In an era where environmental awareness increasingly influences purchasing decisions, a new systematic review challenges the clarity and reliability of sustainability labels on consumer products. The study, published in the Journal of Strategic Marketing, reveals that many green claims are not only difficult to verify but may also mislead consumers by presenting a fragmented or incomplete picture of a product’s environmental impact.
Professor Natalina Zlatevska, a marketing expert from the University of Technology Sydney, emphasizes that sustainability labels often serve as heuristic shortcuts for consumers navigating supermarket aisles. However, the multiplicity of labels can obfuscate rather than illuminate. This ambiguity arises because labels may refer only to selective aspects of the product lifecycle—be it farming practices, packaging materials, transportation emissions, or other isolated factors—without conveying the holistic environmental footprint.
One particularly salient example noted by the researchers concerns carbon footprint claims. These labels can differ dramatically in methodology, scope, and transparency. Some might measure emissions across the entire supply chain, while others consider only a portion of the process. This inconsistency undermines the ability of consumers to conduct meaningful comparisons, raising questions about the efficacy of such labels as decision-making tools.
The systematic review rigorously analyzed global sustainability labels across a broad spectrum of food and consumer goods, uncovering a concerning trend: consumers may end up paying premium prices for “green” products without assurance that these premium choices yield substantial ecological benefits. This raises the issue of “green premiums” that offer questionable value and contribute to consumer skepticism regarding sustainability claims.
Professor Zlatevska highlights the case of canned tuna, a ubiquitous item often adorned with several sustainability certifications. While such labels can create the impression of a superior, eco-friendly choice, their divergent criteria and lack of standardization mean that consumers may spend more without achieving a commensurate environmental impact. The problem is exacerbated by a lack of harmonized standards governing label claims.
Australia’s regulatory environment currently lacks comprehensive oversight of sustainability labelling, leaving consumers to navigate a fragmented landscape of claims that lack a common framework. This gap creates risks not only of consumer confusion but also of opportunistic marketing that leverages vague or unverified sustainability assertions.
The authors advocate for the introduction of standardized labelling systems at the national level. Such regulation would mandate transparency, consistency, and comparability, empowering consumers to make informed purchases. By aligning criteria and definitions, standardized labels would mitigate misinformation and encourage genuine sustainability improvements throughout supply chains.
Looking beyond Australia, European regulatory frameworks offer instructive lessons. The European Union is advancing efforts to harmonize sustainability labels, striving for clear definitions and uniform metrics that facilitate cross-product comparison and enhance consumer trust. Australia’s policymakers and industry leaders have an opportunity to adopt similar frameworks, fostering a more transparent market for sustainable goods.
Dr. Belinda Barton, a research collaborator from Bond University, underscores the paramount importance of trust. She argues that the proliferation of labels is not the solution; rather, the industry needs to distill sustainability information into clear, concise, and reliable signals that resonate with consumers. This simplification is essential for overcoming skepticism and enabling consumers to confidently identify truly sustainable products.
The research also points to the role of education in complementing label reform. Shoppers must be encouraged to scrutinize claims critically and recognize that not all sustainability labels are equivalent. Awareness campaigns, coupled with improved labelling, could reduce the risk of consumers being misled by superficial or partial claims and promote more environmentally responsible consumption patterns.
In summary, this comprehensive review sheds light on the urgent need for enhanced rigour and uniformity in sustainability labelling. As global environmental challenges mount, consumer-facing information must evolve to provide accurate, accessible, and actionable insights. Without such reforms, the marketing of sustainability risks devolving into greenwashing, undermining both consumer trust and the broader goals of ecological stewardship.
This study serves as a clarion call to regulators, industry stakeholders, and researchers alike to collaborate in creating robust, transparent, and standardized labelling systems. These systems should not only represent verified environmental benefits but also empower consumers to engage meaningfully with sustainability, thereby driving systemic change across food and consumer product markets.
As national and international dialogues continue, integrating scientific rigor with pragmatic policy design will be critical. Consumers deserve clarity and confidence in their sustainable purchasing choices, and only through coordinated efforts can the market fulfill that promise.
Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: From farm to fork: a systematic review and synthesis of the effect of sustainability related food labels on consumer behaviour
News Publication Date: 12-Jun-2026
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2026.2686186
References: Zlatevska, N., Barton, B., et al. (2026). From farm to fork: a systematic review and synthesis of the effect of sustainability related food labels on consumer behaviour. Journal of Strategic Marketing.
Keywords: sustainability labels, consumer behavior, greenwashing, carbon footprint, environmental impact, food labelling, standardization, regulatory framework, consumer trust, eco-labels, systematic review
Tags: carbon footprint labeling inconsistencieschallenges in verifying green claimsconsumer decision-making and sustainabilityeffectiveness of sustainability certificationsenvironmental awareness in purchasing decisionsenvironmental impact of product lifecyclegreenwashing in marketingreliability of eco-friendly claimsrole of marketing in sustainable shoppingsustainability labels in consumer productssystematic review of green labelstransparency in environmental labeling
