Stefan Görgens, COO PENNY

Fact-based data enables a new quality of discussion
"There has never before been a study on such special price adjustments based on a comparably broad, fact-based database. This enables a completely new quality of discussion about environmental impact costs, also with regard to whether the food trade is the right place to address this issue. After the campaign week, customer estimates of the true costs have risen, both for products that were previously underestimated and for those that were overestimated. This shows that the respondents have realised that the true costs are higher than originally assumed. However, there is still no differentiation between products; further socially acceptable and low-threshold educational work is probably needed here to show which products are more sustainable than others. We think that 'true cost' price tags can contribute to this understanding," says Prof Dr Tobias Gaugler, Professor of Business Administration and Finance at Nuremberg Institute of Technology.

Attitude-behaviour gap between attitude and behaviour
Dr Amelie Michalke, sustainability scientist at the University of Greifswald, on the main findings: "In general, the greater the mark-up for environmental impact costs, the greater the drop in customer demand. 85 per cent stated that the main reason for not buying the products was the price. Customers make a slight distinction between products from organic and conventional production: although both show a downward trend, the decline in sales of organic products is consistently lower. As motivation to buy the products despite the high 'True Cost' price, buyers of the campaign products stated that they always bought them (93%), but also their interest in Sustainability (86%). In addition, respondents were convinced by the connection to Zukunftsbauern (83%). Only the vegan product, with a low price premium of just 5%, was in greater demand during the week.

Support for measures to implement true costs politically (via information, price surcharges or taxes) fell over the week (-19%, -27%, -22%) when consumers were actually confronted with true costs through the campaign." The fact that customers are acutely sensitised by the persistently high prices in almost all areas of life probably plays a role here.

Background to the 2023 campaign week
Every form of production and consumption has an impact on the environment. These currently invisible environmental impact costs - known as true costs - are inevitably incurred along the supply chains, but are not or only proportionately reflected in the selling price of products, services and food. Whether, when, how, where and by whom these are offset is not transparent. For selected conventionally and organically produced own-brand products as well as a vegan food, the scientists included the effects of soil, climate, water and health factors on the sales price via the supply chains in the true costs.

You can read more background information on the true costs in the opinion piece by Dr Amelie Michalke and Prof Dr Tobias Gaugler.

PENNY donated the additional campaign revenue of 325,000 euros - i.e. the difference between the sales price and the True Cost Price - plus a donation of 50,000 euros to Zukunftsbauer. This is a joint project between PENNY, the Berchtesgadener Land dairy, farmers and customers with the aim of contributing to climate protection and the preservation of family-run farms in the Alpine region. In return, PENNY waives part of its sales margin on all milk products from the Berchtesgadener Land dairy, and the dairy doubles the amount. This feeds into an annual funding pot of more than 350,000 euros, from which farmers of the cooperative dairy who want to optimise the energy efficiency of their farms receive funding of up to 10,000 euros. The Future Farmer was launched in October 2021.