Explaining Food Sustainability to Consumers

The role of information in consumer behavior pp. 46-49

The role of information in consumer behavior has been the focus of scientific research for over half a century and has been a practical concern for brands and retailers for much longer. Information about food that may attract consumers’ interest includes its taste, ingredients (e.g., gluten-free), freshness, nutritional value or “healthiness” (perceived or actual), source, social and environmental impact, and animal welfare, in addition to its price. For example, prices are usually clearly marked and easily compared, especially for similar products where the price per unit of weight or volume is clearly stated. This is not the case for many other product characteristics that cannot be directly observed or seen during consumption, such as how a product is produced.

As a result, consumers may be skeptical of claims they cannot directly verify. They may perceive sellers’ claims about their products as a form of evidence, but this is of course not always reliable (Calfee and Ford 1988; Michail 2016). Also, keep in mind that even if consumers say they value accurate information about product features they cannot directly verify, they may be unwilling to spend too much time or effort (i.e., incur costs) to obtain and process this information.

Although consumers’ choices are constrained by many factors, it is also true that consumers have significant power both individually and collectively. Consumers can use their choices to steer the industry towards greater transparency and more sustainable practices (Spaargaren and Oosterveer 2010). Businesses risk losing customers if they fail to meet consumer expectations. For example, in a recent consumer survey, more than a quarter of respondents in the United Kingdom reported that they had stopped buying certain brands or products due to ethical or sustainability concerns.

Consumers can reduce their personal environmental footprint by seeking out, demanding, and purchasing foods with lower social and environmental impacts, as well as by reducing food waste when eating at home or out. However, to do so, people need reliable information about the comparative impacts of different foods, as well as practical tips on how to reduce food waste.

Unfortunately, consumers’ perceptions of the environmental or health impacts of different foods or diets are not always well informed (Nestle 2012; Provencher and Jacob 2016). Furthermore, even accurate information does not always lead to lasting behavioral change. For example, while people are becoming increasingly aware of environmental change, only a small minority connect it to food production and consumption, and consequently, even fewer change their behavior (Campari 2019; WWF 2019). There are numerous simple solutions, such as shopping at “farmers’ markets” instead of large supermarket chains, and embracing the trend for “local” foods (Smith Taillie and Jaacks 2015). On a more optimistic note, consumers who are relatively well-informed about the environmental impacts of food appear to be able to create menus with a lower environmental footprint.

Which sources of information do consumers trust?

With so many sources of information about food, often presenting conflicting views, and with little time to make decisions, it is not surprising that consumers often express confusion or skepticism about different claims or report difficulty choosing more sustainable foods (Deloitte 2021). Consumers want information sources they can trust, ideally ones that are unbiased (though it should be noted that many people prefer media that aligns with their worldview).

Insights can be gained from studies on how consumers evaluate different information sources regarding the health effects of different foods or diets. For example, a study commissioned by the International Food Information Council (a US-based organization supported by the food, beverage, and agriculture industries) surveyed 1,009 Americans aged 18-80 and reported the following perceptions consumers have about food and health. (International Food Information Council 2018):

• 80% of survey participants reported feeling confused due to conflicting information about food and health;

• • Dietitians and health professionals were most trusted for advice on which foods to eat or avoid;

• The least trusted sources of information about food and health were friends and family, stories in the media, and food companies;

• 54% of respondents reported consulting a “personal health expert” about their diets, and 78% of these individuals (42% of the total survey sample) subsequently changed their diets; and
• Young adults expressed greater trust in technology-based information sources such as fitness apps, bloggers, and television personalities than older consumers did.

Better consumer information is necessary for more sustainable food systems, but it is not sufficient:

• The environmental impacts of the food system are concentrated in the production phase. Reducing these impacts requires action by stakeholders throughout the food value chain, particularly food producers. Consumers play an important role by choosing (or accepting) foods with fewer negative impacts, thereby influencing the decisions of producers and others further up the supply chain.
  Providing reliable and accessible information about the sustainability of food products can help inform consumers and improve our food experiences without compromising our freedom to choose what we eat. The UNEP Principles for Providing Product Sustainability Information are an important resource for food producers, eco-labels, and other stakeholders.

-Consumer information does not replace corporate action or government regulation. Well-designed labels and other information tools can complement government fiscal and regulatory measures that reduce negative impacts and support public health, as well as stimulate consumer demand and strengthen corporate responsible sourcing policies.

• In addition to better information about the origin and sustainability of specific food products and diets, changes are needed in the management of food systems, in the incentives faced by producers and processors, and in the food choices and norms presented and promoted to consumers.

Sustainability is one factor among many in food choice, and it is not the most important one:

• People’s food choices are the result of a dynamic mix of individual and contextual factors. Consumer food choices are not always conscious or rational.
• The main factors in consumer food choices include affordability (i.e., price or cost), taste, convenience, accessibility, habit, and tradition/culture.
• Additional driving forces include consumers’ desire to explore new cuisines, increased demand for healthy, ‘natural’ or organic foods, growing interest in plant-rich diets, stress relief (e.g., snacking), and ‘new wave foods’ in the Global North (e.g., online shopping, meal kits, food delivery).
• Sustainability issues (e.g., environmental and social impacts of food production, processing, packaging, and waste) generally have less influence on consumer food choices than other factors.
• Factors influencing food choices vary according to the context and constraints affecting different consumer segments:
• Constraints on consumer food choice include availability, affordability, and food safety. While economic development reduces barriers to choice, these constraints are more binding in the South.
• Increases in per capita income, along with more efficient production, better packaging, transportation, and storage, and fewer barriers to urbanization and trade, mean that more people today can find and afford foods that were once considered treats, including animal-based foods.
• More efficient production and distribution can reduce negative environmental impacts on a per-unit basis. However, this advantage can be undermined by simultaneous growth in per capita consumption, particularly of animal-based foods, which are characterized by large average environmental impacts.

Guiding consumers toward sustainable food – pp. 62-63

A key concept in behavioral science is the use of “nudges,” which involve making small changes to the choice environment or “choice architecture” that people encounter when trying to influence their decisions (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). The changes are often so subtle that consumers do not notice them (Vandenbroele et al. 2020). Practical guidance on using nudges to influence behavior in various settings is increasingly available (UNEP 2017c; UNEP, GRID Arendal, and Behavioral Insights Team 2020). For example, a review of behavioral interventions to reduce meat consumption, as mentioned above, found the strongest effects came from offering meat-free meals in university cafeterias, increasing the availability and visibility of vegetarian options in restaurants, or changing portion sizes in restaurants and supermarkets (Vos et al. 2021). A recent meta-analysis of over 200 applications of “nudge” theory reported that such interventions can be an effective way to encourage behavioral change “comparable to more traditional intervention approaches.” The authors also noted that nudges are particularly effective in the food sector and reported that:

Decision structure interventions that alter decision environments to address decision-makers’ limited capacity to evaluate and compare options are consistently more effective at changing behavior than decision information interventions that address decision-makers’ limited access to decision-relevant information or decision aid interventions that address the following:

Authors suggest that interventions focusing on choice architecture or the structure of existing options are somewhat more effective than interventions requiring people to process new information, as they impose less cognitive load on decision-makers (consumers). Food-related nudges are particularly effective because they carry relatively low costs and, if any, very few perceived negative consequences for the consumer. Finally, the authors report that nudges work across different populations and geographies and can be easily combined with other behavioral interventions such as “taxes or financial incentives,” strengthening the broad applicability and flexibility of this approach (Mertens et al. 2022). A simple example of a nudge is changing the location of food items. Retailers have long recognized that placement influences purchasing. Products placed at eye level or in prominent positions attract attention, interest, and spending. While subtle changes may not suffice, the same insight applies to positioning increasingly unsustainable foods. For example, a controlled intervention removed seasonal sweets from prominent locations in 34 UK supermarket stores and reported significant declines in purchases, even though the same products were available elsewhere in the stores (Piernas, Harmer, & Jebb 2022a). More subtle changes in product placement and promotions were less certain (Piernas, Harmer, and Jebb 2022b).

In general, this report recommends the following – pp. 64-72

1. Food sustainability communication strategies should be informed by an understanding of the drivers of consumer preferences, which vary across regions and population segments and over time.
2. Consumer education on food sustainability is essential, ideally based on the public’s prior understanding and beliefs when supported by science.
3. Sustainability messages and interventions should be tailored to different audiences based on in-depth research to determine what resonates, and should be coordinated to avoid confusion and mixed messages. Communications should be repeated and reinforced to ensure sustainable effects on behavior.
4. Particularly in countries and population segments where current consumption levels of animal-based and highly processed foods are relatively high, more investment is needed in incentives, nudges, and other non-coercive measures to encourage plant-rich and whole-food choices and diets.

Regarding food sustainability labels and food businesses:

5. Labeling should be seen as part of a consistent set of communication methods, including other forms of consumer engagement using a range of media, including digital.
6. Consumer-facing information on food sustainability should be visible/accessible, easy to understand, reliable, credible, holistic rather than single-issue, and comparable across different products and diets.
7. Messages used to accompany or support food sustainability labels may leverage both rational motivations and irrational biases; for example, appealing to emotions, including positive feelings about well-known brands or celebrities, offering micro-incentives, using social norms, or avoiding loss.
8. Labels and partners should seek opportunities to highlight sustainable products that are cheaper than traditional alternatives to counter the public perception that sustainable products are very costly.
9. Labels and partners should leverage lessons learned while using sustainability knowledge to strengthen social norms around food sustainability among individuals who are receptive to it (e.g., young, female, more educated, high-income, urban, and/or value-driven consumers) and develop effective communication strategies for other groups.
10. Labels and partners should seek opportunities to highlight sustainable products that are cheaper than traditional alternatives in order to counter the public perception that sustainable products are very costly.
11. Labels and partners should leverage the lessons learned through their work and should encourage individuals who are receptive to sustainability information (e.g., young, female, more educated, higher-income, urban, and/or value-driven consumers) to influence decisions with these groups to strengthen social norms around food sustainability and develop effective communication strategies for other groups.
    Food businesses and marketing agencies should be encouraged to share information and collaborate on studies to determine which messages and media are most effective in promoting sustainable food choices among different consumer segments (governments can assist by facilitating industry agreements and waiving prosecution under anti-competitive conditions).

Recommendations to governments include the following:

11. 11. Governments should support, regulate, and promote reliable, high-quality food certifications or sustainability rating labels while encouraging continuous improvement and supporting the principle of multi-stakeholder governance of food sustainability standards.
    12. Sustainability criteria should be systematically and consistently integrated into national dietary guidelines and policies, along with all relevant communications.

Governments should monitor food prices, including the differences between sustainable and conventional foods, support public education on how to choose affordable and sustainable foods and diets, and, where appropriate, provide targeted support to ensure vulnerable populations have access to sustainable foods.

11. Governments should provide targeted incentives to encourage food businesses to develop, test, and implement innovative methods to communicate food sustainability to their customers and make sustainable food the default option.

Finally, it is clear that not all questions regarding the effective communication of food sustainability information to consumers can be answered based on current research. To address key information and data gaps, a few additional suggestions are provided below:

15. How can the excessive consumption of highly processed and discretionary foods be addressed, and how can food companies be encouraged to promote more home preparation and consumption of sustainably produced whole foods?
16. How can younger generations (future consumers) be educated on topics such as interpreting food labels, identifying greenwashing, purposeful shopping, and sticking to a budget?
17. How are food preferences evolving in developing economies and developing countries, how are these changes influenced by commercial marketing, and what policies are needed to promote sustainable diets and food choices rather than the wholesale adoption of unhealthy and unsustainable “Western diets”?
18. More field experiments that measure actual consumer behavior rather than assumptions. This requires collaboration with food brands, service and retail outlets, and market research companies that are willing to share existing marketing data and insights or conduct new high-quality experiments at scale. Furthermore, any experimental intervention should be supported by a sound scientific methodology, including the following:

Clear objectives (e.g., shifting consumption to certified sustainable X);

Well-defined target audience(s), outcome indicators, and measurement protocols;

Assessment of the target audience’s beliefs, constraints, and motivations;

Good experimental design (e.g., randomized controlled trials among representative samples of sufficient size to produce statistically meaningful results after allowing for attrition);

Retesting and refining the intervention;

Best practice monitoring and evaluation to ensure reliable results; and

Widespread dissemination of findings through reputable communication channels.

19. Assessing the effectiveness of alternative sustainability messages and communication channels to bridge the intention-action gap and achieve long-term behavioral change, particularly in developing and middle-income economies and the Global South.
20. Exploring how food sustainability can be communicated in a way that reflects differences in consumers’ purchasing power, as well as differences between regions and other socio-economic variables.
21. Beyond information, what types of food environments and infrastructure investments are needed to support the provision of affordable and sustainable food, particularly for food-insecure populations?
22. Research and consensus building on the role of animal-based foods in sustainable diets across different contexts (where feasible).