At this session, papers were presented by

Dr. sc. ETH Salvador Garibay, FiBL - Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau, - Switzerland

Hanna Stolz, FiBL - Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau, Switzerland

Cesare Zanasi, University of Bologna, Ital

Amarjit, Sahota

Beate, Huber

Julia, Lernoud

Willer, Helga

English

Organic Eprints

BiofachFebruary 14th, 2013Hanna Stolz, Monica Goddard, Maria Salud,  Ingrid JahrlConsumers’ and non-business stakeholders’ opinions on sustainability in the soy and beef chain Objective To identify consumers’ and other non-business stakeholders’ attitudes, perceptions and awareness regarding the sustainability of soy and beef supply chainsMethodsConsumer survey: Online survey in 2012, organised by UNAMFocus on beefConducted in Brazil (BRA), Mexico (MEX), Italy (IT), and Netherlands (NL)Sample description: total n=864 BRA:  n=522  MEX:  n=140 IT:  n=131 NL:  n=71Share of persons < 45 years: 41-45%Share of female: in BRA 41%, MEX 61%, IT 54%, NL 59%MethodsNon-business stakeholder survey: Online survey, organised by FIBL;  separate questionnaires for beef and soy chainSample description: N=48 (of ca. 250 contacted organisations/institutions) LA (Brazil, Argentina): n=26 EU (Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Italy): n=22 Beef supply chain: n=23 Soy supply chain: n=25 Mainly representatives of environmental and social non-profit organisations, universities, and agricultural, environmental and health ministries/departmentsResults Most important buying motives for consumers when choosing meat/beef Taste Colour Food safety Sustainability motives less importantResultsTable 1: Relevance of environmental sustainability impacts*Scale 1= not important at all to 7= highly important; Std. = standard deviationConsumersNon-business stakeholdersEnvironmental impacts* Mean Std. Mean Std.Water quality 5.63 1.73 5.65 1.36Soil quality 5.56 1.67 5.83 1.13Waste produced 5.52 1.72 4.77 1.60Biodiversity 5.52 1.82 6.08 1.16Land use change natural land 5.50 1.84 5.69 1.60Water used 5.37 1.78 5.46 1.54Mineral resources used  5.29 1.73 5.00 1.75Land use change within agriculture  5.24 1.82 5.25 1.66Air quality  5.21 1.74 5.39 1.51Energy used 5.03 1.67 5.51 1.49Results*measured on scale from 1= unimportant to 7= highly important; Std.= standard deviationTable 2: Relevance of social and economic impactsConsumersNon-business stakeholdersSocial and economic impacts* Mean Std. Mean Std.Food safety and security 5.98 1.70 5.38 1.78Labour rights, including child labour  5.69 1.76 5.38 1.70Value added in local chain and community  5.42 1.68 5.52 1.41National economy 5.43 1.68 5.10 1.45Farm income 5.37 1.68 5.44 1.50ResultsMeasures to enhance sustainability* Mean  Std.Financial compensations 4.06 1.06Support initiatives 4.02 0.89Deforestation prevention 3.94 1.10Support research 3.94 1.12More priority to local sourcing 3.85 1.22Advice and training 3.75 1.16Link of policy agendas 3.75 1.02Support of production 3.69 1.13Market transparency and niches 3.56 1.13Facilitation of trade 3.52 1.32Table 3: Relevance of measures to enhance sustainability according to the non-business stakeholders*Scale from 1=not important at all to 5=highly important; Std. = standard deviationResults Obstacles hindering sustainability according to non- business stakeholders  Increasing soy demand Economic interests e.g. the interests of big GM seed providers, of multinational retailers, and of large trading companies Weak regulatory framework at both local and international level; inefficient or non-existent policies for encouraging sustainable production systems  LA: lack of enforcement of existing policies; import tariffs  Most important actors in increasing sustainability:  National and international policy makers Large-scale producers and processors ConsumersResults Table 5: Non-business stakeholders: standards’ efficiency to enhance environmental sustainabilityStandard *Efficiency Don’t know (%)Organic standards 3.77 11.4SAN Rainforest Alliance 3.40 34.8Global GAP 3.34 22.2Business Social Compliance Initiative (BSCI) 3.23 51.1SA 8000 3.19 42.2Leaf marque 2.80 53.5Scale from 1= very unefficient to 5= highly efficient• Consumers’ familiarity and perception of efficiency of standards and labelsResultsResults Consumers’ familiarity with and perception of labels Organic Labels: USDA Organic  known by 30% of the respondents in LA EU Organic label  NL 43%, IT 73% Fair Trade label  NL 80%, IT 66% but only 12% in LA  The SAN Rainforest Alliance  21-24% in LA and EU Organic standards (EU and USDA) considered as most effective standards, followed by Fair Trade standard and SAN Rainforest Alliance standardConclusions Policy makers are considered as key players in enhancing sustainability in the beef and soy chain Creating policy framework is most important measure to improve sustainability Financial support and incentives considered as most effective tools More need for action regarding soy than for beef chain Biodiversity Soil and water quality Waste produced and  Land use change from natural to agricultural landConclusions Standards (and labels): Non-business stakeholders and consumers consider existing (organic) standards as quite efficient to improve sustainability Improve existing standards rather than creating new standards Sustainability labels, apart form organic and fair trade labels still unknown by large amount of consumers Low consumer awareness of sustainability (Majority of) consumers will not serve as driver to increase sustainability of beef and soy chain Policy and marketing strategies necessary to raise consumer awareness – focus on specific sustainability impactsThank you for your attention!Dr. Hanna StolzTel: +41 (0)62 865 0413hanna.stolz@fibl.orgResearch Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) Ackerstrasse 21, Postfach 2195070 Frick, SwitzerlandFax: +41 (0)62 865 7273www.fibl.org

Presentations from the session "How sustainable are fairtrade and organic?" at the BioFach Congress 2013

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Organic Eprints