Mei-Li Hey1†
Daphene Altema-Johnson
Julia Wolfson
Rebecca Ramsing- 1Center for a Livable Future, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States
- 2Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States
- 3Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States
Global food systems are a major contributor to climate change, accounting for more than 30% of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs). This review synthesizes current evidence on the potential of climate labels (which we define as labels attached to menus or food items with climate impact information) in university dining settings to encourage climate-friendly food decisions. In April 2024, we searched Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, and PubMed using developed terms related to climate labels and universities. We identified 280 articles and narrowed down the review to 14 articles based on study setting, language, and scope. Of the 14 studies, 86% (12 articles) observed a decrease in the consumption of foods researchers classified as high emissions, 60% (8 articles) observed a decrease in the consumption of foods classified as medium-emission foods, and 63% (9 articles) observed an increase in the consumption of foods classified as low-emission food. Effects varied by gender and age, with women appearing to experience a greater response to the climate labels, but no observable differences were evident by ethnicity or socio-economic class. Studies that supplemented climate labeling initiatives with sales promotions or resources encouraging consumers to conduct their own emission research also saw favorable results. The studies suggest a small yet detectable shift in consumer behavior in response to climate labels in university dining settings; however, further research is needed on: (1) improving climate label effectiveness, (2) the effect of climate labels among different demographic attributes (e.g., income, ethnicity), and (3) the long-term and spillover effects of the labels on the healthiness of consumer diets, and institutional sourcing practices.
1 Introduction
Climate change is increasingly recognized as one of the most pressing issues of our time, with severe implications for the environment and health. Food systems are both impacted by and contribute to climate change. An estimated 34% (18 GT) of total annual global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) are attributed to food supply chains (1).1 Substantial reductions in food system GHGEs are needed to limit global average temperature increases to 1.5–2 °C (3) as outlined in the Paris Agreement, and to remain within food system planetary boundaries (4, 5).
The amounts of GHGEs generated from food supply chains vary by several orders of magnitude across food groups, for example, a mean of 1.0 kg CO2e2 per 100 g peas compared to 99.5 kg CO2e per 100 g beef (6). Thus, diets can produce widely different amounts of GHGEs depending, in large part, on the amounts and composition of animal source foods included (7). Compared to the status quo, a shift toward diets with lower amounts of GHGE-intensive foods, such as red meat, has the potential to reduce food system GHGEs by 29–56% by 2050 (5).
Over the last few decades, labels highlighting the climate impacts of products (usually the item's GHGEs or other climate indicators) emerged as a key strategy to shift consumers toward more sustainable behaviors and help meet climate mitigation goals (8–10). Prior evidence supports the effectiveness of labels in shifting consumer behavior (11). For example, a 2018 meta-analysis found that nutrition labeling reduced consumer energy (kilocalorie) and fat consumption and increased vegetable consumption (12). The U.S. Energy Star label on appliances reduced CO2e emissions associated with household energy use in 2020 by an estimated 400 metric tons (5% of US total GHGEs) (13).3 Even in cases when consumers have little to gain personally from a more environmentally friendly choice, as in the example of dolphin-safe labeling on tuna, labeling can shift consumer behaviors (14). Some consumers are also willing to pay more for environmentally labeled food products (15). A 2024 review found that environmental labels on food are particularly effective for individuals who clearly understand the labels or are already concerned about the environmental impact of their food (16). A 2022 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report similarly concluded that food labeling can be effective in shifting behaviors that lead to positive environmental impacts (17).
Previous studies have concluded that not all labels are equally effective in changing consumer behavior, and certain design characteristics work better than others for promoting climate friendly food options (18, 19). These studies vary in setting, label design, classification of GHGE intensity, and messaging about the label and its purpose (20–22). One popular design for climate labels, for example, is a traffic light label (TLL), a type of ordinal rating label which uses red, yellow, and green labels corresponding to high, medium, and low GHGEs, respectively (20–22). Labels based on traffic light colors that are simple and easy to read have been shown to be particularly effective at changing consumer behavior (19).
The potential effectiveness of labeling interventions in influencing consumer behavior can be attributed to two different known mechanisms. First, consumers are often unaware of the environmental costs of food production (10, 20). Providing clear information about the climate footprint of food items enhances consumer awareness and understanding of the environmental impact associated with their choices (23, 24), thus allowing consumers to compare products and make more informed decisions aligned with their environmental values (9, 23). Second, labels can serve as timely reminders that prompt consumers to consider sustainability factors in their decision-making process, without restricting their freedom of choice (25). Together, these mechanisms underscore the potential of labeling interventions to foster significant shifts toward sustainable consumption patterns that contribute to broader environmental goals.
While climate labels are used in a range of contexts, for this narrative review, we focus on studies on the use of climate labels in university dining settings, as they offer a unique opportunity to explore behavioral and social dynamics in a controlled yet real-world environment. Universities can operate as living-laboratories that test strategies and facilitate ongoing implementation studies. Universities also serve as environments in which students can influence each other thorough social interactions and group dynamics, which allows researchers to study how climate labeling affects both individual and group behaviors and norms within a community. Finally, behaviors formed during college can persist later in life (26, 27), presenting an opportunity to instill long-term habits in diners related to sustainable eating.
To compare studies on the design, implementation, and effect of climate labels in university settings, we conducted a narrative review of the existing literature. There is a range of existing research on climate labels in university settings which, to the best of our knowledge, no other literature review (systematic or otherwise) has summarized to date. Thus, the aim of this study is to address this gap in the current literature, and to contribute to greater understanding of the potential effects of climate labels, best practices in their implementation, and potential areas for future research on climate labels in university settings.
2 Methods
We searched Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, and PubMed databases in April 2024. We used the following search string, developed in consultation with a university librarian: [(“climate*” OR “carbon*”) AND (“food*” OR “dine” OR “dining” OR “dined” OR “meal*”) AND (“college*” OR “universit*” OR “graduate student*” OR “undergraduate student*”) AND (“label*” OR “nudg*” OR “information disclosure*” OR “intervention*”)]. The search methodology resulted in 451 articles. After removing duplicates identified by Covidence, two researchers reviewed the remaining 280 papers to determine eligibility based on the following inclusion criteria:
1. Study is available in English;
2. Study includes primarily university students in the sample and/or takes place in a university setting (e.g., dining hall, cafeteria, or a campus grocery store);
3. Study tests perceptions, effectiveness, or implementation of a menu and/or food item label representing metrics specific to climate change (e.g., carbon or GHG footprint);
4. Study presents new data (e.g., not commentaries).
Twenty-one full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, with seven subsequently excluded. Figure 1 depicts a PRISMA diagram that outlines this study selection process. This process yielded a final 14 studies from which relevant content (Table 1) was then extracted.
Figure 1. PRISMA diagram.
Table 1. Summary of studies.
3 Results
3.1 Overview of included studies
Among the studies reviewed, seven were conducted in Europe, four in the United States, and three in Asia (Table 1). All studies were published between 2010 and 2024. Across all studies, the primary objective of labeling was to communicate climate-related information to consumers. Of the 14 studies, 10 implemented actual climate label interventions in campus dining facilities. These 10 studies were conducted in a number of different ways: seven studies compared pre-/post-intervention data with (n = 2) (28, 29) or without (n = 5) (30–34) control groups; one study conducted a single-timepoint randomized controlled trial comparing treatment and control groups (n = 1) (35), another exclusively focused on collecting qualitative data post-intervention (n = 1) (36), and the last real-world study collected quantitative data pre-intervention, and supplemented this with a live auction experiment and qualitative interviews (n = 1) (37). The remaining four studies included this review utilized online survey experiments, focused on consumer willingness to pay (38, 39) or hypothetical purchase behaviors (Table 1) (40, 41).
The 10 intervention studies also had varying study lengths and follow-up periods with consumers after labeling. Some studies were sustained for a few days (31), while others several months (29). In addition, some of the studies had a follow-up period several months after the intervention (Table 1) (37).
3.2 Climate label naming, design, placement, and implementation
Across the 14 studies, the climate labels were used to convey information about the GHGE intensity of the menu items. However, the label, design, placement, and implementation all differed. In addition to referring to the labels as “climate labels,” the authors also called them carbon, environmental, or eco labels. Beyond just naming, the specific metrics, calculation methods, groupings, and label designs also varied across studies (Table 2).
Table 2. Label definition, design, and placement in included studies.
Nine of the 14 studies calculated the GHGE intensity of each food item using pre-existing emissions intensity data and/or methodologies from academic papers (n = 7) (28–31, 33, 35, 37) or other online sources (n = 2); e.g., Food Carbon Emissions Calculator, French Agency for Ecological Transition (36, 41). For these nine studies, the label often depicted the g or kg CO2e associated with the prominent ingredients in a meal, the entire food item or meal, per 100 g of the meal, or as a percent contribution to the CO2e emissions of healthy reference diet (n = 8) (28–31, 36, 37, 41). One study also incorporated nitrogen and water footprints in the label metric (35). The five studies which did not calculate the GHGE intensity associated with food items, instead labeled dishes based on the general meal type (e.g., vegetarian/non-vegetarian or vegetarian/fish/meat) (32, 34), randomized use of the label on a uniform product (40), or used fictional CO2e emissions (39) and ecological impacts (38) based on data collected on other products in the same category (Table 2).
Across the board, the studies were heterogeneous in how the labels categorized and depicted GHGE intensity. Five studies only differentiated food items classified as having low carbon emissions, (31, 34, 37, 40) five studies created three categories (low, medium, high) (28, 32, 33, 36, 39, 41) and four studies depicted a scale (low-high) on their label to convey GHGE intensity (29, 30, 35, 38). Specific strategies for determining cutoffs for the groupings varied but were often based on GHGE intensity of the food/ingredient being labeled compared to all food items or meals in the study. Throughout this review, we use the authors' classifications of labels for our reporting.
Of the 14 studies, 12 employed a color scheme to visually communicate GHG emissions. For the five studies with a single low emissions label, green was generally used as the label color (31, 34, 37), though one involved no color scheme (40). For studies with three or more emissions groups (29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 38, 41), a scale of green for low emissions to red for high emissions items was generally used; however, two used just green (28, 35) and one (40) did not include a color scheme (Table 2).
For the 10 intervention studies (28–37), labels were displayed physically on menus (28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36), in the immediate area near where the food was served (29, 34), on the food item packaging (37), or next to food items on a digital menu (35). For the hypothetical survey studies, labels appeared near a photo of the food item (38, 39, 41) or were described as placed on the food item itself (e.g., a produce sticker) (Table 2) (40).
Five of the 10 intervention studies incorporated additional interventions alongside label implementation for the purpose of enhancing label effectiveness (28, 30–32, 36). The supplemental interventions were often informational posters displayed at strategic locations within the dining hall to explain the labeling system and/or sustainability information (e.g., the importance of reducing GHGEs) (28, 30–32). Castellanos et al. introduced a secondary intervention involving an educational program aimed at enhancing general sustainability knowledge, though this was the only study of these five studies that found no behavioral effect from the labels (36). Notably, only the Castellanos et al. study explicitly discussed fidelity, which they use as an implementation outcome to measure whether the intervention was delivered as intended. Based on the results of our narrative review, there are research gaps in understanding the effectiveness of combining labels with other interventions in university dining halls.
3.3 Climate label impacts
Of the 14 included studies, most tested the effectiveness of climate labels in changing real-world consumer behavior (n = 10) or hypothetical behavior changes (n = 3). Four of the 13 studies also tested group-level differences in climate label effect. The remaining study tested group-level differences in consumers' hypothetical responses to climate labels (Table 1). Of the 13 included studies that assessed whether climate labels change consumer behavior, 11 found them to be effective in at least one circumstance; the remaining two, one post-intervention qualitative study of eight students (36) and one online hypothetical willingness-to-pay (WTP) study of 100 students (38), found no effect. The following sections describe the studies and the corresponding results in further detail (Table 3).
Table 3. Summary of results and label impact (n = 14).
3.3.1 Intervention studies examining the effect of climate labels on real world behavior (n = 10)
Of the 10 studies assessing the effect of interventions on real world behavior, seven obtained and compared sales data prior to and following the implementation of a climate label in the university dining facility (30–34), two of which also included a non-randomized control dining facility for comparison (28, 29). The three other studies assessing the effect of interventions on actual behaviors utilized slightly different methods. Piester et al. surveyed students in line at the dining hall, randomly assigning them to view a menu online with or without the climate label and then collected receipts for participants' actual purchases (35). Castellanos et al. assessed the impact of a climate label intervention via post-intervention qualitative interviews with eight students (36). Zhao et al. assessed the impact of climate labels in three phases: (1) focus group discussions; (2) an experiment designed to emulate an auction to determine the cost consumers will pay for certain items; (3) an intervention in which three milk products were available in versions both with and without a carbon label (37) (Table 3).
Of these 10 studies, only Castellanos et al. reported no changes in consumer behavior based on qualitative interviews with eight students (36); the remaining nine studies found climate labels affected consumer behavior in at least some circumstances. Effect sizes varied substantially across studies. Among the nine studies that reported behavior effects, seven assessed the impact of climate labels on high-emissions food item sales, five assessed the impact on medium-emissions food item sales, and eight assessed the impact on low-emissions food item sales. Of the seven assessing high-emissions food item sales, one observed no change (30) and six observed reductions (28, 29, 31–34) in high-emissions food item sales. Of the five assessing medium-emissions food item sales, two observed no change (30, 32) and three observed increases (28, 29, 31) in medium-emissions food item sales. Of the eight studies assessing low-emissions food item sales, three observed no change (29, 32, 33) and five observed an increase in low-emissions food item sales (28, 30, 31, 35, 37) (Table 2).
3.3.2 Online studies examining the effect of climate labels on hypothetical behaviors (n = 3)
Of the three online studies examining the effect of climate labels on hypothetical consumer behavior, two found that the labels affected consumer behavior (39, 41) and one found no effect (38). Suchier et al. utilized an experimental online grocery store to test the effect of two types of TLLs on hypothetical purchase behaviors: inter- and intra-TLLs (41). Inter-TLLs compare all foods in the store, while intra-TLLs compare foods within the same category. Notably intra- and inter-TLLs reduced purchasing of high-impact items and increased purchasing of low-impact items. Although the intra-TLL had a more substantial effect on high- and low-impact item purchasing, the kg CO2e/kg of participants' shopping baskets were identical (41). There is not sufficient evidence examining the potential difference between intra- and inter-TLLs in the climate label literature (20), Kimura et al. tested the effect of CO2e emissions quantity, CO2e emission information accessibility, and product type on willingness to pay and subjective ratings. Kimura et al. ultimately concluded that CO2e emissions quantity increased willingness to pay (39). Isham et al. tested willingness to pay and liking of plant-based products with either an ecological or health impact label and discovered that while the label had no effect on willingness to pay or liking, higher levels of life satisfaction were related to greater willingness to pay and greater liking of plant-based products (38) (Table 2).
3.3.3 Studies assessing group-level heterogeneity in label effect (n = 5)
Five studies examined differences in label effectiveness by participant characteristics, three of which were intervention studies and two of which were online surveys. Across the five included studies, increased label effectiveness was observed for individuals who were female,4 (33, 35, 40) older (40), or white (40) in comparison to the other groups in the study, respectively (Table 3).
Of note, Piester et al. observed effects only for females (not males) (35), which is consistent with Isham et al. (38) and Brunner et al. (30) that also report that females generally follow a less emission intensive diet and are more responsive to labels. Slapo et al. observed effects only when a TLL was used (not a single red or single green label) (32). This was the only study that compared different label designs, although most studies that utilized a traffic light color scheme reported behavior changes.
In addition, Thamer et al. observed effects only when the climate label was paired with an email asking participants to reflect on the intervention or their dietary choices (34). Larner et al. observed effects only for certain items or when paired with a sales promotion (31), and Kimura et al. concluded that having consumers actively search for emissions information is associated with higher consumer valuation of the product (39). When taken together, these three studies suggest that additional interventions in the form of a sales promotion or a targeted reflection session can enhance the effects of climate labels.
4 Discussion
This paper provides a review of the use of climate labels to promote climate-friendly food choices within university settings. The literature included in this review suggests consumer behavior can, in certain circumstances, be swayed by climate labels in university environments. Among the studies analyzed, 86% (12 articles) observed a decrease in the consumption of foods researchers classified as high emissions, 60% (8 articles) observed a decrease in the consumption of foods classified as medium-emission foods, and 63% (9 articles) observed an increase in the consumption of foods classified as low-emission food. These findings are consistent with prior reviews, which have similarly found climate labels effective in some, but not all, situations (20, 42–44).
The existing literature is limited in its ability to identify best practices in climate labeling implementation and design. All the studies we identified had distinct label placement approaches and varying degrees of supplementary campaigns or messaging about the purpose of the climate label. No study formally tested the effectiveness of various placements, or specific messaging. There is also limited research comparing the efficacy of multiple labeling interventions or tests climate labeling in conjunction with additional interventions. For example, while some included studies also implemented an educational campaign to supplement the climate labels, more research is needed on the combined efficacy of the menu label supplemented by an educational campaign.
The studies included also used a wide variety of design elements (e.g., colors, images), but no clear trends emerged to inform which specific designs are most effective. The importance of label design has been established (20, 42–45). For example, when asked, adults indicate they prefer climate labels using scales (i.e., ordinal ratings) to nominal labels [labels with no clear intrinsic (ordering)] (46). Prior evidence also suggests simple single-metric labels (e.g., a scale displaying information on key environmental factors like carbon emissions or a simple overall eco-score) are effective in changing consumer behaviors (47). Yet only two studies directly compared the effectiveness of different label designs with mixed findings. Further research comparing specific label designs, intra- vs. inter- label categories, positive vs. negative framing, label placement, and accompanying marketing campaigns is needed to aid institutions in understanding best practices for designing and implementing climate labels.
Only five of the included studies included stratified or effect modification analyses examining the difference in climate label effect by key factors (e.g., income, gender, student status, psychological factors); labels were more effective for individuals who were female, (33, 35, 40) older (40), white (40), followed a high-carbon footprint diet (29), and had higher levels of wellbeing (38). While these studies provide insight into how implementers might target certain groups to realize consumer behavior changes, further research may provide additional evidence to support existing studies or examine groups not already considered (e.g., ethnicity). For example, studies should also investigate the role ethnicity plays in impacting food preferences and purchases.
In addition, among the studies that considered impact of labeling foods as “low,” “medium,” or “high” emissions, studies that included food labeled “high emission” noted the greatest change in consumer demand. Thus, it is possible that labeling a product as “high emissions” has the largest effect on consumer behavior, suggesting consumers respond stronger to negative framing than positive framing. However, additional research is required to validate this theory.
The studies reviewed generally evaluated the impact of climate labels over a few weeks or months. Prior research in other settings suggests repeated exposure increases climate label effectiveness, though their impact may diminish over time (48). Investigating this in university settings could deepen our understanding of label effectiveness. Additionally, researchers may consider examining how climate labels influence food purchases beyond the university setting, such as when students eat out, buy groceries off campus, travel home, or post- graduation, as well as potential spillover effects on friends and family. Studying the spill-over impact of climate labels will help researchers understand the broader potential for such labels to change behavior on a larger scale.
The included studies focused on outcomes related to liking, willingness to pay, purchasing, or sale of food items; however, if climate labels change consumer behavior, they may also impact other important factors, such as the healthiness of food products consumed or food waste. Prior research has suggested labeling products as eco-friendly may increase individuals' perceptions of healthfulness (49); yet, another study using an online survey to examine the hypothetical effect of climate labels in fast food restaurants showed consumers chose meals that were not only more sustainable, but also healthier (50). Such research specific to university settings would provide valuable insight into the implementation of climate labels in these settings. For example, if climate labels increase the healthiness of food consumed, it may be possible to garner additional support for and interest in implementing climate labels. On the other hand, if they reduce the healthiness of food consumed, further research could explore ways to mitigate such an effect.
None of the included studies examined the upstream effects of climate labels on institutional purchasing or production, though the goal of climate labeling is likely closely tied to these components. If minor shifts in sales occur, it is possible that institutional purchasing would not change in a manner meaningful enough to reduce the GHG emissions of purchased foods. Even if institutional purchasing did change in a manner that reduced GHG emissions, it is not clear if/how actual sourcing or production practices would change.
4.1 Strengths and limitations
This narrative review is strengthened by the systematic protocols employed, and the breadth of databases searched. However, there are several key limitations to this literature review. Notably, the included articles were not formally reviewed for quality as would be done in a systematic literature review. While detailed information was included about each article to allow readers to get a sense of the quality, the included studies were potentially subject to issues with sampling bias, information bias, or insufficient power, which we did not formally assess. Thus, while the protocol used was intended to describe a complete picture of the existing literature regarding climate labels in university settings, it is not intended to and should not be read as a definitive determination as to the effect of climate labels on consumer behavior in university settings. A systematic literature review that includes quality control may be warranted, particularly as the literature in this field of research continues to develop. Additionally, gray literature was not included in this search. It is possible such literature may have additional and/or different information than the included academic articles.
In addition, variations in study design, location, data collection years, time frames, label designs, or label implementation may contribute to the inconsistent effects observed. Additionally, some of the current studies may have been underpowered given their small sample sizes; notably a few studies included less than 100 participants. Future studies may consider including a larger sample of individuals and/or dining halls and formally testing how the factors mentioned above (e.g., label design, time frame) alter label effectiveness.
Furthermore, universities provide controlled and semi-structured environments where the student population remains relatively stable over academic terms. This setting allows researchers to track changes in behavior, enabling longitudinal studies of how climate labels influence purchasing decisions and consumption patterns. While university students offer a convenient and consistent sample, their behaviors may not fully represent the broader population. Students tend to be younger, more educated, and often more environmentally conscious than the public, potentially skewing the results and limiting the external validity of findings. Thus, while this study may provide some guidance on the use of climate-labels outside of this context, additional research will be required to validate the generalizability of our findings.
5 Conclusion
The current literature suggests climate labels can be an effective way to shift consumer behaviors in university settings away from food items associated with high GHGE and/or toward food items associated with low GHGE in certain circumstances. The key patterns that emerged during this review include (1) a small, yet detectable behavior shift in consumer behavior with the introduction of labeling, (2) negative framing as a more powerful tool in comparison to positive framing, and (3) women appear to have a more significant response to climate labels. There are several key gaps in the existing literature, including but not limited to: (1) how to improve the effectiveness of climate labels (e.g., via label design and/or concurrent complementary interventions and/or messaging campaigns), (2) how the effect of climate labels may vary by subgroup (e.g., income, race, ethnicity, psychological factors), (3) the longer-term and/or spillover effects of climate labels on climate-related outcomes (e.g., the healthiness of consumer diets, group/social dynamics, and broader institutional sourcing practices). While these gaps need to be addressed in subsequent research, this review has demonstrated that climate labels can be a useful tool for helping consumers shift their dietary behavior.
Author contributions
M-LH: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. EC: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. AY: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Visualization. DA-J: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. JW: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. RR: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Project administration.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research received funding from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2025.1619842/full#supplementary-material
Footnotes
1. ^While there are other metrics for environmental sustainability (e.g., water pollution, soil health, and land use), GHGE is one of the most widely used based on its direct link to climate change and alignment with environmental policies (2).
2. ^CO2e is a standard unit for measuring the global warming potential of different greenhouse gases, that expresses the impact of various greenhouse gases in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that would produce the same warming effect.
3. ^ENERGY STAR Impacts | ENERGY STAR [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 27]. Available online at: https://www.energystar.gov/about/impacts.
4. ^A note about terminology: throughout this paper, the authors utilize the same demographic language as the source papers.
References
1. Crippa M, Solazzo E, Guizzardi D, Monforti-Ferrario F, Tubiello FN, Leip A. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food. (2021) 2:198–209. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
2. Kiehle J, Kopsakangas-Savolainen M, Hilli M, Pongrácz E. Carbon footprint at institutions of higher education: the case of the University of Oulu. J Environ Manag. (2023) 329:117056. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117056
3. Clark MA, Domingo NGG, Colgan K, Thakrar SK, Tilman D, Lynch J, et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 15° and 2 °C climate change targets. Science. (2020) 370:705–8. doi: 10.1126/science.aba7357
4. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT– Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. (2019) 393:447–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
5. Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D'Croz D, Wiebe K, Bodirsky BL, Lassaletta L, et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature. (2018) 562:519–25. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0
6. Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. (2018) 360:987–92. doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0216
7. Kim BF, Santo RE, Scatterday AP, Fry JP, Synk CM, Cebron SR, et al. Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Glob Environ Change. (2020) 62:101926. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.010
8. Vandenbergh MP, Dietz T, Stern PC. Time to try carbon labelling. Nat Clim Change. (2011) 1:4–6. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1071
9. Cohen MA, Vandenbergh MP. The potential role of carbon labeling in a green economy. Energy Econ. (2012) 34:S53–63. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2012.08.032
10. Lemken D, Zühlsdorf A, Spiller A. Improving consumers' understanding and use of carbon footprint labels on food: proposal for a climate score label. EuroChoices. (2021) 20:23–9. doi: 10.1111/1746-692X.12321
11. Hummel D, Maedche A. How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. J Behav Exp Econ. (2019) 80:47–58. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.005
12. Shangguan S, Afshin A, Shulkin M, Ma W, Marsden D, Smith J, et al. A meta-analysis of food labeling effects on consumer diet behaviors and industry practices. Am J Prev Med. (2019) 56:300–14. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.09.024
13. Brown R, Webber C, Koomey JG. Status and future directions of the Energy Star program. Energy. (2002) 27:505–20. doi: 10.1016/S0360-5442(02)00004-X
14. Teisl MF, Roe B, Hicks RL. Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence from Dolphin-safe labeling. J Environ Econ Manag. (2002) 43:339–59. doi: 10.1006/jeem.2000.1186
15. Abdu N, Mutuku J. Willingness to pay for socially responsible products: a meta-analysis of coffee ecolabelling. Heliyon. (2021) 7:e07043. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07043
16. Tiboni-Oschilewski O, Abarca M, Santa Rosa Pierre F, Rosi A, Biasini B, Menozzi D, et al. Strengths and weaknesses of food eco-labeling: a review. Front Nutr. (2024) 11:1381135. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1381135
17. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press (2022). doi: 10.1017/9781009157926
18. Feucht Y, Zander K. Consumers' Attitudes on Carbon Footprint Labelling: Results of the SUSDIET Project. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (2017).
19. Fresacher M, Johnson MKP. Designing climate labels for green food choices. J Clean Prod. (2023) 430:139490. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139490
20. Kühne SJ, Reijnen E, Laasner Vogt L, Baumgartner M. Can carbon labels encourage green food choices? Front Psychol. (2023) 13:902869. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.902869
21. Edenbrandt AK, Nordström J. The future of carbon labeling – factors to consider. Agric Resour Econ Rev. (2023) 52:151–67. doi: 10.1017/age.2022.29
22. Schaefer F, Blanke M. Opportunities and challenges of carbon footprint, climate or CO2 labelling for horticultural products. Erwerbs-Obstbau. (2014) 56:73–80. doi: 10.1007/s10341-014-0206-6
23. Peschel AO, Grebitus C, Steiner B, Veeman M. How does consumer knowledge affect environmentally sustainable choices? Evidence from a cross-country latent class analysis of food labels. Appetite. (2016) 106:78–91. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.162
24. Camilleri AR. Link to external site this link will open in a new tab, Larrick RP, et al. Consumers underestimate the emissions associated with food but are aided by labels. Nat Clim Change. (2019) 9:53–8. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0354-z
26. Keating XD, Guan J, Piñero JC, Bridges DM. A meta-analysis of college students' physical activity behaviors. J Am Coll Health. (2005) 54:116–26. doi: 10.3200/JACH.54.2.116-126
27. Wilson OWA, Matthews PJ, Duffey M, Papalia Z, Bopp M. Changes in health behaviors and outcomes following graduation from higher education. Int J Exerc Sci. (2020) 13:131–9. doi: 10.70252/TDLP9874
28. Malan H, Bartolotto C, Wilcots C, Ferrone A, Wible C, Westbrook E, et al. Increasing the selection of low-carbon-footprint entrées through the addition of new menu items and a social marketing campaign in university dining. J Assoc Cons Res. (2022) 7:461–70. doi: 10.1086/720450
29. Lohmann PM, Gsottbauer E, Doherty A, Kontoleon A. Do carbon footprint labels promote climatarian diets? Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. J Environ Econ Manag. (2022) 114:102693. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2022.102693
30. Brunner F, Kurz V, Bryngelsson D, Hedenus F. Carbon label at a university restaurant – label implementation and evaluation. Ecol Econ. (2018) 146:658–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.012
31. Larner E, Fish AL, Way CH, Graham F, Armstrong B, Patel V, et al. Reaction to a low-carbon footprint food logo and other sustainable diet promotions in a UK University's Student Union ‘Living Lab.' Fut Food: J Food Agric Soc. (2021) 9:1–30. doi: 10.17170/kobra-202011192217
32. Slapø HB, Karevold KI. Simple eco-labels to nudge customers toward the most environmentally friendly warm dishes: an empirical study in a cafeteria setting. Front Sust Food Syst. (2019) 3:40. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00040
33. Sun X, Wang R, He P, Liu B. Effects of environmental and nutritional labels on the dietary choices of consumers: evidence from China. Environ Impact Assess Rev. (2024) 105:107407. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107407
34. Thamer P, Banerjee S, John P. Pledging after nudging improves uptake of plant-based diets: a field experiment in a German university cafeteria. Environ Res Commun. (2024) 6:021003. doi: 10.1088/2515-7620/ad2625
35. Piester HE, DeRieux CM, Tucker J, Buttrick NR, Galloway JN, Wilson TD. “I'll try the veggie burger”: increasing purchases of sustainable foods with information about sustainability and taste. Appetite. (2020) 155:104842. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104842
36. Cuy Castellanos D, Kenehan S, Murray L. Sustainable eating practices on a university campus: a behavioral and environmental intervention. J Hunger Environ Nutr. (2022) 0:1–14.
37. Zhao R, Yang M, Liu J, Yang L, Bao Z, Ren X. University students' purchase intention and willingness to pay for carbon-labeled food products: a purchase decision-making experiment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:7026. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197026
38. Isham A, Geusen J, Gatersleben B. The influence of framing plant-based products in terms of their health vs. environmental benefits: interactions with individual wellbeing. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19:11948. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191911948
39. Kimura A, Wada Y, Kamada A, Masuda T, Okamoto M, Goto S, et al. Interactive effects of carbon footprint information and its accessibility on value and subjective qualities of food products. Appetite. (2010) 55:271–8. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.06.013
40. Cholette S, Ungson GR, Özlük Ö, Özşen L. Exploring purchasing preferences: local and ecologically labelled foods. J Cons Market. (2013) 30:563–72. doi: 10.1108/JCM-04-2013-0544
41. Suchier J, Demarque C, Girandola F, Waroquier L, Hilton D, Muller L. Effects of intra- and inter-category traffic-light carbon labels and the presence of a social norm cue on food purchases. J Cons Behav. (2023) 22:597–617. doi: 10.1002/cb.2139
42. Potter C, Bastounis A, Hartmann-Boyce J, Stewart C, Frie K, Tudor K, et al. The effects of environmental sustainability labels on selection, purchase, and consumption of food and drink products: a systematic review. Environ Behav. (2021) 53:891–925. doi: 10.1177/0013916521995473
43. Rondoni A, Grasso S. Consumers behaviour towards carbon footprint labels on food: a review of the literature and discussion of industry implications. J Clean Prod. (2021) 301:127031. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127031
44. Taufique KMR, Nielsen KS, Dietz T, Shwom R, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP. Revisiting the promise of carbon labelling. Nat Clim Chang. (2022) 12:132–40. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01271-8
45. Cowburn G, Stockley L. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. (2005) 8:21–8. doi: 10.1079/PHN2005666
46. Hartikainen H, Roininen T, Katajajuuri J, Pulkkinen H. Finnish consumer perceptions of carbon footprints and carbon labelling of food products. J Clean Prod. (2014) 73:285–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.018
47. Vlaeminck P, Jiang T, Vranken L. Food labeling and eco-friendly consumption: experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket. Ecol Econ. (2014) 108:180–90. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.019
48. Casati M, Soregaroli C, Rommel J, Luzzani G, Stranieri S. Please keep ordering! A natural field experiment assessing a carbon label introduction. Food Policy. (2023) 120:102523. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102523
49. Büttner V, Gassler B, Teuber R. Does the Eco-Score lead to a halo effect? Influence of a sustainability label on product perceptions and purchase intention. Food Qual Prefer. (2024) 121:105246. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105246
50. Wolfson JA, Musicus AA, Leung CW, Gearhardt AN, Falbe J. Effect of climate change impact menu labels on fast food ordering choices among US adults: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. (2022) 5:e2248320. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.48320
51. Bryngelsson D, Wirsenius S, Hedenus F, Sonesson U. How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agricultura. Food Policy. (2016) 59:152–64. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.12.012
52. The Carbon Footprint of Norwegian Seafood Products on the Global Seafood Market. ResearchGate (2024).
53. Life Cycle Impacts of Protein-rich Foods for the “SuperWijzer” App. CE Delft - EN n.d. Available online at: https://cedelft.eu/publications/life-cycle-impacts-of-protein-rich-foods-for-the-superwijzer-app/ (Accessed January 10, 2025).
54. Leach AM, Emery KA, Gephart J, Davis KF, Erisman JW, Leip A, et al. Environmental impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints. Food Policy. (2016) 61:213–23. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.03.006
55. Zhao R, McGuire M, Deutz P, Neighbour G. Carbon emissions intensity ratio: an indicator for an improved carbon labelling scheme. Environ Res Lett. (2012) 7:014014. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014014
56. Sustainable Diets - Sheffield Students' Union n.d. Available online at: https://su.sheffield.ac.uk/about/sustainability/sustainable-diets (Accessed January 10, 2025).
57. Clune S, Crossin E, Verghese K. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. J Clean Prod. (2017) 140:766–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.082
Keywords: climate, carbon emissions, label, university dining, greenhouse gases
Citation: Hey M-L, Crespi E, Yett A, Altema-Johnson D, Wolfson J and Ramsing R (2025) Implementing climate menu labels in university settings: a narrative review. Front. Nutr. 12:1619842. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1619842
Received: 28 April 2025; Accepted: 29 September 2025;
Published: 21 November 2025.
Edited by:
Wahyudi David, Bakrie University, IndonesiaCopyright © 2025 Hey, Crespi, Yett, Altema-Johnson, Wolfson and Ramsing. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Rebecca Ramsing, cnJhbXNpbjJAamh1LmVkdQ==
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship