Abstract
This paper examines how employing the capabilities approach in conceptualizing sustainable development allows reasoning and specifying claims for more sustainable lifestyles. In doing so, it focuses on the example of food consumption because it constitutes an ‘(un)sustainability hotspot’ as well as a paradigmatic example for the tensions between individual lifestyles on the one hand and societal consequences of such lifestyles on the other. The arguments developed in the paper allow rebutting two common objections against claims for individual changes in food consumption. These are, first, that more sustainable food consumption constitutes a societal issue so that asking individuals to behave more sustainably is unnecessary. The second objection argues that such claims infringe on the individuals’ freedom of choice and morally overburden individuals. I first outline a conception of sustainable development that draws on the capabilities approach. Subsequently, I develop a more specific account of what is meant by more sustainable food production and consumption. Finally, I draw on this account to rebut the above-mentioned objections against claims for more sustainable food consumption.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I do not claim that it is possible to characterize a (group of) lifestyle(s) as sustainable. What I do hold is that it is possible to ordinally rank different lifestyles according to their sustainability. Again, I do not hold that it is possible to give a complete ordering. The less demanding thesis I presuppose here is that it is (sometimes) possible to characterize different choices as well as different lifestyles as more and less sustainable respectively.
Academic contributions regarding motivation for food consumption predominantly focus on motivation for specific diets such as a high intake of organic food (Tobler et al. 2011, Schösler et al. 2013) or low meat consumption (Tobler et al. 2011, Boer et al. 2009) rather than on motivation for ‘ordinary’ food consumption. As a matter of course such surveys reveal that these specific diets are often closely linked to normative arguments. Nevertheless, they also emphasize other motives such as taste. Furthermore, the importance of issues such as pleasure and social relatedness is for example revealed in a study regarding members of the slow food movement (e.g. Schösler 2012: chapter 3). Note, however, that in the last 50–60 years food consumption became a much more moralized issue than it used to be (Eberstadt 2009).
The CA constitutes one of the major contemporary approaches to justice both in the normative-theoretical realm (Nussbaum 2007; Sen 2009; Brighouse and Robeyns 2010; Bruni et al. 2008; Alkire 2005; Deneulin et al. 2006) and in regard to concrete, applied issues (Alkire 2005; Deneulin et al. 2006; Kleine 2013; Oosterlaken and van den Hoven 2012). Furthermore, in the last few years several authors have addressed how the CA can be employed in conceptualizing sustainable development and vice versa (Leßmann 2011; Leßmann and Rauschmayer 2012; Polishchuk and Rauschmayer 2012; Ballet et al. 2011; Burger and Christen 2011; and the contributions in Lessmann and Rauschmayer 2013). I have argued for an own position regarding these issues elsewhere (Voget-Kleschin 2013; Schultz et al. 2013). For an illustration how another specification of justice, namely human rights, can be employed in this task, see Voget-Kleschin and Stephan (2013).
The interpretations of the CA as given by Nussbaum and Sen differ in several regards. However, the features I am drawing on here are shared by both interpretations (cf. Robeyns 2003). In the following, I will therefore not differentiate between Nussbaum’s and Sen’s interpretation.
In this paper I do not aim at a general specification regarding what this “enough” should mean. However, I do address the question how such a sufficientarian standard bears on claims for more sustainable food consumption in the conclusion.
Kleine (2011), drawing on the work of Alsop and Heinsohn (2005), employs the term ‘structure’ as encompassing rules, laws, norms, policies and discourse. Drawing on Giddens (1984), she emphasizes that “structural constraints need to be recognized as being at least as important an element in the process as individual agency, but ultimately, and particularly in democratic societies, structures are always co-constructed by a number of individuals.” (ibid., 124). In relation to more sustainable consumption this ties up to the notion of institutional embeddedness (Southerton et al. 2004).
Because this double role is difficult to depict graphically, ‘the economy’ does not feature as a separate entity in Fig. 1.
I borrow the term “recursiveness” from Schultz et al. (2013), but use it in a slightly different meaning. They relate the term to the relationship of the societal and natural sphere. In contrast, I here propose to distinguish individual human behaviour on the one hand and social and natural capital on the other. Accordingly, I relate the term to the relationship between individual behaviour and the social and natural sphere. However, I acknowledge that in addition to the relations of recursiveness that I focus on here, there will also be recursiveness between the effects resulting from the societal sphere as a whole and the natural sphere, that is, recursiveness in the sense described by Schultz et al. (cf. Fig. 1).
See footnote 9. The figure constitutes one way among others in which the relation between individual and societal action and the natural environment can be depicted. It focuses on the individual. This is not to say that individual actions are more important than societal processes. Rather, societal action is of imminent importance for SD. However, in so far as this paper focuses on (more) sustainable lifestyles as a way in which individuals can (try to) contribute to SD, the focus on the individual is adequate.
In everyday life decisions as to which functionings to achieve and how to achieve them are often taken in a rather habitual manner. Furthermore, the CA acknowledges social influence on such decision making (cf. Fig. 1). This fits with the notion of ‘lifestyle’ as described by Giddens (2009). Giddens emphasizes the link between lifestyles and self-identiy (ibid.). This is not as such reflected in the CA. However, the strong emphasis that the CA assigns to an individual’s ability to choose a life this individual values and has reason to value means that the CA is leastwise compatible with such a notion of lifestyle.
Obviously, an encompassing discussion of all relevant social and environmental aspects regarding the complete food value chain, that is, primary production, processing, retailing and consumption, exceeds the scope of this paper. Instead, the present analysis has a more modest goal: It aims at presenting those issues that are of relevance in reasoning how more sustainable food production and consumption can be characterized. In regard to food production, I therefore focus on the effects of primary production, i.e. agriculture.
However, against this view, it is argued that organic agriculture significantly increases sequestration of C in soils and that this needs to be adequately accounted for in life cycle analysis (LCA) aiming at comparing GHG-emissions for conventional and organic food products (see Küstermann et al. 2008, Meisterling et al. 2009).
Actually, substituting less sustainably produced food by more sustainably produced food is also a form of changing behaviour. However, I here employ the term as opposed to substitution, thus indicating that what is asked for are more comprehensive changes in overall behavior (see below).
The distinction is only analytical; in reality the aspects described will always interact. Furthermore, in the following personal heterogeneities are taken as given. However, both individual decisions as well as changes in social capital will also affect personal heterogeneities (see Fig. 1).
This example is necessarily crude but is here only used for illustrative reasons. For a comparatively broader discussion, see below. For an encompassing discussion of the cultural potentials to shift food consumption towards a more plant-based diet cf. Schösler (2012).
Vidgen and Gallegos (2014) argue that the term ‘literacy’ is “increasingly used to describe the knowledge and skills needed to navigate a range of other societal systems such as health, technology and finance”. They point out that this general terminological development coincides with the emergence of the term ‘food literacy’, which describes “everyday practicalities associated with navigating the food system and using it in order to ensure a regular food in-take that is consistent with nutrition recommendations.” (ibid.). The preconditions I describe here could be subsumed under this term. However, it should be noted that I am not merely asking what individuals need to know and do to ensure that food intake complies with nutritional recommendations, but rather what they need to know and do so as to comply with claims for more sustainable lifestyles.
For such a comparison as well as a discussion about the methodological complexities it involves cf. de Vries and de Boer (2010).
From the perspective of social practice theory and with regard to food cf. Southerton et al. (2004), Shove and Southerton (2000). In relation to the possibilities and difficulties of changing norms and values towards more sustainable lifestyles cf. Backhaus et al. (2012). In the conceptualization as employed in this paper the influence of social structures is captured by the notion of social influence on decision making, cf. Fig. 1.
Segmentation models study the diversity of (sustainable) consumption options for different consumer or household segments. Building on such models, Backhaus et al. (2012) highlight that individuals are different and that therefore measures aiming at enabling more sustainable lifestyles need to be geared and adjusted to these differences rather than aiming at a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. In contrast, the discussion in the subsequent two sections offers proposals that are not thus tailored to different segments. This is not to say that I do not agree with the need for such differentiated approaches. Rather the discussion in these sections targets a higher level of abstraction: it does not aim at proposals for concrete policy measures (which could and should be tailored to specific consumer or household segments), but merely to point out the general direction(s) in which such measures can and probably should go.
By way of example, since September first 2011, Hungary taxes foods with high fat, sugar and salt content, and raised tariffs on soda and alcohol. The annual proceeds go toward state health care costs, including those associated with addressing the country's obesity rate (Cheney 2011). Similarly, on October first 2011, Denmark introduced a tax on any food that contains more than 2.3 % saturated fat, such as butter, milk, cheese, pizza, meat, and oil. The tax aimed at reducing cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes (Abend 2011). Because of lack of effects among other reasons due to cross-border shopping, Denmark abolished this tax in November 2012. (Strom 2012).
By way of example, Kleine et al. (2012) argue that “norms on the use of time suggest that food shopping is something to be done as quickly as possible”. The authors demonstrate in how far this constrains individuals’ abilities to invest time so as to find out about more sustainable food purchase options and as a result constrains individuals’ capabilities to make more sustainable food purchase decisions.
In this paper, I have provided a demonstration on the conceptual level, by spelling out the idea of recursiveness, that is, that achieved functionings feedback on natural and social capital. Empirical data to support this claim is for example provided by Meier and Christen (2013), Meier et al. (2014).
Sen argues that what we as a society have reason to value should be decided by democratic deliberation (Sen 2009). I understand my argument as developed in this paper as a contribution to such democratic deliberation.
In this section, I rebut a certain reading of the argument that claims for more sustainable lifestyles overburden individuals. Besides the reading that I present and rebut in this section, there exists an alternative reading of this argument. This reading points out that an “individualization of responsibility” (Maniates 2001) which expects individuals to “save the world” by altering their consumption habits and which fails to acknowledge the essential necessity for institutional change overburdens individuals (ibid.; Middlemiss 2010). In this paper, I acknowledge and indeed emphasize the necessity of institutional change. Therefore, this objection does not invalidate my arguments.
References
Abend, L. (2011, October 6). Beating Butter: Denmark Imposes the World’s First Fat Tax. Time World, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2096185,00.html. Accessed 19 July 2012.
Alkire, S. (2005). Valuing freedoms: Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alsop, R., & Heinsohn, N. (2005). Measuring Empowerment in Practice: Structuring Analysis and Framing Indicators (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3510). http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEMPOWERMENT/Resources/41307_wps3510.pdf. Accessed 22 October 2012.
Anand, S., & Sen, A. K. (2000). Human development and economic sustainability. World Development, 28(12), 2029–2049.
Arthurton, R., Barker, S., Rast, W., Huber, M., Alder, J., Chilton, J., et al. (2007). Water: Jacqueline Alder, John Chilton, Erica Gaddis, Kevin Pietersen, and Christoph Zöckler. In UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (Ed.), Global environment outlook 4: Environment for development. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme.
Backhaus, J., Breukers, S., Mont, O., Paukovic, M., & Mourik, R. (2012). Sustainable lifestyles: today’s facts and tomorrow’s trends. http://www.sustainable-lifestyles.eu/fileadmin/images/content/D1.1_Baseline_Report.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2012.
Baker, L. E. (2004). Tending cultural landscapes and food citizenship in Toronto’s community gardens. The Geographical Review, 94(3), 305–325.
Ballet, J., Bazin, D., Dubois, J.-L., & Mahieu, F.-R. (2011). A note on sustainability economics and the capability approach. Ecological Economics, 70, 1831–1834.
Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., & Berati, M. (2006). Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1–11.
Becker, C. U. (2012). Sustainability ethics and sustainability research. Dordrecht; New York: Springer.
Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Backstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M. M., et al. (2012). Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance. Science,. doi:10.1126/science.1217255.
Brighouse, H., & Robeyns, I. (Eds.). (2010). Measuring Justice: primary goods and capabilities. Cambridge/Mass: Cambridge University Press.
Bruni, L., Comim, F., & Pugno, M. (Eds.). (2008). Capabilities and happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burger, P., & Christen, M. (2011). Towards a capability approach of sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8), 787–795.
Cheney, C. (2011, September 1). Battling the Couch Potatoes: Hungary Introduces ‘Fat Tax’. Spiegel Online. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/battling-the-couch-potatoes-hungary-introduces-fat-tax-a-783862.html. Accessed 19 July 2012.
Christen, M., & Schmidt, S. (2012). A Formal Framework for Conceptions of Sustainability - a Theoretical Contribution to the Discourse in Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development,. doi:10.1002/sd.518.
Connor, D. (2008). Organic agriculture cannot feed the world. Field Crops Research,. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2007.11.010.
Cripps, E. (2011). Climate change, collective harm and legitimate coercion. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy,. doi:10.1080/13698230.2011.529707.
de Boer, J., Boersema, J. J., & Aiking, H. (2009). Consumers’ motivational associations favoring free-range meat or less meat. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 850–860.
de Vries, M., & de Boer, I. (2010). Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science,. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2009.11.007.
Deneulin, S., Nebel, M., & Sagovsky, N. (2006). Transforming unjust structures: the capability approach. In S. Deneulin, M. Nebel, & N. Sagovsky (Eds.), Transforming unjust structures: the capability approach (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht: Springer.
Dent, D., Asfary, A. F., Giri, C., Govil, K., Hartemink, A., Homgren, P., et al. (2007). Land. In UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (Ed.), Global environment outlook 4: Environment for development (pp. 81–114). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme.
Dobson, A. (2003). Justice and the environment: Conceptions of environmental sustainability and theories of distributive justice. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Eberstadt, M. (2009). Is food the new sex? Policy Review (153).
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2012). Consumption and the Environment-2012 Update: The European Environment State and Outlook 2010.
Faber, M., Frank, K., Klauer, B., Manstetten, R., Schiller, J., & Wissel, C. (2005). On the foundation of a general theory of stocks. Ecological Economics,. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.06.006.
Faber, M., Manstetten, R., & Proops, J. L. R. (1995). On the conceptual foundations of ecological economics: a teleological approach. Ecological Economics, 12, 41–54.
Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International e.V. (FLO) (2005). Fairtrade Standard for Small Producer Organizations. http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/standards/documents/2012-07-11_SPO_EN.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2012.
Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International e.V. (FLO) (2011a). Fairtrade Standard for Contract Production. http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2011-12-29_CP_EN.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2012.
Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International e.V. (FLO) (2011b). Fairtrade Standard for Hired Labour. http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2011-12-29-HL_EN.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2012.
Follet, J. R. (2009). Choosing a food future: differentiating among alternative food options. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22, 31–51.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (2009). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Grunwald, A. (2010). Wider die Privatisierung der Nachhaltigkeit: Warum ökologisch korrekter Konsum die Umwelt nicht retten kann. Gaia, 19(3), 178–182.
Hart, M. R., Quin, B. F., & Nguyen, M. L. (2004). Phosphorus runoff from agricultural land and direct fertilizer effects: a review.: Hart, M.R., Quin, B.F., Nguyen, M.L., 2004. Phosphorus runoff from agricultural land and direct fertilizer effects: a review. J. Environ. Qual. 33, 1954–1972. Journal of Environmental Quality, 33, 1954–1972.
Hawley, C. (2013, August 6). ‘Hands Off My Sausage’. Spiegel Online international. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/spat-over-meat-consumption-livens-german-campaign-a-915064.html. Accessed 15 October 2013.
Hinrichs, C. C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of rural studies, 16, 295–303.
Johnson, B. (2003). Ethical Obligations in a Tragedy of the Commons. Environmental Values, 12, 271–287.
Kleine, D. (2011). The capability approach and the ‘medium of choice’: steps towards conceptualising information and communication technologies for development. Ethics and Information Technology,. doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9251-5.
Kleine, D. (2013). Technologies of choice?: ICTs, development, and the capabilities approach. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kleine, D., Light, A., & Montero, M.-J. (2012). Signifiers of the life we value? – considering human development, technologies and Fair Trade from the perspective of the capabilities approach. Information Technology for Development,. doi:10.1080/02681102.2011.643208.
Koch, E., & Schäfer, M. (2012). Nachhaltig kochen will gelernt sein: Der Erwerb von Kochfertigkeiten im Alltag und die Orientierung am Leitbild Nachhaltigkeit. Ernährungs Umschau, 6, 337–339.
Küstermann, B., Kainz, M., & Hülsbergen, K.-J. (2008). Modelling carbon cycles and estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional farming systems: (2008), 23: 38-52. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 23, 38–52.
Leßmann, O. (2011). Sustainability as a challenge to the capability approach. In F. Rauschmayer & I. F. J. Omann (Eds.), Sustainable development: Capabilities, needs, and well-being Routledge studies in ecological economics, 9, 43–61. London: Routledge.
Leßmann, O., & Rauschmayer, F. (2012). Re-conceptualising sustainable development on the basis of the capability approach: A model and its difficulties (UFZ-Diskussionspapiere 03/2012). http://www.geneca.ufz.de/data/DP5_2012_Lessmann_reconceptualisingSD15972.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2012.
Lessmann, O., & Rauschmayer, F. (Eds.). (2013). The Capability Approach and Sustainability. London u.a: Routledge.
Macias, T. (2008). Working Toward a Just, Equitable, and Local Food System: The Social Impact of Community-Based Agriculture. Social science quarterly, 89(5), 1086–1101.
Maniates, M. (2001). Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 43–67.
Meier, T., & Christen, O. (2013). Environmental Impacts of Dietary Recommendations and Dietary Styles: Germany As an Example. Environmental Science and Technology,. doi:10.1021/es302152v.
Meier, T., Christen, O., Semler, E., Jahreis, G., Voget-Kleschin, L., Schrode, A., et al. (2014). Balancing virtual land imports by a shift in the diet. Using a land balance approach to assess the sustainability of food consumption. Germany as an example. Appetite, doi:10.1016/j.appet.2013.11.006.
Meisterling, K., Samaras, C., & Schweizer, V. (2009). Decisions to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture and product transport: LCA case study of organic and conventional wheat. Journal of Cleaner Production,. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.009.
Middlemiss, L. (2010). Reframing Individual Responsibility for Sustainable Consumption: Lessons from Environmental Justice and Ecological Citizenship. Environmental Values, 19, 147–167.
Mondelaers, K., Aertsens, J., & van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009). A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. British Food Journal,. doi:10.1108/00070700910992925.
Muraca, B. (2011). The Map of Moral Significance: A New Axiological Matrix for Environmental Ethics. Environmental Values, 20(3), 375–396.
Muraca, B. (2012). Towards a fair degrowth-society: Justice and the right to a ‘good life’ beyond growth: Special Issue: Politics, Democracy and Degrowth. Futures, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2012.03.014.
Nierling, L. (2012). “This is a bit of the good life”: Recognition of unpaid work from the perspective of degrowth. Ecological Economics,. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.030.
Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2007). Frontiers of justice: Disability, Nationality, Species membership. Cambridge/Massachesetts: The Belknapp Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge: The Belknapp Press.
O’Hara, S. U., & Stagl, S. (2001). Global Food Markets and Their Local Alternatives: A Socio-Ecological Economic Perspective. Population and Environment A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 22(6), 533–554.
Oosterlaken, I., & van den Hoven, Jeroen (Eds.). (2012). The capability approach, technology and design (v.5). Dordrecht: Springer.
Page, E. A. (2007a). Intergenerational Justice of What: Welfare, Resources or Capabilities? Environmental Politics, 16(3), 453–469.
Page, E. A. (2007b). Justice Between Generations: Investigating a Sufficientarian Approach. Journal of Global Ethics, 3(1), 3–20.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Biological Sciences: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0126.
Petersen, T., & Schiller, J. (2011). Politische Verantwortung für Nachhaltigkeit und Konsumentensouveränität: Reaktion auf vier Beiträge zur Privatisierung der Nachhaltigkeit.A.Grunwald.2010. GAIA19/3:178–182;M.Bilharz et al. 2011.GAIA 20/1:9–13;B.Siebenhüner. 2011. GAIA 20/1:14–16; A.Grunwald. 2011. GAIA 20/1:17–19. Gaia, 20(3), 157–161.
Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (2003). Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78(3), 660S–663S.
Polishchuk, Y., & Rauschmayer, F. (2012). Beyond “benefits”? Looking at ecosystem services through the capability approach. Ecological Economics, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.010.
Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Reijnders, L., & Soret, S. (2003). Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78, 664S–668S.
Robeyns, I. (2003). The Capability Approach: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. http://www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/323CAtraining20031209.pdf. Accessed 27 February 2011.
Sandberg, J. (2011). My emissions make no difference. Environmental Ethics, 33(3), 229–248.
Schösler, H. (2012). Pleasure and purity: An exploration of the cultural potential to shift towards more sustainable food consumption patterns in the Netherlands. [S.l.]: [s.n.].
Schösler, H., Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2013). The Organic Food Philosophy: A Qualitative Exploration of the Practices, Values, and Beliefs of Dutch Organic Consumers Within a Cultural-Historical Frame. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(2), 439–460.
Schultz, J., Brand, F., Kopfmüller, J., & Ott, K. (2008). Building a ‘theory of sustainable Development’: Two salient conceptions within the German discourse. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 7(4), 465–482.
Schultz, E., Christen, M., Voget-Kleschin, L., & Burger, P. (2013). A Sustainability-Fitting Interpretation of the Capability Approach: Integrating the Natural Dimension by Employing Feedback Loops. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities,. doi:10.1080/19452829.2012.747489.
Sen, A. K. (2007). Development as freedom (13th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. K. (2009). The idea of justice (1st ed.). London: Allen Lane.
Shove, E., & Southerton, D. (2000). Defrosting the Freezer: From Novelty to Convenience: A Narrative of Normalization. Journal of Material Culture,. doi:10.1177/135918350000500303.
Sinnot-Armstrong, W. (2010). Its not my fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations. In S. M. Gardiner (Ed.), Climate ethics: Essential readings (pp. 332–346). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., et al. (2007). Agriculture. In B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Mitigation of climate change: Contribution of Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1st ed., pp. 497–540). Cambridge [etc.]: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., et al. (2008). Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 363, 789–813.
Southerton, D., Warde, A., & Hand, M. (2004). The limited autonomy of the consumer: implications for sustainable consumption. In D. Southerton, H. Chappells, & B. van Vliet (Eds.), Sustainable Consumption: the Implications of Changing Infrastructures of Provision (pp. 32–48). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Strom, S. (2012). ‘Fat Tax’ in Denmark Is Repealed After Criticism. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/global/fat-tax-in-denmark-is-repealed-after-criticism.html?_r=0. Accessed 8 September 2013.
The Council of the European Union (2007). Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviours. Appetite, 57(3), 674–682.
UNESCO (2009). Water in a changing world: The United Nations World Water Development Report 3. http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3/pdf/WWDR3_Water_in_a_Changing_World.pdf. Accessed 28 February 2011.
United States Department of Labor, B. o. L. S. (2006). 100 Years of U.S. Consumer Spending: Data for the Nation, New York City, and Boston (BLS Report 991 991). http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/home.htm. Accessed 18 July 2012.
United States Department of Labor, B. o. L. S. (2010). Consumer Expenditure Survey. http://www.bls.gov/cex/#publications; http://www.bls.gov/cex/2010/share/quintile.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2012.
Vidgen, H. A., & Gallegos, D. (2014). Defining food literacy and its components. Appetite,. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.01.010.
Voget-Kleschin, L. (2013). Employing the Capability Approach in Conceptualizing Sustainable Development. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities,. doi:10.1080/19452829.2013.827635.
Voget-Kleschin, L., & Stephan, S. (2013). The Potential of Standards and Codes of Conduct in Governing Large-Scale Land Acquisition in Developing Countries Towards Sustainability. Journal of Agricicultural and Environmental Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10806-013-9454-y.
von Egan-Krieger, T. (2009). Naturkapital als Schlüsselkonzept einer Theorie der Nachhaltigkeit. In T. von Egan-Krieger, J. Schultz, P. Thapa, & L. Voget (Eds.), Die Greifswalder Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit: Ausbau, Anwendung und Kritik (pp. 147–156). Marburg: Metropolis.
Vörösmarty, C. J., Leveque, C., Revenga, C., Bos, R., Caudill, C., Chilton, J., et al. (2005). Fresh Water. In R. M. Hassan, R. Scholes, & N. Ash (Eds.), Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends (pp. 165–207). Washington (DC), Covelo (Calif.), London: Island Press.
Wood, R., Lenzen, M., Dey, C., & Lundie, S. (2006). A comparative study of some environmental impacts of conventional and organic farming in Australia. Agricultural Systems,. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2005.09.007.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. New York: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Simon Meisch, Thomas Potthast, Christian Baatz, Martin Langanke, Yogi Hendlin, Gunda Boehm, Franck Meijboom and two anonymous reviewers for comments and assistance with this paper. Furthermore, I gratefully acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Voget-Kleschin, L. Reasoning Claims for More Sustainable Food Consumption: A Capabilities Perspective. J Agric Environ Ethics 28, 455–477 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9503-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9503-1