## 5 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Attributes** & **Positive** & **Segment** & **Negative** & **Segment** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Perc.** \\ **Variation** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Only environmental issues & 81.25 & Croatia & 7.50 & Bulgaria & 983\% \\ Social and ethical issues apart from & 92.50 & Cyprus & 30.00 & Estonia & 208\% \\ environmental issues & 92.50 & Cyprus & 28.75 & Ecolabel owner & 222\% \\ Health and safety issues apart from & 92.50 & Cyprus & 30.00 & Estonia & 208\% \\ environmental issues & 92.50 & Bulgaria & 30.00 & Luxembourg & 208\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Source: Own elaboration.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Coverage of the EU ecolabels. Ideal solutions. Following the implementation of steps 5 and 6, the SIs were calculated and are shown in Figure 1 for the total sample, the governmental intervention segments and the stakeholders segments. The results show that citizens who consider that public bodies and governments should be more involved in the control of eco-labeling accept more to include issues that are different from environmental issues than those who do not or who do not know. Similarly, from the group of stakeholders, producers and consumers have higher SIs. On the other hand, ecolabel owners are the group of stakeholders that least accept inclusion of other types of information apart from environmental issues. Finally, for the last step, we calculated the elasticities of the SIs (Table 7). The general results indicate that the SIs are mostly inelastic with respect to all the issues and segments of analysis, except for the owners of ecolabels on social and ethical issues, which was the highest value of elasticity in all segments of analysis. In addition, the lowest elasticity value was obtained for ecolabel owners regarding food quality issues. For the total sample and most of the analyzed segments of analysis, the higher elasticities were related to social and ethical issues, with the exception of producers who have higher sensitivity towards the inclusion of food quality issues. On the other hand, the lowest elasticity value for the total sample and most of the analyzed segments was related to food quality issues, while for consumers, food quality issues and health and safety issues had similar elasticity values. Besides, the lowest elasticity value for producers was related to animal welfare issues. Figure 1: Level of acceptance for the inclusion of additional issues apart from environmental ones on a hypothetical EU ecolabel for the different segments of analysis. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Attributes**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Governmental Intervention Segments**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Stakeholders’ Segments**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **Gov. Interv. No** & **Gov. Interv. No** & **Gov. Interv. Yes** & **Consumers** & **Ecolabel** & **Producers** & **Retailers or Suppliers** & **Gov/Public/Research** \\ \hline Social and ethical issues apart from environmental & 0.5139 & 0.6560 & 0.6031 & 0.4709 & 0.4912 & 1.4776 & 0.4550 & 0.5448 & 0.5547 \\ Issues & & & & & & & & \\ Food quality issues apart from environmental issues & 0.4639 & 0.4947 & 0.4812 & 0.4530 & 0.4533 & 0.1312 & 0.4761 & 0.4609 & 0.4540 \\ Health and safety issues & & & & & & & & \\ apart from environmental & 0.4689 & 0.5419 & 0.5047 & 0.4509 & 0.4532 & 0.6309 & 0.4687 & 0.4696 & 0.4716 \\ Issues & & & & & & & & \\ Animal welfare issues apart from environmental issues & 0.4905 & 0.6446 & 0.5271 & 0.4601 & 0.4770 & 0.7664 & 0.4446 & 0.5303 & 0.5109 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Source: Own elaboration.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Elasticity values of the level of acceptance for the inclusion of additional issues apart from environmental ones on a hypothetical EU ecolabel for fishery and aquaculture products (FAPs). Total, governmental intervention and stakeholders segments of analysis.