Carbon Labeling

Bachelor Thesis

HALMSTAD

UNIVERSITY

International Marketing Programme

Carbon Labeling

A quantitative study of what the preferred content, design and layout is among Swedish consumers

Bachelor Thesis, 15 credits

Halmstad 2020-05-19

Eric Sundberg, Edvin Elghag

Abstract

Global warming has been a topic of discussion since the discovery that man-made

greenhouse gas emissions is having an affect on the planet almost 50 years ago. Grocery products stand for roughly one third of all EUs carbon emissions as a result of its high- volume production. Carbon labeling is a tool in which retailers and manufacturers can communicate the amount has caused throughout its whole life cycle or that the they are working towards lowering their GHG emission throughout their organization. However, previous research indicates that carbon labels has not yet had its breakthrough moment yet due to the CO2e data is too complex for the consumers to interpret. This led to our research question “What is the preferred content, design and layout of a carbon label among Swedish consumers? “The purpose of this study is to get a deeper understanding into the preferences of the Swedish consumers and what kind of attributes they are looking for to make a carbon label understandable. We found that the Swedish consumer prefers a more complex design than previous studies have suggested based on researches made from other countries. In order to do our explanatory research, we measured these variables with a quantitative survey and made statistical calculations such as mean values and correlation analysis to see if our hypotheses were supported. The analysis shows that the Swedish consumers prefer all the following attributes that is being presented in an order of priority: The label should be colour coded, made by a well-known organization, presented in terms of scale and have the CO2e data presented on the label.

Keywords

Carbon labeling, GHG emission, consumers preferences, consumers attitude, design,

layout, content

Table of Content

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Problem 2

1.3 Purpose 3

1.4 Definitions 3

2. Frame of reference 4

2.1 Rising demand for sustainable products 4

2.2 Groceries effect on global warming 4

2.3 Problems with misconception of organic products 5

2.4 Effects of eco labels 6

2.5 Carbon literacy 7

2.6 What is carbon labeling 8

2.7 Implementation of carbon labeling 8

2.8 Advantages of carbon labeling 9

2.9 Challenges of carbon labeling 10

2.10 Carbon labeling in other cultures 13

2.11 Existing and experimental carbon label designs 13

Fig 2.1 14

Fig 2.2 14

Fig 2.3 15

Fig 2.4 15

Fig 2.5 15

Fig 2.6 16

Fig 2.7 16

2.11.1 Colour coded vs. Monochrome 16

2.11.2 With data vs. Without data 17

2.11.3 With scale vs. Without scale 17

2.11.4 Well known organization vs. Lesser known organization 18

2.11.5 Per weight vs. per calorie 18

3. Methodology 20

3.1 Research Approach 20

3.2 Research Design 20

3.3 Credibility of Literature Review 20

3.3.1 Reliability 20

3.3.2 Validity 21

3.4 Data Collection Method 21

3.5 Choice of theories 22

3.6 Research Strategy 22

3.7 Survey Method 22

3.8 Time Horizon 23

3.9 Operationalization 23

Fig 3.1 23

3.10 Designing the questionnaire 25

Fig 3.2 26

3.11 Sample strategy 26

3.11.1 Sample size 27

3.12 Data analysis 27

3.13 Generalization 28

3.14 Limitations 28

4. Empirical results 29

4.1 Questionnaire answers 29

Fig 4.1 29

Fig 4.2 29

Fig 4.3 30

Fig 4.4 30

Fig 4.5 Question 1 31

Fig 4.6 Question 2 32

Fig 4.7 Question 3 32

Fig 4.8 Question 4 33

Fig 4.9 Question 5 34

Fig 4.10 Question 6 35

Fig 4.11 Question 7 35

Fig 4.12 Question 8 36

Fig 4.13 Question 9 36

Fig 4.14 Question 10 37

Fig 4.15 Question 11 37

Fig 4.16 Question 12 38

4.2 Comparisons within sample 38

Fig 4.17 38

Fig 4.18 39

Fig 4.19 39

4.3 Correlation analysis 40

4.3.1 Gender 40

Fig 4.20 40

Fig 4.21 40

4.3.2 Age 41

Fig 4.22 41

4.3.3 Education 41

4.3.4 Perceived Knowledge 42

Fig 4.23 42

Fig 4.24 42

5. Analysis 43

5.1 Label design 43

5.1.1 Colour coded vs. Monochrome 43

5.1.2 With data vs. Without data 43

5.1.3 With scale vs. Without scale 46 5.1.4 Well known organization vs. Lesser known organization 46

5.1.5 Per weight vs. per calorie 46

5.2 Further analysis 47

6. Conclusion 49

7. Further Studies 50

References 50

Books 50

Articles 50

Webpages 51

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Global warming has been a topic of discussion at universities and political arenas since the discovery that man-made greenhouse gas emissions is having an affect on the planet 1972 ( Nicholls, 2007). Since then it has been widely accepted that human’s greenhouse gas footprint in earth's atmosphere has a warming effect on the planet which if continued will have big

impacts on rising sea levels, extreme weather, mass extinction of ecosystems and expansion of deserts.

There is a growing trend among the younger generations in Sweden to become more vocal about their opinions on how the government are approaching the climate crisis. The term

“flygskam” which translate to “The shame of flying” has evolved as a result from the climate debate and may be the cause of the decrease in domestic flights in Sweden (Swedavia, 2019).

The term was basically nonexistent before 2018 (Google Trends, 2019). There is also a growing movement of children “School striking” on Fridays for the environment and newspapers writing about the “Greta Thunberg” effect. The global interest of the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg reached a global peak in September 2019 as she spoke in front of the UN Climate action summit 2019 (Google Trends, 2019). In 2019 there is a clear break in the global google search trend for “Sustainability” and sustainability related topics (Google Trends, 2019).

United Nations initiated a grand campaign promoting global sustainability goals for 2030 which seeks to abolish poverty, decrease inequalities and injustices, to promote peaceful societies and to solve the climate crisis. They seek to make make businesses, governments and the general public take responsibility when it come to sustainability related issues and they are launching the

“Global Goals” campaign all over the world (UN Global Goals, 2019). Goal number 12 focuses on Responsible consumption and production and one of its subgoals are to promote universal understanding of sustainable lifestyles. When it comes to food consumption there are already many companies that distinguish their products that are more environmentally friendly with labels and brands which would show nutrition, origin, additives and production methods (Leach et al., 2016). The demand for organic foods in Sweden has received a distinct increase but are facing challenges when it comes to supply of organic foods, trust in the food labeling system and they also lack understanding of what organic production actually means. (Bosona &

Gebresenbet, 2018)

Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases and the way that greenhouse gas emissions is measured is through Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). There are several greenhouse gases - some much more potent albeit much less common than carbon dioxide. The most important greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),

hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexaflouride (SF6). CO2e is all

greenhouse gases expressed in CO2 in order to quantify and simplify the combined greenhouse

gas emissions of a specific product or service. There are different ways of measuring CO2e, but

in a carbon labeling scenario both direct and indirect emissions would have to be taken into

consideration. For example, in milk production all emissions related to cattle management, such

as heating, machinery, vehicles, animal fodder and even the belching of the cows matters and

needs to be taken in consideration (Leach et al., 2016).

CO2 and the other greenhouse gases acts as a protective “blanket” from the heat which is radiating from earth to space in the form of infrared radiation. The greenhouse gases are

absorbing the radiation and heating the gases up which is in turn is heating the atmosphere and also the surface of the earth.

Water vapour is the earth's largest contributor of greenhouse gas and is controlling the earth's temperature. If the air is warm, it can hold more water vapour thus causing a bigger global warming effect. However, when the water vapour meets cold air it turns into clouds and

eventually turned in to liquid water and is later rained back to the surface of the earth. However, with the increasing heating effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere it allows for more water vapour to enter the atmosphere which increases the temperature even more (NASA, 2008).

For more than two decades there have been tests and researches done to implement labels that communicates the GHG-emissions. How the labels should be communicated and what the labels should contain differs among the different organisations that stands behind these test and researches.

1.2 Problem

There are many problems and challenges when it comes to countering global warming. It is a problem that require global commitment since it affects the whole planet. One of the biggest challenges with countering global warming is to communicate and educate the world’s population about what kind of behaviour that is causing it. Carbon literacy is a term for the awareness of climate change and the effects that our everyday actions has on climate change. It is a term that also includes knowledge about what causes climate change and also of what the resulting effects are (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013).

Grocery products stands for roughly a third of EUs carbon emissions as a result of its high- volume production (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013). In Finland Hartikainen et al., (2014) claim it is 25%

of the total emissions (Hartikainen et al., 2014). Carbon labeling is a tool in which retailers and manufacturers can use to communicate the amount of CO2e one product has caused

throughout its whole life cycle. Different theories with different methods have been tried with various results. They can see that it can affect the consumer purchases choices even though the carbon labeling concept still does not have had a breakthrough yet. The two key problems it all boils down to is that there are no standardisations, regulations or policies when it comes to measuring and using carbon labeling. The other is that greenhouse gas emission data is information that is hard to make understandable and communicate to consumers. This

emphasizes the importance of having the right information, with the right content with the layout.

There has been done several surveys in countries such as Australia, Finland, Denmark, Germany and UK related to carbon labels. Both in regard of what layout approach that is

preferred by consumers as well as evaluating whether it changes consumer behaviour if carbon labels are presented with the product. The articles in our frame of reference which has

researched carbon labeling come to basically the same results with some minor differences

regarding carbon literacy, standardized measuring methods, label designs, implementation and

effects. We have chosen to focus on the visual aspect of the carbon label. This has not yet been

tried in Sweden, which makes it interesting to see what kind of content, design and layout Swedish consumers would prefer to have in a carbon labeling programme.

We want to find out the preferences of Swedish consumers what a carbon label could look like without being too complex or confusing or to simple and non-informative. We were hoping that this research could potentially help to contribute useful information for future decision makers and researchers and help them to overcome the obstacles on creating an effective carbon labeling system for Swedish consumers, retailers and grocery producers.

1.3 Purpose

There has been attempts of implementing carbon labeling in grocery stores before but without success or a breakthrough in grocery retail store norms. The purpose of this dissertation is to assess and evaluate the preferred way to communicate information via carbon labeling among Swedish consumers. This includes content, design and layout.

By thoroughly researching through previous journals and studies that has been made we hope to funnel their conclusions into different approaches of carbon labeling with differentiated layouts, designs and information provided. We will then test these approaches with Swedish consumers to see which approach is preferred.

What is the preferred content, design and layout of a carbon label among Swedish consumers?

1.4 Definitions

LOHAS - Lifestyle of health and sustainability

CO2e - Carbon dioxide equivalents

2. Frame of reference

2.1 Rising demand for sustainable products

There is a consumer group whose name is LOHAS which stands for Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability) which are very positive towards all things related to Sustainability. The group consists mainly of women aged 35 - 60, has an above average income and have a higher level of education. They are also willing to pay more for products if it has a positive sustainable positioning (mainly organic foods). This consumer group has had a big increase in size in the past few years in Sweden - from 27% in 2005 to 38% in 2015. LOHAS in Europe makes out about 20% of the population in Europe which would indicate that Sweden is early on this trend (Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2018).

The rising demand from the consumers are pushing corporations to be more transparent about the affect their carbon footprint is causing. The fact that consumers choices actually affect the environment is creating a need for environmental labeling that is accurate and that makes the process of “green purchasing” easy (Cohen & Vandenbergh, 2012).

Even governments, countries and regions are starting to see the benefits of sustainable products and organic farming. In 2018 as part of the United Nations Trade and Development and event with the East African Organic Policy Forum was held in Tanzania. Representatives from the government, market shareholders and people responsible for the agriculture industry and the tourism industry was present. The event was to identify the barriers with organic farming in eastern Africa and to show the linkage between agriculture and tourism (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2017).

The climate crisis should be seen as a collective issue. Producers, retailers and consumers needs to work together towards a more sustainable lifestyle. It shows that consumers are willing to act more sustainable but have a hard time to see the pattern of how their everyday life is causing harm towards the environment. Consumers count on government and policy makers to help them navigate towards more sustainable choices as well as they count on the retailers to provide sustainable products (Feucht & Zander, 2017).

2.2 Groceries effect on global warming

Grocery products stands for roughly a third of EUs carbon emissions as a result of its high- volume production. That also means that if consumer behaviour could be changed just a little, it could have a relatively big impact on overall emissions (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013).

Households in Europe are becoming more aware of the effects that grocery production has on global warming, but it has not resulted in the emersion of carbon emission related food labels.

Carbon labeling on grocery products are rare and attempts by Tesco 2007 in the UK resulted in

its discontinuation in 2012 as a result of non-cost efficient ways of measuring the carbon

footprint on products and that the rest of the market “didn’t catch on” (Leach et al., 2016).

The Swedish fast food hamburger chain “Max hamburgers” has been transparent with their total emission of CO2e the past years and by looking through a breakdown of their total emissions the effect beef production industry has is a substantial part of the overall emissions.

(Wrenfelt et al., 2018)

2.3 Problems with misconception of organic products

Environmental food labeling has been around for decades as an effect of the consumers

increasing concerns for the environment. The most prominent of the the green marketing labels are the ones related to organic production or farming. As it stands right now neither conventional or organic farming is sustainable when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions and it is a

common misconception in Sweden that an organic producer also would have a lower greenhouse gas emissions rate (Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2018).

In an article where conventional and organic farming of wheat in Italy was studied, they

concluded that organic farming of wheat resulted was causing higher emissions of greenhouse

gases as opposed to conventional. This is primarily because of the lower yield per hectare that

organic farming has in comparison to conventional farming (Chiriacò et al., 2017). However,

there are many positive impacts on the environment from organic farming that conventional does

not provide such as the fact that pesticides and artificial fertilizers are not used, organic products

have proven to be more nutritious and contains less residues of synthetic and artificial pesticides

and fertilizers. Organic standards are designed to improve animal welfare and allow the animals

to have access to their natural needs (Treu et al., 2017).

2.4 Effects of eco labels

In 2004, as a result of eco labeling, Coop Sweden declared that because of the consumers choice of ecological products reduced the pesticides by 14 000 kg and the amount of synthetic fertilisers by 1 000 000 kg in Sweden. Even the use of ecolabeling in household cleaning products, where the surfactants used in the product had been replaced by biodegradable ones and that reduced the use of chemicals by 15% (Peano et al., 2015).

One test that has been tried is the traffic light scheme. By using colours to make it easier for the consumers to identify the level of carbon literacy, where Red has the highest carbon emission, yellow the second highest and where green has the least. They used it to analyse purchases of fish. The result showed that the overall sales of fish dropped by 15%, mostly because there was a 35% drop in seafood sales who displayed a yellow sign. However, there was no change in sales of the red nor the green sign labels (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013).

In a study that was made in European countries in more recent years about the purchasing power different labels would have on the consumers it showed that France, Spain and Italy had a similar preference towards a carbon label and a organic label. The same study also shows that Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom actually preferred the carbon label over organic label (Feucht & Zander, 2017).

To understand consumers familiarity and claimed use of eco labels an Australian survey was made to 455 respondents. In the survey they were shown 11 commonly used eco labels and they were asked to recall if they recognised it and if the label had any influence on their

purchase decision. The labels were referring to energy efficiency, organic, sustainably sourced materials and Fair Trade. To find out the carbon footprint relative to the other environmental criteria such as being energy efficient, being organic and being certified Fair Trade they were asked to rank the level of importance in nine different levels of importance in a scale of 0-10, this to see how prioritised the carbon footprint is compared to the other environmental criterias. 99%

of the respondents said they had familiarity with at least one of the named labels in the survey where the Energy Rating Label (95%) and the Water Rating label (61%) had the highest claimed familiarity as the grocery labels had 32% familiarity. When it comes to influencing their

purchases the Energy and Water ratings had the most claimed influence. The grocery labels on the other hand had 39% claimed influence on the respondents purchasing behavior. The results show that consumers have a higher awareness and are more influenced by Energy and Water ratings, but it also demonstrates that grocery labeling has a high impact in influence in the consumers that has familiarity with the labels. This strengthen the theory about the importance of awareness and indicates that there is a potential role for grocery labels when it comes to consumers purchasing choices (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013).

A German study that was made in 2017 shows that when it comes to purchasing power and eco labels, people are more willing to pay a higher price for a locally produced labeled product than a product with a carbon label. However, consumers were willing to pay a premium price of 20% for a carbon label product and that just the presence of a carbon label would increase purchase probability (Feucht & Zander, 2017).

Van Loo et al., (2015) made a study to compare consumer’s preferences of four different

sustainability labels including organic meat, free range, animal welfare and carbon footprint in

the Belgian market when it comes to chicken meat. Overall, the largest segment of consumers were positive towards all the sustainability labels but the labels with free range claims had the highest positive impact where 90% of all the consumers had a positive attitude towards the label and 97% of the consumers liked the traditional, well recognized free range label. The study also indicates that the consumers are willing to pay twice as much for the free range products than the products who is having a EU animal welfare label. In the bottom of the list we find Carbon footprint labels along with Organic food. They were disliked by more than 20% of the consumers.

According to the study, the reason the low test score of the Carbon Footprint label is that the label is a new concept and that this kind of label does not yet exist in the Belgian food market.

The other factor is that consumers are uninformed about the content of the Carbon footprint label. Many consumers are confused about the meaning of the labels. They study shows that 78% of the respondents has a willingness to pay for sustainable premium products so they predict that since sustainable products, and carbon dioxide in particular, is a hot topic they think this could change in the future and that there is a market for carbon footprint labels (Van Loo et al., 2015).

An indirect effect a carbon label could have is that a successful carbon labeling system will affect the retailers. They might demand from their suppliers that their products are carbon labeled or that the suppliers have done a LCA analysis on their products. (Feucht & Zander, 2017) One example of the effect a eco label have had is a German retailers committed to phase out wild fish products that did not have a sustainability label. This effect happened even though the knowledge about the label was limited. This means that if retailers would collaborate and work together, they can exclude high emission products without including the consumers (Zander et al., 2015).

2.5 Carbon literacy

Carbon literacy is a term for the awareness of climate change and the effects that our everyday actions has on climate change. It is a term that also includes what causes climate change and also of what the resulting effects are. In many cases consumers are not aware of the effects that their consumption is causing and therefore can not as easily make a decision that reduces the effects of climate change (Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2018).

Carbon literacy was measured in a survey of Australian households where the respondents were asked to appreciate the percentage of total Australian annual CO2e emissions that grocery production was causing and 55% of the respondents didn’t know and out of the 45 % that did estimate only 30% of them were within 10 percentage points of the actual value of 33% (Sharp &

Wheeler, 2013).

In the next question the respondents were asked to rank individual products within a grocery

product category from the highest emitter of CO2e to the lowest. Their findings were that 1 out of

four consumers were unsure of the highest emitter and in general the respondents held only

modest knowledge of the highest emitter in every category. And they concluded that two out of

three would not be able to make informed carbon emission related choices in a supermarket

(Sharp & Wheeler, 2013).

Next they were asked to estimate the amount of CO2e emissions per tonne of several specific grocery products and even though they were guided in terms of a range of emissions and given a reference value only 16% of respondents were able to estimate a reasonable level of carbon emission of the selected products (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013).

It was concluded that Australian households only had basic carbon literacy but lack the

advanced knowledge to make carbon conscious choices when in a supermarket or provided the amount of CO2e emissions the specific product has. They conclude that a carbon labeling system may give means to improve carbon literacy in Australian supermarkets as well as support consumers in making carbon conscious choices (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013).

When Finnish consumers were asked which part of their consumption that was responsible for the most carbon dioxide only 9% estimated that food consumption was causing the largest carbon footprint. Additionally, they were asked whether they knew what the term “product carbon footprint” meant and only 7% of the respondents linked the term to greenhouse gas emissions and only 5% associated the term with climate change (Hartikainen et al., 2014).

2.6 What is carbon labeling

Carbon labeling describes and informs consumers the carbon dioxide emissions created throughout the whole supply chain when it comes to creating a product. The major variety of carbon labeling can be explained by that there is no regulations or standardizations when it comes to measuring CO2e. Governments, manufacturers and retailers can act individually and that can make the labels misleading and hard for consumers to understand. A manufacturer can either have its label verified by a third party, which in most cases is the most trustworthy but at the same you can use a “self declared” label (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013).

The main purpose of a carbon labeling system is to inform consumers at the point of purchase of the total carbon footprint of a specific products total life cycle. By carbon labeling products it could help consumers to improve their overall carbon literacy and also help even the most

“carbon-illiterate” make a climate conscious decision when shopping groceries while it also helps the the “carbon-literate” to reduce their search costs (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013; Hartikainen et al., 2013).

The secondary purpose of a carbon labeling system is to incentivise or put pressure on

producers to lower their overall carbon emissions in order to gain a comparative advantage over their competitors (Gadema & Oglethorpe, 2011).

Max Hamburgers in Sweden made an initiative that was well received when they printed their carbon emission on their menu. This led to an increased sales in vegetarian hamburgers and shows that labeling can affect consumers purchasing choices without causing a loss in sales (Leach et al., 2016).

2.7 Implementation of carbon labeling

A study of Australian householders show that the pre-existing knowledge of carbon emissions

related to grocery products life cycle is really low and the natural first step to try and change

consumer behaviour is to improve householders carbon literacy. The natural response would be

to label the carbon emissions along with the prices in grocery stores. By offering carbon labels in a transparent and objective way in shops it would make it easier even for the most non-carbon literate to make more sustainable shopping decisions. They suggest that carbon labeling could help in the to help improve the CO2e awareness. That it would be a good method to reach out to the consumers (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013).

The biggest difference in CO2e is when a consumer changes their purchasing behaviour from buying a high CO2e product to a low CO2e product. For example, going from meat to

vegetarian. But for the labeling system to work the study shows that consumers prefer to see carbon emission compared to other similar products. The study also says that consumers will not spend time on engaging and evaluating different labels. They imply that the labels will have to be easy to understand and help the consumer make a fast decision for the labeling system to work. Other methods that has been suggested and tried is the “Stop light” labeling approach.

This approach is used to show its carbon impact in use of colors, where green is good, yellow is alarming and red is bad. The outcome of this experiment showed a small change in the

purchasing behaviour. Only when the greenest product also was the cheapest, they could see a major change (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013).

Another study also implies that the carbon labeling system will only work when the consumers are willing to act and substitute the high carbon emission products to a product with low carbon emission. Eco labeling still puts a lot of pressure on the consumers and that need to take action for the system to work, they suggest that the labeling system should be implemented carefully and still have the consumers demand in mind. Just like Sharp and Wheeler’s theory that consumers prefer to choose between similar products, they mean that letting consumers compare/choose between salmon and sea bass, instead of making them choose between beef and vegetarian would have a bigger impact in the reduction of the total emissions (Shewmake et al., 2015).

When Tesco pledged in 2007 to label all their products with a carbon footprint label, they labeled over 1100 products but only showed the exact amount of CO2e emissions in relation to the product weight without using a tier-system. This effort was discontinued in 2012 because of the amount of work that had to go into it at that time and blaming other retailers for not joining in to try to standardize and normalize the labeling system. The fact that a large and committed grocery retailer such as Tesco could not successfully implement a carbon labeling scheme shows that it is probably required that a mandatory government regulated carbon labeling scheme is enforced and controlled in order to successfully implement carbon labeling in supermarkets. By having official governmental policies it could help to minimize consumer confusion by standardizing a carbon label on a national level. Furthermore, a government policy could also help in improving the general mistrust in carbon labels by establishing governmentally approved measuring systems that third party “CO2e measuring” companies would have to adhere to (Thøgersen & Nielsen, 2015).

2.8 Advantages of carbon labeling

The main reason for carbon labeling would be to change consumer behaviour and to improve

carbon literacy among consumers of grocery products. A carbon labeling system based on a

traffic light system where a red light would indicate high carbon emission, yellow would indicate

a neutral level of carbon emissions and a green light would indicate a low amount of carbon

emission will be a guide for consumers to make quick and “carbon friendly” decisions in a supermarket without having to invest time to learn and quantify how much of an impact that 1 gram CO2e/kg has on the environment. Consumers would have to invest considerable amount of time to improve their carbon literacy to know whether one kilogram of CO2e is a lot or little, since it highly depends on the product in question. However, there are estimates that a successful carbon labeling scheme could lower the annual total consumption of CO2e by 1 tonne per individual (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013).

A study was made of Danish consumers who got to pick between different ground coffee products given different kinds of environmental labeling. The labels helped the consumers to identify high emission products and instead helped them to identify the substitute products with substantially lower emissions. Their conclusion was that carbon labeling done in a traffic light manner proved a significant impact of consumer purchasing patterns in favour in regard to lower carbon emission products. It also helped to improve carbon literacy (Thøgersen & Nielsen, 2015).

In the Finnish study there was a clear majority of 86% of respondents that would like to have a carbon labeling system that could be used to compare products between themselves. However there were different opinions in regards to how much information that should be provided at the point of purchase. A concluding point from the Finnish survey was that 90% of all respondents believed that they would most likely change their purchasing behaviour a little if a carbon labeling system was implemented (Hartikainen et al., 2014).

2.9 Challenges of carbon labeling

Carbon labeling should not however be considered a universal cure to change consumer behaviour as there is a high risk of confusion between several different green marketing labels as well as skepticism toward the brand and label itself (Gadema & Oglethorpe, 2011).

A survey was done of UK consumers across a selection of respondents reflecting the UK

population regarding eco labels and purchasing behaviour. When the respondents were asked

of what they deemed to be the most important product attributes the top three responses was

quality/taste, nutrition and price. Carbon labeling resulted in being the second least most

important attribute over attractive branding (Gadema & Oglethorpe, 2011).

However, 59% of the respondents recognized that the connection between grocery production and climate change as being very important (4). As well as 91% of the respondents claimed that carbon labels on food would help them in making purchasing decisions. They also agree that carbon labels were confusing and difficult to put in perspective as to what they actually are contributing to (Gadema & Oglethorpe, 2011).

In conclusion Gadema and Oglethorpe (2011) is arguing that there is not high enough trust and understanding of how information in carbon labeling is conveyed. Consumers will only go for a low carbon product if there is a direct substitute product or if the prices of the relatively lower CO2e emission product were the same or less. They also conclude that change in consumer behaviour relying only on consumer guilt and voluntary on-product branding would have little to no effect and in turn would not incentivise or put pressure other companies to lower their own CO2e emissions in order to gain a competitive advantage over their competitors.

Instead of taking a “soft” approach to carbon labeling and implement mandatory carbon footprint reporting by producers it could level the playing field of all companies that could instead

incentivise companies to reduce carbon emissions. If the information then is conveyed in the same way everywhere perhaps it could lead to a reduction in consumer confusion (Gadema &

Oglethorpe, 2011).

Research that has been made show that the barriers that keep consumers from purchasing

carbon labeled products was availability, price, habits and marketing. Other factors that prevent

carbon labeling were distrust in the labeling system and that consumers have a lack of perceived

personal benefit of buying a low emission product. To reach wanted outcome of the labeling, the

message needs to be presented so that it is easily understandable and shows context and

values (Leach et al., 2016).

As of November 2019, there are 463 different kinds of ecolabels (Ecolabel index, 2019) in 199 countries and 25 industries. The idea of the eco/sustainability labels is to increase the

consumers knowledge and make it easier for them to make sustainable choices and to encourage transparency along the food supply chain. However, though the intention of the labeling is positive, the lack of standardization and regulation of the labeling industry, misleading and even deceptive green marketing by manufacturers has been made to undermine the

“sustainable consumers”. This has led to dissatisfaction among the “sustainable consumers”

and they have been forced to find information elsewhere, such as websites, newspapers, television programs, education and other advertising (Peano et al., 2015).

Just like in the UK report, a research made in Australia show that consumer understand the basics of carbon labeling, but the information about carbon emission is hard to interpret.

Consumers understand that when the product indicates a higher carbon number it is worse for the environment than a product with a lower number. They mean that simple emission reports in labeling and communication is to no good since that means that the consumer need pre-existing knowledge and that it lacks relativity. It is better to simplify and make the interpretation of the label easy for the consumer to understand (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013).

Labeling just one category could lead to backlash according to Shewmake et al., (2015).

Meaning that if we would just label one product, pork for instance, people would tend to go from pork to over consume something that could be worse when it comes to CO2e - beef for example.

This has to do with lack of knowledge when it comes to what products has the biggest effect on the global warming. They agree that that the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions is to have carbon tax, cap and trade systems and carbon labeling (Shewmake et al., 2015).

Even though retailers could have an impact by implementing carbon labeled products, Emberger-Klein & Menrad (2017) imply that retailers are afraid of lowering the consumers demand for meat because it is a very profitable market and they do not want to encourage people to consume less food. One other factor is that they may not have tools or knowledge to communicate the message effectively (Emberger-Klein & Menrad, 2017).

One key factor is to find the right social ethos. To get the carbon labeling to take off it need to be communicated to the right target group. Studies shows that the differences in the willingness to respond and purchase low carbon products has a correlation to age, educational level and income level. Just like older people have a hard time keeping up with new technology younger people don’t tend to write letters anymore. The carbon labeling system needs to target and communicate the right group of individuals. The study shows that the people that best respond to the labels are young, well-educated and people with a higher level of income. Since there is no government regulations or policies this can be a great challenge for all the different kind of labels since each individual label has to make its own strategy to reach the right consumers (Li et al., 2017).

Yvonne Feucht and Katrin Zander (2017) made a carbon labeling test in different European countries were the results were surprisingly good. Several countries had similar preferences towards a carbon label and an organic one. Some countries also preferred the Carbon label even higher than the organic label. This study however was a bias study towards highly

educated people since they have a better understanding about sustainability labels. This means

they leave out the lower educated people in the results and do not have an understanding of their preferences (Feucht & Zander, 2017).

2.10 Carbon labeling in other cultures

The consumer behaviour towards carbon labeled products can differ depending on the different cultures. A research that has been made in China shows that financially strong, young to middle aged men with high education have strong low carbon purchasing power. It also shows that the purchasing power differs more when it comes to different regions than within age and gender groups. Consumers at different educational level show the greatest difference in purchasing power when it comes to carbon labeled products. This is parallel with the different educational level in the different regions in China (Chuanmin et al., 2014).

One other factor that plays a vital role in China when it comes to attitude towards carbon labeling is the government's policy. It indicates that establishing a credible authority that works on

publicity when it comes to carbon labeling can have a strong positive effect on the country’s inhabitants (Chuanmin et al., 2014).

In Vietnam a study was made about the relationship between labeling and attitude towards meat. The study showed that the even a good attitude towards the label would translate into a purchase. This is due to a restrained financially ability among the population and the perceived high price on labeled products (Nguyen et al., 2019).

2.11 Existing and experimental carbon label designs

France became the first country with legal requirement for carbon labels when they in 2010 introduced the “Grenelle 2” law. In the beginning it was a voluntary environmental labeling scheme for all consumer gods that was sold in France. In 2012 it became compulsory for certain categories of products. (Liu et al., 2016)

Carbon Trust, the UK based non-government organization was pioneers when it comes to carbon labeling. In 2007 they launched the world's first carbon label and has since made more variants. In 2020 they now have four different labels in which producers can license.

- CO2 Measured: that a product’s carbon footprint has been measured and certified - Reducing CO2: that there is a commitment to reduce a product’s carbon footprint, or

there has been a reduction in a product’s carbon footprint, plus a commitment to achieve ongoing footprint reductions.

- Lower Carbon: that the certified lifecycle carbon footprint of a product, or group of products, is/are significantly lower than the market dominant product.

- Carbon Neutral: that a product’s carbon footprint has been reduced and any outstanding emissions are offset (Carbontrust.com, 2020).

Fig 2.1 shows the slogan “Reducing with the Carbon Trust” meaning that the manufacturer’s

commitment to reduce the greenhouse gas emission throughout its whole value chain.

Fig 2.1

The second label, Fig 2.2, shows a “CO2 measured” label and has the slogan “Working with Carbon Trust” and has data shown on the footprint. This label has the numeric value of greenhouse gas emission on it. The data is based on the GHG protocol standard (Carbontrust.com, 2020).

Fig 2.2

Fig 2.3 shows the Carbon trust label which guarantees that the company is offsetting all the

emissions related to the products complete life cycle and has no impact on climate change

(Carbontrust.com, 2020).

Fig 2.3

The labels have different criterions which need to be met in order for a company to be able the license them. Some have more complex requirements than others. (Carbontrust.com, 2020).

Fig 2.4

Leclerc, which is a French retailer, made their own private carbon labelling standard in France 2008 called “Bilan Carbone” where they calculate the carbon footprint of the product it sells.

(Feucht & Zander, 2017)

Fig 2.5

“Fig 2.5” is based on a French retailers carbon index called Casino ('l'indice carbone'). This is an experimental label used in a study by Feucht and Zander, 2017.

Fig 2.6

“Fig 2.6” Is also an experimental label, based on the European energy label which is widely recognized and also used in the study by Feucht & Zander, 2017

Fig 2.7

“Fig 2.7” is a model taken from the Finnish company Raisio which were used on their products to indicate the amount of CO2e per 100 grams of product. (Raiso.com, 2020)

2.11.1 Colour coded vs. Monochrome

In almost all previous studies regarding carbon labels that has been done the idea of a traffic-

light based approach has been tested in comparison to a standard monochrome or single

coloured design. In those specific cases the result of a coloured label design has almost always

been the most popular layout both in terms of how to simplify complex data but also when it

comes to compare products between each other. The traffic light label design is a well-known

way to label a product from good to bad and has been used in other labels previously and is a

natural tool to use in a carbon label. The EU energy label is a good example of this layout. The

EU energy label has got a 7 step scale which could be applicable in a carbon label for groceries

as well but since groceries are considered to be purchased with a lot less involvement than e.g.

a washing machine a 3 step scale would be more relevant for groceries and easier for consumers to grasp. (Thøgersen & Nielsen, 2015).

Based on this theory following hypotheses was formulated:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Swedish consumers prefer colour coded labels.

2.11.2 With data vs. Without data

In the previous studies there has been different experimental and non-experimental carbon label designs that has been used in their tests. Some of them has included the CO2e emission data and some labels have removed the data from the label itself and instead include a label tool that conveys the information in a simpler way such as a traffic light colour coded label. Examples of the latter would be labels such as the “Reducing with Carbon Trust” (Fig 2.1) or the Finnish raisio (Fig 2.7). To many consumers the CO2e emission expressed as plain data does not give any useful information to make a climate conscious choice since carbon literacy is generally quite low.

However, one of the biggest issues with the use of a label with a scale of colours without data shown and that covers all grocery products is the choice between two products within the same category. If the choice is between beef from a local producer and beef from a national mass producer, then it is likely that the local producer would have lower emissions than the mass producer however their labels would both be red. The labels would still be identical from each other and would likely not give any indication as to which of the choices that is the lesser of two evils. This is an argument for adding data to the label.

Although one of the issues in regard to adding data to a label is that it would bring a whole new dimension of complexity to the label and the data itself is very hard for consumers to grasp and put in context. (Sharp & Wheeler, 2013; Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2018; Hartikainen et al., 2014)

Based on this the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Swedish consumers prefer data on the label.

2.11.3 With scale vs. Without scale

Some of the existing carbon labels as well as the experimental ones found in previous studies has got a scale to indicate how much emissions the specific products have in relation to all other products that are being measured. This creates a more complex label which would require a larger area and more space on the shelves or the product itself. However, the information itself could be easier to interpret.

A model which doesn’t include a scale could be substantially smaller and would be easier to fit on shelf price tags without the information being to small to be able to interpret it. It also

decreases the amount of complexity of the label which could minimize confusion and the sense

of being overwhelmed with information. (Thøgersen & Nielsen, 2015; Hartikainen et al., 2014)

Based on this the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Swedish consumers prefer the label being presented using a scale.

2.11.4 Well known organization vs. Lesser known organization

One of the biggest issues with carbon labeling would be the distrust to the data and the data collection methods used. There are organizations which are more known and also have more credibility when it comes to logotype-based labels such as KRAV in Sweden for organic products. When creating a carbon label, a new organization would likely be required unless KRAV or a similar organization would be expanded to include carbon footprinting in their services. KRAV could then be the controlling agent that guarantees that the data on the labels are correct.

It takes time to build credibility and it is likely that a new company or unknown company would have little effect on consumption unless that label was somehow acknowledged by the

government or government controlled entirely. Carbon trust is an example of an organization that controls and guarantees that the producers are following certain criteria that the

organization has decided for their different levels of logotypes. This organization is however not widely known or used in Sweden and it has existed since 2001. (Thøgersen & Nielsen, 2015;

Carbontrust.com, 2020)

Based on this the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Swedish consumers prefer that the label is being produced by a well-known organization

2.11.5 Per weight vs. per calorie

One of the main issues with carbon labeling is the spread of opinions among consumers of whether the scale should be within a specific product type or simply a scale for all types of food products. There is a division among consumers whether they want to compare within a product type such as different types of “ground coffee” or whether they want to compare ground coffee with substitutes such as tea. According to Hartikainen et. al, 86% of Finnish consumers wish to be able to compare products in a wider sense than just within a specific food category

(Hartikainen et al., 2014).

There are different approaches to take when it comes to communicating carbon data relative to the quantity and volume of the product in order to get a relevant and comparable value. One approach is to take the total emissions of CO2e and express it in a standardized weight such as 100 grams or 1 kilogram. This approach is the most common among previous studies that has been made. The second approach would be to communicate the amount of CO2e emissions in relation to the amount of calories that the product has. The argument for this is that the

emissions would be comparable with how much energy the specific product is providing as a kind of measurement of hunger relief. (Heller et al., 2015)

Based on this the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Swedish consumers prefer a label where data is presented in relation to the

products weight.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Approach

There are three different kinds of research approaches. Inductive, deductive and abductive.

Inductive approach is based on empirical data that is later linked with a qualitative research.

Deductive approach is when the research is based on existing theory and hypotheses are created and tested through empirical findings. Abduction approach is a combination of both induction and deduction. (Saunders et al., 2016)

We have decided to go with a deductive approach since we are doing a quantitative analysis. By going through previous studies we made five hypotheses that we later tested.

3.2 Research Design

The set of methods and procedures used in collecting and analyzing variables to answer the research question is called Research Design. There are 3 different types of research designs:

exploratory, descriptive and explanatory. Exploratory research design is when there are no or limited previous that has been made prior. This is useful when you aim to deeply understand a problem and to find new insights. A descriptive research design is when your research is to describe a profile of a person, event or situation. The design enables you to describe or and identify variables in different phenomena. The last one is an explanatory research. This design is to explain a relationship between different variables in a situation or problem. (Saunders et al., 2016)

We are using an explanatory design since we are researching the relationship between preferences and different variables such as design, content and layout when it comes to a carbon labeling scheme and the Swedish consumers.

3.3 Credibility of Literature Review

In order to maximize credibility in a study consideration regarding the data collection method need to be taken into account in order to ensure that the data collected is correct and relevant.

By using the rules of reliability and validity the data collection method can be refined in order to minimize errors (Saunders et al., 2016).

3.3.1 Reliability

Reliability is the method of making sure that a research is measured consistently so that the same research could be made with different participants and still achieve the same results. The goal is therefore to minimize bias in the test and to make sure that the participants reflect the population the survey aims to research (Saunders et al., 2016).

To prevent any biases, we used a snowball sampling approach via social media in which any

participants who filled in the form and shared our post on Facebook would be eligible to win a

gift card at a Spa-resort called Ästad Vingård. In this way we spread it on different Facebook groups and several different social circles in Sweden.

3.3.2 Validity

Validity is the method that aims to make sure that the findings of our survey actually measures what it intends to measure (Saunders et al., 2016).

When designing the questionnaire, we decided to do it completely in Swedish since the topic of the survey contains data and information that we believe could easily be misinterpreted when conducting a survey among only Swedish participants. We also believe that by conducting the survey in Swedish we would have more people actually completing the survey since it would be less tedious to translate it and then complete it.

Another measure we went through before we sent out our questionnaire was to test it among a few chosen “pilots” to make sure they understood what the questions meant and what the survey intends to measure. As a result of these tests we made a few changes in the layout but also in the instructions in order to further increase validity and to ensure we got meaningful data after we’ve gone live with the survey.

In order for us to further increase the validity of our survey, our first questions we used

illustrative examples of different kinds of possible logotypes in order to more easily show what we aim to research. We were also hoping that these examples would minimize the tediousness that respondents might experience when a form is too long or complex and with only text-based questions.

3.4 Data Collection Method

There are two different kinds of sources used to collect data; primary data, which is data that is collected from the researcher. The Secondary data is when you reanalyze data that has been collected for another purpose. (Saunders et al. 2016)

Our primary data collected by a questionnaire we designed that was answered by random people. The questionnaire was spread through our social media channels such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn. To get a wider spread of our questionnaire and to get more participants we had a gift certificate on Ästad Vingård as a price that will be randomly selected from all the participants. This ensures us that the questionnaire will get a wider spread than just our friends and family.

The secondary data we used was twenty two articles and twelve websites to get an

understanding of the subject. The articles were peer reviewed articles gathered from Google

Scholar and Halmstad University Library database.

3.5 Choice of theories

When using a deductive approach, you start your research project by collecting theories about the subject of the researching. This so the researcher can form an idea and make hypothesis.

(Saunders et al., 2016)

To get an introduction and understanding to why the idea and demand for carbon labels arose we had to have a deeper understanding into carbon literacy and what challenges previous and eventual carbon labels could face in the future. We researched the effect groceries have on the environment in general and specifically in terms of CO2e. We also looked into how the demand and challenges for carbon labels varies in different cultures.

To explore the effect of a carbon label and to be able to compare it, we gathered information about the effects other eco labels have had, in terms of success, obstacles and misconceptions.

This to get an understanding on how consumers react towards the labeling systems.

Finally, we looked into existing carbon labels. How they were presented, what they contained and how they were designed. By reading preference tests that has been made in different countries around the world and the different approaches that was used when it comes to design, it helped us to get a deeper understanding and to form a questionnaire that could answer our research question.

3.6 Research Strategy

Saunders et al., (2016) describes that depending on objectives, research question and existing knowledge in the area and resources there are eight different strategies that can be used:

Experiment, survey, case study, action research, grounded theory, ethnography and archival research (Saunders et al., 2016).

Our research is to investigate the Swedish consumers preference towards carbon label designs our research strategy will be using experimental strategy. This is because we want to see the cause and effect relationships in the respondent’s choices when we present different designs.

Since we have a deductive approach, we decided to use a survey, which is most common. By using a survey strategy, it will help us to get a “what do you prefer” answer from a large number of respondents. By collecting a large amount of data, it will be easier for us to see a relationship between the answers, preferred designed features and later find out if the research is

representative for the whole population.

3.7 Survey Method

Since we are looking for answers in a population's attitude towards a design in an explanatory research, we decided to use a questionnaire. We believe it would be hard to base our

populations preference towards a label through interviews with fewer participants.

We decided to use a web-based questionnaire since that gives the respondent’s flexibility to

answer when the respondent has time, they would be exposed to less pressure and it would

cause less of a distraction (Bryman & Bell, 2019).

By using Google Forms questionnaire tool, it gave us the opportunity to adapt the questionnaire so the respondents can answer it one their phones as well as to make it more aesthetically pleasing and user friendly. This was done in order to try and get as many as possible to answer the questionnaire.

3.8 Time Horizon

There are two different kinds of time horizons that need to be considered when planning a research. Saunders et al. explains this if the research should be a “snapshot” of a particular time frame or if the research should be more like a diary that represents events over a given time.

The “Snapshot” is called cross-sectional time horizon while the “diary” perspective is called longitudinal (Saunders et al., 2016).

The most suitable option for us is to do a cross-sectional study. Even though Carbon Labels has been around for a longer period of time it is still a relatively new phenomenon. The perception and priorities of different climate threat-factor varies over time which is why this can be seen as a snapshot of what the preferences of a carbon label can be seen that we are researching this question within a certain time frame. Cross-sectional study also works better with our research strategy which is a survey.

3.9 Operationalization

In our frame of reference, we identified the arguments, challenges and reasoning for different designs, layouts and content of carbon labeling. We also identified different layouts and designs of carbon labels that has been used in practice as well as experimental carbon labels which has been used in previous studies. By combining what would be a plausible and realistic approach to carbon labeling with limitations accounted for, we created our own experimental labels with different relevant attributes and characteristics on them on them. (Fig 3.1)

Fig 3.1

This is our own approach to an experimental Carbon label that is a suggestion from us that

summarize some of the conclusions from previous studies that has been made. However, it is

not well known and lacks an organizational backup.

By combining our own contribution with previous theories, we created items from our five hypotheses with added general items and attribute variables:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Swedish consumers prefer colour coded labels.

- Illustrative example of two labels where one is monochrome and one is traffic light colour coded

- How highly would you value that a carbon label would be colour coded in a traffic light system?

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Swedish consumers prefer data on the label.

- Illustrative example of two labels where one contains emission data and the other don’t - How highly would you value that the emission data was presented on the carbon label?

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Swedish consumers prefer the label being presented using a scale.

- Illustrative example of two labels where one is presented on a horizontal scale and the other is not

- How highly would you value that emission data would be presented on a scale on the carbon label?

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Swedish consumers prefer that the label is being produced by a well known organization

- Illustrative example of two logotype based labels where one is a real carbon label but unknown to Swedish consumers and one which is an experimental extension of a organic label.

- How highly would you value that the organization behind the carbon label is from a previously known organization?

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Swedish consumers prefer a label where data is presented in relation to the products weight.

- Illustrative example of two labels where both contain the same date but in one case the data is presented in relation to weight of product and the other is presented in relation to amount of calories.

General questions:

- How much would you value having access to the measuring process of a carbon label?

- How much of an influence would a carbon label have on your grocery purchases?

- How much influence does KRAV have on your grocery purchases?

- How much influence does MSC have on your grocery purchases?

- How much influence does Fair trade have on your grocery purchases?

- How much influence does Nyckelhålet have on your grocery purchases?

- How much influence does the EU-Organic label have on your grocery purchases?

The questionnaire also had four attribute variables to assess the respondents characteristics.

The attributes were:

- Age - Gender - Education

- Perceived knowledge about greenhouse gas emissions from grocery products

These attributes were used in order for us to see whether the sample is representative of our population and also to see if there are any correlation or differences between the different attribute variables (Saunders et al, 2016). The general questions were added to be able to diversify and see patterns in our sample. They could also give an indication as to what content that is preferred on the labels.

3.10 Designing the questionnaire

By creating an anonymous survey, it contributes to the minimization of bias in the survey responses (Saunders et al., 2016). The questionnaire was self-administered via Google Forms as mentioned above and the respondents were anonymous unless they wanted to participate in the lottery for a gift card at Ästad Vingård by leaving their email addresses. Names were not required to be filled in the form itself, neither was their email addresses. We believe that the survey was “anonymous enough” to not cause any bias in the survey responses.

We chose a closed question approach to our survey since closed questions do not require any writing and it makes the data easier to compare as the answers are mutually exclusive and prewritten (Saunders et al., 2016).

We decided to divide the form in two parts where in the first part we deliberately forced the respondents to make a choice of which one they prefer between two different kinds of labels.

The layouts were presented next to an apple, a carton of milk and beef in order to show the

differences the label would have within its own range (See Fig 3.2 below). The same grocery

products were used in every example to fix the variable so that the products would not affect the

respondents choice and create potential bias.

Fig 3.2

In the second part of the questionnaire we asked questions with a 5-point Likert scale where the respondents got to choose how highly they would value certain given attributes on a carbon label. In this part we had the possibility to clarify some of our questions that might not have been clear in the illustrative part of the questionnaire. But most importantly we got to see how much they value certain attributes of the label compared to others. Since a label most likely would not be able to cater all attributes without being oversized we could derive which attributes that the respondents feel are the most valued and arguably the one that should be used. We also tried to streamline the questionnaire from a user interface point of view in order to lower the average time as it could lower the response rate. (Saunders et al., 2016)

The data used for the illustrated questions were selected from the open list of the climate

database for grocery products by Research Institutes of Sweden version 1.6, 2019 (Rise, 2020).

3.11 Sample strategy

There are two techniques you can use when sampling data from a population. A non-probability sample is where the respondents are chosen from the population by the researcher. This is more commonly used in a qualitative research. The second technique, the Probability sample, everyone in the population has an equal change on participating in the research. Since we are doing a quantitative research this is the technique we used. Within the probability sample there is another five techniques that can be used in you sample strategy: Stratified random sample, which means you divide the population into smaller groups based on a number of attributes.

Systematic sampling is when you select your samples within an interval of your population.

Cluster, which is similar to Stratified sampling is when you divide the population into smaller groups, an geographical area for instance. Multi-Stage sample is a further development of Cluster sample. It is a technique used when you use multiple of cluster samples. The fifth sample strategy and the one we are going to use is Simple random sampling. That is when you select your samples randomly using a computer. (Saunders et al., 2016)