LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

PARALLEL SESSION 4A: CARBON FOOTPRINT 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
Furthermore, interestingly, terms like ‘climate impact’ and ‘global warming’ were not mentioned in the context
of environmental impacts of food. Similar findings were also made in a UK study where 89 per cent of
respondents had confusion in interpreting and understanding carbon labels (Gadelma and Oglethorpe, 2011).
After being provided with the correct definition of ‘product carbon footprint’ the participants were singleminded
that communicating product carbon footprints was positive. However, the majority agreed on the
focus being quite narrow. Many claimed that other environmental impacts should also be taken into account.
Participants also questioned whether communicating product carbon footprints would really have any impact
on their buying behaviour. For instance, they stated that at their current level of understanding of carbon
footprint it would be hard to put the information into perspective and say whether a carbon footprint was low
or high. However, several participants stated that a carbon label could have a positive impact on their purchase
decisions, but only when the choice was to be made between two otherwise comparable food products.
The most preferred carbon label among the participants (12 of the 33 respondents preferred this carbon
label) was that providing the carbon footprint according to a scale (Figure 1e). Many considered the label to
be illustrative because it indicated an approximate product carbon footprint in comparison with that for other
food products. Meanwhile, some found the label to be quite confusing.
Other favourites were the label showing that the product had low GHG-emissions in comparison with
other products in its product category (6/33) (Fig. 1c), and the label giving the carbon footprint as an exact
number (5/33) (Fig. 1f). The former label (Fig. 1c) was considered good because its message was easy to
understand, although it did not allow comparisons between different product categories. The latter label (Fig.
1f) was considered good because if a company were to use such a label on its product packages it would
seemingly require considerable input from the company, and which could lead to reductions in the product
carbon footprint. However, the information of such a label was seen as being rather abstract without adequate
an understanding of the magnitude of the figure. Additionally, some participants stated that the exact
figure should be on all products in order to make valid choices based on it.
The remaining carbon labels did not get much support. ‘The carbon label has been calculated’ label (Fig.
1a) was quite poorly received because it did not indicate magnitude, and thus the footprint could be relatively
high. Additionally, some participants saw a potential risk of ‘green washing’ on a label stating that the company
was committed to reducing its product carbon footprint on an annual basis (Fig. 1c).
4. Discussion and conclusion
Overall group discussions deepened understanding of how some consumers currently perceive carbon
footprinting and labelling, and how unclear, but interesting, the issue is and could be in the future. Firstly, the
participants stated that the issue is at least somewhat interesting and important, but there seem to be diverse
requirements for the type of information to be included in a carbon label. The most definite outcome from
the discussions was that there is a clear need to educate consumers to understand better the concept of product
carbon footprint. This would allow better understanding of the importance of the product carbon footprint
information to consumers. Again, it is also quite interesting to see how consumers perceive carbon footprinting
and labelling given their current level of understanding. Whether accurate understanding of carbon footprinting
would increase demand for carbon labelled food products is still uncertain.
The focus groups gave only a narrow view on the consumer thoughts on the issue, and therefore to get a
broader view and perhaps get answers to some unanswered questions and issues raised in the group discussions,
the next step was an extensive quantitative survey (held in spring 2012). The aim of the quantitative
survey was to obtain around 1000 responses from a miscellaneous consumer group (e.g. different age groups,
different levels of environmental consciousness etc.).
5. References
European Commission, 2009. Europeans’ attitudes towards the issue of sustainable consumption and production, Analytical report,
Flash EB Series 256
Gadema Z., Oglethorpe D. 2011. The use and usefulness of carbon labelling food: A policy perspective from a survey of UK supermarket
shoppers. Food Policy 36: 815–822
Raisio 2011. http://www.ekologia.fi/www/page/Ekologia_CO_merkki
Regina K., Lehtonen H., Perälä P., 2011. The role of agriculture as a greenhouse gas emissions producer and as a part of climate
policy (in Finnish): Maatalouden rooli kasvihuonekaasupäästöjen tuottajana ja osana ilmastopolitiikkaa, Selvitys Maa- ja
metsätalousministeriölle, Maa- ja elintarviketalouden tutkimuskeskus (MTT)
Seppälä J., Mäenpää I., Koskela S., Mattila T., Nissinen A., Katajajuuri J-M., Härmä T., Korhonen M-R., Saarinen M., Virtanen Y.,
2009. The environmental impact assessment of material flows of Finland's national economy with ENVIMAT-model (in Finnish):
Suomen kansantalouden materiaalivirtojen ympäristövaikutusten arviointi ENVIMAT-mallilla, Suomen Ympäristö
20/2009, Suomen ympäristökeskus (SYKE)
The Climate Group, Carbon footprint consumer survey (2006)
355