The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1746-5265.htm

Consumer perceptions of Sustainability

labels for food
sustainability labels for alternative networks

food networks
Birgit Teufer and Martin K.J. Waiguny 493
Department of Business, IMC Krems University of Applied Sciences,
Krems, Austria, and Received 14 October 2022
Revised 8 March 2023
Sonja Grabner-Kr€auter 18 June 2023
4 July 2023
Department of Marketing and International Management, University of Klagenfurt, Accepted 7 July 2023
Klagenfurt, Austria

Abstract
Purpose – Sustainability labels play a crucial role in providing consumers with quick and easily accessible
information to assess the environmental, social and economic impacts of products. This research examines how
different sustainability labels influence consumer perceptions and assessments of alternative food
networks (AFNs).
Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted three cross-sectional studies to explore consumer
perceptions of sustainability labels for AFNs. The authors tested labels representing the three sustainability
dimensions, labels of different graphical quality and different awarding bodies.
Findings – Consumers did not differentiate between sustainability dimensions but assessed labels in a holistic
manner. The overall rating of a label positively influenced perceived sustainability. Self-designed and
professionally designed labels had a positive effect on the intention to buy from an AFN. Professionally
designed labels also enhanced the perceived authenticity of the networks. Notably, the source of the label,
whether self-awarded or awarded by an official body, did not significantly impact consumer perceptions.
However, interaction effects revealed professionally designed labels had a stronger positive effect on purchase
intention when they were self-awarded.
Practical implications – AFNs can derive benefits from using labels. Self-organized, non-profit AFNs are
well advised to have labels professionally designed.
Originality/value – This research contributes to the understanding of the effects of sustainability labels for
community-based AFNs, diverging from the traditional focus on individual products.
Keywords Sustainability labels, Eco-labels, FoodCoop, Alternative food networks, Non-profit marketing,
Consumer perception
Paper type Doctoral paper

© Birgit Teufer, Martin K.J. Waiguny and Sonja Grabner-Kr€auter. Published by Emerald Publishing
Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone
may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and
non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full
terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Erratum: It has come to the attention of the publisher that the article, Teufer, B., Waiguny, M.K.J.
and Grabner-Kr€auter, S. (2023), “Consumer perceptions of sustainability labels for alternative food
networks”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/
BJM-10-2022-0380 incorrectly listed the short title of the article as “Sustainability labels for alternative
food”. This error was introduced during the production process and has now been corrected in the online
version. The publisher sincerely apologises for this error and any inconvenience caused.
Research funding: This work is part of a doctoral thesis and was supported by a dissertation grant of
the Society for Research Promotion Lower Austria (Gesellschaft f€ ur Forschungsf€orderung Baltic Journal of Management
Vol. 18 No. 4, 2023
Nieder€osterreich m.b.H.). pp. 493-508
Conflict of interest: All authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest in conducting or Emerald Publishing Limited
1746-5265
reporting on the research. DOI 10.1108/BJM-10-2022-0380
BJM 1. Introduction
18,4 In order to achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and the 17 Sustainable Development
Goals outlined in the Agenda 2030, there is an urgent need to transition to more sustainable food
production and consumption (United Nations, 2015). Moreover, there is a growing consumer
demand for relocalized supply chains, regional products, and alternative sourcing channels,
indicating a shift in consumer preferences (e.g. Sheng et al., 2019). In this context, alternative food
networks (AFNs) have become increasingly important in the last decades (e.g. Kump and Fikar,
494 2021). AFNs, such as food cooperatives (FoodCoops) or community supported agriculture, can be
distinguished from the conventional agri-food system by short food supply chains, close
producer–consumer relationships and sustainable production practices (Renting et al., 2003).
Values like health, social responsibility and ethics are becoming increasingly important in the
food sector as consumers seek closer connections with their food and shorter supply chains
(European Commission, 2020). Consequently, there is an increased need for information
regarding the social and ecological impacts of these products (Annunziata et al., 2019).
Labels can serve as effective tools to support consumers with limited knowledge and time in
their decision-making process (Thøgersen et al., 2012). Unlike brand logos, labels provide
compact information about products, services or companies. Sustainability labels, also known
as eco-labels, offer consumers an easy way to assess products in terms of their environmental,
social and economic impact and are increasingly used by producers (e.g. Janßen and Langen,
2017). Companies also use labels to position themselves as considerate employers with labels
for sustainability or corporate social responsibility (e.g. Kleiss and Waiguny, 2021).
However, while the impact of sustainability labels for individual products on consumer
behavior has been extensively studied (overviews can be found in various systematic reviews,
e.g. Potter et al., 2021; Ihemezie et al., 2018), the use of labels for AFNs, particularly for FoodCoops,
has not yet been explored. Unlike traditional businesses, FoodCoops aim to attract new members
rather than directly selling products or recruiting employees. It is important to investigate the
potential use of sustainability labels by FoodCoops in attracting prospective members.
Consumers are likely to have different preferences for sustainability labels, not only depending on
the type of information these labels convey but also depending on the graphic design of the label
(Potter et al., 2021) and the awarding institution, as there is inconclusive evidence if governmental,
non-governmental or even fictional labels work better (Majer et al., 2022).
This research aims to contribute to a better understanding of the importance of
sustainability labels for AFNs, in particular FoodCoops. The primary research purpose of
this paper is to explore how the display of different sustainability labels influences the
perception and assessment of AFNs. The following section gives an overview of existing
knowledge and theories and specifies our research questions.

2. Literature review and research questions

2.1 Perception of AFNs
AFNs comprise a wide variety of phenomena explored in the literature, ranging from
production practices such as organic farming, to distribution arrangements such as
community supported agriculture and farm stores, to self-organized networks between
consumers and producers such as food cooperatives, so-called FoodCoops (Renting et al.,
2003). FoodCoops are networks in which consumers unite to purchase and then distribute
food from local or regional farmers or food producers and have high transformative potential,
given that their members report a strong connection between producers and consumers (Zoll
et al., 2021). Motives for participation in FoodCoops include not only self-oriented motives
such as the quality of the product or trust in the producer but also strongly community-
oriented motives such as social interaction and support of the farmer, as well as socio-political
motives such as environmental reasons (Zoll et al., 2017). Although many people are
interested in AFNs in general, consumer disbelief in their sustainability is an important Sustainability
barrier to membership (Diekmann and Theuvsen, 2019). Further, limited consumer labels for food
awareness can hinder participation, and marketing efforts to increase consumer demand
still pose challenges for AFNs (Poças Ribeiro et al., 2021).
networks

2.2 Sustainable consumption and the role of labels

Various terms have been used in the literature for describing sustainable consumer behavior. 495
Some focus on specific aspects of sustainability, such as protecting the environment
(e.g. “green consumption” in Peattie, 2010) or individual behaviors such as consuming less
(e.g. “voluntary simplicity” in Iwata, 2006), while others aim to incorporate ecological, social
and economic dimensions – known as the triple bottom line approach (Purvis et al., 2019).
Concepts like “conscious consumption” (Balderjahn et al., 2013), “mindful consumption”
(Sheth et al., 2011) and “responsible consumption” (Webb et al., 2008) reflect the integration of
these three dimensions.
Many consumers would like to have more information regarding the social and
environmental impact of the products they buy (e.g. Annunziata et al., 2019). A recent
overview of the literature identified information and knowledge barriers as one main obstacle
to the adoption of responsible consumption (Falc~ao and Roseira, 2022). In this context, labels
have become one of the preferred sources of information for food products (Howard, 2006).
While existing labels often convey certain associations (Ellison et al., 2016), they are more
prevalent in product contexts. Individuals may be accustomed to ecological sustainability
labels for products (Janßen and Langen, 2017; Sch€aufele and Hamm, 2017), as well as to
corporate social responsibility labels from companies (e.g. Kleiss and Waiguny, 2021), but not
to holistic labels for AFNs.
While most labels focus on ecological issues, it would be desirable for sustainability labels
to encompass all three pillars of sustainability and their interrelationships (Torma and
Thøgersen, 2021). This perspective is supported by Howard’s (2006) research, which found
that many people find it difficult to identify the most important characteristics related to food
production (e.g. animal welfare, local production, fair income for farmers, etc.) and express a
preference for food that meets all of these standards. However, developing a comprehensive
meta-sustainability label is considered challenging due to the broad and occasionally
ambiguous nature of sustainability (Eberle et al., 2011).
Our research design is based on well-established theories that can be broadly
encompassed under the general label of dual-process theories (Chaiken and Trope, 1999;
Kahneman and Frederick, 2002). Dual-process theories assume deliberate or reduced
processing based on the ability and motivation to process (Petty et al., 1986). The Heuristic-
Systematic Model, for example, posits that individuals with limited capacity or motivation to
systematically process information evaluate it independently of its content by employing
simple schemas or decision rules (Chaiken, 1980). Heuristics, defined as the substitution of a
target attribute with a more accessible property, play a significant role in this process
(Kahneman and Frederick, 2002).
Following this line of reasoning, our studies build on the basic assumption that
sustainability labels serve as heuristics for consumers to make inferences about the AFN.
Consumers with relatively high levels of knowledge and experience of a specific AFN can
evaluate this AFN on a fairly objective level based on its attributes. Consumers who do not
have such knowledge or the motivation for a more intensive information search are likely to
rely on a heuristic, such as a label, for assessing the AFN. Therefore, it can be argued that
consumers tend to project the perceptual features (e.g. the graphical quality or the awarding
body) and the meanings (e.g. sustainability) of the label onto the (unknown) AFN itself (for a
similar argumentation in the context of packaging colors see Marozzo et al. (2020)).
BJM Among sustainability labels, organic labels are the most widely recognized, primarily
18,4 emphasizing environmental aspects and sparingly considering the social or economic
dimension (Sch€aufele and Hamm, 2017). However, existing research indicates that even with
well-known labels such as “organic”, consumers often struggle to comprehend their actual
meaning. Moreover, consumers may prefer these labels for reasons unrelated to the label
itself, such as supporting local sustainable food systems (Conner and Christy, 2004). This
raises questions regarding whether individuals even differentiate between sustainability
496 dimensions and if the presentation of different sustainability dimensions influences
consumers’ perception of sustainability labels, leading to the following research question.
RQ1. Does it make a difference for perception and assessment of the sustainability label
which sustainability dimension (ecological, social, economic) the label addresses?

2.3 Design of labels

Research on the visual complexity of eco-labels is limited (Donato and Adıg€ uzel, 2022).
A study by Rihn et al. (2019) shows that logos attract more visual attention compared to text-
based labels, whereas Tang et al. (2004) have found the same effects of verbal and visual eco-
labels without a significant interaction effect. Donato and Adıg€
uzel (2022) have demonstrated
that design complexity and feature complexity enhance consumers’ product evaluations, but
labels should be visually appealing and easy to understand. In addition to the text, the shape,
size and language of labels can also influence consumers (Proi et al., 2023), although it remains
unclear whether logo only, text only or a combination of both is more effective (Potter
et al., 2021).
FoodCoops are primarily consumer-driven and often adopt an amateur or do-it-yourself
(DIY) approach, as their primary focus is not commercial. This can reflect on the visual
appearance of labels, as overly professional-looking labels may contradict the authenticity of
the AFN. Perceived authenticity has been found to influence consumers’ behavioral
intentions (e.g. Fritz et al., 2017). The question arises whether simple, self-designed labels
increase the perceived authenticity of the network and thus have the same or even a better
effect than professionally designed labels. Therefore, we address the following research
question.
RQ2. Does the professionalism of the label design make a difference to attitudes and
perceived authenticity of AFNs and behavioral intentions?

2.4 Awarding institutions

Various studies have shown that perceived support from public institutions can encourage
individuals to engage in more sustainable behavior (e.g. Persada et al., 2015), with public
institutions generally being perceived as the most trustworthy (Thøgersen, 2010). However,
consumers’ limited knowledge about certification processes may undermine the effectiveness
of independent certification in reducing skepticism about labels (Howard, 2006). Moreover,
there is an increasing trend of self-declared labels awarded by manufacturers or retailers
themselves (Carrero and Valor, 2012), which is comparable to an AFN awarding itself a label.
Although previous research has shown that governmental labels can have a greater
influence than non-governmental labels (e.g. Drichoutis et al., 2017), contradictory findings
exist where fictional labels outperform well-known labels from public institutions (e.g. Bradu
et al., 2014). A comprehensive literature review on this topic can be found in Majer et al. (2022).
The question remains whether each sustainability label has the same effect or whether it
depends on the body awarding the label to the network. Furthermore, it is unclear whether
overly professional-looking labels might be perceived as inauthentic in the context of
consumer-driven AFNs. Therefore, we pose the following research questions.
 RQ3. Does it make a difference to attitudes and perceived authenticity of AFNs and Sustainability
behavioral intentions, which agency awards the label (self-awarded vs awarded by labels for food
an official body)?
networks
RQ4. Is there an interaction effect of awarding agency and graphic quality?

497
3. Study 1 (pilot study)
To answer research question 1, we employed a simple within subject online experiment to
investigate if different statements on the three sustainability dimensions (ecological,
economic, social) on labels are recognized and if participants perceive any differences.

3.1 Methodology
Considering that self-organized networks typically lack the budget for professional graphics,
we designed the labels on our own with a simplistic design to reflect real-world conditions. We
designed two labels for each sustainability dimension: ecological sustainability (“short
transport distances”), regional economical sustainability (“maintaining food production in
the region”) and social sustainability (“support of our farmers through fair prices”). One of the
two labels was designed with simple clipart (different for each dimension) and the other with
a colorful background matching all dimensions. This gave us the opportunity to attribute
possible differences in the evaluation either to the different inscriptions or to different designs
of the labels.
After a brief welcome to the participants, three out of the six labels (one from each pair)
were randomly shown. We collected ad hoc free-text associations for each individual label
and assessments of 17 different characteristics (e.g. “Sustainable”, “Interesting”, “Appealing”,
etc.). The single word items were derived from attitude measurements (e.g. MacKenzie and
Lutz, 1989; Koshy and Manohar, 2016) and the three dimensions of conscious consumption
(Balderjahn et al., 2013) to encompass ecological, economic and social aspects. Participants
rated the extent to which the characteristics apply to the respective label on a six-point scale
(from 1 “not at all true” to 6 “completely true”). We conducted a one-factor analysis of variance
(ANOVA) with Bonferroni post hoc tests to examine the differences between the labels for
each investigated characteristic. Additionally, we calculated Pearson’s correlation
coefficients to analyze the relationships between variables. A factor analysis was
conducted to determine if the three dimensions of conscious consumption as well as the
attitude toward the labels emerged.
For all studies, we recruited participants through a microworking platform for a small
payment. In February 2021, Austrians in the age range of 30–70 were recruited, as they are
typically the target members of AFNs (e.g. Hennchen and Sch€afer, 2022). A total of 76 people
responded. This sample size is considered sufficient for pilot studies (Hertzog, 2008), as our
first aim was to test for observable effects. We did not collect socio-demographic data from
the participants of this study.

3.2 Results
Participants did not differentiate between the three sustainability dimensions. The ANOVA
revealed some statistically significant differences in the evaluation of the individual labels.
However, these differences were neither due to the sustainability dimension used (inscription
on the label) nor to the background used within the same inscription on the labels (clipart vs
uniformly colorful). A correlation matrix confirmed our assumption that the assessment of
the labels depends more on the perceived quality of the labels or the general perception of the
BJM labels rather than on the inscription or the background used. With a few exceptions, all
18,4 recorded items showed a significant positive correlation with each other (p < 0.01, two-sided).
To investigate whether participants differentiated between the different sustainability
messages in the labels, we performed a factor analysis (principal component, varimax), which
resulted in the extraction of only two components: one related to sustainability characteristics
and the other associated with a more general attitude (see Table 1). Overall, the correlations
indicated that the assessment of labels was done in a holistic way, with similar assessments
498 for almost all items, regardless of the inscription or background. Therefore, in response to
research question 1, the perception and assessment of sustainability labels do not differ based
on the sustainability dimension (ecological, social, economic) addressed by the label.

4. Study 2
Building on the results of our first study, which suggest that labels are processed holistically
and that general perception is more important than the specific information on the label, we
tested the influence of the graphic quality of labels in a second study to answer research
question 2.

4.1 Methodology
We employed a three-conditional, single factorial online experiment investigating the main
effect of the presence of a professionally designed label (“PROF”) in comparison to the
presence of an amateurishly designed label (“DIY”) and a description of a fictitious AFN with
no label (no label control group CG). We took the best rated label from study 1 and had a
professional label designed with similar visual elements and the same inscription to avoid
noise coming from different elements that could also influence consumers’ perceptions (Proi
et al., 2023). In a pre-test with 17 students, all students correctly identified the self-made
version and the professionally designed version. The labels are shown in Figure 1 in the
description of study 3. Furthermore, we created a fictitious FoodCoop called “LoKaKau”
(“Lokal-Kaufen”, which means “buy regionally”) and provided a corresponding German-
language description to attract potential members. The respective labels were displayed in
the top right corner of the description. Austrian participants aged between 18 and 70 were
recruited in April 2021 and were randomly assigned to one of the conditional groups.

Item Factor sustainability Factor Attitude

Eco-friendly 0.883
Regional 0.856
Sustainable 0.845
Good for me 0.833
Fair 0.811
Social(ly) 0.766
Trustworthy 0.728 0.499
Strengthen economy 0.724 0.365
Appealing 0.495 0.768
Modern 0.363 0.761
Realistic 0.323 0.712
Boring 0.711
Interesting 0.595 0.646
Expensive 0.371
Table 1. Note(s): Smaller loadings than 0.300 are not displayed for visibility reasons
Factor analysis study 1 Source(s): Table created by author
After an introduction, participants were shown the information about the AFN followed by a Sustainability
range of questions. For all composite measures, an exploratory factor analysis was computed, labels for food
and AVE and CR are reported. To check for discriminant validity, the Fornell–Larcker
criterion was calculated, confirming that all constructs are distinct from each other.
networks
We measured attitude toward the AFN (ATT 5 6.16, sd 5 1.053, alpha 5 0.896,
AVE 5 0.735; CR 5 0.917) using four semantic differential items (e.g. good-bad) on a 7-
point scale based on MacKenzie and Lutz (1989). Perceived authenticity (AUTH 5 5.43,
sd 5 0.982, alpha 5 0.778, AVE 5 0.515, CR 5 0.805) of the AFN was assessed using the 499
“Relational authenticity scale” of Ilicic and Webster (2014). We applied two single item
measures to assess intentions to buy (IBUY 5 5.49, sd 5 1.210) in such a network as well as
joining as a member (IJOIN 5 4.13, sd 5 1.641) on a 7-point agreement scale. To control for
the influence of general environmental, social and economic consciousness on evaluation
and buying behavior, we assessed these factors using the five-factor Conscious
Consumption Scale (Balderjahn et al., 2013) in its German updated version developed by
Ziesemer et al. (2019). All items were measured on a 7-point agreement scale. The means,
standard deviations (sd), alpha, AVE and CR for these covariates are reported in Table 3 in
the description of study 3. Current shopping behavior served as additional covariate. The
last question aimed at whether participants recognized a label in the description. The
majority of the control group reported that they had not seen one (94.9%), while 77.1% in
the DIY group and 76.9% in the PROF group could remember a label. A Harman’s common
variance test revealed a variance extraction of 29.41% for all items, indicating a low risk of
a common method bias.
138 participants completed the whole questionnaire. We conducted the instruction
manipulation check suggested by Oppenheimer et al. (2009) and checked the relative speed
as suggested by Leiner (2019), which led to discarding 33 participants. The final sample for
study 2 comprised 105 (41% male, 58.1% female, 1% non-binary) participants aged 19 to
68 (mean 33.11 years). There were no significant differences in age or gender between the
groups.

4.2 Results
We employed a MANCOVA with ATT, AUTH, IBUY and IJOIN as dependent variables
and the conscious consumption as well as current reported shopping behavior (how much
is local and organic) as covariates. While there were no significant differences between the
groups for ATT, we found a marginal significant effect for AUTH and IBUY, as displayed
in Table 2.
Correlation analysis showed that ATT, AUTH, IBUY and IJOIN are all significantly
positively correlated with coefficients above 0.200. The answer to research question 2 is that
the professionalism of the label design does not make a difference to attitudes or behavioral
intentions. However, similar to study 1, study 2 provides support for the notion that
displaying labels can be beneficial for networks. In particular, the presence of a label has a
positive effect on IBUY, regardless of the design’s professionalism. Regarding AUTH, the
professionalism of the label design does have an effect, as the professional logo enhances the
perceived authenticity of the network, whereas the DIY logo has a slight negative effect
(albeit not statistically significant in comparison to CG and PROF).

5. Study 3
Further building on the results of our studies, we tested the influence of the label awarding
body in combination with labels of different visual quality (PROF vs DIY) to answer research
questions 3 and 4.
BJM
18,4

500

Figure 1.
Newspaper articles
with PROF label
awarded by official
body and with DIY
label awarded by the
network
Dependent Group Estimated marginal mean F(1,105) p
Sustainability
labels for food
ATT CG 6.115 0.710 0.494 networks
DIY 6.047
PROF 6.373
AUTH CG 5.450 2.806 0.066
DIY 5.153
PROF 5.717 501
IBUY CG 5.123 3.128 0.048
DIY 5.748
PROF 5.657
IJOIN CG 3.765 1.990 0.142
DIY 4.204
PROF 4.567
Note(s): ATT, Attitude toward the consumer network; AUTH, Authenticity of the Network; IBUY, Intention
to buy; IJOIN, Intention to join the network; CG, Control group; DIY, study group with self-drawn label; PROF,
study group with professionally designed label Table 2.
Source(s): Table created by author Results of study 2

Covariate n Study 2 Study 3

items Mean Sd Alpha AVE CCR Mean Sd Alpha AVE CCR

Ecological 6 5.43 1.223 0.941 0.671 0.924 5.36 1.144 0.931 0.639 0.914
consciousness
Social 5 6.05 1.183 0.948 0.732 0.932 6.05 1.116 0.949 0.717 0.927
consciousness
Collaborative 3 3.68 1.550 0.827 0.690 0.870 4.02 1.461 0.786 0.646 0.845
consumption
Voluntary 4 5.30 1.110 0.805 0.544 0.823 5.51 1.112 0.822 0.544 0.825
simplicity
Debt-free 5 5.98 0.975 0.894 0.616 0.889 5.93 1.002 0.902 0.665 0.908
consumption
Shopping 1 4.16 2.024 4.52 2.084
behavior
regional
Table 3.
Shopping 1 4.22 2.370 4.53 2.485 Reliability and internal
behavior validity measures of
organic the covariates for
Source(s): Table created by author studies 2 and 3

5.1 Methodology
We applied a 2-label design (label professionally designed PROF vs a DIY label) by 2-
awarding body (official body vs self-awarded) full factorial online experiment. We used our
fictitious FoodCoop “LoKaKau” and the same labels as in study 2 and created newspaper
articles about the awarding of the label. We varied the displayed labels and manipulated the
text according to the awarding body, leading to four test groups: awarded by official body
with PROF label, self-awarded by the network with PROF label, awarded by official body
with DIY label and awarded by the network with DIY label. The translated newspaper
articles for two conditions are shown in Figure 1, the original research was done in German
(labels were not translated).
BJM In the online experiments we checked for the manipulations success by asking
18,4 respondents whether they can remember who awarded the label. A chi-square test yielded
significant differences, with the majority of participants in both groups remembering the
source correctly.
Austrian participants were recruited in June 2022. After an introduction they were
randomly assigned to one of the experimental groups. After showing the short newspaper
article, we asked the same questions to measure the dependent variables as in study 2:
502 attitude toward the AFN (ATT 5 5.80, sd 5 0.988, alpha 5 0.947, AVE 5 0.657, CR 5 0.883),
perceived authenticity (AUTH 5 5.02, sd 5 0.968, alpha 5 0.835, AVE 5 0.592, CR 5 0.852),
intentions to buy (IBUY 5 5.02, sd 5 1.367) and intentions to join the network as a member
(IJOIN 5 3.70, sd 5 1467). Consciousness for sustainable consumption and current shopping
behavior regional and organic measured on a 10-point scale served again as covariates (see
Table 3). A common variance Harman’s test showed an extracted variance of 28.57%
indicating a low risk of common method bias.
175 participants completed the whole questionnaire. Instruction manipulation check and
speed test led to discarding 43 participants. The final sample comprised 132 (38.6% male,
59.8% female, 1.5% not specified) participants, aged 18 to 66 (mean 32.67 years). There were
no significant differences in age or gender between the groups.

5.2 Results
To address RQ3 and RQ4 a MANCOVA analysis was conducted with ATT, AUTH, IBUY
and IJOIN as dependent variables. The awarding body of the label (source: agency vs self) and
the professionalism of the label (professionalism: DIY vs professional) were entered in a full
factorial design.
The overall MANCOVA yielded a significant effect for the interaction of the two factors
(Source 3 professionalism, p 5 0.046). Looking into the single test statistics, another
marginally significant main effect of the source on IBUY (p 5 0.085) was found. No other main
effects reached statistical significance. Surprisingly, participants indicated that they would
consider buying at the network to a higher extent (F(132,1) 5 3.022, p 5 0.085) in the self-
awarded conditions (IBUYself 5 5.21) compared to the agency awarded conditions
(IBUYagency 5 4.84). This finding addresses research question 3, demonstrating that the
awarding agency does influence IBUY, favoring the self-awarded conditions, but does not
impact ATT and AUTH.
The interaction effect (source 3 professionalism) for IBUY was significant too
(F(132,1) 5 8.425, p 5 0.004). To answer research question 4, contrast analysis revealed
that, surprisingly, in the self-awarded condition the PROF label outperformed the DIY label
(IBUYprofessional 5 5.62 vs IBUYDIY 5 4.81, p 5 0.007). However, this effect was not observed
in the agency-awarded condition, and contrasts indicated that it was not statistically
significant. Single comparisons of all conditions furthermore showed a significant difference
for the professional conditions, where the self-awarded condition led to higher levels of IBUY
compared to the agency condition (IBUYself 5 5.62 vs IBUYagency 5 4.63, p 5 0.002).

6. Discussion
More and more manufacturers are using labels to help consumers evaluate products in terms
of their sustainability (e.g. Janßen and Langen, 2017). However, in the context of AFNs,
labeling goes beyond individual products and encompasses the sustainability of the network
itself as potential participants consider the broader sustainability impact of joining the
network. Our first study shows that consumers evaluate sustainability labels holistically and
do not distinguish between various sustainability dimensions – the better the overall
assessment of a label, the more sustainable it was regarded as. The findings are also in line Sustainability
with Bradu et al. (2014), who showed that eco-labels for products influenced decision-making labels for food
on an affective, holistic basis, rather than by enhancing the consumer’s knowledge to trigger
a more qualified reasoning process.
networks
This led us to investigate whether the quality and professional design of the label, in
addition to its information content, could have an impact on sustainability assessments. Our
findings of study 1 suggest that a more professional overall impression (“nicer label”) could
possibly also have an impact on the sustainability assessment, as another decision relevant 503
cue (Chaiken and Trope, 1999) is added for a quick evaluation. Study 2 supports these
findings, as basically any label, whether homemade or professionally designed, has a positive
effect on the intention to buy from an AFN. However, when it comes to the perceived
authenticity of the networks, professional labels seem to have a better impact. Although
neither label had an impact on attitudes, it appears that self-organized, non-profit AFNs could
benefit from a professionally designed sustainability label. This aligns with research of
Donato and Adıg€ uzel (2022), who showed that while labels should be visually eye-catching
and easy to understand, design complexity and feature complexity increase consumers’
product evaluations.
As perceived authenticity seemed to play a role, we further tested whether “too
professional” looking labels conflict with the authenticity of the AFN, as these networks are
community-based and often adopt a DIY approach. According to previous research, the
perceived authenticity of labels and brands can be an important determinant influencing
consumer behavior (e.g. Fritz et al., 2017). We were also interested in whether it makes a
difference if the label was awarded by the network itself or by an official body, and whether
there was an interaction effect with the graphical quality of the label. Surprisingly, the
graphical quality of the label had no effect on the perceived authenticity of the network.
We observed a significant main effect of the source from which the label was awarded,
indicating that the self-awarded condition resulted in higher levels of buying intention
compared to the agency-awarded condition. This finding was unexpected, as we initially
anticipated that labels awarded by public institutions would be perceived as more
trustworthy (Thøgersen, 2010). One possible explanation for this surprising result is that the
NGO that awarded the label in our intervention was a fictitious and thus unknown institution,
which may have influenced its perceived trustworthiness. Interestingly, our findings align
with previous studies suggesting that fictional labels can outperform well-known labels from
public institutions (e.g. Bradu et al., 2014).

7. Conclusions
7.1 Purpose and main findings
This paper aimed to contribute to a better understanding of the importance of sustainability
labels for AFNs. The primary research purpose was to find out how the display of different
sustainability labels affects the perception and assessment of AFNs. Through three studies,
we explored how consumers perceive labels of AFNs that address the same sustainability
aspects but are designed differently, examined the effect of the graphic quality of the labels
and explored the impact of the label’s awarding agency.
Our findings indicate that consumers do not distinguish between different sustainability
dimensions displayed on AFN labels, but rather evaluate labels in a holistic manner. Given
the results of all the studies conducted, non-profit AFNs could even benefit from self-awarded
labels, but they should still be professional in their public presentation to better reach the
everyday customer. Our results suggest that a professionally designed label is beneficial for
non-profit AFNs, especially if the label is self-awarded. When the label is awarded by an
official body, consumers appear to be more accepting of less professionally designed labels.
BJM Comparing the awarding source of the label, the self-awarded condition led to higher levels of
18,4 buying intention compared to the agency-awarded condition. Our results suggest that an
unknown official body awarding the label to a community-based AFN offers no advantage
and may even lead to lower buying intention.

7.2 Theoretical implications

504 Our findings on the holistic processing of sustainability labels challenge the argument that
meta-labels would confuse consumers (Eberle et al., 2011). Instead, our results support the
idea of a meta-sustainability label that integrates all three dimensions of sustainability
(Torma and Thøgersen, 2021). We propose that such a meta-label could be processed by
consumers through two different routes as suggested in dual-processing models (Petty et al.,
1986; Chaiken, 1980). This implies that highly involved (systematic processing) consumers
with background knowledge would derive more detailed and nuanced information from a
meta-label, which could help them in their decision-making process. For consumers with low
ability or motivation to process information systematically (heuristically processing), the
type of label displayed may have little impact, as these would only be processed peripherally
anyway, largely independently of the content. Nevertheless – even if only in the short term –
these heuristic cues can positively influence attitudes toward sustainable consumption and
subsequent purchase decisions.
Regarding the graphical quality of the label, we contribute to the literature about visual
complexity of eco-labels, which is relatively scarce (Donato and Adıg€ uzel, 2022). Whereas
other researchers have concentrated on differences between logo only, text only or a
combination of both (Potter et al., 2021; Rihn et al., 2019; Tang et al., 2004) or on the influence of
the text on the label, shape, size and language (Proi et al., 2023), we introduced the aspect of
“professionalism” to the debate. We investigated whether non-profit AFNs would benefit
from professionally designed labels or if minimal graphic skills would suffice, allowing them
to create their own labels. Given the limited existing research in this area, further studies are
recommended to explore this aspect more comprehensively.
Although our results regarding the awarding institution were initially surprising, they
add valuable insights to the discussion on the effectiveness of labels from public institutions.
While some studies have shown the superiority of governmental labels over non-
governmental labels (e.g. Drichoutis et al., 2017), others, like our study, have found that
even fictional labels worked better than labels from public institutions (e.g. Bradu et al., 2014).
This raises the question whether Thøgersen’s (2010) findings that public institutions are
perceived to be the most trustworthy, are also valid for (sustainability) labels. We suggest
that contextual factors, individual state differences and trust in the specific regulatory bodies
may play crucial roles. Future research should investigate these variables and may use real
labels instead of fictitious ones and exercise caution when making generalizations based on
the results.

7.3 Practical implications

AFNs can benefit from using labels, similar to individual products. While self-designed labels
also positively influence the perception and assessment of the networks, professionally
designed labels perform better, especially when the label is self-awarded. This implies that
self-organized, non-profit AFNs are advised to invest in professionally designed labels.
However, if resources are limited, even a self-designed label is better than having no label
at all.
Furthermore, to our knowledge, there is currently no sustainability label specifically awarded
to AFNs by an official body. Although our results suggest that self-awarded labels perform even
better than labels awarded by a fictional NGO, this result must be interpreted cautiously.
As mentioned above, the fictitious NGO may be perceived as less trustworthy than the AFN itself. Sustainability
Therefore, we recommend that well-known NGOs dedicated to sustainability support AFNs by labels for food
creating and awarding professionally designed eco-labels specifically tailored for such networks.
This would relieve the networks of the burden and cost of designing their own labels. However,
networks
this process should be accompanied by appropriate research to ensure its effectiveness.

7.4 Limitations and future research 505

Our studies are not without limitations. First, it is important to acknowledge the relatively
small sample sizes used. However, despite the small sample sizes in our experiments we found
some interesting effects of sustainability labels for AFNs that could be examined in further
studies with larger samples. Second, although our pretest showed that respondents could
clearly distinguish between DIY and professionally designed labels, this distinction may
have been more apparent due to the direct comparison. Further studies should also explicitly
control for the perceived quality of the labels. Third, our study was conducted with German-
speaking participants in Austria, which may limit the generalizability of our results.
However, considering that AFNs are becoming increasingly important in German-speaking
countries while still remaining a niche phenomenon (Zoll et al., 2021), our study may
contribute to the promotion of these social innovations. Further research could explore
sustainability labels for AFNs in different countries and languages, as cultural differences
may influence the perception of AFNs (De Bernardi et al., 2020).
We assume that people compare AFNs to “conventional retail” where they are used to
professional labels. In this respect, AFNs must probably compete with retailers in the
perception of consumers. This could be further investigated in future research as well as the
levels of trust placed in the awarding institutions and whether this affects the perception of
the labels. This question was outside of the scope of our studies as we were concerned with
how perceived authenticity is influenced and how it affects perceptions of the labels, but not
trust in institutions.
Despite these limitations, we believe that the results of our studies can help us better
understand the impact of sustainability labels that refer to community-based AFNs, not just
individual products.

References
Annunziata, A., Mariani, A. and Vecchio, R. (2019), “Effectiveness of sustainability labels in guiding
food choices: analysis of visibility and understanding among young adults”, Sustainable
Production and Consumption, Vol. 17, pp. 108-115.
Balderjahn, I., Buerke, A., Kirchgeorg, M., Peyer, M., Seegebarth, B. and Wiedmann, K.-P. (2013),
“Consciousness for sustainable consumption: scale development and new insights in the
economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability”, AMS Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 181-192.
Bradu, C., Orquin, J.L. and Thøgersen, J. (2014), “The mediated influence of a traceability label on
consumer’s willingness to buy the labelled product”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 124 No. 2,
pp. 283-295.
Carrero, I. and Valor, C. (2012), “CSR-labelled products in retailers’ assortment: a comparative study of
British and Spanish retailers”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 629-652.
Chaiken, S. (1980), “Heuristic vs systematic information processing and the use of source vs message
cues in persuasion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 5, p. 752.
Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (1999), Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology, Guilford Press, New York.
Conner, D.S. and Christy, R.D. (2004), “The organic label: how to reconcile its meaning with consumer
preferences”, Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 35 Nos 856-2016-57085, pp. 40-43.
BJM De Bernardi, P., Bertello, A., Venuti, F. and Foscolo, E. (2020), “How to avoid the tragedy of alternative
food networks (AFNs)? The impact of social capital and transparency on AFN performance”,
18,4 British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 7, pp. 2171-2186.
Diekmann, M. and Theuvsen, L. (2019), “Non-participants interest in CSA – insights from Germany”,
Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 69, pp. 1-10.
Donato, C. and Adıg€ uzel, F. (2022), “Visual complexity of eco-labels and product evaluations in
online setting: is simple always better?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 67,
506 102961.
Drichoutis, A.C., Vassilopoulos, A., Lusk, J.L. and Nayga, R.M. (2017), “Consumer preferences for fair
labour certification”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 455-474.
Eberle, U., Spiller, A., Becker, T., Heissenhuber, A., Leonh€auser, I. and Sundrum, A. (2011), Joint
Statement of the Scientific Advisory Board on Consumer and Food Policy and on Agricultural
Policy at the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Political Strategy
for Food-Labelling, Berlin.
Ellison, B., Duff, B.R., Wang, Z. and White, T.B. (2016), “Putting the organic label in context:
examining the interactions between the organic label, product type, and retail outlet”, Food
Quality and Preference, Vol. 49, pp. 140-150.
European Commission (2020), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
A Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System,
European Commission, Brussels.
Falc~ao, D. and Roseira, C. (2022), “Mapping the socially responsible consumption gap research: review
and future research agenda”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 46 No. 5,
pp. 1718-1760.
Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V. and Bruhn, M. (2017), “Authenticity in branding–exploring antecedents
and consequences of brand authenticity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 324-348.
Hennchen, B. and Sch€afer, M. (2022), “Do sustainable food system innovations foster inclusiveness
and social cohesion? A comparative study”, Frontiers in Sustainability, Vol. 3, p. 157.
Hertzog, M.A. (2008), “Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies”, Research in
Nursing and Health, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 180-191.
Howard, P. (2006), “Central Coast consumers want more food-related information, from safety to
ethics”, California Agriculture, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 14-19.
Ihemezie, E.J., Ukwuaba, I.C. and Nnaji, A.P. (2018), “Impact of ‘green’ product label standards on
consumer behaviour: a systematic review analysis”, International Journal of Academic Research
in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 9, pp. 666-684.
Ilicic, J. and Webster, C.M. (2014), “Investigating consumer–brand relational authenticity”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 21, pp. 342-363.
Iwata, O. (2006), “An evaluation of consumerism and lifestyle as correlates of a voluntary simplicity
lifestyle”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 557-568.
Janßen, D. and Langen, N. (2017), “The bunch of sustainability labels–Do consumers differentiate?”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 143, pp. 1233-1245.
Kahneman, D. and Frederick, S. (2002), “Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive
judgment”, Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, Vol. 49 Nos 49-81, p. 74.
Kleiss, D.F. and Waiguny, M.K. (2021), Sustainability and Diversity Labels in Job Ads and Their
Effect on Employer Brands. In Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. XI) Designing and
Communicating Experience (pp. 255-272). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Koshy, L. and Manohar, S.J. (2016), “Young consumers attitude towards personal care product
advertising”, Asia Pacific Journal of Research, Vol. I LVIV, pp. 258-262.
Kump, B. and Fikar, C. (2021), “Challenges of maintaining and diffusing grassroots innovations in Sustainability
alternative food networks: a systems thinking approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 317, 128407. labels for food
Leiner, D.J. (2019), “Too fast, too straight, too weird: non-reactive indicators for meaningless data in
networks
internet surveys”, Survey Research Methods, Vol. 13, pp. 229-248.
MacKenzie, S.B. and Lutz, R.J. (1989), “An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of
attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 48-65. 507
Majer, J.M., Henscher, H.A., Reuber, P., Fischer-Kreer, D. and Fischer, D. (2022), “The effects of visual
sustainability labels on consumer perception and behavior: a systematic review of the empirical
literature”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 33, pp. 1-14.
Marozzo, V., Raimondo, M.A., Miceli, G.N. and Scopelliti, I. (2020), “Effects of au naturel packaging
colors on willingness to pay for healthy food”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 7,
pp. 913-927.
Oppenheimer, D.M., Meyvis, T. and Davidenko, N. (2009), “Instructional manipulation checks:
detecting satisficing to increase statistical power”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 867-872.
Peattie, K. (2010), “Green consumption: behavior and norms”, Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, Vol. 35, pp. 195-228.
Persada, S., Lin, S., Nadlifatin, R. and Razif, M. (2015), “Investigating the citizens’ intention level in
environmental impact assessment participation through an extended theory of planned
behavior model”, Global Nest Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 847-857.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), The Elaboration Likelihood Model of
Persuasion, Springer, New York.
Poças Ribeiro, A., Harmsen, R., Feola, G., Rosales Carreon, J. and Worrell, E. (2021), “Organising
alternative food networks (AFNs): challenges and facilitating conditions of different AFN types
in three EU countries”, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 491-517.
Potter, C., Bastounis, A., Hartmann-Boyce, J., Stewart, C., Frie, K., Tudor, K., Bianchi, F., Cartwright,
E., Cook, B. and Rayner, M. (2021), “The effects of environmental sustainability labels on
selection, purchase, and consumption of food and drink products: a systematic review”,
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 891-925.
Proi, M., Dudinskaya, E.C., Naspetti, S., Ozturk, E. and Zanoli, R. (2023), “The role of eco-labels in
making environmentally friendly choices: an eye-tracking study on aquaculture products with
Italian consumers”, Sustainability, Vol. 15 No. 5, p. 4659.
Purvis, B., Mao, Y. and Robinson, D. (2019), “Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual
origins”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 681-695.
Renting, H., Marsden, T.K. and Banks, J. (2003), “Understanding alternative food networks: exploring
the role of short food supply chains in rural development”, Environment and Planning A,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 393-411.
Rihn, A., Wei, X. and Khachatryan, H. (2019), “Text vs logo: does eco-label format influence
consumers’ visual attention and willingness-to-pay for fruit plants? An experimental auction
approach”, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, Vol. 82, 101452.
Sch€aufele, I. and Hamm, U. (2017), “Consumers’ perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for
wine with sustainability characteristics: a review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 147,
pp. 379-394.
Sheng, G., Xie, F., Gong, S. and Pan, H. (2019), “The role of cultural values in green purchasing
intention: empirical evidence from Chinese consumers”, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 315-326.
Sheth, J.N., Sethia, N.K. and Srinivas, S. (2011), “Mindful consumption: a customer-centric approach to
sustainability”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 21-39.
BJM Tang, E., Fryxell, G.E. and Chow, C.S. (2004), “Visual and verbal communication in the design of eco-
label for green consumer products”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4,
18,4 pp. 85-105.
Thøgersen, J. (2010), “Country differences in sustainable consumption: the case of organic food”,
Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 171-185.
Thøgersen, J., Jørgensen, A.K. and Sandager, S. (2012), “Consumer decision making regarding a ‘green’
everyday product”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 187-197.
508
Torma, G. and Thøgersen, J. (2021), “A systematic literature review on meta sustainability labeling–
what do we (not) know?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 293, 126194.
United Nations (2015), “Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25 September 2015.
Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development”, United Nations,
New York, NY.
Webb, D.J., Mohr, L.A. and Harris, K.E. (2008), “A re-examination of socially responsible consumption
and its measurement”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 91-98.
Ziesemer, F., Peyer, M., Klemm, A. and Balderjahn, I. (2019), “Die Messung von nachhaltigem
€
Konsumbewusstsein”, Okologisches Wirtschaften-Fachzeitschrift, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 24-26.
Zoll, F., Specht, K., Opitz, I., Siebert, R., Piorr, A. and Zasada, I. (2017), “Individual choice or collective
action? Exploring consumer motives for participating in alternative food networks”,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 101-110.
Zoll, F., Specht, K. and Siebert, R. (2021), “Alternative5 transformative? Investigating drivers of
transformation in alternative food networks in Germany”, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 61 No. 3,
pp. 638-659.

Corresponding author
Birgit Teufer can be contacted at: birgit.teufer@fh-krems.ac.at

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com