Organic Food Labelling

A more sustainable agriculture through Organic Food Labelling

30 April 2018 (Revised 21 May 2018)

By Michel Steinecke & Victor M Angulo

In the third article of our blog we will present the design for a sustainable transition strategy for a more sustainable agriculture system, this time based on Transition Management and contextualized in the labelling of organic food.

How can we achieve a more sustainable agriculture through organic food labelling?

As we discussed in our first and second posts, the current socio-technical system of food production has severe socioeconomic and environmental impacts. In there, we argued how socio-technical system (STS) are created, developed and how processes, such as lock-in and path dependency, make them difficult to change, challenging the generation of transition processes. In this post, we analyze how can the Transition management theory can be used to propose a transition to a more sustainable agriculture system.

In this post, we follow up on the transition process in the STS of food production and consumption we discussed on our second blog. In that case, we argued what it would take to design a transition strategy contextualized on the niche that the permaculture movement represents, building our strategy upon the concept of Strategic Niche Management (SNM). However, in this post we analyze the transition process in the STS of food production and consumption from a different perspective, discussing how we can achieve a sustainable transition towards a more sustainable agriculture through organic food labeling. For this purpose, we build an strategy based on the theory of Transition Management (TM).

To understand a process of change in a regime we need to be able to see the regime from outside. However, when actors operate on a system, they normally do it within a subsystem level, lacking the big picture of the regime. As a consequence of that, they are not able to produce change beyond a subsystem level (Loorback, 2010). In this sense, transition management offers a strategy for transition with the focus on doing that actors, normally limited to improve subsystems, become capable of improving a regime in its totality. In other words, a transition produced from within. In addition, TM facilitates the articulation of the pressure produced by the selection environment of the STS, to ensure the coordination of resources of the STS (Smith et al., 2005).

The STS of food production and consumption is composed by many different actors for example farmers, food industries, supermarkets, regulators, NGOs and others. All these actors have different agendas, purposes, and interests that can be conflicting. In this context of conflict, Transition management theory can help us to create a common ground where relevant actors can negotiate towards a more sustainable STS of food production and consumption through the establishment of organic food labelling.

The organic movement started in 1920’s as an alternative criticism to the food regime of the time, which still remain very similar today as it was before. The movement was characterized for moving people ‘back to land’ as an opposition to the current industrialization of the food production. However, the organic movement was absorbed by the current food regime, which produced a process of fit-and-conformed in the niche represented by the organic food. This process resulted in the adaptation of organic food into the settings of the current regime, modifying its original concept (Smith, 2007). In that sense, the organic labelling adapted the pressures from the organic movements into the current food regime. Organic food labelling is part of the current STS of food production of consumption, as we can see in the supermarkets, filled with products containing organic labels as a result of a common vision of the different actor in the food system, who understood that they could create a market with organic products by creating a standard recognizable among customers. Due to that, we analyze the transition process of STS of food production using Transition Management. In the next chapters, we explain what Transition Management is and the different steps it entails.

No radical revolutions, but coordinated transitions!

In the last post, we analyzed how the permaculture movement could be understood as a niche towards a sustainable transition in agriculture. In this post, we will discuss instead how organic food labelling can to produce a sustainable transition, using the theoretical framework of Transition Management (TM).

Transition management is grounded in the concept of “complex adaptive systems” (Smith et al., 2005). This concept defines actors within the system as entities with a fragmented and short-sight understanding, which activities are confined to a small network. Therefore, they are unable of generate a coordinated resource adaptation beyond the boundaries of their own subsystem. Due to that isolation, a transition process on a system level will require from the available resources of the different subsystems to be organized internally, in order to coordinate them for the adaptive purpose of a systemic transition.

The governance of those complex adaptive systems consists on a temporary coalition of actors from different subsystems with the objective of aligning different interests and agendas. This works as an alternative mechanism for steering, in contrast to the traditional governance modes based on market and hierarchy. These are seen as lacking efficiency in coordinating the steering of a systemic development, due to the non-structured nature of societal challenges (Smith et al., 2005).

The food system is a huge system composed by a complex network of actors representing the food supply chain and the other actors influencing the food production such as regulators, NGO’s, academic, media and so on. In this complex system, each of the actors follow their own interests, normally lacking an alignment towards sustainable practices in a systemic level. Therefore, a transition in the food system needs to involve all the actors in a coordinated way in order to develop a more rational use of resources.

Phasing the transition

Producing a sustainable transition is not a process that can be driven by a single actor. If we consider the complexity of food production & consumption patterns and practices, the situation is the same, requiring the involvement of more than one actor for producing change. There are many different interests and perspectives present in the STS and they can create conflicts between different actors, making hard to establish a common understanding about the benefits of a sustainable transition. To discuss how organic food labelling can produce the shift towards a more sustainable STS of food production and consumption, we explain how that transition process can be organized with the framework of TM.

Long term - The transition arena

This stage is a strategic one and entails a long term process in a systemic level. The transition arena is a small network (no more than 15 people) conformed by members from each of the subsystems existing in the regime, referred by Loorback (2010) as the societal pentagon (government, companies, NGO’s, knowledge institutes and other intermediary organizations). These members, or frontrunners, are selected according to their background and competencies, acting as representatives of themselves and not the subsystem where they belong. The purpose of the Transition Arena is to put together different perceptions and approaches to problems and confront them, aiming for possible integrative solutions (Loorback, 2010). In our study case, the frontrunners should include actors such as farmers, supermarkets, environmentalists and representatives from different relevant organizations.

The transition arena requires a wise choice of the different members that conformed. In that sense, they should be not only committed to a possible transition, but also have certain authority within the subsystem where they come from, to be able to expand the perception generated in the transition arena process.

These frontrunners will have a certain approach towards food production and consumption, but the relevancy is in the balance of all needs and interests by the chosen actors in order to maintain a diversity. For example, some farmers could oppose to the transition, due to economic interests, while environmental organizations can be keen for the change. Furthermore, all the different actors have their own perspective and understanding of the problems related to the transition, showing how relevant is to establish an interactive process aiming to a common perception of the issues related to the transition process. That is critical to move on in the strategy process, but achieving such will often be troublesome and create conflicts among the chosen frontrunners.

Mid term - The transition agenda

In this tactical stage with a middle term perspective, the focus goes on the expansion of the influence of the structural transition vision generated in the arena. This expansion will lead to a translation of the outcome of the arena into the different subsystems of the regime which will generate, as a consequence, new images of translation aligned with the original.

Short term - Experiments

In this operational stage with short term scope, the actors that translated the vision of transition into the different subsystems perform specific projects with certain risk that align with the transition vision and develop innovative solutions that close the distance between the regime and the transition vision. In that sense, in our case, some actors, such as public institutions can work in restrictions and regulations regarding agricultural practices or supermarkets can create commercials to show the value of organic products and the environmental impact of their counterparts.

Monitoring and evaluation

The fact that experiments are risky and costly in terms of resources, gives special importance to a reflexive process of constant monitoring. This is relevant not only to strength the process, but also to establish a constant learning within the translation process.

In that sense, Loorback (2010) establishes three monitoring focus: the actors taking part in the transition arena, which are monitored regarding their performance within the arena and behavior towards their network. Secondly, the agenda of the transition, having the goal vision under control avoiding distortions in it. Lastly, the process of transition itself has to be under surveillance to ensure learning and involvement.

Is it possible to apply transition management in the food system?

As we explained before, the STS of food production is very complex. The system is composed by many different actors in different spheres and geographical locations. Discussing sustainability in the food sector is even more complex due to the fact that, besides the complex actor network, there are also many different environment and social impacts that can be observed.

Due to that complexity, in this post we decided to focus a more specific phenomena within food industry, such as food labels. We will analyze how those labels could be framed as entities that play a role for a process of transition management. For instance, the organic label that we outlined in the first post, could be framed as a process of Transition Management, since it combines a coordinated action between a wide range of actors for changing the way they produce food.

The organic movement was considered a food niche in the work of Smith (2007). However, in this post we argue that organic food labelling can be framed as a process of transition management due to its strategic multi-stakeholders participation and as a transition produced within the system.

One important discussion to highlight here is how participatory was the process of creating the organic label which is an essential characteristic of TM. Although the organic label managed to become an option for some groups of people, there are still many concerns and critics regarding the label, which means that the certification does not play the role of creating a common vision within all the actors of the food system.

Taking into consideration that organic food still need much more alignment to become the predominant regime in the food system, we would like propose that organic labels should transcend the boundaries of the food system and involve also other socio technical systems in order to create a bigger change. Health and environmental sector, for example, should also be involved in the food transition, since the production of food pose several impacts on the environment as we described in the first post and the consumption of organic food can contribute to people’s health and improve the health system. These two socio-technical systems can support and pressure the food system for a change.

We also recognize that involving two new socio technical systems in a Transition Management context can be challenging since STS are big and complex systems with their own complexities and personal interests, but in a long term strategy they can support regulatory changes that can shorten the way for organic labels become the regime on the food production system.

Conclusion

As we described in this post, the food system has a wide and complex network of actors posing their own interests which many times can oppose the sustainability movement interests. However, we analyzed in this post that movements that started as a niche and grew big attention were absorbed by the current food regime transforming it from within. We can argue that, in one hand, the absorption of the organic movement into the food regime was positive to make the organic concept stronger as we see it today. On the other hand, we can argue that the organic movement has lost some of its essential characteristics that were able to challenge the current food regime, due to the negotiation about the concept of organic food during the absorption process.

However, even when the theory of Transition Management can have its application in a transition process towards a more sustainable agriculture system, it is relevant to point out that it is challenging to achieve the consensus needed for a transition within a highly complex socio-technical such as the agricultural systems. In that sense, concepts such as the organic agriculture can suffer a transformation during the consensus process that challenge the power of the concept as an entity for a systemic transition.

In the next post and last post of the series, we will build upon the previous blog entries to discuss the role of Sustainable Design Engineers (SDE) as facilitators of the processes leading towards the sustainable transitions that the society needs for a better future.

References:

Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition Management for Sustainable Development : A Prescriptive , Complexity-Based Governance Framework, 23(1), 161–183.

Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions, 34, 1491–1510.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005

Smith, A. (2007). Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 19(4), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320701403334