Abadie, L., Galarraga, I., Milford, A., & Gustavsen, G. (2015). Using food taxes and subsidies to achieve emission reduction targets in Norway. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, Pages 280-297.
Adams, J., Khan, H., & Raeside, R. (2014). Research Methods for Business and Social Science Students. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Alfredsson, E. (2004). ‘‘Green’’ consumption—no solution for climate change.
Energy(29), 513-524.
Alvaro, C. (2019). Is Animal Suffering Really All That Matters? The Move from Suffering to Vegetarianism. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 32, 633-645.
Bakken, D. G. (2013). Are you sure the price is right? (pricing and business strategy) . Strategic Direction, 29(1), 9-14.
Beverland, M. B. (2014). Sustainable Eating: Mainstreaming Plant-Based Diets In Developed Economies. Journal of Macromarketing, 34(3), 369-382.
Bishai, D. (2015). Generalized Nutrient Taxes Can Increase Consumer Welfare. Health Economics, 24, 1517-1522.
Boffey, D. (2020). The Guardian. Získáno 24. October 2020, z https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/14/eu-spending-tens-of-millions-of-euros-a-year-to-promote-meat-eating
Caillavet, F., Fadhuile, A., & Nichele, V. (2019). Assessing the distributional effects of carbon taxes on food: Inequalities and nutritional insights in France. Ecological Economics, 163, 20-31.
Caro, D., Frederiksen, P., Thomsen, M., & Pedersen, A. B. (2017). Toward a more consistent combined approach of reduction targets and climate policy regulations: The illustrative case of a meat tax in Denmark . Environmental Science and Policy, 76, 78-81.
Choi, E. K., & Johnson, S. R. (1992). Regulation of externalities in an open economy.
Ecological Economics(5), 251-265.
Cremer, H., Gahvari, F., & Ladoux, N. (1998). Externalities and optimal taxation.
Journal of Public Economics(70), 343-364.
Darmon, N., Lacroix, A., Muller, L., & Ruffieux, B. (2014). Food price policies improve diet quality while increasing socioeconomic inequalities in nutrition. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 11(66).
Drewnowksi, A., Darmon, N., & Briend, A. (2004). Replacing Fats and Sweets with Vegetables and Fruits - A Question of Cost. American Journal of Public Health, 94(9), 1555-1559.
Edjabou, L. D., & Smed, S. (2013). The effect of using consumption taxes on foods to promote climate friendly diets – The case of Denmark. Food Policy(39), 84-96.
EY. (2020). Are you reframing your future or is the future reframing you? EY.
Feskens, E. J., Sluik, D., & Woudenbergh, G. J. (2013). Meat Consumption, Diabetes, and Its Complications. Curr Diab Rep, 13, 298–306.
Frank, R. H. (2008). Should public policy respond to positional externalities? Journal of Public Economics (92), 1777-1786.
Frodl, F. (2020). Köttkultur ICA Maxi Lindhagen. Stockholm.
Galanter, E., Moskowitz, H., & Silcher, M. (2011). People, Preferences and Prices:
Sequencing the Economic Genome of the Consumer Mind. Bentham Books.
González, A., Frostell, B., & Carlsson-Kanyama, A. (2011). Protein efficiency per unit energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions: Potential contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation. Food Policy(36), 562-570.
González-García, S., Esteve-Llorens, X., Moreira, M. T., & Feijoo, G. (2018). Carbon footprint and nutritional quality of different human dietary choices. Science of the Total Environment(644), 77-94.
Göteborgs-Posten. (2016). Sverige är redo för en köttskatt. Získáno 25. November 2020, z https://www.gp.se/debatt/sverige-är-redo-för-en-köttskatt-1.2235384
Grabs, J. (2014). The Rebound Effects of Switching to Vegetarianism: A Microeconomic Analysis of Swedish Consumption Behavior. Uppsala: Master's Thesis.
Gren, I.-M., Moberg, E., Säll, S., & Röös, E. (2019). Design of a climate tax on food consumption: Examples of tomatoes and beef in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 1576-1585.
Hill, S. (2020). Clearing the confusion and making evidence-based food choices.
Australia: https://plantproof.com/clearing-the-confusion-and-making-evidence-based-food-choices/.
Kutasi, G., & Perger, J. (2015). Tax Incentives Applied Against Externalities:
International Examples Of Fat Tax and Carbon Tax. Society and Economy, 37, 117-135.
Lambert, T. (2017). Truth on the Market: How to Regulate: Externalities . Získáno 30.
September 2020, z https://truthonthemarket.com/2017/02/13/how-to-regulate-externalities/
Lancet. (2020a). Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–
2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet, 396, 1135–59.
Lancet. (2020b). Health sector spending and spending on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and development assistance for health: progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 3. Lancet, 396, 693–724.
Lipovetsky, S. (2006). Van Westendrop Price Sensitivity in Statistical Modeling . International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management, 12(2), 141-156.
Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2009). Some Economic Benefits and Costs of Vegetarianism. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 38(2), 109-124.
Mankiw, N. G. (2016). Principles of Microeconomics (Sv. 8th). Boston, USA: Cengage Learning.
Mankiw, N. G., & Taylor, M. P. (2014). Economics (Sv. 3rd). Hampshire, UK:
CENGAGE Learning.
Muller, L., Lacroix, A., Lusk, J. L., & Ruffieux, B. (2016). Distributional Impacts of Fat Taxes and Thin Subsidies. The Economic Journal, 127, 2066-2092.
Nicholson, W., & Snyder, C. (2010). Intermediate Microeconomics (Sv. 11th). Mason, USA: Cengage Learning.
Nicholson, W., Snyder, C., Luke, P., & Wood, M. (2008). Intermediate Microeconomics. London: Cengage.
Nordström, J., & Thunström, L. (2010). Can targeted food taxes and subsidies improve the diet? Distributional effects among income groups. Food Policy, 36, 259-271.
Open Textbook Library. (2018). Boundless economics. Minneapolis: Lumen Learning.
Peñalvo, J. L., Cudhea, F., Micha, R., Rehm, C. D., Afshin, A., Whitsel, L., . . . Mozaffarian, D. (2017). The potential impact of food taxes and subsidies on cardiovascular disease and diabetes burden and disparities in the United States. BMC Medicine, 15(208).
Pritchard, M. (2020). Van Westendorp pricing (the Price Sensitivity Meter) - 5 Circles Research. Získáno 19. November 2020, z https://www.5circles.com/van-westendorp-pricing-the-price-sensitivity-meter/
Rankin, J. (2019). European parliament votes to ban single-use plastics. The Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/27/the-last-straw-european-parliament-votes-to-ban-single-use-plastics. Načteno z
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/27/the-last-straw-european-parliament-votes-to-ban-single-use-plastics
RobecoSAM. (2020). Country ESG Ranking Update – July 2020. Zurich: RobecoSAM.
Säll, S. (2018). Environmental food taxes and inequalities: Simulation of a meat tax in Sweden. Food Policy, 74, 147-153.
Säll, S., & Gren, I.-M. (2015). Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden. Food Policy(55), 41-53.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th Edition. vyd.). Harlow: Pearson.
Shepard, S. A. (2014). A Negative Externality by Any Other Name: Using Emissions Caps as Models for Constraining Dead-Weight Costs of Regulation. Administrative Law Review, 66(2), 345-408.
Sherwood, A. (2018). How to find the right price for your product or service, using Van Westendorp’s Price Sensitivity Meter . Získáno 28. November 2020, z
https://medium.com/@alex_sherwood/how-to-find-the-right-price-for-your-product-or-service-using-van-westendorps-price-sensitivity-bf21684b14f3
Snyder, C., Nicholson, W., & Stewart, R. (2015). Microeconomic Theory. Basic principles and extensions. Cengage.
Springmann, M., Godfraya, H. C., Rayner, M., & Scarborougha, P. (2016). Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. PNAS.
Springmann, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Robinson, S., Wiebe, K., Godfray, H., Rayner, M.,
& Scarborough, P. (2018). Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: A modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts. PLoS ONE(11).
Statista. (2020). Average monthly salary in Sweden in 2019, by education level. Získáno 2. December 2020, z https://www.statista.com/statistics/528713/sweden-average-monthly-salary-by-education-level/
Sveriges Officiella Statistik. (2019). Food consumption and nutritive values, data up to 2018. Statistiska meddelanden.
The Economist. (2018). Why people in rich countries are eating more vegan food. The Economist,
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/10/13/why-people-in-rich-countries-are-eating-more-vegan-food. Načteno z
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/10/13/why-people-in-rich-countries-are-eating-more-vegan-food
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (6. February 2020). National Center for Health Statistics: FastStats Homepage: Life Stages and Populations: Deaths. Získáno September 2020, z Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
UK National Health Service. (2020). Change 4 Life. Získáno 4. December 2020, z https://www.nhs.uk/change4life
Veganuary. (2019). Veganuary: Home. Získáno September 2020, z Veganuary:
https://uk.veganuary.com
Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J., Rood, T., Wagner, S., De Marco, A., Murphy-Bokern, D., Oenema, O. (2014). Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change(26), 196-205.
Wirsenius, S., Hedenus, F., & Mohlin, K. (2011). Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Climatic Change, stránky 159-184.
Wittmer, A. (6. March 2019). Aviation System Lecture: Systems of Aviation. St. Gallen, Switzerland: University of St. Gallen.
Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. (2020). 2020 Environmental Performance Index. Získáno October 2020, z https://epi.yale.edu
Zywicki, T. J. (1999). Environmental externalities and political externalities: The political economy of environmental regulation and reform. Tulane Law Review, 73(3), 845-922.
Appendix A: Questionnaire
If marked with *, the question was required.
Section 1: Master Thesis Survey: Meat Pricing Strategy Hej!
Thank you very much for taking the time to fill in this survey. My name is Valerie Berger and I am a student in International Management (CEMS) at the Prague University of Economics and Business. I am in the final semester of my Masters, and currently in the process of finalising my Master thesis.
Your contribution is very important to discover valuable insights for my thesis and hopefully bring me one step closer to obtaining my Master's Degree. The goal of this questionnaire is to determine the price sensitivity of consumers towards meat and the willingness to pay for it.
The whole survey takes about 10-15 minutes. Be assured that all answers will only be used for my research to understand the impact a meat tax may pose on society. Please fill out the introductory questions below and then click next to continue.
As a thank you for your time, I will draw 3 lucky winners for a 30 euro amazon gift card (or another platform, as you wish :) ). I will also send everyone a small pdf recipe booklet, with my favourite family recipes, once the research is done. I can say, that my former flatmates really appreciated those dishes, so I hope you will too. ;)
Tack så mycket!
1. Do you currently live in Sweden? Multiple Choice, & open*
2. Do you consume meat? Multiple Choice*
3. If you eat meat, which kind of meats do Checkboxes*
you eat?
4. If you eat meat, how frequently would you
say you consume meat? Dropdown*
Section 2: Pricing Survey
The aim is to understand the price ratio at which you, the consumers, are willing to purchase meat for your day to day consumption. When answering please consider your regular consumption of meat.
You will have to answer the same set of questions for 1. 200g of Beef
2. 200g of Pork 3. 200g of Chicken
200g of meat is approximately one steak for one person.
If you do not consume a certain type of meat at all, please leave those questions blank.
Please insert all numbers in SEK Amount
Please also note that the prices are not considering potential discounts due to e.g. expiration dates!
1. At what price would you consider 200g of beef to be...
a. ...a bargain - a great buy for the money? Open, Number validation b. ...starting to get expensive - but you
would still consider it? Open, Number validation c. ...too expensive to consider? Open, Number validation d. ...too low, so that you would fear
something is wrong with the meat? Open, Number validation 2. At what price would you consider 200g of pork to be...
a. ...a bargain - a great buy for the money? Open, Number validation b. ...starting to get expensive - but you
would still consider it? Open, Number validation c. ...too expensive to consider? Open, Number validation d. ...too low, so that you would fear
something is wrong with the meat? Open, Number validation 3. At what price would you consider 200g of chicken to be...
a. ...a bargain - a great buy for the money? Open, Number validation b. ...starting to get expensive - but you
would still consider it? Open, Number validation c. ...too expensive to consider? Open, Number validation d. ...too low, so that you would fear
something is wrong with the meat? Open, Number validation
Section 3: Impact of Meat Consumption
In the last couple of years, environmental research has discovered various impacts of meat on
- Meat contributes up to 80% of food-based Greenhouse Gas Emissions, as well as contributing Nitrogen & Phosphorus emission.
- Meat production is one of the major contributors to the deforestation of the Amazonian forest and other green lands.
- Meat production is said to be inefficient. 1 kilogram of meat protein requires feeding 6 kilograms of plant protein on average.
Sources: Alfredsson 2004, Beverland, 2014, Norwood 2009, Springmann et al., 2016, Säll &
Gren 2015, Wirsenius et al. 2011
1. Before reading this statement, how aware were
you on the impact meat has on our environment? Likert Scale 1-7 Furthermore, researchers discovered negative impacts of meat on our health such as:
- Red and processed meats are known to cause cancer, when consumed in too high quantities, making cancer rates as high as 30% in western countries.
- Meat consumption increases the risk for Coronary Heart Disease, the number one cause of death in many western countries.
- Mortality for vegetarians is 20% lower than for meat consumers. Processed & unprocessed red meats jointly contribute to over 2 million deaths in 2020 alone.
Sources: Alvaro 2019, Beverland 2014, Penalvo et al. 2017, Springmann et al. 2018.
2. Before reading this statement, how aware were
you on the impact meat has on our health? Likert Scale 1-7 The damage caused by meat is not included in the price the consumer pays. The additional health cost and environmental cost have to be covered by consumers taxes. However, while meat causes damage, our aim is not to forbid meat. A simple reduction in meat consumption, paired with some initiatives to improve health care and the environmental care of our planet could bring great improvement.
One solution to make it possible for consumers to eat meat more responsibly, is to set prices at a level that damages your health less and is right for the environment. Simultaneously we can raise money to cover the increase in health care cost and the environmental cost. To raise cost to this level, a tax could be put on meat. With this tax, one can then assume to be eating meat at a "fair" price.
3. Given that information, would you change your
answer to the questions in the previous section, regarding
how much you are willing to pay for meat? Multiple Choice, & open Section 4: Pricing Survey Part II
To summarise: Meat causes damage that is not covered by the good's price but instead needs to be financed with general taxation. To improve the situation, but not forbid meat consumption, one could increase the price of meat. This could be done with a tax on the good, that raises the price to a fairer level. The tax revenue can then be used to finance the health care system, counter environmental damage and provide other benefits to the society.
Given this information, please set your Price Levels again for 1. 200g of Beef
2. 200g of Pork 3. 200g of Chicken
200g of meat is approximately one steak for one person.
If you do not consume a certain type of meat at all, please leave those questions blank.
1. At what price would you consider 200g of beef to be...
a. ...a bargain - a great buy for the money? Open, Number validation b. ...starting to get expensive - but you
would still consider it? Open, Number validation c. ...too expensive to consider? Open, Number validation d. ...too low, so that you would fear
something is wrong with the meat? Open, Number validation 2. At what price would you consider 200g of pork to be...
a. ...a bargain - a great buy for the money? Open, Number validation b. ...starting to get expensive - but you
would still consider it? Open, Number validation c. ...too expensive to consider? Open, Number validation d. ...too low, so that you would fear
something is wrong with the meat? Open, Number validation 3. At what price would you consider 200g of chicken to be...
a. ...a bargain - a great buy for the money? Open, Number validation b. ...starting to get expensive - but you
would still consider it? Open, Number validation c. ...too expensive to consider? Open, Number validation
d. ...too low, so that you would fear
something is wrong with the meat? Open, Number validation 4. Would you consume more meat at a fairer
(higher) price? Multiple Choice, & open
Section 5: Supporting Questions
Thank you for having filled in the survey thus far!
This last part will focus on some supporting questions that will help me better understand the data you provided so far. if you decide not to answer a question, please simply leave the field blank, however, if possible, fill in all questions, as it can greatly contribute to my research outcome.
1. How many people are in your household including you? Dropdown 2. How many people in your household generate income? Dropdown 3. How much money on average does your household
allocate per month on food? Open
4. How much money on average does your household
allocate per month on meat products? Open
5. What is your household's average monthly income
(before tax)? Dropdown
6. What is your age? Dropdown
7. What gender do you most identify with? Dropdown
8. What is your primary nationality? Open
Section 6: Thank you!!
Thank you very much for taking the time to fill out this survey.
Please feel free to share any additional feedback, or in case of any questions, you can also email me at berv04@vse.cz.
If you are interested in the research outcome, want to be part of the (Amazon) giftcard drawing and want to receive my favorite family recipes, you may also leave your email in the box below.
1. Do you want to share any feedback with me? Open 2. Please insert your e-mail if you want to receive
the final thesis after submission. Open
Appendix B: Questionnaire vW Results
1. Van Westendorp Supplementary Graphs
Figure A 1: Observation Data Summary for Beef Data – vW Part 1
Figure A 2: Box Plot Data Summary for Beef Data – vW Part 1
Figure A 3: Observation Data Summary for Pork Data – vW Part 1
Figure A 4: Box Plot Data Summary for Pork Data – vW Part 1
Figure A 5: vW Price Sensitvity Meter Graphical Output for Pork – vW Part 1
Figure A 6: Observation Data Summary for Poultry Data – vW Part 1
Figure A 7: Plot Data Summary for Poultry Data – vW Part 1
Figure A 8: vW Price Sensitvity Meter Graphical Output for Poultry – vW Part 1
Figure A 9: Observation Data Summary for Beef Data – vW Part 2
Figure A 10: Plot Data Summary for Beef Data – vW Part 2
Figure A 11: vW Price Sensitvity Meter Graphical Output for Beef – vW Part 2
Figure A 12: Observation Data Summary for Pork Data – vW Part 2
Figure A 13: Plot Data Summary for Pork Data – vW Part 2
Figure A 14: vW Price Sensitvity Meter Graphical Output for Pork – vW Part 2
Figure A 15: Observation Data Summary for Chicken Data – vW Part 2
Figure A 16: Plot Data Summary for Chicken Data – vW Part 2
Figure A 17: vW Price Sensitvity Meter Graphical Output for Chicken – vW Part 2
2. Correlation Statistics and Scatterplots Supplements
Figure A 18: Scatterplot Chicken Prices and Participants Awareness of Impact
Figure A 19: Scatterplot Pork Prices and Participants Awareness of Impact
3. Descriptive Statistics Supplementary Tables
Figure A 20: Observations were data had to be replaced and the utilised mean, for normality testing.
Figure A 21: Supplementary Data Description for Normality Testing
Figure A 22: Descriptive statistics for bargain intervals – Histogram creation.
Figure A 23: Grubbs outlier test results.
4. Other Relevant Supplementary Graphs, Tables and Figures
Figure A 24: Contingency Table and Central Tendencies: Environmental Awareness
Figure A 25: Contingency Table and Central Tendencies: Health Awareness
Figure A 26: Central Tendencies Participants Demographics and Background
Figure A 27: Participants Income Levels Contingency Table and Central Tendencies
Figure A 28: Participants Demographics Data Summary