A ecocertificação confunde ainda mais os consumidores
Saiu este relatório da Which?, uma organização sem fins lucrativos que procura: to make consumers as powerful as the organisations they deal with in their daily lives!
A principal conclusão é que os consumidores parecem ficar mais confusos com a eco-certificação. A informação começa a ser tanta e tão distinta que não conseguem adoptar uma escolha facilmente. Por exemplo, para o caso da MSC, o maior órgão de certificação dos produtos da pesca, apenas 6% dos entrevistados têm conhecimento do que significa. Sem o reconhecimento dos consumidores a certificação não é viável porque não tem efeito sobre quem compra e os produtores não vêem vantagens em a adoptarem.
Uma outra opção que começa a acontecer é os próprios supermercados adoptarem campanhas de sustentabilidade com a colaboração de outras entidades. Há já alguns supermercados a adoptarem esta estratégia, que promove também uma imagem green das empresas.
O maior problema pode acontecer quando surge um efeito contraproducente: os consumidores ficam de tal forma sobrecarregados de informação, que não querem saber mais sobre o assunto. E é por isso que a organização remete a solução para o trabalho a fazer ao nível da legislação. Uma hipótese, por exemplo, seria a UE apostar num sistema de eco-certificações europeu que depois seria implementado nos vários países e criava uma uniformidade sobre o tipo informação fornecida nos produtos.
Shoppers who actively seek out sustainable and ethically sourced food struggle to find what they want and are generally "overwhelmed and confused" by the vast array of different environmental labels in use, new research has shown.
Seven out of 10 UK consumers admitted they would pay more attention to the environmental impact of the foods they buy if labels were clearer and more meaningful, according to a survey of over 1,000 people carried out by the consumer group Which?
Labels aim to give shoppers information about where their food has come from – whether it has been produced organically, for example, and reflecting its carbon footprint. But the overall level of awareness of the nine main schemes in use was very low and they are "poorly understood", researchers found. Some people had never even noticed the labels that Which? asked them about – even though they admitted to buying products that they appear on. Established labels involving certification from industry bodies were barely recognised by consumers. Only 6% of shoppers were aware of the Marine Stewardship Council label used to identify sustainably sourced fish and seafood, for example. And even "organic" labelling, including the Soil Association's established certification, was recognised by little more than half of consumers (54%). The Carbon Trust's "footprint" label, Freedom Food and Red Tractor Farm Assured were each known by only about a fifth of consumers.
Shoppers cited taste and quality of food – along with price – as the top priorities (92%) when choosing the groceries and produce to buy, while protection of the environment (78%) and animal welfare (74%) are less important to them. Nearly half the respondents (47%) said there were already too many things to think about already without worrying about the environmental impact of the food they buy. People who are better are off financially are more likely to be interested, and younger rather than older people.
Sue Davies, Head of policy at Which?, said: "The coalition government has committed to introducing 'honesty' in food labelling so that consumers can be confident about where their food comes from and its environmental impact. Which? wants to work with the government and the industry to develop a clearer approach to sustainability labelling so that consumers can easily make more informed choices." She said lessons should be learned from the debacle over nutritional labelling, where a voluntary scheme means that consumers now face a plethora of different schemes, in addition to the "traffic lights" label backed by Which?
Significantly, around three-quarters (74%) of people said that environmental labelling schemes on foods should be run by bodies that are independent from the industry itself.
Guardian | 27 Setembro 2010
A principal conclusão é que os consumidores parecem ficar mais confusos com a eco-certificação. A informação começa a ser tanta e tão distinta que não conseguem adoptar uma escolha facilmente. Por exemplo, para o caso da MSC, o maior órgão de certificação dos produtos da pesca, apenas 6% dos entrevistados têm conhecimento do que significa. Sem o reconhecimento dos consumidores a certificação não é viável porque não tem efeito sobre quem compra e os produtores não vêem vantagens em a adoptarem.
Uma outra opção que começa a acontecer é os próprios supermercados adoptarem campanhas de sustentabilidade com a colaboração de outras entidades. Há já alguns supermercados a adoptarem esta estratégia, que promove também uma imagem green das empresas.
O maior problema pode acontecer quando surge um efeito contraproducente: os consumidores ficam de tal forma sobrecarregados de informação, que não querem saber mais sobre o assunto. E é por isso que a organização remete a solução para o trabalho a fazer ao nível da legislação. Uma hipótese, por exemplo, seria a UE apostar num sistema de eco-certificações europeu que depois seria implementado nos vários países e criava uma uniformidade sobre o tipo informação fornecida nos produtos.
Shoppers who actively seek out sustainable and ethically sourced food struggle to find what they want and are generally "overwhelmed and confused" by the vast array of different environmental labels in use, new research has shown.
Seven out of 10 UK consumers admitted they would pay more attention to the environmental impact of the foods they buy if labels were clearer and more meaningful, according to a survey of over 1,000 people carried out by the consumer group Which?
Labels aim to give shoppers information about where their food has come from – whether it has been produced organically, for example, and reflecting its carbon footprint. But the overall level of awareness of the nine main schemes in use was very low and they are "poorly understood", researchers found. Some people had never even noticed the labels that Which? asked them about – even though they admitted to buying products that they appear on. Established labels involving certification from industry bodies were barely recognised by consumers. Only 6% of shoppers were aware of the Marine Stewardship Council label used to identify sustainably sourced fish and seafood, for example. And even "organic" labelling, including the Soil Association's established certification, was recognised by little more than half of consumers (54%). The Carbon Trust's "footprint" label, Freedom Food and Red Tractor Farm Assured were each known by only about a fifth of consumers.
Shoppers cited taste and quality of food – along with price – as the top priorities (92%) when choosing the groceries and produce to buy, while protection of the environment (78%) and animal welfare (74%) are less important to them. Nearly half the respondents (47%) said there were already too many things to think about already without worrying about the environmental impact of the food they buy. People who are better are off financially are more likely to be interested, and younger rather than older people.
Sue Davies, Head of policy at Which?, said: "The coalition government has committed to introducing 'honesty' in food labelling so that consumers can be confident about where their food comes from and its environmental impact. Which? wants to work with the government and the industry to develop a clearer approach to sustainability labelling so that consumers can easily make more informed choices." She said lessons should be learned from the debacle over nutritional labelling, where a voluntary scheme means that consumers now face a plethora of different schemes, in addition to the "traffic lights" label backed by Which?
Significantly, around three-quarters (74%) of people said that environmental labelling schemes on foods should be run by bodies that are independent from the industry itself.
Guardian | 27 Setembro 2010