enabling sustainable production-consumption...

ANRV357-EG33-11 ARI 15 September 2008 16:13

Enabling SustainableProduction-ConsumptionSystemsLouis Lebel1 and Sylvia Lorek2

1Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50202,Thailand; email: [email protected] Europe Research Institute, 51491 Overath, Germany;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008. 33:241–75

First published online as a Review in Advance onJuly 30, 2008

The Annual Review of Environment and Resourcesis online at environ.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.33.022007.145734

Copyright c© 2008 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

1543-5938/08/1121-0241$20.00

Key Words

innovation, markets, partnership, regulation, sustainable

AbstractThe pursuit of sustainability in particular places and sectors often unrav-els at the edges. Efforts to tackle environmental problems in one placeshift them somewhere else or are overwhelmed by external changes indrivers. Gains in energy efficiency of appliances used in houses are offsetby greater total numbers or compensating changes in patterns of use.Analytical perspectives and practical initiatives, which treat productionand consumption jointly, are needed to complement experiences and ef-forts with sector-, place-, product- and consumer-oriented approaches.

There is now a growing body of scholarship exploring a diverse rangeof initiatives and experiments aimed at enabling sustainable production-consumption systems (PCSs). Different approaches make divergentassumptions about market institutions, government regulation, so-ciotechnical innovation, and actor partnerships. From this body of workflow useful insights for others who would engage, for example, in rede-signing relationships around services rather than products or betweenthird world producers and first world consumers in fair trade initiatives.

241

Click here for quick links to Annual Reviews content online, including:

• Other articles in this volume• Top cited articles• Top downloaded articles• Our comprehensive search

FurtherANNUALREVIEWS

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


PCS: production-consumptionsystem

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2422. A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE . . . . . . 2433. ENABLING MECHANISMS . . . . . . 244

3.1. Produce with Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2443.2. Green Supply Chains . . . . . . . . . . 2483.3. Produce Responsibly . . . . . . . . . . . 2493.4. Codesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2503.5. Service Rather than Sell . . . . . . . . 2513.6. Certify and Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2533.7. Trade Fairly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2553.8. Market Ethically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2573.9. Buy Responsibly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2583.10. Use Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2603.11. Increase Wisely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

4. SYNTHESIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2654.1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2654.2. Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2664.3. Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

1. INTRODUCTION

The pursuit of sustainability in a place, sector,or life often unravels at the edges.

Efforts to tackle environmental problemsin one place shift them somewhere else.Campaigns to protect tropical forests under-mine the livelihood of farmers. Initiatives topromote consumption of locally grown foodcan turn out to be less ecologically sustainablethan food grown in developing countries. Cleantechnologies available in wealthy countries arenot accessible in developing countries, or ifthey are, these technologies remain too closelybound to their original developers and thus un-dermine domestic capacities to innovate.

Efforts to reduce environmental impactsof making products in a sector can be over-whelmed by net growth in demand for thoseitems or in how they are used and disposedof. The adoption of cleaner technologies acrossa sector fails to reduce pollution loads overallwhen demand for products increases by mul-tiples. Gains in energy efficiency of appliancesused in homes, or fuel efficiency of cars, are off-

set by greater total numbers or compensatingchanges in patterns of use.

Efforts to alter lifestyles face many practi-cal challenges in the web of interactions thatmake up everyday life. Individual consumers areurged to cycle and walk to work to help savetheir local and global environment—and thenencouraged to fly halfway around the world fortheir holidays. Marketing and advertising extolus to purchase things we do not really need;consumer campaigns tell us we can shop, savethe world, and express our solidarity with down-trodden farmers at the same time.

Clearly, consumption needs to be muchmore closely integrated into how we thinkabout sustainable development (1–4). Manyproblems related to consumption do not resultdirectly from dangerous and inefficient produc-tion processes (5). Likewise, a narrow focus onhousehold consumer behavior may fail to iden-tify much more powerful leverage points to re-duce environmental impacts by meeting a needor aspiration in a different way (6, 7). Perspec-tives that treat production and consumption as acommon system, or a production-consumptionsystem (PCS), are needed to compliment expe-riences and efforts with sector-, place-, product-and consumer-oriented approaches (8).

World leaders already recognize the sus-tainability of production and consumption ascentral to achieving sustainable development(9–11). In the decade since the formulationof Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in Riode Janeiro in 1992, this has been regularlyacknowledged in international meetings. TheWorld Summit on Sustainable Development(WSSD) in 2002 (9, 12) called for the devel-opment of a 10-year framework of programs(13), indicating the lack of progress since Rio(12).

Scholarship addressing difficult challengesof measurement and system transformation hasadvanced in parallel with political and businessagendas but often without as much fruitful ex-change as needed. In part, this reflects institu-tional deficiencies. The arenas where citizens,firms, researchers, and policy makers can jointlyengage pressing sustainability issues in a PCS

242 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


are uncommon and scattered across places, sec-tors, and initiatives.

This review is about progress in the inter-disciplinary science that is helping us to bet-ter understand efforts to transform productionand consumption systems toward sustainabil-ity. In it, we review scholarship on initiativesthat explicitly attempt to influence both pro-duction and consumption. We do not dwellon the vast and important literature on cleanand efficient production technologies or on therapidly growing literature on consumer behav-ior where these are the single perspective.

Before launching into our review proper, weprovide definitions of key terms and a simpleframework to organize our initial interrogationof PCSs.

2. A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE

A PCS is defined as a system that links en-vironmental goods and services, individuals,households, organizations, and states throughlinkages in which energy and materials aretransformed, utility is derived, and relationships(for example, transactions of money or informa-tion and exercise of influence and social control)take place (8).

Production (P) transforms inputs from theharvest of environmental resource (E) into agood or service, which, in turn, is provided toconsumers (C) (Figure 1). Postconsumptionmaterials and energy may be reused, recycledor returned to renew the environment. Other-wise they become waste. Postproduction mate-rials may be returned to ecosystems for renewalor become waste. Waste accumulates in sinks(S), which can degrade the environment and af-fect people, including consumers and producers(e.g., employees). Utility is derived from a PCSin several distinct ways. Three common kindsare: benefits of use, returns on investment, andbenefits of conservation (Figure 1). A fourth,negative, utility, is the risks and burdens associ-ated with sinks.

Setting the boundaries of the target sys-tem of interest is an important analytical de-cision (7, 14). In some cases, specific, or closelyrelated, commodity or service chains may bemost appropriate. In other instances, a broader,more functional, bounding-like “mobility sys-tem” might be needed to ensure relevant al-ternatives are considered. Much depends onwhere within the PCS an analysis begins or fo-cuses. A particular system may have many E-Pand P-C relationships arranged in supply, or

Figure 1Material flows and derived utilities in a generalized production (P) and consumption (C) system that draws on environmental resources(E) and adds waste to sinks (S). Solid lines are flows. Dotted lines are derived utilities.

www.annualreviews.org • Production-Consumption Systems 243

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


value-added, chains or more complex networksof transformation and assembly. Thus, a partic-ular node may be a producer in some relationsand a consumer in others.

A sustainable PCS is one in which the trans-formation of energy and materials maintains orimproves human well-being (or utility) with-out irreversibly reducing the environmental re-sources. We refer to such a system as “just” ifthe social relationships within it allocate bur-dens, benefits, responsibilities, and risks fairly(15).

Measures of sustainability for a PCS relateutilities (Figure 1) to material flows and envi-ronmental conditions or allocations among so-cial groups. Studies draw on a wide range oftools to assess impacts including life cycle anal-ysis, material flows analysis, and footprint anal-ysis (16, 17). Units of analysis are often productoriented, but aggregation can be made at vari-ous levels, for instance, the household, firm, ornation (17, 18).

Understanding who could, and who does,take action toward transforming a PCS can beframed as a stakeholder, or alternatively a so-cial network, analysis. For example, productionmay be regulated by an international agree-ment, policies of a government, codes or normsof an industrial sector, or the shareholders in thefirm. A certification and labeling scheme mightinvolve a complex mixture of stakeholders inits formulation, negotiation, and implementa-tion. Campaigns to reduce consumption of cer-tain products undertaken by civil society groupsare resisted and subverted by firms wanting tocontinue to sell those products. Differences ininterests, power, influence, and position of dif-ferent stakeholders are highly relevant to com-petition, contest, and conflict in a PCS.

Many different individual actors may be in-volved in the logistics of trade, from distribu-tors to export-import holding agents through toretailers. Conversely, a single firm with a verti-cally integrated structure could be responsiblefor a lengthy series of actions taking on pro-ducer, distributor, and consumer roles withinone PCS. Likewise, a single subsistence farm-ing household might usefully be considered to

constitute a PCS in some analyses. An actor mayhave a role in several otherwise largely indepen-dent PCSs; thus, an employee in a manufactur-ing plant has a producer role at work but alsobecomes a consumer when buying rice at theend of the day.

Material flows and social relationships de-pend on, but also shape, the behavior of ac-tors. Personal consumption, for instance, is asocially embedded activity affected by otheractors and institutions. Consider the factorsaffecting what a household buys. A numberof relationships shape values of consumers in-cluding notions of utility and need. “Havingthings, interacting with things, and shoppingfor things are all aspects of consumption thatare important to many people in modern, in-dustrial societies. Consumption contributes toself-satisfaction and serves as an indicator of agood, successful life” (4). Initiatives that aimto enable a sustainable PCS must grapple withboth production processes and how consump-tion is perceived and circumscribed.

3. ENABLING MECHANISMS

Researchers and practitioners have proposedand explored many mechanisms for enablingthe sustainability of PCSs. We classified thesefor purposes of this review into 11 approaches,using short labels that reflect common waysthey are identified in the literature (Table 1).This section is organized around these 11 waysby which a sustainable PCS might be enabled.The order of presentation of these roughlyflows from initiatives that emphasize produc-tion activities through to those that are moreconsumption related. Some important links andoverlaps between these categories are discussedin the text.

3.1. Produce with Less

For manufacturers, being able to reduce en-ergy and materials used to produce a good be-cause it lowers costs of inputs is a standard ob-jective; therefore, this objective is commonlya primary focus for research and development.

244 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Table 1 Examples of enabling mechanisms for sustainable production-consumption systems

Enablingmechanism Short description Concerns, constraints, or challengesProduce with less Innovations in production process reduce the

environmental impact per unit made.Rebound effects occur through which gains arewiped out by increases in the number of units orhow they are used.

Green supplychains

Firms with leverage in a chain impose standards on theirsuppliers to improve environmental performance.

There may be unfair control of small producers.

Codesign Consumers are involved in design of products andservices to fulfill needs with less environmental impact.

Incentives are not adequate to involve consumers.

Produceresponsibly

Producers are made responsible for waste from productdisposal at end of life.

Incentives for compliance without regulation maybe too low for many types of products.

Service rather thansell

Producers provide service rather than sell or transferownership of assets, which reduces number of unitsmade while still providing functions needed.

This is a difficult transition for firms and consumersto make as it requires new behaviors and values.

Certify and label Consumers preferentially buy labeled products. Labelsare based on independent certification, and producerswith good practices increase their market share.

Consumers are easily confused with too muchinformation or with a lack of transparency andcredibility of competing schemes.

Trade fairly Agreements may include a minimum price, and otherinvestments or benefits are made with producers.Consumers preferentially buy products labeled as orsold through fair trade channels, and producers get abetter deal.

Mainstream trade still dominates. It is hard tomaintain fair trade benefits to producers when aproduct becomes mainstream.

Market ethically Reducing unethical practices in marketing andadvertising would reduce wasteful andoverconsumption practices.

There is a reluctance by policy makers to tackle verypowerful private sector interests with regulation.

Buy responsibly Campaigns educate consumers about impacts ofindividual products, classes of products, andconsumption patterns, resulting in overall behaviorchanges.

Converting intentions and values into actions ineveryday life is often difficult for consumers. Issuesof convenience, flexibility, and function still mattera lot.

Use less Consumption may be reduced for a variety of reasons,for example, as a consequence of working less. Thereare many potential environmental gains from lessoverall consumption.

There is a dominant perception that using lessmeans sacrifice. Less income and consumptionmay not automatically translate into betterconsumption impacts.

Increase wisely Increasing the consumption of underconsumers can beeffected in ways that minimize environmental impactsas economic activity expands.

Wealthy developed countries need incentives andgoodwill to assist the poor and those in developingcountries, for example, by leaving adequate spaceand natural resources for them to develop.

Reducing environmental impacts is a broaderenvironmental management challenge as it in-cludes consideration of waste streams. Produc-tion strategies are well studied and importantto sustainability, but not the focus of this re-view. The notion of producing with less thatinterests us here is when producer-oriented in-novations explicitly reach out to the relation-ships with other actors, especially consumers(Table 1). These include a diverse mix of strate-

gies and initiatives. We illustrate with four di-vergent examples: public disclosure of environ-mental performance, organic farming, cementand construction, and virtual water trade.

3.1.1. Public disclosure. Regulation, moni-toring, and penalties are the conventional pol-icy instruments for getting firms to producewith less impact. An alternative is to requireorganizations to disclose to the public their


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


environmental performance and let public sen-timent and media pressure stimulate improve-ment. We give two examples, one aimed at firmsand the other at cities.

The Program for Pollution Control Eval-uation and Rating (PROPER) was introducedby the government of Indonesia in mid-1995 asa follow-up to the earlier Clean River Programor Program Kali Bersih, which successfullyinduced several polluters of local waterwaysto make major improvements in water quality(19). The main idea was to use a color-codedrating scheme, and through public disclosure,reward and shame firms according to envi-ronmental performance (19). The biologicaloxygen demand (BOD) emission standardswere developed in consultation with industry,environmental nongovernmental organiza-tions (NGOs), and other government agencies.Performance relative to regulations at the firmlevel was coded by BAPEDAL, the environ-mental impact management agency, using afive-color scheme: gold, green, blue, red, andblack. The criteria for assigning colors werekept simple, and multiple sources of data wereused to reduce risks of errors or manipulation.In the first round of ratings, high-rating plantswere rewarded by being identified, and thosewith low scores were not named but counted.Low-scoring firms then had six months toimprove performance before they were reratedand findings made public. The program had thehigh-level political support it needed to giveblack ratings to the worst polluters and was alsosimple enough for media, community leaders,and environmental NGOs to understand howthe rating system worked (20). Improvements incompliance were observable within six months.

China introduced the Urban Environmen-tal Quantitative Examination System at the citylevel in the early 1990s to improve environmen-tal quality (20). Each year, the major cities arerated and ranked by their environmental perfor-mance using the system developed by the StateEnvironmental Protection Agency. The systemis implemented at the city level by environmen-tal protection bureaus and commissions. Thefindings are publicized in yearbooks, newspa-

pers, and on television. Evidence from man-agement actions, improved trends in ambientenvironmental quality, and indications thatother possibly responsible policies for improve-ment have not been effective suggest that thescheme has been working (20). City mayorshave a strong incentive to get involved and leadbecause they are responsible for meeting tar-gets to improve their city’s scorecard and rank(21). Today local leaders strive to achieve thestatus of National Environmental Model Cityas this helps with attracting foreign investmentand events (22).

From these two examples it is clear thatthe public disclosure approach is not strictlyan extension from producer to consumers, buta broader appeal to citizens and officials con-cerned or affected by production activities, andpossibly also to others, such as employees orshareholders, who want to see their companybe perceived as behaving responsibly toward thecommunity.

3.1.2. Organic food movement. The organicfood movement can be understood as an ef-fort to produce more with less impact (23), forinstance, by eliminating use of pesticides, an-tibiotics (24), and artificial fertilizers. Organicpractices were more widespread in much of thedeveloping world, but the label “organic” wasrarely applied to peasant systems, although thishas changed recently. Seyfang (23) argues that alocal organic food network, given the right en-abling conditions, could reduce everyday envi-ronmental impacts. Local organic food schemesare a niche activity involving both technical andmarketing innovations that might have widerimplications for a food PCS (25).

As a result of broader consumer concernswith the health and safety of industrial agri-culture, organic food has become mainstream:A large part of the organic food market hasshifted into the domain of global agro-food net-works (26). Much of the market is now con-cerned with either product quality characteris-tics, such as food safety and the value to health,rather than concerns with environmental im-pacts. Much greater policy support for local

246 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


experiments and initiatives is needed to cre-ate enough space for bottom-up enterprises toemerge (27).

3.1.3. Cement, construction, and housing.Construction and housing invariably turn upas key domains for environmentally sustainablehousehold consumption (28–30). Cement is acritical input into construction in many parts ofthe world, but concerns exist about energy effi-ciency and CO2 emissions in its manufacture. Inthe past decade, however, significant advancesin technical innovations have improved the ef-ficiency of cement manufacturing (31).

China, in particular, has produced very rapidimprovements in energy efficiency and envi-ronmental performance within the past decadewith positive implications for global rates ofCO2 emissions growth (32). But major chal-lenges still lie ahead (33). The stock of olderbuildings includes many with relatively shortlife spans that will need to be replaced (34). In-dustrial urban-based economic growth is driv-ing huge increases in demand for concrete andsteel, both highly energy-intensive industries.At the national level, the structural shift is lead-ing to increases in energy intensity in spite ofefficiency gains within this sector (33).

Additional efforts to make the cement-construction-housing PCS in China more sus-tainable are highly desirable at many levels.The evidence above implies that this will re-quire an approach to producing more with less,which more explicitly addresses demand andconsumption issues. From a PCS perspective,one of the keys for reducing emissions may bein greater attention to how urbanization affectsurban form and function (35, 36). Sustainablecities programs might be one of the policy out-lets for such analysis insofar as they can bringabout necessary policy coordination and incen-tive systems (37).

Rebounds like those observed with respectto cement and steel production in China,described above, are a frequently identifieddilemma in sustainable consumption analyses.The rebound effect refers to situations whereresponses to measures to improve environmen-

tal performance have other side effects, whichsignificantly offset the gains. For example, in-creased efficiency may be offset by greater useof a product (38). Apart from rebound effects,there may also be co-benefits and spillover ef-fects. New products may change the way con-sumers live, giving them more time and savingthem money. What this enables them to do maybe better (or worse) for the environment. Theseforms of side effects are understudied (38).

3.1.4. Virtual water. Virtual water is waterused in producing a particular commodity orservice; it is virtual because most of it does notend up in the final product. One way of mak-ing more for less is to make it with someoneelse’s water. A cup of coffee in the Nether-lands is not made with Dutch water: 140 litresare needed to make that cup, and most of thewater is from Brazil or Colombia (18). In gen-eral, trade in virtual water is expanding be-tween poor, but water-rich, states and richer,but water-deficient, states.

A good example of the policy relevance ofconsidering virtual water comes from recentwork done within China. North China faces se-vere shortages of water. Water used to producefood for South China makes up at least 10% ofwater used in agriculture in North China. Thevolumes of virtual water involved each year aremore than the maximum planned to be trans-ferred back from South to North via the threehuge canals in the South-North Water Transferproject (39). It is not clear that this huge virtualtransfer is worthwhile given the huge environ-mental implications of compensating for thatuse. Of course other development and land con-straints need to be taken into account in policy.

Analysis of virtual water trade may helpwater-scarce countries or regions reconsideragricultural crops and import-export policieswhen production is water intensive (40). Thus,southern and eastern Mediterranean countriescould benefit from expanding fruit and veg-etable exports to the EU (41). Options to re-configure relationships between places throughtrade, however, are also affected by other con-cerns and barriers (41).


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


3.2. Green Supply Chains

Supply chains form and are managed by firmswith the logistical capacity and leverage to meeta variety of business objectives (42). The need tomeet environmental standards in national reg-ulations or to participate in some internationalmarkets, for example, can lead key firms to ini-tiate standards and other methods to improvethe environmental practices of their suppliers(Table 1).

Motorola, a multinational corporation, in-troduced global firm-based environmentalstandards for its plants and also applied theseto subsidiaries and suppliers in the mid-1990s(31). The corporation introduced various in-ternal reporting procedures, covering toxicityindices for products, to encourage continuousimprovement in environmental performance.Innovative management tools were introducedto handle products and components that werelater assembled. An in-depth study of MotorolaPenang in Malaysia showed how the companywas able to reduce use of lead and other toxicmetals in product processes and products (31).These firm-based standards and procedures, inturn, reflect the evolving regulatory environ-ment in major markets, in particular, EU direc-tives such as the European Waste in Electricaland Equipment Initiative (WEEE) and the Re-strictions on Hazardous Substances Directive.

Most empirical research on greening supplychains has focused on manufacturing and haslooked at the relationship between key firmsand smaller suppliers (42). These underline theimportant power of key firms and the strategiesused to build partnerships among actors. Butthere are also a growing number of studies offood systems, which start at the retail end andexamine how their practices work back throughsuppliers to ultimately impact on farming (43),harvesting (44), or labor (45) practices.

The EU, for example, substantially loweredresidue thresholds for nitrofuran antibiotics inimported shrimp after concerns with health im-pacts and the availability of new technology fordetection in imports (46, 47). Subsequent bansof shipments of farmed shrimp from Thailand

forced drastic reductions in the prophylactic useof antibiotics (48) and arguably also consoli-dated the shift from rearing black tiger prawnsto Pacific white shrimp (49, 50).

Fagan (45) used global commodity chainanalysis methods to study efforts to improveconditions of workers and environmental im-pacts in the banana industry. An important in-sight of more general interest from this studyis the observation of how different stakehold-ers use arguments about scale to support theirpositions. Another is that global supply chainsneed to be understood within the different in-stitutional contexts through which they pass(45, 51).

Contemporary, industrial-based food sys-tems may not be difficult to transform if theyhave strong support from core firms. Green& Foster (52), for example, argue that anyalternatives to the frozen pea food system inthe United Kingdom, whether toward highertechnology, but environmentally improved, orlow-technology organically produced, wouldultimately depend on the decisions of a singlecorporation. Unilever is the main research anddevelopment investor and knowledge base inthe current frozen pea food system with a largecapacity to determine which innovations are“taken on board” in almost any part of thecommodity chain.

Many efforts to green supply chains involvethe introduction of standards. The introduc-tion of more abstract, less personalized stan-dards and other quality assurance instrumentsoften alters the very basis of social relations insystems of exchange formerly based on trust andhistory of interaction (53, 54). Standards some-times may also become a basis for control, orexercise of power, in a PCS: “Standards haveenabled supermarkets to transform the world’sfood supply by dictating not just which foodscan be sold on their shelves, but also how andby whom they can be produced” (43).

Initiatives to green supply chains bring tothe fore issues of power and fairness in a PCS.If power moves to retailers or large manufac-turing firms, the value-added bargaining power

248 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


of farmers and small- and medium-scale enter-prises is reduced. In vertically integrated sys-tems, jointness in design may arise from highlyautocratic, rather than democratic or more self-organizing, processes of the market. Govern-ment oversight and supporting policies may beneeded to ensure that small producers are notat an unfair advantage.

3.3. Produce Responsibly

Extended producer responsibility policies re-quire producers to continue to be financially orphysically responsible even after the useful lifeof their products (55). The rationale is that thiswill create incentives for redesigning productsin ways that use fewer materials and for makingproducts that are easier to recycle (Table 1).

Producer responsibility has two elements.The first is to turn responsibility into action intheir production processes and products. Here,they doubtlessly have a power to act. The sec-ond is to report about it and so create knowledgeand transparency for the actors further alongthe product chain. The power to act here is of-ten more limited and may require third-partysupport.

Research on extended producer responsi-bility (EPR) has usually focused on the per-formance of individual policies, regulations, orschemes. Methods to assess effectiveness andexplore weaknesses vary widely.

Concerns with hazardous materials in wasteshave been an important driver of policy inno-vation in Japan. A 1999 law to reduce dioxinsfrom waste incineration set a reduction targetof 90% by 2003. Take-back legislation that re-quires producers to collect products at the endof their lives has been central to the new waste-management paradigm and framework of gen-eral laws and more specific regulations (56).Responsibilities are explicit and shared withconsumers. Under the Home Appliance Re-cycling Law (HARL) of 2001 in Japan, homeappliance consumers pay, retailers collect, andproducers recycle. Costs for recycling are paidat different times depending on product: at pur-chase time for computers and cars, but at dis-

EPR: extendedproducer responsibility

posal for home appliances (56). The laws wereexplicitly designed to be reviewed and adapted.

In the United States, initiatives are usuallyframed as shared responsibilities and imple-mented through voluntary programs. Produc-ers should minimize impact, for example, bydesigning them in ways that make recycling eas-ier. Consumers should preferentially buy prod-ucts so designed and practice recycling (57).

Approaches have historically varied acrossEurope but are arguably converging more un-der shared EU policies. Consensus-based pol-itics in the Netherlands often created closeworking relationships between industry andgovernment (58). A covenant on packaging in1991 was developed with industry and includedspecific targets for take-back levels, amounts tobe recycled, and so on; it has been highly effec-tive in reducing waste (59). In contrast, notionsof producer responsibility introduced aroundthe same time in Germany involved a muchmore legislated approach. In terms of rates ofcollecting packaging material, the program hasbeen a success, but there were other side effects,such as the export of subsidized waste to otherEU member states for disposal.

The effectiveness of the approach is contro-versial, in part, because of costs and resistancein some sectors and countries to mandatorytake-back or end-of-life programs (60). Volun-tary schemes may be easier to implement thanmandatory ones in the sense of being less likelyto be resisted by industry. They may also pro-vide needed flexibility that stimulates innova-tion. Without independent monitoring, how-ever, such programs lack legitimacy (57) andthus risk failing to significantly change materialuse or recapture hazardous materials.

It is also not clear to what extent EPR pro-grams stimulate improvements in product de-sign. A study of the lighting sector in Europecarried out a few years after the introductionof the EU Directive on WEEE found littleevidence for changes in product development(61). Rather producers just passed on the coststo consumers with little impact on their sales(61). Other research on end-of-life processingof vehicles and another EU directive (59) also


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


suggest that incentives for product innovationare hard to maintain (62). The HARL in Japan isless comprehensive than the EU WEEE direc-tive but seems to have benefited from havingmandatory take-back and consumer paymentfor disposal.

Most analyses of EPR have focused onrecycling, but other strategies such as recon-ditioning or remanufacturing are relevant forend-of-life disposal of some kinds of products.Remanufacturing has an advantage in that theenergy that went into making the product, andis embodied in it, need not be lost (63).

EPR initiatives are in some ways the flip sideof green procurement or supply chain manage-ment. But getting core firms to behave respon-sibly after they have passed something on ismuch harder than before they produce some-thing. EPR efforts are very important for deal-ing with hazardous substances, but even so, theevidence of producer innovation in productsin response to regulations has often been sur-prisingly modest. A consumption-oriented per-spective needs to be applied to the behavior offirms to tease out why some do take up thesustainability challenge while others focus onfinding ways to pass on or avoid any short-termcosts.

In this review, our focus has been on EPRmechanisms that focus on end-of-product-lifeissues. Other important aspects of responsibil-ity, discussed in earlier sections, include pro-ducing more with less impact and greening sup-ply chains. In the following two sections, wepresent issues of codesign and service systems—two strategies that depend on incorporating abetter understanding of how products or ser-vices are used into their design so as to, forexample, reduce energy needed when they areused, not just when they are made.

3.4. Codesign

Producers and consumers who work togetherto assess and design how to meet specific needsmore sustainably may create new options thatare both competitive (profitable) and useful(Table 1). Most insights about codesign come

from studies of mass product research, devel-opment, and marketing in business.

Research on involvement of users is ex-panding. Normal users, even more than designexperts and advanced users, are increasinglyrecognized as valuable to the design of massproducts and related services, for instance, formobile phones (64, 65). Studies of why somenew products are more successful than othersconfirm that meeting customer needs and prod-uct advantage are important (66), two factorsfor which codesign can clearly contribute.

Much of the promise of codesign and in-sights on how firms might actually be effectiveat doing it come from research on conventionalproducts. Studies of consumer engagement indesign of products for sustainability are signifi-cantly more scattered across product areas anddiverse in approaches.

Alam’s (67) study of 12 service firms is no-table for the practical framework through whichusers’ intensity and modes of engagement areassessed across the various stages of design. Hisstudy showed that along a 10-stage develop-ment process users were most involved earlyon in idea generation, in service design, andlater in the process in service testing and ina pilot run. In the context of idea generation,consumers state their needs, problems, and so-lutions; criticize existing services; identify gapsin the market; and provide a wish list of servicerequirements. In the stage of service or pro-cess design, the users help develop blueprints,suggest improvements, and compare their wishlist with the proposed blueprint of services. Fi-nally, their contribution in the service testingis to participate in a simulated delivery processand to suggest final improvements.

An insight from scholarship on codesign isthat acts of consumption take place in partic-ular contexts and can shape them as well (4).The relationship of people to products mattersto their attractiveness. To become environmen-tally sustainable, products need to be designedso they are “not only less environmentally de-structive, but also meaningful and pleasurableto use, maintain and repair” (68), and this al-lows consumers to be engaged in the activity

250 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


of “doing” (68) as, for example, using a manualpeppermill, a manual coffee percolator, and ashaving brush and shaving soap (69).

Just how much say and influence consumersreally have in design is often unclear (70).This is especially so when we consider issuesbeyond the producer’s interest in looking formarketable product advantage or differentia-tion. Product-life extension for example is of-ten desirable for consumers and would be acontribution to sustainability in terms of lessuse of resources for manufacturing. But manyfactors influence whether markets for moredurable products can emerge (71). Producersneed to capture some of this increased valueto consumers if there is to be an incentive tomake longer-lasting products (72), for instance,through higher prices for higher quality goods.Regulators can also contribute, for example,through directives specifying requirements thatshould be met for products (61).

The concept of codesign in principle canalso adapt to a more general societal context.Technology assessment can be thought of as aform of codesign if the public as beneficiaries—affected or at risk—have inputs that come earlyenough in the process to influence what kindsof products are allowed to be introduced. Par-ticipation here is motivated by concerns ofconsumers to protect themselves from health,or other, risks (73). Technology assessmentsjointly conducted by various actors involved inproduction and consumption, including thoseat risk from harvesting or wastes, are likelyto be more effective than expert, concerned-community, or industry-driven appraisals (69).

Some of the benefits of codesign might notbe embedded in the products itself but morebroadly in the knowledge system, of which firmsare a part, as a result of an improved mutual un-derstanding of constraints, capacities, and needsof producers and consumers.

Finally, the evolution of design for sustain-ability reaches beyond all the stages elaboratedso far and shifts from environmental manage-ment to systems design (74). This concept nec-essarily involves the perspective from the con-sumption end. It can focus, for example, on

PSSs: product-servicesystems

how to gain specific results or how to meetneeds (75), which can—but does not necessarilyhave to—be fulfilled by products. An exampleof sustainable codesign is given in Section 3.5,below. On the basis of their level of needs,consumers start to design service solutions, in-tegrating innovative offers from producers asmuch as necessary.

3.5. Service Rather than Sell

The business strategy of selling services ratherthan just products has proven successful in sev-eral areas, especially to corporate consumers(76, 77). Such product-service systems (PSSs)have the potential to make some PCS more sus-tainable (77–79). The central idea is that dema-terialization can be achieved through service orasset use rather than product or asset ownership(78, 80) (Table 1).

A business that pursues this strategy can dif-ferentiate itself from competitors as offeringsomething of higher value than just a stand-alone product. From the consumer’s perspec-tive, they get better functionality. One good ex-ample is the total-care package that Rolls Royceprovides airlines by which the company main-tains the ownership of the engines (81).

Research on PSSs is largely based on quali-tative case studies documenting success stories.Baines et al. (81) argue that stakeholders needto be involved in research to help test and guidetheory on the basis of emerging practices. Al-though practices are likely to expand on suchmerits as a competitive strategy, it is less obvi-ous that the sustainability gains are automatic.For this reason, research to assess how shiftsto PSSs affect overall material and energy useremain important.

Consumer benefits include reduced respon-sibility for monitoring, taking care of, andreplacing/disposing of the product (81, 82). APSS may also provide greater flexibility in up-grading as a customer’s needs evolve and as so-lutions are less tied to asset management con-straints. Successful PSSs are usually designedwith the involvement and perspective of users(81) or codesign (see previous section). Such


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


engagement is especially important to captureindirect and nonfunctional issues in design (77).

Mont (83), for example, described an effortto reduce environmental impacts through fa-cilitation of consumers and other stakeholdersin the design of a workable system for sharingpower tools and garden equipment. From theconsumers’ perspective, a tool could be sharedwhen it is infrequently used, and neighborhoodaccess could be more convenient then rental.Producing firms or retailers would have littleinterest in dealing with households individually,but a business model could be derived througha middleman. Because there were uncertain-ties, she adopted a scenario planning approachthrough which stakeholders could explore thestrengths and weaknesses in different businessmodels and refine a business solution (83). Eachof the business model scenarios were assessedfor both cost and environmental performance,and the obstacles and benefits to different actorswere evaluated. This example also illustratesthe benefits of codesign; typically a critical fea-ture in developing integrated product-servicesolutions.

Halme and colleagues (84) considered sus-tainable home services including a social di-mension in addition to eco-efficiency. Theirevaluation of sustainable services was basedon equity, health, safety, security, comfort, so-cial contacts, empowerment, information, andawareness in addition to traditional criteria,such as energy use and waste. Also economiccriteria were taken into account, including em-ployment, profitability for the provider, andprofitability for the community. They foundthat easy and flexible access to the service was akey factor in success. Ecological improvementswere not an outcome of consumer demand, butconsumers were important in designing suchimprovements. Their study, analyzing 200 casesin six European countries in fields, such as re-pair, supply and disposal, and care and supervi-sion, was developed into a model for providingorientation and guidance to those who intendto establish a sustainable home service or wouldlike to develop an existing one in a more sus-tainable direction.

Partidario et al. (85) describe a multistake-holder process used to design, test, and refinea product-service solution to provide food forelderly people living at home and for work-ers in isolated industrial estates without foodprovision. The solution included private andpublic partners. The idea of incorporating sus-tainability was introduced early on in the pro-cess. Simple criteria and methods were usedto assess the solution against social, environ-mental, and economic criteria, identifying im-provements in alternatives and areas whereimprovements were needed (i.e., increasedpackaging and thus waste). This study illus-trates the value of a systems-oriented andcontext/place-sensitive approach to transform-ing production-consumption problems.

There are important barriers to PSSs fromboth producer and consumer perspectives.Consumers may be reluctant to accept own-erless consumption (81). Products that are notowned have less symbolic value, and these val-ues may even be more important than func-tional ones (77). Outsourcing could lead tomore careless behavior (86). Conventional mar-keting techniques may be needed to overcomeresistance to, and make more attractive, PSSsolutions (77). Finally, in order to meet cus-tomer acceptance, PSSs should be designed tominimize transaction costs, for example, by de-centralizing product pools, introducing deliv-ery services, or optimizing the user interface(87).

Producers are concerned with price, takingon additional risks, and making the changesto the structure and skill base of an organiza-tion that are required to be service oriented(81). Not enough is known about how to man-age such transitions within firms. Some of thechallenges of transforming firm capacity to aPSS suggest that an alternative might be useof specialized third-party firms that take on theservice-system design functions.

Evidence of sustainability from reduced en-vironmental loads is modest and case specific(88). Car sharing, for example, does not neces-sarily reduce number of new cars made. In spiteof an impressive and diverse range of successful

252 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


case studies, there is still only a modest levelof systematic knowledge to help design a PSS,especially if the focus is on improving sustain-ability of PCSs. Trends showing increased useof PSS models in industry will not automaticallyimprove environmental outcomes (88), but theycould be harnessed to do so.

In creative communities, citizens them-selves develop collaborative services towardsustainable ways of living. In a comparison ofEuropean initiatives of creative communitieswith examples from Brazil, India, and China,Manzini and colleagues (89) studied how en-terprising people are inventing and putting intopractice original ways of dealing with everydayproblems: from childcare and care of the elderlyto getting hold of food, from looking after greenspaces to alternative means of transport, andfrom building new solidarity networks to thecreation of new forms of housing and sharedfacilities and services.

They found that the new collaborative en-gagements are roughly the same in emergingcountries as in most industrialized regions. Cre-ative communities and collaborative servicesare very diverse in their nature and in the waythey operate. But they are always innovationsof local systems in the sense that they challengetraditional ways of doing things and introducea set of new, more sustainable ones throughbringing production and consumption of ser-vices back to direct exchange systems.

3.6. Certify and Label

The core idea behind certification and label-ing is that with better, trustworthy informa-tion about individual products or overall house-hold energy and material use, people will electto change their behavior so as to reduce envi-ronmental impacts (Table 1). Standards, codes,and labels are supposed to fill the informationgap by providing the characteristics of productand processes in a summarized, easily accessibleform.

Practitioners and scholars frequently con-sider standards and codes of conduct a power-ful instrument to influence the sustainability of

production and consumption decisions. Moststudies focus on particular schemes or take aresource at risk, e.g., an ocean fishery, and lookat the contribution of existing and potentialalternative certification and labeling schemes.This analysis is often institutional and stake-holder based. Attitudinal studies of consumersare common, but more in-depth studies of ac-tual practices when making purchase decisionsare rarer.

Labels are claims made by sellers about theirproducts to potential buyers (90). Those thatmake claims about sustainability are in partmarketing tools, but also claims about what isthe right thing to do, both for consumer andproducer (26, 54). Literature distinguishes be-tween Type I labels, which are part of a volun-tary third-party program that awards a licenseand authorizes the use of environmental labelson products; Type II labels, which are informa-tive environmental self-declaration claims; andType III labels, which are part of voluntary pro-grams set by a qualified third party and verifiedby that or another qualified third party.

It is the Type I and Type III labels that makethe difference and provide a linkage within thePCS. Such labels introduce cooperative ele-ments into the relationships, for example, toachieve quality assurance in the supply chain.An example is the first worldwide environ-mental label, the Blue Angel (Blauer Engel),a German certification for products and ser-vices that have environmentally friendly as-pects. The certificate has been awarded since1978 by an independent jury consisting of en-vironment and consumer protection groups,industry, unions, trade, media, and churches.By now, it certifies 10,000 products from 1000licensees.

Experiences with ecolabels as communica-tion instruments suggest that many can be bet-ter designed, especially by paying more atten-tion to context in which they are used (91).Negative and positive labels appeal to differ-ent consumers; ecolabels largely appeal to con-sumers who already have environmental in-terest (91). Establishing trust is an importantbut difficult challenge. De Boer, for example,


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


analyzed what labeling means for producers,consumers, policymakers, and other groups insociety and summed up his findings as “pro-ducers and consumers are still learning how tocommunicate about sustainability issues in thecontext of the marketplace” (90).

Although there are examples of labels thatincrease awareness and shift practices, often theshare of market affected is small, and gaps re-main between values and actions (92, 93). Justproviding more information on labels is not suf-ficient to change behavior (94). One reason isthat much daily behavior is habitual, involv-ing relatively automated behavior scripts ratherthan cognitive reasoning. Routines are of greatpractical importance. When such behavior isreinforced by immediate rewards, however,they may be hard to change even if long-runoutcomes are bad, for example, the nicotine kickfrom cigarettes, which cause lung cancer (95).

Conventional marketing techniques mayhelp improve the impact of labeling schemes,for example, by shifting emphasis on labels asproduct information to a promotion tool (91).This is especially important for expanding ap-peal beyond already green consumers, a key fac-tor if such schemes are going to really impactsustainability. The promotion of green prod-ucts has relied too strongly on ecolabels in isola-tion and could make better use of the full rangeof marketing tools available (91).

Certification schemes themselves often lackindependence, quality, and fairness. Often thisis because they are not developed with open de-liberation among all parties in the PCS and thusend up reflecting too narrowly the perspectivesof a particular stakeholder group, i.e., retailers,consumers, or producers. The financial incen-tives associated with environmental labels canbe high; in the case of the seafood industry, thishas led to proliferation of self-attributed, mis-leading ecolabels for products that further un-dermine already collapsing fisheries (96, 97).

Two detailed examples illustrate the chal-lenges for pursuing a sustainable PCS throughcertification and labeling: ecotourism andfarmed shrimp.

Tourism is the second largest sector in theCosta Rican economy. Along with the hotelsector, tourism has grown quickly with corre-spondingly detrimental impacts on the environ-ment. In 1997, the Ministry of Tourism devel-oped a sustainable tourism certification scheme,targeting hotels, to verify and reward actionstoward environmental sustainability taken be-yond regulatory compliance practices (98). Thevoluntary scheme was codesigned with hotelmanagers and associations, academics, and en-vironmental organizations. The Ministry ofTourism has promoted the program in nationaladvertisements since 2000. Other countries andthe World Tourism Organization have alsoadopted the voluntary program. Riviera’s study(98) found that government monitoring, tradeassociation membership, and a focus on greenconsumers were important factors for partici-pation in the scheme. The presence of a largegreen tourism consumer segment in Costa Ricawas a factor in both the success of the programand the kind of hotels joined. But hotels inter-ested in environmental sustainable and certifi-cation are still very much in the minority; onlyabout 10% of hotels, overall, choose to enroll.

Several initiatives are under way to certifyecotourism, using criteria that should providebenefits to local communities. Developing cer-tification criteria and schemes can be difficult.Medina’s (99) study of stakeholders in the Belizetourism industry found that different local andinternational stakeholders had divergent viewson what counts as local benefit and participa-tion. In her view, efforts must be made to har-monize and define key terms for certification tosucceed.

Certification for farmed shrimp in Thailandhas had strong industry involvement from thebeginning (100), arguably laying the foundationfor formal regulations and mandatory certifica-tion schemes now emerging in practice. Adop-tion of the Code of Conduct (COC) for shrimpaquaculture was slow. A second incarnation,the Good Aquaculture Practices (GAP) pro-gram has been much more quickly and widelyadopted. One reason is that processors were

254 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


making GAP certification mandatory, follow-ing bans by EU of imports because of nitrofuranresidues (47). Another reason appears to havebeen the ease with which certification could beacquired (24). Affected people in local commu-nities were not involved in setting the COC orGAP standards; they are only referred to underthe standards on social responsibility (24).

More recently tensions have risen because ofapparent lack of independence and consultationwith developing country stakeholders. Thus,Wal-Mart, the world’s biggest retailer, now re-quires those who sell shrimp to them to be cer-tified by the Aquaculture Certification Coun-cil (ACC). The ACC scheme was developed bythe Global Aquaculture Alliance, a shrimp in-dustry consortium in the United States, whichalso helped forge the initial deal with Wal-Mart.Smaller firms are likely to be at a disadvantage incertification schemes driven by external actorsas negotiation with shrimp farmers is absentfrom their business arrangements (24). Greaterengagement with producers and the communi-ties in which they work, whether shrimp farm-ers or ecotourism guides, is needed in develop-ing certification schemes.

Information about impacts, both adverseimpacts on the environment and, less fre-quently, positive impacts on livelihoods, hasclearly been the focus of many initiatives aimedat making PCSs more sustainable. But the re-sults have often been disappointing when care-fully scrutinized. Scholarship has cataloged adiverse range of reasons why information is of-ten not enough and underlined that informa-tion provisions in certification and labeling arepart and parcel of consumption politics.

3.7. Trade Fairly

The notion of fair trade has been around for awhile, but only recently has it begun to takeon economic and political significance (101).The pursuit of greater equity in internationaltrade has been driven by concerns for a greatershare in the benefits of resource use and eco-nomic development for workers and farmersin developing countries. The agendas pursued

by organizations in developed, and increasinglywithin developing, countries are diverse. Issuesof fair trade have become linked with issuesof environmental sustainability. The proposi-tion is that markets and trade that aim to re-duce poverty by improving the livelihoods ofpoor producers can be designed to simultane-ously address issues of ecological and economicsustainability (Table 1).

Fair trade research falls largely into threegroups: studies of producer communities en-deavoring to engage in and benefit from thosemarkets (102), studies of initiatives to supportfair trade (101), and studies grounded in insti-tutional analysis and political economy (103).

Smith (102), for example, studied the experi-ence of the coffee cooperative COOPABUENAin southern Costa Rica. Despite substantial ef-forts, fair trade markets were never more thana small fraction of total trade, and ultimately,the cooperative could not help its producerssurvive as markets changed. This was in spiteof a mature institutional setting. More than50 years earlier, the democratic cooperative, amarketing system, and supportive state laws,which limit charges processors and sellers coulddeduct from the price of coffee beans, were es-tablished. When prices were high, fair tradedid not yield better prices than conventionalones. When coffee prices were low (in the early1990s) production of fair trade was too smalla share of the total to help because growingconditions limited expansion of favored organicproducts within areas of this cooperative (102).Eventually, an alternative initiative using directmarketing of sustainable coffee helped 50 ofsome 800 members of the cooperative. The de-tailed history of the cooperative is an illustra-tion of a more general claim that “for manyfarmers around the world, fair trade remains apromise rather than a reality, revealing itself notas a supportive community, but as a demandingmarket” (102, p. 97).

Initiatives to support fair trade include ef-forts to create alternative trading networks (54),market products labeled as coming from fairtrade, and promote fair trade as an alternativein order to influence purchasing practices and


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


trade rules (101). Fair trade agreements withproducers usually include minimum price andmay also provide advance working capital orpremiums for development (101).

Alternative trading networks may includespecialist shops with direct links to producers.One strategy has been to shrink PCSs throughlocalization strategies (see Section 5.2). Thisapproach draws on the subset of consumerslinked to activist networks (101). The majorEuropean fair trade company GEPA is work-ing together with producers in over 160 coop-eratives and marketing organizations in Africa,Asia, and Latin America and sells their productsin 800 world shops, via 6000 action groups, aswell as in supermarkets.

Using a commodity network framework,Raynolds (104) analyzed the multifaceted con-nections linking consumers and producers inexpanding North/South fair trade networks.Within them, progressive ideas and practicesrelated to trust, equality, and global respon-sibility are intertwined with traditional com-mercial and industrial conventions. The nego-tiation of these divergent conventions via thealternative trading organizations shortens thesocial distance between fair trade consumersand producers.

More typical are certification schemes thatdepend on using information on labels to influ-ence purchasing behavior of retailers and con-sumers in more conventional shopping situa-tions (see Section 4.2). Fair trade can provideretailers with opportunities to demonstrate cor-porate social responsibility. By selling fair tradeproducts, retail organizations can tap into a newand growing market and, in the process, en-hance their own brand value. Fair trade, on theother hand, can provide small producers betteraccess to markets.

Campaigns to promote fair trade target re-tailers, government purchasers, internationalagencies, and individual consumers. Activistshave provided substantial support to fair tradeas an alternative to conventional internationaltrade. The extent of penetration of fair tradeproducts into markets varies hugely amongproducts and countries. Fair trade in Europe has

a long history and is now increasingly a main-stream marketing channel (105). In the UnitedStates, growth is more recent, especially aftercreation of the labeling organization Transfairin 1998. Market share of fair trade coffee in theUnited States increased from 0.6% to 4.3% be-tween 2000 and 2006 (101).

Institutional, cultural, and political anal-yses underline more nuanced relationshipscreated by fair trade. Fisher (103), for exam-ple, explores the notion of fair trade as “com-modified activism.” In her analysis, she teasesapart commodification’s association (giving ex-change value) with alienation (Marx’s commod-ity fetishism) and concludes, contrarily, that thegrowth of fair trade is evidence for expandingsocial awareness and activism. Campaigns forfair trade create representations that let con-sumers feel good about themselves, or demon-strate “caring at a distance,” but these may notreflect the perspectives of producers in devel-oping countries (106).

Even so, overall, there has been little consid-eration of who can participate in fair trade. Arethe ways and places in which fair trade productsare marketed and sold excluding certain classesof people from involvement? Who gets to feelgood about buying fair trade coffee?

Although many fair trades are still drivenby retailers and consumers in northern coun-tries, this is changing. Producers in southerncountries are not only target beneficiaries butalso the originators of fair trade initiatives, of-ten with some state involvement. Within thedeveloped and developing countries, the largedomestic markets are increasingly considered asapproachable from the fair trade angle withina country (107). These shifts may affect howfair trade is seen in northern consumer markets,with repercussions for producers in developingcountries.

While fair trade grows with greater partic-ipation of big business, there are risks that theoriginal objectives of redistribution of value-added products will not be met (54). One rea-son is that the distance between consumersand producers increases as more intermediateplayers and institutions take shape. Standards

256 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


and quality assurance criteria, for example, canmake it difficult for the very producers that fairtrade was supposed to help, and instead createclubs of privileged producers much like thosefor any other boutique product.

Looking ahead, it is clear that issues of gov-ernance will stay at the fore, shaping how bene-fits, burdens, and risks will be distributed withinthe PCS (44). Meaningful representation ofinterests of small producers in developing coun-tries will be critical to negotiations and moni-toring of fair trade. More research is needed oninitiatives promoted as fair trade, teasing apartthe claims made from practices and impacts.

The consumer’s participation in global foodproduction networks should be explored forways that small-scale farmers can benefit (108).One example might be to exploit the docu-mented interest of wealthy consumers in un-usual, or unfamiliar, foods and for which highpremiums are willingly paid.

A PCS perspective is particularly salient tothe study of fair trade because fruitful inquirycan begin at many different points in the sys-tem. Starting with consumers, important workhas been done on consumer movements andhow they build relations with producers in al-ternative schemes or seek to expand support forfair trade through labels in mainstream marketchannels. Starting with producers, research hasexplored how producers cope with the demandsof fair trade markets.

3.8. Market Ethically

Advertising and marketing play a critical rolein what is consumed and how much. It is thedominant operating system by which a cap-italist world economy is driven. Clever mar-keting exhorts us with countless promises ofconvenience, comfort, and pleasure. Retailers,through advertising, do not just stimulate de-mand but create wants (109).

Consumers are increasingly bombardedby messages from retailers, marketing firms,government agencies, and consumer organiza-tions. Consumer confusion arises from infor-mation overload, brand similarity, and mislead-

ing or ambiguous information (110). Confusionis an important barrier to information-basedcampaigns that try to influence consumptionchoices along more sustainable pathways (111).

A lot of advertising is embedded in spon-sorship of events, in soap operas, and in “newsinfo-tisements.” Firms pay to have their prod-ucts placed in film frames outside the conven-tional commercial broadcast slots.

Consumers have to learn to deconstruct ad-vertising messages however they appear. Anexample is the anticonsumerism organizationAdbuster (112). Adbuster challenges the dom-inant messages of multinational corporationsand consumer capitalism not simply by usingfactual information, rational argumentation, le-gal language, and traditional political tactics,but also by turning the commercial techniquesof image and emotion back on itself with theidea of “subvertisement.” Successful Adbustersubvertisements include those parodying alco-hol, cigarettes, fast food, and the fashion indus-try (113).

Children are particularly vulnerable targetsof marketing. Schor (114) for example esti-mated that 40,000 ad messages a year were di-rected at the average U.S. child, with budgetsof as much as US$15 billion targeted at chil-dren under age 12. This is a threat for sustain-ability insofar as it intends to raise generationsconditioned to the idea that people shop for ac-ceptance by the family and to show they careand they love (114). But children can also learnto deconstruct media messages if parents andfriends help deconstruct marketing and adver-tising ploys as a pastime.

Some actors, accepting the basic tenets ofthe global economic system either as desir-able or inevitable, nevertheless argue that thereshould be ethical, culturally negotiated limitson what marketing tactics are acceptable in so-ciety (Table 1). Ethical marketing provides aframework of cultural and social values for theconsumer through an honest and factual repre-sentation of a product. The philosophy of mar-keting is not lost with the ethical approach, butrather it hopes to win customer loyalty by rein-forcing the positive values of the brand. As part


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


of the philosophy, ethical marketing should tar-get only consumers who can perceive and un-derstand the persuasive tactics in commercials.Ethical marketing should only promote prod-ucts that are not harmful to children, and evenproducts that are widely seen as valuable andgood for children should not be marketed indeceptive and manipulative ways (115).

Beyond these considerations on adver-tising in general, environmental claims inmarketing also deserve special attention.Ginsberg & Bloom (116) recognized that greenmarketing—as developed in the mid-1990s—has not lived up to the hopes and dreams ofmany managers and activists. Although publicopinion polls consistently show that consumerswould prefer to choose a green product over onethat is less friendly to the environment whenall other things are equal, those other thingsare rarely equal in the minds of consumers.For example, when consumers are forced tomake trade-offs between product attributes orhelping the environment, the environment al-most never wins. Still, the number of peoplewho are willing to pay a premium for greenproducts from organic foods to energy-efficientappliances is growing. Companies intending togo for green marketing must keep in mind thatconsumers are unlikely to compromise on tradi-tional product attributes, such as convenience,availability, price, quality, and performance.

Environmental marketing is also a difficultissue from another perspective. A remarkableamount of products, from yogurt to cars, areadvertised either with explicit reference to bet-ter environmental performance or more subtleuse of images with a natural landscape or otherenvironmental features. This green washing ison the edge of misleading advertising and canproduce a backlash from environmental or con-sumer protection organizations.

This leads to a third pillar of the market eth-ically strategy: regulative instruments are re-quired. A multicountry review of policies toregulate food advertising on television aimed atchildren found that the tension between leg-islation and voluntary codes is strong (117).The food advertising industry is still in self-

interested denial over the impacts of their ef-forts on food choice. Few countries take theoutright ban route, but one of the exceptions isSweden.

In Sweden, all advertising aimed at childrenunder the age of 12 years is banned, as are adver-tisements before or after children’s programs.The guiding principle is fair play and protec-tion of children from undue influence. It is re-markable that this initiative was introduced notto serve a specific goal, e.g., to reduce obesityor to improve health per se. Instead, it is seenas a matter of human rights built on findingsfrom research that children under 12 years ofage cannot clearly distinguish advertising mes-sages from program content. The Swedish Cul-ture Minister has called for children to be de-clared a “commercial-free zone” (117).

To conclude, in a sustainable PCS, adher-ing to ethical marketing principles should bepart of corporate social and environmental re-sponsibility policies. Combined with other en-abling mechanisms, e.g., consumer campaigns,this may help build partnerships among actorsthat truly span a PCS. If not, regulatory forcesshould consider how to value consumers’ hu-man rights as stronger than the forces of thefree market.

3.9. Buy ResponsiblyBuying responsibly is recognized as a rela-tively recent phenomena of consumer engage-ment for the environment or for sustainabil-ity. Robins & Roberts (118) describe the 1990smainly as a shift from “voluntary simplicity”and “boycotting the bad” to marketing pro-moting the “good goods.” Several authors (58,119) describe the change in societal percep-tion in the Netherlands. They note that thefocus has shifted from appealing to consumers’responsibility for their own consumption lev-els in the 1980s toward green niche marketsand products at the end of twentieth cen-tury. By now, a remarkable number of peo-ple belong to the consumer market segmentknown as LOHAS or “lifestyle of health andsustainability,” providing a clear target for mar-keting and advertising (120).

258 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Consumption has become a rallying cryaround which social protest and pressuregroups have amalgamated, with highly diverseinterests, ideologies, and priorities (121). In-formed consumption choices, it is argued, will,in a democratic and voluntary way, bring aboutenvironmental and justice gains (97). Label-ing, discussed above, is based on such an as-sumption. Here, we focus on the campaignside in which people are encouraged to buyresponsibly (Table 1).

Key studies have been done on campaignsby government agencies and consumer groups.These can be, and are often, contrasted withconventional tactics in marketing. Other schol-ars have focused more broadly on the differ-ent ways buying responsibly is articulated andpracticed, asking questions about its relevanceto politics and consumption.

As the language and practices of the marketincreasingly infiltrate government-citizen rela-tions around the world, the ideal consumer par-ticipation is that with environmental concernsincorporated into consumer preferences, or asShove (122) puts it, “policy makers encourageconsumers to make ‘the environment’ their pre-ferred brand as part of a broader strategy ofecologically modernizing their lives.”

Ethical consumption and related move-ments should be seen as a form of political ac-tivism (123). The point is to act (124) throughboycotts of products from firms with bad prac-tices or by switching to those with positive as-sociations, such as a fair trade label, as an act ofsolidarity. As a form of individualistic activism,campaigns are needed to document trends andrecruit new followers. Magazines and brochuresplay mobilizing roles by recounting ethical acts(125). Much of the activism is not directedat the state but at firms, sectors, and inter-national institutions and so looks beyond thestate.

Social movements, which seek to alter con-sumer behavior directly, draw on the idea thatthe movement is beneficial to the individualand, at the same time, should also throughdemonstration effect lead others to adopt suchpractices (126). But people often feel that the

impacts of their own changes in behavior onenvironment are trivial. Collecting informationabout indicators of benefit are an important toolused by the Global Action Plan (127), an in-dependent organization founded in the UnitedStates in 1989 with the aim of providing infor-mation on how to live more sustainably. Con-sumer movements also “must walk a tightropebetween conviction and conversion and avoidthe pitfalls that come from turning mainstreamconsumers into adversaries” (121).

Communicating information concerningproduct characteristics is easier than telling apotential buyer how it was made or how itshould be thrown away. Trade-offs betweenfunctional qualities of a product and ethical val-ues constrain such campaigns (128). A tactic,therefore, is to emphasize that ethical valuescan support the functional qualities of a prod-uct and thus create market value (people willpay more). One example, might be “organic”foods, which, because chemicals are not used inproduction, are also viewed as healthy. Durabil-ity and energy efficiency are other qualities thatcan be linked to ethical value. Such tactics areimportant; otherwise, green consumers may re-spond positively to surveys but fail to buy greenproducts (91).

By contrast, many consumer campaigns aresimplistic narratives of a commodity culture.Fair trade promotions of solidarity or shoppingfor the environment draw on standard imageryand stereotypes of the peoples and places we areasked to care about (106). Alternative consumeridentities are manufactured. Consumption canbe about creating personal identity, satisfyingfeelings, performing civic duty, and compen-sating for social exclusion (129). A study ofIrish consumers suggest they look at waste, butnot consumption, as an environmental problem(130). As green consumers they look for a com-munication value in commodities that supporta particular green image (130). Conventionalmarketing and alternatives already have muchmore in common than perhaps either would bewilling to admit (91).

Most consumer education campaigns startfrom a rather narrow base of assumptions about


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


lifestyles and values. For example, assumptionsstill linger that ethical and environmental con-sumers are the relatively wealthy (and usu-ally white and western) individuals who possess“postmaterialist” values (131). This is true re-gardless of whether the origins are with stateagencies or for-profit or nongovernmental or-ganizations (132, 133). The little research thatexplores such consumers’ motivations and val-ues in-depth challenges the generalized as-sumptions of who, what, and why individualstake part in alternate forms of consumption(134).

The shopping metaphor has some limita-tions because of its association with householdsand physical products. Procurement policies ofgovernments and firms, not just households, arecrucial to the sustainability of PCSs. These be-haviors are not properly captured by scholar-ship on greening supply chains by key firms, asthey do not reflect the significant marketing andother information campaigns to which govern-ment departments and firms are also exposed. Aconsumption perspective is helpful throughoutthe PCS (1).

Power to influence the PCS can be gainedfrom public procurement. WSSD committedpublic authorities to “promote public procure-ment policies that encourage development anddiffusion of environmentally sound goods andservices” (9). The possibility of using the pur-chasing power of public authorities covers awide range of products and services, such aselectronic devices, cleaning and maintenance,food and catering, construction, transport, andgreen electricity (135).

Firms are in some ways similar to govern-ments or households as consumers. Like con-ventional consumers their procurement prac-tices are constrained by the limitations of whatcompeting suppliers can provide; but unlike theshopper in a supermarket, the capacity of corefirms to dictate “must-have features” is muchmore powerful and less dependent on marketfeatures, whereas smaller suppliers are oftenin dependent relationships with their “motherfirm.”

3.10. Use Less

The logic of buying responsibly, pursued fur-ther, can introduce the option of not buyingat all. Some people choose to consume less(Table 1). Their motivations are diverse. Someare primarily concerned with environment,whereas others believe that living more simplywill improve the quality of their life (68, 136).Of course, some people live simply because theycannot afford to do otherwise; this section is notconcerned with involuntary simplifiers.

The growing literature on sustainable con-sumption underlines that consumer behavioris key to the impact that a society has on theenvironment (137). Sustainable consumptionis becoming a new focus for national and in-ternational policy (13). A lot of attention isgiven to increasing the efficiency of consump-tion; a consumer’s responsibility is to buy eco-efficient products. Improving efficiency is anecessary prerequisite for achieving sustainableconsumption, but it is not sufficient because ef-ficiency gains are easily overcompensated bygrowth in consumption volumes (138). Effi-cient consumption alone can only lead to a weakversion of sustainable consumption. Strong sus-tainable consumption also requires changes inconsumption patterns and reductions in con-sumption by the global consumer class. Optionssimply to buy less need to be supported throughchanges in public infrastructures as well as per-sonal and societal questioning of the levels anddrivers of consumption (139).

3.10.1. Simplify. Much of the early researchon downshifting and voluntary simplicity has apromotional flavor, but more recent scholarshiphas helped differentiate the motivations and im-pacts of different degrees and styles of changein practice. Other work has been focused moreon the potential to expand the number ofthose who engage in these social movements;analyses for Australia suggest that “downshift-ing,” or choosing to work less, is a widespreadphenomenon (140).

Voluntary simplicity and downshiftingmovements often start with the basic findings

260 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


from research or personal experience thatconspicuous and high levels of consumptionalong with the work needed to maintain themdo not make you happy (141–144). Consumersin this movement are already recognized as amarket segment by experts under the acronymLOVOS, meaning a lifestyle of voluntarysimplicity.

For many, downshifting that reduces stressfrom overwork is the primary objective (136).For some, reducing adverse environmental im-pacts of consumption are an acknowledged sidebenefit (145, 146). Trading income for time maybe popular with employees but may be harderfor firms to support without other changes inpolicy, for example, correspondingly reducedresponsibilities for welfare contributions (147).

More rarely, altruistic feelings, caring forothers or the environment, are given as pri-mary reasons. Most people, however, who adoptmore sustainable lifestyles have perceptionsabout personal benefits from doing so (68). Fo-cusing on personal benefits and motivations,such as having more time with children or be-coming less attached to material objects, maybe an effective way to promote responsible con-sumption and lifestyles (68).

The observation that simplifying gives peo-ple a sense of increased control over their lives isnoted in several studies (136). Simplifying, likeother forms of resistance, promotes alternativevalues and behaviors, e.g., sufficiency, frugal-ity, charity, and humility (137, 148). Althoughvoluntary simplicity movements do not have acoherent political agenda, there continues to bea significant engagement of their participants incommunity and neighborhood affairs; they arenot a retreat from civic life (143).

At the same time, simplicity can be, andoften is, successfully marketed to consumers.Thus, simple is associated with plain and natu-ral colors on the supermarket shelf (68). Volun-tary simplicity as such can be critiqued as havingparallels with other personal improvement fadslike crash diets. The broad participation acrossclass in various studies of simplifiers would tendto argue against this view (143), but not many

of these studies really have much in the way oflonger-term follow-up.

Although there may be a so-called doubledividend from using less, i.e., better quality oflife and less impact on the environment, it maynot be easy to guide PCSs in ways that cre-ate such opportunities given all other factorsat play (126). Experiments show consumers areloss adverse; they are more willing to risk in-come or benefits not yet received than give up,or risk, what they already have (147). Socialstatus and conventions constrain efforts to re-duce household energy use (4). Consumer be-haviors, through who they exclude or include,help maintain class structures (150, 151).

Alcott (152) takes a global perspective onsimplicity, or the sufficiency strategy as he callsit. Based on the classic equation (I = PAT)relating environmental impact (I) to the in-teraction of population (P), affluence (A), andtechnology (T), he expects sufficiency to causea rebound effect if the affluence factor is au-tonomously lowered. With lower demand fromthe affluent, prices will lower too, stimulatingdemand by others. Simplicity, if it is to con-tribute to sustainability, needs to be assessed andpursued within a PCS framework.

3.10.2. Localize. Another common strategypromoted to use less is to localize. As with sim-plifying and downshifting, localizing discoursesand practices are diverse. The localization ofeconomies, often linked with notions of build-ing or strengthening communities, has been ar-ticulated by many as a desirable alternative orantidote to changes brought by globalization.The links and disconnects between localizingand simplifying are underexplored.

Research either in favor or critiquing localfood provision initiatives rarely provides quan-titative assessments or other evidence about im-pacts except from general arguments. One ap-proach has been to estimate costs associatedwith transport of food in the notion of “foodmiles” (153). But some places are highly unsuit-able for making particular products that con-sumers want, and thus attempts to reduce food


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


miles might make things worse (154). It is farfrom clear, for example, that it is ecologically orsocially better for dryland American farmers togrow rice than Vietnamese or Thai farmers inthe wet tropics. Moreover, local food may notbe organic compared to that which could beimported. Narrow claims about level, as in lo-cal or regional, need to be understood as a formof politics of scale without necessarily imply-ing anything about sustainability or justice (53,155). A successful example of localization is theSlow Food movement in Italy. Established inthe mid-1980s, it has continuously spread andgrown since then. Although many of its mem-bers seek to celebrate the simple pleasures ofeating and drinking local produce and sharea series of homespun philosophies, the move-ment itself has ambitious and potentially far-reaching goals in its criticism of the fast-foodindustry (156).

Important contributions to localization aremade by the local exchange trading scheme(LETS). Most analyses of LETS focuses onlocal economic development. Seyfang (157)concentrates on localization and self-reliance:(a) shifting consumption patterns toward shar-ing, recycling, reuse, and reducing resource use;and (b) building green social networks. Herfindings indicate that these community cur-rencies are successful in allowing participantsto make small changes in their lifestyles, con-sumption, and employment patterns, but thesefindings also identify limitations of size, scope,funding, and management to be overcome be-fore this can be achieved more effectively withLETS.

Not only food or products are broughtto more distant places. The consumption ofleisure travel and tourism is hugely significantto the footprints of places, households, and na-tions (158), and these effects are less well under-stood from the perspective of sustainability thanother domains. In part, this is because there areindicators that the leisure travel basket is hardto green or reduce (58).

A footprint analysis of inbound tourism toAmsterdam suggested that bringing touristsfrom closer locations could reduce environ-

mental impacts (158). A shift in marketing strat-egy away from long hauls to more local marketsis plausible in that tourist accommodation de-mand exceeds supply in high season periods. Anexploration at the national level for France sug-gests that tourism/leisure-related greenhousegas emissions could rise substantially becauseof long-haul travel by a relatively small groupof frequent travelers (159).

3.10.3. Actioning. Participation in sustain-able consumption initiatives is often framedin international and national policy documentsand practices as the meeting of positive en-vironmental values with rational consumptionchoices (160). However, individual dispositionsdo not do a very good job of explaining be-havior (161). Corral-Verdurgo (162) found thatMexican housewives’ self-reports on reuse andrecycling did not match their observed behav-ior. Beliefs predicted self-reported conservationbehavior, but competencies (assessed by perfor-mance in a direct demonstration exercise) wereassociated with observed behavior.

Most actors have difficulties accepting andlinking broad messages about environmen-tal sustainability with narrow experiences andknowledge in everyday life, for instance, aroundtheir home (163). Unless the messages fit withcommon sense thinking, they may not lead tochanges of practices (163). By contrast, routinesare affected by changes to technologies in ev-eryday use (164).

Global Action Plan UK has a program, Ac-tion at Home, that aims to help “households toreduce their impacts on environment and savemoney” (163). One of the innovative featuresof the program is the use of support groups.According to the chair, a key lesson learnedhas been that “individual behavioural changesare easier to make as a member of a socialgroup than alone” (127). This is in sharp con-trast to the mainstream framing of consumptionresearch, and policies on media-based blitzes,aimed at inspiring changes in behavior by indi-vidual consumers.

Hobson’s (163) study of the Global ActionProgram in two contrasting locations, however,

262 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


showed that the behaviors changed were no orlow cost, e.g., turning off lights. In these cases,thinking about habits led to new habits. Otherpractices were much more resilient; shoppingand car-use practices rarely changed. At thesame time, participants in the program demon-strated an understanding of how they were be-ing manipulated, for example, through adver-tising or retailing practices (163).

There is clearly a need for more studieson how to link broader goals of sustainabil-ity with everyday contexts and heuristics (165).Studies of simplifying, localizing, and actionmovements are valuable (166). The need is par-ticularly great in nonwestern societies as theprevailing assumption of international agenciesand consumer organizations may simply not ap-ply in different cultural contexts. A better un-derstanding could also help resolve the dilemmain which the vast majority of people still viewsustainable consumption as a sacrifice and bor-ing, or only relevant to developed countries.Downshifting is of special interest because itaffects both production and consumption ac-tivities simultaneously but is not motivated byconcerns with environmental impact, so someof the sustainability side benefits may not besecure.

3.11. Increase Wisely

Chronic and pervasive underconsumption isnot sustainable or just. It may also, in some cir-cumstances, create problems for environmentalsustainability that keep people poor and mis-erable as the immediate necessity to focus onshort-term survival can limit investments inlong-term solutions. Increasing consumptionopportunities for the poor, to meet both basicneeds and pursue growing aspirations, can bewise (Table 1). The pollution, waste, and inef-ficiency problems experienced by countries thatindustrialized first, for example, do not needto be repeated with expanding wealth and in-creasing economic activity (167). Experienceswith better technologies and social policies canbe drawn upon to help build sustainability con-cerns into a PCS from near its beginnings.

There is, of course, a huge field of scholar-ship on poverty and development. In this sec-tion, we focus on a few examples of initiativesinformed by production and consumption per-spectives to address underconsumption.

3.11.1. Trade and investment. The global-ization of trade, and how it is being ruled, cre-ates challenges and opportunities for sustain-ability arising from the different ways flows ofmoney, commodities, resources, and people aretreated. We have already considered the exam-ple of fair trade and ethical consumption, whichcan be pro-poor. Trade policies that link to-gether low-consumption countries could helpimprove their competitiveness (168), but thereare also other challenges and opportunities inglobalization.

Trade liberalization can drive overexploita-tion of natural resources in developing coun-tries to produce agricultural products for con-sumers in developed countries. But on the otherside, as a result of shortages of farm labor, agri-culture in developed countries depends muchmore on chemical, mechanical, and energy in-puts, and this also has significant environmentalimpacts (169). One way of enabling more sus-tainable food systems, therefore, would be toallow greater freedom of labor to move fromdeveloping to developed countries. Such poli-cies, however, can face political, cultural, andnationalist constraints.

Shah (169), in response, suggests as an al-ternative, or complement, compensatory flowsof investments from developed into develop-ing economies. Hamilton (170) has made sim-ilar suggestions in addressing the problems as-sociated with too narrow a focus on economicgrowth. High-consumption countries need toprovide low-consumption ones with opportuni-ties for a fair share of the global resource wealth(168). Debt relief could help with expansion ofdomestic economies and growth in consump-tion (168). These and other macroeconomicpolicy approaches to more closely linking chal-lenges posed by under- and overconsumptionin a PCS deserve more exploration and criticalattention.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


3.11.2. Sustainable livelihoods. Many initia-tives under the rural sustainable livelihoods la-bel can be usefully viewed through the lensof pursuing a more sustainable PCS via themechanism of wisely increasing productionand consumption activities together. Typicallythese programs look to improve food secu-rity, employment opportunities, and income-generating activities that are compatible withlocal resource inputs (171). Doing so may in-volve building capacities and skills, or remov-ing barriers to access of natural resources, suchas land and water for cultivation. Increasedwealth from income-generating activities cre-ates opportunities to raise consumption andinvest more in education, health, and technolo-gies and, at the same time, reduce poverty, vul-nerabilities, and other insecurities. Poverty andwell-being has many, often locally specific, di-mensions (172). Many programs discover thatunderstanding the political as well as economicfeatures of input and commodity markets is cru-cial to success. Credit and seasonal availabilityof labor may be limiting factors. Opportunitiesfor quality control, value adding, and alterna-tive markets are easily missed.

Partnerships with business may help linksustainable livelihood objectives with other el-ements of a sustainable PCS. Kambalame &de Cleene (173) describe three corporate socialresponsibility initiatives in the agriculture sec-tor of Malawi that strive to improve livelihoodsthrough more joint management of supply andvalue chains.

Thus, too narrow a focus on households,communities, and individual commodities canmean that policies modifying the impact offactors operating at larger scales are ignored.Initiatives at local levels need to be cognizantof, and often work under the influence of,global financial capital flows and trade relationsand how these impact on more local agribusi-ness development. Likewise, national conser-vation policies that limit access to natural re-sources can be a major constraint to peoplewhose livelihoods depend on those resources(174).

3.11.3. Markets for the poor. An example of amore local initiative is the work of InternationalDevelopment Enterprises in Nepal and Indiain introducing, as a package, small-plot irriga-tion technology and smallholder market chains(175). Demand is used to stimulate productionimprovements. Demand comes from providingassistance in identifying specific market oppor-tunities. Production improvements are madepossible to poor farmers through a supply chainof affordable, income-enhancing technologies,in this case study, foot pumps and drip irriga-tion equipment. The development of a businessservices model also has similarities to integratedproduct-service projects discussed above.

A lot has been tried and learned about how tomake markets work better for the poor. The so-called M4P, or markets for the poor, approachhas been promoted by the U.K. Department forInternational Development, Swedish Interna-tional Development Cooperation Agency, andthe Asian Development Bank. M4P focuses oninstitutions and aims to create effective mar-kets. Research is carried out to better under-stand how markets work, “many markets don’twork effectively because the ruling elite doesnot want them to work” (176). To understandcauses of market failure, the focus on institu-tions in the M4P approach often needs to becomplemented by analysis of networks, organi-zations, and communities (176).

Big business can be important to suchinitiatives in providing the backbone aroundwhich a commodity chain can form. Thus,in the Novella project, the Unilever com-pany along with several NGOs, including SNVNetherlands Development Organisation andFriends of the Nation, and various local busi-nesses assembled a supply chain for oil fromAllanblackia trees in forests or on farms inGhana (177). Supply from naturally growingtrees encouraged improved forest management;early success saw the company offer to expandsources with plantings nearer communities.The NGOs played an important mediation roleamong the many partners and their differentinterests.

264 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Partnerships appear to be crucial to many ofthese initiatives, even though the final outcomeincludes a competitive market place. If disad-vantaged consumers (e.g., low income, under-consuming, poor access) and producers (e.g.,small, low technology, few assets) are givenmeaningful opportunities to participate in howPCSs are assembled, then effective markets canbenefit the poor.

4. SYNTHESIS

There is already a substantial body of scholar-ship exploring the sustainablility of PCSs. Ap-proaches that jointly consider production andconsumption activities, and look at individualrelationships from both perspectives, are bet-ter able to identify salient leverage points tohelp transform system performance. But the di-versity of experiments and initiatives underwayis huge, and it is important that a critical andsystematic understanding of these experiencesshape future practices, policy, and research.

4.1. Summary

A range of initiatives have been undertakenby governments, firms, and NGOs sometimesworking together, and at other times inde-pendently, to transform PCSs along moresustainable pathways. The key elements ofthese efforts were classified into 11 enablingmechanisms (Table 1).

The various ways actors have tried to enablesustainability in a PCS have important differ-ences as well as similarities. Researchers havebegun identifying the conditions under whichcertain classes of mechanisms are more likelyto emerge, succeed, and fail (Table 1). At afirst level of synthesis, these can be distilled intoassumptions, or necessary conditions, with re-spect to market institutions, government reg-ulation, sociotechnical innovation, and actorpartnerships.

Market institutions, which allow consumersto choose among differentiated products, areobviously central to several mechanisms, suchas certify and label or trade fairly (Table 1).

In several other mechanisms, market access andprices are important for green products to reacha wider number of consumers, as in produce orbuy responsibly. If government policies distortmarkets through subsidies or allowing monop-olies to form, then these may need to be re-duced or removed to allow green productionand products to compete fairly (37).

Government regulations are also importantto several mechanisms wherein the right incen-tives would be otherwise unlikely to emerge.Reducing the environmental impact of produc-tion processes, whether by using less energy andmaterials, or recycling waste (Figure 1), or im-proving environmental performance along anentire chain of activities often involves stan-dards and incentives. Standards are importantto the produce with less, green supply chains,and produce responsibly mechanisms.

Sociotechnical innovations are a key com-ponent of all mechanisms for initiatives thatare meant to bring about change toward amore sustainable PCS (Table 1). Innovationin production processes is central to the pro-duce with less and codesign mechanisms. Thegreen supply chain mechanisms often also im-ply changes in organization among firms. Someenabling mechanisms involve combinations ofassumptions. For example, fair trade requireschanges to both business and consumer prac-tices, whereas the buy responsibly mechanismis more focused on consumer practices. Use lessis also more directly about consumer practices,but in some variants, e.g., downshifting, it mayalso benefit from coordinated changes in busi-ness practices and regulation.

Stakeholder partnerships are important toseveral mechanisms but have differences in tim-ing. Thus, in codesign, partnerships from per-spective of individual consumers are restrictedto the early life of a product, whereas in pro-duce responsibly, the focus is on the prod-uct’s end of life (Table 1). The service ratherthan sell mechanism requires well-maintainedrelationships. Fair trade mechanisms may in-clude agreements with small producers thatalso require sustained relationships. The useless mechanism has several variants. In the


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


localization strategy, maintained relationshipsare very important, whereas in the simplifystrategy, they need not be. A key feature ofstakeholder partnerships is that they usually re-quire a process of negotiating meanings, cri-teria, and objectives. This is consistent withhow programs on sustainable development castmore broadly are emerging (178).

4.2. Promise

From our review we conclude that analyticalapproaches that treat production and consump-tion as a system hold more substantial promisethan narrow framings for several reasons.

First, leverage to improve performance inthe direction of sustainability can exist at di-verse nodes in a network, which are sometimesremote from where pollution is emitted, a re-source overharvested, or a consumer in need.A PCS perspective allows consideration of al-ternative leverage points in the pursuit of waysto uncouple improvements in well-being fromtheir environmental impacts.

Second, the sharing of value-added benefits,burdens, and risks from a PCS depend on rela-tionships within the system. A PCS perspectiveallows consideration of alternative ways of gov-erning allocation not just at particular nodes,as in markets or through trade agreements, butalso along supply and waste chains. Issues offairness and social justice can be more thor-oughly explored in a PCS perspective.

Third, commodity chains and firm-suppliernetworks can be thought of as a series or setof many production and consumption relation-ships (3). For each linkage, we can ask ques-tions from both a production perspective (Howcould this industrial process be made more re-source efficient?) and a consumption perspec-tive (What are the underlying drivers of down-stream demands in the network or value chain?)(1). This opens the possibility of assessing de-mand management and supply augmentationoptions jointly.

Fourth, gross overconsumption and acuteunderconsumption coexist in the real world,

and both are challenges to sustainable devel-opment (2). A PCS perspective highlights theopportunities and constraints in such initia-tives as fair trade or localizing systems of ex-change, but it also exposes the limitations ofstate-centric and North-South framings. Envi-ronmentally, significant consumption (179) in-creasingly takes place through the activities of aglobal consumer class in the capitals of the de-veloping world (180). Justifying policies usingconventional measures of the level of develop-ment of national economies is likely to be toocrude an approach (cf., 37).

Fifth, a PCS perspective creates opportuni-ties for incorporating understanding of the be-havior of diverse actors into initiatives to changea PCS. An emphasis on agency underlines thehidden potential of actors taking on unexploredroles. The contributions that business can maketo a sustainable PCS are not just in technolog-ical innovation but also in changing the incen-tives they provide to staff and suppliers as well asin social and cultural change (181). Consumersare also shareholders and employees and live inthe communities where production takes place.Businesses, like household consumers, are nei-ther in control of the system of consumptionand production nor necessarily caught in itsweb.

4.3. Constraints

Our review also revealed some important limi-tations, with both theoretical and practical im-plications, in how PCSs are being studied.

First, few studies have grounded social ob-servations on material flows or ecological con-straints of the system they set out to describe,or if they do so, the studies largely leave socialmechanisms for explaining behavior unspeci-fied. A diversity of methods and frameworkshave now been explored, but there are still manygaps, with certain disciplinary preferences forparticular problem areas and styles of research(179). A much deeper integration across disci-plines is needed, and this will likely require newmethods.

266 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Second, few studies are able to both dealwith the complexities of power and knowledgein the multiple relationships that underlie manyPCSs, and at the same time adequately han-dle issues of scale of impact or intervention.The systems of innovation approach, with itsnotions of niches, landscapes, and regimes, ispromising (37, 182) both to explain transfor-mation and stasis. But political-economy ap-proaches are also needed to interrogate thewider social processes that allow unsustainablepractices to flourish in the first place (122) aswell as to explain the emergence of a sustain-able PCS. Key questions include: Who benefitsfrom initiatives on sustainable consumption andproduction? Who is excluded from participat-ing in them? Why are some people much moreresponsive to engaging in sustainable activitiesthan others?

Third, gaps between knowledge and ac-tion are a recurrent challenge faced by initia-tives aimed at more sustainable PCSs throughtheir integrated management. Gaps occur bothwithin specific groups of actors as well asamong different actors along a chain. Theconventional approach to gaps is that they

can be closed with better communication, sothat scientists and experts can tell practition-ers and decision makers what they need toknow. A key conclusion from social sciencestudies is that such a pipeline model of sci-ence, however, often does not fit the evidenceof how knowledge systems and practices evolve(183, 184).

Fourth, the degree to which transitions in aPCS are inducible and guidable is open to queryand probably varies substantially among sys-tems. Multiple linkages and dependences meanthat substantial change may result out of in-ternally generated innovation and largely self-organizing processes. By contrast, the prolifera-tion of initiatives and some modest indicationsof impact imply that PCSs are open to influ-ence through actions of a modest number ofkey actors or the modest actions of many actors.PCSs are part of larger sociopolitical systemsand, conversely, arenas for everyday resistanceand submission. Enabling might be driven bya leader with foresight, or it may unfold in thedaily practices of hundreds of millions who fi-nally decide that what they really want is a betterquality life.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. There is now a growing body of scholarship exploring a diverse range of initiatives andexperiments aimed at enabling sustainable PCSs. An approach that jointly considersproduction and consumption activities and looks at individual relationships from bothperspectives can identify more highly salient leverage points.

2. The diversity of initiatives is huge. This complexity can be usefully reduced by consid-ering the mechanisms from which they are strategically composed. In this review, weidentify 11 enabling mechanisms. These differ in which activities they target for inter-vention and in who is expected to act or change practices. Other classes of enablingmechanisms undoubtedly exist.

3. The 11 enabling mechanisms identified differ in the mixture of assumptions they makeabout conditions or instruments with respect to market institutions, government regu-lation, sociotechnical innovation, and actor partnerships.

4. Exactly how a PCS is bounded and defined depends on purpose. Nevertheless, individualPCSs still vary widely in their complexity. This has important implications for the waythey are studied and the social processes and enabling mechanisms that may be needed.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


5. Research- and experience-based knowledge both play critical roles in initiatives to enablePCSs, but rarely is enough known about how information and knowledge shape practices(or vice versa) to institutionalize relationships. Much more work is needed on the physicaland virtual arenas where knowledge-action linkages are made.

FUTURE ISSUES

1. How can social relationships, material flows, and environmental impacts best be capturedwithin a single analytical framework for assessing sustainability of a PCS?

2. Who benefits from an unsustainable PCS? Who is excluded from initiatives to enable asustainable PCS?

3. How have knowledge and action brought together successful efforts to enable moresustainable PCSs? What are the common features of the physical and virtual arenas thathave been demonstrably effective at linking knowledge and action?

4. To what extent, and under which circumstances, can the enabling mechanisms helptransform an unsustainable PCS into a more sustainable one?

5. When do people care enough about others that they take responsibility for the conse-quences of their production, marketing, and consumption activities? How do they decidehow much is enough?

6. Can policies to address underconsumption be more closely linked to unsustainable over-consumption practices both within and among countries?

7. How do different systems of governance allocate benefits, burdens, and risks amongactors engaged in and affected by PCSs?

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of thisreview.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This review was inspired by interactions with two partly overlapping networks of colleagues.First was an international working group, SPACES (sustainable production and consumptionsystems), and affiliates who in physical and virtual exchanges provided us with a much widerrange of perspectives and experiences than we could have learned about otherwise. Second, ourcollaborators in a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-funded project,Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development Project, stimulated our thinking about theroles of science and technology in development. We thank both networks. Thanks to the PackardFoundation and NOAA for their support of activities with these networks, which led to this review.Finally, thanks to the anonymous reviewers who provided constructive feedback on earlier drafts.

268 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


LITERATURE CITED

1. Princen T. 1999. Consumption and environment: some conceptual issues. Ecol. Econ. 31:347–632. Kates RW. 2000. Population and consumption: what we know, what we need to know. Environment

42:10–193. Princen T, Maniates M, Conca K, eds. 2002. Confronting Consumption. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press4. Wilhite H, Lutzenhiser L. 1999. Social loading and sustainable consumption. Adv. Consum. Res. 26:281–

875. Murphy J. 2001. From production to consumption: environmental policy in the European Union. In

Exploring Sustainable Consumption: Environmental Policy and the Social Sciences, ed. MJ Cohen, J Murphy,pp. 39–58. Amsterdam: Pergamon

6. Clay JW, Dufey A, MacGregor J. 2005. Leverage Points for Encouraging Sustainable Commodities. London:Int. Inst. Environ. Dev.

7. Meadows DH. 1999. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Hartland, VT: Sustain. Inst.8. Lebel L. 2004. Transitions to sustainability in production-consumption systems. J. Ind. Ecol. 9:1–39. WSSD. 2002. World Summit on Sustainable Development: Plan of Implementation. New York: UN

10. Manoochehri J. 2002. Post-Rio “Sustainable Consumption”: establishing coherence and a commonplatform. Development 45:47–53

11. UNCED. 1992. The Rio Declaration, Statement of the UN Conf. Environ. Dev., Rio de Janeiro 3–14June, United Nations, New York

12. Barber J. 2003. Production, consumption and the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Environ.Dev. Sustain. 5:63–93

13. Clark G. 2007. Evolution of the global sustainable consumption and production policy and the UnitedNations Environment Programmes’ (UNEP) supporting activities. J. Clean. Prod. 15:492–98

14. Holling CS. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems4:390–405

15. Elster J. 1992. Local Justice: How Institutions Allocate Scarce Goods and Necessary Burdens. New York: RussellSage Found. 283 pp.

16. Finnveden G, Moberg A. 2005. Environmental systems analysis tools—an overview. J. Clean. Prod.13:1165–73

17. Hertwich E. 2005. Life cycle approaches to sustainable consumption: a critical review. Environ. Sci.Technol. 39:4673–84

18. Chapagain A, Hoekstra A. 2007. The water footprint of coffee and tea consumption in the Netherlands.Ecol. Econ. 64:109–18

19. Afsah S, Vincent JR. 2000. Putting pressure on polluters: Indonesia’s PROPER programme. In Asia’sClean Revolution: Industry, Growth and the Environment, ed. DP Angel, MT Rock, pp. 157–72. Sheffield,UK: Greenleaf

20. Rock MT. 2002. Pollution Control in East Asia: Lessons from Newly Industrializing Economies. Washington,DC: Resour. Future

21. Rock MT. 2002. Integrating environmental and economic policy making in China and Taiwan. Am.Behav. Sci. 45:1435–55

22. Economy E. 2006. Environmental governance: the emerging economic dimension. Environ. Polit.15:171–89

23. Seyfang G. 2007. Growing sustainble consumption communities: the case of local organic food networks.Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 27:120–34

24. Vandergeest P. 2007. Certification and communities: alternatives for regulating the environmental andsocial impacts of shrimp farming. World Dev. 35:1152–71

25. Smith A. 2003. Transforming technological regimes for sustainable development: a role for alternativetechnology niches. Sci. Public Policy 30:127–35

26. Raynolds LT. 2004. The globalization of organic agro-food networks. World Dev. 32:725–4327. Seyfang G. 2007. Cultivating carrots and community: local organic food and sustainable consumption.

Environ. Values 16:105–23


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


28. Tukker A, Jansen B. 2006. Environmental impacts of products: a detailed review of studies. J. Ind. Ecol.10:159–82

29. Lorek S, Spangenberg JH. 2001. Indicators for environmentally sustainable household consumption.Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 4:101–19

30. Spangenberg JH, Lorek S. 2002. Environmentally sustainable household consumption: from aggregateenvironmental pressures to priority fields of action. Ecol. Econ. 43:127–40

31. Rock MT, Angel DP. 2005. Industrial Transformation in the Developing World. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press32. Damtoft JS, Lukasik J, Hertfort D, Sorrentino D, Gartner EM. 2008. Sustainable development and

climate change initiatives. Cem. Concr. Res. 38:115–2733. Lin J, Zhou N, Levine M, Fridley D. 2007. Taking out 1 billion tons of CO2: the magic of China’s 11th

Five-Year Plan? Energy Policy 36:954–7034. Yang W, Kohler N. 2008. Simulation of the evolution of the Chinese building and infrastructure stock.

Build. Res. Inf. 36:1–1935. Lebel L, Garden P, Banaticla MRN, Lasco R, Contreras A, et al. 2007. Integrating carbon management

into the development strategies of urbanizing regions in Asia: implications of urban form, function androle. J. Ind. Ecol. 11:61–81

36. Imura H, Yedla S, Shirakawa H, Memon MA. 2005. Urban environmental issues and trends in Asia—anoverview. Int. Rev. Environ. Strateg. 5:357–81

37. Tukker A, Emmert S, Charter M, Vezzoli C, Sto E, et al. 2008. Fostering change to sustainable con-sumption and production: an evidence based review. J. Clean. Prod. 16:1218–25

38. Hertwich EG. 2005. Consumption and the rebound effect: an industrial ecology perspective. J. Ind. Ecol.9:85–98

39. Ma J, Hoekstra A, Wang H, Chapagain A, Wang D. 2006. Virtual versus real water transfers withinChina. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Ser. B 361:835–42

40. Kumar V, Jain S. 2007. Status of virtual water trade from India. Curr. Sci. 93:1093–9941. Yang H, Wang L, Zehnder J. 2007. Water scarcity and food trade in the southern and eastern Mediter-

ranean countries. Food Policy 32:585–60542. Pesonen HL. 2001. Environmental management of value chains: promoting life-cycle thinking in indus-

trial networks. Green Manag. Int. 33(Spring):44–5843. Friedberg S. 2007. Supermarkets and imperial knowledge. Cult. Geogr. 14:321–4244. Iles A. 2007. Making the seafood industry more sustainable: creating production chain transparency and

accountability. J. Clean. Prod. 15:577–8945. Fagan B. 2006. ‘Bananas in chains’? Reflections on global commodity chains and labour movement

regulatory initiatives. Employ. Relat. Rec. 6:31–4646. Holmstrom K, Graslund S, Wahlstrom A, Poungshompoo S, Bengtsson B-E, Kautsky N. 2003. Antibiotic

use in shrimp farming and implications for environmental impacts and human health. Int. J. Food Sci.Technol. 38:255–66

47. Oosterveer P. 2006. Globalization and sustainable consumption of shrimp: consumers and governancein the global space of flows. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 30:465–76

48. Graslund S, Holmstrom K, Wahlstrom A. 2003. A field survey of chemicals and biological products usedin shrimp farming. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 46:81–90

49. Lebel L, Lebel P, Garden P, Giap DH, Khrutmuang S, Nakayama S. 2008. Places, chains and plates:governing transitions in the shrimp aquaculture production-consumption system. Globalizations 5:211–26

50. Wyban J. 2007. Thailand’s white shrimp revolution. Glob. Aquacult. Advocate May/June:57–5851. Bush SR, Oosterveer P. 2007. The missing link: intersecting governance and trade in the space of place

and the space of flows. Sociol. Rural. 47:384–9952. Green K, Foster C. 2005. Give peas a chance: transformations in food consumption and production

systems. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 72:663–7953. Goodman D. 2003. The quality ‘turn’ and alternative food practices: reflections and agenda. J. Rural

Stud. 19:1–754. Renard M-C. 2003. Fair trade: quality, market and conventions. J. Rural Stud. 19:87–9655. Lifset R. 1993. Take it back: extended producer responsibility as a form of incentive-based environmental

policy. J. Resour. Manag. Technol. 21:163–75

270 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


56. Ogushi Y, Kandlikar M. 2007. Assessing extended producer responsiblity laws in Japan. Environ. Sci.Technol. 41:4502–8

57. Lifset R, Lindhquist T. 2002. Trust, but verify. J. Ind. Ecol. 5:9–1158. Martens S, Spaargaren G. 2005. The politics of sustainable consumption: the case of the Netherlands.

Sustain.: Sci. Pract. Policy 1:1–1459. Kroepelien KF. 2000. Extended producer responsibility—new legal structures for improved ecological

self-organization in Europe? RECIEL 9:165–7760. Hanisch C. 2000. Is extended producer responsibility effective? Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:170–7561. Gottberg A, Morris J, Pollard S, Mark-Herbert C, Cook M. 2006. Producer responsibility, waste min-

imisation and the WEEE Directive: case studies in eco-design from the European lighting sector. Sci.Total Environ. 359:38–56

62. Mazzanti M, Zoboli R. 2006. Economic instruments and induced innovation: the European policies onend-of-life vehicles. Ecol. Econ. 58:318–37

63. King A, Burgess S, Ijoma W, McMahon C. 2006. Reducing waste: repair, recondition, remanufacture orrecycle? Sustain. Dev. 14:257–67

64. Kristensson P, Gustafsson A, Archer T. 2004. Harnessing the creative potential among users. J. Prod.Innov. Manag. 21:4–14

65. Matthing J, Sanden B, Edvardsson B. 2004. New service development: learning from and with customers.Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 15:479–98

66. Henard D, Syzmanski D. 2001. Why some new products are more successful than others. J. Mark. Res.38:362–75

67. Alam I. 2002. An exploratory investigation of user involvement in new service development. J. Acad.Mark. Sci. 30:250–61

68. Marchand A, Walker S. 2007. Product development and responsible consumption: designing alternativesfor sustainable lifestyles. J. Clean. Prod. 16:1163–69

69. Karl HA, Susskind LE, Wallace KH. 2007. A dialogue not a diatribe: effective integration of science andpolicy through joint fact finding. Environment 49:20–34

70. Heiskanen E, Kasanen P, Timonen P. 2005. Consumer participation in sustainable technology develop-ment. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 29:98–107

71. Cooper T. 2006. Slower consumption: reflections on product life spans and the “throwaway society”.J. Ind. Ecol. 9:51–67

72. Linton J, Klassen R, Jayaraman V. 2007. Sustainable supply chains: an introduction. J. Oper. Manag.25:1075–82

73. Jasanoff S. 2003. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–4474. Birkeland J. 2002. Design for Sustainability: A Sourcebook of Integrated, Eco-Logical Solutions. London:

Earthscan75. Fletcher K, Dewberry E, Goggin P. 2001. Sustainable consumption by design. In Exploring Sustainable

Consumption: Environmental Policy and the Social Sciences, ed. MJ Cohen, J Murphy, pp. 213–24. Oxford:Pergamon

76. Mont O. 2000. Product service-systems. Final Rep., IIIEE, Lund Univ.77. Kang M-J, Wimmer R. 2007. Product service systems as systemic cures for obese consumption and

production. J. Clean. Prod. 16:1146–5278. Manzini E, Vezzoli C, Clark G. 2001. Product-service systems. Using an existing concept as a new

approach to sustainability. J. Des. Res. 1 (online)79. Tukker A, Tischner U. 2006. Product-services as a research field: past, present and future. Reflections

from a decade of research. J. Clean. Prod. 14:1552–5680. Goedkoop M, van Halen C, te Riele H, Rommens P. 1999. Product Service Systems, Ecological and Economic

Basics. Dutch Minist. Environ. (VROM)/Econ. Aff. (EZ), Neth.81. Baines T, Lightfoot H, Evans S, Neely A, Greenough R, et al. 2007. State-of-the-art in product-service

systems. Proc. IMechE 221:1543–5282. Cook M, Bhamra T, Lemon M. 2006. The transfer and application of product service-systems: from

academia to UK manufacturing firms. J. Clean. Prod. 14:1455–65


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


83. Mont O. 2004. Reducing life-cycle environmental impacts through systems of joint use. Green Manag.Int. Spring:63–77

84. Halme M, Hrauda G, Jasch C, Kortman J, Jonuschat H, et al. 2005. Sustainable Consumer Services: BusinessSolutions for Household Markets. London: Earthscan

85. Partidario P, Lamber J, Evans S. 2007. Building more sustainable solutions in production-consumptionsystems: the case of food for people with reduced access. J. Clean. Prod. 15:513–24

86. Manzini E, Vezzoli C. 2002. Product-Service Systems and Sustainability: Opportunities for Sustainable Solu-tions. Div. Technol. Ind. Econ., UN Environ. Programme (UNEP), Paris

87. Scholl G. 2008. Product-service systems—Taking a functional and a symbolic perspective on usership.In System Innovation for Sustainability 1, ed. A Tukker, pp. 255–70. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf

88. Heiskanen E, Jalas M. 2003. Can services lead to radical eco-efficiency improvements? A review of thedebate and evidence. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 10:186–98

89. Manzini E, Jegou F, Penin L. 2008. Creative Communities for Sustainable Lifestyles. Presented at Sustain.Consum. Prod., Framework Action, Brussels

90. de Boer J. 2003. Sustainability labelling schemes: the logic of their claims and their function for stake-holders. Bus. Strategy Environ. 12:254–64

91. Rex E, Baumann H. 2007. Beyond ecolabels: what green marketing can learn from conventional mar-keting. J. Clean. Prod. 15:567–76

92. Burgess J, Harrison C, Filius P. 1998. Environmental communication and the cultural politics of envi-ronmental citizenship. Environ. Plan. A 30:1445–60

93. Blake J. 1999. Overcoming the ‘Value-Action Gap’ in Environmental Policy: tensions between nationalpolicy and local experience. Local Environ. 4:257–78

94. Hawthorne M, Alabaster T. 1999. Citizen 2000: development of a model of environmental citizenship.Glob. Environ. Change 9:25–43

95. Jager W. 2003. Breaking ‘bad habits’: a dynamical perspective on habit formation and change. In HumanDecision Making and Environmental Perception: Understanding and Assisting Human Decision Making inReal-Life Settings, ed. L Hendrickx, W Jager, L Steg, pp. 149–60. Groningen: Univ. Groningen

96. Jacquet J, Pauly D. 2007. The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries. Mar.Policy 31:308–13

97. Klintman M. 2006. Ambiguous framings of political consumerism: means or end, product or processorientation? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 30:427–38

98. Rivera J. 2002. Assessing a voluntary environmental initiative in the developing world: the Costa Ricancertification for sustainable tourism. Policy Sci. 35:333–60

99. Medina L. 2005. Ecotourism and certification: confronting the principles and pragmatics of sociallyresponsible tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 13:281–95

100. Boyd CE, Hargreaves JA, Clay JW. 2002. Codes of Practice and Conduct for Marine Shrimp Aquaculture.Rep. World Bank/NACA/WWF/FAO Consort. Program Shrimp Farm. Environ.

101. Wilkinson J. 2007. Fair trade: dynamic and dilemmas of a market oriented global social movement.J. Consum. Policy 30:219–39

102. Smith J. 2007. The search for sustainable markets: the promise and failures of fair trade. Cult. Agric.29:89–99

103. Fisher C. 2007. Selling coffee, or selling out? Evaluating different ways to analyze the fair-trade system.Cult. Agric. 29:78–88

104. Raynolds T. 2002. Consumer/producer links in fair trade coffee networks. Sociol. Rural. 42:404–24105. Krier J. 2006. Fair Trade in Europe 2005. Brussels: Fair Trade Advocacy Off.106. Bryant RL, Goodman MK. 2004. Consuming narratives: the political ecology of ‘alternative’ consump-

tion. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 29:344–66107. Jaffee D, Kloppenburg J, Monroy M. 2004. Bringing the “moral charge” home: fair trade within the

North and within the South. Rural Sociol. 69:169–96108. Pelupessy W, van Kempen L. 2005. The impact of increased consumer-orientation in global agri-food

chains on smallholders in developing countries. Compet. Change 9:357–81109. Rosenblatt R, ed. 1999. Consuming Desires: Consumption, Culture and the Pursuit of Happiness. Washington,

DC: Island

272 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


110. Mitchell V-W, Walsh G, Yamin M. 2005. Towards a conceptual model of consumer confusion. Adv.Consum. Res. 32:143–50

111. Mont O, Plepys A. 2008. Sustainable consumption progress: Should we be proud or alarmed? J. Clean.Prod. 16:531–37

112. Bordwell M. 2002. Jamming culture: Adbusters’ hip media campaign against consumerism. See Ref. 3,pp. 237–53

113. Warner J. 2007. Political culture jamming: the dissident humor of “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”Popul. Commun. 5:17–36

114. Schor J. 2004. Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture. New York: Scribner115. Acuff D. 2005. Taking the guesswork out of responsible marketing. Young Consum. Quart. 3:68–71116. Ginsberg JM, Bloom PN. 2004. Choosing the right green marketing strategy. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev.

48:79–85117. Caraher M, Landon J, Dalmeny K. 2005. Television advertising and children: lessons from policy devel-

opment. Public Health Nutr. 9:596–605118. Robins N, Roberts S. 1998. Making sense of sustainable consumption. Development 41:28–36119. van den Burg S. 2007. The political modernization of sustainable consumption policies. Proc. Nordic Consum.

Policy Res. Conf., Helsinki, Finl.120. Cohen MJ. 2005. Consumer credit, household financial management, and sustainable consumption. Int.

J. Consum. Stud. 31:57–65121. Kozinets RV, Handelman JM. 2004. Adversaries of consumption: consumer movements, activism and

ideology. J. Consum. Res. 31:691–704122. Shove E. 2003. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality. Oxford: Berg123. Barnett C, Cloke P, Clarke N, Malpass A. 2005. Consuming ethics: articulating the subjects and spaces

of ethical consumption. Antipode 37:23–45124. Tormey S. 2007. Consumption, resistance and everyday life: ruptures and continuities. J. Consum. Policy

30:263–80125. Clarke N, Barnett C, Cloke P, Malpass A. 2007. Globalising the consumer: doing politics in an ethical

register. Polit. Geogr. 26:231–49126. Jackson T. 2005. Live better by consuming less? Is there a “double dividend” in sustainable consumption.

J. Ind. Ecol. 9:19–36127. Burgess J. 2003. Sustainable consumption: Is it really achievable? Consum. Policy Rev. 13:78–84128. Krozer Y. 2004. Social demands in life-cycle management. Green Manag. Int. 45:95–106129. Williams P, Hubbard P, Clark D, Berkeley N. 2001. Consumption, exclusion and emotion: the social

geographies of shopping. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 2:203–20130. Connolly J, Prothero A. 2003. Sustainable consumption: consumption, consumers and the commodity

discourse. Consum. Mark. Cult. 6:275–91131. Inglehart R. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press132. Seyfang G. 2004. Consuming values and contested cultures: a critical analysis of the UK strategy for

sustainable consumption and production. Rev. Soc. Econ. 62:323–38133. Knight A. 2004. Sustainable consumption: the retailing paradox. Consum. Policy Rev. 14:113–15134. Lockie S, Lyons K, Lawrence G, Mummery K. 2002. Eating ‘green’: motivations behind organic food

consumption in Austraila. Sociol. Rural. 42:23–40135. ICLEI. 2007. The Procura+ Manual—A Guide to Cost-Effective Sustainable Public Procurement. Freiburg.

2nd ed.136. McDonald S, Oates C, Young C, Hwang K. 2006. Toward sustainable consumption: researching voluntary

simplifiers. Psychol. Mark. 23:515–34137. Jackson T, Jager W, Stagl S. 2004. Beyond insatiability: needs theory, consumption and sustainability.

In Consumption Perspectives from Ecological Economics, ed. L Reisch, I Ropke, pp. 79–110. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar

138. Greening AL, Greene DL, Difiglio C. 2000. Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—asurvey. Energy Policy 28:389–401


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


139. Fuchs DA, Lorek S. 2005. Sustainable consumption governance: a history of promises and failures.J. Consum. Policy 28:261–88

140. Hamilton C, Denniss R. 2005. Affluenza: When too Much is Never Enough. Sydney: Allen & Unwin141. Kasser T. 2002. The High Price of Materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press142. Myers DG. 2003. The social psychology of sustainability. World Futures 59:201–11143. Maniates M. 2002. In search of consumptive resistance: the voluntary simplicity movement. See Ref. 3,

pp. 199–235144. Hofstetter P, Madjar M. 2003. Linking Change in Happiness, Time-Use, Sustainable Consumption, and

Environmental Impacts: An Attempt to Understand Time-Rebound Effects. Rep. METI/AIST, Zurich/Tokyo145. Craig-Lees M, Hill C. 2002. Understanding voluntary simplifiers. Psychol. Mark. 19:187–210146. Rumbo JD, Zavestoski S. 2003. In search of “the good life” without consumer goods: meaning and resistance in

the Voluntary Simplicity Movement. Work. Pap. Univ. Notre Dam, Dep. Sociol.147. Schor J. 2005. Sustainable consumption and worktime reduction. J. Ind. Ecol. 9:37–50148. Princen T. 2005. Logic of Sufficiency. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 417 pp.149. Deleted in proof150. Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction—A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge151. Henry P. 2005. Social class, market situation, and consumers’ metaphors of (dis)empowerment. J. Con-

sum. Res. 31:766–78152. Alcott B. 2007. The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact? Ecol.

Econ. 64:770–86153. Pretty J, Ball A, Lang T, Morison J. 2006. Farm costs and food miles: an assessment of the full cost of

the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30:1–19154. Born B, Purcell M. 2006. Avoiding the local trap: scale and food systems in planning research. J. Plan.

Educ. Res. 26:195–207155. Purcell M, Brown JC. 2005. Against the local trap: scale and the study of environment and development.

Prog. Dev. Stud. 5:279–97156. Jones P, Shears P, Hillier D, Comfort D, Lowell J. 2003. Return to traditional values? A case study of

Slow Food. Br. Food J. 105:297–304157. Seyfang G. 2001. Community currencies: small change for a green economy. Environ. Plan. A 33:975–96158. Peeters P, Schouten F. 2006. Reducing the ecological footprint of inbound tourism and transport to

Amsterdam. J. Sustain. Tour. 14:157–71159. Dubois G, Ceron J. 2006. Tourism/leisure greenhouse gas emission forecasts for 2050: factors for change

in France. J. Sustain. Tour. 14:172–91160. Hobson K. 2002. Competing discourses of sustainable consumption: Does the ‘Rationalisation of

Lifestyles’ make sense? Environ. Polit. 11:95–120161. Hobson K. 2006. Environmental pscyhology and the geographies of ethical and sustainable consumption:

aligning, triangulating, challenging? Area 38:292–300162. Corral-Verdugo V. 1997. Dual ‘realities’ of conservation behavior: self-reports vs observations of reuse

and recycling behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 17:137–45163. Hobson K. 2003. Thinking habits into action: the role of knowledge and process in questioning household

consumption practices. Local Environ. 8:95–112164. Gram-Hanssen K. 2007. Consuming technologies—developing routines. J. Clean. Prod. 16:1181–89165. Spaargaren G. 2003. Sustainable consumption: a theoretical and environmental policy perspective. Soc.

Nat. Resour. 16:687–701166. Barber J. 2007. Mapping the movement to achieve sustainable production and consumption in North

America. J. Clean. Prod. 15:499–512167. UNEP-DTIE. 2005. Advancing Sustainable Consumption in Asia: A Guidance Manual. Paris: UN Environ.

Program., Div. Technol., Ind. Econ.168. Devlin J, Yap NT. 1994. Sustainable development and the NICS: cautionary tales for the South in the

New World disorder. Third World Q. 15:49–62169. Shah A. 2006. Exploring sustainable production systems for agriculture: implications for employment

and investment under North-South trade scenario. Ecol. Econ. 59:237–41

274 Lebel · Lorek

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


170. Hamilton C. 2003. Growth Fetish. Crows Nest, Aust.: Allen & Unwin171. Scoones I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. Rep. IDS Work. Pap. 72. Int. Dev.

Stud., Sussex, UK172. Chambers R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First. London: Intermed. Technol. 297 pp.173. Kambalame D, de Cleene S. 2006. Partnership building as an approach to addressing corporate social

responsibility in the agricutlure sector in Malawi. Dev. South. Afr. 23:281–87174. Thomas DE, Ekhasing B, Ekhasing M, Lebel L, Ha HM, et al. 2008. Comparative assessment of resource

and market access of the poor in upland zones of the Greater Mekong Region. Rep. Rockefeller Found.Grant No. 2004 SE 024. World Agrofor. Cent., Chiang Mai

175. Magistro J, Roberts M, Haggblade S, Kramer F, Polak P, et al. 2007. A model for pro-poor wealthcreation through small-plot irrigation and market linkages. Irrig. Drain. 56:321–34

176. Meyer-Stamer J. 2006. Making market systems work? For the poor? Small Enterpr. Dev. 17:21–32177. Attipoe L, van Andel A, Nyame S. 2006. The NOVELLA Project. In Agro-Food Chains and Networks for

Development, ed. R Ruben, M Slingerland, H Nijhoff, pp. 179–89. Amsterdam: Springer178. Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA. 2005. What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values

and practice. Environment 47:8–21179. Stern PC, Dietz T, Ruttan VW, Scolow RH, Sweeney JL, eds. 1997. Environmentally Significant Con-

sumption: Research Directions. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press180. Myers N, Kent J. 2003. New consumers: the influence of affluence on the environment. Proc. Natl. Acad.

Sci. USA 100:4963–68181. Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, et al. 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios:

A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge Univ. Press

182. Geels FW. 2005. Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: refining the coevolutionarymulti-level perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 72:681–96

183. van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L. 2006. Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu. Rev.Environ. Resour. 31:445–77

184. Cash DW, Borck JC, Patt AG. 2006. Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science anddecision making. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 31:465–94


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR357-FM ARI 22 September 2008 22:50

Annual Review ofEnvironmentand Resources

Volume 33, 2008Contents

Preface � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �v

Who Should Read This Series? � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �vi

I. Earth’s Life Support Systems

Climate ModelingLeo J. Donner and William G. Large � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Global Carbon Emissions in the Coming Decades: The Case of ChinaMark D. Levine and Nathaniel T. Aden � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �19

Restoration Ecology: Interventionist Approaches for Restoring andMaintaining Ecosystem Function in the Face of RapidEnvironmental ChangeRichard J. Hobbs and Viki A. Cramer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �39

II. Human Use of Environment and Resources

Advanced Passenger Transport TechnologiesDaniel Sperling and Deborah Gordon � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �63

DroughtsGiorgos Kallis � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �85

Sanitation for Unserved Populations: Technologies, ImplementationChallenges, and OpportunitiesKara L. Nelson and Ashley Murray � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 119

Forage Fish: From Ecosystems to MarketsJacqueline Alder, Brooke Campbell, Vasiliki Karpouzi, Kristin Kaschner,and Daniel Pauly � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 153

Urban Environments: Issues on the Peri-Urban FringeDavid Simon � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 167

Certification Schemes and the Impacts on Forests and ForestryGraeme Auld, Lars H. Gulbrandsen, and Constance L. McDermott � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 187

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR357-FM ARI 22 September 2008 22:50

III. Management, Guidance, and Governance of Resources and Environment

Decentralization of Natural Resource Governance RegimesAnne M. Larson and Fernanda Soto � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 213

Enabling Sustainable Production-Consumption SystemsLouis Lebel and Sylvia Lorek � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 241

Global Environmental Governance: Taking Stock, Moving ForwardFrank Biermann and Philipp Pattberg � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 277

Land-Change Science and Political Ecology: Similarities, Differences,and Implications for Sustainability ScienceB.L. Turner II and Paul Robbins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 295

Environmental Cost-Benefit AnalysisGiles Atkinson and Susana Mourato � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 317

A New Look at Global Forest Histories of Land ClearingMichael Williams � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 345

Terrestrial Vegetation in the Coupled Human-Earth System:Contributions of Remote SensingRuth DeFries � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 369

A Rough Guide to Environmental ArtJohn E. Thornes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 391

The New Corporate Social ResponsibilityGraeme Auld, Steven Bernstein, and Benjamin Cashore � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 413

IV. Integrative Themes

Environmental Issues in RussiaLaura A. Henry and Vladimir Douhovnikoff � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 437

The Environmental Reach of AsiaJames N. Galloway, Frank J. Dentener, Elina Marmer, Zucong Cai,

Yash P. Abrol, V.K. Dadhwal, and A. Vel Murugan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 461

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 24–33 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 483

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 24–33 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 487

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and Resources articles maybe found at http://environ.annualreviews.org

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

008.

33:2

41-2

75. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by S

ylvi

a L

orek

on

10/2

7/08

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

enabling sustainable production-consumption...

Documents