Clarifying relationships between participatory approaches,issues, processes,and results,through crosscutting case analysis in Japan’s environmental,energy, and food policy areas

Participatory public engagement approaches such as Consensus Conferences, Deliberative Polling^®, and Planning Cells have been used to try and resolve environmental disputes in Japan; however, the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches have not been analyzed adequately or comprehensively. This paper evaluates practical applications of each of the above participatory approaches and conducts a crosscutting analysis of these applications to evaluate how effectively each approach provides scientific information to participants and to consider how the quality of deliberations that occur during these processes affect their outputs. Based on existing classification of participatory processes, and methodology for public involvement in US environmental decision-making, this study compares and contrasts the processes and outcomes of 25 participatory planning case studies in Japan. After compiling a case inventory of participatory approaches, the features of one approach are documented using qualitative analysis, and the aspects of four other approaches are confirmed using crosscutting analysis. In so doing, the likely strengths and weaknesses of each approach are suggested as follows. When discussions require an understanding of scientific knowledge, the Consensus Conference tends to be more suitable than the DP approach. If the consensus of participants is expected, the Consensus Conference is also thought to be suitable. But through a DP process or Simplified Planning Cells approach, we can know the quantitative portion of each opinion through results of ballots. In sum, new participatory approach that incorporates strengths of the Consensus Conference and the Simplified Planning Cells into Local Environmental Planning is needed. Thus, the quality of consensus building could be improved.     

Food: From Commodity to Commons

Our food and farming system is not socially, economically or ecologically sustainable. Many of the ills are a result of market competition driving specialization and linear production models, externalizing costs for environmental, social and cultural degradation. Some propose that market mechanisms should be used to correct this; improved consumer choice, internalization of costs and compensation to farmers for public goods. What we eat is determined by the path taken by our ancestors, by commercialization and fierce competition, fossil fuels and demographic development. Based on those, governments and the food industry are the choice architects who determine what we eat; consumer choice plays a marginal role. Using market mechanisms to internalize cost and compensate farmers for public goods has been proposed for decades but little progress has been made. There are also many practical, ethical and theoretical objections to such a system. The market is not a good master for a sustainable food system. Instead we need to find new ways of managing the food system based on food as a right and farming as a management system of the planet Earth. The solutions should be based on relocalization of food production and de-commodification of food and our symbionts, the plants and animals we eat.     

The Normative Limits of Consumer Citizenship

In political philosophy, citizenship is a key concept. Citizenship is tied to rights and duties, as well as to concepts of social justice. Recently, the debate on citizenship has developed a new direction in focusing on qualified notions of citizenship. In this contribution, I shall defend three claims. Firstly, consumer citizenship fits into the discussion of qualified notions of citizenship. Secondly, the debate on qualified notions of citizenship cannot be detached from the normative claims in the philosophy of citizenship more generally. In particular, duties and rights receive a distinct shape when debated in terms of “consumer citizenship”. Thirdly, I shall argue that further normative limits can be established by discussing qualified notions of citizenship as items of a list that need to cohere in normative terms. I shall pay particular attention to environmental citizenship.     

Consuming for the Sake of Others: Whose Interests Count on a Market for Animal-Friendly Products?

Many Europeans are concerned about the living conditions of farm animals because they view animals as beings that possess interests of their own. Against this background the introduction of an animal welfare label is being intensively discussed in Europe. In choosing a market-based instrument to take these concerns into account, normative judgments are made about the formation of preferences, the value system that is implicitly assumed, and the distribution of property rights. From the perspective of classical institutional economics it can be shown that the introduction of a label as an institutional change does not redefine institutions in a way that allows them to consider the interests of animals for their own sake. Rather, the label only redefines the property rights that humans have over animals. The market segregation into privileged and normal animals conflicts with the idea of equality between sentient animals. Within the group of humans only the interests of those who act on markets count. The commodification of their moral concerns assumes that people always decide based on their own interests, which can be traded off. The lexicographical ordering of preferences, which occurs when humans view animals as entities with rights, is not compatible with the normative assumptions of markets. Furthermore, interpreting animal suffering as market failure that can be corrected by labeling impedes a reasoned dialog within the society about the values and beliefs that serve as a basis for preference formation. Thus, an animal welfare label cannot replace a fundamental societal debate about legal standards on animal well-being.     

Determinants of Individual Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare-Friendly Food Products

Animal welfare involves societal and human values, ethical concerns and moral considerations since it incorporates the belief of what is right or what is wrong in animal treatment and care. This paper aims to ascertain whether the different dimensions of individual attitudes toward animal welfare in food choices may be characterized by general human values, as identified by Schwartz. For this purpose, an EU-wide survey was carried out, covering almost 2500 nationally representative individuals from five European countries. Compared with the previous literature this study shows a twofold novelty: (1) it develops a general framework to link individual enduring beliefs and attitudes toward animal welfare attributes in food choices; (2) the framework is analyzed within a broad-based cross-country study. Our empirical results prove that human values related to self-transcendence are strongly associated to overall animal welfare attitudes and especially to those explicitly related to food choices, while values related to the spheres of self-enhancement and conservatism are significantly associated to less sensitive attitudes to animal welfare. Moreover, our results appear to indicate that a determinant of animal welfarism in food choices is potentially associated to individual concerns regarding food safety issues.     

Think Global,Buy National: CSR,Cooperatives and Consumer Concerns in the Norwegian Food Value Chain

In a world where issues of food safety and food security are increasingly important, the social responsibility of central actors in the food chain—producers and the main grocery chains—becomes more pressing. As a response, these actors move from implicitly assuming social responsibilities implied in laws, regulations and ethical customs, towards explicitly expressing social responsibilities. In this paper, we discuss the ethical values relevant for the social responsibility of central food producers and retailers in Norway, one of the most subsidized and protected areas of food production in the world. How do the actors perceive and express their social responsibility, and—given their position in the local, national and global market—how should they handle these responsibilities? We analyze Tine and Nortura, two producers owned by farmer cooperatives with market regulator function, as well as Coop—a dominant grocery chain in Norway, with basis in the same public ownership model as the farmer-owned cooperative producers. While the complex roles of these key actors in the Norwegian food market have been criticized from several angles, we argue that these multifaceted roles put them in a good position to promote informed consumer choices in a globalized market.     

Corporate Social Responsibility in Agribusiness: Literature Review and Future Research Directions

Changes in social framework conditions, accelerated by globalization or political inventions, have created new societal demands and requirements on companies. The concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is often considered a potential tool for meeting societal demands and criticism as a company voluntarily takes responsibility for society. The spotlight of public attention has only recently come to focus on agribusiness-related aspects of CSR. It is therefore the objective of this paper to provide an overview and a critical examination of the current state of research into CSR in agribusiness from different perspectives. Upon that this paper goals to define CSR special cases in agribusiness and derive implications for further research. CSR in agribusiness is a multi-dimensional and complex concept, which is sensitive to ongoing exchange processes between companies and stakeholders. We conclude with the special position of CSR in agribusiness and that future research should focus on adding value to industry-specific CSR aspects in the general CSR framework borrowed from management literature. Explorative fieldwork such as expert interviews with different stakeholders might be suitable for gaining insights into agribusiness-specific aspects of CSR in firms.     

How to do Animal Ethics

Many think doing animal ethics demands we see moral humanism as a speciesist prejudice of the kind found with sexism and racism. The only serious case for this rests on the Argument from Marginal Cases. We find that argument to the point, but show that properly understood it supports humanism. Understanding why it does this lets us see how we ought to go on in animal ethics.     

Institutional Isomorphism and Food Fraud: A Longitudinal Study of the Mislabeling of Rice in Taiwan

A number of high-profile mislabeling incidents have led to many studies exploring the decision-making processes that firms make around performing illegal acts. However, it remains unclear why the proportion of firms conducting these acts constantly fluctuates and never disappears. Therefore, this study investigated this by carrying out a longitudinal analysis of food labeling in the Taiwanese rice industry. Drawing on the institutional isomorphism theory, it was found that the degree of mislabeling is negatively correlated with both the level of control of inspection regulations and public attention toward food regulations, and positively correlated with the previous proportion of firms mislabeling their products. Thus, there is a feedback loop between regulatory control, public attention, and the amount of mislabeling, with the amount of mislabeling not only being affected by the former degree of regulatory control, public attention, and mislabeling, but also modifying the future status of each of these. These findings further our understanding of the causal effects of illegal actions in the institutional agricultural environment.     

Responding to a Public Health Objection to Vaccinating the Great Apes

Capps and Lederman, in a paper published in this journal in 2015, argued that, at the time, the dismal circumstances of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was an opportunity to revisit public health responses to emergent infectious diseases. Using a One Health lens, they argued for an ecological perspective—one that looked to respond to zoonoses as an environmental as well as public health concern. Using Ebola virus disease as an example, they suggested shared immunity as a strategy to vaccinate both humans and great apes. Since then, vaccination as a conservation strategy in this case has been debated and at least one great ape vaccination trial has been proposed: some, however, are less convinced of the ethical arguments to pursue vaccinating wild animals. Using this opportunity, we review Capps and Lederman’s arguments and directly respond to the plausible objections to them.