• Energy Research
• social sciences close
• 12. Responsible consumption close
• US close
• AU close
• DE close
• FR close

Points out that sustainability as such does not provide a clearcut guide to policy. First one has to decide what is to be sustained. If this is agreed, it must be in an operational from. However, difficulties may still emerge since opinions may differ about how to achieve. This is illustrated by differences in the views of economists about how sustainable development is to be achieved. Orthodox economists stress the importance of the accumulation of man-made capital to achieve this end whereas neo-Malthusians stress the importance of conserving natural resource and environmental capital. Both take an anthropocentric point of view. For political reasons the neo-Malthusian has had little support but it may eventually turn out to be correct. Economics is concerned with reducing economic scarcity and economists have traditionally suggested four main ways of doing this of which economic growth is one. However, neo-Malthusian economists believe that this may not be a sustainable strategy – it may result in future poverty. It should be noted that economic systems are embedded in social and natural systems and depend on these. Economic sustainability depends on the sustainability of these other systems. So from this point of view, it is just one of several bottom lines. Values must be considered in relation to sustainability. Economics is completely anthropocentric in its approach. Therefore, economic approaches to conservation and sustainability can be at odds with the values of deep ecologists or those willing to accord rights to other sentient beings or ecosystems independent of human wishes, or those who want to make use of value judgments other than those based on the measuring rod of money. Consequently economics evaluation is sometimes ineffective in resolving social conflict, including conflict about what should be sustained. As a rule economics alone should not be the final arbiter of social decisions. It is a part (often an important part) of the social evaluation process but not the bottom line, or just one of many lines.

Points out that sustainability as such does not provide a clearcut guide to policy. First one has to decide what is to be sustained. If this is agreed, it must be in an operational from. However, difficulties may still emerge since opinions may differ about how to achieve. This is illustrated by differences in the views of economists about how sustainable development is to be achieved. Orthodox economists stress the importance of the accumulation of man-made capital to achieve this end whereas neo-Malthusians stress the importance of conserving natural resource and environmental capital. Both take an anthropocentric point of view. For political reasons the neo-Malthusian has had little support but it may eventually turn out to be correct. Economics is concerned with reducing economic scarcity and economists have traditionally suggested four main ways of doing this of which economic growth is one. However, neo-Malthusian economists believe that this may not be a sustainable strategy – it may result in future poverty. It should be noted that economic systems are embedded in social and natural systems and depend on these. Economic sustainability depends on the sustainability of these other systems. So from this point of view, it is just one of several bottom lines. Values must be considered in relation to sustainability. Economics is completely anthropocentric in its approach. Therefore, economic approaches to conservation and sustainability can be at odds with the values of deep ecologists or those willing to accord rights to other sentient beings or ecosystems independent of human wishes, or those who want to make use of value judgments other than those based on the measuring rod of money. Consequently economics evaluation is sometimes ineffective in resolving social conflict, including conflict about what should be sustained. As a rule economics alone should not be the final arbiter of social decisions. It is a part (often an important part) of the social evaluation process but not the bottom line, or just one of many lines.

This article makes the central argument that basic democratic values such as justice, autonomy and participation run the risk of being neglected when designing ‘nudges’ (i.e., indirect suggestions to influence individual behaviour) for sustainable behaviour change in the context of food governance, potentially complicating a democratisation of the food system. ‘Nudges’ uphold freedom of choice while simultaneously advocating a non-coercive soft force of paternalism to help people realise their preferences, maximise societal well-being and meet macro-sustainability goals. While the promises of the ‘nudge’ approach are widely echoed, nudging is also being contested because of its possible anti-democratic effects, such as individualisation, depoliticization and the emphasis of the status of citizens as ‘consumer-citizens.’ From a food democracy perspective, these dangers may undermine efforts to organise collective political action and impede alternative visions of a future food system. Empirically, the article examines specifically how behavioural-economic approaches imagine transitions to a more sustainable food system. By using the “COOP Supermarket of the Future” as a case study, the following analysis will illustrate how private actors are increasingly involved in steering consumer choice towards socially desirable actions. The analysis suggests that the design of choice environments may under specific circumstances increase the susceptibility of individuals to the influence of corporate preferences and simultaneously decrease the prospects for democratic legitimation and decision-making. The article therefore critically assesses whether reforming the food system by altering consumers’ choice-sets and the attribution of personal responsibility, may in fact point towards implicit anti-democratic tenets underlying the ‘will to nudge’ citizens.

This article makes the central argument that basic democratic values such as justice, autonomy and participation run the risk of being neglected when designing ‘nudges’ (i.e., indirect suggestions to influence individual behaviour) for sustainable behaviour change in the context of food governance, potentially complicating a democratisation of the food system. ‘Nudges’ uphold freedom of choice while simultaneously advocating a non-coercive soft force of paternalism to help people realise their preferences, maximise societal well-being and meet macro-sustainability goals. While the promises of the ‘nudge’ approach are widely echoed, nudging is also being contested because of its possible anti-democratic effects, such as individualisation, depoliticization and the emphasis of the status of citizens as ‘consumer-citizens.’ From a food democracy perspective, these dangers may undermine efforts to organise collective political action and impede alternative visions of a future food system. Empirically, the article examines specifically how behavioural-economic approaches imagine transitions to a more sustainable food system. By using the “COOP Supermarket of the Future” as a case study, the following analysis will illustrate how private actors are increasingly involved in steering consumer choice towards socially desirable actions. The analysis suggests that the design of choice environments may under specific circumstances increase the susceptibility of individuals to the influence of corporate preferences and simultaneously decrease the prospects for democratic legitimation and decision-making. The article therefore critically assesses whether reforming the food system by altering consumers’ choice-sets and the attribution of personal responsibility, may in fact point towards implicit anti-democratic tenets underlying the ‘will to nudge’ citizens.

Sustainability of agro-food supply chains has recently become the subject of greater interest from consumers, firms, governmental organizations and academia as the environment continues to deteriorate. One of the most critical factors influencing the sustainability of an agro-food supply chain is its network design. A particularly challenging aspect in this context is the broad range of influencing indicators associated with the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) of sustainability that need to be considered. However, many of these indicators could not be fully integrated or measured by single-step optimization problems. This paper presents a critical literature review of operational research methods for the design of sustainable supply chains. A novel two-stage hybrid solution methodology is proposed. In the first stage, a partner selection is performed using a hybrid multi criteria decision making based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method and the Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) aggregation method. The result obtained in the first stage is used in the second stage to develop a multi-objective mathematical model to optimize the design of the supply chain network. This approach allows the simultaneous consideration of all three dimensions of sustainability including carbon footprint, water footprint, number of jobs created and the total cost of the supply chain design. The proposed approach generates a Pareto frontier to aid users in making decisions. Numerical experiments are completed utilizing data from an agro-food company to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed solution methodology. The analyzes of the numerical results provide important organizational, practical and policy insights on (1) the impact of financial and environmental sustainability on supply chain network design (2) the tradeoff analysis between environmental emission, water footprint, societal implications and associated cost for making informed decision on supply chain investment.

Sustainability of agro-food supply chains has recently become the subject of greater interest from consumers, firms, governmental organizations and academia as the environment continues to deteriorate. One of the most critical factors influencing the sustainability of an agro-food supply chain is its network design. A particularly challenging aspect in this context is the broad range of influencing indicators associated with the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) of sustainability that need to be considered. However, many of these indicators could not be fully integrated or measured by single-step optimization problems. This paper presents a critical literature review of operational research methods for the design of sustainable supply chains. A novel two-stage hybrid solution methodology is proposed. In the first stage, a partner selection is performed using a hybrid multi criteria decision making based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method and the Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) aggregation method. The result obtained in the first stage is used in the second stage to develop a multi-objective mathematical model to optimize the design of the supply chain network. This approach allows the simultaneous consideration of all three dimensions of sustainability including carbon footprint, water footprint, number of jobs created and the total cost of the supply chain design. The proposed approach generates a Pareto frontier to aid users in making decisions. Numerical experiments are completed utilizing data from an agro-food company to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed solution methodology. The analyzes of the numerical results provide important organizational, practical and policy insights on (1) the impact of financial and environmental sustainability on supply chain network design (2) the tradeoff analysis between environmental emission, water footprint, societal implications and associated cost for making informed decision on supply chain investment.

The failure to fully internalize externalities from production and consumption, including on future generations, is supposed to be at the core of the perceived failure to ensure (ecological) sustainability within the realm of antitrust enforcement. While some argue that sustainability should constitute a goal in itself that must be balanced against economic efficiency in antitrust analysis, we instead want to explore whether and how sustainability can be incorporated into a consumer welfare approach. We make a key distinction between what we term an individualistic and a collective consumer welfare analysis. Within an individualistic consumer welfare analysis, consumers’ willingness-to-pay is measured ceteris paribus, holding other consumers’ choices fixed. In a collective consumer welfare analysis, consumers may express their willingness-to-pay also for the choices of others and, thereby, also for the reduction of externalities on themselves. Borrowing from environmental and resource economics, we also discuss more indirect ways of incorporating such externalities. And we critically assess the possibility of ‘laundering’ consumers’ sustainability preferences in the light of supposed biases and cognitive limitations. Finally, we relate our analysis to the Draft Horizontal Guidelines of the European Commission, published in March 2022. antitrust, consumer welfare, conjoint analysis, contingent valuation, Draft EU Horizontal Guidelines, environmental economics, externalities, laundering preferences, sustainability, willingness-to-pay

The failure to fully internalize externalities from production and consumption, including on future generations, is supposed to be at the core of the perceived failure to ensure (ecological) sustainability within the realm of antitrust enforcement. While some argue that sustainability should constitute a goal in itself that must be balanced against economic efficiency in antitrust analysis, we instead want to explore whether and how sustainability can be incorporated into a consumer welfare approach. We make a key distinction between what we term an individualistic and a collective consumer welfare analysis. Within an individualistic consumer welfare analysis, consumers’ willingness-to-pay is measured ceteris paribus, holding other consumers’ choices fixed. In a collective consumer welfare analysis, consumers may express their willingness-to-pay also for the choices of others and, thereby, also for the reduction of externalities on themselves. Borrowing from environmental and resource economics, we also discuss more indirect ways of incorporating such externalities. And we critically assess the possibility of ‘laundering’ consumers’ sustainability preferences in the light of supposed biases and cognitive limitations. Finally, we relate our analysis to the Draft Horizontal Guidelines of the European Commission, published in March 2022. antitrust, consumer welfare, conjoint analysis, contingent valuation, Draft EU Horizontal Guidelines, environmental economics, externalities, laundering preferences, sustainability, willingness-to-pay