British Food Journal

Can increased organic consumption mitigate climate changes?

Lennart Ravn Heerwagen Laura Mørch Andersen Tove Christensen Peter Sandøe
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lennart Ravn Heerwagen Laura Mørch Andersen Tove Christensen Peter Sandøe , (2014),"Can increased
organic consumption mitigate climate changes?", British Food Journal, Vol. 116 Iss 8 pp. 1314 - 1329
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2013-0049
Downloaded on: 17 September 2015, At: 08:35 (PT)
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 37 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 173 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Raffaele Zanoli, Danilo Gambelli, Francesco Solfanelli, Susanne Padel, (2014),"Assessing the risk of non-
compliance in UK organic agriculture: An econometric analysis", British Food Journal, Vol. 116 Iss 8 pp.
1369-1382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2012-0262
Joris Aertsens, Wim Verbeke, Koen Mondelaers, Guido Van Huylenbroeck, (2009),"Personal determinants
of organic food consumption: a review", British Food Journal, Vol. 111 Iss 10 pp. 1140-1167 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700910992961
Aleksandra Nikoli#, Mirza Uzunovi#, Nermina Spaho, (2014),"Lifestyle pattern underlying organic and
traditional food consumption", British Food Journal, Vol. 116 Iss 11 pp. 1748-1766 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
BFJ-02-2014-0085

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:419342 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


BFJ
116,8
1314
Received 23 February 2013
Revised 18 July 2013
Accepted 22 July 2013
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)
British Food Journal
Vol. 116 No. 8, 2014
pp. 1314-1329
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/BFJ-02-2013-0049
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm
Can increased organic
consumption mitigate
climate changes?
Lennart Ravn Heerwagen, Laura Mørch Andersen,
Tove Christensen and Peter Sandøe
Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen,
Frederiksberg, Denmark
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the evidence for a positive correlation between
increased consumption of organic products and potential climate change mitigation via decreased
consumption of meat and it is discussed to what extent organic consumption is motivated by climate
change concerns.
Design/methodology/approach – A fixed effects model together with a factor analysis and
ordinary least square are used to analyse household purchase data for 2,000 households in 2006-2010
combined with survey questionnaire data from 2008.
Findings – A small but statistically significant correlation between increasing organic budget shares
and decreasing meat budget shares is found. People include food-related behaviour such as the
purchase of organic food and reduced meat consumption as ways to mitigate climate change. However,
other behavioural modifications such as reduction of car usage and household heating are perceived as
more important strategies.
Research limitations/implications – Other food-related mitigation strategies could be investigated.
The climate effect of different diets – and how to motivate consumers to pursue them – could be
investigated. Individual as opposed to household data would supplement the analyses.
Practical implications – Demand-side policies aiming at climate-friendly consumption could be
a central factor in combating climate change. Already, food-related mitigation strategies such as
lowered meat consumption are established practices among a group of organic consumers. As some
consumers believe that climate change can be mitigated by consuming organic food, the authors
propose that this is taken into account in the development of organic farming.
Originality/value – The authors propose a shift from analysing the climate-friendliness of
production to addressing the climate-friendliness of consumption using consumption of organic food
as a case. The authors link stated concerns for climate changes with actual food-related behaviour.
Keywords Motivation, Climate change, Organic food, Food consumption, Meat
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Meat consumption and organic consumption
Following the publication of Livestock’s Long Shadow (Steinfeld et al., 2006) interest in
the idea that food production, especially the livestock sector, is a contributor to climate
change has grown. The report found that emissions from livestock production account
for 18 per cent of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Beef seems to
be the worst offender. Olesen (2010) found that emissions from it (measured in CO2
equivalents per unit of energy) were around three times higher than those from pork,
poultry, milk and eggs[1].
Organic food production is in many ways a response to environmental problems
caused by modern intensive agriculture. It is believed that organic production has
a lower energy input and enhances sequestration in soils (Fritsche and Eberle, 2007;
 Gattinger et al., 2012, 2013; Niggli et al., 2008; Scialabba and Müller-Lindenlauf, 2010). Increased organic
However, current research suggests that the shift from conventional to organic consumption
production does not have a significant retarding effect on climate change. The lower
yields of organic production reduce, and sometimes eliminate, any sought-for gains. mitigate climate
This becomes apparent when production is measured in volume rather than the changes
area organically grown (Bos et al., 2007; Leifeld et al., 2013; Leifeld and Fuhrer, 2010;
Williams et al., 2006). 1315
In the present paper we suggest a slightly different view of the impact on climate
change of organic farming methods. Organic farming is just one link in a chain that
culminates in the consumption of organic products, and we suggest that the way
organic products are consumed may turn out to have a positive effect on climate. The
key thought is that even if the purchase of organic products as such has at most
a minor impact on climate change, it is often embedded in a pattern of consumption,
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

or lifestyle, which tends to reduce the individual consumer’s GHG emissions.

Several surveys report that consumers who strongly prefer organic food typically
eat less meat (see Table I). This is the starting point of our analysis.
The paper examines whether the reduction in meat consumption among consumers
who tend to choose organic products can be identified and measured in a quantitative
data set covering the actual food purchases of a representative sample of the
Danish population. Previous studies of the relationship between organic products and
meat consumption have investigated the relationship between the level of organic
consumption and the level of meat consumption. Our aim is to investigate whether
changes in the consumption of organic foods and meat are related. In this respect, the
results improve our knowledge of the relationship between purchasing decisions
around meat and organics. We also ask what kinds of meat (if any) correlate with
organic consumption.

Motives for reduced meat consumption among consumers of organic food

Various reasons for reducing meat consumption could motivate those who prefer
organic food. First, organic foods, and especially organic meats, often carry
a considerable price premium and this could mean those who buy them are more
frugal. Second, organic meat is often packed in smaller quantities than conventional
meat. Consumers may accept, or fail to recognize, the smaller packages and for this
simple reason buy less meat. Third, the choice of organic food is associated with
distinctive lifestyle choices. In a qualitative study by Larsen (2006), respondents
associated “organic consumption” not only with the purchase of organic food, but with
a whole range of consumer behaviours revolving around food quality, personal health,
animal welfare and environmental concerns. A preoccupation with personal health has
often been identified as the most significant driver of organic consumption (Aertens
et al., 2009; Hughner et al., 2007; Magnusson et al., 2001; Torjusen et al., 2004;
Yiridoe et al., 2005) and vegetarianism (e.g. Fox and Ward, 2008). Accordingly, both
organic food and reduced consumption of meat seem to be relatively important factors
in the public perception of healthy food choices (Andersen, 2009). Thus a tendency to
buy organic foods and the inclination to reduce meat consumption (and eat more fruit
and vegetables) may be bound together by a desire to remain healthy.
The extent to which climate change mitigation motivates consumers of organic food
to reduce their consumption of meat has been investigated very little. We found only
two studies addressing the feasibility of food-based strategies to curb climate change
(Danish Consumer Council, 2009; Danish Competition and Consumer Authority, 2008).
 BFJ Differences in consumption
116,8 Study Data and method Nationality patterns

Fællesforeningen Data from a 2009 survey Denmark Organic consumers purchase

for Danmarks questionnaire (n ¼ 515) were less meat
Brugsforeninger used to compare the food
(2010) purchases of non-organic and
1316 heavy organic consumers
across 25 products
Hoffmann and Data from a 2006 survey Germany Organic consumers purchase more
Spiller (2010) questionnaire (n ¼ 13,154) were fruit and vegetables and are more
used to compare organic and often non-smokers, less obese and
non-organic consumers with more physically active
respect to body mass index Organic consumers purchase less
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

(BMI), food purchases and meat, fewer soft drinks

health-related behaviour
Denver et al. Household purchasing data
(2007a, b) (n ¼ 1,359) for the period
2002-2006 were used to compare
purchases of organic and
non-organic households across
11 kinds of food and drink
Holt (1992) Data from a 1992 survey
questionnaire (n ¼ 437) on the
dietary habits of organic
consumers were compared to
the result of The Dietary and
Nutritional Survey of British
Adults (conducted in 1990,
n ¼ 454)
Brombacher Household purchasing data
Table I. and Hamm (n ¼ 200) for the period 1987-1988
Studies of organic (1990) were used to compare the
consumers’ food purchases of organic and
dietary habits non-organic households
Denmark Organic consumers purchase more
fruit, vegetables, flour, fermented
milk and eggs
Organic consumers purchase less
bread, coffee, meat and butter
UK Organic consumers purchase more
yoghurt, nuts, pulses, whole wheat
bread, rice, pasta, muesli and other
cereals, green leafy vegetables
and possibly fruit
Organic consumers purchase less
red meat, poultry, eggs, fish, cream,
white bread and cakes
Germany Organic consumers purchase more
carrots, pulses, cream, cheese,
cauliflower, bananas and milk
Organic consumers purchase less
eggs, beer, meat products and meat

In these, the consumption of organic food and reduced meat intake were depicted as
ways to counteract climate change, but they were ranked as less effective in this aim
than recycling, energy/fossil fuel saving and buying local food. Both studies reported
results based on consumers generally. There is therefore room for a new study, like
ours, investigating the extent to which reduced meat intake among organic consumers
is linked to a desire to counteract climate change.

Purpose of the paper

Drawing on Danish purchase and survey data, we framed the following research
questions:

RQ1. Is there statistical evidence for the claim that households in which organic
consumption increases consume less meat simultaneously?

RQ2. To what extent is reduced meat consumption in those who prefer organic food
motivated by concerns about climate change?
 The paper is organized as follows. We first describe the survey data and the Increased organic
methodology of our work. Then we present the results, and after this we discuss these consumption
results and draw conclusions that may be of interest to policy makers and marketing
professionals. mitigate climate
changes
Data description
We rely on two types of data from GfK ConsumerTracking Scandinavia (GfK). 1317
The Danish GfK consumer panel includes approximately 2,000 Danish households, of
which about 20 per cent are replaced each year. GfK especially aims to recruit
households which are underrepresented and tries to make the panel as representative
as possible with regard to region (urban/rural), household size and age of main
shopper. Each household records its daily food purchases, including the price, weight,
location and time of purchase and whether food items are conventional or organic.
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

In addition, once a year GfK collects a wide range of socio-demographic data on

households, including income, urbanization, age and household composition.
The data set from the GfK panel holds purchase data for the period 2006-2010. This
data set is used primarily to calculate yearly shares of the food budget spent on organic
food, meat in general and meat split into the categories beef, pork, poultry and other
meat (e.g. sausages, pâté and bacon). We use these budget shares to answer RQ1
about the supposedly inverse relationship between organic consumption and meat
consumption.
The second data set holds data from a survey issued to all households on the
panel between 30 April and 21 May 2008. The response rate was 78 per cent (1,821
households). The fact that the survey was distributed to all members of the GfK panel in
2008 meant we had a unique opportunity to combine stated preferences and observed
purchases within households. The survey covers attitudes to climate change, motives for
buying organic food and strategies individuals might pursue to limit climate change.
The survey was issued as part of the DARCOF III project “CONCEPTS – The Viability
and Stability of Demand” and is documented in Andersen (2009).
Two questions in this survey had an important bearing on RQ2. One was: “When
you choose to buy organic food products instead of conventional products, how much
importance do you attribute to the following reasons for doing so?” Eight reasons
were provided, one of which was “To mitigate climate change”. Respondents were
invited to record their views on a five-point scale ranging from “not important” to “very
important”. The second question of interest related to personal strategies for
mitigating climate change, since here organic food consumption and reduced meat
intake were among the suggested answers. For each of the eight mitigation
strategies[2], households were asked to indicate whether they felt the strategy was
important and to what extent they used it. Answers were again recorded on five-point
scales, ranging from “not important” to “very important” and from “not at all” to “to
a very large extent”, respectively.
It is sometimes said that reported societal concerns, such as concerns about animal
welfare and the environment, fail to reflect respondents’ actual reasons for purchasing
organic food because respondents reply in their role as citizens rather than consumers.
There is a gap between answers that reflect attitudes to the common good and
consumer behaviour guided by the practicalities of everyday life (Korzen and Lassen,
2010). Given this objection, it is a strength of the present study that it involves both
survey data and purchase data.
In the Appendix the data are summarized in Tables AI-AIII.
 BFJ Methods
116,8 Approach to RQ1
Following the framework of Angrist and Pischke (2009) we used a fixed effects model
to determine whether changes in organic purchases and changes in meat purchases
were correlated. This model was designed to reveal whether there is statistical
evidence for the claim that households in which organic consumption increases
1318 consume less meat simultaneously. Angrist and Pischke (2009) used a fixed effects
model to identify causal relationships. We stop short of this, interpreting the results in
terms of correlated change, because we do not know which one of the changes drives
the other, or whether both are driven by a third factor outside the model – e.g. a desire
to consume food with lower impacts on the environment or anxieties about personal
health. The model was:
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

meatshareit ¼ ai þ b1 orgshareit þ b2 yeart þ eit ð1Þ

In Equation (1) changes in the organic share of food budgets (orgshareit) are used to
explain changes in the meat share of food budgets (meatshareit), where i ¼ 1, y, 494
represents household i, and t indicates year, t ¼ 1, y, 5. A general trend ( yeart) that
indicates year of purchase is included to capture systematic changes in the meat share
over time that are unrelated to organic budget share. An error term eit captures
unexplained noise in the individual years. Finally, an individual specific and time
invariant intercept ai is included to capture any remaining and unexplained systematic
differences among households[3].
Four fixed effects models in the form of Equation (1) were set up to estimate
relationships between changes in organic budget shares and expenditure on,
respectively, beef, pork, poultry and other meat.

Approach to RQ2
The data on personal mitigation strategies were used as inputs in a factor analysis in
order to transform the set of explanatory variables into a smaller set of explanatory
factors. When meaningful factors are found, this analysis can make the statistical
findings more vivid. The factors are constructed so that they consist of a number of the
original variables that are highly correlated, and so that the factors are uncorrelated
with (orthogonal to) each other. The factor analysis was conducted using the SAS code
“proc factor”. Given the size of the eigenvalues, we chose to estimate two factors,
rotated by varimax to maintain orthogonality. The estimated factors were normalized
to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.
We found the two factors were capable of being interpreted according to whether
they included food or non-food strategies. As these factors provide a meaningful
representation of two types of personal strategy, they were used in the subsequent
analyses of RQ2. The stated mitigation strategies (represented by the two identified
factors) are used to explain actual purchases in the corresponding households relating
to meat budget shares and organic budget shares, respectively.
As data on climate change mitigation strategies were available only for 2008 it was
not possible to link changes in these strategies with changes in meat and organic
budget shares in a fixed effect analysis. Instead, therefore, we used the standard
ordinary least square (OLS) method to model meat and organic budget shares
as functions of the relevant mitigation strategies, combined with information on
socio-demographics collected each year by GfK. In this way we were able to investigate
 how urbanization, household composition, income and age influence consumption Increased organic
patterns and also (controlling for socio-demographics) how personal mitigation consumption
strategies affect consumption.
Equation (2) illustrates the way the two factors are used to explain household mitigate climate
budget shares of meat in 2008 when we control for the influence of socio-demographic changes
variables. The 11 different socio-demographic variables described in Table AIII are
represented by the vector socioji for all households i and j ¼ 3, y, 13: 1319
X
13
meatsharei ¼ a0 þ a1 factor1i þ a2 factor2i þ aj socioji þ xi ð2Þ
j¼3

Equation (3) illustrates how the same two factors are used to explain household
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

organic budget shares in 2008, controlling for the same socio-demographic variables:

X
13
orgsharei ¼ g0 þ g1 factor1i þ g2 factor2i þ gj socioji þ ui ð3Þ
j¼3

Results
On RQ1
The estimated correlations between changes in organic consumption and changes
in meat consumption as described in Equation (1) are presented in Table II.
An average fixed effect of 27.79 indicates that in 2006 the average meat share
was 27.79 per cent. We found that the share of meat decreased by 0.31 per cent
points in each of the five years from 2006 to 2010 as a trend unrelated to changes in
organic budget shares. We also found that each 1 per cent point increase in organic
budget share is related to a decrease in the meat share of 0.18 per cent points.
The R2 value of 4.7 per cent indicates that change in organic consumption
explains less than 5 per cent of the variation in changes in meat consumption.
This rather weak relationship is explained in part by our decision to include as few
explanatory variables as possible. We made this decision with the aim of
establishing whether a correlation between changes in meat and changes in organic
consumption could be detected. The identification of the main factors affecting
changes in meat consumption is an interesting challenge which we hope to take
up in future studies. A second point worth making is that fixed effects models
generally lead to lower R2 values than OLS models, simply because the level of noise
is higher in the changes from period to period than it is in the levels. Lastly, the high

Estimate SE

Orgshare Organic budget share 0.18 0.029***

Year Year, 2006 is base 0.31 0.050***
R2 0.047 Table II.
Adj. R2 0.038 Fixed effects model (1),
changes in meat
Notes: GfK purchase data 2006-2010. Balanced panel. Number of households: 492, Number of years: 5, consumption explained
Total number of observations: 2,460. Average fixed effect ¼ 27.79. Significance codes: “***” ¼ 0.001, by changes in organic
“**” ¼ 0.01, “*” ¼ 0.05 and “****” ¼ 0.1 consumption
 BFJ level of noise is almost unavoidable given the micro-nature of the data. Each
116,8 observation comes from an individual household, and this leads to a much higher
level of noise than we see when average observations from a large number of
households (macro data) are used.
Table III contains a set of estimations allowing us to distinguish between changes in
organic budget share and changes in budget shares for the four types of meat: beef, pork,
1320 poultry and other meat. For all types of meat, we found statically significant negative
correlations between changes in the meat budget share and changes in the organic
budget share. For pork, the negative correlation is only significant at the 10 per cent
significance level. However, the combined effect on pork and other meat also leads to
a statistically significant reduction in the consumption of pork, as the category “other
meat”, with its sausages, pâté and bacon, contains a large share of pork.
For beef and pork there is a general decrease in consumption that is unrelated to
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

changes in organic consumption. For poultry consumption, the general trend is not
significantly different from zero. In each case, the R2 values are even smaller than they
are in Table II above. One explanation of this is that the level of noise increases as the
type of meat product is more precisely defined.
To sum up our findings on RQ1, we found a small, but statistically significant,
negative correlation between changes in organic budget share and changes in both
overall and type-specific meat budget shares.

On RQ2
We obtained interesting responses to the question, “When you choose to buy organic
food products instead of conventional products, how much importance do you
attribute to the following reasons for doing so?” Approximately two-thirds of the
consumers who answered the question stated that climate change mitigation was an
“important” or “very important” reason for purchasing organic food. The personal
aim of limiting climate change, at 65 per cent, emerged as a more important reason
for purchasing organic food than support for the idea behind organic farming
(62 per cent), the wish for food with a better taste (61 per cent) and a desire to eat
foods with health-promoting substances such as vitamins and minerals (59 per cent).
However, limiting climate change was a less important reason than animal welfare
(76 per cent), personal health (75 per cent), environmental protection (73 per cent)
and food quality (69 per cent).
Responses to the question concerning the importance attached to eight possible
personal responses to climate change and the extent to which the specific strategy was
used are presented in Figure 1.

Beef Pork Poultry Other

Estim. SE Estim. SE Estim. SE Estim. SE

Orgshare Organic budget share 0.07 0.019*** 0.03 0.017**** 0.02 0.012* 0.06 0.016***
Table III. Year Year, 2006 is base 0.15 0.032*** 0.11 0.030*** 0.02 0.020 0.08 0.027**
Four fixed effects models, R2 0.025 0.010 0.002 0.016
changes in consumption Adj. R2 0.020 0.008 0.002 0.013
of beef, pork, poultry
and other meat explained Notes: GfK purchase data 2006-2010. Balanced panel. Number of households: 492, Number of years: 5,
by changes in organic Total number of observations: 2,460. “Other” covers sliced cold cuts (lunch meats), sausages, pâté,
consumption bacon and lamb. Significance codes: “***” ¼ 0.001, “**” ¼ 0.01, “*” ¼ 0.05 and “****” ¼ 0.1.
 Consumers who declare the strategy important or very important Increased organic
Consumers who declare to undertake the strategy to a great or to a very great extent consumption
84%
mitigate climate
Use less petrol or diesel
37% changes
Save on the use of
household electricity
79% 1321
54%
(other than for heating)

Save on the use of

76%
household electricity
for heatin 52%
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

55%
Throw away less food
48%

Buy fewer imported 44%

products 21%

Eat fewer products that

41%
are produced in heated
12%
greehouses

Eat more organic 33%

products 18%

Figure 1.
20% Consumer assessments
Eat less meat
10% of personal responses
to climate change
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Two important lessons can be drawn from Figure 1. First, there is a great difference
between the stated importance of a strategy and its actual adoption. For example,
84 per cent of respondents stated that using less petrol or diesel was an “important”
or “very important” way to mitigate climate change, but only 37 per cent reported
acting accordingly to a “great” or a “very great” extent. Second, while eating
more organic products (reported by 18 per cent of respondents) and eating less
meat (10 per cent) were regarded as mitigating strategies, they were deemed less
important than alternatives such as using less petrol or saving on household
electricity.
The eight personal strategies were reduced to two plausible factors (shown in
Table IV) using a factor analysis. The first factor is characterized by relatively high
weightings on all answers relating to food consumption (with the lowest weighting on
“throw away less food”). We can label this factor, which picks out food-based means
of limiting one’s own contribution to climate change, the “Food Factor”. The second
factor applies high weightings to personal mitigation strategies that do not involve
dietary change. We can label it the “Non-food Factor”. The eigenvalues for the two
factors are 3.88 and 1.20, respectively, while the following eigenvalues are below 1.
The Kaiser-Guttman rule of eigenvalues41 (Kaiser and Rice, 1974) and the scree test
 BFJ Factor 1 Factor 2
116,8 Food Non-food MSA

Save on the use of household electricity (other than for heating) 0.17 0.91* 0.73
Save on the use of household energy for heating 0.18 0.90* 0.73
Use less petrol or diesel 0.34 0.65* 0.94
1322 Eat less meat 0.74* 0.20 0.82
Eat fewer products that are produced in heated greenhouses 0.80* 0.22 0.82
Eat more organic products 0.71* 0.12 0.90
Throw away less food 0.53* 0.43 0.91
Buy fewer imported products 0.72* 0.23 0.84
Notes: Survey data from 2008. The factor analysis was conducted using SAS “proc factor”. The
factors are rotated by varimax to ensure orthogonality. The first two eigenvalues are 3.88 and 1.20.
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

Table IV. The third is 0.73 and the fourth is 0.63). Kaiser’s Measure of Sampling Adequacy: Overall MSA ¼ 0.82.
Factors related Cronbach’s a for the defining variables in Factor 1: 0.79, Factor 2: 0.81. Data consist of 1,434 answers to
to personal actions to the question “Do you personally do anything to reduce the greenhouse effect?” in the 2008 survey
mitigate climate change (Andersen, 2009). Values 40.5 are flagged by an “*”

(Cattell, 1966) suggest that we should include only two factors. The overall measure
of sampling adequacy of 0.82 (Cerny and Kaiser, 1977) confirms that the data used in
this factor analysis are likely to originate from the two orthogonal factors identified
in the sample.
The ability of these factors to explain meat consumption (Equation 2) and organic
consumption (Equation 3) is displayed in Table V. We found that respondents’ stated
willingness to change their patterns of food consumption to limit climate change (the
food factor) has a statistically significant negative effect on actual budget shares
of meat and a significant positive effect on organic budget shares. By contrast, the
respondents’ stated willingness to use alternative strategies (the Non-food factor) had
no significant effect on meat consumption, and no significant effect on organic
consumption.
Table V also indicates that other factors affect meat and organic budget shares.
Living in or near Copenhagen does not influence meat consumption, but it has a very
large and very significant effect on organic consumption. Having a male in the
household increases meat consumption and decreases organic consumption, and the
possession of tertiary education of three or more years decreases meat consumption
and increases organic consumption. Degree of urbanization was not found to influence
the budget share for meat or the organic budget share. Having children less than
six years old was found to have a negative effect on the budget share for meat (but only
at the 10 per cent level), but it had no effect on organic budget share. Meat budget share
seems to increase with age until the oldest person in the household reaches 48. It then
starts to decrease[4].
As was pointed out in connection with the first model earlier, the micro-nature of our
data makes it difficult to obtain very high values for the R2 measure. Given this, the
R2 ¼ 9 per cent in the second model, and especially the R2 ¼ 22 per cent in the third
model, can be considered satisfactory.
To sum up, our results indicate that the preference the respondents showed
for organic food was motivated by a desire to mitigate climate change to an extent,
but that other motives are stronger drivers. In a factor analysis, we separated
 Equation (2) meat share Equation (3) org share
Increased organic
Dependent variable b p value b p value consumption
mitigate climate
Intercept 13.86 0.000*** 7.89 0.016*
Factor 1: Food 0.95 0.000** 4.00 0.000*** changes
Factor 2: Non-food 0.14 0.590 0.13 0.630
Degree of urbanization (rural municipality is base) 1323
Urban municipality 0.87 0.499 0.21 0.877
Capital area 0.62 0.337 3.79 0.000***
Household composition (single woman, no children is base)
No. of children 0-6 years in household 1.29 0.080 0.06 0.941
No. of children 7-14 years in household 0.08 0.889 0.69 0.261
No. of adolescents 15-20 years in household 0.77 0.300 0.15 0.849
Adult male in household 4.33 0.000*** 2.29 0.000**
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

Income, 1,000 DKK

Income per person in household 0.00 0.511 0.01 0.000**
Highest level of education in household (none above primary school is base)
Less than three years of tertiary education 0.20 0.776 1.59 0.028*
More than three years of tertiary education 2.77 0.001** 4.86 0.000***
Highest age in household Table V.
Max age 0.42 0.001** 0.13 0.318 Meat budget shares
Max age squared 0.00 0.001** 0.00 0.657 (Equation 2) and organic
R 2
0.09 0.22 budget shares (Equation 3)
Adj R2 0.08 0.21 explained by climate
change mitigation factors
Notes: GfK purchase data 2006-2010 and survey data from 2008. The number of observations is 1,434 and socio-demographic
in both models variables

personal mitigation strategies into two groups, labelling one the Food Factor
and the other the Non-food Factor. We also combined stated preferences and
observed purchases. This enabled us to show that consumers who state that they
are willing to take action to curb climate change have significantly lower meat
consumption and significantly higher organic consumption than those who have no
wish to do so.

Discussion and conclusions

RQ1, on the link between organic consumption and lowered meat consumption, was
addressed using data on actual food purchasing activity within Danish households.
A small but statistically significant correlation between increasing organic budget
share and decreasing meat budget share was found. Moreover, budget shares for the
individual categories of meat, which included beef, pork and poultry, were all found to
shrink as organic budget share increased. The largest decreases here were in beef
expenditure. From a climate change mitigation perspective, this result is significant,
because beef production results in higher levels of GHG emissions than other types of
meat produce do. Based on this, it seems reasonable to suggest that reduced meat
consumption among consumers who tend to prefer organic food has real potential to
mitigate climate change.
At the same time, our results call for caution, as they indicate that size of organic
budget share is just one among many factors affecting household decisions about the
purchasing of meat products. In particular, it is important to note that increased
consumption of organic food comes with reduced meat consumption only in the
 BFJ company of changes in lifestyle. The relatively high level of private expenditure on
116,8 organic produce in Denmark has been sustained by government subsidies, a widely
recognized government-supported official labelling system and proactive processors
and retailers. As a consequence, most organic food products in Denmark are sold in
supermarkets (around 85 per cent according to (Tveit and Sandøe, 2011)), although
outside the supermarkets there is a parallel organic market that is mainly used by
1324 committed organic consumers. This parallel market involves non-mainstream sales
channels such as box schemes, direct farm sales, and independent specialist shops
(Denver et al., 2012). The point is that the changed lifestyle of organic consumers is
mainly seen in a relatively small group of committed consumers who constitute
14 per cent of the population but account for around 40 per cent of the organic
consumption (Tveit and Sandøe, 2011). As further growth in organic consumption will
largely involve less committed consumers in mainstream supermarkets, it is unclear
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

whether that growth will be accompanied by much in the way of lifestyle change.
On the other hand, with organic consumption becoming more fashionable, organic
lifestyle may influence mainstream consumption patterns – e.g. by fueling more
vegetable, and less meat, consumption.
Caution is also required because the replacement of meat in people’s diets by fruit
and vegetables might turn out to be less “green” in climate-change terms, than we
assumed. Identifying substitution patterns is important here, since the GHG emissions
associated with exotic fruit and vegetables can approach, and in some cases
even exceed, those generated by animal production (Carlsson-Kanyama, 1998;
Carlsson-Kanyama and Gonzalez, 2009). Again, the present analysis could be usefully
extended through an investigation of the extent to which consumers of organic food
turn to processed foods. Research into substitution patterns, and into consumer
preferences for processed food, would be a further step towards improved
understanding of the many aspects of food-related lifestyle choices and their impact
on climate change.
We turn now to RQ2, and thus to the question whether concern about climate
change motivates people to go organic. Here we found that approximately two-thirds of
those who perceived themselves as organic consumers referred to a desire to limit their
own responsibility for climate change as an important reason for buying organic
products. Importantly, the survey was conducted in 2008, at a time of intensified media
focus on ways to decelerate climate change, and when preparations were being made
for a major climate change conference that was scheduled to take place in Copenhagen
in 2009. This may have influenced our respondents, and there is no doubt that the
extent to which concerns about climate change act as a genuine driver of organic food
choice (as opposed to providing ex post facto justification) is an interesting topic
meriting further research.
Having combined purchase data with stated preference data at household level,
we found that households stating that they are concerned about climate change buy
less meat and more organic produce than households who are not concerned. This
seems to suggest that organic consumption can mitigate climate change by lowering
levels of meat consumption provided, at any rate, that the meat is substituted
with more climate-friendly products. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that
the reduced consumption of meat and increased consumption of organic products
witnessed in this paper are not only seen as imperative by some people in their roles
as citizens, but are in reality adopted to limit climate change. On the other hand,
however, food-based mitigation strategies are clearly less important than other
 behavioural modifications, such as reducing one’s car usage and using more efficient Increased organic
household heating. consumption
These results indicate that while consumers tend to regard purchasing organic as a
familiar way of addressing a range of societal concerns, food-based strategies for mitigate climate
limiting climate change are still relatively new on the political agenda and are yet to be changes
widely recognized by consumers.
The findings of this paper may be interesting from a policy-making perspective. 1325
Although the correlation between a shift to organic food and reduced meat
consumption is sustained primarily by concerns about issues other than climate
change, and not least worries about personal health, a desire to limit one’s own
involvement in global warming does seem to have at least some influence. It will
probably require a lot of work to convince consumers of the importance of food-based
mitigation strategies like reducing meat consumption, and still more to affect their
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

behaviour in a consistent and sustained manner. But it is encouraging that the

strategic message seems to have taken root in one group of consumers, who already
buy organic, at least.
Clearly, further research, both qualitative and quantitative, is needed here.
We need a better understanding of the effects of different diets on the environment,
of how these diets and effects might be linked to human health, and of how to
motivate consumers to adopt the diets in the first place. And further issues then
arise. What, for example, is the relationship between the attitudes of individual
family members and the dietary practices of the household as a whole? All we can
say for the present is that such understanding would provide invaluable input
to policy making.

Notes
1. According to Olesen (2010), the relevant emissions are 1.47 CO2 equivalents per MJ for
beef, 0.46 CO2 equivalents per MJ for pork and 0.41 CO2 equivalents per MJ for poultry
meat.
2. For the sake of simplicity, from here on we shall often use the shorthand “mitigation
strategies” to refer to strategies adopted in an effort to slow down anthropogenic climate
change.

3. To ensure we had a reasonable sample of households that could be followed continuously

over the studied period (a balanced panel), we chose to look at the 494 households who
reported purchases for at least three weeks per month in every month from January 2006 to
December 2010, i.e. a five-year period. Budget shares of meat and of organic products were
calculated at yearly intervals for these households.
4. The parameter for age-squared is 0.0044, while the parameter for age is 0.41936, so the
turning point is 47.65 years.

References
Aertens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K. and Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009), “Personal
determinants of organic food consumption: a review”, British Food Journal, Vol. 111
No. 10, pp. 1140-1167.
Andersen, L.M. (2009), “Documentation of CONCEPT questionnaires”, available at: http://
orgprints.org/15741/1/15741.pdf (accessed 4 February 2013).
 BFJ Angrist, J.D. and Pischke, J.-S. (2009), Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s
Companion, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
116,8
Bos, J.F.F.P., de, Haan J.J., Sukkel, W. and Schils, R.L.M. (2007), “Comparing energy use
and greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional farming systems in the
Netherlands”, available at: http://orgprints.org/9961/1/Bos-etal-2007-EnergyGreenhouse.
pdf (accessed 4 February 2013).
1326 Brombacher, J. and Hamm, U. (1990), “Expenses for nutrition with food from organic
agriculture”, Ecology and Farming, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 13-14.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A. (1998), “Climate change and dietary choices – how can emissions
of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced?”, Food Policy, Vol. 23 Nos 3/4,
pp. 277-293.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A. and Gonzalez, A.D. (2009), “Potential contributions of food consumption
patterns to climate change”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 89 No. 5,
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

pp. 1704S-1709S.
Cattell, R.B. (1966), “The scree test for the number of factors”, Multivariate Behavioral Research,
Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 245-276.
Cerny, B.A. and Kaiser, H.F. (1977), “A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for
factor-analytic correlation matrices”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 43-47.
Danish Competition and Consumer Authority (2008), “Forbrugerredegørelse 2008 (Consumer
Report 2008)”, available at: www.forbrug.dk/Publikationer/B/media/Publikationer/
fr08%2000%20pdf.ashx# (accessed 4 February 2013).
Danish Consumer Council (2009), “Forbrugernes viden om fødevarer, klima og etik (Consumers’
knowledge of food, climate and ethics)”, available at: http://taenk.dk/upl/cms/3/
3023_FoedevarerKlimaEtik_ResultatRapport_ms_sept2009.pdf (accessed 4 February
2013).
Denver, S., Christensen, T. and Krarup, S. (2007a), “Forbruget af økologiske fødevarer og
ernæringsrig kost (the consumption of organic foods and nutritious diet)”,
Samfundsøkonomen, No. 5, pp. 29-33.
Denver, S., Christensen, T. and Krarup, S. (2007b), “Får økologiske forbrugere 6 om dagen?
(do organic consumers get six a day?)”, Tidsskrift for Landøkonomi, Vol. 193 No. 2,
pp. 109-118.
Denver, S., Christensen, T., Jensen, J.D. and O’Doherty Jensen, K. (2012), “The stability and
instability of organic expenditures in Denmark, great Britain, and Italy”, Journal of
International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp 47-65, available at: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2012.645738
Fællesforeningen for Danmarks Brugsforeninger (FDB) (2010), “Økologiske forbrugere belaster
klimaet mindre (organic consumers are less harmful to the climate)”, available at:
http://fdb.dk/nyhed/%C3%B8kologiske-forbrugere-belaster-klimaet-mindre (accessed
4 February 2013).
Fox, N. and Ward, K. (2008), “Health, ethics and environment: a qualitative study of vegetarian
motivations”, Appetite, Vol. 50 Nos 2/3, pp. 422-429.
Fritsche, U.R. and Eberle, U. (2007), “Treibhausgasemissionen durch Erzeugung und
Verarbeitung von Lebensmitteln (greenhouse gas emissions from the production and
processing of foods)”, available at: www.oeko.de/oekodoc/328/2007-011-de.pdf (accessed
4 February 2013).
Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Haeni, M., Skinner, C., Fliessbach, A., Buchmann, N., Mäder, P., Stolze, M.,
Smith, P., El-Hage Scialabba, N. and Niggli, U. (2012), “Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under
organic farming”, PNAS, Vol. 109 No. 44, pp. 18226-18231.
 Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Haeni, M., Skinner, C., Fliessbach, A., Buchmann, N., Mäder, P., Stolze, M., Increased organic
Smith, P., El-Hage Scialabba, N. and Niggli, U. (2013), “Reply to Leifeld et al.: enhanced top soil
carbon stocks under organic farming is not equated with climate change mitigation”, PNAS, consumption
Vol 110 No. 11, p. E985. mitigate climate
Hoffmann, I. and Spiller, A. (2010), “Auswertung der Daten der Nationalen Verzehrsstudie II changes
(NVS II): eine integrierte verhaltens- und lebensstilbasierte Analyse des Bio-Konsums
(Data interpretation based on the German national nutrition survey II (NVS II): 1327
an integrative analysis of behavioural and lifestyle-related factors for organic food
consumption)”, available at: http://orgprints.org/18055/1/18055-08OE056_08OE069-
MRI_uni-goettingen-hoffmann_spiller-2010-verzehrsstudie.pdf (accessed 4 February
2013).
Holt, G. (1992), “Investigating the diet of ‘organic eaters’”, Nutrition and Food Science, Vol. 92
No. 6, pp. 13-16.
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

Hughner, R.S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C.J. and Stanton, J. (2007), “Who are organic
food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food”, Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 6 Nos 2/3, pp. 94-110.
Kaiser, H.F. and Rice, J. (1974), “Little Jiffy, mark IV”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 111-117.
Korzen, S. and Lassen, J. (2010), “Meat in context. on the relation between perceptions and
contexts”, Appetite, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 274-228.
Larsen, C.S. (2006), “Italesættelser af økologisk mad (Talking about Organic Food)”, dissertation,
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.
Leifeld, J. and Fuhrer, J. (2010), “Organic farming and soil carbon sequestration: what do we
really know about the benefits?”, Ambio, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 585-599.
Leifeld, J., Angers, D.A., Chenu, C., Fuhrer, J., Kätterer, T. and Powlson, D.S. (2013), “Organic
farming gives no climate change benefit through soil carbon sequestration”, PNAS,
Vol 110 No. 11, p. E984.
Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U., Åberg, Å. and Sjödén, P. (2001), “Attitudes
towards organic foods among Swedish consumers”, British Food Journal, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 209-227.
Niggli, U., Schmid, H. and Fliessbach, A. (2008), “Organic farming and climate change”, available
at: http://orgprints.org/13414/3/niggli-etal-2008-itc-climate-change.pdf (accessed
4 February 2013).
Olesen, J.E. (2010), “Fødevarernes andel af klimabelastningen (Food products’ share of the
climate burden)”, available at: http://etiskraad.dk/upload/publikationer/foedevarer-og-
klima/vores-mad-og-det-globale-klima/kap02.htm (accessed 4 February 2013).
Scialabba, N.E. and Müller-Lindenlauf, M. (2010), “Organic agriculture and climate change”,
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 158-169.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. and de Haan, C. (2006), “Livestock’s
long shadow – environmental issues and options”, available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/
010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf (accessed 4 February 2013).
Torjusen, H., Sangstad, L., Jensen, K.O. and Kjærnes, U. (2004), “European consumers’
conceptions of organic food: a review of available research”, available at:
www.organichaccp.org/haccp_rapport.pdf (accessed 4 February 2013).
Tveit, G. and Sandøe, P. (2011), “Økologiske fødevarer – hvor bevæger forbrugerne sig hen?”,
available at: www.bioethics.dk/B/media/Bioethics/Dokumenter/Publikationer/
Okologiske_fodevarer_CeBRA.ashx (accessed 8 July 2013).
 BFJ Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. and Sandards, D.L. (2006), “Energy and environmental burdens of
organic and non-organic agriculture and horticulture”, Aspects of Applied Biology, No. 79,
116,8 pp. 19-23.
Yiridoe, E., Bonti-Ankomah, S. and Martin, R.C. (2005), “Comparison of consumer perceptions
and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: a review and
update of the literature”, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 20 No. 4,
1328 pp. 193-205.

Further reading
Johansson-Stenman, O. and Svedsäter, H. (2012), “Self-image and valuation of moral goods: stated
versus actual willingness to pay”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol 84
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

Appendix

Variable n Mean SD Min. Max.

Year 2,460 2008 1.415 2006 2010

Organic share 2,460 6.04 10.002 0 90.22
Meat share 2,460 26.08 9.043 0 57.93
Beef share 2,460 5.94 4.159 0 27.10
Pork share 2,460 7.71 4.759 0 30.54
Table AI. Poultry share 2,460 3.10 2.598 0 24.64
Data for fixed effects Other meat share 2,460 9.07 4.653 0 33.86
models, five observations
per household, Source: Balanced subsample of GfK ConsumerTracking Scandinavia. Does only include households
492 households who reported purchases for at least three weeks per month in the entire period from 2006 to 2010

I do the following in order to reduce the greenhouse effect n Mean SD Min. Max.

Save on the use of household electricity

(other than for heating) 1,434 3.59 0.994 1 5
Save on the use of household energy for heating 1,434 3.54 1.019 1 5
Use less petrol or diesel 1,434 3.25 1.211 1 5
Eat less meat 1,434 2.25 1.038 1 5
Eat fewer products that are produced in heated
greenhouses 1,434 2.41 1.017 1 5
Eat more organic products 1,434 2.28 1.215 1 5
Throw away less food 1,434 3.32 1.297 1 5
Buy fewer imported products 1,434 2.70 1.122 1 5
Table AII.
Data for Notes: All questions can be answered 1: Not at all, 2: To a minor degree, 3: To some degree, 4: To a
factor analysis high degree or 5: To a very high degree
 Variable n Mean SD Min. Max.
Increased organic
consumption
Meat share 1,434 25.53 9.960 0 69.620 mitigate climate
Organic share 1,434 7.15 11.279 0 87.017
Factor 1: using food to mitigate climate change 1,434 0.00 1.000 2.477 3.172 changes
Factor 2: mitigating climate change by non-food 1,434 0.00 1.000 2.832 2.314
Urban municipality 1,434 0.04 0.197 0 1 1329
Capital area 1,434 0.21 0.405 0 1
No. of kids 0-6 years in household 1,434 0.10 0.387 0 3
No. of kids 7-14 years in household 1,434 0.14 0.470 0 4
No. of adolescences 15-20 years in household 1,434 0.10 0.356 0 3
Adult male in household 1,434 0.65 0.478 0 1
OECD adjusted income per person, in 1,000 DKK 1,434 291.74 107.550 100 750
Less than three years of tertiary education 1,434 0.57 0.496 0 1
Downloaded by PEKING UNIVERSITY At 08:35 17 September 2015 (PT)

More than three years of tertiary education 1,434 0.24 0.430 0 1

Highest age in household, years 1,434 52.81 13.629 10 70
Highest age squared 1,434 2,974.55 1,357.670 100 4,900
Notes: Income is originally recorded in brackets of DKK 50,000 (h6,700). These brackets are divided
by the number of persons in the household, weighted by the OECD-modified scale, i.e. 1 for the first Table AIII.
adult, 0.5 for the next adults and 0.3 for children (OECD). The OECD modified income is then rescaled Data for OLS models
to correspond to income measured in 1,000 DKK. Highest age is defined by 10p20 years, 20 ¼ 20-29 (Data from 2008, 1,434
years, 30 ¼ 30-39 years, y, 60 ¼ 60-69 years, 70 ¼ 70 or more different households)

Corresponding author
Lennart Ravn Heerwagen can be contacted at: lh@life.ku.dk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints