The Citizen Goes Shopping: A framework for the assessment and optimization of production from the perspective of society

Nowadays, product labels are often used to enable consumers choose products that are friendly to the environment and to animals, natural, healthful and socially responsible. However, certain features of commonly used labels limit their usefulness. This thesis identifies a number of these limitations and presents an innovative labeling approach designed to address them. More specifically, the following features limit the usefulness of the commonly used “endorsement” labels: they (1) offer a single certification grade, the requirements for which (2) are ‘static’ in the sense that certification standards do not depend on the evolution of the market, (3) are voluntary, and (4) are defined by stakeholders. Consequently, common labels fail to remove information asymmetry regarding the ethical performance of non-certified products; limit the opportunities for moderately –yet positively– concerned consumers to reveal ethical preferences; fail to motivate product improvement beyond certification standard; allow the emergence of a confusing variety of overlapping labels; and allow production stakeholders to resist socially desirable certification requirements when these are unfavorable to their business. In shoft, ethical labels currently fail to unleash on ethical aspects of production the inherently ‘free-market’ dynamics according to which products and firms must continuously innovate and improve, or else become obsolete and vanish. As an alternative, this thesis proposes and works out an innovative “comparative” labeling approach that is designed to address these limitations. The proposed type of label is (1) multi-grade or continuous, (2) dynamic, (3) mandatory, and (4) society-defined. An example of this type of label is given at  Figure 1. Figure 1: Two variations of an example intuitive color-coded label format. The variations depict different sets of product attributes, and also different aggregation levels of the Environmental Impact attribute. This type of labeling could motivate the creation of a ‘vitruous cyrcle’ or ‘race to the top’, in which the ethical performance of products moves to the direction that society at large regards as ‘positive’. This process is outlined at Figure 2. Figure 2: Expected effects on the environmental performance of marketed product substitutes from the introduction of  the proposed labeling system, in three phases. In Phase 1 , the label is introduced on product substitutes available in the market (supply). In Phase 2 , the supply evolves. To the standard (negative) incentives for cost minimization, are now added (positive) incentives to avoid negative reputation and to improve further the environmental frontiers of production through innovation. In Phase 3 , the label is adjusted (updated) to the evolved supply. Products that failed to improve since last update might become downgraded (blue arrows). It is argued that the proposed labeling approach has the potential to boost ethical consumerism as a force for the ethical optimization of the market. This can be directly relevant to issues about which society is concerned, and democratically elected goverments have limited ability to regulate. Among possible uses of the method developed to assess the relative performance of substitute products, are the comparative ranking of presently available labels (so as to inform consumers on the relative impact of different certified products), the justification of the allocation of incentives and discincentives in state policy, and also the ethical optimization and promotion of own production by socially responsible suppliers.  Overall, the described approach aspires to transform markets into instruments that work to the direction willed by society, so as to bring market-driven and continuous improvement for production aspects of societal concern, such as environmental and socioeconomic aspects of the real economy.

[1]  S. Zadek,et al.  Social Labels: Tools for Ethical Trade , 1998 .

[2]  O. C. Ferrell,et al.  A Synthesis of Ethical Decision Models for Marketing , 1989 .

[3]  R. Bagozzi Reflections on relationship marketing in consumer markets , 1995 .

[4]  Mehrdad Tamiz,et al.  Goal programming for decision making: An overview of the current state-of-the-art , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .

[6]  John Rawls,et al.  政治自由主义 = Political liberalism , 2000 .

[7]  N. A. Glenn,et al.  A framework for the economic evaluation and selection of sustainability indicators in agriculture , 2000 .

[8]  C. Romero,et al.  In search of a natural systems sustainability index , 2004 .

[9]  A. Knijffvander,et al.  Energie in de glastuinbouw van Nederland : ontwikkelingen in de sector en op de bedrijven t/m 2002 , 2003 .

[10]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  10. Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods , 2003 .

[11]  O. C. Ferrell,et al.  A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing , 1985 .

[12]  Emmanuel K. Yiridoe,et al.  Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature , 2005, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.

[13]  Carlos Romero,et al.  Multiple Criteria Analysis for Agricultural Decisions , 1989 .

[14]  Rodomiro Ortiz,et al.  Plant genomics and agriculture: From model organisms to crops, the role of data mining for gene discovery , 2001 .

[15]  E. Heuvelink,et al.  Introduction: the tomato crop and industry , 2005 .

[16]  K. Moore,et al.  Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food , 2002 .

[17]  Scott J. Vitell,et al.  Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of factors influencing ethical judgments of the final consumer , 1992 .

[18]  Graham Brookes,et al.  GM crops : The global economic and environmental impact-The first nine years 1996-2004 , 2005 .

[19]  G. Hardin,et al.  The Tragedy of the Commons , 1968, Green Planet Blues.

[20]  A. Carr,et al.  Is business bluffing ethical , 1968 .

[21]  K. Lancaster A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[22]  A. Mcdermott World Trade , 1992 .

[23]  Rudolf R. Sinkovics,et al.  Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation , 2003 .

[24]  Timothy M. Devinney,et al.  Consumer Ethics Across Cultures , 2005 .

[25]  J. Brinkmann Looking at Consumer Behavior in a Moral Perspective , 2004 .

[26]  L. Bredahl Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions With Regard to Genetically Modified Food – Results of a Cross-National Survey , 2001 .

[27]  James S. Fishkin,et al.  Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion , 2005 .

[28]  J. Eyles,et al.  Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[29]  Manfred J. Lexer,et al.  EditorialDecision support for multiple purpose forestry , 2005 .

[30]  J. Codron,et al.  Social and environmental attributes of food products in an emerging mass market: Challenges of signaling and consumer perception, with European illustrations , 2006 .

[31]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield , 1999 .

[32]  Esben Sloth Andersen,et al.  The evolution of credence goods in customer markets: exchanging 'pigs in pokes' , 1998 .

[33]  K. J. Calker Sustainability of Dutch dairy farming systems: a modelling approach , 2005 .

[34]  Anusorn Singhapakdi,et al.  Consumer ethics: an application and empirical testing of the Hunt‐Vitell theory of ethics , 2001 .

[35]  Walter F. Bodmer,et al.  The Public Understanding of Science , 1986 .

[36]  J. Pluimers An environmental systems analysis of greenhouse horticulture in the Netherlands - the tomato case , 2001 .

[37]  Marylyn Carrigan,et al.  The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? , 2001 .

[38]  M. Korthals Ethical dilemmas in sustainable agriculture , 2001 .

[39]  J. Nap,et al.  Genomics and sustainability : exploring a societal norm , 2002 .

[40]  Hubert Wiggering,et al.  Steps towards indicators of sustainable development: Linking economic and ecological concepts , 1997 .

[41]  F. Brom Food, Consumer Concerns, and Trust: Food Ethics for a Globalizing Market , 2000 .

[42]  S. Hunt,et al.  A General Theory of Marketing Ethics , 1986 .

[43]  Michiel Korthals,et al.  Taking Consumers Seriously: Two Concepts of Consumer Sovereignty , 2001 .

[44]  Konstantinos Giannakas,et al.  Information Asymmetries and Consumption Decisions in Organic Food Product Markets , 2002 .

[45]  M. Grusak,et al.  Methods to improve the crop-delivery ofminerals to humans and livestock , 2005 .

[46]  F. Scharpf Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? , 1999 .

[47]  James A. Roberts Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward , 1996 .

[48]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  What Will Consumers Pay for Social Product Features? , 2003 .

[49]  J. Habermas The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society , 1986 .

[50]  Mark Conner,et al.  Moderating role of attitudinal ambivalence within the theory of planned behaviour. , 2003, The British journal of social psychology.

[51]  E. Buckler,et al.  Plant molecular diversity and applications to genomics. , 2002, Current opinion in plant biology.

[52]  Michiel Korthals,et al.  Ethics in Technological Culture: A Programmatic Proposal for a Pragmatist Approach , 2004, Science, technology & human values.

[53]  Angela Tregear,et al.  In search of the concerned consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying local , 2003 .

[54]  R. McCrae Social consequences of experiential openness. , 1996, Psychological bulletin.

[55]  R. Streiffer,et al.  The Political Import of Intrinsic Objections to Genetically Engineered Food , 2005 .