Evidence suggesting eco-labels don’t impact people’s meal choices should refocus business energy on driving change back-of-house, says Nick Hughes.
Last week, we reported on new research showing how the presence of an eco-label didn’t shift dietary choices among people eating a hot meal at work.
Since then, I’ve been puzzling over the question of whether this sounds the death knell for eco-labels as a tool to change dietary behaviours. My tentative conclusion is that it does not, but that at the very least the research should make businesses rein in their expectations about how consumer information alone can support the shift to more sustainable diets.
To recap, researchers analysed the total environmental impact of hot meals sold over a 6-week period within 54 worksite cafeterias operated by a single nationwide catering provider between January and April 2022. The results showed no evidence that the presence of an eco-label changed people’s purchasing behaviours.
When you read the results of the study in full it helps elucidate how difficult it is to execute this type of labelling initiative in a dynamic, unpredictable environment like a work canteen.
An initial 96 sites identified for involvement in the study was ultimately reduced to 56, with site dropouts occurring mainly due to difficulties in contacting site managers and staff shortages.
The initial plan was to have three separate study groups: a control group with no eco-labels, a second group with access to eco-labels and a third group with access to more meat-free options; however the meat-free options were not forthcoming and so these sites were added to the control group.
During the trial, some sites said they had deviated from the set menus while others implemented eco-labels earlier than planned.
Researchers were also unable to obtain nutrition data as planned from the catering provider, which prevented them from assessing the trial’s impact on nutritional outcomes.
Although these conditions posed difficulties, researchers said they also provided insights into the practical limitations and barriers that may impact the implementation or performance of eco-labels in a real life setting (this particular study took place during the back end of the covid-19 pandemic adding an extra layer of unpredictably).
Operational realities
A lot of these challenges chime with my own experience of helping pilot more sustainable menus with a major caterer during a period working for WWF between 2014 and 2019. For all the good intentions of those driving the trials – from sustainability leads to chefs and catering managers – on many occasions those good intentions rubbed up against operational realities. I shall never forget turning up to a school one lunchtime with a Radio 4 journalist in tow only to find that the sustainable meals we were due to be showcasing were not actually on the menu.
The paradox of the workplace setting is that in many ways it presents a perfect environment for encouraging more eco-friendly choices since people are not eating out as a treat. When Peach Pubs, now owned by Revolution Bars, piloted carbon labels in 2022 it offered customers the opportunity to scan a QR code which took them through to a dedicated carbon menu, rather than confront diners with the impact of their choices on the main menu. “What we didn’t want to do was make guests feel guilty when they’re coming out to treat themselves,” marketing director Bex Wilkins told me.
The advantage of a restaurant environment versus a catering setting is that a greater degree of standardisation across sites in how food is produced and menus presented makes it easier in theory to execute eco-labels consistently.
Again, however, we come back to the question of will they actually motivate people to change their habits? This newly published research is important because it tested eco-labels in a real life setting. Ask people whether eco-labels will change what they eat and many will say ‘yes’. Study what they do in practice and you will likely see a very different outcome.
Waning enthusiasm
An initial wave of excitement greeted the first wave of eco-labels produced for trial by the likes of Foundation Earth and IGD. But several years on you won’t find too many product environmental scores ‘out in the wild’. Foundation Earth was recently “integrated into” EIT Food, the huge innovation community funded by the EU. The move created the International Alliance for Food Impact Data, which it is hoped will standardise approaches to environmental scoring in the food sector.
Regulators too are scaling back their ambitions to develop harmonised eco-labels. The UK Government’s food data transparency partnership is now more immediately interested in developing standardised product level footprints for food and drink items than it is in mandating methodologies for creating eco-labels.
In time, better, more standardised input data will strengthen the case for eco-labels which have faced criticism for an over-reliance on average data that doesn’t distinguish between different food production systems.
Yet in the immediate future, the greatest value in the data will surely be in driving menu and product reformulation back-of-house so that by the time the customer is faced with a choice the highest impact dishes have been weeded out or reengineered to make them more environmentally acceptable.
This in turn drives change back down the supply chain, helping expand the market for low-impact ingredients like beans and pulses and hitherto underappreciated vegetables and grains.
The trend towards better, more transparent environmental data can only be positive for the food system. Let’s not put all the onus on the public to unlock its benefits though.
The use of Eco-labelling should in my opinion be a By-the-way message and not be seen as the golden ticket to solve and change the habits of the consumers, what we should be focussed on is making sure we have ingredients and recipes that are focussed on reducing the CO2e but also providing the right level of nutrition to the consumer. We need to focus on the high volume sales/production recipes an how we can impact these. Trying to go after everything on the menu will be a difficult and challenging approach that could result in a nominal impact. reducing the carbon of a high volume sales recipe by 10% rather than a low volume sales item by 50% will potentially have a similar carbon reduction impact. This doesn’t mean we don’t review these items but in the first instance we have a targeted approach. Then we can tailor the message to the audience, those that are interested can access a “rating”, but those that aren’t interested are ultimately helping with nutritious, low carbon and anchored in core favorites.