Overview of studies on MDMLSL or meta labels in the food sector
| Author (Year) | Label type* | Study/studies | Insights | Limitation(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vlaeminck et al. (2014) | MDML traffic light; paraphrased | 6 different labels are compared to identify least/most effective ones. Labels are tested in a field experiment (n = 50 per group) | Most effective label (aggregated score, colored traffic-lights scheme) outperforms default labels | - Limited sample size (n = 50 per group) - Rather complex label with 5 dimensions |
| Leach et al. (2016) | MD; ML | Proposing 4 different sustainability labels and 3 methods for calculating the foods' footprint | Discussing advantages/disadvantages of the four different proposed label types | - No empirical study - No insights on labels' performance/effects on consumers |
| Weinrich and Spiller (2016) | ML | Comparing binary with multi-level labels (n = 1,538) | Consumers show higher satisfaction with multi-level label compared with a binary one | - Focus on one dimension only - Satisfaction as the only dependent variable |
| Kocsis and Kuslits (2019) | MD; ML | Conceptual paper proposing an MDMLSL | Environmentally harmful impact is classified into 4 different categories | - No empirical study |
| Muller et al. (2019) | MD; ML; Informational | Comparing 3 sustainability labels with no label (control) regarding eutrophication, acidification, energy, LIM index, and price based on shopping using a computer. Samples: n = 59 (control), n = 67, n = 66, n = 83 | All labels foster the number of purchases of groceries with a lower environmental impact. Labelling does neither impact the price of the grocery baskets, nor the nutritional content. Multi-level labels are more effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, eutrophication, and acidification | - Focus on water, air and “climate change” only with only three levels - Simulated purchase decision on a computer - No insights on consumer perceptions except price - Limited sample size (below n = 84 per group) |
| Futtrup et al. (2021) | MD; ML | Qualitative study (n = 24) about advantages/disadvantages of a holistic sustainability label | Consumers and food sector stakeholders would welcome a holistic sustainability label, but barriers still exist | - Qualitative study only with n = 24 |
| Gröfke et al. (2021) | Meta-Label | Qualitative study (n = 16) about advantages/disadvantages and solutions for implementing a meta sustainability label | Stakeholders' interactions can increase/decrease the adoption of a meta label | - Qualitative study only with n = 16 |
| Hallez et al. (2021) | MD | Online experiment (n = 142) comparing nutrition, sustainability, no label. Online experiment (n = 250) comparing sustainability/nutrition with interpretative/reductive labels and no label | Sustainability labels can influence consumers to purchase more sustainability-friendly products | - Aggregated score only vs. very detailed numbers for each subdimension - Student sample with n < 70 per group |
| Lemken et al. (2021) | ML | Conceptual analysis of different carbon footprint labels and proposing a new one | Suggestion for a new carbon footprint label | - Focusing on CO2 only - No empirical study |
| Neumayr and Moosauer (2021) | MD; ML | Online survey (n = 50) about the label's design and online experiment (n = 163) to test its effectiveness | Eco-labels work effectively, especially those colored in the traffic lights design | - Limited sample sizes - Online studies only (self-report bias) |
| Torma and Thøgersen (2021) | Meta-label | Systematic literature review on meta sustainability labels | Theoretical framework for characterizing different types of labels, including their (dis-)advantages | - No empirical study |
| Hélias et al. (2022) | MD; ML | A scientific council answers the main questions about implementing a sustainability label | Identifying relevant dimensions, objectives, data needed, methods for assessing the environmental footprint and label form | - No empirical study |
| Potter et al. (2022) | MD; ML | Investigating the environmental impact score of subdimensions, an aggregated score, and the combination of both. Investigating the environmental impact score of an aggregated multi-level score, two binary labels and an overview label score | Combining a traffic light label aggregated score with subdimension indicators yields lower environmental impacts. The binary “better” yields the lowest impact score compared with aggregated traffic light label or the overall rating label | - One aggregated score only - Score based on LCA of major ingredients as incomplete, imprecise approach that neglects major impacts, such as water footprint - Online surveys only (with potential self-report bias) |
| Stein and Lima (2022) | MD labels with ML | Discussion of several labels and proposing an own label | Outlining the need for a mandatory sustainability label. Label should cover multiple dimensions. Based on summary, the economic feasibility seems to be given | - No empirical study |
| Fresacher and Johnson (2023) | MD; ML | Testing the effectiveness of 3 labels with an online survey (n = 249 consumers) | Emphasizing the importance of the label design. However, all labels performed better than no label | - Convenience sample - Online survey only |
| Sonntag et al. (2023) | ML | Online survey (n = 985) to measure willingness to pay comparing binary organic label, climate label, animal welfare label and NutriScore | Additional sustainability labels do not diminish the effect of other sustainability labels. Negative label scores cannot be compensated by other positive scores. Consumers seem to be able to trade off contradictory information | - Online survey only - Comparing different sustainability dimensions (e.g. animal welfare, climate) - Labels used varied between none, a higher and a lower specification |
| Jürkenbeck et al. (2024) | MDML using aggregated score | Online survey (n = 1,061) to examine the effect of NutriScore, Eco-Score and NutriScore combined with Eco-Score | Eco-Score and NutriScore affect each other's perceived environmental impact and healthiness | - Online survey only - The Eco-Score displays an aggregated score only |
| Torma and Thøgersen (2024) | Meta-label | Online survey (n = 518; n = 520) to investigate the effect of traditional labels, new labels, combining both and adding a meta label, as well as new labels with an additional meta label | An additional meta-label reduced the effect of preferring sustainability-labeled products for Americans. Adding a meta label and the traditional labels improves effectiveness for some German consumers | - Online survey only - binary labels only - not displaying different levels of sustainability |
| Author (Year) | Label type* | Study/studies | Insights | Limitation(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MDML traffic light; paraphrased | 6 different labels are compared to identify least/most effective ones. Labels are tested in a field experiment ( | Most effective label (aggregated score, colored traffic-lights scheme) outperforms default labels | - Limited sample size ( | |
| MD; | Proposing 4 different sustainability labels and 3 methods for calculating the foods' footprint | Discussing advantages/disadvantages of the four different proposed label types | - No empirical study | |
| ML | Comparing binary with multi-level labels ( | Consumers show higher satisfaction with multi-level label compared with a binary one | - Focus on one dimension only | |
| MD; ML | Conceptual paper proposing an MDMLSL | Environmentally harmful impact is classified into 4 different categories | - No empirical study | |
| MD; | Comparing 3 sustainability labels with no label (control) regarding eutrophication, acidification, energy, LIM index, and price based on shopping using a computer. Samples: | All labels foster the number of purchases of groceries with a lower environmental impact. Labelling does neither impact the price of the grocery baskets, nor the nutritional content. Multi-level labels are more effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, eutrophication, and acidification | - Focus on water, air and “climate change” only with only three levels | |
| MD; | Qualitative study ( | Consumers and food sector stakeholders would welcome a holistic sustainability label, but barriers still exist | - Qualitative study only with | |
| Meta-Label | Qualitative study ( | Stakeholders' interactions can increase/decrease the adoption of a meta label | - Qualitative study only with | |
| MD | Online experiment ( | Sustainability labels can influence consumers to purchase more sustainability-friendly products | - Aggregated score only vs. very detailed numbers for each subdimension | |
| ML | Conceptual analysis of different carbon footprint labels and proposing a new one | Suggestion for a new carbon footprint label | - Focusing on CO2 only | |
| MD; | Online survey ( | Eco-labels work effectively, especially those colored in the traffic lights design | - Limited sample sizes | |
| Meta-label | Systematic literature review on meta sustainability labels | Theoretical framework for characterizing different types of labels, including their (dis-)advantages | - No empirical study | |
| MD; ML | A scientific council answers the main questions about implementing a sustainability label | Identifying relevant dimensions, objectives, data needed, methods for assessing the environmental footprint and label form | - No empirical study | |
| MD; ML | Investigating the environmental impact score of subdimensions, an aggregated score, and the combination of both. Investigating the environmental impact score of an aggregated multi-level score, two binary labels and an overview label score | Combining a traffic light label aggregated score with subdimension indicators yields lower environmental impacts. The binary “better” yields the lowest impact score compared with aggregated traffic light label or the overall rating label | - One aggregated score only | |
| MD labels with ML | Discussion of several labels and proposing an own label | Outlining the need for a mandatory sustainability label. Label should cover multiple dimensions. Based on summary, the economic feasibility seems to be given | - No empirical study | |
| MD; | Testing the effectiveness of 3 labels with an online survey ( | Emphasizing the importance of the label design. However, all labels performed better than no label | - Convenience sample | |
| ML | Online survey ( | Additional sustainability labels do not diminish the effect of other sustainability labels. Negative label scores cannot be compensated by other positive scores. Consumers seem to be able to trade off contradictory information | - Online survey only | |
| MDML using aggregated score | Online survey ( | Eco-Score and NutriScore affect each other's perceived environmental impact and healthiness | - Online survey only | |
| Meta-label | Online survey ( | An additional meta-label reduced the effect of preferring sustainability-labeled products for Americans. Adding a meta label and the traditional labels improves effectiveness for some German consumers | - Online survey only |
Note(s): *MD = Multi-Dimensional; ML = Multi-Level; MDML = Multi-Dimensional Multi-Level
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.