Correction: Tanaka et al. How Do Eco-Labels for Everyday Products Made of Recycled Plastic Affect Consumer Behavior? Sustainability 2024, 16, 4878

The authors would like to make the following corrections about the published paper [1]. The changes are as follows:

(1)

Replacing the sentence in “Section 4.1. H1 and H2 (Information Display, Gender, and Age)”:

The estimation results are in accordance with H1 and partially in accordance with H2. The results of the MWTP derived from the responses of the whole sample and male/female respondents are shown in Figure 3.

First, as a general trend across the whole sample, the MWTP for selection Q1 is positively valued for both the eco-label and the inclusion of recycled plastic content. When both are listed, the WTP for the mug (CNY 62.7) is higher than that for the pen (CNY 4.3), and the trend is similar when comparing WTP per unit of price. Therefore, while the levels may vary by product, the impact of the label on consumer behavior is significant, and the addition of recycled plastic content information also has a positive effect.

Moreover, concerning the increase in content rate (+1%) for Q2, the MWTP is positive as well, but the values for mugs are smaller than those for content rate display, while pens exhibit the opposite trend. Owing to the different assumed utility functions, a direct comparison is not feasible, yet it suggests varying trends among products. Generally, increasing the recycled plastic content has a positive impact on consumer behavior, though its effect may be smaller compared to the label display according to H1.

Second, in terms of MWTP for males and females, as per H2, the MWTP for females is higher for each question/factor. For instance, for mugs in Q1, the MWTP of the logo display is higher for females (CNY 59.3) than for males (CNY 51.7). The same trend was observed for pens, but the relative difference widened. Additionally, in Q1, the MWTP for the content rate display was not calculated from significant parameters for both products, indicating a clearer trend for females compared to males.

With

The estimation results are in accordance with H1 and partially in accordance with H2. The results of the MWTP derived from the responses of the whole sample and male/female respondents are shown in Figure 3.

First, as a general trend across the whole sample, the MWTP for selection Q1 is positively valued for both the eco-label and the inclusion of recycled plastic content. When both are listed, the WTP for the mug (JPY 62.7) is higher than that for the pen (JPY 4.3), and the trend is similar when comparing WTP per unit of price. Therefore, while the levels may vary by product, the impact of the label on consumer behavior is significant, and the addition of recycled plastic content information also has a positive effect.

Moreover, concerning the increase in content rate (+1%) for Q2, the MWTP is positive as well, but the values for mugs are smaller than those for content rate display, while pens exhibit the opposite trend. Owing to the different assumed utility functions, a direct comparison is not feasible, yet it suggests varying trends among products. Generally, increasing the recycled plastic content has a positive impact on consumer behavior, though its effect may be smaller compared to the label display according to H1.

Second, in terms of MWTP for males and females, as per H2, the MWTP for females is higher for each question/factor. For instance, for mugs in Q1, the MWTP of the logo display is higher for females (JPY 59.3) than for males (JPY 51.7). The same trend was observed for pens, but the relative difference widened. Additionally, in Q1, the MWTP for the content rate display was not calculated from significant parameters for both products, indicating a clearer trend for females compared to males.

(2)

Authors would like to change three parts of the table content, so we need to replace the original Table 3:

Table 3. Factors and levels.

Question	Factor	Level
		(a) Mug	(b) Pen
Q1. Mark type	Logo	Not presented (0), Presented (1)	Not presented (0), Presented (1)
	Input rate of recycled plastic	Not presented (0), Presented (1)	Not presented (0), Presented (1)
	Price (yen)	600, 650, 700, 750	90, 95, 100
Q2. Variation	Input rate of recycled plastic (%)	50, 60, 70, 80	70, 75, 80
	Price (CNY)	600, 650, 700, 750	90, 95, 100

Note: Price is based on retail price (mug: CNY 650; pen: CNY 100).

Table 3. Factors and levels.

Question	Factor	Level
		(a) Mug	(b) Pen
Q1. Mark type	Logo	Not presented (0), Presented (1)	Not presented (0), Presented (1)
	Input rate of recycled plastic	Not presented (0), Presented (1)	Not presented (0), Presented (1)
	Price (yen)	600, 650, 700, 750	90, 95, 100
Q2. Variation	Input rate of recycled plastic (%)	50, 60, 70, 80	70, 75, 80
	Price (CNY)	600, 650, 700, 750	90, 95, 100

Note: Price is based on retail price (mug: CNY 650; pen: CNY 100).

With

Table 3. Factors and levels.

Question	Factor	Level
		(a) Mug	(b) Pen
Q1. Mark type	Logo	Not presented (0), Presented (1)	Not presented (0), Presented (1)
	Input rate of recycled plastic	Not presented (0), Presented (1)	Not presented (0), Presented (1)
	Price (JPY)	600, 650, 700, 750	90, 95, 100
Q2. Variation	Input rate of recycled plastic (%)	50, 60, 70, 80	70, 75, 80
	Price (JPY)	600, 650, 700, 750	90, 95, 100

Note: Price is based on retail price (mug: JPY 650; pen: JPY 100).

Table 3. Factors and levels.

Question	Factor	Level
		(a) Mug	(b) Pen
Q1. Mark type	Logo	Not presented (0), Presented (1)	Not presented (0), Presented (1)
	Input rate of recycled plastic	Not presented (0), Presented (1)	Not presented (0), Presented (1)
	Price (JPY)	600, 650, 700, 750	90, 95, 100
Q2. Variation	Input rate of recycled plastic (%)	50, 60, 70, 80	70, 75, 80
	Price (JPY)	600, 650, 700, 750	90, 95, 100

Note: Price is based on retail price (mug: JPY 650; pen: JPY 100).

The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.