Perceived environmental impact of meat alternatives: Effects of a sustainability label and product type

Dacinia Crina Petrescu; Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag; Melis Aras; Marius Bota; Alexandru Sut

doi:10.1016/j.crfs.2025.101254

Perceived environmental impact of meat alternatives: Effects of a sustainability label and product type

Curr Res Food Sci. 2025 Nov 27:11:101254. doi: 10.1016/j.crfs.2025.101254. eCollection 2025.

Authors

Dacinia Crina Petrescu^{1

2}, Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag^{2

3

4}, Melis Aras⁵, Marius Bota¹, Alexandru Sut¹

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Business, Babes-Bolyai University, 7 Horea Street, Cluj-Napoca, 400174, Romania.
² Department of Economy and Rural Development, Faculty of Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Passage des Déportés, 2, Gembloux, 5030, Belgium.
³ Faculty of Environmental Science and Engineering, Babes-Bolyai University, 30 Fantanele Street, Cluj-Napoca, 400294, Romania.
⁴ Doctoral School "International Relations and Security Studies", Babes-Bolyai University, 1 Mihail Kogalniceanu Street, Cluj-Napoca, 400084, Romania.
⁵ The Law and Social Change (DCS) Laboratory - UMR CNRS 6297, Faculty of Law, Nantes University, Chemin de la Censive du Tertre BP 81307, 44 313, Nantes, Cedex 3, France.

Abstract

Growing environmental awareness and interest in sustainable, nutritious diets fueled the rapid expansion of meat alternatives. However, consumer acceptance remains uneven, and responses to sustainability labels are ambiguous, particularly for novel protein sources. This study investigates how a sustainability label and product type influence consumers' perceptions of the environmental impact of meat alternatives and meat products. A 2 (label: sustainability label; no label) × 4 (product type: insect-based; cultured meat; plant-based; beef burgers) between-subjects experiment was conducted with 432 Romanian consumers. Perceived environmental impact was assessed across three dimensions - resource consumption, climate change, and animal welfare - using two-way MANOVA. The sustainability label had limited effects: only for insect-based burgers, and it unexpectedly increased perceived climate harm. For all other products, labels did not shift evaluations. Beef burgers were constantly perceived as the most damaging. An interaction effect between label and product type emerged only for perceptions of climate change. This research presents the first integrated analysis of label × product type effects across multiple environmental dimensions, comparing meat alternatives and meat products. It highlights that labels may not always enhance positive perceptions and can, for less familiar products, amplify negative judgments. Marketers of novel proteins should align sustainability messaging with product familiarity, while beef producers may benefit from highlighting verifiable environmental improvements. Policymakers may consider developing dimension-specific labeling standards and implementing consumer education initiatives to enhance the effectiveness of labels. Enhancing public understanding of sustainability claims can help align consumer perceptions with scientific evidence, supporting responsible marketing and sustainable dietary choices.

Keywords: Animal welfare; Climate change; Cultured meat; Insect; Meat alternative; Plant-based; Protein.