Sustainability marketing trends have typically been led by smaller, more mission-driven firms, but are increasingly attracting larger, more profit-driven firms. Studying the strategies of firms that are moving away from these two poles (i.e., mission-driven but larger firms, and profit-driven firms that are more committed to sustainability) may help us to better understand the potential to resolve tensions between firm size and sustainability goals. We used this approach to analyze a case study of the U.S. fair trade coffee industry, employing the methods of data visualization and media content analysis. We identified three firms that account for the highest proportion of U.S. fair trade coffee purchases (Equal Exchange, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters and Starbucks) and analyzed their strategies, including reactions to recent changes in U.S. fair trade standards. We found an inverse relationship between firm size and demonstrated commitment to sustainability ideals, and the two larger firms were much less likely to acknowledge conflicts between size and sustainability in their public discourse. We conclude that similar efforts to increase sustainability marketing for other products and services should be more skeptical of approaches that rely on primarily on the participation of large, profit-driven firms.
Recent years have seen the convergence of industries that focus on higher protein foods, such as meat processing firms expanding into plant-based substitutes and/or cellular meat production, and fisheries firms expanding into aquaculture. A driving force behind these changes is dominant firms seeking to increase their power relative to close competitors, including by extending beyond boundaries that pose constraints to growth. The broad banner of "protein" offers a promising space to achieve this goal, despite its nutritionally reductionist focus on a single macronutrient. Protein firm strategies to increase their dominance are likely to further diminish equity in food systems by exacerbating power asymmetries. In addition, the resilience of food systems has the potential to be weakened as these strategies tend to reduce organizational diversity, as well as the genetic diversity of livestock and crops. To better understand these changes, we visually characterize firms that are most dominant in higher protein food industries globally and their recent strategic moves. We discuss the likelihood for these trends to further jeopardize food system resilience and equity, and we make recommendations for avoiding these impacts.
Chemical management programs strive to protect human health and the environment by accurately identifying persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic substances and restricting their use in commerce. The advance of these programs is challenged by the reality that few empirical data are available for the tens of thousands of commercial substances that require evaluation. Therefore, most preliminary assessments rely on model predictions and data extrapolation. In November 2005, a workshop was held for experts from governments, industry, and academia to examine the availability and quality of in vivo fish bioconcentration and bioaccumulation data, and to propose steps to improve its prediction. The workshop focused on fish data because regulatory assessments predominantly focus on the bioconcentration of substances from water into fish, as measured using in vivo tests or predicted using computer models. In this article we review of the quantity, features, and public availability of bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biota–sediment accumulation data. The workshop revealed that there is significant overlap in the data contained within the various fish bioaccumulation data sources reviewed, and further, that no database contained all of the available fish bioaccumulation data. We believe that a majority of the available bioaccumulation data have been used in the development and testing of quantitative structure–activity relationships and computer models currently in use. Workshop recommendations included the publication of guidance on bioconcentration study quality, the combination of data from various sources to permit better access for modelers and assessors, and the review of chemical domains of existing models to identify areas for expansion.
Frontmatter -- Contents -- Foreword -- Introduction -- 1. Seeds -- How Corporations Control Our Seeds -- Taking Back Our Seeds -- 2. Pesticides -- Pesticide Purveyors and Corporate Power -- Drift Catchers Combatting Pesticide Power -- 3. Extraction -- Devil's Bargain: Fractured Farms or Freedom? -- Food and Water over Fracking -- 4. Labor -- Food Workers versus Food Giants -- Food Workers Taking On Goliath -- 5. Health -- Fast Food Embodied: Industrial Diets -- Moving a McMountain -- 6. Hunger -- Hunger Incorporated: Who Benefits from Anti-Hunger Efforts? -- Progress over Poverty through Political Power -- 7. Trade -- The Corporate Stock in Trade -- Food Sovereignty in Japan and Beyond -- Conclusion: Stand Up, Bite Back -- Afterword: Taking Action to Create Change -- Acknowledgments -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Contributors -- Index
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
