The research leading to these results has received funding

from the european union’s seventh framework programme

for research, technological development and demonstration

under grant agreement n° 311778.

GLAMURassessing thesustainability ofGlobal andLocal foodchains

2 46

8

1012

14

16

WP3: Database Development

WP4: Comparing foodchains

WP5: Participatory integrated assessmentWP6:

Policy analysis andrecommendations

GLAMUR’s Policyrecommendations

GLAMUR’s Main Messages

WP2: Scoping / framing:Analysing thecommunication offood chains andtheir performance

2

GLAMUR: assessing

the sustainability

of Global and Local

food chains

What is Global food? And when is food Local? Howshould food chain sustainability performance be meas-ured? These are some of the questions that theGLAMUR project has addressed over its three years ofresearch (February 2013 – January 2016).

Operating under the EU 7th Framework Research Pro-gramme, the GLAMUR Consortium (15 partners from10 European countries) investigated how the sustain-ability performance of food chains varies along theLocal-Global continuum, what characterises perform-ance differences between more global and more localfood chains, and what the implications are for Europeanand Global policymaking and public-private strategiesto increase food chain sustainability.

Food systems operate at multiple scales and layers andGLAMUR used a multi-criteria assessment approach tocompare Global and Local food chain performance,adopting a more holistic understanding of sustainabilitythat included five dimensions - environmental, eco-nomic, social, health and ethical.

The end goal was to provide consumers and policymakers with better knowledge and decision-making

tools to enable more sustainable food choices andpathways. Reflexive governance by value chain playersis also envisaged to address the challenge of shapingsustainability performance in a way that captures foodsystem complexity but also develops clear policy op-tions.

What did GLAMUR do?In a nutshell:

• GLAMUR developed and validated a perform-ance criteria matrix, with 24 attributes for assess-ment and comparison of food chains along thelocal-global continuum.

• GLAMUR employed four different methodolo-gies (participatory evaluation, Llife CcycleAassessment (LCA), metabolic analysis andshadow pricing) to examine the economic, environ-mental, health, social and ethical dimensions ofeight product commodities (apples, berries, grain(wheat-to-bread), pork, cheese, wine, tomatoesand asparagus) and of global-local food chains inpublic procurement.

• Key attributes were identified for each commod-ity (using the multi-criteria performance matrix) andsets of indicators were constructed, with analy-sis of the underlying factors (e.g. political, legislative,geographical etc.) that influenced the performanceof the indicators in the respective dimensions (eco-nomic, environmental, social, health and ethical).

• The sustainability performance levels of chains ineach country were assessed and this provided a setof results for cross-country comparisons.

• The validity of the four methodologies used foranalysis were also compared and evaluated.

3

GLAMUR used a participatory approach and devel-oped a multi-criteria characterisation of the perform-ance of food chains. The approach also integratedvalues, perceptions and expectations around foodchoice and food policies from stakeholders, includingfood businesses, civil society organizations andpublic authorities.

Interaction occurred during conferences, stakeholderworkshops, participatory checklist compilation exer-cises and interviews. This stakeholder engagementaimed to ensure that the project findings were dis-cussed and validated from a range of perspectivesand viewpoints.

What did GLAMUR find?• GLAMUR reveals not only the differences, overlapsand synergies between Global and Local supplychains, but also the blurring of boundaries andtrade-offs that take place between the sustainabilitydimensions.

• Multidimensional and multi-scale performance as-sessment is a key to sustainable pathways for foodchains; its multi-stakeholder approach moves be-yond assumptions such as Local versus Global, andcan provide informed reflexivity on narratives usedto frame the performance of the food system.

• The need for more coherent policies that recognisethe hybridity and interconnectedness of Global andLocal food systems and where policy interventionsgo beyond market mechanisms and adapt to chaindiversity and context.

Insights from GLAMUR’s research on sustainable per-formance assessment in food chains – and the use ofmulti-criteria methods - are described in this booklet. Itconcludes with the policy recommendations and theproject’s main messages.

GLAMUR information: what and whereThe GLAMUR findings and knowledge base is fullyavailable. The project rationale, methodology, researchfindings, reports, messages and recommendations areall accessible on glamur.eu. Project dissemination hasalso taken place through newsletters, scientific and greyliterature, conference presentations, webinars and ex-pert meetings. There is even a cartoon that bringsGLAMUR’s work to life and helps make the project’smessages more accessible to the public.

4

WP2: Scoping / framing:

Analysing the

communication

of food chains and

their performance

GoalThe aim of this work package is to align the multiplemeanings that are attributed to food chains, having re-gard for the contexts involved, and to create a commonunderstanding of food chain performance that has beendeveloped and substantiated by scientific evidence.

Main ResultsThe main result of this WP was the development of amulti-criteria matrix comprised of 24 attributes of foodsupply chain performance. This involved taking a multi-dimensional approach to the performance of foodchains that encompassed their economic, social, envi-ronmental, health and ethical dimensions. In addition,it entailed an examination of a wide range of perspec-tives that covered the public, scientific, market and pol-icy spheres of discourse and interaction. It becameclear that an appreciation of both the geographical andnational political-economic context was critical in orderto explain and understand how the performance of foodchains was perceived, and attributes communicatedand valued across the range of 12 countries examined.In order to help explicate these differences, three coun-try groupings were developed. The first, entitled socio-economic and structural development, emphasisedsocio-economic development as the dominant dis-

course framing food chain performance. The secondgrouping, entitled territoriality and global competition,emphasised ‘territoriality’ as the dominant performanceframe, although the performance discourse was alsolinked to a market-based neoliberal model. The thirdgrouping, entitled neoliberalism and food system sus-tainability, had neoliberalism as the dominant perform-ance frame, set against increasing food systemsustainability and global food security concerns.

Key findings/highlights• Prevailing methods of food chain evaluation areoverwhelmingly economically-oriented.

• The need to incorporate an inclusive and wide rangeof perspectives and multiple dimensions of foodchain performance.

• The importance of recognizing and understandingthe context in which performance is being as-sessed.

• Moving beyond global-local distinctions to explorethe potential of both supply chains for system trans-formation and improved performance.

5

Dimension/Sphere Economic Social Environmental Health Ethical

Public • Affordability

• Creation &

distribution of

added value

• Contribution to

economic

development

• Information &

communication

• Food security

• Resource use

• Pollution

• Nutrition

• Food safety

• Traceability

• Animal welfare

• Responsibility

• Labour relations

• Fair trade

Scientific • Contribution to

economic

development

• Technological

innovation

• Governance

• Consumer

behaviour

• Territoriality

• Resource use

• Biodiversity

• Efficiency

• Technological

innovation

• Food waste

• Nutrition

• Food safety

• Fair Trade

• Animal welfare

Marke • Efficiency

• Profitability /

competitiveness

• Connection

• Technological

innovation

• Resilience

• Information &

communication

• Territoriality

• Connection

• Efficiency • Traceability

• Food safety

• Fair trade

• Territoriality

Policy • Creation &

distribution of

added value

• Contribution to

economic

development

• Efficiency

• Resilience

• Food waste

• Consumer

behaviour

• Labour relations

• Food waste

• Pollution

• Traceability

• Nutrition

• Food safety

• Food security

• Governance

Composite Matrix

6

WP3: Database

Development

GoalThe purpose of WP3 was to collect, analyse and organ-ize data on the performance of food chains from a setof case studies. The performance attributes developedin WP2 have been measured, with both quantitativeand qualitative indicators that are stored into an ad-hocdatabase.

Main ResultsAfter exploratory work, the selection of case studies ispresented in the next page . Each category of productis covered by a minimum of at least a pair of countriesfor both a local and a global value chain (at least 4 casestudies for a similar sector). Intermediary cases werealso introduced as it was realized that the distinctionbetween local and global is better made by studyingthe continuum of cases between local and global andby looking carefully at their interactions. In total, 39 food value chains were studied. Productsfrom outside of Europe were also considered with As-paragus from Peru and Apples from New Zealand. Ex-ports and exchanges between countries in Europe arealso considered for example in the case of the globalwine exported from France to Switzerland and othercountries. Two additional case studies were conductedin Denmark, this time not focusing on specific products

but on the problematic of diets in the public procure-ment and thus studying one local and one global schoolmeal arrangements.

One of the first results was thus that it is very difficult todefine a set of unique indicators to apply to all casestudies and the selection was thus made case by case.Therefore, the definition of performance indicators cov-ering the most relevant attributes for the given context(sector, countries) was a demanding task. A clear un-derstanding of the context surrounding the case studiesand peculiar to each country was essential in the ade-quate selection of performance indicators. This wasdone in close interaction with stakeholders in all cases.Discussion and comparison between cases was donein WP4.

For some case studies, a more exhaustive and sophis-ticated quantitative analysis allows further comparingmethods such as LCA, shadow pricing and metabolicanalysis. Results of this comparison were done in WP4and 5.

Key findings/highlights• The distinction between local and global lies moreon a continuum rather than on a binary contrast:therefore, inclusion of intermediary cases leads tointeresting discussions and conclusions in WP4.

• Participatory approach to select a set of perform-ance indicators helps to find out the right ones, andto integrate the understanding of their value into aspecific context (sector, country, value chain).

• Tools and approaches were mainly inspired by thesustainability assessments methods and tools.Therefore, the results can be discussed with abroader perspective as well.

• A database has been designed and developed, asa storage room of all data required and produced inthe project.

7

Product category

Country (Partner)

Products studied by country

Local case

Intermediary case

Global case

Number of value chains

Pork Italy (CRPA) Cinta Senese Ham Parma-ham

case

generic

cured Ham

3

Netherlands

(WU & CLM)

Lupine Pork De Hoeve Pork VION pork 3

Dairy (Cheese) Switzerland (FiBL) L’Etivaz AOC cheese Le Gruyère

AOC cheese

2

UK (CCRI) 1 Singe Gloucester and

2 Farmhouse Cheddar

Creamery Cheddar 3

Fruits &vegetables

Latvia (BSC) Wild Blueberries Global “grey”

blueberries

Global legal

Blueberries

3

Serbia (BEL) fresh Arilje raspberry Frozen exported

Raspberries

2

Belgium (KULE) Flanders organic

apples

Flanders conventional

apples

New-Zealand

apples

3

Spain (UAB) Catalonia local Apples

(box scheme)

Catalonia global

organic apples

2

Spain (UAB) Local organic tomatoes

(box scheme)

Mixed organic

tomatoes

Global organic

tomatoes

3

France (INRA) Languedoc-Roussillon

tomatoes

1 organic and

2 conventional

Almeria tomatoes 3

Belgium (KULE) White Flanders

Asparagus

Green Peru

Asparagus

2

Wine France (INRA) AOC Languedoc-

Roussillon red wines

AOC Languedoc-

Roussillon exported

as bottles

bulk Pays d’Oc red

wine

3

Switzerland (FiBL) AOC Valais red wines 1

Grains (bread) UK (CITY) CRFT craft bakery

bread

ISB in-store bakery

bread

GC plant bakery

white bread

3

Italy (FIRAB) Floriddia’s farm

bread

Sourdough Tuscan

Bread

Pan Bauletto

(Barilla)

3

TOTAL 39

Case studies of the GLAMUR project

8

WP4: Comparing food

chains

GoalThe objective of WP4 was to compare and contrast theeconomic, environmental, health, social and ethical im-pact of local versus global food chains, and to discussthe conditions of validity of comparison.

Main resultsThe comparison did not find generalizable results whencontrasting local with global food supply chains, mainlybecause local and global are no clear-cut categories,as local chains have many global elements and vice-versa, giving rise to many hybrid situations. In addition,chain strategies influence performance evaluation.When chains apply product differentiation strategies, ef-fects between local and global may even be opposite.

Trade-offs within and across the various sustainabilitydimensions apply, such that no superior strategy thatscores well on all dimensions can be identified. In addi-tion, trade-offs also occur across different scales. Morespecifically, trade-offs have been found between:

1 labour productivity and job creation, as higher labourproductivity generally leads to lower costs and pricesand better labour conditions, but as a result less jobsare created

2 efficiency and diversity, as diversity increases the re-silience of the chain but at the expense of efficiencyand thus costs and prices

3 price and quality, as higher chain efficiency leads tolower prices, but less attention to product quality

4 biodiversity/pollution and resource use, as large-scale operation may save resources and particularlyenergy and land per unit of product, but at the ex-pense of a high pressure on the land being used,leading to higher pollution and less biodiversity perunit of land.

5 informal trust-based approaches versus formal pro-cedures, as informality may lead to more flexibility inlabour relations and in relations vis-à-vis the con-sumer and even resilience, but may also result in lesstransparency and even misuse.

Difficulties related to measuring indicators consistentlymakes an evidence-based approach very difficult, buta combination of quantitative and qualitative method-ologies can help to increase the quality of research re-sults.

9

Team Economic Social Health Environmental Ethical

Apples Contribution to

economic

development

Food security Resource use

Pollution

Biodiversity

Berries Creation and

distribution of added

value

Contribution to

economic

development

Labour relations Governance

Bread Technological

Innovation

Information &

communication

Nutrition Biodiversity

Cheese Creation and

distribution of added

value

Contribution to

economic

development

Information &

communication

Food security

Consumer behaviour

Nutrition Biodiversity

Resource use

Animal welfare

Pork Contribution to

economic

development

Resilience

Resource use Governance

Tomatoes Creation and

distribution of added

value

Contribution to

economic

development

Food security Resource use

Pollution

Biodiversity

Wine Creation and

distribution of added

value

Information &

communication

Territoriality

Food safety Resource use

Pollution

Biodiversity

Governance

Attributes investigated by team

10

WP5: Participatory

integrated

assessment

GoalThe aim of this work package is to develop, throughparticipatory processes, an integrated characterizationof the performance of food chains.

Main Results and ConsiderationsAn integrated characterization of the performance offood chains has to be based on a set of non-equivalentcriteria of sustainability referring to the economic, social,environmental, health and ethical sphere. When carry-ing out such an assessment across different societiesand different social actors it is unavoidable to find legit-imate but conflicting perceptions of what should beconsidered as an improvement. In different societies dif-ferent social actors do measure and compare trade-offsover criteria of performance of food chains in differentways. For this reason, WP5 tested the effectivenessand the flexibility of various approaches to integratedassessment used in different case studies of GLAMURusing both workshops and on-line questionnaires to so-licit a feed-back from social actors. The methodological and conceptual results obtained inWP5 can be divided in three categories: (i) reflectionson the implications of the pre-analytical choices deter-mining the quality of the integrated assessment; (ii) les-sons learned on how to make more effective the

comparison when analysing different food chains oper-ating in different socio-economic, political and geo-graphic contexts; (iii) analysis of pros and cons of thetwo typologies of participatory processes adopted.

Key findings/highlightsKey findings of WP5 point at the complexity of aprocess aimed at characterizing the performance offood chains: (1) the labels defining the dichotomy be-tween “global” and “local” food chains, as GLAMURwas tasked to do, remain ambiguous and inappropriatewhen using the same set of indicators of performancein different case studies. A more articulated framing ofthe meaning of “global” and “local” is needed to reflectthe specificity of each case study; (2) the existing story-telling about the performance of food chains has beenhegemonized by economic narratives. Social actorsadmit that the economic dimension is essential, but atthe same time they feel that other criteria referring tothe environment, social and ethical dimensions shouldget more attention. A more balanced and complete se-lection of indicators is needed; (3) it is impossible tocompare food chains having different goals and oper-ating in different contexts using a standard assessmentof performance (one size fits all). The process of inte-grated assessment must be able to reflect the speci-ficity of different food chains and the heterogeneity ofinterests and normative values found among social ac-tors. This requires the adoption of participatoryprocesses.

11

STEP1

STEP2

STEP3

Quality Check on Issue DefinitionIn relation to the context• Relevant story-telling?• Plausible narrative?

DescriptiveInputQuantitativeAnalysis

Quality Check on Integrated AnalysisIn relation to scales and dimension• Pertinent attributes?• Congruent integrated assessments?

Quality Check on Deliberative ProcessIn relation to the decision making• Is it a fair process?• Is it an effective deliberation?

INFORMED DELIBERATION

NormativeInputChoice ofStory-telling

0 100

10 90

20 80

80

Profit

30 7040 50 60

0 10

6

Self-sufficiency

5

0 10

3

Safety

5

0 10

8

Affordability

5

01000

900 100

800 200

523

700 300600 500 400

0 1000

100 900

200 800

335

Clear rules Infrastructures

300 700400 500 600

0 100

10 90

20 80

80

Biodiversity

30 7040 50 60

01000

900 100

800 200

523

700 300600 500 400

0 1000

100 900

200 800

335

Soil healt Water quality

300 700400 500 600

0 1000

100 900

200 800

964

Generational replacement

Food as a commodityinvestors/entrepreneurs

Food securityNational government

Food as a threat tothe local environmentNGOs, long term policies

Food as an opportunityfor rural developmentcommunity/local admin. 300 700

400 500 600

0 100

10 90

20 80

0

Agritourism

30 7040 50 60

0

Satellite activities

0100

90 10

80

70 3060 50 40

20

Fig. 1A participatoryIntegratedassessment of theperformance of foodchains should bedeveloped using aniterative procedureguaranteeing acheck on the qualityof the process ofproduction and useof quantitativeinformation.

Fig. 2The characterization of the performanceof a food chain should be organized in away that reflects the unavoidableexistence of different story-tellers.

12

WP6: Policy analysis and

recommendations

Goalto assess the actual and potential role of public and pri-vate policies addressing food chains, and address thesignificance for policymakers of the performance basedapproach and the methodologies employed.

Main resultsGLAMUR’s evidence shows the problematic nature ofcurrent sustainability performance assessments whenused to justify policy interventions in support of scale.It exposes the loose framing of ‘local’ versus ‘global’food, and how diversity in supply chains is often place-specific and affected by cultural context. Policy settingsdirectly affected performance profiles in the supplychains studied. There is no simple local-global contin-uum; chains differentiate as they develop and grow.There is a need for strategically varied responses. Thisevidence highlights whymaking policy choices, prefer-ences and/or investment decisions that improve foodchain sustainability performance is such a complex areafor public policy intervention.

We propose• a set of recommendations to encourageprocesses of engagement aimed at public pol-icy, the market and civil society and to addresspolicy challenges raised by GLAMUR’s work;

• three scenarios of food futures and frame-works within which food actors operate. Thesechart possible directions of travel and enable theconsideration of different entry points for GLAMUR’sfindings into the ‘real’ world of policy making.

We identify• existing points of engagement along the local-global continuum. These provide more detailedanalysis, routed in current reality, and connectGLAMUR’s policy challenges with existing policiesand initiatives, enacted at the global, EU, nationaland sub-national levels.

Key findings/highlights:• the most urgent challenge for policy is first to do noharm – such as in ensuring hygiene regulations etc.are adapted to the realities of SMEs;

• there is a strong case to bring ‘local’ food in fromits policy enclave in rural development to occupya more central position in EU policy alongside ‘lo-cality’ foods;

• more coherent policies are needed to recognisethe hybridity and interconnectedness of ‘global’ and‘local’ food systems and where policy interventionsgo beyond market mechanisms and adapt to chaindiversity and context;

• there are many possible entry points andprocesses of engagement which can clarify thelocal/global, drawing upon wider science-based ev-idence as well as being informed by socio-culturalvalues. This mix will ground policy choices on awider understanding of food chain performance.

13

The Lo

cal/Global

distinctio

n is too sim

ple

The slip

periness

of ‘local’

Routes to

food sustainab

ility are b

oth fluid

and dynam

icContradictory policy drivers arenot helping this ‘m

essiness’Policy

blind spots

The sig

nificance of

metho

dology

Public

Policy

(Governm

ent) •G

ive h

igher p

riority

to s

ocia

l

attrib

ute

s o

f food

, such a

s

hum

an c

ap

ital a

nd

the v

alu

es

that u

nd

erp

in fo

od

syste

ms;

•C

ond

uct p

ub

lic c

onsulta

tion

ab

out n

ew

meth

od

s fo

r giv

ing

consum

ers

bro

ad

er in

dic

ato

rs

of w

hat is

in th

eir fo

od

, and

where

it com

es fro

m;

•E

uro

pean

Scie

ntific

ad

vis

ory

bod

ies

to im

pro

ve

metric

s o

f

susta

inab

ility;

•A

pp

licatio

ns fo

r

GIs

need

to ta

ke

note

of th

e

com

ple

xity

of

‘local’

desig

natio

ns;

•B

ette

r pub

lic e

ducatio

n a

bout th

e

com

ple

xity

of s

usta

inab

ility,

partic

ula

rly h

ighlig

htin

g s

ocia

l and

eth

ical v

alu

es a

long

sid

e ‘h

ard

’

data

such a

s C

O2e a

nd

GH

Gs,

and

life c

ycle

analy

sis

data

;

•Foste

ring

plu

ral fo

od

syste

ms

alo

ng

the lo

cal-g

lob

al c

ontin

uum

;

•S

ub

-natio

nal le

vels

should

consid

er

ALL c

osts

and

benefits

when

settin

g p

olic

ies e

g. R

DP

, zonin

g,

health

benefits

, ecosyste

m

serv

ices;

•C

onsid

er re

viv

ing

Com

munic

atio

n

on B

uild

ing

a m

ore

Susta

inab

le

Food

Syste

m;

•E

U to

recom

mit to

a

com

pre

hensiv

e fo

od

polic

y a

nd

this

to lin

k e

conom

ic, h

ealth

,

socia

l, eth

ical a

nd

en

viro

nm

enta

l

polic

y o

bje

ctiv

es;

•E

U &

Mem

ber S

tate

s to

revie

w

the m

ix o

f incentiv

es a

nd

dis

incentiv

es to

tow

ard

s th

e

localiz

atio

n/re

localiz

-atio

n o

f

food

chain

s a

nd

to m

onito

r

imp

lem

enta

tion;

•D

G S

ante

and

DG

Enviro

nm

ent

to c

olla

bora

te m

ore

on im

pro

vin

g

food

susta

inab

ility c

riteria

;

•In

tern

atio

nal a

sp

ects

of

local/g

lob

al d

istin

ctio

n n

eed

partic

ula

r atte

ntio

n;

•C

larific

atio

n is

need

ed

of

prio

rities fo

r develo

pin

g

countrie

s o

ver d

em

and

s th

at

they p

urs

ue e

xp

ort-le

d g

row

th

and

susta

inab

ility;

•Tax p

olic

y n

eed

s re

form

to

enhance tra

nsp

are

ncy a

nd

sup

port S

ME

s

•E

U s

cie

nce ‘c

all’ fo

r

cla

rificatio

n o

f multi-c

riteria

meth

od

s to

assess

susta

inab

le p

erfo

rmance in

food

chain

s;

•S

top

assum

ing

there

is

alw

ays a

positiv

e lin

k

betw

een lo

cal fo

od

chain

s

and

rura

l econom

ic

develo

pm

ent;

•R

ele

vant s

ub

-natio

nal

institu

tions w

ithin

food

polic

y to

get in

volv

ed

in

multi-c

riteria

ed

ucatio

n.

Market

(Consum

ers,com

merce

and sup

ply

chain)

•Toug

h m

onito

ring

of fa

lse

cla

ims a

bout ‘lo

cal’ a

nd

‘glo

bal’ fo

od

;

•C

reate

a n

ew

work

ing

party

to

consid

er h

ow

to e

ncoura

ge

genuin

ely

susta

inab

le lo

cal

food

syste

ms, u

sin

g im

pro

ved

food

metric

s;

•M

ore

transp

are

nt

pro

ced

ure

s fo

r

assessin

g lo

cal

and

locality

food

s to

cla

rify

dis

tinctio

ns fo

r

consum

ers

;

•C

larify

pla

ce-

sp

ecific

lab

elin

g;

•Food

pro

ducers

need

to b

e m

ore

pru

dent in

usin

g ‘s

usta

inab

le’ a

nd

‘local’ in

the s

am

e b

reath

and

em

plo

y g

reate

r care

in th

e u

se o

f

susta

inab

ility p

erfo

rmance

attrib

ute

s;

•P

ut p

ressure

on g

overn

ment to

help

consum

ers

eat a

nd

buy m

ore

susta

inab

ly;

•A

dd

ress c

ontra

dic

tory

polic

y

driv

ers

in s

up

ply

chain

s to

op

timiz

e s

usta

inab

ility a

nd

red

uce ‘tra

de-o

ffs’ w

hic

h lo

wer

sta

nd

ard

s;

•S

top

exp

loitin

g th

e m

essin

ess

with

fals

e c

laim

s;

•C

SR

to in

clu

de p

erfo

rmance in

imp

rovin

g p

rod

ucer

rem

unera

tion (in

com

e o

r share

of v

alu

e) in

sup

plie

r rela

tions;

•B

e c

lear a

bout re

asons fo

r

sup

portin

g fo

od

imp

orts

from

develo

pin

g c

ountrie

s;

•A

pp

ly tra

nsp

are

nt s

ocia

l and

eth

ical s

tand

ard

s fo

r food

exp

orts

, FD

I and

mark

etin

g in

develo

pin

g c

ountrie

s;

•H

elp

imp

rove fo

od

infra

stru

ctu

re in

develo

pin

g

countrie

s fo

r inte

rnal, S

outh

-

South

and

exp

ort tra

des

•C

reate

bette

r learn

ing

for

sup

ply

chain

manag

em

ent

of th

e im

porta

nce o

f multi-

crite

ria a

pp

roaches to

susta

inab

ility;

•S

hare

lessons b

etw

een

sta

kehold

ers

in s

hort a

nd

long

chain

s to

imp

rove

susta

inab

ility p

erfo

rmance

manag

em

ent;

Civil S

ociety •

CS

Os to

ed

ucate

consum

ers

ab

out th

e flu

idity

of g

lob

al /

local d

istin

ctio

ns;

•C

SO

s to

info

rm th

em

selv

es

ab

out th

e w

eaknesses o

f

curre

nt ‘lo

cal/lo

cality

’ term

s a

s

pro

xie

s fo

r susta

inab

ility

perfo

rmance.

•C

SO

s s

hould

cham

pio

n

imp

roved

reg

ula

tion a

nd

info

rmatio

n a

bout

the d

eg

ree o

f

localn

ess in

food

. •C

onsum

ers

need

help

to b

ecom

e

more

‘litera

te’ a

bout th

e

com

ple

xity

of s

usta

inab

ility in

daily

food

choic

e.

•C

SO

s s

hould

cham

pio

n E

U

polic

y c

ohere

nce o

n im

pacts

of

Euro

pean e

xp

orts

an

d F

DI o

n

chang

ing

consum

ptio

n in

develo

pin

g c

ountrie

s (a

nd

imp

acts

on T

HE

IR lo

cal fo

od

syste

ms).

•E

U a

nd

Mem

ber S

tate

s

should

cre

ate

susta

inab

le d

iet

guid

elin

es in

corp

ora

ting

exis

ting

nutritio

n a

nd

food

-

based

guid

elin

es.

•D

evelo

pm

ent o

f EU

sta

nd

ard

s fo

r consum

er-

orie

nte

d ‘a

pp

s’ w

hic

h

pro

fess to

giv

e in

form

atio

n

to c

onsum

ers

ab

out h

ealth

,

socia

l, eth

ical a

nd

enviro

nm

enta

l valu

es in

food

choic

e.

Processes fo

r engagement - steering

a more sustainab

le food system

14

Policy recommendations

Encourage informed reflexivityThis can help democratise food policy by promotingsustainable pathways for food chains, built around ev-idence rather than assumptions about performance.

Address policy incoherenceAll levels of governance from global to sub-na-tional need to assess their policymaking processes, in-cluding monitoring and financial accounting, to helpavoid policy incoherence, taking note, for example, ofinconsistencies in the application and interpretation ofsupports (eg. subsidies) and tools (eg. Geographic In-dications).

Bring local food in from its policy enclaveGLAMUR’s evidence supports a shift from agricul-tural/rural policy to food policy thinking and act-ing. We make the case for bringing ‘local’ food in fromits policy enclave in rural development to occupy amore central position in EU policy alongside ‘locality’foods. This means that mainstream policy instruments– such as food safety - must be adapted to the scaleand diversity of this part of the food system.

Catch up with the consumer GLAMUR’s more complex assessment of sustainabilityis already part of consumers’ framing of sustainabil-ity (and many retailers, manufacturers and CSOs areaware of these framings). This is ahead of scientistsand policymakers, and an endorsement of multi-cri-teria approaches. The EU and its member statesshould create sustainable diet guidelines incorporatingexisting nutrition and food-based guidelines; the Direc-torate Generals (DGs) should collaborate more on im-proving food sustainability criteria; and Civil SocietyOrganisations (CSOs) should champion improved reg-ulation and information about the degree of ‘localness’in food to inform consumers.

15Take greater care in the use of sustainability performance attributesA more central place for ‘local’ food in policy requiresgreater care in the use of sustainability perform-ance attributes and methods. Policymakers,CSOs, and small and medium sized enterprises(SMEs) need to be more prudent in using ‘sustainable’and ‘local’ in the same breath. Multi-criteria sustainabil-ity assessment challenges existing ‘sustainability’ sys-tems to provide a more integrated framing of theirperformance using a multi-stakeholder approach.

Ensure policy choices integrate a more complex version of sustainabilityGLAMUR has accepted a complex version of what ismeant by sustainability. This develops beyond the ‘old’Brundtland tripartite definition which does not have suf-ficient breadth for the analysis of modern food systems.GLAMUR has produced case study evidence that indi-vidual food products carry more complex meanings;culture, health and ethics are key attributes ofmodern foods and food choice.

Call for new researchWe propose the following areas for further research:

• to investigate and refine methodologies (using acombination of quantitative and qualitative ap-proaches) for improved sustainability performanceassessment along the local-global continuum andacross the five dimensions (economic, environmen-tal, social, health and ethical);

• to explore the realities and potential of consumerchoice, which currently turns to the ‘local’ as a proxyfor anti-homogenisation and a more human scale ofcontrol over food. This more complex meaning of‘social’ within sustainability deserves more explo-ration within consumer culture.

16

GLAMUR’s Main Messages

Sustainability performance assessment is a multi-stakeholderconcept and a process that is bothmultidimensional and multi-scale

1 Multi-criteria sustainability assessment challengesexisting ‘sustainability’ systems to provide a more in-tegrated framing of their performance using a multi-stakeholder approach.

2 Multidimensional and multi-scale performance as-sessment is a key to sustainable pathways for foodchains; its multi-stakeholder approach moves be-yond assumptions such as local versus global, andcan provide informed reflexivity on narratives used toframe the performance of the food system.

Sustainability performance assessment draws on multiple values and multiple interests

3 Sustainability performance assessment combineshard and soft indicators. It acknowledges that cur-rent methodologies tend to compartmentalise as-sessment methods and the dimensions ofsustainability; it recognises the value of combiningscience-led evidence with socio-cultural values.

4 Sustainability performance assessment draws onmultiple values and multiple interests and for this rea-son it is subject to contestation. To increase the de-gree of general validity of sustainability assessment,public institutions should ensure that it is based onparticipation, on transparency of different positionsand distribution of power among stakeholders, andon a dialogue between science and society.

Sustainability performance assessment should recognize difference, but also the complementarities and synergiesbetween ‘global’ and ‘local’ foodchains

5 Disparity of power between actors in ‘local’ and‘global’ chains may affect the way performance as-sessment methodologies are developed. Sustainabil-ity performance assessment can be based onrecognition of these differences.

6 Sustainability performance assessment needs to de-tect when coexistence of ‘local’ and ‘global’ foodchains create complementarities and synergies. Scalematters for some sustainability attributes, not for oth-ers. In some cases scale improves performance, inothers it is the contrary. A generalized, abstract, com-parative assessment of ‘local’ and ‘global’ foodchains as abstract entities cannot be done.

Sustainability performance assessment can be a tool for encouraging transition to sustainability

7 Performance assessment can be a tool for encour-aging transition to sustainability along the local-globalcontinuum. In many cases, better performance canbe achieved through ‘localization’ of more globalchains or through ‘globalization’ of more local chains.Performance assessment can capture the dynamicsof this hybridity in food chains as actors endeavourto improve sustainability performance with their ownsolutions.

glamur.eu