The impact of climate claims on meat alternative adoption: The underlying mechanism of taste inferences and anticipated guilt

Abstract

The increasing adoption of meat alternatives can significantly contribute to animal welfare, human health, and environmental sustainability by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions from livestock production. While meat alternatives currently represent only a small fraction of the market compared to traditional meat, their growth is accelerating rapidly. Highlighting whether the product is environmentally friendly on packaging may serve as an effective strategy to accelerate its adoption. This research examines the impact of climate claims as a key influence, exploring how they shape taste inferences and anticipated guilt, ultimately driving consumers' willingness to adopt meat alternatives. An experiment employing a one-factor between-subjects design tests the theoretical model with a representative sample of Austrian consumers. Data from this sample (N = 427) were analyzed with MANCOVA and mediation analysis. The data confirm the theoretical reasoning that climate claims stimulate taste inferences and, at the same time, reduce feelings of anticipated guilt. Both variables impact the adoption of meat-alternative products. However, the indirect effect of taste inferences was more substantial than the indirect effect of anticipated guilt. This study is the first to show that taste inferences and anticipated guilt are underlying processes that explain how climate claims for meat alternatives impact their adoption by consumers. The findings contribute to the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of claims and provide theoretically derived explanations of why a climate claim impacts consumer responses positively in the context of a plant-based diet.