News

Which sustainability-related labels are consumers willing to pay a premium for?

Products with animal welfare and geographic origin labels elicit a higher willingness to pay a premium than those with carbon-related labels, research suggests.

The meta-analysis, published in the Trends in Food Science and Technology journal, analysed 173 original research papers, providing a total of 1,065 observations, covering Europe (58% of observations), North America (23%), and Asia (14%).

On average, consumers are willing to pay a 29% premium for food products with labels associated with sustainability, the researchers found. However, certain label types on specific products fetch a higher premium, and vice versa.

No one-size-fits-all: Label types leading consumers' willingness to pay

Sustainability-related labels on products may guide consumer behaviour toward more environmentally friendly consumption choices.

However, the long-term viability of these schemes for brands relies on consumers' willingness to pay for the associated premium, and while the average consumer is willing to pay an almost one-third premium for sustainability-labelled products, one size does not fit all when it comes to label type.

On average, shoppers were willing to pay 59% more than the reference or baseline price for products with animal welfare labels, the research found. The authors attributed this high premium to consumers valuing ethical and quality perceptions.

Geographic labels also drove higher premiums compared with generic sustainability labels, with an average increase of 35%. The scientists pointed to previous research that found consumers often perceive domestic origin labels as an indicator of healthfulness and safety of the product.

However, not all environmental-related claims fetch a higher premium. Carbon footprint labels, for example, were associated with the lowest percentage premium, coming in at just 12%.

The authors explained that this low valuation is consistent with previous literature, suggesting that consumers view this type of environmental attribute as having lower relative importance to other sustainability-related metrics, possibly due to perceived complexity or negative associations related to the products.

Product type and price sensitivity define the premium

The effectiveness of sustainability labels in the market also depends heavily on the food product itself.

Compared to vegetables, the researchers found that consumers were willing to pay a premium on labelled products that fell into categories such as meat, dairy, alcohol (wine and beer), coffee, and cereals.

They explained that consumers may perceive products like meat, dairy, coffee, and wine as having higher environmental or social impacts compared to vegetables and are therefore more willing to pay a premium to mitigate or address those concerns or assure origin or ethical production.

Reference or base price also plays a role in how much of a premium consumers are willing to pay, in that when the product's reference price increases, the percentage of willingness to pay decreases.

This confirms that price sensitivity is a key factor, alongside label type, in purchasing behaviour.

The evolving consumer and their changing priorities

The authors found that studies published after 2017 tended to report a significantly higher percentage of willingness to pay a premium. This finding aligns with the increased global consumer awareness and concern for sustainability-related issues that have occurred in the past decade.

A 2023 Eurobarometer report, for example, found that 73% of EU citizens surveyed agreed that the environmental impact of a product is “very important” or “rather important” when making a purchasing decision.

PwC’s 2024 Voice of the Consumer Survey found that, on average, consumers were willing to pay 9.7% more for sustainably produced or sourced goods.

However, intention to pay more is not always aligned with and consumers' real-life purchasing behaviours.

For example, McKinsey’s Sustainability in packaging 2025: Inside the minds of global consumers report found that when it comes to consumer purchasing decisions, environmental impact was rated as lower in importance than price, convenience, and shelf life.