Designed to Be Noticed: A Reconceptualization of Carbon Food Labels as Warning Labels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-written paper on a hot topic that fits well with the focus of Sustainability.

I have only some recommendations to the authors.

1. At the end of the introduction chapter, from line 87 authors list their main findings. I think the introduction chapter should contain the research aim, but findings should not be placed here.
2. A more detailed introduction is needed for the methodology chapter as it is e.g. unknown when the focus groups were carried out, how many respondents participated in each section etc.
3. Authors write in lines 169-170 that ”consumers intend to avoid unhealthy ingredients, such as palm oil (…)”. As there are no statements quoted from respondents about this, I recommend the authors revise this statement. Palm oil can be considered unhealthy by consumers but it is probably not unhealthy at all.
4. Check line 333. There is this “the We”.
5. Very important to emphasize that this research is “just” a qualitative one. This should be repeated within the text or at least as a limitation in the Discussion chapter.
6. Initials are enough to use in the Author Contributions chapter.
7. There are many sources listed in the References chapter that can not be found according to the given information e.g. there is no link, do, or in many cases “last accessed” information.

Author Response

Please, see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

• Qualitative research does not allow for quantitative interpretation. It rather shows a scope of variety. This is not consequently considered in the description of the results (e.g. line 161-162: the level of packaging consultation is low, especially among younger consumers). Moreover, results of qualitative research cannot be generalized (e.g. line 189: consumers do not understand…).
• The chapter 3.2 presents a good overview on the different ways that the label can be perceived.
• The red color may be univocally be interpreted as a warning, however based on the results the underlying hazard is not univocally perceived. Moreover, a label should be simple and not misleading. The red color leads to simplicity, but not necessarily to an appropriate perception.
• The recommendations overstrain the results of the empirical research. The aim of designing a label is not to maximize awareness, but – at least from an economic point of view – to inform and to enable consumers to make decisions in line with their preferences. Therefore, a clear understanding of the label in necessary. Moreover, focusing just on carbon dioxide may frame the perception on the product and lead to neglect e.g. its health impact. Allover: designing a label and dealing with different ways of perception is a complicated task that hardly can be based on the described results.
• In general: for transparency reasons recommendations should clearly state the target and – based on the results of the research – describe the conflicts that may arise. Dealing with possible conflicts and making decisions is value based and should be reserved to institutions that have got the legitimacy.
• Some of the quotes are in italics and separated paragraphs, some are just integrated in the text. I recommend to do that uniformly.
• Lines 342 to 344: Is this a leftover?

Author Response

Please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I suppose that you missed the relevant points of my comments. Therefore I added a file with additional explanations

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

In spite of improvements there are some relevant comments that require minor but important adjustments:

The “mindset approach” consider that consumers act differently in different situations, e.g. purchasing on farmers markets might be driven by variety seeking and indulging in a certain atmosphere. The same consumer might purchase efficiently during the week on his way back home. Presenting results from the “mindset” point of view takes into account that consumers do not act uniformly and it is much more in line with the behaviour of consumers. The mindset point of view could be emphasised in the context of the consultation of nutritional values. But this is really a minor change that adapts results to the not uniform behaviour of consumers.

But one point is really decisive: You state that the proposed label is not misleading. This is an impermissible interpretation of and conclusion from the empirical results. Considering an “efficiency mindset” as one of the mindsets that you identified, consumers might not might not look at the textual anchor. Moreover, you just had a group discussion and people with the issue to an extent that is not normal in everyday life. So, the statement that the textual anchor prevents misleading interpretation has to be tested empirically under market conditions. Giving that recommendation based on the results of group discussions means to ignore the differences between the specific setting and the real purchase behaviour.

I know that a piece of research might create the impression of being incomplete if it does not end with “recommendations”. However, you should be close to the results that you achieved and that is why you can recommend to test this version of the label under market conditions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your accurate comments and suggestions for improvement towards our work. We really appreciate your constructive spirit and have tried to transfer the suggestions to the paper in the best possible way.  The revisions within the document are presented as "tracked changes"

1. The “mindset approach” consider that consumers act differently in different situations, e.g. purchasing on farmers markets might be driven by variety seeking and indulging in a certain atmosphere. The same consumer might purchase efficiently during the week on his way back home. Presenting results from the “mindset” point of view takes into account that consumers do not act uniformly and it is much more in line with the behaviour of consumers. The mindset point of view could be emphasised in the context of the consultation of nutritional values. But this is really a minor change that adapts results to the not uniform behaviour of consumers.

        We include changes to acknowledge this in two different parts of the paper:

• In Results epigraph,  3.1. Context of grocery shopping (Lines 174-175). We have nuanced the wording to refer to the specific  context. Particularly, we have substituted the expression ”Our study seems to confirm that many consumer food-shopping is guided by an “efficiency mindset”” by the wording “When asked about habitual grocery shopping, most of our respondents seem to be mainly guided by an “efficiency mindset””.
• On the other hand, in Discussion, we have include a suggestion for a future line of research ”In particular, future studies might examine how different consumer's mindsets when grocery shopping may affect awareness of carbon labels”

2. But one point is really decisive: You state that the proposed label is not misleading. This is an impermissible interpretation of and conclusion from the empirical results. Considering an “efficiency mindset” as one of the mindsets that you identified, consumers might not might not look at the textual anchor. Moreover, you just had a group discussion and people with the issue to an extent that is not normal in everyday life. So, the statement that the textual anchor prevents misleading interpretation has to be tested empirically under market conditions. Giving that recommendation based on the results of group discussions means to ignore the differences between the specific setting and the real purchase behaviour. I know that a piece of research might create the impression of being incomplete if it does not end with “recommendations”. However, you should be close to the results that you achieved and that is why you can recommend to test this version of the label under market conditions.

• We may not have been clear enough on this point in our previous changes. For this reason, we have removed the clarification of what the consumer might interpret from a CO2 label by removing the words "contaminated product" (line 347). Additionally, by referring to the need of a quantitative approach to test the influence of each feature design in label use in a comprehensive sample of consumers, capturing differences (…). We add the sentence “For this purpose, simulated shopping experiments would be most appropriate to isolate the influence of label design on consumer demand in close to real market conditions” (lines 424-426).