Suchergebnisse

Arguably one of the most prominent measures to facilitate more Sustainable Consumption and Production has been the instrument of product labelling. But with a plethora of labelling schemes having been implemented by various actors over the last decade, many now accuse them of being confusing rather than facilitating. As a result, governments in France, UK and Germany, as well as businesses such as Walmart and non-governmental organisations, like WWF, have begun to consider seriously the implementation of some form of 'meta' scheme that condenses existing product labels and other communication measures into an overarching Sustainability message. Yet so far, in depth studies on the potential institutionalisation of a Sustainability Meta Labelling Scheme are missing. Drawing upon a novel theoretically integrative framework that combines theoretical arguments of constructivist institutionalism and institutional entrepreneurship with the concept of legitimacy, this paper addresses this gap by exploring how the notion of Sustainability Meta Labelling has so far been discussed and investigating the prospects for such an overarching scheme to become institutionalised. Empirically, the paper bases on documentary analysis and elite interviews focussed on case studies of four existing product labelling schemes (EU ecolabel, EU energy label, Marine Stewardship Council and Fairtrade label) as well as the notion of Sustainability Meta Labelling. Legitimacy constructions are demonstrated rather than shown to be highly dynamic and oftentimes inherently conflicting. Many of these conflicts thereby appear to be likely to increase rather than decrease with the implementation of an overarching Sustainability Meta Labelling scheme. In a sense, this study shows that the very issue that is claimed to drive the establishment of a Sustainability Meta Labelling Scheme-the different interpretations of the Sustainable Development concept through different product labels-might in fact pose one of the main challenges for its institutionalisation and effectiveness in facilitating more Sustainable Consumption and Production. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

To facilitate more sustainable consumption different actors have introduced various labelling schemes providing information about a product's environmental, social or other attributes. Based on case studies of existing labelling schemes this paper analyses how sustainability related product labels try to shape the production and consumption system by enabling political consumerism and facilitating a more sustainable modification of the supply chain. Labelling schemes are thereby understood as representing a new form of governance, which to be effective, needs the legitimisation from all actors that are essential for these processes. On the one hand this offers opportunities from empowering non-­‐governmental actors and being dissolved from national boundaries; on the other hand it sets clear limitations for the instrument.

To facilitate more sustainable consumption different actors have introduced various labelling schemes providing information about a product's environmental, social or other attributes. Based on case studies of existing labelling schemes this paper analyses how sustainability related product labels try to shape the production and consumption system by enabling political consumerism and facilitating a more sustainable modification of the supply chain. Labelling schemes are thereby understood as representing a new form of governance, which to be effective, needs the legitimisation from all actors that are essential for these processes. On the one hand this offers opportunities from empowering non-governmental actors and being dissolved from national boundaries; on the other hand it sets clear limitations for the instrument.

Transitioning towards organic consumption and production has been widely promoted as a more sustainable alternative for urban and rural food systems. Our paper shows how a focus on legitimacy can shed light on current barriers to deeper institutionalisation of the organic labelling scheme in China. Based upon documentary analysis, personal observations and over 70 qualitative interviews we identify consequential concerns amongst China's small scale farmers, limited support by the Chinese central government, and procedural problems as the main barriers. We discuss strategies to overcome these barriers, for example tighter certification procedures or more participatory arrangements. Our work contributes to the legitimacy, product labelling and food safety literatures as well as bourgeoning discussions on how to facilitate more sustainable consumption and production in China.

While the demands for greater engagement in science in general and regulatory science in particular have been steadily increasing, we still face limited understanding of the empirical resonance of these demands. Against this context, this paper presents findings from a recent study of a potential participatory opening of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment ("Bundesinstitut für Riskobewertung" [BfR]), a prominent regulatory scientific organization in the field of risk governance. Drawing upon quantitative surveys of the public and selected professional experts as well as in-depth qualitative expert interviews, we identify a general support for greater engagement in science-based risk assessment. However, we also find significant contestation concerning its potential enactment and its normative and strategic merit. Underlying these contestations, we identify the persistence of a normal view of science and decisionist understanding of risk assessment, which create conflicting legitimacy demands for BfR and other regulatory scientific organizations. Together with concerns about imbalances in the power to participate, especially in highly specialized engagement processes, these pose significant challenges for the institutionalization of more participatory practices.

Biofuel policy has become highly contentious in Europe, driven by the Biofuels Directive (2003/30/EC), which requires that "biofuels or other renewable fuels" constitute 5.75% of the energy content of petrol and diesel sold for transport in member states by 2010. Here we examine the environmental and social sustainability components of the expression of this directive in UK law via the 2008 UK Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO). We find that commercial and energy security priorities have dominated the design of carbon and sustainability performance management under the RTFO. As an environmental management tool, the RTFO is exceptionally weak, being a reporting standard rather than a performance or design standard. While it will in some ways be strengthened by the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), significant concerns remain in relation to the sourcing of biomass for energy under the RED. RTFO certification is of a meta-type, being built upon existing certification and labelling schemes (e.g. the Roundtable on Responsible Soy, Forest Stewardship Council, Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and others), all of which are more or less contested by NGOs. Yet despite claiming legitimacy from these non- state initiatives, the serious concerns of environment and development NGOs have been largely ignored in regulatory terms. We draw on documentary evidence, interviews and the science in policy literature, notably ideas on regulatory co-production and post-normal science, as well as concepts of regulatory and market legitimacy, to suggest that until critical voices are given a stronger expression in UK and EC biofuel policy, biofuel policy cannot be said to have achieved a social mandate or a durable legitimacy.

Regulatory scientific agencies, such as the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), are confronted with various challenges in their science-based risk communication. On the one hand, the communication of health risks is becoming increasingly complex and, accordingly, more demanding, which is why – among other things – questions about the health literacy of consumers and target group-oriented risk communication are gaining importance. On the other hand, the outputs of regulatory scientific agencies are increasingly exposed to politicisation and public criticism, which increases the relevance of questions about the objectivity and trustworthiness of expert opinion, risk assessment, and official statements, as well as the legitimacy and reputation of such organisations. This is further intensified by the emergence of new social media actors who produce and publish their own information and communication materials. The misinformation, disinformation and malinformation consequently distributed in this context represent another challenge, which is closely related to questions of adequate communication of health risks and of stabilising legitimacy, reputation and trustworthiness. The article discusses various approaches to solving these problems, including the optimization and visual enhancement of health information, enabling social participation as well as embedding these measures in strategic stakeholder and reputation management. The article concludes with a call for a more open discussion of inherent dilemmas.

This paper presents selected highlights from the 'Engaging with society' session of EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food and Society' (Parma, Italy, 18–21 September 2018). The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement. The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas. The disintermediation of communication and the proliferation of misinformation, it is argued, herald the onset of the post‐truth society. A better understanding of the way individuals consume information today has led to the development of tools to guide mediators such as journalists and communication specialists in countering these trends. Public engagement can reinforce confidence in regulatory bodies and potentially contribute to the quality of the scientific process. Scientific advisory bodies in Europe have created strategies and mechanisms to engage the public that are designed to increase transparency and representativeness. To be effective, several engagement mechanisms are needed, although factors such as resource constraints, institutional culture and public/stakeholder attitudes may limit their development. In conclusion, a more vigorous role for social research is needed to place scientific risk assessment within broader socio‐economic and political contexts. Social science expertise can help to define more impactful public information strategies and to explore the potential opportunities that engaged stakeholders and citizens can make to sustain and strengthen regulatory science.

This paper presents selected highlights from the 'Engaging with society' session of EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food and Society' (Parma, Italy, 18–21 September 2018). The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement. The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas. The disintermediation of communication and the proliferation of misinformation, it is argued, herald the onset of the post-truth society. A better understanding of the way individuals consume information today has led to the development of tools to guide mediators such as journalists and communication specialists in countering these trends. Public engagement can reinforce confidence in regulatory bodies and potentially contribute to the quality of the scientific process. Scientific advisory bodies in Europe have created strategies and mechanisms to engage the public that are designed to increase transparency and representativeness. To be effective, several engagement mechanisms are needed, although factors such as resource constraints, institutional culture and public/stakeholder attitudes may limit their development. In conclusion, a more vigorous role for social research is needed to place scientific risk assessment within broader socio-economic and political contexts. Social science expertise can help to define more impactful public information strategies and to explore the potential opportunities that engaged stakeholders and citizens can make to sustain and strengthen regulatory science.