Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe research exploring consumer responses to potential changes in food-related practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Design/methodology/approach – Six focus groups explored consumer responses to measures to intended to mitigate the emissions from, and adapt to the impacts of climate change. These included: meat reduction, greater reliance on seasonal British food, meal replacement tablets, laboratory grown meat, communal eating houses, genetically modified food and food waste. Practice theory provided the lens to interpret the changes to meanings, competences and materials associated with food consumption. Findings – Changes that could be assimilated within existing competencies were viewed more positively, with lack of competence a key barrier to accommodating change. At present, climate change and sustainability do not influence purchasing decisions. Policy measures delivering multiple benefits (“win-wins”), of which environmental performance may be one, stand an improved chance of establishing more sustainable practices than those focusing exclusively on environmental drivers. Originality/value – Awareness of the role of sustainable food systems in the context of anthropogenic climate change is growing. Whilst scientific and technological research explores methods for reducing emissions and building resilience in food supply chains to changes in climate, there is comparatively little study of how consumers perceive these proposed “solutions”. This research provides a comprehensive overview of consumer responses to potential changes in eating practices related to climate change mitigation and adaptation and is of value to policy makers, academics and practitioners across the food supply chain.

No abstract

For research to positively impact society, it must be scientifically credible. The researcher plays a key role in establishing and maintaining credibility, particularly in the climate change field. This paper provides a structure for relating the credibility of researchers themselves to that of research outputs, analysing 'researcher credibility' with reference to three overlapping domains: personal, professional, and public. The researcher's role in each domain is considered in a reflexive way, examining the research process and the researcher's actions. Varied definitions of researcher credibility and possible means to achieve it in each domain are discussed, drawing on relevant cross-disciplinary literature. We argue that, in certain contexts, the actions of researchers can have a direct impact on the credibility of their research. There is scope for broadening researcher credibility to include more public-oriented behaviours. This, however, may be contentious and problematic: there are potential conflicts between public action and professional credibility, with the latter usually taking precedence. By contrast, though personal action (or inaction) rarely affects professional credibility, researchers' personal behaviours may influence public perceptions of research credibility and the importance of addressing climate change.