Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

What is the role of eco-labels for a circular economy? A rapid review

of the literature
Julia Meis-Harris*, Celine Klemm, Stefan Kaufman, Jim Curtis, Kim Borg, Peter Bragge
BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, 8 Scenic Boulevard, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Transitioning to a circular economy depends on transforming the behaviour of both producers and
Received 22 September 2020 consumers. Product labelling schemes are regularly offered as a solution to support those shifts. While
Received in revised form numerous labelling schemes and related research on the effectiveness of individual schemes exist, it
9 April 2021
remains unclear how impactful labelling is in supporting circular economy outcomes. The emergence of
Accepted 12 April 2021
Available online 16 April 2021
behavioural public policy presents new opportunities for knowledge translation in this field. This study
provides a systematic, succinct overview of evidence using a rapid review methodology, identifying and
Jiri Jaromir Klemes summarising existing systematic reviews or reports. A comprehensive search was undertaken in three
databases of publications between 2000 and 2019, yielding 4,875 citations. Following screening by two
Keywords: independent reviewers, 10 reviews were included. Several key drivers and barriers for adopting product
Eco-labels labelling schemes among consumers and businesses were identified. The existing evidence provides
Circular economy limited support for the impact of labelling schemes on behaviour, the environment, and business.
Behaviour change tool Overall, results indicate that eco-labels on their own are an information-based communication tool that
Drivers to adoption
is unlikely to create significant shifts in consumer choices or production. Conditions required for schemes
Barriers to adoption
to have optimal impact and recommendations to amplify impact drawing on behavioural science are
discussed.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Eco-labelling as a behaviour change tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Study aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Rapid evidence review approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Search strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Screening and selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Data extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Quality appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Summary of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Definitions of labelling schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Drivers and barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.1. Knowledge and awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.2. Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4.3. Consumer preferences and perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Julia.Meis@monash.edu (J. Meis-Harris), Celine.Klemm@
monash.edu (C. Klemm), stefan.kaufman@monash.edu (S. Kaufman), james.
curtis@monash.edu (J. Curtis), Kim.Borg@monash.edu (K. Borg), peter.bragge@
monash.edu (P. Bragge).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127134
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134

3.5. Business influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.6. Impacts and outcomes of labelling schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6.1. Behavioural impacts and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6.2. Environmental impacts and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6.3. Business impacts and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7. Interventions to support the adoption of labelling schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Eco-labels and circular economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Practical implications: six conditions of effective labelling schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Limitations and future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1. Introduction prompts, are a way of informing the consumer about more sus-
tainable product choices and advising them of how to use the
Transitioning to a circular economy depends on producers product more sustainably by, for example, communicating its
designing products for durability, ability to reuse, repair, upgrade, reusability, reparability or recyclability attributes (Leire and Thidell,
disassemble or recycle, and consumers changing how they pur- 2005; Meis and Kashima, 2017). Eco-labels are thus a tool for
chase, use, care for, share, and dispose of products. Understanding changing behaviour by guiding the consumer towards more envi-
how eco-labelling can encourage businesses to offer more sus- ronmentally friendly purchase decisions (Marrucci et al., 2019).
tainable products and services and help consumers to make more For producers, labelling schemes can provide incentives to
sustainable purchase decisions is a critical question to progress improve the environmental performance of products. For example,
towards a circular economy (CE). A CE can be defined as “an eco- consumers’ higher willingness to pay for green products than for
nomic system that replaces the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, non-labelled products as well as the opportunity to differentiate a
alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in pro- firm’s products from other competitors through labelling can
duction/distribution and consumption processes” (Kirchherr et al., motivate producers to adapt eco-labels (Hamilton and Zilberman,
2017, p. 229). The goal is to accomplish sustainable development 2006; Yokessa and Marette, 2019). An OECD report concludes
by enabling economic growth without compromising social and that the criteria of labelling schemes can influence R&D activities,
environmental well-being for current and future generations procurement, and standards for product development and
(Kirchherr et al., 2017). CE policies are thriving globally with Europe manufacturing (OECD, 2005). Due to this relation of labelling with
introducing a comprehensive European CE package (European the implementation of cleaner production methods and the
Commission, 2015), China announcing a Chinese CE Promotion emergence of new products, eco-labels have been described as “a
Law (Lieder and Rashid, 2016) and State government agencies in visible manifestation of an eco-innovation process” (Prieto-
Australia developing and/or implementing CE policies (DELWP, Sandoval et al., 2020, p. 857).
2020). However, labels can only promote CE outcomes if producers and
The success of CE policies depends largely on consumers making manufacturers employ them and comply with the requirements
informed purchasing choices that support CE outcomes. Often, and expected outcomes promised by the label. This is important to
consumers are reluctant to pay more for ‘green’ products and desire reduce the risk of greenwashing e i.e. making inflated or
clearer, easily comparable information on the environmental misleading environmental claims about a product to conceal the
impact of a product (European Commission, 2018). Consumers are lack of effort in improving the environment (Yokessa and Marette,
not the only ones playing a central role in successful CE policy 2019). Thus, the regulations and practices around labelling schemes
implementation though e producers are equally important (Akenji and their governance structures are critical for the fidelity, legiti-
and Briggs, 2015). Although companies are increasingly aware of macy and trustworthiness of the labelling scheme. While eco-
the opportunities promised by a CE and are starting to realise its labelling schemes as a general policy tool are relatively familiar and
value potential for themselves and their stakeholders (EMF, 2013; well-studied, two recent trends in the last 10 years motivate their
Geissdoerfer et al., 2017), product innovation and shifts towards revaluation and assessment in this review: (1) their general pro-
true CE business models remain limited. liferation, and increasing application to pursuing CE policy goals,
and; (2) the emergence of behavioural public policy as a substantial
arena of knowledge translation between research, policy and
1.1. Eco-labelling as a behaviour change tool practice.
Firstly, over the last decade there has been an increase in eco-
To support CE outcomes by making informed purchasing de- labels worldwide. As of May 2020, 458 ecolabels across 199 coun-
cisions easier for consumers and providing an incentive for pro- tries and 25 industry sectors have been listed in the global directory
ducers, product labelling schemes, and particularly third-party of eco-labels, the Ecolabel Index.1 Besides long established and
certified labels, are regularly offered as a solution (Akenji and longstanding labels focusing on environmental friendliness of
Briggs, 2015). Product labelling schemes aim to provide credible
information to persuade and inform consumers without the need
for individuals to exert significant cognitive effort to interrogate the
1
green credentials of products. Eco-labels, just like other signs and http://www.ecolabelindex.com/accessed on 01/05/2020.

2
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al.
products such as the Blue Angel in Germany or the EU-flower,
newer labels focus more specifically on CE outcomes like the
durability and reparability of products. France has been one of the
forerunners in this regard and has recently introduced a voluntary
reparability and durability labelling scheme,2 part of which, a
reparability label, will become mandatory in 2021.
While recycling is a lower order CE objective, the Australasian
Recycling Label is noteworthy for this review. Launched in 2019, it is
a voluntary scheme that aims to reduce recycling contamination by
providing consistent on-package labelling to guide correct pre-
disposal treatment and sorting and, in the long term, encourage
purchase of products with more recyclable packaging. It was
recently favourably highlighted in a global review of recycling la-
bels and standards (UNEP, 2020). However, these new applications
of labelling schemes require extensive behaviour change across
producer-consumer interactions to achieve their goals, and
whether the intent of such labels is being realised in practice is yet
to be established.
The second important trend, the mainstreaming of behavioural
public policy, seeks to critically apply evidence and behavioural
insights to optimise the impact of policy on behaviour. There has
been a substantial increase in the application of behavioural science
to public policy since 2010, with over 250 governments establishing
behavioural science teams (Afif et al., 2019; Ewert, 2020). Behav-
ioural public policy is contested and rapidly evolving, but funda-
mentally involves adopting a behavioural lens in a pluralistic and
non-deterministic way across the policy process (Ewert, 2020;
Feitsma, 2019). It is suited to responding to complex problems that
involve behavioural and structural dimensions (Baum and Gross,
2017; Ewert, 2020). Reconsidering the literature on ecolabels
through the lens of CE and behavioural science is timely and rele-
vant, and presents opportunities for increased translation between
research, policy and practice (Marrucci et al., 2019).
1.2. Study aim
At face value, eco-labels as a tool for behaviour change appear
promising for supporting CE outcomes by guiding consumers to
more sustainable product choices and building an incentive for
producers to redesign products more generally. While eco-labels
are relatively well understood as a policy tool (Akenji and Briggs,
2015; OECD, 2005), important questions remain regarding their
contribution to the CE agenda. For example, on the producer side,
there is the question of their impact on firms adopting CE practices
and business models across supply and value chains, and particu-
larly their impact on pre- and post-consumer CE outcomes (Corona
et al., 2019; Wiedmann et al., 2020). Similarly, on the consumer
side, there are questions regarding their efficacy in changing
behaviour, particularly for post-purchase behaviours such as use,
care, sharing and returning highlighted by CE business models
(Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2019; Wastling et al., 2018). Marruci et al.’s
(2019) review notes that, while there are numerous labelling
schemes and associated research on the effectiveness of individual
schemes, to date, a systematic, succinct overview of evidence on the
effectiveness of product labelling schemes targeting a range of CE
outcomes on consumers’ and producers’ behaviour and practice is
lacking. While some existing eco-labels support ‘circular’ outcomes
such as reduced toxicity, recyclability, and durability, further
research is required to evaluate gaps and opportunities for pro-
moting circularity in production, and on the consumer side, testing
greenwashing and efficacy using behavioural science frameworks
2
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Products-to-show-durabili
ty-and-repairability-rating.
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134
(Marrucci et al., 2019). In short, reviewing published literature not
only through a research perspective but also considering the
pressing questions for policymakers regarding how to change the
behaviour of firms and consumers, presents an opportunity for a
novel contribution via synthesis and research translation. To do so,
we defined the review questions and search strategy via a formal
approach in a collaborative process with government policymakers
and practitioners.
The aim of this review is to identify, evaluate, and synthesize
published literature on labelling schemes and identify opportu-
nities for behavioural sciences to amplify the effectiveness of
schemes in supporting CE outcomes. CE covers a range of product
properties, with eco-labelling schemes speaking to some and
varying of these properties. To understand the role of existing eco-
labelling schemes in supporting a transition to a CE comprehen-
sively, this review uses a broad definition. Based on consultations
with policy experts, we included any eco-labels addressing prop-
erties such as avoidance of purchases/sharing, ability to recycle/
reuse, resource efficiency of extraction/processing/production,
product lifespan/durability, ability to repair/refurbish, or ability to
modularise/remanufacture. These characteristics and intended
outcomes align with common conceptualisations of a CE, such as
Kirchherr et al. (2017, p. 229) who include reducing, recycling,
reusing and recovering materials in production and consumption
processes, and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF, 2019) that
includes maintaining/prolonging product use, sharing, re-using/
redistributing, refurbishing/remanufacturing, and recycling.
Specifically, this review focuses on consumer drivers and bar-
riers for purchasing labelled products as well as business drivers
and barriers for implementing labelling schemes. In addition, we
identify the impacts of labelling schemes on consumer behaviour
and environmental and business outcomes. Lastly, we outline in-
terventions that support the adoption of labelling schemes.
2. Method
2.1. Rapid evidence review approach
We conducted a rapid review to examine the effectiveness of
labelling schemes targeting CE outcomes in changing consumer
behaviour and production practices. Rapid reviews are an emerging
method of efficiently synthesising evidence in policy where a broad
overview of research evidence is required within a short timeframe
(Wright and Bragge, 2018). Rapid reviews are different to system-
atic reviews, which aim to identify all primary studies or trials
pertaining to a particular intervention and can take up to two years
to complete. Rapid reviews can be completed in a short time frame
because they are an ‘overview of reviews’ e that is, they focus on
identifying and summarising existing systematic reviews, reports
or other consolidated information on a topic (Khangura et al., 2012).
In the absence of available systematic reviews, rapid reviews can
instead look for high impact, highly cited studies. Finally, rapid
reviews can also gather information from grey literature, such as
industry, government reports or websites. Like systematic reviews,
rapid reviews follow transparent, scientific, and reproducible
methods and when comparing findings from both types of reviews,
these did show a great deal of overlap (Tricco et al., 2017; Watt et al.,
2008).
2.2. Search strategy
A comprehensive search from 1 January 2000 until 31 August
2019 was undertaken of Scopus, Proquest Environmental Sciences
Collection, and Business Source Complete. These databases were
chosen for their large size and relevant disciplinary focus. A
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al.
detailed description of the search strategy (e.g., search string,
screening and selection, data extraction) can be found in Appendix
A.
Using an established structured decision-making tool, the
STARR protocol,3 policy makers, end users, a rapid review meth-
odological expert (PB), and library database experts worked with
the project lead (SK) to refine the review question, search terms
and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Search terms included com-
binations of keywords (and associated synonyms) that covered
labelling schemes and CE outcomes. Example keywords (which
were typically combined with ‘label’ as part of the search strategy)
included ‘eco’, ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, ‘sharing’, ‘recycling’, ‘reuse’,
and ‘end-of-life’. Forward and backward citation searching (i.e.,
searching reference lists) of the most relevant studies was
completed to increase the chance that all relevant studies were
found. Database and Google Scholar alerts were established to
ensure studies published after searches were completed were also
found. The search strategy focused on consumers and businesses
equally; and included studies conducted in economically devel-
oped, industrialized countries comparable to Australia. For review-
level studies to be included, they needed to examine the effec-
tiveness of product labelling schemes focusing on the CE properties
of a product, and/or how these influence CE behaviours and prac-
tices. This included avoidance of purchases/sharing, ability to
recycle/reuse, resource (material/energy/water) efficiency of
extraction/processing/production, product lifespan/durability,
ability to repair/refurbish, or ability to modularise/remanufacture.
The scope included mandatory, third-party operated and voluntary
schemes. Product labelling schemes that did not directly relate to
CE (e.g., labelling about genetically modified ingredients) were
excluded.
2.3. Screening and selection
All studies were reviewed by two independent reviewers (KB
and JMH) and were considered for inclusion if they were review-
level studies (i.e., not primary studies); described product label-
ling schemes that focused on CE product properties; described
drivers or barriers of labelling scheme adoption (among consumers
or businesses); described supporting interventions; were from
industrialized countries comparable to Australia; and were pub-
lished since 2000 (see Appendix A for detailed list of inclusion and
exclusion criteria). Studies progressed to full-text screening when
both reviewers deemed the articles as eligible. Discrepancies were
resolved through discussion. The screening and selection process is
outlined in Fig. 1.
2.4. Data extraction
Data extracted from relevant studies included: author name/s,
year published, context (e.g., labelling scheme definitions, label
type, geographical/population setting), review type/questions,
drivers/barriers to adoption of labelling schemes, interventions to
promote adoption, outcomes from adoption, policy learnings, and
author conclusions. All data is presented in tables in Appendix B.
Assessing risk of bias allows the ability to establish confidence in
the findings of the included reviews. To appraise the quality of
systematic reviews, we used AMSTAR e A MeaSurement Tool to
Assess systematic Reviews e an 11-item tool with well-established
validity and reliability (Shea et al., 2007). AMSTAR is used to
3
Rapid Review (STARR) Decision Tool - Systematic Reviewing - HEDS - Sections -
ScHARR The University of Sheffield [WWW Document]. Systematic Reviewing. URL
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/sys_rev/rapid (accessed 4.6.20).
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134
evaluate quantitative systematic reviews to establish the level of
confidence the reader should have in the findings from systematic
reviews. Non-systematic articles were assessed using the Scale for
the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA, Baethge et al.,
2019).
Depending on the review type, each one was given a numerical
score to allow for direct comparisons between reviews. This
allowed the findings of each review to be classified based on the
amount of confidence that should be had in their findings; the
higher the confidence level (and overall score), the more likely the
review influenced the final conclusions made in this rapid review.
The risk of bias of all reviews informed the overall interpretation of
the available evidence base.
3. Results
Overall, 4,875 studies were identified, which was reduced to
3,286 after removing duplicates (see Fig. 1). After screening titles
and abstracts, 72 studies remained for full text review. The inclu-
sion criteria were used to quickly screen studies and, if the inclusion
criteria was satisfied, the entire study was read in detail to establish
eligibility for inclusion. After screening, three systematic reviews
(Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017; Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2016;
Taufique et al., 2014) and seven narrative reviews (de Boer, 2003;
Gallastegui, 2002; Grolleau et al., 2016; Leire and Thidell, 2005; Rex
and Baumann, 2007; Rubik et al., 2007; Yokessa and Marette, 2019)
were included in this review.
3.1. Quality appraisal
The detailed risk of bias assessment for all included studies can
be found in Appendix C. The methodological quality of the three
systematic reviews was low to moderate according to the AMSTAR
rating tool, with reviews satisfying 3/10 (Prieto-Sandoval et al.,
2016), 4/9 (Taufique et al., 2014), and 5/9 (Dangelico and
Vocalelli, 2017) quality appraisal items. The number of applicable
appraisal items varied with the specific procedures undertaken
within each review. The low to moderate rating was mainly due to
the review authors not being transparent in their reporting of, for
example, the bias risk among the included studies, not considering
this bias risk in their conclusions, and not presenting a list of
excluded studies. Due to the high risk of bias, there was a low level
of confidence in their overall findings. However, the presence of
overlapping findings between studies (i.e., two or more reviews
reporting the same result) reinstated some confidence.
With the exception of two studies, narrative reviews that were
appraised using SANRA rated poorly, with one satisfying 3/12 (de
Boer, 2003), three satisfying 4/12 criteria (Gallastegui, 2002;
Grolleau et al., 2016; Leire and Thidell, 2005), one satisfying 5/12
(Rubik et al., 2007), one 7/12 and another 8/12 criteria (Yokessa and
Marette, 2019). All narrative reviews justified to some degree the
article’s importance for the readership and included a statement of
concrete aims or a formulation of questions. More than half of the
reviews included appropriate referencing whereas only three
described the literature search and three included any form of
scientific reasoning (e.g., including appropriate evidence like RCTs).
None of the reviews included an appropriate presentation of the
data. But again, the presence of overlapping findings between
studies re-established a degree of confidence in the reported
findings.
3.2. Summary of findings
Table 1 provides a summary of the included studies. As per the
inclusion criteria, all studies made some reference to drivers and
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al.
Fig. 1. PRISMA flow chart outlining the search process and inclusion of studies.
barriers underlying the adoption or support of labelling schemes,
either from the consumer or business perspective. However, only
about half the studies extended their focus to the impacts of
labelling schemes (on behaviour, environment or businesses), or
interventions to support the adoption of schemes. To this end, the
body of research (at least at a review-level) still requires some
maturing to provide robust and synthesised accounts of the effec-
tiveness of labelling schemes and supporting interventions
(beyond discussions around drivers and barriers). Nevertheless, all
studies make recommendations on how labelling schemes can be
implemented and supported to achieve aspirations around more
CE-related products, services and consumer choices.
3.3. Definitions of labelling schemes
A variety of labelling scheme definitions were encountered
during the review process (for a selection of key definitions see
Appendix D). Due to our search strategy, most focused on defini-
tions of ‘eco-labels’, and described dual aspirations around demand
(e.g., consumers making more informed ‘green’ choices) and supply
(e.g., businesses offering products and services that meet certain
‘eco’ credentials). Given that our search terms included post-use
elements like ‘repair’, ‘sharing’ etc., at the review level at least,
there does not appear to be much coverage about the potential role
of eco-labels in supporting post-purchase consumer behaviour nor
business models relying on the same, despite the steady growth of
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134
literature on CE since 2005.
3.4. Drivers and barriers
All of the ten included reviews addressed drivers and barriers to
some degree regarding adopting or supporting product labelling
schemes (among consumers or businesses). The majority focused
on consumer purchases, not post-purchase behaviours. Drivers and
barriers of businesses were investigated in six reviews (de Boer,
2003; Gallastegui, 2002; Leire and Thidell, 2005; Prieto-Sandoval
et al., 2016; Rubik et al., 2007; Yokessa and Marette, 2019) and
three reviews looked at the role of broader society and govern-
ments in supporting eco-labelling schemes (de Boer, 2003;
Gallastegui, 2002; Rubik et al., 2007). While the significance of
individual drivers and barriers will vary across different contexts,
there was a noticeable converging of themes among the reviews.
These are summarised under the following headings and Table 2
shows which review addresses the identified key themes.
3.4.1. Knowledge and awareness
Labels can only influence purchasing behaviour when con-
sumers are aware of a label or have some knowledge about it. In
other words, awareness is one key factor for an eco-label to be
effective and a prerequisite for impacting consumer behaviour
(Taufique et al., 2014). Nine out of the ten reviews identified
knowledge and awareness as critical influencers on label
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al.
effectiveness. Knowledge and awareness can stem from a combi-
nation of information and communications about the label, the
consumer’s capability to understand the environmental benefit of
purchasing an environmentally friendly product (Dangelico and
Vocalelli, 2017; de Boer, 2003), as well as visibility (e.g., on prod-
ucts, in stores, in business or government policies). In Denmark,
campaigns aimed at increasing the recognition and knowledge of
eco-labels have been shown to be effective (Leire and Thidell, 2005;
Rubik et al., 2007).
Based on the studies included in this review, the evidence on
mass consumer behaviour suggests that label knowledge and
awareness is somewhat limited to ‘greener’ consumers, where eco-
labels typically provide information and/or ‘nudges’ to already
convinced audiences of the need to consume more sustainably
(Grolleau et al., 2016; Leire and Thidell, 2005; Prieto-Sandoval et al.,
2016). This can have implications for the overall market share of
eco-labelled products and interested consumers, which will remain
limited if only a small proportion are sensitised to the information
conveyed by the label through aligned values and preferences.
3.4.2. Trust
Trust was the second most commonly mentioned driver/barrier
to adopting or supporting eco-labels, discussed in eight reviews.
Trust in the claims associated with a label can be achieved through
third-parties where the certification criteria is perceived as trans-
parent, accurate and uses well established methodological ap-
proaches (e.g., life cycle assessment; Leire and Thidell, 2005; Rubik
et al., 2007; Yokessa and Marette, 2019). Trust was found to be
greater towards main (certified) eco-labels (Leire and Thidell,
2005), particularly when the guarantee body was a NGO or con-
sumer organisation and not related to the producer or retailer as a
source of environmental information (Rubik et al., 2007). Taufique
et al. (2014) conclude that credibility of the eco-label source can
influence the purchase decision.
On the other hand, trust decreased when there was no clarity
about who sits behind the schemes, how the schemes are organ-
ised, the environmental relevance of the product and in what ways
the labelled products are superior to non-labelled products (Leire
and Thidell, 2005). Consumer distrust in general makes it hard
for consumers to understand the meaning and content of eco-labels
(Taufique et al., 2014). In addition, terms like ‘green’ or ‘bio’ have
been overused by companies to state their supposedly green
product’s attributes, because these terms are not protected by the
law and thus can be applied widely (Gallastegui, 2002). This di-
minishes the credibility of environmental product declarations,
particularly if not certified through third-party schemes. A balance
needs to consider offering enough information to consumers and
businesses to demonstrate credibility, accuracy and transparency
without becoming too cognitively or administratively burdensome.
In the absence of trust, eco-labels will have little or no impact on
consumer choices, including willingness to pay a premium for
certified eco-products (Yokessa and Marette, 2019).
Similarly, businesses’ perception of the costs of complying with
the obligations (in terms of process and verification/reporting)
outweighing the benefits may also be driven by trust e in con-
sumers’ behaviour (e.g., that there is a market for eco-labelled
products), in third party or government enforcement of obliga-
tions, and the behaviour of competitors (e.g., concerns of level
playing fields, greenwashing and undercutting; Yokessa and
Marette, 2019).
3.4.3. Consumer preferences and perceptions
Eight reviews provided evidence of how consumer preferences
and product perceptions influence decision making around eco-
labelled products. Support and purchase of eco-labelled products
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134
was more widespread among consumers with altruistic, social and/
or environmental values (Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017; Leire and
Thidell, 2005; Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2016; Rex and Baumann,
2007). They may also appreciate the public ‘visibility’ that eco-
labels offer (e.g., desire to be seen as a green consumer;
Gallastegui, 2002). However, it was also apparent that the criteria
applied within labelling schemes may create tension with other
product qualities that consumers value. For example, while a
product might possess sound environmental credentials (e.g., in
terms of recycled content; energy and water use), consumers may
question what implications this might have on the quality and
durability of the product (Gallastegui, 2002). In addition, well-
entrenched purchasing habits (where consumers have purchased
the same product time and time again without the need for
conscious deliberation) reduce the effects of eco-labels (Leire and
Thidell, 2005).
While consumers’ environmental values, product values, as well
as purchasing habits influence their support for eco-labelled
products, price perception and willingness to pay play a role too.
Eco-labelled products are often perceived to be more expensive, but
consumers report a willingness to pay a premium (de Boer, 2003;
Gallastegui, 2002; Leire and Thidell, 2005; Prieto-Sandoval et al.,
2016). However, there is little evidence for this in practice and it
seems to be product-dependent as a review of choice experiments
has shown (Yokessa and Marette, 2019).
3.4.4. Business influences
While many of the drivers and barriers described so far focus
mainly on consumers, the evidence also discussed a range of
influencers that might impact businesses supporting, adopting, or
producing new products and services to qualify for eco-label cer-
tification. These influences are summarised as follows:
Societal and consumer influencers. Eco-labelling can improve
a brand’s reputation. Research shows that the introduction of eco-
labels can increase the value of supermarket brands (Yokessa and
Marette, 2019). However, for well-known brands or products that
already have a nutrition label, eco-labelling did not increase the
product value (Yokessa and Marette, 2019). Labelling thus can in-
crease a product’s value, which may be associated with a sale-
increase.
Producers may also introduce eco-labelling to react to societal
and customer demands for environmentally sound products.
Pressure from customers, shareholders, neighbourhood and com-
munity groups can influence a firms’ view towards green labelling
(de Boer, 2003; Gallastegui, 2002).
Economic influencers. A range of factors influence a company’s
economic decisions to adopt eco-labelling. These include consid-
erations of whether eco-labels and certified products have suffi-
cient market penetration (and differentiation from mainstream
products and services) to justify costs of (ongoing) certification
processes and investing in different material streams and produc-
tion processes to deliver products that qualify for certification. Eco-
labels may also provide opportunities to enter new markets if they
extend beyond specific jurisdictional boundaries, or maintain a
presence in existing markets under new (mandatory) CE re-
quirements (Yokessa and Marette, 2019).
Operational influencers. These refer to whether businesses
have sufficient influence or control over their supply chain to
ensure they can continue to meet the requirements of the labelling
scheme (while also protecting brand reputation). Conversely,
businesses may benefit from encouraging or requiring suppliers to
participate in a given labelling scheme, providing it aligns with
their needs (Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2016; Yokessa and Marette,
2019).
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134

Table 1
Summary reference guide of included review studies.

Author Number of studies Type of label Drivers and barriers Impacts and outcomes Interventions Review type and
quality appraisal

Dangelico, R. M., & 114 ISO Type I (third-party Consumers: Perceived Not specified Not specified Systematic 5/9
Vocalelli, D. 2017 certified and effectiveness,
independent) environmental concern,
ISO Type II (voluntary altruism, knowledge
self-declared claims)
ISO Type III
(environmental
declarations)
Note: focus is on ’Green
Marketing’ more
generally
de Boer, J. 2003 Not specified Not specified Businesses: Pressure Not specified Policy interventions: Narrative review 3/12
from government Mandatory labelling
agencies, shareholders, laws, regulating claims
customers, business through legal
associations and other definitions of specific
organisations, public terms, providing
criticism, image, costs services to support
Consumers: Price, voluntary labelling.
trust, mixed
motivations,
understanding, values,
functional/aesthetic
features
Policymakers:
Regulatory context,
socio-cultural tradition,
international trade
Gallastegui, I. G. 2002 Not specified ISO Type I (third-party Consumers: Not specified Not specified Narrative review
certified and Satisfaction, values, 4/12
independent) identification, costs,
availability, visibility
for purchase, visibility
of consumption,
durability, perishability
Retailers: Customer
pressure, shareholder
pressure, government
regulatory pressure,
neighbourhood and
community pressure
(other lobby groups are
negative influences)
Grolleau, G., Ibanez, L., Not specified No differentiation Consumers: Behavioural Proposed intervention Policy analysis 4/12
Mzoughi, N., & Teisl, between labels Willingness to pay, outcomes: techniques:
M. 2016 knowledge (but not Purchase likelihood C Loss aversion
alone), biases, trust, increased for some eco- C Status quo bias
third party certification labelled products if life C Social norms
cycle costs were C Status seeking
provided. C Hyperbolic
Environmental discounting
outcomes: C Spatial optimism
Because ecolabels are C Providing
more likely applied to cumulative life cycle
low hanging fruit they assessment costs
often lead to small or no
changes in production
practices or
environmental
improvements.
Business impacts:
Eco-labelling schemes
can be manipulated to
create competitive
distortions.
Manufacturers can use
eco-labels to increase
the total demand for
their suite of products
(and pollution -due to
‘halo effect’) by
(continued on next page)

7
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134

Table 1 (continued )

Author Number of studies Type of label Drivers and barriers Impacts and outcomes Interventions Review type and
quality appraisal

alleviating consumers’
guilt.
Leire, C., & Thidell, A. 54 Behavioural "Simple information Literature & Practice
2005 outcomes: carriers, such as eco- review (structured
Discrepancy between labels, seem to be literature search
intentions and actual desired by most supplemented by
behaviour (high consumers and are expert interviews)
intention to purchase sufficient for decision- 4/12
green but lack of follow making. (…) Detailed
through). information provided
Environmental by [environmental]
outcomes: declarations is
ISO Type I (third-party Not specified perceived as far too
certified and complex to be useful in
independent) making purchase
ISO Type II (voluntary Consumers: Business impacts: decisions." p.1066
self-declared claims) Awareness, acceptance,
price, quality, habits,
time, credibility
ISO Type III Retailers/sales staff are Not specified
(environmental ’ecological gatekeepers’
declarations) - but no but have limited
Type III studies knowledge of ecolabels.
identified
Prieto-Sandoval, V., 152 No differentiation. Most Supply and demand Not specified Not specified Systematic review
Alfaro, J. A., Mejía- identified studies interactions: 3/10
Villa, A., & looked at food, fisheries Barrier: Price or
Ormazabal, M. 2016 and forests information consumers
received about the label
Driver: Ecolabels
require a complete
marketing strategy to
communicate their
meaning and their
added value, which
must be salient for the
customer at the point of
sale.
Environmental
regulation and policy
Barrier: Eco-label
implementation varies
between countries and
regions. Lack of
convergence regarding
legal issues, which
should be included in
label schemes locally
and globally.
Social environmental
awareness
Barrier: Transparency
of ecolabeling process
Driver: Use of Life Cycle
Assessment,
regulations in order to
define how to introduce
LCA in regional,
national or
transnational norms
are needed
Organizational
strategy dimension
Barrier: Lack of interest
in the business
applications of the
technological tools
used to develop
ecolabeling
Driver: Environmental
management initiatives
need to be supported
by the natural and
applied sciences to

8
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134

Table 1 (continued )

Author Number of studies Type of label Drivers and barriers Impacts and outcomes Interventions Review type and
quality appraisal

develop effective and

innovative sustainable
products
Rex, E., & Baumann, H. Not specified Mandatory and Perceived effectiveness Behavioural Positive vs negative Narrative review
2007 voluntary (including & experiences of outcomes: labels: positive labels 7/12
ISO Type I, II & III) environment-related Intention action gap. appeal to people with
problems predict Lower willingness to strong environmental
’green’ buying pay in real shopping interests; those with
behaviour. environments. less environmental
Perceptions of cost, Environmental concern are more
existing behaviours and outcomes: Limited sensitive to negative
habits, perceptions of research on the effects labels (that signal the
alternative products, of eco-labels in terms of product is bad for the
recognition, environmental environment).
understanding and performance; but some
trust in ecolabels, evaluations
desire for demonstrating
environmentally- environmental
friendly products. improvements
resulting from the
introduction and use of
eco-labels for specific
products or product
categories.
Business impacts:
Businesses’ main
motivation for label use
is often competitive
advantages or
improved market
shares
Rubik, F., Frankl, P., Not specified ISO Type I (third-party Consumers: Awareness Behavioural Approach to increase Narrative review
Pietroni, L., & Scheer, certified and of specific labels in the outcomes: the awareness of 5/12
D. 2007 independent) EU and nationally. Eco-labelling lead to consumers for eco-
ISO Type II (voluntary Confidence in labels is less information search. labelling through
self-declared claims) often problematic EU eco-label campaigns. For
ISO Type III because consumers first contributes to an example, a major
(environmental need to know the label increase of consumers’ campaign run by the
declarations) (knowledge tends to be general environmental Danish EPA aimed at
low), and then also awareness. increasing the
have trust in the label Environmental recognition and
(also low). Emphasise outcomes: knowledge about the
link between Lack of empirical data; two official eco-labels
technological and studies look at effects and at increasing the
environmental on attitudes and sales of eco-labelled
improvement if behaviour rather than washing powder and
consumer associates concrete textiles successfully
green products with environmental effects, increased recognition
lesser quality. because these are of the Swan and EU
Businesses: Tend to not difficult to measure. flower, and knowledge
be interested in Business impacts: about eco-label
meeting voluntary and Important indicator of meaning. Sales
environmental targets market penetration is increased for washing
set by public authorities the market share of powders (but not for
not linked with eco-labelled product’s textiles).
legislation and/or green in relation to all other A lab study showed that
public procurement. products sold information about
belonging to the same environmental
group. Yet, "research on outcomes provided by
market shifts is rare and eco-labels influenced
reliable statistical data product preference.
is missing", p. 178.
Little evidence that eco-
labelling influences
product portfolio
besides:

eco-labels could
indirectly force
producers to produce/
offer eco-labelled
products

negotiation of eco-
labels criteria may
(continued on next page)

9
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134

Table 1 (continued )

Author Number of studies Type of label Drivers and barriers Impacts and outcomes Interventions Review type and
quality appraisal

improve the
environmental
performance of a whole
market sector

eco-labels could be
used by companies as
benchmarks for their
own products or as a
target to improve their
environmental
performance
eco-labels have the
potential for market
transformation in the
way of a changing
customer -client
relationship

for some SMEs eco-
labelling poses a threat
as it may affect their
business if a competitor
adopts labels and takes
over customers.
Taufique, K. M. R., 51 ISO Type I (third-party Consumers: 10 factors Behavioural outcomes: Not specified Systematic review
Siwar, C., Talib, B., certified and influencing behaviour: Each of the factors 4/9
Sarah, F. H., & independent) Consumer awareness, identified as drivers
Chamhuri, N. 2014 ISO Type II (voluntary Consumer knowledge, and barriers in the
self-declared claims) Consumer review (consumer
ISO Type III involvement, awareness, knowledge
(environmental Consumer trust, etc) was found to
declarations) - but no Design and visibility, influence purchasing
Type III studies Credibility of the behaviours across
identified source, various studies.
Type and level of Environmental
information, outcomes:
Clarity of meaning, Not specified
Persuasiveness, Business impacts:
Private benefits, Not specified
Socio-demo factors:
levels of education,
gender, income, age
Yokessa, M., & Marette, Not specified Focus on eco-labels that Enablers: Behavioural Narrative review
S. 2019 are either signals that Environmental concern outcomes: 8/12
distinguish products of consumer, product When consumers are
according to price, significant but aware of an
environmental criteria low price premium environmental
or declarations between green and problem, an eco-label
providing quantitative regular products, WTP may provide strong
indicators of for environmentally incentive (e.g., dolphin-
environmental friendly products; real safe label led to an
performance (see ISO intent to pay more for impressive reduction in
14020). Sole focus on eco-labels when the the number of dolphins
the business-to- WTP for eco-labelled killed; likewise, for
consumer products is higher than toilet paper and
communication that for regular detergents with Nordic
channel especially products Swan). Environmental
agriculture and food Barriers limiting the labelling of wood
e.g., organic labels. impact of eco-labels: products influences
Consumers’ consumers’ purchase
perceptions of label decision particularly for
criteria, the peripheral products such as
broadcast of recycled paper for
information about the which they perceive a
label, wrong inferences clear connection
of the label meaning, between high usage
trade-off between an and the environmental
eco-label and an impact.
alternative label, Environmental
consumers’ sensitivity outcomes:
toward the By choosing “clean and
environment, lack of green” goods and
awareness and/or services, consumers
credibility, lack of play a significant role in
motivation at the time decreasing the

10
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134

Table 1 (continued )

Author Number of studies Type of label Drivers and barriers Impacts and outcomes Interventions Review type and
quality appraisal

of choice. Double environmental damage

labelling (e.g. of caused by production
nutrition and chains.
environmental Problems with poor
impacts) is ineffective environmental impacts
as consumers do not of voluntary
like to trade-off certification in some
between both industries.
dimensions. Business impacts:
Business motivations: Not specified
Higher WTP for green
products; opportunity
to differentiate a firm’s
goods to improve sales;
risk of greenwashing;
certification costs,
quality of the product;
competitors in the
market; supply chain
promoting an eco-label
and contractual
relationships inside
such a supply chain,
strong brand
reputation; retailers
with supermarket
brands have a higher
incentive to adopt a
label than
manufacturers with
national brands;
pressure from NGOs.

Table 2
Consumer and business influences identified in the reviews.

Author Consumer influences Business influences

Knowledge & awareness Trust Consumer preference Social Economic Operational Environ-mental Government policy

Dangelico & Vocalelli (2017) ✓ ✓ ✓

de Boer (2003)
Gallastegui (2002)
Grolleau et al. (2016)
Leire & Thidell (2005)
Prieto-Sandoval et al. (2016)
Rex and Baumann (2007)
Rubik et al. (2007)
Taufique et al. (2014)
Yokessa & Marette (2019)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Environmental influencers. These refer to judgements based
on whether specific labelling schemes actually deliver on what they
promise (e.g., based on CE outcomes), and are not simply a form of
‘greenwashing’ that encourage less-environmentally focused
competitors to adopt. This can be complicated by the multi-faceted
and undefined nature of CE, and sustainability more broadly.
Different consumers, and different businesses, may disagree about
what CE attributes and outcomes a given label should, or does,
guarantee (Leire and Thidell, 2005; Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2016).
Overall, there was very limited evidence on which these views
could converge either way.
Government policy influencers. Lastly, businesses may not be
interested in meeting voluntary or environmental targets outlined
in certification programs unless they are linked to mandatory
(legislated) labelling requirements or supported through green
11
procurement policies (de Boer, 2003; Gallastegui, 2002; Rubik et al.,
2007).
3.5. Impacts and outcomes of labelling schemes
3.5.1. Behavioural impacts and outcomes
Six reviews included evidence on the impacts of labelling
schemes on behaviour change (Grolleau et al., 2016; Leire and
Thidell, 2005; Rex and Baumann, 2007; Rubik et al., 2007;
Taufique et al., 2014; Yokessa and Marette, 2019). Several studies
identified an intention-behaviour gap (e.g., Leire and Thidell, 2005;
Rex and Baumann, 2007), showing that while eco-labels might be
successful in raising awareness and creating intentions to purchase
more environmentally sustainable products, this will not always
translate to actual purchases in real shopping situations (where
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134

other factors, such as costs, become more tangible). The existing (2007) remark that for many companies gaining competitive ad-
research suggests that eco-labelling schemes are more likely to vantages or increasing their market shares is the main driver to
have influence when consumers perceive a clear connection be- adopt eco-labelling schemes. Still, Rubik et al. (2007) highlight a
tween the certified product and an environmental (or other) few ways in which eco-labels could wield an influence. For
outcome that they value. example, they could indirectly force producers to redesign their
Despite the observed gap between intention and behaviour, products to be able to offer eco-labelled products, and the negoti-
there is some evidence of actual changes to consumer behaviour as ation of criteria for eco-labelling schemes could improve the
a result of environmental product information and labelling. For environmental performance of an entire sector.
example, the comparative information that eco-labelling schemes
can provide at the point-of-sale can influence purchasing decisions
3.6. Interventions to support the adoption of labelling schemes
by making more expensive environmentally sound products more
competitive. Grolleau et al. (2016) cite empirical evidence that
Five reviews provided evidence on interventions that could
comparative life cycle cost information increases the purchase
support the adoption of labelling schemes. (de Boer, 2003; Grolleau
likelihood for green products with higher initial costs and lower
et al., 2016; Leire and Thidell, 2005; Rex and Baumann, 2007; Rubik
operating costs (e.g., refrigerators, cars). By making the life cycle
et al., 2007; Yokessa and Marette, 2019). In behavioural science,
costs salient at the point of purchase, such information can provide
interventions can be described as a set of activities or strategies
an alternative reference point to the purchase price, making the
designed to change behaviours, oftentimes by increasing an in-
product more competitive. Further, a systematic review by Taufique
dividual’s, organisation’s or population’s capability, opportunity or
et al. (2014) provides evidence on ten factors that have been shown
motivation to undertake a behaviour (Michie et al., 2011). Example
to influence purchase behaviours across various primary studies
interventions include increasing knowledge and understanding
(see Table 2). Overall, the existing evidence appears to apply to
through education, persuading through communications (e.g., im-
specific causes or sectors e e.g., fisheries, timber products e rather
ages, messages), providing incentives, or making changes to the
than a broader range of products, causes and contexts.
environment to facilitate certain behaviours. Eco-labels on their
own are an information-based intervention tool and are therefore
3.5.2. Environmental impacts and outcomes
unlikely to create significant shifts in consumer choices or pro-
Tangible evidence of measurable improvements to the envi-
duction without other complementary policy tools. Based on the
ronment stemming from the adoption of eco-labelling schemes is
studies included in this review, two categories of interventions
scarce (with the possible exception of when specific products or
were identified that can support the adoption of product labelling
product groups are involved; see Rex and Baumann, 2007). Only
schemes.
four review studies mention environmental outcomes of labelling
The first involves holistic marketing strategies (and associated
schemes (Grolleau et al., 2016; Rex and Baumann, 2007; Rubik
certification and assurance) to communicate the meaning, in-
et al., 2007; Yokessa and Marette, 2019), none of which is a sys-
tentions, and value of a label and certified products, which must be
tematic review. Some reviews mention potential adverse impacts of
visible and relevant to a broad cross-section of consumers and
labelling schemes. Yokessa and Marette (2019) highlight that there
businesses (not just those that are eco-orientated). Such marketing
are problems with poor environmental impacts of voluntary cer-
strategies need to be ongoing and adaptable, as labelling schemes
tification in some industries, which could result in eco-labels
may evolve and innovate based on technological advancements.4
masking the environmental harms of products. Grolleau et al.
Some of the reviewed evidence suggests that comprehensive
(2016) caution that ecolabels are more likely applied to easily
marketing and education endeavours have been successful in
made changes, and as a result they tend to effect only small, or no,
raising awareness of labelling schemes and sales of some labelled
changes in production practices or environmental improvements.
products (Rubik et al., 2007).
Several reviews (Rubik et al., 2007; Yokessa and Marette, 2019)
Lab-based studies have also shown that awareness and in-
point to a lack of research and empirical data in this area (e.g., on
tentions to purchase labelled products can improve when issues of
sales volumes or market shares), which makes it difficult to assess
personal benefit (Taufique et al., 2014), negative environmental
improvements in environmental impacts. Studies instead tend to
outcomes (Rex and Baumann, 2007) and known decision-making
focus on changes in attitudes and behaviours (Rubik et al., 2007),
biases are incorporated into communications, e.g., loss aversion,
conceivably because measuring environmental benefits of labels
status quo bias, social norms, hyperbolic discounting (Grolleau
and distinguishing these from a range of other possible influences
et al., 2016). For example, Rex and Baumann (2007) describe a
remains a significant challenge. Overall, limited evidence of envi-
study by Grankvist et al. (2004), which found that ‘negative labels’
ronmental impacts broadly supports Marrucci et als.’s (2019)
(that signal harms the environment) tend to be more effective at
conclusion that further research is required to demonstrate the
influencing consumer preference, beyond an eco-conscious market,
contribution to CE outcomes of eco-labelling schemes.
than ‘positive labels’ (that signal benefits to the environment).
Specifically, they found that while positive labels tend to appeal to
3.5.3. Business impacts and outcomes
people with strong environmental interests, those with less envi-
Only three reviews (Grolleau et al., 2016; Rex and Baumann,
ronmental concern are more sensitive to negative labels.
2007; Rubik et al., 2007) discuss the impact of labelling schemes
The second category of interventions that can assist in the
on businesses or manufacturers. These note that there is little ev-
adoption of product labelling schemes involves regulatory or policy
idence or reliable data to suggest that sufficient market penetration
approaches, where mandatory labelling laws and/or procurement
of eco-labelling schemes and associated products (beyond envi-
standards are imposed, including legal and enforceable definitions
ronmentally conscious consumers) has occurred to result in wide-
of key certification criteria (de Boer, 2003). Other regulatory tools
spread market shifts or changes to product portfolios (e.g., Rubik
can involve the restriction or banning of ‘polluting products’, and
et al., 2007). Instead, there is a suggestion that labelling schemes
can be manipulated for competitive advantage, to increase product
prices, and to increase demand for products by alleviating con- 4
In the EU’s energy and resource efficiency labelling scheme for computers
sumer guilt for purchasing products that may have negative envi- (2016), it has been reported that performance has improved so much that some of
ronmental implications (Grolleau et al., 2016). Rex and Baumann the worst performers of the present would receive an Aþþþ rating of the past.

12
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al.
taxes and subsidies that support the production and purchase of
greener products and services (Yokessa and Marette, 2019). How-
ever, mandatory labelling has also been known to have unintended
consequences, such as signalling to consumers a lower quality
product (e.g., if recycled content is used in production), or impede
entry into the market of smaller but innovative enterprises.
Providing financial or expert support for undertaking product cer-
tification processes may assist in overcoming such barriers.
4. Discussion
The proliferation of labelling schemes and their application to a
CE transition are based on a belief that they can inform and
empower consumers and encourage behaviour change in con-
sumption and production based on widely accepted and desired
societal and environmental goals. The identified reviews showed
only limited support for the impact of labelling schemes on
behaviour, the environment, and business. Although labels can
increase awareness and intentions, this does not necessarily affect
consumers’ purchasing behaviours, unless there is a clear connec-
tion between the certified product and an environmental outcome.
This connection is, however, difficult to prove and often there is
little evidence about the environmental impacts, except for in-
stances where the impact is a result of easily made changes with
only minimal or small environmental improvements.
This aligns with the conclusions of a substantive OECD report.
Summarising various empirical studies and research by labelling
scheme operators on the effects of eco-labelling schemes operating
in OECD countries (including the German Blue Angel, Nordic Swan,
US Energy Star) the report notes “one recurrent finding in the
studies is the difficulty to obtain data, especially for assessing
environmental effects”, and observes that the underlying differ-
ences in methodologies and foci, make comparisons of effects
challenging (OECD, 2005, p. 4). Similarly, when considering specific
CE outcomes, new methods and research are called for (Marrucci
et al., 2019).
Moreover, the reviewed evidence raises questions as to whether
labels result in shifts or changes of businesses product portfolios.
Instead, the reviews raise concerns that labels may be used to gain
competitive advantages without benefitting the environment. This
finding diverges from the OECD report (2005) which finds that eco-
labelling schemes are effective in influencing producers. This could
be explained by the fact that the OECD report includes grey liter-
ature e such as research by labelling schemes and government
reports e not captured in the current review. In addition, in-
novations in production tend to be incremental rather than radical
(Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2016), potentially making it harder to
measure changes.
Eco-labels on their own are an information-based communica-
tion tool that is unlikely to create significant shifts in consumer
choices (or production) as the reviewed evidence indicates. This
aligns generally with behavioural science, where it has been found
that information alone is typically unlikely to change behaviour
(Ajzen et al., 2011; Dolan et al., 2012).
4.1. Eco-labels and circular economy
Transitioning to a CE requires a variety of changes in con-
sumption and production behaviours and outcomes e from
reduced consumption to resource recovery. The reviewed studies
provide important insights regarding several key aspects, mainly
focussed around consumer purchasing behaviours. As (certified)
labelling schemes targeting aspects such as repair or maintenance
are only just emerging, evidence on the effectiveness of these
schemes is currently scarce or in early stages and therefore not
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134
reflected in current review studies (e.g., Marrucci et al., 2019). Still,
the present findings may apply more broadly to new and emerging
CE eco-labelling schemes, in particular those targeting consumer
purchasing. This may include labelling of durability, reparability,
recycled content, or remanufactured or re-furbished properties,
and corresponding aspects of product design and production.
There was a gap in the published evidence, however, regarding
the role of labels for influencing pre- and post-purchasing behav-
iours, which are of equal importance to the transition to a CE model.
Increasing attention on ‘sufficiency’ and ‘degrowth’ business
models and branding suggest labels could play a role in reducing
consumption, and extending the life and value chain of products
and services (Gossen et al., 2019; Wastling et al., 2018). Further, a
circular model requires extended consumer-product responsibility
over the product lifespan to its end-of-life. For example, mainte-
nance behaviours to prolong product lifetimes or the return of
products to specialized recycling programs. Labelling could play a
role here, for instance in the form of product care or recycling in-
structions (beyond the scope of packaging waste, as the Austral-
asian Recycling Label). While labels and certification with post-
purchase behavioural and business model implications are
emerging, to what extent labelling schemes could play a role in this
context remains to be answered.
4.2. Practical implications: six conditions of effective labelling
schemes
It was apparent within the reviewed evidence that a number of
conditions should be in place for a labelling scheme to have a
chance of making a difference and thus to work as an effective
behaviour change tool. We reflect on six conditions and provide
further advice on how behavioural science may improve a label’s
effectiveness.
This rapid review clearly highlighted that trust in eco-labels is a
key influencer for pro-environmental consumer behaviour. Trust
was found to be greater if the sources of environmental information
were NGOs or other credible consumer organisations, rather than
producers or retailers (Leire and Thidell, 2005; Rubik et al., 2007;
Yokessa and Marette, 2019). For the first condition, we therefore
conclude: Labelling schemes should be trustworthy and trans-
parent, involving accurate and defensible product evaluations based
on agreed criteria and methods. The behavioural sciences provide
evidence that credible sources increases the acceptance of mes-
sages and their persuasiveness (Kumkale et al., 2010; Pornpitakpan,
2004). Research has shown that written communication such as
those provided in eco-labels will be most credible from sources
with technical expertise (Sternthal et al., 1978). Therefore, labelling
schemes should think carefully about the sender of the information
to be most effective on consumers purchase decisions.
Swift and comprehensive detection of the misuse of labelling
schemes, alongside harsh but fair and proportionate punishment or
cost, could deter organisations and businesses from poor behav-
iour, reward compliance, and again help to foster trust on the
consumer side (Braithwaite, 2018). This approach could extend to
‘budges’ e behavioural science informed regulations aiming to
protect consumers ability enact desirable behaviours, by prevent-
ing firms from making misleading or overly complex claims and
offers (Oliver, 2015).
Second, information on the labelling schemes should be dissemi-
nated and visible to consumers and producers, particularly at key
decision-making moments (e.g., points of sale; start of a new pro-
duction process). Following research on the effectiveness of signage,
the clarity of the sign’s purpose (i.e. the ease with which a customer
can understand what the sign asks one to do) predicts the
perceived effectiveness of signs and prompts (Meis and Kashima,
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al.
2017). Balancing the complexity of information presented on labels
with consumers’ ability to process information in a quick and
meaningful manner is critical for the design of effective labels
(Campos et al., 2011). For eco-label designers, this suggests that the
written instructions should be clear, easy to read and understand,
and that the requested behaviour (e.g., reuse, recycle, repair) is
straightforward to perform (Kools, 2011). Considering the first and
second points, holistic marketing strategies and regulatory ap-
proaches can support behavioural public policy interventions
aiming to ‘boost’ the capacity and quality of citizen’s decision
making by assuring trustworthy, timely and relevant information
(Hertwig and Grüne-Yanoff, 2017).
Third, product labelling criteria should be associated with
tangible environmental credentials that distinguish them from
other products (otherwise, any differences between certified and non-
certified products may be marginal at best). If consumers could
experience the tangible environmental credentials of eco-labelled
products sooner, rather than later, the support for labelling
schemes is likely to increase. This relates to the present bias, where
people are more motivated by costs and benefits that can be
experienced immediately compared to those delivered over time
(Behavioural Insights Team, 2014; Zauberman et al., 2009). Prom-
inent examples of the present bias highlight people’s difficulties in
saving for their retirement, which represents a future benefit but a
present cost (Benartzi, 2012). For eco-labels, more direct experi-
ences of how the lifetime of the labelled products reduces resource
depletion (e.g., communicating that a product is made out of
recycled PET bottles) may lead to more tangible environmental
credentials.
Fourth, consumers and producers need to understand and value
the intention and objectives of labelling schemes to encourage
informed (and potentially different) production, purchasing and post-
purchase choices. With this in mind, labelling schemes should appeal
to a multitude of consumer and business values. Our review identified
that consumer preferences influence support and purchase of eco-
labelled products. Similarly, economic and operational influencers
affect businesses adoption of labelling. The behavioural sciences
provide ways to personalise communication to cater for different
audiences, such as audience segmentation approaches (Borg and
Smith, 2018; Curtis and Kaufman, 2020). Compared to more
generic approaches, bespoke communication efforts that consider
different consumer and business values have been found to in-
crease engagement (Borg et al., 2018; Edwards et al., 2009). Similar
results have been reported for eco-labels, which indicate that
highlighting personal benefits in communications is an effective
strategy (Taufique et al., 2014). Behavioural science can provide
insights on alternative ways for labels to personalise communica-
tion. For example, evidence from environmental communication
suggests that communicating how the product (or longer use/
recycling of products) can make a difference to the local or regional
area of the consumer is likely to strengthen the message’s effec-
tiveness (Scannell and Gifford, 2013).
Fifth, labelling schemes and certified products need to achieve
sufficient market penetration to remain sustainable and viable. To
support the implementation of labelling schemes on the business
and producer side, changes in the regulatory and legislative context
are needed. Incentivising businesses to participate in third-party
certified labelling schemes may reduce the risk of ‘greenwashing’
and enhance consumers’ trust in labels while also supporting
higher participation in more demanding, performance based
schemes (Borck and Coglianese, 2009). Similarly, reforms around
eco-labelling schemes can reduce the plethora of existing labels to a
smaller number of more effective mandatory or third-party certi-
fied labelling schemes.
Sixth, labelling schemes are unlikely to work in isolation and
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134
should be implemented in conjunction with other policy tools (e.g.,
competing product restrictions, procurement standards, taxes/sub-
sidies). By themselves, labelling schemes are likely to have little
impact on consumption or production decisions beyond the
environmentally-inclined. In behavioural science terms, labelling
schemes are one of many tools to support CE outcomes. On their
own, they are unlikely to achieve big changes. However, in com-
bination with other tools, such as government regulations and re-
strictions, their impact can become visible over time. Similar
findings are reported in other fields (French and Gordon, 2019). For
example, health warnings on cigarette packaging was one of a se-
ries of tobacco control strategies (e.g., point-of-sale bans, adver-
tising bans in print media etc.) that lead to a significant reduction in
smoking in Australia over time.5 For policymakers this highlights
the need to combine eco-labels with other instruments that sup-
port CE outcomes. This finding aligns with broader literature
critiquing voluntary and ‘beyond-compliance’ approaches to envi-
ronmental policy (Borck and Coglianese, 2009; Parker and Nielsen,
2011), and the call for integrated, tailored mixes of policy tools
(Gunningham, 1998; Gunningham and Holley, 2016).
In the absence of any of these conditions, we suspect that the
impact of product labelling schemes on CE policy objectives will be
limited. However, behavioural science techniques can improve the
effectiveness of eco-labels more broadly.
4.3. Limitations and future research
This research has some limitations that should be addressed in
future work. First, for this review we used the rapid evidence re-
view technique, focusing on review level evidence. Generally, rapid
reviews are considered as an optimal unit of knowledge translation
between research, policy and practice because they are the highest
ranked form of published evidence. Therefore, review findings are
generally more robust and transferable to practice compared to
primary studies (Borg et al., 2018; Grimshaw et al., 2012). However,
compared to systematic reviews, they may not capture the whole
state of the research by excluding primary research. That means the
quality of the rapid review depends on the rigour of the identified
reviews and it is likely that some primary studies addressing the
effectiveness of eco-labels may not have been captured in any re-
view level evidence. The strength of rapid reviews is thus to provide
best available research to enable industry, practice and policy
bodies to be informed in a short timeframe, while sacrificing the
details a systematic review may bring. Interestingly, both types of
reviews have been found to generally result in similar conclusions
(Watt et al., 2008).
This may explain the lack of identified evidence on the impact of
labelling schemes on CE relevant interactions between producers
and consumers before and after the point of purchase. The lack of
evidence on pre-and-post purchase behaviour implications of
labelling schemes (at the review level), suggests at a minimum a
need to review and synthesize primary studies on the topic, and
possibly a gap in primary research (a conclusion reached by
Marrucci et al., 2019 also).
Second, the risk of bias assessment conducted in this work
(through AMSTAR for systematic reviews and SANRA for narrative
reviews) revealed that there is room to improve reporting and
synthesis of existing evidence on this topic. Three included sys-
tematic reviews had a high risk of bias, primarily as none
adequately reported key scope decisions. Of seven included
narrative reviews, only two rated moderate to good quality.
5
https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/appendix-1/a1-6-history-of-tobacco-i
n-australia/a1-6-prevalence-and-tobacco-control.html.
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al.
Positively, multiple reviews reported converging findings which
increased confidence in the validity of the key findings. While the
results of these reviews are still useful to inform practice and
research, they should be interpreted with these limitations in mind
and future reviews can advance the state of research by focusing on
robust evaluations of findings rather than commentary reviews.
This is clearly linked to the need for further high power quantita-
tive/meta-analyses.
Third, the studies included in this review repeatedly mentioned
the need for more research to explore the impact, opportunities
and ongoing challenges of product labelling schemes, as the evi-
dence on their behavioural, business and environmental impacts
remain limited (or specialized to a specific product, cause or
context). To advance the CE agenda, the boundary between eco-
labels generally, and eco-labels specifically aimed at achieving CE
priorities needs to be clarified. For example, in the evidence
reviewed, it is not clear which circular production and consump-
tion models a given eco-label supports and how it supports them,
and what CE relevant environmental, social and economic benefits
flow from them.
While integrating behavioural insights into eco-label commu-
nications and promotions was seen as one avenue for overcoming
the overtly green-focused and rational consumer undertones of
labels, future research should expand beyond the consumer.
Research needs to explore how eco-labels can integrate with other
regulations and policies (e.g., procurement, taxes, penalties),
organisational strategies (e.g., under what conditions can labels
contribute to changes in business structure and processes; market
entry barriers and opportunities), and technological developments
(e.g., can labels contribute to innovation or keep up with techno-
logical advancements to remain relevant). It was clear from the
reviewed studies that product labelling schemes operate in a cyclic
environment involving interactions between consumers, busi-
nesses and governments, and so future efforts need to consider
these demand, supply and institutional influences.
4.4. Conclusion
While labelling schemes could support consumption and pro-
duction behaviours and models associated with CE that extend
beyond the point of purchase, the state of knowledge related to
reviews of primary studies is currently limited. The fundamentals
of good ecolabel scheme design can be succinctly described in six
key characteristics: trust, visibility, environmental credibility,
values clarity, market penetration and policy integration. In sum,
labels rely on trust and as a communication tool, labels need to
deliver immediately understandable, meaningful and relevant in-
formation to their target audience.
However, it is not clear whether these insights have been
applied in existing schemes consistently. As labels and certification
with post-purchase behavioural and business model implications
proliferate, the emergence of behavioural public policy presents a
renewed opportunity for better knowledge translation to increase
the effectiveness of ecolabels. For CE related behaviour change in
particular, there is a need to better understand to what extent
drivers and barriers of eco-labels at the point of purchase apply to
post-purchase behaviours, and how these in turn interact with
transitions in business models and practises.
Funding
This work was supported by the Australian Government
Department of Agriculture , Water and Environment (Department
of the Environment and Energy at time of commissioning), Victo-
rian Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and
15
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134
Planning, the New South Wales Government Department of Plan-
ning, Industry and Environment, and Environment Protection Au-
thority NSW and took place as part of the BWA Waste and Circular
Economy Collaboration (https://www.behaviourworksaustralia.o
rg/waste-collaboration/) [PURE ID 311856485].
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the government funding
partners for supporting this research.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127134.
References
Afif, Z., Islan, W.W., Calvo-Gonzalez, O., Dalton, A.G., 2019. Behavioral Science
Around the World: Profiles of 10 Countries (English). The World Bank, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Ajzen, I., Joyce, N., Sheikh, S., Cote, N.G., 2011. Knowledge and the prediction of
behavior: the role of information accuracy in the theory of planned behavior.
Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33 (2), 101e117. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01973533.2011.568834.
Akenji, L., Briggs, E., 2015. Sustainable consumption and production: a handbook for
policymakers Retrieved from. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/1951Sustainable%20Consumption.pdf.
Baethge, C., Goldbeck-Wood, S., Mertens, S., 2019. Sanra - a scale for the quality
assessment of narrative review articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review 4
(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8.
Baum, C.M., Gross, C., 2017. Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a
framework for environmentally significant behavioral change. J. Bioecon. 19 (1),
53e95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-016-9238-3.
Behavioural Insights Team, 2014. East: Four Simple Ways to Apply Behavioural
Insights. Behavioural Insight Team, London.
Benartzi, S., 2012. Save More Tomorrow: Practical Behavioral Finance Solutions to
Improve 401 (K) Plans. Penguin Books, London, UK.
Borck, J.C., Coglianese, C., 2009. Voluntary environmental programs: assessing their
effectiveness. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 305e324. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.environ.032908.091450.
Borg, K., Boulet, M., Smith, L., Bragge, P., 2018. Digital Inclusion & Health Commu-
nication: A Rapid Review of Literature. Health Communication, pp. 1e9. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1485077.
Borg, K., Smith, L., 2018. Digital inclusion and online behaviour: five typologies of
australian internet users. Behav. Inf. Technol. 37 (4), 367e380. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0144929X.2018.1436593.
Braithwaite, J., 2018. Minimally sufficient deterrence. Crime Justice 47 (1), 69e118.
https://doi.org/10.1086/696043.
Campos, S., Doxey, J., Hammond, D., 2011. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a
systematic review. Publ. Health Nutr. 14 (8), 1496e1506. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1368980010003290.
Corona, B., Shen, L., Reike, D., Rosales Carreo n, J., Worrell, E., 2019. Towards sus-
tainable development through the circular economyda review and critical
assessment on current circularity metrics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 151, 104498.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498.
Curtis, J., Kaufman, S., 2020. “It’s not what you see but what you hear Under-
standing environment protection officers’ responsive decision making.
J. Environ. Manag. 262, 110336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110336.
Dangelico, R.M., Vocalelli, D., 2017. “Green marketing”: an analysis of definitions,
strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature. J. Clean.
Prod. 165, 1263e1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.184.
de Boer, J., 2003. Sustainability labelling schemes: the logic of their claims and their
functions for stakeholders. Bus. Strat. Environ. 12 (4), 254e264. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.362.
DELWP, 2020. Recycling victoria: a new economy. From the state of victoria
department of environment, Land, water and planning. https://www.vic.gov.au/
sites/default/files/2020-02/Recycling%20Victoria%20A%20new%20economy.pdf.
Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R., Vlaev, I., 2012. Influ-
encing behaviour: the mindspace way. J. Econ. Psychol. 33 (1), 264e277. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.009.
J. Meis-Harris, C. Klemm, S. Kaufman et al.
Edwards, P.J., Roberts, I., Clarke, M.J., Diguiseppi, C., Wentz, R., Kwan, I., et al., 2009.
Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane
Database Syst. Rev. (3), MR000008 https://doi.org/10.1002/
14651858.MR000008.pub4.
EMF, 2013. Towards the Circular EconomyeOpportunities for the Consumer Goods
Sector. Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
EMF, 2019. Circular economy systems diagram. Retrieved from. https://www.elle
nmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept/infographic.
European Commission, 2015. Closing the Loop - an Eu Action Plan for the Circular
Economy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions.
European Commission, 2018. Behavioural Study on Consumers’ Engagement in the
Circular Economy - Final Report. Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers,
Brussels.
Ewert, B., 2020. Moving beyond the obsession with nudging individual behaviour:
towards a broader understanding of behavioural public policy. Publ. Pol. Adm.
35 (3), 337e360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076719889090.
Feitsma, J., 2019. Brokering behaviour change: the work of behavioural insights
experts in government. Pol. Polit. 47 (1), 37e56. https://doi.org/10.1332/
030557318X15174915040678.
French, J., Gordon, R., 2019. Strategic Social Marketing: for Behaviour and Social
Change: SAGE Publications Limited.
Gallastegui, I.G., 2002. The use of eco-labels: a review of the literature. Eur. Environ.
12 (6), 316e331. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.304.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The circular economy
e a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143 (C), 757e768. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
Gossen, M., Ziesemer, F., Schrader, U., 2019. Why and how commercial marketing
should promote sufficient consumption: a systematic literature review.
J. Macromarketing 39 (3), 252e269. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0276146719866238.
Grankvist, G., Dahlstrand, U., Biel, A., 2004. The impact of environmental labelling
on consumer preference: negative vs. Positive labels. Consum.Issues in Law,-
Econ.. Behav. Sci. 27 (2), 213e230. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:
COPO.0000028167.54739.94.
Grimshaw, J.M., Eccles, M.P., Lavis, J.N., Hill, S.J., Squires, J.E., 2012. Knowledge
translation of research findings. Implement. Sci. : IS 7 (1), 50. https://doi.org/
10.1186/1748-5908-7-50.
Grolleau, G., Ibanez, L., Mzoughi, N., Teisl, M., 2016. Helping eco-labels to fulfil their
promises. Clim. Pol. 16 (6), 792e802. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14693062.2015.1033675.
Gunningham, N., 1998. Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Clar-
endon Press, Oxford, UK.
Gunningham, N., Holley, C., 2016. Next-generation environmental regulation: law,
regulation, and governance. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 12, 273e293. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084651.
Hamilton, S.F., Zilberman, D., 2006. Green markets, eco-certification, and equilib-
rium fraud. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 52 (3), 627e644. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jeem.2006.05.002.
Hertwig, R., Grüne-Yanoff, T., 2017. Nudging and boosting: steering or empowering
good decisions. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12 (6), 973e986. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1745691617702496.
Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., Moher, D., 2012. Evidence
summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst. Rev. 1 (1), 10.
https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an
analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221e232. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005.
Kools, M., 2011. Making written materials easy to understand. In: Abraham, C.,
Kools, M. (Eds.), Writing Health Communication: an Evidence-Based Guide.
Sage Publications, London, UK, pp. 23e42.
Kumkale, G.T., Albarracín, D., Seignourel, P.J., 2010. The effects of source credibility
in the presence or absence of prior attitudes: implications for the design of
persuasive communication campaigns. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 40 (6), 1325e1356.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00620.x.
Leire, C., Thidell, A., 2005. Product-related environmental information to guide
consumer purchases e a review and analysis of research on perceptions, un-
derstanding and use among nordic consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (10e11),
1061e1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.12.004.
Lieder, M., Rashid, A., 2016. Towards circular economy implementation: a
comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 115,
36e51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042.
16
Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021) 127134
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Gold, S., Bocken, N.M.P., 2019. A review and typology of circular
economy business model patterns. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1), 36e61. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jiec.12763.
Marrucci, L., Daddi, T., Iraldo, F., 2019. The integration of circular economy with
sustainable consumption and production tools: systematic review and future
research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 240, 118268. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.118268.
Meis, J., Kashima, Y., 2017. Signage as a tool for behavioral change: direct and in-
direct routes to understanding the meaning of a sign. PloS One 12 (8),
e0182975. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182975.
Michie, S., van Stralen, M.M., West, R., 2011. The behaviour change wheel: a new
method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions.
Implement. Sci. 6 (1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.
OECD, 2005. Effects of eco-labelling schemes: compilation of recent studies. [joint
working party on trade and environment]. Retrieved from. https://www.oecd.o
rg/env/labelling-and-information-schemes.htm.
Oliver, A., 2015. Nudging, shoving, and budging: behavioural economic-informed
policy. Publ. Adm. 93 (3), 700e714. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12165.
Parker, C., Nielsen, V.L., 2011. Explaining Compliance: Business Responses to
Regulation: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pornpitakpan, C., 2004. The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of
five decades’ evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34 (2), 243e281. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x.
Prieto-Sandoval, V., Alfaro, J.A., Mejía-Villa, A., Ormazabal, M., 2016. Eco-labels as a
multidimensional research topic: trends and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 135,
806e818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.167.
Prieto-Sandoval, V., Mejía-Villa, A., Ormazabal, M., Jaca, C., 2020. Challenges for
ecolabeling growth: lessons from the eu ecolabel in Spain. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 25 (5), 856e867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01611-z.
Rex, E., Baumann, H., 2007. Beyond ecolabels: what green marketing can learn from
conventional marketing. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (6), 567e576. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2006.05.013.
Rubik, F., Frankl, P., Pietroni, L., Scheer, D., 2007. Eco-labelling and consumers: to-
wards a re-focus and integrated approaches. Int. J. Innovat. Sustain. Dev. 2 (2),
175e191. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2007.016932.
Scannell, L., Gifford, R., 2013. Personally relevant climate change: the role of place
attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environ.
Behav. 45 (1), 60e85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511421196.
Shea, B.J., Grimshaw, J.M., Wells, G.A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., et al.,
2007. Development of amstar: a measurement tool to assess the methodolog-
ical quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 7 (1), 10. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.
Sternthal, B., Phillips, L.W., Dholakia, R., 1978. The persuasive effect of scarce
credibility: a situational analysis. Publ. Opin. Q. 42 (3), 285e314. https://doi.org/
10.1086/268454.
Taufique, K.M.R., Siwar, C., Talib, B., Sarah, F.H., Chamhuri, N., 2014. Synthesis of
constructs for modeling consumers’ understanding and perception of eco-la-
bels. Sustainability (Switzerland) 6 (4), 2176e2200. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su6042176.
Tricco, A.C., Langlois, E.V., Straus, S.E., 2017. Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health
Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide. World Health Organization, Geneva.
UNEP, 2020. Can i recycly this?. In: A Global Mapping and Assessment of Standards,
Labels and Claims on Plastic Packaging. United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme & Consumers International.
Wastling, T., Charnley, F., Moreno, M., 2018. Design for circular behaviour: consid-
ering users in a circular economy. Sustainability 10 (6), 1743. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su10061743.
Watt, A., Cameron, A., Sturm, L., Lathlean, T., Babidge, W., Blamey, S., Maddern, G.,
2008. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? ANZ J.
Surg. 78 (11), 1037e1040. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2008.04730.x.
Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L.T., Steinberger, J.K., 2020. Scientists’ warning on
affluence. Nat. Commun. 11 (1), 3107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-
16941-y.
Wright, B., Bragge, P., 2018. Interventions to promote healthy eating choices when
dining out: a systematic review of reviews. Br. J. Health Psychol. 23 (2),
278e295. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12285.
Yokessa, M., Marette, S., 2019. A review of eco-labels and their economic impact. Int.
Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 13 (1e2), 119e163. https://doi.org/10.1561/
101.00000107.
Zauberman, G., Kim, B.K., Malkoc, S.A., Bettman, J.R., 2009. Discounting time and
time discounting: subjective time perception and intertemporal prefer-
ences.(report). J. Market. Res. 46 (4), 543. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.4.543.