4.5 Review

A Bibliometric Analysis of Carbon Labeling Schemes in the Period 2007-2019

Journal

ENERGIES
Volume 13, Issue 16, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en13164233

Keywords

carbon label; bibliometric analysis; CiteSpace; carbon labeling scheme; purchase intention; willingness to pay

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41301639, 41571520]
  2. Sichuan Provincial Young Talent Program [2019JDJQ0020]
  3. Chengdu Soft Science Fund [2020-RK00-00246-ZF]
  4. Sichuan Province Circular Economy Research Center Fund [XHJJ-2002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carbon labeling schemes enable consumers to be aware of carbon emissions regarding products or services, to help change their purchasing behaviors. This study provides a bibliometric analysis to review the research progress of carbon labeling schemes during the period 2007-2019, in order to provide insight into its future development. Number of publications, countries of publications, authors, institutions, and highly cited papers are included for statistical analysis. The CiteSpace software package is used to visualize the national collaboration, keywords co-appearance, and aggregation. The results are given as follows: (1) there are 175 articles published in the pre-defined period, which shows a gradual increase, with a peak occurred in 2016; (2) carbon labeling schemes are mainly applied to grocery products, and gradually emerged in construction and tourism. (3) Existing studies mainly focus on examination of utility of carbon labeling schemes, by conducting surveys to investigate individual perception, preference, and willingness to pay. (4) Future research will include the optimization of life cycle assessment for labeling accreditation, improvement of labeling visualization for better expression, and normalization of various environmental labels to promote sustainable consumption.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available