively impacts
the retailer’s brand image, according three in four respondents. Most indicated it fit
with the image they already have about the retailer. Four in ten are prepared to pay more
for eco-friendly products.
 Nearly everyone would rather have the CV conveying a positive message (e.g.
“Protect the environment for our children”) than a negative message (e.g. “Our children
will suffer if we ignore the environment”). Half think that having the possibility to access
more information, e.g. through an app or website is useful, and one third indicates that
it would make them buy the product.
Mobiles and QR Codes
 Despite the widespread use of mobiles, the current state of the art of mobile in-store
shopping does not seem to support the use of these applications/services among the
triggers of the environmental footprint information and its potential communication
vehicles. There are still many unsolved questions to be addressed by more mature
products/services before applying lessons learned to environmental issues.
 The pick-up of QR code technology in specific parts of the world (Asia) has pushed mobile
producers and mobile system operator providers to include QR code scanning capabilities
into the default settings of new smartphones.
 All those factors contribute positively to some of the drivers (usefulness, ease of use
and system quality) behind consumer behaviour decision to use QR code technology to
retrieve additional information about products.
 Studies have shown how other crucial factors are quality of information provided, as
well as the interactivity and institutional trust. Ultimately, intrinsic motivation is also a
strong driver, that is nevertheless linked mainly to how digital native and used to QR
code technology consumers are.
 QR code content should be carefully crafted to provide meaningful, usable information
for involved consumers, with particular attention to the quality of the information
provided.
 The information retrieved through QR code technology should be easily sharable
(interactivity) through the different social media channels to incentivise consumer
willingness to use the technology.
 The institution providing the information should build up consumer trust by
guaranteeing high level of privacy and reliability of the overall system. If for example
Environmental Footprint information would be provided by producers, they might be
tempted to collect cookies information about consumers accessing the information. This
56
solution could constitute a barrier to certain consumers due to privacy concerns or lack
of trust towards the producer.
 QR code technology represent a cheap and smart way to provide consumers with
additional information about products. So far QR codes are the best technology available
in terms of 2D encoding techniques, even if multicolour codes might substitute this
technology in the future.
 Concerns remain whether or not the technology will fully pick up in Europe even if
recent trends have made the technology more accessible. Moreover, as it is the case of
mobile in-store shopping more research is needed to transfer the lessons learned to
environmental issues.
3 Conclusions
The Commission work on the development of the Product/Organisation Environmental Footprint
(PEF/OEF) method started in 2010 in reaction to requests from business complaining about
difficulties in differentiating themselves based on environmental performance due to the
proliferation of environmental labels/certification schemes.
Moreover, in 2010 the Council adopted the conclusions asking the Commission to develop a
harmonised method for the calculation of the life cycle environmental performance of products.
In 2013 the European Commission adopted the Communication "Building the Single Market for
Green Products" (COM/2013/0196 final). The Commission Recommendation 179/2013 (OJ L
124, 4.5.2013, p. 1–210) was also adopted establishing and recommending the use of the PEF
and OEF methods to calculate the environmental performance of products (PEF) and
organisations (OEF). The Recommendation clarified that these methods are not intended to
directly support comparisons or comparative assertions, i.e. claims of overall superiority or
equivalence of the environmental performance of one product compared to another, and that
such comparisons require the development of additional PEF category rules or OEF sector rules
that complement the general guidance, in order to further increase methodological
harmonisation, specificity, relevance and reproducibility for a given product-type. Such category
rules and sector rules were developed during the pilot phase. Based on these rules, different
ways of communicating the Environmental Footprint (EF) profile of products and organisations
were tested.
The pilot phase has provided some valuable insights on the current status of the effectiveness
and use and communication vehicles. A number of conclusions can be drawn that prove of
particular relevance with view on providing support to different aspects of communication
vehicles, stakeholders’ perceptions and behaviours, and their evaluation
Overall, the development, testing and feedback of the different communication vehicles has been
an iterative process based on exhaustive and continuous support and feedback provided to and
gathered from the pilots, and complemented by evidence gathered through a multi-stakeholder
process, engaging groups that were underrepresented during the pilot phase – such as SMEs –
as well as additional groups who play a particularly crucial role due to the specificities of the
project, such as retailers. Through the involvement of the general public within the framework
of the complementary tests of both quantitative and qualitative nature, the study could
successfully fill evidence gaps left from the tests conducted within the pilots.
Communicating EF to consumers
Citizens involved in the communication tests were significantly interested in PEF information and
in the environmental impact of products in general. Whilst the main criteria driving purchase
decisions are price, quality, brand and availability (especially for products bought on a regular
basis), consumers involved showed high interest in the environmental impact of products in
general, and in PEF information specifically.
57
Situations where environmental performance becomes a key driver of purchasing decisions

include
 with prices being equal, a high environmental score on a label has a very large positive
and significant effect on consumer choice;
 products that are new or big, expensive, durable items (e.g. cars);
 products that impact consumers' own or their children's health.
Results from the general public surveyed confirmed that citizens are especially concerned about
impacts on health. At the same time, the general public considers impacts on the environment
and natural resources as increasingly pressing problems. They also are aware of their individual
responsibility in reducing the impact on the environment, a responsibility that they know to
share with companies and governments.
We can identify a series of lessons learnt on conditions for the effectiveness of communicating
environmental footprint information to consumers.
Translate complex results into simple information: clarity, readability and transparency are
essential. Consumers find many of the Environmental Footprint impact categories difficult to
grasp. Whilst consumers have a good understanding of impacts such as climate change, CO2
emissions, energy and water consumption, the use of technical/scientific terms such as
acidification, terrestrial eutrophication and ecotoxicity is not understood. In particular,
consumers often don't grasp the link of impact categories to the specific product and the meaning
of Life Cycle Assessment results.
In line with these difficulties, consumers prefer the use of graphics, bars and colour scales to
numbers, scientific terms. Consumers gave high support to the traffic light (better, average and
worse represented with colours) and to the energy label format (A-E performance scale).
Avoid information overload. Consumers indicated that showing 3 midpoints is sufficient.
Although only a small portion of consumers consults detailed information, half of those surveyed
in the brick and mortar test prefer to have these available, e.g. through an app or website,
accessible through a QR code.
Certification proves an important element to increase trustworthiness of information. Scepticism
and mistrust is one of the main barriers towards being receptive to environmental footprint
information. The experimental evidence gathered when testing of the relative effectiveness of
communication vehicles on several dimensions demonstrates that certification is seen as a
trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. Certification must be third party or
come from a consumer association.
Framing is important. One statistically significant test identified a large and significant effect of
negative frames – messages emphasising negative environmental consequences for people – on
consumer choice. The highest impact was registered when including messages on consequences
for children. However, this result was not supported by the brick and mortar test, where nearly
everyone expressed their preference for CVs conveying a positive message (e.g. “Protect the
environment for our children”) over a negative message (e.g. “Our children will suffer if we
ignore the environment”).
Preferences considering the EU Ecolabel. Options tested were a PEF label, the EU Ecolabel and a
combination between PEF and the EU Ecolabel. The PEF label was the most preferred between
the three options, with highest preference given to an A-E type label. About one third of the
respondents recalled having seen the EU Ecolabel prior to the study, which might have influenced
results.
Consumers are ready to pay a bit more for environmentally friendly products. A +15% price
increase was acceptable for consumers for an average product on the A-E scale. This is supported
by the results from the brick and mortar test where four in ten respondents indicated to be
willing to pay more for environmental-friendly products. Furthermore, retailers confirmed that
consumers are willing to pay some extra costs for environmentally-friendly for certain products,
58
but the cost difference should not be significant. A further experiment focussing on willingness
to pay, however, found that price increase had a negative, significant effect on purchasing
intentions.
Communicating to businesses and stakeholders
Businesses acknowledge the increasing importance of environmental sustainability for
consumers and see important benefits of PEFs both for business-to-business (B2B) and business-
to-consumer (B2C) activities, among which are brand valuation, opportunity for comparison of
products in terms of their environmental products, higher quality of products, and last but not
least, common rules for both manufacturers and industries.
More than half of environmentally active SMEs know and use Life Cycle Assessment indicators.
The online SMEs’ online survey shows that a significant number of mid-sized SMEs and those
operating in agriculture and industry are committed to environmental issues. Environmental
concern is likewise higher among medium-sized enterprises and in the primary and secondary
sectors. Similarly, the demand for environmental information is lower in the service sector and
among micro-sized enterprises. About half of the SMEs consulted have an internal environmental
policy in place, often based on LCA indicators and covering topics such as climate change, water
use, land use, but also topics related to human health, such as toxicity and cancer, and the
future availability of resources. About 30% of the SMEs publish information on environmental
issues targeted at clients.
An interesting finding is that when communicating in a B2B setting, SMEs see labels as the most
effective CV, followed by PR campaigns, environmental reports, product passports and
Environmental Product Declarations. As opposed to that, for B2C participants use websites,
leaflets and labels to communicate environmental information. They see websites and POS
product advertisement as the most effective CVs, followed by PR campaigns.
As main drivers for LCA’s, SMEs surveyed indicate that the most important ones cover
organizational awareness, customer satisfaction and improvements of environmental practices.
Conversely, data collection difficulties, and the costs of personnel, such as involvement of
internal human resources or experts constitute main barriers. A common method and the
simplification potential of the EF methods will help to overcome these barriers but taking into
account the cost of access to both the methods and/or the experts to conduct the assessment.
Relevance to decision-making. When communicating in-house or to external partners, clear
conclusions and action points are needed.
Clarity and simplicity is important. Business partners expect more detailed information and are
more likely to have the expertise to understand it. However, often non-experts (e.g. purchasers)
are involved, therefore complex technical messages need to be clearly explained or simplified.
Graphical information is appreciated.
Customers often expect to compare the product with its competitors or to a benchmark.
Verification as a guarantee of fair competition. A credible verification scheme and audit regime
is needed to guarantee the trustworthiness of information and fair competition.
Implications for EU policy development
Overall, the study has provided extensive insights into the issue of different communication
vehicles for environmental footprint information, providing an evaluation, stakeholders
perception and highlighting different design aspects of communication vehicles to increase their
effectiveness, while indicating areas for improvement to raise consumer awareness.
The exploratory nature of this study does not allow for comprehensive, externally valid
conclusions. In an ideal world citizens and business would be presented with reliable and
harmonised product environmental performance labels from trusted sources; have the
competence to understand the communication vehicles and have the incentives and available
alternatives to convert good intentions to changes in behaviour. However, the world is far from
ideal, there is a plethora of logos, label designs and information content.
59
Against this background, the development of an information system for products and
organisations through the implementation of the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and
Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) methods is undeniable as it could provide a common
knowledge to be used by existing policy tools to substantially increase consistency of approaches
and coherence of objectives. This may enable innovative companies to design more sustainable
products, reduce costs and improve their environmental performance in those areas where it
delivers the largest environmental advantages. Furthermore, based on this information, citizens
could make more informed choices without flooding them with excessive and non-
comprehensible information and Member States could introduce incentives/disincentives linked
to the environmental performance of a product along its supply chain.
PEF/OEF concept is a scientific approach to LCA characterised by specific terminology,
abstraction, quantification and complexity. This is necessarily so, as the environmental impacts
of a product over the life cycle are complex. However, the public (and many in businesses) do
not think in systemic terms. They are ‘narrative thinkers’ who are more persuaded by stories,
pictures and graphics than by quantified facts. Most likely, they will switch off from complex
information and from information removed from everyday experience. Therefore, the dilemma
for the roll out of PEF/OEF is how can validity of information be achieved at the same time as
simplicity? Without validity consumers who seek to purchase environmentally sustainable
products may be misled; but if the PEF/OEF information is valid but too complex individuals will
ignore it.
Solving such a dilemma should be seen as a process over time and not the result of a one off
campaign or policy intervention (c.f. two decades for climate change). To achieve an impact on
companies, consumers and Member States there is a need:
 To raise awareness about the PEF/OEF method among all the stakeholders emphasising
the impact of the methods in their daily live/business.
 To achieve consensus about the communication vehicle, guided by clarity, readability and
 To integrate and test the selected communication vehicle with other product/business
References
Atkinson, L. (2013), Smart shoppers? Using QR codes and ‘green’ smartphone apps to mobilize
sustainable consumption in the retail environment, International Journal of Consumer Studies,
Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 387–393
Bamba, F. & Barnes, S.J. (2007) SMS advertising, permission and the consumer: a study.
Business Process Management Journal, 13, 815–829.
60
Barnes, S.J. (2002) Wireless digital advertising: nature and implications. International Journal
of Advertising, 21, 399–420.
Chandran, A.(2014), Review on Color QR Codes: Decoding Challenges and Security Issues,
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 3, Issue 4
D'souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P. & Peretiatko, R. (2007) Green decisions: demographics and
consumer understanding of environmental labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
31, 371–376.
Darby, M.R. & Karni, E. (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of
Law and Economics, 16, 67–88.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success. Information Systems
Research, 3(1), 60–95.
EMA (2017), Quick Response (QR) codes in the labelling and package leaflet of centrally
authorised medicinal products, available at:
http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideli
ne/2015/07/WC500190405.pdf
Eurostat (2017), Internet access and use statistics - households and individuals, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/digital-economy-and-society/overview
Gao, T., Rohm, A., Sultan, F. & Pagani, M. (2013). Consumers un-tethered: A three-market
empirical study of consumers' mobile marketing acceptance. Journal of Business Research,
66(12), pp.2536-pp.2544.
Grillo, A., Lentini, A., Querini, M. and Italiano, G. (2008), High Capacity Colored Two Dimensional
Codes, Proceedings of the International Multiconference on Computer Science and Information
Technology pp. 709–716
GSMA (2017), The Mobile Economy, Europe 2017, available at:
https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/?file=89a59299ac2f37508b252124726a1139&do
wnload
Kalafatis, S.P. & Pollard, M. (1999) Green marketing and Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour:
a cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 441–460.
Klintman, M. (2006) Ambiguous framings of political consumerism: means or end, product or
process orientation? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 427–438.
Kolandai-Matchett, K. (2009) Mediated communication of ‘sustainable consumption’ in the
alternative media: a case study exploring a message framing strategy. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 33, 113–125.
Lee, Y., Strong, D. M., Khan, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: A methodology for Information
quality assessment. Information & Management, 40(2), 33–146.
Mallat, N., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V.K. & Öörni, A. (2008). An empirical investigation of mobile
ticketing service adoption in public transportation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 12(1),
57-65
Mostafa, M.M. (2007) A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian
consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 445–473.
Nelson, P. (1974) Advertising as information. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 729–754.
Ozkaya et al. (2015), Factors affecting consumer usage of QR codes, Journal of Direct, Data and
Digital Marketing Practice, 16-03, 209-224.
61
The Wiki space was accessible to all members of the Technical Secretariat, including external
companies involved in the CV testing. This approach enabled a swifter flow of information
between the pilots and the testing organisations, as well as the Consortium. The permissions to
access a space could be modified at any time. For ease of access to uploaded documents, the
Consortium developed an index based on labels (the so-called key words) assigned to the
available documents. Each document contained a different number of tags, depending on the
needs. The practice of labelling the documents has been used in the Wiki space: EU
Environmental Footprint Pilot Phase and its child pages. It was therefore expected that users
would be familiar with the approach and would be able to understand and follow the labelling
practice.
2.2.2 Conference calls

From the beginning of the study the Consortium was informed by the European Commission that
the Pilots had posed a number of questions on experimental design and on criteria for selecting
a communication vehicle to test. To facilitate communication between the Pilots and the
Consortium, a generic e-mail address was established (env-footprint@open-evidence.com). The
Consortium received a number of questions via this e-mail address, notably from the following
pilots: footwear, t-shirt, dairy products. In response a teleconferences were organised to be able
to better understand the current status of the CV design and testing phase, pose additional
questions, and to provide a meaningful advice.
2.2.3 Webinars
Furthermore, the Consortium organised webinars to reach a broader audience.
The first webinar was held on 25 September 2015. The focus was on CV testing and was aimed
at describing the most common methods, along with their advantages and disadvantages. 91
users registered for the webinar and 71 participated. The second webinar took place on 9
December 2015. Here the goal was to explain the steps needed to design a communication
vehicle. 94 users registered to this webinar and 66 participated. The dropout rate during the
webinars was very low. The Consortium distributed presentations and any related materials in
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Seema Ahlawat, Dr. Chhavi Rana, Rashmi Sindhu (2017), A Review on QR Codes: Colored and
Image Embedded, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science
Shin, D., Jung, J. & Chang, B. (2012). The psychology behind QR codes: User experience
perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1417-1426
Shin, D.H., Jung, J. and Chang, B. H. (2012), The psychology behind QR codes: User experience
perspective, Computers in Human Behaviour 28, 1417–1426
Shrum, L. J., McCarty, J.A. & Lowrey, T.M. (1995) Buyer Characteristics of the Green Consumer
and Their Implications for Advertising Strategy. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 71-82
Singh, A. and Singh, P. (2016), A REVIEW: QRCODES AND ITS IMAGE PRE-PROCESSING
METHOD, International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR),
Volume 5, Issue 6
Unni, R. & Harmon, R. (2007) Perceived effectiveness of push vs. pull mobile location-based
advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7, 48–71.
USDA (2017), Study of Electronic or Digital Link Disclosure A Third-Party Evaluation of
Challenges Impacting Access to Bioengineered Food Disclosure.
Annex I. The final version of Logbook
62
advance of the webinars which were recorded and subsequently made available on the wiki
space.
63
2.3 Pilots activities

In early 2016, the Consortium contacted the Pilots to offer support and to better understand the
status of the communication phase. The following figure summarises the information gathered
from the pilots through conference calls and emails in 2016. We received feedback from 23 out
of 25 pilots through the logbook (11), phone calls (10) and email (2) and were able to give
advice and support. In addition, the Consortium supported the Nordic Environmental Footprint,
attending two workshops and presenting the approach to PEFs and benchmarking.
Figure 4 Overview of pilot feedback by method
No reply 2
Email 2
Logbooks
11
Phone 10
Source: 25 pilots
In March 2017, 19 pilots provided the consortium with final reports of their CV testing phase.
Based on this information, we counted 51 initiatives in which several CVs were tested. The
number of business-to-business (B2B) initiatives was 27, including initiatives aimed at
employees, suppliers, and retailers, while 24 initiatives were business-to-consumer (B2C).
Figure 5 Overview of pilot tests by target group
B2C
24 51
initiatives
B2B
27
Source: pilots
The most common method of testing was surveys (21), either online or in person, as the figure
below shows. In addition, interviews were performed in 13 Pilots, with focus groups in 8 cases.
Other methods include workshops with stakeholders (5 initiatives), sales information and general
presentations. The sample size, and the statistical power in performed surveys ranges from
fewer than 20 respondents (Pasta pilot) to over 1,000 respondents (Detergents, Red Meat, Dairy
Products, Paints pilots). Many surveys involved multiple countries that variously included Italy,
Germany, Poland, Sweden, France, the UK, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Latvia
and the Netherlands.
Figure 6 Overview of pilot tests by method
64
Surveys 21
Interviews 13
Focus groups 8
Workshops 5
Other 4
Source: pilots
According to the information collected via pilots, and shown in the figure below, performance
labels were tested in 20 initiatives. Other commonly tested CVs included declarations and
product passports, which were the subject of 10 initiatives. Reports, such as external
communication reports or performance tracking reports, Other CVs that were tested by pilots
include webpages as well as PR campaigns, which include videos, banners, infographics,
newsletter and ads.
Figure 7 Overview of pilot tests by CV
Label 20
Declaration 10
PR campaign 7
Report 7
Webpage 6
Newsletter 1
Source: pilots
2.4 Pilots communication vehicles

A total of 47 labels were assessed in the Pilots. Of these, 15 labels included a single performance
score, 10 labels included distinct performance scores (“midpoints”), 16 labels included both a
single performance score and midpoints, while 6 labels had neither of the two. In the latter
category, labels with no score served as controls and contained messages on, among others
issues; animal welfare; recycling information and tips on how to use the product. Their design
was developed starting from the EC mock-up label in 11 cases. In 36 cases, labels were designed
on purpose (or adapted from pre-existing initiatives) by pilots, with varying results in terms of
information displayed, features, and visual impact. The most popular headline was
“Environmental impact” (12 labels), followed by “Environmental footprint” (8 labels),
“Environmental score” (7 labels), “Product Environmental Footprint” (6 labels), “Environmental
Info/Information” (4 labels). Half of the labels (23 labels) had a white background; other
common background colours were blue (8 labels), grey (5 labels), and green (4 labels).
Of the 31 labels that included at least a single performance score (“endpoints”), 18 labels used
letters and colours to indicate the scale, while 2 labels had numbers and colours, and the
remaining 11 using only colours (in 10 cases) or stars (in 1 pilot). In 1 pilot, each of the 5
numbers in the scale was preceded by an “eco” tag. Among the 18 labels using letters, 15 labels
65
used the A-E scale while 3 labels used the A-G scale. With respect to colours, a total of 22 labels
used a green-to-red (traffic light) performance scale, while 9 labels used other colour
combinations. In all cases, colours correspond to “steps” or letters on the performance scale.
Among those displaying the traffic light performance scale: 3 labels had 2 colours; 5 labels had
3 colours; 11 labels had 5 colours; and 3 labels had 7 colours. Among those not displaying the
traffic light scale, other combinations included black-white or shades of grey (4 labels), shades
of green (2 labels), shades of blue (1 label), a yellow-to-green scale (1 label), as well as a gold-
silver-bronze scale (1 label). A total of 11 labels used a relative comparison score, which was
“Better-Average-Worse” (4 labels), “Better-Medium-Worse” (4 labels), or “Better-Worse” (3
labels). A total of 6 labels used an absolute score, either “Low-Medium-High” (2 labels) or “Low-
High” (4 labels).
Of the 26 labels that included distinct performance scores (“midpoints”), 19 labels used 3
midpoints, while 7 labels used 4 midpoints. In most cases (22 labels), categories were selected
from the agreed Impact Categories (ICs), while 4 labels used ad-hoc categories. In some cases,
ad-hoc categories were simplified ICs (“CO2”, “Water”, “Land”); in others, they measured
different aspects (such as “additional aquatic check”). Midpoints indicated at least absolute
values in 12 labels, and indicated at least relative values in 22 labels. A total of 10 labels used
icons to indicate midpoints.
A QR code was used in 10 labels, while a barcode was used in 5 labels and a link to an external
URL was featured in 13 labels. Around half of the labels (22) indicated that they were certified,
some specified independent experts/third parties (9 labels) while 6 labels indicated “partnership
with the EC”. The EU icon was featured in 12 labels. Other messages included a footprint icon
(3 labels), a planet icon (3 labels), a leaf icon (1 label), an animal icon (1 label), a T-shirt icon
(1 label), an ad-hoc icon (2 labels), recycling information (3 labels), impact on life cycle stages
(5 labels), the picture of a beer glass (9 labels), and the message “What you can do” (3 labels).
Declarations were tested in 8 pilots. Reports were tested in 3 pilots. They differ in nature, target
groups, and impact: some pilots have opted for solutions of high visual impacts, while other
pilots, mainly targeting B2B, have preferred more simple layouts. Other CVs include websites,
PR campaigns, newsletters, videos and banners, and were tested in 6 pilots.
2.5 Analysis of the pilot tests

Any comparative, universal take-home lesson from the cross-CV analysis of PEF/OEF Pilot
initiatives would be hard to draw. A number of factors, including differences within and across
Pilots, the high variability of test methods, and the variability of the sample sizes of the different
target groups militate against comprehensive, externally valid conclusions. Nevertheless, a
number of common insights can be drawn on the basis of the information gathered.
Citizens tend to be interested in PEF and environmental information about products. This is
especially true for B2C customers, but less so for B2B tests. Professional customers are
sceptical, though the idea of having all manufacturers and industries adhering to one common
set of rules is appreciated. It reportedly increased the perceived transparency of the product.
Interest in PEF has found to be higher among older people. However, as findings were self-
reported an intention-behaviour gap cannot be excluded.
Compared with other factors, PEF is an important purchase driver in both B2B and B2C settings.
However, it still lags behind price, brand trust, quality and performance. The particular drivers
of purchases are product-dependent. In one pilot, no interviewed company said they would buy
a product classified in the worst category on an environmental scale. In another pilot, the
majority of respondents claimed that PEF had a direct impact on their purchase decisions. PEF
information could also generate a “halo effect” and influence indirectly the purchasing decision,
through the positive influence it has on brand trust. Respondents seemed to be influenced by
environmental considerations during their purchasing process, especially in household
appliances and cars, followed by food, furniture, and sporting products.
However, when it comes to detail, the impact categories are hard to understand, even by B2B
customers. While respondents are familiar with climate change, CO2 emissions or water use,
66
few understand categories such as acidification, terrestrial euthropication or ecotoxicity. While

an explanation of the impact categories improved understanding considerably, for some products
the relevance of some of the impact categories was unclear to respondents. They appear to have
pre-conceived ideas about which categories are important for the product, which did not
necessarily correspond to reality. Where used, the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) concept was found
difficult to explain in simple terms and to distil into a label at stock-keeping unit level. Some
participants suggested the use of more generic names such as “air” or “water”. On the other
hand other customers, at a B2B level believe that CVs should break down performance score in
yet more dimensions - upstream and core processes.
With regards to specific CVs, there is no unambiguous trend on what labels should be used. The
traffic light and energy label-type formats were positively received in some pilots, whereas
respondents from B2B pilots found them too simplistic. In one test, B2C participants found the
similarity to the Energy Label disturbing - they felt it was confusing to see this format on a
product that is not energy-related. Those who praised labels similar to the Energy Label argued
that since public awareness of the Energy Label is very high, and its visual design is very clear
and easy to understand, it should be the model for PEFs. Particularly in B2C, information
conveyed through bars and colour scales tend to be preferred and deemed easier to understand
as compared to numerical values. Clarity, readability and transparency seem the key factor for
performance scores.
The certification of PEF information is more appreciated among B2B than B2C. A generic
statement on verification by independent experts was judged as insufficient, and not
transparent, as no information on the experts and their affiliation was provided. Participants
would not trust the government or sector associations, but consumer or environmental
associations were preferred.
The representation of the environmental performance in absolute terms (e.g. kg CO2-eq / kg)
was difficult to understand. In B2B, respondents believe that CVs should include a comparison
with a sector benchmark. Furthermore, respondents tend to prefer having a single performance
score (endpoint). Among B2C, CVs that include midpoints are seen as carrying too much
information.
The use of QR codes (in 10 labels), barcodes (5 labels), and links (13 labels) were positively
received by respondents. QR codes in particular were praised in two pilots. However, only a few
respondents admitted that they would go further and obtain additional information. Lastly, it is
worth mentioning that participants in several pilots tended to be more interested in factors that
go beyond the Environmental Footprint, such as the geographical origin of ingredients, animal
welfare, and information on how to optimize the use of the product in an environmentally
respectful way.
Among other types of CVs, the public response to the content of reports, declarations and
passports varied. B2B stakeholders preferred maximum information and many impact
categories. They reported interest in the distribution of impacts along life cycle stages, as well
as technical information. Respondents reported that the best approach to responsible sourcing
is to build long-term relationships with suppliers and to establish and facilitate dialogue forums.
Pilots testing websites had been commended for the quality of the design. The information
displayed was considered "relevant, clear and very credible”. However, overall and like the
findings of other CVs, interest was not great as PEFs are largely unknown. Respondents
appreciated reading tips and suggestions on daily actions, and expressed a desire for more
examples of concrete actions and tangible comparisons with across products. Other PR
campaigns included high visual impact infographics explaining PEFs/OEFs. However,
stakeholders considered that the content focussed too much on methodological and not practical
issues. Videos, banners and advertisement gained positive feedback in terms of delivering the
PEF/OEF message, but they still struggled to explain fully the different impact categories.
67
2.6 Lessons learned from the pilot phase

Any comparisons and general conclusions from PEF/OEF Pilot test initiatives must be made with
caution. A number of factors, including differences within and between the Pilots, the variability
of test methods, and the limited availability of CVs tested militates against comprehensive,
externally valid conclusions. Nevertheless, a number of common insights can still be drawn on
the basis of the information provided.
 The greater majority of European citizens who participated in the Pilot tests expressed
concern about environmental sustainability and are interested in PEFs and information
about the environmental impact of products.
 The majority of commercial/business sectors recognise the inevitability of PEFs and see
benefits both for B2B and B2C activities. The benefits include brand valuation; the
opportunity of buyers to compare products’ environmental impacts; driving up quality,
and common rules for manufacturers and industries.
 Environmental performance is not amongst the main criteria driving purchase decisions.
For different products price, quality, brand and availability are more important. However,
all things being equal many respondents in the Pilot test said that environmental
performance would be taken into account.
 In particular sectors, environmental performance appears to be a more important product
attribute. These include household appliances and cars, followed by food, furniture, and
sporting products.
 The impact categories are hard to understand, even for B2B customers. People are
familiar with impacts such as climate change, CO2 emissions, energy and water
consumption. But technical/scientific terms such as acidification, terrestrial
eutrophication and eco-toxicity are simply not understood. Linking impact categories to
the specific product creates difficulties and the idea of Life Cycle Analysis is not readily
accessible.
 It is apparent that citizens have preconceived ideas about the environmental impact of
certain products that are at variance with reality.
On communication vehicles it is clear that for B2C products the use of graphics, bars and colour
scales is greatly preferred to numbers, scientific terms and other forms of data. Clarity,
readability and transparency should be the key to designing CVs. If the CV is complex people
will ignore it. Of the variety of CVs tested, the traffic light and energy label type formats receive
majority support.
 The certification of PEF information is a welcome feature for B2B products. For B2C
products who gives the certification is vital. People have a preference for named and
independent experts.
 The description of a product’s environmental performance in absolute terms (e.g. kg CO2-
eq / kg) is too challenging seemed and a single performance score (endpoint) was
preferred to CVs including midpoint information.
 QR codes, bar codes, links, websites, banners and other forms of PR are all seen as
convenient by the, albeit few, people seeking further information.
68
3 Stakeholders’ perspectives
3.1 Retailers: workshop
3.1.1 Background and objectives
A workshop with retailers was conducted on Monday 4 July 2016 at DG ENV. The objective of
this workshop was to gather insights from retailers on the following questions:
 What do customers think about environmental footprint? What does it mean to them?
 How might PEF/OEF affect their decision taking?
 How important is PEF/OEF information in comparison to other information on a product
label?
 What could be the role of retailers in communicating horizontally on environmental
performance/ PEF towards consumers?
 What would change if PEF information became widely available?
 What partnership could there be between suppliers and retailers in trying to influence
consumers’ behaviour?
3.1.2 Complementary tests

Mr. LUPIAÑEZ of the Consortium introduced the “stop-and-go” approach used in this phase of
the project. It includes four steps. First, exploratory qualitative studies to be conducted to map
and highlight trends that otherwise would be unnoticed. In the second step, preliminary
experiments will be carried out, either brick-and-mortar (on-site, in a shop) or in a laboratory.
In the third step, online discrete-choice experiments will be conducted. In the final step, the
Consortium will run a validation of CVs in a realistic setting (again, brick-and-mortar or in a
laboratory) to assess performance. Stop-and-go approaches in studies facilitate a progressive
learning from step to step.
The design of test will be informed by a number of issues. : the information collected from the
pilot tests conducted in the first stage of the project; the nature of the information to be included
in the communication vehicles; and the range of products to be considered in the testing,
including the following dimensions: B2B – B2C; PEF – OER; Point of sale – Close to point of sale
- Beyond the point of sale and On spot - Deferred purchase. Customers and PEF/OEF information
Mr. LUPIAÑEZ asked participants for their opinions on the consumers’ perspective of PEF/OEF,
in terms of awareness and understanding, and attitude and behavioural change.
Awareness and understanding
Most of the retailer participants held the view that consumers are not aware of the concept of
“environmental footprint”, regardless of the frequency with which they buy environmentally
friendly products. With very many environmental labels currently in use 11, there seems to be a
degree confusion. Labels regarding health issues could easily be misinterpreted as relating to
the environment, and vice versa. Furthermore, comparing dimensions of environmental impacts
that are very different could lead consumers making sub-optimal decisions. A major challenge
emerged from the discussion: “how to convey complex messages in a simple way”. Whereas the
existing energy labels comprise a single dimension, the environmental footprint label would
feature more than one dimension.
However, simplification necessarily excludes some information which might lead to a sub-optimal
decision. Moreover, while PEF/OEF strictly relates to the environment, other dimensions may
be overlooked, including (as mentioned by participants): risk assessment for toxicity; safety
impacts; or societal benefit via assessment tools. One participant worried what will be
communicated and the measurement units used will be negative (e.g. quantification of
emissions) leading to unfounded negative reactions. What about positive message content such
11
Ecolabel Index: http://www.ecolabelindex.com/
69
as biodiversity? Another participant argued that the EU logo on a product would be more effective
than any environmental footprint label.
Attitudes and behaviour
With regards to consumer attitudes, one participant thought that consumers might agree that
buying environmentally friendly products is the right thing to do, and that it can make a
difference to the real environment. However, s/he warned that there are ambiguities in defining
environmental footprint: as an anecdote, a detergent with a lot of water is good for the
environment, but doesn’t do its job right, and worse - one needs to use higher temperature,
which is bad for the environment and cancels out the intended benefits.
Just as attitudes do not necessarily lead to positive environmental impacts, they do not
necessarily translate into behavioural change. More than 80% of European citizens sometimes
buy environmentally friendly products12, yet consumers may find it difficult to change, even if
they would like to do so. Price seems to be one of the key reasons for those who don’t buy
environmentally friendly products. As pointed out by one representative, the environmental
footprint of a product may fall behind other factors in the choice, such as price or quality.
Furthermore, as pointed out by another representative, in certain commodity industries
consumers are brand loyal and would be unlikely to be persuaded by new labels from
competitors.
There was no consensus among the retail representatives on which functional (measurement)
unit to feature on a potential label, e.g. value vs. weight. Participants argued that is not always
clear which dimension does the European Commission perceive as beneficial, and how to simplify
it.
3.1.3 The role of retailers and the environmental footprint

Mr. LUPIAÑEZ went on to ask the industry representatives and retailers about the role and the
impact of the retail sector in communicating environmental performance/PEF to consumers,
what changes might occur if PEF information became widely available, and what new
partnerships could emerge in the supply chain.
Here, the discussion revolved around one main point, the retailers as gatekeepers. Would it
make more sense to let B2B players take over activities of communication for environmental
footprint, do much of the work, and translate it to the consumer level? An argument in favor
was that retailers know their end-users well. Some will focus on water consumption, others on
biodiversity. Single brands could become gatekeepers, as they can more easily speak with
suppliers and consumers. Retailers are in the best position to communicate environmental
information to consumers, with the exception perhaps of the post-use phase. There is a small
minority of consumers who are consistently environmentally friendly on every item they buy,
whereas others are more concerned about environmental footprint in, say, food, and less in
furniture. Retailers can pick out what they think consumers are most interested in. For example,
they could choose to have separate shop corners for green products.
One representative argued for not cherry-picking products to put in separate shop corners, but
instead to use a rigorous methodology and possibly collect primary data to do so. One retailer
argued that they would not sort “green” products in a separate corner, and that it would be a
way of turning customers into a false dichotomy: “these products are good therefore the others
are bad”; a view that was supported by others.
With regards to the possible communication vehicles, many retailers stated that on-shelf
information would be difficult to implement, as it would have to be constantly updated. In
addition, electronic on-shelf labels are not large enough to host more information other than
price. Instead, a single website would be desirable to which all users would be directed. With
regards to the message, it was agreed that the main environmental footprint message must be
understandable for consumers as only then would we see action and behavioural change.
12
European Commission (2013), Flash Eurobarometer 367. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_367_en.pdf
70
Another issue is comparability. One representative suggested that if life cycle thinking is
embedded across sectors, then products will be compared more by consumers who would be in
a position to make better choices. Others argued that LCA should not be used for comparisons
between products but rather for looking at the environmental performance of a product over
time. One representative pointed out that while the environmental footprint of two milk bottles
can be compared, the same is not possible for the footprints of two smartphones because the
latter are formed of countless pieces, materials, and different metals.
3.1.4 Remarks
 There are multiple, conflicting dimensions behind the concept of environmental footprint;
 There is a consensus for not simplifying the message, and instead for respecting the
complexity of the subject matter.
 There is a consensus for more focus on B2B and retailers for the communication phase.
 Comparability: there is a consensus over comparing the same product over 2 periods of
time, rather than 2+ products.
3.2 Consumers: focus groups

3.2.1 Background and objectives
The aim of the complementary study was to explore consumers' views about environmental
information related to products and organisations. On the one hand, the environmental footprint
concepts are not widely known across Europe. On the other hand, environmental awareness and
policy making has a longer history in some countries than in others, as in countries such as
Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Germany compared to countries like Greece, Hungary, Poland
or Spain. We may assume that environmental sustainability and environmentally informed
consumer choices will increase over time across both groups of countries. As such, there is a
case for designing qualitative research that captures both, the present state of modal public
opinion and at the same time anticipates what public opinion might be in the coming decade.
To have a broader and deeper understanding of consumers’ views on environmental footprint,
and the different communication vehicles for providing information about them, focus groups
have aimed to understand consumers’ concerns and habits regarding environmental
sustainability in general.
3.2.2 Methodology
A total of two focus groups were conducted, each lasting 2 hours. Each focus group was
conducted in a different European country. Both focus groups comprised 8-10 participants with
a balanced gender and age representation (50% aged 25-40 y.o. and 50% aged 41-55 y.o.),
and reflecting modal and high levels of environmental concern in each group (50% for each
level). The countries selected were Germany, a country with a history of environmentalism, and
Spain, a country without such a history.
Both groups followed the same discussion guide, but there was a greater focus on understanding
the perception of the different communication vehicles for providing environmental footprint
information in Germany – at the cost of exploring participants’ habits regarding environmental
sustainability in general. This because German consumers are more exposed to this kind of
information than are Spanish consumers.
Different communication vehicles for providing environmental footprint information were shown
as stimuli to explore participants’ reactions. Participants were also shown a set of 32 coded
images, as projective input, to facilitate the discussion on environmental footprints. A selection
of verbatims to support and illustrate the content of this report can be found in Annex II. This
Annex also includes the discussion guide and the materials used.
71
3.2.3 Environmental Footprint: perceptions, experiences and knowledge
3.2.3.1 Meaning
“Environmental footprint” is generally understood as the negative impact the manufacturing of
products and the actions of companies and people have in the environment. Nonetheless, one
Spanish participant admitted not to know what this concept meant. The concept of
environmental footprint essentially evokes a sense of “future inheritance”, referring to the
worse conditions in which we are leaving the planet to future generations. Evocations are based
upon three basic dimensions:
 Time dimension: What we are doing in the present is having consequences for the future.
As long as we have been and we are still damaging the environment, future generations
will have to face a spoiled planet that will lead to the extinction of species and eventually
even to the extinction of the human race. Participants think it is urgent to react
immediately in order to hold back the progressive destruction of Nature and, ultimately,
of any kind of life on Earth. This degradation of Nature is also expected to worsen the
living conditions of the poorer, who will not have means to deal with it. Participants feel
responsible and worried for their descendants, so that this dimension seems to be
particularly relevant among participants who have children –or the intention to have
them, or participants who have nephews or nieces.
 Responsibility dimension: This dimension has two poles, the social one, which is mainly
associated with the responsibility of governments and companies, and the individual
one, which is related with what each individual can do in order to control her/his impact
on the environment. This dimension evokes the need for raising awareness and working
at both. At an individual and at a collective level to develop more environmentally
sustainable behaviours and reach the aim of holding back the destruction of Nature. This
dimension is linked to some sense of guilt, but also empowerment at the same
time; each individual and community is damaging Nature, but can also do something to
counteract the progressive deterioration of Nature. Participants feel the need to do
something to counterbalance their negative impact on the environment and feel
disappointed as they think most of people do not have this need. In this sense, they think
there is not enough awareness and willingness to change behaviours among
most people; they consider themselves as belonging to a group of environmentally
sensitive people that is still a minority.
 Economic dimension: Firstly, environmental footprints are related to the overproduction
and overconsumption of goods and services. Participants think we are consuming
much more than we need. This overconsumption is related to the “throwaway society”
and it is considered the ultimate cause of environmental damage because it is directly
linked to the overexploitation of resources and the contamination of the planet.
Participants are aware that the production process of goods, their usage and after-usage
leave a great environmental footprint. Secondly, money can act as an incentive for
generating environmental footprints as long as having an impact in the environment
often turns out to be cheaper than developing environmentally-friendly
behaviours, for both, companies and consumers. Finally, dealing with environmental
issues is expected to involve some economic cost (e.g. cleaning the dirt, health
problems costs), which is expected to be mainly funded by taxpayers and particular
investments, such as buying a hybrid or electric car.
3.2.3.2 Concerns
The main concerns about environmental sustainability in general are related with air pollution,
soil and water contamination, deforestation, ozone depletion, overexploitation of natural
resources (e.g. intensive agriculture and farming) and the loss of biodiversity -animals in
particular, because they lead to food toxicity and climate change (global warming). Air
pollution, which is especially associated with vehicle and gas emissions, and food toxicity are
considered particularly threatening due to their direct effect on health –mainly respiratory
diseases, cancers and allergies. Participants are particularly concerned about mass produced
72
food because it involves making the final products more toxic due to, for example, pesticides,
GMOs or hormone-treated animals. The food industry is also considered particularly worrying
as long as it involves destroying the ecosystem (e.g. destruction of forests to grow corn).
Climate change is considered particularly worrying, not only for the dramatic transformations
it is associated with, such as the melting of the poles, droughts, desertification and shortage of
water, but also for the negative effects on the body, agriculture and animals, as long as the
temperature is becoming warmer and altering the season cycles. In relation to this, Spanish
participants are particularly worried about an eventual shortage of water.
The over-production of packaging is a great concern because it is producing an overload of
garbage that contaminates soil and water, especially the plastic packaging as it is not
biodegradable and can contaminate the sea.
Participants also show special concern towards the environmental impact generated by vehicle
emissions in general and particularly the transportations of goods due to being highly
polluting. Other activities that are also expected to generate a greater impact and environmental
footprint are the consumption of non-renewable energies, nuclear power, thermal energy, coal
industry, oil industry, construction industry, cosmetics industry and the generation of waste -
especially the ones made by chemical and the textile industries (e.g. dyes).
The perceived short-term consequences of these impacts in the environment are polluting the
air, contaminating soils, rivers and seas, which are increasing the greenhouse effect and thus
the climate change (i.e. the weather becoming extremely warm) leading to desertification, the
melting of the poles, plagues, such as jellyfish, the loss of species and the disappearance of
beaches in the long-term.
Beyond these concerns, there is a background concern that seems to have become particularly
relevant due to the recent victory of Donald Trump as US President-Elect, which is “climate
change denial”. Participants show their worry about the consequences of his election on the
future environmental politics of the world’s leading power. In this sense, participants think it is
important that main world powers, and governments in general, are aware of environmental
issues and are strict in implementing environmental protection measures. It is urgent to react
immediately; otherwise participants are afraid that it is going to be too late and the destruction
of the planet will be inevitable. The expected consequences, in case of not reacting in time, are
rather dramatic: the extinction of animals and plants, hunger and wars provoked by conflicts
related to people’s survival. Participants foresee the human extinction as the ultimate
consequence if environmental-friendly politics and behaviours are not urgently implemented and
we keep damaging the environment as we are doing now.
3.2.3.3 Habits
Participants think there is not enough awareness and sensitivity with respect to environmental
sustainability in general, so that only a minority of people are developing environmentally
sustainable habits. This belief is stronger among Spanish participants as they frequently see
other people around not recycling (e.g. when throwing away their garbage in the street rubbish
containers) and also because they consider that the current Spanish government has no
environmental policy at all, and it is even ruining the environmental policy that was being
implemented before (e.g. has put taxes on solar energy instead of supporting its development).
In this sense, Spanish participants think all the ministries should have an environmentally
sustainable perspective and there should be a ministry for environmental policy that should
coordinate the rest of ministries in relation to this issue.
Educating children on environmental sustainability is considered fundamental, but
environmental education at school is rather recent in Spain -only participants under 30 y.o.
received education on this issue at school. More public investment on environmental education
and research is suggested by Spanish participants –environmental education should be a specific
subject matter at school and innovation within the environmental context should be promoted
as a priority.
73
Local and seasonal food should be promoted by governments to avoid long- distance
transportation. Companies should be penalized for using certain types of packaging –mainly
those derived from oil, and for over-package (e.g. individual packaging of each product within
the packaging), and they should use only recyclable packaging. Spanish participants also urge
to be encouraged to return the bottles to the supermarket as it used to be done before the 80’s.
Participants are suspicious about the agreements governments reach to take care of the
environment as they think governments “just sign”, but do not fully implement and follow up
these agreements. The TTIP treaty between the US and Europe arises special concerns, as it is
expected to legalize products that are banned in Europe. Trading agreements are also considered
worrying because they favour the commercialization of foreign products to the detriment of local
ones (e.g. fruits, milk). Participants think there is not enough control on companies regarding
environmental issues or that these controls are not effective enough. Monitoring of compliance
should not be pre-notified to ensure that bad practices are uncovered. Spanish participants are
also suspicious about the value of controlling the environmental footprints as long as companies
can just pay a fine for the illegal waste discharges they might do and continue damaging the
environment anyway. They also think laws are not restrictive enough, so that legal waste
discharges can still be very damaging, or individual environmentally unfriendly behaviours are
not penalized (e.g. using private jet planes).
Investing on renewable energies –mainly solar energy and wind power, and organic
agriculture and farming are considered key to avoid damaging the environment. Public
transportation should all be electric, driving cars with just one person in the city should be
penalized and traffic should be reduced in general. Developing effective environmentally
sustainable habits requires the convergence of the following elements from participants’
experience:
 Receiving proper environmental education at school or learning from some relative
 Becoming aware of the negative impact of our habits in the environment.
 Feeling responsible for this impact.
 Willingness to make an effort – giving up convenience and spending more money in
order to reduce this impact.
 Being given specific information and facilitating things (e.g. knowing what kind of
rubbish matches with each rubbish container and having rubbish containers close to
home).
 Receiving rewards or incentives that promote environmentally-friendly behaviours (e.g.
not paying taxes for the alternative energies) or penalties for inappropriate behaviours
(e.g. paying for plastic bags at shops).
 The commitment of the whole society: governments, institutions, companies and
citizens.
However, participants think sustainability is also becoming a sort of “fashion”, so that
companies and brands are using it as a marketing tool to take profit from it (e.g. Krombancher
plants rainforests for each bottle that is sold). Using environmental sustainability for marketing
purposes seems to have an ambivalent effect; on one hand it helps raising the profile of the
issue but on the other hand, it tends to make environmental sustainability more banal and
lose some credibility.
The participants’ main contribution to environmental sustainability is recycling. They recycle by
sorting out their garbage into five categories: bottles, plastic, paper, organic and disposable
(everything else). However, some respondents find difficulties in separating the organic garbage
in Spain as it takes extra room in the kitchen and it quickly becomes very smelly in summertime.
These respondents find it more convenient to put the organic rubbish together with the
disposable one and throw them away together, which also facilitates filling one bag per day or
every two days –before it gets smelly in summer time. Recycling plastic in Spain is also
problematic as long as some participants expect to be able to throw any kind of plastic in the
plastic bin, but only packaging should be placed in it. On the other hand, some Spanish
participants experience recycling as somehow frustrating because of a rumour that says that
74
recycling is just a façade because the content of the different garbage containers is put together
again after being collected. Batteries and used cooking oil are also items that some
participants take to their particular container as they are known to be very contaminating. Other
ways participants recycle is by finding other uses to used items, such as making soap from used
cooking oil.
Participants try to avoid the accumulation of too many plastic bags and packaging by buying
in bulk or loose, buying one family pack instead of several individual packs, and by taking their
own reusable bag or shopping cart when going to the supermarket. Spanish participants admit
that having to pay for the plastic bag at the supermarket has helped them change their habit.
Repairing things instead of buying new items, buying second hand, avoiding the waste of energy
(e.g. controlling the use of heating and air conditioning), reducing the use of paper (e.g. by
using both sides of sheets), using the bike or public transport for urban commuting, consuming
locally produced and season products to avoid long distance transportation –especially when it
comes to food (mainly vegetables, fruits and meat), and buying organic food are other habits
participants have developed in relation to environmental sustainability. However, some
behaviours are more related with looking for benefits on their health than
environmental benefits (e.g. consuming organic food, cycling), or even with convenience and
saving –public transport is considered cheaper and more convenient for urban commuting,
especially due to the lack of available and free park sites. Avoiding the waste of water (e.g.
collecting the extra cold water in a bucket when having a shower to water the plants or other
uses) is particularly relevant among Spanish participants; they claim buildings should have a
system to recycle grey water.
On the other hand, collaborative or shared consumption is considered particularly effective in
Spain to avoid overconsumption and decrease our environmental impact in general. Energy bills
are considered key to encourage energy saving habits; visualizing how much you have saved is
expected to help further saving. The main barriers to develop proper environmentally friendly
behaviours are linked to:
 Convenience, comfort or “laziness”.
 Economic reasons: electric cars are more expensive, different types of bags have to be
bought for the different types of rubbish, special taxes have to be paid when using solar
energy (Spain), organic food is more expensive, etc.
 Lack of information of what kind of rubbish should or should not go into the different
containers (e.g. some organic items do not go into the organic bin, but into the disposable
waste one), as well as where to take some particular items that are known to be very
polluting (e.g. batteries or oil).
 Lack of space to have five different rubbish bins.
 Lack of credibility regarding the management of garbage (Spain): recycling can be
considered a business for companies rather than a really environmentally-friendly activity
due to different rumours about what is done with the rubbish that is collected from the
different bins.
These barriers tend to be more relevant in Spain than in Germany –as Spain is a
country with no history on environmentalism, probably due to the more spontaneous and
present-oriented character of the Spanish culture that tends not to facilitate controlled
and future-oriented behaviours.
3.2.3.4 Knowledge
Participants are familiar with certifications that they judge to be directly and indirectly related
to the environment provided mainly in five product categories: food, electrical household
appliances (e.g. refrigerators), light bulbs, cars and buildings:
 Energy efficiency label on electrical household appliances and light bulbs: the A++, A+,
A, B, C, D, E code
 Zero kilometre or local origin
75
 Home energy performance certification

 CO2 emission stickers on vehicles (the CO2 emission stickers are very new in Spain, not
known by all participants yet)
 Fair trade label
 ISO or AENOR Certificates
 Label to certificate fish has been fished without catching other species (Germany)
 EU organic label –which is represented by a leaf (Germany)
In Germany, participants become aware of environmental issues by being able to pay a
supplement to compensate for the emission of CO2 when using some transportation companies,
such as Flixbus or Deutsche Bahn –either to commute or send packages. They can also pay a
supplement on some products to compensate their impact on animals’ welfare (e.g. bee mortality
when buying honey).
Participants do not know the criteria per which environmental footprints are determined and how
to compare different products. No clear or consistent information about environmental
footprint is delivered when purchasing. They claim all products should show the same kind
of label and coding. Moreover, participants think that communicating environmental
footprint should be compulsory for all companies –in a similar way as cigarette companies
are forced to show health warnings on the packaging. They think it is Government’s responsibility
to make policies that force companies to be environmentally-friendly, rather than putting all the
responsibility on consumers.
Soft regulations and marketing strategies related with environmental sustainability have
had a negative effect on participants; they have become suspicious and sceptical, and do not
know whether they can rely on what is being said about PEFs and OEFs. In the context of food,
the “Bio” labelling has been misused raising mistrust towards environmental labelling.
Scepticism is the main barrier to be receptive to environmental footprint information.
Participants show high levels of mistrust towards the credibility of certifications and
labels, and towards the purpose of the supplements they can pay to compensate the
environmental footprint when purchasing specific services and products (Germany). On the other
hand, regulations regarding environmental issues and labelling are considered too soft
or undemanding (e.g. being able to run free 40 days a year is enough for eggs to be labelled
free-range in Germany). However, they think environmental footprint controls should not be so
extremely strict that they would not allow small farmers and family business keep on with their
business. In this sense, they think too much control would favour big companies, which are
expected to be able to cope with and afford it, to the detriment of the small ones –which are
not.
Food, electrical household appliances and light bulbs are the product categories where
labels are more common and seem to influence the purchase the most. Regarding food, the
country of origin may influence purchasing in favour of choosing locally produced products
that are expected not to pollute due to being transported long distances (“Zero kilometre”
agriculture). Organic production (i.e. free-range farming, pesticides and GMO free) is also
considered an influencing factor. However, the information participants look for in food tends to
be more related with the impact on health than on the environment. With regard to
electrical household appliances and light bulbs participants tend to choose the A, A+ or A++
because of the expectation of saving energy and money in the long-term –which compensates
their higher price when being purchased.
However, participants admit they do not always pay attention to this type of information
and that other criteria can be more important than the environmental footprint –mainly
aesthetics and comfort. Besides, they are willing to pay a little more for eco-friendly products,
especially food, but not a big difference. On the other hand, social sensitivity can be more
important that environmental sensitivity; checking that a product has not been made by
exploiting workers –especially children, can be more relevant than checking its environmental
footprint.
76
Participants may pay less attention to the environmental footprint of products that are bought
regularly in a mechanical way (i.e. low involvement) or products that are expected to be used
for a very short period of time (i.e. a couple of days). But they may pay more attention when
introducing new products in their habits, when purchasing products that are going to be used
for a long time, or when purchasing big or expensive items, such as cars or houses. Other
items where participants may pay more attention to their environmental footprint information
are those related with their own or their children’s health (e.g. babies and children products,
food, clothes, hygiene products and cosmetics), with higher energy consumption (e.g.
electrical and electronic devices), with pollution or contamination due to its use (e.g. cars,
cleaning products) or after-use (e.g. packaging).
Companies or brands that show environmental information are considered to be more sensitive,
honest and trustworthy so that they improve their image and reputation and are expected
to be preferred to those not showing this information. However, previous environmental
reputation biases the perception and credibility of environmental certifications, so that
brands or companies that already are known to have a great impact on the environment (e.g.
Monsanto, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Repsol) would need an extra support from some
credible authority, so that participants would believe they are telling the truth with respect to
the information provided.
3.2.4 Influence of the different communication vehicles for providing environmental

footprint information
3.2.4.1 Labels
Environmental footprint information in labelling is expected to have a higher influence on
purchasing when:
 It is clearly visible and next to items that do not have any environmental label – so that
they become more differentiated and outstanding.
 It is easily understood: using a well-known code, colours or images and little text –text
is not expected to be read as it is more time consuming.
 It is certificated by a credible and trustful authority.
However, environmental footprint information in labelling has some important problems:
 Labels are not always seen as there are other labels (e.g. price) or information that can
focus attention on other attributes (e.g. product composition)
 Participants do not always understand the meaning of the coding for environmental
footprint information.
 Environmental labels, and labels in general, are not always supported by a credible
authority. Participants complain that labels and certificates can be false; they are not
considered as guaranteed due to bad practices and corruption, especially when politicians
are working for companies that are not considered environmentally friendly. So they
should be issued by some credible authority that should also sanction companies that
use false labels or certifications. Participants believe there is not enough control and
that this lack of control takes certification and labels’ credibility away. Credible authorities
are associated with governmental or public institutions, although they are not fully
trusted by respondents due to corruption. Independent institutions, such as The
German Environmental Association, Stiftung Warentest, Öko Test, TÜV, WWF (World Wild
Life) or health associations seem to be more trustful in Germany. In Spain, credible
authorities are also related with independent institutions, such as AENOR, and consumer
associations. However, whatever authority issues the certificate, they should be checked
by reputable environmental scientists that are supposed to be honest and neutral.
Considering the European Commission as an authority is polarizing as some participants
are afraid of lobbying in favour of some companies, whereas some other participants still
expect it to be neutral and independent from commercial interests. Moreover, in
Germany, participants think the different countries in the EU have too different policies
regarding environmental issues, so that the EC would apply standards that might be
77
too soft in comparison to those in Germany. However, they would like to have a European
or even worldwide environmental seal in the future, when all countries have homogenized
their environmental policies.
 How to label products that are not packed, like meat at the butcher’s, especially because
each consignment is expected to vary regarding its PEF. In these cases, participants think
labels might not be needed when shopping in eco-friendly shops or farms they rely on,
but the problem persists when shopping these items at conventional supermarkets.
The traffic-lights performance rating (see L2 in figure 3) is preferred when shopping in a more
mechanical and less involved way (i.e. food and other perishable items) due to being a
simple and universal coding that anyone, even children, can quickly understand, so that very
little time is spent on this issue. In this case, participants think a differentiation in three
categories is enough. Whereas when shopping in a more conscious way (i.e. more expensive
and durable items), having a 5 levels scale is considered to be more appropriate due to being
more differentiating and precise. This 5 levels scale could be either the traditional A-E coding or
the traffic-lights coding by adding one gradation in the green and another one in the red colour.
However, as consumers progressively become more aware and familiar with the environmental
labelling, the ideal performance rating is considered to be a mixture of the A-E
combined with the traffic-lights coding to provide both, quickly identifiable, but also precise
information –as it is in L1 in figure 3.
Participants claim having more detailed information on the label when buying products that
can be unhealthy due to toxicity, such as clothes, cosmetics or food. In this case, not only the
environmental performance rating code should be displayed, but also any information related
with an eventual impact on their health (e.g. containing GMO, type of dyers used).
Showing numbers to refer to different environmental footprints met with mixed opinions. (see
L2 in figure 3). On one hand, it is preferred because it allows a more precise comparison among
different products and getting familiar with comparing quantities (c.f. participants have got used
to comparing nutritional values in food). But on the other hand, some participants consider that
numbers provide little information, for example, do the numbers mean high or low environmental
impacts? Moreover, these numbers are expected to have a different value depending where they
are originated. For example, it is not thought that water sustainability would be the same in
Africa compared to say Sweden. In the end, participants tend to agree that showing different
numbers for different footprints on the label can be too complicated and that is better to show
this coding in the same way as the rest of the label (letters if it is letters coding, or colours if it
is traffic-light coding). On the other hand, not more than three concrete environmental
information should be displayed on the label – as it is in L1 or L2 in figure 3.
Participants would like to have further information on environmental footprint when buying
groceries that are purchased regularly or when purchasing items that are going to be used over
long periods of time, or are more expensive (e.g. electrical home appliances, electronic
devices, cars, bikes, houses). In relation to this, they appreciate the QR code (see L2 in Figure
8) or having a website where to look up this information (see L1 and L2 in Figure 8).
QR codes are preferred to bar codes in order to have this extra environmental footprint
information (see L2 in figure 3). QR codes are considered more popular and more integrated in
participants’ lives due to being used for other purposes in smartphones. Bar codes are not usually
checked, as most of participants do not know how to interpret them –except some of the
participants who have a higher level of environmental awareness “Learn more about this label”
(se L2 in Figure 8) seems to be a bit disappointing as participants want to know more about the
environmental impact of the product rather than the label itself (so it should say “Read more
about environmental impact of this product” instead). Participants in Spain are afraid to be
exposed to advertising when checking the QR codes –which would discourage them from
checking them. QR codes should display visual information that explains the performance rating
of the product (e.g. what “A” or “Green” exactly means) and all the environmental information
related to that particular product. Providing this information is expected to encourage or
discourage participants from buying the product when the label displayed would not be enough
78
to take the decision. It might also be checked just out of curiosity or to learn more about
The information about Carbon (see L3 in Figure 8) tends to be considered too overloaded with
text and, as such, not inviting to be read. Moreover, it looks too specific and technical, so that
it needs further explanation. This kind of information is preferred to be seen apart, when
checking the QR code or website, not on the label.
Figure 8 Environmental Footprint Labels
Source: Background document for the testing of communication vehicles in the environmental footprint
pilot phase 2013-2016 (pp. 20-22)
Participants do not want to feel overloaded by information; they want labels to be simple and
easy, so that providing too many symbols or too much information is rejected. In this sense,
showing the three most relevant environmental footprint characteristics of a particular product
is considered more than enough; the rest of the environmental footprint information would be
checked through the QR code, website or app if the consumer wished. The environmental
footprint definitions that raise more interest (see Table 1) are those directly related with health
(i.e. human toxicity / cancerous effects, radioactive radiation, particles and photochemical air
pollution), with contamination of water and soil (i.e. water shortage, fresh water eco-toxicity
and acidification) and with global warming (i.e. climate change).
79
Table 1 Environmental Footprint midpoints definitions
Climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases change temperature and the

climate for the worse, impacting indirectly also your health.
Ozone depletion. Emissions damage the ozone layer leading to increased
ultraviolet radiation resulting to skin cancer and damage to plants.
Human Toxicity (cancer). Emissions of toxic substances leading to an
increased risk of cancer, via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food
we eat and the water we drink.
Human Toxicity (non-cancer). Emissions of toxic substances damaging your
health, via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the
water we drink.
Particulate matter. Emissions of tiny particles that lead to respiratory
diseases and the so called “winter smog”.
Ionizing radiation. Radiation that increases risk of cancer.
Photochemical ozone formation. Emissions creating so called “summer
smog” and respiratory diseases.
Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changes temperature and the
climate for the worse, impacting indirectly also the ecosystems.
Acidification. Emission of substance that lead to acid rain and poorer quality
of air, water and soil.
Eutrophication terrestrial. Too many nutrients in the environment, e.g. by
over use of fertilisers in farming, upset the balance of nature.
Eutrophication freshwater. Too many nutrients in freshwater, e.g. by the
over use of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater, upset the balance
of nature, e.g. leading to algal blooms and killing fish.
Eutrophication marine. Too many nutrients in marine water, e.g. by the over
use of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater, upset the balance of
nature, e.g. leading to algal blooms in sea water.
Land use. Use of land and soil endanger soil fertility as well as the survival of
some species of animals and plants.
Ecotoxicity freshwater. Emission of toxic substances that are a danger to
organisms like fish, algae and other organisms living in fresh water.
Regarding the ‘production’ vs. the ‘use’ phase, participants are concerned about both phases,
but more about the production phase as they cannot have any influence or control of it.
Moreover, there are some product categories, such as food, where the ‘use’ phase seems rather
irrelevant regarding the environment –except for the packaging. Participants are particularly
interested in knowing the environmental footprint of plastic packaging in general, as it is clear
to them that plastic is one of the major causes of environmental contamination and damage.
The information that participants link with the environmental impacts and that would like to
know in order to influence their purchase would cover the following aspects – but varying
according to the different product categories specificities:
 Production phase
– Country of origin
– Traceability (i.e. kilometres covered to reach the POS)
– Type of energy consumed to produce it
– Quantity of energy consumed to produce it
– Polluting and contaminating impact
– Impact on the global warming
– Water usage
– Type of feeding of the livestock
80
– Habitat of the livestock (e.g. natural vs. fish farm)

– GMO content
– Level of dioxins
 Use phase
– Toxicity on the body or health
– Energy consumption
– How much it pollutes or contaminates
– Biodegradability
– Potential to be recycled or reused
This information should be displayed visually when checking the QR code on the label.
3.2.4.2 Point of sale

Green areas in supermarkets or shops are associated with containing eco-friendly products (see
7.2. in figure 7). However, participants think this colour coding can be misleading as green does
not necessarily mean the product or service is really environmentally friendly. Moreover,
differentiating the eco-friendly products from the conventional products at the point-of-sale
generates mixed opinions. Some participants think it helps them buy in a more environmentally-
friendly way, whereas other participants prefer eco-friendly products to be integrated within the
rest of products of its product category in order not to reject them beforehand due to expecting
them to be more expensive.
Figure 9 Point of Sale example
pilot phase 2013-2016 (page 22)
Leaflets providing environmental footprint information are not considered effective as

participants said that they do not usually read them, but rather throw them away. Participants
prefer being informed by sales staff. The problem is that sales staff do not usually have specific
training on environmental issues. Information provided by sales staff should be more specific
regarding saving in economic, not only in terms of energy consumption, in order to be
more persuasive.
Participants would like to see the A, B, C, D, E coding in large size at the eye level when
purchasing big items, such as electrical home appliances.
Participants in Spain would also like companies to implement a packaging-collection system in
which buyers are given money back when they bring back the bottles or cans to the point of
sale, or they are given a coupon to get those products again.
81
Being compared to environmentally-friendly buyers after a purchase (see figure 5) is not

regarded as a real incentive, but rather as an anecdote or joke, although it might work if greener
purchases were rewarded with some kind of discount. Besides, participants do not understand
what the criterion for comparison would be or think the criterion might be irrelevant (i.e. if most
of consumers buy items with low prices, then a shopper buying something just a bit better would
be considered green). However, it is considered motivating to be compared to one’s earlier
purchases, so that in every purchase buyers can check the level of eco-friendliness of their
purchase in comparison to the last one, which might help them learn to do a more eco-friendly
purchase next time. This kind of information is supposed to get registered through the
customer’s loyalty card and then displayed on her/his purchase ticket.
Figure 10 Receipts example
Participants with higher levels of environmental awareness would download an app containing
environmental footprint information if it was supported by a trusted institution (i.e. those that
are considered competent and credible to certificate this kind of information) and if it was used
by scanning the product –not typing in the name of the product. It should be quick and easy
to use (e.g. recognizes products that interest the shopper, like Amazon does). They would also
like this app to provide practical and applicable information, so that it would help them
develop more environmentally sustainable habits. This kind of practical information might
include:
 Tips to generate less waste.
 Tips to save energy and water.
 Tips to recycle used items.
 Precise instructions on quantities to be used for all chemical products, particularly when
being poured into water –including personal hygiene items such as toothpaste.
 Where to dispose of different types of rubbish.
 A comparison among different products and brands within the same product category
(see C2 in figure 6)
 The rating of a particular product in comparison to the rest of products within its product
category (by scanning the label of the product).
 Recommendations on eco-friendly products and shops.
 A “favourites section” where to register their favourite (eco-friendly) products in order to
be recalled when doing the next purchase.
On the other hand, this app would need a communication campaign to increase its awareness
among the population. Participants expect they would be able to get it through any app store.
82
Figure 11 Mobile app example
Figure 12 Website examples
When buying online, participants do not want to be overloaded with information. They would like
to see the environmental performance rating (e.g. “E” or “red”) when clicking the chosen item,
but further explanations should be optional (see C1 in figure 6), so that the shopper can
click on it if needed. Alternatively, these explanations might be at the very end of the purchasing
process and as it happens with the “Terms and conditions agreements” to which users must
agree in order to use or access a website or mobile app.
83
Figure 13 Website example
pilot phase 2013-2016 (pp. 26-27)
3.2.4.3 Communication
Environmental footprint in communications seems to be more effective when participants can
directly perceive both the problem and the result of changing their habit to solve the problem
(e.g. using the public transport as a way to reduce the emission of pollution).
However, with respect to the content of the communication, participants think that making
visible the negative impact of their daily actions (e.g. seeing the polluted sky, ruined animals’
habitat, deforestation, melting of the poles, huge dumpsters), especially in their closer
environment (i.e. their town) is expected to be more impactful and thus, influencing their habits
and purchasing more than seeing the positive consequences of being eco-friendly. In this sense,
being exposed to (negative) impactful images and data is considered a way to raise
awareness. The screens that are spread all over the public transport network are considered
an effective communication vehicle for this kind of information. However, participants also want
to feel rewarded by checking the positive impact of behaving in an environmentally-
friendly way – not only “persecuted” for behaving “badly”.
Participants think information about environmental sustainability should be shown on TV
regularly, in prime time. Images of the different environmental impacts should be shown
during commercial breaks. Moreover, a flash image showing environmental footprint
information should be displayed at the end of every advertisement. They would like to
know about the environmental footprint of all products and services, but they assume companies
will voluntarily communicate only on the more eco-friendly aspects, not on the ones having a
worse environmental impact. Besides, some powerful companies are expected to have shares in
the mass media and then be able to manipulate the information that is communicated about
them. Revealing the “dark” side of companies is usually done by journalists who use this
information to produce TV programs or write books, such as The black book of corporations (Das
Schwarzbuch der Markenfirmen). However, communicating the environmental footprint is
claimed to be mandatory and controlled for all companies.
84
3.3 SMEs: online survey

3.3.1 Background, objectives and methodology
The majority of the companies included in the pilots are large companies. As a consequence,
there was a need to conduct a quantitative study to better understand current and future use
of Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and environmental information by SMEs.
The study covered six EU Member States, with a sample size of N=100 SMEs in each of the
following countries:
 Spain
 Germany
 France
 Portugal
 Czech Republic
 Romania
The survey was conducted using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) targeting
those responsible for, or with a good knowledge of, the company’s environmental policy. Among
SMEs, the sample was constructed to offer comparable information for micro (1-9 employees),
small (10-49 employees) and medium-sized (50-249 employees) enterprises, reflecting the
distribution of total employment in these size classes.
As regards the sector, the sample was split into six macro-categories: Agriculture, Industry;
Construction; Trade, and Services. The stratification is based on economic activities at the one-
digit level NACE Rev.2 classification. Firms from mining and quarrying (B), manufacturing (C),
and electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (D), and water supply, sewerage, waste
management and remediation activities (E) were combined under “Industry”. “Construction” is
construction (F). “Trade” includes wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles,
motorcycles and personal and household goods (G). “Services” includes enterprises in transport
and storage (H), financial and insurance activities (K), accommodation and food service activities
(I), information and communication (J), real estate activities (L), professional, scientific and
technical activities (M), administrative and support service activities (N), arts, entertainment
and recreation (R) and other service activities (S), activities of households as employers;
undifferentiated goods- and services-producing activities of households for own use (T),
activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies (U), holding companies (NACE 64.20) and
private non-profit institutions.
Table 2 SMEs fieldwork
Start Ends Invitations Received Incomplete Speeder Average

length
(min)
CZ 04/12/2017 08/12/2017 281 115 76 9 13.8
DE 06/12/2017 13/12/2017 670 111 20 9 14.5
FR 05/12/2017 13/12/2017 3,451 118 34 18 20.4
ES 07/12/2017 14/12/2017 6,370 135 80 35 14.9
PT 05/12/2017 13/12/2017 5,351 105 65 5 20.6
RO 12/12/2017 15/12/017 1,230 112 15 9 16.11
Annex III provides the final questionnaire used. The following table summarises the fieldwork
process
85
3.3.2 SMEs characteristics

The SMEs surveyed were operating mainly in the services sector (70%) followed by Industry
(12%), Construction (9%), Trade (6%) and Agriculture, forestry and fishing (3%). In addition,
80% of the SMEs were described as for-profit while 20% as no-for-profit (Q5).
Figure 14 Sectors (Q1)
Services 70%
Industry 12%
Construction 9%
Trade 6%
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 3%
n=600
Around 51% of the SMEs surveyed can be considered micro-enterprises (between 1 and 9
employees), while around 22% are small enterprises (between 10 and 49 employees) and
around 27% are medium enterprises (between 50 and 249 employees).
Figure 15 Breakdown by class size (Q2)
Micro 51%
Small 22%
Medium 27%
n=600. Note: “micro” enterprise has 1-9 employees; “small” enterprise has 10-49 employees; a
“medium” enterprise has 50-249 employees
The following figure shows the level of resources devoted to improving the environmental
performance of the operations and/or products/services of the company. Almost 70% of the
respondents stated that 20% or less of 2016 turnover was devoted to such an issue.
Figure 16 Level of resources devoted to improving the environmental performance as
% of 2016 turnover (Q4)
More than 80% 3%
61%-80% 2%
41%-60% 5%
21% and 40% 9%
20% or less 68%
Nothing 13%
n=600
86
The market scope of most of the SMEs (see Figure 17) is local (41%), national (40%) or regional
(37%). Only a small percentage of SMEs operate at European (15%) or worldwide level (13%).
The main commercial activity of the SMEs surveyed is split almost equally among Business to
Business (B2B) (34%); Business to Consumer (B2C) (34%) and both (32%) (see Figure 18).
Figure 17 Market scope (Q6)
Local 41%
National 40%
Regional 37%
European 15%
Worldwide 13%
n=600
Figure 18 Commercial activity (Q7)
Business to Business (B2B) 34%
Business to Consumers (B2C) 34%
Both 32%
n=600
In the context of B2B activities, SMEs were asked whether they produce intermediate or final
products: 32% of the respondents stated that their activities are related to final
products/services; 15% intermediate products/services and 20% reported both types.
Figure 19 B2B type of products (Q8)
Final products / services 32%
Both intermediate and final products/servicies 20%
Intermediate products / services 15%
n= 396
87
3.3.3 Findings
3.3.3.1 Environmental commitment, concern and information

More than half of the SMEs interviewed (55%) employ at least one person with explicit
responsibility for environmental issues (Q9). Approximately the same percentages of SMEs are
committed to environmental sustainability at company level (52% committed or very
committed) and at sector level (48%, see Figure 20). There are small, but statistically significant,
differences between sectors: on average, Agriculture and Industry are more committed than the
other sectors (see Figure 21). In terms of class size, company-level environmental commitment
is higher among medium-size enterprises (65% committed or very committed), and lower
among micro- (44% committed or very committed) and small-size enterprises (54% committed
or very committed).
Figure 20 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q12, Q13)
1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5 - Very committed
To what extent is your company committed to

10% 10% 28% 31% 21%
environmental sustainability?
To what extent is your sector committed to

11% 11% 30% 29% 19%
environmental sustainability?
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n= 600
Figure 21 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q12, Q13) by sector
Sector commitment Company commitment
3,6 3,65 3,66 3,7

3,19 3,19 3,31 3,4
3,17 3,1
Agriculture, Industry Construction Trade Services

forestry and
fishing
n= 600 (ANOVA, p<0.05)
88
Figure 22 Environmental sustainability commitment (Q13) by class size (Q2)
All 10% 10% 28% 31% 21%
Medium 1% 7% 26% 44% 21%
Small 8% 8% 30% 35% 19%
Micro 16% 13% 28% 23% 21%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 (Yes definitely)
n= 592. Note: “Micro” = 1-9 employees; “Small” = 10-49 employees; “Medium” = 50-249 employees.
SMEs were asked how relevant environmental concerns are to the company and to the sector.
More than half of them claimed that they are relevant or very relevant to the company (57%)
and to the sector (58%).
89
Figure 24 shows reveals that Agriculture and Industry are the sectors most concerned. In terms
of class size, company-level environmental concern is higher among medium-size enterprises
(65% relevant or very relevant), and less high among micro- (49% relevant or very relevant)
and small-size enterprises (56% relevant or very relevant).
Figure 23 Environmental concerns (Q16, Q17)
1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5- Very
How relevant are environmental concerns to

7% 12% 24% 32% 25%
your company?
How relevant are environmental concerns to

8% 11% 24% 33% 25%
your sector?
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n= 600
90
Figure 24 Environmental concerns (Q16, Q17) by sector
Sector Company
4,25 4,2
3,86 3,88
3,62 3,5 3,58 3,58 3,44 3,49

forestry and
fishing
n= 600 (ANOVA, p<0.005)
Figure 25 Environmental concerns (Q17) by class size (Q2)
All 7% 12% 24% 32% 35%
Medium 1%5% 22% 42% 30%
Small 5% 13% 26% 36% 20%
Micro 11% 15% 25% 25% 24%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 (Very)
Slightly less than half of all the SMEs surveyed declared that there is a demand for more
information about environmental issues in their company (46% “yes” or “yes, definitely”) or
sector (47% “yes” or “yes, definitely”, (see believe that in their company there is a demand for
environmental information. This share lowers with the size (47% among small enterprises, 37%
among micro enterprises).
91
Figure 26). This demand is higher in Agriculture and Industry, and lower in the service sector
(see Figure 27). In terms of class size, 65% of medium enterprises believe that in their company
there is a demand for environmental information. This share lowers with the size (47% among
small enterprises, 37% among micro enterprises).
92
Figure 26 Environmental information demand (Q14, Q15)
In your company, is there a demand for more

15% 15% 24% 27% 19%
information about environmental issues?
In your sector, is there a demand for more

15% 12% 26% 25% 22%
information about environmental issues?
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
1 - No, not at all 2 3 4 5- Yes definitely
n= 600
Figure 27 Environmental information demand (Q14, Q15) by sector
Sector demand Company demand
4,15 4
3,65 3,59
3,31 3,28 3,21 3,13
3,04 3

forestry and
fishing
n= 600 (ANOVA, p<0.001)
Figure 28 Environmental information demand (Q15) by class size (Q2)
All 15% 15% 24% 27% 19%
Medium 3% 10% 21% 44% 21%
Small 15% 14% 24% 29% 18%
Micro 20% 18% 25% 18% 19%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 (Not at all) 2 3 4 5 (Yes, definitely)
93
3.3.3.2 SME policies on the environment

Half of the respondents use an environmental policy. Participants were asked whether
their company used an internal environmental policy in the company: 55% of the SMEs declared
that they have such a policy (n=330). Environmental policies cover the products/services sold
by the companies in 84% of the cases, and cover organisation-related aspects in 54% of the
cases. Furthermore, 64% of the SMEs who declared that they use an environmental policy also
declared that their policy is based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) indicators.
Corporate policies mainly cover environment, health topics. In order to identify which are
the topics covered by the environmental policy, participants were asked to select among the
following:
 Human Health. The negative effects on people’s health, for instance, as a consequence
of chemicals or radiation emitted during the life cycle of a product or indirectly as
consequence of climate change
 Natural Environment. The negative effects on the function and structure of natural
ecosystems, for instance, as a consequence of the emission of chemicals or physical
interventions that take place during the lifecycle of a product
 Natural Resources. The negative effects, for instance, to the use of physical resources
such as energy, metals and minerals and water, which results in a decrease in the
availability of the total resource stock, as physical resources can be finite and non-
renewable.
Figure 29 shows that in 73% of the cases, SME policy covered Natural environment, in 72%
covered Human health and in 64% it covered Natural resources.
Figure 29 Environmental policy topics (Q20)
Natural environment 73% 27%
Human Health 72% 28%
Natural resources 64% 36%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Yes No
n= 330
Climate change is the main environmental aspect covered by SME policies. Those who
selected Natural environment were invited to select among the following subtopics or midpoints:
 Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the climate for
the worse, impacting indirectly on the ecosystems.
 Acidification. Emission of substance leading, for instance, to acid rain and poorer quality
of air, water and soil.
 Eutrophication - terrestrial. Too many nutrients in the environment, for instance by
overuse of fertilisers in farming, upsetting the balance of nature.
 Eutrophication - freshwater. Too many nutrients in freshwater, for instance by the
overuse of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater, upsetting the balance of
nature, e.g. leading to algal blooms and killing fish.
 Eutrophication - marine. Too many nutrients in marine water, for instance due to overuse
of fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater, upsetting the balance of nature and
leading to algal blooms in seawater.
 Ecotoxicity - freshwater. Emission of toxic substances that are a danger to organisms like
fish, algae and other organisms living in fresh water.
94
 Land use. Use of land and soil endanger, such as soil fertility as well as the wellbeing and
survival of some animals and plant species.
 Resource use - water. Use of freshwater reducing its availability for needs of the
ecosystem.
Climate change (66%), Water use (56%) and Land use (46%) were the most frequent items
selected.
Figure 30 Environmental topics: Natural resources (Q22)
No Yes
Climate change 34% 66%
Resource use - water 44% 56%
Land use 54% 46%
Ecotoxicity - freshwater 58% 42%
Acidification 61% 39%
Eutrophication - terrestrial 61% 39%
Eutrophication - freshwater 63% 37%
Eutrophication - marine 76% 24%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n=240
Human toxicity (cancer) and climate change are the main health aspects covered by
SME policies. Those who selected Human Health were asked to select among the following
subtopics or midpoints:
 Climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the climate
for the worse, impacting indirectly on your health.
 Ozone depletion. Emissions damaging the ozone layer leading to increased ultraviolet
radiation resulting in skin cancer.
 Human Toxicity - cancer. Emissions of toxic substances leading to an increased risk of
cancer, for instance, through the air we breathe and indirectly through the food we eat
and the water we drink.
 Human Toxicity - non-cancer. Emissions of toxic substances damaging your health, for
instance, through the air we breathe and also indirectly through the food we eat and
the water we drink.
 Particulate matter. Emissions of tiny particle, for instance, leading to respiratory
diseases and the so-called “winter smog”.
 Ionizing radiation. Radiation increasing the risk of cancer.
 Photochemical ozone formation. Emissions creating, for instance, the so called “summer
smog” and respiratory diseases.
Human toxicity cancer (65%), Climate change (62%) and Human toxicity non-cancer (61%)
were selected as the main topics covered. Ionizing radiation and photochemical ozone formation
were covered by 32% and 22% respectively.
95
Figure 31 Environmental topics: Human health (Q21)
No Yes
Human Toxicity - cancer 35% 65%
Human Toxicity - non-cancer air 39% 61%
Particulate matter 52% 48%
Ozone depletion 55% 45%
Ionizing radiation 68% 32%
Photochemical ozone formation 78% 22%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=238
Water use is the main resource aspects covered by SME policies. Those who selected
Natural resources were invited to select among the following subtopics or midpoints:
 Resource use: metals and minerals. Use of minerals, metals and other resources in
products reducing their availability for future uses.
 Resource use: fossil fuels. Use of fossil fuels, reducing their availability for future uses.
 Resource use: water. Use of freshwater reducing its availability for future uses.
 Land use. Use of land and soil endanger e.g. soil fertility as well as the survival of some
animals and plant species.
 Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the climate
for the worse, impacting directly and indirectly on natural resources.
Water use (77%), Fossil fuels use (60%) and metals and minerals use (56%) were identified as
the main topics covered in this area.
Figure 32 Environmental topics: Natural resources (Q23)
No Yes
Resource use: water 23% 77%
Resource use: fossil fuels 40% 60%
Resource use: metals and minerals 44% 56%
Land use: Use of land and soil endanger 55% 45%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=211
96
Lastly, participants were asked about the role of environmental performance while purchasing
and/or marketing their products. Almost half of the respondents say they are fairly or very
important.
Figure 33 Environmental performance (Q25)
1 - Not at all 2 3 4 5- Very
Assessing the environmental performance of

17% 15% 22% 27% 20%
suppliers
Informing clients of your product/organization's

19% 12% 25% 27% 18%
environmental performance
Requiring suppliers to undertake environmental

23% 12% 24% 25% 16%
measures
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n=600
3.3.3.3 Environmental information

Only 30% of the SMEs surveyed publish environmental information, clients are main
target. SMEs surveyed who publish information (see Figure 34) are targeting clients (77%),
suppliers (53%), public administrators (35%), investors (33%) and NGOs (15%). The
information published (see Figure 35) is internally audit (39%); 3rd party certified (34%); 3rd
party verified (14%) or provided to a public register (8%).
Figure 34 Environmental information target (Q27)
No Yes
Clients 23% 77%
Suppliers 47% 53%
Public administrations 65% 35%
Investors 67% 33%
NGOs 85% 15%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

n=182
97
Figure 35 Environmental information assessment (Q28)

Provided to a
Other 5%
public register
8%
3rd party
verified 14%
Internally
audited 39%
3rd party
certified 34%
n=182
Product declaration, label and report are the preferred CVs among B2B. B2B participants
who publish environmental information (n=118) were asked which type of CV does the company
use (see Figure 36): around 49% use Environmental Product Declaration; 38% Environmental
report; 38% Environmental label on products and 36% Environmental information on invoices.
A minority of SMEs are using ranking/indexes (16%) or other types of reports (4%). The same
CVs were indicated by those who do not use any, as potentially useful in the future:
Environmental Product Declaration (50%); Environmental label on products (49%),
Environmental report (40%) and Environmental information on invoices (39%) as possible
communication vehicles to convey environmental information.
Figure 36 B2B Communication vehicles use (Q29)
No Yes
Environmental Product Declaration 51% 49%

Environmental report 62% 38%
Environmental label on product 62% 38%
Environmental information on invoices 64% 36%
Product passport 69% 31%
Environmental performance tracking report 72% 28%
Environmental campaign 76% 24%
Public relation effort related to the environment 78% 22%
Environmental/sustainability ranking or index 84% 16%
Other report 96% 4%
Other 97% 3%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n=118
98
Figure 37 B2B potential Communication vehicles (Q30)
No Yes
Environmental Product Declaration 50% 50%
Environmental label on product 51% 49%
Environmental report 60% 40%
Environmental information on invoices 61% 39%
Product passport 70% 30%
Environmental campaign 73% 27%
Environmental performance tracking report 73% 27%
Public relation effort related to the environment 77% 23%
Environmental/sustainability ranking or index 81% 19%
Other report 93% 7%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n=118
B2B see labels as the most effective CV, followed by PR campaigns. Figure 38 shows the
judged effectiveness of the different B2B communication vehicles. An Environmental label on
product (74% effective – very effective) and Public relations effort related to the environment
(70% effective – very effective) are considered the most effective communication vehicles
followed by an Environmental report, Environmental performance tracking report, Product
passport and Environmental Product Declaration (67% effective – very effective).
Figure 38 B2B communication vehicles effectiveness (Q31)
1- Not at all 2 3 4 5- Very effective
Environmental label on product 4% 19% 37% 36%
Environmental Product Declaration 5% 27% 38% 29%
Product passport 5% 25% 40% 27%
Public relation effort related to the environment 9% 17% 44% 26%
Environmental performance tracking report 8% 22% 41% 26%
Environmental report 7% 24% 42% 25%
Environmental information on invoices 9% 28% 33% 25%
Environmental campaign 6% 27% 39% 25%
Environmental/sustainability ranking or index 7% 29% 41% 20%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n=118
99
B2C SMEs use websites, leaflets and labels to communicate environmental

information. SMEs were asked which communication vehicles they are using (see Figure 39):
websites (53%), leaflets (49%) and labels (44%) are the most common vehicles reported.
Around one third of the SMEs are also using barcodes (36%); POS product advertisement (33%)
and QR codes (33%). It is worth mentioning that Apps (20%) and marketing campaigns /
advertisement (21%) are at the bottom of the list. The same CVs were indicated by those who
do not use any: Figure 40 shows the possible communication vehicles envisaged by B2C SMEs.
Leaflets, labels and websites are the most common vehicles. Again, marketing
campaigns/advertising are less preferred.
Figure 39 B2C communication vehicles used (Q32)
No Yes
Websites 47% 53%

Leaflets, catalogues, etc. 51% 49%
Label 56% 44%
Barcode 64% 36%
POS product advertisement 67% 33%
QR code 67% 33%
Instruction manuals 73% 27%
Loyalty schemes 77% 23%
Marketing campaigns/ advertising 79% 21%
Apps 80% 20%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n=133
Figure 40 B2C possible communication vehicles (Q33)
No Yes
Leaflets, catalogues, etc. 47% 53%
Label 54% 46%
Websites 55% 45%
Barcode 63% 37%
Instruction manuals 65% 35%
QR code 65% 35%
POS product advertisement 65% 35%
Loyalty schemes 68% 32%
Marketing campaigns/ advertising 71% 29%
Apps 72% 28%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n=133
100
B2C see websites and POS product advertisement as the most effective CVs, followed
by PR campaigns. Website (75% “effective” or “very effective”) and POS product
advertisement (73% “effective” or “very effective”) were selected as the most effective B2C
communication vehicles, followed by leaflets (72% “effective” or “very effective”) and labels
(70% “effective” or “very effective”).
Figure 41 B2C communication vehicles effectiveness (Q34)
1- Not at all 2 3 4 5- Very effective
Websites 2% 22% 37% 38%
Label 5% 24% 35% 35%
Leaflets, catalogues, etc. 2% 24% 41% 31%
Marketing campaigns/ advertising 5% 23% 43% 28%
Instruction manuals 3% 31% 36% 26%
POS product advertisement 5% 20% 47% 26%
App 8% 28% 36% 24%
Barcode 8% 28% 35% 23%
QR code 11% 27% 35% 23%
Loyalty schemes 7% 39% 30% 23%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n=133
101
3.3.3.4 LCA and PEF: drivers and inhibitors

Organizational awareness, customer satisfaction are LCA’s main drivers. Participants in
these companies were asked about the drivers (see Figure 42) and inhibitors (see Figure 43) of
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). More than two thirds of the SMEs consider that LCA could improve
the reputation of the organization; increase awareness of employees in environmental issues;
improve customer satisfaction and improve environmental management practices.
Figure 42 LCA drivers (Q36)
1- Totally disagree 2 3 4 5- Totally agree
… improve environmental management

5% 23% 41% 29%
practices
… improve customer satisfaction 6% 23% 36% 33%
… increase awareness of employees in
3% 27% 36% 32%
environmental issues
… improve the reputation of the organization 4% 26% 37% 31%
… Increase the differentiation of products/
6% 27% 40% 26%
services
… improvement legal compliance 7% 27% 36% 28%
… drive environmental improvement in
6% 28% 40% 25%
products/organisations
… be a tool to define environmental strategies
6% 28% 38% 25%
and actions
… increase sales of the products 8% 28% 37% 26%
… create new marketing opportunities 9% 27% 40% 22%

… improve the competitive advantage of
6% 31% 38% 23%
organisations
… involve top managers in environmental issues 7% 29% 37% 24%
… increase the level of cooperation within the
8% 30% 39% 22%
company
… be a tool to identify environmental hotspots 6% 31% 36% 24%
… improve the relations with suppliers 7% 31% 34% 25%
… improve the relations with public institutions 9% 29% 35% 24%

… improve the relations with the owner or the
9% 31% 36% 22%
group
… support the implementation of monitoring
9% 31% 34% 23%
systems
… be useful for product design 10% 31% 32% 24%
… improve financing opportunities 10% 33% 32% 22%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n=411
102
Data collection, HR costs are the main barriers to implement LCA. On the other hand,
collection of data from the supply chain, significant involvement of internal human resources,
difficulty collecting data from suppliers and the high costs for expert involvement have been
selected as the main inhibitors of LCA. It is worth mentioning that almost half of the participants
selected ‘Totally agree’ or ‘Agree’ for most of the statements.
Figure 43 LCA inhibitors (Q37)
1- Totally disagree 2 3 4 5- Totally agree
High costs for expert involvement 6% 31% 41% 19%
Difficulty collecting data from suppliers 8% 31% 36% 23%
Significant involvement of internal human

8% 34% 36% 20%
resources
Collection of data from supply chain 9% 33% 36% 19%
Difficult to assess the quality of data 9% 32% 40% 16%
Definition of system boundaries 10% 32% 38% 17%
Difficult to find good quality data 11% 32% 37% 18%
Too time consuming 9% 34% 32% 22%
Definition of scope and object of the study 8% 36% 36% 17%
Certification/review of the study 7% 39% 34% 19%
Difficulty collecting data inside the organization 12% 33% 39% 12%
Evaluation of data quality 8% 38% 34% 18%
With the analysis and interpretation of the

9% 38% 34% 17%
results
Definition of the functional unit 10% 37% 34% 17%
Software is too expensive 10% 36% 33% 17%
Difficulty coordinating internal and external

11% 38% 32% 16%
resources
Difficulty to communicate the results 13% 41% 27% 15%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n=411
103
Most SMEs find PEF features as useful, particularly on performance and impacts.
Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) has been discussed in 68% of the SMEs surveyed. SMEs
having an environmental policy based on LCA were asked about the usefulness of the new
features brought by PEF in comparison to LCA. The following figure shows that almost two thirds
of the participants consider these new features as useful or very useful.
Figure 44 Product Environmental Footprint (Q35)
1- Not useful at all 2 3 4 5- Very useful
The environmental performance of the average

product on the market (representative product/
3% 26% 42% 28%
benchmark) is stated in the Product
Environmental Footprint Category Rules
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules

pre-identify most relevant environmental
3% 26% 40% 29%
impacts, processes and life cycle stages for the
product group
Secondary data are available for free to users

of Product Environmental Footprint Category 5% 25% 36% 31%
Rules
It is possible to compare the Environmental

Footprint profile of the product with the 4% 26% 38% 29%
benchmark
Data quality requirements vary based on

5% 28% 33% 32%
environmental relevance and access to data
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules

5% 30% 37% 27%
list secondary data to be used
Primary data gathering is focussed on a limited

5% 32% 35% 25%
number of specific processes
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
n=212
104
3.4 Lessons learned from the stakeholder testing

Consumers on perceptions, experience and knowledge
 “Environmental footprint” is understood as the negative impact the actions of companies
and people have in the environment. It evokes a sense of “future inheritance”, or how
we leave the planet to future generation. It is associated with the responsibility of
individuals, companies, and the government; as well as with the consequence of
overproduction and overconsumption of goods and services.
 The main concerns are related with air pollution, soil and water contamination,
deforestation, ozone depletion, use of natural resources and the loss of biodiversity.
Climate change is considered particularly worrying. The over-production of packaging is
also a great concern.
 Educating children on environmental sustainability is considered fundamental.
Consumers are suspicious about the agreements governments reach to take care of the
environment, and believe that public transportation should all be electric.
 Consumers think sustainability is also becoming a sort of “fashion”, so that companies
and brands are using it as a marketing tool to take profit from it.
 The participants’ main contribution to environmental sustainability is recycling.
Participants try to avoid the accumulation of too many plastic bags and packaging.
Repairing things, buying second hand, avoiding energy waste, reducing paper use, using
bike or public transport, consuming locally produced and season products and buying
organic food are other habits participants have developed in relation to environmental
sustainability.
 Skepticism is the main barrier to be receptive to environmental footprint information.
Participants show high levels of mistrust towards the credibility of certifications and
labels.
 Consumers are willing to pay a little more for eco-friendly products, especially food,
but not a big difference. They may pay less attention to the environmental footprint of
products that are bought regularly or products that are expected to be used for a very
short period of time. But they may pay more attention when introducing new products in
their habits, when purchasing products that are going to be used for a long time, or when
purchasing big or expensive items, such as cars or houses. Other items where participants
may pay more attention are those related with their own or their children’s health, with
higher energy consumption.
Consumers on the effects of CVs
 Environmental footprint information in labelling is expected to have a higher influence
when visible, easily understood, and certified by a credible and trustful authority.
Consumers are concerned more about the production phase as they cannot have any
influence or control on it.
 The traffic-lights performance rating is preferred when shopping in a more mechanical
and less involved way. When shopping in a more conscious way, 5 levels scale is more
appropriate due to being more differentiating and precise. The ideal performance rating
is considered to be a mixture of the A-E combined with the traffic-lights coding.
Participants have more detailed information on the label when buying products that can
be unhealthy due to toxicity, such as clothes, cosmetics or food.
 Consumers do not want to feel overloaded by information. Showing 3 midpoints is more
than enough. The rest would be checked through the QR code, website or app if the
consumer wished. QR codes are preferred to barcodes. Extra information is especially
appreciated when buying groceries that are purchased regularly or for items that are
going to be used over long periods of time, or that are more expensive.
105
 Green areas at points of sale such as supermarkets or shops are associated with
containing eco-friendly products. Color coding can be misleading as green does not
necessarily mean the product or service is really environmentally friendly. Separating
eco-friendly products from others at the point-of-sale generates mixed opinions.
Consumers with higher levels of environmental awareness would download an app
containing environmental footprint information if it was supported by a trusted institution
and if it was used by scanning the product. The app should also provide practical tips on
green habits.
Retailers on awareness and understanding
 Retailers believe the concept of “environmental footprint” is not well known among
consumers. With many labels currently in use, there is confusion. Comparing dimensions
of environmental impacts that are very different could lead consumers making
unfavorable decisions.
 Aspects that are communicated and the measurement units used are often “negative”
(e.g. quantification of emissions) leading to unfounded negative reactions. A “positive”
message – such as a measure for biodiversity – could be interesting.
 Retailers agree that consumers would be led to buy environmentally friendly products as
the right thing to do, and that it can make a difference to the real environment. There
are ambiguities in defining environmental footprint: as an anecdote, a detergent with a
lot of water is good for the environment, but doesn’t do its job right, and worse - one
needs to use higher temperature, which is bad for the environment and cancels out the
intended benefits.
 Attitudes do not necessarily lead to positive environmental impacts, and do not
necessarily translate into behavioural change. In some sectors consumers are already
loyal to brands, and would be unlikely react to potentially new labels from competitors.
 There was no unambiguous consensus on which functional (measurement) unit to feature
on a potential label, e.g. value vs. weight.
Retailers on their role
 Retailers might be gatekeepers, and take over activities of communication for
environmental footprint, as they know their end-users well. Some will focus on water
consumption, others on biodiversity. Single brands can more easily speak with suppliers
and consumers. Retailers are in the best position to communicate environmental footprint
to consumers, except perhaps for products where the “use” phase is longer. Retailers can
pick out what they think consumers are most interested in. For example, they could
choose to have separate shop corners for green products.
 Retailers agree that they would not sort “green” products in a separate corner,
and that it would be a way of turning customers into a false dichotomy: “these products
are good therefore the others are bad”. On-shelf information would be difficult to
implement, as it would have to be constantly updated. In addition, electronic on-shelf
labels are not large enough to host more information other than price. Instead, a single
website would be desirable to which all users would be redirected.
 Life cycle methodology should not be used to compare two products. Instead, it is the
same product that should be compared over two or more time periods.
SMEs on environmental concerns, environmental policy, LCA and PEF

 Most SME surveyed have staff with explicit responsibility for the environment. Many,
especially mid-sized and operating in agriculture and industry, are committed to
environmental issues. Environmental concern is likewise higher among medium-sized
enterprises and in the primary and secondary sectors. Similarly, the demand for
environmental information is lower in the service sector and among micro-sized
enterprises.
106
 Half of the SMEs have an internal environmental policy in place. These policies cover
mainly products/services sold. Two-thirds are based on LCA indicators. Topics
covered include the environment (climate change, water use, land use), human health
(including human toxicity and cancer, as well as climate change), and the future
availability of resources (water use, fossil fuels use, and metals and mineral use).
 Environmental information is published by 30% of the participants. Clients are the main
target. More often than not, information is externally audited, such as by a third party
certification body.
 Product declaration, label and report are the preferred CVs among B2B
participants. B2B see labels as the most effective CV, followed by PR campaigns,
environmental reports, product passports and Environmental Product Declarations.
 Conversely, B2C participants use websites, leaflets and labels to communicate
environmental information. They see websites and POS product advertisement as the
most effective CVs, followed by PR campaigns.
 Organizational awareness, customer satisfaction and improvements of
environmental practices are LCA’s main drivers. Conversely, data collection difficulties,
and the costs of personnel (involvement of internal human resources, expert
involvement) have been selected as the main inhibitors of LCA. Most SMEs find PEF
features as useful, particularly on performance and impacts.
107
4 Weighting exercise: expert and lay knowledge

4.1 Background
In the context of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), weighting is a process of attributing different
levels of importance to different environmental impacts based upon a set of criteria 13. As a
support to public policy, weighting can help decision makers address environmental policies and
strategies, for example by identifying the most relevant impacts and by presenting results as a
single score.
Currently, the recommendations14 (EC-JRC 2011) as used in the environmental footprint (EF)
entail 15 impact categories (ICs) in the form of midpoints, nested in three broader categories
in the form of endpoints15. The method selected by JRC for weighting LCA impact categories
consists of a hierarchical weighting at the midpoints and at the endpoints. It entails two steps,
establishing one set of weighting factors on the midpoint ICs clustered per endpoint and one set
of weighting factors on the 3 endpoints. The two sets of weighting factors are combined in an
overall scheme.
Table 3 Hierarchical structure of impact categories
Endpoint Midpoint
Human health Climate change
Ozone depletion
Human toxicity, cancer effects
Human toxicity, non-cancer effects
Ionizing radiation, human health
Particulate matter/Respiratory inorganics
Photochemical ozone formation, human health
Natural environment Acidification
Climate change
Ecotoxicity freshwater
Eutrophication terrestrial
Eutrophication freshwater
Eutrophication marine
Land use
Resource use: water
Natural resources Climate change
Land use
Resource use: water
Resource use: metals and minerals
Resource use: fossil fuels
13
Finnveden. G.. M. Z. Hauschild. T. Ekvall. J. Guinée. R. Heijungs. S. Hellweg. A. Koehler. D. Pennington. and S. Suh.
2009. Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 91:1-21.
14
EC-JRC. 2011. Recommendations based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors for life
cycle assessment in European context. Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg.
15
EC. 2016. Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the
Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase. Version 5.2. European Commission.
108
4.2 Methodology
4.2.1 Design
The method of hierarchical weighting at midpoints and endpoints aims at developing indicators
applicable to the EU context based on respondents’ assessment of the 15 impact categories
(midpoints) within the 3 super-ordinate main areas (endpoints). Two different target groups
were envisaged: the general population (lay respondents) and experts in the environmental
field.
Two questionnaires were designed, one for the experts and one for lay respondents. The
questionnaires cover similar issues but differ in wording (less technical for lay respondents).
Demographic characteristics were elicited for both the public and experts.
The general public was accessed using an online panel to recruit a representative sample of
400 Internet users in each country (Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Poland and the UK). The
respondents were invited to complete an online survey of circa 15-20 minutes. After answering
questions on socio-demographic characteristics, in Step 1 respondents assess the weightings of
the three end points, using the ‘swing’ methodology. In this the most important end-point gets
100 points (we will call this number 1) and then participants have to rate the other 2 relative to
number 1.
Step 2 entails the ranking of the mid points. Participants are asked to rank the mid-points of the
number 1 endpoint they selected in step 1. Following the same logic applied in Step 1, the first
mid-point in importance gets 100 points and the others are rated relative to number 1. After
this exercise is performed, participants were randomly allocated using quotas to perform the
same exercise with one of the two other endpoints. Lastly, respondents were asked a battery of
questions related to their environmental attitude. The figure below sketches the overall
procedure.
Figure 45 General public survey procedure
109
The questionnaire included the following sentences to describe the end-points:

 Human Health. The aim is to quantify the negative effects capturing death and illnesses
as consequence of e.g. emitted chemicals or radiation that take place during the life cycle
of a product;
 Natural Environment. The aim is to quantify the negative effects on the function and
structure of natural ecosystems as a consequence of e.g. emitted chemicals or physical
interventions that take place during the life cycle of a product;
 Natural Resources. The aim is to quantify the negative effects due to the use of abiotic
resources which results in a decrease in the availability of the total resource stock. as
abiotic resources are usually finite and non-renewable.
To perform this task, respondents saw the following screens (the impact categories were
randomized to avoid order effects):
Figure 46 Screen 1
Figure 47 Screen 2
110
To address the midpoints the following explanations were provided.

Human Health
 Climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases change temperature and the climate
for the worse, impacting indirectly also your health.
 Ozone depletion. Emissions damage the ozone layer leading to increased ultraviolet
radiation resulting to skin cancer and damage to plants.
 Human Toxicity (cancer). Emissions of toxic substances leading to an increased risk of
cancer via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the water we
drink.
 Human Toxicity (non-cancer). Emissions of toxic substances damaging your health
via the air we breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the water we drink.
 Particulate matter. Emissions of tiny particles that lead to respiratory diseases and the
so called “winter smog”.
 Ionizing radiation. Radiation that increases risk of cancer.
 Photochemical ozone formation. Emissions creating so called “summer smog” and
respiratory diseases.
Natural Environment
 Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changes temperature and the climate
for the worse impacting indirectly also the ecosystems.
 Acidification. Emission of substance that lead to acid rain and poorer quality of air,
water and soil.
 Eutrophication terrestrial. Too many nutrients in the environment e.g. by over use of
fertilisers in farming upsetting the balance of nature.
 Eutrophication freshwater. Too many nutrients in freshwater e.g. by the over use of
fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater upsetting the balance of nature e.g.
leading to algal blooms and killing fish.
 Eutrophication marine. Too many nutrients in marine water e.g. by the over use of
fertilisers in farming and release of wastewater upsetting the balance of nature e.g.
leading to algal blooms in sea water.
 Land use. Use of land and soil endanger soil fertility as well as the survival of some
species of animals and plants.
 Ecotoxicity freshwater. Emission of toxic substances that are a danger to organisms
like fish, algae and other organisms living in fresh water.
Natural Resources
 Land use. Use of land creates pressures on the availability of soil as resource.
 Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changes temperature and the climate
for the worse impacting indirectly also the natural resource provision.
 Resource use: metals and minerals. The use of minerals, metals and other resources
in a product affects their availability for future uses.
 Resource use: fossil fuels. The use fossil fuels affect their availability for future uses.
 Water use. The use of freshwater affects its availability for future uses.
The same logic was used with the experts, the second target group. After replying to the
questions about socio-demographic characteristics, experts ‘swing’ the weightings of the three
end points (Step 1). End-point number 1 is awarded 100 points and then participants have to
rate the other 2 relatives to number 1. Step 2 comprises the ranking of the mid points.
Participants were randomly allocated to rank the mid-points of either Human Health or
Ecosystem Quality. Following the same logic applied in Step 1, the first mid-point is awarded
100 points and the others are rated relative to number 1. After this exercise was performed the
experts were asked to weight the resource mid-points and to rate their level of expertise in the
domain of each mid-point.
Finally, the experts were asked a battery of questions related to their environmental attitudes.
The following figure sketches the overall process.
111
Figure 48 Experts survey procedure
112
The experts’ questionnaire included the definition of the 15 impact categories as provided by
JRC:
 Climate change. Refers to the changes induced to the World’s climate as a consequence
of the emissions to the atmosphere of the so-called greenhouse gases, such as CO2, N2O,
CH4. The Earth’s atmosphere absorbs part of the energy emitted as infrared radiation
from Earth towards space, and is thereby heated. This natural greenhouse effect leading
to a warming of the atmosphere has been increased over the past few centuries by human
activity leading to accumulation of such compounds as CO2, N2O, CH4 and halocarbons to
the atmosphere. The most important human contribution to the emissions of greenhouse
gases is attributed to the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. The
consequences include increased global average temperatures and sudden regional
climatic changes.
 Ozone depletion. The stratospheric Ozone (O3) layer (that can stretch from ~8km to
~50 km height) protects us from hazardous ultraviolet radiation (UV-B). Its depletion can
have dangerous consequences in the form of increased frequency of skin cancer in
humans and damage to plants. Stratospheric O3 is broken down as a consequence of
man-made emissions of halocarbons (as CFCs and HCFCs), halons and other long-lived
gases containing chloride and bromine. The ozone content of the stratosphere was
therefore decreasing, and since 1985 a dramatic temporary thinning of the ozone layer,
often referred to as “ozone hole”, has been observed each year, over the South Pole. In
recent years the problem has been reduced due to international ban of substances
contributing to ozone depletion.
 Human toxicity – cancer effects. Chemicals emitted as a consequence of human
activities can contribute to cancer in humans via exposure to the environment. For a
substance to be regarded as contributing to human toxicity, it must of course cause
cancer. In addition, also the substance’s behavior has to be considered in that there can
be several routes of exposure to humans. The most important routes of exposure are via
the air breathed in or via other materials ingested orally, e.g. food or water.
 Human toxicity – non-cancer effects. Chemicals emitted as a consequence of human
activities can contribute to human toxicity via exposure to the environment. For a
substance to be regarded as contributing to human toxicity, it must of course be
poisonous to humans. In addition, also the substance’s behavior has to be considered in
that there can be several routes of exposure to humans. The most important routes of
exposure looked at in those categories are via the air breathed in or via other materials
ingested orally, e.g. food or water.
 Particulate matter/respiratory inorganics. Ambient concentrations of “dust” or
particulate matter (PM) are elevated by emissions of primary and secondary particulates.
The mechanism for the creation of secondary emissions involves emissions of SO2 and
NOx that create sulphate and nitrate aerosols. Particulate matter is measured in a variety
of ways: total suspended particulates (TSP), particulate matter less than 10 microns in
diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) or
particulate matter less than 0.1 microns in diameter (PM0.1). Usually, the smaller the
particles are the more dangerous they are as they can get deeper into the lungs.
 Ionising radiation, human health. The exposure to ionising radiation (“radioactivity”)
can have impacts on human health. The modelling starts with releases at the point of
emission, expressed as Becquerel (Bq). The exposure analysis calculates the dose that a
human actually absorbs, given the radiation levels that are calculated in the fate analysis.
The measure for the effective dose is the Sievert (Sv), based on human body equivalence
factors for the different ionising radiation types. It is to be noted, that in Life Cycle
Assessment and in the Environmental Footprint only emissions are taken into account
that occur under normal operating conditions. The risks due to nuclear accidents are not
covered by the EF.
 Photochemical ozone formation, human health. While a sufficiently high
concentration of ozone up in the stratosphere (8-50 km) is vital to protect the earth from
hazardous ultraviolet radiation (UV-B), ozone on the ground (in the troposphere) attacks
organic compounds and especially the respiratory tract in humans. This leads to an
113
increased frequency of problems of the respiratory tract in humans during periods of

photochemical smog in cities (“summer smog”). When solvents and other volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) are released to the atmosphere (e.g. by emissions from combustion
processes), they can be degraded within a few days. The reaction involved is an oxidation,
which occurs under the influence of light from the sun. In the presence of oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) ozone can be formed. NOx are not consumed during ozone formation, but
have a catalyst-like function. This process is termed photochemical ozone formation.
 Acidification. Acidification has contributed to a decline of coniferous forests and
increased fish mortality. Acidification can be caused by emissions to air, water and soil.
For instance when gaseous SO2 is released and reaches a water body, it reacts with H2O
to form the acid H2SO4. When acids (and compounds that can be converted to acids) are
emitted to the atmosphere and deposited in water and soil, the addition of hydrogen ions
(H+) may result in a decrease in the pH of the water body. The most significant man-
made sources of acidification are combustion processes in electricity, heating production
and transport. The contribution to acidification is greatest when the fuels used contain a
high content of sulphure.
 Eutrophication – terrestrial. Eutrophication is an impact on the ecosystems from
substances containing nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P). As a rule, the availability of one
of these nutrients will be a limiting factor for growth in the ecosystem, and if this nutrient
is added, the growth of algae or specific plants will be increased. On land, ecosystems
which need an environment with only little nutrients are gradually disappearing mainly
as a result of the addition of nitrogen (N). Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from combustion
processes are of significance for both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
 Eutrophication –freshwater. Eutrophication is an impact on the ecosystems from
is added, the growth of algae or specific plants will be increased. In lakes and rivers this
will be mainly due to the increase of phosphorus (P). Too rapid growth of algae can lead
to situations without enough oxygen in the water for fish to survive once the algae die
and are degraded (which consumes oxygen). Emissions of nitrogen to the aquatic
environment are caused largely by the agricultural use of fertilizers, but oxides of nitrogen
from combustion processes are also of significance for both aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. The most significant sources of emissions of phosphorus are sewage
treatment plants for urban and industrial effluents and leaching from agricultural land.
 Eutrophication – marine. Eutrophication is an impact on the ecosystems from
is added, the growth of algae or specific plants will be increased. For the marine
environment this will be mainly due to the increase of nitrogen (N). Emissions of nitrogen
are caused largely by the agricultural use of fertilizers, but oxides of nitrogen from
combustion processes are also of significance for both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
 Ecotoxicity – freshwater. A substance contributing to ecotoxicity, affects the function
and structure of the ecosystem by exerting toxic effects on the organisms which live in
it. Toxic effects can occur as soon as the substances are released (acute ecotoxicity), or
may appear after repeated or long-term exposure to the substances (chronic ecotoxicity).
Chronic ecotoxicity is often caused by substances which have a low degradability in the
environment and which can therefore remain for a long time after their emission
(persistent substances). Some substances also have the tendency of accumulating in
living organisms, so that tissues and organs can be exposed to concentrations of the
substance which are far higher than the concentration in the surrounding environment.
The chronic ecotoxicity of a compound is thus determined by its toxic effects, its
biodegradability, and its ability of accumulating in living organisms.
 Land use. The impact category Land Use tries to estimate the damage to ecosystems
due to the effects of occupation and transformation of land. Examples of land use are
agricultural production, mineral extraction and human settlement. Transformation is the
conversion of land from one use to another use. The impacts can be various such as loss
114
of species, soil organic matter content or reduced primary production or loss of the soil
itself (“erosion”).
 Resource use – water. The withdrawal of water from lakes, rivers or groundwater can
contribute to the “depletion” of the available water, while water itself is seen as a
renewable resource. The impact category considers the availability or scarcity of water in
the regions where the activity takes place, if this information is known.
 Resource use –metals and minerals. The earth contains a finite amount of non-
renewable resources, such as metals, minerals. The use of resources may lead to a
decrease of availability of potential functions of resources.
 Resource use –fossil fuels. The earth contains a finite amount of non-renewable
resources, such as fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. The use of resources may lead to a
decrease of availability of potential functions of resources.
4.2.2 Sample
For the general public, a random sample of 2.400 individuals was drawn from 6 countries
(Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, Poland and France) to produce the general public survey (400
respondents per each of the 6 countries). The randomization was implemented at the
country level, meaning that each country was equally represented in the survey. Gathering
the data across countries made it possible to ensure the validity in making generalisations
about awareness and understanding of the impact categories as well as about the broader
environmental attitudes.
Table 4 Technical specification of samples for the online survey
Population General population. aged 18 to 65 years old
Scope 8 EU Member States:

 Germany
 Italy
 Spain
 UK
 Poland
France
Sample size n=2.400 (n=400 respondents per country)
Quotas  Age
 Gender
Country
specific data

overall data
115
The following tables show the sample by age, country, gender, and education level.
Table 5 Target sample by country and age group
Country From 18 to 24 From 25 to 54 From 55 to 74 Total

years years years
Germany 46 247 107 400
Spain 48 280 72 400
France 53 247 100 400
Italy 53 269 78 400
Poland 64 269 67 400
UK 52 241 107 400
Total 316 1.553 531 2.400
Table 6 Target sample by country and gender
Country Female Male Total
Germany 195 205 400

Spain 197 203 400
France 203 197 400
Italy 191 209 400
Poland 202 198 400
UK 199 201 400
Total 1.187 1.213 2.400
Table 7 Target sample by country and education level
Country 0-11 years 12 years of Post-graduate Some years University Total

of education degree (MA, of degree
education (high MS, JD, MD, university (BA, BS)
school PhD, etc) (not
diploma) completed)
Germany 172 91 70 21 46 400

Spain 11 94 43 77 175 400
France 39 125 81 30 125 400
Italy 25 142 102 87 44 400
Poland 14 114 162 44 66 400
UK 11 94 43 77 175 400
Total 281 703 512 300 604 2,400
116
The following table shows the sampling errors. They are calculated for a probability no greater
than 95.5% and for the least desired context. i.e. a maximum indeterminate probability (p = q
= 50%) for the reference population. The sampling error is the error caused by observing a
sample instead of the whole population. The sampling error can be found by subtracting the
value of a parameter from the value of a statistic and is calculated with the formula given below:
Where:
e = Sampling error
Z = Confidence level
The value for selected alpha level of .0225 in each tail = 2. The value of Z is set to 2, representing
a confidence level of 95.5%. We aim for the highest possible accuracy with the smallest sample
size. This confidence level gives us the best trade-off between these two goals.
The expected scenario is maximum indetermination (p=q=50) where:
p= The conversion rate we expect (estimate of the true conversion rate in the population)
q= The conversion rate we don’t expect
N= Total population (GP’s)
n= Proposed sample (GP’s)
These sampling errors, in fact, determine the statistical reliability of the sample and,
consequently, it is necessary to take them into consideration. The overall error margin,
therefore, is + 2.04%, with a country specific error margin of +5.00%. These errors are in line
with the statistical criteria that validate the sample design and, being that the sample is
representative and reliable, it is possible to extrapolate the study results to the target population
group in the selected countries.
Table 8 Sampling errors by country
Country From 18 to 24 From 25 to 54 From 55 to 74

years years years
Germany 14.74 6.36 9.67
Spain 14.43 5.98 11.79
France 13.74 6.36 10.00
Italy 13.74 6.10 11.32
Poland 12.50 6.10 12.22
UK 13.87 6.44 9.67
Total 5.63 2.54 4.34
As each country's total population is different, but is sampled in equal measure, weighting was
applied to ensure a representative sample for interpretation of the overall data. The following
shows the weighting applied by country.
117
Table 9 Weights by country
Country Weight
Germany 1.5135
Spain 0.7688
France 1.1051
Italy 0.8348
Poland 0.5526
UK 1.2252
The experts were contacted by email using a convenience/snowball sample, selected from the
wide network of experts in Life Cycle Assessment. The following tables show the technical
specification for the experts survey and the respondents by country and gender
Table 10 Technical specification for the experts survey
Population Experts in LCA
Scope 48 countries
Sample size n=518
Sampling Convenience/snowball sample
Table 11 Expert respondents by country and gender

Argentina 0 1 1
Australia 1 5 6
Austria 2 9 11
Belgium 17 32 49
Brazil 0 3 3
Bulgaria 2 1 3
Chile 0 2 2
Colombia 1 0 1
Czech 1 1 2
Canada 1 8 9
Spain 10 19 29
China 1 2 3
Croatia 0 1 1
Cuba 1 0 1
Cyprus 1 0 1
Germany 21 57 78
118

Denmark 3 9 12
France 12 42 54
Finland 6 5 11
Netherlands 6 28 34
Greece 1 3 4
Hungary 1 2 3
Ireland 5 4 9
Italy 13 23 36
Iceland 0 2 2
India 1 2 3
Iran 0 1 1
Japan 0 3 3
Latvia 1 0 1
Lithuania 1 0 1
Luxembourg 0 1 1
Malaysia 2 1 3
Norway 3 6 9
Poland 5 1 6
Portugal 5 2 7
Romania 1 1 2
Russian 0 1 1
Slovenia 0 1 1
Sweden 5 11 16
Switzerland 5 20 25
Thailand 3 5 8
Taiwan 0 1 1
Turkey 0 1 1
UK 6 17 23
USA 6 11 17
Uzbekistan 0 1 1
Vietnam 0 1 1
Hong Kong 0 1 1
Others/Did 5 15 20
not answer
155 363 518
119
4.2.3 Fieldwork
For the general population survey, fieldwork commenced on 16 December 2016 with the UK
pilot and was completed on 18 January 2017. A total of 14,427 respondents were invited to
participate across the 6 countries. Of these, 2,460 completed and 2665 did not. The average
duration of the questionnaire was of 18 minutes. The following figure summarizes the fieldwork
process.
Table 12 General public fieldwork
Age Duration
Start End Invited Complete Incomplete Speeder
filter (mins)
UK Pilot 16/12/16 16/12/16 307 115 76 18
Field 20/12/16 30/12/16 1,473 401 527 16
Total 1,780 516 603 5 2 16
Germany Pilot 4/1/17 4/1/17 364 21 553 13
Field 5/1/17 18/1/17 7,597 407 0 23
Total 7,961 428 553 6 4 22
France Pilot 10/1/17 10/1/17 138 27 292 25
Field 11/1/17 17/1/17 950 406 11 19
Total 1,088 433 303 5 5 19
Spain Pilot 22/12/16 22/12/16 42 29 279 15
Field 23/12/16 3/1/17 890 403 10 18
Total 932 432 289 3 2 17
Poland Pilot 9/1/17 9/1/17 154 27 262 19
Field 10/1/17 17/1/17 986 401 14 18
Total 1,140 428 276 4 4 18
Italy Pilot 4/1/17 4/1/17 179 27 428 16
Field 5/1/17 16/1/17 1,167 401 8 18
Total 1,346 428 436 1 1 17
TOTAL 14,247 2,665 2,460 24 18 18
The expert survey, commenced on 13 January 2017 and ended on 13 February 2017. A total
of 5,820 were contacted. Of these 1,053 opened the questionnaire and 518 completed the
questionnaire. The following figure summarizes the fieldwork process.
120
Table 13 Experts fieldwork
Experts Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Total
E-Mails data-base 5,820
Opened the questionnaire 825 204 21 3 1,053
Completes 428 75 14 1 518
Incompletes 394 129 7 2 532
Don't pass screener (age) 3 0 0 0 3
Reminders 4
Date start of fieldwork 13/1/17 26/1/17 26/1/17 31/1/17
Date end of fieldwork 13/2/17 13/2/17 13/2/17 13/2/17
Average duration (min) 26 23 20 27
4.3 Findings
Among endpoints, in the general public survey, the median score for human health is 100. This
means that over half of respondents selected Human Health as the category of most concern.
The average scores given to health, environment, and natural resources are 88, 73, and 67.3
respectively.
Table 14 General Public Summary statistics – Endpoints
Impact category (IC) Mean Median Standard deviation
Human Health 88.0 100.0 21.0
Natural Environment 73.0 80.0 25.4
Natural Resources 67.3 70.0 25.2
n=2400
In the expert survey, “Natural Environment” is the highest scoring endpoint (average of 87.3).
The mean scores of Human Health and Natural Resources are 81.7 and 69.9 respectively.
Table 15 Experts Summary statistics – Endpoints

Human Health 81.7 90.0 24.4
Natural Environment 87.3 90.0 16.7
Natural Resources 69.9 77.5 24.9
n=519
With regards to health midpoints, in the general public survey, more than half of respondents
picked “Human Toxicity – cancer” as the most worrying impact category, with a mean score of
121
81.9. On average, “Human Toxicity – non-cancer” and “Climate change” are the second and
third highest ranking categories, with mean scores of 64.9 and 62.6 respectively.
Table 16 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Human Health)

Climate change 62.6 70.0 33.1
Ozone depletion 59.8 60.0 30.4
Human Toxicity - cancer 81.9 100.0 27.6
Human Toxicity - non-cancer 64.9 70.0 28.8
Particulate matter 58.6 60.0 29.2
Ionizing radiation 58.0 60.0 29.6
Photochemical ozone formation 50.2 50.0 29.1
n=2400
Among experts, results mirror the general public survey as “Human toxicity – cancer” ranks first
with an average of 81.1, followed by “Particulate matter” (79.0 on average) and “Climate
change” (74.6 on average).
Table 17 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Human Health)

Ozone depletion 56.2 60.0 28.1
Human Toxicity - cancer 81.1 90.0 25.3
Human Toxicity - non-cancer 69.0 80.0 26.1
Particulate matter 79.0 85.0 21.2
Ionizing radiation 55.8 60.0 28.6
Photochemical ozone formation 61.7 65.0 23.9
n=519
With regards to environmental midpoints, “Climate Change” is the category of most concern
for the general public, scoring 71.2 on average, followed by “Eutrophication – freshwater” (mean
63.7) and “Resource use – water” (mean 63.4). It is worth noting that the “Climate change”
midpoint is featured in all three groups and is also the single category with the highest amount
of variation, as measured by a standard deviation of 33.1 in Health, 32.4 in Environment, and
32.0 in Natural Resources.
122
Table 18 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Environment)

Acidification 61.3 69.0 29.3
Eutrophication - terrestrial 60.5 65.0 28.2
Eutrophication - freshwater 63.7 70.0 28.7
Eutrophication - marine 57.6 60.0 28.6
Ecotoxicity - freshwater 62.7 70.0 29.8
Land use 59.2 60.0 30.4
Resource use - water 63.4 70.0 32.0
n=2400
Among experts, “Climate change” is also and by far the category of highest concern, with more
than half respondents selecting it as first (median of 100) and a mean of 88.5. “Resource use –
water” (mean 75.2), “Ecotoxicity – freshwater” (mean 67.7) and “Land use” (mean 67.5) follow.
Table 19 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Environment)

Acidification 59.2 65.0 26.4
Eutrophication - terrestrial 53.9 55.0 24.1
Eutrophication - freshwater 64.3 70.0 22.9
Eutrophication - marine 55.9 60.0 25.0
Ecotoxicity - freshwater 67.7 70.0 26.4
Land use 67.5 70.0 25.5
n=519
With regards to natural resources midpoints, the category “Resource use – fossil fuels” is the
highest scoring midpoints among the general public, with a mean of 80.4. The second highest
scoring midpoint is “Climate Change” (mean 70.0).
Table 20 General Public Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Resources)

Resource use - metal and minerals 66.3 70.0 27.7
Resource use - fossil fuels 80.4 90.0 26.4
Land use 70.0 80.0 27.4
n=2400
Finally, “Resource use – water” (mean 85.2) is the highest scoring midpoint among experts
surveyed. The next most worrying categories are “Climate change” (mean 76.8) and “Land use”
(73.9).
123
Table 21 Experts Summary statistics – Midpoints (Natural Resources)
Resource use - metal and minerals 65.5 70.0 24.9
Resource use - fossil fuels 65.8 74.5 28.6
Land use 73.9 80.0 24.0
n=519
The following figure summarizes the results on midpoints for the three categories in both surveys
– general public and experts. Here, midpoints are ranked according to their means.
Figure 49 Summary of results
Human health Natural environment Natural resources

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
General Experts
In the natural environment group, the pattern shows a similarity among the two groups of
respondents. In the human health group, both experts and the general public are concerned
about cancer the most, while the relative importance of the remaining categories differs. In the
natural resources group, priorities differ significantly among the two groups.
124
4.4 Lessons learned from the weighting exercise

Endpoints
Over the life cycle of products, resources and energy are used. This creates emissions into air,
water and soil, leading to negative impacts on health, environment and the future availability
of resources. The general public surveyed is especially concerned about impacts on health.
Experts surveyed are more concerned about impacts on the environment.
Midpoints
There are many different ways in which the life cycle of products can negatively affect human
health, the environment, and the future availability of resources.
Health impacts
 Emissions of toxic substances can lead to an increased risk of cancer, via the air we
breathe and also indirectly via the food we eat and the water we drink. This aspect is of
highest concern among both experts and the general public.
 Experts are also concerned about particulate matter, emissions of tiny particles that
lead to respiratory diseases and the so called “winter smog”, as well as the health
consequences of climate change.
 The general public is also concerned about human toxicity (other than cancer), the
emission of toxic substances damaging health, as well as the health consequences of
climate change.
Environmental impacts
 Climate change refers to the human-driven changes induced to the natural environment
as a consequence of the emissions in the atmosphere of the so-called greenhouse
gases, such as CO2, N2O, CH4. Climate change is the aspect of highest concern among
both experts and the general public.
 The withdrawal of water from lakes, rivers or groundwater can contribute to water
scarcity. Experts and the general public alike are concerned about the use of water
during the life cycle of products.
 The emission of toxic substances that are a danger to fish, algae and other organisms
living in fresh water, known as eco-toxicity, is also of concern among experts.
 Too many nutrients in freshwater, e.g. by the abuse of fertilizers in farming and release
of wastewater, upset the balance of nature, leading to algal blooms and killing fish. The
general public is concerned about this phenomenon, also known as freshwater
eutrophication.
Natural resource impacts
 Water scarcity, and the use of water during the life cycle of products, is also the main
concern among experts in relation of the availability of future resources.
 The earth contains a finite amount of non-renewable resources, such as fossil fuels like
coal, oil and gas. The use of fossil fuels may lead to a decrease of availability of
potential functions of resources, and is the aspect of highest concern among the
general public.
 Both experts and the general public are also concerned with climate change, as well as
with land use, which is the damage to ecosystems due to the effects of occupation and
transformation of land. Examples of land use are agricultural production, mineral
extraction and human settlement. Transformation is the conversion of land from one
use to another use. Impacts include loss of species, of soil organic matter, erosion, and
reduced primary production.
125
5 Online experiments: certification, willingness to

pay and Ecolabel
5.1 Background
This chapter contains the results from the three online experiments conducted by the
Consortium. The experiment were designed based on the feedback gathered during the previous
steps (focus groups, workshop, weighting exercise), where the following areas were identified
as potential complementary tests:
 Certification and Trust: Should PEF labels include a certification? and which institutions
do consumers trust more?
 Impact categories: To what extent are consumers concerned about different negative
impacts (e.g. on the environment, on human health) of product life cycle?
 Message framing: Are consumers persuaded more by positive or negative messages?
 Willingness to pay: To what extent are consumers willing to pay more for
environmentally-friendly product?
 Penalisation: Should a company who intentionally misinformed the public about the
environmental performance of a product be penalised?
 Ecolabel: How should a PEF label relate to the existing Ecolabel?
Accordingly, three large online experiments were designed to test the relative effectiveness of
CVs in terms of several dimensions, including:
 Understanding of PEF information: declared and factual;
 Attracting attention for the PEF and OEF information;
 Influence on the purchasing intentions in terms of willingness to pay and increased
perceived marginal utility of the product with PEF information over one without.
Box 1 – Discrete choice experiments
To understand what influences people’s choices we used an established methodology - the discrete
choice experiment. The method starts with the idea that a product or a service is a bundle of
attributes. Take a car for example, where the attributes contributing to a purchase decision might
be (i) number of seats, (ii) engine size and (iii) price. Each attribute may vary: (i) 2 or 4 seats; (ii)
more or less than 1500ccs engine size, and (iii) three levels of price low, medium and high.
If every combination of the levels of the three attributes is available then we have 2×2×3 = 12
possible cars to choose from. Of course real life is much more complicated – witness the range of
car sizes, colours, extras, prices etc.
Let us return to the simple life where only 12 cars are available. We take two of the possible 12 cars
(combinations of attributes) and ask respondents which one of the two they prefer. We then ask
them to choose between another pair of cars. Knowing their preferences for every possible pairing
of the 12 cars allows us to determine the relative importance or weight of the three attributes (the
number of seats, engine size and price) in their purchase decision.
The discrete choice experiments allows for the testing of several alternatives simultaneously in
a multi-country context. There are limitations to the number of CV variants that can be tested
because each one requires a separate group of respondents. The detailed nature of the
experiment entailed – as this is always the case – some trade-offs between what is desirable
and what is feasible.
126
5.2 Methodology
This section summarises the methodology used in the three experiments conducted. A detailed
description is provided as Annex.

The experiment aimed at understanding the importance of PEF rating certification – the source
of certification, framing, and trustworthiness - on consumer decision-making process. To achieve
this aim, an online experiment was conducted in four different countries: Sweden, Spain,
Germany and Romania. This selection was based on the Special Eurobarometer 416 Attitudes of
European citizens towards the environment (2014). Sweden and Spain are countries above the
EU28 average while Germany and Romania are below the EU28 average. In addition to the
different level of environmentally consciousness, these four countries represent different
geographical locations and different levels of per-capita GDP, Sweden and Germany faring above
the EU-28 average, Spain and Romania below average16.
The online experiment was performed in two steps: the experimental part using a discrete choice
experiment (Part 1) and the self-reported measures (Part 2), including questions (see sections
below) and psychometric scales. A representative sample (age and gender) of 1,500 internet
users was targeted in each country to capture variance.
Figure 50. Experimental design
Part 1: Discrete
Part 2: Self-reported
choice experiment
survey (6'-8')
(6'-8')
A discrete choice experiment is a quantitative technique for eliciting preferences, allowing to
understand what is important in consumer decision-making process. The decisions that the
participants take in the experiment are simple. They were asked to choose a preferable product
between two on the basis of its mutually exclusive attributes (in random order). The discrete
choice experiment is the simplest of the choice techniques and has the advantage of low
cognitive complexity – the degree of task complexity and difficulty arising from the experiment.
The discrete choice experiment used two different dimensions, frames and sources of
certifications:
 Three message frames: one pointing out the positive (e.g. the benefits for our health),
one pointing out the negative (e.g. the suffering of our children), and a baseline
condition.
 Six different sources of certification of the environmental score
A total of 10 comparisons between two options were shown to each respondent. In conditions of
limited information about products, comparisons mean choosing between two items that have
the same rating. As with the rating, the PEF scale was maintained constant (ABCDE-style). The
design was replicated for the following three products, with 500 respondents by product:
 Laptop (High cost purchase – Low frequency purchase);
 T- shirt (Medium cost purchase – Medium frequency purchase);
 Milk (Low cost purchase– High frequency purchase).
Each product carried an environmental label with the following attributes:
 Headline “Environmental impact”;
 ABCDE-scale PEF rating, which was maintained constant for all options at “B” level;
 Frame, one among the following:
16
Source: Eurostat [nama_10_pc].
127
1. Positive messages with an emphasis on the benefits:

 Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children;
 Protect our environment to benefit our health;
2. Negative messages with an emphasis on the risks/costs:
 Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the environment;
 Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment;
3. Baseline condition:
 Protect our environment.
 Source of certification:
1. None
2. National government
3. The European Commission
4. An Industry body from each country
5. A Consumer Organisation from each country
6. A third party organisation (independent body)
As an example, choice set #3 for milk in Spain is shown in the picture below.
Figure 51 Study on Certification and Trust – Choice example
A random sample of 6,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (Sweden, Romania, Spain,
Germany) to produce the general public survey (1,500 respondents per each of the 4 countries).
represented in the survey.
In each country, the total sample was split by the number of products, so that each product
shown had the same sample. This was done to avoid task overload. For each product sample,
the study took the shape of a within-subject design. Each respondent was tested under each
condition17.
17
There are two fundamental advantages of the within subjects design: a) power and b) reduction in error variance
associated with individual differences. A fundamental inferential statistics principle is that, as the number of subjects
grows, statistical power increases, and the probability of beta error decreases (the probability of not finding an effect
when one "truly" exists). This is why it is always better to have more subjects. The reason this is so relevant to the
within subjects design is that, by using a within-subjects design you have in effect increased the number of "subjects"
relative to a between subjects design.
128
The following table summarises the sample specification.
Table 22 Study on Certification and Trust – Sample specification

4 EU Member States:
Scope
 Sweden
 Romania
 Spain
Germany

 Age
Quotas
 Gender
Country
specific data

overall data
After the experimental part, respondents were asked the following questions, each focusing on
a specific aspect:
 Certification: How much would you trust the following to certify the accuracy of
 Competence: Do you think the following organisations would have the expertise to
provide accurate product environmental information on consumer products? Do you think
the following organisations would have the expertise to verify accurate product
environmental information on consumer products?
 Fiduciary responsibility: Do you think they could be relied on to act in the public interest
regarding product environmental information?
 Effectiveness: In the development and introduction of product environmental information
for consumers how effective do you think the following would be?
 Leadership: Who should lead the development and introduction of product environmental
information?
 Penalties: If it is found that a company has intentionally misinformed the public about
the environmental performance of a product, which of the following would be most
appropriate?
 Importance: Of the following aspects, which one do you consider the most important
when buying XXYY?
Annex IV. Certification and Trust contains a detailed description of the methodological approach.
129
5.2.2 Study on Willingness to Pay and PEF

This complementary test aimed at understanding the importance of a product’s price, its
environmental performance, and the PEF label’s appearance in consumer decision-making. To
achieve this aim, an online experiment was conducted in four different countries: France,
Germany, Italy and Poland. This selection is based on the same criteria mentioned in the
previous complementary test.
The design of this experiment could be considered as functionally equivalent to the experiment
conducted by the French government “The impact of environmental labelling on consumer
choices: lessons from a large-sample choice experiment”18.
In our complementary test, respondents made choices across three product types – Yogurt,
t-shirt, and laptop. The characteristics that varied in the products’ descriptions are:
 PEF description (3 levels)
o Overall PEF score;
o Overall PEF score plus three exemplary midpoints;
o Only three midpoints
 PEF performance
o B/better
o D/worse
 Prices)
o Baseline
o Plus 7%
o Plus 15%
The choice of midpoints reflected the work conducted by the Dairy pilot (for yogurt), the T-shirt
pilot (for t-shirt), and the IT equipment pilot (for laptops). The following midpoints were
accordingly selected:
 Yogurt: Climate Change / Water use / Land use
 T-shirt: Climate Change / Particular Matter / Freshwater Eutrophication
 Laptop: Climate Change / Particular Matter / Resource use: metals and minerals
As an example, choice set #4 for a t-shirt in Italy is shown in the picture below.
Figure 52 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice example
The target consisted of 1500 individuals per country and 4 countries (France, Germany, Italy
and Poland). The selection of the countries followed the same criteria of the previous experiment.
18
In May 2016, the report published by the French government read that “The aim of environmental labelling is to
educate consumers about the environmental impact of the products they buy. Unlike ecolabels, which are manifested
by the presence of a logo on consumer products, the principle of environmental labelling is to display quantitative
information on the environmental footprint of the products, in the form of a graduated scale for example”. Within this
context, the study aimed at analysing the impact of such a scheme on consumer choices, estimating consumers’
willingness to pay for better environmental quality from their product choices. In the French study, the contrasts were
(i) voluntary or compulsory labelling (ii) presentation of an aggregate PEF score or not (iii) environmental impact
mentioned or not (iv) branded product or not.
130
The experiment consisted of a repeated measures design for the three products (Yogurt, t-shirt
and laptop in random order) followed by a number of questions on the social context in which
the environmental concern is discussed by the participants and the socio-demographic
characteristics.
A list of questions was asked at the end of the choice experiments in all versions of the
questionnaire exploring the respondents’ opinion of the current environmental information as
they come across it in their daily lives (clarity, usefulness, etc.), their habits in terms of
sustainable consumption and their awareness of ecological issues. These questions are asked
after the choice experiments so as not to influence the product choices. In total, the average
time for answering the questionnaire is 20 minutes. The experiment was conducted over the
internet in the context of an on-line purchase, in which boxes of washing powder, yoghurt and
jeans are offered for sale, with each product bearing a label summarizing its environmental
impact (over its life-cycle).
A random sample of 6,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (France, Italy, Germany,
Poland) to produce the general public survey (1,500 respondents per each of the 4 countries).
The following table describes the sample specification:
Table 23 Study on Willingness to Pay – Sample specification

4 EU Member States:
Scope
 Germany
 France
 Italy
Poland

 Age
Quotas
 Gender
Country
specific data

overall data
Annex V. Study on Willingness to Pay contains a detailed description of the methodological

approach.
131

The third experiment was conducted in 4 countries (France, Poland, Sweden and Slovenia). In
each country 1,000 people were surveyed. The study aimed at investigating the consumers'
choice when presented with a product displaying a PEF label as opposed to the EU Ecolabel, as
well as with labels that include both PEF information and the Ecolabel, across two products
(laptop and household detergent). It began with a “recognition” stage, where respondents were
asked whether they could recall the Ecolabel. The first stage was followed by a discrete-choice
experiment, an open-ended question, and socio-demographics.
In the experimental stage, the characteristics that varied in the products’ descriptions (laptop
and detergent) are:
1. Label (3 levels)
a) Ecolabel alone
b) PEF information alone
c) Ecolabel + PEF information
2. Style
a) 'Streetlight' 3 ratings (“Environmental impact: compared to similar products, this
product is better/average/worse”)
b) 5 ratings (ABCDE)
3. PEF performance
a. Worst/Red (when presented with three rating style) and D (when presented with
the 5 ratings style.
b. Average/Yellow (when presented with three rating style) and C (when presented
c. Better/Green (when presented with three rating style) and B (when presented
4. Price
a) Baseline
b) Plus 7%
c) Plus 15%
As an example, choice set #7 for a detergent in France is shown in the picture below.
Figure 53 Study on Ecolabel – Choice example
A random sample of 4,000 individuals was drawn from 4 countries (France, Poland, Sweden,
Slovenia) to produce the general public survey (1,000 respondents per each of the 4 countries).
132
broader environmental awareness. The following table describes the sample specification:
Table 24 Study on Ecolabel – Sample specification

4 EU Member States:
Scope
 France
 Poland
 Sweden
 Slovenia

 Age
Quotas
 Gender
 Country
specific data

overall data
Annex VI. Study on Ecolabel contains a detailed description of the methodological approach.
5.3 Findings
Certification is seen as a trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. In
the first experiment, consumer choice is positively correlated with the presence of a message
indicating that a product’s environmental rating has been certified. This is especially true among
laptop buyers, where the effect is the largest for “independent third party” certification followed
by certification issued by the European Commission. Conversely, among milk buyers a
certification from the “consumer association” seems to hold the strongest effect. Certification by
national governments and industry association are likewise positively affecting choice, but by a
lesser margin (compared to the abovementioned sources) across all products.
With regards to how the accompanying message is framed, the effect of negative messages on
consumer choice (compared to the baseline message) is quite large and significant. The most
effective frame across the three products (laptop, t-shirt, milk) seems to be the negative
message regarding children, e.g. (in English): “Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the
environment”. This seems to discourage consumers from the choice of a given product ceteris
paribus, and it is particularly true for t-shirt and milk buyers. The negative message on Health
(“Our health will suffer if we ignore the Environment”) has a large (negative) and significant
effect on choice as well. The difference across products is negligible. On the other hand, the
effect of the “positive” message on children (in English, “Protect our environment to benefit our
country’s children”) is not significant.
133
The effect of the “positive” frame on health has an opposite effect: all things equal, respondents
are less likely to choose a product whose label contains the baseline message (i.e. “protect our
Environment”) compared to a message in the vein of “Protect our environment to benefit our
Health”. Summing up, the most effective label seems to be the one combining a negative
message about children (across all products) with the third-party certification (for laptop
and t-shirt buyers) or the consumer association certification (for milk buyers).
Table 25 Study on Certification and Trust – Most effective labels
# Frame # Source
Laptop Laptop
environment”
the environment” European Commission”
3 “Protect our environment” 3 “This rating has been verified by the
[COUNTRY] Consumer Association”
T-shirt T-shirt
environment”
the environment” [COUNTRY] Consumer Association”
Milk Milk
1 “Our countries’ children will 1 “This rating has been verified by the
suffer if we ignore the [COUNTRY] Consumer Association”
environment”
2 “Our health will suffer if we ignore 2 “This rating has been verified by an
the environment” independent third party”
A discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show: coefficients, odds
ratios, the probability of increasing or decreasing product selection, standard errors, t-values
and p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth” estimate, or the utility
associated with that attribute. In the analysis, the “baseline” frame (“Protect our environment”)
and the lack of certification source (“source = none”) were used as reference points, their part-
worth are structural zeroes and therefore do not appear in the following output tables. Two
columns in tables 26, 27 and 28 are important to interpret the results, one reports the odds
ratio (that is the exponential function of the estimates) and another the directly interpretable
positive or negative probability of product selection (e.g. +50% means 50% more chances of
selecting a product, -30% less chances of selecting it).
134
Table 26 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Laptop)

ratio
Message framing negative -0.3463 0.70 - 30% 0.0420 -8.2417 2.220e-16 ***
impact on children
impact on health
Message framing positive 0.0178 1.01 +1% 0.0350 0.5077 0.6117
impact on children
impact on health
association
Certification: National 0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0376 6.5099 7.519e-11 ***
government
Certification: Independent 0.6015 1.80 80% 0.0468 12.8638 < 2.2e-16 ***
third Party
Certification: Industry 0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0333 7.3474 2.021e-13 ***
Table 27 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (T-shirt)

ratio
impact on children
impact on health

impact on children
Message framing positive 0.1474 1.15 +15% 0.0398 3.7044 0.0002119 ***
impact on health
association

government

third Party
Table 28 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Milk)

ratio
impact on children
impact on health
impact on children
impact on health
association

government
third Party
135
Experimental results seem to be confirmed in the survey analysis. Consumer

organisations and the European Commission are the most trusted actors to certify the accuracy
of PEF information on products, with the share of respondents trusting “completely” or “a lot”
being 72% (Consumer organisation) and 59% (European Commission). Conversely, less than
half of respondents would trust their national government (46%) or “an independent third party”
(42%).
Figure 54 Study on Certification and Trust - How much would you trust the following
to certify the accuracy of environmental information on consumer products?
Third party 10% 36%
Completely Quite a lot Not very much Not at all Don’t know
In terms of competence, more than three-fourth of respondents believe that a consumer

organisation would have the expertise to provide (76%) and verify (74%) accurate PEF
information on consumer products. The European Commission is the next most trusted entity,
with 67% and 68% of respondents who believe the EC has the competence, respectively, to
provide and verify accurate PEF information. The expertise of industry associations, national
governments, and independent third parties seems granted for at least half of respondents.
to provide accurate PEF information on consumer products?
Third party 12% 44%
136
to verify accurate PEF information on consumer products?
Third party 12% 44%
Likewise, respondents rely on consumer organisations and the EC to act in the public
interest about PEF information. Around 76% of participants believes that consumer
organisations can be relied on, and around 63% thinks the same of the European Commission.
Third parties (55%), industry associations (54%) and the national governments (53%) follow.
Figure 57 Study on Certification and Trust - Do you think they could be relied on to
act in the public interest regarding product environmental information?
Third party 12% 43%
In the development and introduction of product environmental information for
consumer products, a consumer organisation is judged as very or moderately “effective” by
82% of respondents, followed by the European Commission (73%), an industry association
(70%), a third party (66%), and the national government (63%). Around the same share of
respondents (83%) believes that consumer associations should lead the development and
introduction of PEF information, as should the European Commission (76%) and national
governments (70%), followed by industry (66%) and third parties (63%).
137
Figure 58 Study on Certification and Trust - In the development of PEF information

for consumers, how effective would the following actors be?
Third party 14% 52%
Very effective Moderately effective Moderately ineffective Very ineffective
Figure 59 Study on Certification and Trust - Who should lead the development and
introduction of PEF information?
Third party 16% 47%
Completely Agree Agree Disagree Completely Disagree
Finally, with regards to penalties, an overwhelming majority agrees with inflicting sanctions on
misbehaving companies. Should it be found that “a company has intentionally misinformed the
public about the environmental performance of a product”, most respondents believe that the
company should be “named and shamed in public” (80% “agree” or “completely agree”) or pay
a fine (84% “agree” or “completely agree”).
138
Figure 60 Study on Certification and Trust - If it is found that a company has

intentionally misinformed the public about the environmental performance of a
product, which of the following would be most appropriate?
Public shaming Pay a fine
80% 84%
The survey analysis sheds some light on the relative importance to customers of different
factors at the moment of buying a t-shirt, a laptop, and a milk carton. Respondents were asked
to rank a number of factors from first to last. Ranking questions calculate the average ranking
for each choice, so as to determine which factor was most preferred. We define the choice with
the largest average ranking as the most preferred. The following formula shows the calculation
of average ranking:
∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 𝑤𝑖 ) 𝑥𝑖 𝑤𝑖
𝑥̅ =
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖
In the formula ‘w’ is the weight of the ranked position, and ‘x’ is the response count for the
choice. We have assigned different weights in reverse, giving the largest weight to a
respondent’s favourite choice (#1) and a weight of 1 to the least favourite choice (e.g. #5 for
laptop, and #6 for t-shirt and milk). This ensures that when the data is presented on a bar chart,
it is clear which factor is the most preferred.
Quality is the most important factor across the three products; environmental impact
is the third highest factor for t-shirt and milk buyers, and the fourth highest for laptop
buyers. With regards to t-shirts, quality is the main factor (score of 9,514) followed by price
(8,119) and environmental impact (7,424). Quality is the main factor in the purchasing process
of a laptop (7,432), although the performance (7,219) is a close second, followed by price
(6,475) and environmental impact (5,006). Likewise, milk buyers ranked quality first (score of
9,634) which is clearly distant from the country of origin (6,965) and environmental impact
(6,930).
Figure 61 Study on Certification and Trust – Factors (self-declared) that influence
the decision of buying a t-shirt
Quality 9514
Price 8119
Organic 6588
Brand 5036
139
buying a laptop
Quality 7432
Performance 7219
Price 6475
Brand 3868
Source: Q10 (n=2,000)

buying a milk carton
Quality 9634
Organic 6907
Price 6781
Brand 4762
Source: Q11 (n=2,000)
140
5.3.2 Study on Willingness to Pay

In the second experiment, using midpoints to express PEF yields, compared to overall scores,
to a higher consumer willingness to pay for a product with a given environmental footprint. The
combination of endpoints and midpoints has a significant but negligible effect. Notably, all things
equal, a high environmental score on a label (such as a B) has a very large positive and
significant effect on consumer choice, regardless of the PEF label style 19. Effects are similar
across products. Finally, the price increase effect is negative and significant. Summing up, the
most effective label seems to be the one including midpoints combined with a high score
Table 29 Study on Willingness to Pay – Most effective labels
# PEF style PEF score Price

Laptop Laptop Laptop
T-shirt T-shirt T-shirt
†
Yogurt Yogurt Yogurt
†
In the analysis, a discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show:
coefficients, odds ratio, probability (derived from the odds ratio), standard errors, t-values and
p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth” estimate, or the utility
associated with that attribute. Two columns in tables 30, 31 and 32 are important to interpret
the results, one reports the odds ratio (that is the exponential function of the estimates) and
another the directly interpretable positive or negative probability of product selection. For
example, a PEF Score B increases almost three times and half the probability of selection for
laptops (table 30). The “endpoints only” PEF style, the “negative” PEF score (D), and the baseline
price were used as reference points. Their part-worth are structural zeroes, and therefore they
do not appear in the following output tables.
19
The effect magnitude should be assessed keeping into account that respondents had access to a limited amount of
information – i.e. price, PEF score, and PEF label – to make their choice.
141
Table 30 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Laptop)

ratio Error
PEF three exemplary mid- 0.2703 1.31 +31% 0.0220 12.2747 < 2.2e-16
points ***
three exemplary mid ***
points
Overall PEF score B 1.5022 4.49 +349% 0.0200 75.1190 < 2.2e-16
***
PRICE +15% -1.0923 0.33 -67% 0.0283 - < 2.2e-16

38.5768 ***
PRICE +7% -0.5497 0.57 -43% 0.0209 - < 2.2e-16

26.2926 ***
Table 31 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (T-shirt)

ratio Error
points
three exemplary mid
points
PRICE +15% -1.4381 0.23 -77% 0.0294 - <2e-16 ***

48.8561
PRICE +7% -0.7025 0.49 -51% 0.0208 - <2e-16 ***

33.7081
Table 32 Study on Willingness to Pay – Results (Yogurt)

ratio Error
points
three exemplary mid
points
PRICE +15% -1.3995 0.24 -76% 0.0296 - <2e-16 ***

47.3038
PRICE +7% -0.7074 0.49 -51% 0.0210 - <2e-16 ***

33.6369
142
Looking at the survey analysis, around seven in ten respondents (71%) think of themselves as
“environmentally-friendly” consumers, and around two-thirds (66%) repute themselves as
people who are “very concerned with environmental issues”. In terms of social context, most
respondents would not be embarrassed to be seen as having an environmentally friendly lifestyle
(70% disagree with the opposite), and do not seem to be living in a hostile context towards
environmental issues (65% disagree with the statement “I would not want my family or friends
to think of me as someone who is concerned about environmental issues”).
Figure 64 Study on Willingness to Pay – Social context
I think of myself as an environmentally-friendly

20% 51%
consumer
I think of myself as someone who is very concerned

20% 46%
with environmental issues
I would not want my family or friends to think of me
as someone who is concerned about environmental 30% 35%
issues
I would be embarrassed to be seen as having an
27% 43%
environmentally friendly lifestyle
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree
More than two-thirds of respondents (71%) have a family concerned about the environment.
More than half of respondents (58%) believe their friends to be engaged with environmental
issues. Family (68%) and friends (60%) also seem to be the groups with whom respondents
discuss the most about the environment, much more than they do with people in their local
community (40%) or with officials in their municipality (30%).
Figure 65 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you believe are the
following groups of people around you concerned and engaged about environmental
issues?
Famiy 21% 50%
Friends 12% 46%
Very much Quite a lot Not very much Not at all Don’t know
143
Figure 66 Study on Willingness to Pay - To what extent do you discuss with the
following groups of people around you about environmental issues?
Famiy 21% 47%
Friends 15% 45%
Very much Quite a lot Not very much Not at all

In the Ecolabel study, 32.6% of respondents answered positively to the introductory question
“Have you seen [the Ecolabel] before? There is a large cross-country variation in the recognition
of the label - around half of respondents from France (51%), while less than a third in Poland
(20%), Sweden (29%), and Slovenia (31%).
Figure 67 Study on Ecolabel –Respondents who have seen the Ecolabel logo before,
by country
France Poland Sweden Slovenia
51% 20% 29% 31%
Moving on to the experimental findings of the study, the PEF label is better at influencing
consumers' preferences than both the ecolabel, and to the PEF+ecolabel combination.
The effect is large and significant. In general, the effect of all attributes is mixed and significant.
The PEF label (“Environmental impact” title accompanied by a rating) seems to be preferred over
both the “Ecolabel only” and the “mixed” (PEF + Ecolabel) solutions, for both laptops and
detergents. Not much difference is found among the two products: the “mixed” label has a
slightly higher effect on detergent buyers, while the PEF label has a relatively higher, but
negligible, effect on laptop buyers than on detergent buyers. Respondents clearly prefer the
presence of a rating, over its absence (“ecolabel only” option).
In terms of rating system, the “ABCDE” style is preferred over the “streetlight”
(better/average/worse) style. All other things equal, consumers are slightly more likely to pay
an extra +15% for environmental-friendly products. The opposite is true for a 7% increase, in
both laptops and detergents. In both cases, the price increase effect is negligible. Summing up,
the most effective label seems to be the one including the PEF component only, combined
with the “ABCDE” 5-rating style, an “average” score and a +15% price increase.
144
Table 33 Study on Ecolabel – Most effective labels
# Label PEF style Performance Price

Laptop Laptop Laptop Laptop
Detergent Detergent Detergent Detergent
For the analysis, a discrete choice model was used. For each of the attributes, the tables show:
coefficients, odds ratios, probabilities (increased or decreased probability of selection) standard
errors, t-values and p-values. In discrete choice models, each coefficient is a “part-worth”
estimate, or the utility associated with that attribute. Two columns in tables 34 and 35 are
important to interpret the results, one reports the odds ratio (that is the exponential function of
the estimates) and another the directly interpretable positive or negative probability of product
selection. For example, the label PEF increases of 106% the chance of product selection for
laptops and 104% for detergents.
The “ecolabel only” option, the “streetlight” (better/average/worse) style, the negative rating,
and the baseline price were used as reference points. Their part-worth are structural zeroes, and
therefore they do not appear in the following output tables.
Table 34 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Laptop)
ratio Error
***
***
***

Better/Green/B ***
PRICE +15% 0.0830 1.08 +8% 0.0206 4.0312 5.550e-05

***
PRICE +7% -0.1134 0.89 -11% 0.0196 -5.7907 7.009e-09

***
145
Table 35 Study on Ecolabel – Results (Detergent)

ratio Error
***
***
***

Better/Green/B ***
PRICE +15% 0.0872 1.09 +9% 0.0205 4.2507 2.131e-05

***
PRICE +7% -0.0839 0.92 -8% 0.0196 -4.2836 1.839e-05

***
5.4 Lessons learned from the experiments

Study on Certification and Trust
 Certification is seen as a trustworthy label feature across all products and sources.
 A large and significant effect of “negative” frames on consumer choice is found.
 The most effective label is the one combining a negative message about children with
the third party (or consumer association) certification.
Study on Willingness to Pay
 Using midpoints to communicate a product’s environmental performance is more
effective compared to both using overall scores and using a mixed approach.
 All things being equal, a high environmental score on a label has a very large positive
and significant effect on consumer choice, regardless of how the label looks like.
 The most effective label is the one displaying midpoints, combined with a high score
Study on Ecolabel
 Only a third of respondents, selected through nationally representative samples,
recalls having seen Ecolabel before.
 The PEF label is preferred to both the Ecolabel, and the “PEF + Ecolabel” combination.
The effect is large and significant.
 The most effective label is the one combining the PEF label with the “ABCDE” 5-rating
style, an “average” score, and a +15% price increase.
146
6 Further studies
6.1 Brick and mortar test
6.1.1 Design
A brick and mortar test was carried out to corroborate the evidence, and to validate the
results of the online experiments in an everyday setting. The test was conducted by a research
market company (GFK) at a supermarket chain in Belgium (Colruyt), and aimed at answering
the following questions:
 Do the CVs stand out in the store? Are customers triggered by the CVs to buy the
associated products?
 Which CVs and formats are more effective and best suited to be tested in the future?
 What is the impact of such a communication campaign on the retailer’s brand image?
Two logos were prepared for the test. Logo #1 displayed a smiley over a planet-shaped face.
Logo #2 displayed a planet Earth icon.
Figure 68 CV logos tested
Logo #1 Logo #2
Each logo was tested in the following three formats, for a total of 6 CVs:
 Product sticker in the upper right corner on the product;
 A pancarte in the middle of the product shelf;
 A Wobbler at the beginning and the end of the product shelf.
The following figure shows the six CVs displayed.
Figure 69 Labels tested in the brick and mortar exercise
Format Logo #1 Logo #2
Sticker
Pancarte
Wobbler
Fieldwork was conducted in six retail stores of the same company in Belgium. Logos and the
corresponding CVs were shown in three stores each. Logo #1 was tested in Diest, Woluwe,
and Braine l’Alleud stores. Logo #2 was tested in Brasschaat, Ukkel, and Jambes. As an
additional CV, each store displayed the following poster at the entrance of their premises:
147
Figure 70 Poster
6.1.2 Methodology and sample

Two methodologies were used to gather data: exit interviews and in-store observations. In
the former, one interviewer surveyed shoppers at the exit of the store. Respondents were
selected based on their answer to the question: “Were you planning to buy one of the following
products when entering the store today?”
A. Diapers
B. Pork meat
C. Milk cartons
D. None of these
Respondents who gave “D” as an answer were screened out. A total of 620 exit interviews were
conducted across all stores: 305 respondents saw Logo#1, while 315 respondents saw Logo #2.
Although no quota was set, the interviewer took care of sample distribution in terms of gender,
age group, and shopping habits (i.e. alone or with family). Two-thirds (63%) were women, while
the remaining (37%) were men. Around 84% of respondents mainly shop at that retailer. In
terms of household composition, more than half was a member of a family with kids.
148
Figure 71 Sample distribution – exit interviews
Gender Age Household composition
14%2%
10%
42%
17%
37%
53% 37%
63% 25%
Couple/Married with kids living at home
Single
Female < 30
Male Couple/Married without kids 30-50
Couple/Married with kids who don’t live at 50+
home
Living with parents
In addition, a number of in-store observations were performed. One interviewer observed

clients visiting a specific section in the shop. Sections, specifically meat, diapers, and milk
cartons, were visited on a rotation basis. The company report that 5,686 observations were
performed: 2,602 observed customers saw Logo #1, while 3,084 customers saw Logo #2.
Around 61% of the customers were female. Some 19% were shopping with kids at the moment
of the observation, while the remaining 81% were shopping without kids. The company
estimates that 44% of the observed were aged 30-50, while 19% was younger and 37% was
older.
6.1.3 Findings
While walking in the store, around half of the customers observed slowed down (53% among
those who saw Logo #1, and 49% among those who saw Logo #2), and four in ten customers
took a closer look at the environmentally-friendly products (46% among those who saw Logo
#1, and 43% among those who saw Logo #2). Around one in four customers took the product
in their hands (26% among those who saw Logo #1, and 29% among those who saw Logo #2),
and a slightly lower share went on to buy the product carrying the label or placed near one
(23% among those who saw Logo #1, and 28% among those who saw Logo #2).
Figure 72 Reactions to the CVs
Slowing down 53%

49%
Closer look 46%

43%
Taking product 26%

29%
Buying product 23%

28%
Logo 1 Logo 2
n= 5,686
149
During their shopping visit, around 29% of respondents to the interview spontaneously noticed
the environmental communication. This figure refers to respondents who replied
affirmatively to the question “During your visit today, did you notice any communication, signs,
labels or marks of environmental responsiveness in this store?”. Respondents were then aided,
i.e. they were asked “We now show you the communication labels that were present in this
store. Which of the following labels have you noticed?”. The proportion of respondents who
saw at least one CV increased to 40%.
In terms of which communication vehicle (CV), the affiche (or poster) is noticed most, both
spontaneously (10%) and aided (18%). Among the labels, the sticker was noticed by 10%
(spontaneously) and 9% (aided) of respondents; the pancarte was noticed by 8%
(spontaneously) and 15% (aided) of respondents; and the wobbler was noticed by 1%
(spontaneously) and 5% (aided) of respondents.
Figure 73 Most noticed CVs
Affiche 10%
18%
Sticker 10%
9%
Pancarte 8%
15%
Wobbler 1%
5%
Spontaneously Aided
n= 620
The pancarte fared slightly better among those who saw Logo #2 (16%) than among those who
saw Logo #1 (14%). Similarly, the wobbler was noticed more often (6%) by those who saw Logo
#2 compared to those who saw Logo #1 (4%). Respondents who saw Logo #1 remember having
seen the sticker slightly more often (9%) than those who saw Logo #2 (8%). The pancarte was
also noticed more often by women (18% for Logo #1 viewers, 21% among Logo #2) then by
men (8% in both cases), who anyway are under-represented in the sample as explained before.
Among those who saw Logo #2, the sticker performed particularly better among younger
customers, having been noticed by 13% of people younger than 50 years old as opposed to 5%
among people aged 50 or older.
CVs do not appear to be the main driver to buy products. Among those respondents who
noticed one label and bought the product (n=64), nearly one in four did so because it was an
“eco-friendly product”. This is higher among those who saw Logo #1 (37%) than among those
who saw Logo #2 (15%). However, only 6% of purchasers were influenced by the CV in their
purchasing decision. The figure is slightly higher for Logo #1 viewers (7%) and lower for Logo
#2 viewers (3%). Among respondents who saw the label but nonetheless decided not to buy the
product, nobody mentioned the CV as a reason not to purchase.
150
Figure 74 Purchasing drivers
28%
Eco-friendly product 37%
15%
16%
Other 15%
8%
23%
Habit 15%
29%
23%
Needed product 15%
29%
8%
Is good 10%
3%
6%
Influenced by CV 7%
7%
5%
Don't know 2%
9%
All Logo 1 Logo 2
n= 620
When asked which type of CV they would hypothetically use to communicate environmental
performance, over half of the respondents choose the pancarte label (54%). The sticker was
preferred by 27% of respondents, while the wobbler was preferred by 18% of respondents.
Reasons to justify their choice – regardless of the format – tend to include clarity, visibility, and
simplicity.
Figure 75 Favourite CV
27%
54%
18%
Pancarte Wobbler Sticker
n= 620
151
Overall, logo #1 is preferred to logo #2. Among all respondents, 54% prefer Logo #1. It is
especially popular among women (60%, versus 48% of men) and younger people (74%, versus
50% among those aged 50 or older). Logo #1 is especially liked because of its cheerful and
attractive character. Some people also indicate it as more visible. On the other hand, the 46%
of respondents who prefer Logo #2 does so in relation to its seriousness. Even though it is
more serious, still one out of ten prefer it, because they think it is beautiful.
Figure 76 Perceptions of the two CV logos
Positive 73% 78%

Approachable 63% 64%
Serious 51% 75%
Clear 59% 64%
Light 54% 58%
Convincing 49% 51%
Attractive 47% 55%
Difficult / heavy 18% 19%
Labels Logo A Logo B
n= 620
In addition, the study asked respondents whether taking a stance towards environmental
footprint communication positively impacts the retailer’s brand image. Overall, the answer is
affirmative. Around 72% of the interviewees indicated that it improves their general opinion of
the retailer, and around 68% indicated it fit with the image they already have about the retailer.
In addition, around 42% of respondents are prepared to pay more for eco-friendly products.
This last figure is especially higher among women (45%, compared to 36% of men) and among
environmentally conscious shoppers (54%, versus 36% among low-sensitive shoppers). Logo
#2 has a higher impact on the retailer’s image than Logo #1 (72% versus 64%). Likewise,
respondents who saw Logo #2 tend to have more often an improved opinion of the retailer (76%
versus 68%) and are more often prepared to pay more (43% versus 30%).
Figure 77 Impact on the retailer’s brand image
Prepared to pay more 15% 16% 28% 25% 17%
Improves my general opinion of the retailer 7% 6% 15% 39% 33%
Fits with image I have about the retailer 6% 8% 18% 42% 26%
Totally disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Totally Agree
n= 620
Finally, respondents were asked to give their opinion on how a CV should look like. With regards
to the message, an overwhelming majority (95%) would rather have the CV conveying a
positive message (e.g. “Protect the environment for our children”) than a negative message
(e.g. “Our children will suffer if we ignore the environment”). There is no clear preference
between labels with letters and labels with a three-point scale. Finally, half of the respondents
think that having the possibility to access more information, e.g. through an app or
website is useful, and one third indicates that it would make them buy the product.
152
6.2 Smartphones and apps: a scoping review

6.2.1 Mobile use and access in Europe
ICTs have become widely available to the general public, both in terms of accessibility as well
as costs. Over the last ten years internet access grew steadily across Europe. According to
Eurostat20, since 2007 the majority of EU-28 households (55%) has had internet access, and
this proportion continued to increase over the years. In 2016, the share of EU-28 households
with internet access rose to 85%, 30 percentage points higher than in 2007.
The last few years have also seen a shift in how individuals access internet. According to
Eurostat21, in 2012, only 36% of Europeans have used a portable computer or a handheld device
to access the internet away from home or work. By 2016 they were 59%. Of the different devises
used by individuals, mobile phones or smart phones were the most used devices to browse the
internet in 2016, with over three-quarters (79%) of internet users. They were followed by
laptops or netbooks (64%), desktop computers (54%) and tablet computers (44%) 22. The EU-
28 average does not capture the digital divide found among the different Member States. As
reported in Figure 78, the highest proportion (82%) of individuals that have accessed internet
remotely was recorded in Denmark, while the United Kingdom, Sweden, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands and Finland also reported levels above 75% in 2016.
Figure 78: Individuals who used a portable computer or a handheld device to access
the internet away from home or work, 2012 and 2016
90%
2016 2012
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
NL
ES
EE
EL
HU
PL
EU-28
LU
HR
FI
PT
LT
IT
IE
SI
LV
DK
SE
BE
AT
MT
DE
RO
CY
SK
UK
FR
CZ
BG
Source: Eurostat
The lowest rates of remote internet access among the EU Member States were observed in Italy
(29%) and Poland (32%), the only two countries with 2016 levels below 40%. However, if there
is still a strong digital divide in terms of remote access to internet across Member States, it is
important to notice that the gap between the top performing and the lowest performing country
has shrunk from 63 percentage points in 2012 to 53 percentage points in 2016.
20
Household – level of internet access [isoc_ci_in_h]. Available at
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_ci_in_h&lang=en (retrieved 8 February 2018).
21
Individuals – mobile internet access [isoc_ci_im_i]. Available at
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_ci_im_i&lang=en (retrieved 8 February 2018).
22
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/digital-economy-and-society/data/database
153
6.2.2 Mobile in-store shopping

Despite the availability and usage of smart phones research, two different systematic reviews in
the field of mobile shopping (m-shopping) show that research is still in its infancy with findings
being often geographically and methodologically constrained 23,24. The current research available
has identified four main areas:
 m-shopping as an online distribution channel addressing the determinants of technology
acceptance and consumer profiling
 Marketing viewpoint
 Technology perspective tackling mobile IT infrastructure. Mobile user interface and
service and technology convergence.
 Advanced technology for in-store shopping covering shopping assistant systems:
o Decision support systems (DSS), for instance, utilize the users’ request for specific
product attributes, which can also include the search for background information,
in order to support their decision-making process.
o Mobile recommender systems (MRS) aims to provide consumers with meaningful
recommendations that might be of interest.
o Navigation systems help users to reach any desired destination faster and can be
located either inside or outside of a brick-and-mortar shop.
o Mobile tracking systems are used to record consumers’ shopping movements and
time, which gives retailers new insights into consumer behavior.
The focus of this scoping review is advanced technology for in-store shopping. The main
applications of the different shopping assistant systems identified above (DSS, MRS,…) could
influence customers shopping experience in a brick-and-mortar shop environment25 by:
 designing a customized, real-time interaction channel between retailers and consumers;
 delivering non-intrusive mobile marketing that caters to their interests, preferences and
priorities;
 assisting customers in making smart purchasing decisions; and
 helping in many other typical shopping situations such as navigation and payment.
All these systems and potential influences suggest the emergence of “smart” retail settings
including the use of augmented reality to generate greater customer and business value through
the use of smartphones26. Smart retail settings scenarios envisage the usage of mobile
applications (apps) as self-service technology (SST) allowing customers ownership of various
aspects of provider–customer relationships such as information seeking, price scanning and
actual purchases27. Within this context apps’ design becomes a hub for several elements from
product view presentation methods to product promotion, informative content and consumer
interactions. Since consumers could use their mobile devices for a variety of different shopping-
related activities, the mobile channel can be considered the new service frontier of retailers.
23
Michael Groß , (2015),"Mobile shopping: a classification framework and literature review", International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Iss 3 pp. 221 – 241
24
Hannah R. Marriott, Michael D. Williams, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, (2017) "What do we know about consumer m-shopping
behaviour?", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 45 Issue: 6, pp.568-586,
25
Yang, K. (2010), “Determinants of US consumer mobile shopping services adoption: implications for designing
mobile shopping services”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 262-270.
26
Dacko, S. G. (2017). Enabling smart retail settings via mobile augmented reality shopping apps. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 124, 243-256.
27
Christopher L. Newman, Kathleen Wachter, Allyn White, (2018) "Bricks or clicks? Understanding consumer usage of
retail mobile apps", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 Issue: 2, pp.211-222,
154
Figure 79 Product and services m-marketing design
Source: Magrath and MacCormicj (2013)28

Nevertheless, when considering the design of m-shopping services, retailers are currently
struggling to overcome obstacles regarding the consumers’ risk perception and restrictions of
mobile devices in terms of limited capabilities and usability issues. The impact and the role of
mobile technologies, such as smartphones and other mobile devices, is a subject still little
explored29. Enhancing value for customers across physical and digital touchpoints in a synergistic
fashion is becoming an increasingly complex task for retailers and many apps are simply not
meeting consumers’ needs27.
An empirical research29 on the impact of mobile device use on shopper behavior in store points
out “in a retail environment, mobile devices and new applications for smartphones allow
shoppers to scan product barcodes, compare prices across retailers or obtain digital coupons to
be redeemed in store. The usage of technologies in pre-shopping phase could help shoppers to
make better decision and being less influenced by the environment while expending less effort
inside the store. Therefore, digital tools may have positive effects on both the quality and the
efficiency of purchase decisions inside the store”.
However, despite shoppers' prolific use of mobile and marketers' shift of resources toward mobile
marketing, not much is known about the integration of mobile into the shopper funnel and how
to influence a shopper along and beyond the path-to-purchase: from a shopping trigger, to
purchase, consumption, repurchase, and recommendation stages.
The influence of mobile on shopping extends well beyond in-store use of mobile devices. It
affects every stage in the shopping cycle of not just the shopper but also his/her social
circle30.Therefore, a new research agenda is rapidly evolving in the intersection of mobile
marketing and shopper marketing. The following figure sketches the mobile shopper journey
and the emerging research questions covering the different entities and areas of interest. This
journey involves not just the shoppers (their motivations and goals; how they search and
discover; how they evaluate the options and choices and how post purchase process is
addressed) but also the employees and organisations.
28
Victoria Magrath, Helen McCormick, (2013) "Marketing design elements of mobile fashion retail apps", Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Issue: 1, pp.115-134,
29
Bellini, S., & Aiolfi, S. (2017). The impact of mobile device use on shopper behaviour in store: An empirical research
on grocery retailing. International Business Research, 10(4), 58.
30
Venkatesh Shankar, Mirella Kleijnen, Suresh Ramanathan, Ross Rizley, Steve Holland, Shawn Morrissey (2016).
Mobile Shopper Marketing: Key Issues, Current Insights, and Future Research Avenues, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 34 pp 37-48.
155
Figure 80: Mobile shopper journey and research questions
Each area sketched in the figure above opens unexplored questions that should be addressed
when considering the design, diffusion, adoption and assessment of smartphones in-store
shopping. The following table lists some of these questions.
Table 36 Research areas and unexplored questions

Entity Area of interest Research questions
Shopper Motivation/shopping RQ-S1 How do we design mobile apps that tap into goods that are
goals dynamic in relation to the shopping cycle and context?
Search and discovery RQ-S2 How do we better measure and enhance mobile shopper
engagement?
RQ-S3 How can marketers optimize their mobile app design to best
influence shoppers on their path to purchase?
Evaluation, RQ-S4 How should apps be designed to deliver rich experiences
consideration, and across a wide range of devices?
choice
RQ-S5 How can marketers enhance mobile co–creation?
RQ-S6 How can mobile enable shoppers to serendipitously discover
a potential purchase?
RQ-S7 How can marketers design a dream concierge/intelligent
avatar–knowledge-based system/expert system–to assist
shopping?
RQ-S8 In designing intelligent recommendation systems, how can
marketers walk the fine line between creating personalized
solutions but not being perceived as creepy?
RQ-S9 How can mobile create more relevant/valuable relationships
with the individual shopper?
RQ-S10 How can mobile be used to create context–related and timely
value to shoppers?
RQ-S11 How can the instantaneity of mobile be exploited to create
different forms of instant gratification for the engaged
shopper?
156
Post–purchase RQ-S12 How can marketers create a positive network effect among
shoppers in a social network after purchase of one category
through links across mobile apps?
Employee Employee roles RQ-E1 How does mobile change the shopping journey (pre, during,
and post) from an employee perspective?
RQ-E2 What are the factors that create resistance toward mobile
technologies from the employee perspective, and how can
firms develop coping strategies to overcome this resistance?
RQ-E3 How can employees utilize the mobile device within the
shopping journey to created new value propositions?
Employee metrics and RQ-E4 How can employees be incentivized to become mobile
incentives shopper marketing ambassadors?
RQ-E5 How can employees be utilized as co–creators of mobile
shopping experiences?
RQ-E6 How should employee–mindset metrics be conceptualized,
defined, and measured in the context of the mobile shopping
journey?
RQ-E7 How should employee performance be measured throughout
the mobile shopping journey?
Organisation Resource allocation RQ-O1 How can firms effectively develop and maintain their social
and spending issues capital in the context of mobile shopper marketing?
RQ-O2 How should mobile execution capability be conceptualized,
defined, and measured to enhance the mobile shopping
experience?
RQ-O3 How can firms effectively develop and maintain partnering
networks relevant to delivering a superior mobile shopper
experience?
RQ-O4 What are the right conversion metrics relating to mobile
shopper marketing relative to other marketing activities?
RQ-O5 How can the return on the investment (ROI) or digital yield
on mobile shopper marketing initiatives be quantified
compared to that for other desktop related digital activities?
RQ-O6 How should firms spend their limited marketing budgets?
RQ-O7 How much money should be allocated to mobile versus other
digital marketing activities?
RQ-O8 How should firms determine the proportion of the marketing
budget that should be devoted to mobile shopper marketing?
Data–related issues– RQ-O9 How can we harness the dynamic (time, location, weather)
collection and nature of mobile data?
management
RQ-O10 How can we leverage the volume, velocity, variety, veracity
of mobile data and derive value for the firm?
RQ-O11 How can we value mobile data?
RQ-O12 What is the price of collecting the data that mobile shoppers
want to share?
RQ-O13 How can we enhance data security in a mobile networked
world where firms share (APIs) with their partner
organizations?
Data–related issues– RQ-O14 How can we formulate effective decision models with mobile
modeling and analysis data?
RQ-O15 How can we integrate mobile data with other data, including
offline activities and demographic data and develop cogent
models?
RQ-O16 How can we analyze mobile data to formulate models that
explain shopper behavior?
RQ-O17 How can we develop predictive models that can forecast
mobile shopper behavior at both the individual and the
aggregate levels?
RQ-O18 How should firms use mobile data to assist real time mobile
marketing decisions?
157
Mobile Convergence RQ-T1 As shoppers increasingly search on their mobile devices

technology through Google and as Google becomes more powerful using
shopper data, what technologies can retailers deploy to avoid
becoming the fulfillment centers of Google and remain
competitive?
RQ-T2 How can marketers leverage technology and use data on
shoppers' past purchase patterns and voluntarily disclosed
preferences for offering anticipatory solutions?
RQ-T3 How can marketers use mobile–based virtual currencies in a
manner similar to M–pesa, Coke's MyCokeRewards, and
China's QQ?
RQ-T4 How will new mobile payment technologies (e.g., Apple Pay,
Google Wallet) and systems affect shopping?
RQ-T5 What differences in mobile shopping will emerge across North
America, Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world given the
differences in mobile technologies across these geographies?
RQ-T6 How can emotion–capture and analyze technology be used to
better serve shopper needs?
Wearables RQ-T7 How will augmented reality reshape mobile shopping
experience?
RQ-T8 Will augmented reality lead to a fundamentally different
shopping cycle?
RQ-T9 How can we measure shopper emotions through wearables?
RQ-T10 How can we create compelling shopper experiences based on
shopper emotional states?
All these questions raise the challenges that shall be faced to spread the use of mobiles
in-store shopping. If we add to these challenges the current state of development and
research in the field of environmental footprint information and communication vehicle
the level of uncertainty does not allow us to drawn solid extrapolation. On the contrary,
if the level of maturity of these applications is low, it could be hypothesised that
environmental footprint information and the potential communication vehicles are not
the most well-know product’s characteristics to facilitate this take off. The current
consumers’ level of awareness about environmental footprint information may not
facilitate the engagement with neither mobiles in-store shopping nor with
environmental information.
6.2.3 QR codes as an example

During the communication vehicle pilot phase some initiatives were using Quick-response code
technology (QR code) as and additional information included in their CVs. QR code allows linking
a physical product with additional information displayed in websites or apps. At its simplest,
a QR code might be embedded in a performance label printed on the product packaging.
However, as it has been described in the previous section, how these codes will be adopted by
the consumers is still unknown. The following review was conducted to investigate how
consumers react and perceive QR codes, what are the main drivers and barriers to QR codes
usage, and how QR codes can shape consumer behavior.
158
6.2.3.1 Diffusion
QR code technology is widely used in East Asia, especially Japan and China. According to
Shen Wei, deputy director of a Chinese research institute that specializes in QR codes, more
than $1.65 trillion of transactions used the codes in 2016 31, accounting for about a third of all
mobile payments in China. QR codes remain less common in Europe and North America,
despite their appearance in many fields, especially transport tickets and shipping labels.
QR codes became popular in Japan in 2002 32, when remote internet access was still at its early
stage. Advertisers, publishers and handset-makers teamed up to popularise QR codes as a way
to share information with customers. Japan led the field until 2012, when the use of 2D codes
in China boomed driven by the mobile payment sector. Two Chinese digital-payment platforms,
WeChat Pay and Alibaba’s Alipay, disrupted the mobile payment market by allowing people to
make contactless payments by scanning codes. A customer can either scan a merchant’s QR
code, or the merchant can scan the customer’s account code.
In Europe and North America, popular mobile payment tools are Apple Pay and Android Pay.
They use near-field communication (NFC) technology to make contactless payments. This
technology is usually only found in higher-end Android and Apple phones. The technology needed
to support Apple Pay and Android Pay is too expensive for many shops in poorer countries, while
QR code payment technology just requires sellers to provide buyers with a QR code (printed or
on a screen).
These geographical difference, make QR codes a well-established means to enable payments,
website discovery and more in certain parts of the world (East Asia), while its potential it is not
fully exploited in others (Europe and North America). These geographic gaps may soon
converge. Apple has responded to the codes’ popularity in China by updating the camera app in
iOS 11, the latest version of its mobile operating system launched in 2017. The system now
automatically recognises QR code that encodes web links, map locations, contact cards and other
data. Before the upgrade, users where required to download specific applications to be able to
scan QR codes. Apple’s upgrade means that QR-scanning will reach hundreds of millions of users
worldwide.
Interest in QR codes has grown more rapidly following Apple’s launch. Apps and websites that
allow designers to generate codes easily have gained new users 33. Nevertheless, Apple step
towards adopting QR codes as the infrastructure for everything from payment to web traffic may
not raise the popularity of QR codes in Europe and North America. Popularity of QR codes in
China was driven by its use for mobile payments, while NFC is already the standard for payments
In Europe and North America and it will not be challenged.
6.2.3.2 Use cases

If QR code-based mobile payments are unlikely to pick up in Europe and North America, QR code
technology use may increase using other means and applications. Here below we try to report a
few examples of recent QR codes applications and trends implemented in Europe and North
America. The examples focus on two main topics:
 The use of QR codes to provide additional information to consumers;
 Increase in popularity of QR code use in widely used apps, especially among millennials.
In 2015, the European Medicines Agency has issued guidelines to pharmaceutical companies
on how to use QR Codes in the labelling and package leaflet of centrally authorized medicinal
products34. Pharmaceutical companies have now the possibility to include QR codes on their
products to provide users with readily available information extracted from the approved
31
CNN (2017), available at: http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/08/technology/china-qr-codes/index.html
32
The economist (2017), available at: https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/11/economist-
explains-0
33
ibid.
34
http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2015/07/WC500190
405.pdf
159
package leaflet, the approved summary of products characteristics (SmPC) and/or the approved
additional risk minimisation measures as outlined in the Risk management plan (i.e. educational
material).
The QR code may also be used to provide any other information or content that is not
included in the product information annexes as such, but that it is useful to the patients/users
and non-promotional. Additional information provided via QR code should be based on the
product information. For the time being, the inclusion of the QR code cannot replace the
inclusion of the statutory information (e.g. printed package leaflet). The QR code could be
considered a way for providing updated information on medicinal products (i.e. product
information updated to the latest variation approved for the medicinal product still not
implemented in the printed version). At the moment, there has been no in-depth evaluation and
analysis of the impacts and interest of this decision on the QR Codes. The Heads of Medicines
Agencies (HMA), the network of the heads of the National Competent Authorities (NCA) whose
organisations are responsible for the regulation of medicinal products for human and veterinary
use in the European Economic Area, stated that once further experience is gained, further
analysis will be carried out on the use of QR codes 35.
In 2016 the United States (US) passed a federal law requiring all manufacturers to add a QR
Code to their product packaging that will link consumers to detailed GMO disclaimers.
A study conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 36, identify potential
technological challenges that may impact whether consumers would have access to the
bioengineering (GMO) disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods.
While the study recognises that enough shoppers own smartphones, it did admit not all people
have the applications or are savvy enough to read a QR code and may not have access to or
choose not to use cellular data.
The GMO debate in the US also started Smartlabel QR Code initiative by Trading Partner Alliance
(TPA), a grocery manufacturers association37. The voluntary initiative consists in providing
consumers with additional information on food, beverage, household and personal care products
by using QR code technology.
Another potential driver that might increase the popularity of QR code technology in Europe is
its introduction in widely used applications. WhatsApp, the most popular instant messaging
application in Europe, introduced QR Codes scanning capabilities in its application. Apart from
common uses, the feature allows users to safely login on the desktop application38. Snapchat, a
popular instant image sharing app, introduced Snapcodes in 2015 and an inbuilt QR Code
scanning feature in 2016. Snapcodes are customized 2D code that allow users to add friends on
Snapchat. Similarly, in 2017 Facebook introduced a Messenger Code a customised 2D code that
allow users to add friends on Messenger.
6.2.3.3 Drivers and barriers

As seen in the previous section, geographical differences in the use of the QR code already help
us explain some of the key drivers and barriers to QR code use. It may also explain why a mature
technology such as QR code may do a comeback after it failed to pick up as a marketing tool in
Europe and North America in 2010.
The need to download an app to scan QR Codes is one of the main factors in explaining the
difference between East Asia and Europe. Contrary to what is happening recently, also with the
introduction of iOS 11 on the market, almost no smartphone came already equipped with the
possibility to scan QR codes in the past. WeChat and Alipay were the two applications that lead
to the massive adoption of QR codes in China.
35
http://www.hma.eu/fileadmin/dateien/Human_Medicines/CMD_h_/procedural_guidance/01_General_Info/CMDh_313_
2014_clean.pdf
36
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/USDADeloitteStudyofElectronicorDigitalDisclosure20170801.pdf
37
http://www.smartlabel.org/
38
https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/web/28080003/
160
Smartphone penetration was much lower in 2010. A survey conducted in 2016 by Eurostat
on ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) usage in households and by individuals
highlighted the relevance of mobile internet access 39. More than 80% of persons aged 16 to 74
in the European Union (EU) used the internet in 2016, in many cases via several different
devices. Mobile phones or smart phones were the device most used to surf the internet, by over
three-quarters (79%) of internet users. The importance of smartphone penetration as a driver
of QR code usage is also highlighted by the USDA study 40.
Mobile speed connection was slower in 2010 as 4G technologies were not widely available.
According to the 2017 report from the GSA Association (GSMA) 41, Europe is the most highly
penetrated mobile region in the world. At the end of 2016, there were 456 million unique mobile
subscribers in Europe, equivalent to 84% of the population. This high penetration rate means
that there is little room for subscriber growth over the coming years. However, this is being
offset by the rapid migration to 4G networks. 4G accounted for a third of mobile connections in
Europe at the end of 2016 and is forecast to account for more than 60% of the total by 2020 as
more Europeans take up 4G devices amid growing demand for data and as 4G network coverage
increases.
The increase in mobile access to internet caused as a reaction an increase in availability of
mobile optimised websites. This trend self-reinforces the shift from desktop to mobile
browsing, easing the access of online information from mobile devices and therefore enabling a
better use of QR codes.
In terms of usage frequency, a study on college students’ awareness and use of QR codes was
carried out by Ozkaya et al. (2015). The findings indicate that the purpose of usage is
significantly related to QR code usage rate. Practical users utilise QR codes more than
experiential users and there is a positive relationship between electronic device
ownership and QR code usage. Interestingly, being an early adopter has a negative
relationship with QR code usage. Additionally, perceived usefulness of the QR code and up-to-
date electronic device knowledge do not have significant relationships with QR code usage rate.
The result of the study somewhat supports the results of the analysis conducted so far.
Smartphone penetration, mobile speed connection, easiness to scan QR codes and mobile-
optimised websites help to improve QR code technology in terms of usefulness, easiness to use,
information quality and system quality. Those good features clearly have an impact on
consumers attitude towards QR code and their intention and willingness to use such technology.
Behavioural studies show that consumer intentions and behaviours do not always match as other
factors may affect a consumer final action. The above-mentioned factors all aim at addressing
what ease QR code usage, nevertheless they do not analyse what motivates consumers to
turn to this technology to access and gather information. Smartphone-based access to
information is a promising vehicle to provide additional information to consumers, especially in
retail and point-of-purchase environments, yet what motivates consumers to turn to mobile
information is still under research. Since QR code technology relies on pull-based approaches
rather than push-style information, it becomes crucial to understand what drives consumer in
proactively use such a technology. In the field of advertising, push advertising describes
messages that are initiated by the advertiser, whereas pull advertising refers to communication
of promotional material initiated by the consumer (Barnes, 2002; Bamba and Barnes, 2007,
Unni and Harmon, 2007). By analysing the literature review on the topic, there are various
existing theories being applied for the analysis of QR Codes.
However, two theories are more frequently used. Those are the Uses & Gratifications Theory
(U&G) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, Davis, 1989). A research by Lucy Atkinson
(2013), investigates the role of institutional trust, involvement and market mavenism (the
extent to which a person enjoys being a source of market-related information for others) in QR
code usage to access information before purchasing sustainable products. The study uses a U&G
analysis. Sustainability claims about products being organic or fair trade are claims that fall
39
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7771139/9-20122016-BP-EN.pdf
40
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/USDADeloitteStudyofElectronicorDigitalDisclosure20170801.pdf
41
https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/?file=89a59299ac2f37508b252124726a1139&download
161
under the category of credence attributes, meaning attributes buyers cannot confidently
evaluate, even after one or more purchases (after personal experience). Thus, in lack of
alternatives, buyers tend to rely on the reputation of the brand name, testimonials from someone
they know or respect, service quality, and price (Darby and Karni, 1973; Nelson, 1974). When
available, consumers rely on eco-labels (such as the EU organic product label42) to affirm the
credibility of the credence claim (Klintman, 2006; Kolandai-Matchett, 2009). However, research
shows that while consumers are continuously moving towards shopping with a morally guided
conscience they have also become more distrustful towards labels that make ethical claims such
as organic health labels and others (Kalafatis and Pollard, 1999; D'Souza et al., 2007; Mostafa,
2007; Shrum, McCarty & Lowrey,1995). QR codes can increase consumer trust by providing
additional detailed, context-specific information.
Atkinson’s study finds that government trust, buycotting (the act of deliberately buying certain
products for political, ethical, or environmental reasons) and market mavenism are positively
related to consumers’ willingness to use mobile phone-based QR code information. At the same
time, corporate trust is negatively related to QR code usage. The results suggest that there is a
need to improve institutional trust in QR code usage. According to the author, the relation
between institutional trust and QR code usage is twofold: while institutional trust enables QR
code usage, the implementation of QR Codes containing more in-depth information concerning
the precise meaning of labels and other characteristics of the products will in return also increase
the institutional trust. Furthermore, QR code content should be carefully crafted to provide
meaningful, usable information for involved consumers. Finally, consumer market mavens’
tendency to share information should be harnessed by providing QR code content that is easily
passed on to other consumers.
Atkinson’s findings are supported also by other studies in the field of QR code usage. A study by
Dong-Hee Shin et al. (2012) examines why people adopt certain new technologies, in this case
QR code, while refusing or ignoring others. The authors develop a TAM model to predict users’
intentions to continue using QR codes by integrating the model with interactivity and quality
motivations as primary determining factors. According to the study, not only any new
technology needs to be perceived as being useful in order to be accepted and assimilated
into people’s daily routines, but it also needs to be easy to use. Consumers tend to lack the
technological sophistication to understand the complex nature of QR codes, nevertheless the
scanning process should be easy. As already described above, some developments such as the
automatic inclusion of QR code scanning capabilities in most new mobile operating system has
improved the easiness of scanning QR codes. The model from Dong-Hee Shin et al. therefore
includes the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use.
Other factors considered in the model are information quality, system quality and interactivity.
Information quality captures the user perceived value of the output produced by a system
and can be measured by information accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness (Lee et
al. 2002; Parasuraman et al. 1988). System quality is a measure of the functionality of a
system, including usability, availability, reliability and response time (DeLone & McLean, 1992;
Parasuraman et al., 1988). System quality differentiate itself from perceived ease of use as it
does not relate to the interaction between the user and the system, but it only considers intrinsic
qualities of the system. Interactivity, intended as responsive interaction, is an important
feature in QR codes. The authors define interactivity as responsiveness, content sharing and
content control. By scanning a QR code, users expect an immediate response. As already seen,
QR code are increasingly used on social media and instant messaging platforms (i.e. Facebook,
Snapchat and WhatsApp) to enhance social interaction. The model also controls for intrinsic
motivation, that the authors define as subjective norm.
Dong-Hee Shin et al. finds that all the above-mentioned factors are correlated to QR code
adoption. Interactivity in particular stands out as a major driver of QR code user behaviour.
Similar results using a TAM model have also been found in Gao et. al. (2013). Furthermore, the
results imply that, while users might perceive the good features of QR codes (usefulness,
easiness to use, information quality and system quality), they may not intend to use those codes
42
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/downloads/logo_en
162
unless something is confirmed. They may want to personally ensure that a QR code is secure
and dependable. Even if not directly captured by Dong-Hee Shin et al. model, as in Atkinson’s
conclusions trust seems to play an important role to transform the intention to use QR code
technology into a behaviour. According to Mallat, Rossi, Tuunainen, & Öörni (2008), institutional
trust is considered a necessity for mobile communication in general due to the spatial and
temporal distance between the communicating organization and the consumer.
The figure below sums up the consumer behavioural drivers and barriers extracted from the
literature analysed.
Figure 81 Consumer behavioral drivers and barriers
6.3 Lessons learned

Brick and Mortar test
 While walking in the store, half of the customers observed slowed down. Around 40%
took a look at the product displaying the environmental CV. One in four took the
product in their hands; among them, most ended up buying it.
 Once exited the shop, three in ten customers spontaneously recall the CVs. When
aided by the interviewer, the number rises to four in ten. Many noticed the affiche/poster.
Among the labels, the pancarte (in the middle of the product shelf) and the sticker
(embedded in the product packaging) were noted more than the wobbler (at the
beginning and the end of the product shelf).
 Customers tend to be more aware of the shelf CVs (pancarte and the wobbler) if they
included Logo #2 (blue-and-white icon of planet Earth) than Logo #1 (a smiley face
163
on top of a coloured planet-Earth icon). Customers tend to be more aware of the product
CV (the label) if it included Logo #2.
 CVs do not appear to be the main driver to buy products. Among those respondents
who noticed one label and bought the product, one in four did so because it was an “eco-
friendly product”, but only 6% were influenced by the CV.
 When asked which type of CV would they hypothetically use to communicate
environmental performance, over half choose the pancarte. The sticker was preferred
by 27% of respondents, while the wobbler was preferred by 18% of respondents. Reasons
to justify their choice – regardless of the format – tend to include clarity, visibility, and
simplicity.
 Overall, logo #1 is preferred to logo #2. Among all respondents, 54% prefer Logo #1.
It is especially popular among women and younger people. Logo #1 is especially liked
because of its cheerful and attractive character. Some people also indicate it as more
visible. On the other hand, those who prefer Logo #2 does so in relation to its seriousness.
 Taking a stance towards environmental footprint communication positively impacts
the retailer’s brand image, according three in four respondents. Most indicated it fit
with the image they already have about the retailer. Four in ten are prepared to pay more
for eco-friendly products.
 Nearly everyone would rather have the CV conveying a positive message (e.g.
“Protect the environment for our children”) than a negative message (e.g. “Our children
will suffer if we ignore the environment”). Half think that having the possibility to access
more information, e.g. through an app or website is useful, and one third indicates that
it would make them buy the product.
Mobiles and QR Codes
 Despite the widespread use of mobiles, the current state of the art of mobile in-store
shopping does not seem to support the use of these applications/services among the
triggers of the environmental footprint information and its potential communication
vehicles. There are still many unsolved questions to be addressed by more mature
products/services before applying lessons learned to environmental issues.
 The pick-up of QR code technology in specific parts of the world (Asia) has pushed mobile
producers and mobile system operator providers to include QR code scanning capabilities
into the default settings of new smartphones.
 All those factors contribute positively to some of the drivers (usefulness, ease of use
and system quality) behind consumer behaviour decision to use QR code technology to
retrieve additional information about products.
 Studies have shown how other crucial factors are quality of information provided, as
well as the interactivity and institutional trust. Ultimately, intrinsic motivation is also a
strong driver, that is nevertheless linked mainly to how digital native and used to QR
code technology consumers are.
 QR code content should be carefully crafted to provide meaningful, usable information
for involved consumers, with particular attention to the quality of the information
provided.
 The information retrieved through QR code technology should be easily sharable
(interactivity) through the different social media channels to incentivise consumer
willingness to use the technology.
 The institution providing the information should build up consumer trust by
guaranteeing high level of privacy and reliability of the overall system. If for example
Environmental Footprint information would be provided by producers, they might be
tempted to collect cookies information about consumers accessing the information. This
solution could constitute a barrier to certain consumers due to privacy concerns or lack
of trust towards the producer.
164
 QR code technology represent a cheap and smart way to provide consumers with
additional information about products. So far QR codes are the best technology available
in terms of 2D encoding techniques, even if multicolour codes might substitute this
technology in the future.
 Concerns remain whether or not the technology will fully pick up in Europe even if
recent trends have made the technology more accessible. Moreover, as it is the case of
mobile in-store shopping more research is needed to transfer the lessons learned to
165
7 Conclusions
The Commission work on the development of the Product/Organisation Environmental Footprint
(PEF/OEF) method started in 2010 in reaction to requests from business complaining about
difficulties in differentiating themselves based on environmental performance due to the
proliferation of environmental labels/certification schemes.
Moreover, in 2010 the Council adopted the conclusions asking the Commission to develop a
harmonised method for the calculation of the life cycle environmental performance of products.
In 2013 the European Commission adopted the Communication "Building the Single Market for
Green Products" (COM/2013/0196 final). The Commission Recommendation 179/2013 (OJ L
124, 4.5.2013, p. 1–210) was also adopted establishing and recommending the use of the PEF
and OEF methods to calculate the environmental performance of products (PEF) and
organisations (OEF). The Recommendation clarified that these methods are not intended to
directly support comparisons or comparative assertions, i.e. claims of overall superiority or
equivalence of the environmental performance of one product compared to another, and that
such comparisons require the development of additional PEF category rules or OEF sector rules
that complement the general guidance, in order to further increase methodological
harmonisation, specificity, relevance and reproducibility for a given product-type. Such category
rules and sector rules were developed during the pilot phase. Based on these rules, different
ways of communicating the Environmental Footprint (EF) profile of products and organisations
were tested.
The pilot phase has provided some valuable insights on the current status of the effectiveness
and use and communication vehicles. A number of conclusions can be drawn that prove of
particular relevance with view on providing support to different aspects of communication
vehicles, stakeholders’ perceptions and behaviours, and their evaluation
Overall, the development, testing and feedback of the different communication vehicles has been
an iterative process based on exhaustive and continuous support and feedback provided to and
gathered from the pilots, and complemented by evidence gathered through a multi-stakeholder
process, engaging groups that were underrepresented during the pilot phase – such as SMEs –
as well as additional groups who play a particularly crucial role due to the specificities of the
project, such as retailers. Through the involvement of the general public within the framework
of the complementary tests of both quantitative and qualitative nature, the study could
successfully fill evidence gaps left from the tests conducted within the pilots.
Communicating EF to consumers
Citizens involved in the communication tests were significantly interested in PEF information and
in the environmental impact of products in general. Whilst the main criteria driving purchase
decisions are price, quality, brand and availability (especially for products bought on a regular
basis), consumers involved showed high interest in the environmental impact of products in
general, and in PEF information specifically.
Situations where environmental performance becomes a key driver of purchasing decisions
include
 with prices being equal, a high environmental score on a label has a very large positive
and significant effect on consumer choice;
 products that are new or big, expensive, durable items (e.g. cars);
 products that impact consumers' own or their children's health.
Results from the general public surveyed confirmed that citizens are especially concerned about
impacts on health. At the same time, the general public considers impacts on the environment
and natural resources as increasingly pressing problems. They also are aware of their individual
responsibility in reducing the impact on the environment, a responsibility that they know to
share with companies and governments.
166
We can identify a series of lessons learnt on conditions for the effectiveness of communicating
environmental footprint information to consumers.
Translate complex results into simple information: clarity, readability and transparency are
essential. Consumers find many of the Environmental Footprint impact categories difficult to
grasp. Whilst consumers have a good understanding of impacts such as climate change, CO2
emissions, energy and water consumption, the use of technical/scientific terms such as
acidification, terrestrial eutrophication and ecotoxicity is not understood. In particular,
consumers often don't grasp the link of impact categories to the specific product and the meaning
of Life Cycle Assessment results.
In line with these difficulties, consumers prefer the use of graphics, bars and colour scales to
numbers, scientific terms. Consumers gave high support to the traffic light (better, average and
worse represented with colours) and to the energy label format (A-E performance scale).
Avoid information overload. Consumers indicated that showing 3 midpoints is sufficient.
Although only a small portion of consumers consults detailed information, half of those surveyed
in the brick and mortar test prefer to have these available, e.g. through an app or website,
accessible through a QR code.
Certification proves an important element to increase trustworthiness of information. Scepticism
and mistrust is one of the main barriers towards being receptive to environmental footprint
information. The experimental evidence gathered when testing of the relative effectiveness of
communication vehicles on several dimensions demonstrates that certification is seen as a
trustworthy label feature across all products and sources. Certification must be third party or
come from a consumer association.
Framing is important. One statistically significant test identified a large and significant effect of
negative frames – messages emphasising negative environmental consequences for people – on
consumer choice. The highest impact was registered when including messages on consequences
for children. However, this result was not supported by the brick and mortar test, where nearly
everyone expressed their preference for CVs conveying a positive message (e.g. “Protect the
environment for our children”) over a negative message (e.g. “Our children will suffer if we
ignore the environment”).
Preferences considering the EU Ecolabel. Options tested were a PEF label, the EU Ecolabel and a
combination between PEF and the EU Ecolabel. The PEF label was the most preferred between
the three options, with highest preference given to an A-E type label. About one third of the
respondents recalled having seen the EU Ecolabel prior to the study, which might have influenced
results.
Consumers are ready to pay a bit more for environmentally friendly products. A +15% price
increase was acceptable for consumers for an average product on the A-E scale. This is supported
by the results from the brick and mortar test where four in ten respondents indicated to be
willing to pay more for environmental-friendly products. Furthermore, retailers confirmed that
consumers are willing to pay some extra costs for environmentally-friendly for certain products,
but the cost difference should not be significant. A further experiment focussing on willingness
to pay, however, found that price increase had a negative, significant effect on purchasing
intentions.
Communicating to businesses and stakeholders
Businesses acknowledge the increasing importance of environmental sustainability for
consumers and see important benefits of PEFs both for business-to-business (B2B) and business-
to-consumer (B2C) activities, among which are brand valuation, opportunity for comparison of
products in terms of their environmental products, higher quality of products, and last but not
least, common rules for both manufacturers and industries.
More than half of environmentally active SMEs know and use Life Cycle Assessment indicators.
The online SMEs’ online survey shows that a significant number of mid-sized SMEs and those
operating in agriculture and industry are committed to environmental issues. Environmental
concern is likewise higher among medium-sized enterprises and in the primary and secondary
167
sectors. Similarly, the demand for environmental information is lower in the service sector and
among micro-sized enterprises. About half of the SMEs consulted have an internal environmental
policy in place, often based on LCA indicators and covering topics such as climate change, water
use, land use, but also topics related to human health, such as toxicity and cancer, and the
future availability of resources. About 30% of the SMEs publish information on environmental
issues targeted at clients.
An interesting finding is that when communicating in a B2B setting, SMEs see labels as the most
effective CV, followed by PR campaigns, environmental reports, product passports and
Environmental Product Declarations. As opposed to that, for B2C participants use websites,
leaflets and labels to communicate environmental information. They see websites and POS
product advertisement as the most effective CVs, followed by PR campaigns.
As main drivers for LCA’s, SMEs surveyed indicate that the most important ones cover
organizational awareness, customer satisfaction and improvements of environmental practices.
Conversely, data collection difficulties, and the costs of personnel, such as involvement of
internal human resources or experts constitute main barriers. A common method and the
simplification potential of the EF methods will help to overcome these barriers but taking into
account the cost of access to both the methods and/or the experts to conduct the assessment.
Relevance to decision-making. When communicating in-house or to external partners, clear
conclusions and action points are needed.
Clarity and simplicity is important. Business partners expect more detailed information and are
more likely to have the expertise to understand it. However, often non-experts (e.g. purchasers)
are involved, therefore complex technical messages need to be clearly explained or simplified.
Graphical information is appreciated.
Customers often expect to compare the product with its competitors or to a benchmark.
Verification as a guarantee of fair competition. A credible verification scheme and audit regime
is needed to guarantee the trustworthiness of information and fair competition.
Implications for EU policy development
Overall, the study has provided extensive insights into the issue of different communication
vehicles for environmental footprint information, providing an evaluation, stakeholders
perception and highlighting different design aspects of communication vehicles to increase their
effectiveness, while indicating areas for improvement to raise consumer awareness.
The exploratory nature of this study does not allow for comprehensive, externally valid
conclusions. In an ideal world citizens and business would be presented with reliable and
harmonised product environmental performance labels from trusted sources; have the
competence to understand the communication vehicles and have the incentives and available
alternatives to convert good intentions to changes in behaviour. However, the world is far from
ideal, there is a plethora of logos, label designs and information content.
Against this background, the development of an information system for products and
organisations through the implementation of the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and
Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) methods is undeniable as it could provide a common
knowledge to be used by existing policy tools to substantially increase consistency of approaches
and coherence of objectives. This may enable innovative companies to design more sustainable
products, reduce costs and improve their environmental performance in those areas where it
delivers the largest environmental advantages. Furthermore, based on this information, citizens
could make more informed choices without flooding them with excessive and non-
comprehensible information and Member States could introduce incentives/disincentives linked
to the environmental performance of a product along its supply chain.
PEF/OEF concept is a scientific approach to LCA characterised by specific terminology,
abstraction, quantification and complexity. This is necessarily so, as the environmental impacts
of a product over the life cycle are complex. However, the public (and many in businesses) do
not think in systemic terms. They are ‘narrative thinkers’ who are more persuaded by stories,
168
pictures and graphics than by quantified facts. Most likely, they will switch off from complex
information and from information removed from everyday experience. Therefore, the dilemma
for the roll out of PEF/OEF is how can validity of information be achieved at the same time as
simplicity? Without validity consumers who seek to purchase environmentally sustainable
products may be misled; but if the PEF/OEF information is valid but too complex individuals will
ignore it.
Solving such a dilemma should be seen as a process over time and not the result of a one off
campaign or policy intervention (c.f. two decades for climate change). To achieve an impact on
companies, consumers and Member States there is a need:
 To raise awareness about the PEF/OEF method among all the stakeholders emphasising
the impact of the methods in their daily live/business.
 To achieve consensus about the communication vehicle, guided by clarity, readability and
 To integrate and test the selected communication vehicle with other product/business
169
References
Atkinson, L. (2013), Smart shoppers? Using QR codes and ‘green’ smartphone apps to mobilize
sustainable consumption in the retail environment, International Journal of Consumer Studies,
Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 387–393
Bamba, F. & Barnes, S.J. (2007) SMS advertising, permission and the consumer: a study.
Business Process Management Journal, 13, 815–829.
Barnes, S.J. (2002) Wireless digital advertising: nature and implications. International Journal
of Advertising, 21, 399–420.
Chandran, A.(2014), Review on Color QR Codes: Decoding Challenges and Security Issues,
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 3, Issue 4
D'souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P. & Peretiatko, R. (2007) Green decisions: demographics and
consumer understanding of environmental labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
31, 371–376.
Darby, M.R. & Karni, E. (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of
Law and Economics, 16, 67–88.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success. Information Systems
Research, 3(1), 60–95.
EMA (2017), Quick Response (QR) codes in the labelling and package leaflet of centrally
authorised medicinal products, available at:
http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideli
ne/2015/07/WC500190405.pdf
Eurostat (2017), Internet access and use statistics - households and individuals, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/digital-economy-and-society/overview
Gao, T., Rohm, A., Sultan, F. & Pagani, M. (2013). Consumers un-tethered: A three-market
empirical study of consumers' mobile marketing acceptance. Journal of Business Research,
66(12), pp.2536-pp.2544.
Grillo, A., Lentini, A., Querini, M. and Italiano, G. (2008), High Capacity Colored Two Dimensional
Codes, Proceedings of the International Multiconference on Computer Science and Information
Technology pp. 709–716
GSMA (2017), The Mobile Economy, Europe 2017, available at:
https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/?file=89a59299ac2f37508b252124726a1139&do
wnload
Kalafatis, S.P. & Pollard, M. (1999) Green marketing and Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour:
a cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 441–460.
Klintman, M. (2006) Ambiguous framings of political consumerism: means or end, product or
process orientation? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 427–438.
Kolandai-Matchett, K. (2009) Mediated communication of ‘sustainable consumption’ in the
alternative media: a case study exploring a message framing strategy. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 33, 113–125.
Lee, Y., Strong, D. M., Khan, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: A methodology for Information
quality assessment. Information & Management, 40(2), 33–146.
170
Mallat, N., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V.K. & Öörni, A. (2008). An empirical investigation of mobile
ticketing service adoption in public transportation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 12(1),
57-65
Mostafa, M.M. (2007) A hierarchical analysis of the green consciousness of the Egyptian
consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 445–473.
Nelson, P. (1974) Advertising as information. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 729–754.
Ozkaya et al. (2015), Factors affecting consumer usage of QR codes, Journal of Direct, Data and
Digital Marketing Practice, 16-03, 209-224.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Seema Ahlawat, Dr. Chhavi Rana, Rashmi Sindhu (2017), A Review on QR Codes: Colored and
Image Embedded, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science
Shin, D., Jung, J. & Chang, B. (2012). The psychology behind QR codes: User experience
perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1417-1426
Shin, D.H., Jung, J. and Chang, B. H. (2012), The psychology behind QR codes: User experience
perspective, Computers in Human Behaviour 28, 1417–1426
Shrum, L. J., McCarty, J.A. & Lowrey, T.M. (1995) Buyer Characteristics of the Green Consumer
and Their Implications for Advertising Strategy. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 71-82
Singh, A. and Singh, P. (2016), A REVIEW: QRCODES AND ITS IMAGE PRE-PROCESSING
METHOD, International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research (IJSETR),
Volume 5, Issue 6
Unni, R. & Harmon, R. (2007) Perceived effectiveness of push vs. pull mobile location-based
advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7, 48–71.
USDA (2017), Study of Electronic or Digital Link Disclosure A Third-Party Evaluation of
Challenges Impacting Access to Bioengineered Food Disclosure.
171
Annex I. The final version of Logbook

Purpose of the Logbook
The main purpose of the Logbook is to monitor, understand and collect data with regard to:
1. the Communication Vehicles (CVs) that you will be testing

2. the way you will test the CVs
3. the impacts the CVs have/had on your target groups (i.e. their purchasing and/or
using/disposal behaviour) and on your organization (i.e. opinions, discussions and actions
following your communication of PEF/OEF)
The European Commission (EC) requests the Technical Secretariats (TS) to collect data for all
the organisations that test CV’s within their pilot. To prevent inconvenient administrative burden
we aim to collect information as lean and tailor-made as possible. Therefore, we have created a
logbook that can be filled out per company. We aim to send you your Logbook as prefilled as
possible at moments that match your timing as much as possible.
Your answers are of importance to us (the Contractor), because based on what you have chosen
to test, we will decide which complementary tests we will carry out, such as field tests (brick-
and-mortar), control group tests, and additional testing of the representation of information,
etc. Moreover, based on the data collected after the CV testing, we will give policy
recommendations to the EC.
Logbook format
The Logbook consists of two parts. Part 1 should be filled out prior to the CV testing. Part 2
should be filled out after the CV testing. Therefore, we will gather the information from you
twice. We keep the process as easy and logic as possible to prevent any possible program or
process hick-ups. Therefore, we use Microsoft Word for the Logbook so that everybody can work
with it. It can also be easily sent via email or uploaded into the Wiki.
Please note that when answers are not clear or raise further important questions, we will contact
you directly to get the needed information from you directly. The new pieces of information will
be added to the Logbook and sent to you and the TS coordinator for your and their information
and your check.
The logbook should stay up to date. Whenever you change something after the Logbook Part 1
is filled out (e.g. the CVs and/or its features that you are testing, the testing methods, the target
groups that you address, etc.) we like you to inform us. This is needed because we are working
on complementary tests that should match with the tests that are being done by the pilots.
Therefore, we need the overview of what is tested (and how).
Steps to fill out Logbook

1. The Consortium will start filling in the logbook as soon as the draft PEFCR/OEFSR is
approved by the Steering Committee.
Please note that we keep track of the approved PEFCRs/OEFSRs but would appreciate if
you could signal any upcoming approvals so we can make sure we keep contacting pilots
at the right moments. Also whenever you signal/hear that pilots are changing the CVs or
methods that they are testing, we would appreciate it that you let us know.
2. We will send the filled out logbook (Part 1) to the company and its TS coordinator with a
guiding email on the process.
Please note that we will also attach Part 2 of the Logbook, as an outlook to what will be
collected after the CVs testing periods.
172
3. The company will fill out the logbook and send the filled out version to the TS coordinator
and to env_footprint@open-evidence.com. We will ask companies to fill out
questionnaires within a period of 2 weeks. Please note that:
- The TS coordinators are responsible for collecting the data from the companies
that test CVs within their pilot,
- It is up to the TS coordinator if s/he will store the filled-out logbook on its TS Wiki
Work Space.
4. We will call or email the company to ask for clarifications when the filled-out logbook
raises questions.
Please note that when important effects are expected in 2017, after the CV testing period is
finished, we will send you a few more questions in 2017 to get a better insight in these effects.
It would be highly appreciated if we can obtain your inputs.
Further information and contact details

Supportive materials that you can use to fill out the logbook (e.g. about the selection of CV(s),
effectiveness of CVs and set-up of tests) can be found at the wiki:
Please bear in mind that you can always contact us to let us know if you are satisfied with this
way of data collection or if you have suggestions to make it more effective.
You can also contact us for questions, clarification or other issues, via: env_footprint@open-
evidence.com.
173
1. Logbook questions to be filled out before you start the CV testing period
Supportive materials that you can use to fill out this logbook (e.g. about the selection of CV(s),
effectiveness of CVs and set-up of tests) can be found at the wiki:
Contact details
Company XXX
Name responsible Mr. or Ms. XXXXX

person at company
Job title
Email address, X.XXXX@XXX.com, +31611111111 (not on Fridays)

telephone number
and working days
174
Category Question Response options YOUR ANSWER HERE

Keep these options intact. Give Please Select or Give the
your answers in the column to responses of your choice in this
the right. column.
CV 1. Which CV’s will

descriptions you test during PEF
the pilot phase • Performance label
period? • Performance label + QR code
• Performance improvement label
• Barcode
• Pictogram, POS product
advertisement
• Consumer receipt – basket
comparison
• Loyalty schemes
• Leaflets, catalogues, etc.
• Instruction manuals
• Websites (producer, vendor)
• Websites (3rd party)
• App based on performance
• Campaigns targeting user
behaviour
• Marketing campaigns/ advertising
• Other (please specify)
• Declaration/ product passport

(B2B)
• On invoices (B2B)
• PEF external communication report
(B2B)
• Performance tracking report (B2B).
OEF
• OEF external communication report
• OEF performance tracking report
• as part of an environmental
sustainability or integrated report
• environmental/sustainability
ranking or indice (3rd party)
• reporting initiative (3rd party)
• POS communication related to a
group of products (B2C)
• environmental campaign
• public relation effort
2. What does/do
the Picture(s) of the CV(s) (if applicable)
Communication
vehicle(s) look
like?
Short description of the

characteristics of the vehicle.
175

the right. column.
3. Which impact
categories will  A single performance score
you  Specific impact categories
communicate (please specify which)
via the CV(s)?  Specific impact categories
(please specify which) and a
single performance score
 Additional environmental
information (please specify
which)
Target 4. What target

groups groups will be
exposed to or  Consumers: _______
participate in please fill out their
the CV(s) characteristics including age
test(s)? groups, income levels and
countries in which the persons
addressed live.
 Corporate clients/businesses:
________
Please provide one please fill out their
answer per CV characteristics, including the
region/countries in which they
are based.
 Investors: ________
please fill out their
characteristics including the
are based.
 Others: ________
please fill out their
characteristics including the
are based.
Methods 5. How are you

going to test  Focus groups
the CV(s)?  Experiments with a control
Please provide one group
answer per CV  Individual interviews
 Observations (via observers
that take notes of behaviour)
 Other Methods,(please
specify):___________
(please explain your answers)
176

the right. column.
Measured 6. What are you

Effects going to test?  Understanding of CV(s)
Please provide one  Effect of CV(s) on attitude
answer per CV towards the product
 Effect of CV(s) on
buying/using/disposal
behaviour
 Effect of CV(s) on reputation of
the company
 Effect of CV(s) on awareness of
 Other things
 I don’t know
Durations 7. When will the

tests run?
Periods:___________ (please
Please provide one describe in months)
answer per CV
Challenges
8. What are main
challenges that  Get enough responses from the
you foresee target group(s)
when testing  Good cooperation between the
the CV? person who is responsible for
the CV test(s) and those who
Please provide one are involved in carrying out the
answer per CV tests
 Time restrictions
 Costs of the test
 Interpretation of results
 I see no challenges
 Other (please specify)
177

the right. column.
Expected 9. Are there any

Biases circumstances
that you expect  Yes, namely: ______ (please
to change explain)
(bias) the  No
effectiveness  No idea
of the CV? e.g.
unforeseen or
intended
communications
/events that
impact the
possible
effectiveness of
the CV.
Please provide one

answer per CV
Cooperation 10. Do you

s cooperate with
other pilots  Yes, with:_____
that participate  No
in the CV  Maybe, with:_____
testing phase?
11. Do you (plan

to) consult  Yes, for the purpose of:_____
external  No
experts for  Maybe, for the purpose
(parts of) the of:_____
testing?
178
2. Logbook questions to be filled out after the CV testing period is finished
Contact details
Company XXX
Name responsible person at Ms. XXXXX

company
Job title
Email address and telephone X.XXXX@XXX.com; +31611111111 (not on Fridays)

number and working days
179

Keep these options intact. Please Select or Give the
Give your answers in the responses of your choice in this
column to the right. column.
Duration 1. When did the tests

run?
Periods:___________ (please
Please provide one describe in months)
answer per CV tested.
2. What was tested?
3. Were there any This is an open question. Please

complementary describe complementary
communication communication activities.
activities?
Please include activities
even if they are not part
of the EF pilot phase, but
are considered relevant
for the effectiveness of
the communication
vehicle tested
Effects on 4. Which kind of

target groups results did come
out of the CV(s) Results about:
tests?
 Understanding of CV(s)
awareness of
Please provide one  Effect of CV(s) on attitude
answer per CV tested. towards the product
buying/using/disposal
behaviour
reputation of the company
 Other things
 I don’t know
5. What are the

effects of the This is an open question.
CV(s) on
consumers?
&
6. Which features or
characteristics of
the CV(s) made
the CV(s)
effective? Which
features or
characteristics
were not
effective?
Please provide one

180

7. Which
improvements This is an open question.
would be needed
to increase the
effectiveness of
the CV(s) on
consumers?
Please provide one
8. How did/does
Effects on your company  Results are being
company respond to the discussed to see how the
CV(s) test results? company can further
improve its environmental
performance.
 Results are being
Please provide one discussed because the CV
answer per CV tested. has the potential/seems to
affect the competitiveness
of the product/company.
 Costs versus benefits of
communicating PEF/OEF
are being discussed.
 Other (please specify)
 No reaction received.
(please explain your

answers)
9. To what extent did

stakeholders Please choose a number on a
respond to the scale of 1 to 3 or when your
CV(s)? What was really do not have an opinion on
said/written? this; choose ‘No idea’
1=No responses
Please provide one 2=Some responses

answer per CV tested. 3=Many responses
No idea
(please explain your answer)
10. How do(es) the This is an open question.

CV(s) contribute
to the reputation
of the company to
your idea?
Please provide one

181

11. To what extent do

you think that the Please choose a number on a
CV(s) can further scale of 1 to 5 or when your
improve the really do not have an opinion on
environmental this; choose ‘No idea’
footprint of the
product or 1=Absolutely no impact
organisation
2=Not impactful
(PEF/OEF)?
3=Neutral
4=Impactful
Please provide one
answer per CV tested. 5=Very impactful
No idea
(please explain your answer)
Costs
12. What were the
financial costs of This is an open question.
implementing the
CV(s)?
Please provide one

13. Where these

financial costs Please choose a number on a
acceptable to your scale of 1 to 5 or when your
organisation? really do not have an opinion on
this; choose ‘No idea’
Please provide one 1=Absolutely not acceptable
2=Not acceptable
3=Neutral
4=Acceptable
5=Very much acceptable
No idea
14. Do you consider

the administrative Please choose a number on a
burden related to scale of 1 to 5 or when you
the really do not have an opinion on
implementation of this; choose ‘No idea’
the CV(s) that you
have tested 1=Absolutely not acceptable
acceptable from
182

your company 2=Not acceptable
point of view?
3=Neutral
4=Acceptable
Please provide one
answer per CV tested. 5=Very much acceptable
No idea
Complications 15. Were there

/ problems or
barriers (e.g. This is an open question.
Barriers restricted time,
too high costs)
during the tests?
Please provide one
16. How did you

overcome the This is an open question.
problems or
barriers in the
testing period?
Please provide one
Recommenda
tions 17. What would you
do differently in  Choose other CV(s)
hindsight?  Do another test(s)
 Ask for more research
 Ask for help in carrying out
the tests
Please provide one  Other things (please
answer per CV tested. specify)
18. What is needed for

you to proceed This is an open question.
with
communicating
environmental
footprints to your
target groups?
Remarks
19. Are there any
other things that This is an open question.
have not been
asked but might
be relevant to
share?
183
Annex II. Focus groups

Discussion guide
 This discussion guideline is meant to safeguard that all relevant research topics will be
covered in the focus groups.
 Listed questions are main research questions. The moderators will adjust wording and
order of questions according to discussion situation, atmosphere and dynamic group
processes.
 Each research topic will first be approached openly. This entails that participants will
indirectly influence and control content and depth of discussion according their own
requirements –unaided approach.
 Once participants have exhausted their “own agenda” for each topic, the moderators will
explore relevant topic details that might not have been discussed – aided approach.
Main objective of this session is to explore consumers’ views about both, PEFs (Product
Environmental Footprint) and OEFs (Organization Environmental Footprint) in the present and
what their expectations are for the coming decade.
WELCOMING AND INTRODUCTION (10 min.)
 Introduction of the moderator and the setting (drinks, toilet, etc.)
 Introduction of the topic of discussion: environment-related topics (moderator: DO NOT
provide any further explanations at this point)
 Explanation of the need for audio-visual recording
 Reassurance of respondents about data security and privacy issues (e.g. no uploading
of the recording to the Internet, anonymous reporting, etc.)
 Reference to attending observers and the one-way mirror, or TV internal circuit, when it
is the case
 Explanation of the rules of communication
o Spontaneous and open discussion
o No right nor wrong answers; no judgements
o No need for agreement with each other; different points of view will be stimulated
o A balanced intervention of all participants is expected
o Listening to each other is a must
o Smartphones or mobile phones are requested to be silenced and kept away
Introduction of participants
 First name (no surname to ensure anonymity), age, background education, current
occupation and family status
MODERATOR: please put a sticker with the participant’s name on his / her chest so that it is
visible at all times (the transcription needs to differentiate the participants)
184
PART I: PERCEPTION AND EXPERIENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINTS (30 min.)

Moderator:
 The objective is to explore:
o What are participants’ main concerns regarding the environment
o How the environmental issues impact on their lives
o The different variables that might play some role on this impact (e.g. cultural
background, having children, life style).
o The emotional and rational meaning of environmental footprints
 Pay special attention in case the idea of “environmental footprint”, “PEF” or “OEF” arises
spontaneously before being prompted
Spontaneous associations about environment: Brainstorm

Let’s start by doing a brainstorming. Let’s see what immediately comes to our mind when we
hear the word “environment”. Anything goes: images, feelings, etc.
Moderator: Promote quick and single-word or short answers. Keep going on until you have a
minimum of 15 different answers
Environmental issues and their impact on respondents’ lives

Let’s now have an open discussion about what your concerns are regarding the environment...
 What are the things that concern you about the environment? How come?
 If we do a ranking of the relevance these different things have in our lives, what the
rating will be, being the ranking “very relevant”, “moderately relevant” and “little
relevant”?
Moderator: write on the flipchart what elements belong to each category and then go through
each category from the “most relevant” to the “little relevant”:
 What are the reasons for placing these elements in the first position?
 And in the second one?
 And in the third one?
 I we have to decide on the very three top concerns, which ones will they be? What makes
them so important? How would it be like if these problems were solved?
Meaning of environmental footprints
Spontaneous associations: Brainstorm

Let’s start by doing another brainstorming. Let’s see now what immediately comes to our mind
when we hear the concept of “environmental footprint”. Anything goes: images, feelings, etc.
minimum of 15 different answers
Emotional projections: Collage
Now we will use images to talk about environmental footprints. Here we have a set of different
pictures and the purpose is that you choose the three top ones that best represent how we feel
about environmental footprints...
185
Moderator:
 Insist on expressing “feelings”, “emotions” or “moods”
 Different participants can choose the same picture/s
 Once all participants have done their choice, take separate photos of the choice each
participant did and register which set of photos belongs to which participant
Per participant/choice:
 What does each photo represent for you?
Moderator: ask each participant to say the number of the photos she/he chose before explaining
what they represent to her/him
Knowledge about environmental footprints

 What do we know about environmental footprints?
 What does environmental footprint mean?
 What is the relation with products?
 And with organizations?
 To what extent are environmental footprints relevant? How come?
o Which ones are more relevant? What makes them more relevant?
o And which ones are less relevant? What makes them less relevant?
o Do they have any impact in our lives? How do we notice this impact?
o What is the impact in the short-term? And in the long-term?
PART II: ACTIONS DONE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT (30 min.)
Moderator: The objective is to check:

 The meaning of environmental sustainability
 To what extent environmentally-friendy actions are integrated in participants’ lives
 What these actions are
 What are the drivers and barriers in order to develop environmentally-friendly attitudes
and behaviours
 Knowledge and expectations about the actions the Government is doing to protect the
environment
Now, we will focus on the protection of the environment...

Perception and meaning of environmental sustainability
Spontaneous associations: Brainstorm
Let’s do the third and last brainstorming. Let’s see now what immediately comes to our mind
when we hear the concept “environmental sustainability”. Anything goes: images, feelings, etc.
minimum of 15 different aswers
Related products and services
 What are the products or services that you consider more damaging with respect to the
environment? What makes them so damaging?
 And on the contrary, what are the products or services that you consider more respectful
with the environment? What makes more environmentally friendly?
186
Knowledge and practice of environmentally-friendly actions

 What are the things we can do to protect the environment in our daily lives?
 From all the things you just said, which are the ones you really do?
Moderator: write down the things they do on the flip-chart and the number of participants who
actually do them on the side. Discuss the three most common and the three less common
actions they do. Start the discussion by the most common ones.
Per action:
 How come that you started doing this (say the name of the action)? What motivated you
to start doing it? (Moderator: check the drivers and triggers)
 What is the benefit you take from doing it?
 What can help you do this action even better or more frequently?
 What other things could you do in your daily life and you do not do?
 What refrains you from doing them? (Moderator: check the barriers)
 What could be done in order to help you doing them? (Moderator: probe in detail)
 What can help you having a more environmentally friendly life style?
Perception of the Government’s role
Now let’s talk about the Government and its involvement in this issue...
 What do you think the Government does in order to protect the environment?
 What regulations or measures do you know about this issue?
 What is your evaluation about the Government actions regarding the protection of the
environment?
 Are there things you think the Government should do and it is not doing? What are these
things?
 What are the most urgent things to be done by the Government? What makes them so
urgent?
Potential actions and measures to promote environmental sensitivity
Let’s focus on the things that could be done by the public sector, by companies or by ourselves
to promote sensitivity towards protecting the environment...
 What can be done in order to make you more aware and sensitive about the
environmental footprints?
 If we think of these three different involved parties, public sector, private companies
and ourselves, what can be done by each one?
Per each party involved:
 What can (say the name of the party) do in the short-term?
 What can (say the name of the party) do in the coming decade?
Now I’ll tell you some things that could be done to see what you think of them...
Moderator: read out the following six actions one by one (if not said spontaneously):
1. Knowing what the most environmentally friendly people do

 How come it might / might not influence you?
 In case of being considered a potential influence: how should this be done to really
reach and touch you?
187
2. Integrating the environmentally friendly behavior in your routines in a simple

way
3. Helping you avoid losing money
4. Making the environmentally friendly choices be default choices
5. Making visible the environmental consequences of your daily actions (e.g.
taking your car)
6. Being shown the results of having environmentally-friendly behaviours
188
PART III: PERCEPTION OF PEFs AND OEFs (30 min.)
Moderator: The objective is to check to what extent PEFs and OEFs are influencing participants’
purchasing behaviour or decisions and what might be more effective to increase this influence.
Awareness of PEFs and OEFs
Let’s move to the different ways the environmental footprints can be shown to us…
 What are the different ways we can be aware of the environmental footprint of products
and organizations?
 Do you know the PEF and the OEF? (Moderator: if not discussed spontaneously
before)
 How did you get to know about them?
Probe on:
1. Products labelling
 Do you know whether products have a label with their environmental footprint
scoring?
 Do these labels affect your purchasing or usage decision? In what way?
 What can be done in the labelling to be more effective in influencing your decisions?
 How important is the PEF/OEF information in comparison to other information on a
product label (e.g. price, quality)?
 What weight do you attribute to the PEF/OEF information in comparison to other
existing labels (e.g. simultaneous presence with Ecolabel, energy label, nutritional
information, organic label, etc.)?
2. Actions at the POS

 Do you know whether there are actions at the point of sale about environmental
footprints?
 Do these actions affect your purchasing or usage decision? In what way?
 What can be done at the point of sale to be more effective in influencing your
decisions?
 How important is the PEF/OEF information in comparison to other information
displayed at the point of sale?
3. Communication
 Do you know whether there is publicity (TV ads, online ads, billboards, ads in the
public transport, etc.) about environmental footprints?
 Does publicity affect your purchasing or usage decision? In what way?
 What kind of publicity can be more effective in influencing your decisions?
 How important is the PEF/OEF information in comparison to other messages in
communication?
189
In general:
 What do you think of the different ways to convey environmental performance – in

particular, traffic lights versus A-E performance ratings?
 What are the most effective ways of communicating PEFs - labels, barcodes, text,
symbols, information packs, etc.? Or some combination of these?
 In what circumstances would you need a thorough understanding of PEF/OEF

information?
 To what extent does PEF/OEF information, the presence or absence of such information
or the level of PEF/OEF performance of the product influence your purchasing
intentions? And how might that change in the coming years?
 To what extent do you think PEF/OEF information creates awareness and promote the
cause of environmentally sustainable consumption?
 How does PEF/OEF information affect the reputation of the brand or the seller?
 How does the reputation of the brand/seller affect your perception of a particular PEF or
OEF (e.g. How the reliability of the information is affected by the reputation of the
brand )?
 How can we increase the reliability of the results on PEF/OEF (e.g. the contribution of
third part certifications, the seal of the European Commission, etc.)? Which
certifications or contributions are more credible and reliable for this issue?
PART IV: EXPLORATION OF DIFFERENT COMMUNICATION VEHICLES FOR PEF/OEF (20

min.)
Moderator:
 The objective is to elicit participants’ reactions to different kinds of communication
vehicles showing environmental footprint information and evaluate their potential to arise
environmental sensitivity
 Project the ppt. document with the stimuli page by page
To finish this discussion we will show you some materials to see what you think of them…
1. Slide 1
 Which categories are more relevant? How come?
2. Slide 2
 What is the importance of each of both phases (production vs. use) when
purchasing?
 When is the production phase more important? when is it the use one?
3. Slide 3
190
 Which kind of labelling is easier to understand? What makes it easier to be

understood?
 Where would you put it?
 What is more inviting to check further information, a QR code or a barcode (both
have to be scanned by the smartphone)? (figure L2)
4. Slide 4
 Would you download an app to be able to check PEF or OEF when shopping? How
come?
 For what items would you use it the most?
5. Slide 5
 Is it engaging to check on the receipt how environmentally friendly has your
purchased been in comparison to the rest of consumers in that point of sale?
6. Slide 6
 What environmental information would you like to see when shopping online?
7. Slide 7
 What do you think of pictograms to show you environmentally friendly tips?
 Where would you like to see these pictograms?
 Is this kind of display appealing at the point of sale?
 What can be appealing at the POS?
WRAP UP (if time allows)
Let’s do an individual and final reflection about all we have been talking about today...
 What is your interest on the environmental footprint and what can particularly motivate
you to protect the environment more?
THANK & CLOSE
191
Selection of images
Participants were shown the following 32 images as projective input to facilitate
the discussion going further in how they perceive environmental footprints:
192
Selection of Verbatim
This annex contains a selection of verbatim to support and illustrate the content
of this report. The verbatim has been classified according to the different
subsections of this report.
The coding in bracket reflects the participant’s classification regarding her/his
level of environmental sensitivity, gender and country as follows:
 Environmental sensitivity: Hi = high, Me = medium
 Gender: F = female, M = male
 Country: SP = Spain, GE = Germany
Meaning
“If you take a bottle of oil and you throw it in the mountain, it is leaving an environmental
footprint. That will take a long time in disappearing. What we do today will be present during a
long time. That is the footprint.” (Hi, M, SP)
“This picture is showing someone practicing a sport in nature, which is supposed to be very
healthy and in relation to the nature. But many of these types of sports pollute wherever they
go, because they leave garbage behind, containers...Plus manufacturing processes for
equipment bring along quite an energetic and polluting impact. So I chose a sport in nature
because it leaves an environmental footprint.” (Hi, F, SP)
“I chose picture 186, where there is a series of flags, telling me about the unification of countries
in negotiations for the environment, talking about the Earth and health.” (Me, M, SP)
“I chose this picture because I thought about my family. Also in my nephew, because of the
sneakers picture...In my family, friends, and everything that could happen in the future. The
lion, because we are finishing off with many species (…). And this (picture 196) is a beautiful
picture, and it makes me wonder how long we'll be able to do this...being there with that
neatness...” (Hi, F, SP)
“I chose the shoes that leave a footprint when walking; if we step on a pathway, that pathway
won't ever be the same. Or it will take a long time to be as it was.” (Me, M, SP)
“Picture 146…I believe it is like faith or trust in that we wake up some day so that we react.
Picture 108 because it is work to look at little details in our lives, all those little things generate
our footprint and we don't even notice.” (Hi, F, SP)
“Then I chose picture 155, it is the typical image of the American winner. In Spain this would be
different, but it would be that one of the opulence, of the pollution, the great cars, who does not
care... Due to his posture, instead of feeling that this man triumphed, it feels like he is saying
"Here I am, doing everything I wish to do". The one in picture 192 feels like that same man and
here he is begging for pardon. He is aware now that what we are doing is wrong, and he is
saying "let's change things”." (Me, M, SP)
“Companies don't care, anyway…Really, I think they just don't care. As long as they do their
business and keep on making money...unless they see that they can also make money by being
clean. Then, they would tend to do it.” (Me, M, SP)
“Environmental footprints have to do with the future of the next generation...what planet we
are leaving to them.” (Hi, F, GE)
“Environmental footprints lead to the extinction of species...maybe one day of human beings as
well.” (Me, F, GE)
“I have a child about that age, almost 9. And I always think about the polluted environment that
we will pass on to our children and how will they deal with that, the poor ones. They will have
to live with that environment and deal with it. With this other picture I thought about the task
193
of governments to get together and reach a consensus and not just reach those poor sort of
interim solutions or questionable commitments that they don't stick to.” (Hi, F, GE)
“Virtual water is related with environmental footprint, it is a chart containing the figures on how
much water is used to manufacture a certain product. For example, in order to produce potatoes
they have to be irrigated throughout the year.” (Me, M, GE)
“I liked the picture with the fish because it reminded me of the story of one person swimming
against the current. Most people today believe you need petro to fuel a car, but some know that
electricity works better. And that is often the case, that someone started something that people
at first didn't believe in.” (Hi, M, GE)
“I hope we'll still have snow in the future and not 10 degrees above zero in Christmas.” (Me, M,
GE)
“I chose the picture with the skier because of sports and fun outdoors in nature, which might
not be possible in the future, because of climate changes. (...). The next picture is the one with
the big wallet. I associate that with the global economy growing because of over-exploitation of
natural resources. And you can't eat money.” (Me, M, GE)
“Each and every one of us has to think about what he or she can do and how we can contribute.
That would be this picture. Caring more about sustainability, repairing things. I think this picture
addresses the throwaway society. We should move away from that. This other picture is
associated, like many others have said before me, with working together towards one goal and
the American president obstructing negotiations. A big problem lies ahead of us.” (Hi, F, GE)
Concerns
“When you see that tunas that used to be 500 kg. are now only 200 or 300 and they are being
caught even with 100…They are still babies!” (Me, M, SP)
“The most relevant is climate change denial. With this new US president he says that the
environment issues are a Chinese invention. When you deny reality, you won’t make any
objections in terms of pollution, resources, exploitation, etc.” (Me, M, SP)
“The overexploitation of resources could bring war. We grow exponentially and resources are
limited on Earth, so overexploitation of the planet can bring wars, hunger, etc.” (Me, M, SP)
“What worries me is the future. What our kids will inherit.” (Hi, M, SP).
“Pollution influences our health, in cities such as Madrid or Barcelona, it is quite harmful in our
lungs and bronchi.” (Hi, F, SP).
“We are creating a much worse ecosystem, the melting will be great, food exploitation is
destroying the jungles.” (Hi, M, SP).
“The other day I told my wife “we are just grocery shopping and we have already filled a whole
bag of plastic!”” (Me, M, SP)
“The climate change would extinct everything; animals, plants, humans, everything.” (Me, F,
SP)
“Hunger, wars, melting, desertification, deforestation…It is where we are heading.” (Me, M, SP)
“Pollution also means spending in cities in terms of dirtiness, for instance, which is covered with
our taxes. So at the same time that we are polluting it is costing us money.” (Hi, F, SP)
“I am worried about the extreme heat that we lived through this year. Why? Because of the
cycle of plants and animals movement, unable to reproduce...Pollution also affects me, because
I go out in the street and breath. I am worried about how to solve this, because people are not
aware and being able to solve this implies costs: three bins at home, I have to make an effort
to separate, then a hybrid car which means an added cost to what I have.” (Me, M, SP)
“Environmental issues are deteriorating the health level...For instance, there were toxic
discharges in my village, and most people of my generation, a little over 30, we have gone
through cancer or a chronic disease.” (Hi, F, SP)
194
“I go to the Islas Medas, which is a protected area, and I see fish there. I believe there might
not be fish there in 10 years”. (Me, M, SP)
“Our weather is turning closer to that of the Sahara!” (Hi, M, SP)
“Illegal discharges AND legal discharges, because those that are legal have really high limits,
not counting that they are cumulative.” (Hi, F, SP)
“We've seen cases in which they payed a 10% of a quantity of money, insignificant in respect to
the harm they've done. At the end, it is in their interest discharging toxics, paying their fines,
and keeping with business.” (Me, M, SP)
“The TTIP agreement between the US and Europe. There is a number of products, legalized in
the US, to be used in crops and anywhere, that are banned in Europe. With this agreement
between the US and Europe we would allow bringing these products to be used legally, as well
as food, which is what could concerns us the most right now, that are banned in Europe, without
any control.” (Me, M, SP)
“What concerns me the most in relation with the environment is plastic, vehicle emissions and
global warming.” (Hi, F, GE)
“I think the most important things regarding the environment are the plastic waste in the
sea...We live in a throwaway society that is provoking this global warming.” (Me, F, GE)
“It is important to protect the climate and the sea, and to control the plastic waste and the
vehicle emissions. Overfishing is also a problem.” (Me, M, GE)
“Those big concerns here, they do not care. Because there aren’t any consequences. Compared
to the Americans we don’t do anything. And with this minister there will never be anything done
against that. Without being mean and raising a warning finger...There should be very clear
consequences and rules.” (Hi, M, GE)
Habits
“In general, I would consider more sustainable not consuming as many products and services.
(…).Consuming less and being very selective in what we consume. Making sure that it doesn't
come from far away, that it hasn't contaminated that much due to the trip, that it doesn't have
pesticides... the only issue is that it is expensive” (Hi, F, SP)
“Using collaborative consumption, any type of it. If I use the car, bringing more people along in
my car. If I have this [picking up a glass] at home, why not giving it to you instead of throwing
it away?” (Me, F, SP)
“I recycle paper, and I try to use it all again. In the office or anywhere else. I don't use one page
and write something on it, and then throw it away. I recycle paper, plastic at home... What I
don't do is separating organic. I have to admit that…Due to the size of my kitchen. I don't have
more space for bins.” (Me, F, SP)
“There is also not a very good explanation of what is organic and what disposable garbage is. In
theory, the organic is good for compost. But some organic things cannot go into the organic bin.
They have to go into general waste. So it is confusing, and when you don't know where to place
it, you just throw it away in general waste.” (Hi, M, SP)
“The only time of my life that I recycled organic was when I had a real compost space, and it
was as easy as throwing it there, it didn't smell” (Hi, F, SP)
“I control water consumption. (…). I open and close the water tap 20 times when washing my
teeth, but I don't let it running half an hour. Or showers, instead of 15 or 20 minutes, they are
just 10.” (Me, M, SP)
“I try to reduce containers by buying in bulk, but it is expensive, because most bulk stores are
also ecological, so it is quite expensive” (Hi, F, SP)
195
“I was motivated to recycle due to education. Being taught in school since you are a kid…Yes,
they taught me. But my parents didn't recycle at home, and I don’t think they even knew about
it.” (Me, F, SP)
“What motivated me to recycle was my grandmother. To my grandmother, a bag lasted 20
years. She was using the food that was left for the hens, the water left for the vegetable garden...
I lived that philosophy when I was a kid. My grandmother never threw anything away.” (Hi, M,
SP)
“Ads making you aware of having to use public transportation because cars pollute... You think
about it a bit.” (Me, F, SP)
“The trolley that grandmothers used in the past. It disappeared and it came back when it was
announced that bags would go for 3 or 5 cents.” (Me, M, SP)
“The ideal would be that the infrastructure of buildings had a system to recycle grey waters,
which is probably not that difficult.” (Hi, F, SP)
“I have a friend working at the recycling plant, and whenever a plastic container comes with a
glass bottle, the entire container is dismissed… Most of them are dismissed. Recycling is a
business that four or five companies hold: it is useless as it is. And I most certainly know it” (Hi,
M, SP)
“Instead of turning the central heating up to 24, we put it up to 22 and we wear a sweater at
home” (Me, M, SP)
“The issue in this country is: we create a Ministry, call it Environment, how nice! But then the
Ministry of Agriculture allows pesticides...” (Hi, F, SP)
“GMOs should be banned in Spain…Short-term, we are eating food that we don't know what
effect might have on us, and long-term, it could finish off with our own species. GMOs
contaminate non-GMOs. The issue is that we do not know what the consequences are. It is an
experiment” (Hi, F, SP)
“I would give back the can to the supermarket. I did it in Germany. Of course I'd do it here as
well!” (Me, M, SP)
“Make public transportation be more comfortable, more attractive... But it is just not acceptable
that, on any day, public transportation takes 7 minutes between trains. That is just not effective
for anyone. If you have a car or a motorcycle, you’ll prefer taking it.” (Hi, M, SP)
“For instance, plastic toys don't go there (in the plastic bin). That goes to garbage. There are so
many things... it is not well explained” (Me, M, SP)
“You shouldn’t only show the environmental footprint here, but actually raise awareness among
people. If my 15-year old son goes shopping I ask myself what he has learned in the last 15
years. (...). I think this raising of awareness should really be part of this whole footprint-thing.
If everyone buys the red one because it is cheaper or they don’t care anyway and don’t know
what they actually do when buying the genetically modified food...There are people here who
think about these things. But if you go to Aldi and see what people buy there then you can
assume that 80% of these people never thought about what they’re actually buying.” (Hi, M,
GE)
“But all the airplanes and rich people with their private jets. Why doesn't the government just
prohibit certain things instead of putting everything on the small people?” (Hi, F, GE)
Perception
“Pouring the oil I don't want any more through the drain. That would be a negative
environmental footprint. And that would be at an individual level. And then, at a company or a
national level, if you have polluting discharges, if you throw plastic to the sea, if you contribute
to deforestation to build wood houses or for paper, etc...” (Me, M, SP)
“I believe plastic lasts... I was going to say 1000 years, but I don't know if it is 300 or 400 years
in being degraded” (Me, M, SP)
196
“For instance clothing. It is being brought from China. How much pollution does a container from
China create?” (Hi, F, SP)
“When you buy food that comes from the hyper-production of food. Those companies are cutting
down the Amazon in order to be able to plant crops: soy, palm oil... so they are breaking the
world's lung. That is very important.” (Hi, M, SP)
“Massive production of pigs --for instance, we do it in the area of Lleida in Catalonia-- or chickens
in Tarragona, is intensive production with animal feed (...). This diet destroys soil and
production, contaminates the environment with methane and other toxics, and what you are
eating is meat of very poor quality, so it is harmful for our health.” (Hi, M, SP)
“There are several labels. There's the European environmental label, the leave. Then there's the
"Fair trade"-label. New labels could be added, but it's already quite a lot on the packages. There's
already the nutrition table and other things.” (Hi, F, GE)
“When I travel by Flixbus, there's a little box on the last page, where you can choose to
contribute to climate protection. A CO2 compensation.” (Hi, M, GE)
“Many products have a pollution certification. Bees’ mortality. You can buy certain honeys that
cost three euro more. But I'm sceptical about whether they might put part of the money into
their own pockets” (Hi, F, GE)
“If you make the production so dependent on these environmental footprint certifications it gets
impossible for a small farmer to sell his products, because he cannot afford all of these 25
monthly tests” (Hi, M, GE)
“The obligation to label ... not all labels are protected, everyone can use them. (...). I think
there's a lot of corruption. That many politicians who are responsible for those decisions are on
the payroll of certain companies.” (Hi, F, GE)
“They often lie about the certificates. In the clothing industry for example harmful dyes are used
and then there are certificates that they produce themselves, but that's usually not true.” (Hi,
F, GE)
Influence
“If I buy a t-shirt and they told me that it made 3000 kilometers from China to here, and we
paid 50 cents per hour to a girl to make it, I won't buy it….labelling wouldn't be important just
for people, also for companies. Because whenever responsibility is placed in companies... when
Governments make policies it seems it is just us who have to save the planet. And it is multiple
things.” (Hi, F, SP)
“I look at the barcode and the labelling. Because when you buy meat, you see the tray: "Cow
grown in Germany, killed in Poland, chopped in Spain, and packaged in... wherever". I take that,
and I leave it there.” (Hi, M, SP)
“The DGT [traffic authority] sent me a sticker for the car, green, with the car's license plate and
a QR code, related to the efficiency level of the car. They gave me a C level. With that I have
benefits in parking... I know it is voluntary, I imagine everyone will get that. It is a campaign
the DGT did to show which cars contaminate the least.” (Me, M, SP)
“If it is an appliance, labels do influence my purchase. (...). But it is not due to the environment,
it is due to a long-term vision. If you buy A, A+ or A++, it will consume way less energy than
others” (Hi, F, SP)
“It depends on the use that you'll give it, and the profitability that you will get out of it. If I'm
going to use it today and tomorrow, it won't matter to me, because I'll use for this, and that will
be it. But if I am planning on using it for a long time, that footprint might matter to me.” (Me,
M, SP)
“You go to the hairdresser and you don't know what they are using. And there are more
ecological hairdressers now. If I'm going to have a massage or waxing, I'd like to know...” (Me,
F, SP)
197
“PEF helps me to be more aware when buying and using the products. Back in time, for instance,
cleaning products, were super toxic. Then we invented biodegradables, and you know that when
you are using the washing machine, depending on the product that you are using for it, you are
contaminating a number of litres of water.” (Me, M, SP)
“The institution providing the certification should be public, otherwise I'll think that it is bought
from the start. Even if they are public they can still be bought...And it should be integrated by
well-known personalities of the environmental sciences... people seriously involved with the
environment.” (Hi, F, SP)
“The EC would not be credible neither for me. That is full of lobbies.” (Hi, M, SP)
“Within the EC, even if there are lobbies, there are also independent organisms that certify
things, for good and for bad” (Me, M, SP)
“Where are things produced? When I consume something that has been produced in China, I
know it has travelled a long distance, which has negative impacts.” (Me, F, GE)
“Of course labels do have an influence on me. However, there's no harm in being sceptical and
inform yourself.” (Hi, F, GE)
“When I buy fish, I tend to pay attention to the labels.” (Me, M, GE)
“Whether it's free-range hens. I wouldn't buy eggs from hens that are kept in laying batteries”
(Hi, M, GE)
“It (organic food) shouldn't cost three times as much, but a little is ok” (Me, M, GE)
“At first you would have to define the aspects that are included in the environmental footprint.
And that's where the key figures come in. And they should be comparable.” (Hi, F, GE)
“It's not only about the footprint but also about an authority controlling the footprint and who is
responsible sanctioning. (...).To me there's no benefit from the label. If it's a false label there's
no one who says: You can’t do that, no one who sanctions the company who is responsible. If a
label doesn't fulfil the requirements companies should be sanctioned. Until that's not the case,
the labels are useless. It if says no tuna or dolphins have been bycaught, how can we proof that?
” (Hi, M, GE)
“Unfortunately there are much more Internet sites that are untrustworthy. If you have the
possibility to inform yourself. If a company uses a certificate to promote their product und you
have the right sources to understand the certificate. If I have the possibility to research whether
a certificate is trustworthy or not” (Hi, F, GE)
“Labels should be monitored by a governmental authority.” (Hi, W, GE)
“It should be an independent organization without any governmental influence. Germany is not
exactly exemplary in terms of energy consumption and environmental pollution. And if the
government would be responsible for environmental certificates they probably wouldn't act
independently...they represent their own interests” (Me, M, GE)
“Why there are so few articles about the Rothschilds. That's because the five largest media
groups belong to the Rothschilds...If the superrich somehow participate in something, they tell
the media what to write” (Hi, F, GE)
“I think it depends on if it will be mandatory or if it will be a voluntary statement of the brand.
Because if it would be voluntary and the dedicated concerns would put the footprint on there,
then those who wouldn’t put it on their products would already seem suspicious. Then of course
you wouldn’t buy those things” (Hi, F, GE)
Labels
”Bio” which doesn't really mean that it is biologic... there are lots of labels that are confusing.”
(Hi, F, SP)
“Letters (L1) make you understand better the difference between maximum and minimum...”
(Me, M, SP)
198
“The traffic-lights system (L2) is more visual, because even if you can't read you know that
green is something good…it is intuitive. And you know red is oriented to stopping.” (Me, F, SP)
“The PEFs information label should the same as with tobacco, on the label, by the brand” (Me,
M, SP)
“If I see that each time I do the scanning (QR code) there is advertising, I would stop doing it
after the third time. Which is what usually happens” (Hi, M, SP)
“I'm missing the kilometres it travelled...why does it have to be on the QR and not on the
product? I'd like to see it on the label!” (Hi, F, SP)
“Then you'd get the other bottle of water and you'd say "This one has a B this one a C, I take
B".” (Me, M, SP)
“(L3) I would need someone to explain that to me. And then I could understand.” (Me, M, SP)
“I would download the app depending on who did that app.” (Hi, F, SP)
“This (further information on the PEF) would have to give me information that helped me decide
whether to buy it or not.” (Me, M, SP)
“(It would be interesting to check on the app) Something telling you about products that comply
with the environment...or recommendations on shops.” (Me, F, SP)
“The app should have a database, so every time you scan a product, it keeps it, and compares
that product to others, doing a mix, saying "there were 20 water products scanned in Barcelona,
and the best was x because it has this, that and the other"” (Me, M, SP)
“If they are right next to each other, I would always choose the product with the label.” (Hi, F,
GE)
“There shouldn't be ten or hundred different labels but one general label.” (Me, M, GE)
“I don’t think text would be really effective because you don’t necessarily read all of it... Because
you would rather take a look at the stickers than standing there and reading a text for every
product. Maybe at home. But then it’s too late anyway. It should be something that you can
visually see and not text.” (Hi, F, GE)
“You don’t spend too much time in a supermarket and I think something like that (traffic-lights
performance rating) would make it easier” (Me, M, GE)
“Already when you’re a child you learn that green is good and red is bad. Everyone knows that.
And it doesn’t matter what I buy” (Hi, F, GE)
“I’d like further information on PEF for electronic devices...Because you have them longer and
you have them at home. Personally I would also like to know about that when buying clothes.
Especially when you have problems with your skin, like neurodermatitis and also with children
when it is problematic there then you would want to know about these things.” (Hi, F, GE)
“I think the more expensive it gets the more you think about all that. Because you don’t just
buy a car like that, you really do concern yourself with it. But if you buy milk then of course you
do not think about it that much. Maybe on the big picture. But especially if you spend more
money…those are usually always the things that you use over a long time so you just think about
it more. When I buy a car I think about that or when I buy a computer or a house.” (Me, M, GE)
“If there are genetically modified things in these products then I feel affected by that myself...
Clothes that were produced using toxic chemicals. Anything that affects my personal health.”
(Hi ,F, GE)
“In Romania he is driving around with a tractor that looses more fuel than he actually uses. How
do you want to compare that with the one here where they drive around with some kind of
electric vehicles. That’s why this is all so different. If it was a community that was on the same
level I would say okay then we are talking about the same things but when you are so different
then… That’s why I don’t think that this is a European thing” (Hi, M, GE)
199
“Of course the goal should be to have such a seal all over Europe or worldwide, but I think it is
difficult to start with such a seal which is why you should go step by step” (Me, M. GE)
“...with red, green, yellow. That would be for a first impression and then I can read something
about the background and about what I need. (...). Nobody will take a look at those (figure 1).
When you have six or seven or eight different things…” (Hi, M, GE)
“I think the most concrete thing to know is actually the packing a product has. When you have
plastic waste lying around I think that is the most tangible. And I think that this is also something
that responds to most people” (Hi, M, GE)
“As customers we do not have an influence on the phase of production but we can influence the
phase of usage” (Hi, F, GE)
“I like the first one best (L1). Because with the last one (L3) you get like a manual and when
you buy something like that you don’t really know what to compare it with or so. I like the first
more. It does give a bit more information than the second one...and it is still better divided
because there are five different levels and the other one has only three. I do like that. And I also
like how it is divided.” (Me, F, GE)
“I like the one in the middle better (L2) because you can inform yourself. And you could add
steps. For example, between green and yellow there could be another step. And if I want to I
can get more information. I think that is really important. I cannot do that with the one on the
right (L3). I also like numbers.” (Hi, F, GE)
“I like the one with the letters (L1) because I don’t have a stated measurement or a relation.
There are like 27mg in there (L2), but I don’t have a proportion. So the number itself doesn’t
really help.” Me, M, GE)
“I would add the numbers on the right side to the thing on the left side. Because over time you
might want to compare these numbers. For example, I also started comparing nutritional values
of groceries. You get more sensitive and realize if a value is high or low. You learn about the
comparability, if 27 is a lot or not.” (Hi, F, GE)
“I think the five-level version is better (L1). Because the other one with the values is relative. I
mean with the use of water…where does this use of water take place? In Sweden? Then it doesn’t
matter. Does it take place in Africa? Then it would be a catastrophe. There are so many details
that add up and make it difficult to evaluate it. There is some authority who decides that and
who says for this year you get the green B and that is great. And for me the statement is made
then. To know one has 75g in his yogurt, the other one hat 73,5g the next one has 52g and then
I add it up and count in if it was recycled or not and it gets too complicated.” Hi, M, GE)
“It’s just difficult if you go to the butcher or so. It is difficult on a counter. You would have to
think about how to do it there. If you print something out and put it in there. I mean if I do care
about it. If I bought meat that is in a packaging I could see the values on there but it wouldn’t
say that when I bought the meat from the butcher. You could put it on a card in front of the
meat.” (Me, M, GE)
“At the Butcher’s they need to change those labels with every new pig that comes. Maybe the
other pig is from somewhere totally different and was maybe also fed in a different way. I don’t
think that this would work. (...). The farmer will rather saw downs his apple trees before he gets
these labels. It’s done for them. I mean that has also to do with trust. If I go to the farmer’s
market and I trust them then they do not need to prove things to me because I know who he is
and where these apples come from.” Hi, M, GE)
“There is an app like that. About different groups of products. You can see there what they have
in the supermarkets. They also use red and green labels. (...). You don’t have to scan anything.
You can only look products up that are on there. For example, Landliebe yogurt Natur has that
many pollutants and so on.” (Hi, F, GE)
“An app where you can scan the QR code and if the product is there you can find it and otherwise
add it. I mean it would be good if I scanned it and then I could see the website of the brand. I
200
do like the idea. I mean you do compare everything by now. You look up how much is that car
here or there. And you can do the same with groceries” (Me, M, GE)
“(Having further PEF information): Maybe for groceries that you buy regularly. I think that would
be worth it as well. But for things that you do not always buy or that you always buy from
different brands it would be too complicated” (Me, F, GE)
“If a third party is evaluating this product as a light green then it is a light green for me. I would
trust them. Because if I don’t I would have the problem that I would have to compare it with 20
other nougat cremes. Then I take the other nougat crème because it needed less water or
whatever. That is too complicated.” (Hi, M, GE)
Point of sale
“I consume lots of Coca-Cola. I'd take the packaging with my bag and get money back... or a
coupon. I can buy some more, then!” (Me, F, SP)
“I don't pay attention to leaflets, but I do to images…I take the leaflet and it goes directly to
the garbage.” (Me, M, SP)
“The salesperson will sell you whatever... even if it is D. But if you have a large enough sign
with letters: A, A+, A++... Level of efficiency, etc... It needs to catch your attention… Washing
machines are down here, so up top on the wall, and while you are seeing the washing machine,
at the eye level” (Me, M, SP)
“(PEF information when purchasing online) It shouldn't be directly like this. You'd have to have
the option to want to know about it or not. (…). It is an issue of usability. If I want to buy
something fast in Amazon I don't want 30 screens, because I'm going fast.” (Me, F, SP)
“(PEF information when purchasing online ) There should be something. At least the letter, A B,
C or whatever, and then you click on details, if you'd like” (Hi, F, SP)
“(Placing eco-friendly products in the POS) But at least it should be integrated. If I see it
somewhere where it is not normalized, as he said, I won't go there, because I know it is
expensive. If this is with the normalized, I might even take it along.” (Me, M, SP)
“(Comparing your purchase with others’) I think that would be frustrating...Because you don’t
really get anything. I mean you don’t get 10€ back if you have two smilies (figure 5).” (Hi, F,
GE)
“(Comparing your purchase with others’) If there were ten millions before me who bought the
worst thing and I buy the second worst thing then I am the green one. This comparability is very
difficult.” (Me, M, GE)
Communication
“When I saw what the Nutella people did with monkeys... I am not buying Nutella anymore.”
(Hi, F, SP)
“The images of Madrid when they banned 50% of traffic, and you could see pollution, it was like
a mushroom. And what is this, you said? Automatically, me, a regular Madrid inhabitant, I said
"Where am I living?" It is not that I won't take the car because the Mayor tells me not to. I'm
not driving in a week, or two, or I will simply take public transportation” (Me, M, SP)
“Seeing the negative consequences is more motivating. If you see the positive, you are just a
happy man” (Me, M, SP)
“What happens in the desert in Africa, since I don't see it, it doesn't affect me. What I see in
Barcelona is what affects me.” (Me, M, SP)
“If you are going to take public transportation, in the metro, or the bus, you can see the slogan.
Or something could show up while you are waiting on a stop” (Me, F, SP)
201
“Probably not a company itself would show its environmental footprint, because that wouldn't
be promotional. If a TV advertisement would say: These are our emissions, people might not
buy the product” (Hi, M, GE)
“Obligations could be introduced as is the case with cigarettes that contain a message that says:
Smoking is a danger to your health. Every company could be obliged to state their environmental
impact.” (Me, M, GE)
“(Environmental information on TV) That doesn’t have to be 24 hours and seven days a week
but regularly. So that people who are otherwise not that interested in all that are confronted
with it and think about it.” Me, M, GE)
“(PEFs and OEFs on TV) You should make it mandatory. Like with drugs. “For information on
risks and side-effects please read the pack insert and ask your Doctor or Pharmacist.” What
always comes in the end. After every product there should be a flash with this label.” (Hi, F, GE)
“There should also be one negative ad during a commercial break. For example, about how
plastic waste damages the oceans. You should make aware of these things over and over again.”
(Hi, F, GE)
“If you want to get more information about these bad brands there is a book that is called Das
Schwarzbuch der Markenfirmen. It gets reissued every two to three years and everything gets
revealed relentlessly. They are two reporters who enter these companies incognito and create
reportages from there. Very interesting.” (Hi, F, GE)
202
Annex III. SME questionnaire

Q0. Are you responsible for or have a good knowledge of your company’s environmental policies?
Yes – Continue with survey
No – Could you please forward it to the appropriate person within your company?
Section 1: The company and its sector
Q.1. In which commercial sector do you operate? (Tick from NACE Rev.2)
Q.2. How many full time employees were in the company in 2016?
1. 1-9 employees
2. 10-49 employees
3. 50-249 employees
Q.3. What was the turnover of your company in 2016? (€=) [Free text]
Q.4. What level of resources are devoted to improving the environmental performance of
your operations and/or products? (As % of 2016 turnover) [0-100]
Q.5. What is the legal status of the company?
a. For-profit
b. Non-for-profit
Q.6. What is the market scope of your company is…? (tick those that apply)
1. Local
4. Regional
5. National
6. European
7. Worldwide
Q.7. The primary commercial activity costumers of your company is are….
1. Business to Business (B2B)
2. Business to Consumers (B2C)
3. Both
Q.8. In the context of B2B activities are these intermediate or final products?
(Filter: Q7 = 1 and 3)
1. Intermediate products/Services
2. Final products/Services
3. Both intermediate and final products/Services
Q.9. Does your firm have at least one person with explicit responsibility for environmental
concerns?
1. Yes
2. No
Q.10. Which of the following best describes the location of this individual within your firm?
1. Senior management
2. Production/operations
3. Finance/accounting
4. Specialised environmental department (or equivalent)
5. External/media relations
6. Marketing/Sales
7. Purchasing
8. Human resources
9. Product development
10. Other department (please specify)
203
Q.11. Are your company a member of a trade association?

1. Yes
2. No
Q.12. To what extent is your sector committed to environmental sustainability? (5 point
scale: 5-Very –1- Not at all)
Q.13. To what extent is your company committed to environmental sustainability? (5 point
scale: 5-Very – 1-Not at all)
Q.14. In your sector, is there a demand for more information about environmental issues?
(5 point scale: 5-Yes definitely/1-No, not at all)
Q.15. In your company, is there a demand for more information about environmental
issues? (5 point scale: 5-Yes definitely/1-No, not at all)
Q.16. How relevant are environmental concerns to your sector? (5 point scale: 5-Very/1-not
at all)
Q.17. How relevant are environmental concerns to your company? (5 point scale: 5-Very/1-
not at all)
Section 2: Environmental Information
Q.18. Does your company have an environmental policy?
1. Yes
2. No
Q.19. Is your environmental policy based on Life Cycle Assessment indicators?
(Filter: Q18 = 1)
1. Yes
2. No
Q.20. Which of the following topics does your environmental policy cover? (tick all that
apply)
(Filter: Q18 = 1)
1. Human Health. The negative effects on people’s health, for instance, as a
consequence of chemicals or radiation emitted during the life cycle of a product or
indirectly as consequence of climate change
2. Natural Environment. The negative effects on the function and structure of natural
ecosystems, for instance, as a consequence of the emission of chemicals or
physical interventions that take place during the lifecycle of a product
3. Natural Resources. The negative effects, for instance, to the use of physical
resources such as energy, metals and minerals and water, which results in a
decrease in the availability of the total resource stock, as physical resources can be
finite and non-renewable.
Q.21. Which of the following topics does your environmental policy cover in relation to
human health? (tick all that apply)
(Filter: Q20 = 1)
1. Climate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the
climate for the worse, impacting indirectly on your health.
2. Ozone depletion. Emissions damaging the ozone layer leading to increased
ultraviolet radiation resulting in skin cancer.
3. Human Toxicity - cancer. Emissions of toxic substances leading to an increased risk
of cancer, for instance, through the air we breathe and indirectly through the food
we eat and the water we drink.
4. Human Toxicity - non-cancer. Emissions of toxic substances damaging your health,
for instance, through the air we breathe and also indirectly through the food we
eat and the water we drink.
204
5. Particulate matter. Emissions of tiny particle, for instance, leading to respiratory

diseases and the so-called “winter smog”.
6. Ionizing radiation. Radiation increasing the risk of cancer.
7. Photochemical ozone formation. Emissions creating, for instance, the so called
“summer smog” and respiratory diseases.
natural environment? (tick all that apply)
(Filter: Q20 = 2)
1. Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the
climate for the worse, impacting indirectly on the ecosystems.
2. Acidification. Emission of substance leading, for instance, to acid rain and poorer
quality of air, water and soil.
3. Eutrophication - terrestrial. Too many nutrients in the environment, for instance by
overuse of fertilisers in farming, upsetting the balance of nature.
4. Eutrophication - freshwater. Too many nutrients in freshwater, for instance, by the
nature, e.g. leading to algal blooms and killing fish.
5. Eutrophication - marine. Too many nutrients in marine water, for instance, due to
nature and leading to algal blooms in seawater.
6. Ecotoxicity - freshwater. Emission of toxic substances that are a danger to
organisms like fish, algae and other organisms living in fresh water.
7. Land use. Use of land and soil endanger, such as soil fertility as well as the
wellbeing and survival of some animals and plant species.
8. Resource use - water. Use of freshwater reducing its availability for needs of the
ecosystem
natural resources? (tick all that apply)
(Filter: Q20 = 3)
1. Resource use: metals and minerals. Use of minerals, metals and other resources in
products reducing their availability for future uses.
2. Resource use: fossil fuels. Use of fossil fuels, reducing their availability for future
uses.
3. Resource use: water. Use of freshwater reducing its availability for future uses.
4. Land use. Use of land and soil endanger e.g. soil fertility as well as the survival of
some animals and plant species.
5. Climate change. Emission of greenhouse gases changing temperature and the
climate for the worse, impacting directly and indirectly on natural resources.
Q.23a Are there other aspects that your environmental policy covers? (please specify)
Q.24. Which of the following aspects does your company’s environmental policy cover? (tick
those that apply)
(Filter: Q18 = 1)
1. Product/Services
2. Organisation
3. Others. (please specify)
205
Q.25. While purchasing and/or marketing your products, does your firm regularly consider
the following measures? (5 point scale: Very/not at all)
1. Informing clients of your product/organization's environmental performance
2. Assessing the environmental performance of suppliers
3. Requiring suppliers to undertake environmental measures
Q.26. Does your company publish environmental information?
4. Yes
5. No
Q.27. Who is the target(s) of the communication? (tick all that apply) (Filter: Q26=1)
6. Clients
7. Suppliers
8. Investors
9. Public administrations
10. NGOs
11. Other (please specify)
Q.28. Is the information verified/ certified?
1. Internally audited
2. 3rd party certified
3. 3rd party verified
4. Provided to a public register
Q.29. How is B2B environmental information conveyed, what (if any) communication
vehicles are employed by company? (tick all that apply)
(Filter: Q7 = 1 and 3 and Q26 = 1)
1. Environmental Product Declaration
2. Product passport (a set of information about the components and materials that
a product contains, and how they can be disassembled and recycled at the end
of the product's useful life).
3. Environmental label on product
4. Environmental information on invoices
5. Environmental report (provides information on the current environmental
performance of the company/ products)
6. Environmental performance tracking report (provides comparison of current
performance to performance in previous years)
7. Other report (please specify)
8. Environmental/sustainability ranking or index (own or third party)
9. Environmental campaign
10. Public relation effort related to the environment
Q.30. More and more companies are developing B2B communication vehicles for
environmental information. Which of the following do you think would be possible for
your company? (tick all that apply)
206

Q.31. How would you rate the effectiveness of the following B2B communication vehicles? (5
point scale: 5-Very effective –1- Not at all)
Q.32. How is B2C environmental information conveyed, what (if any) communication
vehicles are employed by company? (tick all that apply)
1. Label
2. QR code
3. Barcode
4. POS product advertisement
5. Loyalty schemes
6. Leaflets, catalogues, etc.
7. Instruction manuals
8. Websites
9. Apps
10. Marketing campaigns/ advertising
Q.33. More and more companies are developing B2C communication vehicles for
environmental information. Which of the following do you think would be possible for
your company? (tick all that apply)
1. Label
2. QR code
3. Barcode
5. Loyalty schemes
207
8. Websites
9. App
Q.34. How would you rate the effectiveness of the following B2C communication vehicles? (5
point scale: 5-Very effective – 1-Not at all)
1. Label
2. QR code
3. Barcode
5. Loyalty schemes
8. Websites
9. App
Section 3: Product Environmental Footprint (PEF)

The Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) is a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) based method to
quantify the relevant environmental impacts of products (goods and services) and organisations.
It builds on existing approaches and international standards.
Q.35. To what extent has the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) been discussed in your
sector? (5 point scale: A great deal/none at all)
Q.36. Please tell us to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements
related to the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) benefits (5 point scale: 5-Totally agree/1-
Totally disagree)(Filter: Q35 = 2 or 3 or 4 or 5)
LCA can…
1. …. be a tool to identify environmental hotspots
2. ... be a tool to define environmental strategies and actions
3. … support the implementation of monitoring systems
4. … create new marketing opportunities
5. … be useful for product design
6. … involve top managers in environmental issues
7. … improve the reputation of the organization
8. … drive environmental improvement in products/organisations
9. … improve the competitive advantage of organisations
10. … improve environmental management practices
11. … improve customer satisfaction
12. … increase awareness of employees in environmental issues
13. … increase the level of cooperation within the company
14. … Increase the differentiation of products/ services
15. … improve the relations with public institutions
16. … improvement legal compliance
17. … improve the relations with suppliers
18. … improve the relations with the owner or the group
19. … increase sales of the products
20. … improve financing opportunities
208
Q.37. Please tell us to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements
about possible problems with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) (5 point scale: 5-Totally
agree/1-Totally disagree)
(Filter: Q35 = 2 or 3 or 4 or 5)
LCA creates problems such as…
1. Difficulty collecting data from suppliers
2. Too time consuming
3. Significant involvement of internal human resources
4. High costs for expert involvement
5. Difficulty collecting data inside the organization
6. Software is too expensive
7. Difficulty to communicate the results
8. Evaluation of data quality
9. Difficult to find good quality data
10. Difficult to assess the quality of data
11. Difficulty coordinating internal and external resources
12. Collection of data from supply chain
13. With the analysis and interpretation of the results
14. Certification/review of the study
15. Definition of system boundaries
16. Definition of scope and object of the study
17. Definition of the functional unit
Q.38 The Product Environmental Footprint method has new features respectively to traditional
Life Cycle Assessment. Please tell us to what extent you consider these useful or not (5
point scale: 5-Very useful – 1-Not useful at all)
(Filter: Q19 = 1)
1. Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules pre-identify most relevant
environmental impacts, processes and life cycle stages for the product group
2. Primary data gathering is focussed on a limited number of specific processes
3. Data quality requirements vary based on environmental relevance and access to
data
4. Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules list secondary data to be used
5. Secondary data are available for free to users of Product Environmental Footprint
Category Rules
6. The environmental performance of the average product on the market
(representative product/ benchmark) is stated in the Product Environmental
Footprint Category Rules
7. It is possible to compare the Environmental Footprint profile of the product with
the benchmark
209
Annex IV. Certification and Trust

Choice sets
Figure 82 Study on Certification and Trust – choice sets
Se Frame Source
t
1 Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment Consumer
association
1 Protect our environment European
Commission
2 Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children Government
2 Protect our environment to benefit our health Industry
3 Protect our environment to benefit our health European
Commission
3 Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment -
4 Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children Consumer
association
4 Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment Government
5 Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment Consumer
association
5 Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the -
environment
6 Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the Consumer
environment association
6 Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children Industry
7 Protect our environment to benefit our country’s children European
Commission
7 Protect our environment Consumer
association
8 Protect our environment to benefit our health -
8 Our countries’ children will suffer if we ignore the Industry
environment
9 Our health will suffer if we ignore the environment European
Commission
9 Protect our environment to benefit our health Government
10 Protect our environment Third party
10 Protect our environment -
210
Questionnaire - procedure
(This heading and others below will not appear in the questionnaire)
Thank you very much for your interest in participating in this online self-administered survey
that should take about 15 minutes of your time. Please note all the information you provide will
remain strictly confidential and will be treated following all applicable data protection regulations.
You can now start the online online by clicking on the "NEXT" button below
EXPERIMENTAL TASK
Q1. We would like you to consider the two XXXXX presented below and their
characteristics. Which XXX would you choose?
QUESTIONNAIRE
Certification
Q2. How much would you trust the following to certify the accuracy of
Completely Quite a lot Not very Not at all Don’t

much know
National government
The European Commission
An Industry body – an
industry association
A Consumer Organisation
A third party organisation
Competence
Q3. Do you think the following organisations would have the expertise to provide
accurate product environmental information on consumer products?
Yes Yes Probably not Definitely Don’t

definitely probably not know
National government
The European
Commission
Q4. Do you think the following organisations would have the expertise to verify
accurate product environmental information on consumer products?
211

National government
The European
Commission
Fiduciary responsibility
Q5. Do you think they could be relied on to act in the public interest regarding
product environmental information?

National government
The European
Commission
212
Effectiveness
Q6. In the development and introduction of product environmental information for
consumers how effective do you think the following would be?
Very Moderately Moderately Very

effective effective ineffective ineffective
National government
An Industry body – an industry

association
Leadership
Q7. Who should lead the development and introduction of product environmental
information?
Completely Agree Disagree Completely

Agree Disagree
National government
An Industry body – an industry

association
Penalties
Q8. If it is found that a company has intentionally misinformed the public about
the environmental performance of a product, which of the following would be
most appropriate?
Completely Disagree Agree Completely

disagree agree
The Company should be

named and shamed in
public
The Company should

pay a fine
213
Importance
“T-SHIRT GROUP” ONLY
Q9. Of the following aspects, which one do you consider the most important when
buying a t-shirt? Please rank them from n.1, the most important, to n.6 the
least important (Random order)
 Price
 Quality
 Environmental impact
 Country of origin
 Organic
 Brand
“LAPTOP GROUP” ONLY
buying a laptop? Please rank them from n.1, the most important, to n.5 the
least important.
 Price
 Quality
 Performance
 Brand
“MILK GROUP” ONLY
buying milk? Please rank them from n.1, the most important, to n.6 the least
important.
 Price
 Quality
 Country of origin
 Organic
 Brand
Socio-demographics
ALL
Q12. Gender
 Female
 Male
Q13. Age
____ years old
Q14. What is the highest level of education you have completed? [SINGLE ANSWER]
 0-11 years of education
 12 years of education (high school diploma)
 Some years of university (not completed)
 University degree (BA, BS)
 Post-graduate degree (MA, MS, JD, MD, PhD, etc)
214
Q15. Think of this ladder as representing where people stand in your country. At the
top of the ladder are the people who are the best off - those who have the
most money, the most education and the most respected jobs. At the bottom
are the people who are the worst off - who have the least money, the least
education, and the least respected jobs or no job. Taking all things into
consideration, where would you place yourself on this ladder?
Target sample
Table 37 Study on Certification and Trust – Target sample by country and age group
From 18 to 24 From 25 to 54 From 55 to 74

Country Total
years years years
Sweden 206 860 434 1,500
Romania 247 1,054 199 1,500
Spain 176 1,054 270 1,500
Germany 173 930 397 1,500
Total 802 3,898 1,300 6,000
Table 38 Study on Certification and Trust - Target sample by country and gender
Sweden 745 755 1,500

Romania 719 781 1,500
Spain 740 760 1,500
Germany 731 769 1,500
Total 2,935 3,065 6,000
Table 39 Study on Certification and Trust - Target sample by country and education
level
12 years Post-
Some
of graduate
0-11 years of University
education degree
Country years of university degree Total
(high (MA, MS,
education (not (BA, BS)
school JD, MD,
completed)
diploma) PhD, etc)
Sweden 201 580 274 308 137 1,500
Romania 45 372 196 596 291 1,500
Spain 52 436 359 514 139 1,500
Germany 589 438 82 157 234 1,500
Total 887 1,826 911 1,575 801 6,000
215
Fieldwork
In the first experiment, fieldwork started on 30 May 2017 with the pilots and finished on 9 June
2017. A total of 28,459 respondents were invited to the questionnaire across the 4 countries
(Sweden, Spain, Germany, Romania). Of them, 4,243 did not complete the questionnaire, while
6,060 did. The average duration of the questionnaire was around 12 minutes. The following
figure summarizes the fieldwork process.
Figure 83 Experiment 1 - Fieldwork
Pilot Fieldwork
Experiment 1
Incomplet
Incomplet
Out (Age)
Complete
Complete
Speeders
Duration
Invited
Invited
Screen
Screen
Start
End
e+
out
e
SE Total 34 61 16 989 1512 956 3 35 10, 30/5/ 9/6/17
1 5 6 17
Group 1 14 20 9 303 502 119 1 5 11,4 30/5/17 9/6/17
2 4
Group 2 10 20 6 298 500 487 2 14 10,3 30/5/17 9/6/17
7 5
Group 3 92 21 1 387 510 350 0 16 10 30/5/17 9/6/17
6
ES Total 14 62 3 722 1532 1207 1 19 13 30/5/ 9/6/17
5 0 17
Group 1 27 21 1 215 507 259 0 3 13,2 30/5/17 9/6/17
7
Group 2 86 21 1 248 522 365 0 3 12,5 30/5/17 9/6/17
3
Group 3 32 20 1 258 503 583 1 13 13,3 30/5/17 9/6/17
0
DE Total 92 62 19 654 1508 1527 4 33 11, 30/5/ 9/6/17
6 6 17
Group 1 26 20 3 219 502 591 2 7 12 30/5/17 9/6/17
6
Group 2 26 21 3 230 504 639 1 12 10,9 30/5/17 9/6/17
6
Group 3 40 21 13 204 502 297 1 14 11,9 30/5/17 9/6/17
4
RO Total 15 60 9 479 1510 553 0 17 12, 30/5/ 9/6/17
3 8 2 17
Group 1 22 20 1 169 503 220 0 9 12,3 30/5/17 9/6/17
5
Group 2 66 20 6 159 503 250 0 6 12 30/5/17 9/6/17
5
Group 3 65 20 2 150 504 83 0 2 12,2 30/5/17 8/6/17
8
216
Codebook
Figure 84 Study on Certification and Trust - Variables
Variable Label
Q Number of questionnaire
CO_1 Country
WEIGH Weighing
ROTATION Rotation Images
IMAGE1 Image 1
IMAGE2 Image 2
IMAGE3 Image 3
IMAGE4 Image 4
IMAGE5 Image 5
IMAGE6 Image 6
IMAGE7 Image 7
IMAGE8 Image 8
IMAGE9 Image 9
IMAGE10 Image 10
Q2_1 National government
Q2_2 The European Commission
Q2_3 An Industry body – an industry association
Q2_4 A Consumer Organisation
Q2_5 A third party organisation
217

Q8_1 The Company being named and shamed in public
Q8_2 The Company should pay a fine
Q9_1 T-Shirt: Price
Q9_2 T-Shirt: Quality
Q9_3 T-Shirt: Environmental impact
Q9_4 T-Shirt: Country of origin
Q9_5 T-Shirt: Organic
Q9_6 T-Shirt: Brand
Q10_1 Laptop: Price
Q10_2 Laptop: Quality
Q10_3 Laptop: Environmental impact
Q10_4 Laptop: Performance
Q10_5 Laptop: Brand
Q11_1 Milk group: Price
Q11_2 Milk group: Quality
Q11_3 Milk group: Environmental impact
Q11_4 Milk group: Country of origin
Q11_5 Milk group: Organic
Q11_6 Milk group: Brand
Q12 Gender
Q13 Q13. Age
CAGE Q13. Age
Q14 Q14. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Q15 Q15. Where would you place yourself on this ladder?
218
Annex V. Study on Willingness to Pay

Choice sets
Figure 85 Study on Willingness to Pay – Choice sets
Set Style Score Price
1 Overall B +7%
1 Overall + Midpoints B +15%
2 Midpoints D +15%
2 Overall B Baseline
3 Overall B Baseline
3 Overall + Midpoints D +7%
4 Overall B +7%
4 Midpoints D Baseline
5 Overall D Baseline
5 Overall + Midpoints B +7%
6 Midpoints D Baseline
6 Overall + Midpoints D +7%
7 Overall + Midpoints D Baseline
7 Midpoints B +7%
8 Midpoints D +7%
8 Overall B +15%
9 Midpoints B +7%
9 Overall D +15%
10 Overall D +7%
10 Midpoints B +15%
11 Overall D +7%
11 Overall + Midpoints B Baseline
12 Overall B +15%
12 Overall + Midpoints B Baseline
INTRODUCTION
(This heading and others below will not appear in the questionnaire)
Thank you very much for your interest in participating in this online self-administered survey
You can now start the online online by clicking on the "NEXT" button below
EXPERIMENTAL TASK
QUESTIONNAIRE
Social context
219
Q2. To what extend do you believe are the following groups of people around you
concerned and engaged about environmental issues?
Very Quite a Not very Not at all Don’t

much lot much know
My family
My friends
People in my local community
Officials and municipality
Q3. To what extend do you discuss with the following groups of people around you
about environmental issues?
Very much Quite a lot Not very Not at all

much
My family
My friends
People in my local community
Officials and municipality
220
Q4. To what extend do you agree with the following statements?
Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
‘I think of myself as an
environmentally-friendly consumer’
‘I would be embarrassed to be seen as

having an environmentally friendly
lifestyle’ (scoring reversed)
‘I think of myself as someone who is

very concerned with environmental
issues’
‘I would not want my family or friends

to think of me as someone who is
concerned about environmental
issues’ (scoring reversed)
Socio-demographics
ALL
Q5. Gender
 Female
 Male
Q6. Age
____ years old
consideration, where would you place yourself on this ladder?
221
Target sample
Table 40 Study on Willingness to Pay – Target sample by country and age group

Country Total
years years years
Germany 172 931 397 1,500
France 198 926 376 1,500
Italy 199 1014 287 1,500
Poland 239 1009 252 1,500
808 3,880 1,312 6,000
Table 41 Study on Willingness to Pay - Target sample by country and gender
Germany 732 768 1,500

France 761 739 1,500
Italy 715 785 1,500
Poland 759 741 1,500
2,967 3,033 6,000
Table 42 Study on Willingness to Pay - Target sample by country and education level
Post-
12 years
Some graduate
of
0-11 years of University degree
education
Country years of university degree (MA, MS, Total
(high
education (not (BA, BS) JD, MD,
school
completed) PhD,
diploma)
etc)
Germany 643 418 92 130 217 1,500
France 140 494 175 467 224 1,500
Italy 113 612 279 195 301 1,500
Poland 104 606 164 182 444 1,500
1,000 2,130 710 974 1,186 6,000
222
Fieldwork
In the second experiment, fieldwork started on 24 May 2017 with the pilots and finished on 12
June 2017. A total of 28,459 respondents were invited to the questionnaire across the 4 countries
(France, Italy, Poland, Germany). Of them, 4,285 did not complete the questionnaire, while
6,071 did. The average duration of the questionnaire was around 8 minutes. The following figure
summarizes the fieldwork process.
Pilot Fieldwork
Experiment 1
Incomplet
Incomplet
Out (Age)
Complete
Complete
Speeders
Duration
Invited
Invited
Screen
Screen
Start
End
e+
out
e
FR Total 26 49 2 4437 1518 1414 2 29 8,8 24/5/ 1/6/17
9 17
Group 1 28 15 2 940 502 191 0 17 8,5 24/5/17 30/5/17
Group 2 20 20 0 1686 506 882 1 2 9,1 24/5/17 31/5/17
8
Group 3 33 14 0 1811 510 341 1 10 8,9 24/5/17 1/6/17
IT Total 13 42 1 1492 1502 583 4 12 8,5 24/5/ 6/6/17
4 6 17
Group 1 36 16 1 1430 502 484 2 8 9,5 24/5/17 31/5/17
Group 2 41 13 0 8339 500 26 2 2 8,1 24/5/17 7/6/17
Group 3 57 13 0 5157 500 73 0 2 8,1 24/5/17 7/6/17
PL Total 15 55 0 5238 1505 1182 5 9 8,7 24/5/ 30/5/17
3 17
Group 1 10 15 0 1794 500 427 2 2 8,1 24/5/17 30/5/17
9
Group 2 21 20 0 1652 502 354 2 2 9,1 24/5/17 30/5/17
Group 3 23 20 0 1792 503 401 1 5 8,8 24/5/17 30/5/17
DE Total 31 58 0 8274 1546 1106 10 18 7,7 24/5/ 12/6/17
0 17
Group 1 19 23 0 2530 504 226 4 4 7,4 24/5/17 9/6/17
4
Group 2 23 19 0 3097 506 422 0 3 8,4 24/5/17 10/6/17
Group 3 93 16 0 2647 536 458 6 11 7,4 24/5/17 12/6/17
Codebook
Figure 87 Study on Willingness to Pay - Variables
Variable Label
CO Country
WEIGH Weighing
IMAGE1 Image 1
IMAGE2 Image 2
IMAGE3 Image 3
IMAGE4 Image 4
IMAGE5 Image 5
223
IMAGE6 Image 6
IMAGE7 Image 7
IMAGE8 Image 8
IMAGE9 Image 9
IMAGE10 Image 10
IMAGE11 Image 11
IMAGE12 Image 12
Q2_1 My family
Q2_2 My friends
Q2_3 People in my local community
Q2_4 Officials and municipality
Q3_1 My family
Q3_2 My friends
Q4_1 I think of myself as an environmentally-friendly consumer
Q4_2 I would be embarrassed to be seen as having an environmentally
friendly lifestyle
Q4_3 I think of myself as someone who is very concerned with
Q4_4 I would not want my family or friends to think of me as someone
who is concerned about environmental issues
Q5 Q5.Gender
Q6 "Q6.
CAGE "Q6.
Q7 "Q7.
CO Country
WEIGH Weighing
IMAGE1 Image 1
IMAGE2 Image 2
IMAGE3 Image 3
IMAGE4 Image 4
IMAGE5 Image 5
IMAGE6 Image 6
IMAGE7 Image 7
IMAGE8 Image 8
IMAGE9 Image 9
IMAGE10 Image 10
IMAGE11 Image 11
IMAGE12 Image 12
224
Q2_1 My family
Q2_2 My friends
Q3_1 My family
Q3_2 My friends
Q4_1 I think of myself as an environmentally-friendly consumer
Q4_2 I would be embarrassed to be seen as having an environmentally
friendly lifestyle
Q4_3 I think of myself as someone who is very concerned with
Q4_4 I would not want my family or friends to think of me as someone
who is concerned about environmental issues
Q5 Q5.Gender
Q6 "Q6.
CAGE "Q6.
Q7 "Q7.
225
Annex VI. Study on Ecolabel

Choice sets
Figure 88 Study on Ecolabel – Choice sets
Set Label Style Score Price
1 PEF “Compared to similar average/yellow/C Baseline
products”
1 Pef “Compared to similar worst/red/D Baseline
products”
2 Pef ABCDE better/green/b +15%
2 Eco+Pef ABCDE worst/red/D +15%
3 Eco+Pef ABCDE worst/red/D +7%
3 Eco+Pef “Compared to similar average/yellow/C +15%
products”
4 Pef “Compared to similar worst/red/D +7%
products”
4 Pef ABCDE worst/red/D +7%
5 Eco+Pef “Compared to similar better/green/b Baseline
products”
5 Eco+Pef ABCDE average/yellow/C +15%
6 Ecolabel None None Baseline
6 Pef ABCDE worst/red/D +15%
7 Pef “Compared to similar better/green/b +15%
products”
7 Ecolabel None None +7%
8 Pef ABCDE better/green/b +7%
8 Eco+Pef “Compared to similar average/yellow/C +7%
products”
9 Eco+Pef “Compared to similar better/green/b +7%
products”
9 Eco+Pef ABCDE average/yellow/C +7%
10 Pef ABCDE better/green/b Baseline
10 Eco+Pef “Compared to similar average/yellow/C Baseline
products”
11 Eco+Pef ABCDE better/green/b +7%
11 Eco+Pef ABCDE average/yellow/C Baseline
12 Pef ABCDE average/yellow/C +7%
12 Pef “Compared to similar average/yellow/C +15%
products”
226
“Thank you very much for your interest in participating in this online self-administered survey
You can now start the online online by clicking on the "NEXT" button below.”
Q1. Have you seen this logo before?
 Yes  GO TO Q2
 No  GO TO Q3
Q2. (OPEN QUESTION) Could you please tell us on which product?

_______________________________
227
Experimental task
Q4. (OPEN QUESTION) Can you say in a few words what the ecolabel means to you
and your family?
______________________________________________________________
____
______________________________________________________________
____
______________________________________________________________
____
Q5. Gender
 Female
 Male
Q6. Age
____ years old
consideration, where would you place yourself on this ladder?43
43Adler, N., & Stewart, J. (2007). The MacArthur scale of subjective social status. MacArthur Research Network on
SES & Health.
228
Target sample
Table 43 Study on Ecolabel – Target sample by country and age group

Country Total
years years years
France 130 618 252 1,000
Poland 160 673 167 1,000
Sweden 137 573 290 1,000
Slovenia 134 693 173 1,000
561 2,557 882 4,000
Table 44 Study on Ecolabel - Target sample by country and gender
France 512 488 1,000

Poland 199 801 1,000
Sweden 285 715 1,000
Slovenia 308 692 1,000
1,304 2,696 4,000
Table 45 Study on Ecolabel - Target sample by country and education level

12 years Post-
Some
of graduate
0-11 years of University
education degree
Country years of university degree Total
(high (MA, MS,
education (not (BA, BS)
school JD, MD,
completed)
diploma) PhD, etc)
France 101 340 110 312 137 1,000
Poland 82 383 107 119 309 1,000
Sweden 139 369 182 216 94 1,000
Slovenia 55 323 214 356 52 1,000
377 1415 613 1,003 592 4,000
229
Fieldwork
In the third experiment, fieldwork started on 19 May 2017 with the pilots and finished on 31
May 2017. A total of 14,583 respondents were invited to the questionnaire across the 4 countries
(France, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia). Of them, 2,379 did not complete the questionnaire, while
4,012 did. The average duration of the questionnaire was around 8 minutes. The following figure
summarizes the fieldwork process.
Pilot Fieldwork
Experiment 1
Duration
Complet
Incompl
Complet
Incompl
Speeder
Invited
Invited
Screen
Screen
(Age)
ete +
Start
End
Out
out
ete
e
s
FR Total 13 47 2 2831 1000 1102 8 10 8,6 19/5/17 30/5/17
3
Group 1 59 26 0 1544 499 677 4 9 8,5 19/5/17 30/5/17
Group 2 74 21 2 1287 501 425 4 1 8,7 19/5/17 26/5/17
PL Total 10 51 2 2668 1007 648 1 2 9,7 19/5/17 29/5/17
4
Group 1 52 25 1 1367 503 325 0 1 9,8 19/5/17 29/5/17
Group 2 52 26 1 1301 504 323 1 1 9,6 19/5/17 29/5/17
SE Total 12 46 4 5940 1000 381 13 17 7,6 19/5/17 30/5/17
8
Group 1 57 24 4 2830 496 201 7 9 7,7 19/5/17 30/5/17
Group 2 71 22 0 3110 504 180 6 8 7,5 19/5/17 29/5/17
SI Total 10 50 3 3144 1005 248 3 7 7,9 19/5/17 31/5/17
0
Group 1 48 25 0 1602 502 160 2 4 8,5 19/5/17 31/5/17
Group 2 52 25 3 1542 503 88 1 3 7,3 19/5/17 31/5/17
Codebook
Figure 90 Study on Ecolabel - Variables
Variable Label
CO Country
WEIGH Weighing
Q1 Q1. Have you seen this logo before?
Q2 Q2. Could you please tell us on which product?
IMAGE1 Image 1
IMAGE2 Image 2
IMAGE3 Image 3
IMAGE4 Image 4
IMAGE5 Image 5
IMAGE6 Image 6
IMAGE7 Image 7
230
IMAGE8 Image 8
IMAGE9 Image 9
IMAGE10 Image 10
IMAGE11 Image 11
IMAGE12 Image 12
Q4 Q4. Can you say in a few words what the ecolabel means to you
and your family?
Q5 Q5. Gender
Q6 Q6. Age
CAGE Q6. Age
Q7 Q7. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
231

Nat Resources Trade Flows

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Nat Resources Trade Flows

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT

Assessment of different communication vehicles

PRESENTED IN CONSORTIUM: BY LSE & PARTNERS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 10

5.3 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................................... 87

Figure 44 Product Environmental Footprint (Q35) ............................................................ 58

1.2 Methodological framework

Randomised experiments Consumers

Changes in consumer Pilot testing

Figure 2 Overview of the methods used

Input from pilot testing

Online survey of Workshop with Weighting exercise with

Focus groups with Weighting exercise with

Brick and Experiment #1 Experiment #2 Experiment #3

1.3 Structure of the report

2 Support to pilots, activities and assessment

2.2 Pilots support

1.1 10 See Background

1.2.1 Study on Certification and Trust

1. Positive messages with an emphasis on the benefits:

Population General population aged 18 to 74 years old

Methodology Online survey

Sample size n=6,000 (n=1,500 respondents per country)

Weighting Weighting by country to be able to interpret the

Sampling Random with quotas

1.2.2 Study on Willingness to Pay and PEF

Population General population aged 18 to 74 years old

Methodology Online survey

Sample size n=6,000 (n=1,500 respondents per country)

Weighting Weighting by country to be able to interpret the

Sampling Random with quotas

Annex V. Study on Willingness to Pay contains a detailed description of the methodological

1.2.3 Study on Ecolabel

Population General population aged 18 to 74 years old

Sample size n=4,000 (n=1,000 respondents per country)

Weighting Weighting by country to be able to interpret the

Sampling Random with quotas

1 “Our countries’ children will 1 “This rating has been verified by an

Table 26 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Laptop)

Certification: National 0.2446 1.27 27% 0.0376 6.5099 7.519e-11 ***

Table 27 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (T-shirt)

Message framing positive -0.0217 0.97 -3% 0.0349 -0.6203 0.5350482

Certification: EC 0.2911 1.33 +33% 0.0326 4.5904 < 2.2e-16 ***

Certification: National 0.1713 1.18 +18% 0.0373 4.5904 4.424e-06 ***

Certification: Independent 0.3413 1.40 +40% 0.0454 7.5214 5.418e-14 ***

Certification: Industry 0.1936 1.21 +21% 0.0333 5.8137 6.110e-09 ***

Table 28 Study on Certification and Trust – Results (Milk)

Certification: National 0.1870 1.20 +20% 0.0376 4.9708 6.668e-07 ***

Experimental results seem to be confirmed in the survey analysis. Consumer

Consumer organisation 22% 50%

European Commission 18% 41%

Industry association 11% 35%

Third party 10% 36%

National government 10% 32%

Consumer organisation 26% 50%

European Commission 24% 44%

Industry association 18% 47%

Third party 12% 44%

National government 15% 40%

Consumer organisation 25% 49%

European Commission 25% 42%

Industry association 18% 46%

National government 18% 39%