Does carbon labelling encourage the consumption of low‐emission meat products? Evidence from China

Abstract By combining a hypothetical labelled‐choice experiment and a between‐subject design experiment, this study explores the influence of carbon labels on low‐emission meat consumption. The results reveal that carbon labels are effective in encouraging consumers to choose low‐emission conventional meat products. However, carbon labels are ineffective in persuading consumers to choose novel meat alternatives. Additionally, the results suggest that the efficiency of carbon labels depends on their format. The traffic‐light carbon label was identified as the most effective, reducing carbon emissions from meat consumption by 21.55%, followed by the carbon‐reduction label at 18.07% and the carbon‐neutral label at 2.6%. The findings raise implications for policymakers in developing standards for carbon labels.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Published
2024-11-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12602
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.92

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Does carbon labelling encourage the consumption of low‐emission meat products? Evidence from China

Zhengmin Tang, Rao Yuan
2 citations
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
0.92
article

Does carbon labelling encourage the consumption of low‐emission meat products? Evidence from China

Zhengmin Tang, Rao Yuan
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract By combining a hypothetical labelled‐choice experiment and a between‐subject design experiment, this study explores the influence of carbon labels on low‐emission meat consumption. The results reveal that carbon labels are effective in encouraging consumers to choose low‐emission conventional meat products. However, carbon labels are ineffective in persuading consumers to choose novel meat alternatives. Additionally, the results suggest that the efficiency of carbon labels depends on their format. The traffic‐light carbon label was identified as the most effective, reducing carbon emissions from meat consumption by 21.55%, followed by the carbon‐reduction label at 18.07% and the carbon‐neutral label at 2.6%. The findings raise implications for policymakers in developing standards for carbon labels.

Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsVol. 69(1)
Guizhou University (CN)
Jilin Office of Philosophy and Social Science
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
0.92
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Does carbon labelling encourage the consumption of low‐emission meat products? Evidence from China — Zhengmin Tang, Rao Yuan · Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS