Search results

For about two decades, sustainability discourse has been operating as a public discourse, stressing reformist and imaginary features of sustainable development (Dryzek, 1997; WCED, 1987). This discourse has its political 'wing', emphasising societal orientations for renewal of production and consumption towards sustainability at large (CEC, 1997, 1999; COM, 2001; European Parliament, 2002). Indeed, European food system seems to call for developmental measures, as one fifth to circa half of all categories of environmental impacts are caused by the food system (Tukker et al., 2006) and within this system, meat and dairy sector seem to be responsible to large extent for eutrophication and climate change (Weidema et al., 2008). To effect changes towards increased sustainability, the market has been suggested to operate as a level of playing field for sustainable food (Defra, 2010; HM Government, 2010). It is often interpreted as organic or local (CEC, 2004, 2008; Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007; Nordic Ecolabelling of Restaurants, 2009) but currently sustainable food is seen to embrace "contribution made by farming on sustainability, climate change, food security and development, biodiversity, animal welfare, and water scarcity" (CEC, 2008, 6). While most consumers do not seem to be willing to pay more for sustainable food, the "concerned consumers" (Weatherell et al., 2003) represent a principled orientation according to which there is more to food than price only (Seyfang, 2006; Weatherell et al., 2003).

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to contribute to the theory and practice of supply chain management in terms of how an organisation should structure its supply base to be resilient to supply uncertainties and disruptions. An empirical assessment of supplier response diversity is demonstrated, and the following research question posed: Is response diversity of suppliers positively associated with supply chain resilience, more positively than mere supplier diversity is?Design/Methodology/ApproachResilience is operationalised as the maintenance of sales of two food products in 27 southern Finnish retail stores during two distinct disruptions. Response diversity is operationalised as 1) diversity in the personnel sizes of slaughterhouse suppliers of pork under domestic strikes and as 2) evenness in the proportions of imports and domestic supply of food oil under global price volatility. A five-step quantitative assessment is performed.FindingsResponse diversity is positively related to the maintenance of sales, more positively than diversity of individual suppliers is.Research limitations/ImplicationsResponse diversity is an advancement to the theory of supply chain resilience and supply base management, and access to big data increases practical potential.Practical implicationsEmpirical assessments of response diversity of suppliers provide buyer companies an effective means to enhance their supply base management for resilience.Social implicationsThe proposed approach is useful for teaching and for authorities to enhance food security.Originality/valueThis first assessment of response diversity of supply chain operations presents an important advancement in the theory and practice of supply base management for resilience.

Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) cycles are absolutely vital in maintaining sustainable food systems. Human activities disturb the natural balance of these cycles by creating enormous additional nutrient fluxes, causing eutrophication of waterways and pollution in land systems. To tackle this problem, sustainable nutrient management is required. This paper addresses sustainable nutrient management in two countries: The Netherlands and Finland. We adopt a critical perspective on resource politics, especially towards opportunistic policy strategies for the pollutant management of N and P. Two research questions are considered. First, what are the key systemic and policy failures that occurred in the N and P systems in the Netherlands and Finland between 1970 and 2015? And second, which lessons can be drawn when addressing the policy responses in the two countries to cope with these failures? The cases are analyzed within Weber and Rohracher's framework that addresses "failures" preventing sustainable transitions. The results show that a number of failures occurred, besides market failures (over-exploitation of the commons, externalization of costs): lack of directionality, policy coordination, institutions, capabilities, infrastructure, demand articulation, and reflexivity. Policy responses in both countries resulted in ponderous policy frameworks that were adequate to tackle nutrient problems from the industrial sector and municipalities. However, both countries provided only a moderate response in terms of system-wide integrated policy frameworks to cope with sectoral-transcending issues. The agricultural use of N and P, in contrast to detergents, has not been subjected to strong regulatory measures.

Abstract
Lack of nitrogen limits food production in poor countries while excessive nitrogen use in industrial countries has led to transgression of the planetary boundary. However, the potential of spatial redistribution of nitrogen input for food security when returning to the safe boundary has not been quantified in a robust manner. Using an emulator of a global gridded crop model ensemble, we found that redistribution of current nitrogen input to major cereals among countries can double production in the most food-insecure countries, while increasing global production of these crops by 12% with no notable regional loss or reducing the nitrogen input to the current production by one-third. Redistribution of the input within the boundary increased production by 6–8% compared to the current relative distribution, increasing production in the food-insecure countries by two-thirds. Our findings provide georeferenced guidelines for redistributing nitrogen use to enhance food security while safeguarding the planet.