In recent years we have witnessed the development of numerous alternative strategies (AS) within the UK agro‐food system intent on overcoming, or at least circumventing, some of the problems associated with the globalisation of food production and consumption. Within these AS, there is an intention to reconnect food to the social, cultural and environmental context of its production, leading to considerable interest in their potential to engender sustained change within the food system. However, it is apparent that AS are likely to face various pressures on their underlying integrity and alterity, and their possible re‐incorporation within mainstream processes. There is a need, therefore, to interrogate the durability of AS, which this paper does through its critical examination of farmers' markets (FMs). Drawing upon a number of FM cases studies, it examines the engagement of producers and consumers, both with each other, but also with the exchange context of FMs. The resultant data are assessed within the conceptual domains of embeddedness and regard as a means of better understanding the nature of FMs as an AS. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of this research for our comprehension of AS more broadly.

This paper summarizes the main findings of the GLAMUR project which starts with an apparently simple question: is "local" more sustainable than "global"? Sustainability assessment is framed within a post-normal science perspective, advocating the integration of public deliberation and scientific research. The assessment spans 39 local, intermediate and global supply chain case studies across different commodities and countries. Assessment criteria cover environmental, economic, social, health and ethical sustainability dimensions. A closer view of the food system demonstrates a highly dynamic local-global continuum where actors, while adapting to a changing environment, establish multiple relations and animate several chain configurations. The evidence suggests caution when comparing "local" and "global" chains, especially when using the outcomes of the comparison in decision-making. Supply chains are analytical constructs that necessarily-and arbitrarily-are confined by system boundaries, isolating a set of elements from an interconnected whole. Even consolidated approaches, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), assess only a part of sustainability attributes, and the interpretation may be controversial. Many sustainability attributes are not yet measurable and "hard" methodologies need to be complemented by "soft" methodologies which are at least able to identify critical issues and trade-offs. Aware of these limitations, our research shows that comparing local and global chains, with the necessary caution, can help overcome a priori positions that so far have characterized the debate between "localists" and "globalists". At firm level, comparison between "local" and "global" chains could be useful to identify best practices, benchmarks, critical points, and errors to avoid. As sustainability is not a status to achieve, but a never-ending process, comparison and deliberation can be the basis of a "reflexive governance" of food chains.

No abstract

No abstract