A key argument running through this paper is that FSC performance assessment should start at the level of attributes via analysis of narrative contexts and communication discourses. In this case, it involved moving from analysis of individual national-level studies (each with its own matrix) to a comparative analysis of all 12 countries studied (with one combined comparative matrix – Figure 1). This approach to FSC performance assessment, which in essence starts at the level of food discourses across spheres, is informed by post-normal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993) and designed to allow multiple realities and stakeholder perceptions to be acknowledged and accounted for. The identification and construction of attribute descriptions draws out the principal discourses, as well as highlighting where the interpretation of individual attributes is contested (Table 2). Analysis of attributes has been presented at two levels: geographic context and in relation to spheres. Examining the creation and communication of FSC performance discourses in this way enables a more inclusive understanding of what is meant by sustainable food and the ‘politics of supply chain governance’ that Friedberg (2014) and others illuminate and call for.
The comparative matrix and final set of 24 attributes documented in Figure 1 helps develop a more inclusive and multi-dimensional view of FSC performance, enabling the capture of a broader range of attributes beyond conventional
sustainability assessments (although it is not intended as an absolute or complete assessment of FSC performance). This is helpful for a number of reasons. First, this approach helps to overcome so-called ‘hypocognition’ (see Lakoff 2004), whereby FSC performance metrics are linked to one single issue (e.g. climate change, food security), in the process ignoring other equally important issues and performance challenges (labour relations, for instance). For example, firms will tend to be selective in terms of the information they disclose to the public when preparing sustainability reports, highlighting what they have done well. Policy makers, not least due to electoral cycles, will tend to address short-term issues rather than long-term ones. Scientists tend to address measurable items (e.g. economic efficiency measures), failing to fully address non-measurable ones, partly as a result of the demands of policy-makers to provide quantitative evidence-based data. This tendency is evident in Table 2, where although economic performance attributes are evident in all four spheres, some attributes of performance may only be discussed in one or two spheres. For example, ‘animal welfare’ is predominantly debated in the public sphere, ‘territoriality’ in the market sphere and ‘biodiversity’ in the scientific sphere. In other words, aspects of FSC performance are given a different emphasis, dependent on the sphere in which the discourse takes place. The notion of a ‘sphere’ is critical then in providing a means by which to delineate between communication practices and frames, in this case represented as four spheres (market, public, scientific and policy), each conceptualised as a significant communication space and arena of interaction. An appreciation of geographic context has also helped to understand how FSC performance is valued. Three country groupings were identified to show how food performance differs geographically: i. socio-economic and structural development; ii. territoriality and global competition; and iii. neoliberalism and
food system performance. Taking this approach enables the capture of a breadth of ‘political situations’, as advocated by Friedberg (2014), helping to build a more robust meaning of performance.
Second, the approach helps to show how attributes are constructed, how they interact across spheres and dimensions, how meanings are contested by different interests and ideologies, as well as helping to identify trade-offs and dilemmas. We see, for example, the way ‘contribution to economic development’ is discussed in the policy sphere and the scientific sphere, the way ‘food security’ is discussed in the public sphere and the policy sphere, and the way ‘technological innovation’ is discussed in the scientific sphere and the market sphere. The usefulness of the latter is exemplified in another paper written by the authors (Brunori et al. 2016), where the MCPM (see Figure 1) was used to compare the performance of local and global food chains, identifying that for some attributes global chains perform better than more localised chains, and for others they perform worse. Through developing this inclusive methodology, it is possible to develop more reflexive forms of governance that encourage those involved to continually revise their understanding of the sustainability of their actions (as advocated by Stirling 2006). Unreflexive governance in relation to performance sets targets against a list of parameters (emissions, pollution, animal welfare etc.), organising 'regimes of practice' (Spence and Rinaldi 2014) around them. However, regimes of practice do not provide feedback mechanisms that enable the revision of targets, meaning that unintended consequences of business operations that may adversely affect their performance and thereby sustainability are dealt with only once they become evident. Reflexive governance on the other hand entails a continuous, intentional and organised
reflection on objectives, means and pathways (Stirling 2006). In adopting a reflexive governance approach, firms are able to anticipate unintended (and unwanted) consequences of supply chain operations and adapt their regimes of practice accordingly, before they become unsustainable. Such assessments can also act as devices to open up the discussion of what is meant by FSC performance to a wider range of ‘legitimate perspectives’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1994) in both the food chain and wider food system, including under-represented dimensions (most notably ethics), and unheard actor voices (such as consumers) (see also Kirwan et al. under review). In the process, the ‘visibility fields’ (Spence and Rinaldi 2014) of FSC performance are opened up to greater scrutiny and to a greater range of actors. There is, in other words, the potential to democratise and more widely legitimise knowledge claims regarding FSC performance.
In conclusion, this paper has argued for the need to adopt a more inclusive and multi-dimensional view of FSC performance to enable effective sustainability assessment and appraisal. At one level, the issues raised in this paper have already been addressed in the food supply chain and sustainability literature. In this sense, the idea of ‘labour relations' or 'food security' are not new, for example. The novelty of the methodology developed here, is that the discourses are being allowed to emerge from a wide range of perspectives and contexts. In the process, it is possible to identify certain typologies and interactions that may have been lost in top-down definitions of performance, and subsequently sustainability. The 24 attributes presented are not intended as an absolute or complete representation of what needs to be included in assessments of FSC performance. Instead they provide a worked example of how this methodology can be operationalised, demonstrating its ability to incorporate a wide range of legitimate
perspectives and values in relation to FSC performance. In keeping with new approaches to sustainability science, attributes are heuristic devices that capture complexity, multiple ways of knowing and a diversity of perspectives to enable more reflexive forms of FSC assessment. In other words, the approach presented in this paper has the potential to provide producers, policymakers and consumers with the cognitive tools to make better-informed decisions about the broader impacts of the different FSC they engage with.
Acknowledgements
The research on which this paper is based was funded by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme, as part of Theme [KBBE.2012.2.5-03] [A comparative analysis of global versus local food supply systems], Grant agreement no: 311778. The project acronym was GLAMUR which stands for ‘Global and Local food chain Assessment: a Multidimensional performance-based approach’. We would like to thank all partners who contributed to the national reports and Dilshaad Bundhoo who helped with the comparative analysis. We would also like to thank the three anonymous referees as well as the editor for their helpful and constructive comments on previous drafts.
References
Brunori, G. et al. (2016) Are Local Food Chains More Sustainable than Global Food Chains? Considerations for Assessment. Sustainability 8 (5) pp. 449
Brunori, G., V. Malandrin and A. Rossi (2013) Trade-off or convergence? The role of food security in the evolution of food discourse in Italy. Journal of Rural Studies 29 (0) pp. 19-29
Callon, M. (1998) An essay on framing and overflowing: economic externalities revisited by sociology. Pp. 244-269 in M. Callon ed., The Laws of the Markets (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers)
Callon, M., C. Méadel and V. Rabeharisoa (2002) The Economy of Qualities. Economy
and Society 31 (2) pp. 194–217
Candel, J. J. L. et al. (2014) Disentangling the consensus frame of food security: The case of the EU Common Agricultural Policy reform debate. Food Policy 44 (0) pp. 47-58
Dubbink, W., J. Graafland and L. Van Liedekerke (2008) CSR, transparency and the role of intermediate organisations. Journal of Business Ethics 82 (2) pp. 391-406
FAO (2016) Oecd-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains, FAO, Rome
Feldmann, C. and U. Hamm (2015) Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: A review. Food Quality and Preference 40, Part A (0) pp. 152-164
Food Ethics Council (2013) Beyond business as usual: towards a sustainable food system, Food Ethics Council, 39-41 Surrey Street, Brighton BN1 3PB, Brighton
Freidberg, S. (2014) Footprint technopolitics. Geoforum 55 (0) pp. 178-189
Funtowicz, S. and J. R. Ravetz (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures September (25/7) pp. 739-755
Funtowicz, S. and J. R. Ravetz (1994) The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economics 10 pp. 197-207
Gasparatos, A. (2010) Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. Journal of Environmental Management 91 (8) pp. 1613-1622
Gasparatos, A., M. El-Haram and M. Horner (2008) A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 28 (4–5) pp. 286-311
Geels, F. and J. Schot (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research
Policy 36 pp. 399-417
Goodman, D. and E. M. DuPuis (2002) Knowing food and growing food: Beyond the production-consumption debate in the sociology of agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 42 (1) pp. 5-22
Habermas, J., T. Burger and F. Lawrence (1989) The Structural Transformation of the
Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. (Cambridge (MA): MIT
Halfacree, K. H. (2006) Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture. Pp. 44-62 in P. Cloke, T. Marsden, and P. Mooney eds, Handbook of Rural Studies (London: Sage)
Hassini, E., C. Surti and C. Searcy (2012) A Literature Review and a Case Study of Sustainable Supply Chains with a Focus on Metrics. International Journal of Production
Economics, Sustainable Development of Manufacturing and Services 140 (1) pp. 69–82
Hinrichs, C. (2014) Transitions to sustainability: a change in thinking about food systems change? Agriculture & Human Values 31 (1) pp. 143-155
Horlings, L. and T. Marsden (2011) Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that could ‘feed the world’. Global Environmental Change 21 (2) pp. 441-452
Hutchins, E. (2000) Distributed Cognition. International Encyclopedia of the Social and
Behavioral Sciences. (USA: Elsevier Science)
Kirwan, J. and D. Maye (2013) Food security framings within the UK and the integration of local food systems. Journal of Rural Studies 29 (0) pp. 91-100
Kirwan, J., D. Maye and G. Brunori (under review) Reflexive governance, incorporating ethics and changing understandings of food chain performance. Sociologia Ruralis
Lachman, D. A. (2013) A survey and review of approaches to study transitions. Energy
Policy 58 pp. 269–276
Lakoff, G. (2004) Don’t think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate.
The essential guide for progressives. (White River Junction VT 05001, Canada: Chelsea
Green Publishing Company)
Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through
Society. Harvard University Press)
Lockie, S. (2006) Capturing the sustainability agenda: Organic foods and media discourses on food scares, environment, genetic engineering, and health. Agriculture
and Human Values 23 pp. 313–323
Marsden, T. (1998) New rural territories: Regulating the differentiated rural spaces.
Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1) pp. 107-117
Marsden, T. (2013) From post-productionism to reflexive governance: Contested transitions in securing more sustainable food futures. Journal of Rural Studies 29 pp. 123-134
Marsden, T. K. (2016) Exploring the rural eco-economy: beyond neoliberalism.
Sociologia Ruralis 56 pp. 597-615
Maye, D. and J. Kirwan (2013) Food security: A fractured consensus. Journal of Rural
Studies 29 (0) pp. 1-6
Mooney, P. and S. Hunt (2009) Food security: the elaboration of contested claims to a consensus frame. Rural Sociology 74 (4) pp. 469-497
Murdoch, J. (2006) Networking rurality : emergent complexity in the countryside. Pp. 171-184 in P. Cloke, T. Marsden, and P. Mooney eds, Handbook of Rural Studies (London: Sage)
Nally, D. (2014) Governing precarious lives: land grabs, geopolitics, and ‘food security’.
The Geographical Journal 181 pp. 340–349
NEF (New Economics Foundation) (2014) Urgent recall: our food system under review NEF: London.
Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer (2011) The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard
business review 89 (1) pp. 2
Sala, S., B. Ciuffo and P. Nijkamp (2015) A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 119 pp. 314-325
Sanne, C. (2002) Willing Consumers—or Locked-in? Policies for a Sustainable Consumption. Ecological Economics 42 (1) pp. 273–87
Schader, C. et al. (2014) Scope and precision of sustainability assessment approaches to food systems. Ecology and Society 19 (3) pp. 42
Seyfang, G. and A. Smith (2007) Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Development: Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda. Environmental Politics 16 (4) pp. 584 – 603
Sonnino, R., T. Marsden and A. Moragues-Faus (2016) Relationalities and convergences in food security narratives: towards a place-based approach. Transactions
of the Institute of British Geographers 41 (4) pp. 477-489
Spaargaren, G. (2003) Sustainable Consumption: A Theoretical and Environmental Policy Perspective. Society &Natural Resources 16 (8) pp. 687–701
Spence, L. J. and L. Rinaldi (2014) Governmentality in Accounting and Accountability: A Case Study of Embedding Sustainability in a Supply Chain. Accounting, Organizations
and Society 39 (6) pp. 433–52
Stirling, A. (2006) Precaution, foresight and sustainability: reflection and reflexivity in the governance of science and technology. in J. P. Voss, and D. Bauknecht eds, Reflexive
governance for sustainable development: Edward Elgar Publishing)
Tomlinson, I. (2013) Doubling food production to feed the 9 billion: A critical perspective on a key discourse of food security in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 29 (0) pp. 81-90
Unruh, G. and R. Ettenson (2010) Winning in the Green Frenzy. Harvard Business
Review 88 (11) pp. 110–16
Voss, J.-P., D. Bauknecht and R. Kemp (2006) Reflexive Governance for Sustainable
Development. (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing)
Wilkinson, J. (2011) From fair trade to responsible soy: social movements and the qualification of agrofood markets. Environment and Planning A 43 pp. 2012-2026
Wiskerke, J. S. C. and J. D. van der Ploeg (2004) Seeds of Transition : Essays on
Novelty Production, Niches and Regimes in Agriculture. (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum)
Woods, M. (2012) Editorial: new directions in rural studies. Journal of Rural Studies 28 pp. 1-4