Ecodesign and ecoinnovation in the food industries 9781786304896, 1786304899

Innovations of agri-food systems during the last 50 years have been guided by a globalized agro-industrial paradigm, whi

246 71 9MB

English Pages 350 [304] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright


Table of contents :
Front Matter --
Food and Sustainable Development Challenges. Food: Issues and Challenges --
The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food --
Implementation of Ecodesign Practices in Food Innovation Projects. Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of Éco Trophélia Projects --
Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation.
Recommend Papers

Ecodesign and ecoinnovation in the food industries
 9781786304896, 1786304899

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Series Editors Jack Legrand and Gilles Trystram

Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris Hiam Serhan Sibylle Duchaîne Jean-Marc Ferrandi Gilles Trystram

First published 2019 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address: ISTE Ltd 27-37 St George’s Road London SW19 4EU UK

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street Hoboken, NJ 07030 USA

© ISTE Ltd 2019 The rights of Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris, Hiam Serhan, Sibylle Duchaîne, Jean-Marc Ferrandi, Gilles Trystram to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Library of Congress Control Number: 2019948306 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-78630-489-6


Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Part 1. Food and Sustainable Development Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . .


Chapter 1. Food: Issues and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


1.1. History and roles of food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Environmental impacts related to food. . . . . . . . . 1.3. Food systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1. The emergence of food systems . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2. Characterization of food systems . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3. Historical evolution of food systems: models and functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4. Evolution of food: disruptions in the practices and symbolism of foodstuffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1. Disruptions in agricultural production modes . . 1.4.2. Disruptions in the way companies are organized. 1.4.3. Disruptions in the ways in which space is occupied and developed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.4. Disruptions in distribution systems . . . . . . . . 1.4.5. Disruptions in consumption patterns . . . . . . . 1.4.6. Disruption in food values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5. Contribution of food systems to food supply . . . . . 1.5.1. An intensive, specialized and concentrated agro-industrial system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2. A globalized agro-industrial food system . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

3 7 8 9 11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 20 22

. . . . .

. . . . .

24 25 27 28 31

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31 32

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

1.6. Trends, challenges and scenarios for a sustainable global food system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.1. Three trends and challenges . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.2. Three scenarios or tools to explore the possible future of the global food system . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 34

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 38

Chapter 2. The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food . . . . . . . . . .


2.1. Food and ecological transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Ecological transition and corporate social responsibility . . . . . . 2.2.1. The different strategies observed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. The origin of stakeholders and corporate social responsibility 2.3. Taking environmental issues into account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1. Taking environmental performance into account in product design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2. Qualitative or semi-qualitative environmental assessment tools and methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3. Quantitative and monocriteria environmental assessment tools and methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4. Quantitative and multi-criteria environmental assessment tools and methods: lifecycle assessment (LCA) . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Taking nutritional issues into account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1. The framework for action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2. Tools and indicators for nutritional profiling of foodstuffs . . 2.5. Consideration of economic and social issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1. Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2. Illustration of a Canadian dairy industry . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6. Implementation of an ecodesign approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7. Ecodesign practices for food chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.1. The principles of transforming business practices through standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.2. Management system standards: tools for managing sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.3. The role of standards in fostering innovations related to sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.4. Consumer behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.5. Agricultural practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.6. More sustainable agri-food business practices . . . . . . . . . 2.8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

41 45 47 47 57

. . . . . . .


. . . . . . .


. . . . . . .


. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

66 70 70 72 74 74 75 76 79

. . . . . . .


. . . . . . .


. . . . .

89 91 93 94 98

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .



Part 2. Implementation of Ecodesign Practices in Food Innovation Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Chapter 3. Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


3.1. The ecological transition, a driver of innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Ecoinnovating by taking into account ecodesign practices . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Know-how resulting from the ÉcoTrophélia competition . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Framework for the analysis of ÉcoTrophélia projects . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. ÉcoTrophélia projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1. VitaPlus: a range of dishes for pleasure, health and vitality for the elderly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2. Mixi’Mousse: rice-based mixes and mousses for hospitalized people suffering from dysphagia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3. Minigloo: a nutritious frozen dessert for children aged 1 to 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.4. Vertu: biscuits with plant extracts and essential oils to support quitting smoking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.5. Lardons de la mer: high-quality fish offcuts used as bacon meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.6. PannIno: ecodesigned gnocchi with bakery by-products in three flavors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.7. Prêt Par Moi: traditional creamy mixes, culinary aids for the preparation of hot dishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.8. Devatâ: a Cambodian lemongrass liqueur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.9. Kokinéo des Incrépides: the balanced, tasty and complete crispy seafood, accessible to all budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.10. So Sea’S: a vegetarian sausage available in snack form . . . . . . . 3.5.11. Ici&Là: a vegetable burger made from lentils and other vegetables 3.6. Analysis of ÉcoTrophélia projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1. Food ecodesign: an innovative design process that goes beyond new products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2. Detection of opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.3. Selection of the business model and product architecture . . . . . . . 3.6.4. Determination of the innovation frontier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.5. Learning and arbitration of ecodesign practices . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.6. Creating sustainable value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

103 104 107 108 113

. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . .


. . . . . .

163 172

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

180 189 196 202

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

202 204 205 206 207 209 213


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Chapter 4. Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Feedback on the ÉcoTrophélia cases: definition of the ecodesign project phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1. Entry point: a strong individual commitment . . . . . . . . 4.1.2. Creativity: ideation and conceptualization . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3. Market analysis: definition of strategic positioning . . . . 4.1.4. Knowledge creation: the use of experimentation, experts and partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.5. Product development: taking sustainability into account . 4.1.6. Communicating sustainability: towards new distribution systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.7. Towards the construction of sustainable business models . 4.1.8. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Resilience in the development of ecoinnovation within the framework of student projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1. The importance of the starting point for innovation . . . . 4.2.2. New knowledge, new tools, complex decision-making and consistent choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Transfer of experience to training and the company . . . . . . 4.3.1. Educational contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2. Managerial contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

217 218 218 219

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

221 222

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

222 223 224

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

224 227

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

227 228 229 229 233 240 241

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .


. . . . . . .

Foreword Experience and Imagination

When the two people in charge of the ÉcoTrophélia project – one being the outstanding organizer of the ÉcoTrophélia student competition and the other the head of AgroParisTech, a school for the training of the French food elite – asked me to write a foreword, I pondered the subject. Here is another book on this famous and indispensable ecological food transition, a book for “ecoinnovation” in food that is based on the reflections of “agro” students. Is this really serious? But once you know the background of the two authors, you are reassured about the rigorous aspect of the book. Beyond its academicism, this book is crucial. Certainly so. It is crucial because it is essential for future professionals, students and engineers who will provide us with the food of tomorrow, a possible 10 billion human beings by 2050! Everyone knows or should know that if we continue to produce our food as we have done for decades, our planet will no longer accept it. We are talking about transition when the situation requires a revolution, a revolution to challenge decades of practice, habits, traditions, beliefs and doctrines. The authors are aware, to know them well, that the most recent in this game are the most effective. This includes AgroParisTech engineers, who having worked for 20 years on the innovative projects of XTC’s customers, participate happily each year in the national ÉcoTrophélia Jury. I too know, beyond their rigor, their formidable creative power, their great ability to overcome established rules and not to bother with professional constraints... that they do not yet know. And I am always impressed with the result. This is the great interest of this book: to know how to propose another perspective on the methods that will make tomorrow’s food, combining experience with imagination, the best of the scientific literature on the subject and the creative power of the best of tomorrow’s engineers.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

The authors provide us with an overview of methodological guidelines, good practices and essential tools for all those who will contribute to our food future. However, they don’t add up to a collection of successful recipes. Because when it comes to innovation, there is no such thing. Innovation and probably even more so ecoinnovation remains a high-risk sport. One out of every two food innovations launched on the French market is a failure in the year following its launch. Undoubtedly, we must ask ourselves what an innovation is. Let us keep it simple and avoid the sterile debate on the true and false innovation dear to theorists. There is only one useful innovation, the one that brings a new benefit to the consumer. This benefit, in this case, will be an “eco-benefit” that integrates the environment from the design of the product or service and at all stages of its lifecycle. From the formulation of the recipe, the farm, the processor, the packaging, logistics, the sale, the consumption, the end of life, these benefits are potentially very numerous. These include the ecology of the manufacturing process, the ecodesign of packaging, the reduction of energy resources, fair price for all operators in the sector, animal welfare, etc. Eco-benefits will have to overcome constraints: compliance with specifications, technical feasibility, controlled impact transfer, cost control, time to market, risk management and, of course, consumer expectations. This final constraint is difficult to understand, with a somewhat whimsical and inconsistent behavior of those who refuse palm oil except in their favorite spread and stigmatize over-packaging by buying in bulk and their mineral water in packs of six bottles. Let us never forget that the winning innovation is a set of several benefits whose combination will seduce the consumer. The main risk here would be to suggest that the ecodesigned nature of the product will be solely responsible for the failure or future success of the product. It is important to remember one thing: beyond the vital aspect of eating, eating is above all an act of pleasure. But, in the same way that consumers do not accept a guilty pleasure in terms of their own health, they will refuse tomorrow a pleasure that could harm our planet. If this consumer is not aware of the urgency of the subject, those who will tomorrow be at the helm of the food industry could have the heavy responsibility of proposing an offer adapted to this vital issue for all of us. May this book help them to do so. Xavier TERLET President of XTC World Innovation


In 2012, the ÉcoTrophélia project was selected by the Agence nationale de la recherche (ANR) as one of the winners of the “Initiatives d’excelle en formations innovantes”, IDEFI (Initiatives of Excellence in Innovative Training) call for projects. Thirteen institutions took part in this project, the aim of which was to promote ecodesign and ecoinnovation in higher education courses, by promoting the development of curricula on this subject in their courses. These establishments are AgroParisTech, AgroSup Dijon, UL-ENSAIA, ENSCBP-Bordeaux INP, ISARA Lyon, Montpellier SupAgro, Oniris Nantes, EBI, ESIROI Université de La Réunion, ESIX, FMA-UHA, AgroCampus Ouest and PURPAN. The success of these projects was based on the skills of a group of teacherresearchers, whose dual mission was to support and tutor student groups and to mobilize common knowledge and skills to propose new learning frameworks for ecoinnovation processes. These supervisors were numerous in all the institutions; the list provided below stipulates those directly involved in ANR ÉcoTrophélia. We equally thank their many colleagues who also contributed to the project. These direct supervisors of the project included: – AgroParisTech: Agnès Marsset-Baglieri and Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris; – AgroSup Dijon: Jean-Marie Perrier-Cornet and Gaëlle Roudaut; – UL-ENSAIA: Catherine Humeau-Virot and Lionel Muniglia; – ENSCBP-Bordeaux INP: Fernando Leal-Calderon and Aziz Omari; – ISARA Lyon: Jérôme Zlatoff and Pascal Boulon;


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

– Montpellier SupAgro: Bernard Cuq; – Oniris: Jean-Marc Ferrandi; – EBI: Clémence Bernard and Laurence Taupin; – ESIROI: Fabienne Barnavon-Remize; – ESIX: Martine Sarrette; – FMA-UHA: Saloua Bennaghmouch and Sybille Farine; – AgroCampus Ouest: Thomas Croguennec, Amélie Deglaire, Juliane Floury, Coralie Germain, Catherine Guerin, Valérie Lechevalier and Françoise Nau; – PURPAN: Loubnah Belahcen, Gwenaëlle Jard, Peter Magali and Hélène Tormo. The ÉcoTrophélia project was, in fact, also supported by the contribution of a group of engineers specifically recruited by partner institutions. These engineers were: Benoît Cuillère, Angela Frugone, Olivier Toppin, Stéphane Brun, Céline Levert, Hiam Serhan, Ana Amado, Amrine Lallmahomed, Alicia Bernardi, Flavy Benoit, Gaëlle Petit, Laura Cousin, Corinne Stewart, Grégoire Fronteau, Marie Maison, Élise Bourcier, Lou Dumas, Agathe Couvreur, Élodie Barre, Sophia El Andaloussi, Camille Ponchon, Mélanie Sotiriou, Lucas Arhens, Leslie Saint-Marc, Sylvain Claude, Marine Martin, Lucile Meyer, Anaïs Le Moign, Morgane Le Guisquet, Jacky Madi Corodji, Fatema Abassbhay, Noémie Gerbault and Marine Lagardère. Since 2000, the ÉcoTrophélia competition has motivated the organization and participation of teams to present new ecodesigned products. This book illustrates a very small part of the ecodesign projects submitted to the national and European competitions. We extend our gratitude to all the members who organized these two contests. Finally, this project was initiated, led and coordinated by CCI Vaucluse led by Dominique Ladeveze, whose team composed of Benoît Cuillière, Angela Frugone, Olivier Toppin, Stéphane Brun, Céline Levert, Catherine Gravezat and Nickie Mauche.



Our appreciation also goes to the ANR and to all these institutions, teacherresearchers, students, engineers and members of CCI Vaucluse, whose various contributions have fueled the ideas and work presented in this book, as we hope it will contribute to enriching your reflections and projects.


The history of food shows a permanent dynamic of innovation. These innovations concern the foods themselves, their production processes, and the methods of distribution or preservation used. Various innovation levers have been mobilized, highlighting at least two strategies: – scientific or technological progress; – the change in eating behaviors and of individuals or communities. In this context, companies have also changed their practices to include innovation as a major focus. Thousands of new foods are offered every year, even though not all of them find their market; this shows the remarkable creativity and dynamism of an undoubtedly very original economic sector. All these innovations – whether they address food safety, the control or creation of new sensory perceptions, the redefinition of nutritional compositions, the introduction of efficient biological agents (such as probiotics), innovative packaging, food-related services such as ease of preparation – are always part of a purpose that accompanies human activities and their evolution or even their mutation. There is little doubt that advances in science, a better understanding of the effects of food on humans, such as the ongoing work on humans’ digestive health, will continue to open up many avenues for food innovation or renovation. However, in a societal context where ecological, environmental and societal responsibility concerns are on the rise, a new order is emerging. The environmental impact of food and agriculture plays a major role in global warming, carbon impact and in general the future of societies. This role is increasingly analyzed, informed and communicated, and modifies food demand and behavior. It also modifies the


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

supply and influence of food companies’ strategies. This context induces a need for new innovations and opens up a field for ecodesign and ecoinnovation. These types of approaches are not, in fact, so new. They were often practiced historically either to reduce costs (energy savings, and material savings in particular) or for reasons specific to a particular agricultural resource or food. There is nevertheless a great interest in understanding, mastering and implementing approaches, tools and methods to ecodesign food and develop more sustainable business models. In the absence of a formal method, good practices deserve to be analyzed, developed and compiled. For a collective of teachers and institutions training in food engineering in various curricula, ecodesign therefore appears to be a significant challenge. Since 2000, several higher education institutions have jointly organized a dynamic based on the establishment of a national food innovation competition, reserved for graduate students (initially named Trophélia, then ÉcoTrophélia, see box I.1). This competition, which has become a European success, made it possible in 2012 to create a project to share methods, concepts and resources dedicated to the ecodesign of food. Thanks to the implementation of a project-based learning pedagogy in the training curricula, students developed project management, management and communication skills that traditional curricula did not provide and confront creative issues. It was a rewarding, useful, professional and practical experience that became highly sought after by companies. Higher education institutions have thus adapted the content of their courses, taking into account all the skills required to create eco-innovative food products. Eighteen years of cooperation around competition have made it possible to share a common analysis, a recent development of which has sought to better teach ecodesign of food. Each collective of teachers has strengths, originalities and the whole covers a priori all the necessary skills. The objectives were: – to work on product engineering with an ecodesigned purpose and on renewed business models in order to make ecoinnovation possible; – to confront a wide range of situations through student projects, supervised by teachers or researchers. These projects may be the result of requests from companies, ideas from teachers and researchers, or proposals from students. In the pedagogical management of projects, it has proved useful in building training tools and reflecting on the very varied dimensions of ecodesign. The contextualization of each project shows that a generic method does not emerge, but practices, tools and training content are required and therefore the acquisition of certain skills is essential.



After six years of working together, it seemed useful to make a restitution so that engineers and students could have an overview and guidance on these methods, good practices and tools. This is the purpose of this book. It was difficult to present the hundreds of projects developed and their diversity. A dozen of them were therefore chosen, and this description is the focus of a chapter. However, it was essential to contextualize current developments in food and, more generally, in food systems. The driving forces for companies to engage in ecodesign and innovation are then analyzed. Finally, on the basis of the ÉcoTrophélia cases presented and discussed, we have a chapter that analyzes the driving forces and obstacles to ecodesign and ecoinnovation. This provides the subsequent content of the book in detail. Part 1, entitled “Food and Sustainable Development Challenges”, describes the context and issues of food sustainability based on an analysis of the structure and dynamics of food system evolution. It is structured around two chapters: – Chapter 1, “Food: Issues and Challenges”, describes the historical evolution of food systems that contribute to the development of our food, and discusses the positive and negative impacts of their evolution. Recent trends, scenarios and challenges that sustainable development poses to food systems to contribute to the ecological transition of food functions are analyzed; – Chapter 2, “The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food”, shows how sustainable development is expressed in the form of corporate social responsibility according to three strategies: a prescriptive strategy through regulation, a normative strategy through voluntary standards for continuous process improvement and a proactive strategy through the integration of ecodesign practices into activities to promote ecoinnovation. It also presents the ecodesign management tools and methods that instrumentalize the implementation of sustainable development in the business systems of companies. Part 2, entitled “Implementation of Ecodesign Practices in Food Innovation Projects”, illustrates the consideration of the four pillars of sustainable food development through the ÉcoTrophélia projects presented, highlighting these impacts on the characteristics of products and business models. This presentation is structured around two chapters: – Chapter 3, “Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects”, describes how the ÉcoTrophélia project and competition were created and for what purposes. It defines the building blocks of the “Ideonis” toolbox implemented by students in the process of carrying out their ecoinnovation projects. This chapter


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

details 11 projects developed between 2001 and 2017 that we have grouped into four categories related to the orientation axis of the value of innovation: a) health through food; b) improving the added value of by-products and the fight against waste; c) the consideration of populations in precarious situations; and d) protein transition; – Chapter 4, “Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation”, presents the lessons learned from these project experiences. It defines the different phases of an ecoinnovation project, from stakeholder engagement to market creation and analysis sessions, and knowledge creation process (new experiences and partnerships), and engages in the construction of a sustainable business model. This chapter also reviews the main obstacles to eco-responsible innovation and highlights the educational and managerial contributions drawn from these projects. This work is the result of a very significant collective of students, lecturers, researchers and engineers in companies, all of whom are thanked for it. In 2000, the Chambre de commerce et d’industrie du Vaucluse (Vaucluse Chamber of Commerce and Industry) created Trophélia, student trophies for food innovation. Since then, 1,750 students and their teacher-researchers from more than 20 French higher education institutions have come together to present more than 700 new food products, bringing universities and businesses closer together. In 18 years, the formula has spread and ÉcoTrophélia has taken on a European dimension, a real reference in terms of innovation transfer and bringing together the academic world and agri-food professionals. Today, in nearly 20 European countries, ÉcoTrophélia Europe is stimulating the creation of student-food innovation competitions, with the support of the European Union and professional federations. Since 2011, ÉcoTrophélia Europe has motivated the organization of 120 national competitions, brought together more than 500 universities and nearly 4,000 European students, and enabled the celebration of more than 400 innovative food products. This success is the result of broad partnerships at the local, national and European levels. The various actors have found an interesting complementarity to create a structuring and beneficial dynamic for the whole sector. ÉcoTrophélia Europe is to date a major European event for innovation and competitiveness of agri-food companies.

History of the project1 2000. At the initiative of CCI Vaucluse, Actia (Technical Coordination Association for the Food Industry) and the Agroparc Technopole, higher education institutions, universities, professional branches and technical centers organized the first Trophélia.

1 Available at:



2008. Based on the principle that made Trophélia France so successful, CCI Vaucluse and ANIA created the Trophélia Europe competition as part of the SIAL (Salon international de l’alimentation) in Paris, which was participated by eight countries. The involvement of the national food federations grouped within FoodDrinkEurope supported this European development. The winner of the national selections of each participating Member State was de facto the representative of its country in the European competition. 2011. The European Commission recognized Trophélia’s exemplarity and mandated CCI Vaucluse to implement a European project to promote ecoinnovation in the agri-food sector. Students had to integrate an eco-responsible dimension into the design and implementation of their project. Taking into account the elements of sustainable development in the development of agri-food products has become a requirement and a major challenge for the competitiveness of agri-food companies for the future. Trophélia thus became ÉcoTrophélia. 2012. ÉcoTrophélia was one of the winners of the IDEFI call for projects, selected as part of the Programme investissements d’avenir, France. The objective of this project was to create a national and European network for training in excellence in food innovation and to strengthen the competitiveness of agri-food companies (particularly SMEs) through innovation for the years ahead. It also aimed to become an exemplary pedagogical model with international visibility through the recognition of the excellence of national agri-food education, thus contributing to the structuring of the leading European industry. 2013. The 2030 Innovation Commission announced the launch of the global innovation competition. The organization of this global competition was specifically inspired by the ÉcoTrophélia competition, a now recognized reference in food innovation. 2014. The support of the French Fund for Food and Health made it possible to create the “ÉcoTrophélia France innovation nutrition” prize. 2015. ÉcoTrophélia was a partner of the France pavilion at the Milan 2015 Universal Exhibition “Feeding the planet, energy for life”, and 16 European countries participated in ÉcoTrophélia Europe 2015 at the European Commission pavilion. 2016. INTERFEL awarded the competition a new special prize “Services INTERFEL” to encourage the creation of services associated with the product and belonging to the world of fresh fruits and vegetables. 2017. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food awarded the competition a special “Fight against food waste” prize to encourage the reduction of food waste, at the processing, distribution and/or consumption stage at home or out-of-home catering. Box I.1. ÉcoTrophélia: history and principle of the project


Food and Sustainable Development Challenges

Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries, First Edition. Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris, Hiam Serhan, Sibylle Duchaîne, Jean-Marc Ferrandi and Gilles Trystram. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

1 Food: Issues and Challenges

1.1. History and roles of food Providing food is one of the major human activities, both for individuals and the organization of societies. Eating meets a vital need, but is also a source of questioning on the impacts of this diet on health. The solutions sought to meet this need vary according to different ethical, religious, community, social and other criteria. These solutions rely on anthropological, legal, health, chemical or microbiological studies and analyses. Indeed, the term “food” is a polysemic: it refers just as much to a science, a context and an industry. The social and scientific questions related to this term have not ceased to evolve over time, with the consequence that more and more scientific disciplines have become involved in this field. These questions have always connected food to agriculture, livestock and fisheries. Even before the existence of organized agriculture, hunter-gatherers had to deal with concerns about their food, including preserving a level of hygiene, making it edible, as well as preserving food for “delayed consumption” when cultivation was not possible. These challenges remain and are the essential foundations for a history of food. To illustrate the main stages of this food history, Table 1.1 presents some key dates. These dates illustrate the various means implemented to ensure, first, a delayed consumption of food and then, gradually, the complementary search for flavors, tastes, textures and savors (olfactory sensations) that provide a new organoleptic1 dimension that differentiates foods. These goals prompted the diversification of food sources and changes in diet. The history of various foods illustrates the evolution of consumer tastes and expectations. To illustrate, for a long time in France, white bread was a symbol of bourgeois wealth;

1 An organoleptic property is any aspect that can excite a sensory receptor.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

in contrast to brown bread, which was consumed by subordinate social groups. It was not until the 1970s that the nutritional qualities of wholemeal bread (made with wholemeal flour) was discovered (Curtet 1998). The examples in Table 1.1 show that, in order to achieve food’s key nutritional functions (providing essential nutrients for the body’s make-up, maintenance and protection), it was necessary to develop physical, chemical and biological processes, either alone or in combination. It is thanks to these innovations that it has been possible to ensure the processing of agricultural raw materials and allow the development of a considerable range of attributes (criteria determining a food value). Since the 1950s, there has been an acceleration in these dynamics of changes in food supply and expectations about food. Two major developments have been the development of transport and of the cold chain that significantly changed the link between agricultural production, location, processing, distribution and food consumption. In the aftermath of World War II, the ambition to feed the population led to the development of the contemporary dominant agro-industrial food system. Initially built to produce, process and distribute safe food, the system’s objectives have evolved. Due to fierce competition, its development has produced new foods that create new perceptions and sensations for their consumers. In order to ensure the stability of industrial processes and the characteristics of the final products, a standardization of agricultural materials was carried out, which contributed to the reduction of biodiversity. Thereafter, the pursuit of innovation has focused on diversifying and strengthening the nutritional functions of differentiated foods that meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population. Finally, more recently, the agro-industrial system has integrated concerns about sustainability, including natural resources preservation, environment protection and various social issues – as the impact of the food on the health – into the design of food. However, the impacts of food cannot be considered solely through the prism of a particular food product. The nature of the diet and the associated mental behavioral components are also essential considerations. Moreover, there are not one but many food models; however, this book focuses on the agro-industrial model developed in the industrial countries. Indeed, the development of industrial solutions, guaranteeing in particular low food costs (the share of the French household budget devoted to food was 25% in 1970 and 13% today) is predominant and has been accompanied by urbanization – a phenomenon that can be observed globally as consumers have relocated to cities, often far from agricultural production.

Food: Issues and Challenges

- 400,000

First proof of cooked food

- 9,000

Cheese-making technology

Delayed consumption of dairy products

- 5,000

Drying of meat products in their own fat (Egypt)

First known application of meat product frying without vegetable fat

- 4,000

Beer fermentation

- 3,000


- 2,400

Beekeeping (Egypt) hive engineering

- 2,000

Drying, salting, smoking of meat products (Babylon/Egypt)

- 2,000

Noodles (China)

Stabilization of meat products for preservation under non-controlled conditions

- 300

Jam (Italy)

- 340

Sausages (Greece)

- 350

Crystallization of sugar (India)


Different laws and regulations for brewing processes

First appearance of food regulation


Fried potatoes (Belgium)

Use of vegetable oil

Concentration of sugar cane juice: first fermentation and distillation of molasses

Example of circular economy and energy recovery and material saving


Stock cubes (France)

Use of by-products to reduce loss and reduce waste




Establishment of industrial plants for drying


Manual extrusion, used in 1920 for pasta


Beet sugar


First canned food

17th Century

Packing and preservation

Preservation for delayed consumption



Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries


Deep freezing of food


Thermal stabilization of wine: Louis Pasteur


Baby food (Nestlé)

Dried food products, long-term preservation without cooling


Margarine, butter substitute: H. MegeMouries

Alternative to butter (animal product) with vegetable butter


Spray drying of foods and powders


Popcorn machines (Charles Cretors)


UHT for liquids


Coca-Cola (John Pemberton, Atlanta, United States)


Dried coffee (New Zealand)


Hydrogenation of oils


Corn flakes (John Harvey Kellogg)


Aseptic processing of food

Food safety, preservation


Food storage in a controlled atmosphere

Packing and preservation


Cleaning in dairy processes

Safe, sanitary dairy processes in particular


Food irradiation




Artificial steaks, in vitro Table 1.1. Examples of food history and associated discoveries

Food: Issues and Challenges


1.2. Environmental impacts related to food Food production represents at least a third of the production of greenhouse gases (but also 23% of the carbon impact, 23% of the water impact and 9% of the energy impact) (Martin 2015). Behind these data, there is a significant difference between the impacts of animal and plant resources: in the West, the ratio of the amount of plant protein ingested to produce one kilogram of animal protein is, on average, 7 for cattle, 6 for chickens and pigs, and 3 for eggs. If we turn to the food processing phases, they impact the natural environment through wastewater discharges, particularly water withdrawals and significant energy consumption. Some aspects of the food production process, such as heat treatment, consume significant amounts of energy. Food packaging also has a major environmental impact through the waste it produces. Finally, in France, 25–30% of processed food is wasted (not consumed) and some studies estimate that controlling this waste alone would make it possible to address global food insecurity (Esnouf et al. 2011). Minimizing waste during food processing and stabilization is an old issue. For example, sugar cane factories (see Table 1.1) historically have been self-sufficient in terms of energy and can even generate and supply electricity to the grid because a lot of work has been done to control their energy consumption. Moreover, beet sugar factories have gradually but dramatically reduced their water consumption and encouraged the reuse of process water. Some deli meats are also energy self-sufficient thanks to the reuse of animal fats. Today, energy accounts for only 3–15% of food processing costs and there is much engineering work underway to further reduce energy use. The optimization of transportation and warehousing is a vital area for further preservation, as the environmental impacts created by transportation can be significant. Finally, food storage (including refrigeration) and cooking also have significant environmental impacts. However, the relationship between diet and environmental impact is complex. Foods with high energy density are the strongest contributors to the greenhouse effect; therefore, the higher the proportion of calories or dense foods consumed, the greater the impact per unit mass. But they are also the most satisfying and can therefore require smaller quantities. Contrary to beliefs, a good diet in nutritional terms has a powerful impact on the environment. Indeed, since a good diet includes low energy density foods, the amount consumed can be higher than in a high calorie diet (Darmon 2015). Eating habits are therefore crucial to the environmental impacts of our food. Reducing this impact means regulating consumption in terms of food choices and quantities consumed.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

1.3. Food systems The term “food” refers both to an individual process and to the services provided by one or more food systems that deliver food to populations. The term “food system” refers to “all the activities that contribute to the food function in a given society [...] the way in which people organize themselves to produce and consume, as well as the level and structure of their consumption” (Malassis 1994, p. 11). In other words, a food system refers to a production and consumption model it induces in a given space and context. It mobilizes its own actors, resources and means that enable it to produce and distribute food products/services. A food system constitutes of a specific implementation of the food function and the multiplicity of existing food systems synthetizes the various food offers in markets. Today, in Europe, faced with the constraints and opportunities of sustainable development, food systems are being pressured to make unprecedented changes that relate to their four key stakeholders: public authorities, farmers, the agri-food industries, and consumers. Public authorities are introducing policies, regulations, action plans, scenarios, etc., to promote sustainability in all food systems and to ensure that citizens have sufficient food available in sufficient quantities, with sufficient hygienic and nutritional qualities to meet the required standards. At the same time, agriculture in developed countries is facing a difficult economic context as climate change poses a threat to plant and animal production in the required quantity and quality. To avoid the world without “agriculture” predicted by Peter Timmer in 2009 (Timmer 2009a), profound changes are required. That is the challenge of sustainable agricultural development faced with a concentrated, specialized and customer-oriented agro-industry and large-scale distribution (Timmer 2009b). The agri-food industries – interfaces between agricultural supply and demand requirements – are being questioned by a growing proportion of the population demanding unstandardized and sustainable food products. This societal demand calls not only for innovative products/services but also for “natural” foods, made with simple, healthy ingredients, produced with ethical practices while respecting the environment. A multitude of expectations must be met to satisfy these demands. It is necessary to develop products that make positive short- and long-term contribution to consumer health and are economically accessible, practical, tasty, nutritionally adapted and environmentally friendly. Finally, these products have to integrate values and symbols that are consistent with the beliefs of responsible consumers.

Food: Issues and Challenges


The development of such customized food products requires a systemic and multidisciplinary approach. It introduces a value chain approach to ensure a sustainable development path. In order to better illustrate the facts that have led the different food system stakeholders to seek new practices, in the following section we briefly review the strong ties that link the creation of food systems (FS) to the development of our modern societies (see section 1.3.1). Since there are not one but several FSs, we review the scientific literature to illustrate the factors that specifically characterize them (see section 1.3.2). We then outline in the chronological order of their appearance the major models of FSs in developed countries (see section 1.3.3). This definition of the major patterns enables us to establish the evolution of food consumption allowed by the successive and synchronous existence of these different FSs (see section 1.4). Section 1.5 provides an overview of the contribution of these production and consumption models to sustainable development issues. Finally, section 1.6 presents the challenges and issues facing food system actors (producers, processors, public policies and consumers) in order to increase the sustainability of the practices and products that characterize them. 1.3.1. The emergence of food systems The food systems underpin our societal structures. Food systems have always been a major concern for humanity, because the existence and well-being of societies depend on the efficiency and quality of food production and distribution. The structures and dynamics of food systems are influenced by a set of elements (means, institutions, practices and actors), formal and informal relationships between their actors and the regulatory modes that govern them (e.g. market, conventions, norms and regulations). It is through these structures and their combinations that companies organize their food supplies and consumption (Esnouf et al. 2011). The analysis of food supply from the food system(s) perspective first of all raises questions about how each of the food systems contributes to the satisfaction and evolution of the food provision. Second, the food system paradigm allows us to question the type of actors and activities that structure and animate the system. These include agriculture, transportation, processing, distribution and consumption. In order to integrate sustainable development into the food system through innovation, it is essential to consider the nature and impacts of the various activities and their interactions. Such a framework makes visible the relationships between the activities, flows, institutions and the knowledge necessary to feed a population.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Addressing food issues (eating or feeding a population) requires us to study the conceptual foundations of food systems, for which researchers have used two complementary methodologies. The first is the systemic approach and the second the historical and socio-economic approach. Figure 1.1 provides an overview of the two conceptual methodologies for studying food systems.

Figure 1.1. Synthesis proposal on the two conceptual approaches to the study of food systems. For a color version of this figure, see

– The systemic approach conceives a food system as a network of interdependent actors located in a given geographical space (region, nation, multinational space). These actors participate, directly or indirectly, in flows of goods and services oriented towards meeting the food needs of one or more consumer groups, within or outside the focal area. Any modification of an element in this system may result in the modification of one or more other elements. This approach is useful for understanding the dynamics that relational knowledge or specialized and scattered knowledge among different stakeholders (Bengtsson et al. 2015) can create. It does

Food: Issues and Challenges


not, however, meet our need here to present a global overview of the major forms of existing food systems in developed countries. – The historical and socio-economic approach highlights the characteristics of the different periods that have shaped the world history of food. For example, Malassis (1994) referred to three main periods or “food ages” that are mainly present in developed markets: the pre-agricultural age (hunting and gathering); the agricultural age (sedentarization of humans, cultivation, livestock) and the agro-industrial age (agriculture based on industrial and commercial activities). This periodization is extended by Rastoin’s (2015) claim that we are now in an “agrotertiary” age. In this period, farmers are no longer just agricultural producers, they also provide services related to products or region. In this age, food is, from the point of view of its economic content – no longer simply a material good, but a service-solution to certain problems in particular contexts. The decreasing duration of each of these periods can be attributed to an acceleration of technological change. In Europe, the duration of the first agricultural era was estimated at 10,000 years, while the artisanal era was estimated at a few centuries, the following agro-industrial era was estimated at less than a century, and the agrotertiary era has only been in existence for a few decades. Reflecting the living conditions of the populations, each of these periods gave rise to a diversity of food systems. However, this apparent linearity of the evolution of food systems is artificial, because these different models can coexist, in varying degrees of relative importance, according to geographical areas. Thus, the development of industrial production does not imply the complete disappearance of handicraft production. Indeed, to understand the diversity of existing food systems, a finer analytical grid than historical trajectories is required. 1.3.2. Characterization of food systems Even though an exhaustive description of food systems is unrealistic, it is possible to draw out their diversity by using a supply chain heuristic. Colonna et al. (2011) provide such an analysis in their research. The elements identified can be grouped into three groups of semantic variables as shown in Table 1.2. The consideration of these variables illustrates the diversity of supply chains and food products that may exist. However, within this diversity, six archetypal food systems can be identified that we outline in the next section.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries



1. Stuctural variables of supply chains, from raw materials to delivery of products/services

These variables describe the geographical proximity between production and consumption (food miles); the number of intermediate actors in distribution circuits (“short circuits” versus “long circuits”); the degree of processing and incorporated service (“raw product” versus “processed product”); the nature of the product, its nutritional values, its food/non-food uses, its preservationn methods; and the concentration of production units.

2. Variables attributable to political or institutional approaches.

The following are taken into account: work organization (“family” versus “wage”, “artisanal” versus “industrial”): competition and trade framework; forms of financialization of trade and risk management: the roleand forms of public action (state intervention, local authorities, international institutions); control of the system (direct or indirect support); the international integration or not of the system; governance (control of decisions and information, standardization, approaches through contracts and value chains).

3. Variables that relate to the cognitive processes and social behaviors of the populations concerned by the products and services.

These variables measure the product quality, standards/signs and organizations with which it is associated; the product’s relationship to geographical space; the place and legitimacy of technologies (GMOs in Europe); the consideration of people or social justice in production, exchanges and consumption (ethical, cultural or religious dimensions); knowledge and mastery of culinary know-how of food preparation (traditional recipes guaranteed).

Table 1.2. Characterization elements of supply chains (source: Colonna et al. (2011))

1.3.3. Historical evolution of food systems: models and functions Historically, different food system models have emerged to meet the needs of the various actors in food production and distribution process and the populations dependent on these systems. Figure 1.2 illustrates the major FS models and their global function. Each system is the result of a particular organization and a specific network of actors. Indeed, the industrialization of the agricultural sector and distribution has resulted in the transformation of the food economies in the way of a mass consumption economy (Malassis 1996). This market is made up of an intertwined set of food systems whose respective importance varies according to the

Food: Issues and Challenges


production and import capacities of each country. But this market is also defined according to the standards of living, consumption practices and public expectations.

Figure 1.2. The major models of food systems providing the creation of world food supply. For a color version of this figure, see The domestic food system In the domestic food system, processing and consumption are undertaken at the site of raw material production. This system provides for the subsistence of a large part of the populations in poorer nations. Recently, this system has been undergoing a renaissance both in the developed and developing countries and even in urban areas. Its mode of functioning can be organized by an individual, a family or a community through either allotment or plots or shared urban gardens (Scheromm et al. 2014). The local food system The local food system differs from the previous one in that it sells all or part of its production. Historically, this FS is present throughout the world, and currently strengthened in the northern countries through the involvement of local communities through local markets, direct sales on farms, consumer associations and/or producer organizations such as the Association du maintien d’une agriculture paysanne (AMAP).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries The convenience food system or traditional food circuit The convenience food system allows the exchange of basic food products (cereals, tubers, pulses, fruits and vegetables) that can be stored and transported over medium distances (100–1,000 km) from production to consumption sites, which are often urban. The main logic that motivates actors in this system (i.e. producers, transporters, wholesalers, artisanal or semi-industrial processing companies and retailers) is to secure the supply and distribution of their production with relatively low material investments. The agro-industrial food system The agro-industrial food system has emerged since the 1950s. It is based on the development of improved transportation and the agri-food industries (AFIs). This system is based on a logic of producing standardized food at the lowest possible cost with stable quality for mass markets. The objective of this type of system is to take advantage of economies of scale to reduce production costs and thus the final cost to the consumer. This system has led to a decrease in the share of the household budgets devoted to food. This has made it possible for consumers to spend on other items, including education, housing and recreation. Thus, the share of the budget of French households devoted to the purchase of food and beverages (alcoholic and non-alcoholic) fell sharply from 34.6% in 1960 to 15.1% in 2016 (Bourgeois 2017). This industrialization replaced artisanal farmers’ knowledge with scientific and technical knowledge, nearly all of which is developed outside farming. With the globalization of markets, dominant players (manufacturers or distributors) have emerged. These actors can often define the required quality of the farm output and impose it as a standard (Humphrey and Memedovic 2006). Paradoxically, even though this standardization ensures the stability of food characteristics and guarantees food safety, it also contributes to a reduction in the diversity of agricultural practices and biodiversity. Finally, it is predicated on the use of chemical inputs to ensure the required productivity (Meynard et al. 2016). For this system to develop, two prerequisites were essential: the ability to preserve and store food to ensure its year round availability. The two major innovations that made this possible were (Soler et al. 2011): – the development of preservation techniques such as some food preservatives and refrigeration systems. These techniques encouraged the development of abundant supplies, especially of ultra-fresh and dairy products. It also contributed greatly to the deseasonalization of the fruit and vegetable supplies;

Food: Issues and Challenges


– the use of various preservatives that ensure that the desired properties of the food product are consistent. The evolution of the general principles on which the contemporary food industry is based has been made possible by the dissociation of two stages in the transformation process (Soler et al. 2011): – the refining of agricultural raw materials in such a way as to extract their elementary components; – reassembly, which is the process by which food is reconstituted from these elementary components to constitute a recipe. This deconstruction/reassembly dynamic is at the heart of industrial processes for processing and preserving food products. The purpose of this dynamic is to modulate the properties of the raw materials to control the properties that are inherent in the processed product (Trystram 2004). The dissociation of the stages of the transformation process has resulted in the emergence of two types of companies: – manufacturers of intermediate food products (ingredients, additives and technological inputs), whose main research and development activity is focused on improving cracking processes, i.e. the reduction of complex organic molecules into smaller ones or ensuring that the desired properties of the final products are achieved; – assembly manufacturers, whose innovations have focused on developing new products, thereby considerably expanding the range of products available to consumers. In Europe, the food supply from agro-industrial food systems now confronts societal demands in certain markets. These demands include, for example, the reduction in meal preparation times due to women entering the work force and the increasing proportion of single-parent households. In France, increased urbanization has resulted in shorter meals and demand for practical, almost tailor-made meals (Madella 2018). Thus, to accompany these new lifestyles, food is becoming more and more functional as expressed in the saying “we eat as we live”. Simultaneously, growing concerns about the impact of food production on the environment and its consumption on health are pushing the evolution of food systems (Kantar TNS study conducted for SIAL 2016). In this regard, the European Commission points out that “urban planning and management” and innovations in urban food systems are providing development opportunities in both urban and rural areas, improving food security and countering various forms of malnutrition (De Cunto et al. 2017). This is at the heart of current widespread concerns about how to feed the world’s population in 2050 if two-thirds of the population lives in cities (FAO 2014).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries Food systems of differentiated quality The products of these food systems have differentiated identification signs and/or product quality attributes. While these are not on the product, they exist as signifiers of environmental, superior, original, ethical, religious and other qualities. This information is therefore embodied in quality signifiers such as the clean label, fair trade or private brands described as homemade products, traditional recipes, etc. Different production, processing, distribution and consumption systems are involved in the creation of each of these quality indicators: – food systems committed to heritage quality. These systems based on particular regions or knowledge systems (e.g. about production or processing) represent devices for linking food quality to natural particularities or ways of producing the food item. For example, official quality signs such as PGIs (Protected Geographical Indication) in Europe guarantee a strong link between the product and the production conditions of its place of origin. TSG (Traditional Specialty Guaranteed) products certify that a food product has been manufactured according to a traditional recipe; – food systems of superior taste and quality. French products certified “Label Rouge”, for example, guarantee quality linked to superior production or manufacturing conditions, varieties or breeds; – food systems linked to the natural attributes of agricultural or livestock practices. Product quality is based on environmentally friendly, energy-efficient practices and the people involved in production. These include organic farming, sustainable agriculture or permaculture. These systems can incorporate various values such as environmental protection, food safety through the absence of synthetic plant protection products, animal welfare, ecosystem, biodiversity, etc., that consumers consider important; – food systems with ethical, religious or community quality. Here, the product’s quality is derived from these systems, such as fair trade, kosher and halal. These are based on practices and organizations that respect moral or religious values and/or solidarity with a category of people such as small producers in the South, people with disabilities, or members of a religious faith. The agrotertiary food system The agrotertiary system has been developing since the end of the 20th Century. While the increased demand for services changed the definition of supply in its agro-industrial production and dissemination stages, it had also changed consumers’ and producers’ expectations of agricultural production stages.

Food: Issues and Challenges


This evolution suggests that now agriculture has a new market logic that defines new competition between producers and is based on new concepts and methods adopted from the tertiary sector. This tertiarization appears in three ways (Lorino and Nefussi 2007): – farmers have become providers of market services. For example, they are involved in the development of green tourism (catering, accommodation, etc.); – farmers become non-market service providers. Here, they are recognized as providing landscape management, land use, environmental preservation, etc.; – the tertiarization of agricultural production, providing a “product-service” can mean making raw products available in places close to where consumers live (vegetable baskets at the exit of the subway, at the workplace, etc.) or undertaking initial processing on the farm. This includes producing soups or preserves, butchering fresh meat and vacuum packing, and a myriad of other products/services. With agricultural sector tertiarization, value creation methods within food chains are changing and becoming more complex (Lorino and Nefussi 2007). This tertiarization suggests reexamining the modes of creating and sharing the economic value created. The addition of a service to the agricultural product allows farmers to increase the value of the product, but also transforms the farm’s economic model. Food processing requires premises that comply with the health regulations. This implies investments in equipment and training, but also requires operators to find time to produce, promote and distribute their products. Similarly, the creation and implementation of biogas plants, linking local authorities, food distribution stakeholders and farmers, reexamine the nature of the value created by the agricultural producer and the definition of his/her profession. Finally, the multiplication of data capture applications, the compiling and processing of crop and livestock data, including data on land conditions, reactions to animal and land treatments, etc., provide new sources of value creation. Food actors are therefore confronted with new service challenges related to the digitalization of the agricultural and agri-food sector. Digital technological innovations can be used to develop new “sustainable” solutions to decision-making processes. For example, by providing a better knowledge of plots and crop needs, precision agriculture makes it possible to reduce inputs through the more precise use of seedlings and treatments (use at the right time, in the right dose, etc.) and thus reduce environmental impacts (PwC 2016). Through these innovations, the added value of agricultural and food technologies becomes less linked to the tangible aspects of the machines themselves and more linked to digital services that accompany them. Today, almost all machines have sensors that collect data not only on their own


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

operation, but also on the environment in which they operate (Zysman and Kenney 2018). Indeed, these machines, ranging from feeding stations and dairy farm milking machines to tractors and machines for sowing and field harvesting, can detect, collect and transmit data to databases where the information can be processed and presumably result in greater efficiency. To achieve their optimal service efficiency – for economic actors and for the environment – the use of these technologies will require new working and organizational methods, new skills that will be accompanied with greater processing of information flows. While these digital innovations offer new opportunities for agri-food system actors (improved operational function, prediction of risks, etc.), they nevertheless change skill requirements, such as an ability to use software and analyze output, and change employment and employability. These may change the role of farmers in this transformation of the organization of work in agricultural, food and distribution enterprises. These new organizational forms in the agricultural world are emerging and changing the existing order in response to the expectations of public and societal policies. This requires firms, which are dependent on consumer confidence, to create innovative or customized food products, introduced as “solutions” compatible with the new requirements. This means the development of products that meet current values, including respect for the environment, improved animal husbandry conditions, and the enhancement of the production area of agricultural products. Conclusions about the co-existence of food systems The different elements that interact in the creation of food systems and the multiple values of the products/services they create show that the food function and its challenges have been constantly evolving since the sedentarization of man. The evolution of these food systems illustrates a shift from a traditional food system producing low-processed food products of high heritage value to one in which food products of pre-specified (standardized) quality and in which the definition of the proposed food product is characterized by an approach of building the problem/solution pair that is always renewed (HLPE 2017). This renewal is made possible by the active integration of consumer needs and societal requirements into food product design and innovation which improves an existing product or creates a new one. In this model solutions are, at least in part, co-designed, co-produced and implemented by the various actors in the food value chains. These solutions are increasingly the result of collective action by various parties and undertaken with the goal of creating a more sustainable food supply. However, if there is indeed a time frame for the emergence of these different systems, one of the factors contributing to the complexity of this economic sector is the coexistence and intermingling of these different systems. Coexisting in varying proportions according to geographical areas, needs, cultures and wealth of local populations, the systems respond locally to

Food: Issues and Challenges


the expectations of different socio-economic groups. One of the questions raised by the desire to integrate sustainable development into the overall food system is how to understand the balance required to maintain between the variety of systems and the types and organizational forms that the current digital revolution should enable and that could meet current and future global challenges, and how this could occur, while respecting the know-how of businesses involved in developing the food supply. 1.4. Evolution of food: disruptions in the practices and symbolism of foodstuffs Section 1.3 introduced the organizational archetypes of major food systems and the objectives to which they respond. In this section, we describe how changes in the practices and paradigms of the various stakeholders have made it possible to transform these systems and change the very nature of food. The evolution of food is understood in the light of the changes that society has undergone as a result of the industrial and agricultural revolutions. The industrial revolution, a consequence of the discovery and exploitation of fossil fuels, has totally changed the role of physical labor and the scale of food production and processing. This industrial revolution has transformed agriculture and changed not only production, but also the functions and value of food. The mechanization of agriculture, the intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides, and progress in the processing, packaging, transport and marketing of agricultural products have all contributed to and been the result of the emergence of an agri-food industry. All of these developments coevolved with changes in consumer demand and societal needs. The food evolution has taken place in a context of growing populations and wealth. An increasing number of innovations of functional food have been accompanied by the development of these riches. This process of “industrial capitalism” (Cohen 2006) manifested itself through six revolutions or disruptions (see Table 1.3): in agricultural production modes (see section 1.4.1), business organization (see section 1.4.2), agricultural food processing, land use and development (see section 1.4.3), distribution (see section 1.4.4), consumption (see section 1.4.5) and in the identity and value of food products (see section 1.4.6).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries



Disruptions in agricultural production modes

Standardized agricultural raw material. Digital management of agricultural work.

Disruptions in the ways companies are organized

Mechanization of production units. Standardized management systems.

Disruptions in the ways in which space is occupied and developed

Transition of food production from the farm to the sectors. Agricultural spaces as lands of geographical denomination and know-how

Disruptions in distribution systems

Proliferation of food and non-food products inhypermarkets. Concentration of distribution and development of distributors’ private labels.

Disruptions in consumption patterns

New models for the organization of consumption. (procurement practices, preparation, consumption). Search for new meanings to food functions.

Disruptions in the values carried by food

Development of health foods. Development of new food design skills.

Table 1.3. Relationship between changes in food systems and in agricultural and industrial practices

We next discuss these different disruptions and show how technological advances in the food system are related to increased knowledge about food, its components, changes during storage, mechanisms for controlling desirable or undesirable biochemical compounds and processes, all of which have contributed to the enhancement of food quality and safety. We then reflect on the positive and negative consequences of this progress. 1.4.1. Disruptions in agricultural production modes During the 20th Century, cultivation and livestock farming methods in developed countries underwent a major transformation. Extensive animal husbandry practices (open-air grazing), in large part, have given way to intensive animal husbandry. Thus, of the 60 million hens raised in France, only 5 million live outdoors. Globally, industrial livestock farming produces 74% of the poultry meat, 50% of the pork meat, 43% of the beef and 68% of the eggs consumed2. 2 Source:

Food: Issues and Challenges


Agricultural raw materials have gradually become standardized in order to limit the impact of production hazards on the quantity and quality of products intended for industry. At the same time, the globalization of raw materials flows has broadened the sources of supply for factories and dispersed agricultural and food flows in an increasingly complex and intertwined system of international trade. The transformation of agricultural inputs and outputs and livestock through genetic selection practices has led to a reduction in the number, diversity and variability of agricultural raw materials over time (see Figure 1.3). The standardization of the characteristics of raw materials facilitates the productivity of industrial processes and the stability of the performance of processed products, but reduces the variety of agricultural supply. However, the reconstruction of product variety at the industrial level, precisely at the assembly stage, increases the diversity of finished products, introducing delayed innovations as an important feature of the dominant food system (Trystram 2012). However, the evolution of the supply of food systems is not only driven by technological innovations. As mentioned in Table 1.2, societal demand is also responsible for the increase in the number and change in the nature of the quality criteria for defining a foodstuff.

Figure 1.3. Trends and figures in the evolution of agricultural practices and livestock (source: FAO 2014a). For a color version of this figure, see


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

To better analyze the quality of a food product, Barbosa-Canovas et al. (2009) propose eight variables: – sensory and organoleptic components; – nutritional components; – safety; – cost; – practicality, including food stability and preservation; – the image linking the product to a landscape, a culture; – environmental protection, sustainable agriculture and organic farming; – ethics, as occurs with, for example, the development of fair trade products. The wide range of solutions made possible by the intersection of all these characteristics sheds light on the complexity of food product design. This complexity is reinforced by the variability in the final consumer’s perception of their culture, previous experiences, timing and tasting conditions (Eckert et al. 2014). The evolution of food supply over the past century, which has led to the multiplicity of these criteria, is illustrated in the French context by Figure 1.4 resulting from the work of Colonna et al. (2011). The latest development is the rise of concerns about the sustainability of food systems. This concern has led food production stakeholders to reengineer their previous criteria to make them compatible with the principles and challenges of sustainable development. The technical constraints of the processing industries require, on the one hand, stable properties in raw materials and, on the other hand, compositions appropriate to the physico-chemical reactions they must control (e.g. a high gluten content of wheat for baking). These constraints have pushed agricultural production towards specialization and standardization. This standardization has moved innovation spaces to transformation, where new recipes are created. The value-creating factors in this area were initially far removed from the quality of the material itself. Then there were, questions on the impact of material quality on consumer health, and then finally on nature and society. 1.4.2. Disruptions in the way companies are organized Initially, the craftsman was replaced by the factory operator; then the number of the latter decreased due to the mechanization of production. The loss of knowledge, know-how and responsibilities of the operators of these successive organizations has

Food: Issues and Challenges


made it necessary to invent new forms of management. They address these knowledge gaps and propose hierarchical structures that establish shared responsibility. This is the challenge of Taylorian and Fordist forms of labor organization.

Figure 1.4. Historical evolution of factors explaining the evolution of food quality (source: Colonna et al. 2011). For a color version of this figure, see

In France, in the middle of the 19th Century, following problems of falsification and fraud affecting certain food products (wine in particular), regulatory frameworks developed with a dual objective of disciplining competition through economic regulation and protecting consumers through health regulations. Indeed, in terms of consumer health regulation, the government no longer controls the quality of the processes of transformation, as this role has been transferred to the producer of the product (Stanziani 2005). There, the producer must ensure that the processes guarantee safety. For companies, these regulatory frameworks, although often perceived as constraining and costly, have provided training and learning support for their staff. This contribution was further reinforced by the implementation of Total Quality Management [TQM]) principles (Juran and de Feo 2010). At the end of the 20th Century, food quality control and assurance were integrated into organizational management practices as a new source of business value. The deployment of quality management system standards (the ISO 9001 family) has become widespread in agri-food companies and craft workshops, thereby playing a major role in the dynamics of these organizations and increasing the value of food products. Indeed, by supporting continuous improvement loops,


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

the type of management linked to these normative approaches allows the development of the company’s dynamic capabilities (Teece 2007). These dynamic capabilities represent the company’s ability to identify new needs and opportunities and to seize and transform its practices and culture to meet new needs through relevant innovations. This transformation involves the integration, into the organizational structure and production processes, of new knowledge (related to technologies, processes, supplies, including the expertise of external stakeholders) that complements and reconfigures the elements of its business model. The shift from artisanal to industrial food production has distanced the end user from the raw material producer. This distance implies a transfer of responsibility, as the processor becomes the guarantor of the level of hygiene of the product. To ensure this result, public policies have established a regulatory framework that ensures the health and safety of production and thus consumer protection. This regulatory framework his complemented by a normative framework, based on good practices, the implementation of which can have two effects. First, the application of standards provides certain factors that differentiate the product offering and include compliance with rules regarding the product’s safety. Second, management system standards are a potential source of questioning established practices, and encourage the analysis of new stakeholder needs; in this sense, they constitute a lever of innovation for the company (Serhan 2017). 1.4.3. Disruptions in the ways in which space is occupied and developed By moving away from their initial status as food producers, consumers have changed their eating habits, while having an increasing concern about their food. They no longer know the history of the product they consume, feel they have lost control over the quality of their food and consequently question their trust in the food industry in general and in food brands in particular. These concerns have been fuelled by various scandals and journalistic investigations. Fischler (2004) distinguishes two categories of changes that have occurred since the 1950s that have contributed to the evolution of Western eating habits: – general changes (social and demographic factors, etc.) have impacted the use of the agricultural space in Western European countries. In the 1950s, a quarter of the French population lived off the land or in the countryside. Between 1980 and 2007, the active agricultural population in France dropped from 8 to 3.4% of the total active population (Agreste 2011). Between 2010 and 2013, the number of farms fell by a further 8% from 490,000 to 450,000 (INSEE 2015). Moreover, agricultural activity no longer depends on all family members, as farmers’ spouses are increasingly working off farms (Agreste 2012);

Food: Issues and Challenges


– Changes, specifically in relation to the field of food, have influenced the diet and sense of the function in industrial countries. Food has become a product processed by industry or food services firms and is increasingly consumed outside the home. Social categories are also changing as consumers are increasingly from “white-collar” occupations and have different nutritional and service needs from those consumers with high levels of physical activity that constituted a preponderance of food markets in the 1960s. The development of specific quality food products (AOP, PGI) has addressed some of these concerns. These products, which are based on a region, have enabled producer groups to differentiate themselves by reserving names (mainly geographical) associated with “products of origin” whose specificity is linked to local production conditions (geology, climate) and related heritage (traditional know-how). However, over the past 20 years, the differentiation function played by appellations of origin and food certification has become less predominant. This is because of the establishment of private label products that have the advantage of referring to the locations, but also have lower prices (Lagrange and Valceschini 2007). The increasing urbanization of populations has intensified the extent of the gap between agricultural production and consumers. In parallel urban lifestyles, changes in household composition and the increase in employment among women increased consumer demand for processed food despite the concerns they have about such foods. The development of registered designations and quality labels is an attempt to address these concerns and create products with higher added value. And yet, the multiplication of such quality signs has, in recent years, blurred their meaning and reduced their effectiveness with consumers. 1.4.4. Disruptions in distribution systems The evolution of food distribution methods has accompanied the industrialization of the agri-food sectors. The distributor, with their central purchasing offices, has established itself as a key intermediary between producers and consumers. Their prevalence is reinforced by the information asymmetry that exists between the producer and the consumer and by their financial power during price negotiations. In addition, the development of transportation, ingredient and food preservation techniques have made it possible to provide year-round access to a wide variety of foods, exotic or not. In France, for example, between 1958 (when the first supermarket appeared) and 2001, the number of hypermarkets increased by a factor of 100. These hypermarkets introduced three major changes in food distribution: self-service, low prices and “all under one roof”. For example, with Carrefour, in 1963 the hypermarket began offering food and non-food products and petrol


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

pumps in its parking lots. Today, in France, distribution is dominated by six players that have captured more than 80% of the market with sales in 2011 of 166 billion euros (Eurogroup consulting 2012 study). The concentration of distribution and the development of in-house brands have changed the balance of power between distributors, processors and agricultural producers. The economic pressure imposed by the distributors on the processors increasingly affects the raw material producers. Indeed, in France, upstream differentiation (supply marketing) has given way to downstream differentiation (demand marketing), i.e. a personalized service offer according to consumers’ expectations and needs. In “downstream marketing”, the strategies of the commercial brands, under the pressure of requests for price reductions from distributors, have invested even more in promotions. The excessive use of such practices has led to a decrease in food prices. Thus, IRI data (Puget 2018) shows continuous food price deflation of food in the French market between January 2012 and January 2017. In response to this business model environment, both agricultural producers and processors have sought ways to circumvent this distribution system. This is the case, for example, of the development of “short-circuits”, which are associations of producer-sellers that market at physical sales points or on the Internet, and the development by agricultural cooperatives of brands of processed products sold in supermarkets or in their own retail outlets. The Internet distribution system for Nespresso coffee capsules illustrates the alternative solutions sought by the major brands. Finally, it is now the US Internet giants (GAFA)3 that threaten these distribution systems. For example, Amazon in the United States or Alibaba in China offer food distribution services with fast ordering and delivery solutions such as Amazon Dash buttons. The development of mass distribution has allowed access to a multiplicity of food products and has democratized the consumption of products hitherto reserved for specific social classes and/or special events. In parallel, the “trivialization” of access to food and the distance between production and consumption on which it is based may have contributed to a form of “devaluation” of food for some consumers. Promotional practices in distribution such as a customer appeal policy have reinforced this trend and have resulted in increasing price pressure. The ultimate impact of these pressures is decreasing purchase prices for agricultural raw materials. As a result, alternative models have developed over the past 10 years. These include short circuits and in-house brand distribution systems. The development of Internet sales is now challenging all of these distribution systems and forcing consideration of multi-channel systems in order to reach all markets. 3 GAFA: Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple.

Food: Issues and Challenges


1.4.5. Disruptions in consumption patterns The rise of mass retailing has largely contributed to the evolution of consumption patterns, i.e. the way we organize ourselves to consume. But it has also changed the nature and amount of food we eat. These consumption patterns include the organization of the socio-economic unit of consumption (family), the functions of this unit (supply, storage and meal preparation), food practices (culinary systems and food intake) and table manners (culture and society) (Malassis 1994). Several distribution and marketing strategies contributed to this evolution (Étude Eurogroup Consulting 2012): – convenience coupled with diversity of choices: stores are closer to urban areas and offer food and non-food; – controlled hygienic safety as mass distribution is undertaken under standards and hygiene rules (HACCP: Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point), which improves product quality and safety; – the democratization of economic access to products for various social groups as stores increasingly stock luxury products, such as salmon and foie gras, and also exotic products, such as sushi and salsa. There are also first-price or private-label products. While households are spending an ever smaller proportion of their budget on food, this is also changing. Consumption of fruit and vegetables, breads and cereals meat, and alcoholic beverages is decreasing, but the consumption of processed and sweetened products, as well as ready meals is increasing (INSEE 2015). However, some consumers have become aware of the effects of the industrial production and consumption model on global warming, depletion of natural resources, nutrition and health and social inequalities. This awareness is now driving food system actors to search for alternative business models to provide new meaning to food and new values for food. These new expectations regarding food supply have prompted some agricultural producers and some agri-food industries to adopt new innovative strategies to enhance the value of their products through new production techniques valuing nutrition and health, respect for the environment, humans, biodiversity and land. Supermarkets with an abundant supply of both food and non-food products have changed our consumption patterns. Awareness of the effects of industrial production on natural resources, the environment and the social factors involved in the food chain is driving some consumers to demand products with ethical and ecological characteristics that are superior to what has been previously offered.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

1.4.6. Disruption in food values In developed countries in the 1980s, to give products an identity compatible with the search for a positive impact on health, the concept “healthy food” was introduced. These “foods” were meant to create a new form of value for food by contributing to the eater’s health. The role of food is no longer only to nourish and provide the calories required to satisfy metabolic functions. It should provide the right nutrients to prevent disease or delay aging; something particularly important in societies where self-image is becoming increasingly important. Such a perspective fundamentally transforms the objectives of food product design, transforming it from the “pleasure food” rationale characteristic of the traditional French culinary model to a “healthy food” rationale that was adopted in the English-speaking countries. This nutritional model, which also experienced success in Asia, has struggled to be accepted in France. Despite the French market’s reluctance to accept such health foods, certain functional foods, aimed at a specific health function, have been commercially successful. Actimel is an example of these successes. This product is fermented milk enriched with probiotics and vitamins marketed as a food that strengthens the immune system. Cereals fortified with oat bran fermented with lactic acid bacteria beneficial to the intestinal flora or margarines fortified with vegetable stanols to lower cholesterol levels are other examples of functional/customized foods associated with specific health objectives. However, in France, these health-oriented innovations are often perceived as “unidentified edible objects” (Fischler 2001). While some consumers have acquired the necessary nutritional knowledge to take an interest in these new products, others have not accepted them either due to lack of knowledge and/or refusal to eat foods perceived as unnatural (Lagrange and Valceschini 2007). However, demand for natural food has grown in the 21st Century. A desire for “just food” (Padilla et al. 2005) has grown among some consumers in search of authentic products whose origins and/or manufacturing processes is known. These are products that the consumer believes express who they are and, as such are singular (Camus 2004). They are characterized by the naturalness of their ingredients (organic farming, ingredients with little processing, etc.) and are believed to contribute to the health of their eaters. The raw and processed products from the Bleu-Blanc-Cœur sector containing omega-3 rates higher than those on the market illustrate the products that have been accepted and valued by this market. In this case, the omega-3 content is not due to a “fortification” of the food a posteriori (such as certain milks that can be fortified with iron), but due

Food: Issues and Challenges


to a modification of the animal feed thanks to the addition of flax in its food. This practice, for the majority of consumers, does not contravene their desire due to the “natural” animal feed practices. In this new competitive context, the challenge for companies no longer lies solely in the speed of creation and market access obtained through “continuous innovations” (Deschamps and Nayak 1997; Verona and Ravasi 2003), but rather in their ability to thoroughly review the functionalities and expertise required to design a product/service adapted to and valued by the society needs (Acquier 2007). To do this, companies must develop new practices that allow them not only to open up to their environment, but also to experiment internally (Achtenhagen et al. 2013). These practices were defined by Chesbrough and Brown (2006) as open innovation. This “open or distributed innovation” model recognizes the advantages of relying on the access and use of expertise and technologies developed by several external actors in order to produce, in our case, food products of societal interest. The value of the innovations resulting from this model is linked to the company’s ability to learn and absorb external and specialized knowledge to complement internal knowledge and to increase the value or functions of a differentiated product offer. In a sustainable development framework, food innovation could be a “mutually beneficial” learning process between the food industries and their stakeholders. By integrating the needs and skills of different external stakeholders into the management strategy and practices (vision, mission, business models), the companies tend to “manage society”, i.e. introduce the management needs of the company into new spheres such as public institutions, academic research and standardization bodies. And by demanding food innovations from manufacturers that meet the principles of sustainable development, society (consumers and stakeholders, the environment) tends to “socialize management” (Acquier 2007), i.e. systematically integrate social dynamics within management (well-being, health, environment, etc.). To meet the expectations of a part of the society in which they operate, companies are engaged, through a transformation of their practices (speeches, tools and methods), in innovative design, symbolic communication and awareness-raising efforts. These facilitate the acceptance of the company’s innovations by target consumers. These innovations tend to “manage the society” and are continually enriched by societal transformations and new requirements to create value.

Loss and waste during transportation

Relocation of activities to countries with costs advantages Long distribution circuits Transport pollution Nutritional transition; more meaty, fatty and sugary diets

Increasing direct investments abroad (Carrefour has 12,300 stores in more than 30 countries) Intensive international trade


Globalizing agroindustrial model

Increase in food availability in some developing countries (globalized network for processing and distribution of standardized products). “Global food with no typical flavors”.

Economic security poorly distributed among economic agents (increase in revenue for industrial groups to the detriment of small agricultural and agri-food producers). “Unbalanced diet”

Economic security of farmers in impoverished developing countries that have less competitive agricultural production. “Irresponsible feeding at the socio-economic level”

Food use: Diets are not diversified Foods lose a lot of nutrients Nutritional transition inducing diet related chronic diseases “Non-nutritious food”

Physical availability of food: quantitative food security (supply side) is ensured in Western countries and there is still need to reconsider population growth by 2050 “Sufficient and safe food”


Table 1.4. Impacts of the agro-industrial food system on food security and the environment. For a color version of this figure, see

Different governance models (large groups, family businesses and cooperatives).

Sector concentrated upstream and downstream

Shareholders demand short-term profitability

¼ of farmers provide ⅔ of agricultural production Unequal distribution of value added 10% of companies provide Economic viability of agricultural in the agricultural and agri-food producers and of future supply at risk ¾ agro-food industry turnover sectors Mass distribution is handled by 6 stores

Specialized production and processing basins

Agro-industrial leaders are listed on the stock exchange

Erosion of agricultural and food biodiversity More fatty, sugary, and meaty foods


Erosion of agricultural and food Controlling hazards (climate, price) by biodiversity standardizing a limited number of More fatty, sugary, and meaty plants and animals foods

NEGATIVE IMPACTS Massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions Water pollution Soil degradation Decrease in farmers’ incomes Loss of producers’ self-sufficiency Disappearance of bees


Technical innovations (very high yield per hectare, in factories and per worker) Delayed innovations Intensive use of chemicals on the Intensive agricultural and (fractionation/assembly) farm, over-use of antibiotics and industrial practices Creation of new sectors (packaging, hormones logistics, distribution, catering) Reduction of food price High health security


30 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Food: Issues and Challenges


1.5. Contribution of food systems to food supply Since the middle of the 20th Century, leveraging scientific, technological and organizational innovations that have promoted the productivity and competitiveness of agricultural and agri-food products, the agro-industrial food system has responded to the desire to improve Western countries’ food security. It diversified the products available, provided larger quantities and supplemented nutritional intake, while offering an increased range of services adapted to social needs. However, the evolutionary trajectory of this system has also revealed negative impacts, affecting social, ecological and nutritional aspects at each phase of these changes. Table 1.4 summarizes not only the positive and negative aspects of the agro-industrial system, but also its impacts on food security and the environment. 1.5.1. An intensive, specialized and concentrated agro-industrial system The upstream and downstream standardization practices and intensive livestock farming methods have increased agricultural and industrial productivity. And yet, these practices have been responsible for serious environmental, social and cultural damage that threatens the ecosystem, biodiversity and dietary intake. Today, 75% of agricultural biodiversity – the variety and variability of plant, animal and micro-organism species used by farmers – has disappeared in the last 100 years (FAO 2018). There are many other indicators that highlight the damage to biodiversity. For example, – of the 30,000 edible plants, 7,000 are grown or harvested by humans for consumption. Five cereal crops (maize, wheat, rice, barley and sorghum) provide 60% of the world’s population with energy; – of more than 30 species of farmed mammals and birds, 90% of the farmed products for consumption are provided by only 14. In fishing, many species are on the verge of extinction due to overexploitation; – 31% of the yield reduction in plots of less than 2 hectares is linked to the disappearance of bees and other pollinating insects (Vaissière et al. 2011). Food, initially considered as a vital and cultural product, has become an industrial and market (or commodity) good. The leaders that control the modalities of its production, processing and distribution are listed on the stock exchange and pursue short-term growth and profitability objectives even as they offer increasingly inexpensive food products. Moreover, the strong concentration of distributors’ buying groups unbalances the distribution of added value within the agricultural and agri-food sectors in both northern and southern countries (Reardon and Timmer 2007). However, the possible decline of agricultural productivity with the effects of climate change and soil depletion suggests that the trajectory of food systems is likely to lead to an increasingly expensive food supply (Timmer 2017).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

1.5.2. A globalized agro-industrial food system Improving physical and economic access for all consumers to a wide variety of food products is one of the pillars of food sustainability (FAO 2015). However, the negative impacts of supply globalization on the other pillars of sustainable food development, in terms of environmental, social, and nutritional factors, have been highlighted in various studies (Timmer 2017; Fournier and Touzard 2014; Rastoin and Ghersi 2010; Reardon and Timmer 2007). To illustrate, – at the environmental level, international trade in food increases the distance (food miles) between sites of production and consumption. As a result, internationalization increases greenhouse gas emissions and other externalities in the transportation sector, which is responsible for moving goods and providing services between countries (OECD 2011); – at the social level, by investing in foreign countries with better opportunities, foreign investors may cause crises in local financial markets (Reardon and Timmer 2007); – at the nutritional level, the proliferation of supermarkets in emerging countries facilitates the diffusion of new products that stimulate demand while disrupting preexisting diets. As a result, current diets are increasingly migrating to meat and sugarand fat-rich diets, which are responsible for several diseases related to poor nutrition (HLPE 2017). The analysis of the historical trajectory of food systems carried out in this chapter shows a coexistence between a dominant globalized agro-industrial system and alternative food systems. Even though some of these alternative systems have existed for a long time (e.g. short circuits or proximal circuits), others are increasingly reacting to the limits of the current industrial models. A report of the High-Level Panel of Experts of the Committee on World Food Security classifies food systems into three groups and identifies their associated food scourges (HLPE 2017): – traditional food systems that provide unprocessed seasonal products highly dependent on rural sources with heritage value. These suffer from the highest prevalence of undernutrition which includes, stunted growth, wasting infant mortality, etc., and the highest rate of micronutrients; – mixed food systems, with the traditional model and mass distribution, within which all forms of malnutrition coexist; – modern food systems providing healthy, diversified food products sold in stores or prepared food outlets that are characterized by the presence of structured and easily accessible markets in high-income regions. However, these systems also have “food deserts” where there is limited or non-existent access to food and “food quagmires” with an overabundance of unhealthy food and limited access to healthy food; both of which are characteristic of low-income regions. These food systems

Food: Issues and Challenges


are associated with lower rates of undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies than traditional food systems, and also have higher levels of obesity. In a context of developing a sustainable food supply, this cohabitation between the agro-industrial system and alternative systems promotes food security and innovations in the agri-food chain (Fournier and Touzard 2014). These innovations provide a new definition of supply chains, namely environments that offer consumers the opportunity to build new forms of consumption in which the negative impacts of value chains can be reduced. Taking into account the negative impacts of agricultural production and food processing methods has been a subject of much political, economic, sociological, nutritional and academic research and debate in the several decades. This raises concerns about the future of the global food system. But the development of an actionable agenda that takes into account the interests of the various stakeholders in the food system and the planet remains complex. Proposals for improving or changing practices remain in the form of trend-based scenarios. For example, the OECD report published in 2016, entitled “Alternative Futures for Global Food and Agriculture”, proposes three scenarios for the future of the global food system by 2050 based on three key trends (Table 1.5). SCENARIO 2 “Sustainable growth based on citizens’ concerns”

SCENARIO 3 “Rapid growth based on globalization and international cooperation”

More constraints on the use of natural resources.

Uncertainty over agricultural yields linked to global warming.

Produce diversified CHALLENGES foodstuffs in quantity and quality.

Produce respecting the ecosystem.

Adapting to the unpredictable effects of food systems.

Growth and selfsufficiency in fossil PROSPECTIVE energy BUSINESS Investments in STRATEGIES technologies less dependent on fossil fuel and natural resources.

Informed citizens and consumers demanding sustainable consumption Production agenda for a green society Development of regional and urban distribution/ consumption

Internationalization of sustainable innovative cooperation in practices, tools, processes, processing processes and the supply chain (biofuels, green chemistry, renewable energy, etc.).

World Food System Scenario


SCENARIO 1 “State self-sufficiency in the use of fossil energies” Growing and changing food demand.

Table 1.5. Trends, challenges and scenarios for the future global food system (OCED, 2016). For a color version of this figure, see


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

1.6. Trends, challenges and scenarios for a sustainable global food system The challenges of the global food system identified by the OECD (2016) are based on three key trends. These include improving quantitative and nutritional food security; increasing the economic viability of agriculture; preserving biodiversity and respecting scarcity of natural resources; reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution; promoting healthy diets; stopping the cross-border transmission of livestock diseases; and improving food safety and health. 1.6.1. Three trends and challenges – Trend and challenge 1: the growing and changing food demand. The OECD expects further convergence of per capita income between developed and emerging countries given the significant increase in per capita wealth in emerging nations. This should result in a change in the diets of these populations with an increase in animal protein and sugar demands. The challenge here is to produce food for a growing and richer population. – Trend and challenge 2: constraints on natural resources. This challenge focuses on access to natural resources (land, water, fossil energy) that are increasingly limited in order to help mitigate climate change while preserving biodiversity and fragile ecosystems increasingly susceptible to salinization, soil erosion or degradation, deforestation, drought, etc. The scarcity of natural resources could limit the increase in agricultural production and encourage the emergence of risks to quantitative food security. – Trend and challenge 3: uncertainty about the increase in agricultural yields due to climate change. Challenge 3 is to adapt to the unpredictable effects of climate change, which may increase the risks to quantitative food security. These are immense challenges to the development of effective agricultural and food policies. The industrial strategies to operationalize them have been divided by the OECD into three scenarios that seek to answer the following questions: – How can the world food system feed nine billion people by 2050 without destroying ecosystems and social cohesion? – How can agricultural productivity keep pace with rapid demand growth, even as it faces important and unpredictable challenges such as climate change, livestock diseases and other factors that increase production costs? – Will agriculture be a profitable activity in the coming decades, which can help rural areas to develop and maintain their role in local economies and livelihoods?

Food: Issues and Challenges


These scenarios provide projections or tools for constructive discussion, design and implementation of public and private strategies that are robust enough to address the uncertain contours of the evolution of the world’s agricultural and food systems. 1.6.2. Three scenarios or tools to explore the possible future of the global food system – The first scenario, entitled “Individual, fossil fuel-driven growth”, envisages a growth approach based on individual state decisions and dependence on fossil fuels. It provides for a reduction in agricultural yields due to the intensive use of inputs. Demand for animal protein and processed products will continue to grow without taking into account the environmental impact of meat production and the agri-food industries. – The second scenario, entitled “Citizen-driven, sustainable growth” accepts that consumers will strive to build a “green society” by taking greater account of the environmental and social impact of food production in their behavior. It projects a society where consumers consider the purchase, consumption and end-of-life of a food product. – The third scenario, entitled “Fast, globally-driven growth” accepts the scope and depth of international cooperation, the efficiency of markets and multinational companies and technological innovation and support for the diffusion of these new technologies. It accepts that there will be a further intensification of agriculture and a standardization of food products worldwide around a meat-rich diet. If the challenge that food poses to food systems is how to organize themselves to feed the world’s population without harming the ecology (social, economic, environmental and nutritional factors), the previous elements exposed in this book suggest that each of these scenarios can provide only one part of the solution. – Scenario 1 (state’s dependence on fossil fuels) seems relatively profitable for the agricultural world, but the risks in terms of food safety and pollution would be high given the use of very intensive agriculture and low levels of international cooperation. – Scenario 2 (citizenship attitude and behavior) envisages limiting the risks of depletion of natural resources and increases in pollution. According to the OECD, it would improve food safety and diet-related health problems, while limiting biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, it requires significant adaptation efforts on the part of farmers, industrialists and consumers. For example, farmers would be expected to adopt more sustainable production methods, consumers should change their food consumption behavior, and industries and


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

distributors would be expected to develop new strategies and practices to pursue sustainable development. – Scenario 3 (globalization and international cooperation) would increase food availability by promoting agricultural productivity, especially in regions where it is competitive. It is also expected that this scenario would increase environmental (climate change and biodiversity) and health risks. This scenario, which is favorable to large producers, has disadvantages for the planet, consumers, entrepreneurs, and local producers. These three versions show the complexity of developing a sustainable food program or model that strikes the right balance between the interests of the three stakeholders involved in formulating the population’s food well-being. As it stands, these programs and models remain limited to provide a vision of the “future of the world in terms of food”. They do not consider agri-food companies, interfaces and the central drivers of relationships between the agricultural world and consumers. The growth and development strategies, management and business models of these companies play a significant role in farmers’ production methods and consumers’ eating habits. Moreover, these alternative versions of the future of agriculture and food do not specify how to achieve the solutions envisaged. By 2050, climate change and increasing food insecurity will be major challenges for the world’s agricultural and food systems. In this book, we do not intend to propose alternative scenarios for the evolution of the food system; these will undoubtedly come up against an impossible return to the food systems of the agricultural or artisanal age and the difficulty of finding a balance between the socio-economic and ecological objectives of sustainable development. While the coexistence of several alternative food systems is an option to ensure that benefits of sustainable food are respected, the functioning of this cohabitation will remain dependent on consumers’ purchasing and consumption behavior. Through this book, we will seek to place ourselves in a more dynamic perspective, centered on the transformation of the practices of the agro-food companies. This transformative dimension of the company – an intense place of rationalization and transformation – is part of its very nature. As Hatchuel (2000) points out: “the company [...] is not a naturally isolable collective and the permanent revision of its borders (physical, legal, human, commercial, etc.) is a condition of its existence”. The sustainable development is a relatively old political statement (it was first introduced in 1987 in the Brundtland Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development). The introduction of its aspects into the field of company management is recent (Acquier 2007). This movement is described as the “managerialization of sustainable development” (Acquier 2007; Aggeri et al. 2005).

Food: Issues and Challenges


This organizational change suggests for companies the exploitation of “new areas of organization and collective actions” oriented towards reducing the impact of activities on the environment. This should be accomplished by undertaking actions that are ethically respectful of the various involved social groups. Its development also requires sharing the wealth created, allowing the various stakeholders to benefit from the improved conditions of their sustainability. These actions constitute a set of discourses to raise awareness, and transformations in current activities and the nature and services marketed. This shift towards more sustainable food also requires organizations to acquire new knowledge at each level in food value chains. In this book, we will focus on management practices that make “sustainable food development” operational for the agro-food companies. This includes the reconfiguration of products/services and the requalification of the scope of activities. This equalization facilitates the emergence of a sustainable food supply. Two strategies challenge the practices of all actors in the food value chain, from the agricultural plot to the end of a food’s life: ecodesign and ecoinnovation. Ecodesign is an approach that focuses on the environmental improvement of a system, product or service. Ecoinnovation consists of creating new sustainable business strategies, processes, operations, products and services, market approach and organizational structure. This perspective allows companies to evaluate where significant progress can be made to address major challenges, and anticipate and avoid future risks (Yannou-Le Bris and Ferrandi 2016). In Chapter 2, using a “practices” approach, we will define the principles of sustainable development, food sustainability and practices that allow a food system to be part of a sustainable food supply chain. We show, on the one hand, how sustainability issues are instrumentalized by tools, methods and standards and, on the other hand, how food sustainability objectives (nutritional, social, ecological, behavioral) are implemented in the operations of a variety of actors in the food chain. The main challenge of this approach is its contribution to the understanding of the practices and actors that build a sustainable food system, i.e. economically efficient, socially inclusive and sustainable for the planet. It should be sustainable and take into consideration nutritional and health outcomes. It could also be amenable to agro-industrial companies intent upon reconfigurating their business model.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

1.7 Conclusion This chapter aimed to present the evolutions of food systems in order to show the benefits of these evolutions in terms of food security (quantity, quality and price). It was also intended to shed light, without being exhaustive, on the negative impacts of these developments on the sustainability of the dominant agro-industrial food system. This contrast is not meant to be a condemnation but rather a description of the challenges that food actors are called upon to address in order to contribute to the characteristics of the emerging food system. Historical and socio-economic analysis of food systems in developed countries has shown that there is a coexistence between the dominant agro-industrial food system, which is spreading globally. It delivers standardized food products, while also allowing alternative food systems that offer products with sustainable added value products that have less processing, a supply of raw materials from organic agriculture and/or through short distribution channels or products with high heritage and cultural value (territories, labels, fair trade, ethnic products, etc.). This new system is far more complex than previous systems. The factors that enabled the construction and continuous evolution of these food systems indicate that the transformation of these systems’ practices was made possible by the agricultural and industrial revolutions. These contributed to the improvement of the physical (abundance of products) and economic (low-cost) access to an increasingly urban and affluent population worldwide. But today, however, the awareness of the effects of industrial production on natural resources, the environment and the social factors involved in the food chain is compelling public and private actors to formulate scenarios for the global food system based on consumption trends, and the ecological challenges of production, increasing food demand, decreasing agricultural yields and the need for ecological products. Global food systems will face a wide range of challenges in the coming decades. These include a growing population requiring more diversified diets, contributing to economic growth, poverty reduction, rural employment and the development of both rural and urban areas. These challenges are part of a context of increased competition for alternative uses. These include natural resources (land, water), while preserving biodiversity, restoring fragile ecosystems and contributing to climate change mitigation. Agricultural practices will also have to adapt to the unpredictable effects of climate change (higher average temperatures, droughts and floods) that increase risks to food security, particularly in terms of quantities and prices of agricultural commodities.

Food: Issues and Challenges


While the evolution of the function of food and the elements of food systems that contribute to its formation can be understood in the light of the changes that French society has undergone, this evolution is continuing today through the digitalization and the encroachment of digital platforms into the agricultural value chain. This digitalization or dematerialization of data and information may accelerate customer responses and, through technologies such as precision agriculture, ameliorate the environmental impacts of food chain activities. While the digital revolution may transform the world of agriculture, the search for innovation guided by and towards sustainable development will continue. The sustainability of food innovations remains an idiosyncratic process with questions, problems and solutions specific to each society, each culture and each country. It also raises questions about the modes of governance that should be adopted to regulate the relationships between the actors responsible for the creation and processing of these data and who should capture the value generated by the knowledge resulting from data processing. In Chapter 2, we will review the concepts, tools and methods currently used by organizations to develop responses to these issues. Through different perspectives and approaches, we will propose to illustrate the means and resources that organizations can use in their design, production practices and interactions with their stakeholders to transform business models and products in ways that increase their sustainability.

2 The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food

2.1. Food and ecological transition In the “The Limits of Growth” report published in 1972 (Meadows et al. 1972), for the first time, the Club of Rome confronted economic growth models with the limits of natural resources. This report is based on the results of a model that was specifically developed to investigate the impacts of six major trends of global concern: 1) accelerating industrialization, 2) rapid population growth, 3) widespread malnutrition, 4) depletion of non-renewable resources, 5) a deteriorating environment and 6) the consequences of this deterioration on the availability of qualitative food. The concept of sustainable development emerged in 1987, in the Brundtland report “Our Common Future”, which was prepared for the first UN World Commission on Environment and Development. In this report, sustainable development is defined as “a mode of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. It considered “the possibility of a new economic growth era – essential to alleviate the poverty that is only intensifying in most of the developing countries – based on policies that would protect and even enhance the resources themselves” (p. 7). From the 1970s, multiple economic and social crises shook the world: oil shocks, debts of developing countries, oil spills, global warming, ozone layer depletion, loss of biodiversity, etc. These crises have been a major cause of poverty, and the global perception of these events has gradually brought the concept of sustainable development into the consciousness of not only many private and public actors, but also a growing number of citizens. Thus, in 2017, 71.5% of French people were interested in more responsible consumption behavior (Greenflex 2017).

Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries, First Edition. Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris, Hiam Serhan, Sibylle Duchaîne, Jean-Marc Ferrandi and Gilles Trystram. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Companies have been addressing sustainable development issues since the “Rio Earth Summit” in 1992. The multiplicity of issues raised by sustainable development introduced the concept of economic, social and environmental development to companies and management as an emergent “hypernorm” under which a range of ethical beliefs and responsible practices must converge to implement its principles on multiple lower-level organisational standards. This implementation requires the involvement of individual and collective values, the use of appropriate technologies and responsible practices. As these new practices are enforced in the organization’s strategies and relations, societal goals are likely to shift from growth to development (Gladwin et al. 1995). A strong sustainability cannot be based on a system of trade-offs between the impacts produced by human and industrial activities (Daly 1990), but on avoiding these different impacts. For example, the deterioration of biodiversity should not be allowed, even though we believe that we will succeed, through scientific progress, in conserving biodiversity that is just sufficient for our food. Similarly, Gladwin et al. (1995) express a vision of non-anthropocentric sustainable development based on the following principles: – the earth and its ecosystem are humanity’s only habitat. They must be preserved; – humans have a specific responsibility because they alone can be aware of the need to change their behavior and have the means to implement this change. These positions, which are already well established, form the basis of a lively debate that continues today. Thus, while the proportion of the French population concerned with sustainable development is constantly increasing, the phenomena of radicalization of behavior can also be observed. These differences pit “neo-activist” groups invested in sustainable consumption, information and demonstration activities, signing petitions, etc. against two social groups who are not involved either by choice (“the retracted” or not interested) or necessity (“the ecotidians”) (Greenflex 2017). In fact, the behavior of any actor (individual, entrepreneur, system, organization, etc.) with respect to the ecosystem in which the activities are carried out is the integrating factor for the principles of sustainable development. Although it is defined by a general framework of recommendations, its actions and practices are defined in terms of their own values and beliefs. As a contribution to defining this framework, in 2015, the OECD proposed the program “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (OECD 2015a), setting out the 17 sustainable development goals (see Figure 2.1).

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


Figure 2.1. The 17 sustainable development goals (source: OECD 2015a). For a color version of this figure, see

Some of these goals are particularly relevant to food systems. Agriculture and food play an important role in this program (FAO 2015a) (see Table 2.1). Indeed, the specific challenges for food systems are reflected in eight objectives. These objectives provide guidelines for activities and actors in the agri-food value chain to support the development of sustainable food systems. In addition, the FAO defines sustainable diets (not the sustainability of food systems) as: “diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible,


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

economically fair and affordable, nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources” (FAO 2010). These two approaches to food sustainability – individual sustainability for individual health and the impact on global issues – intersect and form sources of synergies for food organizations. They provide frameworks for setting objectives for improving the sustainability of practices and products to be achieved. SD GOALS RELATED TO FOOD SYSTEMS


SDG 1: Combat poverty through inclusive and equitable growth.

Invest in and improve rural livelihoods. Create social protection systems. Establish bridges between cities and countryside. Strengthen the income of farmers, forest producers, fishermen, etc.

SDG 2: Contribute to the eradication of hunger.

Transform food and agricultural systems through the adoption of sustainable lifestyles and work practices. Improve governance and guarantee political will to act. Sustainably increase food production in a way that respects the environment.

SDG 6: Reduce water consumption and sanitation.

Increase food production by using less water. Reduce water withdrawals intended for livestock and crops.

SDG 7: Make energy clean and affordable.

Reduce energy consumption that impacts food prices. Reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

SDG 12: Ensure sustainable production and consumption.

Produce more by reducing the impact on the environment (soil, water, nutrients). Adopt healthy and nutritious diets with lower environmental footprints.

SDG 13: Combat climate change.

Invest in the agricultural sector to mitigate its effects on climate change.

SDG 14: Conserve the oceans, seas and marine resources.

Balance industrial and artisanal fishing and aquaculture. Balance growth and conservation of resources.

SDG 15: Promote the sustainable development of terrestrial ecosystems.

Sustainably manage terrestrial ecosystems, mountains, forests, lands, soils and biodiversity.

Table 2.1. Sustainable development goals related to food systems (source: FAO 2015a)

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is one of the concrete frameworks for action, which makes it possible to establish the issues considered and the solutions that these organizations have to deploy. 2.2. Ecological transition and corporate social responsibility Following the second Grenelle de l’environnement (Grenelle Environment Forum), French companies with more than 500 employees were required (from January 1, 2014) to inform their stakeholders of their social, environmental and societal actions, i.e. their actions in terms of social responsibility. Since August 1, 2017, the legislative framework for the publication of non-financial information has been modified in order to align it with the requirements of the European CSR Directive 2014/95 of October 22, 2014. As a result, a declaration of non-financial performance has replaced the previous CSR report and obliges the company to reconfigure its strategic management and governance on this subject. A “non-financial performance statement” written by the company reports on this information. The company sets out its business model; on this basis, it identifies its own sustainable development issues and defines the performance indicators that fit its objectives. In addition, the declaration must describe: – the company’s practices and results that take into account the social and environmental consequences of its activity; – the measurement of the impact of its activities and the use of the goods and services it produces on climate change; – the societal commitments of the company to sustainable development, the circular economy and the prevention of food waste and losses (ADEME 2014); – the actions and agreements undertaken, and their impact on the company’s economic performance and employees’ working conditions; – its actions in the fight against discrimination and to promote diversity. When the company is listed on the stock exchange, its declaration must state the effects of its activity in terms of respect for human rights and the fight against corruption. The companies affected by this reporting obligation are joint stock companies, excluding the SAS (Société par Actions Simplifiée): – for listed companies with a balance sheet of more than €20 million or a net turnover of more than €40 million, and an average of more than 500 permanent employees employed in the financial year;


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

– for unlisted companies with a balance sheet total of more than €100 million or a net turnover of more than €100 million, and an average of more than 500 permanent employees employed in the financial year. CSR is thus at the forefront along with a growing recognition of its importance by companies. In parallel, to guarantee the implementation of activities and more sustainable practices, procedures, standards and certifications of these “good practices” are emerging, which paradoxically risk reducing the diversity of the actions carried out and their meaning. CSR developed in Western countries after the Trente Glorieuses (in France, the period of 30 years following World War II) in parallel with the weakening of the welfare state. However, the mission of the corporate strategy is: “to create, maintain and develop sufficient conditions of congruence between the project that the leading group (or strategic core) designs and/or authorizes, organizational resources and skills, stakeholder expectations and requirements of the stakeholders selected, in relation to the traditional technical and economic factors, to designate the ‘environment’ of the company” (Martinet and Payaud 2014). The company “in society” thus rediscovers the omnipresence of politics (in the original sense of managing the city’s affairs): each situation exposes it to different stakeholders who may have conflicting interests. These actors in economic transactions or in socio-political interaction with it have means, reasons for acting and powers that may diverge. They discuss, negotiate and find compromises. How then can the relevance of decisions, including their effectiveness and efficiency, be ensured? On what criteria should performance levels be calculated, based and established? How long will they be valid? But at the same time, in whose interests should these decisions be made: the shareholders only, all or some of the stakeholders? What is the legitimacy of the selected stakeholders in relation to the shareholders who assume the original financial risk? Finally, accounting for stakeholders and implementing a social responsibility policy commits the company to areas where its performance becomes inseparable from the good, acceptable and fair in terms of both form and content (Martinet 2006). The partnership vision of the company modifies the “natural course of events” of the traditional shareholder capitalist vision (Charreaux and Desbrières 1988), and forces those in charge to make different decisions. “To be free and responsible, this decision must do things differently and more than deploy or reveal an already potentially present truth, such as a power or an opportunity, an existing force” (Dérida 2001, quoted by Moriceau 2006). To decide is not synonymous with complying with the result of a calculation or wanting to maximize a score, or to

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


always and without question follow stakeholder requests. To decide is “to make a choice at the crossroads of causes and reasons, but without being chained to these choices” (Moriceau 2006). 2.2.1. The different strategies observed Three strategies are generally observed in companies with regard to the integration of practices that aim to meet sustainable development challenges in the creation of the product and service offerings (Butel-Bellini 2011): – the prescriptive strategy focuses on the legal regulations that the company must take into account in its decisions and activities. In this strategy, the company adapts its practices to comply with the regulation to avoid the risks of prosecution incurred in the event of non-compliance with the laws in force (Martinet and Reynaud 2004); – the normative strategy pushes the company to a voluntary approach to jointly meet the regulatory obligations and expectations of some of its stakeholders who are interested and impacted by its activities. Its commitment to a sustainable development approach requires a strategic intention that goes beyond the compliance dimension to legitimize the company’s activities and function in its sector and in society. The action to be carried out is guided by the framework of the labels and certifications obtained or sought; – the proactive strategy or the management of food sustainability through ecodesign and ecoinnovation: integrating environmental and societal constraints from the product design phase implies the construction of a real strategic policy in terms of sustainable development. This policy harmonizes the actions decided upon and implemented within and outside the standards framework. It involves going beyond regulatory and generic expectations (adaptation to expressed needs). Sustainable development is really becoming an opportunity for innovation, a source of value thanks to the creation of a differentiated product or service (Institut de dévelopement de produits 2014). 2.2.2. The origin of stakeholders and corporate social responsibility Following the scandals that have marked the “course of trade” in recent years, companies have to meet new societal, legal and/or moral requirements. In particular, the public expects them to behave responsibly and ethically rather than damage the social structure, the environment and quality of life. It thus questions them on their respect for the environment, human dignity and social well-being, while threatening them with retaliations (boycotts or resistance) if they are not fulfilled.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

In this context, new management practices have emerged based on the idea of a shared profit between the various stakeholders in the activity, and on achieving a certain reconciliation of their expectations. The partnership vision was developed in response to the primacy given to financial value and the shareholder in decisionmaking and in the distribution of added value. Shareholders would become a simple stakeholder and not the sole or main stakeholder. This does not imply that all stakeholders are equally important to the company. However, in this approach, the company is seen as being in relation to different groups that affect and/or are affected by its decisions. These groups each have their own value that must be taken into account in strategic decisions and routine actions. The concept of CSR is a long-held idea. It arose in 1841 in Belgium in the spinning mill of Léon Harmel’s family. His idea was to involve employees in business. It was not only a question of justice for him, but also of economic efficiency. CSR, a concept that is now strategic through the notion of sustainable development, is considered as “the contemporary reconfiguration of a recurrent issue since the advent of capitalism: the relationship between ethics and the economy” (Salmon 2005). Integrating ethics into business is indeed of twofold interest: “to reintegrate the company into the heart of its societal environment and to raise the question of its social responsibilities beyond its commercial activity” (Adam 1984). CSR and its stakeholders’ approach represent an evolving business practice. They incorporate sustainable development goals into the company’s business model and innovation strategy. Stakeholders Stakeholder theory emerged in the late 1930s (Berle and Means 1932; Barnard 1938) and was developed in an article by Freeman in 1984. The company is conceptualized as an arena within which different stakeholders interact more or less strongly, and whose interests are assessed according to the collective good, as is visible in the company’s values. The organization and production of value requires the involvement of these stakeholders: employees, customers, shareholders, suppliers, banks, political authorities (national and territorial), the media, etc. As each faces an economic risk in its relationship with the company, they should all participate in its governance and contribute to defining its strategy. Freeman (1984) defines a stakeholder as “any individual or group of individuals who may affect or be affected by the achievement of organizational objectives”, or any agent “for whom the development and good health of the company are

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


important issues” (Mercier 1999). Typically, depending on whether they accept or are exposed to a certain risk by entering into a relationship with the company (Clarkson 1995), the following are distinguished: – primary, contractual, voluntary or strategic stakeholders: these actors, who are in direct and contractual relationship with the company, invest a form of capital in the company and are essential to its functioning (partnership design); – secondary, diffuse, involuntary or moral stakeholders: these are the actors, located around the company, without any contractual link but on whom the company’s action has an impact (e.g. the design of relations between the company and its environment). For Frooman (1999), the purpose of stakeholder theory has been to enable managers to understand stakeholders and strategically manage them. This theory enables us to answer three general questions: 1) who are the stakeholders? (this question concerns their attributes); 2) what do they want? (this question concerns their purposes); 3) how are they going to try to get it? (this question concerns their means or their influence strategies1). These questions help us to identify three key attributes of a stakeholder: the urgency (how urgent is it to act immediately or react with one of the identified stakeholders?), legitimacy (how legitimate is it to mobilize a stakeholder to carry out the desirable action and the strategic project envisaged?) and power (what type of power categorizes the relationship: formal, economic or political? Do they have an ability to hinder (coercive power) or facilitate projects and the achievement of objectives?). Mitchell et al. (1997) use a power–legitimacy–emergency triangular model to identify the “unavoidable” stakeholders: the dominant ones are at the intersection of power and legitimacy, the dangerous ones at the intersection of power and urgency, and the dependent ones at the intersection of the criteria of legitimacy and urgency. Important stakeholders bring critical resources to the organization, have something at stake (as they bear risk and their well-being is affected by the company’s decisions) and have sufficient power to affect the company’s performance (in a positive or negative way, through their ability to mobilize political and social forces) (Kochan and Rubinstein 2000). Stakeholder theory is in fact based on two complementary visions: – the instrumental or strategic vision: to achieve the objectives of value creation and performance, the company must take the interests of its stakeholders into

1 Should we consider almost the whole of society, or even future generations, as stakeholders? Such a conception would make the resulting governance very complicated. In addition, which regulatory authorities would legitimize their representation?


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

account. Companies that practice stakeholder management (by way of cooperation contracts and mutual trust) should be more efficient in terms of profitability, growth, etc. The attention paid to the actors who control the resources essential to its activity allows the company to make decisions in accordance with their interests, and ultimately contributes to smooth operation and profitability. The problem of the distribution of value then becomes central: for example, how can the power of influence not be favored to the detriment of the legitimacy of interests? The application of ethical principles legitimizes the interests of stakeholders (Mercier 2006); – the normative or ethical vision: the company is a vehicle for coordinating the interests of various stakeholders. There is no overriding interest and each stakeholder deserves consideration for what they are and not for their power. Profit maximization is constrained by the needs of justice and equity (Rawls 1987) that underlie the legitimate treatment of stakeholders (Pesqueux 2006). Beyond legal obligations (law, contracts, etc.), the company is required to comply with moral or ethical requirements, independent of strategic considerations. Stakeholders must be treated as purposes and their interests have intrinsic value. This vision has the advantage of introducing problems of respect for the person and organizational justice into management. It is also criticized in particular for subordinating the company’s raison d’être to moral acceptability, by relative definition, of its products and the near impossibility of determining the common good. Finally, if the instrumental vision deals with the means to be implemented, the practices (the how?), the normative vision is interested in the ends and the foundations of the company’s action (the why?). A stakeholder approach offers the opportunity to imagine an ambitious and open strategic vision that will contribute to the construction of the firm’s core identity and capabilities, and determine the actors considered, the power relationships and the dominant political style. Stakeholder theory is a way of taking into account the obligations of companies to their different agents, persons and other constituents of society. It invites us to wonder who the firm is responsible for and accountable to. Corporate social responsibility Although Milton Friedman (New York Times, September 10, 1970) believes that “there is nothing more dangerous for capitalism than a conception of corporate social responsibility other than maximizing profit for the shareholder”, CSR offers the opportunity to integrate corporate goals with those of society in a win–win perspective that is not confrontational with others (Gond and Igalens 2018).

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


It allows everyone to base their judgment of the company not only on their products but on their behavior. Its purpose is to identify the company’s ability to better take its social and environmental impacts into account in its strategy, and to make CSR an integral part of its management and corporate culture. El Akremi et al. (2008) define it as “the consideration by the company, in determining its strategic objectives, of the social and environmental demands of its various stakeholders that go beyond what is required by law”. CSR adds the idea of voluntary action to stakeholder theory. Indeed, “companies integrate social and environmental concerns into their operations and interactions with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (European Commission 2002; 2011). Bowen (1953) proposed the first definition of the social responsibilities of businessmen. These responsibilities refer to “obligations to make decisions and follow lines of action that are desirable in terms of objectives and values by our society”. Companies must assume a social function beyond their economic functions by meeting societal expectations. CSR is becoming a means of reconciling the sphere of business with the social sphere and regulating their interactions; a means of directing entrepreneurial activity towards achieving the objectives that society has set for itself. Thus, the socially responsible company would either adjust its commitment to the likely pressure of its stakeholders or, by itself balancing good and evil, commit itself regardless of the circumstances. The implementation of sustainable development principles in corporate practices remains a distinctive and specific approach for each company (Gond and Igalens 2018). Their contextualization (appropriation of one or more principles of sustainable development to create value in a given context) depends on the involvement of management and managerial philosophy (Hatchuel and Weil 1992). It instrumentalizes the implementation of the new rules of conduct, according to the needs and expectations of various internal and external stakeholders. Whatever the company’s ambition, the implementation of sustainable development requires the definition of performance indicators for environmental, social and economic actions. This reporting has the advantage of offering a dual use of diagnosis and strategy to discuss and decide on societal strategic options. The level of performance on each criterion reflects the company’s level of commitment to the expectations, rights or interests of stakeholders. The question is then to know on which standards sustainability objectives and principles should be based. Is it the moral standards that are essentially relative, or the rules of law? Thus, there is a need for charters and codes of ethics that specify, on the one hand, the values and standards of action and, on the other hand, the human and/or social aims.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

The company’s social audit is therefore necessary to verify whether – that – CSR must be demonstrable, measurable and comparable (on common indicators). However, CSR actions are contextualized to environment of each company. How then can we build robust, (replicable) and meaningful indicators?

and validate the basis of the specific comparable

This is the purpose of the ISO 26000 standard on CSR, which formalizes the principles of sustainable development and provides guidelines. This standard helps the company to build a “responsible strategy” by inviting it to question the impact of its strategic and operational decisions on the meaning and value of its activities through two central approaches: – the identification of its scope of action or deployment of its CSR by examining seven themes: its governance, the impact of its practices on respect for human rights, working relationships and conditions, the impact of its direct and indirect activities on the environment, its business ethics, its respect for consumer needs, and its commitment to society; – the identification of relevant stakeholders impacted by its activities, the nature and significance of these impacts, and the expectations of these stakeholders. To frame the agri-food sector’s responses to the principles of sustainable development, the CSR themes were contextualized to the specificities of food systems in 2012 through the guide “AC X30-030 for the use of the ISO 26000 standard for the agri-food sector” (AFNOR 2012). This guide contains a list of recommendations for organizations that collect, store, process and/or ship and sell agricultural products, agri-food products and input and service furnaces to farmers (see Table 2.2). Its objective is to boost managerial practices in a cycle of continuous improvement of business models. The integration of sustainable development into the strategy is not limited to taking into account new constraints. This approach also offers the opportunity to better assess the environment, increase one’s knowledge of this environment and direct one’s business model towards new opportunities for value creation by leading them towards a different offer. The implementation of more sustainable practices in companies leads to the promotion of co-design processes with stakeholders to develop solutions that they cannot build and deploy alone.

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food



Human rights Relationships and working conditions




Decisions to be made and practices to put in place

Select stakeholders who are interested/impacted by the activity; allocate financial and human resources in a project that generates long term societal interests, etc.

Treatment of employees

Take safety, health and equity measures.

Skills management

Promote mutual learning between functions; develop training sessions.

Relationship between activity and material and human resources

Identify and control the risks of key processes (production, distribution, customer satisfaction). Improve environmental quality through agro-ecological practices, local products, local business, etc.

Loyalty of practices Communication


Identify key processes to enhance (responsible purchasing); prevent fraud; choose the right distribution network; offer an affordable price.

Issues relating to consumers

Constant satisfaction of consumer expectations

Identify needs, consumer trends. Strengthen safety/hygiene; diversify products; improve taste and nutritional quality; raise awareness on recycling...

Community and local development

Territorial integration

Evaluate the consequences of commitments on the global ecosystem: territory, employment, know-how.

Table 2.2. Operationalization of CSR themes into strategic practices and the operational costs of French agri-food companies (source: AFNOR 2012). For a color version of this table, see

While, in companies, these CSR guidelines incorporate multiple values to guide managerial action, the support provided by the standard works are more in the form of questions than in the form of prescription. The operationalization of these


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

principles and values requires the adoption of activities to redesign practices, and the recreation of a framework for collective action within which companies operate (Aggeri et al. 2005): the aim is to create new activities and manage some of them differently from those that previously existed. This recreation requires two continuous improvement operators: knowledge and relationships. These operators are created and identified through the process of analyzing the impact of the company’s activities on the environment, and are inseparable in taking collective action (Hatchuel 2001): – the knowledge operator is needed to reflect on how to act within a context: understanding the issues to be addressed in order to act more sustainably requires acquiring new knowledge and being able to articulate it with pre-existing knowledge; – the relations operator allows the acquisition, transmission and combination of knowledge and expertise dispersed between disciplines and actors. This process aims to co-configure a system and create distinctive innovations in an open economic environment. Basu and Palazzo (2008) propose three levels of CSR analysis: – the cognitive dimension of CSR (what the company thinks) corresponds to the way the company thinks about its social responsibility and its relations with its external environment. These representations can be individualistic (focused on the company itself and essentially aimed at promoting it), relational (how the company defines itself in relation to its stakeholders) or collectivist (company considering itself as an actor in symbiosis and in relation to society as a whole); – the discursive dimension of CSR (what the company says) is characterized by the basis of arguments (legal, scientific, economic or ethical basis) given to justify commitments to stakeholders, and by the degree of transparency of the company’s communication; – the behavioral dimension of CSR (what the company does) corresponds to its responses to the explicit and implicit requests of its stakeholders. These behaviors can be characterized by a posture (defensive, temporary and hesitant, open and proactive), a degree of coherence (stakeholders’ level of congruence with the company’s overall strategy) and a degree of persistence (degree of commitment of the organization: commitment of its leaders, degree of depth of integration of CSR into organizational behavior and scope of activities covered). The difficulty lies in the way in which these discourses, thoughts and behaviors evolve over time. Table 2.3 presents two ways of learning about CSR. It calls for a distinction to be made between an adaptive learning model and a radical learning model of the company. An adaptative model induces minor changes in company behavior, without cultural and identity changes (simple compliance with the

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


environment and the short-term expectations of external stakeholders). A radical learning model challenges the cognitive frameworks (and therefore the representations) on which decisions are based (hence the sustainable changes in organization and performance). Cognitive, behavioral and organizational barriers work in particular to hinder societal learning (Gond and Igalens 2010). It requires the ability to “unlearn” in order to be able to open up to the world and innovate. CHARACTERISTICS



Professed CSR, CSR results and behaviors

Theories of use of CSR, CSR behavior and possibly professed CSR

Behavioral dominance

Cognitive dominance

Temporary change in behavior, possible discursive change

Involves a review of theories of use

Impact on organizational culture



Influence on managers’ mental models

No questioning of the representations

Redefinition and/or modification of models

Dimension of CSR involved

Nature of the learning performed

Stakeholders included in Stable and unchanged the definition of CSR

Potentially expanded scope to include new stakeholders

Generic type of learning involved

Simple loop

Double loop

Time orientation of change and sustainability

Short term, temporary change

Long term, sustainable change possible

Triggering factor

External environment: compliance logic

Requires strong internal commitment from managers beyond external stimuli

Table 2.3. Two ways of learning CSR adoption. For a color version of this table, see


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

CSR raises the question of how to seek a longer-term profit that is detached from the short term, the value of the share and its maximization. Depending on the number, variety and degree of increasing reciprocal involvement, interaction and commitment (over time) between the company and its key stakeholders, it is possible to distinguish between four different types of CSR: cosmetic, peripheral, integrated and BoP (Bottom of the Pyramid) CSR. In the latter case, as early as 2004, Prahalad suggested that there was an enormous market of 4 billion people who earned less than $2 a day (Prahalad 2004). To illustrate, Martinet and Payaud (2014) underscore that Nestlé shows in its “Creating shared value and rural development” report how it puts in place and gives value to its societal actions for itself (and its shareholders) and society (value for Nestlé and value for society). Today, cosmetic CSR is in relative decline compared to peripheral and integrated CSR. Even though CSR is beginning to appear in discourses, BoP CSR is still too demanding in terms of innovation and too fragile in terms of business models to fully exploit. Only a few experiments and attempts have been carried out thus far. To meet the challenges that sustainable development and CSR pose to actors in food value chains, three strategies (which can be combined) can be identified from contemporary practices: – the preservation of the environment and natural resources (environmental strategy); – the nutrition–health quality of foodstuffs (nutritional strategy); – economic and social development (socio-economic strategy). These three axes are in line with the FAO’s recommendations (2015b) for more ecological food value chains, i.e. economically profitable and respectful of the environment and social factors. The implementation of CSR ultimately provides companies with an opportunity to ask themselves fundamental questions about the products and services offered, their adequacy with changes in society and therefore the company’s ability to ecoinnovate. This requires the company to not behave as a mere follower but to make a real commitment. Sustainable development would then become an investment with high potential and would no longer be only an expense. One possible benefit could be the potential savings from ecodesign in terms of waste management, consumables or recycling. The quest for sustainability based on moral foundations involves building relationships of trust, cooperation and understanding between the company and its stakeholders.

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


The translation and operationalization of the concept of sustainable development by private organizations is based on their social responsibility policy. CSR principles define a general framework that invites each organization to question the impacts of its activities on different internal and external actors and ecosystems. The operationalization of these concepts implies changes in practices on the part of these organizations and in the agri-food sector; these changes are based on two levers: – the integration of new tools and methods for analyzing the impacts of activities on environmental, nutritional and socio-economic aspects; – a transformation of intra- and inter-organizational relationships that make available data and knowledge essential to the development of assessments and new solutions. The methods, tools and practices that can be deployed in these three areas by European food processing and distribution companies will be explored in the following sections2. 2.3. Taking environmental issues into account Historically, the term ecodesign refers to the consideration of the environment in product design. In this perspective, the prefix “eco” denotes the ecological dimension of ecodesigned products and services. This otherwise French name has gradually been introduced in scientific publications through the term “ecodesign”, which is still mainly used by European authors. American and Australian researchers initially used the term “green product” preferentially and now increasingly use the term “sustainable product”. This language shift is also occurring in France, where the terms “ecodesigned products and services” are increasingly being replaced by the terms “sustainable products and services”. These semantic shifts can be associated with changes in the scope of actions to improve performance in ecodesign projects. Initially mainly oriented towards environmental improvement, these projects now encompass a wider range of objectives. Thus, developments aimed at improving the social and economic dimensions in terms of a better distribution of added or nutritional value, driven by products and services, are now included in ecodesign actions. The practices and

2 The scope of this book does not allow us to discuss equivalent proposals specific to the agricultural world. On this subject, we refer readers in particular to the work of the RMT ERYTAGE (Réseau national sur l’évaluation de la durabilité des systèmes et des territoires agricoles).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

tools that support these different objectives, however, are based on different techniques, activities and knowledge, as shown below. In this new acceptance of the meaning of ecodesign, the tools and practices that can be mobilized by actors in food value chains are diverse and must be combined to increase the overall sustainable performance of products. We will return to this at the end of this section. First, we will present the elements specific to each of the environmental, nutritional and socio-economic approaches to sustainable food development. There are different ways to account for the impacts of a product to be ecodesigned. The easiest practice for an organization is to refer to a set of specifications that defines what is allowed and what is not. For an organic farmer or cosmetics manufacturer, the specifications of organic labels clearly define the nature and quantities of permitted, limited or inadmissible material inputs. The use of labels to define, as a first step, an organization’s ecodesign policy helps define the first objectives to be achieved, practices to be developed and knowledge to be acquired in order to achieve the objectives. Thus, as soon as the use of a pesticide is prohibited, even though its replacement may be technically and economically very difficult, at least the objective is known. The fact that a group of actors is confronted with the same objective creates opportunities for sharing experiences between these actors. In addition, the labels provide information to the final customer. They give product qualities that differentiate them from unlabeled products (see section 2.7.6). Certification labels contribute in particular to reassuring customers, who delegate to a third party the responsibility of verifying the veracity of the claims made by producers. If this has value to the end customer, he or she can accept an additional cost for such a product (Dufeu et al. 2014). The label is therefore not only a tool that supports the producer in their design and production choices, but also a validation which ensures that the specific added value of their product is recognized in economic terms. The use of labels does have limits. The first, well known to producers and distributors, is a blurring of the meaning of the labeled product due to the increasing number of labels, especially when the same product carries several labels (MonierDilhan 2018). The multiplication of labels on the same product may lead to a decrease in customers’ willingness to pay. This willingness to pay is not the sum of the individual added values of each label. The reasons for this phenomena are

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


not clear and different reasons are proposed: loss of readability, the increased complexity of the messages transmitted (thus inducing a form of cognitive overload for the buyer), loss of confidence in the brand or the use of insufficiently recognized labels (Dufeu et al. 2014). Whatever the reasons or combinations of reasons that explain this loss of value, the multiplication of labels on the same product does not lead to a proportional increase in value for the consumer. However, products carry more and more labels because of their thematic nature. These labels can be monothematic, such as the AB label for organic agriculture, or multi-thematic, such as the French Bleu-Blanc-Coeur private label, which addresses issues of animal nutrition, livestock practices and human health in parallel. In all cases, this thematic focus involves choices about actions in order to contribute to sustainable development. However, without questioning the reason for these choices, this underlies the absence of a global and contextualized analysis of the potential impacts of the ecodesigned system within its own life cycle. To illustrate the problems raised by these practices of limiting ecodesign perimeter to obtaining a label, we can parody the current situation in the following way: consider the case of organic cherry tomatoes produced in the desert by water pumped from an ancient aquifer and transported by plane to Europe for consumption. Are they sustainable even though they have an organic label? How can such a question be answered? How can we compare problems that exist for different social groups, with different natures of health problems (vital availability of water for populations vs. consumption of plant products obtained without phytosanitary inputs for other populations)? Moreover, these are the result of different periods of time sedimentation; for example, the life-time bio-accumulation of plants vs. the time required to dry fossil water reservoirs. No regulation or performance calculation tool is able to account for such complexity, which must be considered holistically given the impacts of activities, the risks generated, the capacities for action and the strategies of the actors who are in a position to decide. Today, food chain actors have multiple tools at their disposal to help them build these sustainability measures, as outlined in a non-exhaustive way in Table 2.4. In what follows, we will not re-examine all of these tools and methods. However, some of them, although not used in the case studies analyzed in this book, will be presented. We have chosen to discuss the tools and methods most frequently used in relation to agri-food companies.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

METHODS DEDICATED TO A STAGE OF THE LIFE CYCLE Material Flow Analysis (MFA) Environmental Input/Output (I/O) (based on GHG impacts) MONOCRITERIA Social METHODS


METHODS DEDICATED TO THE FULL LIFE CYCLE Life Cycle Analysis Carbon Footprint Water Footprint

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Social Hotspots Databases (SHD – Ecoinvent)

Social LCA (SLCA) Social Assessment (UNEP / SETAC)

Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) Input/Output (I/O)

Life Cycle Costing (LCC)

Multicriteria methods used in farms (such as MASC)

Table 2.4. Summary of the main methods used in the food sector to measure the sustainability of products or organizations (source: Petit, Sablayrolles et al. 2018). For a color version of this table, see

2.3.1. Taking environmental performance into account in product design The standards (AFNOR 2013) and ecodesign guides (Sustainability 2010) recommend the adoption of multi-criteria and product life cycle environmental assessment approaches. These approaches require consideration of a broad scope of activities and all substances used and released during the product life cycle. This multi-criteria reference framework is then analyzed (Janin 2000; Le Pochat et al. 2005; AFNOR 2013) to: – establish the activities, structures or substances that need to be modified to improve the environmental performance of the system to be ecodesigned; – measure the actual environmental impacts of new solutions, and verify that the planned changes do not introduce impact transfers (between life cycle stages and between environmental impacts). Various tools and methods are used to carry out this environmental assessment and identify possible new solutions. As a result, different criteria can be used to categorize these solutions (see Figure 2.2) (Janin 2000).

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


Environmental assessment approaches, both qualitative and quantitative, can be single or multi-criteria (see Figure 2.3). They are based on free or instrumented creative methods. Free creative approaches include all creative tools and methods mobilized in a classical design project such as brainstorming (Osborn 1948) or the 7 hats method (De Bono 1987). On the other hand, methods such as TRIZ with its 9 Screens or the Contradiction Matrix (Altshuller 1996; Altshuller and Shulyak 1997) and the C-K theory (Hatchuel and Weil 2002) correspond to instrumented methods. These instrumented methods are oriented towards systematically illuminating the knowledge gaps to be filled in order to identify new solutions. As these methods do not specifically address sustainability issues, we will not develop them below.

Figure 2.2. Positioning of the main types of ecodesign tools in relation to the information provided by their use (source: based on the proposal of Janin (2000)). For a color version of this figure, see

Figure 2.3. Classification of tools and methods used in ecodesign of products. For a color version of this figure, see


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

2.3.2. Qualitative or semi-qualitative environmental assessment tools and methods The tools presented here are not exhaustive. They are presented as representative of solutions that the authors have seen implemented (with adaptation to each specific context) in some organizations. Other tools of a similar nature could have been presented. Substance lists Substance lists are the easiest tool to implement. They simply define all substances that should not be used in the constitution of a product (black list) or that should be avoided (gray list). This is the case for PVC, for example, for packaging or for certain preservatives, flavor enhancers or colorings. The substances listed in these documents are not necessarily those whose use is prohibited by regulation. They may have been selected for their impacts, known or suspected, on the environment or health. Their choice may also be linked to fears regarding their impact. The use of such lists is closely linked to the clean label actions of companies involved in the processing and distribution of processed biosourced products. Clean labels are not subject to a regulation or standard. Their definition is relative to each company and each product. Two dimensions are generally explored in these types of product: – to simplify and reduce the list of ingredients: elimination of artificial colors and/or preservatives, and potentially risky ingredients such as allergens or suspicious components in packaging systems; – to meet a nutritional objective: reduction of salt, sugar, fat or a proposal for fiber or vegetable protein reinforced consumption. Both black and gray lists of ingredients (food) or components (packaging) are an assessment tool (is this substance present in my products? What plan can be implemented to eliminate its presence in conjunction with suppliers in order to remove it from my product portfolio?) and a tool for ecodesign: these can include new solutions to be devised (the use of new substances or new materials, the use of new technologies), which must provide similar functionalities to those of these prohibited materials. The implementation of such lists in an organization initially involves internal and external audits (interaction with suppliers to establish whether or not the substance is present in their products). In a second step, the implementation of a formulation renewal program can be necessary. A third step is the introduction of indicators to manage the action, the introduction of the non-use rules in the company’s procedures and a training plan for staff on the risks associated with the use of these

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


substances, targeted alternatives and all the knowledge that will facilitate their replacement (test results, suppliers’ capacities, etc.). The material–energy–toxicity (MET) matrix The MET matrix (Leroy 2009) is an information synthesis matrix in which the working group or expert records the aspects that need to be further developed to understand the effective impact of a specific product’s lifecycle and define the points for improvement that should be implemented (see Table 2.5). MATERIAL





Materials and components from suppliers Production and other operations on producers’ sites Distribution Usage Use Maintenance Recovery End of life Improvement Table 2.5. Outline of a material–energy–toxicity (MET) matrix (source: Leroy 2009). For a color version of this table, see

Two steps accompany the use of this matrix. The first is a literature review and expert interviews to identify potential problems related to the product life cycle. To accomplish this work, it is necessary to research published studies on similar subjects, document the major technologies implemented and the resource consumption they underlie, and identify whether the substances implemented carry specific environmental problems. All this information reported in the grid is


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

analyzed with regard to the potential importance of the identified impacts, the firm’s environmental policy and its ability to act on the source of the problem. In a second step, five problems are identified, which are the subject of an in-depth study for potential improvement. This method is part of a continuous improvement process that gradually extends the scope of the environmental impacts that are considered and addressed. Its use is completely in line with ecodesign checklists. Checklists An ecodesign checklist is a series of questions designed to quickly and easily check the environmental impact of a product that has been designed or will be designed. The first part of this questionnaire is not dedicated to the environment, but aims to ensure that the product designed or to be designed fulfills the main and secondary functions generally expected from a product of its type. The other questions concern the different stages of the life cycle: the materials and processes used by subcontractors, the materials and processes used in the company itself, distribution, the use phase and the end of the life phase. This tool developed by the University of Delft in Brezet’s work (Brezet and Van Hemel 1997) was then conceived for the design of artificial systems (mechanical, electronic, etc.). As a result, a number of the original features of the questionnaire need to be adapted to the food sector while others (such as those of transport) can be quite directly transferred. The following is an illustration of the questions asked in the distribution phase: what are the packaging materials used? What are the volumes or the filling rate? What are the possible end-of-life options (reuse, recycling, incineration, landfill)? What are the means of transportation used? For each question, an associated scale makes it possible to define a “score” for the product on 3 or 5 points (e.g. very poorly ecodesigned with regard to the objectives = 0, in accordance with the targeted parameters = 3/5). This tool, which is easy to use during the design phase, nevertheless requires upstream expertise to identify the major problems caused by the product, and to prioritize and select the areas for improvement and clarify the questions that should be included in this questionnaire. Consequently, its implementation generally takes place after a thorough analysis of the activities. This is used to establish an environmental design strategy. This tool thus completes the successful deployment of an approach to integrate ecodesign into design practices.

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


2.3.3. Quantitative and monocriteria environmental assessment tools and methods Three methods chosen for their representativeness in meeting the major environmental challenges of the living sectors are presented here: greenhouse gas emissions and methods dedicated to the assessment of consumption and pollution of water. Carbon footprint Carbon footprint measures the total amount of CO2 and methane emitted by a population, system or activity. It considers all relevant sources, sinks or storage areas within the associated spatial and temporal framework. It is calculated in grams of CO2 equivalent using the GWP100 method. Different definitions of this footprint exist. Each is more or less close to that of the global warming potential used in the ACV methodology. The most important difference between these definitions concerns the number of gases incorporated into the calculation of the footprint. In addition, for this calculation, some methods extend the scope of contributing gases by including those defined in the Kyoto protocol, which also takes into account the impacts of “NO2, hexafluoride sulfide (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs)”. Other terms such as GHG emissions and climate footprint are used in the literature. Whatever the term used and the method of calculation, the objective remains the same: to estimate the impact of a system’s greenhouse gas emissions. In the food literature, the terms “carbon footprint” and “GHG emissions” are often used in studies that compare a large number of products and that, for simplicity of analysis and lack of information, are limited to emission issues (Audsley et al. 2009; Virtanen et al. 2011). The ISO 14067 standard, the GHG Protocol and PAS 2050 (British standard) are the main documents used to calculate carbon footprint. ADEME (Agence de l’environnement et de la maîtrise de l’énergie, the French Environment and Energy Management Agency) offers several calculators to measure the footprint of activities or on the territory. Water footprint The water footprint of a system or service refers to the quantity of water involved in its manufacture or construction according to a life cycle approach. The “water” footprint is divided into three sub-footprints (Hoekstra et al., 2011): – the bluewater footprint, which corresponds to the consumption of surface and ground water for the realization of the functional unit;


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

– the greenwater footprint, which corresponds to rainwater stored in the soil and used during the life cycle; – the graywater footprint, which corresponds to the quantity of water required to assimilate the pollution emitted during the life cycle based on the rates in standard quality water. The pinch analysis method The pinch analysis (PA) method, also known as the thermal integration method, was developed in the 1970s at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and the UK’s University of Leeds (Linnhoff and Flower 1978). It has been used in many proven applications in industrial sectors, including petroleum refining, chemicals, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, agri-food, textiles, heat and power utilities, construction and steel (Ian 2007). The savings from a PA in the industrial sectors show reductions of 10–40% for energy consumption. PA aims to optimize processes in the design phase or existing processes. An optimal design can be achieved with extra investment. PA identifies where the economic optimum lies between investment costs and utility (or operating) costs. PA has been mainly applied to reduce the consumption of thermal utilities (Lambert et al. 2018). However, further developments have broadened the generic ideas in a PA to various other applications (Wang and Smith 1994). A pinch mass analysis is a special case of mass integration, particularly used to minimize the summation of water or any other liquid fluid. Later, El-Halwagi et al. (2003) and Prakash and Shenoy (2005) illustrated a systematic approach to analyzing the water networks of an industrial site by analogy with the thermal integration method. This approach has led to equally spectacular results in optimizing water consumption. Altamo et al. (1997) identified potential water savings of 63–72% in fruit juice production. Similarly, the work of Thevendirarj et al. (2003) and Tokos and Novak (2009) identified potential water savings of 30% in brewery and citrus juice production facilities respectively. 2.3.4. Quantitative and multi-criteria environmental assessment tools and methods: lifecycle assessment (LCA) In this section, we only consider lifecycle assessment (LCA), a method adapted to a product approach. A second type of method could have been considered3. The choice of LCA is linked to the increasing diffusion of its use and the fact that it is the only quantitative, multi-criteria and lifecycle method. 3 The interested reader can consult the work of the RMT ERYTAGE (evaluation of the sustainability of agricultural systems and territories) on this subject and other methods.

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


Indeed, life cycle analysis of products and systems is currently the method used to bring together a multi-criteria environmental life cycle approach (Jolliet et al. 2004; Jolliet et al. 2010; European Commission 2012; Yannou-Le Bris and Lallmahomed 2016). Its implementation consists of identifying the flows and releases made “from” and “to” the biosphere in order to obtain a representation of the nature and volumes of substances consumed and released, and then to evaluate the environmental impact. Whatever the characterization methods used (to transform these incoming and outgoing flows into impacts), none take into account the geospatialization of their effect (e.g. whether the water consumed is in an arid environment or not). On the one hand, this limit may be relatively insignificant for some impacts with universal coverage (such as the greenhouse effect) because, regardless of the emission location, the severity of this impact is similar and its consequences concern the entire planet. On the other hand, the severity of other impacts may be related to the condition of the recipient system (as illustrated earlier with the example of the use of aquifer water for tomato growth). LCA is a standard method (ISO 14040 and ISO 14044). It makes it possible to carry out an environmental assessment of a system (product, company, process) by covering all the impacts of its life cycle, from its design to its disposal or end of life (Jolliet et al. 2005). This environmental management tool helps to define priorities for action by highlighting the processes that need to be improved as a priority. Its particular advantage is to link environmental performance to the system functionalities and components, and activities conducted to operate the analyzed system. Indeed, pollutant emissions and the use of raw materials are related to the function of the product or system studied (Wimmer et al. 2004). The objective of an LCA is to assess the environmental impact of a product, service or system in relation to a particular function by considering all stages of its life cycle. This analysis identifies where this product, service or system can be improved, and thus contributes to the development of new products with a reduced environmental impact. It can be used to assess only the impacts of an existing or future system, and also to identify the impacts of different scenarios for using the system. This is called consequential modeling, which is used to support decisions. LCA is carried out in four stages (see Figure 2.4): target setting, emission and extraction inventory, impact analysis and interpretation (Wimmer et al. 2004).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Figure 2.4. The four steps of a lifecycle analysis. For a color version of this figure, see

– Step 1. Defining the objectives of the system, and the goals and scope of the study: in this perspective, answers are sought for questions such as: what is its purpose, for what application is the LCA performed, for whom, etc.? These questions determine the principal function of the system and the functional unit to which emissions and extractions will be reported. This phase also defines the boundaries of the system analyzed. – Step 2. Inventory analysis of extractions and emissions: in this step, the environmental inputs and outputs associated with a product or service life cycle – such as the use of energy and raw materials, the emission of pollutants and wastes – are analyzed. For this step, two types of data are collected: activities data (KWh consumed, km traveled, tons transported, etc.) and consumption and emission data (grams of gas emitted into the air or water, etc.). The term “primary data” is used to refer to data collected in the field. The term “secondary data” refers to the use of data from bibliographies or the database when the primary data are insufficient or not accessible. – Step 3. Environmental impact assessment: the objective of this step is to convert the inventory data into environmental impacts. It is the flow characterization step that makes it possible to calculate the potential impacts on the environment. Understanding the origins of an impact is one of the prerequisites for exploiting results.

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


Two types of impact characterization methods are used to link inventory data to the environmental damage they cause (Jolliet et al. 2005): – problem-oriented potential impact methods or mid-point methods quantify the effects of substances emitted or consumed without translating them into damage. The most common mid-point impacts are the greenhouse effect, ozone layer destruction, photochemical oxidation, toxicity, acidification or eutrophication; – potential damage-oriented methods or end-point methods assess the final impact of a substance (e.g. lake acidification, fish mortality, biodiversity loss). Between these two approaches, the standard which companies are increasingly adopting recommends the use of mid-point methods and the maintenance of a multicriteria profile of the environmental performance of solutions. Figure 2.5 shows a representation of the raw results provided by LCA software, which in this case is a comparison of olive oil production scenarios (Salomone and Ioppolo 2012). SCENARIOS










100 80 60 2 3 4 1 A BB A

1 2 3 4 A A B B 5 6 C C



7 D

1 A

7 D

4 B

2 A 9 8 D D

3 B

9 D 1 A

4 3 B B

2 A

4 5 6 B C C 3 B

5 6 C C 7 8 D D

7 2 5 D 4 C 1 A 6 3 B A C B 8 D

5 C 6 C

8 9 D D 4 2 1 A 3 B A B

9 D

4 B 2 1 A 3 A B

7 D 8 D

9 D

9 D

8 D 9 D

Terrestrial ecotoxicity

7 D

Marine aquatic ecotoxicity

6 C

Fresh wateraquatic ecotox.

5 C

6 C

7 D

8 D

Photochemical oxidation

5 C 8 9 DD

Human toxicity

6 C

Ozone layer depletion (ODP)


2 1 A A

Global warning (GWP100)


6 C

7 D

5 C



5 C 1 2 3 4 A A B B

7 5 6 D 8 9 C C D D

A biotic depletion




7 D 8 9 D D

2 3 4 1 A B B A



CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.05/World, 1995/Characterization

Figure 2.5. Illustration of the types of results that can be produced by an LCA study (Salomone and Ioppolo 2012)

– Step 4. Interpretation of the results obtained: this step of validating the results involves an analysis of the sensitivity of the model created to verify the impact of the assumptions for modeling and the impact of uncertainty on certain data. The standard recommends a validation of the approach applied by a third-party actor. The interpretation of the results must lead to a program of decisions and actions for ecodesign. The difficulty faced by many organizations that are new to the use of LCA is to decide what actions to take in such a multi-criteria context. To address this challenge, it is important to establish its environmental strategy and define its priorities.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

In summary, the methods and tools available to measure the environmental impacts of a product, process or organization are numerous. They differ in terms of single- or multi-criteria approaches and qualitative or quantitative measures of impacts. But in all cases, they involve, through their implementation, the search for a large amount of data and information. This approach in itself is a learning experience for the organization that undertakes it. It acquires a new perception of its activities and the environment in which it operates and interacts. This organizational learning process can be used to evaluate the strategy and offer of the company. 2.4. Taking nutritional issues into account 2.4.1. The framework for action FAO (2016) states that improving nutrition requires public policies that target agricultural, industrial and consumer practices. To provide a framework for healthy, safe and sustainable food, in 2017 the French Ministry of Agriculture and Food renewed the call for projects for the Plan national pour l’alimentation, PNA (French National Food Program). This plan was developed in partnership with the Ministry of Solidarity and Health and ADEME to support the emergence and implementation of projects of general interest addressing food-related health, socio-economic and environmental issues. The objective of these collective projects was to bring together producers, processors, distributors, local authorities and consumers, in order to develop regional agriculture and quality food for the benefit of all4. The second sustainable development objective was to “eradicate hunger, ensure food security, improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”. These are at the heart of the objectives of the national food policy, which is divided into four priority areas: – social justice: this is aimed at supporting the populations most in need of food in quantity and quality; – food education: this consists of developing, in conjunction with the National Education Department, youth education programs. The objective is to recreate the links between agriculture and society; – food waste: this is embodied in the pact to combat food waste, which provides for the halving of food waste by 2025; – territorial anchoring of agri-food: this is developed through geographical indications or local consumption initiatives associated with projects to relocate agriculture in the peri-urban sector. This makes it possible to link consumers to the qualitative, geographical and social benchmarks of their food. 4 Available at:

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


In 2017, in order to limit nutritional risks, ANSES (the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety) proposed new food consumption benchmarks based on the strategic priorities set by the Haut Conseil de la santé publique, HCSP (French High Council on Public Health): – to reduce social inequalities in the field of nutrition; – to develop physical and sporting activity and limit physical inactivity in order to combat obesity in children. To reduce salt or sugar consumption and increase fruit consumption in adults; – to organize the nutritional screening and management of patients; – to enhance the PNNS (Programme national nutrition santé) as a nutritional profiling reference, allowing nutritional value to be incorporated into sustainable food innovations. A key opportunity for agri-food industries is to develop relevant food innovations, i.e. food products with improved nutritional facts calculated based on the recommended standards. This improvement is based on indicators that can balance the composition of a food product according to recommended needs. Public policies in France stress the importance of developing the nutritional quality of food in line with the recommendations of the PNNS. The latest recommendations guide consumers towards an increased consumption of legumes (lentils, peas, beans) and vegetable oils rich in alpha-linolenic fatty acid (omega-3 from rapeseed and walnut oil), and a reduction in the consumption of sausages (less than 25 g per day) and non-poultry meat (see Figure 2.6) (ANSES 2017).

Figure 2.6. Food: the nutritional benchmarks proposed by ANSES (2017). For a color version of this figure, see


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

2.4.2. Tools and indicators for nutritional profiling of foodstuffs The law of January 26, 2016 on the modernization of the French health system made it possible to create a nutritional labeling system to facilitate consumers’ purchasing decisions when they want to take into account the nutritional composition of products. In consultation with manufacturers, distributors, consumers, health authorities and scientists and after experimentation in retail outlets, one of the four forms of display was selected. The Nutriscore logo (Figure 2.7) developed by Public Health France on the basis of the work of Professor Serge Hercberg’s team (Université Paris 13) was chosen (Julia 2014). This logo provides simplified information on the nutritional content of the marketed product. Its use is voluntary and not mandatory. It is complementary to the mandatory nutritional declaration set by European regulations (INCO regulation). This logo has a scale of five colors ranging from dark green (very good nutritional quality) to dark orange (degraded nutritional quality). The associated letters from A to E reinforce this message. For 100 grams of food product, Nutriscore considers nutrients (N) whose excessive consumption is harmful to health (such as salt, sugars and saturated fatty acids) and those (P) which have, on the contrary, a beneficial effect (such as proteins, fibers or the quantities of fruits, vegetables or legumes incorporated in the recipe): nutritional score = total points N – total points P.

Figure 2.7. A Nutriscore thumbnail (source: Santé publique France). For a color version of this figure, see

The choice of this form of labeling has been debated. Indeed, the definition of an appropriate diet depends on the specific nutritional needs in energy and essential nutrients (vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids) specific to each individual. In general, foods with high nutritional density (naturally high in essential nutrients compared to their caloric intake) and moderate amounts of added fat, salt and sugars promote good health (Darmon 2015).

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


Among the other tools that have been proposed to signal the nutritional profile of a food are the SAIN and LIM indicators, which are meant to analyze the relationship between the nutritional quality of food and its energy intake: – SAIN: score d’adéquation individuelle aux recommandations nutritionnelles (score of individual adequacy to nutritional recommendations) measures the average compliance to recommended nutritional intakes. It represents the nutritional density of a food and estimates the average percentage coverage of recommended nutrient intakes for several essential nutrients. It scores the “qualifying nutrients” and is expressed in 100 kcal, i.e. the density of the nutrient/energy ratio; – LIM: limiter la consommation sur le plan nutrionnel (limiting consumption at the nutritional level) measures the excess of undesirable nutrients in the food (salt, saturated fatty acids or added sugars) over the recommended maximum values. The values of these indicators allow all foods to be judged or classified by an acceptability threshold (SAIN > 5 and LIM < 7.5) according to their contribution to a nutritionally adequate diet (Darmon et al. 2009). For example, fruits and vegetables, unrefined starches, eggs, meats, fish and seafood, and low-sweet dairy products (such as 20% MG cottage cheese) have a high SAIN and a low LIM score. On the other hand, fat/sugar/salty products, sausages, cheeses, fatty meats, fatty and/or sweet dairy products (40% fat white cheese) have a high LIM and a low SAIN score. While food-based indicators are tools that are available to consumers to promote their nutritional choices, dietary balance is defined at their diet level. The combination of foods we eat is another factor for addressing the issue of health through food and to which putting up posters is only one of the answers. Other solutions must complement these actions. Making diversified food of good nutritional quality economically accessible to more people is another way. Other responses are food education that involves the discovery of products and their preparation, or the protection of the structuring of mealtimes to limit the effects and attraction of snacking. The efforts made following the Grenelle de l’environnement to promote the development of organic sectors were based particularly on school catering. This objective is reflected in the text of the draft law on agriculture and food voted at first reading in May 2018 by French Members of Parliament. Indeed, it provides that by 2022, 50% of the supply (in economic value) of these catering establishments must offer sustainable food products. The term “sustainable” here refers to organic, labeled (such as Label Rouge) or local foods. This effort has two aims: to support the development of more sustainable food chains and to raise awareness of food issues among the younger generations.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

In summary, nutrition adapted to the needs of populations is considered a sustainable development objective. Its design requires indicators that make it possible both to improve the nutritional profile of a food and to balance the composition of a meal while respecting the environment (choice of seasonal foods, diversity, products from organic farming, etc.). However, the ecodesign of the product also includes communication actions with consumers, in order to help them build an appropriate diet that is an adequate response to health problems such as diabetes or obesity. As a result, the creation of solutions that meet the nutritional recommendations of developed countries is as much a part of food formulation as it is a part of education and information. This challenge also highlights the importance of creating more relevant or targeted food to meet the needs of various populations of developed countries. 2.5. Consideration of economic and social issues 2.5.1. Principle The social life cycle assessment (SLCA) was developed in France in the late 2000s to take into account, for any product or service, the positive or negative social impacts associated with decisions made throughout the activities related to the life cycle of that product or service. In 2009, UNEP and CIRAIG published a book setting out the guidelines for such a method (UNEP-SETAC 2009). Work is also being carried out on this subject in France (Macombe et al. 2017). Social impacts are defined here as the ultimate social consequences of the relationships maintained by a value chain actor with its internal or external stakeholders. These impacts should be considered in two ways: – governance: the consequences of governance decisions implementation on the well-being of internal and external stakeholders;



– socio-economic processes: the impacts of investment, remuneration and contractualization choices on stakeholders’ quality of life. Social analysis of the life cycle of products and services is similar to the implementation of CSR in organizations. It differs from CSR with its product or life cycle approach. Similar to environmental ACV, it is defined around a functional unit that measures impacts. However, no specific measurement indicators are proposed. These are determined according to CSR principles and by analyzing the impacts of activities on stakeholders. Unlike environmental ACV, qualitative indicators are frequently used to measure these impacts.

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


2.5.2. Illustration of a Canadian dairy industry An example of the results of such an SLCA study conducted on the dairy sectors in Quebec is provided in Figure 2.8 and Table 2.6. In parallel with the approach proposed by UNEP, Norris et al. (2011) created a database of social hotspots associated with value chains in 113 countries and 57 economic sectors. This database includes a list of indicators such as respect for international labor rights, indicators on the average level of employee health and safety, respect for human rights, governance models and social infrastructure conditions. These indicators are based on national data and therefore cannot reflect the specific efforts made by particular organizations. On the other hand, they can serve as a reference to clarify how a change in governance has made or would make it possible to change some of these indicators.

Figure 2.8. Illustration of the SLCA results of a Canadian dairy sector (source: Beaulieu 2016). For a color version of this figure, see


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS WAGES AND SOCIAL BENEFITS The average hourly wage of workers is > than the median wage of the agricultural sector


The average hourly wage of workers is > than the provincial minimum wage but < than the median wage of the agricultural sector The average hourly wage of workers is = to the provincial minimum wage The average hourly wage of agricultural workers is < than the provincial minimum wage

Table 2.6. Illustration of the rating grid for an indicator (source: Beaulieu 2016)

In summary, life cycle approaches to social and economic impacts have been proposed over the past decade to integrate these dimensions not only into organizations’ CSR policies, but also into the design of the products and services they deliver. This operationalization of CSR in the product design cycle is currently a difficult exercise for the following reasons: the difficulty of obtaining data and information that reflect actual social impacts, and the large number of indicators that can be used and therefore complicate the analysis of the situation and decisionmaking. However, these approaches offer interesting frameworks not only to guide the thinking of decision-makers and to establish informed policies for managing relationships between private organizations and stakeholders, but also to translate the results of these efforts into the product itself (e.g. animal welfare). 2.6. Implementation of an ecodesign approach Ecodesign encompasses a set of practices that make it possible to take into account, when designing a system (product, process or organization), its future impacts on the environment and the social sphere of stakeholders affected by the activities associated with the product. The objective of ecodesign is to minimize the size and severity of the impacts. This policy framework means that ecodesign objectives are not only decided on the basis of regulations, which must of course be respected, but also decided by choices that aim to improve the environmental and socio-economic performance of the product designed, and sometimes, unfortunately, to arbitrate between these improvements. These practices also imply that ecodesign

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


always starts from a pre-existing system (product, process or organization) as a reference point for defining what characteristics need to be improved. Thus, the ecodesign approach supports a continuous improvement process. From a strategic point of view, it is important for a company that is starting ecodesign activities to carefully define the product or family of products that will be the subject of their first project. The development of a first project raises challenges not only in terms of the expected result for the product itself, but also in terms of how its implementation and results will subsequently motivate the organization as a whole to adopt ecodesign practices (Le Pochat 2005). The elements to be taken into account when choosing the test product can be: – the existence of real competitive and/or economic issues; – access to the data required to assess the environmental and socio-economic performance of the solution to be improved; – the knowledge that it will be possible to make changes both within the scope of the organization carrying out the project and externally. Therefore, being able to involve upstream and downstream actors in the organization is a success factor; – the provision of information in the scientific or technical literature on actions carried out on similar systems that make it possible to understand the nature of the issues to be addressed and the possible solutions to be explored (e.g. to measure the environmental impact of a pork pâté, it is desirable to collect documentation on projects to assess the impacts on the farm, the impact of animal feed, data on the processing processes used, analysis of ham life cycle, etc.). Developing ecodesign practices therefore involves seeking to quantify the nature and significance of the impacts of a product’s life cycle scenario, and then to make design decisions adapted to the priorities of the decision-maker. Indeed, if any system induces impacts, they may be related to the production of the raw materials that constitute it, its use or even its end of life. The effect of these impacts can be felt in the short, medium or long term on geographical areas of varying magnitudes ranging from local (such as the eutrophication of a watercourse or the employment rate of a municipality) to universal (such as the emission of a greenhouse gas). These impacts may involve effects over short time periods (e.g. urban smog due to a weather-induced event or road congestion due to seasonal production), very long periods (e.g. depletion in the ozone layer or collapse of a national economic sector due to a relocation of production) or irreversible phenomena in the current state of knowledge (e.g. greenhouse effect). Finally, the severity of these impacts is, in some cases, related to where they occur (the extraction of 200 liters of water from aquifers does not have the same impact on local communities in the desert as in Normandy). For all these reasons, there is no absolute “rule” for prioritizing impacts. The ideal in ecodesign is to improve the durability of a system on all criteria. However, when


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

several solutions are considered and even though they improve all the criteria, some may have a more positive effect on some criteria than others. In addition, it is not uncommon for some solutions to significantly improve some criteria while degrading others.

Figure 2.9. Adaptation of the ecodesign process of food products proposed by Janin (2000)

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


Consequently, since each situation has specific contextual characteristics and impacts, the choice of actions must be considered in the light of the specific challenges of the production, use and end-of-life contexts of a specific product. However, the international and national policy frameworks, sectoral commitments, policies and strategies of firms provide a basis for analyzing the results that must be taken into account in the ecodesign decision-making process. Janin’s (2000) ecodesign process model (see Figure 2.9) suggests that understanding and integrating these different policy analysis frameworks is the first step in an ecodesign project. 2.7. Ecodesign practices for food chains The implementation of sustainable development strategies requires a change in behavior on the part of food chain actors. Changing the behavior of an actor or a system is a learning process (inducing behavioral changes) which is linked to the actor (modification of the actor’s mental patterns or patterns of interoperation in a situation), his/her environment (socio-cultural) and the mechanisms of interaction between the two. The term “behavior” refers to the observable practices or reactions of individuals who make up an organization in a given context (Robbins and Judge 2013). These practices concern any tool, discourse, technical instrument and social method that a system of activities mobilizes to introduce a new rule, trend or regulation and thus transform its routines to achieve a new objective (Engeström 2015). In this section, we are generally interested in ways to facilitate the transformation of actors’ habits in a way that improves the impacts of their practices on society (economy, health and environment). To contribute to sustainable development, behavioral changes in food chain actors require interventions at three interdependent levels (Lahlou 2012): – at the societal level: a policy framework is proposed through programs, action plans or practices to be adopted (HLPE 2017); – at the collective level: different stakeholders from different disciplines can converge their hitherto divergent interests towards a new common objective such as production, transformation and consumption, while taking into account the wellbeing of society;


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

– at the individual level: each practitioner (individual or organization) is a carrier of practices that can be influenced by the trends and standards disseminated in their environment (Seyfang 2006). The adoption and appropriation of these new rules and their replication by other groups allow the dissemination of these new good practices on a large scale as well as their institutionalization. The complementarity of these three levels to achieve an effective behavioral change requires a systemic improvement in practices that link agri-cropping and the agri-food industry to consumers.

2.7.1. The principles of transforming business practices through standards Considered as a basis for collective action (Moisdon 1997; Aggeri and Acquier 2005), the “prescriptive” standards of new learning models constitute frameworks for modifying and/or building new management systems oriented towards the satisfaction of sustainable value objectives. By transforming the ways in which companies organize their work, which are essential levers for collective learning, these standards enable companies to organize their management systems to support new decisions and new designs. In other words, a design support system is a system (which includes input–output processes, cognitive and managerial skills and relationships meant to tap external expertise) that is capable of generating new knowledge and inventing modalities of action to create oriented or targeted learning (Hatchuel 2015). A management system standard is a document established by consensus and approved by a recognized organization. This document provides rules, guidelines or characteristics for establishing a policy and performance objectives for activities or their results, ensuring an optimal level of order in a given context. Built around generic requirements (which apply to any organization regardless of its size and industry), management system standards can be considered as management tools based on three interdependent components that allow the structuring and formalization of an organization’s practices and relationships (Serhan 2017). This includes the technical substrate or artifact that allows the tool to function and frame change, the management philosophy that interprets and contextualizes the new abstract rules, and a simplified vision of the organizational knowledge and relationships in force in the organization.

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


– The technical substrate contains the new rules prescribed by the standard. These rules are codifications of scientific and technical knowledge derived from practices that have been tested many times in companies and coded by ISO experts as good practices or “requirements” to be applied in operations. – The implementation of these requirements is influenced by the managerial style of those in charge of using them. The implementation practices include speeches, procedures, techniques and methods that facilitate their understanding and appropriation of the new rules in daily operations. – The standard also conveys a simplified vision of the organizational knowledge and stakeholders needed to give contextual meaning to the change policy to be implemented. This generic or “willingly open” approach to requirements is intended to give flexibility to the managers who implement it. In companies, the implementation of management system standards requirements in practices is carried out according to a continuous process improvement cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act type). This system of continuous improvement of internal actions to meet external requirements and relationships presents management system standards as knowledge management processes. This system allows the company to discover and acquire new knowledge (the standard requirements encoded as good practices), generate new knowledge (new standardized procedures to apply in operations), evaluate the organizational knowledge, competences and relationships (key processes and stakeholders that complement internal expertise) and use these resources as a lever for innovation. These processes facilitate the reconfiguration of the company’s core competence with new values (Serhan 2017). While the structure of the chapter and some of the terminology of the requirements are common to all management system standards (compatibility structure between standards requested by ISO High Level Structure in 2010), the contextualization of each standard remains a specific approach relating to the context and concepts, as well as requirements specific to each standard. The dynamics of change that each standard induces depend on the ability of managers to support the company’s strategy with certain requirements that are more useful than others, and on the issue that each company wishes to promote through its approach to transforming practices and innovation. In terms of sustainable development, several standards offer companies a set of requirements for efficient use of resources, better risk management and continuous improvement in environmental impact and the satisfaction of key customers and other stakeholders. These include the ISO 9001 quality management system (QMS),


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

ISO 14001 environmental management system (EMS) and ISO 50001 energy management system (EMS) standards. These three standards contain requirements that allow for certification of compliance of an organization’s practices. The ISO 26000 standard on CSR does not contain certifiable requirements, but rather provides companies with guidelines for operating in a socially responsible manner. 2.7.2. Management system standards: tools for managing sustainable development The ISO 9001 standard for quality management systems The ISO 9001 quality management system (QMS) standard aims to continuously improve strategic processes (resources and skills) that contribute to meeting the needs and expectations of stakeholders. The technical substrate of the ISO 9001 version 2015 standard formalizes the practices of the management system in place through 11 principles of continuous improvement of the management system and the quality of products/services (see Table 2.7). The ISO 9001 standard is a quality management tool. If the improvement of the quality of the management system (coordination of processes and relationships to achieve objectives) is aimed at prior certification, the standard changes the way of internal and external operations and harmonizes working methods. It takes stock of good practices and dysfunctions that need to be improved. By controlling processes, it reduces the costs of low quality (i.e. complaints, rejects, customer returns, etc.). By implementing these requirements, the organization can aim to acquire four types of capabilities (ISO 9001 version 2015): – an ability to continuously provide products and services in compliance with customer requirements and applicable legal and regulatory requirements; – greater opportunities to improve customer satisfaction; – consideration of the risks and opportunities associated with the organization’s context and objectives; – an ability to demonstrate compliance with the specified requirements of the quality management system.

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food



Customer orientation: “Organizations depend on their customers, so they need to understand current and future customer needs, meet their requirements and strive to exceed their expectations.”


Leadership: “Leaders establish the purpose and orientations of the organization. They should create and maintain the internal environment in which people can become fully involved in achieving the organization’s objectives.”


Involvement of people: “People at all levels are the essence of an organization and their full involvement enables their abilities to be used for the organization’s benefit.”


Process approach: “A desired result is achieved more efficiently when activities and related resources are managed as a process.”


System approach to management: “Identifying, understanding and managing interrelated processes as a system contributes to the organization’s effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its objectives.”


Continual improvement: “Continual improvement of the organization’s overall performance should be a permanent objective of the organization.”


Factual approach to decision making: “Effective decisions are based on the analysis of data and information.”


Mutually beneficial supplier relationships: “An organization and its supplier are interdependent and a mutually beneficial relationship enhances the ability of both to create value.”


Analysis of the internal and external context: “The evolution of internal practices is influenced by conditions of the external environment: identifying the opportunities/threats of the environment promotes a relevant change.”


Risk management: “Assessing the risks to avoid and opportunities to seize (accessing new segments, developing new products/services, improving the value of the existing product) to maintain competitiveness.”


Organizational knowledge management: “Improve information flow and knowledge of the environment between functional units to facilitate or accelerate distinctive innovations.” Table 2.7. Requirements for the ISO 9001 quality management system standard version 2015


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries The ISO 14001 environmental management system standard This standard was created according to the same principles as ISO 9001. It prescribes the requirements for a company to implement an environmental management system (policy, objectives, resources and results) aimed at understanding the impact of the functions of its products/services on the environment and at continuously improving processes and relationships that influence environmental performance (see Figure 2.10). The new management model, which the standard establishes, involves the company in an analysis of the risks that weigh its activity (compliance with legal requirements and processes to be improved) and the opportunities that it can seize to promote its offer through innovations with an environmental value.

Figure 2.10. Requirements of an environmental management system according to ISO 14001 version 2015. For a color version of this figure, see

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


The implementation of an environmental management system is carried out in four stages: – planning begins with a diagnostic or analysis phase of the aspects/impacts of the processes for which the company wishes to improve its environmental impacts (see Figure 2.10). For example, the “release into the atmosphere” aspect of the fumes from raw material combustion has an impact on the environment and the surrounding area. To reduce this impact, the company would develop an improvement plan adapted to its needs. The plan sets out measurable objectives, drafts the procedures to be implemented in practice and develops indicators for measuring and evaluating results; – implementation consists of activating and improving the new procedures. The objective is to find solutions adapted to its needs; – evaluation of compliance controls (internal audit) makes it possible to verify progress and consistency between organizational objectives and the system in place; – management review makes it possible to visualize the results of the efforts made and to plan new improvement objectives. The ISO 14001 version 2015 standard requires the “determination of the environmental aspects of the activities, products and services that the company can control and those over which it can have an influence, as well as their associated environmental impacts, from a lifecycle perspective”. LCA includes “consecutive and related phases of a product system, from the acquisition of raw materials or the generation of natural resources to final disposal” (section 5.1, ISO 14050: 2002). This is a process of measuring the environmental impact of a product at any time for any activity or use throughout its life cycle. The ISO 14001 standard is the main reference framework for making an environmental strategy operational within a company and with its stakeholders. Within the company, it establishes a new management and monitoring framework for environmental regulations. The environmental management system is a framework for changing organizational practices and behavior. Externally, it enables links to be forged and information and practices to be shared with stakeholders (customers, local authorities, associations, consumers, etc.). This cross-organizational accelerates the development of responsible sectors. For the planet, it invites stakeholders to reduce their consumption of pollutants and the pressure on natural resources.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries ISO 50001 standard for energy management systems This standard is oriented towards the continuous improvement of energy usage, and the requirements of this standard complement those of ISO 9001 and 14001. The main objective of ISO 50001 is to help organizations make energy-intensive equipment, processes and procedures visible to improve their performance. It allows the construction of an energy management system (EMS) through a policy that defines the choice of equipment, energy consumption and indicators for improving energy consumption (see Figure 2.11).

Figure 2.11. Synoptic of an energy management system. For a color version of this figure, see

This standard thus encourages organizations to engage in: – organizational innovations through the adoption of new strategies based on the energy performance for sustainable development; – managerial innovations through the introduction of new ways of thinking and training managers; – technological innovations through the acquisition of new and more efficient equipment (less air pollutants), the adoption of clean alternative resources (less pressure on fossil fuels), practices to reduce waste and unnecessary consumption, etc. The transformation of the company’s practices and the innovations resulting from this transformation place the company’s energy policy within a framework that promotes a more global meaning than simply reducing costs by controlling energy consumption. The preservation of resources and the fight against global warming are objectives that go beyond the economic objectives of energy consumption.

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food

87 ISO 26000 standard on corporate social responsibility The ISO 26000 standard provides the company with guidelines to drive its production, consumption and stakeholder relations objectives in accordance with the principles of the three pillars of sustainable development. Structured around seven themes, it explains how an organization can be responsible for the impact of its activities on the ecosystem in which it operates: governance, human rights, working relationships and conditions, environment, loyalty of practices, consumer issues, communities and local development. Table 2.8 presents the central issues that these themes raise, which must be taken into account by organizations and on which they must report in their CSR approach. The implementation of these principles in the company’s practices through new external and internal governance rules dynamizes the continuous improvement cycle of their business models. Indeed, the desire to meet the expectations of stakeholders leads to the identification of the strategic skills to be developed and the processes to be mastered. This evolution is also a source of innovations, for the development of which the organization can rely on stakeholders. As a result, the deployment of the standard introduces the fundamental dimensions of a change policy meant to design a new sustainable development strategy. While CSR is considered as an organizational translation of sustainable development, the implementation of these themes in practices remains a distinctive and specific approach for each organization (Gond and Igalens 2018). Its contextualization in companies (appropriation of one or more principles of sustainable development to create value in a given context) depends on the managerial skills in place to instrumentalize the implementation of new rules of conduct, according to the company’s resources and the organization’s internal (management and employee needs) and external (stakeholders impacted by the activity) expectations. This contextualization process (alignment of external/internal objectives) is the organizational and managerial responses that a company develops to meet the requirements of sustainable development and CSR (Norris and O’Dwyer 2004). These social responses shape the ability of companies and their stakeholders to interact together, in order to reconfigure the business model to actively manage the pressures of their environment. The ability to meet the constraints imposed by sustainable development depends, on the one hand, on the tools used to manage strategic processes (control and corrective and preventive improvement measures) and, on the other hand, on managerial skills to evaluate and interpret external expectations about the company’s sustainable practices, as expressed in the form of data, signs, information, needs, trends, regulations, etc. To innovate through the challenges of sustainable development, the managers’ challenge then becomes the translation of


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

the new information into relevant innovations. This translation means the transformation of data – before competitors – into useful knowledge, i.e. knowledge that is capable of acting on a particular context or problem. THEMES OF THE ISO 26000 STANDARD


Organizational governance

Structuring the decision-making system with regard to social responsibility

Human rights

Addressing human rights violations Labor, civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights

Relationships and working conditions

Employment/employee relations Working conditions and social protection Occupational health and safety, human capital development


Pollution prevention, sustainable use of resources Protection of biodiversity and natural habitats

Loyalty of practices

Fight against corruption, fair competition Promoting social responsibility in the value chain Respect for property rights

Consumer issues

Community and local development

Fair marketing, information and contract practices Protection of consumer health and safety Sustainable consumption, education and consumer awareness After-sales service, resolution of customer complaints and consumer disputes Community involvement, education and culture Job creation and skills development Technology development Wealth and income creation Investment in and for society

Table 2.8. CSR responsibility themes and their central issues in ISO 26000

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


2.7.3. The role of standards in fostering innovations related to sustainable development Management system standards are designed to be adopted as managerial innovations (Serhan 2018), i.e. as “the implementation of a new management idea, program or technique that changes the managerial action and expands the organizational goals” (Birkinshaw et al. 2008). Their implementation involves a transformation of what managers do, i.e. how they set objectives, involve employees in the change program, plan, coordinate and evaluate activities, acquire new knowledge, and adapt the management system to new contexts (Hamel 2006). This process facilitates the control of risks related to the company’s activity and the identification of opportunities to be seized to innovate. These processes constitute the strategic capacities on which the company can rely to create knowledge-based innovations. These can be driven in two ways (Coombs and Hull 1998): – either by the company’s ecosystem, scientific research institutions, partners, consumers, suppliers, NGOs, etc.; – or by the company’s specific internal resources, its core competence, its employees’ know-how, the expertise of its functional units, etc. The confrontation and adaptation of these internal skills to the ecosystem constraints/opportunities create the capacity for the company to generate a diversity of distinctive innovations, as they are specific to its context (Teece 2012). These include organizational innovations (sustainable structuring of business practices and relationships), managerial innovations (ways of setting, implementing and improving new objectives), process innovations (sustainable procurement of raw materials, improving the energy efficiency of a machine), product/service innovations, and innovations in improving or creating sustainable business models to frame a broad field of innovations that change the conditions of competition (Chesbrough 2010). A transversal reading of the main practice transformations driven by standards (see Table 2.9) shows that they are aimed less at positioning themselves in a market than at developing the dynamic capabilities that enable companies to identify and seize an opportunity and reconfigure their resource base (physical assets and skills). These include the ability to access and generate new knowledge, build new partnerships, identify and eliminate non-value-adding processes, develop new products and services that are relevant (i.e. in line with the regulations and expectations of target customers) and access new segments, markets and countries. These dynamic (according to changes in explicit or implicit trends, expectations and needs) capabilities (abilities to change the company’s resource base) allow the company either to adapt to environmental changes to maintain its competitive


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

advantage, or to modify its environment to make it receptive to a new value proposition (Teece 2012). MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARD


ISO 9001 Quality MS: “Managerial innovation for the improvement of process, knowledge and relationship”

Identification and control of strategic processes (satisfaction of key stakeholders) Individual and organizational learning (standardized and disseminated best practices) Traceability in the coordination of processes and relations (product quality/service controlled) Implementation of indicators for measurement and evaluation of results (evidence-based decision making) Evolution of internal knowledge by analysis of external context (continuous improvement of value)

ISO 14001 Environmental MS: “Ecodesign and ecoinnovation framework”

Identification and control of processes impacting the environment (life cycle analysis) Application of pollution control indicators (Ecobalance and ecodesign practices) Adoption of renewable energy production systems (photovoltaic, biomass, etc.) Use of new waste management processes (ecoinnovation)

ISO 50001 Energy MS: “Device for cost and energy pollution reduction”

Integration of design and purchasing into the company’s energy policy (mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders) Adoption of energy performance control indicators (management system) Improved or changed energy consuming equipment and processes (ecodesign and ecoinnovation) Cost reduction (control of electricity, pollutants, etc.)

ISO 26000 of CSR: “Framework for social and economic progress”

Integration of social, environmental and economic performance indicators into the organization’s management (the organization fulfills society’s needs) The expectations of direct and indirect stakeholders are considered in the decision-making process (the company is a social community) Consideration of the working conditions of managers and employees (safety, remuneration, welfare) Reconfiguration of the value of the existing business model (evolution of the heritage of knowledge through sustainability)

Table 2.9. Management system standards and practice transformation

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


These capabilities present these normative tools as strategic management tools for framing sustainable development for the following reasons. They make it possible to determine the company’s fundamental goals and objectives for both the medium and long terms, and to put in place the necessary resources to achieve them. These standards require the identification of key or strategic processes that contribute to the creation of value for which the customer is willing to pay. The logic of process control linked to management system standards organizes the company’s activity according to a value creation logic. These processes connect the company with its environment and reflect customer needs, or more generally the requirements of the environment, as perceived by the company (Lorino 2015). By requiring companies to determine their processes, skills and relationships in order to improve them, management system standards remind us that competitive advantage is based on the resources and know-how specific to each company. By setting out the requirements for “continuous customer satisfaction” and “mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders”, these standards integrate the principles of collective action outlined in stakeholder theory into the standardization of effort. The certifications and exemplary labels related to these standards represent marketing tools. They communicate to the market the company’s culture, vision and mission in its sector. They thus make it possible to influence consumer behavior by guiding them towards responsible purchasing. 2.7.4. Consumer behavior Behavioral strategy focuses on societal changes to improve the attractiveness of innovative products and influence the behavior of first-time customers. Today, the consumer environment encourages agri-food companies to generate: – “smart innovations”, i.e. “connected” innovations that facilitate their appropriation by a population communicating on social networks; – innovations that are more respectful of the environment and humans that contribute to their production and consumption (Alim’Agri 2016).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

In order to facilitate consumer adoption of innovations, Ranganathan et al. (2016) recommend a few good practices to manufacturers: – minimizing consumer disruption to improved criteria or generated innovations: for example, creating animal product substitutes from vegetable protein by reproducing the familiar taste and texture of chicken, eggs or beef; respecting the appearance, texture, smell, packaging; – proposing a relevant sustainable value or promise (health, ethics, environmental, etc.) that meets the target’s expectations; – supporting consumer awareness programs to change their habits: increasing the visibility of the product by improving its availability and promoting it with relevant advertising that builds on its sustainable values (e.g. presenting soy milk in the fresh milk section with similar packaging improves visibility and likelihood of purchase); – changing the social and cultural norms that influence consumption. For example, the 2006 broadcast by the conservation organization WildAid of a series of advertisements on the devastating effects of shark fishing significantly reduced the consumption of shark fins in China, and subsequently led to the Chinese State Council’s ban on serving shark fin at official receptions. The World Health Organization (2010) emphasizes the need to reduce the marketing of food products that are high in fat, sugar and salt, as they have a negative impact on the health of young people. It also urges the use of social marketing to disseminate public health messages. The purpose of social marketing is to encourage the target population to voluntarily accept, reject, modify or abandon behavior in their own interest, in the interest of a group or in the interest of society as a whole (Weinreich 2010). To change or influence behavior in a sustainable way, it identifies positive levers for change or latent insights, and translates the message to be disseminated in a way that promotes consumer support for the new attitudes. These can include targeted campaigns to stop smoking, alcoholism and prevent skin cancer. These practices show that food choices, generally dictated by individual or cultural preferences, can be influenced by incentives of different kinds. These can include the shelf presentation of the product, the accessibility of certain shops, prices, advertising, promises of value displayed by quality signs, etc. Improvements in content, food containers and the environment, which influence consumers’ choice of products and the composition of their diets, are strategies to encourage the adoption of new products that respect the socio-economic and environmental principles of sustainable development.

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


The behavioral strategy links the impact of the practices of food actors to the principles of sustainable development in a systematic framework of which the objective is to articulate the transformation practices of agricultural activities (through agro-ecological practices), the agri-food industry (energy eco-efficiency, waste recovery, wasteful processing) and consumer behavior. Consumer choice plays a key role in transforming food system practices in the following ways, including purchasing particular types of products according to their origin and production method. Consumers’ practices – the way they buy, transport, store, cook and consume their food – influence both the nutritional value of food and diets, on the one hand, and the impact of their diet on the environment, on the other hand.

2.7.5. Agricultural practices Eco-responsible (sustainable agriculture, agro-ecology, organic farming, etc.) and inclusive (providing decent jobs and income to vulnerable populations) agricultural practices enable food systems to improve their sustainable characteristics (quantitative and qualitative) and contribute to meeting the socio-economic, nutritional and environmental objectives of sustainable development (see Table 2.10), as defined by the OECD (2015). SDG 8: “Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable growth, full and decent work for all.” SDG 2: “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.” SDG 3: “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.” SDG 12: “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.” SDG 13: “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” SDG 15: “Sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.” Table 2.10. Sustainable development objectives related to agriculture (source: OECD 2015)


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

2.7.6. More sustainable agri-food business practices Behavioral changes can be initiated by independent or concurrent actions in five strategic areas (ANIA 2013): – Axis 1: the supply of responsible raw materials. Current experiences show that the agri-food industries are involved in changing agricultural practices, in particular through three forms of approaches: - by supporting them through partnerships or contractual arrangements in the implementation of environmental charters, the drafting of specifications or the identification and the testing and sharing of good practices. For example, the Bonduelle group has built a supply model that favors producers in groups (77% of the total area cultivated for the group) in order to offer consumers open field vegetables, benefiting from plot rotations (anti-exhaustion practice) and producing at the lowest possible cost according to sales forecasts (to minimize upstream waste); - by eschewing raw material supply chains that have a direct impact on deforestation (paper, cocoa, palm oil, tea, wheat, etc.). In France, the equitable Agri-ethics sector supports, through a fair and sustainable specification, certain producers of soft wheat, buckwheat, milk and eggs. The objective of this approach is to protect French producers (thanks to a stable price over the contractual period), and to improve the quality of the raw material for processors and consumers; - by sourcing locally to reduce food mileage and loss rates for perishable products and to enhance the value of regional products. For example, the French company Les deux gourmands based its business model on the concept of “Made in Île-de-France”. This company produces biscuits from raw materials from the region, produced by producers committed to an environmentally friendly approach. The objective is to contribute to sustainable development through agri-food innovations that enhance the region and Île-de-France producers through traditional and tasty regional recipes (poppy biscuits have been a Nemours specialty since 1850; biscuits with saffron have been made in the region since the 13th Century). – Axis 2: the use of environmentally friendly food processing. Reducing the energy needs of manufacturing processes and product safety requirements (processing, drying, combustion, cold chain, etc.) represents a major environmental challenge and an important competitiveness issue for the food industries (the third industrial sector consuming energy after the chemical and metallurgy industries) (ADEME 2012). To meet this challenge, some good practices can be adopted (Table 2.11).

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food



Lighting of factories with LED

Installation of biomass boilers

Change of burners, modification of heating techniques

Optimization of the settings of baking ovens

Reuse of cooling water

Installation of solar panels

Aerothermal and geothermal power

Electricity supply by renewable energies

Recovering heat to preheat boilers

Installation of methanization units to produce biogas

Calibration and preventive maintenance of devices

Replacement of refrigerants with ammonia

Use of animal fat as biofuel

Installation of cogeneration units (generating Dry disinfection energy and steam at the same time) Table 2.11. CompIAA Project – guide of good practices to save energy (source: ADEME 2012)

– Axis 3: the optimization of capacities and means of transport. The impacts of food road transport (25% of French road transport) can be reduced by a behavioral change on the part of producers, supermarkets and consumers (CGDD 2013). For example, the practices of short food supply chains such as “sales-on-the farm”, farmers’ local markets, associations for the maintenance of peasant agriculture, and agricultural cooperatives, represent sustainable networks aimed at reducing the negative environmental and social impacts produced by mass production, distribution and consumption. To reduce their carbon footprint, supermarkets can act on several levels. These include sourcing from local factories, using trucks that meet environmental standards, building distribution schemes that minimize travel distances, optimizing truck filling and return rates (co-delivery), using double-decker trucks, training truck drivers in eco-driving, using reusable and recyclable cardboard pallets, etc. – Axis 4: the development of practices to combat loss and food waste. These include the improvement of harvesting and storage practices, the use of irregular products, the production of composting or biogas from food waste, the recovery of joint products or by-products from food processing, the redesign of sizes, portions


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

or the nutritional value of certain food products. All of these practices can reduce environmental costs and combat food insecurity and pollution. – Axis 5: the improvement of packaging management and end-of-life practices. In the food sector, sustainable packaging management can be considered in the field of behavioral strategy in two different ways, linked to the two main functions of packaging: - packaging as a means of ensuring the hygienic and organoleptic quality of food: the use of recyclable or compostable materials to reduce the consumption of fossil resources and contribute to a change in consumer behavior (e.g. recycling, composting, reuse of certain containers in the kitchen such as mustard jars, jam jars, yogurt pots); - packaging as an informational medium to raise consumer awareness of sustainability issues and facilitate the orientation of their choices towards innovative and eco-responsible products. Here, improved labeling and information display should increase consumers’ knowledge and skills about the origin and nature of the products they consume and the practices of the company from which they purchase. Two types of information can be disseminated on packaging: mandatory regulatory information (sales denomination, expiry date, weight, price, product composition, etc.) and optional, commercially oriented information that distinguishes certain products by certain practices, including product and local development practices, communication on the style of management system, utilization of ethical practices, etc. The labels linked to this information are communication vehicles for changing the behavior of consumers and other stakeholders (see Table 2.12). These labels can be grouped into three categories: – identification of quality and place of origin such as the Appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC for France); its European counterpart since 2009, the Appellation d’origine protégée (AOP); the Indication géographique protégée (IGP – Protected Geographical Indication); the Spécialité traditionnelle garantie (STG – Traditional Specialty Guaranteed, TSG) and the Agriculture biologique (Organic Agriculture); – valuing labels such as “mountain products”, “farmer”, “country products” and “Fair Trade”; – certificates of conformity of a product or management system that include various product certifications such as: “Product certification”, “ISO 9001”, “ISO 14001”, “ISO 14001”, “ISO 14001”, “ISO 26000”.

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food




Nutritional profile of a product: high in fat, salt and sugar (categories D and E); healthy (categories A and B). The French Appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC) or its European counterpart Appellation d’origine protégée (AOP) attests that the production, processing and preparation of the products took place in a defined geographical area. The Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) ensures that at least one of the transformation stages has taken place in the designated area. The Red Label attests that an unprocessed agricultural product or a food product has benefited from a higher quality level (special production and manufacturing conditions) distinguishing it from similar commodity products. The European Traditional Specialty Guaranteed (TSG) attests that a food product was manufactured according to a recipe considered as traditional, without any relation to a specific region. Organic Agriculture (Agriculture biologique, AB) attests that the agricultural or food product comes from a system where the genetic engineering of pesticides and chemically-synthesized fertilizers are not used. The European label “mountain product” (product of animal or vegetable origin) informs that the supply of raw materials and processing took place in a mountain area (600 m altitude) and that the production methods took into account some sustainable development concerns (biodiversity, mountain heritage, etc.). The labels “farmer”, “farm product” or “produced on the farm” guarantee an artisanal production method (on a farm) excluding any industrial process. The label “country products” is reserved for food products (except wines and spirits) as well as non-food and unprocessed agricultural products whose operations are carried out in an overseas French department. The ethical labels “Fair Trade”, “Equitable Ecocert” (Ecocert Équitable) and “Peasant Producers” (Producteurs Paysans) attest that certain products (especially coffee, cocoa, bananas or exotic fruits) come from a transparent production system, which respects the rights of small producers, marginalized workers and the environment.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

These certifications attest that a food product or a non-food and unprocessed agricultural product conforms to specific characteristics or pre-established rules relating to the production, manufacture, processing or packaging of a product. The ISO 9001 certification of the quality management system certifies that the organization is structured to continuously improve its strategic processes in order to satisfy key stakeholders. The ISO 14001 certification of the environmental management system informs that the company has integrated in its policy and strategy the appropriate measures and indicators to manage the environmental impact. The evaluation of a responsible commitment according to the guidelines of the ISO 26000 standard attests that the company is operating its activities in a socially responsible way. It is acting in an ethical and transparent manner that contributes to the good health and welfare of society. The ISO 50001 certification attests that the organization has a management system for using energy more efficiently. Table 2.12. Labels that provide information on product provenance and performance. For a color version of this table, see

2.8. Conclusion Sustainable development principles have been applied in companies in the form of generic principles or in the form of CSR, all of which provides them with a framework for structuring their actions. In France, the new guidelines given for the extra-financial reporting of companies complete this framework and guide organizations towards an analysis of the links between their strategies, activities and the international, European and regional community objectives associated with sustainable development. Contextualization of these principles through the skills and knowledge of organizations and according to the requirements and needs of their internal and external stakeholders can be achieved through an environmental, nutritional and behavioral strategy. The environmental strategy aims to reduce the negative environmental impacts of food chain activities, and proposes tools and methods that frame the reduction of environmental impacts through the adoption of an environmental management system and an ecodesign policy.

The Ecological Transition for Sustainable Food


The nutritional strategy links the health status of populations and the environment to the diet and nutritional composition of food, with regard to the needs of specific populations (children, adults, the elderly and also groups with specific needs related to physiological, religious or community factors). This strategy must mobilize relevant indicators in its design in order to simultaneously meet the nutritional and environmental challenges of food, including population growth (food in quantity and quality), aging of the population in poor health (food for targeted populations and problems), chronic health problems linked to poor nutrition (improvement of the nutritional profile and density of food) and nutrient deficiencies (food adapted to new consumption patterns, products with minimal processing for mobile or out-of-home consumption). The behavioral strategy outlines good practices that facilitate the transformation of the behavior of actors in the food chain, from responsible raw material supply to consumer food choice. These strategies provide frameworks for contextualizing the principles of sustainable development in companies. They make visible three considerations that reflect the relationships a company can have with society: – ethical considerations through respect for societal norms, natural resources and human rights (working conditions, employee safety, social development, etc.); – environmental and economic considerations by implementing tools and methods to reduce production costs, energy and water consumption, and emissions and waste impacting the environment (CO2, joint products, by-products, biomass, etc.); – nutritional considerations through the implementation of policies, action plans and indicators to improve the nutritional quality of food innovations. The operationalization of these strategies is based on various voluntary management system standards, which provide frameworks for analysis and prioritization of actions to change practices and their impacts within and between value chain organizations, as well as with internal and external stakeholders (such as ISO 14000 and ISO 26000 standards). This framework also supports actions structured around products and services for the purpose of framing ecodesign actions (e.g. NFX 30-264, ISO 14021: 2016 standards). Beyond these normative approaches, the integration of sustainable development practices requires a real transformation of the paradigm of the company’s value creation ambitions. The implementation of an active CSR policy means openness to


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

stakeholder consideration and an analysis of societal expectations that calls upon the company to reflect again on its role and responsibilities. However, this transformation is also a timely source of revision of its identity and objectives. This “introspection” opens the field to a powerful evolution of the company’s business model, an evolution that can not only result in competitive differentiation but also in elements of loyalty to the company from its internal and external stakeholders.


Implementation of Ecodesign Practices in Food Innovation Projects

Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries, First Edition. Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris, Hiam Serhan, Sibylle Duchaîne, Jean-Marc Ferrandi and Gilles Trystram. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

3 Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects

3.1. The ecological transition, a driver of innovation French, European or global agri-food companies are all faced with the challenge of innovation. Creating value in mature markets is an objective that require inventing a differentiated offer, while developing markets, as growth relays, require the creation of new offers that potentially involve a breakthrough with the perfectly controlled practices of established companies. In such a context, agri-food companies, in their capacity to innovate, have a real competitive advantage. Since the 1950s, the ambition to feed populations at the lowest cost has led to the development of an “agro-industrial system”, the developments of which have so far been guided by this objective for cost and food safety. This agro-industrial system was initially created to preserve and distribute food. In this context, innovation was mobilized to promote the standardization of raw materials and processes. In the second stage, the organoleptic qualities of the products were the essential driving force behind innovation policies. Then nutrition became a vector for innovation and the proposal of a new offer. Finally, the combined service offer, based on convenience and information, has completed the field of differentiation characteristics that can be mobilized by agri-food companies. It is only recently that the agro-industrial system has explicitly integrated ecological transition as a driver for innovation. The issues raised by the ecological transition (see sections 1.4 and 1.5) put the practices of this agro-industrial system in perspective with other models (see section 1.2), which have persisted with relative


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

importance depending on the region of the world considered and which, for some, are expanding in developed countries. Thus, as throughout its history, food is redefining itself, evolving and taking into account the ecological transition, which promotes greater diversity in agricultural production, and is already shaking up food systems (see Figure 3.1). Adapting to this diversity while guaranteeing food safety and sanitary security for populations, as well as meeting environmental, nutritional and health challenges while maintaining a constant set of perceptual attributes is a new challenge to our society: at no time in its history has humanity been able to generate an adequate response to all these challenges.

Figure 3.1. The sustainable food system: system composition and interactions. For a color version of this figure, see

3.2. Ecoinnovating by taking into account ecodesign practices With regard to the assessment and issues set out in Chapter 1, we identify three challenges for which food ecoinnovation must foster the emergence of new solutions. Food access is the first issue. This access raises logistical, cultural and economic issues: – with the growing urbanization of populations, consumption places are moving away from production places. In addition, the global competition for agricultural resources leads to speculation on raw materials leading to price volatility. In parallel, land repurchases aim to create production areas for the benefit of non-local populations. The analysis of many flows of products or ingredients shows complex paths, on a global scale, and the global ecological footprint is affected not

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


only by the load in emissions related to transport and storage of materials, but also by the losses and waste that these transfers promote; – access to quality food adapted to the nutritional and health needs of consumers is a matter of food equity. The social component of sustainable development is strongly impacted by this issue, which has relatively been studied to date. But in terms of food, it increasingly appears that the ability to control one’s diet, individually or collectively, and thus to participate in increasing the sustainability of food systems, requires mastery of knowledge related to the use of raw materials and food (which implies the study and development of the use of by-products, mastery of recycling, and the reduction of losses and waste). Foods designed to facilitate and promote sustainable and efficient use are therefore expected. The second issue is to control and quantify the impacts of food consumption, enabling informed food choices and thus, the evolution towards a better collective control of our impact. Food accounts for at least one-third of humanity’s greenhouse gas production. The impacts of food processing are mainly on biodiversity, in energy consumption and by environmental damage (particularly water consumption and wastewater discharges). Finally, a major indirect impact is related to food packaging. There is not really a consensus on the relevant indicators to quantify the impacts of food. However, all prospective studies (Paillard et al. 2010) converge towards two determining factors (Garnett 2014): the amount of calories ingested in highly industrialized countries is considerable, while it is insufficient in other countries. The correlation between the caloric density of foods and their environmental impact is a topic discussed by nutritionists (Vieux et al. 2013). On the other hand, the link between the consumption of meat products and the greenhouse effect has been established (Masset et al. 2014; Bertoluci et al. 2016). Moreover, all anthropological studies show that access to more wealth leads to a reproduction of high-calorie eating habits, particularly a diet of meat products. Prospective studies therefore conclude that it is necessary to reduce the consumption of certain foods, including those containing animal proteins, in order to limit our impact on the environment. The replacement strategies envisaged are based on the use of vegetable proteins or, more broadly, fruit and vegetables. In addition, solutions to reduce energy density, which can help obesity problems, are also being explored. Among these solutions, the possibility of modifying the structure of the food to reduce the perception of the reduction of energy load factors (mainly sugar and fat) in recipes is explored. This is therefore also a relevant path for the ecodesign of food. However, whatever progress is made in this area, the role of eating behavior will also remain crucial. Indeed, the regulation of individual consumption is determined by the diet and not by a single food. The importance of individual choices implies that improving food sustainability requires not only


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

securing access for all to a food supply adapted to their needs, but also providing everyone with a sufficient information and knowledge base to enable them to make food choices in awareness of their impacts. The third issue remains the construction of the expected food functions and food attributes. In 2007, the European Food for Life Technology Platform Group (ETP 2007) proposed a vision for European food research around the PAN concept – Preference, Acceptability, Needs (reverse engineering) – which suggests that food processes should be adapted to consumer preferences, acceptance and needs rather than adapting raw materials to process requirements. Figure 3.1 shows the place of these functions in the definition of a sustainable food system. Expectations related to food systems are numerous and sometimes contradictory. In their previous evolutions, the transformation processes have been able to build compromise solutions between previous expectations (health and safety, nutritional impact, sensory properties). This construction has been mastered, adding new criteria to their predecessors step by step. The challenge today is to generate and integrate new knowledge in order to overcome these contradictions and to respond to the new constraints induced by the consideration of ecological transition. To do this, two axes are distinguished: – axis 1: mastering the ecological footprint of food processing and distribution. This means offering the same food as today, but with control over energy, material losses, water, carbon footprint at the scale of processing or retail logistics, or even at home during consumption; – axis 2: the substitution of certain ingredients with new ingredients whose characteristics better meet environmental or social challenges. This implies a significant amount of research work to obtain structures with new added values by modifying dimensions as varied as bioavailability, sensory properties and caloric intake but respecting a form of naturality (the clean label concept in particular) that is expected by consumers. These various works induce necessary evolutions of food, even in the way in which nutrients are structurally involved in food. The consequences of these developments are currently only emerging, but the need for evolution suggests a field of discovery and innovation. This construction of the expected functions of food therefore increasingly takes into account the specificities of the different categories of consumers and the offer is divided to meet specific needs (the elderly, young children, athletes, etc.). Until now, the attributes conferred on foods have corresponded to the expectations of a target group of a population whose aspirations were defined by marketing. Other

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


purposes are currently emerging through reverse engineering processes whose starting points are either uses or expected physiological effects. An important avenue for innovation is therefore in the construction of foods with specific expected attributes that target restricted categories of consumers, or even a few individuals, because the diversity of dietary expectations and behaviors is increasing drastically. Ecodesigning a food means responding to one or more of the issues outlined above. Engineering and design methods are then necessary to build a systemic response adapted to the complexity of the questions asked. This ecodesign contributes to ecoinnovation when the change in practices considered is not restricted to reducing impacts, but includes seeking new ways of using raw materials, their transformation, the inclusion of their by-products in circular economic loops. Finally, ecoinnovation projects induce a transformation of the nature of organizations that contribute to the creation and dissemination of the product. Creation and placing a food product on the market is therefore a long and delicate process at the heart of agri-food companies’ innovation strategies, particularly in Europe. Its success depends on a judicious balance between creativity and rigor, dynamism and realism, technology and marketing, management and production. Taking into account the elements of sustainable development in the development of this product is an additional requirement that must cover all dimensions of the food, from its packaging, manufacture and distribution to the organizations in which it operates and the stakeholders it impacts. 3.3. Know-how resulting from the ÉcoTrophélia competition Since 2000, several higher education institutions have jointly organized a dynamic based on the establishment of a national food innovation competition, reserved for graduate students (see box I.1). This competition, which has become a European success, made it possible, in 2012, to launch a six-year project to share methods, concepts and resources dedicated to ecodesign involving members of competing schools. Thanks to the implementation of a project-based learning pedagogy in the curricula of the training courses, students’ creativity is solicited, but this experience also leads them to develop project management, management and communication skills with an intensity and in a continuum that leads them beyond what is provided by traditional curricula. The conduct of these projects is, according to their testimonies, a valuable, useful, professional and humane experience involving formative practice. The higher education institutions involved have thus adapted course content to take into account all the skills required to create eco-innovative food products.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

One of the objectives of the ÉcoTrophélia consortium was to design and develop a toolbox that could be used by designers, engineers and students to carry out food ecoinnovation projects. Called Ideonis, this toolbox consists of eighteen steps covering all the practices of a food ecodesign project (see Figure 3.2). The key milestones of this project and the sub-issues addressed are summarized in Table 3.1. The design and operation of these 18 blocks reflect the capabilities and skills that a project group mobilizes throughout the process of designing, developing and distributing a new product. Eighteen training modules organized in six main chapters cover concepts and engineering of food ecodesign. 3.4. Framework for the analysis of ÉcoTrophélia projects

Protecting innovation

Protecting innovation is a key step in ensuring the development of innovative projects: – in identifying the innovative elements of the project; – implementing the tools available for the protection of innovation; – establishing an innovation protection strategy.

Business model

The two key questions are: – How do we create a business model? – Present examples of business models. This involves defining the company’s positioning, the natures of the activities creating added value, the means and resources used to achieve them, the rules, operating principles and values concerned by the innovation project.


Project strategy

Three dimensions prevail in ÉcoTrophélia projects: the degree and interest of the proposed innovation, the organoleptic promise of the product and its technical and sanitary feasibility, and the robustness of the projected business model. Soliciting food innovation projects that contribute to the ecological transition is clearly the objective of the ÉcoTrophélia competition. The forms of contributions devised by student projects are varied and aim to respond to one or more issues of the sustainability of food chains.

Financial simulation associated with the industrialization strategy of an innovative food product. Determination of investment items, definition of turnover to cover expenses and charges, and preparation of a provisional income statement over several years. These targets help to: – prepare an income statement and a cash flow statement; – define a financing plan; – build a provisional balance sheet.

Value of the project

Approach to enhancing the value of innovation through the construction and the contractualization of an enterprise strategy: entrepreneurship or partnership. This step involves: – identifying the modalities of possible industrial partnerships; – understanding the rules of a company’s creation; – building a strategy to enhance the value of the project.


Ability to put imagination into a framework to generate new ideas outside the framework and translate them into innovation involves: – discovering the concept of creativity and the associated methods; – learning to participate in/leading a creativity method; – being creative to innovate.

Market research

Discovering the principles of market research through the analysis of existing data. Defining the characteristics of the market targeted by the collection and analysis of information related to demand, competition, products, environment, distribution, market size involves: – analyzing the offer and competition; – analyzing demand; – discovering the different tools, methods and studies; – identifying sources of information.

Studies and surveys

A method of investigation based on the study of answers to a study or questionnaire addressed to a sample of the population. It is a key element in food innovation processes involving: – identifying methods for consumer research and surveys; – creating a qualitative survey; – creating a quantitative survey; – enhancing the results of surveys.

Marketing mix


Marketing strategy based on the combination of product, price, sales force, services, brand, distribution channels and communication, while controlling human, technical, financial, time and geographical constraints involves: – identifying a consumer target for the food; – identifying a distribution channel for the marketing of food; – establishing a pricing strategy for the marketing of food; – defining the expected benefit and position the food offer; – defining a communication strategy for the marketing of food.



Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects

Design of a packaging for the preservation of the food while respecting the requirements of aesthetics, shape, color, information, ergonomics and ease of use involves: – sizing packaging for the preservation of the food; – developing packaging adapted to the food and its consumption; – ecodesigning packaging.

Sensory evaluation

Product development and process

Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Develop an innovative food based on the diversity of raw materials, the understanding of the functional properties of ingredients, and the control of processing operations to build the desired properties involves: – developing the formulation of the food; – developing the manufacturing process of the food; – evaluating the physico-chemical performance of the food. Determine the organoleptic properties of the food in relation to consumer perception. This action enables evaluating the food’s properties in a structured way and to support the innovation process. It involves: – implementing a method for sensory analysis of the food; – evaluating the sensory performance of the food; – testing consumers’ sensory perception. The nutritional quality of the food is associated with its energy value, the presence of essential elements and the relative proportions of macroconstituents. To address this subject, the project involves: – evaluating the nutritional performance of the food; – identifying possible nutrition claims. Determine the shelf life of the food (eat-by date or best before date) and its storage conditions. There is no regulation beyond the guide to good hygiene practices and the performance of ageing tests. However, an answer can be provided by carrying out the following activities: – determining the shelf life (use by date) of the food; – identifying the factors that control the preservation of the food;


– identifying degradation reactions that limit the shelf life of the food. The development of an innovative food must be carried out in compliance with existing regulations: European system, ANSES, DGCCRF, Novel Food, etc. It involves: – identifying the regulatory framework for innovation; – being familiar with the regulatory texts specific to the food; – mastering the legislation on the legal name under which the food is sold; – mastering the legislation on food formulation.


Quality, Health, Safety, Environment

Shelf life

Nutritional assessment

Research and development


Integrated approach to define the modalities of quality, hygiene, safety and environmental management associated with the industrial production of innovative food is required. It involves: – simulating a quality/hygiene/safety/environment approach for the production workshop; – simulating a HACCP approach for the production workshop; – identifying the critical points in the production of the food.

Line design and workshop

The industrial-scale implementation of the manufacture of innovative food requires the design of a production line and a production workshop. Discovering the steps to identify, size and assemble equipment in a workshop involves: – identifying and measuring the equipment necessary for the manufacture of the food; – designing a production line; – designing a production workshop.

Production organization


All activities of organization, resource planning (material, financial or human) and scheduling of production activities necessary for the manufacture of the food are exposed in the project. This aim involves: – organizing production for the industrial manufacture of food; – providing the human resources necessary for production.




Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects

From the initial idea, a preventive and innovative approach to take into account and reduce the “negative” impacts of food on the environment, throughout its lifecycle, while maintaining its qualities of use involves: – identifying the levers for ecodesigning food; – implementing an ecodesign approach to innovation. Table 3.1. Structure and content of the essential training 1 building blocks for the ecodesign of foodstuffs

Figure 3.2. Principle of the Ideonis knowledge base developed in the ÉcoTrophélia project. For a color version of this figure, see 1 Compiled from the website:


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

In this chapter, 11 cases are presented and for each, a summary framework is proposed. To analyze and interpret the innovative business models for each of these cases, we propose a framework (see an example in Table 3.2), which summarizes the elements that we consider essential. This framework shall take into account in particular how the project tackles the challenges of sustainable development. The objective is to identify whether the company in each case proposes to implement certain dynamic ecoinnovation capacities: – the ability to detect an environmental issue in accordance with one or more sustainable development objectives; – the ability to develop a solution concept with an ecological value; – the ability to implement ecodesign practices at different levels of the lifecycle of the product. Table 3.2 summarizes the sustainability dimensions considered in each case and reported in the summary framework when these elements exist in each case. However, as shown in Table 3.3, the elements considered in the framework also cover the aspects more traditionally considered in the analysis of business models: activities generating added value to the project, nature of stakeholders, key elements of the external analysis, etc. Features and characteristics CSR dimension involved Nature of the learning performed Impact on organizational culture Influence on managers’ mental models Stakeholders included in the definition of CSR Generic type of learning involved Time orientation of change and sustainability Triggering factor

Societal adaptation of the company Professed CSR, CSR results and behaviors Behavioral dominance Temporary change in behavior, possible discursive change

Societal learning of the company Theories of CSR use, CSR behavior and possibly professed CSR



No questioning of the representations Stable and unchanged scope of consolidation

Redefinition and/or modification of models Potentially expanded scope to include new stakeholders

Simple loop

Double loop

Short-term, temporary change External environment: compliance logic

Cognitive dominance Involves a review of theories of use

Long-term, sustainable change possible Requires strong internal commitment from managers beyond external stimuli

Table 3.2. Dynamic capabilities considered in the framework for ÉcoTrophélia project analysis

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


The structure of the case presentation and the framework that summarizes them are similar and have been constructed to facilitate a transversal reading (facilitating comparison but also the identification of similarities) of the cases. This case structuring, defined by the authors, aims to question the nature of strategies, practices and results of the projects from the perspective of ecodesign and ecoinnovation. These models are therefore reductive: the cases as presented do not expose the totality or the richness of the work carried out by the students with the help of their supervisors. In particular, the work of defining the structure of the food, developing processes, defining the production system or even food safety measures is rarely mentioned, if at all, although they constitute a significant part of the work produced. This bias is linked to the objective of this book, which proposes to build on the experiences in and ecoinnovation of projects. 3.5. ÉcoTrophélia projects In what follows, 11 ecoinnovation projects presented in the ÉcoTrophélia competition are discussed. They were proposed, after a call for projects, by partner schools of the ÉcoTrophélia competition. The request to all partners was to present projects emblematic of ecoinnovation as it can be carried out in ÉcoTrophélia. The projects presented involved both engineering and design students from French higher education institutions. It is thus possible here to segment these projects into four groups. – Health through food: the projects focused on the prevention or control of certain (chronic) diseases or pathologies: how to contribute to the eater’s health? Two projects thus target a specific population: seniors. The VitaPlus project invents new functional foods in response to pathologies encountered by many seniors (memory and vision; cardiovascular health and joint flexibility). Similarly, Mixi’Mousse is interested in the problem of undernutrition among seniors by offering them a local dish, adapted in terms of taste and texture to dysphagia problems. The third project, Minigloo, focused on the fight against obesity and overweight by offering a milky ice cream specifically adapted nutritionally for young children. The fourth project, Vertu, focused more on the consequences of our behavioral choices by offering, with the help of phytotherapy and aromatherapy, the first food substitute for tobacco. – Adding value to by-products and the fight against waste: all the projects have sought to implement sustainable solutions by reflecting on the sustainability of the food value chain defined by their project (organic, clean label, local sourcing), the


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

ecodesign of packaging or the fight against the waste of resources during the production process. However, three of them have developed new products, adding real value to by-products. This is the case of Lardons de la mer, which reinvented bacon by combining fresh fish offcuts that were previously undervalued or even discarded. This approach offers new sources of income to fishermen and increases the sustainability of the sector while having a positive impact on the environment. Similarly, through two industrial partnerships, the PannIno and Prêt Par Moi projects made it possible to effectively combat waste by promoting the by-products of the partner manufacturers’ production processes and by offering consumers new consumer experiences. – Taking into account populations in uncertain situations: ecoinnovation also means imagining how to offer food and financial security to everyone. How can we feed the planet when some of it lives on less than 2 euros a day? To do this, developing new fair trade offers is a way to help producers guarantee their financial security. Thus, the Devatâ project offers, on the French market, the first fair trade citronella liqueur, a fair way to offer consumers new cocktail experiences. Financially vulnerable consumers are often those for whom the prevalence of obesity is highest in Western countries. How can we offer them the means to improve their diet and health through a product that is good in terms of taste and nutrition while being low in terms of price? This is the challenge that the Kokinéo group has taken up while participating in the fight against overfishing. The adaptation of their palate to local tastes will enable them in the future to meet the challenges of PPPs (Popularly Positioned Product) by helping to better feed people regardless of their origin or standard of living. – The protein transition: feeding the planet in 2050 with population growth while reducing the environmental impact of this consumption is a major food issue. This requires, in particular, that a transition from animal proteins to vegetable proteins will be considered. Both projects have addressed this issue. So Sea’S reinvents the hot dog with an algae-based sausage while offering it with an ecological distribution channel (the delivery tricycle). For its part, Ici&Là has decided to contribute fully to supporting a chain (legumes and more particularly Velay lentils) by imagining a minced steak with a vegetable and non-animal matrix. Their proposal avoids a break in the representation of eaters and offers them a real organoleptic experience in terms of texture.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


3.5.1. VitaPlus: a range of dishes for pleasure, health and vitality for the elderly2

Figure 3.3. VitaPlus concept (source: student project). For a color version of this figure, see

The concept: food innovation focused on nutrition and health VitaPlus is a product developed by AgroParisTech students in 2009. This new nutritional food offer is aimed at active seniors aged 50–70. It proposes three innovations seeking to provide recommended nutritional intakes for three health problems that affect seniors: – memory and vision: salmon steak, bulgur wheat and summer vegetables with coriander; – cardiovascular diseases: tagliatelle with cod, tomato cream with mushrooms and shallots; – joint flexibility: simmered beef with blackcurrant and mashed potato. In a “nomadic bicompartmentalized handbag” tray, VitaPlus allows a practical and quick consumption of dishes that preserve the flavors and nutrients of its basic ingredients. Factors that have stimulated innovation In 2004 (CRÉDOC 2005), the active senior segment represented 32% of the French population. It was the largest consumer of ready-made meals in France (25% of the market for €847 million).

2 Authors: Hiam Serhan and Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris (AgroParisTech). Students: Hélène Charvet, Marie Couchevellou and Adrien Helou (AgroParisTech).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Although this population has been the target of various food innovations since 2000 (553 new products in 2006) (Treguer 2008), in 2009, the marketing of readymade meals targeting this population remained hampered due to the stigmatizing nature of the promises conveyed by these innovations. Indeed, different initiatives were beginning to appear, offering convenience (easy to open packaging); health benefits (specific ingredients for particular disorders, cholesterol in particular) and nutritional ones. Despite the potential interest of such functions, potential users were and still are reluctant to take advantage of them for fear of stigmatization. However, in a market saturated with ready meals, thanks to its ability to adapt to the specific problems of the senior population, this type of offer has emerged as an opportunity for differentiation. VitaPlus is a nutritional product/service/solution for vitality that contributes, through its different values, to two sustainable development objectives: – the nutritional/health value of an appetizing dish to enable seniors to eat a balanced and enjoyable diet contributes to Sustainable Development Goal 3 (OECD, 2015a): “empowering people to live healthy lives and promoting the wellbeing of all at all ages”; – respect for the naturalness of the basic ingredients of the product and the environment through ecodesign practices in its development contributes to Sustainable Development Goal 2: “to establish sustainable consumption and production patterns”. The sustainable business model Various points were taken into consideration when designing VitaPlus for seniors in the retail sector. The first is related to the use that could be made of by-products from the extraction of plants and animals. The second was to avoid the product being stigmatizing for its users. For this a work was carrying out on the packaging (by playing on dynamic colors and shapes, see Figure 3.3). Particular thought was given to the use of the product in its pre-serving (controlled atmosphere) and preparation (microwave heating) phase. Finally, the communication has been designed in such a way as to support seniors not only during their purchasing, but also in maintaining their social life by proposing solutions aimed at encouraging the development of social networks and joint activities with other seniors or with younger members of their family.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


Functional characteristics of the concept VitaPlus offers more vitality through nutrition. The three recipes took into account the nutritional and health properties of the foods recommended by the PNNS and the specific needs of seniors revealed during a literature review and interviews with experts. A substantial effort to understand the regulations, existing technical solutions and the limits of knowledge was necessary to establish the formulation specifications. The nutritional profiles of the recipes have been established taking into account the reasons for major age-related pathologies (vision, memory, cardiovascular and joint disorders) and the nutritional needs of seniors3. In addition to the basic ingredients of each recipe, active ingredients have been incorporated. These ingredients contain molecules whose properties are recognized, and whose efficacies in relation to human pathology are established (demonstrated by clinical trials). The three recipes have different functional characteristics: – memory and vision: this innovation is based on salmon (rich in omega 3 and DHA), acerola cherry powder (rich in vitamin A) and carrot concentrate (B carotene and with antioxidant properties); – cardiovascular diseases: this recipe is made with cod, pasta, tomatoes, mushrooms and rockweed powder. Its active ingredients act on cardiovascular health by protecting against the formation of atheroma plaque; – joint flexibility: based on beef and chicken cartilage powder, this innovation contains type II collagen and chondroitin sulfate, which reduce inflammation and joint pain. All three VitaPlus recipes have a clean label formulation, they do not contain preservatives, dyes or any other chemical additives. Packed in individual bi-compartmentalized and heat-resistant trays, these health solutions also offer services during the use phase. The fold in the middle of the two compartments of the tray ensures easy opening of the tab lids and serves as a pouring spout. The handles make gripping easier and prevent burns after microwaving. Specific methods and tools used to integrate sustainability into the project A market study of ready meals purchased by seniors on the French and world markets was conducted and showed that competition in the fresh ready meals market in France in 2009 was between three players: supermarkets (40% for private labels (Casino, Carrefour, Auchan, etc.), Marie (a French entity of the British UNIQ 3 Through a usage and attitude questionnaire aimed at measuring the attractiveness of the concept, a survey was conducted among 205 people in urban or rural areas of various socioeconomic categories.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

group) and Fleury Michon (48%) and other brands (12%). The dynamism of the sector was driven by a strong innovative force focused on consumer trends: exoticism, nutritional values and the search for naturality in ready meals. To complete this market analysis work, interviews were conducted with stakeholders in the sector. A regulatory study for nutrition and health claims has made it possible to base the concept’s nutrition and health claims on scientific results and in accordance with the 2006 European Regulation on food claims. Indeed, VitaPlus’ claims are not ambiguous or misleading. They do not refer to the prevention or treatment of a disease. The documentary work carried out was complemented by meetings with regulatory and nutrition experts. Similarly, close collaboration with the manufacturers of the active ingredients permit establishing their usage conditions (storage and incorporation protocols) to guarantee obtaining their properties in the final product. These two studies ensured that the project complied with certain food sustainability characteristics (contribution to good health, use of by-products, ecodesign of packaging) and regulatory requirements. The product designed is thus relevant, i.e. economically viable while responding to a societal issue. The functional specifications condense the production rules of the important functions of the product: origin of ingredients, resistance of packaging to storage, transport and heating, respect for organoleptic properties, etc. To estimate the nutritional profile of the finished product, the General Food Directory published by INRA (Institut national de la recherche agronomique) was used. This reference framework makes it possible to determine the nutritional values of each ingredient (calories, protein, carbohydrates and lipids) of the three recipes. Then, samples of the three recipes were analyzed. These specifications allow the development of diversified organic products that are healthy and respectful of the environment. Ecodesign practices include packaging. The primary and secondary packaging used are fully recyclable. The tray has been designed to separate the components of the “protein/vegetable” dish from the “starchy” components. This separation allows both to preserve the flavors and to use only one part of the compartments in order to avoid food waste. To facilitate the selective sorting of packaging, two-layer materials have been avoided (reduction of the environmental impact of the materials used). The format of the trays used also facilitates the grouping into batches and the resistance of the layers during transport on pallets and in trucks (optimization of transported volumes and improvement of transport efficiency). Finally, printing on the packaging was carried out by UV ink flexography (an alternative to inks based

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


on volatile organic compounds). This emulsion provides high printing quality, fast drying and contributes to environmental protection. Simplified environmental assessment software has been used to assess the impact of packaging. Operational and service practices The sustainable characteristics of VitaPlus address the four pillars of sustainable food development: – the nutritional pillar: focused on the nutritional aspect of sustainable development, the VitaPlus innovation offers, through its nutritional values, a health service to a particular population in search of new products that are good, healthy and easy to prepare. From a social point of view, the nutritional properties of certain molecules, such as DHA (which can help maintain the performance of brain and memory activities in the elderly) and omega-3, promote access to healthy foods that are good for health and well-being; – the socio-economic pillar: VitaPlus targets a population with an average purchasing power that is 30% higher than the rest of the population. All the projections made by CRÉDOC and INSEE (concerning the French population) indicate that “the purchasing power of seniors should probably reach between 55 and 60% of the disposable income in French society compared to 45% today”. These data encourage the development of VitaPlus; – the environmental pillar: the packaging of the trays is made of CPET (Crystalline Polyethylene Terephthalate, a microwave-resistant material) and is fully recyclable; – the behavioral pillar: the arrangement of the two trays next to each other makes it possible to obtain a visual that evokes sharing and conviviality. It attracts the attention of the target population and invites them to consume in a sustainable way. Environmental labeling (FSC label guaranteeing that the packaging of the purchased product is made with wood from a sustainably managed forest and that its production is environmentally and socially responsible) raises awareness among final consumers to contribute to the recovery of waste. These sustainable practices used throughout the product’s lifecycle make VitaPlus an innovation that is in line with the food trends of target consumers, as well as societal needs in terms of nutrition/health.

Dynamic capabilities Issue detected Major age-related diseases: vision – memory – cardiovascular – joint Objective Nutritional innovation to combat these disorders Sustainable threedimensional business model Social, environmental, nutritional

External factors that have driven innovation Nutrition Recommendations (PNNS) Data on the eating behavior of seniors (CRÉDOC, Datamonitor) Regulation and nutrition claims General INRA food directory (calories, protein, carbohydrates, fat) Position of competing products (strong, focused, exotic, natural and nutritional) Sustainable business model Societal value Model conjuring the food/health strategy through ecodesign practices throughout the product life cycle

Building blocks of the business model (decision support and ecodesign system) Health value – societal issues Active ingredients: Chondractive, omega-3, DHA, Acerola powder, B carotene What: 3 recipes with a distinctive relevant nutritional profile (containing molecules effective against the pathologies studied) Who: active seniors (50–70 years old) How (evaluation tools and methods): - food “use and attitude” survey of various socio-professional categories; - benchmark between dishes purchased by seniors; - knowledge of the manufacturers of the active ingredients (conditions of use and preservation of properties); - ISHA laboratory (Institut scientifique d’hygiène et d’analyse); - software for evaluating the environmental impact of packaging. How much: financial analysis (cost/income) Purchasing power of targets (INSEE) Why: contribution to social development (health problem), economic development (accessible and controlled price), environmental development (reduced impact)

120 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Sustainable operational practices

Ecodesign level ecoinnovation

End of life: recyclable and biodegradable cardboard; vitality solutions in daily life that go beyond the nutritional value of the product

Distribution: cardboard boxes, consumer products

Processing: minimalist ingredients

Organic raw material

Recyclable packaging (CPET) with optimized formats: - bicompartmentalized (anti-waste); - display of some health recommendations for seniors using ecological ink: eating healthy, establishing social networks, practicing group activities. Controlled extraction process Respect for organoleptic properties (flat separation and accompaniments) Valuation of by-products of plant and animal extraction Clean label: without colorants, additives, preservatives (contribution to good health)

Table 3.3. Summary of the VitaPlus business model

Internal factors that have facilitated innovation Project balance skills (missions shared according to competencies) Ability to interpret and transform data from a societal problem into a nutritional solution in three recipes that are not available on the market: - memory and vision (cherry powder, omega-3, DHA); - cardiovascular diseases (rockweed powder); - flexibility articulation (contractive or chicken cartilage powder).

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects 121


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

3.5.2. Mixi’Mousse: rice-based mixes and mousses for hospitalized people suffering from dysphagia4

Figure 3.4. Mixi’Mousse concept (source: student project). For a color version of this figure, see

Starting point People with dysphagia suffer from swallowing disorders and have difficulties chewing due to health problems or their advanced age. These disorders force them to change their eating habits and adapt their food by choosing a texture that prevents complications (food going down the wrong way, choking). A food that is too runny, too solid, too sticky or still contains chunks can become a source of danger at mealtimes. In Reunion, the UPAC cooperative health group provides meals (ready meals prepared in advance and distributed cold) to the Félix Guyon University Hospital in Saint-Denis, the Gabriel Martin Hospital in Saint-Paul and the EPSMR in Saint-Paul and Saint-Benoît. A market study of consumer trends in Reunion, combined with UPAC’s expertise in the hospital sector, revealed that in Reunion, hospitalized people suffering from dysphagia are often forced to consume frozen mixed dishes from metropolitan France. However, mixing these dishes results in an unpleasant color and presentation because consumers can no longer differentiate between the components of the dish. Moreover, these dishes are not to the taste of the Reunion population used to a Creole culinary tradition, spicy and tasty flavors, the result of a mixture of cultures. However, the market for dishes adapted to dysphagic consumers is growing: from 2010 to 2017, the number of patients with dysphagia problems in Reunion increased by nearly 120% according to the ARS (Regional Health Agency). From these observations was born the idea of proposing a balanced meal without additives, with traditional Reunionese flavors, for people suffering from dysphagia. Aim The project sought to address a dual challenge: public health (undernutrition and the risk of complications for patients) and eco-responsibility. 4 Authors: Fatéma Abassbhay and Fabienne Remize (ESIROI). Students: Audrey Bégue, Marion Dahan, Lou Mangani, Emilie Menneson, Latifa Razzaly, Maud Rozek and Rachelle Tantale (ESIROI).

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


Two solutions were considered: on the one hand, offering mixed dishes with Creole flavors, and on the other hand, an accompaniment based on rice as in traditional recipes. The first project, carried out by two members of the ESIROI student group, consisted of mixing dishes prepared by UPAC for people with chewing and/or swallowing problems. The mixes prepared from the traditional cari included three distinct elements: a meat or fish dish, pulses and cooked vegetables. However, people who eat mixes cannot eat rice or, in some cases, eat “rice sosso”, a rice based porridge, which may not be suitable for their condition. In a second step, a solution was found by creating an accompaniment for dishes prepared by UPAC. The partnership with this central kitchen provided that the company Mixi’Mousse would buy the dishes from UPAC every day, which it would mix and accompany with the rice mousse. After packaging in compartmentalized trays, the dishes would be distributed cold to hospitals and medico-social institutions. The objective of the project was therefore to create a rice mousse, as an accompaniment to a traditional mixed dish. In addition to this response to a public health challenge, ESIROI students wanted to meet the territory’s expectations in terms of a circular economy. The product (content and container) has been ecodesigned and the ingredients used come from local suppliers. Mixi’Mousse is also part of sustainability through its societal response to a major patients’ expectation: avoiding their undernutrition by reconciling them with their food while offering a product that respects the traditional appearance and taste as they have been used to eating all their life. Finally, Mixi’Mousse seeks to cover a large part of the daily energy intake of the target audience. The solution The realization of the product was essentially based on obtaining a “rice” concoction which is the heart of the proposed meal. To achieve this objective, several recipes were developed. The first was to make a rice cream but the resulting dough was too sticky and glutinous and the mixing was not homogeneous. The choice was then made to create a mousse. Several trials varying the proportions were tested with different texturizers incorporated into the rice cream. The combination of whey and carrageenans was considered unsatisfactory because the rendering was too acidic and the gel remained rigid after incorporation into the rice cream.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Finally, the incorporation of egg white into the rice cream produced a satisfactory result. Once the product was developed, its response to UPAC constraints was verified: the cold bond strength and the determination of the time–temperature torque for patient service, knowing that the temperature at the core of the product had to reach more than 63°C. These two parameters were verified and validated. The primary packaging consisted of a tray. Although not recyclable, this tray came from a Reunionese supplier, which reduces its carbon footprint. Secondary packaging was unnecessary for distribution by UPAC and was not used in this context. However, this packaging was designed with a view to developing, in the medium term, distribution in supermarkets. This packaging needed to convey the brand image and carry promotional marketing. The final product was obtained from a mixture of rice flour and water with which snowy egg white was incorporated. This ingredient gave the mixture its texture. Two recipes for rice mousse were developed, one based on white rice and the other on turmeric. The product, combined with the meat and vegetable mixes, was then packaged in a compartmentalized sealed tray that was heated before being served to patients. The technical characterization of the dish was carried out in partnership with UPAC: the rice mousse has a smooth, fluid and aerated texture and is white in color. Rice mousse with turmeric and pepper has the same characteristics apart from its yellow color due to the spice. This spice is known for its antioxidant properties, pepper provides its antiseptic and antibacterial properties. The vegetables were mixed and have a smooth and fluid texture, and easily swallowable. The mixed meat still contained a few small pieces but could easily be swallowed. The colors of the dish were harmonious and the mixes different textures (see Figure 3.4). Then, in parallel with the design of the product’s industrialization (manufacturing, post-production: HACCP, cleaning and disinfection plan), microbiological analyses were launched on the finished product in order to validate its shelf-life. In the end, Mixi’Mousse became a dish without additives, covering 30–40% of daily nutritional needs. Unlike other mixed dishes that come from frozen food in metropolitan France or dishes sold locally, Mixi’Mousse combines meat and

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


vegetable mixes (vegetables and pulses) with a creamy rice mousse, constituting a new way of consuming rice. The mousse is free of additives and can be kept for 3 days in refrigerated conditions. It is combined with mixed products already developed by the company. The mixed dish composed of vegetables, dried vegetables and meat combined with its rice mousse is available at €5.50 each. This high price compared to national (frozen dishes) and local (exclusively mixed dishes) competitors is justified by the superior quality of the product (refrigerated dish, local products, increased consumer pleasure) and its adaptation to local taste. For the production of Mixi’Mousse, UPAC plans to hire two employees in year N and to borrow €300,000. Today, the product is manufactured and distributed on the UPAC circuit, which perpetuates and legitimizes the concept. Testing of the proposal A sensory evaluation was conducted at the end of the project with a sample of 63 people who were either consumers or health professionals (dietitians, speech therapists, caregivers) working daily with patients with swallowing and/or chewing problems. It focused on the presence or absence of rice taste in the product, the texture and the consumer’s attraction to the product. This product was then tested in a hospital setting and was considered satisfactory enough to be marketed in its two versions (plain rice mousse and turmeric). Mixi’Mousse is the main course for lunch and/or dinner. Dairy products and desserts, not included in the offer, are to be added at mealtime in order to achieve nutrition-health objectives. A meal taken with Mixi’Mousse must contribute to the intake of nutrients (calcium, vitamins and minerals) and cover 30–40% of the TEI (total energy intake), or 600–800 kcal per day. A breakfast ration that includes a Mixi’Mousse dish, a fruit yogurt (100 g) and an apple sauce (100 g) meets the objectives of 40% of TEIs (with a distribution of 10% protein, 12% fat, 19% carbohydrate). On a regulatory level, the products offered are part of the catering sector and are subject to specific regulations detailed in Appendix IV of the French Ministerial Decree of December 21, 2009, which specifies the obligations of professionals in the catering sector.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Mixi’Mousse complies with regulations 178/2002, the provisions of which have been applicable since January 1, 2005 and 852/2004, the provisions of which have been applicable since January 1, 2006. These texts specify not only the obligatory implementation of temperature records, but also the rules relating to the meal delivery service. The decisions At the commercial level, a partnership has been signed with UPAC for the production of mixed dishes for its customers. In the future, an extension of the activity is planned with the development of a range of pasteurized dishes, marketed in the fresh department in supermarkets. The production of the mixed dishes will initially be carried out in UPAC kitchens, based on dishes cooked by this structure. For this production, two operators will be recruited to prepare the mixes and mousses. The process implemented will respect the principle of forward movement, the good hygiene practices in force and the HACCP and PND plans carried out in the postdevelopment phase. The supply chain for supply and distribution is based on the UPAC network. It does not generate any additional costs and makes it possible to limit, as much as possible, the environmental impact of the development of Mixi’Mousse’s activity. What’s to come? Mrs. Nathalie Cointet, dietitian at UPAC, proposed this challenge to ESIROI during its call for projects. In two years, the idea of this new range of products has become a reality: Mixi’Mousse responds to a specific demand for care while combining adapted textures and maintaining the taste on the plate. Mixes and Mixi’Mousse rice mousse have been available in three hospitals on Reunion Island since August 2016: Cambaie Saint-Paul Psychiatric Hospital, Félix Guyon University Hospital in Saint-Denis and Gabriel Martin Hospital in Saint-Paul. Today, this work is perpetuated by the dietary workshop of GCS-UPAC, it makes it possible to meet a need for care via food in the hospital. The orders are stable and patients appreciate being able to rediscover the taste of mixed dishes made from traditional recipes while finally combining the taste of rice.

Dynamic capabilities Issue detected Dishes served in hospitals to people suffering from dysphagia are bland and not adapted to the tastes of Reunionese people Objective Mixed dish based on rice (an essential part of the Reunion Island diet) Sustainable business model Model based on the socioeconomic strategy for sustainable development

External factors that have driven innovation An increase in the number of Sustainable business model dysphagic patients between 2010 and 2017 of Societal value approximately 120% (source: Model translating socio-economic Agence régional de santé, La strategy into an eco-responsible Réunion) food innovation for people Patients’ request for tasty suffering from dysphagia meals with local flavors Proposal of this challenge by a UPAC dietitian

Value: health, economic, territorial

Why: - limit imports of dishes from the metropolis to hospitals; - offer local dishes adapted to patients’ tastes.

How much: limited investment (300 00 euros), material costs compensated by a reduced transport cost

How (evaluation tools and methods): - work on the formulation, texture; - sensory and nutritional analysis (help from a dietitian); - study of the needs of the hospital environment.

Who: hospitalized patients with dysphagia

What: a tasty dish with a suitable texture to the problem treated, balanced (40% of total energy intake)

Societal value: it responds to health and environmental issues related to food

Building blocks of the business model (decision support and ecodesign system)

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects 127

End of life: recyclable packaging

Distribution: 3 hospitals, compartmentalized trays

Transformation: only the mixing operation is specific Sustainable operational practices Workshop near UPAC kitchen

Purchasing: local raw materials

Segment: rich

Balanced product adapted to the identified problems

Processes: simple operations, limited number of raw materials

Table 3.4. Summary of Mixi’Mousse’s business model

Internal factors that have facilitated innovation Partnership with UPAC Access to patients with dysphagia to determine their expectations Support of the university’s value unit

Ecodesign level ecoinnovation

Processes: daily production and delivery, just-in-time flows

128 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


3.5.3. Minigloo: a nutritious frozen dessert for children aged 1 to 35 AgroParisTech’s third-year students developed a nutritious frozen dessert based on organic growth milk. The objective of this product was to provide a solution to the nutritional diversification needs of toddlers (1–3 years of age). Minigloo is low in sugar and rich in calcium, without additives or preservatives. It enriches the children’s taste experience and meets 16% of the daily requirements for growth milk recommended by the National Nutrition and Health Plan. Its mission is to support parents in the nutritional education of their children through the introduction of a new nutritional product in the “food-pleasure” directory.

Figure 3.5. Minigloo concept (source: student project)

Minigloo, an ecodesigned product A healthy food does not always mean an environmentally friendly food. However, new dietary solutions developed to preserve the health of populations can be designed to also reduce the impact of food on the environment. Minigloo’s objective is to contribute in a positive way to children’s health and respect for the environment.

5 Authors: Hiam Serhan, Gwenola Yannou-le Bris (AgroParisTech). Students: Alexandra Serruto, Anaïs Marie-Louise, Aurélie Lafosse, Charlotte Lagarde, Élodie Payrau, Guillaume Carrière, Julie Duval, Justine Gudin and Manon Vésinet (AgroParisTech).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

The development of the Minigloo concept was carried out in three stages: the generation of new knowledge, the operational development of the concept and the marketing innovation: – new knowledge emerged through creative sessions. The objective of these sessions was to generate innovative and sustainable ideas around the concept: “nutritional dairy dessert”. The outlines of this concept – which must meet the nutritional needs of the target population and the expectations of parents of young children – were refined through market exploration practices. Before the product was officially designed, the eating behaviors and nutritional situation of children aged 1–3 years were analyzed in France. The analyses revealed the virtual absence of nutritional dairy desserts in the children’s snacks and ice cream segment, and a failure to follow dietary recommendations that recommend the use of infant formulas, in decreasing proportions, until the child’s third birthday. They made it possible to develop four fundamental capacities for any innovation: - identify the obstacles: hear the parents’ fears about their babies’ nutrition; - identify strong regulatory constraints: take into account recommended nutritional targets; - compare themselves to competing products; - find the opportunity to stand out from the existing offer; – operational development concerns the formulation of the product and its sensory tests, but also the definition of a texture and a font suitable for consumption by young children. These processes were tested mainly at AgroParisTech’s Massy site, which has an experimental kitchen, sensory analysis booths and an industrial hall for production on a pilot scale. An ice cream artisan contributed his know-how to work on the texture and creation of the ice cream during the transition to pilot scale; – innovation marketing has two components: - the rapid adoption of Minigloo by a company specializing in frozen baby products, Yooji, whose skills and network of contacts facilitated the implementation and market introduction of Minigloo; - the commercial value, on which Minigloo is based, conveys the nutritional aspect of the dessert and good practices aimed at reducing the ecological impact of the processes, and materials used (use of organic milk, ecological production processes).

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


The communication fed by the work carried out in these three areas aims to raise awareness among parents of children under 3 years of age, of good practices in the fight against obesity by providing them with information on their children’s needs and proposing solutions to meet them. Through these gustatory and nutritional education practices (in particular by offering a product that is less sweet than those on the market), Minigloo offers a solution that is also a support for a change in users’ behavior (in this case, limiting young children’s addiction to sugar), an inseparable dimension of an approach that promotes a more sustainable food supply. Factors that have stimulated innovation External factors Two types of external factors play a role: data and recommendations from national and international bodies working on nutrition issues, and the needs and expectations of parents of young children regarding the availability of standardized infant desserts: – data and recommendations from national and international authorities: in 2003, UNICEF stressed that nutritional initiation begins at an early age and has an impact on a child’s eating behavior for the rest of his or her life. With this in mind, the PNNS (2011) recommends a minimum intake of 500 ml of milk (maternal or growth) per day until the age of three. The Nutri-baby survey conducted in 2013 by the Secteur français des aliments de l’enfance, SFAE, (French child food sector) shows that 64% of parents of children aged 12–17 months are increasingly using cow’s milk, to the detriment of growth milk, rich in iron, vitamins and essential fatty acids and low in sodium and protein, nutrients whose overload is responsible for overweight problems; – parents’ needs and expectations: in order to define and better meet parents’ expectations, two quantitative6 and qualitative7 studies were conducted. They show that parents are looking for new sustainable, authentic, natural and good solutions (92%), which allow a pleasant experience (89%), alternatives to the standardized industrial offer on the market. Parents point out that “children often taste their first ice cream at the parents’ table, wanting to taste what they themselves eat. Parents give in and offer the children adult ice cream that is very sweet and not very nutritious”. This practice is problematic as it can lead to poor eating habits and contribute to a diet that is not adapted to needs;

6 Carried out with mothers of children aged between 1 and 3 years. 7 Through individual interviews with 10 parents of children aged between 1 and 3 years.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

– problems in the supply of standardized infant desserts: in recent decades, multinationals have addressed diet-related health problems by reducing the sugar and fat content of their children’s ice cream. However, the population of children under 5 years of age does not benefit from these proposals. However, this period is crucial in the nutrition education program “from the first 1,000 days” because it influences the child’s future health (Cordonnier 2014). It thus seems appropriate to launch a playful innovation on the market with nutritional values and at the same time to meet the expectations of four stakeholders: parents, children (their nutritional needs), the bodies in charge of developing nutrition education programs for the population and project leaders, and engineers and agri-food professionals, who have a responsibility in improving food habits. This responsibility consists of contributing to the evolution of practices and values in the food chain. Internal factors The internal factors are the skills of the project team and those of the partner company Yooji. – The skills of a specialist in frozen baby food: industrial skills (production and storage equipment), organizational skills (feedback from the partner company in the world of baby food) and relational skills of the partner company Yooji (national organic suppliers, customers, distribution, educational communication via social networks) have facilitated the implementation and integration of Minigloo as an extension of the existing range. – The project team’s knowledge and practices: the team’s SWOT analysis revealed the strengths to build on and the weaknesses that threaten the supply in its sector. It made it possible to refine the configuration of Minigloo’s business model around the following terms: its value (mini nutritional ice cream), its segment (snacks and desserts), its target (children 1–3 years old), its price (between that of indirect competition and the cost of production), its distribution network (supermarkets, specialized stores, collective catering), its marketing (website, bloggeuse moms club) and the expectations of stakeholders interested in its implementation (suppliers, partner company, institutions, customers, etc.). The strength of the concept lies in its nutritional quality: Minigloo is made from organically produced milk with organic beet sugar. The amount incorporated is 40% less than a substitute milk dessert and 20 times richer in certain minerals and vitamins than cow’s milk.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


However, the seasonal nature of consumption (mainly in summer), the risk of being listed in the frozen food section, which is not synonymous with desserts for young children, and the fact that ice cream is not consumed on the move are the product’s weaknesses. In order to ensure the industrialization of the product, a series of experiments (experimental design) in a kitchen laboratory were carried out. The production process includes the preparation of the ingredient mix, pasteurization, homogenization (in search of a pressure scale to stabilize fats), cooling, maturation (partial crystallization of the MG), molding and over freezing. The assessment of the critical control points to be controlled to ensure the safety of the product was carried out according to the principles of the HACCP method. Ecodesign practices, sustainable choices from content to container The ecodesign approach was used in the choice of raw material suppliers (durability of content) and in the nature and shape of packaging (durability of the container). An LCA of the packaged product was conducted. Three phases (energyintensive) generating the highest environmental impacts were identified: milk dehydration, Minigloo production processes and respect for the cold chain. – Sustainability of the content: the ingredients (powdered growth milk and thickeners) come from organic farming. The milk production site has a zero carbon footprint. This milk is also rich in simple sugars, calcium, iron and essential fatty acids (omega-6 and -3)8. The calcium content of a Minigloo serving, twice as high as competing ice creams (199 mg versus 104 mg per 100 g of ice cream), supports the nutrient claim to be a “calcium source”. The lactose content of the growth milk used – less sweet than sucrose – reduces the perception of sweetness in children and induces a priori a low addiction to sweetness from a very early age. The powdered beet sugar used in the manufacture of the product comes from French producers. This makes it possible to promote national products and producers (social factor) and to contribute to the reduction of CO2 emission rate generated by transport (environmental factor). – Container sustainability: in order to reduce Minigloo’s environmental impact, two environmentally friendly packaging, primary and secondary, were designed. The primary packaging is compostable and biodegradable (composed of corn starch and vegetable oils). The lid of the pots is made of recyclable cardboard and a virgin protective film. The shape of the packaging has been studied in order to optimize the

8 These acids play an important role in the proper functioning of the body’s cells and immune responses.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

positioning of the product on the shelf. The four jars of 30 g each are vertically stacked in a secondary cardboard packaging made of 80% recycled fiber. The French label “Eco-emballage” (eco-packaging) on Minigloo packaging communicates this ecodesign practice. – Sustainable manufacturing practices: the Minigloo production site was designed to use electricity from renewable energy sources only. The partnership with Enercoop provides it with electricity, of which 80% is produced with hydropower, 15% with photovoltaics and 5% with wind power. Manufacturing processes are optimized to reduce the energy consumption of machinery and production equipment. The heating and cooling steps are energy consuming: the heating system of the preparation tank has therefore been replaced by less energy consuming heating plates. For the refrigeration system, the installation of a variable speed compressor, instead of a continuous compressor in traditional systems, reduces energy consumption by 30%. Conclusion Minigloo is a new ecodesigned frozen dessert made from organic growth milk for children between 1 and 3 years old. This dessert responds to three points of sustainable food development: – nutrition: it meets the nutritional needs of young children (calcium, iron, essential fatty acids, minerals and vitamins); – the environment: through sustainable purchases of the ingredients needed to formulate the product and practices related to reducing environmental impact (low-energy consumption tank, renewable energy, packaging shape and materials), Minigloo is committed to an ecological approach; – socio-economic and societal aspects: the manufacture of Minigloo is a co-creation and co-management process. This innovation – driven by the “nutritionhealth” criterion of a sustainable food – is the result of a combination of knowledge, expertise and needs, between the AgroParisTech team, Yooji and parents. This cross-learning between these stakeholders allowed the design of a product according not only to the needs of the target customers, but also to societal needs. The ecodesign practices used and the partnership built accelerate the development of the product, create economic wealth and raise awareness among parents to change their dietary behavior when buying children’s products.

Dynamic capabilities Issue detected External factors that have Nutritional problems in the driven innovation diversification of foods for toddlers (1–3 years) PNNS nutritional recommendations Objective Marketing and strategic A nutritional and tasty iced research milk dessert Lack of an eco-responsible Sustainable threedimensional business model and nutritional milk product in Model combining behavioral the children’s snacks and ice cream segment strategy, health through food and respect for the environment

Sustainable business model Ecological value A model that reflects the behavioral strategy of sustainable development through alignment between organic milk suppliers, ecological processing processes, affordable pricing and nutritional quality that is compatible with the expectations of target customers (parents and children)

Why: - health stake: ice creams rich in simple sugars, calcium, iron and essential fatty acids; - nutritional and environmental stakes: organic growth milk.

How much: cost structure and revenues studied

How (evaluation tools and methods): - market analysis (current offer and parents’ needs); - research and development of a texture compatible with the age of the target children.

Who: children aged 1–3 years

What: ecological infant milk dessert

Societal value: it responds to health, environmental and nutritional issues

Building blocks of the business model (decision support and ecodesign system)

Value: health, economic, territorial

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects 135

Sustainable operational practices

Ecodesign level ecoinnovation

End of life: recyclable cardboard, communication kit for children

Distribution: optimized carton shapes and truck capacities

Processes: milk dehydration, processing and cold chain are optimized

Packaging: compostable and biodegradable (made of corn starch and vegetable oils) Eco-packaging label affixed (sorting awareness)

Replaced tank heating system by heating plates Installation of a variable speed compressor (reduction of energy consumption by 30%)

Production site using renewable energy sources

Table 3.5. Summary of the Minigloo business model

Internal factors that have facilitated innovation Creativity sessions Feedback from a partner company specializing in baby food Partner stakeholder network: distribution, suppliers, reputation Expertise from an artisan ice-cream maker

Nutrition claim “source of calcium”

Lifecycle analysis of cow breeding at the end of the packaging’s life

136 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


3.5.4. Vertu: biscuits with plant extracts and essential oils to support quitting smoking9

Figure 3.6. Vertu concept (source: student project). For a color version of this figure, see

Starting point The project was born following the 2016 International Food Exhibition (SIAL) in Paris. On this occasion, the study carried out by KANTAR TNS (2016) highlighted the expectations of French consumers, aware of the beneficial and harmful consequences of food on their health and well-being. The study revealed that about two-thirds of French people preferred “foods with real health benefits” and had an interest in foods that maintain and strengthen their health capital. It is to satisfy this desire for a healthier diet and contributing to the health of consumers that the start-up Les Phytovores was born. Its mission is to offer food products based on herbal medicine to meet the needs of certain consumers. The Phytovores have thus created Vertu, the first biscuit for smokers in the process of quitting smoking. Issues Vertu responds to a major public health challenge on a global scale and more particularly in France: the fight against tobacco consumption. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in France: it accounts for 73,000 cases of premature death per year. In 2016, France had nearly 16 million smokers who smoked an average of 13.5 cigarettes per day10 (INPES 2016).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Tobacco9,10 control is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) as one of the most effective ways to contribute to the reduction of premature mortality rates due to cardiovascular disease, cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In 2017, WHO called on countries to accelerate their efforts in tobacco control and included it in its sustainable development agenda, as tobacco use is not only harmful to human health, but also has a significant impact on the environment (WHO 2017). From an economic point of view and according to the Comité national contre le tabagisme, CNNT, (French national committee against smoking), the taxes resulting from the sale of tobacco amount to nearly 10 billion euros. However, the social cost of tobacco (health spending, prevention campaigns, loss of income and production) is estimated at around 120 billion euros per year (Kopp 2015). The social costs of smoking are therefore much higher than the revenues from tobacco sales. The current aids to smoking cessation belong to the medical world. They include inhalers, electronic cigarettes with or without nicotine, patches, lozenges, nicotinebased chewing gums, homeopathy, herbal medicine and antidepressants. Proposed solution The Phytovores have therefore decided to create an innovative, de-stressing and nomadic food product to help smokers in their smoking cessation process. They are indeed subject to stress and anxiety during this period (Cipret-Vaud 2014). Their solution is Vertu. In view of the health and environmental challenge represented by smoking in France, Vertu is the appropriate and innovative solution that differs from existing products. It provides a real advantage over the current offer because none of the existing means dedicated to smoking cessation is a food. Vertu also acts on certain symptoms that the smoker presents during the period of cessation or reduction of smoking (stress, anxiety and increased appetite), thanks to an original combination of phytotherapy and aromatherapy. Vertu is a sweet, healthy, relaxing solid biscuit that prevents smokers from gaining weight, accentuated by their attraction for fat and sweet products during weaning11. It is aesthetically similar to a cigarette. It comes in a nomadic and practical rigid cardboard box so that it can be easily transported and accompany 9 Author: Pascal Barillot, Oniris. Students: Alexia Deville, Kimberley Diot, Clara Duchemin, Léonie Noirot, Justine Piefort-Philoclès, Nicolas Swaels (Oniris). Students: Alexia Deville, Kimberley Diot, Clara Duchemin, Léonie Noirot, Justine Piefort-Philoclès, Nicolas Swaels (Oniris), Delphine Bagnol, Pauline Jacob, Coline Kupiec, Sara Bertràn Llovera (École de Design de Nantes). 10 Data available at: 11 Available at:

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


smokers in their daily life. The use, at the center of the reflection, has led to a packaging that is reminiscent of that of the cigarette pack. The biscuit consists of two parts: the “filter” part is composed of a sponge cake with essential oils. The second part consists of apple fodder containing lemon balm extracts. To consume the biscuit, it is advisable to suck up the essential oils on the filter side, and then eat the biscuit by breaking or not breaking the filter at the breakable part. This double consumption allows the product to become a real moment of pause by taking up the gesture of sucking the cigarette. After sucking in the essential oils, the breaking of both parts refers to the symbolic action of quitting smoking. The Vertu range is available in three filter combinations: lavender (purple box), lemon verbena (yellow box) and peppermint (green box). Its shelf life is 9 months. Vertu is accompanied by the baseline “smokers are green”. The name incorporates both the notion of plants thanks to the color of the “green” and those of the virtues of phytotherapy used in the product. Vertu’s graphics and communication, its logo and shape make sense with the concept, the challenge it addresses, its consumer and its use. Thanks to its formulation enriched with plant active ingredients and essential oils, its shape and its unique consumption method, Vertu offers smokers an original alternative to cigarettes and accompanies them on a daily basis. Testing of the proposal The project was constructed around a multidisciplinary team composed of four industrial designers from the Nantes School of Design and six agri-food engineers from Oniris, the National Veterinary School, Nantes-Atlantic National College of Veterinary Medicine, Food Science and Engineering. This heterogeneity made it possible to take into account the different aspects and domains that surround the project throughout the entire creative process, each bringing to the other its specificities, its perspective and its business expertise. The project was constructed around a series of round trips between research, interviews with professionals (tobaccologists, addictologists, pharmacists) and field studies. The marketing and strategic study made it possible to study tobacco consumption in France. An analysis of Vertu’s competitive environment, taking into account stakeholders’ expectations and available resources and skills, was carried out (analysis of competition, tobacco substitutes, phytotherapy products, specific distribution network of pharmacies).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

With a view to prescribing Vertu, contacts made with known and recognized tobacco control organizations (Tobacco-Info-Service, CNCT, Société francophone de tabacologie and Maladies Chroniques 44) have made the product more credible. Similarly, a survey of 11 pharmacists was conducted. After analyzing the competitive environment, a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities Threats (SWOT) analysis was carried out. A concept test was carried out to evaluate smokers’ perception of herbal medicine. Vertu’s validated concept, target (20–35 years) and consumption times have been determined. The marketing mix of the “four Ps” (product, place, price and promotion) has been developed. Vertu’s formulation required the definition of functional specifications and the identification of technical issues for an optimized formulation (sensory analysis, experimental plans, hedonic test). Analysis of nutritional values has shown that Vertu is half as low in calories as products for similar uses. Microbiological analyses attest to Vertu’s health safety. The legislative study was based on the use of phytotherapy and aromatherapy in the diet. In addition, the conditions of sale within pharmacies require that the product fall into one of the categories of the decree of February 15, 2002, which establishes the list of markets that pharmacists can trade in their pharmacies. Vertu falls into category “6 – Medicinal, aromatic plants and their derivatives, in the state or in the form of preparations, with the exception of cigarettes or other smoking products”. Interviews with pharmacists confirmed that Vertu will be officially authorized in pharmacies. Industrialization is organized and controlled according to the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) method. It is carried out at the chosen industrial partner in order to benefit from its know-how, its existing equipment and its experience in the industrial world of biscuits. The decisions The different stages of the project, through the testing of the proposal, led to a set of decisions. The analysis of the competitive environment showed that none of the existing means dedicated to cessation comes from a food product. In view of the health and environmental challenge represented by smoking in France, the decision to create a food product to help smoking cessation appeared to be an appropriate and innovative response. In addition, pharmacies were chosen as distribution channel because their large number in France and the growing development of non-drug products offered Vertu real opportunities to establish itself on the market. This decision was made following the marketing study and interviews with these professionals. The latter confirmed that smokers naturally turn to the pharmacy when they quit smoking. An analysis of the smoking population made it possible to decide on the target age

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


group: one where the prevalence of regular smoking is highest. This is the case for the 20–35 age group, which represents the largest proportion of potential consumers. In its formulation, Vertu encountered a number of challenges. Many tests led to choices to optimize the recipe, and obtain the ideal filled and vacuumed biscuit. Fodder recipe tests made it possible to choose the best composition to guarantee good holding in the heart of the biscuit, with minimal moisture transfer and a guarantee of stability over time. A sensory analysis, based on a hedonic study, made it possible to verify the perception of aspiration and the acceptance of the tasting of flavored genoise at the selected essential oil doses. It also ensured that Vertu’s potential buyers would be satisfied with its taste, and find it good and tasty. The choice of the consumer test was a first approach to verify the effectiveness of Vertu, allowing the stress level to be compared at the beginning of weaning with and without taking the product. Microbiological analysis ensures that the consumption of Vertu is safe for the consumer. The packaging was chosen in response to a set of functions that allowed it to be characterized as a quality, practical, ecological and communication medium. In addition, it was decided to produce Vertu with an industrial partner in order to benefit from its know-how, its premises and some of its equipment. The design of the industrialization took into account both the premises and equipment already available, and the partner’s production capacities. Its R&D department provided support and expertise in optimizing the formulation and industrialization of biscuits. Staff requirements were quantified and calculated. However, Vertu’s technical nature required a particular production line and therefore specific investment choices. A financing plan was drawn up and a provisional financial analysis of the activity carried out over three years. The integration of sustainable development was taken into account throughout the project and particularly during the manufacturing process. Regional suppliers were selected to limit the energy costs of transporting raw materials. For example, during production, the fodder uses the apple in its entirety except for the stalks, thus generating a limited amount of waste. In a resource management approach, the water is filtered after cleaning the apples to pre-wash the soil. Employees are trained to limit water consumption when cleaning machines. Finally, pre-washing of the biscuit-making machines is carried out using compressed air to limit sludge and thus water consumption. In an energy-saving approach, the apple is concentrated under vacuum to limit the machines’ operating time and to concentrate in one go.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

The choice of packaging materials also takes into account sustainable development. Vertu is presented in a nomadic rigid cardboard box so that it can be transported. The pack consists of two components: a primary package, consisting of two plastic bags each containing five cookies, and a secondary package, the cardboard box containing the two bags. The cardboard was chosen for its 100% recyclable nature. The selected printing company uses pulp from forests managed according to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) label, which guarantees sustainable forest management. In addition, it uses vegetable inks that are more easily biodegradable than mineral inks. The bag, made from polyethylene, ensures the freshness of the biscuits. In order to sort waste and recycle, the two parts easily separate in order to be disposed of separately. What’s to come? The study carried out showed that there is currently no alternative like Vertu’s to support the smoker during their desire to quit. The questionnaire for pharmacists made it possible to obtain their opinion on this product and to consider marketing prospects. Of the 11 testimonies collected, nine found the concept interesting, innovative and attractive. A more in-depth study of this profession should be carried out in the future. In the same idea of prescription and credibility of Vertu, known and recognized tobacco control organizations, such as Tabac-info-service, the CNCT, the Société francophone de tabacologie and Maladies Chroniques 44, were contacted. Obtaining their support for the marketing of Vertu was essential in order to benefit from their image among smokers. In terms of formulation and in order to test the efficacy of the active ingredients contained in lemon balm, a clinical pre-test with smokers wishing to stop or reduce their tobacco consumption was carried out over a 10-day period and validated the choice. This first approach was completed by a real clinical test to fully demonstrate the efficacy of the product. Vertu is part of a sustainable development and global public health issue. In order to contribute to meeting this global health challenge, the development of the start-up Les Phytovores internationally will have to be considered in the long term. An interesting perspective for future years would be to broaden the target audience by adapting Vertu to an audience facing daily stress. In this perspective, it will be appropriate to develop other ranges of herbal products in order to respond to other consumer disorders such as digestion or menopause.

Dynamic capabilities Issue detected Smoking is the leading cause of death in France Objective Food solution for weaning, de-stressing and nomadic use Sustainable business model Model based on the behavioral strategy of sustainable development

External factors that have driven innovation Public health and sustainable development issues related to tobacco Tobacco control Absence of food substitutes for tobacco

Sustainable business model Societal value Model translating the behavioral strategy of sustainable development into a system of production and consumption of a tobacco substitute food product

Why: contribution to sustainable development through smoking cessation by combining phytotherapy and aromatherapy

How much: three-year forecast financial analysis

How (evaluation tools and methods): - marketing and strategic study, concept test; - sensory analysis, experimental plans; - nutritional analysis

Who: young people aged 20–35 looking for smoking cessation aids in pharmacies

What: a cigarette-shaped essential oil biscuit to support quitting smoking

Societal value: it responds to health and environmental issues related to tobacco use

Building blocks of the business model (decision support and ecodesign system)

Value: environmental, health, economic

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects 143

Sustainable operational practices

End of life: recyclable packaging and responsible communication

Packaging similar to the cigarette pack (easy to transport by the smoker)

Distribution: use of a distribution platform to reduce transport costs

Transformation: optimized resource management (energy, water), risk forecasting analysis

Purchasing: selection of local raw material suppliers

Health claim

Processes: optimized processes

Table 3.6. Summary of Vertu’s business model

Internal factors that have facilitated innovation Project team studies (marketing, strategy, formulation, engineering, legal, financial, engineering) The process skills of a partner company

Ecodesign level ecoinnovation

Processes: technological challenges: - complex shape of the biscuit; - creation of an aerial matrix and aroma carrier; - to compensate for the transfer of moisture from the fodder to the biscuit; - introduction of plants with relaxing effects.

Healthy, gourmet, fun product

144 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


3.5.5. Lardons de la mer: high-quality fish offcuts used as bacon meat12 The identity card of the Lardons de la mer Concept Lardons de la mer is the successful combination of the qualities of fresh fish with the uses of bacon meat. Product functions Lardons de la mer provide consumers with the usefulness and convenience of “lardon” – a small format that conveys taste, color and originality to dishes, – combined with the consumption of fish, sources of essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals. Value of the product Developed in accordance with sustainable fishing methods, Lardons de la mer are made from high-quality fish fillets, which contributed high added value to industrial by-products. Missions To (re)discover marine flavors, facilitate the daily consumption of fresh fish, diversify the possibilities of preparation and propose new ways of eating fish. The Lardons de la mer, result of an ecodesign approach The Lardons de la mer have been designed following a sustainable development approach: they meet the requirements of respect for the environment and offer a new ecodesigned food with high nutritional values. The ecodesign process was carried out in three stages: – the generation of the innovative concept; – the development of original technical know-how on a pilot scale and a marketing offer adapted to consumer needs; – the change of scale towards sustainable industrialization.

12 Authors: Alexis Goutelle, Leslie Saint-Marc, Claire Arnel, Sylvain Claude and Bernard Cuq (Montpellier SupAgro). Students: Ermessende Allou, Laura Badard, Flavy Benoit, Matthias Caussade, Justine Check, Laurine Dubois, Alexis Goutelle and Maëlle Tillien (Montpellier SupAgro).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

The development of the Lardons de la mer was carried out as part of a student project, bringing together two final-year options for the training of agricultural engineers in Montpellier SupAgro. Involved in a project-based learning approach, a group of eight students fully invested in this six-month project in 2013–2014, with the objective of developing professional skills in product development (agri-food option), marketing and finance (AgroManager option). The Lardons de la mer project is the concrete expression of student training in a context of industrial partnership. Conceptualization of the innovative idea The generation of the innovative concept is the result of no limit creativity sessions. In a first phase, the objective of the sessions is to unleash students’ ability to express ideas, concepts or imagine innovative products in the food universe. In a second phase, the coaches accompany students in a selection process to converge around an innovative concept, unifying all team members while meeting the values of sustainability. Among the 50 or so innovative ideas expressed by the students, the Lardons de la mer emerged as a matter of course to meet the challenges of the project: – to offer a sustainable use to “noble” raw materials; – develop innovative technical know-how; – propose a real product innovation; – innovate through the diversity of consumption patterns. Technology and marketing at the heart of ecodesign The ecodesign approach of the Lardons de la mer was based on a dual approach (technical development and marketing construction) based on a sequential iterative process: expression of issues, elaboration of an action plan, implementation of actions, evaluation of results and decision on a solution. The development of original technical know-how: the technical development process was carried out by the engineering students in the experimental kitchen of Montpellier SupAgro. The manufacture of Lardons de la mer has required the development of genuine technological know-how (with an innovative formulation) to meet the technical challenge: ensuring the bonding of fresh fish pieces and the resistance of bacon under the various processing conditions (cold or after cooking). To meet the

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


challenges of shelf life, the conservation of Lardons de la mer is guaranteed by controlling hygiene conditions during processing and by packaging in a modified atmosphere, in order to achieve a shelf life of 7 days, similar to other products in the department. The absence of processing (no smoking or salting) preserves the original taste and texture of fresh fish, and offers unknown and surprising combinations in the mouth (salmon/sea bream and bonito/saithe). Lardons de la mer, eaten raw or cooked, have been designed to offer consumers an infinite number of cooking options. The technical solutions developed were tested and validated with target consumers through sensory analysis. The construction of a marketing offer adapted to consumers: the marketing development process was approached as a case study to answer several challenges: what place in the competitive market? Which consumers? Which consumption patterns? Which distribution channel? What potential? Competitive analyses demonstrated the market opportunity for an eco-responsible product, based on fresh fish, for simple and practical consumption. Seafood products, and in particular fish, are foods that are appreciated and increasingly consumed in France. However, several points could prove to be a hindrance in the purchasing process: the price, doubts about the origins and quality plus the preparation considered complicated and unpleasant (duration, smell, etc.) for fresh fish. Lardons de la mer are trying to overcome these obstacles. Market analyses on culinary aids, seafood products and bibliographic research on food innovation made it possible to identify the areas of innovation at the heart of the development of the Lardons de la mer: – safety on origin and quality: reassure consumers about the origin and quality of fish via labels; – pleasure: meeting hedonic needs; – convenience: remove a major barrier to the purchase of fresh fish; – health: to be part of a healthy and balanced diet; – ethics: combining a real sustainable development approach.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Two consumer studies tested the concept and reinforced the positioning. An online survey of 377 people validated the relevance of Lardons de la mer and allowed the construction of the marketing mix, the selection of fish for the formulation of Lardons de la mer, the definition of packaging, the identification of distribution channels and the construction of communication axes. Sensory analyses were essential to judge the hedonic acceptance of innovation and to qualify its organoleptic performance. Scaling up for sustainable industrialization Based on the results of the technical development and marketing construction stages, the students convinced an industrial partner – a fish processing specialist – who provided his expertise for the process of transposing innovation to the industrial scale. His contribution was decisive in defining the keys to sustainable industrialization in terms of integrating the innovative manufacturing process into processing workshops, optimizing the choice of raw materials and distribution conditions. In addition to manufacturing the Lardons de la mer from fish from sustainable industries (whether fishing or farming), this collaboration made it possible to strengthen the high-quality filleting offcuts, by-products that are poorly valued in the profession, as a raw material that perfectly meets the needs of sustainable production and marketing of the Lardons de la mer. Factors that have stimulated innovation for Lardons de la mer External factors Lardons de la mer correspond to consumers’ expectations to be able to integrate fish into everyday dishes without the preparation being cumbersome. This original product is intended for the whole family. It easily finds its place on the shelves thanks to attractive, ecodesigned packaging that serves as a communication medium to demonstrate the commitment to the preservation of marine resources. Lardons de la mer will be distributed nationally via out-of-home catering. The recent controversies over overfishing and deep-sea trawling are a real opportunity for the development of a product that enhances the value of high-quality fillets.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


Internal factors Three types of internal factors contributed to the success of the Lardons de la mer project: – students: primarily responsible for the success of the project, are at the origin of the proposal of the innovative idea and the treatment of all the missions necessary for the realization of the project; – supervisors’ expertise: technical supervision on product development, marketing, production and finance aspects has been provided by several Montpellier SupAgro researchers and lecturers; – the industrial partner, thanks to its know-how and technical expertise, has made it possible to build the industrialization process in a realistic and operational way. The strengths and weaknesses of Lardons de la mer Strengths – Freshness of a fresh product, easy and quick preparation and without handling fresh fish. – Diversity of consumption times and diversity of preparation methods. – Nutritional intakes of fish (less fat than meat in equivalent amounts). Weaknesses – The French word “lardon” (bacon bit) can be associated with a fatty object, a product sensitive to the microbiological risks to be controlled. – The visual appearance in its raw state, the short shelf life for distribution and a high price in the function of kitchen aids. Ecodesign at the heart of the development process Beyond environmental and social awareness, the desire to integrate sustainable development requirements has made it possible to meet financial and competitive objectives. The sustainable development approach has been implemented at each stage of the Lardons de la mer lifecycle – procurement, manufacturing, packaging and end-of-life management:


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

– a sustainable and responsible supply of fish: the management of marine resources is a major challenge in the coming years to preserve biodiversity and manage marine resource stocks. Aware of these issues and their complexities, the project’s stakeholders are committed to making responsible choices and ensuring a supply of fish from sustainable fishing: - a responsible choice of pairs of fish: is the species under consideration over-exploited? Is its fishing sustainable for the marine ecosystem? The students identified a list of potential fish for processing. The consumer survey and sensory analyses then helped to select the most attractive pairs: salmon/sea-bream and bonito/saithe; - MSC-certified Lardons de la mer: the Marine Stewarship Council (MSC), an independent non-profit organization, manages a certification and labeling program for seafood products from a sustainable industry. MSC certification is carried out by independent experts according to criteria defined by the FAO, to ensure product traceability and sustainable management of stocks and their environments. The Lardons de la mer will be certified by the MSC. The MSC label, an indicator for responsible consumption, has the competitive advantage for a referencing in supermarkets, very involved in the promotion and enhancement of the label; - the added value of by-products: the lardons de la mer are made from filleting offcuts, noble by-products generated by the industrial processing of fish fillets. – objectives of the sustainable transformation workshop: - by-product recovery: the production method has been optimized to recover all raw materials (uncalibrated fish blocks); - recycling of industrial packaging: to limit the plant’s impact on the environment, plastic packaging and polystyrene boxes containing fish are compacted and sent to specific recovery circuits; - employee well-being: the processing workshop is integrated into a factory built to guarantee each employee comfortable working conditions and a pleasant environment, whether in terms of workstations or relaxation areas; - energy consumption: the hygiene control of the Lardons de la mer requires the use of low temperatures for processing areas and distribution channels. Efficient premises and equipment make it possible to reduce energy consumption as much as possible.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


– ecodesigned packaging: - recyclable packaging: the primary packaging of the Lardons de la mer is inspired by the ecodesigned Barq’Alim® trays developed by PackAlim. It is made of thin cardboard with a flexible multi-layer thermoformed plastic tray. Cardboard provides communication and rigidity functions, and reduces the amount of plastic film used (50% less than traditional packaging with the same performance); - packaging for sustainable development communication: the Lardons de la mer packaging is a key communication tool to raise consumer awareness of sustainable development, with the MSC label accompanied by an explanatory sentence on the facing, and instructions to help consumers correctly sort the packaging after use; – end of packaging life: after consumption of the Lardons de la mer, the plastic tray and lid are collected with household waste, and recovered energetically by incineration. The cardboard is sorted and recovered in the recycling channels. Conclusion The Lardons de la mer perfectly combine the nutritional qualities of fish with ease of use. Innovative, tasty and practical, they offer a multitude of possibilities to consumers whose only limit is their imagination! The Lardons de la mer are innovative not only in their concept – fish lardons – but also in the play of textures and combinations of flavors. The ecodesign approach has led to the development of real technological know-how. In addition to working exclusively with fish from sustainable industries (fishing and breeding), high-quality fillets are valued as a raw material. Thanks to a consumer study and a sensory analysis, the proposed product perfectly meets the demands and expectations of consumers. Practical and ready to use, they allow you to eat fresh fish regularly without long and tedious preparation. A true sensory and technological innovation, the Lardons de la mer has benefited from the expertise of an industrial partner specializing in seafood products.

Dynamic capabilities Issue detected Wasteful use of highquality fish offcuts Objective Fish portions with the use of meat bacon Sustainable business model Anti-waste model highlighting fish waste with new functions and flavors of the product

External factors that have driven innovation Consumers’ expectations to be able to integrate fish into Sustainable business model everyday dishes without the Ecological value preparation being Model reflecting the sociorestrictive economic strategy of a food Polemics overfishing and product that promotes a deep-sea trawling are an by-product of nutritional opportunity to offer an quality affordable alternative to guilt-free fish consumption Fight against food waste

How much: an economic model adapted to progressive industrialization and commercialization

How (evaluation tools and methods): - development of a sustainable marketing mix; - an appropriate business plan; - technical, sensory and marketing tests and evaluations with potential customers.

Who: any fish consumer

What: fresh product, easy and quick preparation, diversity of consumption times and preparation methods

Societal value: it meets the health, environmental and nutritional challenges of fresh fish (essential fatty acids) and practicality

Building blocks of the business model (decision support and ecodesign system)

Value: health, economic, territorial

152 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Sustainable operational practices

Ecodesign level ecoinnovation

End of life: ecodesigned packaging and responsible communication

Distribution: short circuits with optimized logic

Processing: fresh product slightly processed without heat treatment

Recyclable packaging

Employee well-being taken into account (workstations and relaxation areas)

Valuation of a by-product Water and energy consumption in processing areas and controlled distribution channels

Environmental claims “Sustainable fishing MSC” environmental claims

Table 3.7. Summary of the Lardons de la mer business model

Internal factors that have facilitated innovation The students at the origin of the ideas. Their very significant investment and work Technical support on product development, marketing, production and finance aspects Industrial partnership, through know-how and technical expertise

Healthy products: non-smoked and unsalted Creation of new knowledge (new technical know-how)

Why: - fight against food waste; - sustainable and responsible supply of fish.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects 153


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

3.5.6. PannIno: ecodesigned gnocchi with bakery by-products in three flavors13 The GnocchiTour project was launched in 2016, thanks to students in their final year of study at ENSAIA (École nationale supérieure d’agronomie et des industries alimentaires), specialized in food formulation. It all started with a shock observation published on the KissKissBankBank platform, mentioning that food waste “would fill to the brim every year the equivalent volume of the ‘Stade de France’ with perfectly consumable products, each as good as the next”. After some research, the students chose to focus their creative sessions on reducing food waste, one of the main current agri-food issues. They then studied the main foods wasted in France. Based on criteria of originality, feasibility, but also ecology, the idea of adding value to the by-products of the bakery industry – too often unused and destroyed – was born. Issues The decrease in the share of the budget allocated to food by the French (36% in 1959, less than 20% at present) leads to a loss in the monetary value of food. On the other hand, the abundance of food in developed countries leads to a loss of its vital value. Finally, more and more people are living alone, and the large meals that once brought the family together every day are becoming rare. Food therefore also loses its social value14. These three phenomena lead to food being a low value commodity and therefore psychologically “wasteful”. In particular, bread is thrown away in large quantities – not only by consumers, but also by restaurants, distributors and in school cafeterias (always free and consumption at will). Its short shelf life is one explanation (a loaf of bread which has lasted for more than ten hours is considered unsaleable), but it is above all its trivialization and low cost that are at stake. The challenge of the PannIno project is environmental (limiting the waste of raw materials), behavioral (participating in consumer education and awareness of the major problem of food waste) and social (participating in changing the mentality of people who throw away without consideration and for whom “if it is worthless, then I can throw it away”).

13 Authors: Lou Dumas and Lionel Muniglia. Students: Paolo Cucci, Anne-Catherine De Haro, Mauve Decan, Gergana Dimova, Matthieu Ferrières, Murielle Galais, Marion Grandvallet, Jérémy Leroy and Adèle Vexlard (ENSAIA Lorraine). 14 MOOC Food waste – AgroParisTech 2003.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


Solution Many artisanal and industrial bakeries were contacted to obtain bread and its derivatives in sufficient quantities. A brand producing “crust free” sandwich loaves agreed to be a partner in the project. A “crust free” sandwich loaf was not, in fact, feasible as it is. Baking inevitably induces the formation of a crust and it is only once it has been cut and discarded (or in the best of cases intended for animal feed) that the crumb bread obtains its name “crust free”. This generates a waste of thousands of tons of sandwich loaf each year that PannIno’s creators have chosen to use to reduce the destruction of these consumer-friendly by-products. The idea of creating a range of ecodesigned pan-frying gnocchi was born. The GnocchiTour was created. However, communicating about the use of a by-product remains complicated today. Even though consumers are increasingly sensitive to the fight against food waste (as shown by Intermarché’s launch of its “ugly fruit and vegetables” range in 2014), the use of by-products is often poorly perceived or understood, and can discourage them and slow down their purchasing behavior. For this reason, PannIno’s communication is essentially focused on discovering the use of crust bread. Eco-responsibility, practicality and discovery are the three values of PannIno. The GnocchiTour was designed in such a way that its benefits are not only focused on reducing food waste. Compared to their competitors, their salt content is lower, their protein content and fiber intake higher. Finally, GnocchiTour is ecological and environmentally friendly in many ways: – the choice of suppliers and partners: PannIno has favored suppliers with an eco-responsible approach. In particular, the partner company is ISO 14001 certified, proof of its commitment to environmental management; – the recipe: GnocchiTour are made from the crust of sandwich bread up to 26% in each recipe. More than 98% of the raw materials come from France. The proteins present in gnocchi are only of vegetable origin. This has the consequence of a lower climate impact and a lower land grabbing of animal proteins; – the process: all raw materials are stored at room temperature, requiring no energy-consuming equipment. Particular care is also taken to ensure the consumption of water (rainwater collection tank) and electricity (Boostherm solution); – packaging: the use of krafting gives the packaging a natural color and limits the amount of ink used. A tablet adapted to close the product after opening and


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

allow its subsequent consumption is also present. Secondary packaging is made from materials already recycled (at least 70%); – the company’s location: the company is located near the main supplier of raw materials and at equal distance from its sales outlets located in the Lyon and Paris regions. This makes it possible to limit the environmental impacts associated with the various transport stages; – consumer use and end of the product’s life: the shorter panning time than that of competitors results in lower energy consumption. With a 300 g format for two or three servings, the product is also portionable and can be stored in the fridge for three days after opening. PannIno therefore offers its customers a range of eco-responsible gnocchi with exotic flavors. Its GnocchiTour range is available in three recipes that respect the food flavors of three cultures: Indian, Italian and Mexican. GnocchiTour can be enjoyed as a dish or as a side dish, at lunch or dinner and is suitable for the whole family. PannIno’s target is identical to the references of fried gnocchi: people between 7 and 60 years old. But the added value of its spicy notes and vegetables makes it possible to define its core target group: students and active people between 18 and 40 years old, often curious and fond of a change of scenery. These consumers will be sensitive to warm colors and packaging graphics (see Figure 3.7) that use travel codes referring to the logbooks of frequent travelers: stamps reminiscent of postal parcels or written on passports, pencil-like appearance and hand-written typeface. This sensitivity was confirmed during a sensory analysis conducted on sixty people of all ages and all socio-professional categories. In addition, the practicality of the GnocciTour allows families to be defined as a secondary target. Consumer study showed that the acceptability price of the product by the target was 3.49 euros for a 300 g package of gnocchi (i.e. for two or three portions as in the classic format currently on the market). However, this price is difficult to achieve for a young company like PannIno, which cannot rely on economies of scale. However, a study has shown that 36% of French people are willing to pay more for products supplied by companies that are concerned about their social and environmental impact (Nielsen 2014). This was confirmed in individual interviews with consumers. The final selling price to the consumer was therefore set at 3.80 euros.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


Figure 3.7. Primary packaging of GnocchiTour (source: student project). For a color version of this figure, see

Its adapted communication and its offer of tasty, original, practical and environmentally-friendly products allow PannIno to start with a receptive market, ready to appreciate its products at their true value. Its distinctive characteristics (exotic and ecodesigned pan-frying gnocchi) are all comparative advantages. GnocchiTour are sold in the self-service catering section alongside fresh pasta in hypermarkets and supermarkets. They are packaged in a modified atmosphere to ensure their preservation for a minimum of three weeks. Testing of the proposal Competitive analysis and market research PannIno’s competitive offer was studied through an analysis of Porter’s strengths15. The greatest threat identified was that of substitutes: pasta and other 15 Michael Porter’s five strengths determine the competitive structure of an industry and facilitate the identification of strengths and weaknesses to be addressed. These are the bargaining power of customers, the power of suppliers, the threat of new market entrants, the threat of substitute products and the intensity of competition from competitors.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

starches, but also sandwiches and lunch boxes. However, most competitors communicate little or nothing about their ecological assets. PannIno can turn this observation in its favor. The market study showed that the mature fresh pasta market remains dynamic with a 3% growth in value between 2014 and 2015 (Cadoux 2016) and a turnover of 321 million euros. in 2015, thanks in particular to the pan-frying gnocchi sector: +8% in value and +13% in volume between 2014 and 2015. “Pan-fried gnocchi remain the star of the fresh pasta market” (Linear 2015). Since its launch in 2004, the pan-fried gnocchi sector has seen double-digit volume growth. Life cycle analysis For PannIno, the implementation of an environmental protection approach is the source of innovation and exchanges to consider new solutions. It offers a real gain in competitiveness thanks to the reduction of energy costs, the anticipation of future regulatory constraints and the demarcation of competition. PannIno has therefore carried out a simplified lifecycle analysis of its products through an inventory of the measures implemented during the life cycle, the search for a way to improve them, the conduct of inventories of water and electricity consumption, and the estimation of the carbon footprint on the stages of manufacturing raw materials, production and transport (see Table 3.8). Domain

Share (%)

Raw materials






Table 3.8. Estimated share of greenhouse gas emissions for raw material manufacturing, process and transport

To estimate CO2 emissions, it was assumed that these emissions are zero for the crust of sandwich bread used, since this raw material is a by-product.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


The manufacture of GnocchiTour emits 0.4 kg of CO2 equivalent per kg of product. The main source of these emissions comes from the production of raw materials other than crust bread. To reduce this share, sourcing raw materials from sustainable agriculture will then be carried out. On the other hand, transport (of raw materials and finished products) is responsible for 35% of these emissions. To reduce this share, it is planned to look for raw materials even closer to the plant to optimize their supply. The part relating to the process is difficult to reduce because everything has already been thought out with a view to limiting energy costs. Sensory and nutritional analysis A sensory analysis showed the value of the GnocchiTour and their superior appreciation against their competitors. According to the preference tests, the most popular product was GnocchiTour Italian flavor, followed by Lustucru frying gnocchi and, in the last position, Cora. Finally, nutritional analysis shows that even in terms of health nutrition, the GnocchiTour has nothing to envy the older ones by displaying very similar or even better values. According to EC Regulation 1924/2006, GnocchiTour is both low in saturated fatty acids (present at less than 1.5%) and sources of complex carbohydrates (present at more than 15%). The higher protein content, lower salt content and significant fiber content make GnocchiTour a choice dish. Decisions Each of the tests carried out tends to show PannIno’s potential to conquer the market thanks to its ecological, organoleptic and nutritional advantages. The formulation of the three recipes was therefore validated and finalized, and the marketing strategy and financial choices were put in place. – Regions concerned: PannIno chose to launch its range of GnocchiTour in the supermarkets of the central-eastern sector of France. More specifically, for the first year of activity, the products were distributed in the Rhône-Alpes region, a region that consumes on average 60% more fresh pasta per year than the French national average (Nielsen 2014). – Chosen distribution channels: PannIno sells its products in large chains that show a strong interest in food innovation. The referencing of GnocchiTour is done through regional purchasing groups and is supported by PannIno’s sales force:


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

- key activities: from the supply of raw materials to the distribution of gnocchi and their production, PannIno plans to invest in a production line and hire labor, always in partnership for the supply of raw materials; - financing: total investments and creation costs are estimated at 164,000 euros. The financing will come in part from the co-founding partners of PannIno (80,000 euros), a loan from the bank (30,000 euros) and subsidies such as those offered by BPI France; - human resources: two partners manage production alone for the first two years and a worker will come in addition in the third year; - the communication strategy includes competitions, social networks and influencers’ blogs, point-of-sale advertising and sponsorship by a renowned chef. What’s to come? Despite all the actions already underway, PannIno continues to mature its thinking on sustainable development, and has set itself medium- and long-term objectives: raising future employees’ awareness of sustainable development, passing from an audit conducted by AFAQ Ecodesign and obtaining ISO 14006 compliance. Finally, the dynamics of the industrial bakery sector offers many opportunities to promote by-products and PannIno is already thinking about other ways to promote them so that tomorrow their waste is already a distant memory. Conclusion Despite the relevance of the innovation, and the rich journey of discovery and learning, the GnocchiTour unfortunately did not see the light of day following an incompatibility of the product with the partner company which could not carry out referencing to the fresh section. However, the company greatly appreciated the product concept and broke away from it with regret. But who knows, maybe this great story will give ideas to other ambitious and creative start-ups?

Dynamic capabilities Issue detected The edible bread crust is discarded Objective Pan-fried gnocchi Sustainable business model Environmental and nutritional dimensions, new flavors enhanced

External factors that have driven innovation High food waste in developed countries Bread is one of the most wasted foods in France

Sustainable business model Ecological value, practical and discovery of countries through flavors Food waste strategy is combined with adding value to the most wasted food

How much: 164,000 euros (including 80,000 euros of contribution) of investments amortized over two years

How (evaluation tools and methods): - competitive analysis (SWOT); - price benchmark between competitors and consumption trends of the target population; - sensory and nutritional analyses; - lifecycle analysis.

Who: students and working people (18–40 years old), families

What: gnocchi made from crust of sandwich bread of better nutritional quality than competing and cheaper products

Societal value Discover flavors (Indian, Italian, Mexican) by promoting a by-product of the bakery industry

Building blocks of the business model (decision support and ecodesign system)

Value: nutritional and environmental

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects 161

Sustainable operational practices

End of life: recyclable cardboard

Distribution: Rhône-Alpes region consuming 60% more fresh pasta per year than the French national average

Processing: minimalist ingredients

Kraft primary packaging and secondary packaging made from recycled materials (70%)

French raw material

ISO 14001 certified suppliers

Processes: recycling of hot water used for pasteurization

Table 3.9. Summary of Pannino’s business model

Internal factors that have facilitated innovation Partnership with an industrial producer of crust-free sandwich bread Study showing people’s awareness of food waste

Ecodesign level ecoinnovation

Process: storage of raw materials at room temperature Controlled water and electricity consumption (rainwater recovery tank) and Boostherm solution

Why: contribution to sustainable development through adding value to by-products from the bakery industry

162 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


3.5.7. Prêt Par Moi: traditional creamy mixes, culinary aids for the preparation of hot dishes16 Starting point The Prêt Par Moi project was launched in 2015, thanks to students in their final year of study at ENSAIA (École nationale supérieure d’agronomie et des industries alimentaires), who gathered for creativity sessions to meet a special request from the Abbaye de Vergaville dairy in Moselle (57): to promote sweet whey or whey, a byproduct of the processing of its tommes. Whey is generally considered a waste and its release into the environment must be limited because it is highly polluting. Perpetuating since 1938 the cheese traditions of its region, Lorraine, this dairy wishes to develop original products alongside its traditional cheeses. The dairy processes about two million liters of milk per year from local producers, mainly located in the Vosges regional nature park, within a radius of 15–20 km around the dairy. It is first of all known for its Verga (cheese made from cow’s milk, pasteurized, pressed semi-cooked) whose name comes from the municipality of Vergaville (the place where the production site is located), but also for its flavored cheeses with various ingredients such as hop cones, juniper berries, pepper, sake or the essential mirabelle de Lorraine. The project specifications Of the 35,000 liters of whey produced each week at the dairy, only 1,400 are used to make ricotta, a fresh cheese made from the coagulation of whey. It is usually either sold to Eurosérum, a specialized company that transforms it into infant powders, or discarded. The specifications to be respected were as follows: – The finished product needed to: - integrate the dairy’s by-products in order to enhance their value and have a minimum shelf life of 28 days; - evoke the French territory in order to stand out from the Italian connotation of ricotta. – The manufacturing method to be used: - did not change the temperatures of the production line already in place;

16 Authors: Lou Dumas and Lionel Muniglia. Students: Alicia Bernardi, Sophie Colotte, Ana Karoline F. Leite, Capucine Kuperminc, Pauline Lélu, Elise Nicolas, Paloma Poirel, Livia Réa and Aurore Zazzera (ENSAIA Lorraine).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

- used existing equipment as much as possible before considering new investments and avoid the addition of additives and artificial flavors. Issues The general public’s ignorance of the value of this translucent liquid leads to its wastefulness, even though it contains valuable nutrients: its proteins play an important role in the reconstitution of muscle fibers damaged during physical training (Burke and Maughan 2012). Its isolate could have a positive effect on some failing immune systems (Moreno 2006). However, whey, the main effluent of a dairy, cannot be eliminated in nature because of its high organic load. Its COD (chemical oxygen demand) is between 50 and 70 g/L, which makes whey 50–70 times richer in organic matter than domestic water. Creating a project with the aim of recycling it is therefore a significant ecological gesture, while preserving a food with a high nutritional value. In the end, its added value constitutes a significant financial asset for the partner dairy. The last challenge of the project is societal: the Abbaye de Vergaville dairy is the last artisanal dairy in its region. Indeed, more and more cheeses are produced by large groups that dominate the market. In order to sell more, these companies standardize the taste of their cheeses to please the majority and their cheeses gradually lose their unique flavors and characters. Even the presence of the AOP (Protected Designation of Origin) label is not proof of the artisanal nature of the production. By developing a project run by a small company, the students are helping to safeguard local traditions and preserve Lorraine’s know-how. Solution The product As the specifications were already precise, the creativity sessions focused mainly on finding a working food base adapted to the demand. The product finally selected, called Prêt Par Moi, is a range of creamy mixes made from whey, other cheese by-products and inclusions of spices, fruits, vegetables and even meat. It is part of the popular “Help me do it” trend that makes it easier to prepare homemade dishes.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


It is available in three original recipes rooted in the territory using regional ingredients. It can be used to quickly enhance many hot dishes: pies, quiches, sauces for pasta or risotto, puff pastry aperitifs, omelettes, sandwiches, meat sauces, etc.: – “Plus besoin de poireauter!” (No more waiting around!) is the recipe for melting leeks, smoked bacon and lightly grilled onions, classic but adaptable to all tastes; – “Chaud, les marrons !” (Hot chestnuts!) is the Lorraine recipe in which the Mirabelle de Lorraine is found, accompanied by smoked chestnuts and bacon, all finely scented with elderflower; – “Appuie sur le champignon !” (Rely on the mushroom!) is the vegetarian recipe with a blend of forest mushrooms, fried onions and wild garlic. Prêt Par Moi is above all a value-added product since more than 80% of it is made up of by-products from the dairy. This is its main asset: using quality raw materials by integrating them into a traditional product. The product is also multi-purpose. It is designed to be simple and quick to use, while allowing the cook’s creativity to express itself. Confronting the market Prêt Par Moi has no strict equivalent. Indeed, there is no multi-purpose product that is almost ready to eat and can make up a complete hot dish. These different assets combined have made market determination complex because the product can fit into different categories. Finally, since ricotta is the main ingredient, the market for cheeses to cook seemed the most suitable. A survey conducted among a sample of 150 consumers representative of the French population made it possible to define the target group: women and men aged 20–64 years in search of speed, convenience and authenticity. These consumers are not keen on fully-prepared dishes that industrial preparation makes relatively anxious. In their opinion, the main advantage of Prêt Par Moi is that the product is a help in the kitchen. This gives them room for maneuver and creativity, while making it easier for them to do so. The sale price of Prêt Par Moi was defined at 3.95 euros per 400 g, a price acceptable to the consumer and profitable to the dairy.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Ecology and sustainable development Prêt Par Moi’s main asset in terms of sustainable development is its contribution to reducing food waste through the use of by-products. The efforts of the project team also go further: – minimum transport time: the presence of all sales outlets in the Far East minimizes the environmental impact of road transport. Certified ISO 14 001, the chosen transport company ensures that its activity is as environmentally-friendly as possible; – packaging: the format of the primary packaging also helps to limit food waste. The 200 grams per serving are adapted to the needs of the consumer and the shape of the jar allows almost all the preparation to be recovered; – information on conservation and sorting: the sorting logos affixed make the consumer aware of recycling. The indications on the conservation of the product therefore limit the problems of waste linked to poor conservation; – consumer use: the various mixes made with Prêt Par Moi require on average half as much heating as traditional recipes; – waste management in the production activity: due to the high organic load of whey, the team turned to methanization for the recycling of the remaining waste after processing. This technique makes it possible to add value to the remaining whey by producing biogas. According to studies already carried out, the purification performance is such that 80% of the incoming COD (chemical oxygen demand) is digested. Testing of the proposal France, with almost two million tons of cheese produced per year, is the country that consumes the most: about 26 kg per person in 2013. Cheese is considered a sure value by the French and its uses are modernizing. Increasingly practical to use, it is also available in the form of culinary aids that are proving to be a great success for Prêt Par Moi. Competitive analysis and market research Sales of cheeses for end-of-meal trays fell by 1–2% in 2011 in favor of cheese specialities for other uses such as snacking, sandwiches or as an aperitif (up to 3–4%). In addition, in line with new consumer trends, many cheese manufacturers are now developing ranges specially “to cook”.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


The competitive environment of Prêt Par Moi was studied thanks to the analysis of Porter’s strengths. The main difficulty in bringing the product to market in a viable way is the bargaining power of distributors (large chains). They decide on prices, the margin they will receive and the potential deferral of the product. This obstacle is minimized by the fact that the dairy has its own sales outlet on the production site, which allows direct sales to the consumer. In addition, the current sale of some of its products in supermarkets will facilitate the introduction of Prêt Par Moi. The other point of vigilance concerns the competitive intensity because similar products are already marketed by large groups. Although these products are neither handcrafted nor specially ecodesigned, they represent major competitors for Prêt Par Moi, which will have to communicate clearly about its assets in order to make consumers fully understand its added value. The environmental test The transport of raw and packaging materials has little impact since most suppliers are located within a 150 km radius of the dairy. In addition, the surplus whey at the end of the manufacturing process will be methanized. Following the results of the study conducted to characterize the environmental impact of the end of life of the product and more particularly of its packaging, the pots are made of polypropylene and a sheath made of recyclable cardboard and vegetable oil-based inks have been adopted. Cardboard packaging – almost 75% of which is made of wood, a renewable resource – has a very low carbon footprint, unlike oil used to make plastic. Aluminum and PP plastic lids are biochemically recyclable. In order to get an idea of the impact of Prêt Par Moi packaging on the environment, a complete assessment was carried out according to five environmental indicators: – contribution to the greenhouse effect or CO2 emissions; – consumption of non-renewable resources such as fossil and mineral resources; – acidification of the air or increase in the content of acidifying substances in the lower atmosphere; – eutrophication of water or the introduction of phosphate or nitrogen compounds that disturb ecosystems; – water consumption.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

According to the calculations made, a sale unit (400 g) emits about 5 g in CO2 equivalent. This value was compared with that of glass, which was the other material meeting the functional specifications of the product. Even though the glass is very well sorted and 100% recyclable, it still consumes a lot of energy in its manufacture. Thus, a 200 ml glass jar emits between 80 and 100 g of greenhouse gases into the environment, or nearly 200 g of CO2 equivalent to 400 g. In terms of carbon dioxide emissions, glass is therefore four times more polluting than our packaging. This is due in particular to the fact that glass transport requires about 25 times more trucks than plastic transport, which is lighter and more easily stackable. In addition, glass is responsible for increased air acidification, and the release of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. In the end, the packaging format chosen, glass, would have nearly five times more impact than the materials chosen by Prêt Par Moi. Finally, the preliminary treatment to be carried out on the raw materials (heating and then cooling) remains the most energy-intensive step for reasons of health safety and product manufacturing. Installations to reuse the hot water in the pipes have already been carried out and the efforts of the Prêt Par Moi team are currently focused on the implementation of new energy recovery solutions. The nutritional test Compared to those of direct competitors (Boursin® Cuisine, Philadelphia® and a Panzani® mushroom sauce), the nutritional values of the Prêt Par Moi recipes (calories, salt, fat) show that the range meets the nutritional objectives defined by the PNNS (French nutrition and health plan). In addition, 100 g of Prêt Par Moi provides a daily portion of calcium (170 g) validating an additional recommendation from the PNNS. The decisions Each of the tests tends to show the potential of Prêt Par Moi from an ecological, organoleptic and nutritional point of view. The formulation of the three recipes was therefore validated and the marketing strategy and financial choices were put in place: – regions concerned: Prêt Par Moi favors supermarkets that already stock cheese-making products to facilitate negotiation and transport. For its launch, Prêt Par Moi concentrated its distribution in Lorraine and Alsace;

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


– chosen distribution channels: for easier and faster referencing, Prêt Par Moi prefers brands that give the department manager or store manager freedom of choice; – key activities: from the supply of raw materials to production and distribution, Prêt Par Moi plans to extend its partner’s existing production lines and hire more staff; – financing: total investments and creation costs are estimated at 23,000 euros. This will come entirely from the partner company, which will potentially seek the help of specialized organizations such as BPI France; – communication strategy: Prêt Par Moi mainly advertises at points of sale, participates in agri-food fairs, distributes communication documents and offers launch promotions. It also plans to broadcast radio spots on a regular basis. Finally, a website allows customers to find the information they want. What’s to come? Viable solutions have also been proposed to transform all the whey: after three years, all the dairy’s by-products will be recovered either through the manufacture of Prêt Par Moi or by transforming the whey into renewable energy (biogas). The managers of the Vergaville fromagerie, convinced by the product concept, plan to extend the range with new recipes. Conclusion The creation of Prêt Par Moi has taught its creators a lot, both from the point of view of creating an innovative food product and from the point of view of sustainable development. The team even looked at agronomic solutions such as methanization, which was not part of their initial ambitions. Prêt Par Moi unfortunately did not appear on the shelves following the unexpected departure of the project manager of the partner dairy, who was never replaced. However, this does not detract from the quality and originality of this product, which responds in a very relevant way to one of the main challenges of the 21st Century: reducing food waste.

Dynamic capabilities Sustainable business Issue detected External factors model that have driven Food waste of a valuable Societal, environmental innovation product (whey) and nutritional values Explicit request from a Objective Innovative design traditional dairy Creamy ecodesigned model with sustainable preparation in three recipes Position of competing values from the origin products (strong but Sustainable threeof the raw material to dimensional business model not designed from an the end of the product’s eco-perspective) Socio-economic, life environmental, nutritional

Why: contribution to the four pillars of sustainability: - nutritional: whey proteins play a role in the reconstitution of damaged muscle fibers; - socio-economic: new business model for the company; - environmental: less pollution (80% of the by-product recovered).

How much: €23,000 of investment amortized in one and a half years

How: SWOT method (strengths and weaknesses): - study of the target’s needs: practicality, authenticity, speed and “help me to do it” are expected; - nutritional benchmark with similar products; - carbon impact analysis of the product lifecycle; - physico-chemical tests and PNNS recommendations.

Who: meat consumers and vegetarians

What: creamy artisanal mixes for quick preparation of many hot dishes

Health (nutritional), environmental (less waste), economic (new activity for the dairy)

Building blocks of the business model (decision support and ecodesign system)

Value: health, economic, territorial

170 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

End of life: recyclable packaging according to the municipalities

Distribution: to the dairy and regional supermarkets Marketing: point-of-sale advertising, radio spots, internet

Supply of local raw materials (150 km radius around the dairy)

Minimalist and regional raw materials (whey, vegetables, plum)

By-product methanization Recycling of hot water used for pasteurization

Valuation of plant and animal extraction by-products

Heating, mixing, cooling and conditioning processes and storage are controlled

Table 3.10. Summary of the Prêt Par Moi business model

Internal factors that Ecodesign level have facilitated ecoinnovation innovation Competences of the Vergaville dairy at the origin of the project request Specifications compatible with the dairy’s production line Collaboration with the Sustainable operational network of actors in practices the dairy

Recipe formulation: nutritional culinary aids: - four times less salt than competing products; - the daily calcium intake recommended by the PNSS.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects 171


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

3.5.8. Devatâ: a Cambodian lemongrass liqueur17 Devatâ, a Cambodian lemongrass liqueur, is above all a response to a societal challenge. By way of adding value to lemongrass on Cambodian farms, its objective is to improve the living conditions of the local population by providing it with an additional income.

Figure 3.8. Devatâ concept (source: student project)

Value of the product Devatâ offers consumers a touch of travel and exoticism thanks to its new and original flavor, entirely made with lemongrass. Cultivated organically by rural Cambodian populations, Devatâ is free of coloring and preservatives.

17 Authors: Omari Abdelaziz and Sophia El Andaloussi (ENSCBP Bordeaux). Students: Quentin Badot, Stefanie Da Silva Cunha, Maëva David, Ophélie Duplé, Marlène Duplé, Alexandra Martel, Peio Ortiz, Camille Sèze and Chloé Traventhal (ENSCBP Bordeaux).

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


This liqueur is suitable for several consumer profiles: those who appreciate the alcoholic taste by drinking it neat or by tasting it “on the rocks”, but also those who prefer a discreet alcoholic note by integrating it into cocktails. The strength of this liqueur is mainly linked to its ethical value and its socially responsible aspect, which are not very present in this market. Devatâ allows consumers to support developing populations. Its mission is to contribute to the economic development of rural Cambodian populations. On each bottle sold, part of the price is directly donated to the local population. It is proportional to the proportion of citronella used in the decoration of a bottle. Devatâ: the sustainability of natural and social ecosystems The NGO CodEauKhmer, a key partner in the project, is mainly made up of young Cambodians and French employees from Électricité de France (EDF) and Gaz de France (ENGIE). Its aim is to provide humanitarian aid, preferably technological, to the most disadvantaged rural Cambodian populations. To this end, it makes available to them the skills of its members whose role is to assist in the implementation of projects that integrate into local culture and/or to transfer knowledge by adapting it locally. Eighty percent of Cambodians live in rural areas, and derive their income and livelihood from agriculture. In this context, the NGO considers lemongrass as a product with a high potential. This hardy plant is not very demanding, can be harvested all year round and can be grown without pesticides and chemicals. Thanks to its added value, lemongrass can become a significant economic resource for these underprivileged populations and then take root in a development dynamic. Its sufficient and profitable commercialization could encourage the association to set up a structure for production and then make it possible to create jobs, which would again be part of a concept of development and dynamization of the populations. The objective is to stem the rural exodus in Cambodia through a more equitable remuneration of traditional agriculture. Functional characteristics of the concept The market study carried out before the design stage revealed the real development potential of the concept: – a consumer looking for new flavors, including the exotic lemongrass (in the alcohol section);


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

– the buoyant context and the favorable growth of cocktails in terms of consumption; – the creation of a fair trade offer that is still not very highly valued on the shelf, while fair trade is expanding rapidly; – the credibility of the approach validated by the alliance with the Codeau Khmer association. Functions of the product Devatâ is a modern Cambodian lemongrass liqueur. Its alcohol content is 17%. It can be enjoyed pure, on ice or in cocktails. It is characterized by its transparent color, which gives it a natural appearance, its fresh and tangy smell and its sweet and refreshing taste. Intended mainly for consumption as an aperitif or during festive and convivial moments, Devatâ is intended for women in search of exotic products, and wishing to support an eco-responsible and social development project. Aesthetic characteristics Devatâ owes its name to a Cambodian goddess, a symbol of femininity. In addition to recalling the exoticism and country of origin of citronella, this name has a real meaning and is consistent with its core female target. Devatâ comes in a 70 cl transparent glass bottle in green color. This color is reminiscent of the color of the main ingredient, lemongrass, and highlights the “natural” and “fresh” side of the liqueur. To strengthen the feminine side, the bottle chosen is elongated and thin. Two key elements are present on the packaging: lemongrass for the original and exotic aspect (Cambodian origin) and the Codeau Khmer association for the humanitarian aspect. The specific methods and tools used to integrate sustainability into the project A carbon assessment was carried out in order to establish a first quantitative estimate of the product’s impact on climate change and to identify the lifecycle stages that generate the most impacts. The purpose of this study is also to verify that the ecodesign approach to liquor development reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to a comparable conventional product. The ADEME GHG18 site provides access to a wide range of information on carbon emissions.

18 Available at:

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


Raw materials and the choice of suppliers – Lemongrass: the main steps that can have an environmental impact are the cultivation, drying and transport of lemongrass. Lemongrass is mainly planted near houses (almost every family has between 1 and 3 m² in its garden). It is also frequently cultivated in association with banana trees or in the shade of coconut trees in order to repel insects. This perennial plant grows easily and does not require any phytosanitary treatments. Its long-term organic cultivation is therefore possible. Cultivation and harvesting are manual. Watering is generously low as the seasonality of lemongrass and its water needs are in line with the rainy season. Its cultivation therefore has little or no carbon impact. The calculation of the carbon balance for this raw material is done for the drying operation carried out using a standard dryer and for the transport from Cambodia to France. This transport will be by boat from Cambodia to the port of Marseille, then by rail to Bordeaux to limit greenhouse gas emissions. – Alcohol, sugar and water: emissions related to the use of these products, but also those related to the transport from the purchasing area to the factory are estimated. In order to limit transport, distributors in the region are favored with the use of alcohol and sugar from beet. Product formulation and process selection The major challenge was to choose the extraction process used for the production of alcoholic beverages, flavors and essential oils. This process must make it possible to produce a base extract that best possesses and preserves the freshness, quality and aromatic bouquet of citronella. To date, almost all distilleries use standard stills and only a few new artisanal microdistilleries in the United States use vacuums in their process. This process was chosen here, which made it possible to distinguish the product from the competition and to offer a product characterized by its freshness and authenticity. To evaluate the carbon and water balance, the calculation of water (cleaning and operation of the equipment) and electricity consumption were carried out throughout the process (operation of pumps, stills, labeling machine, lighting installations, etc.) for a functional unit of a sale unit.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

The choice of packaging The study focused on the three packages (primary, secondary and tertiary) required for the product. The glass bottle meets the category code and is therefore the only primary packaging that can be used. The packaging section of the ADEME GHG site (contribution to the greenhouse gas emission balance sheet in carbon equivalent) provides data relating to packaging. In order to estimate the ecological impact of packaging, the software Bee available on the website makes it possible to carry out simulations and calculate its environmental impact with the associated CO2 emissions, but also to evaluate the recyclability of different packaging. Another characteristic taken into account in this project is the recycled glass content of the bottle. Indeed, this percentage is related to the color of the bottle. Supply and distribution Each supply frequency is established in order not to overload the storage rooms and to minimize the environmental impact of transport while anticipating possible losses. Distribution will initially take place in the Aquitaine region and then extend to neighboring regions. Waste management The main waste products are organic: cardboard, paper, but also the solid fraction of citronella from distillation. In order to enhance the value of this by-product, its composting or green manure and animal feed are being considered. With this in mind, analyses on the level of ethanol remaining in citronella residues should be carried out. Consumer awareness and the sustainability of the product on the market The lemongrass used to make the liqueur is grown by Cambodian producers grouped around the NGO Codeau Khmer. This choice offers the possibility of labeling the liqueur as “fair trade”. This logo, affixed to the product, certifies the origin, quality and manufacturing conditions in accordance with pre-established standards in a set of specifications. This label makes Devatâ, one of the first fair trade spirits on the shelves, a significant asset in this fast-growing market. This is generally perceived positively by the consumer and increases the consumer’s willingness to pay.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


The advantage would thus be to highlight all the dimensions of equity, solidarity and responsibility that are articulated around this north-south sharing. This communication would make it possible to diversify distribution channels and thus make the product known to a committed public via brands such as AlterMundi or Artisans du Monde. It would also give visibility to the association, to farmers and to the direct benefits they would receive – particularly financial benefits. This method of marketing would contribute to an ethical and transparent approach on the part of stakeholders. It is also important to underline that one of the aims of the association is to promote organic farming. Today, no such certification regulates lemongrass cultivation in Cambodia. It is one of the association’s objectives to create one. This organic labeling would allow a better understanding of the values associated with fair trade, because it is associated with well-being and consumers have a greater willingness to pay for this type of product. Conclusion Devatâ is a lemongrass liqueur grown organically by rural Cambodian populations. It was designed in partnership with the NGO Codeau Khmer to support the development of these populations. This liqueur focuses on three aspects of sustainable food development: – social and economic aspects through participation in the development of fragile populations; – the environmental aspect, in particular through the organic cultivation of lemongrass, the other ingredients, which will also be fair trade, organic and local where possible; – the recovery of by-products (solid fraction of lemongrass) and the organization of supply will contribute to controlling environmental impacts.

Dynamic capabilities Issue detected Sustainability of natural and social ecosystems Absence of ethical citronella-based liqueurs Objective Lemongrass-based liqueur from rural areas of Cambodia Sustainable three-dimensional business model Social, environmental and economic values

External factors that have driven innovation NGO data on the needs of the Cambodian rural population Growing consumer awareness of fair trade European regulations on liqueurs Rustic plant, abundant all year round, low water requirements

Sustainable business model Model developing a socioeconomic food strategy compatible with the needs and resources of the rural environment to be developed: - Cambodian lemongrass; - partnerships with the NGO CodEauKhmer, whose objective is to provide humanitarian aid through technological development.

Why: contribution to the socio-economic and environmental development of rural areas

How much: financial analysis (cost/income)

How (evaluation tools and methods): - market research (trends, expectations of the alcohol market); - analysis of the environmental impact of the lifecycle; - specifications for organic products.

Who: all consumer profiles, especially women

What: organic citronella liqueur

Socio-economic and environmental values of the concept

Building blocks of the business model (decision support and ecodesign system)

Value: socio-economic value of lemongrass grown by Cambodian populations

178 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Sustainable operational practices

Ecodesign level ecoinnovation

End of life: recycling of part of the packaging, recovery of by-products (animal feed, composting)

Distribution: - regional, optimized cardboard and truck shapes; - Fair trade label.

Processing: minimalist ingredients and controlled processes

Organic and local raw material

Clean label: no colorants, no preservatives

Valuation of plant and cardboard extraction by-products

Vacuum extraction process (control of the aromatic bouquet)

Recyclable primary packaging (glass bottle) Staggered supply of organic citronella, beet sugar and alcohol from the region (reduction of losses and storage costs)

Table 3.11. Summary of Devatâ’s business model

Internal factors that have facilitated innovation Knowledge and needs of the NGO Strategic mission of the NGO: to provide development aid to the most disadvantaged populations in Cambodia Social expectation of innovation: enhancing the capacities and resources of Cambodian farmers Knowledge of the project team Competences of the teaching team of the ENSCBP–Bordeaux INP in the field of liqueurs

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects 179


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

3.5.9. Kokinéo des Incrépides: the balanced, tasty and complete crispy seafood, accessible to all budgets19 Various current problems have governed the development of the Kokinéo: overfishing of certain fish species; risk of a shortage of animal protein; difficulty in making a balanced, healthy and inexpensive diet accessible to disadvantaged populations; increase in obesity rates, particularly among populations in a precarious state. These issues are the source of several questions related to our ability to feed the planet more intelligently within 25 years, while taking into account the environmental, health and societal challenges of sustainable development. The founders of Les Incrépides thus sought a complete, balanced, available, low-cost product so that it could be accessible to the least favored populations. The engineering students of Oniris Nantes and the École de design de Nantes based their thinking in 2014 on three trends in the French food market: “frugality and control”, “locavorism and citizenship” and “protective food”.

Figure 3.9. Kokinéo concept (source: student project)

The product In their search for a raw material that could meet the challenges mentioned above, the creators of the Kokinéo identified an invasive shell that is abundant on the French coast, easily identifiable thanks to the chains of shells it forms: the crepidula or Crepidula fornicata. This little known protein resource of marine origin is indeed the leading European fishing source. For example, 250,000 tons were already present in the Bay of Saint-Brieuc during the Ifremer census in 1994 and

19 Tudenlène Longlune, Camille Mousset, Sixtine Oger de Gonneville and Camille Rabourdin (Oniris), Wendy Hoquet, Julie Le Ster and Léa Rousse (École de Design de Nantes).

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


150,000 tons in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel in 2004. Due to its rapid and efficient breeding method, the population of this shellfish is growing at a significant rate: about 10% each year. This proliferation is also due to its high resistance to environmental variations and pollution, its ability to settle on various supports and the absence of predators in Europe, unlike the countries where it originates. In addition, fishing activities – particularly draining gear – have strongly contributed to its spread (dumping into the sea following refusal to sort, formation of furrows by dredges). However, the colonization of the seabed by the crepidula has consequences for the environment and the economy: – from an environmental point of view, the crepidula competes with other filter feeders (mussels, oysters or scallops) and also prevents the growth of many benthic species. Its development durably modifies the seabed and its sedimentary characteristics due to its massive production of bio-deposits, which leads to a modification of the water flow and accentuates the natural siltation; – from an economic point of view, the colonization of the seabed by crepidula generates nuisances for fishing: clogging of fishing equipment, additional cleaning of whelk traps or oyster farms, decrepidulization of scallops before sale, etc. The purpose of the Kokinéo is to value this shellfish at a low price and, through its exploitation, to preserve the ecosystems it threatens. However, the critical point is the extraction of its flesh on an industrial scale before being able to cook this tasty mollusk, (also known as the berlingot de la mer). Extraction is possible thanks to a patented technique developed by ALD. A partnership has been signed with this company to obtain the desired quantities of crepidula. Kokinéo is a sea nugget. It is made up of a soft stuffing coated with a crisp, light, non-fried and gourmet breadcrumb. It offers an alternative to traditional fried breadcrumbs. This dish, made up of crepidula, rice, vegetables and herbs, is complete, nutritionally balanced and low-fat. The four small golden Kokinéo of 50 g each, reheated 12 minutes in the oven or pan, are an ideal portion for a meal. Fast and convenient in terms of preparation and use, they are available in the frozen food section at a price of 2.99 euros per kilo. Accessible to low-income populations, they are available in three recipes: Indian, Provençal and Breton. Kokinéo is aimed at two target groups: low-income people looking for a quality product at a low price and consumers looking for healthy and nutritionally good food.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Value of the Kokinéo Kokinéo des Incrépides is a filling dish, quick to prepare, low-fat, gourmet and sold at a modest price while offering an opportunity to indulge and be transported with its three recipes. This crispy eco-innovative product offers a unique experience by introducing an unknown shellfish, the crepidula. Consuming it contributes to the preservation of the marine environment, the protection of other species (oysters, scallops, etc.), the development of the Breton economy by creating new jobs and contributes to the fight against malnutrition. Sold frozen, it has a shelf life of 12 months. It is presented in a playful and new packaging that evokes a bucket and contains four portions, or 16 Kokinéo.

Figure 3.10. Kokinéo packaging concept (source: student project)

The main ingredient is the crepidula which offers a double nutritional and protein interest: – its nutritional characteristics: low in calories (35 kcal/100 g) and fat (0/100 g), the crepidula is rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids, including 50% omega-3, which play a beneficial role in health (cardiovascular diseases, cholesterol). It is thus a food resource of the future; – its strong potential: it makes it possible to compensate for the future lack of animal proteins while respecting the environment because of its ability to adapt very easily to variations in its environment (increase in turbidity, temperature or decrease in salinity). It is in fact a source of animal protein not derived from livestock, which is abundant and whose exploitation does not harm the environment. The sustainable business model The added value of the crepidula in food makes it possible to meet the social, economic and environmental challenges of sustainable development.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


First, like large industrial groups such as Nestlé, the Les Incrépides have chosen to commit themselves, from the outset, to the search for products that are nutritionally adapted to populations in precarious situations all over the world. Products of good quality, but available at a very affordable price: in other words, PPPs or Popularly Positioned Products. This choice responds to the WHO’s (2003) desire to reduce global inequalities by improving access to healthy food for low-income people. The Kokinéo pallet, although made with a noble raw material and quality ingredients, is available at a price of 0.60 euro per serving. In this way, Les Incrépides respond to one of the four priorities of the National Food Program set out in the Law of the Future for Agriculture, Food and Forestry of October 13, 2014: social justice, i.e. supporting sensitive groups and people in such precarious circumstances, improving food supply in quantity, quality and accessibility. Similarly, Les Incrépides provide an answer to two of the issues raised by the National Nutrition and Health Plan: contributing to the reduction of obesity and overweight, but also nutritional diseases such as undernutrition. Low in fat, while providing an alternative to overexploited animal proteins, Kokinéo is part of the protein transition and does not contribute to obesity. It allows eaters to obtain good quality protein and consume the nutrients necessary for a meal. In addition, Les Incrépides help to prevent and reduce food waste and reduce waste. Like any frozen product, Kokinéo reduces food waste by 47% compared to fresh products for the end consumer. Due to its long shelf life, it prevents consumers from letting their food perish and allows only the right amount to be taken out. In addition, the entire shelling process does not create waste as the shells are recycled in other sectors (soil improvement, drainage paving stones for roads and animal feed). Kokinéo’s cardboard packaging is fully recyclable and is printed with recyclable ink. Finally, in a context where tensions on marine resources are increasing, the crepidula could occasionally replace fish in cooked dishes and thus contribute to reducing overfishing, which threatens certain fish species such as cod or the Alaskan quail. In May 2013, the European Parliament concluded an agreement aimed at establishing a more responsible fisheries policy, in particular by requiring Member States to set sustainable fishing quotas and banning discards. Functional characteristics of Kokinéo Kokinéo, “a cooked dish preserved by cold”, offers people in need, a unique opportunity to indulge themselves at an affordable price, while eating an accessible, balanced dish that rebalances ecosystems. Doing better with less is the challenge that the Incrépides have sought to meet: to offer a quality, healthy and natural product (without preservatives, colorants or added salt) for a low price, while being close to its consumer. As the outer layer of the product, breadcrumbs are the first


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

point of appreciation for the consumer. It is not only crispy to allow the eater to have several textures in the mouth, but also golden to make it palatable. In addition, it is not fried in order to have a healthier and lower fat product. No additional fat is required when reheating in the pan. Finally, the breadcrumbs are made up of 50% crushed corn petals and 50% grated Emmental cheese. Corn petals provide a crispy, golden brown breadcrumb. The acceptability of the product was tested with consumers through a concept test and a sensory analysis, including a hedonic test. The latter was carried out to evaluate the visual and gustatory assessments of the pallet. These assessments are similar regardless of the initial assessment of seafood. Maximizing the presence of crepidula in the recipe also addresses a nutritional issue. The product is low in calories (only 34.48 kcal/100 g) and contains 5.9% protein. In the end, the energy value for 100 g of Kokinéo is 159 kcal. The product contains for 100 g, 5.64 g of fat (including 4.12 saturated fatty acids), 21.15 g of carbohydrates (including 1.62 g sugars), 6.99 g of protein and 0.66 g of salt. The specific methods and tools used to integrate sustainability into the project Different issues are nowadays a source of concern: the environmental threat following the overexploitation of natural resources, the risk of a shortage of animal protein, the accessibility for all to a balanced, healthy and inexpensive diet, the increase in obesity rates, especially among populations in a precarious state, etc. How then can we manage to feed all populations in an intelligent way in 25 years’ time, while respecting the environment? The crepidula disrupts the marine ecosystem due to the spatial and food competition it exerts on other shellfish and certain fish species. The aim of Kokinéo is then to enhance the value of the crepidula, a little known protein resource of marine origin and, on the other hand, to participate in the protein transition since its use constitutes an alternative to fish consumption, ultimately reducing the threats associated with overfishing. Kokinéo has entered into a partnership with ALD of Cancale, a company that fishes for crepidula, for the extraction of the flesh from the crepidula. During the process, the shell removal method, patented by ALD, does not use fossil fuels. The other raw materials used for the three recipes were selected according to the suppliers’ environmentally friendly practices. Particular attention has also been paid to the development of by-products. This is the case for corn petals that are partially downgraded by the supplier because they are broken.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


In terms of production, CSR actions are aimed at obtaining the ISO 26000 standard. Thus, the raw materials come from suppliers with environmentallyfriendly practices. In addition, all of the company’s waste is sorted and recycled as much as possible. Organic waste is transformed into compost, although the manufacturing process generates little. Each common industrial waste is disposed of in a bin separately from the recyclable waste, which is sorted and recycled. Egg and flour waste used for breading is recycled into animal feed. Finally, during depalletizing, the overwrapping cartons are sorted and recycled. With regard to water management, cooking water, rich in starch, is also recycled and used for agricultural spreading. Noise pollution is also studied to ensure that it does not exceed regulatory limits. Operational and service practices A gourmet product, Kokinéo combines nutrition, naturalness and social commitment. Les Incrépides decided to implement a volume strategy and distribute Kokinéo in supermarkets and hypermarkets and to target as a priority those who want to buy products at low prices while being of high quality and balanced.

Figure 3.11. Diversification of the Kokinéo concept (source: student project)

However, the fish source is an unknown raw material. To facilitate its acceptance, various reassuring and fun elements have been developed: packaging (bucket), name (Kokinéo) and mascot (fisherman in waterproof clothes and yellow boots). The name Kokinéo associates, for example, “shell” and “neo” (new in Greek) and refers to the “naughty shell” that is the crepidula. Finally, the attractive, sought-after and playful packaging does not look like a poor quality and impersonal product. It therefore does not classify its buyer as “a low-budget person” but as a full-fledged consumer. It is in break with those already on the shelf to stand out and facilitate the act of purchase. The main raw material comes from the sea and the packaging looks like a (beach) bucket with a handle drawn on the side. The whole of the imagination revolves around the sea, the beach,


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

all in bright colors. Each recipe has its own color band: green for the Breton recipe, orange for the Indian and red for the Provençal. In addition, information about the crepidula is present in the form of “crépi-quoi?” written in a bubble. It forms a playful, fun, relatively young whole, but above all simple and refined in order to attract the eye of the consumer without however evoking a top-of-the-range product A sea “palet”, Kokinéo is a missing link in the chain, it offers an added value to the flesh of the crepidula. This new source of quality protein is an alternative to meat protein and is part of the protein transition. The choice of several small shells, rather than a large one also has the double advantage of reducing the heating time and increasing the proportion of breadcrumbs in relation to the stuffing, thus accentuating the gourmet aspect. Available in the frozen food section, Kokinéo has a long shelf-life (12 months), which is favorable to exports and to reducing food waste by consumers. It is available in a family size of 800 g containing four servings, or 16, of the same recipe. It is in the consumer’s mind as a product available at a completely acceptable price, combining nutritional balance and delicacy. It thus conveys strong societal and individual values. Containing no preservatives or additives, its naturalness can be enhanced. In terms of communication, local marketing has been set up: direct tastings in supermarkets (for consumers) or participation in trade fairs such as SIAL or SIRHA (for professionals). In addition, communication is mainly based on the website and social networks (Facebook, Twitter). It publishes information about products, suggestions for the presentation of Kokinéo (as a starter, as an aperitif, in a salad, accompanied by a sauce, etc.), but also information on the sea snail and implicitly on sustainable development. The plan is to have a discussion page with consumers to receive their opinions and complaints. Photo courses will be organized, for example, on the theme of the funniest use of packaging, with prizes for the winners such as mugs, t-shirts or bags printed with the Les Incrépides logo. A page will propose ideas for games and DIY using the pack, the bucket. Eventually, original videos will be published presenting the product in different cities. To encourage consumers to visit the site, their address and social network logos are printed on the packaging. At the same time, messages announce games, gifts to be won, etc. The main goal is to interact with the consumer in order to make them participate in the promotion of the product (photo contest, games, etc.) and to make them adopt the world around them.

Dynamic capabilities Issue detected Invasive but recoverable shelling Nutritional and economic accessibility for all consumers Objective Outlets for eco-responsible crepidula Sustainable business model Social (for low-income population), environmental Undernutrition of (protection of the marine disadvantaged populations environment) and economic (new jobs in the Breton Valuable but invasive region) value shelling of the marine environment

External factors that have driven innovation Popularity Positioned Products (PPPs) or high-quality nutritious products that are affordable to low-income Sustainable business model populations Ecological value National laws and WHO Model built for a product recommendations with nutritional value, a low price, with a raw Protein transition material from local suppliers Reduction of food waste

Why: contribution to the different aspects of SD: economic (fisheries sector), ecological (invasive species control) and human and social (health for the poorest)

How much: three-year forecast financial analysis

How (evaluation tools and methods): - marketing and strategic analysis (SWOT); - concept acceptability test, sensory analysis, experimental plans; - nutritional analysis, regulatory and financial study.

Who: all families

What: a healthy, gourmet, balanced frozen dish at a low price

Nutritional, socio-economic and environmental values

Building blocks of the business model (decision support and ecodesign system)

Value: environmental and nutritional

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects 187

Sustainable operational practices

End of life: recyclable cardboard, packaging (bucket) raising consumer awareness of eco-responsibility

Distribution: supermarkets and hypermarkets

Local suppliers (Brittany)

Packaging: recyclable packaging and biodegradable ink

Shells upgraded in soil improvement, road draining paving stones and animal feed

Egg and flour waste used for breading is recycled in animal feed

Optimized processes

Table 3.12. Summary of the Kokinéo business model of the Incrépides

Internal factors that have facilitated innovation Competence of the partner company in the extraction of the flesh from the crepidula

Ecodesign level ecoinnovation

Simple process

188 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


3.5.10. So Sea’S: a vegetarian sausage available in snack form20 Vision of the concept To propose an alternative offer to the hot dog, with nutritional qualities, to meet the expectations of a young target group (15–35 years old), in a nomadic spirit, while easily integrating into a balanced diet. Product functions The So Sea’S concept was developed by students at ESIX Caen in 2016 around a food innovation: a vegetarian sausage made from seaweed presented in a hot dog, offered to a young urban population concerned about its nutrition and ready for innovation at a reasonable price. Value of the product So Sea’S sausage, made without meat, is nutritionally interesting, especially in terms of its protein (18%), mineral and low fat content. Mission To offer a young population, in a snack form, an original product with a strong and balanced taste, distributed via an ecological mode of transport, a scooter (Figure 3.12).

Figure 3.12. Delivery tricycle (source: student project)

20 Authors: Martine Sarrette and Noémie Gerbault (ESIX Normandie). Students: Corentin Bodin, Omar Boufares, Simon Hainaut and Jonas Menet (ESIX Normandie).


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

The proposal of an alternative to traditional snack products The project team wanted to make a concrete proposal to the question: how can algae be promoted among a young target group (15–35 years old)? It is not easy to eat with pleasure in a snack form while consuming nutritionally balanced products. The project sought to meet the following objectives: to offer a product with a certain nutritional quality; to go further than just the product proposal and design the distribution method scenario; to address a young population, vegetarian or not, without forgetting the pleasure and nomadic side of the snack and to be attentive to the selling price of the product, so that it is accessible to the greatest number. – To offer a product with a certain nutritional quality: the knack sausage based on seaweed rich in proteins, minerals and vitamins is interesting in terms of its composition in fatty acids and essential amino acids. It is manufactured without additives or preservatives and is vacuum-packed. Offered in a hot dog, it offers the consumer a sandwich that is nutritionally interesting. – Going further than the proposal of the product alone, we also conceive the scenario of the distribution method: the showcase of this concept, the AlgoVélo (Figure 3.13), is a scooter that promotes algae through nomadic distribution. To this end, the project group has developed a method of distributing complete meals that combines nomadism, ecology and pleasure at a moderate price.

Figure 3.13. L’AlgoVélo (source: student project)

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


This disruptive distribution method combines the mobility of a food truck, the fun of cycling and the delights of a fast food restaurant. The AlgoVélo is both the point of sale of the Hot Sea’S and its communication tool. Geolocated using an application, the scooter is connected with its consumers. This mode of distribution in the spirit of the times is also ecological, nomadic and economical. Each scooter is identifiable by its graphic charter defined by So Sea’S. Sellers also have a unique dress code that matches the theme of the products on offer: a sailor’s hat and a black apron with the embroidered logo, allowing customers to directly identify the AlgoVélos. – The aim is not to address a purely young vegetarian population but the largest number of people: this project is aimed at a young and urban working class. – Not to mention the pleasure of snacking: the complete hot dog recipe was developed with the advice of a chef interested in street-food and this concept. This sausage is highlighted in a hot dog called the Hot Sea’S (see Figure 3.14). This sandwich is made with an original hot dog bread, an assortment of vegetables, toppings, as well as one or two sauces of choice.

Figure 3.14. The Hot Sea’S (source: student project)

The breads used for Hot Sea’S are special buns suitable for sandwiches. These traditional hot dog buns are available in three recipes (plain, cereal and wakam), leaving the consumer to personalize to their taste. They are topped with So Sea’S and vegetables that bring crunch and color to the sandwich. The choice of vegetables is left to the consumer, according to his/her taste (julienne carrots, julienne red cabbage and pickles). Each Hot Sea’S also contains two fillings: caramelized red


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

onion “relish” and fried onions. Consumers also choose their sauce: sweet and sour mustard or a less spicy white sauce. This sandwich is served to passers-by in a kraft food tray with a napkin identified with the So Sea’S logo. In the end, the objective is to seduce consumers with original and balanced associations. – It is important to pay attention to the sale price of the product so that it is accessible to all budgets: young people are sensitive to eco-behavior but do not always have the financial means to fulfill their desires. The social dimension of this project is essential: sustainable development is based on social values and in particular contributes to reducing social inequalities. That is why it was decided not to leave the less privileged behind and not to target the only part of the young population that would have access to a balanced and tasty hot dog. The final price should therefore be suitable for as many people as possible: all AlgoVélos will offer their hot dogs at the single price of 5 euros, all taxes included. Factors that have stimulated So Sea’S innovation External factors Food consumption patterns are changing. The consumption of meals away from home, nomadic, is on the rise and opens up new perspectives, both in the variety of meals that can be offered and in the logistical means of making them available. So Sea’S responds to these two points by offering a balanced meal with a meatless sausage made from seaweed and new flavors and by distributing this meal with a simple mode of transport, adapted to metropolitan areas, environmentally friendly and autonomous. The market study shows that seaweed-based sausages do not exist in France; the only sausages distributed in a snack form are meat-based and offer few varieties. Few companies are in this sector and innovation is rare. In addition, young consumers want to enjoy themselves, to consume in a street-food mode and many want to combine pleasure, healthy food and reasonable cost. The team thus proposes a turnkey concept of selling hot dogs on a food-biking basis. After a full-scale trial over a period of one year, the development of a franchise is considered. This franchise model would have the following advantages: – a small personal contribution that can be financed with a microcredit; – easy management (few stocks, few ingredients, a distribution tool that is inexpensive to maintain);

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


– a solo professional activity likely to interest a large audience wishing to combine personal and sustainable development. Internal factors – Human factors: from the beginning of the adventure, the members of the project group were very attached to their concept and did not change their initial vision despite the advice given by experts to develop a product intended for consumers who would have greater purchasing power. On the other hand, the group leader was able to be both very attentive to his co-workers and directive when necessary. The strength of the group was a key factor in the success of the project. – Technical factors: the production of algae does not require the use of inputs (pesticides, fertilizers, drinking water). Their cultivation does not compete with arable land. On the other hand, this project contributes to the development of French algoculture. Sausages and other ingredients are delivered to AlgoVélos in minimum packaging (plastic films), designed solely to ensure their safety and integrity during delivery. Finally, the scooter distribution mode contributes to the ecoinnovation of the project: a nomadic, economic, ecological and recreational mode, completely adapted to traffic in the heart of metropolitan areas. Ecodesign practices, sustainable choices from content to container The project was conceived in an ecodesign approach, from the choice of raw materials for the manufacture of sausages to the Hot Sea’S hot dog offered to the consumer by means of an eco-responsible scooter distribution: – content sustainability: So Sea’S aims to promote algae to a young target group while favoring local supplies. The manufacture of the sausage does not generate waste as such; only the cellulosic casings are removed once the sausage is cooked; – container durability: the container was chosen for fully recyclable packaging that generates small volumes of waste. The hot dog is served in a kraft tray with a paper towel; – the process: it uses traditional unit operations of mixing and cooking (devices chosen for their low level of energy consumption). Moreover, it does not generate any waste except for cellulosic casings once the sausage is cooked and peeled. More than an innovative food product, we have here a turnkey concept that is easy to design, economically viable and attractive in its human and playful approach.

Dynamic capabilities Issue detected Nomadic consumption of young people based on meat products Objective An alternative to a hot dog with a seaweed sausage Sustainable business model Model based on the behavioral strategy of sustainable development

External factors that have driven innovation Absence of seaweed sandwiches on the market Need for an ecological distribution method for products of sustainable value Sustainable business model Societal value Model translating the behavioral strategy of sustainable development into an eco-responsible food innovation for young vegetarians

Why: improve the nutritional situation of young people and the carbon footprint through distribution by tricycle

How much: a small personal contribution that can be financed by microcredit

How (evaluation tools and methods): by using social networks to develop customer relations and geolocate the point of sale

Who: young consumers aged 15–35 years

What: a sandwich made from seaweed and vegetables

Societal value: it responds to health and environmental issues related to food

Building blocks of the business model (decision support and ecodesign system)

Value: health, economic, territorial

194 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Sustainable operational practices

Ecodesign level ecoinnovation

End of life: recyclable and biodegradable packaging

Distribution: use of a scooter equipped with autonomous batteries for cold and hot storage of foodstuffs

Processing: few raw materials, easy to prepare

Purchasing: simple raw materials and stimulation of the algae market in France

Market: young urban population attracted by street food at a moderate price (5 euros per sandwich)

Product: vegetable raw materials with an algae base

Processes: a cutlery bowl and heating tank with recovery of heating and cooling fluids

Table 3.13. Summary of So Sea’S business model

Internal factors that have facilitated innovation Project leaders with the same profile as the target group and a unanimous vision An algae-based product that does not require any inputs A distribution method that minimizes packaging

Process: manufacture of simple sausages – hot dog type

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects 195


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

3.5.11. Ici&Là: a vegetable burger made from lentils and other vegetables21 The Ici&Là company was born from the eponymous student project, led by 9 ISARA students. The group of students developed a range of lentil steaks, sold in the supermarket’s frozen section. Winners of the ÉcoTrophélia France and Europe competitions in 2013, two of the students, Emmanuel Bréhier and Benoît Plisson, wanted to continue the project. Accompanied by ISARA’s Foodshaker incubator, the two partners created their company in 2014. Since then, the company has won other awards, including the Concours mondial d’innovation 2014 and the Grand prix d’or SIAL Innovation 2016. This has enabled it to make itself known and to obtain the necessary funding for its development. The mission of Ici&Là and its Hari&Co brand is to “put vegetables at the heart of the plate for all those who seek to give meaning to their food while enjoying eating”. Ever since the student project, the range of products has been expanded: more shapes (steaks, meatballs and nuggets) and more vegetables (green lentils, chickpeas, flageolet beans and red beans). Hari&Co products are 100% vegetable, organic and produced in France with legumes grown in France. Today, the company has a dozen employees. In 2017, Ici&Là served 750,000 meals in collective and commercial catering, and the Hari&Co brand is present in 600 organic specialty stores. Distribution in supermarkets was planned for 201822. Starting point The student project, developed in 2012, was born from the observation of the growing interest among the French for plant products and for the origin of the products (local production, made in France). These findings are based on bibliographic monitoring (e.g. the XTC and TNS Sofres studies) and on meetings with department heads of specialized stores. To develop their project, the students relied on ISARA’s teacher-consultants and the Michelin-starred chef François Gagnaire, who provided food for thought around the project. Thus, even though the trend is towards a decrease in meat consumption in favor of vegetable proteins, the current supply of vegetable proteins (e.g. soya steak) remains disconnected from the French food culture insofar as they are not used to eating soya products, as is the case in South America. Today, the market for alternatives to meat has also developed strongly, particularly for core plate products. The offer of vegetarian or vegan products has increased significantly. 21 Authors: Camille Ponchon, Emmanuel Brehier, Benoît Plisson and Jérôme Zlatoff. Students: Kenza Bennis, Marianne Bordes, Emmanuel Brehier, Mélanie Caboux, Jordan Collion, Floriance Dubini, Anaïs Flassayer, Benoit Plisson and Angélique Rusch. 22 Interested readers can consult their website:

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


Aim The challenge was therefore to design a solution that would offer an alternative to meat that was compatible with the French food culture. There was no question of offering soya or insect products or fake meat. Offering a food made from raw materials known to the consumer seemed easier to market. The solution was therefore to develop vegetable steaks made with legumes, the majority of French people regularly consuming whole legumes (lentils, chickpeas, white beans, etc.). The legume crop meets a triple challenge: – a health issue: legumes have nutritional assets thanks to their high protein and iron content. The combination of legumes and cereals makes it possible to rebalance the intake of lysine and methionine, two essential amino acids; – an environmental issue: the cultivation of legumes is beneficial for the soil, as it saves water and improves soil fertility by releasing some of the fixed nitrogen. By implementing a crop rotation that includes legumes, farmers avoid the use of synthetic fertilizers; – a cultural issue: legume steak is a practical solution for eating pulses, which usually take a long time to prepare. Solution Today, consumers are more careful about what they eat, both from an environmental and health point of view. Ici&Là is a way of meeting expectations by offering an alternative to healthy and tasty meat. Legumes have been processed in new ways, in the form of steaks, pellets or nuggets. These new, practical shapes (frozen products to be reheated in a pan, oven or deep fryer) make it possible to reintroduce legumes on a daily basis. The legumes are visible in the product. The product does not break with the usual diet (unlike soy steak, tofu or denatured cereals) and may appeal to a wide audience. A particular effort was made on the taste as the product did not have to imitate meat. For the manufacture of the products, the difficulty lies in the machines: as the vegetable matrix is not similar to the animal matrix, the meat processing process could not be applied as it is and required the assembly of several known technologies used in different sectors. Thus, it was necessary to acquire expertise to develop the products (the vegetable matrix of Hari&Co products is not just a lentil salad) and to master the associated texture issues.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

The first commitment of Hari&Co products to sustainable development is to encourage the French to consume less meat. Its products are manufactured in France, in the Drôme provençale, in the workshop of an industrialist, who had not been used much until then. The production line is composed of new machines, which consume little energy. They are developed under a clean label, without additives, organic and manufactured from French raw materials with little processing. Ici&Là’s second strong commitment is in its approach towards pulse growers. A position is dedicated to the sourcing of raw materials and relations with the agricultural sector. Within three production basins, Ici&Là works proactively with farmers, committing to purchasing volumes of legumes over several years. Farmers can thus project their crops over three years in organic farming. The idea of working with farmers was present from the beginning of the project, but could only be implemented in 2017, when the volumes were sufficient to commit. Hari&Co products are designed for anyone who wants to reduce their meat consumption, while ensuring an adequate protein intake. They are said to be sorted on the one hand, in collective catering (school restaurants, company restaurants, university restaurants) and in commercial catering (burger chain) and on the other hand, shops specializing in organic products (particularly in Biocoop, La Vie Claire or L’Eau Vive) throughout France. Distribution in supermarkets is scheduled for 2018. The products are sold around 5 euros per 240 g, which is a little more than the psychological price defined. Ici&Là are products of their legacy. Its products have been the subject of a real work of the material, recipe without additives. They are not textured like other legume steaks. Finally, the strength of Ici&Là is its size: as a small structure, it has the means to embody what it claims, as a new market entrant. Testing of the proposal A test contract in catering was carried out over a period of three to four months. This test made it possible to rework the recipes, and validate the taste with consumers and the preparation of the product by the chefs. There was no test market for distribution in specialized stores. Distribution at Biocoop started directly with large volumes. The value of the solution envisaged had been previously tested in focus group.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


Sensory analyses were carried out internally. Nutritional values were calculated by software and then analyzed by an external laboratory when new products were launched. The founder of a company specializing in lifecycle analysis and ecodesign was consulted. The qualitative, simplified method (ESQCV223) of a lifecycle analysis has been adopted and conducted. The essential know-how (technological, logistical, market knowledge, ingredient control, regulation, etc.) has been internalized within the company: R&D, market knowledge, industrialization, regulation and communication. The decisions The company Ici&Là creates value by selling its products in collective and commercial catering and in specialized organic stores. For out-of-home catering, Ici&Là advises chefs on the use of its products and organizes events during the services (sending legume material to adults or children). In particular, activities are carried out in school restaurants to promote legumes and teach children about vegetable proteins (a communication kit for children has even been developed). In order to develop the distribution network throughout France, three business-developers were recruited (based in Bordeaux, Paris and Nantes). In organic stores, Ici&Là offers tastings to customers. Finally, an employee is dedicated to the legume sector. Sustainable development was taken into account from the beginning of the project, by the desire to encourage a reduction in meat consumption, by promoting legumes and local production. What’s to come? Other products are under development. They will still be made from legumes, but will cover meals differently.

23 Available at: 2010.pdf.

Dynamic capabilities External factors that Issue detected have driven innovation Alternative to meat Need not covered by consumption other offers Objective Growing interest of the A vegetable steak French in plant products made with lentils and their origin Sustainable business Nutritional and model environmental issues of Culturally acceptable lentils (high protein and value (lentils and other iron content, water French legumes), saving, soil fertility) nutritional and Collaboration with the protecting natural Michelin-starred chef resources and the François Gagnaire environment Sustainable business model Ecological value Model to build a new ecological production chain for steaks made from lentils, other legumes and cereals

Value: environmental and nutritional

Why: - health issue: the richness of legumes in protein and iron; - nutritional challenge: the combination of legumes and cereals makes it possible to rebalance the intake of lysine and methionine (essential amino acids); - environmental issue: the cultivation of legumes is beneficial for the soil, water-saving, improves soil fertility by releasing part of the fixed nitrogen.

Price: 5 euros for 240 g

How (evaluation tools and methods): - market analysis (XTC studies, TNS Sofres) (trends-needs); - meetings with department managers; - market analysis: benchmark of specialized stores and prices; - sensory and nutritional analyses.

Who: all consumers

What: heart of a vegetable meal (protein and iron intake). Two ranges based on legumes: organic, conventional

Societal value and creation of a new socio-economic and environmental sector

Building blocks of the business model (decision support and ecodesign system)

200 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Sustainable operational practices

Ecodesign level ecoinnovation

End of life: recyclable cardboard, communication kit for children

Distribution: collective catering (school canteens, company restaurants, university restaurants, organic specialty stores)

Transformation: blades of ecodesigned machines. Clean Label, minimalist ingredients

Packaging: optimized carton and tray shapes

100% vegetable

Organic and conventional raw material to satisfy all consumer profiles

French suppliers

Table 3.14. Summary of Ici&Là’s business model

Internal factors that have facilitated innovation Multidisciplinary team Completeness of skills between partners Experience of one of the partners Incubator expertise and advice

Processes: use of machines already in place in the subcontracting plant, energy-efficient machines

Simple processes

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects 201


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

3.6. Analysis of ÉcoTrophélia projects 3.6.1. Food ecodesign: an innovative design process that goes beyond new products A cross-case analysis of the illustrated ecodesigned projects shows that sustainable food innovation goes far beyond the creation of new products. Rather, it is about reinventing the processes that shape an occupation, creating new segments and/or markets by responding to untapped customer demand and combining expertise and knowledge from several fields – sometimes operating outside the food industries. All ÉcoTrophélia projects show that the creation of sustainable food value requires the construction of distinctive dynamic capacities, capable of implementing business models elaborated within a circular economy framework. These models integrate the principles of circularity into all blocks at different levels of a food’s lifecycle, from the agricultural plot to consumer use behavior to the end of its life. Based on the guidelines of the Ideonis toolbox (see Figure 3.2) – from the detection, grasping and development of an opportunity to the protection of its intellectual property, the invention and the implementation and improvement of the business model dedicated to it – the project teams have learned to build, each in its own way and according to its own means, these dynamic capacities to change the rules of the competitive game of environmentally responsible innovation to be proposed. The analysis of the projects shows that these capacities can be harnessed to meet the various sustainable development objectives: create a new socio-economic, environmental and nutritional chain (Ici&Là), protect and conserve a production system with heritage-value significance (Prêt Par Moi), develop a territorial economy (Devatâ), improve the value, function and impact of an existing solution (Mixi’Mousse, So Sea’S), protect marine resources through tasty innovations (Kokinéo), fight against food waste (PannIno, the Lardons de la mer), offer functional foods for seniors (VitaPlus) or transform food behavior through nutrition (Vertu, Minigloo). Through these promises, each project represents a history, a vision, passions, and a mission, but above all a synthesis of knowledge and relationships encoded in a new product that respects the environment, the social factors that have contributed to its development, while considering the nutritional contributions necessary for the population it targets.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


The study of the practices expanded in ÉcoTrophélia projects reveals two sets of criteria that make up the value propositions and eco-innovative business models: the innovation technical criteria and the group’s creative capacities. – The technical criteria focus on the technical ability of the group members to take over the technical functions of innovation project. This ability required operational management skills such as data collection, raw material selection and control, as well as sensory or nutritional evaluation of the proposal and assessment of the environmental impact of certain processes, etc. – The creative capacities of each group represent the art and manner in which they respond to the risks and opportunities of a given context. This is the group’s ability to change the value of the food through the process of acquiring knowledge that it has been able to apply throughout the design process. This evolution is visible either in the recovery of certain forgotten agricultural or marine raw materials or in the evolution of processing and distribution processes. The use of these two capabilities has allowed each team to project itself into the economic, cultural and commercial viability of innovation through a set of steps of design, evaluation and implementation of relevant value. In all ÉcoTrophélia projects, this value is based on an observation phase, capturing the detected issue, designing the solution and its relevance (salience) and defining its attraction criteria (distinctive factors). These factors answer the questions, why, for who and how – the value of the food has been developed. They thus provide information on the relevance of the interpretation. To ensure its durability (endurance), the relevance of the value has been tested on two levels: – internal, through a systemic evaluation of the project (its processes, procedures and relevant stakeholders to achieve the set objectives); – external, by assessing the acceptability of the product on the market (predisposition of target customers to pay its price and accept its organoleptic, nutritional, cultural quality, etc.). In the appendices, there are analyses of the ÉcoTrophélia projects detailed according to these stages and according to the four axes of segmentation proposed at the beginning of the chapter: health through food (Table A.1), the added value of byproducts and the fight against waste (Table A.2), the consideration of populations in precarious situations (Table A.3) and protein transition (Table A.4). In the subsequent section, we analyze the practices that these two capacities – technical and creative – include in ÉcoTrophélia projects. These sections come back to practices of detecting, capturing or creating an opportunity (3.6.2), selecting the


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

structure of the business model and of the product (3.6.3), determining the frontier of innovation (its perimeter and stakeholders) (3.6.4) and learning and arbitration mechanisms for ecodesign practices to be integrated into the business model to create sustainable value (3.6.5). 3.6.2. Detection of opportunities At the start of projects, teams explore a finding, observation, trend or imbalance (nutritional, socio-agricultural, environmental, health, etc.) identified in their environment. This starting point becomes an opportunity when new concepts emerge and allow them to build a new value to propose. To achieve this, students researched and analyzed data, studied the constraints on agricultural or industrial practices, explored technologies and markets, surveyed latent and anticipated needs and demands, even the responses and limitations of suppliers and the strengths and weaknesses of their potential competitors, and within the interactions between all these dimensions, they succeeded in generating new forms of solutions. All the projects show that the detection of opportunities was pursued according to two distinct approaches: – by seeking an opportunity that can be adapted to an existing operational system: the solutions have been integrated, by transforming them, into pre-existing business models (e.g. Mixi’Mousse, Prêt Par Moi, Minigloo). In these cases, three levers of innovation have been identified: - the targeted segment: some projects have carried out an analysis of an attractive segment to apply their innovation. To protect against multiple risks related to a similar existing offer, an analysis of Porter’s five competitive forces (Porter 1979) was used as a decision-making tool (PannIno, Prêt Par Moi); - raw material suppliers: whether driven by a direct or indirect request from suppliers, the process of recovering a by-product or raw material has been supported by the origin of the raw material (Cambodian lemongrass for Devatâ; Velay lentils for Ici&Là; bread crust for PannIno) and/or by the industrial system in place (the production line of the dairy for Prêt Par Moi); - consumers: in some projects, the implicit or explicit needs of consumers have shaped the value of the solution created (dysphagic hospitalized people for Mixi’Mousse, and eating behavior of parents of young children for Minigloo). The commercial success of these “user-driven innovations” depends largely on the designers’ understanding of the usage needs of the target customers;

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


– by analyzing the constraints of the food ecosystem (natural, agricultural, marine resources, regulations, nutritional recommendations, pollution, etc.): this approach has facilitated the detection of opportunities that are capable of reconfiguring the competitive environment in order to make it receptive to the value of the product to be offered (Kokinéo, Vertu, Ici&Là). The projects developed in this context have focused on the infrastructure supporting innovation, capable of having major – because distinctive – impacts on competition: a protected marine ecosystem and a population with limited purchasing power targeted for Kokinéo; a pharmacy sale for Vertu; lenses fixing nitrogen in the ground, with low water needs and contributing to the socio-economic development of the brotherhood of lenses for Ici&Là. 3.6.3. Selection of the business model and product architecture The second capacity concerns the consideration of the principles of circular economy in the construction of the business model. As generators of the sustainable properties of the proposed value, these principles have articulated the value chains of the proposed innovations through ecodesign practices. In all projects, the ecodesign practices and technical performance criteria applied to each product have made it possible to define the effort and the way in which each team (future company) creates value for its customers, encourages them to pay for this value and converts these efforts into profits. The choices adopted in each project reflect the assumptions made about what customers want (or how best a company can meet those needs) and the responses made by the project team to contribute to sustainable development objectives. The cases and business models of the projects summarized at the end of each story show that the relevance of the solutions devised was considered by aligning the sustainable development strategy chosen as a framework for enhancing innovation (nutritional, environmental, social, economic) with the various building blocks of the defined business model. These blocks discover the functionalities that have been integrated into the product/solution, the design of the revenue and cost structures to meet the needs of customers and the team (company), how certain resources have been assembled or substituted to achieve the targeted value, the identity of the targeted market segments and the structure of the proposed solution’s value chain. When24 the first hypotheses were formulated, they were evaluated and validated by tests to confirm, invalidate or improve the initial choices of the chosen solution.

24 For reasons of confidentiality, some teams only reported the selling price of each unit instead of the calculated cost/income structure.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

In parallel with the cuisine trials, the first steps in industrialization are currently being considered to clearly identify the constraints and technical and even technological challenges to be resolved. These can then be used as locks to protect their innovation. 3.6.4. Determination of the innovation frontier The business models defined in the projects have “theoretically” determined how each innovation can position itself in a given market by a particular value. The comparison of the model established with the various stakeholders composing the ecosystem imagined by the team made it possible to establish the credibility of the choices made by giving a real answer to the challenges: why, for who, how, with what sustainable value. The needs, knowledge or expertise of the stakeholders provided a complementary service to the ecodesign process envisaged by the teams. This knowledge has facilitated the implementation of the model developed or has increased the sustainability of the value of the product created. This combination of internal/external knowledge and skills has been mutually beneficial for projects and partner companies: – for projects where partnerships have been developed with companies, the integration of the partner’s skills has reduced the group’s “struggle” to produce or access target markets and customers. For example: - Minigloo was able to take advantage of its partner Yooji’s distribution network and customers, - Prêt Par Moi has aligned its production line with that of the dairy, - Kokinéo shared the know-how of its partner Cancale’s ALD in the extraction of the flesh of the Crepidula; – for partner companies, the “absorption” of the creativity and skills of students and their supervisors by the technological trajectory of the company accumulated over the years, has allowed them to get off the “beaten track” and reconfigure the existing activity system that slows down evolution and innovation: - Yooji bought the project and developed a new eco-responsible product, compatible with its mission and range. This absorption enabled it to consolidate the sustainable development approach of its activities,

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


- for Mixi’Mousse, since 2016, patients suffering from dysphagia in three Reunion Island hospitals have been benefiting from three recipes with exotic, healthy, “mixed and sparkling” flavors, ecodesigned and adapted to their problems. These partnerships, which consist of exploiting complementary assets – tangible or intangible – have created relationships of dependence between one party and the other. It is the joint use of the value created that has increased the “socially responsible” value in these projects and has made it possible to create a distinctive offer that is difficult to imitate. The combination of “co-specialized” assets in these projects also shows the crucial importance of adopting a systemic approach within an innovative and sustainable design framework. Indeed, ÉcoTrophélia projects articulate knowledge, practices and actors that converge their interests towards a common objective. In all the projects illustrated in this book, the frontier of innovation has been drawn above all by the choice of suppliers of the raw material. This choice has always focused on sustainability criteria (nutritional, socio-economic or environmental sustainability) respected in their practices: responsible fishing (Lardons de la mer, Kokinéo), milk from organic farming (Minigloo), lentils from the Puy de Velay brotherhood (Ici&Là), citronella from rural areas of Cambodia (Devatâ), ISO 14001 certification (PannIno) and a national or local supply (Vertu, So Sea’S, Prêt Par Moi). In a circular economy context, taking into account the capacities and practices of stakeholders in the construction of project business models has facilitated the tradeoff between ecodesign practices to be integrated into the blocks of the business model. 3.6.5. Learning and arbitration of ecodesign practices The learning and arbitration of ecodesign practices in projects are concretized in the prototyping and then the industrialization of innovation. This step required the identification and development of knowledge and know-how (technological, logistical, market knowledge, ingredient control, regulations, etc.) necessary and indispensable to design an offer with the desired attributes. The challenge at this level is a combination of creativity and intuition (ability to imagine or consider the appropriate solution), science (ability to mobilize relevant


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

knowledge) and analytical common sense (ability to align an issue, the strategy to address it, and the key means available) necessary to determine the ecodesign practices to be adopted in order to better meet the set sustainability objectives. These skills have been forged by mobilizing tools, analytical methods and management system standards that have facilitated learning about sustainable food development requirements on the one hand, and building circular business models on the other. In other words, they are models designed to create new industrial restorative and resource regenerating systems. Various additional tests have made it possible to assess the impact of the imagined response(s) on the environment (lifecycle analysis) as well as on nutritional and sensory levels. While some projects have been successful in increasing the value of their innovation through partnerships, others have encountered operational limitations in obtaining certain functions of the promise of innovation. For these teams, learning to generate new knowledge has become essential. For example, the Lardons de la mer’s production has required the development of genuine technological know-how to meet the technical challenge: ensuring the bonding of fresh fish pieces and the holding of bacon under the various processing conditions, cold or after cooking. The skills and knowledge acquired during the deployment of the ecoinnovation strategy, combined with knowledge from the external environment, have built the capacity to orchestrate ecodesign practices in all the building blocks of business models. Different aspects of projects contributing to the development of circular business models can be identified: – value creation through the use of by-products: some of the raw materials used in projects are waste from another system (company, process, procedures) and are recycled into a new ecological concept. This circularity has allowed the projects Lardons de la mer, PannIno, and Prêt Par Moi to sell the service they provide to the food ecosystem before the product itself; – product design and choice of materials used: durability has been integrated from the design phase. In particular, several projects have sought to produce a food that helps reduce waste during consumption (miniportions, bicompartmental packaging, recyclable, compostable or biodegradable materials); – the food production system (processes, procedures, partners): the control of extraction and manufacturing processes, the added value of by-products or by-products, the control of energy-intensive processes and procedures, emissions into the air, water or land and the choice of packaging are some examples of

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


practices integrating ecodesign adopted in projects from the development phase. They highlight the multiple sustainability criteria of the solution devised by the teams; – the structure of costs and revenues: some projects have built their business models on the objective of sharing the economic value of innovation with the various stakeholders: farmers, industrial partners or fishermen; – the relationship with consumers: the circular economy in the projects was considered as a means of encouraging consumers to change their behavior and food habits by integrating a more sustainable aspect. 3.6.6. Creating sustainable value The creation of sustainable value as a measure of performance evaluation (effectiveness and efficiency) of innovations is at the heart of the ÉcoTrophélia project management system. While the sustainable value of a product is measured by the importance of the ecological transformations that it induces in a system or process of the food chain, these transformations are manifested in multi-level projects to address different aspects of food sustainability: – in terms of nutrition and health, the nutritional composition of an ice cream (Minigloo), an urban or eco-urban vegetarian sandwich (So Sea’S), a nutritional dish for seniors (VitaPlus) or a tasty and exotic hospital meal (Mixi’Mousse) facilitates the substitution of these innovations for products previously considered non-nutritional, often based on meat or fades; – at the socio-economic level, the efficiency of the socio-economic value of the productive systems proposed by Ici&Là, Devatâ, Kokinéo or Vertu has enabled the creation of new economically viable sectors that respect social factors and the environment; – at the environmental level, by using waste or by-products as raw materials for their innovations, some projects have contributed to reducing the environmental impact of another industrial system, such as the noble fish sector (Lardons de la mer), the bakery industry (PannIno) or the cheese industry (Prêt Par Moi). All these values boost a circularity in the business models built and make it possible to renew the ruptures that the principles of production, marketing and consumption of the agro-industrial system have caused.

Contribution to interconnected objectives of sustainable development

Optimized Processes/Procedures

Eco-responsible management system

SDG 9: industry, innovation and infrastructure Use of food ecodesign to “ensure a realistic inventory, identify areas for improving environmental impact and empower different stakeholders” SDG 7: clean and affordable energy “Use energy-efficient technologies and processes” SDG 6: sustainable water management “Avoid wasting usable water”

Use of energy-efficient machines and processes, manufacturing tank (Minigloo), renewable energy extraction (Kokinéo), vacuum concentrated fruit (Vertu). Reuse of fruit cleaning water (Prêt Par Moi).

Origin of the raw material

Formalized management system according to voluntary standards: environmental (ISO 14001): continuous improvement of risks and impacts of processes (PannIno) and socially responsible (ISO 26000) (Kokinéo).

SDG 14: conserve and sustainably exploit marine resources “Improving food diversity through respect for the marine environment”

Transformation of an invasive shell in marine environments (Kokinéo).

Organizational modes of the company

SDG 2: eradicate hunger, ensure food security “Use of food against food waste”

Valuation of by-products and by-products: whey (Prêt Par Moi), bread crust (PannIno), fish waste (Lardons de la mer).

Use of lentils (fix nitrogen, consume little water, SDG 15: preserve and restore terrestrial ecosystems without synthetic fertilizer) as an alternative to “Creation of a new ecological sector, from farm to fork” meat (Ici&Là).

Integrated ecodesign practices to ÉcoTrophélia innovations

Agro-ecological practices

Agricultural and fishing production methods

Level of transformation

210 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Consumption patterns Raising awareness of responsible drinking behavior

- Short circuits - Responsible sales outlets - Form and material of the packaging

Distribution systems

Industrial partnerships

Level of transformation

Contribution to interconnected objectives of sustainable development SDG 17: partnerships to achieve eco-responsible objectives “Promote a context of cooperation, disseminate good practices and build a framework for cooperation between actors to carry out joint actions” SDG 11: sustainable cities and communities “Favor short circuits, local, seasonal and healthy products” “To enable all to live in good health and promote the well-being of all” SDG12: responsible production, distribution and consumption “Enhancing the end of life value of products through recycling” SDG 3: good health and well-being for all, at all ages “Improving food use among seniors” “Changing the eating behavior of young children” “Proposing nutritional alternatives to smoking”

Ecodesign practices integrated into ÉcoTrophélia innovations

Use of the production line and retail network of partners: Yooji (Minigloo), dairy (Prêt Par Moi), fish processing specialist (Lardons), ecological printing (FSC labeled pulp and vegetable ink) (Vertu).

Food distribution by bike (So Sea’S) or regional. Organic shops and school canteens (Ici&Là), websites. Collective catering: retirement home (VitaPlus), hospitalized persons (Mixi’Mousse).

Recyclable, biodegradable, compostable packaging. Biodegradable vegetable ink (Prêt Par Moi).

Nomadic, bicompartmentalized trays (VitaPlus). Creation of a mini nutritional ice cream for children (1–3 years old). Development of a “cigarette biscuit” with essential oils.

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects 211

Contribution to interconnected objectives of sustainable development “Avoid energy waste at consumption” Health through food “Combat standardized products with relevant foods”

Food good for natural and food biodiversity “Fighting for the ecosystem with new flavors”

Food for socio-economic development “Creating eco-responsible sectors: nutritional, social, environmental” Food innovation for green cities “Changing young consumers’ behavior through urban solutions”

Ecodesign practices integrated into ÉcoTrophélia innovations Fast cooking time.

Food for agriculture, farmers, fishermen, industrialists and consumers. Integration of active molecules as solutions to certain disorders in the elderly (VitaPlus).

Tasty combination of fish (salmon/sea bream and bonito/saithe) (Lardons de la mer). Valuation of forgotten resources: algae (So Sea’S), crepidula (Kokinéo).

Valuation of a sector in difficulty: Velay lentils (Ici&Là). Fairness of remuneration of farmers (Devatâ).

Infinite possibilities for simple preparation in the kitchen (Lardons de la mer). A seaweed sandwich distributed on bicycles.

Pleasure food

Socio-economic food

Eco-urban foods (practical, fair, healthy)

Table 3.15. Transforming food chain practices through ecodesign and contributing to SD goals

Proposed Food Value Healthy Nutritional Foods

Recipe preparation

Level of transformation

212 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


Table 3.4 illustrates how the way in which “thinking collectively about sustainable food development” in ÉcoTrophélia projects makes it possible to propose new modes of agricultural production, business organization, land use and development, distribution and consumption that renew these breakthroughs via ecodesign and ecoinnovation. The adoption of these new modes of production, processing, organization, distribution and consumption enables agri-food companies to contribute to sustainable development objectives. 3.7. Conclusion Ecodesign in the agri-food sector is a new stage in a continuous process of functional innovation that has been ongoing since the 1950s around the principles of food safety. From preserving food by controlling its sanitary, organoleptic and nutritional qualities to controlling the conditions under which products are designed, ecodesign practices revealed in this book constitute materials attempting to achieve the objectives of sustainable food development. The innovation cases we have chosen to illustrate ÉcoTrophélia’s projects show that the specificities of the food function and the impacts of the activities that contribute to its development make ecodesign a complex equation with several terms. Requiring not one but many solutions, these are considered in a systemic and multidimensional approach. The adoption of an ecodesign strategy has enabled the development and implementation by the project groups of dynamic capacities to: – identify – through the prism of sustainable development – an opportunity to create new value in the food sector, particularly in its industrial component; – mobilize the necessary resources (technological and human) to appropriate it for a given context or population; – forge partnerships (companies, universities, laboratories, chefs, etc.) that complement or increase the relevance of the value to be offered; – raise awareness of the environment (target population, culture, eating habits) to make it receptive to the value of the ecodesign innovation. These capacities support the ecodesign practices mobilized in the projects and which outline a new operating map for food, agro-industrial and alternative systems.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

They trace trajectories that these systems can follow to satisfy different aspects of agricultural and food security: – demographic: by seeking to satisfy a growing and increasingly urban population, with practical, simple, healthy and ecological products; – geographical: by taking into account practices that reduce the distance between rural and urban areas and strengthen the links between land and those who consume what its territories produce; – socio-economic: by developing business models based on a detailed analysis of the different dimensions of food security (products in quantity, quality, affordability and respect for the ecosystem in which they are produced and will be consumed). Taking these dimensions into account in ÉcoTrophélia projects allows the development of a five-step trajectory for developing ecodesigned food products: the identification of innovation opportunities and the value proposition, the undertaken solution, the relevance and distinctive value of the solution, the sustainability of the proposed solution and its endurance. These steps make visible the transformations required for an ecodesign strategy to be operational throughout the food chain. To facilitate the development and consumption of an ecodesigned food innovation, the systemic effort to contextualize the issue detected can be treated at five intertwined levels that form the environment of a food (rules, standards, space, conditioning of choices, way to access food, etc.): – governance: the consideration of regulatory requirements, of recommendations of international organizations, of the principles of voluntary standards, and of consumer behavior (trends, needs, expectations) in ecodesign projects, constitute all the external factors that govern the orientation of the new value; – entrepreneurial and managerial skills: the setting in a research and development situation of a relevant solution to an identified problem led the project team (professors and students) to mobilize various skills (according to the mission assigned to each person) to interpret the identified issue and to instrumentalize its appropriation by tools, methods, tests, analyses, etc. These processes are the internal factors that facilitate the understanding and relevance of the promise in question; – ecodesigned business model: this “model” of the value to be proposed is the fundamental basis of the dynamic capabilities that define the trajectory for combining skills, innovative technologies and needs with a cost structure to create distinctive, cost-effective and profitable value in economic, social and environmental terms. In ÉcoTrophélia projects, these models are designed and refined throughout the project in an evolutionary way. The objective is to base the business model of each project on a broad base of criteria that evolves and is enriched according to the needs/constraints that the team and innovation envisage;

Ecodesign of Food: The Cases of ÉcoTrophélia Projects


– ecodesign and ecoinnovation practices: at this stage, the teams put the defined objectives into action. They align the blocks of business models with the value sought by implementing appropriate ecodesign practices. The sources of supply of raw materials (organic farming or waste, waste from another process or system), manufacturing processes, packaging quality and format, distribution network and marketing of the product and its recycling are studied in a lifecycle approach; – consumption behavior: the marketing of ÉcoTrophélia projects fulfills two functions of a sustainable marketing strategy. The first concerns the practices put in place to establish lasting relationships of trust with consumers and other stakeholders. The main objective of the principles of management system standards such as ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 is to establish a system based on the continuous improvement of customer satisfaction. Taking into account the results of the lifecycle analysis and the guidelines of the ISO 26000 standard on corporate social responsibility helps to assure customers that their requirements regarding environmental and social impacts are under control. The second function concerns the integration of sustainable development objectives into business and marketing practices. The latter, in the ÉcoTrophélia projects, is social (social marketing) (Devatâ, VitaPlus projects), societal (societal marketing) (Ici&Là, Minigloo, Vertu, Mixi’Mousse projects) environmental (green marketing) (PannIno, Lardons de la mer, Kokinéo, Prêt Par Moi, So Sea’S projects). All these projects have ensured that they communicate the ecodesign practices used and the information that sensitizes target customers to change their consumption behavior in favor of society. To focus on raising consumer awareness or education about the individual and societal issues involved in their purchase, the projects developed have adopted a transparent and simple communication system. Communication on certain nutritional aspects, on the origin of food, respect for seasonality, ethical practices, standards respected, the impact on health, the packaging material and inks used, the use of food, etc., implemented in the projects represent information vectors on the effort made downstream and encourage consumers to reflect on the impact of their behavior in the ecological transition process of the food sectors. Through these capacities and practices, food ecodesign opens the field of creativity to agri-food companies. This creativity is based on a broader set of actors than food chains, calling on other stakeholders to interact with food systems. The solutions to sustainable development issues affecting food systems presented in this chapter are some of the solutions considered by student groups. Their relevance depends in each case on the creativity or imagination of the group to manage the innovative design project and to consider the most appropriate solution both for the problem to be solved and for the resources available to the group. Ecodesign thus presents itself as an operational framework for the principles of sustainable food development. The evolution of its practices is achieved through


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

continuous learning between the different actors and fields of knowledge and it is this agility that allows it to create solutions adapted to each context and situation. The ecodesign project management scheme reflects the intentions of collective action, and distributes roles and responsibilities. This scheme, which is based on different management philosophies, will always take into account the scale of the challenge and the tangible and intangible resources (technologies, knowledge, organizational and managerial skills, partnerships, collaboration, etc.), that are part of the solution set. While in its early stages, ecodesign aimed in particular at controlling the environmental impact of food chain activities, today it is presented as a frontier object of multiple disciplines that strive to combine their expertise and converge their interests towards the satisfaction of a wide range of sustainable criteria. The extension of the boundaries of ecodesign to the four dimensions that underlie the control of the contribution to the ecological transition of a food (nutritional, economic, social and environmental) requires the process of food innovation to operate within the cycle of “practical wisdom” of the circular economy. In other words, the green economy, the economy of use, the economy of functionality, the economy of performance and industrial ecology are becoming the lines of food innovations. The next chapter provides an update on the feedback from student projects on food ecodesign developed as part of the ÉcoTrophélia competition.

4 Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation

In light of the theoretical knowledge presented in the previous chapters, the cases discussed in Chapter 3 reveal a number of practices for ecodesign and ecoinnovation. Even though these cases are student projects and cannot crossreference all realities, their questioning and discussion make it possible to highlight, at a macro level, good practices from an educational, strategic, and managerial point of view. After discussing the cases and identifying the key success factors for projects (see section 4.1), we present the obstacles that still limit ecodesign and ecoinnovation practices today (see section 4.2). In section 4.3, we propose pedagogical and managerial approaches to encourage ecodesign and ecoinnovation in organizations, and to facilitate their teaching. 4.1. Feedback on the ÉcoTrophélia cases: definition of the ecodesign project phases As the cases show, whether it is a question of technological, environmental, societal or economic dimensions, there are a multitude of trajectories to consider sustainability in design and innovation projects. In addition, a project can mobilize one or more of these axes. Based on the discussion of the cases presented above (see Chapter 3), the objective of this section is to identify not only the facilitators, good practices, and phases of ecodesign and ecoinnovation projects, but also the skills of the associated project leaders. The cases presented in Chapter 3 highlight six steps in ecodesign projects whose concomitance can lead to the construction of new business models. The points

Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries, First Edition. Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris, Hiam Serhan, Sibylle Duchaîne, Jean-Marc Ferrandi and Gilles Trystram. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

mentioned below cover each of these six steps. Even though a certain logic guides their chronology, the life of the projects implies that they become concurrent. Indeed, these different steps feed and question each other until they allow the emergence of a coherent whole. The projects are therefore structured through numerous round trips between steps. 4.1.1. Entry point: a strong individual commitment In the ecoinnovation cases presented in Chapter 3, students entered the project with a willingness to address a number of economic, environmental, ethical and/or societal issues. The entry points for these projects can be divided into two main categories: – the response to a societal issue with regard to specific populations: - tobacco control (Vertu); - nutrition for the elderly (VitaPlus), children (Minigloo) or disadvantaged populations (Kokinéo); - the problem of dysphagia (Mixi’Mousse); – the desire to provide an ethical response to societal and environmental issues: - fair trade and the development of rural areas (Devatâ); - overfishing (Kokinéo); - reduction of food waste and the development of by-products (PannIno) (Prêt Par Moi) (Lardons de la mer). The shared vision of one or more issues by the group of students and their common values marked the starting point of their project. In all the cases, they remained faithful to them. Thus, the So Sea’S team stated that “despite some pressure from experts to develop a product for consumers with high purchasing power, they have not changed their initial vision: to offer to the greatest number of people and not to reserve an innovation only for the most affluent”. In this sense, the individual commitment of project leaders as actors of society, as citizens, is real. Based on their values, the shareholders then define a problem that serve as a basis for the ideation and conceptualization step that follows. 4.1.2. Creativity: ideation and conceptualization The creativity step is divided into different stages: problematization, ideation, and conceptualization. It allows a break in the students’ thinking in order to imagine a

Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation


sustainable response to the problem posed. The role of this step is to facilitate defixation, to help break out of cognitive routines, and even to encourage the exploration of new fields of knowledge. During this step, different creative media are used, such as Alex Osborn’s brainstorming (Agogué 2016), projective and analogical techniques (such as De Bono’s “Chinese portrait” or “six hats” (2004)), deformation (such as “inversion”) or forced encounters (association type such as Mind Mapping and Mind Map by Buzan and Buzan (2012) (Debois et al. 2015)). In this way, the participants explore different concepts, without any constraints, by extracting themselves from their cognitive schemes; the formulation and development of products are subsequent steps. This creative step encourages project leaders to move away from their usual schemes and put themselves in the place of the user or consumer (see, among others, the case of the Lardons de la mer). At this point, project members must learn to let go, be open-minded, listen to each other and share. They must also demonstrate a good ability to synthesize and teach in order to explain their concepts to other team members. It is important that group members have a shared understanding of the concepts in order to question, combine and enrich them. At the end of this creative step, several concepts emerge. They will be further refined and discussed through market analysis, which will help refine the definition of their potential value and determine the possible strategic positioning. 4.1.3. Market analysis: definition of strategic positioning In order to clarify their problems and guide their choice of concept, project leaders carry out a market study. They define market opportunities, identify trends, and the resources they have or could have at their disposal. To do this, they use a SWOT analysis – Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats – and determine the strategic options available to them. Indeed, if the starting point is based on strong values, it is also anchored in promising markets. Students demonstrate a good ability to grasp economic, environmental, and societal issues to identify markets in which they can position themselves. To carry out this market analysis and determine the positioning of their concept, various sources are used. On the one hand, so-called primary data are directly collected by the project leaders using qualitative or quantitative surveys. Thus, students carry out surveys with experts (department heads, Michelin-starred chef – Ici&Là; doctors, pharmacists and associations – Vertu), concept and consumer tests (Kokinéo; So Sea’S), qualitative and quantitative studies of the buyer’s expectations (parental expectations – Minigloo). On the other hand, trend monitoring makes it


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

possible to collect secondary data, i.e. documents produced by sources external to the project group. These various sources include consumer data, surveys, market research, regulatory, demographic, political, economic and nutritional recommendations. This is the case for marketing data and opinions produced by private companies such as Nielsen, XTC, TNS Sofres or Kantar; those collected from NGOs, or institutional data produced by public bodies involved in environmental issues such as France Agrimer, ADEME or CRÉDOC and, more generally, the professional press. All these data allow project groups to establish a SWOT matrix, and thus identify the internal and external factors that may or may not be favorable to their eco-innovative project. Among the external factors (opportunities and threats) studied to draw up the market analysis, we can mention the importance of having: – market data: figures and competition; – regulatory and normative data; – nutritional recommendations; – behavioral trends; – controversies/problems in society: overfishing, waste, health, etc.; – environmental, social, economic, demographic or political data. With regard to internal factors (strengths and weaknesses), the following resources appear as key success factors: – the skills, knowledge and expertise not only of students, but also of experts, partners, and supervisors; – the unanimous vision of the project leaders (which cuts across section 4.1.1); – access to consumers and the market; – the investment (in financial terms, but also in terms of material and human resources) of the various stakeholders; – the added value and development of environmental capacities and resources. Finally, market analysis allows project leaders to refine their concepts according to the associated market opportunities. From the point of view of the skills mobilized at this step, students are not only required to be open-minded, but also to be able to question themselves, identify trends and position themselves according to their values. In addition, this step highlights a number of weaknesses, lack of resources, knowledge, skills or expertise, which they will have to seek outside their project group, from experts and partners.

Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation


4.1.4. Knowledge creation: the use of experimentation, experts and partners To innovate, companies must mobilize, develop, and maintain specific skills, capacities and knowledge. The first source of knowledge is experimentation. The project is an opportunity for students to implement and experiment with the knowledge and skills acquired throughout their studies. Whether it is the analysis of the associated scientific literature, the realization of an experimental plan, the development of an experimental protocol or the management of the project, the members of the project bring and create knowledge adapted to their project. However, not all of these technical, scientific, and/or managerial skills and knowledge can be held by the members of the project team. It is therefore essential to identify the experts and partners who will complement the team’s capabilities. Indeed, today, organizations that want to innovate are increasingly using the principle of open innovation. Innovation is no longer only built at the level of the R&D department, but is open to a diversity of external and internal actors. The cases presented above confirm this trend towards the opening up of innovation projects. In the ÉcoTrophélia cases exposed, the project teams were composed either only of agri-food engineers (the majority of cases) or of agri-food engineers and designers (Vertu, Kokinéo or Minigloo). The actors external to the project team collaborating with students were not only their technical supervisors (trainers and teacherresearchers), but also experts such as chefs (Ici&Là, Minigloo, So Sea’S), nutritionists and health professionals (Mixi’Mousse, Vertu, VitaPlus) or laboratories, particularly for nutritional analyses. They also called on industrial partners, either from the beginning of the project as sponsors (Mixi’Mousse; Prêt Par Moi), or afterwards in order to establish relations with companies claiming to have particular technologies (Kokinéo, the Lardons de la mer or Vertu) or market access (Minigloo). Associative partners were also contacted to further enhance the sustainable aspect of the project (Devatâ). Finally, commercial partnerships have been established, in particular with suppliers (PannIno) and producers, in order to guarantee sustainable sourcing and a volume of purchases over several years (Ici&Là). While the search for partners provided additional knowledge and capacities, it is also a source of additional constraint. It is therefore a matter for the project leaders to negotiate and determine the conditions of these agreements. Thus, project leaders need to mobilize skills not only in terms of listening and questioning skills, but also in negotiation and agility so that collaboration could work. In addition, for the project to progress, it is necessary that the team be united and that its members ensure co-responsibility for all aspects of the project (see, among others, the case of Ici&Là). As the project progresses and knowledge is provided, the concept comes to be refined and the product developed.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

4.1.5. Product development: taking sustainability into account At every stage of product design and development, from definition to end of life, whether in management, formulation, procurement, packaging, manufacturing, and logistics, sustainability is an issue. To question oneself implies making choices, deciding and sometimes giving up one of the dimensions of sustainability to have a viable product. As a result, in the cases, the products touch one or more dimensions of sustainability – but not all dimensions; this is often the condition for considering the launch of ecoinnovation on the market. This also implies making choices regarding the tools used according to the type of product developed, as well as the budget, the possible partners, the technical constraints, the strategic positioning, and the knowledge and skills of the teams, etc. In the cases, the most commonly used tools were nutritional analysis (9 out of 11 cases), sensory analysis (7 out of 11 cases), simplified (ESQCV) or complete (LCA) product life cycle analysis (6 out of 11 cases), and concept and consumer tests (5 out of 11 cases). Only two of the 11 cases presented carried out regulatory analyses (Kokinéo and Minigloo) or a carbon assessment (Devatâ and PannIno). Finally, Vertu carried out a clinical pre-study. Budget and time constraints, in the case of student projects, were the main obstacles to using a more complete range of tools. Finally, questioning generates back and forth between the different design and development steps in order to make the product evolve. Questioning is permanent, and it is necessary that the actors communicate and exchange constantly, to advance both the nature and qualities of the knowledge and skills mastered and the project. It is therefore essential that project leaders demonstrate patience and perseverance, know how to question themselves, mobilize their critical thinking, and use their communication skills (listening and sharing). It is also important that they are familiar with and able to use the various ecodesign tools adapted to their situation (available information, objectives pursued, deadlines for action), in order to activate them at the right time. Alongside product development, the marketing strategy is refined. 4.1.6. Communicating sustainability: towards new distribution systems The marketing strategy is constructed throughout the design of the product and also challenges it, for example with regard to the relevant certifications or claims to be obtained. Indeed, trends in consumer expectations influence the claims and choices of project leaders who, in the light of the cases, increasingly turn to organic, clean label, or even claims “without additives” or “100% French”. These trends are

Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation


evolving, and it is up to project leaders to follow them to adapt not only their marketing strategy, but also the development of their product. From the point of view of distribution, the changes are significant. With specific eco-innovative products, sometimes in niche markets, supermarkets do not always appear to be the most appropriate distribution channel, in that they do not always reflect the expected sustainability values and are hardly consistent with the values of their products and their economic development (in terms of commercial margins). Just as sourcing is increasingly turning to local products, the search for local, organic or alternative distribution channels (collective catering, Internet) is developing. In addition, ecodesign is also found in the services sector, as shown in the So Sea’S case. The means of communication are also diversifying and turning more towards local marketing, relying particularly on digital technology with the development of websites, the keeping of blogs or the massive use of social networks (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram). Finally, the ecodesign of a product requires an iterative, critical, and constructive approach, at the end of which new business models are developed. 4.1.7. Towards the construction of sustainable business models In order to create sustainable value, the entire value chain is questioned, from procurement to distribution. Indeed, throughout the ecodesign project and development process, it is necessary to question the various links in the value chain and to broaden the knowledge and expertise required to carry out the project. The ecodesign project is part of a global vision and encourages the interaction between the different stakeholders as the complexity of taking into account its multiple facets increases. Thus, in order to successfully carry out projects, it is necessary to have grouped expertise or everything depends solely on the project manager and his/her ability to bring together, which is risky in such complex projects. In this context, project management is evolving. It is no longer linear and focused on the skills of the R&D engineer. It requires integrating all the expertise at each stage of the project in an iterative, critical, and constructive approach. By mobilizing multidisciplinary teams, and integrating the various skills and competencies required to design a product, the project encourages the search for creative compromises between the various trades identified, and thus supports innovation in organizations (Lenfle 2008). The same applies to the ecodesign cases studied here, as we have seen in the previous points. Nevertheless, if each case makes it possible to build a new business model, it is hard to identify a single one. Indeed, it is difficult to take into account all the economic, environmental and societal dimensions in a single value chain. We will therefore talk about sustainable business models in the plural.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

4.1.8. Overview In summary, in view of the cases presented in Chapter 3, six key steps have been identified in the ecodesign or ecoinnovation of a food product. 1) It is first necessary that the members of the project team share unanimously and rely on strong values that will guide the project. 2) It is then essential, during creativity sessions, to give free rein to ideas in order to identify different concepts that will gradually be worked on, completed, modified, and validated by the knowledge that the team members will be able to mobilize and produce. 3) In order to produce this knowledge, the multidisciplinary nature of the project team is a key factor in the success of the project. Beyond this diversity, project leaders must know how to find the expertise they lack, and mobilize them around their project. 4) At each stage of the project’s development, it is important to question knowledge, in order to investigate and evaluate each of the economic dimensions. 4.2. Resilience in the development of ecoinnovation within the framework of student projects The desire to take sustainability into account in the Trophélia competition innovation projects, now known as ÉcoTrophélia, officially dates back to 2010. The analysis of the claims associated with products that had won the Trophélia d’or (golden Trophélia) between 2000 and 2016 (see Table 4.1) highlights the effect of taking different dimensions of food sustainability into account, including the product, its process and its business model over time. A more detailed analysis of the projects’ content submitted during this period clearly shows the change in students’ capacity to propose new innovation solutions that contribute to the ecological transition of food systems. Taking sustainability into account in the very definition of competition incites students to broaden their field of vision and to consider it systematically. The students will gradually integrate each element of development by integrating aspects relating to the product (its composition and production), consumers and citizens. The first projects indicated the need to take into account the recommendation of certain standards, in future production contexts (in particular ISO 14001), to consider ecodesign actions for packing, often based on the replacement of plastics from oil sources by biosourced plastics or to focus on the nutritional aspects of products. The more recent years have seen the emergence of projects whose objectives meet societal challenges and define a framework of ambition and much broader actions, in accordance with what has been developed in Chapter 4. However, within these student projects, there are a number of obstacles, to which we will return in the following sections.




Sweet semolina cake

30/5000 Yogurt on a bed of vegetables

Fruit ravioli dessert

Floating island with vegetables

Specialty cheese spread with passion fruit

Creative vegetable foam spray

Preparation for snacks with gluten-free label Brazilian flavors

Fruit caviar

Range of four vegetable sauces in tubes

Palets gourmands

Les yaourts des quatre saisons

Lunes de fruits

Les îlots de la tentation


Mousses créatives


















Product name



Gastronomy x






Pleasure x








Service x


Health x



Nutrition x


User-friendliness x

Consumer involvement in the preparation x

Fun x

Education x



Claims or differentiating factors Clean label x



Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation 225

Use of by-products

Vegetable protein




Chocolate fondant or soft mousse in a dessert

Culinary help to transform bread or brioche into a cake

Lentil steak AOP

Fish strips made from fish offcuts

Legume cereals

Culinary aid based on vegetables in a bar

Duo 2 choc

Pourquoi pain ?


Duo marin









Consumer involvement in the preparation x








Anti-waste x



Multifunctionality x



Local x



Vegetable protein



Table 4.1. Differentiating factors claimed by products awarded a Gold ÉcoTrophélia between 2000 and 2016



Panini bread made with 50% vegetables






Colored aperitif peak








Product name




Claims or differentiating factors Practicality

Clean label x






Use of by-products x

226 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation


4.2.1. The importance of the starting point for innovation Although in all teams and schools there has been a change in innovation project management practices, notably through a more frequent use of creative methods and tools, a number of projects remain focused on renovating existing recipes rather than creating a breakthrough offer. Most often, these projects aim to change ingredients or reduce the use of additives. This positioning of student projects reflects a situation that can also be observed in company practices: many companies have worked in recent years to develop clean labels for their products (withdrawal of palm oil, for example) and/or reduce the environmental impacts of their packaging. These types of projects respond to a real demand from consumers who want more transparency regarding the composition of their products, and the elimination of the use of artificial additives and preservatives. Moreover, the environmental impact of the food packaging is a social issue. These projects also respond to a concrete and growing demand for food that is safe for consumers’ health. Despite the technical and scientific difficulties often associated with such approaches, the achievement of these new products can be more easily attributed to an ecodesign approach than to ecoinnovation from the end-user’s point of view. Indeed, a number of product performances are improved, but the services provided and the means used to provide them are not perceived as a source of a new experience by the end-user. Moreover, some projects (Perléa, Duo2choc) do not put forward an objective of contributing to the ecological transition insofar as they focus on experience (pleasure or surprise), a strong expectation of some consumers who wish to detach their food choices from cognitive mechanisms other than those related to pleasure and satisfaction. 4.2.2. New knowledge, new tools, complex decision-making and consistent choices As we have shown throughout this book, ecodesign and ecoinnovation of a food supply are activities that involve the adoption of new knowledge and skills. Among the new knowledge to be acquired are those that can define new relationships between agricultural production and processing. Improving food sustainability requires the definition of a new spectrum of food solutions that facilitate the use of alternatives of raw materials as vegetables. These production systems from agro-ecology promote the maintenance of the quality and quantity of biotic and abiotic resources, and underline by considering the farming paths or practices. These orientations induce the transformation of industrial practices to solve the difficulties introduced by the diversity of the qualities of agricultural raw materials associated with such agricultural approaches. They also require the


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

acceptance of the variability of organoleptic performance of the final food product by consumers. It is therefore necessary to imagine and develop modes of association, “transformation and distribution” that minimize environmental impacts, and promote a sharing of economic gains between value creation actors. These ecoinnovation projects also require scenarios to be devised and evaluated using new tools such as lifecycle analysis. The acquisition of this knowledge and the skills required to analyze and mobilize it in the decision-making processes that accompany design are capacities that require not only the creation of new training courses, but also learning to manage projects in complex, multifaceted and multi-partner environments. Food ecoinnovation projects underpin not only the development of project-based learning, but also the need to put in place practices for the acquisition of fundamental knowledge throughout life. The work carried out in the ÉcoTrophélia project is a contribution to this effort. The scale of the task implies that it must be continued. 4.2.3. Overview As noted above, none of the projects presented offer solutions that contribute positively to all dimensions of sustainability. One of the remaining obstacles to such a subject is the actual benefit of projects to the ecological transition, particularly because the benefits can be limited to the aspects taken into account and the beneficiary stakeholders who consider them. In this case, it could be difficult to define their real contribution to a global sustainable performance of the food product. In such a paradigm, decision-making processes that innervate innovation projects can be difficult to document. Here are some examples to illustrate the questions that arise: “Should we promote the local development of populations in difficult economic situations at the expense of the carbon footprint induced by the resulting transport of finished products?” “Should we favor bioplastic packaging over land use for food purposes?” Etc. In ecodesign and ecoinnovation, these questions are not only philosophical and design decisions are the key to success. For the designed solutions to effectively contribute to the ecological transition, decisions must be “informed”. To do this, it is necessary that the hierarchy of priorities for responding to the issues be established, and that the consequences of decisions on the broadest possible set of issues be assessed. This implies a capacity for systemic analysis of the intervention situation throughout the value chain and its stakeholders. Being able to conduct such an analysis is a complex and time-consuming exercise. It involves collecting data and information on the activities carried out, the actors involved, their interactions and forms of relationships, the nature of the flows exchanged, etc. The understanding of this set requires representations of these systems and the identification of salient

Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation


critical aspects (also called hotpoints) that contravene their durability and therefore that of the products they produce. The multidimensional and systemic aspects of such an analysis can be a barrier to a company. Moreover, devising new solutions involves rethinking not only the nature and volumes of flows exchanged in value chains, but also the nature of activities conducted and the forms of interaction between the actors that drive them. Without prior professional experience, it is difficult to include so many dimensions in student projects, but it could be facilitated with professional partnerships. 4.3. Transfer of experience to training and the company The ÉcoTrophélia cases presented in the previous chapter, beyond their anchoring in student training, created knowledge not only from a pedagogical point of view (see section 4.3.1), but also from a managerial point of view to change the practices of organizations (see section 4.3.2). 4.3.1. Educational contributions From a training perspective, the cases show how, through these ecoinnovation projects, students broke free from their usual patterns, and mobilized, integrated and appropriated new knowledge and skills. This learning is facilitated by the use of different pedagogical tools: – project-based learning which, by confronting students with the reality of designing a concrete food product, encouraged a systemic vision of ecoinnovation; – creativity sessions that enabled a break in the students’ state of mind; – finally, participation in the national ÉcoTrophélia competition, which further anchored the project in reality by facilitating meetings with manufacturers, whether they were partners or jury members. Project-based learning The cases presented are based on a project-based learning approach, thus generating operational skills for students. On the one hand, the sizing of projects according to professional specifications (Meyer et al. 2013) allowed projects to be included in an operational dimension. On the other hand, during the project, students were confronted with 18 sub-steps (see section 3.1) that required mobilizing a large number of disciplinary knowledge and developing interdisciplinary operational skills: creativity, market research, marketing mix, formulation, business plan, packaging, industrialization simulation, sectoral analysis, ecodesign, business model, etc. (Ponchon et al. 2015). This real-life scenario promoted a systemic vision


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

of ecoinnovation. Indeed, at each stage of the project, students wondered about its sustainable dimension. In addition, with several in number working on the project gave them the opportunity to exchange their knowledge, thus creating more value. Moreover, the aim of ÉcoTrophélia projects is to meet economic, environmental and societal challenges. From the outset, these are the issues that guide projects. Moreover, it is these issues, not the recipe, that will create value throughout the design process. This creation of value and knowledge is encouraged not only by working in project mode, but also by structuring the team and its skills. Indeed, students are required to define roles for each other in order to carry out the project’s actions: project manager, secretary, R&D manager, marketing, technology, finance, quality, etc. Each one having a defined role while working permanently with the others, the project progresses faster: this is the principle of concurrent exploration. From a pedagogical point of view, this simulation is essential not only to enable students to understand all the dimensions of ecoinnovation, to mobilize all the knowledge acquired through the various courses in food sciences, process management and management sciences, but also to individualize learning and knowledge, to learn to position themselves within a team, to defend their points of view, and to listen. The application of this knowledge allows the transition from theory to practice and this in a collective way, which is beneficial to learning. In this context, it is necessary that the role of the supervisors be well defined and leave sufficient flexibility to the students. The supervisors are present as supporting tutors and not as supervising teachers. These tutors are required to adopt the QED approach: to question, enable, and diagnose (Bouvy et al. 2010). The tutor supports the students throughout the project, questions them in order to allow them to justify their actions and take a step back, enables them to access to the necessary resources, and diagnoses any difficulties within the team or in the project. Thus, his/her role is not limited to the contribution of knowledge in a top-down logic, but corresponds well to that of a coach who, with the help of his/her expertise, supports and guides students in their reflection. The constraints of such a pedagogy are first freeing up time so that projects can be completed. The second constraint is spatial since the team must be able to meet regularly and work together. Also, it is necessary to have a workspace for the team, a dedicated project room for the duration of the project and meeting rooms accessible according to the needs. In addition, material and budgetary constraints are present since it is necessary for the teams to have at their disposal sufficient resources to carry out their project successfully. For the team to function, equipment such as computers, printers or paper boards are essential. Finally, to successfully develop the product, technical equipment such as a kitchen, a technology hall, a sensory analysis room or data analysis software is required.

Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation

231 Creativity sessions through design thinking At the beginning of the project, different methods that facilitate team building and creativity are used. Thus, over one or two days, what is commonly called a creativity session is organized to energize the student group. This creative phase encourages students to break out of their usual patterns. Moreover, inspired by design thinking methods, this session encourages students to put themselves in the place of the user or consumer. Design thinking is a problem-solving method based on decompartmentalization and questioning, inviting designers to adopt a multidisciplinary, human-centered approach. Put at the service of responsible innovation (Pavia et al. 2015), design thinking makes it possible to “translate the need for responsibility into a creative level to develop responsible products and services that are more efficient and better adapted to customers’ needs and expectations”. It places the innovation process at the heart of a triple challenge: identifying the product, service or solution that will reconcile what the target population wants, what is technologically feasible, and what is economically and sustainably viable (Brown and Katz 2010). By placing the customer, and more broadly stakeholders, their expectations and needs (conscious or latent) at the center of the ecoinnovation project, this approach reduces the uncertainty of any design project in order to lead it to innovation. In addition, it facilitates the integration, from the beginning of the project, of the principle of responsibility. Thanks to this method, students learn by doing by alternating phases of reasoning and imagination. Based on the chosen problem, this approach offers the opportunity to find the concept, the idea that will answer it and to design a solution that will embody this concept. It is divided into three main phases: inspiration (the problem or opportunity that motivates the search for solutions), ideation or conceptualization (the process of generating, developing and testing ideas), and implementation or realization (the path that brings the project to study in people’s lives). The creativity session, inspired by the design thinking method, takes place in different stages. First, the session facilitator introduces the topic and purpose of the session. He/she then presents the operating rules to be respected to ensure that the session runs smoothly and is productive. Then, a game can be proposed to help participants familiarize themselves with each other, create a positive atmosphere and start the creative process. Once the context is created, the background work can begin. According to the design thinking approach, first of all, it is necessary to show empathy, i.e. to put the customer at the center of the reflection, to understand his/her expectations and needs in order, in the second step, to specify and define the problem. Based on the previously defined elements, students will enter the ideation phase. While keeping the objectives in perspective, the aim is to facilitate the group’s distance from the traditional solutions that could be proposed. This step, in a creativity session, is facilitated by the divergent and converging phases during which participants, using creative thinking tools, exchange ideas and progress


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

towards solutions. The selected ideas will then be prototyped. In addition, in order to concretize the creative process, concept sheets are written. From these, it is possible to test these ideas with stakeholders. The results of these tests relaunch the design thinking process (empathy, definition, ideation, prototyping, testing) until the desired product is obtained for the beneficiaries. This nonlinear iterative exploratory process thus alternates phases of intuition, analysis, and construction. It allows students, at each stage, to question and re-examine themselves before the finalization and concrete realization of their project. Its main interest, when setting up multidisciplinary teams, is to involve individuals working differently: for example, engineers who are more analytical and designers who are more intuitive. This creative logic then encourages collective intelligence and invites each of the actors to question themselves on what makes sense (Ferrandi and Lichtlé 2014). This creativity session is also an opportunity to provide students with a number of brainstorming methods and tools to mobilize their creative potential, tools that they can use throughout their project. During this step, the project team begins to build itself and operating modes emerge. As the profiles of students are very different, both in their knowledge and skills, and in their motivations, it is useful to set up this session to promote group dynamics. The constraints related to this session are not only material (space, equipment for brainstorming and prototyping), but also in its deployment and animation. Participation in the national ÉcoTrophélia competition The ÉcoTrophélia competition involves student associates in projects lasting six months for most of the participating schools. These projects usually involve students from a single course, but partnerships are increasingly emerging between several courses from the same institution, or even from another institution, particularly for all aspects of packaging, design or communication. To date, 2,577 students from 300 schools have submitted 800 projects to the ÉcoTrophélia competition at the European level. In addition, a platform – Ideonis (see Chapter 3) – was created to facilitate learning and knowledge sharing. This competition is part of an innovative pedagogical approach and aims to offer excellent training to students. Indeed, based on ambitious specifications, it gives them the opportunity to put themselves in a real situation and to confront not only competitors, but also industrialists who come to seek in the competition the diversity of ideas and backgrounds. The ÉcoTrophélia competition thus creates opportunities for students, trainers, and industrialists alike. For students, this competition is an opportunity to meet other students from different institutions, who share the same objective and common interests. It also allows them to meet industrialists with whom they can promote

Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation


their project, as well as potential recruiters looking for young engineers and/or entrepreneurs. In addition, participation in this competition stimulates teams and encourages them to surpass themselves in order to develop a product that differentiates and can go through the various selection stages; the competition then becomes a learning engine for students. For trainers, the ÉcoTrophélia competition offers a definite pedagogical enrichment, allowing them to evaluate the work of other institutions, discuss their own training, and thus question themselves. In addition, it promotes the creation of a solid network, both for pedagogy and research, through the creation of links with other trainers and industrialists. Finally, for industrialists, in addition to seeking new ideas and potentially interesting profiles of young graduates, this competition is an opportunity to develop partnerships. The competition generates many opportunities for industrial partnerships, which contributes to the recognition of the competition and the creation of value (Claude et al. 2015). These industrial partnerships give a professional dimension to the competition, and facilitate the transfer and promotion of knowledge and skills. For trainers, partnerships make it possible to develop a network of partners and strengthen pedagogy through the development of complementary skills and the updating of training. For students, they enrich their project by integrating it into the industrial and economic reality and give it significant credibility during the competition. The purpose of these partnerships is to make the project a reality through an industrial transfer, or to carry out the project through the provision of equipment or financing. They are also useful to industrialists whether they are implemented before or after the start of the project. In addition to contributing to the training of future graduates and identifying potential students, these partnerships offer an opportunity for manufacturers to subcontract an innovation project and collect innovative ideas. During the project, a partnership makes it possible to acquire an idea of marketable product innovation. 4.3.2. Managerial contributions In order to develop their ecoinnovation capacities, companies must acquire mobilizable resources (tangible and intangible: time, skills, knowledge, etc.) for the design of their future products, as well as to produce collaborative structures and processes to solve problems in a creative way and to link innovation to existing activities.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

In this perspective, ÉcoTrophélia projects have essential characteristics and underline the importance for companies to implement organizational and knowledge management methods that encourage transversality and agility: – project organization increases organizational transversality and agility by facilitating interactions between its actors and the study of the different facets of sustainability in a concomitant way; – the implementation of participatory and decentralized organizational modes, which place the individual at the center of the organization, such as participatory innovation, open innovation or business empowerment, facilitates ecoinnovation by encouraging the emergence and exchange of ideas and knowledge at all levels of the organization; – the implementation of these new modes of work organization must be supported by an effective organizational knowledge management. Cross-functionality and organizational agility of project-based organization In the context of ecoinnovation projects, it is essential to implement an approach that encourages the participation of all internal and external stakeholders. As student projects show, ecodesign involves multiple back and forth, as well as trade-offs between the different facets of sustainability. Therefore, it is essential to encourage a plurality of visions from the beginning of the project. In a turbulent and dynamic environment, and in a context of permanent innovation, such as that of the agri-food sector, it is necessary to set up structures that facilitate cross-functionality between business lines, in order to reduce development times and promote the success of innovation. Since Burns and Stalker’s (1961) work on the relationship between the structure and the environment in which the organization operates, researchers have constantly confirmed the need for a flexible and agile organizational structure in a changing and dynamic environment to which we must adapt quickly. Whether it is the organic structure of Burns and Stalker (1961) or Mintzberg’s (1982) adhocracy, organizational theorists agree that agile structures are needed to foster innovation. In this context, they stress the importance of developing cross-functional teams to ensure a balance between the various departments of the organization (Lorsh and Lawrence 1965). Among the agile operating methods that enable organizations to develop their capacity to innovate sustainably, project-based organization appears to be a preferred form in that it encourages cross-functionality between business lines. The importance of projects for innovation has led researchers to formalize their practices. The research on project management has thus successively revealed three models: the “standard model” (which concerns large unit projects), the “concurrent

Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation


model” or “concurrent engineering” (which concerns itself with the management of new product development projects) and the “innovative design model” (which aims to manage new product design projects). As discussed in Chapter 2, in the case of ecodesigned food projects, in a competitive context where competition is based on intensive innovation, the “innovative design model” (Chapel 1997; Hatchuel and Le Masson 2001; Le Masson et al. 2006) appears to be the preferred one. Indeed, “the challenge is no longer to succeed in an isolated project, but to be able to bring a regular flow of new products to market” (Lenfle 2008, p. 59). It is no longer a question of managing not only the development of projects but also their design. Unlike a development project, in a design project, the objective is not defined ex ante; it is to explore “a new design space in which neither concepts nor knowledge are clearly defined, within a time frame also to be specified” (Lenfle 2008, p. 43). As a result, the innovative and sustainable design project cannot be managed by imposing constraints similar to those applied to a development project. As shown by the ÉcoTrophélia projects, the interactions between the actors, their knowledge and skills make it possible to specify the project and gradually to move towards the development of a product that takes into account the different dimensions of sustainability. It is therefore necessary to allocate the necessary resources and put in place practices and tools to facilitate the progress of these innovative design projects: setting up ad hoc teams according to the knowledge and skills required, defining a dedicated time, allocating material and financial resources, etc. Among the modes of organization currently in demand, in that they facilitate organizational agility and the development of design projects, participatory innovation, open innovation or the liberation of the company occupy an increasing place. These approaches involve project management whose objectives are less focused on meeting deadlines and budgets than on their creative, innovative, and sustainable potential. Such modes of governance also imply the acceptance, by the management committees of companies, of a higher level of risk than that associated with routine design projects. Participatory innovation, open innovation, corporate liberation: towards the decentralization of innovation To develop innovation, the organization must involve idea generators, sponsors and orchestrators (Galbraith 1982). Indeed, the organization needs not only individuals who generate new ideas, but also people who manage innovation and support innovators, including by recognizing ideas and encouraging them by providing them with the necessary moral, material, and financial support. In addition, it is necessary for people to be involved in the realization of the innovation, from its design to its commercialization. In fact, innovation is a collective process that concerns all the actors of the organization, both management and operational staff, in their role as innovators and actors.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

In order to support individuals and develop their creative capacity, organizations must create a culture that fosters innovation. According to Schein (1985), human relationships, in the case of an innovative organization, are based on the individual to the extent that the organization seeks to value individual diversity, and plurality of visions, which allows it to increase its creative capacity. Moreover, one of the characteristics of a culture of innovation is that decision-making is carried out in a collegial, participatory manner (Schein 1988). On this basis, new organizational models have emerged. Whether participatory innovation, open innovation or even the corporate liberation, new managerial models have emerged. At the heart of these different models is the active participation of all individuals. Regardless of their level of responsibility or profession, each individual becomes an actor in the organization. This willingness to involve everyone by calling on them to mobilize all their knowledge and skills, even their talents, gives organizations more agility. In addition, these models focus on structuring teams, as ideas emerge to facilitate their design and deployment. These teams, which are more flexible than functional departments, allow for a consistent adaptation of the organization and promote the innovation that, in a context of increased complexity and competition, is essential. In fact, organizational structures are gradually changing and redrawing the boundaries of organizations. Hierarchical structures are becoming more open both internally and externally. The main objective of this decentralization of work organization is to free up imaginations and stimulate innovation in all its forms (product, service, organization, etc.). Internally, this need for intensive innovation gives rise to new practices, such as those carried out by associations such as Innov’Acteurs or Hacktivateurs, which give each individual a central role as an actor. Externally, organizations rely more on external networks while being integrated into local business ecosystems in order to support the leaders of innovative projects: hives, incubators, incubation centers, fab labs, living labs, etc. Thus, at all levels of the organization, both internally and externally, innovation tends to be decentralized. In the context of ecodesign, these approaches are particularly interesting. As we have seen in the case of ÉcoTrophélia projects, ecodesign is the result of the knowledge and skills of various stakeholders, both members of the project team and external consultants or industrialists. The ability to mobilize knowledge where it is located is therefore one of the key points of ecoinnovation projects. Organizational knowledge management Since the second half of the 20th Century, knowledge production and management have become an increasing part of corporate capital. This intangible form of capital is a source of substitute added value for physical labor. In addition,

Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation


the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2015b) identifies knowledge-based innovation as a source of value creation that decouples economic growth from the consumption of material resources and thus contributes to the ecological transition. This innovation through knowledge cannot be the result of isolated work, but rather the result of an interactive and multidisciplinary process involving a multitude of actors (OECD 2010). Indeed, the innovation process is not built in a linear form (discovery–development–production), but as a set of interactions and exchanges of knowledge between individuals and their environment (Villarreal and Calvo 2015). To enable such conditions to be put in place, companies must be able to manage the production and use of knowledge in their organizations. From a managerial perspective, knowledge management aims to create, codify, transfer, and apply knowledge (Ermine et al. 2012) to decision-making contexts. The business models summarized at the end of the ÉcoTrophélia projects illustrate how ecoinnovation projects involve a knowledge value chain or DIKW (Data Information Knowledge Wisdom) management process, as described in Powell’s (2008) work. Such a chain allows the capture and transformation of data (raw facts, signals, needs, trends) into information (data structured with meaning), leading to the emergence of knowledge (information that can be activated in a social, environmental, cultural, and nutritional context), and finally, in what Nonaka calls “practical wisdom or foresight” (Nonaka and Toyama 2008), the ability of an individual or an organization to produce solutions or decisions that generate relevant and distinctive added value (see Figure 4.1). Indeed, this “practical wisdom” depends on the mobilization of two levels of competence: one concerns the individual, while the other is the responsibility of the organization (Ermine et al. 2012). Individual competence (which provides expertise) is built on a combination of knowledge, skills, and behaviors that serve the organization. It is declined, in terms of human resources, to knowledge, know-how, and interpersonal skills. The presence of these individual skills in, or in connection with, an organization is therefore made possible by recruitment, internal training, and the development of collaborations with public and private research actors, industrial and public partners including training institutions. Organizational competence (collective or organizational capacity) is the ability of a group, an organization, to carry out actions through two kinds of capacities (Ermine 2018): absorptive capacities (Cohen and Levinthal 1990) and capacities to combine the knowledge of different divisions and/or internal actors with external knowledge (combinative capacities) (Kogut and Zander 1992). These two capabilities encourage the exploration of opportunities that promote the company’s core competence through a new product or on a new market.

Figure 4.1. The knowledge value chain in a food ecoinnovation project

238 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation


In the company’s practices, this knowledge value chain is materialized in two sequences: – a sequence of processes that structure the implementation of the knowledge and skills (resources) held by the company. Process mapping facilitates the identification of critical processes to be improved; – a sequence of cognitive tasks (perception, reflection, sharing of ideas, exchange of good practices, conceptualization, theorization, action) through which “knowledge workers” transform raw data into meaningful information (actionable knowledge) to act wisely in a given context. Integrating ecological transition objectives into product design therefore implies the evolution of this chain to allow the modification of the processed data (new data must be taken into account), the evolution of the cognitive capacities of the project actors so that they are able to process these new data (which implies training and the integration of new skills), and the evolution of the processes for mobilizing this knowledge and skills and the associated decision-making processes. Managing a food innovation project through a knowledge management process allows the company to create “knowledge-based innovations”, i.e. distinctive innovations that build on its existing knowledge base and promote evolutionary trajectories in relation to its environment (Serhan 2017). Evolving skill needs The analysis of ÉcoTrophélia projects shows that organizational knowledge management is both a process of evolution of organizational practices (evolutionary approach of the firm through organizational dynamic capacities) (Teece 2007) and a process of evolution of the knowledge and skills of the actors involved in project management (entrepreneurial approach through managerial dynamic capacities) (Adner and Helfat 2003). Through the latter approach, students have acquired three kinds of eco-responsible skills: entrepreneurial, managerial, and engineering. With a view to transposing them into the context of companies, thre new profiles of actors from these organizations are emerging as factors facilitating change for an ecological transition: – eco-responsible entrepreneurs: equipped with the ability to detect a relevant opportunity, interpret and translate this opportunity into a sustainable development strategy, and the ability to translate this strategy into measurable and improvable objectives in a circular business model. By mastering the critical processes to be improved through a systemic approach, these entrepreneurs can align the sustainable objectives pursued with the human, technical and financial resources available to the company. They are able to project themselves into the future and be responsive to


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

changes in their environment. A socially responsible employer approach is a marked trend for this type of entrepreneur. Their actions focus particularly on employees’ working conditions (break and rest periods, controlled lighting, health and safety plans, employability, and training in the principles and tools of sustainable food development), as well as on their interactions with vulnerable groups and communities; – eco-responsible managers: with the ability to continuously improve the strategic processes of a production system by implementing new rules and objectives in the operations and relationships that a company, whatever its size, manages and coordinates on a daily basis. These capacities for transforming operational practices are supported by technical tools (management system standards oriented towards continuous process improvement and continuous satisfaction of stakeholders’ needs, lifecycle analyses, methods for evaluating competitive forces, etc.) and social or socialization methods between different actors (meetings between company representatives and certain manufacturers, suppliers, NGOs, target customers, their stakeholders); – eco-responsible engineers: engineers or designers of innovative solutions are actors of the company who have the ability to master the use of the engineer’s tools and methods (identification, modeling and resolution of a problem), the ability to mobilize scientific and technical knowledge in a given context, and the ability to reconfigure a system or business model through ecodesign practices. These reconfiguration capacities of eco-responsible engineers are skills to use the facts, knowledge, and resources of the present to solve the environmental, social, and economic problems of the future, related to food, through experiments and sustainable innovations. 4.3.3. Overview ÉcoTrophélia projects are a source of learning from a pedagogical and managerial point of view for students, trainers and industrialists alike. Indeed, these ÉcoTrophélia projects illustrate how certain pedagogical practices (project-based learning, creativity sessions, involvement in a competition) promote learning and knowledge creation in an ecodesign context. On the other hand, these projects confirm, for companies, the interest of using certain management practices (project management, participatory innovation, knowledge management), in order to increase their capacity to eco-innovate.

Feedback for Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation


4.4. Conclusion Chapter 4 aimed to highlight practices for ecodesign and ecoinnovation. In this context, ÉcoTrophélia projects – although not without limits – highlight key success factors and good practices that develop the capacity of organizations to ecodesign and eco-innovate. On the one hand, good ecoinnovation practices are based on an iterative process that requires, at each stage of design, the questioning and evaluation of each of the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of the concept developed. In addition, the different dimensions of its sustainability lead to the consideration of all stakeholders involved and thus to a broader vision of the environment. In this context, the team’s multidisciplinary approach makes it possible to support the project and facilitates this questioning. Similarly, experimentation and the establishment of partnerships promote the ecodesign process. On the other hand, this chapter highlights a number of tools supporting ecoinnovation in organizations and its learning in training. In training, project-based learning, creative sessions or even participation in a competition are pedagogical methods that facilitate the learning of ecoinnovation and the development of knowledge. From a managerial point of view, management methods related to project management, participatory innovation or knowledge management support increasing capacity of organizations to ecodesign. These pedagogical and managerial tools have some impacts on the practices of both training and organizations, both in terms of governance and the technical, material and financial constraints they entail: – governance: it is essential that management take the risk of placing sustainability at the center of their concerns, accepting de facto a higher uncertainty compared to conventional innovation projects and providing the necessary resources. In addition, management must implement a governance and culture that support the participation of all; – skills: increasing the capacity to ecodesign and ecoinnovation implies challenging the management of knowledge and skills in organizations. The roles and missions of individuals are redefined in relation to their environment. Thus, actors must develop managerial and communication skills that encourage teamwork and the free participation of all, while taking into account all stakeholders. They must also increase their technical skills in taking sustainability into account, in particular, by learning to use new methods of assessing sustainability.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Finally, in terms of ecoinnovation, the cases presented in this book and developed as part of the ÉcoTrophélia competition invite all stakeholders to ask themselves the right questions, and to consider the innovation process differently in terms of means and ends. Integrating sustainability requires us to really design the innovation process by entering not through the product, but rather by questioning the drivers of action in terms of values and goals: which ones give meaning to my action and are the bearers of meaning and future for all the stakeholders in my activity? This questioning offers the opportunity to develop the company’s capacity for persuasion and conviction by identifying the benefit of innovation (how it constitutes the missing link in the market) while telling an “authentic” story, unifying its internal and external stakeholders. This approach (involving a form of continuous improvement of the organization) invites everyone to develop their capacities for anticipation (watching, grasping weak signals) and openness to the world (understanding, observing others and the world by decentralizing and changing the scale of observation). These capacities then allow everyone to create (define, explore), prototype (conceptualize, realize, learn from mistakes), and finally manage (test, solve) sustainable solutions for humans and the planet.


The goal of this book was to communicate to three audiences the relevant knowledge and practices created and implemented during the development of ÉcoTrophélia food ecoinnovation projects. These audiences are 1) the stakeholders of the agri-food sector, 2) agricultural and food technology engineers and design students, and 3) professors and trainers teaching topics related to ecoinnovation in agriculture and the agri-food industries. This book makes a number of contributions. Chapter 1 offered an overview of the contexts and issues within which the students’ projects were designed and developed. It also provided clear and specific practices to other actors attempting to eco-innovate food systems in developed countries. Chapter 2 highlighted some of the specificities of the food sector in implementing sustainable development principles. Thus, although CSR in particular defines the foundations of sustainable development as based on three pillars (economic, environmental and social), it is abundantly clear that the current attention given to the nutritional quality of food and diet requires attention to a fourth dimension for food sustainability: nutritional quality. Therefore, the development of ecodesign practices requires that innovators consider the creation of food products as the generation of solutions to the nutritional, environmental and socio-economic problems generated by food systems. At the same time, the nutritional aspect can also be considered at the collective and societal level. Responding to a fundamental need to feed the various needs of a global growing population, the strategic orientations of food systems is inseparable from the politics that regulate and govern our society. The persistent co-existence of undernutrition, malnutrition, obesity and cardiovascular diseases that are paradoxically linked to either poor nutrition or over consumption, as well as the growing caution regarding

Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries, First Edition. Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris, Hiam Serhan, Sibylle Duchaîne, Jean-Marc Ferrandi and Gilles Trystram. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

food additives illustrates the magnitude of the challenges and the difficulty of providing effective and global responses or solutions at all levels of actions. To achieve the successful implementation of sustainability in the food value chain, food policies, research, business models and strategies of agricultural and agri-food industries, educational system, and individual behavior must be aligned with the various aspects of food sustainability and food security principles. Thus, in this book we include the nutritional dimension of food security, as the fourth axis of sustainable development dimensions (social, environmental and economic performance) to be considered in an ecological transition approach and analysis of food systems. Chapter 2 describes the standards and tools that can be mobilized by organizations to develop sustainable practices and generate new knowledge for the assessment, development and management of ecodesigned products. The cases reported in Chapter 3 illustrate how these tools for sustainability were orchestrated and implemented to ecodesign and eco-innovate a food product. It showed that new products must be designed to fit a particular context and problem. This can be achieved through sensing and seizing new or changed opportunities that can leverage food innovation with ecological and frugal innovation practices (Radjou et al. 2015) or with the concept of “idéality” of the Triz method (Altshuller and Altov 1996). In this sense, the structure of the summary table for each case that we proposed in Chapter 3 can be helpful to better understand how the best configuration of business model innovation can be implemented with respect to the four values of sustainable food development. One of the significant contributions of the ANR IDEFI ÉcoTrophélia project is the creation of the Ideonis platform. This ecoinnovation toolkit is composed of 18 blocks or practices to be considered during the entire lifecycle (of a food ecoinnovation project. Although we did not describe this platform in detail, there is a strong relationship between the use of the Ideonis toolkit and the transformation of a conventional food innovation project into a business model innovation for sustainability. This transformation is facilitated by the alignment and interactions between the teams working on the projects and various food ecosystem actors. Since food interacts with every element of society, the satisfaction of each element in a sustainable way requires ecodesigning food products and processes through applying the four themes of sustainable food innovations, i.e. environmental, social, economic and nutritional performance. Thus, business model innovation for sustainability (Lüdeke-Freund 2010; Bocken, Short et al. 2013; Bocken, Short et al. 2014) represents an alternative or complement to product or process innovation and is necessary to the development of sustainable food products and the emergence of sustainable food systems. Indeed, by ecodesigning the process



through which companies do business, all the business model components are considered according to SD principles. The value proposition of target customers, distribution channels, key suppliers, key activities, relevant partners and key resources, cost and revenue streams, and modes of governance must be reconfigured so that firms can achieve organizational sustainability. Such approaches enable the involvement of different partners at different levels of the food value chain (such as existing companies, political and social regulations, target consumers, etc.), in the new value-creating activity systems (Amit and Zott, 2012; Porter and Kramer 2011; Sarkis, Zhu et al. 2011, Silvestre et al. 2018). This means that responsible entrepreneurs have multiple missions. They must not only identify a market opportunity, but also create and align their resources, strategy and business model. They must define the role and the impact of the organization they intend to create based on natural resources, and social and business ecosystems with which they interact and evolve. They can either create a new market or allow the creation and exploitation of new opportunities in existing systems. Thus, a business model designed to meet the requirements and needs of different stakeholders must be developed by taking into account the principles and feedback loops of a circular economy innovation model. This evolution from food innovation to eco-innovated food business models and food products involves two important dimensions. In terms of training for students, food ecoinnovation requires a change in the teaching method. Sustainable development is based on holistic, complex reasoning that encompasses particular cognitive processes. First, a capacity to explore existing situations and feasible solutions that, to be successful, require interdisciplinary work and acceptance of risk taking. A highly exploratory innovative project always includes the possibility that the project will fail. As instructors, we therefore have to ask what content and method of teaching are needed by our students, to provide them the knowledge and operational practices they need to ecodesign and eco-innovate a food product. The ÉcoTrophélia competition and projects offer some answers in line with current project-based training proposals. The development of knowledge-sharing platforms is contributing to the evolution of our practices. We must identify what other developments should be considered in the specific contexts of each institution and each training course. This transformation of learning also raises questions about the training of personnel currently working in companies. In the preceding section, we described how ecoinnovation disrupts the knowledge and practices involved in a food innovation project. We have also shown how the introduction of an ecoinnovation culture requires a change in corporate governance and in the company’s relationships with its stakeholders.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

For existing firms, external growth can be achieved through the acquisition of entrepreneurial start-ups, and/or organic growth, through the development of intra-entrepreneuring practices. Either way, these will be necessary for the evolution of practices towards ecoinnovation. For example, these strategies can lead to a product-line diversification or extension without changing the core business and “historical” practices. However, such strategies may raise questions for internal and external stakeholders about the company’s actual values and the consistency of its brands. At this time, many food companies have initiated an evolutionary process to meet the challenges of an ecological transition. We hope that the ideas presented in this book will help to support firms and society in this transition to a more ecological food systems paradigm.


A.1. FAO definition of sustainable diets (FAO 2010) A.1.1. Biodiversity: natural biodiversity and agricultural and food biodiversity – Natural biodiversity: a contraction of the words biological and diversity, natural biodiversity covers all natural environments and a diversity of life forms (plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc.), as well as all the relationships and interactions that exist, on the one hand, between living organisms themselves and, on the other hand, between these organisms and their ecosystem (Heywood et al. 1995). This definition concerns the diversity of three interdependent elements, considered as essential components of ecosystems: - the diversity of living environments at all scales (from oceans, grasslands, forests, etc., to cell contents); - the diversity of the species living in these environments; - the diversity of individuals within each species (genetic diversity). In sustainable development literature, biodiversity management means the reasonable use of natural resources accumulated over millennia (forests, groundwater, minerals, etc.) and the implementation of good practices to prevent soil erosion, the drying up of certain aquatic systems and the threat of extinction of certain animal and vegetative species. – Agricultural and food biodiversity: agricultural diversity (variety of cultivated agricultural products and farmed animal species) and food diversity (food groups that constitute meals) are considered the key to food (quantity) and nutritional (quality)

Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries, First Edition. Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris, Hiam Serhan, Sibylle Duchaîne, Jean-Marc Ferrandi and Gilles Trystram. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

security. Their sustainable development aims to address micronutrient deficiencies and reduce the risk of chronic diseases related to food (McGill Tribune 2017). Although there is no ideal nutritional diet for all people, nor a particular diet that could be compatible with cultural, moral or religious beliefs, the choice of raw (vegetable and animal) and processed agricultural products differs between populations. However, the health benefits of a diet rich in fruits, vegetables and other complex plants with moderate amounts of animal products have been demonstrated (Darmon 2011). According to FAO, a sustainable diet must be highly diversified and rich in protein, vitamins and minerals to provide the nutrients necessary for a healthy body. The more we vary and diversify our diet, the more we meet good health requirements. In France, the practices implemented by some producers and supermarkets to reintroduce onto the market some “forgotten varieties” of fruits and vegetables (e.g. the banned market of Carrefour (Le marché interdit) allow some farmers to diversify their production and offer consumers seasonal products that do not comply with the standards of conventional agri-food systems. The introduction of these new varieties orients the consumers towards sustainable agricultural and food systems. This initiative provides new sources of income for farmers, reduced chemical inputs, protection of ecosystems and promotion of various other aspects of food sustainability such as providing new sources of food rich in vitamins and healthy fiber, thereby complementing the existing market supply with new products. A.1.2. Ecosystems An ecosystem refers to any area where living resources (plants, animals, micro-organisms, etc.) and non-living resources (such as water, minerals and temperature) interact with each other and their environment. This interaction maintains biodiversity and provides many useful and even vital ecological or ecosystem services to the system itself and society. Any internal or external disturbance in the ecosystem affects the nature and composition of its elements. For example, the sustainability of agro-ecosystems must ensure the preservation of human activities and life, animal and plant species, and the micro- and macro-organisms (bio-reducers and decomposers) that provide “ecosystems services” and dynamics that are necessary for the continued functioning of the entire agro-ecosystem (Locatelli et al. 2017). Two examples illustrate the relationship between sustainable agricultural practices and ecosystem services: – the protection of pollinating organisms, such as bees, bumble bees, butterflies, certain bats and birds (humming birds), is an example of good practices that are essential for the pollination of many cultivated species. These organisms provide vital ecosystem services;



– the imposition of fishing limits taking into account the renewal of fish populations and hunting limits are measures that also contribute to the sustainable development of animal species that are vital for the continued functioning of the environment and its relationship with humans. A.1.3. Culturally acceptable Food sustainability not only consists of producing and delivering food products in quantity and quality. The satisfaction of the needs of a population symbolizes, at the base, a respect of its culture, heritage and identity. In the context of sustainable food development, an innovative food product must take into consideration the cultural diversity and awareness of the target populations. For example, while some insects are being considered as a solution to feeding the growing global population (FAO 2018b), and farmed chickens, pigs and fish, the consumption of dried insects, which could be an important protein source for humans, continues to be culturally difficult to accept in many developed countries. A.1.4. Economically fair and equitable Pierre Calame (2009) defines the economy as: “a branch of governance to regulate the network of institutions, actors, processes and rules that organize the production, distribution and use of goods and services, technical capabilities and human creativity, in order to ensure the utmost well-being of humanity, in a constant concern of preserving and enriching the biosphere, the interests, rights and capabilities of future generations, and distribution of income with equity” (Calame 2009). According to Calame’s definition, the sustainable governance of the economic growth of a system must be equitable in terms of the distribution of profits and use of goods and services, and fair in terms of respect for the rules of competition between economic agents: – equitable economy: the economy is equitable when actors maximize their individual economic benefits and that of the community’s general interest. For example, the Fairtrade label aims to rebalance trade between northern and southern countries, on the one hand, and to support disadvantaged producers in developing countries within a regulated framework, on the other hand. It guarantees fair working conditions and remuneration for the farmers concerned. This fair and ethical pattern of trade is meant to contribute to the social aspects of sustainable economic development;


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

– fair economy: since the dynamics of economic activity and competition is to capture and sustain a market share, the sustainable development patterns of actors’ behavior must ensure that economic equity is a goal of fair competition. In other words, the fair economy of food innovation must be oriented towards practices necessary and beneficial for consumers or target countries. Competitive practices such as lower prices, better quality products, and the introduction of products that improve certain food-related health problems, etc. can address various economic issues related to food production and consumption. A.1.5. Economically accessible and affordable These two concepts of sustainable food security require the guarantee of economic accessibility to healthy food for target populations. In other words, populations must have both physical availability of food in appropriate quantity and quality in a country, in a given market and in stores, and economic access to food at a reasonable price, compatible with the purchasing power of the population. In the report on the accessibility for all to a quality, healthy and balanced diet, Thierry Damien1 maintains that healthy food products must not only be the prerogative of privileged people. They must be accessible to all social classes. In fact, argues that “Food is a matter of public health and social cohesion”. But since access to food varies according to income, the budget devoted to food consumption and the price of food on the market, food policies must be continuously revised to contribute to the achievement of global food security. While the stability of financial and material aspects is crucial for the economic accessibility to healthy food, other factors influencing the choice of our products must be considered when promoting the production and consumption of sustainable food. For example: – access to information and decoding the “product identity”. Information related to food labels and packaging, advertising messages, nutrition posters, etc., must be clear and provide the required information to enable healthy food consumption. The introduction of healthy and environmentally friendly food products (such as those produced organically and locally) into school cafeterias can enhance the consumption of healthy food, increase awareness and improve the communication channels between all food system actors about sustainable food development and ecological transition. – the adoption of certain practices by the actors in the food chain promotes the accessibility of adequate food for all. On the one hand sustainable food policies such 1 Thierry Damien is rapporteur on behalf of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Section for the draft opinion on promoting access for all to quality, healthy and balanced food.



as the protection of food prices, producer remuneration, reduction of VAT on products with positive nutritional or environmental impacts, support from public or private authorities in developing shorter supply chains, imposing taxes on unhealthy products (e.g. processed products rich in sugar, salt and fat), and policies to enhance the value of agriculture and agricultural products in trade negotiations represent sustainable measures to promote food security and on the other hand, and social security for producers. A.1.6. Nutritionally safe and healthy Food groups such as dairy products, starchy foods, fruits, grains, beans and legumes, vegetables, meat, fish and water must afford the adequate nutritional facts, those that meet the dietary needs of an organism. Adequacy is important because it means that the nutritional facts consider the individual needs and particularities of populations, i.e. stage in their life cycle (child, elderly person), life style, health, gender, occupation, etc. Nutritional quality also includes the food being free from harmful substances, such as pollutants (e.g. pesticide residues, hormones, veterinary drugs, etc.), whether from agricultural inputs or industrial processes. A.1.7. Optimization of the use of natural and human resources Food systems should be seen as “metabolic” systems that: – consume resources such as land, energy, water, agricultural raw materials, inputs and additives; – produce food products, use by-products such as leather and wool, and by-products such as pulp; – generate wastes such as greenhouse gases, toxic waste, decommissioned products and packaging. Since the sustainability problems of economy and environment are interdependent, the optimization of agricultural and food industry resources aims to address the following driving forces of sustainable food development – economics, effectiveness, efficiency, ecodesign and ecoinnovation: – the economics of sustainable development refers to the acquisition of financial, human and material resources in appropriate quantities at the lowest cost and in a timely manner;


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

– efficacy refers to the achievement of sustainable development objectives and obtaining the intended results of a certain activity; – efficiency refers to the maximization of production output, while minimizing resource consumption and maintaining the same or better quality; – ecodesign and ecoinnovation practices refer to the adoption of sustainable approaches in the food innovation process. They imply the searching and finding of the right balance between ecological, economic, social and nutritional requirements throughout all the stages of a product2 lifecycle (Yannou-Le Bris and Ferrandi 2016). These food sustainability driving forces contribute to the achievement of socio-economic profitability and less environmental impact, which are part of the circular economy strategy, i.e. a circularity in an economic system aimed at minimizing waste and reuse of the most resources and waste (agro-ecology), with the least emissions and energy leakage. This regenerative approach which is in contrast to the traditional linear economy sequenced by a ‘take, make, dispose’ production model, allows the creation of economic, social and environmental value to food products. This complementarity of agro-ecological and ecodesign practices in the circular economy (ADEME 2018) offers stakeholders in the food chain a wide range of opportunities to optimize the use of the resources needed to produce healthy and environmentally friendly food products.

A.2. Development stages of ÉcoTrophélia projects – For the projects ecodesigned and developed according to the “health through food” axis principles, see Table A.1. – For the projects ecodesigned and developed according to the axis “the added value of by-products and the fight against waste”, see Table A.2. – For the projects ecodesigned and developed according to social sustainability principles, “Healthy food for populations in precarious situations”, see Table A.3. – For the projects ecodesigned and developed to promote “protein transition”, see Table A.4.

2 Available at:

Initial issue

Initial observation

Request from the hospital nutritionist Aging population and an increase in dysphagia (elderly people’s problems with swallowing and chewing)

Regional Health Center

Food and health for elderly people Aging population with specific health problems

CREDOC Datamonitor

Vitality of the elderly

Starting point

Initial report

Information sources

Problems taken into account

Dysphagia Hospital meals




Combination of nutritional and Children’s desserts

Assistance in quitting smoking through phytotherapy and aromatherapy

SIAL Kantar Interviews with doctors, pharmacists, tobacco control associations, etc.

Nutribébé survey (SFAE 2013) Qualitative and quantitative studies of parental expectations Nutritional facts adapted to children

High mortality due to smoking No food substitutes to cigarettes

PNNS Unhealthy desserts for children (1–3 years) Nutritional recommendations Need for “nutritional education” of children Absence of nutritious dairy desserts for children

Vertu Link between food, health and well-being Health capital


Appendix 253


Creativity in use of the innovation Technical challenge and acceptability of the innovation

Creativity New skills acquired for a specific market (young children) Partnership creation

Production of a locally produced and easy to swallow product Tests of the solution on the target population

Creativity Use-based approach Choice and control of active ingredients

Innovation approach

Difficulties encountered

Infants and young children (1–3 years) €3.50

A mixture of local products and flavors adapted to dysphagia The elderly with dysphagia €3.95 (year 1) then €2.55

Three recipes for ready meals adapted to three health problems Active elders Between €4.95 and €5.45

Proposed response

Target audience

Price per unit


Young smokers

A biscuit cigarette to replace tobacco

Health through food Public Health

Public Health Undernutrition of the elderly

Nutrition Public Health

Sustainability issues

A nutritious, organic frozen dessert


Minigloo Public Health Support parents during the nutritional education of their children Fight against obesity




254 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries



Nutrition Naturality Well-being

Acceptable product for physical and psychological needs of the target consumer

Adapted to a context

Appropriate response to targeted pathologies

Differentiating factors

Value created

Nutritional intake Authenticity

Naturalness Adaptability Pleasure Vitality

Product benefit

Physiological and psychological pleasure through ice cream consumption

The only food substitute for tobacco Disruptive innovation Adapted to children’s nutritional requirements Nutritious dessert with flavors adapted to young children

Inhaling “essential oils” for de-stressing effect

Adapted to children’s nutritional needs while being “similar” to the parents’ dessert

Weaning assistance Healthy product

Taste and nutrition

Improving well-being and vitality

Product promises

Adapted to the perceived problem Nutritional

Regional recipes

Organic Clean label Nutritional facts

Customer insight

Relaxation - stress-relieving of quitting smoking

Nomadic, stress-relieving biscuit cigarette

Nutritional and tasty hospital meals adapted to dysphagia

Product with simple, organic, and natural ingredients

Product features

Practicality, taste, health, and nature


Minigloo A nutritious children’s dessert (low sugar, high calcium content) No additives or preservatives




Appendix 255

Durability experimentation

Relevance interpretation

LCA Nutritional Regulatory Production Nutrition

Local products LCA Nutritional Sensory Logistics Physiology Regulations of nondomestic catering Local sourcing

Valuation of plant and animal extraction by-products LCA Sensory Nutritional Ingredients regulation Bio Sourcing By-production

Sustainable technologies adopted

Analyses performed (LCA, sensory, nutritional)

Relevant knowledge and know-how (technical, logistical, ingredients, law, etc.)

Integration of SD into this knowledge

Few ingredients used

Transformation tanks, machines Sourcing of organic and French raw materials

Environmental (impact reduction in terms of processes and materials) and health improvement in terms of nutrition, obesity control

Social Experiential

Health Environmental

Values (environmental, economic, social, experiential) of the solution

Local sourcing


Sensory - hedonic Nutritional Clinical pre-study

Local sourcing

Reduce the adverse effects of nicotine withdrawal Social Experiential Health

Contribute to the nutritional education of children

Easier and healthier consumption of hospital meals

Healthy living

Counteract tobacco’s health impacts

Combine nutritional and environmental aspects

Reduce undernutrition

Improve well-being

Why the solution proposed?

A solution for what?

Health Nutrition

Nutritional, functional food

Responding to issues


Minigloo Choice of sustainable suppliers (organic milk) Nutritional fact control

Mixi’Mousse Texture adapted to physical problems Authentic taste



256 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Minimize the number of ingredients Sourcing from French producers

Partnership with market experts

Development of a partnership

Local sourcing Adaptation to local tastes Response to the undernutrition of the elderly

Extraction control and pasteurization

Clean label

By-product valuation Vitality

Factory and production solutions

Raw material-related solutions

Renewable energies and ecological manufacturing


Demonstration of the real effect of the product First food substitute for tobacco

Change of legislation on essential oils usage

Pharmacies Integration with the partnership Biscuit filling skills Water recycling

PLV Internet, street marketing, sponsorship

Table A.1. Development stages of ÉcoTrophélia projects ecodesigned with the “health through food” axis

Key success factors

Endurance result


Local shops

Distribution solutions

Source of calcium

Sales force of the partner

Internet Social networks

Advertising and communication solution


Recyclable and biodegradable cardboard material Optimization of packaging for less transport impact

Simple packaging

Recyclable and biodegradable cardboard box

Packaging solution

Improved health Sourcing

Addressing undernutrition

Health Clean label

Responding to initial SD issues


Minigloo Nutritionally adapted product National sourcing of the raw material




Appendix 257

Initial issue

Initial observation

Initial report

Issues at stake

Problems taken into account Economic and ecological

Anti-waste control Fishing sustainability Valuation of by-products

Unsustainability of some fisheries Offcuts that do not have other uses

Information sources

Noble fish offcuts (e.g. salmon fish)

Lardons de la mer

Starting point


Food waste prevention Public Health Education and awareness

Combating waste Preserving local know-how

Enhance the value of a by-product: whey


MOOC Nielsen Professional press Sandwich loaf manufacturing process study Enhancing the value of a by-product: the crust of sandwich loaves

Environmental impacts of whey Desire to consume dairy “homemade” products

A partner (dairy) seeking to purpose a by-product: whey

Prêt Par Moi

Understanding the reasons for food waste and how to combat it Bread, an iconic French product that is largely thrown away by individuals, supermarkets, restaurants

PannIno Huge amounts of bread waste Symbolic devaluation of food

258 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries



Families Non-domestic catering

Response proposed


Customer insight

Advantages of the innovation Ecological innovation Creative and healthy product

Simple, eco-responsible, practical product made from fresh fish

18–65 year olds

Propose a new way to consume fish

Difficulties encountered

Price per unit

Households under 65 years of age

Bread Gnocchi with exotic flavors

Assemble the offcuts and ensure the maintenance of the bacon under the various conditions of its usage (cold and after cooking)

Innovation approach

€3.95 Nutrition, practicality, and environmentally friendly product Anti-waste Practicality Authenticity

€3.49 (for 2 or 3 servings) Practicality and taste Anti-waste Originality New experience Practicality

A culinary helper: creamy preparation

No modification of the production line Introduction of a new terroir product with a long shelf life

Nutritional reflection Sourcing of raw materials Devaluation of by-products by the consumers

Reinventing bacon by using fish offcuts as bacon pieces

Prêt Par Moi Creativity Transformation of the by-product by reimagining a traditional recipe

PannIno Creativity Valuation of a by-product

Lardons de la mer

Characteristic features

Appendix 259

Relevance interpretation


A solution for what?

Why the solution proposed?

Responding to issues

Value created

Differentiating factors

Product benefits

Product promises

Characteristic features

Enhancing the value of by-products

Creation of a product with shelf life similar to meat bacon

Conservation of marine resources

Reuse and valuation of fish offcuts

The form and texture of fish bacon (meat-like) Ready to use

New uses for a balanced diet Easy to prepare in kitchen

Lardons de la mer Taste Freshness Surprise / originality Authenticity Practicality Nutrition

Flavor Originality Practicality SD

Enhancing the value of the partners’ by-products and limiting waste (by-products) Reduce waste while educating and raising consumer awareness

Living a healthy experience for consumers and the planet

Nutritional quality Reduction of by-product waste

A range of creamy preparations

Contribute to the reduction of food waste

Choosing the right partner Choice of suppliers

Combatting food waste with an ecodesigned product

Multi-purpose Creativity Practicality Authenticity

Practicality Rapidity

Taste Exoticism

A local and nutritious bread gnocchi

Prêt Par Moi


260 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries


LCA Sensory Nutritional

LCA Carbon footprint Test of the new concept Sensory Nutritional Regulation Ingredients Local sourcing

Competitive analyses Concept tests Sensory analysis Development of specific know-how to ensure bonding of the different parts of bacon Product and production line design Cold chain control

Analyses performed (LCA, sensory, nutritional)

Relevant knowledge and know-how (technical, logistical, ingredients, law, etc.)

Integration of SD into the product design

Local sourcing

Ingredients Methanization Marketing (territory)

Local sourcing ISO 14001

Environmental Socio-economic Health

Prêt Par Moi

Energy reduction from production to cooking

Environmental Social


By-products Work on the technical issue: ensure bonding and holding regardless of the condition of implementation

Lardons de la mer Environmental (considering marine resources for sustainable fishing), economic (adding value to a waste product) and social

Sustainability technologies (processes, raw materials)

Values (environmental, economic, social, experiential) of the solution


Appendix 261

Raw material solutions

Factory and production solutions

Mastery of sourcing

Partnership and integration of the innovation to its production line

Intention to implement ISO 14006 and ISO 14001standards

Valuation of by-products with a food product purchased by target consumers

Co-produced Local sourcing

By-product methanization (biogas production) Water recycling

Non-centralized local supermarkets Benefits from the partner’s distribution channel

PLV, exhibitions, local radios, website

Table A.2. Development stages of ÉcoTrophélia projects ecodesigned according to the axis “the added value of by-products and the fight against waste”

Sustainable fisheries labeling (MSC) A nutritional, healthy, practical and original value proposition

Choice of two overexploited fish species

Support from a partner expert in fish processing Reuse of all scrap

Regional supermarkets

Supermarkets and non-domestic catering

Distribution solutions

Key success factors

Endurance result

Packaging, PLV, social networks, blogs

On the packaging

Advertising and sustainability aspects

Recyclable Shape designed to limit waste

Health Wasteful waste Local sourcing

Health Wasteful waste Local sourcing Fully recyclable (kraft paper)

Prêt Par Moi


Ecodesigned to reduce plastic use

Lardons de la mer Through an analysis for each stage of the lifecycle (procurement, manufacturing, packaging, end of life management)

Packaging solutions

Addressing initial SD issues


262 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries


Initial issue

Initial observation

Difficulties encountered Sourcing

Find a complete, balanced product, available at low cost

Propose a healthy alternative to meat consumption Creativity in proposing a product with triple sustainable values

Social and equitable (solidarity) aspects

Innovation approach

Problem taken into account

Health (obesity) Environment (invasive species + carbon footprint) Social (feeding the planet and populations with low income)

PPP (Popularly Positioned Products)

Lack of equity in the valuation of producers Fair Trade

Information sources

Improve living conditions by providing additional income to Cambodian farmers

XTC - TNS Sofres France Agrimer Concept and consumer tests

Non-governmental organization data Nielsen data Consumer research

Initial report

Issues at stake

Overfishing Shortage of animal protein Increase in obesity rates (mainly among populations in precarious situations) Difficult access to healthy and inexpensive food

Kokinéo An invasive shellfish present in abundance on the French coast

A raw material that is not highly valued in the West: lemongrass

Devatâ Few Fairtrade-labeled drinks on the market

Starting point


Appendix 263

Relevance interpretation



Kokinéo A gourmet pallet based on crepidula Anyone looking for a healthy meal that is nutritionally adequate €0.60 per person An alternative to fried breadcrumbs Excellent nutritional balance Low cost Economically accessible

Devatâ A lemongrass liqueur Women €10.96 Exoticism Freshness Natural Organic Organic and Fairtrade


Price per unit

Advantages of the product

Consumer insight

A gourmet product at a low price New experience, alternative to cordon bleu and nuggets

Introduction of sustainability into the supply chain

Value created

A ready to eat healthy meal Preservation of marine ecosystems

Economic response to health problems and environmental issues

Fair prices paid to the producers Two ways of consuming: directly or in cocktail preparations

Differentiating factors

An organic and Fairtrade liqueur

Nutrition Prices Taste Rapid preparation time

Naturality Organic Fair Trade

Product benefit

Answer to the issues at stake

Original experience with sea food

Freshness Exotic flavor

Product promises

Imagined response

Characteristic features

264 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Durability experimentation

Extraction of shellfish meat Choice of ecological, energy-efficient machines Consumer tests Sensory Nutritional Regulatory

Social aspect of food sustainability

Organic lemongrass LCA Carbon footprint (production, transport) Sensory


Value (environmental, economic, social, experiential) of the solution

Durability technologies (processes, raw materials)

Analyses performed (LCA, sensory, nutritional)

Relevant knowledge and know-how (technical, logistical, ingredients, law, etc.)

Extraction of shellfish meat (partnership required because it is patented)

Environmental (crepidula), economic (PPP), nutritional and experiential

Reduce waste and tension on fisheries

Helping regional and rural economic development

A solution for what?

Kokinéo Contribution to the improvement of meals’ nutritional quality Fight against obesity Equilibrium of marine ecosystems by reducing crepidula invasion

Revalue an available and undervalued raw material: lemongrass


Why the solution proposed?

Characteristic features

Appendix 265

Implementation of the project through choice of raw material

PPP Availability of raw material Convenience - price Experience

In partnership with the raw material extracting company Selection of environment friendly producers

ISO 26000 standards No fossil fuel consumption during extraction Recycling and recovery of waste and by-products

With supermarket frozen products

Table A.3. Development stages of ÉcoTrophélia projects ecodesigned according to the axis “taking into account populations in precarious situations”

Stability of the liquor market Introduction of fair trade in this market

Partial vacuum distillation

Geographically limited (Aquitaine)

Implementation of the project of the distribution solution

Implementation of the project in the factory and manufacturing

Sales animation (bars and supermarkets) Social networks

Implementation of the project of the communication solution

Key success factors

Endurance result

Fully recyclable and biodegradable packaging Optimization of packages

Glass (55% recyclable) Optimization of boxes to reduce the transportation impact

Implementation of ecodesign packaging

Website/social networks Interactivity - proximity marketing

Valuation of an invasive species Fight against obesity

Fairness in producer remuneration

Answers to initial SD challenges

Participation in the rebalancing of ecosystems


Valuation of by-products (composting, animal feed)


Integration of SD into this knowledge

Characteristic features

266 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries


Initial issue

Initial observation

XTC - TNS Sofres Department heads Star chef

Consumer research Fisheries market Finding a healthy substitute for meat

Sources of information

Problem taken into account

Acceptability Street food sales

Innovation approach

Difficulties encountered

Offer a healthy and tasty alternative to meat

Offer a service to students, main consumers of fast food

Issues at stake

Low demand in France for vegetable proteins Altering the plant matrix (texture) to be more like the animal matrix Adapting the meat transformation process

Health aspect (protein, iron, lysine, methionine intakes) Environmental (soil fertility, crop rotation and the elimination of synthetic fertilizers) Cultural (practical and quick preparation of legumes)

Local product added value: algae A nutritional alternative to hot dogs

Feeding the planet Protein transition

Growing market for veggie and vegan products Reduction in red meat consumption Future food shortages

Vegan trend

Initial report

Ici&Là Protein transition An agricultural product in economic difficulty: “Velay” green lentils

Increased demand for domestic catering

So Sea’S

Starting point


Appendix 267

Relevance interpretation



Ici&Là A legume steak Consumers wishing to reduce their meat consumption €5 Taste, texture Culturally adapted to French consumers Use of legumes known by the consumers Organic Clean label Vegetable and legumes (different from tofu-based competition products) Organoleptic experience Naturality Vegetables French producers Health and environmental aspects are respected without disrupting eating habits and cognitive representations of “meat steaks” A solution to meat production and consumption issues Organic dish based on legumes with French sourcing Enhancing the value of a raw material Participate in the protein transition

So Sea’S Vegetarian sausage Young persons (15–35 years old) €5 Response to flexitarism

Nomadic pleasure Original taste Nomadism Practicality Vegan Distribution method A nomadic, original and vegan product Nutritional quality Valuation of algae Ecological distribution channel

Imagined response

Target Price per unit

Advantages of the product

Consumer insight

Product promises

Product benefit

Differentiating factors

Value created

Responding to issues

Why the solution created?


268 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Durability experimentation

Raw material: seaweed

Consumer test Nutritional


Sustainability of technologies (processes, raw materials)

Analyses performed (LCA, sensory, nutritional)

Essential knowledge and know-how (technical, logistical, ingredients, law, etc.)

Integration of SD into this knowledge

Environmental (distribution method)

Value (environmental, economic, social, experiential) of the solution

So Sea’S Improving nutrition

A solution for what?

Characteristic features

Pulses Local engagement

Control of the atypical production line (vegetable matrix) Texture R&D

Test in collective catering (work on recipes, taste validation) Sensory Nutritional

Commitment to producers Sourcing

Environmental (legumes), social (commitment with producers on volume over three years), economic (sourcing) and experiential (texture)

Ici&Là Reduce the carbon footprint Offer an alternative to meat

Appendix 269

Without additives Adapted to the French context Sourcing Animation in school restaurants and cook training No additives are added

Sourcing expertise

Show local viability to “export” it (franchise)

Energy-efficient machines

Collective, commercial catering and organic shops

Implementation of the project of the raw material solution

Sales with bicycles Sales at festivals

Implementation of the project of the distribution solution

Animation about the product in shops and in collective catering


Graphic universe Internet

Implementation of the project of the communication solution

Recyclable cardboard box Optimization of packaging for transport

Ici&Là Valuation of legumes Local production Medium-term commitment with producers on volumes

Implementation of the project of the factory solution


Implementation of the packaging solution

Table A.4. Development stages of ÉcoTrophélia projects ecodesigned according to the “protein transition” axis

Key success factors

Endurance result

Valuation of algae

So Sea’S

Addressing initial SD issues

Characteristic features

270 Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries


Achtenhagen, L., Melin, L., and Naldi, L. (2013). Dynamics of business models – Strategizing, critical capabilities and activities for sustained value creation. Long Range Planning, 46(6), 427–442. Acquier, A. (2007). Les modèles de pilotage du développement durable : Du contrôle externe à la conception innovante. PhD thesis, École des Mines, Paris. Adam, G. (1984). La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise. Management et conjoncture sociale, 444. ADEME (2012). Énergie et climat : Chiffres-clés. Catalogue [Online]. Available at: http:// ADEME (2014). Économie circulaire : Notions. Technical file. ADEME (2018). Agriculture et industries agroalimentaires éco-efficientes. Appel à projets du Programme d’investissements d’avenir opéré par l’ADEME. Adner, R. and Helfat, C. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1011–1025. AFNOR (2012). Développement durable et responsabilité sociétale. Guide d’utilisation de la norme ISO 26000 : 2010 pour le secteur de l’agroalimentaire, AC X30-030. AFNOR (2013). Management environnemental. Aide à la mise en place d’une démarche d’écoconception, NF X30-264. Aggeri, F., Pezet, E., Abrassart, C., and Acquier, A. (2005). Organiser le développement durable. Vuibert, Paris. Agogué, M. (2016). Alex F. Osborn – Le brainstorming, premier outil de support à la pensée créative. In Les grands auteurs en management de l’innovation et de la créativité, BurgerHelmchen, T., Hussler, C., and Cohendet, P. (eds). EMS Éditions, Cormelles-le-Royal.

Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries, First Edition. Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris, Hiam Serhan, Sibylle Duchaîne, Jean-Marc Ferrandi and Gilles Trystram. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Agreste (2011). Tableaux de l’économie française, exploitations agricoles. Report. Agreste (2012). Les femmes dans le monde agricole. Analyse, 38. ALIM’AGRI (2016). L’agroalimentaire, un secteur clé de l’économie française. Report, Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Industrie et de la Forêt. Altamo, M., Sanmarti, E., and Espuna, A. (1997). Rationalizing the water use in the batch process industry. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 21, S971–976. Altshuller, G. and Altov, H. (1996). And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared: TRIZ, the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. Technical Innovation Center Inc., Worcester. Altshuller, G. and Shulyak, L. (1997). 40 Principles TRIZ Keys to Technical Innovation. Technical Innovation Center Inc., Worcester. Andrews, E. (2010). Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. UNEP/ Earthprint, Paris. ANIA (2013). Bonnes pratiques du livre vert espace-pro, développement durable. Available at: bonnes-pratiques. ANSES (2017). PNNS 2017-2021 : Révision des repères nutritionnels pour les adultes. Audsley, E., Brander, M., Chatterton, J., Murphy-Bokern, D., Webster, C., and Williams, A. (2009). How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope to reduce them by 2050. Report for the WWF Food Climate Research Network. Barbosa-Canova, G., Mortimer, A., Lineback, D., Spiess, W., Buckle, K., and Colonna, P. (2009). Global Issues in Food Science and Technology. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Barnard, C. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Basu, K. and Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management, 33(1), 122–136. Beaulieu, L. (2016). Analyse sociale du cycle de vie AsCV, une introduction. Presentation, CIRAIG. Bengtsson, L., Lakemond, N., Lazzorottie, V., Manzini, R., Pelligrini, L., and Tell, F. (2015). Open to a select few? Matching partners and knowledge content for open innovation performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(1), 72–86. Berle, A. and Means, G. (1932). The Modern Corporation and the Private Property. MacMillan, New York. Bertoluci, G., Masset, G., Gomy, C., Mottet, J., and Darmon, N. (2016). How to build a standardized country-specific environmental food database for nutritional epidemiology studies. PLOS One, 11(4).



Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., and Mol, M. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 825–845. Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., and Evans, S. (2013). A mapping tool for sustainable business modelling. Corporate Governance, 13(5), 482–497. Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., and Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. Bouvy, T., De Theux, M., Raucent, B., Smidts, D., Sobieski, P., and Wouters, P. (2010). Compétences et rôle du tuteur en pédagogie active. In Raucent, B., Verzat, C., and Villeneuve, L. (eds.). Accompagner les étudiants. De Boeck Superior, Brussels. Bowen, H. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Harper & Brothers, New York. Brezet, H. and van Hemel, C. (1997). A Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption. UNEP, Paris. Brown, T. and Katz, B. (2010). L’esprit Design : Comment le design thinking change l’entreprise et la stratégie. Pearson, Montreuil. Brundtland, G. (1987). Our common future – Call for action. Environmental Conservation, 14(4) [Online]. Available at: Burns, T., and Stalker, G. (1961). The Management of Innovation. Tavistock Publication Limited, London. Butel-Bellini, B., and Janin, M. (2011). The integration of the environment in product design: State of the art tools available. Techniques de l’Ingénieur. Buzan, T. and Buzan, B. (2012). Mind Map : Dessine-moi l’intelligence, 3rd edition. Eyrolles, Paris. Cadoux, M. (2016). Au rayon traiteur, les pâtes fraîches montent en gamme. LSA 2396 [Online]. Available at:,229485. Calame, P. (2009). Essai sur l’œconomie. Éditions Charles-Léopold Mayer, Paris. Camus, S. (2004). Proposition d’une échelle de mesure de l’authenticité perçue d’un produit alimentaire. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 19(4), 39–63. CGDD (2013). Bilan énergétique de la France pour 2013. Report. Chapel, V. (1997). La croissance par l’innovation intensive : De la dynamique d’apprentissage à la révélation d’un modèle industriel – Le cas Téfal. PhD thesis, Écoles des Mines, Paris. Charreaux, G. and Desbrières, P. (1998). Gouvernance des entreprises : Valeur partenariale contre valeur actionnariale. Finance Contrôle Stratégie, 2, 57–88.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Charter, M., Peattie, K., Ottoman, J., and Polonsky, M.J. (2006). Marketing and sustainability [Online]. Available at: links/smart-know-net.pdf. Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43, 354–363. Chesbrough, H. and Brown, J. (2006). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. CIPRET-Vaud (2014). Les conséquences de l’arrêt du tabac [Online]. Available at: Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117. Claude, S., Ponchon, C., Maison, M., Boulon, P., Muniglia, L., and Cuq, B. (2015). Pédagogie et apprentissage par projet : Cas des projets d’innovation réalisés dans le cadre d’un partenariat industriel. Colloque International : Apprendre, Transmettre, Innover à et par l’université. Montpellier, France. Cohen, D. (2006). Trois leçons sur la société post-industrielle. Le Seuil, Paris. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. Colonna, P., Fournier, S., and Touzard, J. (2011). Systèmes alimentaires. In Pour une alimentation durable, réflexion stratégique DuALIne, Esnouf, C., Bricas, N., and Russel, M. (eds). Éditions Quae, Paris, 236. Commission européenne (2011). Responsabilité sociale des entreprises : Une nouvelle stratégie de l’UE pour la période 2011–2014. Communication de la Commission au Parlement européen, au Conseil, au Comité économique et social européen et au Comité des régions. Commission européenne (2012). Continuous environmental improvement. European Food SCP Round Table. Final Report. Coombs, R. and Hull, R. (1998). Knowledge management practices and path dependency in innovation. Research Policy, 27(3), 237–253. Cordonnier, C. (2014). Nutrition de bébé : Les 1000 premiers jours sont les plus importants. Topsanté.com [Online]. Available at: alimentation-de-bebe/nutrition-de-bebe-les-1000-premiers-jours-sont-les-plus-importants60805. CRÉDOC (2005). Les comportements alimentaires des seniors. Press release. Curtet, R. (1998). Pain blanc, pain complet : Fabrication et intérêt diétéique. PhD thesis, Université Grenoble Alpes. Daly, H.-E. (1990). Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 2(1), 1–6.



Darmon, N. (2015). Une alimentation bonne pour la santé est-elle compatible avec une alimentation bonne pour l’environnement ? In Brunel, S. (ed.). Alimentation à découvert. CNRS Éditions, Paris. Darmon, M. and Darmon, N. (2009). L’équilibre nutritionnel : Concepts de base et nouveaux indicateurs. Lavoisier, Paris. Darmon, N. and Soler, L.G. (2011). Impact carbone et qualité nutritionnelle des régimes alimentaires en France. In DuALIne – durabilité de l’alimentation face à de nouveaux enjeux, Esnouf, C., Russel, M., and Bricas, N. (eds). Inra-Cirad Report. De Bono, E. (1987). Six chapeaux pour penser. Interéditions, Paris. De Bono, E. (2004). La boîte à outils de la créativité, par l’inventeur de la pensée latérale. Eyrolles, Paris. De Cunto, A., Tegoni, C., Michel, C., and Lajili-Djalaï, F. (2017). Food in cities: Study on innovation for a sustainable and healthy production, delivery, and consumption of food in cities. European Commission study. Debois, F., Groff, A., and Chevenier, E. (2015). La boîte à outils de la créativité, 2nd edition. Dunod, Paris. Deschamps, J. and Nayak, P. (1997). Les maîtres de l’innovation totale. Éditions d’Organisation, Paris. Dufeu, I., Ferrandi, J., Fegall-Ely, M., and Gabriel, P. (2014). Multi-labellisation socioenvironnementale et consentement à payer du consommateur. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 29(3), 35–56. Eckert, C., Bertoluci, G., and Yannou, B. (2014). Handling subjective product properties in engineering, food and fashion. 13th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia. El Akremi, A., Dhaouadi, I., and Igalens, J. (2008). La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise sous l’éclairage des critical management studies : Vers un nouveau cadre d’analyse de la relation entreprise-société. Finance contrôle stratégie, 11(3), 65–94. El Halwagi, M., Gabriel, F., and Harell, D. (2003). Rigorous graphical targeting for resource conservation via material recycle/reuse network. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 42(19), 4319–4328. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ermine, J.L., Mouradi, M., and Brunel, S. (2012). Une chaîne de valeur de la connaissance. Management International, 16, 29–40. Esnouf, C. and Bricas, N. (2011). De nouveaux enjeux pour les systèmes alimentaires. In Pour une alimentation durable, réflexion stratégique – DuALIne, Esnouf, C., Bricas, N., and Russel, M. (eds). Éditions Quae, Paris.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Eurogroup Consulting (2012). La grande distribution et l’évolution de notre société. Study. FAO (2010). Symposium scientifique international : Biodiversité et régimes alimentaires durables – Unis contre la faim. Final report [Online]. Available at: humannutrition/25916-0f23e974a12924600117086270a751f60. pdf. FAO (2014). Urban food action platform [Online]. Available at: FAO (2015a). La FAO et les 17 objectifs du développement durable. Report [Online]. Available at: FAO (2015b). Développer des chaînes de valeur alimentaires durables – Principes directeurs. Report [Online]. Available at: FAO (2016). Améliorer les systèmes alimentaires en faveur de la nutrition et de la santé. Form [Online]. Available at: FAO (2018a). Les ressources génétiques et la biodiversité pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture : Un trésor pour l’avenir. Form [Online]. Available at: infographics/FAO-Infographic-CGRFA30-fr.pdf. FAO (2018b). Les insectes comestibles, une solution pour la sécurité alimentaire humaine et animale ? [Online]. Available at: Ferrandi, J.M. and Lichtle, M.C. (2014). Le Marketing. Dunod, Paris. Fischler, C. (2004). Les changements sociaux et culturels liés à l’alimentation. Actes du colloque L’alimentation de demain : les apports de la science et de la technologie à la qualité et à la sécurité des aliments. Fischler, C. (2011). La peur est dans l’assiette. Revue française du marketing, 183/184, 7–10. Fournier, S. and Touzard, J. (2014). La complexité des systèmes alimentaires : Un atout pour la sécurité alimentaire ? VertigO, 14(1), 1–20. Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205. Galbraith, J.R. (1982). Designing the innovating organization. Organizational Dynamics, 10(3), 5–26. Gillies, E. (2017). In search of a sustainable nutritious diet. The McGill Tribune [Online]. Available at: Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J., and Krause, T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 204(4), 874–907.



Gond, J., and Igalens, J. (2018). La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise, 6th edition. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. GreenFlex (2017). Les français et la consommation responsable. Study. Hamel, G. (2006). The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84(2), 1–18. Hatchuel, A. (2000). Quel horizon pour les sciences de gestion ? Vers une théorie de l’action collective. In Les nouvelles fondations des sciences de gestion, David, A., Hatchuel, A., and Laufer, R. (eds). Vuibert, Paris. Hatchuel, A. (2015). Apprentissages collectifs et activités de conception. Revue française de gestion, 253, 121–137. Hatchuel, A. and Le Masson, P. (2001). Innovation répétée et croissance de la firme : Microéconomie et gestion des fonctions de conception. Cahier de recherche du CGS, 18, 61. Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (1992). L’expert et le système. Economica, Paris. Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2002). La théorie C-K : Fondements et usages d’une théorie unifiée de la conception. Colloque Sciences de la conception, Lyon, France. Heywood, V.H. (1995). The Global Biodiversity Assessment, United Nations Environment Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. HLPE (2017). Nutrition and food systems. Report no. 12 [Online]. Available at: http:// Hoekstra, A., Chapagain, A., Aldaya, M., and Mekonnen, M. (2011). The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Routledge, London. Ian, C. (2007). Pinch Analysis and Process Integration – A User Guide on Process Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy. Jordan Hill, Oxford. INSEE (2015). Cinquante ans de consommation alimentaire : Une croissance modérée, mais de profonds changements. INSEE Première, 1568. Janin, M. (2000). Démarche d’écoconception en entreprise. Un enjeu : Construire la cohérence entre outils et processus. PhD thesis, Arts et Métiers ParisTech. Jolliet, O., Mueller-Benk, R., Bare, J., Brent, A., Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Itsubo, N., Pena, C., Pennington, D., Potting, J., Rebitzer, G., Stewart, M., Udo de Haes, H., and Weidema, B. (2004). The life cycle impact assessment framework of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 9(6), 394–404. Jolliet, O., Dubreuil, A., Gloria, T., and Hauschild, M. (2005). Progress in life cycle impact assessment within the UNEP: SETAC life cycle initiative. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 447–448. Jolliet, O., Saadé, M., Crettaz, P., and Shaked, S. (2010). Analyse du Cycle de vie – Comprendre et réaliser un écobilan. Presses polytechniques et universitaires Romandes, Lausanne.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Julia, C. (2014). NutriScore. Développement – Validation scientifique. Université Paris 13 Nord, Équipe de recherche en épidémiologie nutritionnelle (EREN), Inserm, INRA, CNAM. Juran, J. and De Feo, J. (2010). Juran’s Quality Handbook, 6th edition. McGraw-Hill Education, New York. Kantar TNS (2016). Food 360. Étude réalisée pour le SIAL 2016 en synergie avec le cahier de tendances alimentaires Futur Food de XTC world innovation. Available at: https://www. Kochan, T. and Rubinstein, S. (2000). Toward a stakeholder theory of the firm: The Saturn partnership. Organization Science, 11(4), 367–386. Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm: Combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397. Kopp, P. (2015). Le coût social des drogues en France. Report, Observatoire français des drogues et des toxicomanies. Lagrange, L. and Valceschini, E. (2007). L’économie de la qualité : Enjeux, acquis et perspectives. Économie rurale. Agricultures, alimentations, territoires, 300, 94–99. Lahlou, S. (2012). Les déterminants du comportement alimentaire et les mécanismes du changement. In Comportement alimentaire : Les leviers du changement. Colloque du Fonds français pour l’alimentation et la santé [Online]. Available at: http:// Lambert, C., Laulan, B., Decloux, M., Romdhana, E., and Courtois, F. (2018). Simulation of a sugar beet factory using a chemical engineering software ProSimPlus® to perform Pinch and exergy analysis. Journal of Food Engineering, 225, 1–11. Le Masson, P., Weil, B., and Hatchuel, A. (2006). Les processus d’innovation. Conception innovante et croissance des entreprises. Hermes-Lavoisier, Paris. Le Pochat, S. (2005). Intégration de l’écoconception dans les PME : Proposition d’une méthode d’appropriation de savoir-faire pour la conception environnementale des produits. PhD thesis, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, Paris. Le Pochat, S., Bertoluci, G., and Froelich, D. (2005). An environmental analysis tool for environmental product design in SME’s. Twelfth CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Seminar, Grenoble. Lenfle, S. (2008). Projets et conception innovante. Management Science HDR, Université Paris Dauphine. Leroy, Y. (2009). Développement d’une méthodologie de fiabilisation des prises de décisions environnementales dans le cadre d’analyses de cycle de vie basée sur l’analyse et la gestion des incertitudes sur les données d’inventaires. PhD thesis, Institut des Arts et Métiers, Paris.



Linnhoff, B. and Flower, J. (1978). Synthesis of heat exchanger networks. AIChE Journal, 24, 633–654. Locatelli, B., Vallet, A., Fedele, G., and Rapidel, B. (2017). Analyser des services écosystémiques pour gérer des territoires. In Des territoires vivants pour transformer le monde, Caron, P., Valette, E., Wassenaar, T., Coppens d’Eeckenbrugge, G., and Papazian, V. (eds). Cirad-Quae, Versailles. Lorino, P. and Nefussi, J. (2007). Tertiarisation des filières et reconstruction du sens à travers des récits collectifs. Revue française de gestion, 170, 75–92. Lorino, P. and Tarondeau, J. (2015). De la stratégie aux processus stratégiques. Revue française de gestion, 41(253), 231–250. Lorsh, J. and Lawrence, P. (1965). Organizing for product innovation. Harvard Business Review, 43(1), 109–120. Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2010). Towards a conceptual framework of business models for sustainability. ERSCP-EMU Conference, Delft, 1–28. Macombe, C. (2017). Social evaluation of the life cycle, application to the agriculture and agri-food sectors Montpellier. In Researcher School Book, Macombe, C. (ed.). Cirad, Paris. Madella, L. (2018). Bruno Hérault : “On mange comme on vit”. L’Est Républicain [Online]. Available at: Malassis, L. (1994). Nourrir les hommes. Un exposé pour comprendre, un essai pour réfléchir. Flammarion, Paris. Malassis, L. (1996). Les trois âges de l’alimentaire. Agro-alimentaria, 2. Martin, S. (2015). L’impact environnemental de l’alimentation. In L’alimentation à découvert, Esnouf, C., Fioramonti, J., and Laurioux, B. (eds). CNRS Éditions, Paris. Martinet, A. (2006). Parties prenantes, management stratégique et politique. In Décider avec les parties prenantes : Approches d’une nouvelle théorie de la société civile, BonnafousBoucher, M. and Pesqueux, Y. (eds). La Découverte, Paris. Martinet, A. and Payaud, M. (2014). RSE. In Encyclopédie de la stratégie, Tannery, F., Denis, J-P., Hafsi, T., and Martinet, A.C. (eds). Vuibert, Paris. Martinet, A. and Reynaud, E. (2004). Entreprise durable, finance et stratégie. Revue française de gestion, 5, 121–136. Masset, G., Soler, L.G., Vieux, F., and Darmon, N. (2014). Identifying sustainable foods: The relationship between environmental impact, nutritional quality, and prices of foods representative of the French diet. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 114(6), 862–869.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books, New York. Mercier, S. (1999). L’éthique dans les entreprises. La Découverte, Paris. Mercier, S. (2006). La théorie des parties prenantes : Une synthèse de la littérature. In Décider avec les parties prenantes : Approches d’une nouvelle théorie de la société civile, Bonnafous-Boucher, M. and Pesqueux, Y. (eds). La Découverte, Paris. Meyer, L., Boulon, P., Sotiriou, M., and Cuq, B. (2013). Pédagogie par la gestion de projet dans le cadre d’un concours d’innovation alimentaire : Mise en place du programme IDEFI-ECOTROPHELIA. Actes du VIIe colloque. Questions de pédagogie dans l’enseignement supérieur, Sherbrooke, 362–371. Mintzberg, H. (1982). Structure et dynamique des organisations. Éditions d’Organisation, Paris. Mitchell, R., Agle, B., and Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholders’ identification and salience: Defining the principles of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. Moisdon, C. (1997). Du mode d’existence des outils de gestion. Les instruments de gestion à l’épreuve de l’organisation. Seli Arslan, Paris. Monard, S. (2014). Donner du sens à ses achats : Les consommateurs sont prêts à payer davantage les produits et services des entreprises responsables [Online]. Available at: Monier-Dilhan, S. (2018). Food labels: Consumer’s information or consumer’s confusion. OCL Journal, 25(2). Moreno, Y.F. (2006). Features of whey protein concentrate supplementation in children with rapidly progressive HIV infection. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, 52(1), 38–34. Moriceau, J. (2006). Théorie des parties prenantes et figures sans visage. In Décider avec les parties prenantes : Approches d’une nouvelle théorie de la société civile, BonnafousBoucher, M., and Pesqueux, Y. (eds). La Découverte, Paris. Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. (2007). Strategic management as distributed practical wisdom (phronesis). Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(3), 371–394. Norris, G. and O’Dwyer, B. (2004). Motivating socially responsive decision making: The operation of management controls in a social responsive organization. British Accounting Review, 36(2), 173–196. Norris, C., Aulisio, D., Norris, G., Hallisey-Kepka, C., Overakker, S., and Niederman, G. (2011). A social hotspot database for acquiring greater visibility in product supply chains: Overview and application to orange juice. In Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management, Finkbeiner, M. (ed.). Springer, Dordrecht.



OECD (2010). The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow. Paris. OECD (2011). Mondialisation, Transport et Environnement. Paris. OECD (2015a). Objectifs de développement durable : 17 objectifs pour transformer notre monde [Online]. Available at: development-agenda. OECD (2015b). The Innovation Imperative: Contributing to Productivity, Growth and Well-being. Paris. OECD (2016). Alternatives Futures for Global Food and Agriculture. Paris. OMS (2017). Journée mondiale sans tabac 2017 : Le tabac – Une menace pour le développement. Campagnes mondiales de santé publique de l’OMS [Online]. Available at: Osborn, A. (1948). Your Creative Power. How to use Imagination to Brighten Life, to Get Ahead. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. Padilla, M., Oberti, B., and Sirieix, L. (2005). Les comportements alimentaires. In Nourrir 9 milliards d’hommes, Ghersi, G. (ed.). ADPF – Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Paris. Pavie, X., Jouanny, C., Carthy, D., and Verez, F. (2015). Le design thinking au service de l’innovation responsable. Maxima, Paris. Pesqueux, Y. (2006). Pour une évaluation critique de la théorie des parties prenantes. In Bonnafous-Boucher, M. and Pesqueux, Y. (eds). Décider avec les parties prenantes : Approches d’une nouvelle théorie de la société civile. La Découverte, Paris. Petit, G., Sablayrolles, C., and Yannou-Le Bris, G. (2018). Combining eco-social and environmental indicators to assess the sustainability performance of a meat value chain: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 191, 135–143. Ponchon, C., Claude, S., Boulon, P., and Cuq, B. (2015). Conception d’une boîte à outils par un réseau d’établissements, accompagner la pédagogie par apprentissage par projet dans le cas de projets d’innovation agroalimentaire. Actes du VIIIe colloque. Questions de pédagogie dans l’enseignement supérieur, Brest, 270–276. Porter, M. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, March– April, 137–145. Porter, M., Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 2–17. Powell, T. (2008). The knowledge value chain: How to fix it when it breaks. In Knowledge Value Chain Workbook, Version 3.2. The Knowledge Agency, New York. Prahalad, C. (2004). The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Pearson Education India, Delhi.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Prakash, R. and Shenoy, U. (2005). Targeting and design of water networks for fixed flowrate and fixed contaminant load operations. Chemical Engineering Science, 60(60), 255–268. Puget, Y. (2018). Comment les prix ont-ils évolué en 2017 ? [Online]. Available at:,276907. Radjou, N. and Prabhu, J. (2015). Innovation frugale : Comment faire mieux avec moins. Éditions Diateino, Paris. Ranganathan, J., Vennard, D., Waite, R., Searchinger, T., Dumas, P., and Lipinski, B. (2016). Shifting diets for a sustainable food future. Working document, Instalment 11 of creating a sustainable food future, World Resources Institute, Washington. Rastoin, J. (2015). Prospectives des systèmes alimentaires. In L’alimentation à découvert, Esnouf, C., Fioramonti, J. and Laurioux, B. (eds). CNRS Éditions, Paris. Rastoin, J. and Ghersi, G. (2010). Le système alimentaire mondial. Concepts et méthodes, analyses et dynamiques. Éditions Quae, Paris. Rawls, J. (1987). Théorie de la justice. Le Seuil, Paris. Reardon, T. and Timmer, C.P. (2007). Transformation of markets for agricultural output in developing countries since 1950: How has thinking changed? Handbook of Agricultural Economics, 3(55), 2807–2855. Robbins, S. and Judge, T. (2013). Organizational Behavior. Pearson, Prentice Hall, New York. Salmon, A. (2005). L’éthique économique comme objet sociologique. In Responsabilité sociale et environnementale de l’entreprise, Turcotte, M.-F. and Salmon, A. (eds). Presses de l’université du Québec, Quebec. Salomone, R. and Ioppolo, G. (2012). Environmental impacts of olive oil production: A life cycle assessment case study in the province of Messina Sicil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 28, 88–100. Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., and Lai, K. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 130(1), 1–15. Schein, E. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Schein, E. (1988). Innovative cultures and organizations. Working document, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Scheromm, P. (2014). Cultiver en ville… Cultiver la ville ? L’agriculture urbaine à Montpellier. Espaces et Sociétés, 158(3), 49–66. Serhan, H. (2017). Pratiques d’appropriation et dynamique des connaissances de la norme ISO 9001 du système de management de la qualité : Outil de conformation et creuset d’innovation. PhD thesis, Université Paris-Saclay-AgroParisTech, Paris. Serhan, H. (2018). Creating conformity, facilitating innovation: A practice-based study of implementing ISO 9001 standard. Congrès RRI–VIII Forum de l’innovation, les nouveaux modes de l’organisation, IUT Nîmes–Université Montpellier 1, Nîmes, June 4–5.



Seyfang, G. (2010). Ecologica citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local organic food networks. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(4), 383–395. Silvestre, B. and Mihaela-Tirca, D. (2018). Innovation for sustainable development: Moving toward a sustainable future. Journal of Cleaner Production (uncorrected proof). Available at: doi.or/10.1016/j.clepro.2018.09.244. Stanziani, A. (2005). Histoire de la qualité alimentaire : XIXe-XXe siècles. Le Seuil, Paris. Teece, D. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of sustainable enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. Teece, D. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395–1401. Thevendirarj, S., Klemes, J., Paz, D., Aso, G., and Cardenas, J. (2003). Water and wastewater minimisation study of a citrus plant. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 37(3), 227–250. Timmer, C.P. (2009a). A World Without Agriculture: The Structural Transformation in Historical Perspective. The AEI Press, Washington, DC. Timmer, C.P. (2009b). Do supermarkets change the food policy agenda? World Development, 37(11), 1812–1819. Timmer, C.P. (2017). Food security, structural transformation, markets and government policy. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 4(1), 4–19. Tokos, H. and Novak, P. (2009). Synthesis of batch water network for a brewery plant. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 422–435. Treguer, J.-P. (2008). Le nombre de nouveaux produits destinés aux +50 ans double chaque année, les marques découvrent le potentiel du marché des seniors et des baby-boomers. Le “senior marketing” a de beaux jours devant lui ! Blog, Senioragency, February 18 [Online]. Available at: Trystram, G. (2004). Les technologies, les nouvelles, les anciennes améliorées : Quel rôle vont-elles jouer à l’avenir pour garantir les qualités de nos aliments ? Actes du colloque L’alimentation de demain : Les apports de la science et de la technologie à la qualité et à la sécurité des aliments, Paris. Trystram, G. (2012). Les enjeux de la durabilité : Comment concilier ces nouvelles contraintes avec les exigences actuelles. In L’alimentation à découvert, Esnouf, C., Fioramonti, J., and Laurioux, B. (eds). CNRS Éditions, Paris. UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products [Online]. Available at:


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

Vaissière, B., Freitas, B., and Gemmill-Herren, B. (2011). Protocol to detect and assess pollination deficits in crops: A handbook for its use. FAO, United Nations, Rome [Online]. Available at: van Loon, L.J.C. and Gibala, M.J. (2012). Dietary protein to support muscle hypertrophy. In Sports Nutrition: More Than Just Calories – Triggers for Adaptation, Burke, L.M. and Maughan, R.J. (eds). Vevey/S. Karger AG, Basel. Verona, G. and Ravasi, D. (2003). Unbundling dynamic capabilities: An exploratory study of continuous product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(3), 577–606. Vieux, F., Soler, L.G., Touazi, D., and Darmon, N. (2013). High nutritional quality is not associated with low green house gas emissions in self-selected diets of French adults. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 97(3), 569–583. Villarreal, O. and Calvo, N. (2015). From the triple helix model to the global open innovation model: A case study based on international cooperation for innovation Dominican Republic. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 35, 71–92. Virtanen, Y., Kurppa, S., Saarinen, M., Katajajuuri, J.M., Usva, K., Mäenpää, I., Mäkelä, J., Grönroos, J., and Nissinen, A. (2011). Carbon footprint of food, approaches from national input-output statistics and a LCA of a food portion. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(16), 1849–1856. Wang, Y. and Smith, R. (1994). Wastewater minimization. Chemical Engineering Science, 49(7), 905–914. Weinreich, N. (2010). Hands-on Social Marketing: A step-by-step Guide to Designing Change for Good, 2nd edition. Sage Publications, New York. Wimmer, W., Züst, R., and Lee, K. (2004). Ecodesign Implementation. A Systematic Guidance on Integrating Environmental Considerations into Product Development. Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht. Yannou-Le Bris, G. and Ferrandi, J-M. (2016). Éco-concevoir et éco-innover : Deux stratégies essentielles pour répondre aux enjeux sociétaux à venir. IAA La Revue des Industries Agroalimentaires, March–April. Yannou-Le Bris, G. and Lallmahomed, A. (2016). Quels outils pour quelle écoconception alimentaire ? IAA, La Revue des Industries Agroalimentaires, March–April, 22–24. Zysman, J. and Kenney, M. (2018). The next phase in the digital revolution: Abundant computing, platforms, growth, and employment. Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery, 61(2), 54–63.


A, B, C additive, 15, 117, 121, 122, 124, 125, 129, 164, 186, 190, 198, 222, 227 agri-food industry, 19, 80, 93 agriculture, see also farming, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11–22, 24–27, 30–32, 34–40, 43, 44, 52, 57, 66, 70, 73, 76, 93–98, 104, 146, 159, 173, 183, 185, 198, 202–205, 210, 212–214, 227 precision, 17, 40 agro-ecological practices, 53, 93, 210 analysis: market, 118, 135, 200, 219, 220 biodiversity, 4, 14, 16, 27, 30, 32, 35–37, 39, 41–44, 69, 93, 97, 105, 150, 212 brainstorming, 61, 219, 232 business model, 24, 26, 27, 29, 37, 38, 40, 45, 48, 52, 56, 87, 89, 90, 94, 100, 108, 109, 111, 112, 116, 120, 121, 127, 128, 132, 135, 136, 143, 144, 152, 153, 161, 162, 170, 171, 178, 179, 182, 187, 188, 194, 195, 200–209, 214, 215, 217, 223, 224, 229, 237, 239, 240 by-product(s), 5, 95, 99, 105, 107, 113, 114, 116, 118, 121, 145, 148, 150, 152–155, 158, 160–166, 169–171, 176, 177, 179, 184, 203, 204, 208–210, 218, 225, 226 carbon footprint, 65, 95, 106, 124, 133, 158, 167, 194, 228

certification, 25, 46, 47, 82, 91, 96, 98, 150, 177, 207, 222 chain food, 17, 27, 34, 38–40, 59, 73, 79, 98, 99, 108, 111, 132, 209, 212, 214–216 value, 9, 12, 18, 34, 38, 40, 43, 56, 58, 74, 75, 95, 99, 113, 205, 223, 228, 229, 237, 239 circular economy, 5, 45, 123, 202, 205, 207, 209, 216 citizenship, 36, 180 climate change, 8, 27, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 44, 45, 65, 86, 93, 174 conceptualization, 218, 231, 239 conservation, 6, 7, 20, 27, 44, 65, 92, 95, 105, 110, 118, 132, 147, 162, 166, 171, 176, 179, 195 consumption delayed, 3, 5 energy, 7, 44, 66, 86, 95, 105, 134, 136, 150, 153, 156, 193 food, 4, 9, 36, 71, 105 sustainable, 34, 42, 93, 116 creativity, 107, 109, 136, 146, 163–165, 206, 207, 215, 218, 224, 229, 231, 232, 240 session, 136, 146, 163, 164, 224, 229, 231, 232, 240

Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries, First Edition. Gwenola Yannou-Le Bris, Hiam Serhan, Sibylle Duchaîne, Jean-Marc Ferrandi and Gilles Trystram. © ISTE Ltd 2019. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

D, E, F deconstruction, 15 design thinking, 231 diet, 7, 105 disruption, 19, 20, 92, 209 eco-responsible, 93, 96, 127, 135, 147, 155, 156, 174, 187, 193, 194, 206, 210–212, 239, 240 engineer, 240 ecological transition, 41, 103, 104, 106, 108, 111, 215, 216, 224, 227, 228, 237, 239 economic viability, 35 educational contributions, 229 emission, 30, 33, 35, 36, 65, 67, 68, 77, 99, 105, 133, 158, 167, 168, 174–176, 208 energy fossil, 19, 34–36, 44, 86, 184 performance, 86, 90 renewable, 34, 90, 134, 136, 169, 210 entrepreneurship, 109 environmental assessment, 60–62, 65–67, 119 policy, 64 farming, see also agriculture, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 24, 30–32, 36, 37, 44, 52, 60, 77, 95–97, 148, 172, 177, 179, 181, 197, 198, 209, 210, 212, 227 organic, 16, 22, 28, 39, 58, 59, 74, 93, 96, 133, 172, 175, 177, 198, 207, 215 feedback, 132, 136, 216, 217 food, 3, 41, 104, 227, 243, 247 education, 70, 73 functional, 19, 28, 113, 202 insecurity, 7, 37, 96 mile, 12, 33, 94 supply, 4, 9, 13, 15, 18, 22, 27, 32, 34, 38, 106, 131, 183, 227 sustainability, 33, 38, 44, 47, 105, 118, 209, 224, 227

foodstuff, 19, 21, 34, 56, 72, 111, 195 frontier object, 216 G, H, I globalization, 14, 21, 33, 34, 37 governance, 12, 31, 40, 44, 45, 48, 49, 52, 53, 74, 75, 87, 214, 235, 241 greenhouse gas, 7, 30, 33, 35, 36, 65, 77, 105, 158, 168, 174–176 health through food, 73, 135, 113, 203, 212 ideation, 218, 231 innovative design, 29, 170, 202, 215, 235 K, L, M know-how, 12, 19, 20, 22, 25, 53, 89, 91, 130, 140, 141, 145, 146, 149, 151, 153, 164, 199, 206–208, 237 knowledge management, 81, 83, 234, 236, 237, 239–241 label, 16, 25, 27, 39, 47, 58, 59, 62, 72, 73, 91, 96–98, 106, 113, 117, 119, 121, 134, 136, 142, 147, 150, 164, 175–177, 179, 198, 201, 211, 222, 225–227 large-scale distribution, 8, 26, 27, 31, 33, 95, 116, 117, 150, 248 learning, 23, 29, 53–55, 70, 79, 80, 90, 107, 109, 112, 134, 146, 160, 204, 207, 208, 216, 228, 229, 232, 233, 240, 241 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), 66–68, 74, 90, 136, 158, 161, 199, 208, 215, 222, 228 local product(s), 25, 53, 73, 94, 125, 196, 199, 223 marine resources, 44, 148, 150, 183, 202, 205, 210 market distribution, 26 French, 26, 28, 114 logic, 17 placing on the, 107, 142


study, 109, 117, 122, 157, 158, 166, 173, 178, 192, 219, 220, 229 marketing, 19, 26, 27, 91, 92, 106, 107, 109, 110, 116, 124, 130, 132, 135, 139, 140, 142–149, 152, 153, 159, 168, 171, 177, 186, 187, 209, 215, 220, 222, 223, 229 method(s): consumption, 8, 9, 20, 27, 99, 139, 146, 147, 192, 211 production, 19, 20, 36, 37, 93, 97, 116, 150, 210 multidisciplinarity, 224, 241 N, O, P nutritional recommendations, 73, 74, 135, 205, 220 open innovation, 29, 221, 234–236 participatory innovation, 234–236, 240, 241 pedagogy, 107, 217, 229, 230, 232, 233, 240, 241 pollution, 30, 31, 35, 36, 65, 66, 90, 96, 170, 181, 185, 205 practical wisdom, 216, 237 private label, 20, 25, 59, 117 product-service, 17 profile nutritional, 73, 74, 97, 99, 117, 118, 120 project organization, 234 proteins animal, 7, 35, 36, 105, 114, 155, 180, 182–184 plant, 7, 62, 92, 105, 114 Q, R, S quality and superior taste, 16 ethical, 16 heritage, 16


nutritional, 4, 8, 53, 71–73, 99, 110, 132, 135, 151, 152, 161, 189, 190, 213 reconfiguration, 38, 45, 48, 81, 87, 89, 205, 206, 240 recycling, 53, 56, 64, 95, 96, 105, 118, 119, 121, 124, 128, 133, 134, 136, 142, 144, 150, 151, 156, 162, 164, 166–168, 171, 176, 179, 183, 185, 188, 193, 195, 201, 208, 211, 215 refining, 15 regulation, 5, 8, 9, 17, 23, 47, 59, 62, 72, 76, 79, 85, 87, 89, 105, 110, 111, 117, 125, 126, 178, 199, 205, 207 revolution digital, 19, 40 industrial, 19, 39 safety controlled hygienic, 27 food, 4, 14, 16, 30, 35, 36, 103, 104, 113, 213 scenario, 8, 34–37, 39, 67, 69, 77, 190, 228, 229 self-sufficiency, 7, 30, 34 skill, 81, 89, 237 cognitive, 80, 239 dynamic, 24, 89, 112, 120, 127, 135, 143, 152, 161, 170, 178, 187, 194, 200, 214 social audit, 52 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), 45–48, 50–57, 60, 74, 76, 82, 87, 88, 98, 99, 112, 185, 215 issues, 3, 4, 12, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47–49, 51, 56, 57, 59, 70, 71, 74–76, 79, 87, 90–92, 95, 99, 105, 106, 116, 119–121, 123, 132, 133, 138, 149, 154, 156, 160, 173, 174, 177, 178, 182, 183, 185–187, 192, 194, 202, 205, 209, 212, 214–216, 220, 223, 227, 237, 240, 241


Ecodesign and Ecoinnovation in the Food Industries

responsibility, 45, 46, 51, 54, 57, 88 socio-economics, 10, 11, 19, 27, 31, 37, 39, 56–58, 70, 74, 76, 77, 92, 93, 119, 127, 134, 152, 170, 178, 187, 200, 202, 205, 207, 209, 212, 214 stakeholder, 8–10, 17, 19, 22, 24, 29, 34, 37, 38, 40, 45–56, 74, 76, 79, 81, 82, 85, 87, 90, 91, 96, 98–100, 107, 112, 118, 132, 134, 136, 139, 150, 177, 203, 204, 206, 207, 209, 210, 215, 220, 223, 228, 231, 232, 234, 236, 240–242 standard ISO 14001, 82, 84, 85, 96, 98, 155, 162, 207, 210, 215, 224 ISO 26000, 52, 53, 82, 87, 88, 90, 96, 98, 99, 185, 210, 215 ISO 9001, 23, 81–84, 86, 90, 96, 98, 215 standardization, 4, 12, 14, 18, 21, 22, 29, 31, 32, 36, 39, 81, 90, 91, 103, 131, 132, 164, 212 strategy distribution, 20, 25, 26, 222 normative, 47 prescriptive, 47 proactive, 47 sustainable development, 8, 42, 105, 239, 243 system food, 8–13, 15, 16, 18–22, 27, 32–40, 43, 44, 52, 93, 104–106, 215, 224 agro-industrial, 4, 14, 15, 31, 32, 33, 39 convenience, 14 domestic, 13 local, 13 global, 34, 35, 36, 39 traditional, 18, 33, 34 intensive agro-industrial, 32 management, 20, 24, 80–86, 89–91, 96, 98, 99, 208–210, 215, 240

environmental (EMS), 82, 86 quality (QMS), 23, 81, 82, 98 systemic approach, 9, 10, 207, 213, 239 T, U, V, W tool(s): management, 62, 67, 80, 82, 91 trend, 26, 34, 79, 164, 196, 204, 219, 221, 240 uncertainty, 35, 36, 69, 114, 231, 241 urbanization, 4, 15, 25, 104 usefulness, 145 valorization of by-products, 95, 113, 150, 160, 162, 177, 179, 184, 203, 208, 218, 252, 262 value added, 17, 25, 31, 32, 39, 48, 58, 106, 109, 112, 145, 150, 154, 156, 161, 162, 164, 166, 167, 172, 173, 182, 186, 203, 208, 220, 236, 237 chain, 9, 12, 18, 34, 38, 40, 43, 56, 58, 74, 75, 88, 95, 99, 113, 205, 223, 228, 229, 237–239, 244, 245 creation, 17, 29, 49, 51, 52, 83, 87, 91, 99, 208, 228, 230, 237 ecological, 112 economic, 17, 73, 178, 209 energy, 110, 184 environmental, 84, 178, 187 heritage, 18, 33, 202 nutritional, 12, 57, 71, 93, 96, 118, 119, 121, 132, 140, 145, 168, 170, 187 sustainable, 80, 92, 170, 194, 204, 206, 209, 223 waste, 5, 7, 31, 45, 56, 68, 70, 86, 90, 93–95, 99, 105, 113, 114, 118, 119, 121, 141, 142, 151–155, 160–163, 166, 169, 170, 176, 183, 185, 186–188, 193, 202, 203, 208–210, 212, 215, 218, 220, 225, 226

Other titles from

in Agriculture, Food Science and Nutrition

2016 JEANTET Romain, CROGUENNEC Thomas, SCHUCK Pierre, BRULÉ Gérard Handbook of Food Science and Technology 1: Food Alteration and Food Quality Handbook of Food Science and Technology 2: Food Process Engineering and Packaging Handbook of Food Science and Technology 3: Food Biochemistry and Technology