GLAMUR booklet

The research leading to these results has received funding
from the european union’s seventh framework programme
for research, technological development and demonstration
under grant agreement n° 311778.
WP2:
GLAMUR
assessing the
sustainability of
Global and
Local food
chains
Scoping / framing:
Analysing the
communication of
food chains and
their performance
2 4
6
WP3:
8 WP4:
Database
Development
Comparing food
chains
12WP6:
10 WP5:
Participatory
integrated
assessment
Policy analysis and
recommendations
GLAMUR’s
Policy
recommendations
16
GLAMUR’s
Main Messages
14
GLAMUR:
assessing
the sustainability
of Global and Local
food chains
tools to enable more sustainable food choices and
pathways. Reflexive governance by value chain players
is also envisaged to address the challenge of shaping
sustainability performance in a way that captures food
system complexity but also develops clear policy options.
What did GLAMUR do?
In a nutshell:
2
What is Global food? And when is food Local? How
should food chain sustainability performance be measured? These are some of the questions that the
GLAMUR project has addressed over its three years of
research (February 2013 – January 2016).
Operating under the EU 7th Framework Research Programme, the GLAMUR Consortium (15 partners from
10 European countries) investigated how the sustainability performance of food chains varies along the
Local-Global continuum, what characterises performance differences between more global and more local
food chains, and what the implications are for European
and Global policymaking and public-private strategies
to increase food chain sustainability.
Food systems operate at multiple scales and layers and
GLAMUR used a multi-criteria assessment approach to
compare Global and Local food chain performance,
adopting a more holistic understanding of sustainability
that included five dimensions - environmental, economic, social, health and ethical.
The end goal was to provide consumers and policy
makers with better knowledge and decision-making
•
GLAMUR developed and validated a performance criteria matrix, with 24 attributes for assessment and comparison of food chains along the
local-global continuum.
•
GLAMUR employed four different methodologies (participatory evaluation, Llife Ccycle
Aassessment (LCA), metabolic analysis and
shadow pricing) to examine the economic, environmental, health, social and ethical dimensions of
eight product commodities (apples, berries, grain
(wheat-to-bread), pork, cheese, wine, tomatoes
and asparagus) and of global-local food chains in
public procurement.
•
Key attributes were identified for each commodity (using the multi-criteria performance matrix) and
sets of indicators were constructed, with analysis of the underlying factors (e.g. political, legislative,
geographical etc.) that influenced the performance
of the indicators in the respective dimensions (economic, environmental, social, health and ethical).
•
The sustainability performance levels of chains in
each country were assessed and this provided a set
of results for cross-country comparisons.
•
The validity of the four methodologies used for
analysis were also compared and evaluated.
GLAMUR used a participatory approach and developed a multi-criteria characterisation of the performance of food chains. The approach also integrated
values, perceptions and expectations around food
choice and food policies from stakeholders, including
food businesses, civil society organizations and
public authorities.
Interaction occurred during conferences, stakeholder
workshops, participatory checklist compilation exercises and interviews. This stakeholder engagement
aimed to ensure that the project findings were discussed and validated from a range of perspectives
and viewpoints.
What did GLAMUR find?
• GLAMUR reveals not only the differences, overlaps
and synergies between Global and Local supply
chains, but also the blurring of boundaries and
trade-offs that take place between the sustainability
dimensions.
•
Multidimensional and multi-scale performance assessment is a key to sustainable pathways for food
chains; its multi-stakeholder approach moves beyond assumptions such as Local versus Global, and
can provide informed reflexivity on narratives used
to frame the performance of the food system.
•
The need for more coherent policies that recognise
the hybridity and interconnectedness of Global and
Local food systems and where policy interventions
go beyond market mechanisms and adapt to chain
diversity and context.
Insights from GLAMUR’s research on sustainable performance assessment in food chains – and the use of
multi-criteria methods - are described in this booklet. It
concludes with the policy recommendations and the
project’s main messages.
GLAMUR information:
what and where
The GLAMUR findings and knowledge base is fully
available. The project rationale, methodology, research
findings, reports, messages and recommendations are
all accessible on glamur.eu. Project dissemination has
also taken place through newsletters, scientific and grey
literature, conference presentations, webinars and expert meetings. There is even a cartoon that brings
GLAMUR’s work to life and helps make the project’s
messages more accessible to the public.
3
WP2:
Scoping / framing:
Analysing the
communication
of food chains and
their performance
course framing food chain performance. The second
grouping, entitled territoriality and global competition,
emphasised ‘territoriality’ as the dominant performance
frame, although the performance discourse was also
linked to a market-based neoliberal model. The third
grouping, entitled neoliberalism and food system sustainability, had neoliberalism as the dominant performance frame, set against increasing food system
sustainability and global food security concerns.
Key findings/highlights
• Prevailing methods of food chain
4
Goal
•
The aim of this work package is to align the multiple
meanings that are attributed to food chains, having regard for the contexts involved, and to create a common
understanding of food chain performance that has been
developed and substantiated by scientific evidence.
•
•
Main Results
The main result of this WP was the development of a
multi-criteria matrix comprised of 24 attributes of food
supply chain performance. This involved taking a multidimensional approach to the performance of food
chains that encompassed their economic, social, environmental, health and ethical dimensions. In addition,
it entailed an examination of a wide range of perspectives that covered the public, scientific, market and policy spheres of discourse and interaction. It became
clear that an appreciation of both the geographical and
national political-economic context was critical in order
to explain and understand how the performance of food
chains was perceived, and attributes communicated
and valued across the range of 12 countries examined.
In order to help explicate these differences, three country groupings were developed. The first, entitled socioeconomic and structural development, emphasised
socio-economic development as the dominant dis-
evaluation are
overwhelmingly economically-oriented.
The need to incorporate an inclusive and wide range
of perspectives and multiple dimensions of food
chain performance.
The importance of recognizing and understanding
the context in which performance is being assessed.
Moving beyond global-local distinctions to explore
the potential of both supply chains for system transformation and improved performance.
Composite Matrix
Dimension/Sphere
Economic
Social
Environmental
Health
Ethical
Public
• Affordability
• Creation &
• Information &
• Resource use
• Pollution
• Nutrition
• Food safety
• Traceability
• Animal welfare
• Responsibility
• Labour relations
• Fair trade
• Resource use
• Biodiversity
• Efficiency
• Technological
• Nutrition
• Food safety
• Fair Trade
• Animal welfare
distribution of
communication
• Food security
added value
• Contribution to
economic
development
Scientific
• Contribution to
economic
development
• Consumer
behaviour
• Territoriality
• Technological
Marke
innovation
innovation
• Governance
• Food waste
• Efficiency
• Profitability /
competitiveness
• Connection
• Technological
• Information &
5
• Efficiency
• Traceability
• Food safety
• Fair trade
• Territoriality
• Food waste
• Pollution
• Traceability
• Nutrition
• Food safety
• Food security
• Governance
communication
• Territoriality
• Connection
innovation
• Resilience
Policy
• Creation &
distribution of
added value
• Contribution to
economic
development
• Efficiency
• Resilience
• Food waste
• Consumer
behaviour
• Labour relations
WP3:
Database
Development
but on the problematic of diets in the public procurement and thus studying one local and one global school
meal arrangements.
One of the first results was thus that it is very difficult to
define a set of unique indicators to apply to all case
studies and the selection was thus made case by case.
Therefore, the definition of performance indicators covering the most relevant attributes for the given context
(sector, countries) was a demanding task. A clear understanding of the context surrounding the case studies
and peculiar to each country was essential in the adequate selection of performance indicators. This was
done in close interaction with stakeholders in all cases.
Discussion and comparison between cases was done
in WP4.
6
Goal
The purpose of WP3 was to collect, analyse and organize data on the performance of food chains from a set
of case studies. The performance attributes developed
in WP2 have been measured, with both quantitative
and qualitative indicators that are stored into an ad-hoc
database.
For some case studies, a more exhaustive and sophisticated quantitative analysis allows further comparing
methods such as LCA, shadow pricing and metabolic
analysis. Results of this comparison were done in WP4
and 5.
Key findings/highlights
• The distinction between local and global lies more
Main Results
After exploratory work, the selection of case studies is
presented in the next page . Each category of product
is covered by a minimum of at least a pair of countries
for both a local and a global value chain (at least 4 case
studies for a similar sector). Intermediary cases were
also introduced as it was realized that the distinction
between local and global is better made by studying
the continuum of cases between local and global and
by looking carefully at their interactions.
In total, 39 food value chains were studied. Products
from outside of Europe were also considered with Asparagus from Peru and Apples from New Zealand. Exports and exchanges between countries in Europe are
also considered for example in the case of the global
wine exported from France to Switzerland and other
countries. Two additional case studies were conducted
in Denmark, this time not focusing on specific products
•
•
•
on a continuum rather than on a binary contrast:
therefore, inclusion of intermediary cases leads to
interesting discussions and conclusions in WP4.
Participatory approach to select a set of performance indicators helps to find out the right ones, and
to integrate the understanding of their value into a
specific context (sector, country, value chain).
Tools and approaches were mainly inspired by the
sustainability assessments methods and tools.
Therefore, the results can be discussed with a
broader perspective as well.
A database has been designed and developed, as
a storage room of all data required and produced in
the project.
Case studies of the GLAMUR project
Product
category
Pork
Dairy (Cheese)
Fruits &
vegetables
Wine
Grains (bread)
TOTAL
Country
(Partner)
Products studied by country
Local
case
Intermediary
case
Global
case
Italy (CRPA)
Cinta Senese Ham
Parma-ham
case
generic
cured Ham
3
Netherlands
(WU & CLM)
Lupine Pork
De Hoeve Pork
VION pork
3
Switzerland (FiBL)
L’Etivaz AOC cheese
Le Gruyère
AOC cheese
2
UK (CCRI)
1 Singe Gloucester and
2 Farmhouse Cheddar
Creamery Cheddar
3
Latvia (BSC)
Wild Blueberries
Global legal
Blueberries
3
Serbia (BEL)
fresh Arilje raspberry
Frozen exported
Raspberries
2
Belgium (KULE)
Flanders organic
apples
New-Zealand
apples
3
Spain (UAB)
Catalonia local Apples
(box scheme)
Catalonia global
organic apples
2
Spain (UAB)
Local organic tomatoes
(box scheme)
Global organic
tomatoes
3
France (INRA)
Languedoc-Roussillon
tomatoes
1 organic and
2 conventional
Almeria tomatoes
3
Belgium (KULE)
White Flanders
Asparagus
Green Peru
Asparagus
2
France (INRA)
AOC LanguedocRoussillon red wines
bulk Pays d’Oc red
wine
3
Switzerland (FiBL)
AOC Valais red wines
UK (CITY)
CRFT craft bakery
bread
ISB in-store bakery
bread
GC plant bakery
white bread
3
Italy (FIRAB)
Floriddia’s farm
bread
Sourdough Tuscan
Bread
Pan Bauletto
(Barilla)
3
Global “grey”
blueberries
Flanders conventional
apples
Mixed organic
tomatoes
AOC LanguedocRoussillon exported
as bottles
Number
of value chains
1
39
7
WP4:
Comparing food
chains
Trade-offs within and across the various sustainability
dimensions apply, such that no superior strategy that
scores well on all dimensions can be identified. In addition, trade-offs also occur across different scales. More
specifically, trade-offs have been found between:
1 labour productivity and job creation, as higher labour
2
3
4
8
Goal
The objective of WP4 was to compare and contrast the
economic, environmental, health, social and ethical impact of local versus global food chains, and to discuss
the conditions of validity of comparison.
Main results
The comparison did not find generalizable results when
contrasting local with global food supply chains, mainly
because local and global are no clear-cut categories,
as local chains have many global elements and viceversa, giving rise to many hybrid situations. In addition,
chain strategies influence performance evaluation.
When chains apply product differentiation strategies, effects between local and global may even be opposite.
5
productivity generally leads to lower costs and prices
and better labour conditions, but as a result less jobs
are created
efficiency and diversity, as diversity increases the resilience of the chain but at the expense of efficiency
and thus costs and prices
price and quality, as higher chain efficiency leads to
lower prices, but less attention to product quality
biodiversity/pollution and resource use, as largescale operation may save resources and particularly
energy and land per unit of product, but at the expense of a high pressure on the land being used,
leading to higher pollution and less biodiversity per
unit of land.
informal trust-based approaches versus formal procedures, as informality may lead to more flexibility in
labour relations and in relations vis-à-vis the consumer and even resilience, but may also result in less
transparency and even misuse.
Difficulties related to measuring indicators consistently
makes an evidence-based approach very difficult, but
a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies can help to increase the quality of research results.
Attributes investigated by team
Team
Economic
Social
Apples
Contribution to
economic
development
Food security
Health
Environmental
Ethical
Resource use
Pollution
Biodiversity
Berries
Creation and
Labour relations
distribution of added
value
Governance
Contribution to
economic
development
Bread
Technological
Innovation
Cheese
Creation and
Information &
Nutrition
distribution of added communication
value
Food security
Contribution to
economic
Consumer behaviour
development
Biodiversity
Resource use
Contribution to
economic
development
Resource use
Pork
Information &
communication
Nutrition
Biodiversity
Animal welfare
9
Governance
Resilience
Tomatoes
Creation and
Food security
distribution of added
value
Resource use
Pollution
Contribution to
economic
development
Wine
Creation and
Information &
distribution of added communication
value
Territoriality
Biodiversity
Food safety
Resource use
Pollution
Biodiversity
Governance
WP5:
Participatory
integrated
assessment
comparison when analysing different food chains operating in different socio-economic, political and geographic contexts; (iii) analysis of pros and cons of the
two typologies of participatory processes adopted.
Key findings/highlights
10
Goal
The aim of this work package is to develop, through
participatory processes, an integrated characterization
of the performance of food chains.
Main Results and Considerations
An integrated characterization of the performance of
food chains has to be based on a set of non-equivalent
criteria of sustainability referring to the economic, social,
environmental, health and ethical sphere. When carrying out such an assessment across different societies
and different social actors it is unavoidable to find legitimate but conflicting perceptions of what should be
considered as an improvement. In different societies different social actors do measure and compare trade-offs
over criteria of performance of food chains in different
ways. For this reason, WP5 tested the effectiveness
and the flexibility of various approaches to integrated
assessment used in different case studies of GLAMUR
using both workshops and on-line questionnaires to solicit a feed-back from social actors.
The methodological and conceptual results obtained in
WP5 can be divided in three categories: (i) reflections
on the implications of the pre-analytical choices determining the quality of the integrated assessment; (ii) lessons learned on how to make more effective the
Key findings of WP5 point at the complexity of a
process aimed at characterizing the performance of
food chains: (1) the labels defining the dichotomy between “global” and “local” food chains, as GLAMUR
was tasked to do, remain ambiguous and inappropriate
when using the same set of indicators of performance
in different case studies. A more articulated framing of
the meaning of “global” and “local” is needed to reflect
the specificity of each case study; (2) the existing storytelling about the performance of food chains has been
hegemonized by economic narratives. Social actors
admit that the economic dimension is essential, but at
the same time they feel that other criteria referring to
the environment, social and ethical dimensions should
get more attention. A more balanced and complete selection of indicators is needed; (3) it is impossible to
compare food chains having different goals and operating in different contexts using a standard assessment
of performance (one size fits all). The process of integrated assessment must be able to reflect the specificity of different food chains and the heterogeneity of
interests and normative values found among social actors. This requires the adoption of participatory
processes.
Fig. 1
A participatory
Integrated
assessment of the
performance of food
chains should be
developed using an
iterative procedure
guaranteeing a
check on the quality
of the process of
production and use
of quantitative
information.
STEP1
Quality Check
on Issue Definition
In relation to the context
• Relevant story-telling?
• Plausible narrative?
STEP2
Descriptive
Input
Quantitative
Analysis
Quality Check
on Integrated Analysis
In relation to scales and dimension
• Pertinent attributes?
• Congruent integrated assessments?
STEP3
Normative
Input
Choice of
Story-telling
Quality Check
on Deliberative Process
In relation to the decision making
• Is it a fair process?
• Is it an effective deliberation?
INFORMED DELIBERATION
Fig. 2
11
The characterization of the performance
of a food chain should be organized in a
way that reflects the unavoidable
existence of different story-tellers.
Food as a commodity
investors/entrepreneurs
Profit
Clear rules
40 50 60
400 500 600
700
300
70
30
80
200
90
100
20
10
0
100
0
80
Food as an opportunity
for rural development
community/local admin.
30
20
900
10
0
60 50 40
70
80
90
90
30
20
10
100
0
Affordability
5
10
0
10
3
Biodiversity
8
Soil healt
Water quality
400 500 600
40 50 60
70
20
10
100
300
80
200
90
100
0
0
0
5
10
80
Satellite activities
80
Safety
6
0
523
100
5
0
200
100
1000
0
Self-sufficiency
30
900
70
964
Food as a threat to
the local environment
NGOs, long term policies
900
1000
Agritourism
800
1000
0
800
40 50 60
400 500 600
300
700
200
100
Food security
National government
600 500 400
300
700
800
335
Generational replacement
0
Infrastructures
700
800
800
900
900
1000
335
600 500 400
700
300
200
100
1000
523
0
WP6:
Policy analysis and
recommendations
We propose
• a set of recommendations
•
to encourage
processes of engagement aimed at public policy, the market and civil society and to address
policy challenges raised by GLAMUR’s work;
three scenarios of food futures and frameworks within which food actors operate. These
chart possible directions of travel and enable the
consideration of different entry points for GLAMUR’s
findings into the ‘real’ world of policy making.
We identify
• existing points of engagement along the localglobal continuum. These provide more detailed
analysis, routed in current reality, and connect
GLAMUR’s policy challenges with existing policies
and initiatives, enacted at the global, EU, national
and sub-national levels.
12
Goal
to assess the actual and potential role of public and private policies addressing food chains, and address the
significance for policymakers of the performance based
approach and the methodologies employed.
Key findings/highlights:
• the most urgent challenge for policy is first to do no
•
Main results
GLAMUR’s evidence shows the problematic nature of
current sustainability performance assessments when
used to justify policy interventions in support of scale.
It exposes the loose framing of ‘local’ versus ‘global’
food, and how diversity in supply chains is often placespecific and affected by cultural context. Policy settings
directly affected performance profiles in the supply
chains studied. There is no simple local-global continuum; chains differentiate as they develop and grow.
There is a need for strategically varied responses. This
evidence highlights why making policy choices, preferences and/or investment decisions that improve food
chain sustainability performance is such a complex area
for public policy intervention.
•
•
harm – such as in ensuring hygiene regulations etc.
are adapted to the realities of SMEs;
there is a strong case to bring ‘local’ food in from
its policy enclave in rural development to occupy
a more central position in EU policy alongside ‘locality’ foods;
more coherent policies are needed to recognise
the hybridity and interconnectedness of ‘global’ and
‘local’ food systems and where policy interventions
go beyond market mechanisms and adapt to chain
diversity and context;
there are many possible entry points and
processes of engagement which can clarify the
local/global, drawing upon wider science-based evidence as well as being informed by socio-cultural
values. This mix will ground policy choices on a
wider understanding of food chain performance.
Market
(Consumers,
commerce
and supply
chain)
• Tough monitoring of false
claims about ‘local’ and
‘global’ food;
• Create a new working party to
consider how to encourage
genuinely sustainable local
food systems, using improved
food metrics;
Civil Society • CSOs to educate consumers
about the fluidity of global /
local distinctions;
• CSOs to inform themselves
about the weaknesses of
current ‘local/locality’ terms as
proxies for sustainability
performance.
The slipperiness
of ‘local’
Routes to food sustainability
are both fluid and dynamic
Contradictory policy drivers are
not helping this ‘messiness’
• Address contradictory policy
drivers in supply chains to
optimize sustainability and
reduce ‘trade-offs’ which lower
standards;
• DG Sante and DG Environment
to collaborate more on improving
food sustainability criteria;
• Better public education about the • EU to recommit to a
complexity of sustainability,
comprehensive food policy and
particularly highlighting social and this to link economic, health,
ethical values alongside ‘hard’
social, ethical and environmental
data such as CO2e and GHGs,
policy objectives;
and life cycle analysis data;
• EU & Member States to review
• Fostering plural food systems
the mix of incentives and
along the local-global continuum;
disincentives to towards the
localization/relocaliz-ation of
food chains and to monitor
implementation;
• Sub-national levels should consider
ALL costs and benefits when
setting policies eg. RDP, zoning,
health benefits, ecosystem
services;
• Consider reviving Communication
on Building a more Sustainable
Food System;
• Food producers need to be more
prudent in using ‘sustainable’ and
‘local’ in the same breath and
employ greater care in the use of
sustainability performance
attributes;
• Put pressure on government to
help consumers eat and buy more
sustainably;
• CSR to include performance in
improving producer
remuneration (income or share
of value) in supplier relations;
with false claims;
• Clarify placespecific labeling;
• Consumers need help to become • CSOs should champion EU
policy coherence on impacts of
more ‘literate’ about the
European exports and FDI on
complexity of sustainability in
changing consumption in
daily food choice.
developing countries (and
impacts on THEIR local food
systems).
• Stop exploiting the messiness
• CSOs should
champion
improved
regulation and
information about
the degree of
localness in food.
• More transparent
procedures for
assessing local
and locality
foods to clarify
distinctions for
consumers;
Public
• Give higher priority to social • European
Policy
attributes of food, such as
Scientific
(Government) human capital and the values
advisory bodies
that underpin food systems;
to improve
metrics of
• Conduct public consultation
sustainability;
about new methods for giving
consumers broader indicators • Applications for
of what is in their food, and
GIs need to take
where it comes from;
note of the
complexity of
‘local’
designations;
The Local/Global
distinction is too simple
Processes for engagement - steering a more sustainable food system
13
Policy
blind spots
The significance of
methodology
• EU science ‘call’ for
• International aspects of
clarification of multi-criteria
local/global distinction need
methods to assess
particular attention;
sustainable performance in
• Clarification is needed of
food chains;
priorities for developing
countries over demands that • Stop assuming there is
they pursue export-led growth always a positive link
between local food chains
and sustainability;
and rural economic
development;
• Tax policy needs reform to
enhance transparency and
support SMEs
• Relevant sub-national
institutions within food
policy to get involved in
multi-criteria education.
• Be clear about reasons for
• Create better learning for
supporting food imports from
supply chain management
developing countries;
of the importance of multicriteria approaches to
• Apply transparent social and
sustainability;
ethical standards for food
exports, FDI and marketing in • Share lessons between
developing countries;
stakeholders in short and
long chains to improve
sustainability performance
management;
• Help improve food
infrastructure in developing
countries for internal, SouthSouth and export trades
• EU and Member States
• Development of EU
should create sustainable diet standards for consumerguidelines incorporating
oriented ‘apps’ which
existing nutrition and foodprofess to give information
based guidelines.
to consumers about health,
social, ethical and
environmental values in
food choice.
Policy
recommendations
14
Encourage informed reflexivity
Catch up with the consumer
This can help democratise food policy by promoting
sustainable pathways for food chains, built around evidence rather than assumptions about performance.
GLAMUR’s more complex assessment of sustainability
is already part of consumers’ framing of sustainability (and many retailers, manufacturers and CSOs are
aware of these framings). This is ahead of scientists
and policymakers, and an endorsement of multi-criteria approaches. The EU and its member states
should create sustainable diet guidelines incorporating
existing nutrition and food-based guidelines; the Directorate Generals (DGs) should collaborate more on improving food sustainability criteria; and Civil Society
Organisations (CSOs) should champion improved regulation and information about the degree of ‘localness’
in food to inform consumers.
Address policy incoherence
All levels of governance from global to sub-national need to assess their policymaking processes, including monitoring and financial accounting, to help
avoid policy incoherence, taking note, for example, of
inconsistencies in the application and interpretation of
supports (eg. subsidies) and tools (eg. Geographic Indications).
Bring local food in from its
policy enclave
GLAMUR’s evidence supports a shift from agricultural/rural policy to food policy thinking and acting. We make the case for bringing ‘local’ food in from
its policy enclave in rural development to occupy a
more central position in EU policy alongside ‘locality’
foods. This means that mainstream policy instruments
– such as food safety - must be adapted to the scale
and diversity of this part of the food system.
Take greater care in the use
of sustainability performance
attributes
Call for new research
A more central place for ‘local’ food in policy requires
greater care in the use of sustainability performance attributes and methods. Policymakers,
CSOs, and small and medium sized enterprises
(SMEs) need to be more prudent in using ‘sustainable’
and ‘local’ in the same breath. Multi-criteria sustainability assessment challenges existing ‘sustainability’ systems to provide a more integrated framing of their
performance using a multi-stakeholder approach.
•
Ensure policy choices integrate
a more complex version of
sustainability
GLAMUR has accepted a complex version of what is
meant by sustainability. This develops beyond the ‘old’
Brundtland tripartite definition which does not have sufficient breadth for the analysis of modern food systems.
GLAMUR has produced case study evidence that individual food products carry more complex meanings;
culture, health and ethics are key attributes of
modern foods and food choice.
We propose the following areas for further research:
•
to investigate and refine methodologies (using a
combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches) for improved sustainability performance
assessment along the local-global continuum and
across the five dimensions (economic, environmental, social, health and ethical);
to explore the realities and potential of consumer
choice, which currently turns to the ‘local’ as a proxy
for anti-homogenisation and a more human scale of
control over food. This more complex meaning of
‘social’ within sustainability deserves more exploration within consumer culture.
15
GLAMUR’s
Main Messages
4 Sustainability performance assessment draws on
multiple values and multiple interests and for this reason it is subject to contestation. To increase the degree of general validity of sustainability assessment,
public institutions should ensure that it is based on
participation, on transparency of different positions
and distribution of power among stakeholders, and
on a dialogue between science and society.
Sustainability performance
assessment should recognize
difference, but also the
complementarities and synergies
between ‘global’ and ‘local’ food
chains
5 Disparity of power between actors in ‘local’ and
16
Sustainability performance
assessment is a multi-stakeholder
concept and a process that is both
multidimensional and multi-scale
1 Multi-criteria sustainability assessment challenges
existing ‘sustainability’ systems to provide a more integrated framing of their performance using a multistakeholder approach.
‘global’ chains may affect the way performance assessment methodologies are developed. Sustainability performance assessment can be based on
recognition of these differences.
6 Sustainability performance assessment needs to detect when coexistence of ‘local’ and ‘global’ food
chains create complementarities and synergies. Scale
matters for some sustainability attributes, not for others. In some cases scale improves performance, in
others it is the contrary. A generalized, abstract, comparative assessment of ‘local’ and ‘global’ food
chains as abstract entities cannot be done.
2 Multidimensional and multi-scale performance assessment is a key to sustainable pathways for food
chains; its multi-stakeholder approach moves beyond assumptions such as local versus global, and
can provide informed reflexivity on narratives used to
frame the performance of the food system.
Sustainability performance
assessment can be a tool for
encouraging transition to
sustainability
7 Performance assessment can be a tool for encour-
Sustainability performance
assessment draws on multiple
values and multiple interests
3 Sustainability performance assessment combines
hard and soft indicators. It acknowledges that current methodologies tend to compartmentalise assessment methods and the dimensions of
sustainability; it recognises the value of combining
science-led evidence with socio-cultural values.
aging transition to sustainability along the local-global
continuum. In many cases, better performance can
be achieved through ‘localization’ of more global
chains or through ‘globalization’ of more local chains.
Performance assessment can capture the dynamics
of this hybridity in food chains as actors endeavour
to improve sustainability performance with their own
solutions.
glamur.eu