# Carrot, stick, or both? Price incentives for sustainable food choice in competitive environments

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.13174 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.13174/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 44 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Dec 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Spillover of Antisocial Behavior from Fringe Platforms: The Unintended Consequences of Community Banning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.09803/) (2022)
- [The Pluralistic Moral Gap: Understanding Judgment and Value Differences between Humans and Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.17216/) (2025)
- [Understanding Online Migration Decisions Following the Banning of Radical Communities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.04765/) (2022)
- [Does Content Moderation Lead Users Away from Fringe Movements? Evidence from a Recovery Community](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.03772/) (2025)
- [Meat-Free Day Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions but Poses Challenges for Customer Retention and Adherence to Dietary Guidelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02899/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Meat consumption is a major driver of global greenhouse gas emissions. While pricing interventions have shown potential to reduce meat intake, previous studies have focused on highly constrained environments with limited consumer choice. Here, we present the first large-scale field experiment to evaluate multiple pricing interventions in a real-world, competitive setting. Using a sequential crossover design with matched menus in a Swiss university campus, we systematically compared vegetarian-meal discounts (-2.5 CHF), meat surcharges (+2.5 CHF), and a combined scheme (-1.2 CHF=+1.2 CHF) across four campus cafeterias. Only the surcharge and combined interventions led to significant increases in vegetarian meal uptake--by 26.4% and 16.6%, respectively--and reduced CO2 emissions per meal by 7.4% and 11.3%, respectively. The surcharge, while effective, triggered a 12.3% drop in sales at intervention sites and a corresponding 14.9% increase in non-treated locations, hence causing a spillover effect that completely offset environmental gains. In contrast, the combined approach achieved meaningful emission reductions without significant effects on overall sales or revenue, making it both effective and economically viable. Notably, pricing interventions were equally effective for both vegetarian-leaning customers and habitual meat-eaters, stimulating change even within entrenched dietary habits. Our results show that balanced pricing strategies can reduce the carbon footprint of realistic food environments, but require coordinated implementation to maximize climate benefits and avoid unintended spillover effects.