Central to the development of green lifestyles is the consumption of foods that by dint of their status as chemical–free, locally produced and/or free of genetically modified ingredients, reduce the environmental impact of food provision. Yet there are many other factors, such as health concerns, that may also encourage the consumption of ‘green’ foods. This paper explores the ways in which Australian consumers construct organic food — a sector of the food industry that is currently growing at between 20 and 50 percent per annum but is struggling to keep up with rising consumer demand. In order to examine the significance of ‘green’ signifiers in the consumption practices of Australian consumers a series of focus group interviews and a national consumer survey were conducted. These examined both those characteristics of food that were valued in general, and those meanings that were associated with organic food in particular. In very general terms, analysis reveals that while consumers believed organic foods to be healthy and environmentally sound — both of which were considered desirable — these characteristics were subsumed by an overarching concern with convenience. This does not mean that consumers did not hold genuinely positive environmental attitudes. Rather, it reflects a range of contradictory beliefs and practices that appeared to derive from the discursive conflict between conventional and organic food industries over environmental, health and safety claims. The paper concludes by identifying the barriers and opportunities for expanding the organic industry in Australia in the context of the ways organics is constructed by consumers.

No abstract

In contrast with the uncritical optimism of popular narratives on organic food and agriculture, social scientists have debated at length the potential for the organic food sector to ‘conventionalise’; that is, to transform from an oppositional social movement promoting fundamentally different agroecologies and social relationships into a highly regulated and capital intensive food industry differing little from its conventional counterparts. Often, this is argued to result in a ‘bifurcation’ between industrial organic producers and a residual of small, artisanal social movement activists. Data from surveys of 397 certified organic and 434 conventional farmers in Australia call into question, however, the tendency of the bifurcation model to dichotomise small and large producers in this manner. Despite considerable polarisation in the economic scale of organic producers, there was no evidence that larger organic producers held significantly different values and beliefs to smaller organic growers. Nor were larger organic growers poised to capture greater market share through faster rates of expansion, or any less likely to support local consumption through sales direct to consumers.

a b s t r a c tThis paper introduces the Special Volume on sustainable and responsible supply chain governance. As globalized supply chains cross multiple regulatory borders, the firms involved in these chains come under increasing pressure from consumers, NGOs and governments to accept responsibility for social and environmental matters beyond their immediate organizational boundaries. Governance arrangements for global supply chains are therefore increasingly faced with sustainability requirements of production and consumption. Our primary objectives for this introductory paper are to explore the governance challenges that globalized supply chains and networks face in becoming sustainable and responsible, and thence to identify opportunities for promoting sustainable and responsible governance. In doing so, we draw on 16 articles published in this Special Volume of the Journal of Cleaner Production as well as upon the broader sustainable supply chain governance literature. We argue that the border-crossing nature of global supply chains comes with six major challenges (or gaps) in sustainability governance and that firms and others attempt to address these using a range of tools including eco-labels, codes of conduct, auditing procedures, product information systems, procurement guidelines, and eco-branding. However, these tools are not sufficient, by themselves, to bridge the geographical, informational, communication, compliance, power and legitimacy gaps that challenge sustainable global chains. What else is required? The articles in this Special Volume suggest that coalition and institution building on a broader scale is essential through, for example, the development of inclusive multi-stakeholder coalitions; flexibility to adapt global governance arrangements to local social and ecological contexts of production and consumption; supplementing effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms with education and other programs to build compliance capacity; and integration of reflexive learning to improve governance arrangements over time.

The term agri‐food research has become a convenient shorthand term to describe anexpansion of sociological interest over the last 20 or so years in the relationships between agricultural production and: increasingly industrialized networks of food production, processing, distribution and retailing; the development of transnationalized modes of regulation and governance; environmental discourse, policy and social movements; and competing understandings and uses of ‘rural’ space. This paper critically reviews two theoretical approaches that have challenged the dominant theoretical trends that have underpinned this reorientation of the ‘rural’ social research agenda actor‐network theory and vertical analysis. It is argued that applications of both approaches have frequently failed to transcend the very shortcomings they identify in agri‐food studies, and suggestions are made as to how production‐consumption relationships may be more adequately theorized and investigated.