Responsibility in Environmental Governance: Unwrapping the Global Food Waste Dilemma (Environmental Politics and Theory) 3031137280, 9783031137280

Citation preview

ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS AND THEORY

Responsibility in Environmental Governance Unwrapping the Global Food Waste Dilemma

Tobias Gumbert

Environmental Politics and Theory

Series Editor Joel Jay Kassiola, Department of Political Science, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA

The premise of this series is that the current environmental crisis cannot be solved by technological innovation alone. The environmental challenges we face today are, at their root, political crises involving political values, institutions and struggles for power. Therefore, environmental politics and theory are of the utmost social significance. Growing public consciousness of the environmental crisis and its human and more-than-human impacts, exemplified by the worldwide urgency and political activity associated with the problem and consequences of climate and earth system change make it imperative to design and achieve a sustainable and socially just society. The series publishes inter- and multi-disciplinary scholarship that extends the theoretical dimensions of green political theory, international relations, philosophy, and earth system governance. It addresses the need for social change away from the hegemonic consumer capitalist society to realize environmental sustainability and social justice.

Tobias Gumbert

Responsibility in Environmental Governance Unwrapping the Global Food Waste Dilemma

Tobias Gumbert Institute of Political Science University of Münster Muenster, Germany

ISSN 2731-670X ISSN 2731-6718 (electronic) Environmental Politics and Theory ISBN 978-3-031-13728-0 ISBN 978-3-031-13729-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13729-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Evandro Maroni/Stockimo/Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

This book was originally a Ph.D. thesis, accepted and defended in 2019 at the University of Münster (WWU), Germany, carrying the slightly more complex title “Unwrapping Responsibility in Global Environmental Governance—The Political Rationalities and Techniques of Governing Food Waste Reductions in the Anthropocene”. During the phases of reviewing and re-writing, the book’s original identity as a study at the intersection of environmental political theorizing and empirical governance research has now been more strongly focused on how we rhetorically and practically apply the notion of responsibility in these trying times. And that is, in distinct yet important ways, a fitting adjustment, since ‘responsibility’ captures the journey this book undertook, starting with the first Ph.D. outline back in early to mid-2014 all the way to the submission of the final manuscript, like no other. First, when I started my Ph.D. research, I knew that I wanted to situate this work in the context of global agrifood politics, and I quickly became interested in the issue of food waste. For the longest time, my analytical perspective and take on the evolution of economic logics and governance practices relating to the problem of food waste were influenced by the interplay of power and knowledge—who defines what, for which purpose, to achieve what, to influence whom, etc. As someone who dove deep into the thought of Michel Foucault and other French philosophers during my B.A. and M.A. studies, power/knowledge was my theoretical default setting (and some of it carried over to the book v

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

you are holding now, or rather the PDF file you are opening). So, while I studied the rapidly developing governance context of food waste, I kept looking at the problem frames and proposed solution strategies of governments, business actors, civil society organizations, etc. from this perspective. And while this poststructural take on food politics was able to explain what was happening to some degree, for instance, why particular food waste definitions were included in policy proposals and who benefited from it, it dawned on me at some point that the variance between actors, countries, and levels of governance, the overlapping and at times contradicting discourses and policy practices, could be explained in much more detail and even more intuitively by what these actors believed to be responsible conduct concerning the problem of food waste. At the time, that was a true moment of revelation for me, allowing me to connect important dots that were up to this point scattered all over the material. Different ‘ideas of responsibility’ became discernible, and these ideas were in turn connected to notions of ‘good governance’, theories of social change, specific concepts of transition/transformation, etc. And from that moment on, I knew my thesis had to plunge itself into the responsibility literature to develop a conceptual and methodological design which was necessary to capture, systematize, and eventually interpret these dynamics at play. I quickly realized though that within the current environmental politics/governance scholarship, there was not much I could build on, so I had to come up with an original approach. So, in other words, a responsibility perspective opened up a more holistic approach to studying food waste governance for me, while literally emerging from the study of the field. This explains why especially the later chapters of this book go to some length in describing and analyzing how the governance of food waste developed during the last decade. The second reason is of a more personal nature. Responsibility is a genuinely relational concept. There is no, there cannot be responsibility without thinking about who you are responsible for, who you want to be responsible for, who you should be responsible for. Responsibility can mean many things, but it is undoubtedly, essentially, connection. And this includes connection to the self, which is admittedly very difficult if not impossible to maintain permanently, for many reasons, let alone incredibly long work weeks and full work schedules—certainly not an isolated phenomenon in academic life. If we understand responsibility further as answerability, as giving truthful answers to questions that are brought before us, then being responsible is also about being sincere and genuine

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

vii

to yourself, and sometimes that is even more difficult, because we tend to digress and deflect, evade, avoid, and sidetrack uncomfortable truths. At some point during my Ph.D. years, I lost connection, and I was not truthful to myself. And since we are not living in isolation from others but rely on many social relations, near and distant, such a loss of connection affects those around us, even, or especially, if we do not realize it. I still have deep feelings of gratitude for friends and family who supported me back then and continue to do so to this day. Acknowledging a personal lack of responsibility is in itself an act of responsibility, and I would not want to start this book in any other way. In retrospect, these experiences most certainly contributed to the fact that I started to become interested in the study of responsibility. Because, after all, our research preferences and our personal experiences are more intertwined as we usually want to believe. Eventually, that journey led me to this conclusion: I do not believe that a politics based on an individual conception of responsibility—i.e., “doing one’s bit for the environment”—will get us anywhere near the gargantuan socio-ecological transformations that are necessary. Defining individual responsibilities based on the causal impact of actions on the environment, linking these actions to concrete, clear tasks and goals to prevent further harm, and monitor individual compliance, is a good start. It would be absurd to suggest that the liability and accountability mechanisms that have been installed across governance domains have been for nothing. And yet, if we accept the fact that the human existence is ultimately constituted by experiences of vulnerability, dependence, fragility, and limits, then a politics of responsibility must be imagined as radically different from what we are doing today to safeguard people and planet. I sincerely hope this book will make a small contribution to that end. Connection is truly a great theme for acknowledging those that have been there along the way and for being thankful for so much help, support, and opportunities I received during my Ph.D. years and after. I owe my supervisors, Doris Fuchs and Markus Lederer, a great debt for their exceptionally insightful and critical comments on earlier drafts, as well as for their patience and understanding when I just could not let the final version of my thesis go. Markus, thank you for always providing suggestions in an appreciative and friendly way, while still hitting the weak spots with pinpoint accuracy. It is truly a gift that I admire. Doris, thank you for providing the environment in which this study could grow and eventually see the light of day, and for introducing me to so many

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

incredible people who have shaped my thinking on environmental issues profoundly. Thank you for the freedom to follow hunches and test propositions, and the pushback when I walked off the trodden path for too long. You have been, and continue to be, an incredible mentor. Stephan Engelkamp and Katharina Glaab first introduced me to the academic world when they encouraged me to become a tutor for “Introduction to International Relations”, and I cannot overstate how big the ripple effect was that was set off by it. Both Stephan and Kathi, along with Antonia Graf, have been amazing colleagues, introduced me to conference life, created a highly motivating research and teaching environment during my start as a fresh Ph.D. student, and have become just all-around great friends. I am also grateful to those who have walked the path with me from the very beginning: Christine Prokopf, Sinja Hantscher, Christiane Bomert, Sebastian Schneider, Martina Hempel, Björn Goldstein, Manon Westphal, Fabian Wenner, and many other colleagues from the past (and present) ‘IfPol-Mittelbau’ who always shared food, Ph.D. anxieties, and great stories. With Anne Hennings, that list was considerably longer, and way more personal. Thank you for all the inspiration in so many spheres of life that you shared with me. Some are still walking, and my daily life would not be the same without you: Benedikt Lennartz, Anica Roßmöller, Lena Siepker, Hannah Klinkenborg, Victoria Hasenkamp, Pia Mamut, and Berenike Feldhoff. Thank you for making work at the institute so enjoyable! I would also like to thank a number of colleagues who were willing to comment and review my work, especially those rough, early drafts of articles and chapters, during my Ph.D. years: the members of the research group European and International Governance at the Institute of Political Science—especially Thomas Dietz, Bernd Schlipphak, and Oliver Treib who had this pleasure too many times. Many wonderful colleagues have, in their roles as chairs and discussants, caused me to fill an abundance of notebook pages with valuable ideas and remarks. On behalf of all of them, I want to thank Basil Bornemann, Esther Seha, Steven Bernstein, Eva Lövbrand, Tom Princen, Daniel Welch, Henrike Knappe, and Sigrid Kannengießer for their time and great suggestions. A very special thank you to Le Anh Long for her careful manuscript reads and across the board insightful book recommendations. The author group of the March Münster Meetings, recently responsible for a very accessible book on consumption corridors (go get it, it’s open access!), has provided

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ix

me with lots of intellectual food and good laughs over the years: Doris Fuchs, Marlyne Sahakian, Antonietta Di Giulio, Antonia Graf, Michael Maniates, and Sylvia Lorek: arguing with you is always a pleasure! Some other events I like to mention that impacted this work in meaningful ways: Prof. Jeffrey Anderson hosted my stay at the BMW Center for German and European Studies at Georgetown University in 2014, which enabled me to attend workshops on food waste measurement methodologies and finish my first outline. The EXPO 2015 in Milano attracted a huge crowd of actors working on the issue of food waste, from EU regulators to business representatives and large research projects. The discussions and debates surrounding the EU food waste conference that was held at the EXPO as well as the people I had the opportunity to talk to at the satellite events provided me with enough information and questions to ponder for months. A big thanks to everyone involved. I also thank the incredibly hard-working organizers of “Feeding the 5000” Münster, especially Verena, Yvonne, and Claudia! In 2017, a group of citizens started to plan the organization of a “Feeding the 5000” event, the flagship event of the NGO Feedback UK, in the city of Münster, for the first time in Germany. Over the course of roughly six months, a great number of volunteers could be mobilized to collect and prepare surplus food for social causes. This has not only allowed me to experience the practical reduction efforts I was researching first hand, but I also found great friends along the way. This listing would not be complete without mentioning Tristram Stuart. It is difficult to measure his impact on food waste reductions precisely, yet there is, without a doubt, not a single person who has done more for the global visibility of food waste as a massive failure of our food system. I am not even sure if I had begun working on food waste if it wasn’t for his impactful 2009 book and his subsequent media appearances. Tristram, thank you for all your inspiration, energy, and efforts. Then there are those who would never in a million years expect to find their names in (these specific) academic acknowledgments, but they were just as important for this study, if only to keep me sane and grounded, especially during crunch times: Alex, Felix, Nils, Vokke, Tim, Phil, Nick, Stef, Ulli, Marco, Frömel—you’re the best. Tina Rentzsch and Ulrike Wieland have had a share in all of this that is difficult for me to put in

x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

words. Just know this: I am, and will continue to be, incredibly thankful, to both of you. To my parents: you have always been there, with unconditional, unwavering support, backing all of my decisions even if they turned out to be failures. They say failure always creates an unique opportunity for selfgrowth, which is as much cliché as a simple truth, but without people that love you right there to spread out the safety net, it would hurt a lot more. Thank you for all the love and security that you’ve given me. Für meine Eltern: ihr wart immer da, mit bedingungsloser, unerschütterlicher Unterstützung und habt alle meine Entscheidungen mitgetragen, selbst wenn sie sich als Fehlschläge herausstellten. Man sagt, dass Scheitern immer eine einzigartige Gelegenheit für Selbstwachstum bietet. Das klingt klischeehaft, ist aber eine einfache Wahrheit. Doch ohne Menschen, die dich lieben und stets ein Sicherheitsnetz aufspannen, würden diese Fehschläge dauerhaft sehr weh tun. Danke für all die Liebe und die Sicherheit, die ihr mir gegeben habt. I am also very grateful to my second family, the Bohns, Ulrike, Ulrich, Leo and Tobi, who have, through various acts of love and (child) care, also contributed to this work. Frida, you have come into our life and turned it upside down. I laugh and cry exponentially more just because you are around. It is difficult to imagine what my life was like before you arrived, and although many things have become harder now, I would not want to trade anything back. I finally really understand what ‘sacrifice’ means, in the most positive sense imaginable. And I know this sounds cliché Frida, but my relation to the world has been and is still gradually changing because of you. I want to do ‘more’ for the world, to add to good and just conditions, to become more responsible, just because you are in it. It seems love and responsibility share a truly strong connection. I would just want you to, if you could, reduce the amount of food that’s hitting the floor (with full intention) during every meal. It still pains me to see good food being wasted like that. Is that really too much to ask? Caro, you have been there for me with all your heart, joining me during late night editing shifts, providing valuable comments, motivating me to push forward when energy was low, helping me to breathe when everything seemed to be crumbling down, providing attentiveness and care when needed, and enough room and time to do and finish what was necessary, often putting my needs before your own. Without you, all of

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xi

this would not have been possible. You are not only the love of my life. Your in-built moral compass keeps me honest, your care for others helps me to reflect on and to align my own convictions and practices, your ability to look far into the future helps me to anticipate the things that need to be done in the present. Through you, I have everything I need to become the responsible human being I want to be, and I could not be more grateful, for everything. I love you. Münster, Germany June 2022

Tobias Gumbert

Contents

1

2

3

1 1

Responsibility and the Environment—What’s at Stake? Introduction Challenges to Broadening Responsibility in Environmental Governance Outline References

3 11 17

Envrionmental Governance and the Organization of Irresponsibility Introduction Sustainable Development in the Anthropocene The Organization of Irresponsibility Irresponsibility and Environmental Politics The Political Economy of Food and Waste Generation Material Logics of Waste Generation Discursive Logics of Waste Generation Conclusion: The Need to Rethink Responsibility References

23 23 24 30 33 36 37 40 43 44

The Narrow Conception of Responsibility in Environmental Governance Introduction Conceptualizing Responsibility in Environmental Governance

51 51 52

xiii

xiv

CONTENTS

Measuring Responsibility Responsibility, Rationality, and Causality References 4

Ethics, Justice, and Power: Broadening the Meaning(s) of Responsibility Introduction Ethics of Responsibility Responsibility as Justice Power and Responsibilization The Triangle Model of Responsibility Conclusion: Demands of a Responsibility-Focused Research Design References

57 62 66 71 71 72 77 83 87 92 93

5

Responsibility and Interpretive Research Introduction Interpretive Research and the Analysis of Meaning Operationalizing Responsibility via the Triangle Model Contextualizing and Interpreting Meanings of Responsibility Summary References

99 99 100 105 112 117 117

6

Food Waste Governance—Introduction to the Case Study Introduction The Dynamics of Responsibility Attribution Scope of the Study Case Selection Data Selection Background: The Global Arena Background: Food Waste Policy in Germany Background: Food Waste Policy in the United Kingdom Background: The Local Contexts in both Countries References

119 119 122 126 128 130 132 136 137 139 141

Tracing the Meanings of Responsibility in Food Waste Governance Introduction The Global Level Global: The Link Between Prescriptions and Event

147 147 148 150

7

CONTENTS

Global: The Link Between Prescriptions and Identity Images Global: The Link Between Identity Images and Event Summary: The Global Level National Contexts National: The Link Between Prescriptions and Event National: The Link Between Prescriptions and Identity Images The Link Between Identity Images and Event Summary: National Contexts Local Contexts Local: The Link Between Prescriptions and Event Local: The Link Between Prescriptions and Identity Images Local: The Link Between Identity Images and Event Summary: Local Contexts Summary: Food Waste Governance in its Global, National, and Local Dimensions Appendix 7.1: Documents for analysis of the local level in Germany Appendix 7.2: Documents for analysis of the local level in the UK References 8

9

xv

154 157 160 165 165 168 171 173 179 179 182 184 187 192 198 200 202

Contextualizing Responsibilit(ies) in Food Waste Governance Introduction Sharing, Best Practice, and Cooperation Behaviour Change and Self-Optimization Value Attributions and Valorization Summary References

205 205 206 214 223 229 231

Conclusion: Towards Institutions of Forward-Looking Collective Responsibility Overview Narrow vs. Wide Conceptions of Responsibility Review of Findings

239 239 240 245

xvi

CONTENTS

Reflection of Approach Future Research Needs Policy Implications References Index

248 250 252 256 261

Abbreviations

APP BMEL BMU CBDR CSO CSR DEFRA EC EPT FAO FCAN FLW FUSIONS GDP GDR GEG GHG GNI INDCs IPCC IR ISWA ISWM NGO OECD

Ability to Pay Principle Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft Bundesministerium für Umweltschutz Common But Differentiated Responsibilities Civil Society Organisations Corporate Social Responsibility Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs European Commission Environmental Political Theory Food and Agriculture Organisation Food Chain Analysis Network Food Loss & Waste Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Prevention Strategies Gross Domestic Product Greenhouse Development Rights Global Environmental Governance Greenhouse Gases Gross National Income Intended Nationally Determined Contributions Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change International Relations The International Solid Waste Association Integrated Solid Waste Management Non-Governmental Organization Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development xvii

xviii

ABBREVIATIONS

PPP R2P REFRESH SD SDGs SSC UBA UNCED UNEP WCED WFD WRAP WRI WSC WWF

Polluter Pays Principle Responsibility-to-Protect Resource Efficient Food and Drink for the Entire Supply Chain Sustainable Development Sustainable Development Goals Strong Sustainable Consumption Umweltbundesamt United Nations Conference on Environment And Development United Nations Environment Program World Commission on Environment And Development Waste Framework Directive The Waste and Resources Action Programme World Resources Institute Week Sustainable Consumption World Wide Fund for Nature

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

4.1 4.2 5.1 6.1 7.1

Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4 Fig. 8.1

Dominant conceptions of responsibility in environmental governance research Ways forward in theorizing responsibility Heuristics of the “triangle model of responsibility” Interpretive research design for the study of responsibility “Tracing” responsibility across levels of governance The responsibility triangle—Global level (Source Author’s own illustration) The responsibility triangle—National contexts (Source Author’s own illustration) The responsibility triangle—Local contexts (Source Author’s own illustration) The responsibility triangle—Food waste governance (Source Author’s own illustration) Contextualization of responsibility—Analysis of structures of meaning

64 87 91 104 127 162 175 189 196 230

xix

List of Tables

Table 5.1 Table 9.1

Coding judgments of responsibility in food waste governance. Application of the triangle model Typology of responsibility for sustainability conceptions

107 242

xxi

CHAPTER 1

Responsibility and the Environment—What’s at Stake?

Introduction Many globalized processes that are damaging to the Earth’s biophysical boundaries call for the realization of collective responsible action. The negative externalities of global production and consumption processes have given rise to severe levels of global environmental change, including biodiversity loss on an unprecedented scale, the acidification of the oceans, and many other climate change-related impacts. Global inequalities and widening socio-economic gaps are closely related to the consequences of ecological systems change (Schlosberg, 2016; Shue, 1999). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has argued in 2014, that business-as-usual cannot go on, that the costs to alter current trajectories rise every year, and that only a global minority will enjoy the benefits of a ‘business-as-usual-approach’, while a large majority shares the costs (IPCC, 2014). The vast majority of climate scientists (between 90–100% depending on the study) across all disciplines are convinced that humans are responsible for climate change (see e.g., Cook et al., 2016). Many have already adopted the term the “Anthropocene” (Crutzen & Stoermer, 2000; Steffen et al., 2011; Zalasiewicz et al., 2010) as a description of the defining “forces” (Chakrabarty, 2009) shaping our current ecological epoch. Mankind, as an infinitely large political subject, is holding itself responsible for the state (and fate) of the planet, but the required actions to take are much less certain than this global © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 T. Gumbert, Responsibility in Environmental Governance, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13729-7_1

1

2

T. GUMBERT

attribution suggests. Questions of ‘who is responsible?’, ‘who should be responsible?’, ‘how far does responsibility extend?’, ‘what can we legitimately ask of responsible agents?’, or ‘how can we ascertain that an agent, in fact, acts responsible?’, have been crowding political and scientific debates in sustainability-related matters for the last three decades. And there is reason to believe, that, given the scope of current environmental problems, they will continue to do so. Since its emergence during the 1970s and 1980s, the sustainability debate must also be understood as a debate about the attribution of responsibilities in ecological affairs (WCED, 1987; Whitehead, 2014). The questions of which actors have sufficient resources and capabilities to initiate meaningful change and which actors have the power to push others into the desired direction of sustainability transitions are the bedrock issues on every level of environmental policymaking, from the global to the local (Grunwald, 2018). Probably the most wellknown concept of responsibility within the sustainability and climate governance literature describes the “common but differentiated responsibility” (CBDR) principle (Jiang, 2015; Vanderheiden, 2016). The seventh principle of the Rio Declaration reads: In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, states have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command (Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1993).

This expresses the assumption that all countries are responsible for global sustainable development, within the limits of their specific capabilities. This focus on state responsibility was expanded in the course of further summits (especially Johannesburg, 2002) to include the role of corporate responsibility and public–private partnerships. It has, however, to this day, remained a debate primarily about national state commitments. Even if the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) devised guiding principles for the implementation of state declarations of responsibility in 2015, difficulties relating to practical implementation still exist (Meuleman & Niestroy, 2015; Ari & Sari, 2017; see also Craig, 2017

1

RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT—WHAT’S AT STAKE?

3

regarding the allocation of responsibilities for emission reductions and Josephson, 2017 for a discussion of national targets). Because of the complexity and uncertainty of global environmental change, ecological problems are difficult (if not impossible) to address by political regulation efforts alone. Since the turn of the millennium, environmental governance has tried to integrate a host of other actors, from businesses and non-governmental organizations to citizens, into governing the environment more effectively by institutionalizing more responsible attitudes, responsible practices, and responsible institutions (Death, 2010). The need for collective political action directed towards the future and for reimagining “planetary realities […] in environmentally just and sustainable ways” (Houston, 2013, 442) is today acknowledged and shared by many. However, such an ‘institutionalization’ of responsibility is increasingly being complicated by different, yet simultaneous developments.

Challenges to Broadening Responsibility in Environmental Governance Despite many efforts on different governance levels, responsible attitudes and practices are lagging when compared to the urgency of current challenges. Similarly, responsibility has so far not been established as a central analytical approach to the study of environmental problems and the absence of substantial policy and governance action. I want to highlight three challenges that have developed to become serious impediments in this regard: (1) the rise of responsibility as a dominant rhetoric in political discourse, (2) the general perception of responsibility as a ‘soft’ moral or ethical category, and (3) the predominant understanding of responsibility as accountability and/or liability in environmental governance. I understand these developments as serious challenges for the implementation of responsibility as a governing principle in (global) environmental governance as well as for the scientific reflection and use of the concept itself. The first challenge concerns the rise of responsibility as a dominant rhetoric in political discourse. Responsibility is widely perceived as a core concern for liberal democracies (Heidbrink, 2007; Shadmy, 2022). The organization of democratic systems through political representation is

4

T. GUMBERT

based on the trust that citizens attribute to elected officials and their willingness to act and rule in the interest of their constituents. Citizens can demand that policies formulate specific goals and produce certain normative goods, such as justice, social welfare, or a healthy environment. If political agents act according to popular demands, they are seen as legitimate and responsible, i.e., responsible for security, social welfare, and other common goods that liberal democracies value and therefore choose to protect. This is what Scharpf famously described as the output dimension of legitimacy (Scharpf, 1997, 1999). Trust and legitimacy are, in this sense, intricately tied to notions of responsibility. But in contemporary democracies, relations of responsibility, i.e., who and what decisionmakers are primarily responsible for, and to what extent, get increasingly diffused because of the growing complexities and uncertainties of modern life. In these times of a “new obscurity” (Habermas, 1986), where nongovernmental actors, organized groups and highly visible individuals have gained enormous political influence through the globalization of communication and the expansion of social networks in time and space, one of the main tasks of politics is now seen as the management of the globalized economy, its technological and informational infrastructures, and their “dysfunctional secondary effects” (ibid., 4). These systems act as profound constraints on autonomous political decisions. While responsible governance becomes more difficult, the steep rise in a now widespread personal responsibility rhetoric signifies a “gesture of desperation” (quote by Niklas Luhmann; cited in Heidbrink, 2007, 10), affirming responsibility in light of these systemic constraints whose malleability lies far beyond the influence of individual agents. Just as business actors have come to invest in the promotion of their image as corporate social actors (Fuchs & Lederer, 2007), politicians now similarly try to shape their image as responsible leaders. Given the complexity of most governance challenges, especially where the environment is concerned, the expansion of political responsibility rhetoric creates risks. Citizens may more easily lose trust in the ability of elected officials to govern the common good in their interest, officials increasingly deflect responsibility in cases where something goes wrong (because taking blame involves reputational costs), and solutions are oriented towards ‘individualizing’ responsibilities instead of addressing growing systemic risks (e.g., through privatizing social security) (Heidbrink, 2007; Pellizzoni, 2014). Importantly, since everyone, political representatives and citizens alike,

1

RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT—WHAT’S AT STAKE?

5

become used to frequently draw on the rhetoric of responsibility, the concept is gradually emptied of any significant meaning. A second challenge directly related to the first concerns the perception of responsibility as a ‘soft’ moral or ethical category. While moral responsibility involves being answerable for a particular act or outcome, calls for responsibility are reduced to notions of “something must be done”, and “never again” (Erskine, 2008, 704). Such moral imperatives are seen as unhelpful to generate or enforce particular outcomes. For example, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which have superseded the Millennium Development Goals in 2015 as the global roadmap to call mankind to action on ending poverty, protecting the planet, and ensuring a prosperous and peaceful way of life for all, aim to organize and distribute responsibility globally. Goal 12—Responsible Consumption and Production—even carries the term explicitly in its title. Looking at how responsibility is ‘operationalized’ according to individual targets, moral categories are completely absent, and this is hardly surprising. The world of consumption is a world of individual consumers who buy, use, and waste commodities and the materials that went into their production daily. The world of production is a world of industries and businesses that extract resources, use energy, manufacture goods and ship them around the globe. In both spheres, the agents of consumption and production are meant to follow their rational interests to satisfy culturally differentiated needs and wants. Here, ‘responsible’ action entails for producers to voluntarily (or by complying with national and international rules) decide to manage resources more efficiently and to dispose of waste and pollutants safely, while consumers can make conscious choices to buy more sustainable products and reduce per capita waste. Through certification schemes, more transparency, better monitoring systems, and generally more information, responsible attitudes and actions are motivated and can be demanded by others to hold ‘culprits’ accountable. Causally attributing responsibility means standing on firm ground, actors are liable for past harms, and can be held accountable should their actions produce future negative consequences. Moral responsibility on the other hand, equals no obligation, no binding force, and a lot less authoritativeness. Responsibility as a moral or ethical category is, therefore, if explicitly applied at all, understood more as a general guideline than a concrete governance principle. A third and last challenge arises again as a result of the former: if the value of a moral or ethical core of the concept of responsibility is perceived

6

T. GUMBERT

as unhelpful, other conceptualizations—accountability and/or liability— and their proliferation may in turn be strengthened. The concept of liability has garnered a lot of attention in past years in the field of climate change litigation. Climate change litigation describes legal proceedings that try to hold (predominantly) nation states accountable for lacking mitigation efforts.1 The rise of climate change litigation is the attempt to create clarity and liability in increasingly complex and fragmented governance settings and is therefore quickly becoming an instrument of choice where politics has seemingly failed. Courts are relying on scientific data to evaluate causes and consequences, and plaintiffs have to prove how and to what extent they are affected by climate change. The attempt to create a chain of evidence is complicated, though, through problems of scope (local consequences in the face of global causes) and problems of causality (individual actions in the face of complex relations). The UNEP report on the status of climate change litigation lists a number of existing policy problems: actors that are primarily responsible for causing the increase in emissions are best positioned to take decisive action, yet simultaneously lack incentive. And because of the global scope of the problem, there is no institution that possesses the authority and legal jurisdiction to effectively do something about it (UNEP, 2017, 6–7). It is also not possible for litigation efforts to enforce more progressive policy action or to impose limits on national emissions. Its function is rather to “place the actions of [.] governments or private entities into an international climate change policy context” (UNEP, 2017, 9) and evaluate political commitments in light of the SDGs. As important as these developments are, litigation faces serious barriers. Even though greenhouse gas emitters have never been liable in percentage terms for global warming, climate change is now regularly being monetized as a “litigation risk”, which sums up the defensive culture of 1 As of October 2018, the Climate Change Litigation Databases (U.S. and Non-U.S.) compiled by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School list 1222 cases describing developments in litigation and administrative proceedings related to climate change. Looking at Non-U.S. climate change litigation (282 cases), the bulk of suits is directed against governments (259 cases) prioritizing GHG emissions reduction and trading (78 cases) and environmental assessment and permitting (142 cases), while only 20 suits are directed against corporations. Almost all complaints demand more ambitious climate protection from governments, often referencing already established laws and rules.

1

RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT—WHAT’S AT STAKE?

7

responsibility that is not directed at contributing towards the common good in any meaningful way. Legal constraints have become necessary due to an “increasing distrust […] in political and economic actors’ willingness to take care of the environment” (Pellizzoni, 2004, 551). However, the burden of proof and the contestedness of scientific evidence regularly put too much stress on liability mechanisms to function effectively. The manifest failures of liability in turn gave rise to the proliferation of accountability mechanisms in environmental governance (Pellizzoni, 2004; Kramarz & Park, 2016; Mason, 2020). Biermann and Gupta (2011) argue that „[o]ne major driving force in the search for more accountable and legitimate governance has been globalization in all its facets, strengthening the need for global and regional rule-making institutions, also in the environmental domain” (1856). In simple terms, accountability can be defined as “the willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions” (ibid., 1857). Through different mechanisms (hierarchical, supervisory, fiscal, legal, market, peer, and public reputational) compliance with regulations can be enforced and actors can be sanctioned for wrongdoings, enabling others to hold these actors ‘to account’ by a specific set of standards (Grant & Keohane, 2005). In terms of its practical manifestation, accountability has predominantly taken the form of private voluntary regulation schemes in environmental governance. The effectiveness of voluntary approaches has been questioned by a number of studies early on (Mol et al., 2000; Storey, 1996). In terms of environmental impact, these approaches have, so far, led only to marginal improvements, since in many fields of environmental and sustainability governance, resource use and the overuse of environmental sinks continue to rise (IPCC, 2022). Accountability schemes have been criticized for their lack of transparency, the creation of free rider problems, the self-definition of targets and goals, as well as for relying on practices of self-accounting, or in other words: their “attempts to address complex environmental problems remain beyond the means used to grapple with them” (Kramarz & Park, 2017, 6). Private accountability mechanisms can therefore be seen as adding to the “continuous process of struggling over rule-making under the conditions of increased involvement of non-state actors on various levels” (Kjaer & Vetterlein, 2018, 4). Understanding responsibility predominantly as accountability and liability focuses on steering actors (mainly states in the context of liability, and non-state actors in the context of accountability) towards compliance

8

T. GUMBERT

with existing norms and rules, and to link their specific conduct to particular consequences (through establishing causality). The complexity and uncertainty about future developments and effective mitigation scenarios (Pellizzoni & Ylönen, 2008; Ellis, 2016) are addressed by attempting to produce certainty and transparency through evaluation, accreditation, certification, and ranking schemes, and thereby enable and facilitate political action. And yet, global environmental governance continues to suffer from “fragmented authority” (Biermann et al., 2009; Pattberg & Widerberg, 2015) without forceful mechanisms to sanction wrongdoing. This development is mirrored by the proliferation of soft law and transnational regulatory activism (Djelic & Sahlin, 2012) and has resulted in the continuing search for effective ways to integrate different groups of actors into coherent structures of rule-setting and norm compliance. By neglecting broader notions of responsibility, the normative foundations of regulations and alternative governance approaches are moved to the sidelines (ibid., 5). Pellizzoni (2004) notes that “in the face of the challenge of uncertainty, such neglect is a major reason for the debatable results of new governance arrangements” (542). Reconsidering responsibility can in turn help to develop frameworks for flexible policy solutions and allow for a more dialogical relationship between the actors involved (Vetterlein, 2018, 19; Dryzek & Pickering, 2019; Pellizzoni, 2019; Shadmy, 2022). And lastly, analysing the meanings of responsibility fulfills a double purpose: as “a means for interpreting ongoing changes in the policy approaches and as a tool for evaluating their ability to cope with environmental challenges” (Pellizzoni, 2004, 560). However, the neglect of alternative notions of responsibility can also result in serious socio-political consequences in a much broader sense. Ulrich Beck (1986, 1988) argues that the focus on governing individual action gives rise to an “organization of irresponsibility”, in which everyone conforms to established guidelines, yet systemic risks are multiplied because of their invisibility. Since ecological problems are dealt with under the paradigm of accountability, structural effects would be concealed and downplayed. The political theorist Iris Marion Young argues along similar lines that a focus on liability would not be sufficient to address the structures that produce injustice, but rather produce a “culture of blame” (Young, 2006, 2011). As responsibility is reduced to calling out blameworthy acts, common and future-oriented political strategies to address environmental problems would become more difficult to develop. Finally, the broad scholarship of (eco-)governmentality

1

RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT—WHAT’S AT STAKE?

9

draws attention to processes of “responsibilization” (e.g., Death, 2010; Luke, 2016), the assumption that responsibility for environmental problems is today increasingly individualized, privatized, and attributed to particular actors (such as individual citizens), thereby complicating efforts to share burdens and devise collective political strategies. This diverse literature points to broader concerns in the context of governing the environment through accountability and liability mechanisms. The literature stresses the importance of considering responsibility also as a political means to offset these alleged negative effects and facilitate more progressive socio-ecological change. However, in light of the dominant trends, the questions arise if responsibility can be, in fact, anything other than accountability in environmental governance, if examples of alternative notions of responsibility exist, and if institutions and mechanisms can be designed on the grounds of alternative responsibility conceptions that are better suited to address complex environmental problems (see e.g., Kramarz & Park, 2019). In order to address these questions and the challenges, the study of responsibility in environmental governance needs to engage with the following tasks: i. Develop a theoretical design that is able to broaden the agenda on responsibility research in environmental governance by looking beyond narrower understandings of responsibility as accountability/liability, by including scholarship that problematizes these narrower understandings in terms of their possible side effects, and by clarifying where these perspectives complement contemporary scholarship on the matter. ii. Develop a methodological approach to study responsibility in its multiplicity of different meanings and different manifestations. This is a central priority for three reasons: (1) to look past the mere political rhetoric of responsibility, (2) to analyse if accountability and/or liability is in fact the dominant paradigm in a particular field of environmental governance, and (3) if alternative concepts of responsibility are already being enacted politically in this field. iii. Analyse responsibility in a particular governance context. Since the composition of actors (social relationships) and bodies of relevant knowledge can be expected to change according to the governance problem in question, how responsibility is understood may be

10

T. GUMBERT

strongly tied to particular governance logics and political discourses, which makes case studies necessary. This research endeavour is however complicated by the absence of a broader responsibility research agenda in environmental governance scholarship, with notable exceptions (Pellizzoni, 2004). Within global governance and International Relations (IR) scholarship, approaches to the study of responsibility are however slowly developing (Ulbert et al., 2018; Hansen-Magnusson & Vetterlein, 2020, 2022). Responsibility was, for the most part, considered a moral or ethical concept of little analytical value, and the discipline of IR has been described as “methodologically predisposed to being wary of ethical analyses” (Erskine, 2008, 703). In other disciplines, responsibility has long been a topic of philosophical reflections that distinguished its multiple ethical dimensions and practical uses (Heidbrink, 2007; Raffoul, 2010). Yet only a few empirical studies have considered the moral dimension of responsibility in governance research, let alone studies on environmental affairs (Erskine, 2008). However, if responsibility is to be redeemed to be a potentially guiding principle for more progressive environmental action in contrast to the notions of liability and accountability, its empirical study and applicability to given contexts (for research and political processes alike) is futile. It is therefore important to think about novel ways “how the process of assigning responsibility [may be] operationalized” within particular governance settings and how to assess the “wider moral and political implications of this allocation” (Fuller, 2017, 521). Because, and this is crucial: as long as the analytical instruments to capture responsibility are oriented along meanings of accountability and/or liability, researchers are not going to find anything beyond these dominant notions when systematizing and evaluating their observations. In this sense, working towards a more detailed and focused study of responsibility in environmental governance is also an emancipatory project. A guiding question for conducting this broader research on responsibility is, therefore: Do alternative notions of responsibility exist in fields of (global) environmental governance, and if so, which potential form or pattern do they exhibit, and in what ways are they organized and institutionalized?

1

RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT—WHAT’S AT STAKE?

11

Outline Chapter 2 links the massive global environmental changes and sociopolitical consequences underway and mankind’s ensuing governance responses to the notion of responsibility. Three separate threads of scholarship are interwoven in this chapter to make the central argument that the neglect of, or at least a very “narrow” understanding of, responsibility in environmental governance can exacerbate severe environmental problems by misguiding individual and collection action. First, the chapter discusses current scholarship on the Anthropocene, the classification of our time into a new geological epoch in which humanity holds itself responsible for global environmental damages and climate collapse. The chapter illustrates that the consideration of ethical principles such as responsibility and their political institutionalization has hardly played a role so far. Environmental governance in the Anthropocene is instead concerned with emissions trading schemes and other ecological management approaches. Second, this leads to Ulrich Beck’s assessment that humans have replied with mechanisms of control and the individualization of competencies to environmental problems, thereby attempting to transform environmental hazards into calculable risks. However, at the same time, consequences that are not covered by these risk evaluations continue to proliferate and multiply in the background of political decision-making and become structural features of “unsustainable” systems. Beck refers to this development as the “organization of irresponsibility”, in which relevant actors seemingly act responsible in the face of environmental threats but misrecognize the harmful effects of structural dynamics, effectively rendering them invisible. Third, the chapter draws on material and discursive logics of waste production to link the danger of “organized irresponsibility” to processes in the context of food waste generation, contextualizing these possible dynamics. Therefore, this chapter functions in the most literal sense as a “background chapter”, illuminating the background conditions and possible future developments in food waste governance, thereby highlighting the potential dangers that can result from a narrowed understanding of responsibility. Chapter 3 introduces current governance research perspectives on the concept of responsibility in terms of concept specifications and attempts to measure it empirically. Looking at the dominant use of

12

T. GUMBERT

the concept in global governance research and specifically in the field of environmental governance, the chapter diagnoses a relatively narrow understanding of responsibility as accountability, and to a lesser extent, an understanding of liability that dominates the academic discourse. While liability is concerned with what actors have done in the past and how they can be held responsible for past actions, accountability is more oriented towards the present and the future in that it is about considering the consequences of one’s own actions and disclosing them through transparent means. Scrutinizing the dominant methodological application of the concept also provides further insight into how responsibility has been used analytically. Most studies are primarily concerned with measuring environmental impacts, establishing a causal link between individual actions and measured impacts, and how such a link is perceived by other actors. That means that based on the quantification of “environmental impacts”, actors can be held responsible, and the “extent” of their responsibility can be determined. Thus, a certain understanding, namely responsibility as accountability, is always presupposed in quantitative studies, and moral categories that may qualify responsibility are generally absent. The vast majority of these approaches explicitly or implicitly subscribe to the rational choice paradigm, which assumes that specific actions’ probability depends on the expected benefits. In this perspective, responsible action is in principle unlikely since assuming responsibility generally entails costs. This focus not only severely narrows the potential applications of responsibility analyses but has social and political consequences. Building on the notion of “organized irresponsibility” introduced in chapter 2, the chapter argues that a rational choice focus comes with the danger of overlooking structural dynamics and background conditions of environmental problems, which are consequently not (or only insufficiently) addressed. Besides, shifting attention from established themes of governance research (rules and regulation, compliance and accountability) to responsibility leads us to zero in on questions of the normative foundations of global governance, ethics, and moral agency. Chapter 4 aims to further deconstruct the dominant understanding by drawing on the diversity of ethical conceptions of responsibility. Deconstructing responsibility via philosophical sources has the function to show that a concept of responsibility based on autonomous subjects, voluntary actions, causality, and rationality is merely one concept of responsibility, which has established itself as the dominant notion today. Here, the

1

RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT—WHAT’S AT STAKE?

13

chapter draws on several authors to illustrate the broadness and depth of notions of responsibility. Hans Jonas, for example, emphasizes that responsibility is directed towards the future and formulates responsibility as a principle of precaution and preservation. Responsibility is much more than being accountable (or liable), but may include concern and respect for others, always being responsive, and exploring moral sources for one’s actions rather than following (pre-)determined guidelines. In discussing alternative notions of responsibility, the chapter draws especially on the work of Iris Marion Young (2006, 2011). In her “social connection model” (or responsibility as justice), she emphasizes that structural background conditions can only be addressed through joint action directed towards the future and aims at establishing just conditions. Another field that complements Young’s work is eco-governmentality studies. This body of literature argues that in many contexts of environmental politics, tendencies of responsibilization can be observed, i.e., that actors are led to assume self-responsibility. Other actors are thereby relieved from responsibility. These studies thereby emphasize the mechanisms and consequences of responsibility attributions. Together Young’s social connection model and the field of eco-governmentality studies provide persuasive arguments for why the analysis of responsibility relations should include an interrogation in terms of power and justice to address social and ecological problems. Lastly, the chapter introduces the “triangle model of responsibility” (Schlenker et al., 1994) as a heuristic for relating these different theoretical insights to each other. The model differentiates responsibility according to how an actor is perceived (identity images), how objects of responsibility are perceived (events), and appropriate attitudes or behaviours (prescriptions) This heuristic, therefore, aims to open understandings of responsibility to the analysis of detailed and contextualized meanings-in-use in a particular field of study. Chapter 5 presents the methodological approach to study responsibility in environmental governance which comprises an interpretive research design interested in understanding and reconstructing objective and discursive meanings of responsibility. The research design sets out to achieve three goals: (1) It aims to open the concept of responsibility to its multiple meanings-in-use, (2) it aims to generate the necessary “tools” to evaluate how actors understand and enact a particular notion of responsibility and assess the political consequences, and (3) it aims to track responsibility beyond its mere rhetorical occurrence. The chapter

14

T. GUMBERT

delineates how the “triangle model of responsibility” is modified to analyse responsibility attributions through textual analysis. The model is used to study how the causes and consequences pertaining to a particular governance problem are understood (‘event’), who is perceived as a relevant actor and how (‘identity images’), and what appropriate reduction measures are suggested (‘prescriptions’). By relating these three elements to each other (who is perceived to be responsible, why, and how) in the form of qualitative links (e.g., when certain actors praise a particular reduction strategy, or suggest that others should engage in particular reduction efforts), responsibility takes a specific form that can be compared and evaluated. Chapter 7 introduces the case study on food waste governance. It gives a short overview of contradicting responsibility attributions and outlines the research question for the case study. It further delineates the scope pf the study across global, national, and local levels of governance, and justifies case and data selection. The second part of chapter 6 gives a descriptive account of the contexts that are studied. On the global level, a specific knowledge elite (the FAO, UNEP, etc.) produces knowledge about the causes and consequences of food waste, and the appropriateness of individual reduction efforts, for instance. It is, therefore, vital to discern rationalities of governance and problematizations of food waste. At the national level, the focus shifts to how this generated knowledge translates into political processes and legislative measures: strategies for dealing with the problem of food waste in practical terms. Here, the analysis focuses on Germany and the UK in order to study two national contexts more in-depth. Ultimately, a wide range of activities can be observed at the local level. These include associations, small start-ups, neighbourhood organizations, and others that engage in very diverse, especially practical, reduction efforts. These local actors may support national strategies or set themselves apart and find alternative ways to reduce food waste. For each governance level, a text corpus comprising different types of texts was created to empirically test the occurrence of different meanings of responsibility, including widely cited official studies and policy strategy papers. The data was subsequently systematized and coded using content analytical methods. Chapter 7 constitutes the case study that exemplifies how the responsibility framework can be applied to the analysis of a distinct problem complex of environmental governance. These forms of responsibility are traced in food waste governance on global, national, and local governance

1

RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT—WHAT’S AT STAKE?

15

levels. The chapter proceeds to discuss responsibility attributions in terms of their multiplicity/variance and in terms of the most dominant, reoccurring patterns. In the case of food waste governance, the responsibility framework identifies three dominant links across all levels of governance that need to be scrutinized further to evaluate the broader political implications: (1) Behaviour change and self-optimization as most promising solutions to the food waste problem, (2) the discourse around shared responsibilities, best practices, and cooperation that frames the context of responsible action, and (3) the different attributions of value and attempts of valorization that shape the influence of particular actors within food waste governance. Chapter 8 connects the empirical findings on reoccurring patterns of responsibility in food waste governance to the broader social and political context. The aim is to account for the functions these understandings and meanings of responsibility fulfill within food waste governance. Concerning the first focus—Sharing, Best Practices, and Cooperation—Chapter 7 contextualizes “shared responsibilities” by drawing on governmentality studies and Iris Marion Young’s social connection model. All actors work towards motivating each other to act, and strategies to shame others into more substantial commitments are rarely chosen. Besides, accountability is institutionalized horizontally. Companies are not required to give an account of their actions to civil society or other authorities. So-called social innovations are involved on different levels, but mostly as social figureheads. Although the rhetoric of shared responsibility is very dominant, aspects of power and justice do not play an influential role across governance levels, and structural background conditions disappear from view. For the second dominant governance focus—Behaviour Change and Self-Optimization—the chapter uses governmentality approaches for interpreting the political implications. Behaviour change and selfoptimization strategies are aimed at getting other actors to take responsibility for their own actions. Therefore, it is not just about the rationalization of behaviour but also about adopting primarily ecological attitudes. In this context, what constitutes responsible behaviour is already predetermined through public campaigns and other communication channels; normative considerations of right and wrong behaviour are generally external to citizens’ reflective capacities. Overall, a strong tendency to individualize responsibility and the danger of depoliticization are embedded in the evolving governance structure.

16

T. GUMBERT

Lastly, the third focus of the responsibility model—Value Attribution and Valorization—is situated within the literature on the organization of irresponsibility and the structural drivers of waste in the food system. Here, conflicts arise repeatedly about how food waste is to be understood, namely either as food or as waste, for example, when it comes to recycling. It is a moral imperative to return surplus food for human consumption, e.g., through distribution to charities and non-profit organizations. However, legal frameworks incentivize companies to assess such responsible handling of food as a risk. Besides, there are already considerable incentives, especially in Great Britain, to use organic waste for energy generation, which means surplus food is increasingly classified as waste and not “food”. The focus of governance initiatives lies, therefore, on efficient management rather than comprehensive prevention. Chapter 9 summarizes the studies’ findings, policy implications, contributions to the respective fields, and future research needs. The analysis shows that although the rhetoric of shared responsibilities is widely present, it has so far not led to the effective organization of joint, future-oriented action in the context of reducing food waste. Instead, a practice of individualizing responsibility is present across all levels of governance. Actors are rarely blamed but instead called upon to focus on their own operations and contribute in any way possible to overall reduction goals. Through the dominant understanding of responsibility as accountability, “responsible” action becomes uncoupled from many unjust background conditions in the agrifood system—external to those primarily affected—and concentrates on effectiveness as the primary output category. Therefore, it is questionable whether current regulations can adequately address the economic, ecological, and social consequences of food waste. Simultaneously, these developments conceal many tensions and normative conflicts among actors in food waste governance, e.g., how critical food saving initiatives still depend on retailers’ goodwill or how legislative measures produce incentives to waste rather than prevent food waste. These tensions are rarely addressed politically. Some initiatives’ practices rest on a principle of responsibility as care and bring into view that in the current governance of food waste, policies of increasing effectiveness can be at odds with policy goals oriented towards democratic values, justice, and solidarity, especially beyond the national context. In this regard, the analysis of existing alternative forms of responsibility can provide important impulses for national legislation by highlighting normative changes that are already underway and normative value

1

RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT—WHAT’S AT STAKE?

17

conflicts that are resolved to the disadvantage of people and the planet. This is simultaneously a reminder that new participatory processes are necessary which do not include civil society actors or so-called “social innovations” as window-dressing, but rather as agents that are given voice in the formulation of political changes and that encourage resourceful actors to act in a future-oriented, global manner. Chapter 8 also suggests that going forward, research should make an effort to systematically evaluate the failure of accountability mechanisms to alleviate the negative externalities of structural background conditions in a given field of governance and develop models for better integration of moral principles as foundations for the institutional design of environmental governance processes and mechanisms.

References Ari, I., & Sari, R. (2017). Differentiation of developed and developing countries for the Paris Agreement. Energy Strategy Reviews, 18, 175–182. Baer, P. (2013). The greenhouse development rights framework for global burden sharing: Reflection on principles and prospects. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.201 Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne (Edition Suhrkamp). Suhrkamp. Beck, U. (1988). Gegengifte: Die organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit. Suhrkamp. Biermann, F., & Gupta, A. (2011). Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1856–1864. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9, 14–40. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2009.9. 4.14 Chakrabarty, D. (2009). The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry, 35, 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1086/596640 Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., et al. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/ 048002 Craig, R. K. (2017). Climate change and common but differentiated responsibilities for the ocean. Carbon & Climate Law Review, 11(4), 325–334. Crutzen, P., & Eugene Stoermer. (2000). The ‘Anthropocene’. International geosphere-biosphere program newsletter(41), 17/18.

18

T. GUMBERT

Daase, C., Junk, J., Kroll, S., & Rauer, V. (2017). Politik und Verantwortung: Analysen zum Wandel politischer Entscheidungs- und Rechtfertigungspraktiken (1st ed., Sonderheft PVS). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. SAGE. Death, C. (2010). Governing sustainable development: Partnerships, protests and power at the world summit (Interventions). Routledge. Djelic, M.-L., & Sahlin, K. (2012). Reordering the world: Transnational regulatory governance and its challenges. In D. (Lewi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford Univ. Press. Dryzek, J. S., & Pickering, J. (2019). The politics of the anthropocene. Oxford University Press. Ellis, E. (2016). Democracy as constraint and possibility for environmental action. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, D. Schlosberg, & eds. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press. Erskine, T. (2008). Locating responsibility: The problem of moral agency in international relations. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (The Oxford Handbooks of Political Science) (pp. 699–707). Oxford Univ. Press. Fuchs, D., & Lederer, M. (2007). The power of business. Business and Politics, 9(3), 1–17. Fuller, S. (2017). Configuring climate responsibility in the city: Carbon footprints and climate justice in Hong Kong. Area, 49(4), 519–525. Grant, R. W., & Keohane, R. O. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99, 29–43. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0003055405051476 Grunwald, A. (2018). Warum Konsumentenverantwortung allein die Umwelt nicht rettet. Ein Beispiel fehllaufender Responsibilisierung. In A. Henkel, N. Lüdtke, N. Buschmann, & L. Hochmann (Eds.), Reflexive Responsibilisierung: Verantwortung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (pp. 421–436, Sozialtheorie). Bielefeld: transcript. Habermas, J. (1986). The new obscurity: The crisis of the welfare state and the exhaustion of utopian energies. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 11, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/019145378601100201 Hansen-Magnusson, H., & Vetterlein, A. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge handbook on responsibility in international relations. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Heidbrink, L. (2007). Handeln in der Ungewissheit: Paradoxien der Verantwortung (Kulturwissenschaftliche Interventionen, Vol. 7). Berlin: Kulturverl. Kadmos. Houston, D. (2013). Crisis is where we live: Environmental justice for the Anthropocene. Globalizations, 10(3), 439–450.

1

RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT—WHAT’S AT STAKE?

19

IPCC 2014: Climate change. (2014). Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report. [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Geneva. Jiang, Y. (2015). Common but differentiated responsibilities and its effect on the Post-2015 development agenda. China Int’l Stud., 54, 22. Josephson, P. (2017). Common but differentiated responsibilities in the climate change regime: Historic evaluation and future outlooks. Kjaer, P. F., & Vetterlein, A. (2018). Regulatory governance: Rules, resistance and responsibility. Contemporary Politics, 24, 497–506. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13569775.2018.1452527 Kramarz, T., & Park, S. (2016). Accountability in global environmental governance: A meaningful tool for action? Global Environmental Politics, 16(2), 1–21. Kramarz, T., & Park, S. (2017). Introduction: The politics of environmental accountability. Review of Policy Research, 34, 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ropr.12223 Kramarz, T., & Park, S. (2019). Identifying multiple accountabilities in global environmental governance. Global environmental governance and the accountability trap, 3–33. Luke, T. W. (2016). Environmental governmentality. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, D. Schlosberg, & eds. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (461–474., Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press. Mason, M. (2020). Transparency, accountability and empowerment in sustainability governance: A conceptual review. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(1), 98–111. Meuleman, L., & Niestroy, I. (2015). Common but differentiated governance: A metagovernance approach to make the SDGs work. Sustainability, 7 (9), 12295–12321. Mol, A. P. J., Lauber, V., & Liefferink, D. (Eds.). (2000). The voluntary approach to environmental policy: Joint environmental policy-making in Europe. Oxford Univ. Press. Pattberg, P., & Widerberg, O. (2015). Theorising global environmental governance: Key findings and future questions. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43, 684–705. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/030582981456 1773. Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and Environmental Governance. Environmental Politics, 13, 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/096440104200022 9034 Pellizzoni, L. (2014). Risk. In C. Death (Ed.), Critical environmental politics (pp. 198–207, Interventions). Routledge.

20

T. GUMBERT

Pellizzoni, L. (2019). Responsibility. In Routledge handbook of global sustainability governance (pp. 129–140). Routledge. Pellizzoni, L., & Ylönen, M. Responsibility in uncertain times: An institutional perspective on precaution. Global Environmental Politics 8(3), pp. 51–73. Pörtner, H. O., Roberts, D. C., Adams, H., Adler, C., Aldunce, P., Ali, E., ... & Ibrahim, Z. Z. (IPCC) (2022). Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Raffoul, F. (2010). The origins of responsibility (Studies in Continental thought). Indiana University Press. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research (Theoretical lenses on public policy). Westview Press. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? (1st ed.). Oxford Univ. Press. Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.632 Schlosberg, D. (2016). Environmental management in the anthropocene. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, D. Schlosberg, & eds. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (pp. 193–208., Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press. Shadmy, T. (2022). The emergence of responsibility as a global scheme of governance. In The Routledge handbook on responsibility in international relations (pp. 43–57). Routledge. Shue, H. (1999). Global environmental and international inequality. International Affairs, 75(3), 531–545. Steffen, W., Persson, A., Deutsch, L., Zalasiewisz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., et al. (2011). The Anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio, 40(7), 739–761. Storey, M. (1996). Demand side efficiency: Voluntary agreements with industry . Ulbert, C., Finkenbusch, P., Sondermann, E., Debiel, T., & eds. (Eds.). Moral agency and the politics of responsibility. New York & Abingdon,: Oxon: Routledge. United Nations (UN). 1993. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992. United Nations. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2017). The status of climate change litigation. A Global Review. Nairobi: Law Division. Vanderheiden, S. (2016). Environmental and climate justice. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, D. Schlosberg, & eds. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (pp. 321–332, Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press.

1

RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT—WHAT’S AT STAKE?

21

Vetterlein, A. (2018). Responsibility is more than accountability: From regulatory towards negotiated governance. Contemporary Politics, 24, 545–567. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2018.1452106 Vetterlein, A., & Hansen-Magnusson, H. (Eds.). (2020). The rise of responsibility in world politics (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press. World Commission on Environment and Development, WCED. (1987). Our common future. New York. Whitehead, M. (2014). Sustainability. In C. Death (Ed.), Critical environmental politics (pp. 257–266, Interventions). Routledge. Young, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy & Policy, 23(1), 102–130. Young, I. M. (Ed.). (2011). Responsibility for justice (Oxford political philosophy). Oxford University Press. Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Steffen, W., & Crutzen, P. (2010). The new world of the Anthropocene. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 2228–2231. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903118j

CHAPTER 2

Envrionmental Governance and the Organization of Irresponsibility

Introduction This chapter links the massive global environmental changes under way and mankind’s ensuing governance responses to the notion of responsibility. Three separate threads of scholarship are interwoven in this chapter to make the central argument that the neglect of the concept of responsibility in environmental governance may stabilize serious environmental problems related to extensive resource use, exploitation, and environmental degradation. In this regard, it is deemed, first, necessary to discuss the broader scholarly assessments on the idea of the Anthropocene, and the possibility of considering moral and ethical concepts, i.e., responsibility, respectively, for environmental politics in this epoch. Second, I will argue that the diagnosed failure for considering responsibility beyond its rhetorical use may result in background conditions that constantly reproduce negative environmental outcomes. Here, I draw particularly on the notion of ‘organized irresponsibility’, popularized by the German sociologist Ulrich Beck, to describe conditions in which relevant actors seemingly act responsible in the face of environmental threats, but organize their interactions in a way that does not contribute to alleviating harmful effects. Rather, their actions conceal structural dynamics and drivers, effectively rendering them invisible. Lastly, I draw on material and discursive logics within different fields and problem complexes of environmental

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 T. Gumbert, Responsibility in Environmental Governance, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13729-7_2

23

24

T. GUMBERT

governance to link the dangers of ‘organized irresponsibility’ to political processes. The chapter emphasizes especially the structural dynamics related to food waste generation, setting up the case study in chapter 6 in order to discuss dominant responsibility attributions in food waste governance and their potential to address or ignore these background conditions outlined here. By doing so, the consequences of particular notions of responsibility may be more adequately judged and evaluated.s

Sustainable Development in the Anthropocene Anthropogenic climate change, the exploitation of non-renewable fossil resources, pollution, and the depletion of environmental sinks threaten the longevity and stability of the Earth system at an alarming rate. People presently living near coastal areas and pollution havens are already experiencing these environmental effects and are thereby severely affected in their chances to pursue social and economic well-being, and generally fair and equal living conditions (IPCC, 2022). All human production and consumption processes contribute to these developments since they rely on the transformation of matter and energy (see famously Meadows et al., 1972). In a globalized world, economic activities, from resource extraction to disposal, leave material traces that span across gigantic geographic spaces and inconceivable time horizons, from sedimentary depositions in the seabed (plastic waste) to Earth’s orbit (space debris), impacting life on Earth now (atmospheric greenhouse gases) and millennia into the future (radiation from nuclear waste). The size of the problems together with the complexity of global systems and the resulting difficulties of attributing clearly definable causes and intentional harm necessitates new approaches to govern human interactions in a rapidly changing world. How we understand and organize mankind’s responsibility to mitigate and alter current trajectories has to be discussed in light of these developments and conditions. The realization of the magnitude of these humanly produced processes of material transformation has led numerous scholars to the conclusion, that our current geological epoch has to be redefined. Enter: the Anthropocene (Crutzen & Stoermer, 2000; Steffen et al., 2011). In this perspective, humans themselves have become a geophysical force that has radically changed environmental systems (Chakrabarty, 2009). In the last 15 years, the idea that a new geological epoch has superseded the Holocene (which has lasted for about 12.000 years) developed

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

25

into a new cognitive frame to instruct global environmental politics and research (Crutzen, 2002; Maslin & Lewis, 2015). The statistical correlation between social systems and Earth system developments is now rarely questioned. While the exact beginning of the Anthropocene is contested, today a 3-stage concept is widely shared and accepted (Steffen et al., 2011). Early industrialization marks the outset of the Anthropocene, its impact widening and deepening during the era of the “great acceleration”, the exponential increase of resource use and transformation of natural capital, gaining even more speed at the start of the twenty-first century through the economic boom of Non-OECD countries such as China and India (Zalasiewicz et al., 2015; Steffen et al., 2015). The Anthropocene is, in this line of thought, a direct consequence of the project of modernization. The proclamation of a new geological epoch and the search for new institutions and practices of environmental governance is at the same time an acknowledgement that the guiding idea of sustainable development (SD) has failed to deliver on its promises. In the famous definition issued by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, sustainable development “requires meeting the legitimate and just needs of the world’s poor and future generations, while recognizing the idea of ‘ultimate limits’ imposed by available technologies on the ability of the environment to meet present and future needs” (WCED, 1987, 43). In the context of the Global North, the challenges we subsume under the umbrella term ‘sustainable development’ are often defined as “a problem of overconsumption: we are taking or using more than we need.” (Biro, 2016, 89). For Biro, this poses two important problems: first, defining what this need is, i.e., which concept of need underlies our consumption practices, and second, the status of the ‘other-thanhuman’ world, ideas of how we should relate to the non-human or nature (Bennett, 2010; Gumbert, 2020; Haraway, 2016). The above definition shows clearly that sustainability is linked to moral agency and that the concept was originally designed as a normative principle to guide the responsible use of nature. Ostheimer (2018) sees three related principles at the core of sustainability: (1) smart and pragmatic decision-making that is committed to efficiency, preservation, and substitution and is further oriented towards longevity and collective goal formation, (2) the realization of the ‘good life’ for individuals and human communities, built on sufficiency, well-being, and happiness, and (3) justice to define clear rights

26

T. GUMBERT

and obligations within the reciprocal relations of present human communities, towards future generations, and towards non-humans. While this normative multi-dimensionality had already been well established within ethical doctrines since Ancient Greece, in the context of modernization, democratization, and liberalization, it was far more important to privilege individual freedom, the language of rights and binding rules, and agreements, thereby developing a more narrow and segmented approach to deal with environmental problems (Ostheimer, 2018). Blame, guilt, and individual appeals to certain actors to take more decisive steps to safeguard environmental limits and strategic approaches to enforce these actions dominate the SD debate to this day. Sustainable development, as a goal of policy and a guiding principle for moral action in relation to the environment, has certainly a mixed track record. Proponents assert that SD has, especially as an ideal, allowed for greater public participation in environmental affairs and “served to internalize environmental policy making” (Atampugre et al., 2016, 370, see also Meadowcraft, 2000). Critics on the other hand argue that SD has always tended to endorse capitalist economic growth (Doyle & McEachern, 2008) and became dominant as a discourse “chosen by economic and political elites to get on with ‘business as usual’” (Atampugre et al., 2016, 370). These opposing understandings of SD are also present in related sub-fields of the sustainability debate. By way of concretizing the SD agenda and offering more practically oriented solutions, the concept of ‘sustainable consumption’ (SC) quickly took shape during the early 1990s. The UNCED action plan Agenda 21 devoted an entire chapter to SC that encouraged all countries to promote sustainable consumption patterns. In its wake, multiple strategies such as “conscious consumer purchasing, eco-labelling and long-term capital investments in household-energy efficiency” as well as “complementary initiatives grounded in sustainable product policy, life-cycle engineering, waste and material minimisation and eco-efficiency” were designed and adopted (Cohen, 2010, 110). In this regard, the distinction between ‘weak’ (WSC) and ‘strong’ (SSC) sustainable consumption has become highly influential in evaluating these different governance strategies (Fuchs & Lorek, 2005; Hobson, 2013). Whereas ‘weak’ approaches advocate technology-based and innovation-oriented policy strategies to improve material, social, and institutional efficiency to “deliver ‘win– win’ synergies between economic growth and environmental protection” (Hobson, 2013, 1085), ‘strong’ approaches focus on displacing the

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

27

current focus on growth by advising multilevel socio-political transformation processes and the advancement of non-consumption-based well-being. In the development of environmental governance strategies since the early 1990s, ‘weak’ approaches vastly outnumber ‘strong’ strategies. The former rest on the underlying idea of ecological modernization, i.e. a “modernist and technocratic approach to the environment that suggests there is a techno-institutional fix for the present problems” (Hajer, 1995, 32). Ecological modernization has promised a way out of the current dilemma by harmonizing continuous economic growth with environmental protection and may ultimately, in this view, be a key driver of environmental reform (Atampugre et al., 2016; Vazquez-Brust et al., 2014). ‘Strong’ approaches, with their backing of people-oriented environmental policymaking along the lines of sufficiency, well-being, the ‘good life’, and absolute decoupling of economic growth and resource use, are often considered too radical and potentially harmful to the general economic outlook of modern societies (Hobson, 2013). Such a devaluation of ‘strong’ sustainable orientations is however dangerous since the normative core principles of sustainability may be simultaneously aligned with weak sustainable trajectories. How humans respond to the Anthropocene and handle this new selfawareness in the face of multiple co-evolving planetary threats illuminates the absence of moral agency and overarching ethics of responsibility for developing new institutions and practices. David Schlosberg (2016) contends that there have been at least three traditional responses to the challenges presented by mankind’s moving into the Anthropocene. First, the dominant response has been environmental management, applying expertise to neatly separated problems and evaluating successes by past, stable conditions “as a standard around which to design conservation and restoration” (ibid., 196). The second response describes setting limits and boundaries, as in the now famous ‘Limits to Growth’ report (Meadows et al., 1972), and the almost equally famous approach by Rockström et al. (2009) in arguing for “planetary boundaries” in order to denote a “safe and just operating space for humanity”. Lastly, a third response, termed by Schlosberg as the “double down on hubris”, sees new technologies such as geoengineering as a possibility of redesigning nature altogether— from the manipulation of the atmosphere to the (genetic) enhancement of organic species.

28

T. GUMBERT

Taken together, the management of ecology, the calculation and projection of current biophysical conditions, and the redesign of nature rely on the same rationalities and material tools that gave rise to modernization in the first place: economic logics, the natural sciences, and technological engineering (Dryzek & Pickering, 2019; Fuchs et al., 2021). The very same instruments that are widely believed to have caused the dramatic dynamics of global environmental change are mobilized in its salvation attempt. So far, none of these approaches has distinguished itself as a guiding principle to govern the environment in light of the size of current problems. Schlosberg (2016) argues that a traditional conception of the ‘wild’ as a standard for orientation disavows the physical transformations that already govern the present. The limits discourse faces strong political opposition that hinders any meaningful political action. Lastly, more techno-optimism and managerial ingenuity would not have contributed to a socially and ecologically more sustainable world but instead multiplied irreversible consequences. The field of environmental governance is, politically and scientifically, therefore in need of new normative orientations. The question arises if the Anthropocene-thesis is susceptible to considerations of moral agency and responsibility more broadly. Arguably, moral considerations are indeed present within environmental debate, and especially the Anthropocene discourse is able to recognize and broaden their legitimacy vis-à-vis logics of ecological modernization. And yet, it seems very difficult to imagine how a renewed commitment to moral agency and responsibility can help to structure alternative political institutions and policy practices in environmental governance. Burke et al. (2016), for instance, suggest a restructuring of our international institutions via the creation of an ‘Earth System council’ similar to the UN Security Council as well as new international mechanisms and forceful laws such as a Coal Convention and the category ‘Crimes against Biodiversity’ (see also Biermann, 2000). Critics argue that in advocating top-down, coercive approaches to international law, they also call for rather “abstract and idealist” notions of “global ethics” (Chandler et al., 2018). Ethics is here, at best, considered as a ‘superstructure’, as background context for the necessary force of international law, prone to be reduced to pure rhetoric (ibid.).

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

29

Some authors see the reason for this in the Anthropocene-thesis’ focus on the planet as reference object and the whole of mankind as a responsible political subject, which lacks attention to global inequalities. In Chakrabarty’s take on the Anthropocene, he writes: if human actions are what has precipitated this collective slide into a geological period that signifies human domination of the planet and even of its geological history, why name that period after all humans or the human species, the anthropos, when we know it is the rich among humans, or the institutions of capitalism or the global economy, that are causally (hence morally?) responsible for this change in our condition? (2016, 190).

Therefore, a number of authors speak instead of the Capitalocene, the Anthropocene, or the Plantationoscene (Haraway, 2016; Moore, 2015) to “make clear ‘who’ and what practices are responsible”. (Chandler et al., 2018, 199) Instead of adopting an ‘ultrahumanism’, to “see the world as one giant anthropomorphic self-organizing body” (ibid.), it is about focusing on a specific subset of the human who lives within a particular form of social organization and is cultivating specific lifestyles, as well as on focusing on the most vulnerable humans that suffer because of this. Beyond the focus on the human, it is highlighted by a number of different authors that critically engaging with the Anthropocene-thesis obligates scholars to be more attentive to materiality and non-human agency (Bennett, 2010; Haraway, 2016; Latour, 2017): “Agencies are swapping properties in surprising ways: we become unable to recognize either the old ideas of freedom and humanism, or those of matter and reductionism. Responsibilities […] are now redistributed” (Latour, 2016, 167). In this view, the notions of ‘humanity’ and the ‘material world’ (or the ‘non-human’) have to be rethought (Gumbert, 2020). The change in perspective from human to non-human considerations orients the question of responsibility not only towards marginalized human communities, but also towards the interactions with animal communities or even material things and processes (such as technologies) (Chandler et al., 2018, 206). In short, the advent of the Anthropocene calls on us to develop inclusive and diverse relations with nature, analyse threatening and destabilizing effects and, above all, to “demonstrate the responsibility of particular forms of social organization for our currently precarious condition” (ibd., 204). The normative ideal that these authors propose is to cultivate a politics that is not reduced to managing the consequences

30

T. GUMBERT

of human action, but one that develops means “not to an end, but to future means” (Springer, 2016, 288). Summarizing the above, the reintroduction of normative claims and the strengthening of moral agency in environmental governance on the basis of the normative core principles of sustainability can be seen as a necessary condition to devise collective political solutions in this new geological epoch (e.g. Ulbert et al., 2018). Current governance efforts are based, however, on controlling and shaping the Earth system in keeping with modernization and economic growth trajectories. It is claimed that in order to reimagine environmental governance strategies in the Anthropocene, it is important to understand this mismatch. To be able to do so, a) the underlying economic and socio-political dynamics of Earth systems change, and b) the neglect of moral agency and ethical imperatives to build new institutions need to be related to each other and seen as co-evolving developments. This argument is illustrated by drawing on the notion of ‘organized irresponsibility’.

The Organization of Irresponsibility At the end of the nineteenth century and especially during the course of the twentieth century, responsibility became a central moral and socio-political category. It recognized that the consequences of human action on a global scale increasingly elude human influence and control but must, at the same time, remain in the sphere of human competency and attributability (Heidbrink, 2007, 160). By its very name, the Anthropocene contains a strong appellative dimension that mankind must develop solutions to remedy the problems it has created (Ostheimer, 2018). However, if the subject of responsibility is the world society, i.e., if everyone is made responsible, responsibility as a political lever (and as an analytical category) dissolves into pure rhetoric. Similarly, if the object of responsibility is ‘the planet’, ‘nature’, or ‘future generations’, the criteria for evaluating responsible action are equally blurry and crude. In other words, decisive action must be organized collectively where individual causes (in the past) and consequences (in the future) are difficult to determine. And yet, to be useful as a concept, the subjects and objects of responsibility have nevertheless to be outlined as precisely as possible. Historically, the mode of dealing with planetary threats under the conditions of complexity and uncertainty has, according to Ulrich Beck, been one of attempting to re-establish control and re-affirm human

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

31

mastery over nature (Beck, 1986). However, these attempts have created new side effects and unforeseen consequences: [I]ndustries try to define it as something which has been done by nature. But they don’t realize that we are living in an age where the decision making is the primary background for these kinds of catastrophes. I think it’s very important to realize this because modernity, or even what you could say is the victory of modernity, produces more and more uncontrollable consequences. […] Nobody really is responsible for those consequences. We have a system of organized irresponsibility, and this system has to be changed. (Ulrich Beck in Asahi Shimbun, July 06, 2011)

The notion of ‘organized irresponsibility’ that Beck introduces tries to capture two related phenomena. First, why there is not enough meaningful political action, or (in some regions and particular policy fields) no action at all to change unsustainable societal trajectories (i.e., why there is irresponsibility), and secondly, why this inaction or inability to act is a structural or systemic feature which is rarely problematized (i.e., why irresponsibility is organized). The connection between the two is, for Beck, the result of how modernization and rationalization have structured human-nature interactions from the end of the twentieth century onwards: threats to modern societies are increasingly seen as being inexistent because they are managed by institutions as calculable risks (Beck, 1986). And since they are treated as inexistent, they multiply (Beck, 1988, 103). Bruno Latour makes a similar claim by describing what he calls the process of ‘hybridization’ (Latour, 1993). Ecological threats (nuclear energy, toxic waste, atmospheric concentration of carbons, etc.) are culturally produced—they are hybrids of Nature/Culture—but within political discourse, they are constantly separated (nature as object, humans as subject) (Gumbert, 2020). This separation is for Latour the very reason for their misrecognition, which in turn leads to the uncontrolled reproduction and proliferation of hybrids (Latour, 1993). The self-endangerment of modern societies is in this perspective not a consequence of a lack of competency and responsibility per se, but rather a result of the simultaneity of existent jurisdiction and ‘non-attributable’ causes (Beck, 1988, 100). The result is a situation in which systemic, inbuilt causes lead to the systemic inability to generate adequate problem solutions.

32

T. GUMBERT

In order to problematize dominant environmental management strategies in the Anthropocene through the notion of ‘organized irresponsibility’, it is necessary to look at the underlying economic and political structures as well as at the societal Definitionsverhältnisse (Beck, 1988, 100), the conditions of defining and framing problems and corresponding solution strategies. ‘Organized irresponsibility’ proposes that the complexity of the interaction between Earth system and social systems is being managed within economic and bureaucratic structures that generated the problems in the first place. ‘Coordinated action’ is heralded as meaningful and reasonable, while at the same time the responsibility for action is passed on to ‘the other’, the state, the corporate sector, individual consumers, etc. (Drews, 2018; Sinn, 2008). From a rational choice perspective, taking on responsibility reproduces the features of the free rider problem, where individual concessions in a collective action context lead to net losses for the agent of ‘responsible’ action. For Beck, and this is the crucial point in his argument, the established way out of this dilemma is precisely an approach to organize, and by its very organization make invisible, structures of irresponsibility (Beck, 2016). Probabilistic assessments of risks transform uncertain threats and help to translate them into an economic language of cost–benefit analyses and normalize them as common sense around “rational-objectiveeconomic signifiers” (Saravanamuthu, 2017, 173; see also Brown, 2004). This enables the continuation of ecological modernization strategies and the prospects for win–win situations amidst ecological crisis phenomena. Since risks become calculable, this approach also restricts an organization’s extended responsibility to other agents (Spence, 2007). In short, humanly manufactured risks are normalized, and the pursuit of ecological modernization strategies is rationalized. According to Beck (1993), this fabricated certainty distorts all forms of knowledge, (economics, law, social sciences, as well as the natural sciences), because it creates larger disconnects between what is ontologically real and the social constructions of said reality. Technological dangers and actual catastrophes are not experienced and understood as what they really are, i.e., “man-made disasters” characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and diffused responsibility (Beck, 1995). The systemic causes are thereby perpetuated, and the uncontrollable, manufactured consequences are obscured which severely impacts the possibility of subjecting them to any form of democratic control (Saravanamuthu, 2017, 203).

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

33

Irresponsibility and Environmental Politics The misrecognition of structures of irresponsibility has important implications for environmental politics. First on the level of institutions and bureaucratic practices. Multiple causes and cumulative consequences can now be measured and modelled, and complexity is reduced to an accumulation of linear causal relationships (Rayner, 1992). Similarly, uncertainties, such as the capacity of ecosystems to absorb pollution (Walker & Salt, 2006, cited in Saravanamuthu, 2017, 176), which are incredibly difficult to forecast because of the long timescales and the nature of large open dynamic systems, are now controlled through safety thresholds and “normal risk calculus” (which is predicted on the basis of past occurrences) (Beck, 2009). The idea that complexity and uncertainty can both be broken down and ‘managed’ gives rise to the notion that responsibilities can equally be individualized and causally attributed. Since the built-in chains of causation establish identifiable victims and wrong-doers but fail to address structural injustices caused by the combined acts of literally billions of individuals and organizations; it “works actively to obscure the structural character of injustices in ways that make it hard to achieve collective action” (Eckersley, 2016, 349). The fact that rules, precise standards for behaviour, codes of conduct, monitoring systems, etc., continuously grow, and ecological problems are simultaneously exacerbated (IPCC, 2022), it constitutes one of the biggest paradoxes and challenges for environmental politics. In the context of accountability mechanisms, Park and Kramarz (2019) have used the term “accountability trap” to describe why more accountability does not lead to more environmental benefits. A second set of implications relates to governance tools and strategies. Notions of responsibility have become highly visible and influential where value chains are involved. The safe handling of products is subject to extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, distributors and transporters, producers and manufacturers, retailers and intermediaries are expected to develop corporate sustainability responsibility (CSR) plans, and many policy strategies try to enhance consumer responsibility in markets relations. Policy and governance strategies to steer responsible behaviours and practices include private standards, voluntary agreements, and best practices, as well as a range of informational tools, such as awareness-raising campaigns, and ecological or fair-trade labels. These instruments aim to mitigate the negative external effects of production in

34

T. GUMBERT

social (e.g., labour relations) and ecological (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions) terms (Gumbert & Fuchs, 2021), but often also fail to address environmental problems. To give an example, certification is often treated as a best practice approach to overcome the distance between producers and consumers, encouraging consumers to buy more sustainable products, thereby strengthening and expanding the market for certified goods which in turn incentivizes producers to voluntarily self-regulate their own business practices. In the case of global e-waste governance, the two leading NGOs, both created by powerful business lobbies, have developed competing certification schemes (Responsible Recycling—R2, e-Stewards) that rival each other for a market share of their respective governance model. While R2 encourages the export of e-waste to the Global South (predominantly India, China, and Bangladesh) to create ‘American jobs’, e-Stewards prohibits the export of e-waste, also to create ‘American jobs’ (Pickren, 2014). Due to a lack of political regulation, NGOs fill the gaps with voluntary certification mechanisms that structure the exchange relations with e-waste of a host of different countries. This is highly problematic since consumers are now carrying the responsibility to purchase certified products, the economies of different regions in the South that rely on e-waste processing are excluded from negotiating the certification proposals, and the question of how these materials are produced in the first place (toxicity, longevity, etc.) is omitted; it is solely about what to do with end-of-pipe waste (ibid.). In a system that should produce accountable relations through certification, to make clear and transparent who is responsible if harm occurs, a range of structural injustices goes unnoticed, such as exposing marginalized groups to most of the risks (and few of the benefits) and placing them in a weak position to be able to negotiate the circumstances that would reduce their vulnerabilities (Eckersley, 2016). Agbogbloshie is the dark underbelly of the failure of accountability. The third set of implications concerns, as the previous example has also already shown, the discursive dynamics at play and how they affect social relations within governance networks. Although multi-stakeholder initiatives or producer networks work towards better coordination and cooperation, for instance, to manage a common resource, environmental problems persist and multiply. In the case of land acquisitions, the extensive commercialization of agriculture leads to the irreversible degradation of massive land areas in quantitative and qualitative terms (Anseeuw et al., 2012, 45; see also McMichael, 2012). It is estimated that through misuse,

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

35

approximately 24 billion tonnes of fertile soil are lost every year (Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2015, 6). Too intensively used soil or soil used in inappropriate ways, starts to degrade and loses its function: 20 to 25 per cent worldwide are already affected, and every year 5 to 10 million hectares (which roughly equals the size of Austria) degrade additionally to that (ibid., 13). The UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights has clarified the human rights responsibilities of private actors in the context of large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) and issued Guiding Principles in this regard, while multi-stakeholder platforms such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels have established commodity-specific guidelines (Polack et al., 2013). Responsible business sector action in the case of LSLAs focuses on voluntary commitments to ‘green’ commodity chains and to ensure better labour conditions. International protests have problematized these efforts, for example in relation to the World Bank’s “Principles on Responsible Agricultural Investment”. An alliance of NGOs, transnational farmer organizations, and representatives of indigenous peoples argues that. instead of rising to the challenge of developing agriculture in a way that is more socially and environmentally sustainable, we act as if accelerating the destruction of the global peasantry could be accomplished responsibly. (FIAN et al., 2011)

Land acquisitions are rarely questioned but instead legitimized by particular narratives. The idea of “unproductive land” (Baka, 2013) that needs to be modernized and cultivated is often referred to in this context, which leads to the expulsion of subsistence farmers from their land. Land acquisitions are also increasingly legitimized by the need to grow ‘flex crops’, commodities with multiple and flexible uses (for food, feed, fuel, plastics, and pharmaceutics). Flexing is regularly described as a necessary and important strategy to react to the challenges of growing resource demands, climate change, energy security, and food security. Such “flex narratives” (Borras et al., 2015) rest on green economy discourses that correspond with the vision of dominant political and private actors to protect the environment (through efficiency gains) and increase rural development, thereby benefiting the local population. In reality, flex

36

T. GUMBERT

crops are “spread over great expanses of land, often inhibiting other rural activities and displacing people that rely on the land for income and subsistence” (Gumbert & Fuchs, 2018, 442). ‘Responsible’ industry roundtables and multi-stakeholder initiatives with the aim to make individual actors accountable to local communities have so far failed to address the negative social side effects of displacement and the ecological consequences of land use change in any meaningful way.

The Political Economy of Food and Waste Generation The next section aims to describe how such conditions of ‘organized irresponsibility’ can be understood in the global agrifood system and how they pertain to food waste generation. On the surface, food waste does not appear to serve any primary function or as a result of intended actions. And yet, this ‘side effect’ of systemic processes of production, distribution, and consumption in the food system is predominantly addressed by coordinated, albeit individual reduction strategies. The danger that individual causes are prioritized over the acknowledgment of systemic dynamics, therefore, looms large in this field. Thinking about food waste generation through material and discursive logics of waste production may help to contextualize these strategies more comprehensively and ultimately inform evaluations of responsibility attributions in food waste governance. In the context of governing the reduction of food waste on a global scale, a fixed set of governance responses addresses the symptoms of waste generation predominantly on the distribution and consumption level of the food system, without fully acknowledging the ‘engine’ of waste production and its structural causes (see also Chapter 7). Managing and governing the food system today entails reducing information deficits, correcting market failures, adjusting market prices, increasing resource efficiency, ‘greening’ value chains, etc., all pointing towards two explicit goals: secure and increase food supply while decoupling resource use from economic growth. This rationality can be thought of as a ‘food supply perspective’, motivated by the normative goal to increase food availability for everyone, to guarantee access to food, and to secure a stable supply. This is, however, where the global food system is failing, and food waste is a strong indicator of this failure (Cloke, 2013; McKeon, 2015). When a large percentage of the global food supply is not consumed by humans (or animals, for that matter) (Alexander et al., 2017; Vulcano & Ceccarese,

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

37

2018; UNEP, 2021), and agricultural land is degraded at an alarming rate, it is not only a matter of improving the efficiency of the system through new technologies and better management techniques anymore. Therefore, I suggest that, when thinking about the global food system, we should not start with the extraction of resources and production processes and view waste as a distant end point in food value chains. Seen in this light, a certain amount of waste is ‘naturalized’ as unavoidable, and hence all that the governance of food systems can achieve is to reduce this amount as effectively as possible, almost self-evidently giving preference to the economic and emissions-related dimensions of sustainability. A ‘supply perspective’ operates through security and risk calculations and rests therefore fundamentally on the idea that oversupply is necessary (i.e. world hunger is seen as a problem of insufficient productivity). It’s guiding principle is growth for the sake of growth, and indirectly the selfexpansion of capital and the creation of surplus value. Food availability problems will vanish where markets emerge and the value of capital is increased (benefiting farmers, workers, and consumers). It is important to understand the material drivers of waste production in order to expose normalization processes that construct waste as a natural, self-evident category. Similarly, it is necessary to look at the Definitionsverhältnisse (discursive dimension) of waste to recognize the discursive rationalities that work towards its active misrecognition and lead to ‘organized irresponsibility’ in food waste governance.

Material Logics of Waste Generation When we start to think about the excesses of economies, it is impossible to talk about the material dynamics of waste production without specifically addressing the logic of capital. Marx distinguished three analytical categories to make forms of waste visible: (1) human ‘refuse’ (the lumpen proletariat), (2) the overproduction of total capitalist output and (3) the ‘excretions’ of production and the technical means of their reconversion in capitalist industry (O’Brien, 2008, 146–7). For Marx, the bourgeois epoch was defined by “constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation” (Marx & Engels, 1981, 83), which highlights the material forces that structurally generated waste. Two concepts are central to understanding his reasoning: excess and surplus value. Excess refers not just to the excess of the production of goods, but to the excess of the total

38

T. GUMBERT

capitalist system, an excessive predisposition within capitalism. The French philosopher Georges Bataille describes excess as a function of unrestricted growth: I will begin with a basic fact: The living organism, in a situation determined by the play of energy on the surface of the globe, ordinarily receives more energy than is necessary for maintaining life; the excess energy (wealth) can be used for the growth of a system (e.g., an organism); if the system can no longer grow, or if the excess cannot be completely absorbed in its growth, it must necessarily be lost without profit; it must be spent, willingly or not, gloriously or catastrophically. (Bataille, 1989 [1967], 21)

If we bring to mind the volume of globally produced food waste and the surface area of annually degraded land, waste on such a gigantic scale is the “acknowledgement of an impotence [and this] involuntary destruction […] has in every case the meaning of failure.” (Bataille, 1989, 22). Food waste can therefore be thought of as a massive global economic and political failure that cannot be separated from the growth paradigm. Building on Bataille and what he termed the change from a restrictive economy to a general economy, economic growth “requires the overturning of economic principles – the overturning of the ethics that grounds them” (Bataille, 1989, 25): “If a part of wealth […] is doomed to destruction or at least to unproductive use without any possible profit, it is logical, even inescapable, to surrender commodities without return.” (ibid.). Waste is thus inevitable, yet not acceptable if it is not discussed in terms of utility. The development of new technologies to mitigate waste through re-use and recycling must in this line of thought be understood as legitimizing the ‘surrender of commodities without return’, as making useful the already useless, because “capital produces essentially capital, and does so only to the extent that it produces surplus value” (O’Brien, 2008, 151). In Marxist terms, the surplus value indicates the difference between workers’ wages and the value of the good produced which is then absorbed by capitalists and reinvested, put to use, to stimulate growth. Bataille argues that, initially, a portion of this surplus is used up (in any way ‘consumed’), but then constantly a larger and larger surplus is produced: “This surplus eventually contributes to making growth more difficult, for growth no longer suffices to use it up. […] Henceforth what matters primarily is no longer to develop the productive forces but

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

39

to spend their products sumptuously.” (Bataille, 1989, 37). Surplus is produced in excess of the existing social needs; some commodities can be sold below their market price, “and a portion of them may be altogether unsaleable” (Marx, 1977, 187). This is what Marx termed ‘the crisis of overproduction’ as one of the fundamental laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production. The economic system is overburdened with a surplus of capital “unless some means can be found to transform the surplus into profitable use” (O’Brien, 2008, 161), as a kind of counteracting force to stimulate demand and provide a range of uses for this surplus, that is, to valorize it (Sweezy, 1962, 218). Turning our attention to the global agrifood system, we are witnessing the proliferation of certain rationalities within (private) governance arrangements on a global scale, from increased profit expectations to security and risk calculations, which, on the surface, may incentivize reduction efforts but simultaneously legitimize ‘wasteful’ practices. Where the surplus of food products as a strategy of financial risk reduction cannot be used to generate more surplus, food is lost sumptuously, left to rot in agricultural fields, or dumped in huge containers in the backyards of food manufacturers and retailers. Economic rationalities play an important role in the analysis of these processes of food production and distribution, since food is the perishable commodity par excellence that necessitates improvements in packaging, transportation, and refrigeration to reduce economic risks considerably (Carolan, 2012, 31). At the same time, many if not most of these excesses of the food system are invisible. Financial losses, which are created by the frailty of food products, must be “minimised to as close to zero as possible, through both a massive oversupply and the devolution of costs through the price-fixing enabled by sub-contracting” (Cloke, 2013, 628). Technologies seemingly provide ways to deal with this irresolvable contradiction: Genetic engineering in agricultural production constitutes real subsumption of nature within capitalist production; „capital circulates through nature [..] as opposed to around it “ (Carolan, 2012, 34). The idea is to transform nature instead of altering the means of production. Corresponding processes, such as mechanization in the agricultural sector, subject individuals to this rationality and structure social relations. In the context of biotechnology, farmers are prohibited from re-using their own seed to grow crops and are forced in this way to buy from biotech and seed companies that are legally protected by patent laws and food safety regulations). The reproductive capacities of nature are

40

T. GUMBERT

‘wasted’, while the reproductive capacity of capital, again, surplus value, is being protected. These rule-governed modes of control, effects of market concentration, and more generally “relations within which food is produced, and through which capitalism is produced and reproduced “ (McMichael, 2009, 281) rely fundamentally on the production of waste (Friedmann, 1993; McMichael, 2009). The idea of the ‘Circular Economy’ (e.g. EC, 2015, DEFRA, 2018) holds the promise to move out of this dilemma and posits that it is ultimately possible to live in a ‘zero waste world’, where every form of material excess can be integrated into new processes of value generation. Yet, the ‘Circular Economy’ narrative might just take the notion of ‘putting waste to use’ and the logic of surplus value to a new level: every form of waste is to become a resource, and every economic input is in itself, after being used, a new input, thus creating the illusion of endless surplus under conditions of a closed loop economy. Many authors, however, criticize the notion of circularity as relying, in the current political discussion, too much on increasing resource efficiency and recycling materials without taking into account biophysical limits, changing human labour relations, and participative governance to a substantial degree (Gregson et al., 2015; Moreau et al., 2017); a criticism that can be levelled against many processes in the current politics of waste reduction. Most importantly, though, contemporary circular economy models and approaches exhibit features that stabilize and deepen the reliance on economic growth instead of overcoming it (see Chapter 8 for a more comprehensive discussion). This section has argued that the concepts of excess and surplus value can help to illuminate particular rationalities that spur material dynamics of waste generation. It has also highlighted that these rationalities pertain to the general logics of capitalism, which are broadly disseminated and visible in food economies. If and how these logics are addressed through responsibility attributions can present important insights into whether the way responsible actions are organized does in fact signify an ‘organization of irresponsibility’.

Discursive Logics of Waste Generation It has become apparent while discussing excess and surplus value in the context of waste generation, that not only material logics contribute to waste generation, but that the discursive embeddedness of waste has to

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

41

be recognized as well. In colloquial terms, waste is largely negatively connoted and applied to objects to mark them as being outside of the realm of value, as objects that are useless, that are without adequate return. When things (or possibilities, chances, etc.) are ‘wasted’, they are gradually consumed, reduced in substance or ruined, literally stripped of their value. Waste clearly “symbolizes an idea of improper use, and therefore operates within a more or less moral economy of the right, the good, the proper, their opposites and all values in between” (Scanlan, 2005, 22). Derived from the Latin word ‘vastus’, the term also carries in itself an explanation for the origin of its generation, as a ‘large abundance’, which is not put to use, or that of ‘excess material’. Waste is thus inherently linked with excess, and thereby points to a systemic dimension.1 One meaning waste dominantly acquires, and which is linked to the material dynamics outlined above, is that of ‘neglected value’. When waste historically emerged as a theme opposite dirt, it was instantly considered “conceivably productive”: “the ultimate end of dirt, does not have to be a disintegration into non-identity, but can instead be a remaking as value” (Cooper, 2010, 1116). The meaning of waste has historically evolved alongside socio-ecological transformations until it obtains its modern meaning as a “neglected value, or unrealized productive force” (ibid., 1117), which demands active intervention to valorize it. Not realizing the productive potential of waste is now synonymous with “escap[ing] the rational time of modernity” (Scanlan, 2007, 190). Categorizing something as waste thus becomes subject to practices of management, disposal and revalorization, as “work is now expected to be done on surplus materials” (Gregson, 2009, 63). For example, today it is common practice for municipal authorities to mandate large waste management businesses to collect food waste from food caterers, industrial clients, and private households and develop innovative schemes to use this form of surplus in ever more productive ways. Mary Douglas’ anthropological study “Purity and Danger” (Douglas, 1966) stresses another important point regarding the meaning of waste. She argues that waste and society can hardly be thought of as separate

1 It must be noted that the meaning of waste is, of course, historically and culturally distinct and has evolved over time. For example, in John Locke’s moral philosophy, waste is a sinful act that is tied to Calvinist notions of stewardship. If one would be found guilty of spoilage or waste and was not making proper use of land, the loss of privileges and property rights was morally justifiable (Scanlan 2005, 23–5).

42

T. GUMBERT

spheres, although they are often treated as such. Douglas describes how the notion of dirt has come to be seen as matter out of place: “dirt is essentially disorder […]. Dirt offends against order. Eliminating it is not a genitive movement, but a positive effort to organise the environment” (Douglas, 1966, 2). Dirt as a category has no essential meaning, but is produced in social relations and simultaneously structures them (Cooper, 2010, 1115). For instance, dirt was a constitutive part of European narratives of technological progress and improvement in which the city started to clean the urban environment through the creation of sewers, and in doing so, was able to make ‘clean’ subjects, as everything and everyone connected to filth and dirt was socially devalued (Laporte, 2000). How individuals and groups that are direct participants of waste economies and occupants of waste(d) spaces are viewed and valued within societies directly relates to how waste itself is perceived and vice versa, which can have consequences for responsibility attributions: linking actors to food waste can have severe reputational effects, which may prompt them to neglect any responsibility. We see through these examples, that waste can in fact be understood very differently according to perspective and context. By way of broadening the scholarly agenda on waste as a discursive (or ideological) category, Sarah A. Moore (2012) has established a matrix of different conceptions of waste that shows the range of possible connotations and meanings waste can acquire. For her, it is important to look at waste very carefully because a lot of competing notions of waste are implicitly or explicitly underlying attempts to “revalue and reassess the political potential of waste as a material part of everyday life” (Moore, 2012, 4). To guide an analysis of waste definitions and conceptualizations that are potentially employed by various actors, she uses a schematic to structure the different meanings given to waste. This heuristic distinguishes waste according to a positivity-negativity-axis and a duality-relativity-axis (ibid., 3). ‘Positivity’ indicates that waste is viewed as having an essential quality that resides in the object itself, such as understanding waste as an environmental hazard or more generally as a reminder of prior social and economic processes (ibid., 2). ‘Negativity’ on the other end of the axis indicates that the meaning and value of waste is “largely indeterminable and escape[s] or exceed[s] easy categorization” (ibid.: 3), thus highlighting the concept’s relativity and mobility. The second axis distinguishes between a dualist and a relational nature of the concept that describes waste’s degree of separateness from society. ‘Dualism’ describes

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

43

the notion that waste and society constitute separate spheres that act on one another in various ways. In this respect, waste is seen as an externality to socio-economic processes (of production and consumption) that must be managed (ibid.). ‘Relationality’ on the other hand focuses on “mutually constitutive, immanent, and emergent encounters between people and things” (ibid.: 3–4). The matrix thus helps to elaborate on two important questions when researching waste empirically: (1) how is waste defined, and (2) how is waste related to society? These questions can produce important insights into the processes of food waste generation and the attribution of responsibility in food waste governance alike. First, if food waste is for example understood ‘positively’ as a commodity, this understanding legitimizes particular re-use strategies. If understood ‘negatively’ as risk, it legitimizes particular strategies to ‘get rid of’ food waste (disposal). If understood as ‘relational’, it legitimizes particular redistribution strategies (for human consumption), and so forth. Second, these reduction practices are in turn linked to particular actors and systems (bioenergy companies, waste collection systems, food banks, etc.), which means that how waste is understood and defined directly implicates who becomes a responsible actor in relation to it, charged with the responsibility for food waste reduction.

Conclusion: The Need to Rethink Responsibility The ‘Anthropocentric Turn’ necessitates a rethinking of responsibility in a postnatural age (Arias-Maldonado, 2015). The central task for environmental governance today is to produce political responses that bring uncertain and complex issues into the normative sphere of competence and jurisdiction of different stakeholders. It has been argued by drawing on the notion of ‘organized irresponsibility’, that environmental problems can continue to multiply although the degree to which actors might be implicated in these problems is increasingly clarified and made more transparent. The most widely applied governance strategies on local, national, and global levels are rooted in the will to produce certainty, clarity, and a reduction of complexity to get a firm grip on the environmental and social challenges in this new age. A central question that remains is how systemic and structural problems can be addressed by motivating actors to feel more obligated to invest personal resources in order to mitigate negative systemic dynamics. In the face of the multiplication of unintended consequences and the progression of risks caused by global economic

44

T. GUMBERT

activities, it seems the governance of complex systems cannot rely on clearly definable targets and accountability mechanisms alone. Because it is increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to linearly connect large-scale consequences to singular causes and intentions, accountability mechanisms may fall short of advising adequate and timely solutions to many current problems. While the importance of established accountability mechanisms cannot be overstated, eventually responsibility as a genuine perspective in environmental governance can help to broaden and deepen the motivation for organizing alternative mechanisms for collective action. A ‘one size fits all’ approach is however difficult to imagine. As has been argued in this chapter, responsibility attributions and understandings must always be researched in close connection with the respective field of study, and especially with the ‘object’ of responsibility in question. The material logics which drives waste generation in the food system, and the discursive logics of how waste is understood, have direct implications for how responsibility is attributed and how the wider socio-political effects of these attributions may be evaluated. The Anthropocene, therefore, challenges us to rethink the politics of responsibility and its underlying ethics. A concept of responsibility must invoke reflexive governing within limits, address global complexities and entanglements, as well as global inequalities towards human and nonhuman communities. However, in order to serve as a coherent research perspective, i.e., to provide analytic value for empirical research as well as normative guidance for environmental governance, it is necessary to substantiate the perspective further. The next chapter discusses how and to what degree responsibility has been considered so far in environmental governance scholarship, how it is understood, where it falls short, and how a renewed perspective on responsibility may help to address the problems associated with ‘organized irresponsibility’ in human–nature relations.

References Anseeuw, W., Wily, L. A., Cotula, L. & Taylor, M. (2012). Land Rights and the Rush for Land. Findings of the Global Commercial Pressures on Land Research Project. Rome: ILC. Arias-Maldonado, M. (2015). The Anthropocenic Turn: Theorizing Sustainability in a Postnatural Age. Sustainability, 8, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su8010010

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

45

Atampugre, G., Botchway, D.-V.N.Y.M., Esia-Donkoh, K., & Kendie, S. (2016). Ecological modernization and water resource management: A critique of institutional transitions in Ghana. GeoJournal, 81, 367–378. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10708-015-9623-9 Baka, J. (2013). The Political Construction of Wasteland: Governmentality, Land Acquisition and Social Inequality. Development Change 44 (2), pp. 409–428. Bataille, G. (1989 [1967]). The Accursed Share. An Essay on General Economy. Volume 1—Consumption (1st ed., The accursed share, an essay on general economy / Georges Bataille ; 1). Zone. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne (Edition Suhrkamp). Suhrkamp. Beck, U. (1988). Gegengifte: Die organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit. Suhrkamp. Beck, U. (1993). Risk society. Towards a new modernity (M. A. Ritter, Trans.). Sage. Beck, U. (1995). Ecological politics in an age of risk XE “Risk.” Polity Press. Beck, U. (2009). World at Risk. Polity Press. Beck, U. (2011). System of organized irresponsibility behind the Fukushima crisis. Interview for The Asahi Shimbun, 06.06.2011. Online: https://fukush imanewsresearch.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/japan-interview-ulrich-becksystem-of-organized-irresponsibility-behind-the-fukushima-crisis. Beck, U. (2016). The Metamorphosis of the world: How climate change is transforming our concept of the world (1st ed.). Polity. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press. Biermann, F. (2000). The case for a world environment organization. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 42(9), 22–31. Biro, A. (2016). Human nature, non-human nature, and needs. Environmental political theory. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, D. Schlosberg, & eds. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press. Borras, S. M., Franco, J. C., Isakson, S. R., Levidow, L., & Vervest, P. (2015). The rise of flex crops and commodities: implications for research. Journal of Peasant Studies, 43 (1), pp. 93–115. Brown, A. D. (2004). Authoritative sensemaking in a public inquiry report. Organization Studies, 25, 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084060403 8182 Burke, A., Fishel, S., Mitchell, A., Dalby, S., & Levine, D. J. (2016). Planet politics: A Manifesto from the end of IR. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44, 499–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829816636674. Carolan, M. (2012). The sociology of food and agriculture. Routledge. Chakrabarty, D. (2009). The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry, 35, 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1086/596640

46

T. GUMBERT

Chakrabarty, D. (2016). The human significance of the Anthropocene. Reset Modernity, 189–199. Chandler, D., Cudworth, E., & Hobden, S. (2018). Anthropocene, capitalocene and liberal cosmopolitan IR: A response to Burke et al.’s ‘Planet Politics’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 46, 190–208. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0305829817715247. Cloke, J. (2013). Empires of waste and the food security meme. Geography Compass, 7 , 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12068 Cohen, M. J. (2010). The international political economy of (un)sustainable consumption and the global financial collapse. Environmental Politics, 19, 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903396135 Cooper, T. (2010). Recycling modernity: Waste and environmental history. History Compass, 8, 1114–1125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542. 2010.00725.x Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415, 23. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/415023a Crutzen, P., & Eugene Stoermer. (2000). The ‘Anthropocene’. International geosphere-biosphere program newsletter (41), 17/18. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2018). Our Waste, Our Resources: A Strategy for England. DEFRA. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger. Routledge. Doyle, T., & McEachern, D. (2008). Environment and politics (3rd ed.). Routledge. Drews, N. (2018). Verantwortung als systemspezifische Reflexion ökologischer Gefährdung,. In A. Henkel, N. Lüdtke, N. Buschmann, & L. Hochmann (Eds.), Reflexive Responsibilisierung: Verantwortung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (Sozialtheorie). Bielefeld: transcript. Dryzek, J., & Pickering, J. (2019). The Politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford University Press. European Commission (EC). (2015). Closing the Loop—An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. Eckersley, R. (2016). Responsibility for climate change as a structural injustice. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, & D. Schlosberg, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press. FIAN Int’l, FoEI, LRAN, GRAIN, La Via Campesina, WFFP & others. 2011. It’s time to outlaw land grabbing, not to make it “responsible”! Press communique, 17 April, 2011. Online: http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/ 18457 Friedmann, H. (1993). The political economy of food: A global crisis. In Jurgen Habermas et al. (Ed.), New Left Review, 197, (Vol. 197, pp. 29–57). London.

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

47

Fuchs, D., & Lorek, S. (2005). Sustainable consumption governance: A history of promises and failures. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(3), 261–288. Fuchs, D., Sahakian, M., Gumbert, T., Di Giulio, A., Maniates, M., Lorek, S., & Graf, A. (2021). Consumption corridors: Living a good life within sustainable limits. Routledge. Gregson, N. (2009). Recycling as policy and assemblage. Geography, 94(1), 61– 65. Gregson, N., Crang, M., Fuller, S., & Holmes, H. (2015). Interrogating the circular economy: The moral economy of resource recovery in the EU. Economy and Society, 44, 218–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147. 2015.1013353 Gumbert, T. (2020). Materiality and nonhuman agency. In Routledge handbook of global sustainability governance (pp. 47–58). Routledge. Gumbert, T., & Fuchs, D. (2018). The power of corporations in global food sector governance. In A. Nölke & C. May (Eds.), Handbook of the international political economy of the corporation. Edward Elgar. Gumbert, T., & Fuchs, D. (2022). Moral geographies of responsibility in the global agrifood system. In The Routledge handbook on responsibility in international relations (pp. 153–163). Routledge. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Clarendon Press. Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Experimental Futures). Duke University Press. Heidbrink, L. (2007). Handeln in der Ungewissheit: Paradoxien der Verantwortung (Kulturwissenschaftliche Interventionen, Vol. 7). Berlin: Kulturverl. Kadmos. Heinrich Böll Foundation. (2015). Soil Atlas: Facts and Figures about Earth, Land and Fields. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation. Hobson, K. (2013). ‘Weak’ or ‘Strong’ sustainable consumption? Efficiency, degrowth, and the 10 year framework of programmes. Environment and Planning c: Government and Policy, 31, 1082–1098. https://doi.org/10.1068/ c12279 Laporte, D. (2000). History of shit. MIT Press. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard Univ. Press. Latour, B. (2016). Sharing responsibility: Farewell to the sublime. In B. Latour & C. Leclercq (Eds.), Reset modernity!: R·M! (A ZKM book). Karlsruhe, Cambridge, MA, ZKM—Center for Art and Media; The MIT Press. Latour, B. (2017). Facing Gaia: Eight lectures on the new climatic regime. Cambridge, UK, Medford, MA: Polity. Marx, K. (1977 [1867]). Capital: A critique of political economy. Volume I: The Process of Production of Capital. Lawrence & Wishart.

48

T. GUMBERT

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1981 [1848]). The communist manifesto. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Maslin, M. A., & Lewis, S. L. (2015). Anthropocene: Earth system, geological, philosophical and political paradigm shifts. The Anthropocene Review, 2, 108– 116. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019615588791 McKeon, N. (2015). Food security governance: Empowering communities, regulating corporations. Routledge. McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36, 139–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820354 McMichael, P. (2012). The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring.” Journal of Peasant Studies, 39 (3/4), pp. 681–701. Meadowcroft, J. (2000). Sustainable development: A New(Ish) idea for a new century? Political Studies, 48, 370–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/14679248.00265 Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W., III. (1972). The limits to growth (8th ed.). Universe Books. Moore, S. A. (2012). Garbage matters: Concepts in new geographies of waste. Progress in Human Geography, 36, 780–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/030 9132512437077 Moore, J. W. (2015). Capitalism in the web of life: Ecology and the accumulation of capital. Verso. Moreau, V., Sahakian, M., van Griethuysen, P., & Vuille, F. (2017). Coming Full Circle. Why Social and Institutional Dimensions Matter for the Circular Economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 497–506. O’Brien, M. (2008). A Crisis of Waste?: Understanding the Rubbish Society (Routledge Advances in Sociology). Taylor and Francis. Ostheimer, J. (2018). Umweltpolitische Herausforderungen aus sozialethischer Perspektive: Nachhaltigkeit im Anthropozän. In Umweltpolitik: global und gerecht (pp. 11–34). Brill Schöningh. Park, S., & Kramarz, T. (Eds.). (2019). Global environmental governance and the accountability trap. MIT Press. Pickren, G. (2014). Political ecologies of electronic waste: uncertainty and legitimacy in the governance of e-waste geographies. Environment and Planning A 46(2), pp. 26–45. Polack, E., Cotula, L., & Côte, M. (2013). Accountability in Africa’s Land Rush: What Role for Legal Empowerment? London/Ottawa: IIED/IRDC. Pörtner, H. O., Roberts, D. C., Adams, H., Adler, C., Aldunce, P., Ali, E., ... & Ibrahim, Z. Z. (IPCC) (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In Social theories of risk (1st ed., pp. 83–116). Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

2

ENVRIONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION …

49

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F., Lambin, E., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. Saravanamuthu, K. (2017). “How Safe is Safe Enough?” Using Beck’s risk society constructs to facilitate changes to unsustainable notions of accountability. In C. R. Lehman (Ed.), Parables, myths and risks (Vol. 20, pp. 167–219, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, volume 20). Bingley: Emerald. Scanlan, J. (2005). On garbage. Reaktion Books. Scanlan, J. (2007). In deadly time: The lasting on of waste in Mayhew’s London. Time & Society, 16, 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/096146 3X07080265 Schlosberg, D. (2016). Environmental management in the Anthropocene. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer & Schlosberg, D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (pp. 193–208, Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press. Sinn, H.-W. (2008). Das grüne Paradoxon: Plädoyer für eine illusionsfreie Klimapolitik. Econ-Verl. Spence, C. (2007). Social and environmental reporting and hegemonic discourse. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(6), pp. 855 882. Springer, S. (2016). Fuck Neoliberalism. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 15(2), pp. 287–8. Steffen, W., Persson, A., Deutsch, L., Zalasiewisz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., et al. (2011). The Anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio, 40(7), 739–761. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science (New York, N.Y.), 347 , 736–746. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.1259855. Sweezy, P. M. (1962). The theory of capitalist development: Principles of Marxian political economy. Dennis Dobson Ltd. Vazquez-Brust, D., Smith, A. M. & Sarkis, J. (2014). Managing the transition to critical green growth: The ‘Green Growth State’. Futures, 64, pp. 38-50. Ulbert, C., Finkenbusch, P., Sondermann, E., & Debiel, T. (Eds.). (2018). Moral agency and the politics of responsibility. New York & Abingdon: Oxon: Routledge. Walker, B. H., & Salt, D. A. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press. World Commission on Environment and Development, WCED. Our common future. New York. Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for justice (Oxford political philosophy). Oxford Univ. Press.

50

T. GUMBERT

Zalasiewicz, J., & e. a. (2015). When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary International, 383, 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014. 11.045

CHAPTER 3

The Narrow Conception of Responsibility in Environmental Governance

Introduction Within environmental governance scholarship, responsibility has, for the longest time, not been advanced as a central analytic category, with minor exceptions (Gill, 2012; Pellizzoni, 2004; Salles, 2011). In “Essential Concepts of Global Environmental Governance” (Morin & Orsini, 2015), responsibility is not listed as a concept on its own among the 101 entries of the volume but is featured in the chapters on “Common but differentiated responsibility” (CBDR) and on “Corporate social responsibility” (CSR). Even if we include International Relations (IR) scholarship more generally, we basically find three main areas of research that focus on responsibility: climate change negotiations and climate justice (CBDR), the practices of transnationally operating corporations (CSR), and the emergence of the international responsibility-to-protect (R2P) norm (see Vetterlein & Hansen-Magnusson, 2020). Within these fields of research, responsibility is often indicated and connected to other concepts, such as legitimacy, authority, and trust, but rarely fully developed as an analytic perspective to understand and explain (global) environmental governance. Or in other words: research on responsibility has been negligible, and, as I will go on to argue, its understanding has also been too narrow to fully grasp its analytical potential as a perspective in environmental governance. Recently, however, this ‘oversight’ has garnered increased scholarly attention. Regarding responsibility and the environment, scholars have © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 T. Gumbert, Responsibility in Environmental Governance, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13729-7_3

51

52

T. GUMBERT

especially focused on the global climate change regime and connected institutions and practices (Barral, 2020; Bernstein, 2022; Haflidadottir & Lang, 2020). Scholars have begun to conceptualize the relationship between responsibility and politics in broader terms (Daase et al., 2017; Mounk, 2017; Trnka & Trundle, 2017), as well as responsibility and (global) governance more specifically (Hansen-Magnusson & Vetterlein, 2022; Ulbert et al., 2018; Vetterlein, 2018). A commonality across different cases (CBDR, CSR, R2P) is described by these authors as the contestation of the meaning of responsibility, which is a valuable starting point for clarifying its scientific relevance and adding to its conceptual clarity. Shifting attention from established themes of governance research (rules and regulation, compliance, and accountability) to responsibility simultaneously leads us to zero in on questions of the normative foundations of global governance, of ethics, and moral agency (Erskine, 2008; Hoover, 2018; Sondermann et al., 2018). In this chapter, I provide an overview of how responsibility has been used in different areas of environmental governance research. I then continue to look specifically at attempts to measure responsibility empirically. Both accounts, of how responsibility has been conceptualized and measured, so far indicate its dominant treatment within the rational choice paradigm. The last section of this chapter, therefore, provides a more general discussion of potential shortcomings when situating responsibility predominantly within a rational choice paradigm. I specifically argue that, relating this focus back to the notion of ‘organized irresponsibility in Chapter 2, an inherent danger exists for overlooking structural dynamics and background conditions of environmental problems, which are consequently not (or only insufficiently) addressed.

Conceptualizing Responsibility in Environmental Governance In assessments of future directions for governance research, responsibility is mostly absent. Global governance should be concerned with causes and consequences of change, structures of global authority, the exercise of power, the relationship of authority and power, the effectiveness of governance, as well as with emerging actor dynamics (Finnemore, 2014; Weiss & Wilkinson, 2014). Pattberg and Widerberg (2015) echo these foci as future questions of global environmental governance: when looking at the reorganization of the overall relationship between humans

3

THE NARROW CONCEPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY …

53

and natural systems, agency and the dispersion of authority, the fragmentation of the global governance architecture, and normative concerns such as legitimacy, accountability, and fairness should be key. This section gives a short overview of where the issue of responsibility has been grazed by traditional research efforts and which more ambitious undertakings to include responsibility in governance research exist to date. A broadly accepted understanding defines governance as various “institutionalized modes of social coordination to produce and implement collectively binding rules, or to provide collective goods” (Risse, 2012, p. 700), i.e., intentional rule-making for the benefit of a particular community (see also Levi-Faur, 2012; Weiss & Wilkinson, 2014). The effectiveness and/or legitimacy of governance are excluded from this definition as empirical questions, and in the same vein, so is responsibility, yet the attention these empirical questions have received has varied greatly. The need to legitimize political decisions has led to the rise of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as elements of sectoral publics to increase inclusivity, and the difficulties of coordinating rule compliance within global multi-level governance have led to negotiations becoming a modus of consensus-seeking (and therefore rarely leading to redistributive or strongly interventionist measures) (Zürn, 2012). The emergence of new authorities (e.g., technocratic elites) in the absence of a central coordinating body remains a crucial interest of research, yet responsibility is, again, often only implied: “Global goverance [.] is troubled by a strange lack of subjects: something happens, but no one has done it” (Zürn, 2012, p. 740, citing Offe, 2008). Along the same lines of problematizing complex multi-actor, multi-level decision-making, Zürn comments: “If no one governs, however, no one can be made responsible” (ibid.). If responsibility is invoked, it is understood as accountability, as the need to devise political rules to hold actors accountable for actions that harm the integrity of collective goods. The treatment of responsibility in the literature on transnational regulatory governance is slightly more focused. Despite various assessments that global politics has, with the advent of globalization, entered an era of deregulation in which liberalized markets would assert their influence on the world’s direction of development, many authors observe in fact a “period of consequential reregulation and reordering” (Djelic & Sahlin, 2012, p. 745) through the proliferation of soft law and transnational regulatory activism (evaluation, accreditation, certification, ranking schemes, voluntary mechanisms, and private standard-setting) (see also

54

T. GUMBERT

Zürn, 2012). Governance and regulation are understood to be “in part, about the allocation of responsibility. When rules are precise and focused, responsibilities tend to be clear” (ibid., p. 751). Yet, in the absence of formal holders of legitimacy in particular policy fields, and with competing claims to authority, widespread distrust (among stakeholders, the publics, etc.) is a central concern. In order to reduce distrust, more transparency and more regulation are needed, which in turn adds to multiplicity and complexity, and responsibilities get diffused and dispersed. Furthermore, soft regulation is described as having the general tendency to reroute responsibility towards rule-followers, which again increases governing and rule-setting efforts and creates a culture of defensiveness on the local level, since agents need to explain why they should not be held responsible (Power, 2004). As already noted in the introduction to this chapter, empirical environmental governance research on responsibility focuses overwhelmingly on climate politics, environmental accountability norms, and corporate social (or sustainable) responsibility. In each of these fields, scholars highlight how responsibility is negotiated in different governance arrangements. In the case of climate politics, responsibility enters the debate as a normative principle to guide how burdens and costs for climate change mitigation should be distributed globally. Here, responsibility “offers the value basis for linking mitigation and adaptation efforts under a single overarching conception of justice” (Vanderheiden, 2011, p. 71). A responsibility-based principle is ‘looking backwards’ in terms of countries’ past emissions and assigns present and future burdens accordingly (Vanderheiden, 2016). This historical responsibility tries to establish a causal liability to hold individual states responsible and calculate their share to pay costs and compensation for either mitigation or adaptation measures. In research on CSR, the concept of responsibility is being scrutinized as a means to hold transnational businesses (effectively) accountable for their conduct in social and ecological terms (and to evaluate their environmental impact), as well as a tool used by corporations to circumvent stronger (public) regulation against them (Clapp, 2005; Clapp & Fuchs, 2009; Vetterlein, 2018). Definitions of CSR describe this form of private regulation as “ways in which an organization exceeds the minimum obligations to stakeholders specified through regulation and corporate governance” (Johnson et al., 2002, p. 247, cited in Banerjee, 2008, p. 60) and highlight the commitment of business to improve the quality of life

3

THE NARROW CONCEPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY …

55

of communities, creating a ‘culture of compliance’ for all relevant actors. CSR rests on the assumption that ‘good’ corporations should always engage with their stakeholders and create relationships (while delivering good financial performance), and that this engagement is being judged by ‘society’ (Banerjee, 2008). However, the question of what idea of the notion of responsibility should be adopted, and towards whom actors should primarily be responsible, remains opaque. If we include research on responsibility norms in the environmental arena, the conceptual understanding gets even more blurred, since responsibility and accountability would be hardly distinguishable, theoretically and, especially, empirically (Mason, 2008). Mason (2008) attests that the responsibility norm “has a wider compass of meaning than accountability” (10) and can be linked to notions of equity and liability. Accountability, in turn, “entails attributions of responsibility against particular actors featuring answerability and redress as core elements” (ibid.). It seems that both concepts are only different in scope and that a particular empirical governance arrangement (number of actors, number of levels, etc.) might require the use of either/or. Chan and Pattberg (2008) define accountability as “an institution, referring to a set of rules (both formal and informal) that define accountability relations, responsibilities and sanctions that link principals to agents” (104), subsuming responsibilities rather as ‘tasks’ or ‘competencies’ under the umbrella of accountability. Despite these different conceptual understandings, it is hardly surprising that accountability has been advanced as one of the main conceptual tools and research perspectives on environmental governance (Biermann & Gupta, 2011; Kramarz & Park, 2017; Kuyper et al., 2017; Park & Kramarz, 2019). Kramarz & Park (2016) argue that “GEG is awash with what different actors claim to be accountability mechanisms that aim to increase transparency, lay out actors’ justifications and reasoning for their governance decisions, and monitor and evaluate governance efforts” (3). The issue would not be one of a lack of accountability but rather a question of how these mechanisms were designed (ibid.). Biermann and Gupta (2011) differentiate four conceptual elements that can also be understood as design principles: a precise standard for behaviour (normative), the relation of those held accountable to those who hold to account (relational), the judgment of an actor if a standard has been met (decision), and ability to sanction deviant

56

T. GUMBERT

behaviour (behavioural) (1857). The more precise, clear, and understandable accountability mechanisms would be, the higher the probability that they would function as effective institutions (i.e., for protecting environmental resources, sinks, and ecosystem integrity). Mees and Driessen (2019) similarly argue that accountability is useful when it is clearly defined—clarity of responsibilities and mandates, the rules of information disclosure, and of the sanctioning mechanisms. Lohmann (2009) is, however, critical of the idea to make an “uncertain, complex, nonlinear, largely unpredictable world amenable to management and governance” (Lohmann, 2009, p. 514; cited in Kramarz & Park, 2016). This could eventually lead to the paradoxical situation that the number of accountability initiatives steadily rises while the environment continues to deteriorate (Kramarz & Park, 2016). Because of the growth of accountability mechanisms, the ensuing complexity (e.g., international organizations engaging in governance relationships with private sector actors) and narrow governance rule in some fields create accountability deficits that harm especially those who should be able to hold an account (Mason, 2020). In sum, we find a particular concept of responsibility used in governance research: being a responsible actor means being accountable for wrongdoing, being liable to pay costs, and being willing to comply with established rules. Holding others responsible is possible on the grounds of causal linkages between actors and their past actions through which blame can be assigned or non-compliance be made transparent. In this sense, ‘holding someone responsible’ is used interchangeably with ‘holding someone accountable’, i.e., conceptualized in this way to secure individual cooperation to solve common problems (Vetterlein, 2018). Pellizzoni (2004) provides a research typology that is able to open such narrow understandings of responsibility. He distinguishes four different notions of responsibility in environmental governance: care, liability, accountability, and responsiveness (548). The notion of care is anticipatory (responsibility for future events) and motivations result from an actor’s judgement and self-understanding based on past experiences and role perceptions (e.g., actors should care because they have a specific identity, such as a parent). Liability is directed towards past events but has the same source of motivations (corporations should be liable for harm resulting from negative externalities of their economic activity). Accountability, on the other hand, shares with liability that it can pertain to past events, but holding someone accountable does not ensue because

3

THE NARROW CONCEPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY …

57

an actor already did something but in order to steer actions towards specific ends. This means that liability becomes relevant to hold actors ‘liable’ for past harms they have been causally involved in, and accountability aims to hold actors ‘accountable’ to prevent future harms based on the knowledge about past events. The last notion of responsibility he distinguishes, responsiveness, combines being responsible for future events (is thus anticipatory) and the motivation to act to contribute to (beneficial) future developments. Responsiveness thus equals a mindset of being creative and adaptive in uncertain times. Pellizzoni (2004) observes a shift from care to liability in environmental governance (because of the manifest failures and unwillingness of political and economic actors to ‘care’ for the environment), and again a shift from liability to accountability (mainly driven by the development of private and voluntary regulation) (pp. 551–556). He argues that, while both liability and accountability schemes have not contributed to governing the environment as effectively as they set out to, in the process, the notion of responsibility as care has also been largely eroded, and responsibility as responsiveness has not taken shape yet (ibid.). This neglect is due to a ‘logic of unresponsiveness’: By merely expanding environmental liability and above all accountability without reconsidering their rationale they assert in a subtle way the reactive, self-referential, close-ended logic of rejection or assimilation embedded in the tradition of the modern state and the economic and scientific enterprise. (ibid., p. 558)

Truly ‘responsible’ institutions of environmental governance should therefore be built on alternative understandings of responsibility (see Chapter 4 and 9).

Measuring Responsibility The political science literature that attempts to capture responsibility empirically and/or work with the concept analytically is sparse. And yet, through a careful reading of available studies that attempt to measure responsibility, important conclusions can be drawn to guide the development of a more comprehensive research design. The aim of this section is to draw out the logics that is inherent in this scholarship.

58

T. GUMBERT

First, within the climate equity literature, questions of who ‘should’ and who ‘can’ be responsible for action on climate change mitigation are central. The perspective of historical responsibility dominates the debate (Eckersley, 2016; Pickering & Barry, 2012). While the Ability to Pay Principle (APP) uses metrics such as GDP per capita to “propose that countries with less ability should have looser mitigation targets or be allocated ‘head-room’ to grow” (Klinsky et al., 2016, p. 2), the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) attributes responsibility through measures of past CO2 emissions. The general idea of these approaches is that reflecting either on present capabilities for, or past failures of, adequate action may motivate actors for engaging in responsible actions in the future. While these principles constitute moral accounts of evaluating responsibility in global climate governance, the frame they suggest is considered, by some, politically unhelpful: they “pose[.] the risk of overemphasizing retrospective liability at the expense of future distributive concerns, its adversarial nature, and the problems associated with measurement” (Eckersley, 2016, p. 355). Moreover, they apply thresholds to the determination of responsibility—below a certain threshold, responsibility does not apply. One of the most advanced approaches to calculate ‘fair shares’ of climate commitments on the global level is the Greenhouse Development Rights (GDR) framework (Baer, 2012). Its central aim is to measure responsibility and capacity for all countries in a transparent way. Responsibility is specified as a nation’s cumulative emissions since 1990 (although this baseline is considered up for negotiation), while capacity captures national income above what is needed for national development (health, education, etc.). Taken together, both measures result in the Responsibility and Capacity Index (RCI), which, by averaging, determines a nation’s obligation towards responsible climate action. Interestingly, by contrasting responsibility with capacity, the former is even more strongly fixed as a backward-looking category. Klinsky et al. (2016), who swap the term capacity for national capabilities, suggest the following dimensions and metrics, such as (1) human development (captured, e.g., through the HDI), (2) economic capacity (e.g., GDP per capita, GNI per capita PPP, etc.), (3) resilience to climate impacts (e.g., aggregate vulnerability metrics), (4) governance capacity and social support structures (e.g., qualitative assessment of governance strengths and needs), and (5) technical and innovation capacity (e.g., national skills assessments). Similarly, these

3

THE NARROW CONCEPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY …

59

discussions on responsibility metrics debate (1) the starting date for calculating emissions, (2) sources of greenhouse gases to include, and (3) the purpose of emissions (the ‘survival emissions versus luxury emissions’ debate) (Baer, 2012, p. 65). In other words, the concept of responsibility within climate governance is often reduced to individualizing national causes for negative external effects and attributing moral burden as a function of culminated GHG emissions. Second, apart from national contributions, another critique that is levelled against responsibility research is that the concept is increasingly positioned at the individual level to motivate environmental action and mobilize individuals to govern their own emissions (Fuller, 2017; Maniates, 2001; Paterson & Stripple, 2010). Carbon calculators are used to measure and attribute environmental impact to personal consumption practices, linking causes and consequences. Such “calculative practices” (Fuller, 2017, p. 520) are used by public sector organizations and scientific research alike to systematize, quantify, and locate responsibility in many fields of sustainable consumption (food, energy, mobility, etc.). By doing so, per capita emissions are treated as a proxy to indicate where individuals (or individual corporate actors) have not adopted responsible patterns of consumption yet. The responsibility then becomes the automatic result of reducing individual impacts to statistically predefined mean scores equal to or below accepted thresholds. Within critical studies on individual contributions to mitigate climate change, these approaches to calculating responsibility are problematized for their lack of attention to justice and fairness, since they omit the moral difficulties implied in asking all individuals, regardless of income, capabilities, and other disadvantages, to limit their carbon consumption (Bulkeley et al., 2014). To contextualize this assumption, ‘lack of justice’ here refers to the fact that the pursuit of individual contributions on the level of the individual citizen may be treated as a goal independent of considering the wider social context, e.g., by overemphasizing ‘equal’ contributions instead of ‘fair’ contributions. The latter would give more weight to aspects of power, position, and prestige for calculating individual contributions within societies. Third, beyond the climate literature, when looking at sustainabilitydriven corporate social responsibility, the lack of adequate responsibility measures is even more apparent. Kleine and von Hauff (2009) argue that businesses engaging with CSR often either concentrate on a set of single topics with high public awareness or subscribe to a general understanding

60

T. GUMBERT

of good corporate practices (521). To evaluate if corporate conduct can in fact be considered responsible, researchers fall back on sustainability measures such as quantifiable indicators and sustainability performance monitoring. These include, for example, single indicators (waste, fresh water, working accidents, etc.), the ‘eco-efficiency operator’ (ratio of economic to ecological life-cycle burden), ‘eco-efficiency analysis’ (data of different environmental profiles aggregated to total environmental burden), and the ‘Social Footprint’ (calculating individual resource use in light of macro targets) (CSI, 2006; GRI, 2006; Schaltegger and Sturm, 1990, Saling et al., 2002, see also Dumay et al., 2010; Kleine & von Hauff, 2009). All these approaches have in common, that they equate measuring the sustainability-related impact of corporate conduct over time with measuring an increase or decrease in corporate responsibility. Through its reliance on notions of causality and free agency, the methodological thinking that informs these measurement tools preforms the research object in question: responsibility is always already fixed as a particular notion according to these metrics. Fourth, the responsibility attribution literature considers the influence of responsibility judgments for political consequences on both national and subnational levels to assess economic and political perceptions in different policy fields, such as health care and education (Marsh & Tilley, 2010; Rudolph, 2016). This literature tries to explain judgments of responsibility through individual-level factors, and in this regard, a “wealth of observational and experimental evidence has established that attributions of political responsibility are strongly tied to citizens’ partisanship and ideology” (Rudolph, 2016, p. 117; see also Hobolt et al., 2013; Tilley & Hobolt, 2011). This approach rates or ranks attributions according to Likert-type rating scales to assess “how much responsibility people attribute to a particular actor” (Rudolph, 2016). The concept thereby concentrates on the perception of ‘what an actor should be doing’ in a particular policy field, justifying the focus on executive political actors. This suggests that the attribution literature focuses predominantly on the intensity of perceived responsibility in a voter setting, i.e., they relate the attribution of responsibility of voters to political parties and individual political decision-makers (presidential vote choice, congressional vote choice, etc.). While asking people how responsible actor A or B should be in a particular political context, and subsequently measuring responsibility through ratings or rankings, can be a useful approach for answering particular policy-related questions, responsibility is treated as

3

THE NARROW CONCEPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY …

61

a rather narrow concept of ‘who should do what’. The complexity of the multiple meanings responsibility can acquire, the moral and ethical dimensions that constitute a relation between self and other, the specificity of the policy field in need of regulation, and questions of relevant knowledge and power relations are all reduced to a single scale (see also discussion in Chapter 4). Fifth, these ranking methodologies have also been applied to the study of food policy and other environmental research. Erdem et al. (2012) investigate stakeholders’ perception of relative responsibility among specific groups (farmers and consumers) in the field of ensuring food safety. Their goal is to analyse the relative size of responsibility that is attributed to each stage in the food supply chain of a particular product and then calculate the rankings of all stages in terms of the perceived level of responsibility (ibid., p. 663). Their analysis is instructive because responsibility is treated as a universal, unambiguous concept that is not conceptualized further, with one exception: To clarify it for respondents, it is linked to the concept of risk. The stage of the food chain where particular groups (e.g., consumers) perceive the greatest risks of the food becoming unsafe is treated as the location of the greatest responsibility. This understanding of responsibility is a consequence of dominant food chain logics: it is guided by linearity, segmentation, and proximity, on one side, and causality on the other. Responsibility should be taken by those actors who are closest to the source of a potential problem, and who can in some way be linked to it. Although the authors acknowledge that their model measures respondents’ beliefs rather than responding in the food chain (ibid., p. 665), it is a prime example of how the concept is treated in current research methodologies. Similarly, responsibility indexes that refer to a particular public good, such as food, try to measure the responsibility of actors as perceived by other stakeholders. For example, Koehler (2018) asks survey participants in Kenya if the government’s action concerning sustainable water management is in line with the country’s human right to water enshrined in the constitution. Through the items (1) sufficient quantity, (2) potable quality, (3) affordability, (4) physical access, and (5) non-discrimination, a ‘Water Responsibility Index’ is aggregated that evaluates the state’s responsibility in this matter. Here, responsibility is again treated as a concept of unambiguous meaning, which should be clear to correspondents, who were asked to answer “yes” or “no” in regard to the question if they perceive the government to be responsible across the five criteria in the survey (Koehler, 2018, p. 72).

62

T. GUMBERT

To summarize the above, in all these different responsibility measures, responsibility is linked to environmental impacts, chains of cause and effect, the exercise of free will, and individual perceptions. The perspective of these research approaches focuses on past misses and failures of particular agents, and responsibility is treated as a concept to expose blame to an individual or corporate actors, or whole sectors. I do not want to suggest that these methods are ‘ill-suited’ to study responsibility in general, but rather that they constitute only one particular perspective of how responsibility can be perceived and conceptualized. I want to argue that these approaches rely explicitly or implicitly on particular rationalities that base the treatment of responsibility within a rational choice paradigm, and that this underlying understanding has consequences for broader considerations of responsibility in political science and the social sciences in general.

Responsibility, Rationality, and Causality As we have seen, most analyses of responsibility in environmental governance and beyond presuppose systems or networks in which actors work towards mutually beneficial goals based on reducing their negative causal impact on the environment and/or human communitites. Many of these approaches implicitly follow the logics of a rational choice paradigm. Rational choice presumes that the probability for executing an individual action is a function of the net-benefits that an actor expects as a result of that action. The more an actor perceives an action to bring about desired outcomes, the more likely it is that the action will be chosen (Coleman 1990, pp. 13–19). Choice can therefore be understood as the product of utility and the probability of such an (individually useful) result. In the context of sustainability governance, where many actions have to be coordinated, the positive effects of particular actions are uncertain or difficult to measure, and individual actions are subject to collective action problems (where unsustainable practices of some negate the efforts of others). Further, the external consequences of particular actions are widely diffused and scattered, which complicates the possibility of tracking negative outcomes back to their source. This creates a situation in which utility and its probability ratio are almost impossible to assess for individual actors. From a rational choice perspective, this constitutes immense barriers to facilitating responsible action (Münch, 2002, p. 98).

3

THE NARROW CONCEPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY …

63

James Coleman argues that this impasse creates a demand for effective norms to regulate and steer social actions, i.e., to reduce negative externalities and produce positive externalities (Coleman, 1990, pp. 241–265, cited in Münch, 2002, p. 98). However, participating in norm generation and sanctioning produces more costs than benefits, which is why there is a permanent lack of effective norms in large action systems. For Coleman, this problem can be addressed by establishing a closed network where individual actors are socially connected. In such a network setting, conformity and nonconformity can be clearly communicated, and actors can collectively engage in sanctioning norm violators (e.g., materially, through fines, and discursively, through shaming), or reward norm compliance. In other words, to motivate responsibility as voluntary action or voluntary self-limitation, a rational organization of society is necessary. Effective institutional structures are needed in order to help actors to internalize external effects and act accordingly. How responsibility is produced from a rational choice perspective can be further scrutinized by looking at the responsibility of corporate actors and organizations (Coleman, 1990, 421ff.). To secure and develop responsibility on this level, it is important to distinguish between an internal and an external dimension (553ff.). Internally, responsibility needs to be individualized: individual actors need to pay for the burden their actions put on others and be reimbursed if they contribute to common goods. This can be achieved by decentralizing organizational structures, the participation of members in decision-making procedures, and creating smaller units with clear tasks and functions. Externally, the actions of corporate actors need to be monitored by those immediately affected by the consequences. In the context of sustainable consumption governance, for example, this would include the establishment of regular negotiations and dialogue between businesses, consumer advocacy groups, and environmental organizations to evaluate the effects of certain products (Münch, 2002, p. 107). From these rational reflections on responsibility follows a particular arrangement of governance efforts: the rising number of global interactions and its corresponding, uncontrolled external consequences warrants an increased individualization of responsibilities, and with it more decentralization and organization into smaller units. Responsibility is thereby segmented and compartmentalized. The more corporate actors are tied into decision-making procedures, i.e., coupled and connected to others in larger action systems, the more likely it becomes that those actors will

64

T. GUMBERT

Conceptualization: Responsibility as accountability and/or liability

Operationalization: Responsibility is based on causality, environmental impact, perception Concept narrowing as a result of the dominance of rational and causal approaches

Fixation of responsibility through: Individualization, decentralization, segmentation / internalization of external effects through network building

Fig. 3.1 Dominant conceptions of responsibility in environmental governance research

internalize external effects and adjust their actions accordingly. Through rationalization of individual actions and collective action settings, responsibility is being treated as an object to be managed, and this management is advocated as a mitigation strategy to reduce negative external effects (see Fig. 3.1). I want to be very clear at this point that facilitating responsible actions for sustainable governance through relying on rational choice, i.e., as described above through internalizing and externalizing responsibility, can—potentially—produce effective means to govern the environment. In complex relationships, it makes sense to single out problem complexes and encourage or oblige stakeholders to become part of systems of accountability. After all, stakeholders will have the best overview and knowledge about what is going on in their field, even more so if larger networks are decentralized and engage in processes of reciprocal observation to ‘keep each other in check’. Potentially, under conditions of full transparency (for all and of all operations), participation of all affected parties (and recognized as legitimate members), clear and ambitious standards of behaviour, independent review authorities and coordinating bodies, and overall high commitment to reach mutually agreed upon goals, such systems could be considered strong institutions for considering and addressing structural background conditions and unintended effects. However, accountability mechanisms remain too focused on improving individual operations without taking this larger context into account: “Accountability mechanisms are deployed as a

3

THE NARROW CONCEPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY …

65

means to specific ends, which need to be identified and continuously reevaluated if accountability is to produce not just a lot of inputs but also tangible environmental outputs” (Kramarz & Park, 2017, p. 5). Arguably, what Kramarz calls for can be circumscribed with the notion of ecological reflexivity, a necessary reflexivity and adaptability in view of the challenges provided by the onset of the Anthropocene (Dryzek & Pickering, 2019). Where does this leave us? Three short interjections: first, the meaning of responsibility is fixed as a universal concept, which rejects the opportunity for a contextual reading of various forms responsibility can take. Its dominant meaning as accountability is continuously reaffirmed, and alternative meanings and practices that follow from a different understanding are usually not considered. Second, since generating responsible actions is a matter of organizing and structuring actions internally and externally, its constitutive nature of encouraging moral agency and ethical considerations is negated—what should be internalized by actors as a norm is already agreed upon and objectified within the institutional structure. Politically, actors are thereby less inclined to engage with moral questions that would prompt them to consider, what, how, or to which extent they can contribute beyond a particular goal or effort. From a methodological standpoint, if moral and ethical claims are not considered, scholars not only risk misjudging the extent to which responsible actions are already undertaken by various actors, but also lose sight of possible institutionalization processes of presumably more heterogeneous formations of responsibility than originally anticipated. Third, the resultant system of monitoring and control may lead to the multiplication of ‘organized irresponsibility’ and produces invisibilities, because only those effects become visible, which can be attributed causally to the sphere of competency of smaller units and which are negotiated between a set of actors. In the context of food waste, for example, it might very well be the case that actors reassure each other that they are meeting their individual reduction targets, while the global amount of food waste steadily rises. In this regard, being wary of the possible pitfalls of situating responsibility within a rational choice paradigm equals a more holistic and critical approach at the same time. In sum, I have argued that the study of responsibility in environmental governance is limited due to theoretically and methodologically narrow understandings and uses in the literature. The dominant approach to study and treat responsibility within the rational choice paradigm is neither scientifically ‘good’ or ‘bad’ practice per se, but it comes with

66

T. GUMBERT

the risk of being blind to structural, often invisible dynamics. The next chapter presents theoretical approaches that try to open up the concept of responsibility to multiple meanings and more diverse understandings that promise to be more suitable to address structural challenges and problems. Chapter 5 further outlines a research design to study responsibility in its various possible meanings and understandings that does justice to these demands.

References Baer, P. (2012). The Greenhouse Development Rights framework for global burden sharing: Reflection on principles and prospects. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.201 Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34, 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/089692050 7084623 Barral, V. (2020). Common but differentiated responsibilities and justice. The Rise of Responsibility in World Politics, 125. Bernstein, S. (2022). The assigning and erosion of responsibility for the global environment. In The Routledge handbook on responsibility in international relations (pp. 138–152). Routledge. Biermann, F., & Gupta, A. (2011). Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1856–1864. Bulkeley, H., Edwards, G. A., & Fuller, S. (2014). Contesting climate justice in the city: Examining politics and practice in urban climate change experiments. Global Environmental Change, 25, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenv cha.2014.01.009 Chan, S., & Pattberg, P. (2008). Private rule-making and the politics of accountability: Analyzing global forest governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), pp. 103–121. Clapp, J. (2005). Global environmental governance for corporate responsibility and accountability. Global Environmental Politics, 5, 23–34. Clapp, J., & Fuchs, D. A. (2009). Agrifood corporations, global governance, and sustainability: A framework for analysis. In D. A. Fuchs & J. Clapp (Eds.), Corporate power in global agrifood governance (Food, health, and the environment). MIT Press. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory (3rd ed.). Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. CSI. (2006). The social footprint—Introduction and proof of concept. Draft 3.1 (Centre for Sustainable Innovation, VT).

3

THE NARROW CONCEPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY …

67

Daase, C., Junk, J., Kroll, S., & Rauer, V. (2017). Politik und Verantwortung: Analysen zum Wandel politischer Entscheidungs- und Rechtfertigungspraktiken (1st ed., Sonderheft PVS). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Djelic, M.-L., & Sahlin, K. (2012). Reordering the world: Transnational regulatory governance and its challenges. In D. L¯ewî-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press. Dryzek, J. S., & Pickering, J. (2019). The politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford University Press. Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., & Farneti, F. (2010). GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for public and third sector organizations: A critical review. Public Management Review, 12(4), 531–548. Eckersley, R. (2016). Responsibility for climate change as a structural injustice. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press. Erdem, S., Rigby, D., & Wossink, A. (2012). Using best–worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety. Food Policy, 37 , 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.010 Erskine, T. (2008). Locating responsibility: The problem of moral agency in international relations. In The Oxford handbook of international relations. Finnemore, M. (2014). Dynamics of global governance: Building on what we know. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 221–224. https://doi.org/10. 1111/isqu.12095 Fuller, S. (2017). Configuring climate responsibility in the city: Carbon footprints and climate justice in Hong Kong. Area, 49(4), 519–525. Gill, F. (2012). Practicing environmental responsibility: Local and global dimensions. Social Responsibility Journal, 8, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/174 71111211196548 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2006). Sustainability reporting guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative. Hansen-Magnusson, H., & Vetterlein, A. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge handbook on responsibility in international relations. Routledge, Taylor & Francis. Haflidadottir, H., & Lang, A. F., Jr. (2020). Responsibility and climate change. The Rise of Responsibility in World Politics, 145. Hobolt, S. B., Tilley, J., & Wittrock, J. (2013). Listening to the government: How information shapes responsibility attributions. Political Behavior, 35, 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9183-8 Hoover, J. (2018). Democratic moral agency: Altering unjust conditions in practices of responsibility. In Moral agency and the politics of responsibility (pp. 21–35). Routledge. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2002). Exploring corporate strategy (6th ed.). FT Prentice Hall.

68

T. GUMBERT

Kleine, A., & von Hauff, M. (2009). Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: application of the integrative sustainability triangle. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 517–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-009-0212-z Klinsky, S., Waskow, D., Northrop, E., & Bevins, W. (2016). Operationalizing equity and supporting ambition: Identifying a more robust approach to ‘respective capabilities.’ Climate and Development, 9, 287–297. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1146121 Koehler, J. (2018). Exploring policy perceptions and responsibility of devolved decision-making for water service delivery in Kenya’s 47 county governments. Geoforum, 92, 68–80. Kramarz, T., & Park, S. (2016). Accountability in global environmental governance: A meaningful tool for action? Global Environmental Politics, 16(2), 1–21. Kramarz, T., & Park, S. (2017). Introduction: The politics of environmental accountability. Review of Policy Research, 34(1), 4–9. Kuyper, J., Bäckstrand, K., & Schroeder, H. (2017). Institutional accountability of nonstate actors in the UNFCCC: Exit, voice, and loyalty. Review of Policy Research, 34(1), 88–109. Levi-Faur, D. (2012). From “big government” to “big governance”. The Oxford handbook of governance, 3–18. Lohmann, L. (2009). Toward a different debate in environmental accounting: The cases of carbon and cost-benefit. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 499–534. Maniates, M. F. (2001). Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Global Environmental Politics, 1, 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1162/ 152638001316881395 Marsh, M., & Tilley, J. (2010). The attribution of credit and blame to governments and its impact on vote choice. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123409990275 Mason, M. (2008). The governance of transnational environmental harm: Addressing new modes of accountability/responsibility. Global Environmental Politics, 8, 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2008.8.3.8 Mason, M. (2020). Transparency, accountability and empowerment in sustainability governance: A conceptual review. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(1), 98–111. Mees, H., & Driessen, P. (2019). A framework for assessing the accountability of local governance arrangements for adaptation to climate change. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(4), 671–691. Morin, J.-F., & Orsini, A. (Eds.). (2015). Essential concepts of global environmental governance (Earthscan from Routledge). Routledge.

3

THE NARROW CONCEPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY …

69

Mounk, Y. (2017). The age of responsibility: Luck, choice, and the welfare state. Harvard University Press. Münch, R. (2002). Handlungstheorie (Soziologische Theorie / Richard Münch; Band 2). Campus Verlag. Offe, C. (2008). Governance: “Empty signifier“ oder sozialwissenschaftliches Forschungs-programm? In G. F. Schuppert & M. Zürn (Eds.), Governance in einer sich wandelnden Welt (1st ed., pp. 61–76). Politische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderheft, 41/2008). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften / GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden. Park, S., & Kramarz, T. (Eds.). (2019). Global environmental governance and the accountability trap. MIT Press. Paterson, M., & Stripple, J. (2010). My space: Governing individuals’ carbon emissions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28, 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1068/d4109 Pattberg, P., & Widerberg, O. (2015). Theorising global environmental governance: Key findings and future questions. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43, 684–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/030582981456 1773 Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 13, 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/096440104200022 9034 Pickering, J., & Barry, C. (2012). On the concept of climate debt: Its moral and political value. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 15, 667–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2012.727311 Power, M. (2004). The risk management of everything. Demos. Risse, T. (2012). Governance in areas of limited statehood. In D. L¯ewî-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 699–715). Oxford University Press. Rudolph, T. J. (2016). The meaning and measurement of responsibility attributions. American Politics Research, 44, 106–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1532673X15595460 Saling, P., Kicherer, A., Dittrich-Krämer, B., Wittlinger, R., Zombik, W., Schmidt, I., et al. (2002). Eco-efficiency analysis by BASF: The method. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 7 (4), 2013–2018. Salles, D. (2011). Responsibility based environmental governance. SAPI EN. S. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society (4.1). Schaltegger, S., & Sturm, A. (1990). Ökologische Rationalität: Ansatzpunkte zur Ausgestaltung von ökologieorientierten Managementinstrumenten. Die Unternehmung: Swiss journal of business research and practice; Organ der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Betriebswirtschaft (SGB), 44(4), 273–290.

70

T. GUMBERT

Sondermann, E., Ulbert, C., & Finkenbusch, P. (2018). Introduction: Moral agency and the politics of responsibility. In Moral agency and the politics of responsibility (pp. 1–18). Routledge. Tilley, J., & Hobolt, S. B. (2011). Is the government to blame? An experimental test of how partisanship shapes perceptions of performance and responsibility. The Journal of Politics, 73, 316–330. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00223816 11000168 Trnka, S., & Trundle, C. (Eds.). (2017). Competing responsibilities: The ethics and politics of contemporary life. Duke University Press. Ulbert, C., Finkenbusch, P., Sondermann, E., & Debiel, T. (Eds.). (2018). Moral agency and the politics of responsibility. Routledge. Vanderheiden, S. (2011). Globalizing responsibility for climate change. Ethics & International Affairs, 25(1), 65–84. Vanderheiden, S. (2016). Environmental and climate justice. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (pp. 321–332, Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press. Vetterlein, A. (2018). Responsibility is more than accountability: From regulatory towards negotiated governance. Contemporary Politics, 24, 545–567. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2018.1452106 Vetterlein, A., & Hansen-Magnusson, H. (Eds.). (2020). The rise of responsibility in world politics (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press. Weiss, T. G., & Wilkinson, R. (2014). Rethinking global governance? Complexity, authority, power, change. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12082 Zürn, M. (2012). Global governance as multi-level governance. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 730–744). Oxford University Press.

CHAPTER 4

Ethics, Justice, and Power: Broadening the Meaning(s) of Responsibility

Introduction In this chapter, I will draw attention to four bodies of literature that are useful for rethinking responsibility in environmental governance: ethics and philosophies of responsibility, Iris Marion Young’s concept of ‘responsibility as justice’, the scholarship on (eco-)governmentality and the notion of ‘responsibilization’, and lastly the ‘triangle model of responsibility’, as applied in (political) psychology. All of these strands provide important insights into why we have reason to believe that responsibility as a concept is in fact much more diverse than the use of current scholarship suggests, and why it might even be applied as a critical approach to the study of environmental politics. First, the literature on ethics of responsibility provides room to open the concept beyond a voluntaristic understanding which rests on notions of free agency, rationality, and causality (Raffoul, 2010). By drawing on different ideas of responsibility in philosophy and ethics, it is possible to deconstruct this dominant voluntaristic view on responsibility, which in turn allows for alternative understandings and conceptualizations. Second, the thought of Iris Marion Young and her concept of ‘responsibility as justice’ provides one of the most detailed theoretical models of responsibility to date (Young, 2004, 2011). Her model advocates a common and shared understanding of responsibility in global political affairs. It is invaluable for the purposes of outlining how we can conceive © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 T. Gumbert, Responsibility in Environmental Governance, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13729-7_4

71

72

T. GUMBERT

a notion of ‘shared responsibility’ in environmental governance (Medina, 2014; Young, 2006). Third, research on eco-governmentality and responsibilization is discussed (Burchell, 1993, Dean, 2010; Luke, 2016). The literature in this subfield of environmental political theorizing is very critical of the emergence of responsibility rhetoric in the field of (global) environmental governance and provides the theoretical tools for understanding this discourse as giving rise to particular practices of power and governance, and thereby helps to understand and identify the mechanisms that lead to ‘individualized’ notions of responsibility. Fourth, the “triangle model of responsibility”, as conceptualized by Schlenker et al. (1994), provides a heuristic for relating these different theoretical insights to each other. It differentiates responsibility according to how an actor is perceived (identity images), how objects of responsibility are perceived (events), and what is perceived as an adequate responsible attitude or behaviour (prescriptions). This heuristic, therefore, aims to open understandings of responsibility to the analysis of detailed and contextualized meanings-in-use in a particular field of study. Lastly, against the backdrop of these discussions, I summarize the demands for a research design to analyse responsibility judgements and broader structures of meaning in the study of environmental governance.

Ethics of Responsibility In this section, I will give an overview of traditional philosophical and moral considerations of responsibility. By drawing on more heterogeneous intellectual sources, it is possible to scrutinize how today’s dominant understanding of responsibility came into being, and how to deconstruct this understanding by discussing other traditions. In doing so, the analysis demonstrates the need to make broader and more diverse meanings of responsibility visible within environmental governance scholarship and beyond. Ethics is not a particular field of global governance scholarship, but rather something inseparable from and constitutive of global politics (Warner, 1991). Yet, in this scholarship, the notion of the possibility of a neat distinction between ethical assumptions and political evaluations, between values and facts, between understanding the world and managing the world, is present throughout (Erskine, 2008; Pellizzoni, 2004; Smith, 2016). Thinking through environmental problems ‘ethically’ is being

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

73

considered a ‘soft’ approach from different angles; policymakers as well as environmental activists often see ethics as lying outside of the realm of politics, either because they assume that ethics are non-influential in the face of ‘real’ problems and ‘hard’ truths or because of the suspicion that debates around ethics are a strategy to distract from the material interests that steer politics. It is argued that this separation of politics and ethics is problematic: the individual and causal attribution of responsibility, when regularly equated with politics opposite to ethics, is at odds with the complex, uncertain, and systemic nature of global environmental issues. Arguably, motivations for the moral agency (e.g., contributing to common goods because they are valued) are equally important to the agency based on causal links between individual actions and an event (actor A should act because of its causal relation to event B). A new grounding of the politics of responsibility in updated environmental ethics of responsibility can therefore help to adapt it to the challenges presented by the ongoing environmental crisis. The provenience of the distinction between causal and ethical responsibility can be traced back to the writings of Max Weber. In his definition of an ethics of responsibility, he links the concept to notions of causality (action is given meaning only as a cause of an effect) and efficacy (a calculated reorientation of the elements of an action in such a way as to achieve a desired consequence). An ethical question is thereby “reduced to a question of technically correct procedure, and free action consists of choosing the correct means” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2018). This traditional understanding functions as a blueprint for most applications of responsibility within global governance. Causality (and its subsequent imputation on actors) is widely considered as the central characteristic of responsibility. Responsibility can be imputed when a person’s action (or failure to act) can be causally connected to an event or consequence, and its strength is assessed by the actor’s knowledge, motives, or (un)controllable factors influencing her/his conduct (Schlenker et al., 1994). Often responsibility is therefore also attributed to actors in terms of ‘association’ (effects connected to persons), ‘commission’ (effects connected to committed acts), ‘forseeability’ (effects that could have been foreseen by an actor), or ‘intentionality’ (effects that were intended) (Heider, 1958, cited in Schlenker et al., 1994). In some instances, responsibility can, however, also be understood as based on the notion of ‘answerability’ (Schlenker et al., 1994, see also Watson, 2004). Answerability describes duties and ‘oughts’ of agents that

74

T. GUMBERT

apply when an agent is answerable to an event (i.e., liable for appropriate sanctions), even though s/he may not be causally linked to it. The differentiation from causality is important in so far as there are cases in which “actors intentionally cause an injury but are not liable for sanctions, as in self-defense, and there are cases in which actors cause no injury but are liable, as when parents are held legally liable for the conduct of their minor children” (Schlenker et al., 1994, p. 633). Despite this distinction, both causality and answerability are similar in so far as they can be used to hold actors accountable and/or liable and thereby link them to particular causes or outcomes. François Raffoul describes these foundations in causality (and to a lesser degree in answerability) as the “predominant ‘ideology of responsibility’” (Raffoul, 2010, p. 6). According to him, four ‘fundamental concepts’ are embedded in this tradition (ibid., pp. 8–10): i. The belief that the human being is an agent or a subject. In order to be able to attribute responsibility, the human being has to be conceived as an autonomous subject, capable of self-legislation and self-ownership. ii. The notion that the subject is a voluntary agent. Subjects have to exercise free will and make intentional decisions in order to become responsible. iii. The reliance on causality. Causality is seen as the primary connection of human beings to the world around them. iv. The assumption that the responsible being is a rational subject. The rational agency is guided by reason, which is in turn the ground for justifications of responsible action. These four characteristics, autonomy, free will, causal connections, and rationality, are, according to Raffoul, how modern societies have come to understand responsibility, and he describes this dominant understanding as accountability. To be responsible is therefore equated with being accountable for one’s own actions, and responsibility can only be assigned on the grounds that agents act autonomously, voluntarily, can be causally linked to the world, and are able to justify their actions rationally. A philosophical examination of responsibility treats these foundational claims as beliefs, and acknowledges that responsibility as the accountability of the subject “is but one sense of the term – and perhaps not even

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

75

the most primordial one” (Raffoul, 2010, p. 10, italics in original). It is therefore necessary to deconstruct the dominant foundations underlying responsibility as accountability for “opening up of new possibilities[,] as the very reopening of the open” (ibid., p. 3). Because if particular understandings of responsibility are not interrogated, the ‘foundational claims’ of responsibility as accountability will constantly be reasserted. In a Derridian sense, engaging with responsibility in this matter is in itself a responsible action: “not knowing, having neither a sufficient knowledge or consciousness of what being responsible means, is of itself a lack of responsibility. In order to be responsible it is necessary to respond to or answer to what being responsible means” (Derrida, 1996, p. 25; italics in original). Many influential authors have, over the course of the twentieth century, provided ample explanations for why the notion of responsibility has to be understood in a broader sense. Hans Jonas, in his famous work “The Imperative of Responsibility”, argued that mankind’s action must be based on an ethics towards the future (Jonas, 1985, pp. 25–31). A futureoriented ethics “seek[s] not only the human good but also the good of things extrahuman, that is, to extend the recognition of ‘ends in themselves’ beyond the sphere of man and make the human good include the care of them” (ibid., p. 8; cited in Raffoul, 2010, p. 11). It is his ‘imperative’ that humans must be responsible for nature and future humanity, and responsibility in this conception is closer to ‘precaution’, ‘care’, and ‘respect’ than to ‘accountability’ or ‘liability’. Derrida’s understanding of responsibility similarly questions the ideas of ‘calculating’ and ‘controlling’ future events implied in the understanding of accountability. Specifically, his concept of the ‘arriving of the arrivant’ describes “a future which cannot be anticipated; anticipated but unpredictable; apprehended, but, and this is why there is a future, apprehended precisely as unforeseeable, unpredictable; approached as unapproachable” (Derrida, 1996, p. 54; italics in original). He draws attention to the fact that humans have a responsibility for that which has not happened, and what is still to come. Responsibility is for Derrida the ability to act in the face of the unknowable, it is ‘preparedness’ and radical ‘openness’ to the event. The thought of Levinas introduces yet another account of how the meaning of responsibility can differ from its dominant foundations. He detaches the concept from its connection to the autonomous subject in arguing that “responsibility is initially a for the other” (Levinas, 1985,

76

T. GUMBERT

p. 96). Responsibility in this sense constitutes an infinite ethical relationship to the other, an obligation that has no ground in reason or particular circumstances. The self becomes responsible for what “does not even matter” (ibid., p. 95) to it. Avital Ronell (Ronell & Taylor, 2009), whose work is greatly influenced by Levinas, sees the imperative of this ethics as “respond[ing] to things even if there isn’t an audience, even if it’s nonprofit to the max or inevitably self-marginalizing” (ibid., p. 38). She goes on: Precisely where there’s the pretense or claim for ultimate meaning and transparency – precisely where transcendental guarantors are stamping everything as meaningful, when no one needs to do the anxious guesswork of how to behave or what to do – that’s when you are not called upon to be strenuously responsible, because the grammar of being, or the axiom of taking care of the Other, is spelled out for you. According to several registers of traditional ethics, things are pre-scripted, they’re prescribed. You know everything that you are supposed to do; it’s all more or less mapped out for you. What becomes difficult and terrifying, and what requires infinite translation of a situation or of the distress of the world, is when you don’t have those sure markers. You don’t have the guarantee of ultimate meaning or the final reward or the last judgment and must enter into unsolvable calculations, searing doubts. Anyone who’s sure of themselves, of their morals and intentions, is not truly ethical, is not struggling heroically with the mandate of genuine responsibility. It is impossible ever to be fully responsible because you are never done being responsible or never responsible enough – [...] one never meets one’s responsible quota, which is set at an infinite bar [...]. (ibid., p. 41).

The ethics of responsibility that Ronell proposes, concurrent with the thought of Levinas, sees responsibility towards others as radically open and non-linear. Such an ethics is critical of the calculable, technical, and managerial nature of liability and accountability and advocates ‘infinite care’ and ‘responsiveness’ as ultimate ethical meanings of responsibility. The ‘limitlessness’ of responsibility that Ronell proposes, which initially sounds like overburdening humans with too much responsibility, can also be thought of as a call to ‘simply’ act in the face of human suffering, without prior calculating ‘how much’ help can be expected of me. While causality is specifically the subject of a legal notion of responsibility, the notion of moral responsibility is at the same time broader and vaguer (Hoover, 2012; Petersen & Schiller, 2011). Here, the intention

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

77

of action is central and affected or determined by shared moral concepts: “Moral responsibility involves being answerable for a particular act or outcome in accordance with what are understood to be moral imperatives” (Erskine, 2008, p. 700). In order to develop moral intentions and act accordingly, actors must also have or receive the necessary skills and resources (Binder & Heilmann, 2017). With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, this means, for example, that while actors can be held causally responsible for the damage that can be traced back to their own actions (i.e., responsibilities can be measured), moral responsibility goes beyond this, in the sense that “more” action can be realized, yet, only less directly demanded or enforced. The exercise of putting the meaning of responsibility into context could be extended further. The thoughts of Jean-Luc Nancy, Martin Heidegger, or Jean-Paul Sartre, to name just a few, contribute valuable insides to the multiple understandings of responsibility. And yet, it has already been shown that a deconstruction of responsibility is important. I want to argue that equating responsibility with accountability and/or liability is problematic on the grounds of the universal claims that are inevitably produced. If responsibility judgements rest on the belief that actors are responsible if they typically behave according to X in situation Y, then alternative meanings and practices of responsibility (as well as reasons for action) are, and remain, simply invisible. Responsibility is also produced, negotiated, attributed, and judged even in instances where no causal inferences are made. Analytically, and politically, it is therefore relevant to look beyond the dominant understandings of responsibility in environmental governance.

Responsibility as Justice This section introduces the work of the political theorist Iris Marion Young on responsibility in global politics (Young, 2004, 2006, 2011). It is argued that two of her ideas are central for informing the debate on notions of responsibility: the so-called liability model of responsibility (which she criticizes), and the social connection model of responsibility (which is her concept of advancing the idea of common or shared responsibilities). The section is concluded by briefly drawing on the thought of Martha Nussbaum, who specifies the need for thinking about shared responsibilities to inform institutions of global governance.

78

T. GUMBERT

Young’s thinking focuses predominantly on structural injustices in national societies and the world economy (on the argument that global injustices would be, while being radically unjust, unavoidable, see Miller, 2008). The problems that a lack of responsible action within relations of global processes of production, distribution, and consumption create are a core concern in her work. For example, in cases where harms occur that no one wants to be directly held accountable for, such as the Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh in 2013, actors systemically implicated in the event (national governments, transnational clothing brands, Western consumers, etc.) typically “try to mitigate their responsibility by appeal to factors outside their control” (Young, 2004, p. 369). Refusing responsibility for outcomes of global interdependence (Scheffler, 2001) is a feature of the “common sense conception of responsibility”: That common sense conception of responsibility is restrictive; it aims to delimit a relatively circumscribed sphere of circumstances and persons toward which agents have responsibility. This conception tends to restrict responsibility to what individuals themselves do, as opposed to what they fail to prevent. It also tends to restrict responsibility to those persons with whom an agent has special or relatively immediate connection—members of one’s family, one’s coworkers, one’s neighbors, and others with whom one has ongoing interaction. (Young, 2004, p. 373)

Young argues that the built-in chains of causation establish identifiable victims and wrongdoers, but fail to address structural injustices caused by the combined acts of literally billions of individuals and organizations. Understanding responsibility in this way “works actively to obscure the structural character of injustices in ways that make it hard to achieve collective action” (Eckersley, 2016, p. 349). This is what Young calls the ‘liability model’ of responsibility. It serves to “naturalize the practice of privatizing gains and social losses and thereby absolves economic agents of responsibility until such time as regulators step in” (ibid., p. 346). Liability is also predominantly concerned with responsibility in a strictly legal sense: The liability model of responsibility causally connects the circumstances for which responsibility is sought with specific actions of particular agents. In this sense the liability model individualizes even when the agent it identifies is a corporate entity. The liability model is backward-looking; it seeks to

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

79

lay blame for harms that have occurred, often for the sake of exacting punishment or compensation. (Young, 2004, p. 375)

For Young, the search for blameworthy actors produces a highly defensive response from the accused wrongdoers, undermining cooperative efforts for common solutions. Her aim is, however, neither to absolve irresponsible actors from guilt or obligation, nor to create consensusstyle decision-making through which blame and open critique cannot be attributed. It is rather to uncover the mechanisms of what Ulrich Beck has called ‘systems of organized irresponsibility’ (Beck, 1995, see Chapter 2), in which no one feels responsible for the self-endangering of humankind. Since the existing rules and institutions are rarely questioned, the systemic production of injustices is legitimized, while the possibility of critical reflection of the very practices that sustain them is obscured. This is the main reason why the liability model of responsibility leads, in her perspective, to a misrecognition of the structural conditions of environmental harm generation. Even worse, in a system where it should be transparent who is responsible if harm occurs, a range of structural injustices go unnoticed, such as exposing marginalized groups to most of the risks (and only a few of the benefits), and placing them in a weak position to be able to negotiate the circumstances that would reduce their vulnerabilities (Eckersley, 2016). For Young, these undeserved harms are collectively produced through overlapping social practices that have become normalized on a cultural level and are therefore non-blameworthy. To address these injustices, she suggests that, because we participate in the institutional processes that produce them, a particular kind of solidarity is required which rests on the idea of political responsibility: The social connection model of responsibility says that individuals bear responsibility for structural injustice because they contribute by their actions to the processes that produce unjust outcomes. Our responsibility derives from belonging together with others in a system of interdependent processes of cooperation and competition through which we seek benefits and aim to realize projects...All who dwell within the structures must take responsibility for remedying injustices they cause, though none is specifically liable for the harm in a legal sense. (Young, 2011, p. 105; cited in Eckersley, 2016, p. 350)

80

T. GUMBERT

In a very pragmatic sense, responsibility is her about the obligation to give truthful answers when being asked, and in turn not to resist asking or ignoring important, crucial questions. If we fail on both accounts, we fail to recognize others by denying our social connection to them (Young 2011, p. 121). In this sense, responsibility is forward-looking, towards future possibilities, while guilt is backward-looking, preventing collective action. This sums up Young’s problems with the liability model: (a) fixing blame distracts us from our future tasks, (b) while focusing on some culprits we exonerate others, (c) we are distracted from the background conditions of structural injustices, (d) defensiveness is produced rather than helpful cooperation, and (e) guilt turns the mind inward, denying connection (Nussbaum 2011, p. xx). Again, this position can be easily confused with getting rid of all blame and guilt, ultimately giving people and certain actors a free pass. As Nussbaum (2011) has noted, sometimes it is more adequate to link blame to responsibility, e.g., to show Americans and Europeans their wasteful lifestyles and how it contributes to global harm—before appealing to collective action, or to blame and praise businesses for good and bad actions at the same time. The point is rather that, without any reference to a collective form of responsibility whatsoever, structural injustices will likely remain exactly that. Young argues that individualized versions of responsibility would run into difficulties in realizing political responsibility, such as reification (‘injustices are inevitable and unchangeable’), denying connection (‘I’ve done nothing wrong’), the demands of immediacy (‘We have no resources left for others’), and ‘not-my-job’-attitudes (‘others should do it’) (Nussbaum, 2011, pp. xviii–xix). Schiff (2008) takes the problems surrounding the acknowledgement of political responsibility even further: because we are often thoughtless, we cannot even begin to grasp the injustices being produced, we are lying to ourselves to hide displeasing truths, and we misrecognize the conditions of existence of others since we have learned to live with denial and repeat it on a daily basis. These tendencies to avoid responsibility always exist, but Young (as well as Nussbaum and Schiff) argues that they are exacerbated on the individual level and can only be meaningfully addressed in connection with others. Therefore, Young argues for a social connection model that understands responsibility as fundamentally shared by members of a community:

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

81

A concept of political responsibility separate from and additional to responsibility as liability allows us to call on one another to take responsibility together for the fact that our actions collectively assume and contribute to the complex structural processes that enable the working conditions we deplore and make them difficult for any single agent to change. (Young, 2004, p. 381; italics in original)

However, this does not imply that all actors have equal responsibilities, and in order to distinguish between them, Young focuses on power. Her understanding of power has been criticized for being rather thin and instrumental (Schiff, 2013), and this has some serious implications in terms of understanding the challenges and opportunities for societal transformation (Eckersley, 2016). But she nevertheless provides a framework to distinguish between blameworthy and non-blameworthy acts, in order to make visible the structural nature of injustices. Young considers four specific parameters: (a) an agent’s power (position and influence), (b) an agent’s privilege (position without influence), (c) an agent’s interest (maintaining or improving position and influence), and (d) collective ability (use of group resources) (Nussbaum, 2011, p. xvii). Sometimes an analysis of an actor’s set of interests reveals that blame can in fact be causally linked to her or his actions, but even in cases where actors add to structural injustices without explicit intent, we can begin to think about their responsibility by using these parameters. This is the kind of forwardlooking responsibility Young has in mind when thinking about ways out of this structural dilemma. While this section has mainly drawn on the thought of Iris Marion Young, I find it useful to enrich her notion of ‘responsibility as justice’ with some remarks by Martha Nussbaum, who has written on the possibility and implications of ‘shared responsibility’ for restructuring global governance, which is a very useful addition in this regard. Nussbaum (2006) is critical of individualized notions of responsibility that enhance rather than solve collective action problems and impair the realization of fairness, since actors that are already at a disadvantage may be additionally burdened. Within utilitarian understandings of responsibility (i.e., maximizing welfare through responsible actions), people are constructed as “engines of maximization” (Nussbaum, 2006, p. 308), and moral responsibility is understood as being first and foremost a personal responsibility. Institutions and powerful actors, on the other hand, are causally much more significant in contributing to (reducing) harmful effects. For

82

T. GUMBERT

Nussbaum, global governance should be directed towards creating institutions that are just and morally decent, and organize the delegation of personal ethical responsibility to such an emerging structure. This does, however, not absolve individuals or smaller agents from personal responsibility. A global institutional structure is in need of a supplement with a base structure of collectively keeping institutions in check (beyond NGO participation). She thus advances a normative vision of shared responsibilities, not as additive individual responsibilities, but as common responsibility which leaves room for ‘special responsibilities’, for example for transnational corporations, with consumers as agents monitoring corporate responsibility. In relation to the obvious question of how such a ‘shared responsibility’ could be administered politically, Martha Nussbaum advocates an overdetermination of responsibility: “Assigning responsibilities to the world economic structure does not mean that we excuse the domestic structure from responsibility. If the fulfillment of capabilities is overdetermined, so much the better” (Nussbaum, 2006, p. 316). We can read this proposition as the establishment of a dense web of responsibilities on a global scale, which does not causally and individually links actions and outcomes but includes all agents that occupy spaces at various distances in relation to an event. Such a ‘dense web of responsibilities’ corresponds to a version of global governance as a “thin, decentralized, and yet forceful global public sphere” (ibid., p. 319), that focuses on the problems of the disadvantaged everywhere and those created by the misuse and failure of representation of the non-human, i.e., animals, things, and ecosystems in environmental governance. Forcefulness, in Nussbaum’s view, includes strong environmental regulations with enforcement mechanisms, taxes to support pollution controls in other nations, global trade regulations embedded in moral guidelines for human development and ecosystems preservation, including effective sanctions. The attention to the power of the privileged and the dominant norms and values they exhibit is therefore for Nussbaum an important element in thinking about global responsibilities. Generally speaking, the ‘circle of influence’ of specific agents (states, corporations, and citizens alike) is always greater than their ‘circle of concern’: agents know, but rarely see the impacts of their influence (Murphy, 2009). We can read Martha Nussbaum in the way that a politics of global responsibility must always thrive for visibility of global inequalities (see also Schlosberg, 2016). Politically, such a perspective opens up the possibility of rethinking

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

83

many misguided and failed attempts to govern the environment on the global level.

Power and Responsibilization In this section, responsibility is not so much discussed as how it is understood, but rather as how it is strategically used. Governmentality studies develop the idea that, through attributing responsibility, actors are strategically implicated in the logics of governance by leading them to practices of self-responsibilization. Thereby, governmentality studies draw attention to the fact that the individualization of responsibility can be a technique of governing, and that the operation of this technique can be invisible or concealed because actors are led to govern themselves voluntarily and engage in responsible self-conduct. Governmentality scholars that study the politics of the environment have found different terms to describe their focus of research: Ecogovernmentality, Environmentality, or Green Governmentality, which all point to various aspects of how the notion of governmentality is useful in its “environmental or green articulations, for addressing political questions about the conduct of conduct by individuals and groups in their interactions with the environment, society, and themselves” (Luke, 2016, p. 461). Michel Foucault developed the idea of governmentality as a modern manifestation of political power in the context of his lectures at the Collège the France in the late 1970s with a focus “less on the formal laws and institutions of the modern state than the technologies of power that shaped, directed and regulated individuals’ beliefs, desires, lifestyles and actions” (Bevir, 2011, p. 461). As a form of meta-governance, Foucault’s explanation of the functioning of governmentality as “conducting the conduct” of others (Foucault, 2008, p. 186) reframes governance as a field of strategic power relations that privileges tactics instead of laws, with the aim to “arrange things in such a way that, through, a certain number of means, such and such ends may be achieved” (Foucault, 1991, cited in Innes & Steele, 2012). The central categories of the explanation of power comprise knowledge and subjectivity. A specific question for Foucault was how “conceptions of the human being that are held in particular times (as citizen, schoolchild, customer, worker, manager) […] are problematized and how interventions are devised” (Lövbrand & Stripple, 2013, p. 112).

84

T. GUMBERT

Applying these ideas to environmental governance encourages us to understand regulatory practices not just in terms of simple “command and control”-dynamics, but rather as notions of responsibilizing specific actors through new instruments of management, usually connected to the market-driven logics of neoliberal governance (Innes & Steele, 2012). It is possible to distinguish different research agendas on responsibilization within governmentality scholarship. These distinctions help to connect the various aspects of responsibility, power, and knowledge to larger socio-political structures of governance and political life. These research foci can be either differentiated according to (1) unit of analysis or (2) actor relations. (1) The first approach is concerned with political rationalities, which are studied through programs of governance and their formulations “within broad discourses of collective truth, proper ruling, and moral justification” (Wagenaar, p. 126). The research is first and foremost about how governmental power is conceptualized and thought of, how government officials determine how best to rule and how certain legitimations are deployed to make subjects governable in certain and distinct ways. Political rationalities thus “[create] the very categories and problems that make up a policy” (ibid.). Problematizations are a key starting point for investigations into the technologies of government (Dean, 1999), as they are a result of particular forms of knowledge and expertise that distinguish between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ forms of conduct at a given time and normalize (or naturalize) them. The governed are led to believe and encouraged to share certain hegemonic preferences and desires and act ‘voluntarily’ on this fabricated common sense. To govern is thus to “shape the field of possible actions of others” (Foucault, 1982, p. 221). This ‘voluntary acting’ is described by Foucault as a ‘technology of the self’ as it leads subjects to become responsible self-entrepreneurs in line with the morality of the state and the health of the economy, producing green or sustainable citizenship and “civic subjectivities [that] are positioned in dense networks of expert discourse and technical structure such that power and personhood co-evolve” (Luke, 2016, p. 462). A second approach is concerned with the technologies and techniques of governance to achieve specified ends. These are described by Rose and Miller as the “complex of mundane programmes, calculations, techniques, apparatuses, documents, and procedures that act on the subjects of governance, to coerce, persuade, cajole, suggest, or goad them to behave in certain and preferred ways (1992, p. 175). This inquiry is concerned

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

85

with how “government is acted into being” (Wagenaar, 2011, p. 126) and how these micro-practices aggregate in intentional and unintentional ways. New forms of governance and their tools and instruments to achieve ‘green’ ends are less concerned with deliberation and justice but rather with problem solving and program implementation, benchmarking, and best practices. The contents of governance programs and best practices, are in the context of environmental politics and sustainability, increasingly related to consumption, responsible choices, and lifestyle instead of obligations, duties, and solidarity (Soneryd & Uggla, 2015, p. 917). From a governmentality perspective, these processes are a slow transformation and normalization of what it means to be responsible. (2) On the level of social relations, studies on responsibilization can be differentiated according to the types of actors that are connected through techniques and tactics of governance. For instance, international organizations (IOs) or private actors increasingly ‘lead’ the state through the spread of rating and ranking activities or similar forms of meta-governance that incorporate logics of governmentality (Barnett & Finnemore, 2005; Hameiri & Jones, 2015; Neumann & Sending, 2010). The consideration of seemingly ‘neutral’ information becomes normalized and therefore accepted. Standards of measurement and sets of indicators may have the effect to conceal certain (dominant, hegemonic) interests (Löwenheim, 2008). If, for example, the state fails to attract investment (or aid), it has only itself to blame. Additionally, the rejection of external evaluation and the non-compliance with political reform requests favoured by ratings will lead to subsequent negative categorization of state performance and increase various societal risks. Through these operative logics, regulation is recast as self-regulation, and the ‘logic of responsibility’ leads individual agents to “assume responsibility for their compliance with a particular type of behavior or set of norms” (Innes & Steele, 2012, p. 718) instead of directly instructing them through coercion or via means of persuasion. Appropriate practices are chosen voluntarily among various possibilities, however, directed by potential risk rather than threat perceptions (Aradau et al., 2008). This has, in turn, the effect that in many governance schemes, governance failure is reduced to the inability of individual actors to self-govern effectively, whereas ‘effecive’ performance is subject to evaluation via economic indicators. Another subfield of research within Eco-governmentality studies focuses on the state–citizen relationship and the question of specific tactics which try to achieve self-governance at the level of the individual. States

86

T. GUMBERT

grant their citizens rights and protections, while it is assumed that citizens have in turn certain social responsibilities and obligations that the state can legitimately ask of them. Citizens do however not negotiate with an abstract structure, such as ‘the state’, but rather in a social context with concrete agents. While collective risks and their embeddedness in particular political discourses are inherently global, responsible action and how it is conducted and understood by individuals remains explicitly local (Gill, 2012, p. 24). It is therefore argued that the “global becomes an intrinsic part of the local […] [and] responsibility for the global is performed at the local” (ibid., p. 22). States can only meet specified criteria and benchmarks through the active engagement of their citizens. The state depends on their compliance and has to actively engage in the “building and modeling of a consumer who might have internalized certain social roles and who would adjust his actions according to collective constraints” (Rumpala, 2011, p. 671). On the macro level of analysis, the examples illustrate that it is not just the state who responsibilizes, because in governance settings “power is dispersed and resides within a variety of actors who each take a responsibilized role” (Innes & Steele, 2012, p. 723). In the case of state responsibilization, other actors are absolved of responsibility, which usually entails a minimization of associated risks for them. In order for responsibility to be ‘handed down’, it needs to be clearly defined and legally ‘objectified’ to be shifted to other actors. These processes reflect given political agendas of states or political and economic elites, which need to be analysed and connected to the diffusion of power within governance (Bigo, 2002). On the micro level, political interventions are here understood as working though subjects (i.e., using consumer-citizens as a means). The constitution and expansion of ‘green citizenship’ is a target of many environmental measures to reach overall sustainability benchmarks, and govermentality studies focus on the tactics that mobilize citizens into self-governance (Bäckstrand & Lövbrand, 2006; Cao, 2015; Soneryd & Uggla, 2015). In this perspective, the consumer-citizen is recentred at the heart of the economy as ecologically responsible, rationally economic, and therefore statistically calculable human being. However, citizens are in principle able to resist these interventions. Death (2010) reminds us to look for spaces of agency that might challenge, question, or transform the intentions of governance techniques and policy approaches by formulating and enacting different understandings of responsibility.

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

Deconstruction: The diversity of ethical concepts of responsibility Reconstruction: Iris Marion Young’s "Responsibility as Justice" Reconstruction: Eco-Governmentality and Responsibilization

87

Preservation, prevention, respect, preparation, answerability, responsiveness

Critique of individualization, past fixation, and shifting responsibility Attention to structures, future orientation, social connections, power, political techniques

Fig. 4.1 Ways forward in theorizing responsibility

In sum, the perspective and concept of responsibilization is a valuable theoretical perspective to analyse how responsibility gets dispersed in governance settings, which actors are being responsibilized due to which logic and tactics of governance, and it explicitly focuses on how individual citizens are implicated in these logics. It can guide the analysis of notions of responsibility in environmental governance explicitly by drawing attention to how knowledge and power relations in the field relate to understandings and practical implementations of responsible attitudes and actions (Fig. 4.1).

The Triangle Model of Responsibility The heuristic of the triangle model of responsibility acts as a ‘transmission belt’ by providing a framework that is open for alternative notions of responsibility in the empirical research setting, but can also look explicitly for ideas and elements of responsibility that pertain to previous sections of this chapter. The ‘mapping’ of elements the triangle model aims at also somewhat resembles Foucaultian research methodologies (the relation of knowledge, power, and subjectivity) (Dean, 1999; Death, 2010; Foucault, 1981) as well as other critical methodologies in the social sciences more generally (as the interrogation of being, knowing and, doing) (Peterson, 2003). Within psychology, the empirical study of responsibility and its attributions has a long history, which, interestingly, is based on broader

88

T. GUMBERT

philosophical and ethical considerations of human conduct (Baier, 1966; Davis, 1973; Heider, 1958; McKeon, 1957). Responsibility is analysed “as a core concept for understanding how people evaluate, sanction, and try to control each other’s conduct”, and also why people “try to excuse themselves from the authorship of their own conduct and elude social or moral duties and obligations” (Schlenker et al., 1994, p. 632). Schlenker et al. (1994) provide a framework that aims to produce conceptual clarity where past scholarship has treated responsibility in terms of causality (linking causes to consequences), a mental capacity (capability for rational conduct), a mental state (foreseeing consequences), an obligation (linked to moral codes), or a condition of being answerable to others (ibid.). The integrative model developed by the authors can be seen as a ‘metaperspective’, which relates key components of responsibility attribution to each other and contextualizes them. It is for this reason that the model corresponds with the demands and challenges of interpretive analysis of responsibility in environmental governance. Schlenker et al. state that responsibility attributions are basically evaluative reckonings that judge individual actors. In order to be able to do so, the evaluator requires particular information about three key elements: 1. Prescriptions that guide the actor’s conduct of the action. Prescriptions are “codes or rules for conduct. They include, explicitly or implicitly, information about the goals and standards for performance and the appropriate ways to go about reaching those goals. [In this sense they are] criteria for what the actor should be doing in a particular situation.” (ibid., p. 635), to guide conduct and/or to evaluate it. 2. An event (that occurred in the past or is anticipated in the future) relevant to the prescriptions. Events are “units of action and their consequences that actors and observers regard as a unified segment for purposes of some evaluation.” (ibid.). They can be treated as singular actions, collective actions during a specific time frame (e.g., 2010–2012), or actions within a larger significant period (e.g., during the Merkel administration). 3. Identity images that describe the roles, convictions, motivations, etc. of an actor, and that are also relevant to prescriptions and the event. These characteristics are important in so far certain prescriptions are only applicable to actors with a particular identity (e.g., children are

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

89

excused from a whole range of legal liabilities, military regulations apply to officers but not enlisted men, etc.) (ibid.). Schlenker et al. use the example of parenting for illustrative purposes. The event is understood as the culmination of instances where parents interact with their children; it is the setting in which action takes place and is always embedded in a particular historical and cultural context (raising a child in the 1950s in the US is very different from raising a child today in Germany). Parents are also obligated to treat their children in certain prescribed ways; these prescriptions are either sanctioned or rewarded by society at large. Lastly, various characteristics define parents as ‘relevant actors’ in the context of caring for their children; the identity images of what makes a good or bad parent are continuously evaluated and judged by themselves and others (other parents, friends, children, child protective services, and so on) (see Schlenker et al., 1994, pp. 634–635). For example, in the case of food waste governance, an event similarly constitutes a culmination of different knowledge claims applied to the generation or reduction of food waste (causes, consequences, measurements, etc.) within a particular time frame. This discursive structure mediates and enables particular prescriptions (regulative norms, policy approaches, reduction measures, etc.) that are deemed relevant in relation to the event; in fact, it produces what is seen as more or less adequate prescriptions. Identity images are the representations of self and other connected to food waste governance. Citizens evaluate the roles and aspirations of government institutions and business actors, supermarkets the roles of consumers and other market actors, and so forth. Each of these elements can vary in its importance to particular actors. Prescriptions gain in evaluation when they are seen as valued principles, identity images when connected to valued components of self-perception, and the event when seen as of great social or moral consequence. Schlenker et al. describe these valuations as “the potency of the elements” (ibid.). When visualizing the interconnected nature of the three elements outlined here, they depict a triangle (hence the ‘triangle model of responsibility’). In order to evaluate responsibility, Schlenker et al. stress the fact that by simply looking for occurrences of information about an event, prescriptions, and identity images, responsibility attributions cannot be grasped. Rather, it is the sides of the triangle that the researcher has to pay attention to. The three links are (Schlenker et al., 1994, p. 635):

90

T. GUMBERT

1. The prescription-event link (a clear and well-defined set of prescriptions is perceived as applicable to the event). This link is particularly strong when rules that should be applied to an event and should govern conduct are not subject to alternative interpretations and are not in conflict with other applicable prescriptions (ibid., p. 638). 2. The prescription-identity link (the actor is seen to be bound by the prescriptions due to specific characteristics). If prescriptions apply to the actor (i.e., if the link is strong), they give purpose and direction, provide a sense of security and confidence, and the actor “simply “knows” what to do” (ibid.). Weak links are in contrast associated with “uncertainty, anxiety, or lack of purpose” (ibid.), the sources of which can be found in ambiguous prescriptions or uncertainties about one’s own identity (e.g., through alienation) or role conflicts. 3. The identity-event link (the actor is seen to be connected to the event, by its actions, roles, etc.). The link is described as stronger if an actor is seen as having personal control over an event (the ability and freedom to act), and weaker if either the event is perceived as unforeseeable and uncontrollable, and if actors are “merely associated with the event because of simple categorization” (ibid., p. 639). The rationality behind the focus on these three links suggests that “responsibility is the adhesive that connects an actor to an event and to relevant prescriptions that should govern conduct; thus, responsibility provides a basis for judgment and sanctioning” (ibid., p. 635). Psychological studies have also shown that when these concepts are associated with each other, the generalizations derived from one concept will affect the other (Cialdini et al., 1990, ct. in Schlenker et al., 1994). For example, if an event is evaluated negatively, every actor connected to the event in question is most likely to be evaluated similarly. Therefore, it is assumed that prescriptions, events, and identity images share a somewhat ‘objective’ connection. From an interpretive analytical standpoint, the triangle of responsibility model is not only relevant to gather and categorize heterogeneous attributions of responsibility in a given context. It is also indicative of what potentially emerges from these meanings. Schlenker et al. describe this fact as the “outcome highway” of responsibility (ibid., p. 636), because how responsibility is evaluated directly relates to if and how actors involve themselves. If responsibility is high, actors feel committed to act, because

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

91

a link of self to something is constituted. The likelihood increases that they will follow a set of prescriptions in the future and are willing to let others judge their conduct by these standards (ibid., p. 637). Besides commitment, the determination (resoluteness of purpose) to act is also seen as a function of higher responsibility. Similarly, when responsibility is low, the actors disengage from acting through excuses. Excuses are “attempts to minimize personal responsibility for events” (ibid., see also Schiff, 2008). Especially if actors and their actions are connected to the production of negative consequences, they are prone to protect themselves through rationalizing their conduct and weakening their own links to prescriptions and events. Another typical strategy in this regard is to attribute responsibility to others, also for self-protective purposes. To summarize the triangle model of responsibility, the three elements of prescriptions, events, and identity images as well as their linkages provide an integrated framework to systematize and analyse how responsibility is understood and informs social behaviour in a given context (see Fig. 4.2). The strength of the linkages of prescriptionsevent, prescriptions-identity, and identity-event provides guidance on which meanings of responsibility are enacted within a specific field of governance. An interpretive approach to responsibility as ‘meaning-inuse’ tries to capture these meanings through systematic categorization while retaining a degree of openness to include observations within the empirical case study that do not fit the model.

PRESCRIPTION LINK: PRESCRIPTION-IDENTITY

RESPONSIBILITY

IDENTITY

LINK: PRESCRIPTION-EVENT

EVENT LINK: IDENTITY-EVENT

Fig. 4.2 Heuristics of the “triangle model of responsibility”

92

T. GUMBERT

Conclusion: Demands of a Responsibility-Focused Research Design The critique of the liability model of responsibility, as well as the mechanism of responsibilization, urges us to rethink the notion of political responsibility in the context of environmental problems. A notion of responsibility built on causation, intentional agency (autonomy), and the possibility of attributing blame to others (accountability) is seen as critical by many scholars discussed in this chapter to deliver governance outcomes that would prepare and guide the necessary socio-ecological transformations in the Anthropocene. Generally, though, as a means for interpreting and evaluating current environmental governance approaches and their ability to cope with environmental challenges, the concept of responsibility can be utilized fruitfully. Rethinking responsibility is, in this context, “the surest path away from ‘organized irresponsibility’” (Eckersley, 2016, p. 359), or at least an important step in this direction. Yet, in order to be analytically relevant and concise, the basic logic of a politics of responsibility needs to be scrutinized in light of the underlying ethics, as a precondition for improving them (Pellizzoni, 2004). To what extent (and if) the meaning of responsibility is in fact diverse and changing is an empirical question. There’s reason to believe that responsibility as liability or responsibility as accountability are not the only meanings that are empirically relevant across environmental governance cases. Some agents may have already found different ways to negotiate the shortcomings of the ‘liability model’ and act accordingly. Similarly, responsibility as care or as responsiveness could already be distributed and cultivated within specific networks. I have further argued that a research framework has to be attentive to the production (or misrecognition, or neglect) of global injustices. This is probably the highest common denominator across most of the literature cited in this chapter. Young’s social connection model, for instance, specifically draws attention to the dynamics of social exclusion and marginalization. Empirically, it is further important to understand in what ways responsibility is shared and distributed (e.g., individually aggregated or collectively organized), on what ethical grounds, towards whom, and how the notion of ‘sharing’ is connected to larger social constellations. Lastly, it has been argued that the notion of responsibility intersects heavily with different forms of knowledge, and powerful actors are able

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

93

to use that knowledge strategically to alter the distribution of responsibility. This establishes knowledge elites, knowledge brokers, or epistemic authorities as interesting actors to study in governance contexts. The singling-out of individual, blameworthy actors is often justified by particular, legitimate discourses. The discursive structural dynamics that are involved (i.e., the organization of irresponsibility, see Chapter 2) are thereby concealed.

References Aradau, C., Lobo-Guerrero, L., & van Munster, R. (2008). Security, technologies of risk, and the political: Guest editors’ introduction. Security Dialogue, 39, 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010608089159 Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2006). Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 50–75. Baier, K. (1966). Responsibility and freedom. In R. T. de George (Ed.), Ethics and society. Anchor Books. Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2005). The power of liberal international organizations. In M. N. Barnett & R. Duvall (Eds.), Power in global governance (Cambridge studies in international relations, Vol. 98). Cambridge University Press. Beck, U. (1995). Ecological politics in an age of risk. Polity Press. Bevir, M. (2011). Governance and governmentality after neoliberalism. Policy & Politics, 39, 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557310X550141 Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives: Global Local, Political, 27 , 63–92. https:// doi.org/10.1177/03043754020270S105 Binder, C., & Heilmann, C. (2017). Duty and distance. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 51(3), 547–561. Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution (Near futures). Zone Books. Burchell, G. (1993). Liberal government and techniques of the self. Economy and Society, 22(3), pp. 267–282. Cao, B. (2015). Environment and citizenship. Routledge. Cialdini, R. B., Finch, J. F., & DeNicholas, M. E. (1990). Strategic selfpresentation: The indirect route. In M. Cody (Ed.), The psychology of tactical communication. Davis, P. E. (Ed.). (1973). Introduction to moral philosophy. Charles E. Merrill.

94

T. GUMBERT

Dean, M. (2010 [1999]). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. SAGE. Death, C. (2010). Governing sustainable development: Partnerships, protests and power at the world summit (Interventions). Routledge. Derrida, J. (1996). The gift of death (Religion and postmodernism). University of Chicago Press. Eckersley, R. (2016). Responsibility for climate change as a structural injustice. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press. Erskine, T. (2008). Locating responsibility: The problem of moral agency in international relations. In The Oxford handbook of international relations. Foucault, M. (1981). The history of sexuality, volume 1: An introduction. Penguin. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208– 226). University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (Ed.). (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79 (Michel Foucault’s lectures at the Collège de France). Palgrave Macmillan. Giddens, A. (2006). Modernity and self-identity. Polity Press. Gill, F. (2012). Practicing environmental responsibility: Local and global dimensions. Social Responsibility Journal, 8, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/174 71111211196548 Hameiri, S., & Jones, L. (2015). Global governance as state transformation. Political Studies, 64, 793–810. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12225 Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley. Hoover, J. (2012). Reconstructing responsibility and moral agency in world politics. International Theory, 4(2), 233–268. Innes, A. J., & Steele, B. J. (2012). Governmentality in global governance. In D. LeviFaur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 716–729). Oxford University Press. Jonas, H. (1985). Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation (1st ed., Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch). Suhrkamp. Lemke, T. (1997). Eine Kritik der politischen Vernunft: Foucaults Analyse der modernen Gouvernementalität (1st ed., Argument-Sonderband, N.F., 251). Argument-Verl. Lévinas, E. (1985). Ethics and infinity. Duquesne University of Press. Lövbrand, E., & Stripple, J. (2013). Governmentality. In C. Death (Ed.), Critical environmental politics (pp. 111–120, Interventions). Routledge.

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

95

Löwenheim, O. (2008). Examining the state: A Foucauldian perspective on international ‘governance indicators.’ Third World Quarterly, 29, 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590701806814 Luke, T. W. (2016). Environmental governmentality. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (pp. 461–474, Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press. Mayes, C. (2014). Governing through choice: Food labels and the confluence of food industry and public health discourse to create ‘healthy consumers.’ Social Theory & Health, 12, 376–395. https://doi.org/10.1057/sth.2014.12 McKeon, R. (1957). The development and the significance of the concept of responsibility. Revue Internationale De Philosophie, 11(39), 3–32. McMahon, J. (2015). Behavioral economics as neoliberalism: Producing and governing homo economicus. Contemporary Political Theory, 14, 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1057/cpt.2014.14 Medina, J. (2014). Communicative democracy and solidarity across racial and sexual differences. In Revisiting Iris Marion Young on normalisation, inclusion and democracy (pp. 33–48). Palgrave Pivot. Miller, D. (2008). National responsibility and global justice. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 11(4), 383–399. Murphy, C. N. (2009). Power and responsibility in the global community. In A. Franceschet (Ed.), The ethics of global governance (pp. 159–167). Lynne Rienner Publishers. Neumann, I. B., & Sending, O. J. (2010). Governing the global polity: Practice, mentality, rationality. University of Michigan Press. Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership (The Tanner lectures on human values). The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Nussbaum, M. (2011). Foreword. In I. M. Young (Ed.), Responsibility for justice (pp. iv–xxv., Oxford political philosophy). Oxford University Press. Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 13, 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/096440104200022 9034 Petersen, T., & Schiller, J. (2011). Politische Verantwortung für Nachhaltigkeit und Konsumentensouveränität/Political Responsibility for Sustainability and Consumer Sovereignty. Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 20(3), 157. Peterson, V. S. (2003). A critical rewriting of global political economy: Integrating reproductive, productive, and virtual economies (Routledge/RIPE series in global political economy. RIPE series in global political economy). Routledge. Raffoul, F. (2010). The origins of responsibility (Studies in Continental thought). Indiana University Press.

96

T. GUMBERT

Ronell, A., & Taylor, A. (2009). Meaning. In A. Taylor (Ed.), Examined life: Excursions with contemporary thinkers (pp. 25–60). The New Press. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 173–205. Rumpala, Y. (2011). “Sustainable consumption” as a new phase in a governmentalization of consumption. Theory and Society, 40, 669–699. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11186-011-9153-5 Scheffler, S. (2001). Boundaries and allegiances: Problems of justice and responsibility in liberal thought. Oxford University Press. Schiff, J. (2008). Confronting Political Responsibility: The Problem of Acknowledgment. Hypatia, 23, 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001. 2008.tb01207.x Schiff, J. (2013). Power and responsibility. In G. F. Johnson & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Political responsibility refocused: Thinking justice after Iris Marion Young (pp. 42–62). University of Toronto Press. Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.632 Schlosberg, D. (2016). Environmental management in the anthropocene. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (pp. 193–208, Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press. Smith, K. K. (2016). Environmental political theory, environmental ethics, and political science. In The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (pp. 105–115). Soneryd, L., & Uggla, Y. (2015). Green governmentality and responsibilization: New forms of governance and responses to ‘consumer responsibility.’ Environmental Politics, 24, 913–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015. 1055885 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive. (2018). Max Weber. Online: https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2018/entries/weber Wagenaar, H. (2011). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Sharpe. Warner, D. (1991). An ethic of responsibility in international relations. Lynne Rienner. Watson, G. (2004). Agency and answerability: Selected essays. Clarendon Press. Young, I. M. (2004). Responsibility and global labor justice. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12, 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004. 00205.x

4

ETHICS, JUSTICE, AND POWER …

97

Young, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy & Policy, 23(1), 102–130. Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for justice (Oxford political philosophy). Oxford University of Press.

CHAPTER 5

Responsibility and Interpretive Research

Introduction Building on the theoretical reflections in the previous chapter, a research design to analyze the meanings and functions of responsibility in environmental governance has to consider three specific orientations. i. The research design has to be able to open up the concept of responsibility to its multiple meanings-in-use, to make them visible, interpret, and systematize them. ii. The research design has to be able to make the theoretical considerations applicable to a given empirical context, that is to generate the necessary ‘tools’ to evaluate how actors understand and act upon a particular notion of responsibility, and to assess the political consequences. iii. The research design has to be able to track responsibility beyond its mere rhetorical occurrence. Focussing solely on the instances where actors describe themselves and/or others as responsible distorts how responsibility functions in actu. This chapter discusses how these different demands can be integrated into a single research design to contribute to more a thorough understanding and analysis of responsibility in environmental governance. The chapter proceeds by first introducing the epistemological foundations © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 T. Gumbert, Responsibility in Environmental Governance, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13729-7_5

99

100

T. GUMBERT

of an interpretive research design, which is seen as being more apt to engage with these challenges. Secondly, I discuss possible operationalizations of the heuristic of the ‘triangle of responsibility’-model introduced in Chapter 4. In the introduction, it was stated that it is important to analyze “how the process of assigning responsibility is operationalized” within particular governance settings and to assess the “wider moral and political implications of this allocation” (Fuller, 2017, p. 521). Therefore, I will, third, outline how empirical responsibility attributions may be contextualized in relation to their socio-political meanings.

Interpretive Research and the Analysis of Meaning The research approach advocated to study responsibility is based on an interpretivist methodology, because, as has been argued above, its central aim is to track the possibility of multiple meanings beyond a narrow notion of responsibility as accountability or liability (Raffoul, 2010). In contrast to a rational choice paradigm, with its reliance on quantitativepositivist methods, interpretive research “focuses on specific, situated meanings and meaning-making practices of actors in a given context” (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012, p. 1). Meaning becomes only relevant as ‘meaning-in-use’, i.e., identities, practices, and perceptions are treated as context-specific to both time and place. The approach reflects a constructivist-interpretivist methodology that starts from the belief in multiple, intersubjectively constructed ‘truths’ about human events that requires a close reading of research-relevant materials. Much like scientific research in general, interpretive research has a “systematic character, conducted with an attitude of doubt” (ibid., p. 17), but is first and foremost interested in how concepts, roles, and other knowledge-related categories are understood and used in the field. The idea of ‘abductive reasoning’ is central to grasp interpretive methodologies. Whereas both deductive and inductive ways of knowledge production are rooted in linearity (applying theoretical constructs to empirical data or building concepts from empirical observation), “abductive reasoning begins with a puzzle, a surprise, or a tension, and then seeks to explicate it by identifying the conditions that would make that puzzle less perplexing and more of a “normal” or “natural” event” (ibid., p. 27). In other words, abductive reasoning seeks explanations that would make the object of study more ‘common-sensical’ in an “iterative-recursive

5

RESPONSIBILITY AND INTERPRETIVE RESEARCH

101

fashion between what is puzzling and possible explanations” (ibid.). It can therefore be thought of more like a spiral in contrast to linear ways of doing scientific research. In this sense, it is seen as important to research responsibility in its attributions and understandings as derived from a particular field of study, instead of applying a definition of responsibility a priori to the field and searching for matches to and/or deviations from a predefined concept. Interpretive research also puts the analysis of meaning at its very core. Meanings are in this regard “not just representations of people’s beliefs and sentiments about political phenomena; they fashion these phenomena” (Wagenaar, 2011, p. 3). A valuable working definition is provided by Bevir and Rhodes (2004): “Interpretive approaches to political studies focus on meanings that shape actions and institutions, and the ways in which they do so” (p. 130; cited in Wagenaar, 2011). The question arises of how to understand the mechanism of meanings shaping actions if an interpretive methodology rejects causal claims. Interpretive analysis instead assumes “constitutive causality” (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012), i.e., the claim that meaning is constitutive of social reality. Wagenaar distinguishes here between a weak and a strong claim: while the weak claim asserts that meaning influences different practices and policies, what people think and do, the strong claim goes further in that it holds that “meaning brings [the objects of analysis] into being” (2011, p. 5). Whenever we refer to a social object (e.g., food waste, social inequality, or unsustainable behaviours) in political discourse, a particular interpretation is imposed on particular social actions or behaviours. Under the strong claim, the object in question is not just presented in a slightly more positive or negative frame, but seen as “driven by a hidden power configuration, and by bringing this configuration to light the analyst opens up the possibility of more benign or humane interpretations of the same behaviour” (ibid.). Interpretist-constructivist work in this sense is fuelled by a moral-analytical programme and therefore necessarily an emancipatory project. For the research of responsibility attributions, the constitutive-causal claim posits a reciprocal connection between how responsibility is understood and how, for example, a particular object of responsibility (e.g., food waste) is governed. In other words, the meaning of responsibility in each context may be tied to the emergence of particular policies or governance structures, and consequently interpretively interrogated, as far as these connections can be empirically established.

102

T. GUMBERT

To understand how a research design to study responsibility deals with these aspects of meaning construction, subjective and objective meaning have to be differentiated, on one side, and discursive and dialogical meaning, on the other.1 Subjective meaning includes “reasons, motives, and purposes, which are part of the actor’s consciousness, and which determine or describe the actor’s actions” (ibid., p. 18). This approach is also labelled ‘intentionalism’ since it aims to study self-understandings and to reconstruct the “inner aspect of an action or event” (ibid.). Objective meanings are in contrast “basic assumptions and conceptualizations that make a particular activity possible” (ibid.). They can be thought of as shared conceptual maps actors use to think and make sense of the world. Objective meanings are harder to discern because they belong to a societies’ cultural resources of meaning-making. For example, social rules of accepted and adequate conduct in each situation or knowledge claims relating to an event are often implicit in a culture, they guide behaviours and actions in ways that are often unarticulated. In the context of attributing responsibility, we may find that actors openly declare that it seems natural to them that the responsibility to finding solutions must be shared equally, yet practical approaches that are chosen by them might suggest an individualization of responsibility. This potential mismatch appears natural because it is objectified—it is part of shared social and cultural codes. Focussing on the analysis of objective versus subjective meaning acknowledges that “meaning resides not in the individual experience of actors but in larger social configurations of which the actor is an integral part”, as well as that “meaning emerges from acting upon concrete situations” (ibid., p. 51). An analysis of attitudes, motivations, and preferences alone falls short of making the productive, unarticulated background knowledge at work visible, which is intertwined with the dynamic interactions among actors and larger social configurations. This is where the distinction of discursive and dialogical meaning comes in. In the dialogical conception, “meaning emerges only in relation to an interpreter” (ibid., p. 54). Since meaning is always “for

1 Although Hendrik Wagenaar distinguishes “three faces of meaning” (2011, 40), hermeneutic meaning is left out here because it is, broadly speaking, congruent with subjective meanings and neglects the ways in which meanings are “influenced, dependent upon, shaped, or even determined by [.] wider discursive structures” (ibid., 51).

5

RESPONSIBILITY AND INTERPRETIVE RESEARCH

103

someone” to read and decipher, meaning is considered “relative to an interpreter” (Fay, 1996, p. 142; cited in Wagenaar, 2011, p. 54; italics in original)—it presents itself always differently to a new observer or analyst. Because of this belief in the radical alterity of meaning construction, every interview situation, for example, must be seen as a singular event: one hundred researchers, interacting with the same interviewee, having prepared the same questions, will produce, in theory, one hundred different interviews. While this may seem as a slight exaggeration, the logic behind this hermeneutical approach suggests that, in order to adequately grasp the meaning, the researcher has to be very transparent about her/his preconceived notions, thinking categories, and personal situatedness she/he brings to the research setting, and treat the dialogical interaction (between herself/himself and the subjects studied) as part of the analysis. The approach to discursive meaning does not assume that meaning emerges from dialogue, or that meaning is the aggregate of the subjective understandings of individual actors. Rather, it is viewed as located within, and at the same time a product of, larger, sedimented meaning structures and emerges from the interaction of the elements of discourse: belief systems, practices, artifacts, narratives, linguistic routines” (ibid., p. 52). The discursive analyst is, however, not just interested in the question of how meanings form and how they are produced, it is also vital to ask why a particular worldview emerged in the first place (ibid., p. 53). Because the approach to discursive meaning emphasizes the historically contingent nature of things—events, practices, and knowledge could always manifest differently—it looks for the underlying reasons of particular formations (much like the methodology of process tracing tries to uncover ‘causal mechanisms’ in the unfolding of events, see George & Bennett, 2005; Mayntz, 2004). Discursive meaning conceives of language as having this generative capacity in the sense of ‘constitutive causality’ that was discussed earlier. Language is not just representative of the social world but brings specific aspects into being by enacting them (ibid., p. 54). Through the analysis of language, then, it is the task of the discursive analyst to make discursive structures visible and interpret them in light of their co-emergence with other elements. It is important to note that the analysis of structures of meaning and their effects on individual behaviour does not deny the role of human agency or reason, as a common critique suggests (Bevir & Rhodes, 2003, p. 43). It is rather assumed that actors have the freedom to act in many different ways, but that this action is

104

T. GUMBERT

always embedded in a particular historical and cultural context which shapes their ways of thinking about, and engaging with, the world around them. The analysis of meanings of responsibility as suggested here is grounded in the epistemological orientations provided by approaches to objective and discursive meaning (see Fig. 5.1). Although both pairs, dialogical/discursive, and subjective/objective, have no fixed correlation when related to each other, dialogical and subjective, as well as discursive and objective forms of meaning go together more ‘naturally’. For example, the interview situation aims to capture the subjective meaning of interviewees and produces this meaning through dialogical interaction (e.g., Frank, 2002). Even if experts speak for an entire organization, it is usually difficult if not impossible to separate subjective attributions and understandings of responsibility from collective notions that might be shared across group members. A considerable number of interviews would be necessary, which suggests focussing the research on a particular organization, specifically. Therefore, if responsibility is researched through individual interviews, the design concentrates either on ‘competence’ (as in “what is your responsibility?”) or the perception of others (as in “who should be responsible?”) (Pfadenhauer, 2009). The discursive and objective approach to meanings of responsibility is interested in how larger structures of meanings (discourses, narratives, etc.) shape the understandings and practices of responsibility within the

ANALYSIS OF MEANINGS

SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE MEANINGS

DISCURSIVE VS. DIALOGICAL MEANING

SYSTEMATIZATION AND INTERPRETATION OF SEDIMENTED STRUCTURES OF MEANING

Fig. 5.1 Interpretive research design for the study of responsibility

5

RESPONSIBILITY AND INTERPRETIVE RESEARCH

105

limits of a particular field of study. It therefore qualifies for textual analysis of documents and other artefacts via the content of discourse analytical methods. It involves a 2-step process: first, the material must be categorized and systematized according to the main focus of the study (e.g., is responsibility in sustainable consumption governance individualized and attached to the figure of the consumer?). Second, the results must be related to larger socio-political processes which are of interest to the study is interpreted in light of the applied theoretical framework (e.g., which forms of governance are legitimized and justified by drawing on particular notions of responsibility?). This approach to studying discursive and objective meanings of responsibility should however be distinguished from the general responsibility attribution literature (Gerhards et al., 2009; Lohmeyer & Schüßler, 2018; Zajak & Henrichsen, 2019). Here, responsibility is assigned and coded according to an actor-centric model where actor A attributes responsibility X to actor B. The results are then used for actor-network modelling as a culmination of multiple responsibility attributions in a research field. While such an analysis is able to derive and discuss the consequences of specific responsibility attributions, it is less interested in sedimented, latent patterns and notions of responsibility on a discursive structural level. Interpretive research is considered “world-making” and aims to uncover and interpret the responsibility attributions of various actors within larger discursive structures in a particular field (as opposed to describing an objective reality). Such an interpretive methodology is guided by a focus on meaning-making (rather than a priori model specification), contextuality (rather than generalizability), hermeneuticphenomenological sensibility as an explanatory description (as opposed to causal laws or mechanisms), and constitutive causality (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012, p. 48). In order to study the elements constitutive of responsibility in environmental governance from an interpretive perspective, a more nuanced and focussed heuristic is necessary that relates these elements to each other and enables its systematic study and interpretation.

Operationalizing Responsibility via the Triangle Model Chapter 4 has provided various elements that different notions of responsibility may entail in their empirical manifestations. The compilation of these elements guides the research process, especially the coding of

106

T. GUMBERT

possible links between prescriptions, identity images, and events. An example is included in Table 5.1. These elements are informed by studies and scientific literature belonging to a particular field. In line with the reiterative movement of abductive reasoning, deductive categories are derived from theoretical discussions, applied to the material, which in turn extends, narrows, or in other respects transforms the original design. In this example, prescriptions for food waste reductions can be either formal (laws and legal regulation) or informal (coordinated action), and their goals can rely on input (e.g., democratic processes) or output (effectiveness) dimensions. Identity images comprise a large set of possible attributions, as has been discussed in the section on ethics of responsibility. They may include, for example, rationality (rational/irrational character traits), degree of freedom (limited/unlimited agency), power and resources at an actor’s disposal (powerful/powerless), authority (authoritativeness is confirmed/questioned), legitimacy and trust (legitimacy confirmed/questioned), and morality (perceived as good/bad). In relation to a particular event, the problem can be described by using the rhetoric of complexity (problem is of complex/less complex nature), of uncertainty (consequences can be foreseen/difficult to judge), or risk evaluations (perceived as threat/minor problem). The scope of the study should be limited by the central research question and the general puzzle that the researcher wants to answer. It has been argued that to assert responsibility, links between the three elements must be empirically established. Otherwise, the research design simply traces occurrences of the concepts of interest, but fails to make relations and notions of responsibility visible. In this example, the link between prescriptions and identity images describes responsible behaviours and actions and can be characterized by intentionality (intended/unintended causes) or rationality (rational/irrational behaviours and practices). The link between prescriptions and an event describes responsible regulations and/or policies that are directed to govern a problem. It can be characterized by universality (universal or particular approach deemed appropriate), voluntariness (voluntary or obligatory approach deemed appropriate), and by the time dimension (justification for approach because of past failures or future consequences). Lastly, the link between identity images and an event describes effects and causes as they are connected to the responsibility image of an actor. This link is characterized by causality (action can be causally linked/is uncertain) and time of imputation (actor is implicated by

5

RESPONSIBILITY AND INTERPRETIVE RESEARCH

107

Table 5.1 Coding judgments of responsibility in food waste governance. Application of the triangle model Elements and links of responsibility

Dimensions

Manifestations

Prescriptions (formal and informal rules of conduct)2

Formality

Formal: laws and legal action Informal: coordinated action Input: democratic process Output: effectiveness Rational character traits Irrational character traits Free/unlimited agency Constrained/limited agency Powerful Powerless Authoritativeness asserted Authoritativeness questioned Legitimacy asserted Legitimacy questioned Morally ‘good’ actor Morally ‘bad’ actor Described as complex Described as clear and unambiguous Consequences are difficult to judge Consequences can be foreseen Threat to ecological system Minor ecological problem Intended action > causes Unintended action > causes Rational practice Irrational practice

Goal orientation Identity (descriptions of characteristics, beliefs, motivations, and roles of an actor)3

Rationality Freedom Power/resources Authority Legitimacy/trust Morality

Events (units of action and their consequences)4

Complexity

Uncertainty

Environmental risk Link prescriptions and identity: behaviours/actions

Intentionality Rationality

(continued) 2 Concerned with DOING: WHAT should be done? HOW should something

be done? 3 Concerned with BEING: HOW is an actor described/identified/subjectivized? 4 Concerned with KNOWING: WHAT is action referring to, and WHY is it

important?

108

T. GUMBERT

Table 5.1 (continued) Elements and links of responsibility

Dimensions

Manifestations

Link prescriptions and event: regulations/policies

Universality

Universal approach needed Particular/individual approach needed Voluntary approach advocated Duties/obligations advocated Push factor: appeal to future (in-order-to motives) Pull factor: appeal to past (because motives) Actor is linked to effects Actor’s involvement is not directly linked Ex ante: future events Ex post: past events

Voluntariness

Time dimension

Link identity and event: effects/causes

Causality

Time of imputation

past/future events). By coding for these dimensions and looking for respective manifestations, the aim is to uncover distinct characteristics of responsibility in environmental governance. The coding procedure has two objectives: first, identify links of responsibility by systematizing identity images, prescriptions, and events, and second, qualify and substantiate the links according to content. The categorization should be built by a set of procedures that make inferences from text (Hermann, 2008, p. 151; see also Weber, 1990) according to established content or discourse analytical methods. Both can also be combined to extract manifest and latent meanings from the text (e.g., Graf, 2016). Specifically, frequency analysis (frequency of used words and phrases in text segments) may be employed as a way of familiarizing oneself with the text material to get a general idea if the term “responsibility” or “responsible action” is used at all. Although the triangle model is specifically designed to make inferences about responsibility judgments from text without the term needing to be manifest, this is nevertheless a valuable first clue for the researcher. For the coding procedure, contingency analysis (exploring words, phrases, or themes that appear together; Hermann, 2008, p. 157) is especially relevant to make the links of the responsibility model visible. To assess if links are ‘weakly’ or ‘strongly’

5

RESPONSIBILITY AND INTERPRETIVE RESEARCH

109

related, the analysis may additionally draw on evaluative assertion analysis (Krippendorff, 2004; Osgood et al., 1956). This step incorporates the coding of adjectives to assess if the links are positively or negatively connoted. The data collected for all analytical levels can of course be coded and categorized with the assistance of textual analysis software, such as MAXQDA (Kuckartz, 2009). In a first step, the elements and links of the triangle model of responsibility can be subdivided into conceptual dimensions and subsequently into possible manifestations of these dimensions during the coding process (see Table 5.1). Both dimensions and manifestations are derived, as noted earlier, from the discussion of responsibility and the particularities and contingencies of the field of environmental governance in question. While this deductive approach aims to “deconstruct” responsibility in the first instance, it is important that the researcher remains open to multiple recombinations of elements and links when studying particular responsibility attributions which may most definitely expand the list of relevant dimensions. It is therefore important to note that a table with conceptual dimensions denotes the starting point of the analysis and must be adapted through the interrogation of the empirical material in a recursive fashion. The codebook should be very transparent about instances when either elements of responsibility are coded or links between elements are established. I have included some examples from the case study discussed in Chapters 6 and 7 below. Note that the meaning of the text passages must be read and evaluated carefully. Not every instance where the word “approach” is mentioned, for example, is an indication for “prescription”. The larger the text corpus, the easier it becomes however to navigate the material using such signal words. 1. What triggers the category “prescriptions”: i. Strategies that will “require” action. ii. “Approaches” against food waste on any level. iii. “Changes” in the area of policy and legal frameworks. iv. Necessity of “behaviour” change, not just direct actions/practices. v. More … is “needed”: information, decisive action, awareness, etc.

110

T. GUMBERT

2. What triggers the category “identity images”: i. Actors in the context of reducing food waste are named, either concretely (FAO) or generally (multi-stakeholder initiatives). ii. Because of their “ability” to … (actor’s characteristics are specified). iii. Actor X is usually “concerned” with … (actor’s roles are specified). iv. Consumers “want to act” on their belief that … (actor’s motivations are specified). 3. What triggers the category “events”: i. Food waste is defined: “in this report, we understand food waste as…”. ii. Food waste is described in scope and severity: “an immense problem of global proportions”. iii. Economic, ecological, or social dimensions of the problem are specified: “food waste results in environmental harm and equals a loss of fertile soil and water”. iv. A historical example/comparison is given that relates to the development of the problem: “If food waste a country, it would be the third largest emitter of GHG.” v. Descriptions of the food system: “the problems the global food system faces are primarily food insecurity and economic inefficiency”. Links are a particular challenge in the coding process, since they do not constitute the same units as elements of responsibility. Whereas elements are usually short fragments within sentences (the mentioning of a particular policy, for example), links are meaningful connections between them. Schlenker et al. (1994) argue in their model convincingly that, without the connections of the links, there can be no inference of responsibility. Or to put it differently: without an adequate assessment of responsibility links, there is only talk about an environmental problem, policies, and different actors. Because of this importance, links should only coded when prescriptions, events, or identity images are directly related to each other. One way to assure this is to relate the analysis to the individual sentence level—when elements are directly connected linguistically. Depending on the context, the occurrence of elements within the same paragraph, or

5

RESPONSIBILITY AND INTERPRETIVE RESEARCH

111

within the range of 3–4 sentences, could also be treated as an established link. There is, however, a reason to be cautious when constituting links beyond the individual sentence level. For example, if a strong judgement is made in a sentence (e.g., “The retail practices of supermarkets are, without a doubt, the most severe cause of the global food waste problem!”), the link (“link prescriptions-event”, in this case) is intersubjectively comprehensible and easier to reproduce by other researchers applying the same coding instructions. The appearance of the words “supermarkets”, “cause”, and “global food waste problem”, in the same paragraph do not convey the same level of clarity as to what counts as a link. In other words, whereas word count and proximity measures constitute plausible techniques that can be automated to examine large data bases, is it very easy to miss important subtext or misrepresent statements altogether. Even if the words “supermarkets”, “cause”, and “global food waste problem” were to surface in close proximity in 30 different paragraphs, there is still no guarantee that we would find a strong link for a particular responsibility judgement. Below is another short list, this time of examples of responsibility links on sentence level: (4) What triggers “Link Behaviours/Actions”:

Prescriptions

and

Identity

Images:

i. A specific actor and a specific prescription are linked through necessary actions/behaviours. ii. Example: “Supermarkets should donate left-over food to food banks or shelters”. iii. Example: “Because consumers exhibit ‘irrational character traits’, they need to be better educated”. iv. Example: “State action should not interfere with the management of food supply chains”. 5. What triggers tions/Policies”:

“Link

Prescriptions

and

Event:

Regula-

i. A specific action/strategy is linked to a particular problem dimension of food waste through necessary regulations/policies. ii. Example: “Rising supermarket food waste prompts us to consider stricter sanctions for disposal”.

112

T. GUMBERT

iii. Example: “Overconsumption leads to food waste, therefore we need to change consumer habits”. iv. Example: “The inefficiency of the food system can only be remedied by better technological solutions”. (6) What triggers “Link Identity Images and Event: Effects/Causes”: i. A particular actor is linked to the production of waste and/or problems of the food system. ii. Example: “Because we are a throwaway society, so much food is wasted” (everyone is mentioned, hence consumers). iii. Example: “Because businesses care only about profits, they have no strong stance on preventing food waste”. iv. Example: “Political decision-makers are afraid that more decisive action on date labels would hamper economic growth or impact food supply”. After deciding upon coding rules for elements and links of responsibility, the study can hypothesize about how specific manifestations should be interpreted. For example, if links are established that dominantly connect actors to causes of food waste, opt for a voluntary approach to govern reductions, and describe reductions as a practice of rational actors who opt to gain more knowledge in order to reduce their own environmental impact, we find a strong indication for an understanding of responsibility as accountability. Similarly, the researcher may delineate possible manifestations of responsibility as precaution, responsibility as care, and so on.

Contextualizing and Interpreting Meanings of Responsibility Proceeding from a categorization of responsibility judgments, the data is finally interpreted using the theoretical approach and interest of the study. Here, the analysis is closer to discourse analytical approaches since the aim is to “[make] the social world more transparent by demonstrating how its elements interact” (Neumann, 2008, p. 76). The statements about and practices of responsibility convey socially produced meanings how responsible action becomes, or is in the process of being, institutionalized and normalized within environmental governance. The analysis may for example be concerned with the questions of how and why particular

5

RESPONSIBILITY AND INTERPRETIVE RESEARCH

113

options for governing an environmental problem emerge, which options are neglected, and which political rationalities are underlying these decisions. The interpretive task is therefore to illustrate the emergent patterns of meaning, which positions, varieties, and differentiations exist. The coded data already contains this information: under “events”, the dominant representations and problematizations (knowledge claims) are categorized, “prescriptions” lists policies and programmes that are indicative of the preferences that exist and how they are exercised by different actors (i.e., who is governed, in what way), and finally “identity images” captures how actors are viewed and represented within the discourse on a particular environmental issue. Therefore, while the links in the triangle model are used to reconstruct particular understandings of responsibility in a given context, the deeper analysis of the elements (or corners of the triangle) enables connecting responsibility to larger processes of governance and social constellations. While the triangle model of responsibility is used in this study to make the multiple meanings underlying responsibility judgments visible, the “interpretive access” of the material is rooted in the theoretical perspective the research applies: [.] In quantitative, empiricist research method and theory are also interconnected, but in a much more concealed, much less obvious, and easier to handle way. There, at least, one can have the illusion that one engages in “pure” method. In interpretive analysis, even this illusion is not available to the analyst. Interpretive inquiry without theory is like an airplane without lift. It never gets off the ground. (Wagenaar, 2011, p. 9)

In analysing responsibility in the context of environmental waste governance, the aim is to “reveal larger processes of governance, power and social change” (Shore & Wright, 2011, p. 1) that are shaping the field today. Particularly in emerging governance fields (such as food waste) where heterogeneous bodies of knowledge and norms (security, food safety, environmentalism, waste, poverty, productivity, efficiency etc.) continuously mix, the focus on emergent properties—“new social and semantic spaces, new sets of relations, new political subjects and new webs of meaning” (ibid., p. 1)—is of utmost importance. An interpretive approach to responsibility therefore aims to uncover alternative meanings that may reside with particular actors and, if institutionalized,

114

T. GUMBERT

may contribute to stronger, more sustainable policies and practices of environmental governance. It is further futile to define a central unit of analysis, i.e., the political setting or space the analysis is applied to. Political scientists are commonly interested in policies which also make for a good starting point when researching issues of environmental governance. In the context of interpretive research, they may be understood as “windows onto political processes in which actors, agents, concepts and technologies interact in different sites, creating or consolidating new rationalities of governance and regimes of knowledge and power” (ibid., p. 2). Policies do not only regulate particular problem areas, but at the same time spaces and subjects that are connected to them. It is therefore important to consider the discourses in which policies are embedded, since “policies reflect the rationality and assumptions prevalent at the time of their creation” (ibid., p. 3). They are not treated as an unproblematic given, but rather as something to be problematized. Within the process of designing and implementing policies, knowledge about the problem to be tackled (events), norms of accepted, required, or sanctioned conduct (prescriptions), and descriptions and evaluations of the relevant actors (identity images) are closely related. Therefore, meanings of responsibility are either strongly (through manifest occurrences) or weakly (through excuses or absences) embedded in policies by their very nature. The guiding questions for an interpretive study of policies can be summarized as: “what does policy mean in this context? What work does it do? Whose interests does it promote? What are its social effects? And how does the concept of policy relate to other concepts, norms, or institutions within a particular society?” (ibid., p. 8). These questions are equally relevant to the study of responsibility, since negotiating and formulating (or even strategically omitting) responsibilities is an integral part of policy practices. Beyond the selection of a central unit of analysis, the analytical levels where policy practices come into play have to be carefully chosen and separated from each other, even though they continuously intersect empirically. Environmental governance is always multidimensional. On the global level, it comprises the development of global regimes, summits, multistakeholder platforms, and measurement protocols. Such initiatives and networks provide governments with tools for measuring, calculating, and monitoring environmental issues on the national level. These are,

5

RESPONSIBILITY AND INTERPRETIVE RESEARCH

115

in turn, translated into policy suggestions on the micro level to motivate business practices or behaviour change on the level of the individual consumer. Because of the global nature of environmental risks, and because the practice of environmental responsibility remains difficult to achieve, different levels of action are constantly integrated to produce more meaningful engagement with the problems at hand. While the scope of environmental problems is usually global, the practical forms of responsibility can take unfold on the local level, mediated and facilitated by national governmental and non-governmental actors. Responsibility in environmental governance is thus seen as “situated on the junction between local and global networks” (Gill, 2012, p. 21). A responsibilityfocussed research design therefore needs to distinguish between these levels, either to focus on one dimension or to connect the global, the national, and the local dimension of responsibility in a given case study. It has been argued that responsibility attributions are always historically and culturally contingent, and therefore the research design has to confine the analysis to specific boundaries. These boundaries are determined, first of all, by the language proficiency and the cultural competence of the researcher. Interpretation, in an objective and discursive sense, as outlined above, relies on the analysis of latent structures of meaning as opposed to what is manifest in a text and therefore readily observable (SchwartzShea & Yanow, 2012; Wagenaar, 2011). Secondly, and equally important, analysing responsibility with the heuristic of the triangle model reconstructs meanings and attributions of responsibility in instances where the term itself is not even mentioned; the numeric occurrence of the term is not a solid indication for the existence of responsible attitudes and actions. This implies that the analysis relies on the systematization and interpretation of textual data using methods that can reveal latent meanings, such as discourse analytical and (selected) qualitative content analytical approaches. For these reasons, it is necessary to delimit the boundaries within the study of a particular field of environmental governance further (by country, by actor-network, etc.). Most importantly, the results in the form of most dominant (or surprisingly absent) links should be further contextualized and interpreted using the theoretical approach of the study (see Chapter 8). Within the context of doing interpretive research, it is also of utmost importance to think about meaningful ways of representing the coded data. To give an example from the case study in Chapters 6 and 7: The

116

T. GUMBERT

coding procedure has produced a wealth of empirical material. Distinguished according to governance level, 5584 codes have been applied to the analysis of the global context, 2764 to the national level, and 1112 to the local level. I have opted (for the most part) to not present any quantifications from the coded material for two main reasons: first, during the coding procedure, there were countless instances where elements (e.g., descriptions of identity images and individualized causes of the problem) could only be distinguished by context and the decisions made earlier on how to categorize ambiguous text elements. Clear coding rules, as recorded via coding memos, evolve through continued coding practice and the experience of the researcher of how the material should or must be read in the context of the study. Accordingly, it is sometimes more plausible to code a specific term under, say, prescriptions, and another time under identity images, solely based on context. In the end, the exact (in terms of quantified codings) placement of specific terms is less important than the fact that the dominant notions of responsibility present themselves clearly through the coding practice. The researcher has thus to be aware that representations of quantified codings ‘fix’ the elements and links of responsibility in a way that may be at odds with the epistemology underlying interpretive methodologies. This directly leads to a second problem: numbers lead us down a specific path and easily to wrong conclusions. For example, for the global level I have coded 192 links between prescriptions and event, 450 links between prescriptions and identity images, and 208 links between identity images and event. The numbers suggest that more than half of the links in the material are established between particular actors and prescriptions for action, with less attention to the ‘event’ (food waste) itself, and this ‘finding’ could of course be explained, but these numbers rather distort the material. Especially on the global level, there are long lists of reduction efforts that are applied to particular actors, and they are often repeated in the same document over and over again. But from the mere mentioning of these actors in connection to particular reduction efforts, we cannot derive the strength of this responsibility-link quantitatively. In other words, while the coding procedure provides an invaluable tool for systematizing the material, the assessment of which links of responsibility attributions present themselves as the most dominant is rather judged by ‘thick reading’ than by ‘quantification’. A thick reading uses different measures to determine the dominance of a particular link: it starts certainly with a number of mentions, but might also include text

5

RESPONSIBILITY AND INTERPRETIVE RESEARCH

117

position (e.g., introducing a paragraph or somewhere in parentheses) or wording (e.g., strong vs. weak adjectives).

Summary To sum up the above, the methodology proposed here is to study responsibility as part of grander historic and cultural narratives that materialize as policies and governance strategies with concrete aims and purposes and are subsequently being acted out and performed by various actors. In doing so, the analysis is prone to reveal larger processes of governance, power, and social change that shape societies beyond the scope of a particular policy field. The actors are faced with multiple demands and obligations as well as managing social relationships in the governance of a particular environmental problem, where meanings of responsibility and its attributions are fluid and always contingent (Williams, 2008).

References Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. (2003). Interpreting British governance. Routledge. Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. (2004). Interpreting British governance. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6(2), 130–136. Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science (Contemporary philosophy, Vol. 1). Blackwell. Frank, A. W. (2002). Why study people’s stories? The dialogical ethics of narrative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(1), 109–117. Fuller, S. (2017). Configuring climate responsibility in the city: Carbon footprints and climate justice in Hong Kong. Area, 49(4), 519–525. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press. Gerhards, J., Offerhaus, A., & Roose, J. (2009). Wer ist verantwortlich? Die Europäische Union, ihre Nationalstaaten und die massenmediale Attribution von Verantwortung für Erfolge und Misserfolge. In Politik in der Mediendemokratie (pp. 529–558). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Gill, F. (2012). Practicing environmental responsibility: Local and global dimensions. Social Responsibility Journal, 8, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/174 71111211196548 Graf, A. (2016). Diskursive Macht. Transnationale Unternehmen im Nachhaltigkeitsdiskurs. Baden-Baden. Hermann, M. G. (2008). Content analysis. In A. Klotz & D. Prakash (Eds.), Qualitative methods in international relations (pp. 151–167). Palgrave Macmillan.

118

T. GUMBERT

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage. Kuckartz, U. (2009). Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativer Daten (3rd ed., Lehrbuch). VS Verl. für Sozialwiss. Lohmeyer, N., & Schüßler, E. (2018). Rana Plaza as a threat to the fast fashion model? An analysis of institutional responses to the disaster in Germany. In Eco-friendly and fair (pp. 3–14). Routledge. Mayntz, R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 237–259. Neumann, I. B. (2008). Discourse analysis. In A. Klotz & D. Prakash (Eds.), Qualitative methods in international relations (pp. 61–77). Palgrave Macmillan. Osgood, C. E., Saporta, S., & Nunnally, J. C. (1956). Evaluative assertion analysis. Litera, 3, 47–102. Pfadenhauer, M. (2009). At eye level: The expert interview—A talk between expert and quasi-expert. In Interviewing experts (pp. 81–97). Palgrave Macmillan. Raffoul, F. (2010). The origins of responsibility (Studies in continental thought). Indiana University Press. Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.632 Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes (Routledge series on interpretive methods). Routledge. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2011). Conceptualizing policy: Technologies of governance and the politics of responsibility. In C. Shore, D. Però, & S. Wright (Eds.), Policy worlds: Anthropology and the analysis of contemporary power (pp. 1–25, EASA series, Vol. 14). Berghahn Books. Wagenaar, H. (2011). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Sharpe. Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis. Sage. Williams, G. (2008). Responsibility as a virtue. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 11, 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-008-9109-7 Zajak, S., & Henrichsen, T. (2019). Verantwortungszuschreibungen in transnationalen Feldern. In Netzwerke in gesellschaftlichen Feldern (pp. 145–169). Springer VS.

CHAPTER 6

Food Waste Governance—Introduction to the Case Study

Introduction Food waste governance constitutes an exemplary fitting case study for the analysis of responsibility in environmental governance. After a short introduction to the field of food waste governance, I will discuss the detailed research puzzle, the central research question, and hypotheses for the case study. While the case-specific research question mirrors the guiding question on responsibility research outlined in the introduction, it is more nuanced and contextualized through situating the concept of responsibility within the field of food waste governance. The generation of food waste constitutes a major concern for modern societies in social, economic, and ecological terms and calls political actors to immediate action (EC, 2010; WRI, 2013). Early studies estimated that approximately one third of the food produced globally goes to waste (FAO, 2011). A recent UNEP (2021) report suggested however that that number was today closer to 17% (of 1 billion tonnes in food production), which does not signify a giant leap in reducing global food waste but rather extremely poor data availability a decade ago. Even today, while the accuracy of consumer food waste data increases steadily, especially in high-income countries, there is still insufficient data available on retail and food service waste and hardly any reliable evidence of food waste in the production stage of the food system (ibid.).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 T. Gumbert, Responsibility in Environmental Governance, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13729-7_6

119

120

T. GUMBERT

In ecological terms, food waste does not only constitute a loss of edible material on a gigantic scale, but also the waste of resources needed to produce such quantities of food, such as water, energy, and arable land, as well as the production of greenhouse gas emissions (Grizzetti et al., 2013; Kummu et al., 2012; Melikoglu et al., 2013). Food waste on a global scale also coincides with the fact that, according to calculations by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), by the year 2030 approximately 840 million people will be suffering from hunger and malnutrition (FAO, 2020). Food waste has risen tremendously fast on political agendas around the globe since its initial recognition as a major social, economic, and ecological problem. The European Union had declared the year 2014 as the “European Year Against Waste” and the European Commission plans to reduce food waste by 50% by the year 2030 (European Parliament, 2017). The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the FAO have launched large-scale educational campaign to reduce food waste (“Think.Eat.Save.”) and are also actively engaged in supporting the “Global Food Loss and Waste Measurement Protocol”, launched in 2016, modelled after the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG), which is designed to enable states and other stakeholders to generate accurate data on national food wastage and to take appropriate measures (FLWP, 2016; WRI, 2013). In 2015, the reduction of food waste was included prominently as a subgoal among the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG goal 12.3 states: “By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.” (UN, 2015, p. 22). It is noteworthy, considering the broad and tentative character of the SDGs, that out of all sustainable consumption and production targets, the target on reducing food waste was the only one being quantified (albeit still broadly), and exclusively for retail and consumer levels, which can be read as a sign of a broad consensus that action is urgent, and goal achievement within the bounds of possibility. Concerning the selected policy and governance approaches to tackling the issue, a seemingly unambiguous consensus has developed among governments, international organizations, scientific bodies, and activists on how to best address the problem of food waste: gather knowledge and data about the sites of food waste production along the food chain, calculate the exact amount of food that is wasted, design mitigation strategies on the basis of that knowledge (which take into account the specific

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

121

conditions on the production, distribution and consumption levels), and create awareness for the issue as such among political actors, industry, and business, as well as the general populace (EC, 2010; FAO, 2011; Parfitt et al., 2010; WRI, 2013). The numerous approaches that are discussed and implemented to ‘tackle’ food waste largely describe concrete responsibilities for the business sector (along the different stages of food supply chains, manufacturing, processing, etc.) and individual consumers. Food waste is regularly described as a consequence of inefficient supply chains (e.g., spoilage due to lack of storage or cooling capacities), or irrational consumer conduct (e.g., buying too much food). Especially in terms of reducing food waste along supply chains, accountability mechanisms are seen as a best practice approach to motivate more responsible action on the side of private business actors (Champions 12.3, 2017b). Others have begun to question this focus on ‘individual’ or even sectorspecific responsibilities for reducing food waste by drawing attention to the systemic nature of its causes, i.e., the scale of the massive overproduction and overconsumption of food (Alexander et al., 2013; Cloke, 2013; Gille, 2013). These authors describe food waste resulting mainly from processes that lead to a massive oversupply of food on a global scale, such as market concentration (e.g., in the agricultural and biotech sectors), the commercial intensification of food production, or the growing influence of the retail sector throughout the food supply chain. While Alexander et al. (2017) demonstrate that “system losses from over-consumption of food are at least as substantial as the losses from food discarded by consumers” (198), it can be argued that consumer food waste is to a considerable degree a consequence of structural economic drivers, being fuelled by growth imperatives and competitive market requirements. Other systemic forms of food waste production concern global land use patterns (Alexander et al., 2013; Meier et al., 2014). The ever-increasing use of arable land for biofuel production and the cultivation of crops for animal feed would lead to diminishing quantities of food for the purpose of human consumption. For these reasons, Vulcano and Ciccarese (2018) define food waste in the following terms: In a food system, wastage is the part of production that exceeds dietary requirements and ecological capacities. […] Thus in addition to conventional wastage that produce waste, food wastage should include: "nonyields" and pre-harvest losses of edible products; industrial, energy and livestock uses of edible products; human overeating; nutritional quality

122

T. GUMBERT

losses; wastage of drinking water or of water that can be easily made drinkable. (11)

Further structural causes of food waste lie in ‘techno-regulatory’ waste. Technologies of food preservation, such as freeze-drying or vacuumpacking, lead to an increasing ability to store food in warehouses or at the household level which persuades food purchasers to store more food than they need and encourage an inefficient use of food products (Cloke, 2013, p. 630). The technological drive to produce safer food results also in numerous food safety regulations (sell-by dates, best-before dates, etc.) that prompt (i.e., legally oblige) actors to throw out food that is perfectly fit for human consumption (Stuart, 2009). This category also includes waste resulting from specific retail standards set by globally acting supermarkets and wholesalers, who use their buyer power to reject produce that does not have the right form, shape, or weight, thereby shifting the risks of food waste to food suppliers, often situated in the Global South (Feedback, 2015; Feedback, 2018; Gille, 2013). Additionally, in many cases, these actors contractually forbid growers to sell their produce in alternative markets, which results in even larger amounts of wasted produce (Stuart, 2009). The examination of the systemic nature of the problem constitutes food waste governance as an interesting case to study responsibility in environmental affairs. Food waste represents a prime example of negative side effects of diverse processes of production, distribution, and consumption in the global agrifood system on a gigantic scale, which no one explicitly intended. Waste is, almost by definition, an unintended consequence, and its negative effects must be addressed and managed collectively. The neglect of these structural constraints and systemic dimensions may lead to a perpetuation of the underlying dynamics, which could in turn intensify the problem, while widespread, highly visible individual reduction efforts are undertaken. This is, in a nutshell, what Beck (1986, 1988) calls “organization of irresponsibility” (see Chapter 2).

The Dynamics of Responsibility Attribution Responsibility constantly surfaces in discussions of food waste reduction and prevention. Responsibility to reduce waste is, on one side, regularly attributed to individual sectors (production, manufacturing, transport, etc.) or individual actors (large retailers, consumers, etc.). Although political and scientific discussions to curb food waste are not

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

123

limited to a particular segment of the food chain, and while various studies reassert the claim, “[that] [f]ood is wasted throughout the entire supply chain, not only during final consumption” (HLPE, 2014, p. 8), national initiatives in European countries have for the longest time targeted reductions on the consumption level, and thus the ‘wasteful’ behaviour of consumers (WRAP, 2008; EC, 2010; Mourad, 2015; Evans et al., 2017). For example, the UK-based Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a not-for-profit organization charged with the creation of a political agenda for the reduction of food waste, has for years concentrated on household food waste, focussing on measures such as educational campaigns and the management of post-consumer discards (Evans et al., 2013, 18), before extending their research and consulting to retailers and manufacturers. There is extensive research on how the individual consumer is constantly blamed for the causes of waste (Evans, 2011; Meah, 2014; O’Brien, 2013), and how the responsibility for reduction is shifted to the consumption stage. Even measures proposed throughout the supply chain, such as packaging and labelling, intersect with consumer habits and mirror “the more general tendency to position food waste as a consumer issue” (Evans et al., 2013, p. 19). Although food waste policy and science have started to shift gear during the last couple of years by extending their attention to the business side of food waste and the integration of production and consumption (Cattaneo et al., 2021; Ghosh & Eriksson, 2019; Jellil et al., 2018), the idea to ‘improve’ and rationalize the sphere of consumption remains a strong—if not the strongest—thread. Throughout the EU, but especially in the UK and in Germany, civil society campaigns (organized by ‘Feedback’ and ‘This is Rubbish’ in the UK, or the campaign ‘Leere Tonne’ in Germany) have tried to shift the blame back to business actors, especially supermarkets. They have demanded that these actors become ‘accountable’ by giving insights into their supply chains, publish data on the amount of food they waste, and campaigned for mandatory targets these actors should be made to comply with. Can responsibility in food waste governance then, especially in national contexts, be linked to the reciprocal attribution of blame? Is responsible action characterized by holding others to account? Do business actors and consumers constantly engage in ‘responsibilization’? There are, however, other developments that could be invoked to counter the claim that the use of responsibility in food waste governance would constitute a ‘blame game’. From the global or transnational arena,

124

T. GUMBERT

where stakeholders engage in negotiations on effective measurements and sector-specific targets, all the way down to the local level of small initiatives that engage in food waste reductions, a discourse of ‘shared’ or ‘distributed’ responsibility is discernible. In national strategies on food waste reduction (e.g., in Germany), the conviction that only ‘common efforts’ will help to reduce the problem, and that ‘everyone must do their fair share’ are very dominant and signal the willingness to facilitate collective actions (BMEL, 2019). At the same time, civil society initiatives cooperate with retailers to collect unsold food approaching the sell-by date (e.g., Foodsharing), and businesses start to donate food to charities and food banks. For example for the UK, Evans et al. (2017) describe the focus on the consumer as the “initial response” to the problem (from 2007–2013) (1402), and argue that during a “second wave” (from 2013–2015), due to supermarkets in the UK increasingly sharing some of the responsibility for the magnitude of wasted food, a sense of “distributed responsibility” emerged along with “’more nuanced ways of thinking about the consumer’” (ibid., 1406). However, the social figure of the consumer is still extensively being mobilized as a “rhetorical device to mediate relationships between strategic and collective actors” (ibid., p. 1407). Has, then, a notion of ‘shared’ responsibility superseded the strategy to ‘individualize’ responsibility? Or do they exist in parallel, and are being utilized by different actors, and to various degrees? Or do notions of ‘shared’ and ‘individualized’ responsibility overlap in certain aspects? Another strand of responsibility attributions questions the significance of both individualized and shared responsibility in this context. The global community has already reacted to the food waste dilemma: governance systems are emerging that encourage multi-stakeholder initiatives and public–private partnerships to cooperate within and across supply chains, design and finance new innovations, and include civil society actors and NGOs in their critical role to remind companies and governments of their commitments to set targets and measure food loss and waste (Flanagan et al., 2019; Matzembacher et al., 2021). Many actors, across all sectors of food supply chains, are willing to negotiate voluntary targets and subscribe to systems of monitoring. Through better information and measurements and better impact assessments, actors understand the extent to which their actions cause food loss and waste, and through coordination, learning, and sharing of best practices, this knowledge will diffuse throughout the system and lead to substantial reductions.

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

125

Is responsibility, then, predominantly understood as accountability, as be willing to answer to these challenges and mitigate negative consequences? How these different notions of responsibility in governing food waste have an influence on reductions, by motivating or discouraging responsible attitudes and actions, and in how far they resemble or deviate from established notions of responsibility, is an empirical question. Studying responsibility can contribute to the scholarship on food waste governance by delineating (1) if responsibility is in fact dominantly understood and applied in a specific sense, or if alternative concepts of responsibility guide (or are implicit) in governing food waste reductions, (2) if a particular understanding of responsibility is indeed problematic, e.g., if food waste governance tends to neglect systemic causes, and (3) if alternative institutions and policies, built on different concepts of responsibility, can potentially inform food waste governance in the future. The central research question that a responsibility-focussed research design addresses in relation to the empirical case is therefore: Which form does responsibility take in food waste governance? and how is responsibility connected to larger social, political and economic goals of governance?

Both questions are treated as intricately linked, because forms of responsibility only acquire meaning through their broader understanding and application in particular governance settings. By way of deriving ideal types from the observations of current governance efforts to reduce food waste, it can be hypothesized that food waste governance will exhibit trades of the following patterns, which function as starting hypotheses for the analysis: i. Individualized: Responsibility is shifted by relevant stakeholders to other actors, and reduction efforts will comprise mainly selected, individual contributions to overall reductions. ii. Shared: Responsibility is shared by all relevant stakeholders, who will work collectively towards future reduction efforts and develop strategies based on this understanding. iii. Accountable: Responsibility is understood and enacted as an effective means of holding actors who are willing to comply with negotiated standards and targets accountable to food waste reduction efforts.

126

T. GUMBERT

Scope of the Study In the case of food waste reduction, developing and negotiating governance efforts has become a global project. The knowledge production in the field of governing food waste is centrally organized through a few international institutions and bodies. International and supranational organizations, such as the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), or the European Commission (EC) have contributed to building a global knowledge pool to assess the causes and consequences of globally rising amounts of food waste. In close cooperation with and under the guidance of globally active think tanks, multi-stakeholder initiatives and research projects, such as the World Resources Institute (WRI), the Food Loss and Waste (FLW) Measurement Protocol, the FAO-led SAVE FOOD Initiative, the EU FUSIONS (Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Prevention Strategies) project, and a host of scientists from various fields, responsibility is defined, framed and operationalized in specific ways. National government institutions and bureaucracies rely on this knowledge produced by these ‘knowledge elites’ to adopt and implement best practice approaches to reducing food waste and craft policies on the basis of these assessments. Local actors, such as civil society organizations, business start-ups and small community associations, on the other hand, engage in reducing food waste by acquiring relevant information from different sources available to them: media reports, scientific studies, political campaigns, personal communication and the like. They, too, select particular reduction practices and reproduce justifications for individual and collective actions. It is, however, unclear how responsibility is understood, how it is attributed to self and others, which strategies are motivated and chosen, and which are neglected. Tracing the evolution of different types and functions of responsibility in a given governance context needs to be attentive to these dynamics between the global, the national, and the local (see Fig. 6.1). Focussing on only one of these levels will not result in an accurate description of how food waste is governed in modern societies. In relation to food waste governance, governments rely on legitimate knowledge on how to govern food waste, how food waste is defined and categorized, how to implement best practice approaches, what the dominant causes and consequences are; in short, how food waste is problematized as an object of governance. In order to trace the rationality

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

127

GLOBAL LEVEL: KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION FAO, UNEP, EU, CHAMPIONS 12.3

POLITICAL RATIONALITIES AND PROBLEMATIZATIONS

NATIONAL LEVEL: POLICY FORMULATION GERMANY AND UK

POLITICAL PRACTICES AND TECHNIQUES

LOCAL LEVEL: REACTIONS "SOCIAL INNOVATIONS"

SUPPORT OR RESISTANCE

Fig. 6.1 “Tracing” responsibility across levels of governance

of food waste governance in relation to meanings of responsibility, the global discourse and its effects on actors in the food system have to be studied. The guiding questions on global knowledge production can be summarized as: How is food waste problematized, what are the dominant causes and consequences, what thinking on the subject matter is produced? Is responsibility an issue? How is responsibility understood/framed? What type/form of responsibility is attributed to whom?

Political actors need to regulate waste, define limits and possible (re-)uses and think about legal requirements. Also, trade groups are lobbying on the national level to suggest best practices on how to use the amount of waste that is produced, or frame certain amounts as “necessary” because they cannot be avoided. On the national level, the study of policy practices invites the study of these ‘mundane programs’, which are selected, which are neglected, and which meanings of responsibility are actualized within the making of policy. A systematic analysis includes distinctive ways of thinking and questioning, relying on definite vocabularies and procedures for the production of truth; specific ways of acting, intervening, and directing (‘expertise’ and ‘know-how’), relying upon definite mechanisms, techniques, and technologies, and characteristic ways of forming subjects, selves, persons, actors, and agents (Dean, 2010). The guiding questions on national policy practices can be summarized as:

128

T. GUMBERT

How is this global knowledge translated in national contexts and moulded into concrete policy practices? How do national agencies act based on this knowledge? Which strategies are preferred, and for what reasons? Who should act/take on responsibility?

Local initiatives that are engaged in food waste reduction internalize specific social practices that provide solutions to collective problems and externalize these concepts and recipes for change through communicating via established channels such as social media, press releases, interviews in online newspapers, or, most commonly, through individual websites. Subjective meanings are thereby made intersubjectively available, widely distributed, and transferred into a public reservoir of knowledge, which can be, again, internalized by other actors. Recognizing the local in food waste governance informs the research design twice: with respect to the possible (side) effects of policies, and with respect to the potential contestedness of dominant meanings of responsibility. The guiding questions on local reactions to food waste governance can be summarized as: How do local actors respond to national initiatives? Is the discourse on food waste reproduced on the local level? Are there alternatives developed by local initiatives in contrast to the national policy agenda? Do initiatives take on responsibility? Or are they attributing responsibility to others?

Case Selection On the global level, the analysis aims to trace and systematize the political institutionalizations of food waste governance and its dominant knowledge claims. This concerns governance processes connected to the Sustainable Development Goals (in which the reduction of food waste is target 12.3), international organizations (FAO, UNEP), supranational organizations (the EU), scientific research institutions in the field of food policy, and multi-stakeholder dialogues charged with producing accurate data and negotiating best practices and approaches to governing food waste. On the national level, two countries are chosen to analyze how the global knowledge on food waste is put into (policy) practice: Germany and the United Kingdom. Both national cases fulfil the selection criteria provided by an interpretive methodology (see Chapter 5) but are also relevant for other reasons.

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

129

The cases of Germany and the United Kingdom (1) share a common regulatory context concerning European food safety regulations, consumer advocacy laws, and environmental standards. Many policy initiatives and rationalities of governance (and, thereby, inherent responsibility judgments) can therefore be related to each other more coherently. This favours the UK as a suitable “case within a case” over, for example, the United States. Another reason concerns the (2) national engagements with the problem of food waste. Among European countries, the UK has been a frontrunner in targeting food waste in food supply chains since 2005, even before the issue was officially addressed on EU policy agendas. Germany has followed suit, in that the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) has allocated resources to the issue of food waste specifically (e.g. personnel) and developed a national strategy to reduce food waste (BMEL, 2019). The issue has been debated in the German Bundestag (Deutscher Bundestag, 2011) and been addressed in the Coalition Treaty of the German government in 2018. Both the UK and Germany can therefore be considered, on the surface, as developing ‘responsible attitudes’ towards food waste reduction, more so than most other European countries. Since the governance of food waste is a relatively new field for policymakers, (3) policy implementation and data availability for national contexts is, comparatively in size and scope, severely limited. In both the German and the UK context, a range of national programmes has been initiated and policy tools have been selected to govern food waste effectively. A relevant number of textual materials is therefore available that ensures the applicability of the analysis of responsibility judgments. Setting boundaries for the national level also influences how the study of responsibility is conducted on the local level. The inquiry is concerned with local responses to the emerging dominant forms of food waste governance in national contexts.1 That is why collective actors, such as civil society organizations and small business enterprises, in Germany and the UK are at the centre of analysis. Various initiatives specifically established to ‘fight’ food waste, such as “Feeding the 5000” and “Gleaning Network UK” in the UK or the “Food sharing association” in Germany, are made up of committed citizens and political activists that want to improve society’s practices of handling food waste. In both national contexts, we find, 1 “Local” can include everything on the subnational level, i.e. actors with a regional as well as with a place-specific focus.

130

T. GUMBERT

however, many other local actors that develop approaches to tackling the issue, from small businesses processing leftover food, to food banks and neighbourhood organizations. These heterogeneous activities and how the involved actors understand and evaluate their and others’ responsibility for reducing food waste, i.e., how they think and what they do about the issue, must also be systematized in both countries. Within the design, both national contexts are not treated as a paired comparison, since the research puzzle is not concerned with similarities or differences across cases. Similarly, the distinction between “most likely cases” and “least likely cases” does not fit the scenario, because the aim is not to explain variations or engage in rigid theory testing. Following Klotz (2008), the case study logic applied in this study can be best described as a “plausibility probe” (ibid., 51) to see if meta-theoretical arguments about the constitutive causality of responsibility judgments can be translated to empirical research. Looking at two national ‘cases’ within the governance of food waste case enriches the analysis by enhancing its validity. It also addresses the possible critique that conclusions drawn from the interpretive analysis can only be applied to governing food waste in Germany, or the UK, respectively.

Data Selection The application of the triangle model of responsibility for empirical purposes requires the compilation of different data sets on every level of analysis. The selection criteria for the global, national, and local level are discussed in order. On the global level, the study is interested in the meanings of responsibility conveyed by international and supranational organizations in their analysis of the food waste problem. Through the collection of various materials, primarily official studies, supplemented by policy briefs and media releases, the study aims to analyze the dominant lines of argument concerning problem definitions of and solution strategies to food waste as produced by these actors and in what way they can be seen to be indicative of larger processes of political rationalities and techniques of governance. To identify relevant documents and assess the appropriate size of the text corpus, the approach of sampling through reference networks has been applied. These are understood as “canonical texts” or “monuments” that contain the dominant representations of the policy or governance issue (Neumann, 2008, p. 67). First, all major studies on global food waste

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

131

published by international and national organizations from 2007–2018 were compiled in a data basis. Second, the references used in each study were cross-referenced and counted to determine the quantity of citations for each study. The ten most cited studies within this larger sample were considered ‘canon’ among the publishers. To control for the fact that older studies will automatically be cited more frequently, the text corpus was enlarged by highly visible studies dating from the years 2015–2018. All in all, the text sample is comprised of 10 studies on global food waste, numbering in total approximately 1500 pages that were coded manually (more on the coding procedure to follow). On the national level(s), the analysis focuses on the concrete policy tools and instruments that have been debated and implemented in both Germany and the UK. The interpretive framework is interested in how the knowledge of food waste becomes effectively put into practice and how responsibility is understood and constituted. The text corpus is comprised of policy documents, national programmes and action plans and documents from state-led initiatives published from 2007–2018. In the case of Germany, these include predominantly documents published by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL), as well as studies commissioned by the BMEL. In the UK, these activities are mainly organized by the government-funded Waste & Resources Action programme (WRAP), created in the year 2000. Other public actors that define the debate in the UK are the House of Commons, which commissioned studies of food waste and influences the political agenda, and especially the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which oversees policy decisions. On the local level, the challenge is to generate a large sample of initiatives and particular reactions to the food waste problem in order not to be biassed towards specific groups. In this regard, the analysis builds on the work of the FUSIONS (Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Prevention Strategies) project, funded by the EU in 2013–2016, which aimed to establish a European multi-stakeholder platform to harmonize food waste monitoring and guidelines for food security to develop a common European food waste policy. An important contribution of the project was to determine the potential of social innovations to prevent food waste in national contexts. The FUSIONS database of social innovation projects in the EU thus serves as an opportunity to limit the number of initiatives for the analysis. A total of 108 projects from 17 European countries are listed with a short description

132

T. GUMBERT

and the reference to the respective Internet presence. The initiatives are divided into four segments along the logic of food supply chains: Farming (8), Processing (8), Retail (40), and Household (52). The disproportionate focus of innovation projects on the commercial and household level (thus the interface of purchasing decisions and everyday behavior) indicates the importance of consumption as an object of social innovation in the food waste sector, based on these figures. Apart from France, the UK (44) and Germany (10) are among the countries with the most listed initiatives. The data set of initiatives was updated to include actors that were active up until 2018. To even out the numbers within cases, more initiatives for Germany were researched and added through the platform “lebensmittelwertschätzen.de”, operated by the BMEL, which lists societal activities on food waste reductions across Germany. Excluded from both lists were initiatives that were either initiated by Federal Ministeries, Ministeries of the German Länder, research institutions, national associations (e.g., Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung, etc.), or large businesses of the food industry (Nestlé, Penny, etc.). The final data set includes 30 initiatives from the UK and 30 from Germany. For the textual analysis, several documents were combined in a single text corpus, including homepage presentations, press releases, and interviews with online media representatives that describe the individual reduction practices as well as the reasons for engaging with the food waste problem. Through the collection of very heterogeneous initiatives and diverse textual sources in which the elements of prescriptions, events, and identity images are identified, a broad representation of responsibility judgments across these initiatives is ensured.

Background: The Global Arena Food waste had been discussed as an international governance issue for some years before it finally showed up on political agendas. In 2010, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) commissioned the first global study on food losses and food waste in order to assess its extend, possible causes, and potential prevention strategies (FAO, 2011). Since then, the FAO has organized and steered a range of different forums on global food loss and food waste reduction, such as the SAVE FOOD initiative (a collaboration with donors, bi- and multi-lateral agencies, financial institutions, and private sector companies from the

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

133

food packaging industry), the Technical Platform on the Measurement and Reduction of Food Losses and Waste (which specializes in indicator development), the Community of Practice on Food Loss and Waste Reduction (which focuses on post-harvest management and actors from the Global South), and the Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (including the High Level Panel of Experts meetings) (FAO, 2011; HLPE, 2014). The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) soon followed suit by evaluating the potential of food waste mitigation to contribute to sustainable food systems (UNEP, 2014). UNEP also partnered with the FAO, WRAP, and others to launch the ‘Think, Eat, Save’ campaign, designed to change the ‘culture’ of food waste, in 2013, and additionally partnered with WRAP to conduct more in-depth studies on food waste (UNEP, 2014). WRAP has been instrumental not just in advancing the food waste agenda in the UK, but also on the international level. WRAP had a significant time advantage in building and consolidating their expertise on the matter (the organization was established in the year 2000, largely in response to the European Council’s Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC), because the focus on food waste policy and its implementation developed in the UK approximately 5–10 years earlier than in other national contexts. Their publications and reports have been cited by almost every organization that subsequently addressed the issue of food waste, which led to WRAP being an influential stakeholder in most global initiatives and forums. Another important actor in facilitating global action on food waste is the World Resources Institute (WRI) based in Washington D.C. The WRI partnered with the FAO, UNEP, WRAP, and others to launch the Global Food Loss & Waste Protocol as a waste accounting and reporting standard in 2013, which was released in 2016. These international developments were finally widely recognized when the issue of food loss and waste was included as a specific target within the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015. Target 12.3 states: “By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.” Shortly after the target was adopted, the WRI organized the ‘Champions 12.3’ coalition of executives from governments, businesses, international organizations, research institutions, farmer groups, and civil society organizations, a process called for by the government of the Netherlands during the United Nations General Assembly’s Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015. The coalition aims to create more awareness

134

T. GUMBERT

for food waste across all stakeholders, to expand the growing network of actors, and to call upon them to develop policy recommendations and implement solutions to jointly reach SDG 12.3 by 2030. Apart from this more and more streamlined formation of a networked multi-stakeholder governance structure, other international organizations have also engaged with the topic. For example, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched its Food Chain Analysis Network (FCAN) in 2010 to take stock of existing policies and develop evidence-based policy recommendations, also in relation to food waste (Bagherzadeh et al., 2014). The World Bank has recently published its own reports that deal with the food waste problem and joined the “global call to action” by setting up a sustainable development bond to “raise awareness for the importance of combating food loss and waste” (World Bank, 2020). In less than 10 years, food waste has become a central and widely acknowledged issue of political debate relating to the global agrifood system, as evidenced by the International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI) increased discussion of food waste in their ‘Global Food Policy Report’ (e.g., IFPRI, 2018). Similarly, the FAO’s annual ‘The State of Food Insecurity in the World’ report began to link the issue of food loss and waste to issues of food insecurity in 2011, which indicates the spread of the topic across different bodies of food policy (FAO, 2011b). The European Union, more precisely legislation pushed by European Parliament and The European Commission, has also been a central driver in advancing the global food waste agenda. Starting with preliminary studies to evaluate and compare food waste generation across Member States, the EU’s aim to harmonize and support more effective regulation of food waste has produced a wealth of legal definitions and policy recommendations (EC 2010) and facilitated knowledge production on food waste to a large extent. The EU-funded FUSIONS (Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Prevention Strategies) project (2012– 2016) has brought together stakeholders of all sectors from 13 countries; more than 200 European organizations have pledged their support (e.g., FUSIONS, 2014, 2016). The follow-up project REFRESH (Resource Efficient Food and Drink for the Entire Supply Chain) (2015–2019) has built on this network and expanded it even further (e.g., REFRESH, 2018). The publications and recommendations produced by these experts have found their way into almost every policy setting on the global level as well as in many European countries.

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

135

Around the same time, food waste also develops as a cause for concern within waste policy more generally. The International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), the European Environment Agency, or UNEP’s ‘Global Waste Management Outlook’ have, among many others, started to view food waste as a resource within the general discourse on establishing a circular economy (ISWA, 2017; EEA, 2015; UNEP, 2015). In the EU, food waste is now primarily addressed in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) (EC, 2015, Proposal for a Directive Amending Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste). Herein, different sources of waste are defined as well as the corresponding aims and prescriptions of political regulation, waste management (how to handle objects labelled as waste), and waste prevention (what to do in order to prevent objects from becoming waste). EU law on waste requires Member States to “regulate those who produce, hold, transport, broker and treat waste for commercial purposes” (Bradshaw, 2018, p. 10), i.e., it provides the framework for actors’ legal liability in relation to waste. The so-called waste hierarchy model, which stems from the international approach of ‘Integrated Solid Waste Management’ (ISWM), defines preferred (prevention and reduction of waste) and less preferred (recycling, recovery, and disposal) waste governance strategies along a five-stage hierarchical model (UNEP, 2011, p. 294, also Hultman & Corvellec, 2012; Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). In the EU, all Member States are legally required to apply the waste hierarchy as a normative model to rank and evaluate governance options (EC, 2015, p. 4). In sum, food waste has made a significant climb on governance agendas since 2010. As a special regulatory object, it is placed, at times somewhat uncomfortably, between the governing logics of food policy (food security, food safety, food poverty, etc.) and waste policy (waste management, recycling, disposal, etc.). This overview also goes to show that food waste governance cannot be adequately and comprehensively understood solely within one of these policy fields, and that regulatory tensions are inevitable. For example, although the global community of experts has produced a wide range of definitional differentiations (e.g., between food loss and food waste, food waste and food surplus, avoidable and unavoidable, edible and inedible, etc.), there is still no commonly accepted definition of food waste across all levels (Bradshaw, 2018; Priestley, 2016). Food waste must rather be seen as an ‘indeterminate object’ (Alexander et al., 2013; Lepawsky, 2018), which is subject to different meanings that are attached to it, gets connected to various thematic fields and discourses,

136

T. GUMBERT

and, in turn, produces different ideas and beliefs of how to regulate it most effectively. In this context, there is reason to believe that individual assessments of causes, preferred solutions, and most relevant actors also differ to a considerable degree, which raises the question of the significance and weight of responsibility attributions and of how they are applied within food waste governance.

Background: Food Waste Policy in Germany In the political context, food waste first appears in Germany in 2011, when the Social Democratic Party (SPD, at the time the leading opposition party) supplied a motion to the German Bundestag calling for the development of a national strategy to reduce food waste (Deutscher Bundestag, 2011). It mentions the rising public awareness for the issue in Germany, for example through the documentary “Frisch auf den Müll” (Fresh in the garbage) by filmmaker Valentin Thurn, as a reason for necessary political engagement. In the years from 2012 onwards, a range of different initiatives was established, such as multiple ministry-level stakeholder forums, cross-party debates on date labelling in reaction to the increasing publicity of the issue, and a flagship national campaign (“Zu gut für die Tonne”; “Too good for the bin”) produced by the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, BMEL). In 2017, the reduction of food losses was adopted as a key area of action in the Federal Government’s “National Programme for Sustainable Consumption” (BMUB, 2017). The Bundesrat (German Federal Council) called on the Federal Government in the same year to draft a legislative initiative to reduce food losses in Germany (Bundesrat, 2017). Only by early 2019 were these diverse efforts tied together in form of the ‘German National Strategy to Reduce Food Waste’ (BMEL, 2019). The strategy constitutes the first comprehensive official statement concerning German reduction efforts. It explicitly situates the strategy within food waste policy guidelines of the European Commission (especially the European circular economy initiative) and the global Sustainable Development Goals (BMEL, 2019, p. 5). Central political actors in its development and implementation are the BMEL, the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, BMU), and the Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA). The

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

137

BMEL coordinates legislation and action on food waste reduction and has created a specific department focussing on ‘sustainable diets and food waste reduction’ (“Referat 216”). Further, the ‘Bund-LänderCommittee’ acts as a steering instrument to harmonize national food waste actions with the German Länder and is in charge of evaluating the implementation process (ibid., 12). The working group ‘Indicator SDG 12.3’ consists of representatives of the BMEL, the BMU, the UBA, the Thünen-Institute (TI) as well as of the Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt, Destatis). The working group develops measurements in accordance with consultations on the EU level, reports on progress related to the national strategy, and advises sector-specific dialogue forums that are in the process of formation. These forums are differentiated according to the food supply chain: the forum on primary production, the forum on manufacturing, the forum on wholesale and retail, the forum on out-of-home-catering and the forum on private households are all established to draw in relevant stakeholders and facilitate debate on food waste reductions in their respective sectors. Participation is on a voluntary basis and possible reduction targets are subject to self-regulation within these forums. They are expected to report on progresses made in the context of the national dialogue forum once a year (ibid.). Other relevant actors in the German debate include the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Slow Food, and the association ‘United Against Waste’. The WWF has published its own studies on food waste in Germany that attracted broad national attention (WWF, ). Slow Food is among the earliest actors to publicly address food waste in Germany, especially through their “Teller statt Tonne” (“Plate instead of Bin”) campaign, which started in 2010. ‘United Against Waste’, finally, is an association for businesses (caterers, restaurants, schools etc.) and industry actors that provides tools for measurement and a broad network of contacts across the food industry.

Background: Food Waste Policy in the United Kingdom The UK is perceived internationally as a world leader in food waste interventions (Bloom, 2010). Much of this praise is attributed to the work of the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), which is the central actor in coordinating and facilitating food waste reductions in the UK. Established in the year 2000 as a company limited by guarantee, it

138

T. GUMBERT

is today also a registered charity that works with businesses and communities to reduce waste by developing sustainable products and efficient resource use strategies. The organization claims that between 2010 and 2015, WRAP’s initiatives have contributed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in England by nearly 50 million tonnes (Mt). It receives funding from (among others) the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) as well as from the European Union. Among its most visible contributions to food waste reduction are the development of the consumer campaign ‘Love Food, Hate Waste’ in 2007 and the organization of the ‘Courtauld Commitment’, a voluntary agreement scheme in the UK to reduce food, packaging, and supply chain waste that includes food and drink organizations such as Tesco, Sainsburys, Nestlé, and Unilever. After initiating the ‘Courtauld Commitment’ in 2005, it has been updated with new targets in 2010 and then again in 2016, launching the ‘Courtauld Commitment 2025’ as a 10 year producer-toconsumer voluntary agreement. WRAP’s first major study “The food we waste report” (WRAP, 2008) has been a guideline for many subsequent studies on food waste, especially in the international context. The reduction of food waste is politically administered by the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). In 2009, DEFRA announced the UK Government’s ‘War on Waste’, broadening the policy focus on food waste reduction beyond WRAP’s public campaign and voluntary business agreements to address the reform of date labels, packaging sizes, and the construction of anaerobic digestion plants. In the government’s new ‘Resources and Waste Strategy’, published in December 2018, the food waste policy focus has been updated to present a comprehensive plan for government action. Other notable sources for data and policy recommendations are the Government Office for Science (GOS), and reports by the House of Commons’ Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (including Government’s responses) (GOS, 2017; HoC, 2017). According to numbers published by DEFRA, the UK wastes approximately 10 million tonnes of food waste every year post-farm gate (i.e. excluding production losses), arguing that the avoidable part amounts to 60% (DEFRA, 2017, p. 45). Households are said to contribute to this figure by 70% (or 75.2 kg per capita per year), manufacturing by 17%, the hospitality and food service sector by 9%, and retail by 2% (ibid.). All of this officially published data is provided by WRAP.

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

139

Background: The Local Contexts in both Countries As already discussed in the chapter on the methodological approach, the analysis of local contexts is largely based on initiatives compiled in FUSIONS’ Social Innovations database (see FUSIONS, 2016). I therefore use their terminology of “social innovations” to describe a myriad of different non-governmental organizations (NGOs), groups, and initiatives that exceed any particular, more narrow definition, such as ‘NGOs’, ‘CSOs’ (civil society organizations), or grassroots movements. Action on food waste reduction on the local level in Germany and the UK ranges from for-profit schemes (shops that resell edible food) to new business models (e.g., food app developers), all the way to charitable food redistribution organizations (e.g., food banks, or ‘Tafeln’ in Germany) (for a categorization of the reduction practices studied). Since what these social innovations have chosen to do in regard to food waste reductions (from a variety of possible commitments), is read here as a particular statement on best efforts and best practices, it has to be emphasized that the corresponding initiatives do not necessarily engage in one particular reduction measure. Just as pilot projects that initially focus on raising awareness may include the cultivation and setting up of neighbourhood sharing networks as part of their strategy, running a food waste café may include elements of awareness-raising (through information provision) and networking (as a space for meeting like-minded people). Therefore, while many initiatives prioritize a particular solution and present it as a best practice approach in relation to the food waste problem (e.g. programming digital apps), some participate in a whole range of very diverse social practices (e.g. Feedback UK), which signifies the interconnectivity of social innovation approaches. The coding system is however able to incorporate this diversity, since the links of responsibility attributions summarize patterns that transcend the work of individual initiatives. A question that needs to be addressed in this context is to what extent social innovations can be depicted as a ‘movement’, since the boundaries as well as the identities of these actors are extremely heterogeneous. Social movements can generally be described as formally or informally organized mobilizations of non-professional activists, whose connections can be either loose or stable (Price et al., 2014). Many media reports already describe various initiatives and organizations working to reduce

140

T. GUMBERT

food waste as being part of a “movement that takes on the inefficiency, unfairness, and lack of sustainability in our food systems by implementing innovative solutions” (Parente, 2016), or state that “a number of movements aimed at combating waste have sprung up” (Borowiec et al., 2014), such as the ‘dumpster diving movement’ (saving wasted food from supermarket bins) or the ‘ugly produce movement’ (promoting aesthetically blemished food). And yet, there are often no apparent links between these groups, other than their shared interest in saving as much food as possible from ending up in landfills or incinerators. Some actors, such as the non-governmental organization ‘Stop Wasting Food’ located in Denmark, describe themselves as ‘being a movement’ to motivate more and more people to reduce food waste, which further blurs the line of the movement character of the actors in this field. However, despite the varied use of the term, the UK-based organization ‘Feedback’, founded by the well-known activist Tristram Stuart, can be identified as the hub of a growing anti-food waste movement. It has called on other organizations and groups to “join our movement to build a better food system” (Feedback, 2019a) and engaged with actors in different countries: “[..] we brought our flagship campaign Feeding the 5000 to America, catalyzing the US food waste movement and sparking a desire to change the broken food system.” (Feedback, 2019b). The organization publicly pressures business actors to reduce their waste, but also works cooperatively with numerous actors of the food system to find common solutions, helps with networking between groups, and explicitly acts politically (through lobbying and online petitions), entrepreneurial (recycling food leftovers) and in terms of awareness-raising (organization of major cooking events in cities around the world) on the issue of food waste. By doing so, Feedback provides shared conceptual maps, or frames, that produce common perceptions and emotions that can be taken up by other groups who thereby connect their own conduct and worldview to a larger context (Eder, 2015, p. 38; see also Benford & Snow, 2000). If we take the potential to create spaces “where dialogue between institutions, organizations, and activists with different identities can take place in a way that does not become reduced to economic instrumentalism” (Price et al., 2014, p. 166) to be a central aspect of social movements (especially in relation to environmental concerns), then talk of a transnational food waste movement that includes some of the social innovations discussed here is indeed legitimate.

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

141

References Alexander, C., Gregson, N., & Gille, Z. (2013). Food waste. In A. Murcott, W. J. Belasco, P. Jackson & S. W. Mintz (Eds.), The handbook of food research. Bloomsbury. Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Finnigan, J., Moran, D., & Rounsevell, M. D. (2017). Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global food system. Agricultural Systems, 153, 190–200. Bagherzadeh, M., Inamura, M., & Jeong, H. (2014). Food WASTE along the food chain. OECD food, agriculture and fisheries papers, No. 71, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxrcmftzj36-en Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne (Edition Suhrkamp). Suhrkamp. Beck, U. (1988). Gegengifte: Die organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit. Suhrkamp. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639. Bloom, J. (2010). American wasteland: How America throws away nearly half of its food (and what we can do about it). Da Capo Lifelong Books. Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL). (2019). Nationale Strategie zur Reduzierung der Nahrungsmittelverschwendung. Berlin. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB). (2017). Nationales Programm für nachhaltigen Konsum: Gesellschaftlicher Wandel durch einen nachhaltigen Lebensstil. Berlin. Borowiec, S., Gumbel, A., & Orange, R. (2014, Thursday 27 March). Food waste around the world. The Guardian. Online: https://www.theguardian. com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/27/food-waste-around-world Bradshaw, C. J. (2018). Waste law and the value of food. Journal of Environmental Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqy009 Bundesrat. (2017). Entschließung des Bundesrates—Lebensmittelverluste in Deutschland verringern: Drucksache 180/17 . Canali, M. (Ed.). (2014). Drivers of current food waste generation, threats of future increase and opportunities for reduction. Fusions. Cited as “FUSIONS 2014”. Cattaneo, A., Sánchez, M. V., Torero, M., & Vos, R. (2021). Reducing food loss and waste: Five challenges for policy and research. Food Policy, 98, 101974. Cloke, J. (2013). Empires of waste and the food security meme. Geography Compass, 7 , 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12068 Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. SAGE. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2017). Digest of waste and resource statistics—2017 Edition. PB14454. DEFRA. Deutscher Bundestag. (2011). Antrag der Fraktion der SPD. Strategie gegen Lebensmittelverschwendung entwicklen: Drucksache 17/7458.

142

T. GUMBERT

European Commission (EC). (2010). Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27: Final Report/Technical Report—2010–054. European Commission (EC). (2015). Closing the loop—An EU action plan for the circular economy. COM (2015) 614 final. Eder, K. (2015). Social movements in social theory. In D. Della Porta & M. Diani (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social movements (pp. 31–49). Oxford University Press. European Environment Agency (EEA). (2015). Prevention of hazardous waste in Europe—The status in 2015. Publications Office of the European Union. European Parliament (EP). (2017). Waste: Boost recycling, cut landfilling and curb food waste, say MEPs (Press release. Reference No:20170123IPR59605). Evans, D. (2011). Blaming the Consumer—once again: The social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health, 21(4), 429–440. Evans, D., Campbell, H., & Murcott, A. (2013). A brief pre-history of food waste and the social sciences. In D. Evans, H. Campbell & A. Murcott (Eds.), Waste matters: New perspectives of food and society (pp. 5–26, Sociological review monograph, vol. 60). Wiley-Blackwell. Evans, D., Welch, D., & Swaffield, J. (2017). Constructing and mobilizing ‘the consumer’: Responsibility, consumption and the politics of sustainability. Environment and Planning a: Economy and Space, 49, 1396–1412. https://doi. org/10.1177/0308518X17694030 Flanagan, K., Robertson, K. A. I., & Hanson, C. (2019). Reducing food loss and waste: Setting a global action agenda. Feedback. (2015). Food waste in Kenya. Uncovering food waste in the horticultural export supply chain. Feedback. Feedback. (2018). Farmers Talk Food Waste. Supermarkets’ role in crop waste on UK farms. Feedback. Feedback. (2019a). https://feedbackglobal.org/campaigns/feeding-the-5000. Feedback. (2019b). https://feedbackglobal.org/campaigns/gleaning-network. Food and Agricultural Organization & others (2011). The state of food insecurity in the world 2011. How does international price volatility affect domestic economies and food security? FAO. Cited as “FAO 2011b”. Food and Agricultural Organization & others (2020). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. FAO. Food Loss and Waste (FLW) Protocol. (2016). Accounting and reporting standard FLW protocol 2016. Washington, DC. Cited as “FLWP 2016”. FUSIONS (Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising Waste Prevention Strategies). (2016). The inventory of social innovation projects. Online: https://www.eu-fusions.org/index.php/social-innovations/social-inn ovation-inventory/213-sii-european-map.

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

143

Gille, Z. (2013). From risk to waste: Global food waste regimes. The Sociological Review, 60, 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12036 Ghosh, R., & Eriksson, M. (2019). Food waste due to retail power in supply chains: Evidence from Sweden. Global Food Security, 20, 1–8. Government Office for Science. (2017). Food waste: A response to the policy challenge. Government Office for Science. Cited as “GOS 2017”. Grizzetti, B., Pretato, U., Lassaletta, L., Billen, G., & Garnier, J. (2013). The contribution of food waste to global and European nitrogen pollution. Environmental Science & Policy, 33, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci. 2013.05.013 Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome. Cited as “FAO 2011”. House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. (2017). Food waste in England: Eighth Report of Session 2016–17 . cited as “House of Commons 2017a” (House of Commons papers, session 2016/17, HC 429). Dandy Booksellers Ltd. Hultman, J., & Corvellec, H. (2012). The European waste hierarchy: From the sociomateriality of waste to a politics of consumption. Environment and Planning a: Economy and Space, 44, 2413–2427. https://doi.org/10.1068/ a44668 IFPRI, I. (2018). Global food policy report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 10, 9780896292970. ISWA—The International Solid Waste Association. (2013). Food waste as a global issue—From the perspective of municipal solid waste management; Key Issue Paper. Jellil, A., Woolley, E., & Rahimifard, S. (2018). Towards integrating production and consumption to reduce consumer food waste in developed countries. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 11(5), 294–306. Klotz, A. (2008). Case selection. In A. Klotz & D. Prakash (Eds.), Qualitative methods in international relations (pp. 43–58). Palgrave Macmillan. Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. The Science of the Total Environment, 438, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2012.08.092 Lepawsky, J. (2018). Reassembling rubbish: Worlding electronic waste. The MIT Press. Lipinski, B. e. a. (2013). Reducing food loss and waste: Working paper, Installment 2 of creating a sustainable food future. Cited as “WRI 2013”.

144

T. GUMBERT

Lipinski, B. et al. (2017). SDG target 12.3 on food loss and waste: 2017 Progress report: An annual update on behalf of Champions 12.3. Cited as “Champions 12.3 2017b”. Matzembacher, D. E., Vieira, L. M., & de Barcellos, M. D. (2021). An analysis of multi-stakeholder initiatives to reduce food loss and waste in an emerging country–Brazil. Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 591–604. Meah, A. (2014). Still blaming the consumer? Geographies of responsibility in domestic food safety practices. Critical Public Health, 24, 88–103. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2013.791387 Mehta, L., Cordeiro-Netto, O., Oweis, T., Ringler, C., Schreiner, B., & Varghese, S. (2014). High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) Project Team for the report on Water and Food Security. Rome 2014. Cited as “HLPE 2014”. Meier, T., Christen, O., Semler, E., Jahreis, G., Voget-Kleschin, L., Schrode, A., et al. (2014). Balancing virtual land imports by a shift in the diet. Using a land balance approach to assess the sustainability of food consumption Germany as an example. Appetite, 74, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013. 11.006 Melikoglu, M., Lin, C., & Webb, C. (2013). Analysing global food waste problem: Pinpointing the facts and estimating the energy content. Central European Journal of Engineering, 3, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13 531-012-0058-5 Moomaw, W., & Barthel, M. (2012). The critical role of global food consumption patterns in achieving sustainable food systems and food for all. A UNEP discussion paper. Cited as “UNEP 2012”. Mourad, M. (2015). Thinking outside the bin: Is there a better way to fight “food waste?” Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 59, 26–33. Neumann, I. B. (2008). Discourse Analysis. In A. Klotz & D. Prakash (Eds.), Qualitative methods in international relations (pp. 61–77). Palgrave Macmillan UK. O’Brien, M. (2013). Consumers, waste and the ‘throwaway society’ thesis: Some observations on the evidence. International Journal of Applied Sociology, 3(2), 19–27. Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., & bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 106–115. Parente, D. (2016). Fighting food waste, one small battle at a time. Online: https://www.madfeed.co/2016/fighting-food-waste-one-small-battle-at-atime Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 365, 3065–3081.

6

FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE—INTRODUCTION …

145

Price, S., Saunders, C., & Olcese, C. (2014). Movements. In C. Death (Ed.), Critical environmental politics (pp. 165–174, Interventions). Routledge. Priestley, S. (2016). Food waste: House of commons library briefing paper Number CBP07552 (CBP07552, 30.). Sethi, G., Bedregal, L. P. A., Cassou, E., Constantino, L., Hou, X., Jain, S., ... & Kneller, C. (2020). Addressing food loss and waste: A global problem with local solutions. Washington, D.C. Cited as “World Bank 2020”. Stuart, T. (2009). Waste: Uncovering the global food scandal (1st ed.). W.W. Norton & Co. United Nations (UN). (2015/2015). United Nations General Assembly Resolution 70/1: Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. UNEP. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). (2014). Prevention and reduction of food and drink waste in businesses and households—Guidance for governments, local authorities, businesses and other organisations, Version 1.0. Vittuari, M. e. a. (2016). D3.5 guidelines for a European common policy framework on food waste prevention. Bologna. Cited as “Fusions 2016”. Vulcano, G., & Ciccarese L. (2018). Food wastage: A systemic approach for structural prevention and reduction. ISPRA—Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Rapporti 279/2018, ISBN 978–88–448–0882–2, p. 364. Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2008). The food we waste: Food waste report. Banbury. Cited as “WRAP 2008”. Wilson, D. C., Rodic, L., Modak, P., Soos, R., Carpintero, A., Velis, K., ... & Simonett, O. (2015). Global waste management outlook. UNEP. Cited as “UNEP 2015”. World Wide Fund Deutschland (WWF). (2012). Klimawandel auf dem Teller. Berlin. World Wide Fund Deutschland (WWF). (2015). Das grosse Wegschmeissen. Vom Acker bis zum Verbraucher: Ausmaß und Umwelteffekte der Lebensmittelverschwendung in Deutschland. Berlin. World Wide Fund Deutschland (WWF). (2018). Lebensmittelverschwendung. Was tut die Politik?: Ein Blick auf die Bundesländer. Berlin. Wunder, S. e. a. (2018). Food waste prevention and valorisation: Relevant EU policy areas D3.3 Review of EU policy areas with relevant impact on food waste prevention and valorization. Cited as “Refresh 2018”. Zhongming, Z., Linong, L., Xiaona, Y., Wangqiang, Z., & Wei, L. (2021). UNEP food waste index report 2021. Cited as “UNEP 2021”.

CHAPTER 7

Tracing the Meanings of Responsibility in Food Waste Governance

Introduction As stated earlier, the triangle model of responsibility proposes that in order for responsibility to manifest in written materials, the links between prescriptions and event, prescriptions and identity images, as well as event and identity images have to be visible and need to be acknowledged. Contrary to tracking responsibility via subjective meanings (e.g., through interviewing stakeholders), the analysis of objective meanings is interested in the dominant links across individual utterances and across singular instances of responsibility attribution. I will start tracking responsibility in food waste governance on the global level and work consecutively through the national governance contexts of Germany and the UK before finally discussing the local dimension of reduction efforts in both countries. The individual sections follow a similar structure. First, I will provide a discussion of the three links of the triangle model in terms of their multiplicity/variance and in terms of the most dominant, reoccurring patterns. Additionally, for the global dimension, I will briefly discuss if the term responsibility is applied as a relevant concept throughout the selected documents by giving an overview of where the actual term surfaces,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 T. Gumbert, Responsibility in Environmental Governance, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13729-7_7

147

148

T. GUMBERT

and how it is used.1 Since the documents span a timeframe of 8 years (2010–2018), this step is instructive to gain first insights if the notion of responsibility is subject to change. Secondly, I will relate the three individual links to each other and determine the form(s) responsibility takes on the global, national, and local levels. This systematic and highly descriptive approach lays essential groundwork for Chapter 8, where the empirically identified form(s) of responsibility are infused with, and interpreted in light of, the theoretical assumptions discussed in Chapters 2 and 4. That means that, while Chapter 7 is interested in the constitution of responsibility, the meanings inherent in the established links are more closely examined in Chapter 8 and contextualized with the help of current scholarship to understand these attributions of responsibility more comprehensively. The aim is thereby to give an account of the functions these understandings of responsibility fulfil within the governance of food waste. The next section takes a bird’s eye view on responsibility within the selected documents to approximate its use as a first step.

The Global Level Especially in early international studies on food waste, the mentioning of responsibility is sparse. A common use is however the causal link of food waste to global greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions: “Globally, the amount of food loss and waste in 2009 was responsible for roughly 3,300–5,600 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions”. (WRI, 2013, 9), and similarly “one tonne of food wasted after the ‘food processing’ step is responsible for 2.4 tonnes of CO2 equivalents” (EC, 2010, 82). This can be viewed as an attempt to establish the relevance of this relatively new field within the larger context of international environmental and climate governance. A still widely used illustrative chart depicts that, if food waste was a country, it would be the third largest emitter of GHGs after China and the United States (FAO, 2013). A second dominant use of responsibility establishes linear causality between an individual group of actors

1 The analysis for national and local contexts of food waste governance focuses largely on present national strategies and implementation plans since, especially for Germany, there are hardly any documents which the current policy documents could be compared to. Similarly, the wealth of documents available for an analysis of local contexts is continuously updated and can therefore not be related to past manifestations.

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

149

(or sectors in the food chain) and their impact on food waste generation: “Food waste generated in the Manufacturing sector is responsible for approximately 35% of annual GHG emissions”. (EC, 2010, 16), and “[the] practical nature of separating food waste from general household or workplace waste reminds individuals regularly of the quantities of food waste they are responsible for”. (EC, 2010, 22). In these earlier iterations, the need for pinpointing concrete spaces of waste generation and linking them to subjects with the agency to change wasteful practices and behaviours seems pivotal. In studies and reports published from 2014 onwards, the application of responsibility rhetoric changes markedly. The term ‘responsibility’ is now increasingly used to signify obligations and specific tasks and roles instead of merely establishing causal links: here, we find overviews of “[q]uality and hygiene responsibilities of food waste supplier[s]” and “[r]esponsibilities of the feed processor or farmer” (REFRESH, 2018, 120), the assertion that “effective and responsible packaging protects the product and extends its life” (FUSIONS, 2014, 138), or the claim that “countries have the primary responsibility for follow-up and review of progress toward these [Sustainable Development Goals]” (Champions 12.3, 2017a, 138). Arguably, the use of responsibility evolves from attributing responsibility to actors within a specific sector of the food chain to delineating responsible actions of what different agents can do to reduce food waste according to their role and position in the food system. More than that, its attribution is actively problematized: “consumers’ attitude towards food waste [.] that it is someone else’s responsibility” (FUSIONS, 2014, 111) is determined as a social driver for food waste. Suggestions that retailers increase transparency through publication of their food waste data “may additionally help to resolve to some degree the issue of attribution of responsibility for food waste at different stages of the supply chain” (REFRESH, 2018, 72). Simultaneously, the notion of ‘shared responsibility’ springs up in the debate: “Reducing food loss and waste is everyone’s responsibility.” (Champions 12.3, 2017b, 2), or “[in] addition to tackling food waste in its own operations, Tesco has communicated a shared responsibility to reduce waste from farm to fork and thus is working in partnership with producers and suppliers to reduce their food loss and waste, as well as helping customers reduce food waste at home”. (ibid., 10). While earlier attributions of responsibility could be viewed as an instrument to clarify the causes of food waste, attribution itself is now seen as a barrier to

150

T. GUMBERT

reductions, or a separate ‘issue’, to which the notion of ‘shared responsibility’ develops as a counter-frame. The problematization of responsibility is further exemplified: “Unclear responsibilities lead to stress on the value chain and lead to higher risk for food waste generation” (FUSIONS, 2014, 69). How to deal with responsibility is therefore an important task in itself: “How responsibility for shopping & preparing meals is managed within the household can lead to food waste […]”. (ibid., 81). Responsibility is treated less as a characteristic that actors just possess, but more as a virtuous potentiality of adopting responsible attitudes and practices that need to be managed on rational and ethical terms. Instead of focusing only on individual actors, the perspective of responsibility is broadened to suggest that the need for taking up responsibility is in fact systemic and pervasive. This very rough draft of instances where responsibility surfaces on the global level already points to the dynamics of responsibility rhetoric in food waste governance, especially considering the rather short time frame in which it has climbed on international political agendas. It is also evident that by considering exclusively the concrete use of the term itself, it is difficult to assess the contexts of and reasons for responsibility attribution, i.e., if, how, and why responsibility is an important concept and carrier of meaning. Global: The Link Between Prescriptions and Event To recall, one important aspect of assigning responsibility in food waste governance is the link between the causes and conditions of food waste generation (as units of action) and the suggested measures for achieving reduction (as normative prescriptions for conduct). Typically, most prescription-event-links refer to specific stages of food supply chains. A broad but very dominant, frequently used distinction refers to food loss in opposition to food waste. Here, the causes for food ‘dropping out’ of supply chains in the harvesting, storage, transport, processing, and packaging stages are described as ‘food loss’, whereas food disposed in the retail and consumption stages is considered as ‘food waste’ (WRI, 2013, see also Parfitt et al., 2010). Food loss is seen as an unintended occurrence and can therefore allegedly best be addressed by technological solutions to increase efficiency, such as improved refrigeration and packaging, bigger storage capacity, but also better marketing and management through producing

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

151

‘value added’ products (e.g., dried fruit for export markets). Food loss is additionally viewed as a problem primarily related to the Global South, because “low-income countries are mainly connected [to food loss and waste through] financial, managerial, and technical limitations in harvesting techniques, storage and cooling facilities” and because a “reduction in food losses could have an immediate and significant impact on their livelihoods”. (FAO, 2011, v). Food waste, on the other hand, “refers to food that is of good quality and fit for human consumption but that does not get consumed because it is discarded—either before or after it spoils. Food waste typically, but not exclusively, occurs at the retail and consumption stages in the food value chain and is the result of negligence or a conscious decision to throw food away”. (WRI, 2013, 4). Food waste is thus described as a consumer and retailer issue that occurs either because actors pay no close attention (negligence) or because they do not care (conscious decision to throw away food). Prescriptions aiming the reduction of consumption stage food waste thus include more transparent information (date labels on products) to reduce consumer confusion, public awareness-raising campaigns and better education, or the downsizing of servings in restaurants and cafeterias as well as of packaging in supermarkets (EC, 2010, 11). The strongest link that is not challenged once across all documents relates the consisting uncertainties about food waste generation to calls for more knowledge and the acquisition of accurate data. According to the underlying logic, the lack of reliable information (EC, 2010) needs to be addressed by scientific research and policymaking through finding and agreeing upon better measurement tools and monitoring systems (FAO, 2011; REFRESH, 2018; WRI, 2013). This is seen as problematic because “larger systemic issues” are assumed to be at work behind consumer food waste (WRI, 2013, 33) and “uncertainty can breed inaction” (Champions 12.3, 2017a, 2). It is therefore important to establish a base year for food loss and waste levels to conduct periodic measurements (Champions 12.3, 2017b, 17). Uncertainty is also coupled with the inherent complexity of the food waste problem: “Food waste drivers are deeply connected and interrelated so the establishment of [a] clear and direct cause and effect relationship is particularly difficult. Moreover, such a complexity leads also to significant challenges in the identification of targeted policy measures. A better understanding of the drivers would facilitate the identification of hot spots and key levers for (behavioural) changes facilitating the design of more responsive and effective policy measures”. (FUSIONS, 2016, 61).

152

T. GUMBERT

Another link that is hardly challenged and therefore especially strong in the policy discourse on food waste is the insistence on a lack of awareness for the problem that contributes to its causes. The problem of missing awareness is overwhelmingly situated at the consumer level: “A lack of awareness coupled with a lack of knowledge about prevention measures exacerbates food waste in the household” (EC, 2010, 34). Many prescriptions explicitly aim to interact with raising consumer awareness, such as the clarification and standardization of current food date labels and the communication of food edibility criteria. Following them, the accuracy of the information provided could be improved by “giving simple and clear messages to consumers” (REFRESH, 2018, 86), and consumer uncertainty could be reduced through the design of consumption environments (e.g., allowing customers to serve themselves in restaurants). The dissemination and application of the waste hierarchy, which is reformulated as a “food use hierarchy” (REFRESH, 2018), is suggested as a normative guideline to rationalize behaviours and conducts: Achieving the target [SDG 12.3] involves preventing food and associated inedible parts from leaving the human food supply chain in the first place (e.g., avoiding excess food production, ensuring food makes it to market, donating or redistributing unsold food to those in need, converting inedible parts into food) and/or by shifting that which does leave the human food supply chain away from less-value-added destinations and instead toward animal feed or bio-based materials/biochemical processing. (Champions 12.3, 2017a, 4)

Here, it becomes clear that it is not only about rationalization, but that prescriptions relating to the reduction of the causes of food waste have a distinct normative appeal. New ethics, such as a “local impact diet” or a “clean your plate” ethic are seen as necessary cultural changes in acting upon food waste (EC, 2010). Even when unfair trade practices in the food system (e.g., within retailer contracts with food producers) are problematized as a cause for rising levels of food waste, they are relegated back to issues of consumer awareness: [...] unfair trade practices and price dumping in the food sector result in food often being sold at below its real value, thus contributing to more wastage, and that a ban on selling at below the production price is urgently needed, partly in order to raise consumers’ awareness of the true value of food. (REFRESH, 2018, 58)

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

153

‘Awareness’ thus not only includes knowledge about the issue at hand and about its consequences as a motivational resource but needs to be supplemented by a shift in attitudes and the social norms about food waste as well as learning practical skills for prevention. Giving people insights into their household and workplace bins would allegedly not only raise their sensibility for food that is thrown away, but also lead to better recycling behaviours and the possibility to introduce separate food waste collection systems (EC, 2010), thereby integrating awareness for the value of ‘food’ and the value which is inherent in ‘(bio-)waste’ simultaneously. This measure could also have a “waste prevention effect” (FUSIONS, 2016, 65). The role of emotions is also addressed specifically: campaigns to change consumer attitudes towards food waste may contain emotional appeals, for instance fostering feelings of guilt or shame. Here as well, trying to change feelings alone may be insufficient. Particularly guilt arousal may be a less effective strategy to use when consumers have low initial concern about an issue as recent evidence in other policy areas suggests. (REFRESH, 2018, 88)

Awareness-raising is therefore seen as a complex task where socioeconomic and psychological factors play a crucial role. A third main thread linking prescriptions to events concerns the “inefficiency of food supply chains”-thesis. The findings of most studies suggest that “better coordination between retailers, distributors, wholesalers and manufacturers can reduce food waste and avoid it being shifted across the supply chain” (EC, 2010, 10; also FUSIONS, 2014; REFRESH, 2018), which includes better logistics and information systems and can be supported by multi-stakeholder meetings on different levels. While every actor has specific tasks that can be assigned according to its role and position within food supply chains, without sufficient coordination, the potential for individual reductions will remain unsatisfactory. Closely connected to the general demand for better coordination is the prescription to expand market schemes—one important reason for the inefficiency of the food system is thought to be its lack of adequate market mechanisms. For example, since the risk of wastage increases the longer food travels, establishing markets closer to consumers can help to reduce waste (EC, 2010). Also, because strict quality standards (e.g., enforced by retailers) lead to larger quantities of waste generated on the production and/or processing stages, the development of markets for sub-standard

154

T. GUMBERT

products could have positive reduction effects. In this regard, “best practice strategies” and “inspiring innovations” (Champions 12.3, 2017a, 3), competitions to find top innovations (Champions 12.3, 2017b, 11), and the provision of public and comparable information related to the level of commitment (or performances) of food business operators to stimulate reductions are frequently mentioned as useful prescriptions. Global: The Link Between Prescriptions and Identity Images The link between prescriptions and identity images relates normatively valued reduction measures to individual and collective actors, thereby prescribing what each actor should be doing according to its specific roles and tasks. It is emphasized that food waste reduction is understood as a shared exercise; it “require[s] action from multilateral and bilateral donors, intergovernmental agencies, national governments, and the private sector, among others”. (WRI, 2013, 2). This sentiment is a preamble for most policy documents and studies: “every country, company, and individual has a role to play”. (Champions 12.3, 2017b, 4). It is important that in the design of reduction measures the applicability to a host of actors and their co-dependence on ‘making reductions work’ is built in, because “no single individual or group can sufficiently tackle this problem alone; collaboration is needed” (WRI, 2013, 31). This is best achieved by networking, consultation, and best practice sharing, establishing multi-stakeholder platforms; engaging and involving ever more stakeholders; and creating a sense of commitment among them (FUSIONS, 2016, 4). For example, public campaigns need to work with manufacturers and retailers to bundle their expertise to reduce instore waste by focusing messages on consumer behaviour, and work with local authorities, community groups, and other businesses to that end (WRI, 2013, 25). Beyond the notion of ‘shared reduction efforts’, strong links between prescriptions and identity images are established in relation to the role of states and public authorities, the business sector, and non-governmental organizations. The United Kingdom, (Member States of) the European Union, the United States, and Japan are described as “early movers” in political action on food waste reduction (Champions 12.3, 2017b, 7). These states are unanimously described as having the primary task to provide the political and legal framework conditions in which meaningful reductions can occur. They have to set national and negotiate sector-specific

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

155

targets, they have to ensure that national data on food waste generation is available and regularly updated to measure progress on these targets, and they finally have to change legislation where barriers to reductions are in place. (Champions 12.3, 2017b; EC, 2010; FUSIONS, 2016; REFRESH, 2018; WRI, 2013). In other words, states are responsible for making other actors realize “how much and where food loss and waste are occurring within their spheres of influence” (WRI, 2013, 28). Therefore, states are also ascribed the role of a ‘stimulator’. Especially in relation to food loss in the Global South, they can stimulate the private sector to invest in national food industries, e.g., by tax incentives, the reduction of tariffs on raw materials, etc., or they can directly provide low-interest loans for farmers and invest in infrastructure and transportation (WRI, 2013). For ‘developed’ countries, the stimulation refers to the negotiation of voluntary initiatives, the guidance of consumers and civil society actors (through awareness campaigns), and the encouragement of business actors (FUSIONS, 2016, 23; REFRESH, 2018, 91). Government “has the power to bring organisations together, it can provide impartial support and guidance, and it has the power to introduce new policy when evidence suggests it might be beneficial. It can also provide real motivation by imposing new, normative regulation if no voluntary action is taken, or if the voluntary approach is not successful” (REFRESH, 2018, 91). Similar roles are ascribed to international and supranational organizations, such as the FAO, the World Bank, and the EU, but mentioned with much less frequency. Prescriptions for business actors are numerous, especially in later studies (Champions 12.3, 2017a; Champions 12.3, 2017b; FUSIONS, 2016; REFRESH, 2018). This is a clear indication that the focus has shifted from an initially strong focus on consumption and consumer attitudes towards the involvement and the responsibilities of the private sector. The guiding principle of CSR is regularly invoked when stating that many businesses are “publicly reporting their food loss and waste inventories, thereby pioneering best practices for the private sector” (Champions 12.3, 2017b, 1). This is very much in line and intersects with the ‘shared reduction efforts’ link and the aim to draw more actors in: Business partnerships such as The Consumer Goods Forum, Global Agri-business Alliance, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Courtauld 2025, International Food Waste Coalition, and U.S.

156

T. GUMBERT

Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions provide a good foundation for companies to jointly embark on the journey toward halving food loss and waste, share best practices, motivate one another, and collaborate on solutions. (ibid., 2)

Concrete prescriptions for business actors are most often discussed in relation to consumers, such as that “[r]etailers could play an important role in raising awareness and helping consumers understand harmonised date labels” (EC, 2010, 126), that business can “ensure that the final food protects the consumer” by applying “good agricultural and good hygienic practices” (FAO, 2011; 12), or that restaurants could “examine how much and what types of food tends to be left on customers’ plates and make modifications accordingly” (WRI, 2013, 26). The rhetorical figure of the consumer is a central point of reference in negotiating private sector food waste reductions, as motivation and opportunity, because there are potential brand loyalty benefits involved if businesses publicly engage in reduction efforts (EC, 2010). They are also actively exempted from any link to waste generation when their willingness to engage in discussions on standardizing date labels is described as their “ambition [..] to cut consumer food waste” (Champions 12.3, 2017a, 2). Non-governmental organizations (or civil society actors interchangeably) are seen as multipliers and innovators in food waste reductions. They can play a role in spreading awareness, train farmers or households, redistribute food, and generally act as a hub between ‘farm and fork’ (WRI, 2013, 13). As for-profit enterprises, they can be committed to collect unsellable food from retailers and resell it in other venues, or, as not-for-profit organizations, administer food redistribution programmes (e.g., food banks) (EC, 2010). The comparison of earlier and later documents shows that food redistribution has grown extraordinarily as a policy focus, mirroring the general tendency of food distribution becoming a hot topic in debating food waste policy in recent years. Businesses increasingly rely on the availability of charities to take unsold edible food off their hands, especially since the ‘encouragement’ of private actors to do so is required under the European Parliament resolution on resource efficiency (FUSIONS, 2016, 5). Non-governmental organizations that engage in food waste reductions are seen as the ‘creative class’ that is responsible for the development of new innovations and new business models, and government relies on their activity:

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

157

Many of the solutions to tackle food waste have first been developed by social entrepreneurs and civil society initiatives. A supporting policy framework, like the provision of specific socio-economic incentives is needed to help these actors maintaining their activities. (REFRESH, 2018, 14)

They are therefore regarded as serving a double function: they are ‘creation agencies’, a source of new ideas that governments and other actors can draw on, and they are ‘extension agencies’, spreading ideas, programmes, and policy to societal spheres public or private actors hardly reach. A noteworthy omission in the documents concerns the role and tasks of consumers. While it is asserted that “going forward, improved strategies for tackling consumption waste will need to be a priority for research” (WRI, 2013, 33), prescriptions are not connected to consumers as an active, autonomous subject. Rather, the language is heavily infused with prescriptions: consumer behaviour needs to be “improve[d] and predict[ed]”, “consumers’ expectations” need to be taken into account, “consumer interests” need to be protected, consumers need to be “influenced”, “consumers’ trust” needs to be built, consumers need “help to interpret dates”, and must not be “overwhelmed”. A single reference refers to “empower[ing] consumers” (FUSIONS, 2016, 51) through raising awareness and through educational tools, albeit also in a passive sense. While there are 617 mentions of consumers related to food waste reduction, only 6 instances even mention citizens (although I previously mentioned that I have intentionally omitted to give an account on quantifications, I had to mention these very instructive numbers). Global: The Link Between Identity Images and Event The link between identity images and the event of food waste connects various individual and collective actors to the causes and consequences of food waste generation. It establishes the relevance of specific roles and tasks that actors can take to mitigate food waste’s negative effects. Whereas the link between prescriptions and event describes the actions and practices that should be conducted, this link specifies the political subjects and their strength of connection to the general generation of food waste. The overall strongest link is established through measuring the weight of food waste amounts and attributing it to individual segments of food

158

T. GUMBERT

supply chains. According to exemplary calculations, “UK households waste 6.7 million tonnes of food every year, around one third of the 21.7 million tonnes we purchase” (WRAP, 2008, 4) and “Food waste at consumer level in industrialized countries (222 million ton) is almost as high as the total net food production in sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tons)” (FAO, 2011, 4). To specify food waste’s impact, the weight metric is subsequently converted into other figures and performance indicators, most notably in terms of environmental and economic impact. Ecologically, the GHG emissions serve as a standard reference: Considering the performance of respective sectors, the Household sector presents the most significant impact, both per tonne of food waste (2.07 t CO2 eq./t) and at the European level (78 Mt CO2 eq./yr), at 45% of estimated annual GHG emissions caused by food waste. (EC, 2010, 16)

To clarify the severity of annually generated food waste for the economy at large, metric tonnes are further monetized: “The costs associated with food waste for EU-28 in 2012 are estimated at around 143 billion euros. Two-thirds of the costs are associated with food waste from households (around 98 billion euros)”. (FUSIONS, 2016, 32). To be able to comprehend these figures and put them into perspective, they are related to everyday experiences and the society at large: “Food waste in households and restaurants costs an average of $1,500 per year for a family of four in the United States and about $1,100 per year for the average household with children in the United Kingdom”. (Champions 12.3, 2017b, 3). In this regard, the reports and studies have centrally adopted per capita measurements to signify individual contributions to the food waste problem: “per capita food waste by consumers in Europe and North-America is 95–115 kg/year, while this figure in Sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia is only 6–11 kg/year” (FAO, 2011, 5) and “We all waste food unnecessarily. On average, every one of us throws away 70 kg of avoidable food a year—that’s the weight of an average person” (WRAP, 2008, 5). Positive actions on food waste reduction are also assessed via impact: FareShare, a UK food redistribution programme, redistributed 7.4 million meals in 2008/9, and helped businesses reduce their CO emissions by 13,950 tonnes during the same period. FareShare’s

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

159

future goal is to redistribute 20,000 tonnes of food annually and to support 100,000 vulnerable people every day. (EC, 2010, 102)

Eurest, a Swedish catering organization, which initiated a food waste reduction scheme across 150 of its units, claims that their food waste transparency messages have reached 22,055 guests, and practices led to a reduction of 23% in food waste quantities (ibid., 98). These examples show that if actors are linked to the issue of food waste generation, exact data, numbers, and measurements appear to be necessary. From a responsibility attribution standpoint, it is especially interesting how these metrics are connected to individual and collective actors. For example, while waste is measured along the whole food supply chain, and therefore attributable to different sectors (manufacturers, retailers, etc.), business actors are not once described as ‘being at fault’. Their relation to food waste is rather characterized as unintentional: Food waste at this level [manufacturing sector] is largely unavoidable (bones, carcasses and certain organs in meat products for example) [or due to] [t]echnical malfunctions such as overproduction, misshapen products, product and packaging damage. (EC, 2010, 10)

While the strongest link of business actors to food waste is in fact that of unintentional losses that ‘naturally’ occur in a globalized food system, another important driver of waste regularly described is that of consumer expectations: “The primary institutional driver for the majority of food loss is the consumers’ desire for a specific appearance of food products”. (FUSIONS, 2014, 54). Consumers would want to find “a wide range of products to be available in stores”, they “expect store shelves to be well filled” (FAO, 2011, 13), and would want to have the “ability to buy products all year around” (FUSIONS, 2014, 78). This is also especially seen as an issue for restaurants, catering businesses, and canteens, who have “difficulty of estimating and calculating the correct amount of food to cook, due to the complexity of predicting consumer expectations as well as forecasting demand” (ibid., 55). Attributing the causes of food waste to consumer preference and ‘absurd’ expectations is a way to resituate the impact of the business sector and shift even more numbers of generated food waste to the consumption stage. Another indication of this tendency to relate specific sources of food waste back to consumers is provided by the FUSIONS project. It identified 105 drivers of food waste in four

160

T. GUMBERT

broader categories (28 related to technology, 38 to business management and economy, 23 to legislation, and 16 to consumer behaviour and lifestyles) and stated that, “[h]owever, the Households segment was indicated to have a relatively high importance in all the categories of drivers”. (FUSIONS, 2014, 8). This ties in with another link that connects consumers to food waste generation through the notion of avoidability: “Households within the UK dispose of 6.7 million tonnes of food each year of which around six tenths (4.1 million tonnes) could have been avoided” (WRAP, 2008, 38). The distinction between avoidable/unavoidable food waste functions as a measure of negligence, and as a means to assess if consumers ‘care’. Especially in the earlier studies and reports, household food waste is largely linked to a lack of knowledge, planning issues, labelling issues, storage issues, etc., i.e., to signify there is much room for improvement to rationalize consumer conduct. Additionally, it is linked to lacking attitudes and cultural norms, such as food being undervalued, preferences for unblemished food, neglecting specific food parts (e.g., bread crusts), or not making use of leftovers. This negligence is said to have impacts on food waste generation across the entirety of supply chains.

Summary: The Global Level Looking at the attributions of responsibility through the links discussed here on the global level provides a clearer picture of the rationality and techniques in international food waste governance. The generation of food waste across multiple supply chains, across various levels and scales, is complex. Although a wealth of studies by global actors has researched the causes of food waste, especially over the course of the last ten years, there is still much uncertainty about the exact factors that contribute to its production. It is therefore necessary to further invest in research and measuring tools, and to set targets and benchmarks accordingly, to manage this uncertainty as comprehensively as possible. Quantitative impact assessments are widely seen as the best method to measure the weight and the corresponding emissions and financial value of lost food to link the problem of food waste to specific value chains, sectors, and actors. Because food waste is, in larger and smaller quantities, generated everywhere, and therefore a universal problem, it is consequently assumed that the ‘burden’ of food waste reductions must also be shared by every

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

161

actor in the food system, which is why the global common sense on food waste governance must be built on the belief in shared reduction efforts. However, beneath this seemingly unequivocal understanding, governance efforts show that some fields for intervention are apparently regarded as more important than others. Food ‘waste’ is believed to be mainly occurring on the consumption stage of the food system. By drawing attention to the irrational behaviours and ‘wasteful’ attitudes of consumers, and thereby to the general possibility to avoid much of consumer food waste, interventions aiming at altering and rationalizing consumer behaviours are broadly legitimized. While rationalizing consumption is the preferred option to reduce food ‘waste’, other policy measures target food ‘loss’ by optimizing the efficiency of food supply chains and help to manage ‘discarded’ food across whole food supply chains, which is still to a considerable degree unavoidable. Lastly, the roles and tasks of various actors in food waste governance are specified. From the notion of ‘shared reduction efforts’ emerges the strategy to draw the business sector in and create mutual partnerships across all stakeholders. Partnerships that have already been created are described as best practices and leading examples that should pave the way towards future reduction efforts. While partnerships have been established as the core of the global governance architecture on food waste reduction, the role of states is to stimulate more ‘sustainable’ investments in reducing food waste along food supply chains, and to encourage more business actors to become ‘part of the solution’. The central task of states is, however, still to translate global indicators into national targets, thereby providing the guiding framework for partnerships to take hold. NGOs are expected to fulfil the role as innovators and multipliers; they develop solutions to food loss and food waste that are supported by business, and communicate the ‘necessities’ of reduction efforts to others (e.g., to consumers) (Fig. 7.1). The analysis of political responsibility in food waste governance, according to the questions of ‘what should be done?’, ‘who should do it?’, and ‘why is this relevant here?’, provides a clearer picture of the underlying ideas and meanings ex- or implicit in this evolving field. The notion of ‘responsibility as accountability’ is very dominant and influential in the design of the broader food waste governance agenda. This rationality can be summarized as “[w]hat gets measured gets managed” (WRI, 2013, 28). In order to contribute individually to sufficiently reduce

162

T. GUMBERT

PRESCRIPTIONS

RESPONSIBILITY [GLOBAL]

IDENTITY IMAGES

Quantitative Impact Assessment Avoidable Consumption Waste

EVENT

Unavoidable Business Waste

Fig. 7.1 The responsibility triangle—Global level (Source Author’s own illustration)

waste across all food supply chains, the goal orientation (targets, quantitative impact assessments) has to be very clear, actors need to be treated as rational and authoritative in their respective fields of expertise to be calculable elements within overall reduction measures, and their legitimacy as important governance actors (business partnerships) needs to be secured. Whereas more formal laws and legal action are conducive to facilitate reductions, the global governance structure instead supports informal coordinated action (voluntary agreements) to enable free and unlimited agency of all participating actors. While the participation of powerful and resourceful actors (large businesses of the food industry) is encouraged and welcomed, obligations and duties are not assigned to them. On the contrary, each actor is free to contribute as much as s/he is willing to. The notion of ‘responsibility as accountability’ also does not assign much import to moral agency, since, when options are clear and unambiguous, responsibility follows from these instructions, which in turn creates foreseeable benefits for food waste reduction in the nearand long-term future.

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

163

A notable problem for the application of accountability in food waste governance is the sphere of consumption. Consumers are understood as actors of the food system who either consciously or unconsciously waste large amounts of food. Whereas the food system can be measured, managed, and controlled by applying the right technologies and tools, consumption is a field where irrational decisions and unintended consequences mix constantly, and it is therefore important to concentrate research and reduction efforts there. This logic might explain the exponential rise in studies on consumer food waste in the last years (for an overview, see Schanes et al., 2018), while it can be argued that the knowledge data basis on food waste across the supply chain as well as across countries is still somewhat shaky: “most existing publications are conducted for a few industrialized countries (e.g., the United Kingdom and the United States), and over half of them are based only on secondary data, which signals high uncertainties in the existing global FLW database” (Xue et al., 2017, 6618). And yet, it seems paradoxical that it is possible to acquire almost perfect knowledge in relation to consumption stage waste: “households throw away 9450 million packs and single units of food”, “2890 million single whole items of fruit (i.e., fruit that can normally be purchased as single units) and 20 million unopened bags, packets or punnets of fruit”, and “1910 million single whole items of vegetables and 70 million full bags or packets of vegetables”. (WRAP, 2008, 124–125). This level of detail and scope is hardly mentioned for other sectors, which solidifies the impression that the consumption stage can be regulated, despite its complexity. There are some interesting omissions and tensions in the documents that relate to notions of responsibility that need to be addressed. Regarding the role of economic growth, for instance, although a “close link between population growth, economic growth (affluence) and waste generation” (EC, 2010, 112) is mentioned, the mention of structural economic drivers is almost completely absent. Instead, the ‘inefficiency thesis’ suggests to tackle food loss and waste without compromising global food productivity (FAO, 2011, vi). If institutions care about food security, they should further avert attention from the production stage towards interventions that target the middle-to-end spectrum of food supply chains (retail and consumption), including expanding waste treatment capacity. However, this combination of food security and waste logics has been somewhat destabilized by greater attention to food donation policies on

164

T. GUMBERT

the global level. Assumptions that the facilitation of “food redistribution and food donations will be vital” (Champions 12.3, 2017b, 4) and that “[f]ood donations represent a crucial support for the most deprived and constitute an effective lever in reducing food waste” (FUSIONS, 2016, 45) appear with some delay in the official discourse. Here, we see that the ‘food use hierarchy’ has become a practical tool to understand food waste as ‘food’ rather than ‘waste’, thereby implicitly devaluing disposal and energy-to-waste options in contrast to redistribution. Problematic in this regard is, however, that legislation in European Member States has not caught up with this idea and incentives to channel food waste towards anaerobic digestion have even been increased in the last years (Bradshaw, 2018; I will come back to this point in the next chapter). Implementing the food use hierarchy and organizing food waste reductions accordingly requires action beyond informal coordinated action and, arguably, a certain degree of moral agency not to act on misguided incentives. The focus on food donations is, however, still very much occupied with questions of what to do with waste at the end point of food value chains, without problematizing the structural drivers of growth in the food system. Food waste is still broadly understood as “[w]holesome edible material intended for human consumption, arising at any point in the FSC [food supply chain] that is instead discarded, lost, degraded or consumed by pests”. (FAO, 1981). The structural conditions and complexities in terms of power dynamics that lead to food waste (e.g., Cloke, 2013, Gille, 2013, Stuart, 2009) are neglected and bypassed by the insistence on the notion of ‘linearity’, the idea that food travels along a linear trajectory from A to B where some of it ‘gets lost’, and ‘unintentionality’, the assumption that wasted food can never be the result of a conscious act of rational actors. Accountability schemes in food waste governance do not pay attention to complex structural drivers, power dynamics, or the possibility of waste generation as a willingly, conscious, and intentional act that benefits some actors over others. These omissions are problematic and are therefore to be scrutinized in the next chapter.

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

165

National Contexts2 The focus in the German as well as in the UK context will be the current official policies on food waste reduction. Both will subsequently be contextualized by drawing on links that appear in other official parliamentary texts and commissioned studies. This proceeding slightly deviates from the analytical approach applied to the global and the local level, however, due to an important reason: systematizing the policy focus for national levels by including all relevant documents to the same extent has ‘buried’ the actual political direction of governing food waste in Germany and the UK to a considerable degree. I have therefore opted for taking a detailed look at the national strategies first and to subsequently discuss where these responsibility attributions match or deviate from the wider political context. National: The Link Between Prescriptions and Event The BMEL considers consumer behaviour change as the most important contribution to reducing food waste, especially since “implementing waste preventing behaviour remains one of the key challenges” (UBA, 2018, 13). This is evident by looking at which prescriptions the BMEL has devised since 2012 and how these have been linked to consumption as the biggest challenge for reduction efforts (BMEL, 2019b, BundLänder-Plattform, 2019). Instruments applied by the strategy of the BMEL include activities to spread information about the magnitude and consequences of food waste via public campaigns (“Zu gut für die Tonne”), the training of individuals who act as multipliers (so-called ‘Food Waste Heroes’), the provision of interactive toolkits and calls to reduce food waste during a specific time period (‘Food Waste Challenges’), or the encouragement of restaurants and guests to use specifically designed leftover boxes to take leftovers home (BMEL, 2019b). These practical initiatives are aimed at providing a broader understanding of the problem to the general public and act as incentives to motivate individual behavioural adjustments.

2 In order to avoid redundancy in the presentation of the application of the triangle model of responsibility on the national level of analysis, the findings for both Germany and the UK are discussed consecutively under each link.

166

T. GUMBERT

An explicit focus is given to the stimulation of monitoring one’s everyday routines by providing specific informational tools to help people to track and assess their individual food waste footprint in the form of app-based data analysis or keeping a food waste diary (BMEL, 2017). In this regard, other instruments include databanks with recipe ideas for leftover food, (digital) shopping planners to counter the tendency to buy too much food, and other simple ‘rules of thumb’. Although through some organized events, people come together and may engage in dialogue, they are mostly addressed as consumers, and the focus is explicitly on awareness-raising and education. In the “third field for action”, the society is represented and linked more broadly to a necessary “behaviour change of all actors” (BMEL, 2019a, 14). Here, consumers are also not envisaged as subjects that can actively take prescribed actions (see link prescriptions-identity images), but as a field for intervention where many other actors can contribute, for example by distributing information and communicating the individual benefits of food waste reduction through social media channels, educating customers, awareness-raising in schools, and can train teachers and other personnel on how to integrate the topic of “food appreciation” in education plans. The BMEL mentions that the “food industry is aware of its social responsibility” (BMEL, 2019a, 9), and that the SDGs are “in line with the demands of responsible corporate management” (ibid., 13). Food waste allegedly has become an increased focus in corporate sustainability strategies over the last years, and as rational business actors, they would have an interest in reducing food waste as much as possible. Appropriate reduction efforts for the business sector would—according to the BMEL—be informing consumers about perishability and food processing, and educating consumers about how to understand date labels, modernizing production, installing better management systems, using innovative packaging, supporting food charities with donations, or connecting with other businesses through knowledge-sharing platforms. The range of appropriate measures for business actors (ibid., 13) far exceeds the prescriptions for other actors, which indirectly conveys the notion that businesses do have large capacities for acting responsibly in the face of rising amounts of food waste. Suggestions largely focus on two problem complexes: on the business/consumer interface, i.e., the informational work that can be directed towards the consumer, and managerial and technological solutions to optimize their own supply systems. Businesses

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

167

are thereby led to adopt and invest in techniques of self-optimization to contribute to food waste reduction. Whereas in Germany the political approach to find and formulate appropriate prescriptions to reduce food waste has concentrated largely on the consumption stage, a core concern of DEFRA’s new strategy is the political prescription to increase food redistribution to reduce food waste. For example, DEFRA has planned to set up a 15 million pounds pilot fund to motivate the business sector into cooperating with food redistribution agencies: The potential for redistribution is identified by WRAP as 205,000 tonnes annually, equalling 250 million meals a year (WRAP, 2018). Food surplus redistribution has risen steadily on the UK food waste agenda in recent years and is now widely acknowledged as the ‘best use’ for food surpluses. In 2017, the House of Commons report on food waste in England strongly urged WRAP to work with retailers to double the proportion of redistributed surplus food (HoC, 2017a, 4). This goal has also been to support DEFRA’s plan to publish a new food surplus and waste hierarchy and provide further guidance to the private sector on what to do with their surplus food, another important theme in the British debate (ibid.). Consumption is, however, still reconfirmed as an important area for intervention: “We have had considerable success in reducing food waste at the household level in the past. Between 2007 and 2012, household food waste fell by 17% but progress has since plateaued”. (ibid., 108). The ‘Love Food, Hate Waste’ Campaign is said to have helped reduce food waste by 11 per cent between 2007 and 2015 (HoC, 2017b, 1), and yet, WRAP estimates that without further interventions, “UK food waste levels could increase by between 0.2 million and 2.0 million tonnes a year” (WRAP, 2014, 6). Consequently, even if supply chains were increasingly optimized, food waste on the consumption stage would remain a complex problem: “Changing consumer behaviour is challenging, […] [t]o affect behaviour change across the population, this is likely to take many years, or even generations”. (ibid., 83). While behaviour change is not figured prominently in the prescriptions laid out in the food waste policy as such, DEFRA has dedicated a separate chapter on “Helping Consumers Take More Considered Action” in their Resources and Waste Strategy (ibid., 50). The strategy devises prescriptions for other actors to “incentivis[e] consumers to purchase sustainably” and “provid[e] consumers with better information […] through better product labelling” (ibid., 51).

168

T. GUMBERT

National: The Link Between Prescriptions and Identity Images In the national strategy, the BMEL describes appropriate tasks and roles (prescriptions) for various societal stakeholders (identity images) in the reduction of food waste. It sets out four distinct areas that link actors to specific prescriptions for appropriate conduct: (1) the role of politics, (2) the role of the business sector, (3) the role of society at large, and (4) the role of science and research. Regarding the first point, the BMEL redefines its role and what it does as appropriate political action in the National Strategy. The BMEL is responsible for instating the “Bund-Länder-Gruppe”, a political steering committee that consists of the Federal and regional ministries, which is in turn responsible for evaluating the implementation process of the national strategy (BMEL, 2019a, 12). Its aim is to provide a coherent political framework on food waste reduction and to examine existing regulatory measures in terms of challenges and barriers. The political tasks and roles are summarized as “facilitating communication and cooperation between all stakeholders”, “raising awareness among consumers and actors in food supply chains”, and “sharing knowledge and data” (ibid., 17). A second strong link concerns the role attributed to business actors and their desirable activities. With the new national strategy, the BMEL solidifies its approach to engage business actors in its efforts to reduce food waste. Prescriptions for good governance efforts towards businesses include mainly voluntary agreements and the participation in sector-specific dialogue forums (BMEL, 2019a, 13). Since business actors allegedly ‘know best’ where food waste occurs during their operations, they should be able to choose and take appropriate steps by engaging in self-responsible measures, such as “analysing”, “controlling”, “innovating”, and “generating transparency” in relation to food waste (ibid.). The dialogue forums connect these voluntary actions through providing accurate measurement tools for impact assessment, and through sharing best business practices to motivate more responsible engagement by others. When collectively agreeing upon appropriate benchmarks for each sector, “the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises must be preserved” (ibid.). Cross-sector cooperation is therefore by far the strongest link between prescriptions and identity images in the German context. Apart from these two main focus areas, some prescriptions also relate to civil society and research institutions. Civil society is mainly characterized by the BMEL in their function as ‘awareness-raisers’. Organizations

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

169

like Slow Food Germany and the regional consumer protection agencies engage consumers through public events, education workshops, and information materials to “achieve more food appreciation and ultimately reduce food waste” (BMEL, 2019a, 10). The BMEL also awards an annual Federal prize to new initiatives and businesses which present particularly innovative solutions and who are expected to ‘lead by example’. The prize award is among the most visible communicative tools of the BMEL in general and regularly receives broad media coverage. Additionally, such initiatives are introduced and described on an internet platform (Bund-Länder-Plattform, 2019) to promote social innovations as best practices to motivate other actors to follow suit. The BMEL also draws attention to the tasks and roles of science in addressing food waste. The role of science is seen as instrumental to design new methods and technologies to help businesses to gain knowledge about food waste generation and devise efficient reduction efforts. The Ministry has so far provided 16 million Euro for funding research projects on food waste reductions (e.g., on resource efficiency, digital solutions, and smart packaging) (BMEL, 2019a, 9). Two fields that are highlighted with reference to the European Research Network SUSFOOD (which supports food research with a practical orientation) are ‘Sustainable Consumer Behaviour’ and ‘Improving Competitiveness in the European Food Industry’ (ibid., 10). These research interests point to the priorities that are assigned by the BMEL: consumers and industry interests. Scientific research is also relevant to translate the amounts of wasted food into data on “resource use, environmental impact, and monetary factors and avoidance costs” (BMEL, 2019a, 17). Taken together with the role that is established for the business sector, all actors are instructed to find innovative solutions to the problem of food waste and especially civil society actors and businesses are to function as ‘best practice examples’ and to motivate others to engage with the issue (UBA, 2014, 16–8). In the UK, DEFRA has overhauled its food waste policy by stating that: “Our determination to cut food waste has not been matched by progress, which in recent years has plateaued. A new approach is needed”. (DEFRA, 2018, 99). This approach sets out numerous goals that constitute links between political prescriptions and particular actors. They overwhelmingly relate to the role of government and the tasks attributed to the private sector. DEFRA states that “we have approached the problem from numerous angles, including through a series of voluntary agreements that have reduced per capita food waste by 14%” (ibid.),

170

T. GUMBERT

but now introduces the idea that it considers mandatory targets for food waste prevention. This presents an important departure from relying solely on voluntary agreements through the Courtauld Commitment. In 2017, the then-Minister of the Environment did not consider mandatory targets necessary, although a large number of manufacturers had not signed the Courtauld Commitment (HoC, 2017a, 10). Now, DEFRA argues: [w]e will consult in 2019 on introducing regulations to make reporting mandatory for businesses of an appropriate size. We will also consult on seeking powers for mandatory food waste prevention targets for appropriate food businesses and for surplus food redistribution obligations to be introduced subject to progress made by businesses to reduce food waste. (DEFRA, 2018, 103)

The direction that DEFRA is taking suggests that if voluntary targets negotiated by the business sector do not meet required levels of food waste reduction, a more forceful approach is warranted. In that regard, DEFRA and WRAP provide businesses with simple and easy to implement steps to reduce waste through a “Food Waste Reduction Roadmap”. DEFRA also wants to regularly survey businesses to assess how far retailers and food businesses have come in implementing guidance and practice on food waste. Instead of concentrating on steering consumers towards pro-environmental behaviour change in regard to food waste only, the business sector is now very actively encouraged to self-optimize its own operations and supply chains (also through more cross-sector collaboration) through the Courtauld 2025 agreement. In terms of how DEFRA’s image of the business sector is related to prescriptions, businesses need to “identify food waste hotspots across the supply chain and see how they influence each other”; “understand barriers to reducing food waste and improving resource efficiency”; “agree practicable solutions, within the context of technical or commercial constraints”; and “develop best practice for industry-wide adoption, and any associated guidance”. (DEFRA, 2018, 104). The responsibilities formulated in this approach encourage the private sector to gain more knowledge about the food waste problem, design technical and managerial solutions on the basis of that knowledge, and share them in a cooperative effort with others to maximize their potential. A second role relates to how businesses interact with consumers. It is assumed that

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

171

“[r]etailers and food businesses play a key role in influencing household food waste” (ibid., 107) and that the goal is to reduce consumer food waste through business action. Such reduction efforts include first and foremost date labelling (the choice of date, e.g., ‘Best Before’ instead of ‘Use By’), and information on storage as well as freezing advice. Another prescription relates to urging businesses to improve product design and packaging sizes and use motivational consumer messaging in-store.

The Link Between Identity Images and Event In 2011, the BMEL commissioned a study conducted by the University of Stuttgart (published in 2012) to assess current levels of food waste in Germany, the first comprehensive study on the matter (Kranert et al., 2012). Statistics provided by this study are still in broad circulation and were still used by the BMEL in 2019. For example, the study estimates that 11 million tonnes of food are wasted annually in Germany, 82 kg per capita and year, of which 61% are attributed to the consumption stage, 17% to restaurants/caterers, 17% to the industry, and 5 per cent to retailers (Kranert et al., 2012).3 Instead of funding research to gain knowledge on other sectors of the food system, the BMEL commissioned another study on food waste in 2016 to learn even more about the reasons for food waste occurring in private households (GfK, 2017). In the Germany National Strategy, the causes of food waste are linked to individual sectors and actors mainly through supply chain logics (BMEL, 2019a, 8). It must already be noted that the term ‘waste’ (‘Verschwendung’) is not used once to link a specific segment to concrete causes. Studies have suggested in the past that the term has a “negative connotation in public discourse” and is therefore “less suitable for scientific studies” (Waskow et al., 2016, 12). The strategy is further very careful not to directly link a single actor immediately to waste generation. For primary production, loss occurs through transport and storage, because of quality standards, and through overproduction. However,

3 The study has been criticized on numerous grounds, such as largely extrapolating

existing data from other European countries and poor data sources for Germany, relying on self-reporting by a very small number of businesses to estimate retailer waste, and excluding production level waste from their study. In comparison, a WWF study estimated that the amount of food wasted in Germany would be closer to 18 million tonnes, with 39 per cent attributed to private households (Langen & Sahinol, 2014, WWF, 2015).

172

T. GUMBERT

the strategy points out that the potential to reduce food losses was already part of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and is for this reason excluded from the strategy’s policy focus, which is concerned with post-harvest losses. On the manufacturing stage, food is ‘lost from the supply chain’ by damage, contamination, technical malfunctions (cooling systems), etc., i.e., causes resulting from poor management, and also due to wrong labelling, hygiene standards, or food which is not sold. Many of these causes are also connected to the wholesale and retail stage. Here, legal aspects are additionally mentioned as causes for food waste, for example through insecurity concerning legal liabilities in case of donating food, and deviations of products from legal requirements and commercial classes. All of the above fall into the category of ‘unintended’ food waste due to technical, legal, and managerial circumstances, and yet they are rarely problematized because they seem manageable. Private households, on the other hand, cause food waste due to not paying attention to the shelf life of products while shopping, they buy too much food or the wrong products (food is perceived as distasteful), store food inadequately, do not possess appropriate domestic competences, or make wrong food preparations (BMEL, 2019a, 8). While the processes surrounding food handling and provisioning in other sectors of food supply chains can be systemically optimized (through technologies, management systems, and legislation), on the consumption stage, it is the consumer who appears to be in need of optimization, and consequently food waste is presented as a problem of lacking knowledge and awareness in society at large. Beyond this rather typical sector-specific approach to linking particular actors to food waste generation, there appears an especially strong link in the material that sees the lack of “food appreciation” (“Wertschätzung”) as a central cause for food waste. It is assumed that “everyone should appreciate our food in their everyday lives” (ibid., 17), a notion which simultaneously omits the use of the term ‘waste’ and creates a sense of ‘shared’ responsibility. Consequently, the Umweltbundesamt (German Environment Agency, UBA) suggests “Measures to Increase Food Appreciation” as one of three complexes of reduction measures, the other two being “Measures to Design Political Framework Conditions” and “Measures for Single Aspects” (UBA, 2014, 14–5). Increasing food appreciation is operationalized as creating educational campaigns, the integration of the topic in relevant educational initiatives, and supporting local and regional structures to further direct marketing.

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

173

Contrary to the German case, DEFRA uses exact statistics to illustrate the dimensions of food waste across sectors: of the 10.2 million tonnes of annual food waste (post-farm gate), 7.1 million are attributed to households, 1.85 million to the manufacturing sector, 1 million to the hospitality and food service industry, and 0.25 million to the retail sector (DEFRA, 2018, 100). The national target aims to reduce food waste by 1.5 million tonnes by the year 2025, which would see a decrease in per capita food waste from currently 156 kg to 125 kg. DEFRA also mentions that as a future policy focus, it will look to sectors that have not garnered a lot of attention until now: So far we have focused on food waste after the farm gate. But at the primary production stage of the supply chain there is also significant scope to prevent wasted food – and tangible financial, environmental and efficiency benefits to be had. (ibid., 105)

Many of the actions of particular actors, especially retailers, are now officially linked to food waste generation. Policy needs to protect producers from exposure to unfair practices which are often the cause of viable produce going to waste. Practices such as late changes to product specifications, or order cancellations with insufficient notice for a producer to find an alternative commercial outlet for their goods, can mean perfectly good food never even reaches the shop shelf. (ibid., 105–106)

Establishing this link through or in official policy frameworks is what many NGOs have demanded for the longest time (e.g., Feedback and ‘This is Rubbish’).

Summary: National Contexts Governing food waste in both Germany and the UK follows similar trajectories in many aspects: both governments’ policies have been updated in 2018 (UK) and 2019 (Germany) and encourage all actors to reduce food waste along food supply chains to the best of their abilities. This means first and foremost that societal and business actors need to critically review their own practices and operations in acquiring and handling food and optimize their conduct to contribute to larger reduction goals. Especially consumers need to be addressed to lead them to behaviour

174

T. GUMBERT

change in many aspects of their daily consumption routines. In the UK, a policy focus has been established on furthering surplus redistributions as a normative prescription for effectively reducing waste. In Germany, while some initiatives are lauded for their practices of social care (‘die Tafeln’— the German food bank association—and the organization Foodsharing are mentioned among others), food donations do not represent a significant focus of the strategy. In UBA’s documentation of the Expert Forum 2017 on effectively reducing food waste (UBA, 2018), donations to local food banks are discussed along other options for sharing food, such as through internet platforms (“Facebook”) or through mobile apps (“Too Good To Go”) that connect consumers to restaurants and supermarkets who offer reduced prices. This signifies that the issue of how to increase food donations nation-wide and coordinate businesses and charities is in Germany still at the very beginning. The political means to achieve food waste reduction across the food system is also driven by cross-sector cooperation between business actors in both cases, but also between the private sector and non-governmental organizations, respectively. While the BMEL still defends its focus on relying on voluntary agreements, DEFRA has moved towards embracing mandatory food waste preventions and business auditing schemes to increase commitment of the business sector, especially as food waste reductions have plateaued (DEFRA, 2018; Hoc, 2017a; WRAP, 2014). Both Germany and the UK, however, rely on actors across society and the business sector to develop innovations to further reductions and to lead by example to draw more actors into engaging with the issue. Especially in Germany, there has been a focus on promoting and encouraging small-scale social innovations as best practices and spur imagination of how innovative solutions to food waste reduction can be achieved. In terms of the causes of food waste and their relation to different actors, the image of businesses being capable of tackling food waste is underlined by drawing on multiple management techniques and best practices that cast food waste as a complex, though manageable problem. The broader cultural problem of missing knowledge and awareness, mostly attributed to consumers, can also be addressed to a great extent by retailers and other businesses of the food industry by applying certain informational tools. Two links between identity images and event that appear (not exclusively, but separately in terms of strength) in both contexts are the lack of food appreciation in Germany and unfair business practices in the UK. The attention to food appreciation as a discourse

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

175

around food waste omits the negative connotations of the term and aims to motivate different actors to engage in reductions in a positive, ‘appreciative’ sense, which is a marked difference from the arguably more paternalistic language of consumer education. The attention to unfair business practices signifies a novelty in the UK, which has the potential to draw attention to the systemic injustices in food supply chains and put them on the political agenda. So far, it is however only an exceptionally small part of the overall strategy (Fig. 7.2). Looking at the dominant links of responsibility attributions in Germany and the UK, we immediately notice that the notion of ‘responsibility as accountability’ in national food waste governance strategies is very visible, but also that it ‘blurs’ around the edges. In Germany, almost symbolizing a ‘preamble’ to the National Strategy, it is claimed: “everyone—citizens, entrepreneurs, scientists, politicians—must make PRESCRIPTIONS

RESPONSIBILITY [NATIONAL]

IDENTITY IMAGES

Manageable Business Waste Lack of Consumer Knowledge and Awareness

EVENT

Lack of Food Appreciation Unfair Business Practices

Fig. 7.2 The responsibility triangle—National contexts (Source Author’s own illustration)

176

T. GUMBERT

their contribution and be responsible” (BMEL, 2019a, 17). Responsibility is here defined as “working together towards common goals”, “being innovative”, “appreciating food”, “saving resources”, and “sharing knowledge and data to make better, informed decisions” (ibid.). Businesses are guided and coordinated, their voluntariness and free agency confirmed, and broadly politically legitimated by a discourse of ‘shared’ responsibility. Listing all the various technological and managerial interventions that are possible mitigates the risk that food waste potentially poses in ecological and social terms, and every actor who is willing to conduct her/himself accordingly can apply best practices. Lastly, and probably most importantly, all actors who do not fit this profile, i.e., rational, unconstrained, willing to coordinate and cooperate, to share and work towards a common vision, must be put into a position to become willing to do so in order for accountability to function the way it is supposed to. For example, DEFRA is strongly implying that it will move towards mandatory targets if not more business actors join the Courtauld Commitment and meet set targets. Similarly, it points to implementing a new food and waste hierarchy, if not more surplus food is redistributed in the future and instead processed through anaerobic digestion. And lastly, if businesses do not start to look deep into their supply chains and selfassess how their practices lead to systemic and structural forms of waste, this will become a bigger issue in the future. In a way, ‘responsibility as accountability’ is undermined by attempting to enforce a stronger version of it. These aspects as well as the differences between both policy contexts are more clearly discernable by drawing on the reactions that the new food waste policy strategies provoked. In Germany, the BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany) criticized the strategy for relying exclusively on voluntary agreements without any indication of a stronger, legislative push (BUND, 2019). It is argued that German food waste policy should pay more attention to the entire supply chain instead of focusing on consumers and retailers. While France and Italy, for example, had already created legislative action to force retailers into cooperating with food banks and charities (see also UBA, 2018), even such a measure, seen as a single policy act, would not be enough since it puts too much pressure on voluntary organizations in civil society. Valentin Thurn (filmmaker and co-founder of Foodsharing), further comments that “[t]he fact that the [BMEL] is not in a position to present its own strategy is an evidence of

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

177

incapacity. Now companies are to develop a strategy in dialogue forums”. (WDR, 2019, author’s translation). Slow Food Germany commented that the German policy initiative would not tackle “the root of the problem, namely systemic problems and pre-harvest losses” (Slow Food, 2019, author’s translation). Such problems would include the “systemic waste of the industrial food system, which relies on quantity, constant availability, and high turnover” (ibid., author’s translation). To address these problems, much stronger legislation and mandatory measures for the food industry would be needed, and the policy focus should include primary agricultural production. Instead, we would see reduction efforts aiming “to optimise the existing ‘sick’ system instead of transforming our system for the future” (ibid., author’s translation). In relation to the UK’s approach, the NGO ‘Feedback’ comments that it is good to see DEFRA not only move towards a circular approach to deal with waste, but also adopting several [of] Feedback recommendations on how to tackle food waste. This includes consulting on mandatory regulations for large food businesses to report transparently on their food waste and to commit to prevention targets […]. (Feedback, 2019)

Feedback is however critical of the fact that DEFRA has not included an approach towards strengthening the food use hierarchy through legislation. Although businesses are required to commit to food waste reduction targets, there is much room for interpretation on how businesses should meet them, and this flexibility may be intended by the policy update. Jessica Sinclair Taylor of Feedback is quoted saying that “[i]f we’re to meet the UN’s global goal of halving food waste by 2030, we will need to stop relying on businesses doing the right thing, and start requiring them to”. (ibid.). The organization is especially critical of the “misaligned incentives supporting AD [anaerobic digestion] as a ‘green energy’”, missing attention to “retailer responsibility” for creating a “culture of ‘over-purchase’” and the neglect of legal implementation of the “food use hierarchy” (ibid.). On the surface, in both national contexts, food waste governance aims to install a system of accountability to link all societal actors, from individuals to the whole business sector, to the larger goal of food waste reductions. And yet, the practical forms that political accountability takes are starting to differ. In Germany, civil society actors perceive the strategy

178

T. GUMBERT

as lacking decisive political action, and the voluntariness underscoring the approach is seen as curtailing business interests. In comparison, the UK is starting to formulate prescriptions for appropriate reduction measures that contain more formal elements (legal action) and differences in goal orientation (finding ‘good’ uses for food instead of focusing merely on effectiveness). This might be explained by the obvious time delay: the Courtauld Commitment has been in place in the UK since 2005, and many business actors, especially retailers, have collected and shared experiences on reducing food waste within and across sectors. Civil society actors have also been a lot more vocal in demanding changes and have definitely had impact on the evolving ‘accountability agenda’, as evidenced by ‘Feedback’’s comments on the updated UK policy strategy. But especially since food waste has been addressed for some time, the “low hanging fruits” (HoC, 2017a; WRAP, 2014) of immediate and impactful reductions have been harvested. DEFRA’s approach of leaning towards the revision of important aspects of its strategy signal that some core elements of ‘responsibility as accountability’ are questioned. Although consumption is reaffirmed as the sphere of the overall greatest reduction potential by current estimates (DEFRA, 2018), the Ministry sees retailers and manufacturers as the most powerful actors of food supply chains and pushes them to draw in more ‘partners’, be more transparent about their food waste data, and keep to the agreed targets. Re-stating the importance of the food use and waste hierarchy (though not imbued with legislative power) also distinguishes ‘morally good agency’ (redistribution of surpluses) from ‘morally bad agency’ (redirecting surpluses directly to waste-to-energy schemes). In both cases, however, we see the limits of a ‘responsibility as accountability’ approach. Overall, the structural problems of food waste generation (relating to systemic overproduction, productivity, and continued growth, as well as a culture of ‘over-purchase’) remain unexplored. Conflicts about the normative issues around food waste reduction (the moral agency implied in the repurposing of surpluses) still exist, and legislation seems to want to rely on this flexibility strategically to balance the conflicting interests of a circular economy and a social food values approach.

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

179

Local Contexts Similar to the presentation of the national policy contexts, I will present relevant information on actors on the local level in both Germany and the UK together in the next sections when discussing the responsibility links of the triangle model to avoid redundancy. For more information on the group of actors discussed here, see Chapter 6. Local: The Link Between Prescriptions and Event4 On the local level, the codings of this link systematize concrete food waste reduction actions taken by different initiatives and connect these practices to how these groups understand the food waste problem, its causes, and consequences. Mostly, they imagine their own actions as appropriate and valuable contributions to reduce food waste in size and as addressing the negative consequences of its generation that affect many sectors of society. The prescriptions-event category is by far the largest of the three main links in responsibility attributions, since many social innovations justify what they do in direct relation to the issue, without, for example, discussing the role and tasks of other actors. Within the sample, three distinct links appear most frequently: the notions that (1) sharing and redistributing food reduces waste, (2) that material transformation and re-use are appropriate efforts for food waste reduction, and (3) that connecting actors through more efficient supply and demand management systems will have a considerable impact. The first and overall strongest link advocates sharing and redistributing food as best practice by drawing attention to the myriad ways that surpluses, i.e., perfectly edible food which is about to be wasted, arise in the food system. Many of the most visible and well-known organizations, such as Feedback in the UK and Foodsharing in Germany, share the conviction that saving food from becoming waste by distributing surplus food to others, especially those in need, constitutes the best option to address the food waste problem. Foodsharing, for example, collects unsold food from supermarkets and redistributes it in local networks. By March 2019, approximately 22 million kg of food had been saved,

4 Most citations in this section refer to the online presence and supplementary materials of local initiatives in Germany and the UK. Please see Annex 7.1 and 7.2 for an overview of the cited material.

180

T. GUMBERT

through 1.4 million pickups by individual members of the initiative. Over 5.200 businesses cooperate with Foodsharing across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (Foodsharing, 2019). Many organizations keep detailed statistics on their food-saving operations to be able to publicly communicate how impactful these reduction measures can be. But how these social innovations link prescriptions for best efforts to the issue of food waste also points to another important aspect: Many social innovations treat food waste not as an end goal of their efforts, but rather as means to provide good and healthy food to as many people as possible, and as a medium for creating social relationships through bringing people together at the same time (e.g., Apfelschätze, 2019, Big Lunch, 2019, Casserole, 2019). The establishment of material and personal networks aims to reduce the distance between individual actors in the (industrialized) food system (producers, supermarkets, consumers, etc.), to shorten supply chains, and thereby to reduce waste. Simultaneously, it serves to reduce the ‘in-group distance’ between individual food producers (building cooperative networks of producers through farmers markets) or individual consumers (food swapping parties) through setting up intermediary organizations or sharing platforms, thereby improving distribution and reducing waste (e.g. Apples for Eggs, 2019, DEINE ERNTE, 2019, ShoutOutLoud, 2019). Many initiatives also explicitly understand food waste as a social challenge, which makes it possible to connect individual actors and to tackle other (if not more important) challenges in the food system, such as food poverty (Food Cycle, 2019, Plan Zheroes, 2019, The Real Junk Food Project, 2019). These reduction practices further include innovations that organize the resale of (almost) expired food (Approved Food, 2019, IM ANGEBOT, 2019, Sirplus, 2019), establish local networks to exchange self-produced or leftover food (Abundance Manchester, 2019), or motivate people with similar interests to engage in common activities (e.g., cooking clubs, neighbourhood meetings, selforganized markets, etc.) (League of Meals, 2019, Share Your Meal UK, 2019). A second strong link in the data set describes social innovations as agents which practically engage with food surpluses through transforming and re-using food for making new products as an effective means to reduce waste. This form of ‘upcycling’ is a very straightforward way of dealing with the food waste problem by revaluing food which has been deemed ‘unfit’ for human consumption by others and therefore signifies a direct diversion from the waste stream. Here, food is also either collected

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

181

from businesses or producers (Be Bananas, 2019), harvested from ‘wild’ fruit trees (Das Geld hängt an den Bäumen, 2019), or collected from windfall (Hunkelstide, 2019) first, before being transformed and refashioned into a new commodity, such as humous (ChicP, 2019), juices (Rejuce, 2019), chutneys (Rubies in the Rubble, 2019), dried vegetables and fruits (DÖRRWERK, 2019, Snact, 2019), or marmalade (Marmelade für alle!, 2019). While the previously discussed link of sharing and redistributing food waste focused essentially on getting surplus food to people who can make use of it, and of valuing established social relationships through food, here, the belief in transforming and re-using food surpluses as a reduction measure is much more rooted in the necessary human work that needs to be applied to the object to revalue it and ‘redeem’ it from its almost-transition into waste. The practical revaluation of food surpluses points to an underlying problem, explaining why such a prescription is needed: the loss of love and respect for food. The socalled ‘vonky veg’ (food that aesthetically differs from food standardized for supermarkets) movement is a case in point, and calls for a new relation to food in all its diversity: “Everyone on the planet looks different and its this difference that makes us beautiful…So why do we want all our fruit and veg to look the same? Who wants to be normal? Its fashionable to be UGLY!” (Rejuce, 2019). Many social innovations that engage in transforming and re-using surplus food therefore want to help people to rediscover food diversity, to respect the principles of regionality and seasonality, and to create a “healthy and fair food culture, where food, producers and resources are valued again”. (Culinary Misfits, 2019). Lastly, a third link sees the optimization of supply and demand management as an appropriate reduction strategy. It presents food waste as a problem resulting from the inefficiency of the current food system and as a consequence of overly complex supply chains. Social innovations in this field use technology to “integrate digital and physical worlds innovatively” (FoodLoop, 2019), typically through programming mobile food waste apps that connect retailers and restaurants who offer unsold food to consumers for reduced prices. The ‘appropriateness’ of these solutions stems from the fact that they are a “simple way to stop this waste” and make saving food “easy, fun and therefore [.] self-evident” (UXA, 2019). A detailed explanation of the causes of food waste is usually omitted; rather, the picture presented by technical solutions with the aim to match supply and demand is that everyone can benefit by reducing waste: an app

182

T. GUMBERT

allows everyone to make a contribution against waste, while at the same time getting delicious food and supporting stores in their own environment. The companies manage to dispose less food and can gain new customers. And together, it preserves the environment. A win-win-win situation!. (Too Good To Go, 2019)

Technical solutions tend to motivate people to change their behaviour primarily through economic incentives (by calculating potential household savings), and by painting a larger picture of ‘simple and fun activism’: “With a 97% satisfaction rate on all orders, saving the world has never tasted so good!” (ResQ, 2019). Apparently, everyone can become a food saver, by saving time and money. Local: The Link Between Prescriptions and Identity Images In this section, I discuss how social innovations in Germany and the UK connect normatively valued, appropriate reduction efforts to the roles and tasks of specific actors. In the present case, the self-image of these initiatives is already implied in the ways they frame their own reduction practices (link prescription-event discussed above). Therefore, I will concentrate here on how other actors and stakeholders are linked to actions that need to be realized from their point of view. In this respect, it is first of all noteworthy that ‘politics’, or policymakers, are rarely addressed by the social innovations examined here. While there are a few exceptions, showing that there is considerable public debate beyond official policy guidelines and that there are in fact calls for more decisive political action (which I will discuss later), these voices appear only on the margins of the initiatives analysed here. Primarily, there are two other large groups of actors that are linked to specific, necessary reduction practices: society and the corporate sector. Whereas we see a clear distinction in the first group between ‘consumers’ and ‘people’ more generally, the business sector is narrowed down to retail chains and smaller supermarkets. The assumption that changes in consumers’ attitudes and behaviours towards food is an important lever for reduction is the most frequent attribution across the analyzed sample. Allegedly, consumers can do so by simple ways of tracking their consumption habits (Kitchen Canny, 2019) and by realizing the economic savings potential in households (National Zero Waste Week, 2019). It’s apparently all a matter of learning how to

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

183

use leftover food, of portioning food quantities, and storing food appropriately (Let’s Get Cooking, 2019). Some initiatives also argue that there is joy to be found in self-optimization, such as in meticulously detailed shopping lists, in the optimization of food use at home, or in recycling food scraps to make the most use out of them, e.g., by composting (The Rubbish Diet, 2019). Apart from behavioural changes confined to the home, another dominant prescription for consumers is that they need to alter their purchasing patterns not only in terms of the amount of food they buy, but also with regard to its origin (Etepetete, 2019; Querfeld, 2019; Solidarmöhre, 2019). Through the project ‘Solidarmöhre’, for instance, consumers can pledge to buy vonky carrots directly from farmers who are not able to sell them due to industry food standards. To sum it up, initiatives imply that through consumers can become responsible food savers by simply making better purchasing decisions. These consumerrelated prescriptions convey the overall idea that every individual act can contribute meaningfully to food waste reduction, and that simple options—giving consumers orientation, direction, and purpose—must be in place. This picture appears slightly different, however, if prescriptions for appropriate reduction efforts are not addressed to consumers, but to people who fulfil various tasks and roles in society. By doing so, prescriptions are simultaneously related to a range of issues regarded as connected to, and equally important as, food waste, as the following quote exemplifies: The campaign enables the participating groups to experience self-efficacy and value creation, motivates them to do something, raise questions about consumption, hunger and justice in the world, overcome the alienation of modern people in relation to food and create regional networks. (Marmelade für Alle!, 2019)

Similar corresponding attributions suggest that people require a “holistic access to our nature and food” (Culinary Misfits, 2019), need “to be respectful to trees, nature and animals”, “share [and] give something back” and “engage in care” (Mundraub, 2019) as part of (and as a prerequisite for) reducing waste. A “broad knowledge of the connections” (FoodFighters, 2019) as well as the creation of a relation of people to such global issues through saving food are seen as prerequisites. The initiative ‘Marmelade für Alle!’ for example promotes “seed-activism”,

184

T. GUMBERT

linking the necessity of seeds for the growth of healthy food with the issue of capital concentration in the global seed industry and its impacts on farmers. Here, it is evident that initiatives want normatively valued actions of society at large to move beyond simple behaviour changes to also conduct oneself in relation to the conditions and structures in which the generation of surplus food is embedded. For some, this reconnection with nature includes regaining control of where food is coming from, how it is produced and distributed (Feedback, 2019; ShoutOutLoud, 2019; The Good Food, 2019). A third and final dominant link connects business actors to particular actions for the reduction of food waste. The examined documents imply that retailers, as part of the industrialized food system, are seen as having the power to influence what food lands on their shelves through negotiating standards and quality norms with farmers and food producers (Culinary Misfits, 2019; Rubies in the Rubble, 2019). Consequently, they appear as directly implicated in what is going wrong in global trade and food value chains of industrialized nations – think of the numerous products that are sorted out directly because of their size, shape or because of smaller deficiencies. (The Good Food, 2019)

The organization Feedback, for example, is “calling for retailers and other food businesses who buy farmed goods to take responsibility for waste their practices […] cause on farms” (Feedback, 2019). A plea for changing business practices is also the object of most online petitions, sometimes explicitly targeted at specific food sectors (Hugh’s Fish Fight, 2019). Important prescriptions attributed to businesses are also the need to “oblige[.] [them] to report on the food waste they generate in their activities, with annual reports audited and publicised by an independent commission” (IFWAP, 2019) to ensure more transparency. In this context, governments are sometimes mentioned in their role to introduce obligations upon the food sector to reduce food waste; yet prescriptions overwhelmingly single out businesses to alter their practices. Local: The Link Between Identity Images and Event The way in which the causes of the food waste problem complex are linked to specific actors across social innovations differs significantly. The

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

185

relevant actors described here are either society at large or the corporate sector, both in turn linked causally to the mechanisms and reasons for food waste generation. The most dominant link establishes the ‘throw-away society’, i.e., the culture around food provision and consumption, as the main cause for food waste. There is however, again similar to the last section, an important distinction being made between ‘wasteful behaviours’ and a more general ‘disconnection from the values of food’ as the underlying problem. The “throw-away mentality” (Be Bananas, 2019) hinders people to find any use for food that is about to be wasted. This mentality is presented as a consequence of rampant consumerism: “We are transforming the waste of the throwaway society into delicious dishes, turning consumerism around”. (Wastecooking, 2019). It is assumed that consumers do not think twice when they waste, being ignorant because they do not have sufficient knowledge and because wasting food is often easier than finding ways of re-using it. In this sense, they also lack creativity and imagination. The discourse of the ‘throw-away society’ also enables social innovations to charge their reduction efforts with ethical values and imbue their food products with a sense of ‘doing good’: “save delicious food and fight waste” (Too Good To Go, 2019), “give food a second chance” (IM ANGEBOT, 2019), “do good for yourself and the future” (Apfelschätze, 2019). Initiatives evoke the impression that it is possible to escape the label of the ‘throw-away culture’ and be a part of a larger goal by making simple purchasing decisions: “What we love about food is that small changes can lead to big impacts. Even small numbers get large when you multiply them by a few million” (Snact, 2019). Whereas the problem is here defined as the lack of any value attributed to food commodities, the ‘disconnect-thesis’ broadens this perspective by problematizing the lack of value attribution to the conditions of agricultural production at large. Allegedly, the ‘true value’ of food cannot be adequately understood if people have no idea of the struggles producers face and the amount of surpluses generated long before food arrives at the market level (Querfeld, 2019; Slow Food Youth, 2019; The Good Food, 2019). The apparent problem is therefore that many do not socialize enough with local communities and do lack solidarity towards those members of society, who produce and distribute food (Abundance Network, 2019; Solidarmöhre, 2019). A campaign by Feedback therefore calls for ‘Food Citizenship’ to “transform passive consumers into active food citizens that take part in shaping the food system” (Feedback, 2019).

186

T. GUMBERT

The corresponding central communicative thrust of these social innovations goes beyond the notion of ‘buy good, feel good’, because the ethical aspects they promote are concerned with an emphasis on the cultivation of ‘better’ social values, interdependence, and positive emotions (friendship, living in harmony with one’s surroundings, etc.). This distinction to the ‘throw-away society’ thesis is important in two respects. Firstly, if ‘wasteful behaviours’ are the problem, there is indeed an (seemingly) easy fix: consumers have to look to their own conduct, alter behavioural patterns, and make better purchasing decisions. They only have to concentrate on self-optimization and self-management. While the ‘disconnection’ thesis equally considers the current culture around food to be the main cause for food waste, the solutions proposed by it are much more complex: people are asked to look beyond themselves to the food system and to the way that consumption choices are embedded in larger contexts of production, distribution, and consumption. Secondly, according to the ‘disconnection’ thesis, making the ‘right’ decisions to reduce food waste involves knowing and understanding more about these complexities that extend beyond the local dimension, for example to working conditions of farmers in the Global South. It is also not ‘just’ about reducing food waste through valuing the food that sits in the fridge, but about valuing all social relationships that are a part of the food system. Lastly, another important link connects dominant business actors within the food system to processes of waste generation and describes food waste as a symptom of underlying structural problems in the food system. Here, social innovations frequently draw on systemic macrocontexts (such as overproduction and the growth paradigm) and connect them to the influence of dominant business actors (Bro Gwaun, 2019; Feedback, 2019; IFWAP, 2019; Wastecooking, 2019). They make the case that structural changes are necessary in order to solve the food waste problem. Some also argue that the overstatement of consumer food waste could be corrected by paying more attention to how retailer practices are causing waste in private households (Feedback, 2019). The potential solutions that are discussed by social innovations more indirectly point to dominant structures and food waste generation, by calling for the localization or regionalization of existing structures in the food system, the importance of increasing subsistence farming, and regaining control and autonomy over the systems of food production and distribution:

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

187

[we have to] put[.] the people who produce, distribute and consume food at the centre of decisions on food systems and policies, rather than the demands of markets and corporations that have come to dominate the global food system. (Abundance Manchester, 2019)

Related arguments also use figures on the size of the food waste problem in global and national dimensions, but these numbers are consistently contextualized, i.e., related to the extent of global hunger and malnutrition. It is suggested that, because of structural injustices in the food system and their connections to waste, responses must be explicitly political, for example through calls for connecting with others and participating in a broader movement (e.g., by referencing the food sovereignty movement) (Abundance Manchester, 2019; Feedback, 2019; Foodsharing 2019).

Summary: Local Contexts Social innovations who promote awareness-raising as a primary solution strategy to the food waste problem aim to rationalize consumer behaviour and try to optimize the flow of food commodities between individual segments of food supply chains. Food waste is portrayed as producing immense costs for individuals and society at large. Frequent references to the ‘throw-away society’, which frame the generation of food waste as a cultural mentality problem, legitimize the special attention attributed to the consumer level. This means that the political rationalities detected on the global level and in national governance contexts are also present on the local level in Germany and the UK. These assertions are however counterweighted by a strong focus on revaluing food and existing social relationships in the food system. For many social innovations, especially those that base their actions in a specific local or regional context and aim to foster communities, everyday practices of food use and food provisioning constitute a major reference. A wide range of meanings related to cultivating deeper and more holistic human–nature relationship (safeguarding the environment, the beauty of ‘wonky’ vegetables, etc.) is attributed to food waste reduction efforts to bring people with highly individualized lifestyles closer together and to engage them in joint action. The formation of a communal sense of belonging and the experience of self-efficacy stand out as important motivations to overcome the central problem of the disconnection between

188

T. GUMBERT

people and the food system. However, there is also the general tendency that prescriptions for ‘holistic relations’ with nature slip into a call for cultivating post-material identities and green lifestyles, an attitude that makes saving food ‘urban’ and ‘fresh’. The motivations for adopting healthier and ‘greener’ lifestyles may contradict the initial intentions of some initiatives to make people consider food and nature differently. Problematizations of practices of waste generation that benefit individual actors (e.g., risk reduction through contracting, oversupply to ensure maximum revenue, etc.) do occur, but they are, comparatively, marginal. Still, some initiatives that engage in material transformation or redistribution of surplus food regard their own conduct as also having a political dimension. Distanced processes and macro structures of an industrialized food system are seen critically as negative elements that contribute to food waste and need to be changed, especially since individual livelihoods are affected and the control over issues of food provisioning is gradually lost. This leads social innovations to demand the democratization and localization of food production and distribution, a safer future, more sustainable business activities, as well as the empowerment of citizens beyond the focus on consumer attitudes. If we summarize these various attributions according to the respective links between prescriptions and event, between prescriptions and identity images as well as between identity images and event, we see that responsibility for advancing food waste reductions on the local level is multiple and varied. Understandings of accountability make up only a small part of how social innovations understand the problems, causes, and consequences associated with food waste, and they most regularly appear through calls for retailers and the business sector at large to adopt better practices, to make waste that occurs in their stores more transparent and to exhibit overall more responsible action (Fig. 7.3). In contrast, the biggest motivation for reducing food waste for most initiatives is the notion of responsibility as respect towards other human beings working with food, responsibility as care towards food, resources and nature, and responsibility as interdependence between humans and nature. The actions of social innovations that interact directly with food are future-oriented in the sense that they promise a more sustainable and more just food system, without the need to follow specific targets or benchmarks. Their understanding of responsibility further depends on moral agency, in the sense of doing the ‘right’ thing in the face of multiple, severe threats, and they appear to regain some feeling of control

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

189

PRESCRIPTIONS

RESPONSIBILITY [LOCAL]

IDENTITY IMAGES

The Throw-away Society Thesis The Disconnection Thesis

EVENT

Dominant Structures

Fig. 7.3 The responsibility triangle—Local contexts (Source Author’s own illustration)

amidst the complex and uncertain developments in the food system through their actions, although they consider their individual reduction effort to be of only small impact. The various attributions of responsibility also show, however, that much of their practice is depoliticized. Only a small fraction of social innovations refers to power, authority, or legitimacy in the global food system. As a group, they rarely question the duties and obligations of other actors or make them a subject of discussion. The numerous individual approaches to reduction of these initiatives remain separate and isolated. Most seem contend to fulfill their individual responsibility as they see it without feeling the need to engage in political struggles over the potential responsibilities of dominant actors in the food system. This constitutes a serious disconnect between the actions of social innovations and the larger socio-political context of food waste governance. If we look at how responsibility is understood and enacted across these various social innovations in Germany and the UK, we see serious tensions

190

T. GUMBERT

arise in their everyday reduction practices that are also mirrored in the responsibility triangle for the local level. One such tension concerns the growth of these initiatives, i.e., if their practical prescriptions to reduce food waste still apply if they expand and upscale their efforts. The practices of collecting, distributing, and transforming surplus food into new commodities are extremely time consuming, and to be able to keep doing their work, most of them need to become profitable if they do not have at least 50–70 volunteers at their disposal (like, for example, Foodsharing or Feedback, who exceed these numbers by far). Many social innovations that started out as ‘food savers’, but simultaneously relied on business models, have to deal with this issue: Of course, the time will come when we will also be offering other snacks that are made from delicious, healthy vegetables or fruits that are not always saved. The reason for this is that we believe in sustainable and tasty snacks and want to grow responsibly with our company, which also means developing new products. (DÖRRWERK, 2019)

In this respect it seems important to these actors to be able to reaffirm their original identity: “Our goal is to make a small but growing contribution against food waste and to set up a successful business that takes its place in the midst of all the anonymous and major players in the food industry”. (ibid.). Other initiatives, that started out as regional surplus collectors on farms, now distribute ‘saved’ food all over Germany through standard shipping and state that they want to be “more sustainable, more ecological and smarter than regular retail” (Etepetete, 2019). Here, we see that the valorization of ‘waste’ constantly demands new inputs in terms of resources, and, at least to some degree, defeats its original purpose: the growth of an initiative leads, at the beginning, to an increase of the potential to ‘save’ more food from becoming waste, and the more it grows, the greater its need for original resource inputs. Another tension is visible in social innovations’ stance on business actors. Many initiatives rely on the good intentions of smaller and larger corporations, especially retailers, and on their willingness to cooperate to be able to ‘save’ unsold food. At the same time, there is also the sentiment that these powerful actors could, and would need to, do exceptionally more on their part to really tackle the underlying problem. The example of ‘Foodsharing’ in Germany shows how initiatives are under pressure to conduct themselves in that regard. ‘Foodsharing’ is part of the

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

191

“Geniesst uns!” (“Enjoy us!”) campaign, co-founded by WWF, United Against Waste, Welthungerhilfe (German World Hunger Aid), Die Tafeln (German food bank association), and others. The campaign, initiated in 2014, focuses on acknowledging businesses for their “exemplary action” on food waste reduction and on mobilizing other businesses to follow suit (through a dedicated best practice award and ‘friendly’ competition), while also promoting networking among all stakeholders through an interactive platform (GeniesstUns, 2019). The campaign believes that a business-friendly approach will get more actors to engage with the issue, which will in turn help to achieve more overall reductions. Foodsharing is however also part of another public campaign that started in 2015, whose goals have been very different in nature. Valentin Thurn (filmmaker of “Taste the Waste”), together with Foodsharing, Slow Food Youth Germany, BUNDJugend (Young Friends of the Earth), and AktionAgrar (Alliance for agricultural transition), initiated the campaign “Wegwerfstopp für Supermärkte!” (“Stop wastage in supermarkets!”), which does not target businesses, but policymakers to take legislative action on food waste generated by retailers (Leere Tonne, 2019). Their instruments include public demonstrations (e.g., in front of the German Bundestag), a petition (50.000 signatures have been acquired), and other public events. The simultaneity of these campaigns signifies that the question of how to address business actors, especially retailers and catering food businesses, is creating tensions for many initiatives engaged in food waste reductions. While large and established NGOs and associations choose a cooperative approach and stress the notion that responsibility for reductions must be shared across all sectors and among the dominant actors in food supply chains, others address the existing power differentials in the food system and the fact that policy measures have by and large isolated wasteful consumer behaviours as the root cause of the waste problem. And yet, most initiatives suggest to “never judge or criticize”, “work together”, and “find practical solutions” (Plan Zheroes, 2019), to “make food-saving mainstream” and to “create a win–win-win situation for the environment, for our customers and our partners” (Sirplus, 2019). By conducting themselves this way, many social innovations who re-use and resell surplus food products increasingly rely on continuous streams of food waste to support infrastructure and personnel. At this point, both of these tensions strive towards resolution: if social innovations want to grow, they have to rely on the business sector for support, which in turn

192

T. GUMBERT

undermines their capacity for demanding and supporting more radical structural change in the global agrifood system.

Summary: Food Waste Governance in its Global, National, and Local Dimensions Analyzing food waste governance through the lens of the responsibility triangle model has enabled us to look past general assessments that responsibility needs to be shared equally by all actors, across all domains, because of the global and universal nature of the problem. Responsibility rather appears as multiple and variable in its global, national, and local articulations and manifestations. Comparing the prescriptions for reduction efforts, the nature of the event of food waste generation, and the identity images attributed to various stakeholders across these dimensions makes it possible to draw out significant similarities and differences of how food waste governance is organized and how it functions. Prescriptions for governing food waste on the global level establish this field in terms of its complexities and uncertainties, and therefore suggest to develop concrete and detailed ways of measuring and managing it. Food ‘waste’ is to be addressed through rationalizing the field of consumption, while the event of food ‘loss’ needs to be subjected to optimization efforts to mitigate the existing inefficiency inside food supply chains. National efforts consequently encourage free and rational actors to engage in practices of self-optimization, while ‘irrational’ actors of ‘limited agency’ (i.e., consumers and ‘unwilling’ agents) are addressed by behaviour change strategies to become capable of self-optimization. The direction in which such changes need to be pointed is in some instances communicated as a normative goal (the redistribution of surplus), but more often than that, any effective reduction is politically welcome. On the local level, these prescriptions for food waste reductions are reified by the development of innovative solutions for the optimization and management of food surplus flows but are also counter-acted by more normatively oriented goals, such as transforming and re-using, sharing, and redistributing surpluses to foster community building and strengthen other social values (poverty reduction, solidarity, etc.). We have also seen that prescriptions for behaviour change and selfoptimization are a clear focus in formulating appropriate reduction strategies. They are oriented towards effectiveness and the organization of informally coordinated action to make the event of food waste generation

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

193

less complex, less ambiguous, and to thereby reduce the ‘risky nature’ of the problem. However, the question arises if alternative impulses from the local level can—to some degree—destabilize these dominant efforts, for example through demanding more formal political action or addressing other normative goals instead of focusing largely on effectiveness. The relation of appropriate prescriptions to the images of particular stakeholders in food waste governance is dominated by the notion ‘shared reduction efforts’ on the global level. All actors need to work together and find solutions, according to their respective expertise and role. Businesses are encouraged to build partnerships within and across the private sector, to join global initiatives to negotiate voluntary targets, and to act as leading examples. States have been attributed the role of stimulating and encouraging more actors to join these efforts, and to provide effective regulatory guidelines. NGOs, or civil society as a whole, can also take a lead by innovating and multiplying reduction ideas and techniques to reach all members of society. On the national level in Germany and the UK, this architecture is closely mirrored by facilitating cross-sector cooperation in the food industry, negotiating voluntary agreements, and encouraging businesses as well as ‘social innovations’ to become exemplary agents of finding and sharing solutions, communicating their best practices broadly. The focus of initiatives on the local level differs from these strategies to a considerable degree. While some echo the call for greater transparency and action of the business sector, social innovations are much more concerned with relating prescriptions to society at large. Consumers are much less perceived as a ‘field for intervention’ but encouraged to change their behaviours as active human beings in light of many individually, positively valued goals (e.g., health, well-being, etc.). More than that, many prescriptions relate to cultivating different relations in human communities, and to ‘nature’ as a whole. We see that on the global and national levels, efforts of governing food waste predominantly follow an accountability scheme: they insist on the free, unconstrained conduct of actors to make rational and intentional choices, organized through informally coordinated action in order to build an effective governance architecture. Participating actors are confirmed as legitimate stakeholders and moral leaders, and thereby authorized to speak with expertise on the subject. But reduction efforts on the local level call the dominance of effective governance in question: they exhibit other, ‘morally good’, attitudes and practices that relate

194

T. GUMBERT

food waste reductions to notions of care and respect (for other, allegedly marginalized actors of the food system and the environment), which enables a reflection on the goals of political accountability. However, since social innovations are also to be integrated in the governance architecture as best practice examples, the question remains if these activities can have any meaningful impact on altering the current trajectories. Lastly, the images of the identities of various actors are linked to food waste generation predominantly through quantitative impact assessments on the global level. Although responsibility is in principle seen as shared, every actor must gain exact knowledge about how their actions relate to the event of food waste. Here, we find a broad distinction between avoidable waste on the consumption level, and unavoidable waste along other segments of food supply chains, legitimizing intervention strategies focusing on the end of the spectrum. These notions are consequently translated in national contexts. The sharing of best practice solutions and knowledge on food waste generation enable the presentation of supply chain waste, though to some degree unavoidable, as increasingly manageable. Therefore, businesses are attributed with the image of responsible actors, since they are not individually linked to waste, and nevertheless engage in reductions cooperatively. Since the private sector is also portrayed as being self-interested in reducing waste as much as possible, and reductions will therefore apparently commence ‘naturally’, the lack of consumer knowledge and awareness stands out as the biggest societal challenge. To a smaller degree, this lack is also reformulated as a problem of lacking food appreciation (especially in Germany), which reframes consumer food waste not in terms of blame, but as opportunity for positive lifestyle change. Increasingly, unfair business practices are also officially linked to food waste (in the UK), though still marginally so. In the assessment of how identity images relate to waste generation on the local level, the problem is overwhelmingly framed as a cultural issue. The ‘throw-away’ mentality is the most attributed cause for food waste, and consequently a cultural change appears necessary. This perspective is somewhat contextualized by other initiatives who do not see ‘wasteful’ behaviours as the cause per se, but rather problematize the disconnection of societies from the processes and structures of the food system, as well as from the intrinsic value of food. While these perceptions are in line with the notion that the responsibility for food waste reduction must indeed be shared by all (since every actor is, after all, a part of the dominant culture), some initiatives point to the structural and systemic causes of

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

195

food waste which can be attributed to dominant and powerful business actors. We also witness that in the relation of identity images to the event, responsibility attribution is mediated by causality: while it can be assumed that business actors must be ‘wasteful’ to a considerable degree, they are not individually linked to waste, since they engage in managing waste that is ‘naturally’ occurring. Their actions are not related to past events, but directed towards minimizing future impacts, and therefore become responsible actors in the sense of accountability. In general, these links, from the global to the local, point to the importance of value attributions: avoidability, manageability, food appreciation, the ‘throwaway-society’ thesis, and the ‘disconnect’ thesis similarly engage with material or immaterial processes of valorization. For example, businesses engage in responsible conduct if they realize the economic value of reduction, and consumers and citizens will change their behaviours if they connect specific, positive values to food. The importance of value attribution further indicates that within food waste governance, the central question is not only who acts as an accountable subject, but also on what, since the meaning of food waste is not fixed but rather changes according to the values attributed, which are in turn mediated and shaped by the practices and understandings of different societal actors. At this point, potential tensions arise between economic, social, or ethical values of food that directly impact waste reduction measures (e.g., food redistribution vs. anaerobic digestion). As we have seen, the notion of ‘responsibility as accountability’ is preoccupied with effectiveness rather than weighing between alternative normative goals. It is therefore a central question if alternative value attributions can have an impact on these efforts. The analysis has illustrated that the body of dominant, objective meanings in food waste governance is not only comprehensive but also contains variable, at times conflicting claims about the reasons for and most appropriate strategies to the reduction of food waste. And yet, by focusing on the connections across the three levels of governance it becomes possible to crystallize the most dominant links of responsibility and explain the general direction and shape food waste governance has taken in the period from 2010 to 2019 (Fig. 7.4). Through the analysis of central documents on food waste governance using the heuristic of the triangle model of responsibility, three main threats can be synthesized:

196

T. GUMBERT

PRESCRIPTIONS

RESPONSIBILITY [FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE]

IDENTITY IMAGES

Value Attribution and Valorisation

EVENT

Fig. 7.4 The responsibility triangle—Food waste governance (Source Author’s own illustration)

(1) Sharing, best practice, and cooperation (Link prescriptions and identity images: “what should actors do”) (2) Behaviour change and self-optimization (Link prescriptions and event: “what should be done in relation to the (causes and consequences of the) problem”) (3) Value attribution and valorization (Link identity images and event: “how are actors related to the (causes and consequences of the) problem”) Although it has been argued that, overall, responsibility is treated as accountability in these governance efforts, numerous critical injunctions were identified: the global discussion has attributed much of its focus on reductions to the consumption stage and to the development of business partnerships (which signifies a varied treatment of specific fields for intervention), accountability is exercised differently in both the German and the UK context, and social innovations in both countries have adopted different understandings of responsibility (justice, care, social connection, etc.) as a basis for creating solutions to the problem.

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

197

In Chapter 6, the central research interest with regard to responsibility in food waste governance was concerned with the questions, i. if food waste governance is characterized by the individualization of responsibility, ii. if food waste governance is characterized by a discourse of shared responsibility, iii. or if food waste governance is characterized by responsibility as accountability. The analysis was able to provide evidence for all three manifestations. Within a quantitative research framework, it would be of interest to measure the extent to which these notions of responsibility are manifest in the material that was studied. The study of meanings of responsibility is however interested in the question if and how these differing notions relate to each other, as well as their connections to larger socio-political processes and contexts. The logic of accountability and the setup of respective mechanisms is predominantly viewed as the most appropriate approach to provide effective outcomes. It is based on voluntariness, and yet able to convey a strong demand for individual change due to emphasizing causal connection and orientation towards preventing negative consequences in the future. Strategies that individualize responsibility are acts of ‘responsibilization’, i.e., recommendations on how to regulate ‘wasteful’ behaviours rationally and morally and on how to engage in self-optimization. Responsibilization can also be understood as ‘the art of making accountable’, of finding subtle ways to integrate actors into systems of accountability. The rhetoric and discourse of ‘shared responsible’ largely remains on the surface of these developments, it rather frames policy and governance efforts. It thereby conceals the power and capabilities of individual actors and decreases the potential for openly resorting to tactics of blaming and shaming. Instead, the notion of equal burden sharing produces a vision of common political goals without conflicts of interest. As has been argued earlier, to further scrutinize and evaluate these discursive dynamics, the findings need to be interpreted in the context of larger socio-political developments. The next chapter will engage in discussing each of the three main links consecutively, before they are again related to each other in the concluding chapter.

198

T. GUMBERT

Appendix 7.1: Documents for analysis of the local level in Germany No. Social innovation

Reduction practice

1

Collection of surplus food

2 3

4

5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15

16

Apfelschätze

Homepage

https://apfelscha etze.de/ Be Bananas Collection and processing of surplus food https://www. neuewerte.info/ Culinary Misfits Collection and processing of surplus food, http://www.cul café and inarymisfits. de/en/ Das Geld hängt an Collection and processing of surplus food, https://www.das den Bäumen café and geldhaengtanden baeumen.de/ DEINE ERNTE Surplus food sharing platform https://www.dei neernte.de/ DÖRRWERK Surplus food collection and processing + https://www. financing other anti-food waste initiatives doerrwerk.de/ Etepetete ‘Wonky’ food distribution https://etepet ete-bio.de/ind ex.php FoodFighters e.V school project, cooking http://www.foo dfighters.biz/ FoodLoop Mobile app https://www.foo dloop.net/de/ Foodsharing Surplus food redistribution https://foodsh aring.de/ Hunkelstide Surplus food processing (windfall fruits) https://www. hunkelstide.de/ IM ANGEBOT Food redistribution https://www. imangebot.com/ Knödelkult Surplus food collection and processing https://knoede (Bread) lkult.de/ Lebensmittel Collecting, cooking, public events http://www.leb Fair-Teilen ensmittel-fair-tei len.de/ Marmelade für alle! Collection and processing of ‘wild’ fruits https://www. (Jam for marmelade-fuerAll!)—Initiative of alle.de/mar the Youth melade organization of the Protestant Church in Germany (EKD) Mealsaver/ResQ Mobile app https://www. resq-club. com/de (continued)

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

199

(continued) No. Social innovation

Reduction practice

17 Mundraub

‘Wild’ fruits redistribution

Homepage

https://mun draub.org/ 18 Original Food Purchasing https://originalUnverpackt unverpackt.de/ 19 Querfeld Surplus food collection and redistribution https://www. querfeld.bio/ 20 Restlos Glücklich Catering with surplus food, food waste http://restloseducation workshops, and cooking classes gluecklich.ber lin/ 21 Schnippeldisco— Surplus food collection and collective http://slowfo Slow Food cooking odyouth.de/wasYouth wir-tun/schnip peldisko/ 22 ShoutOutLoud e.V Education initiatives, smaller events, and http://shoutoutl projects, food redistribution oud.eu/ 23 Sirplus Retailer for Food Surpluses https://sirplu s.de/ 24 Solidarmöhre Surplus food redistribution https://www. (Querbeet) querbeet.de/Akt ion-Solidarmo ehre/ 25 Sygaback Surplus food processing https://www.syg aback.com/ 26 Teigtaschen statt Surplus food processing https://www.leb Tonne (DingsDums ensmittelwertsc Dumplings) haetzen.de/aktivi taeten/teigta schen-statttonne/ 27 The Good Food Surplus collection, gleaning, shop/retail, https://www. cooking the-good-foo d.de/ 28 Too Good To Go Mobile app https://toogoo dtogo.de/de 29 UXA App Mobile app http://www. uxa-app.com/ 30 Wastecooking Cooking Show https://www. wastecooking. com/

All websites, including all subpages, were retrieved on 1 April 2019.

200

T. GUMBERT

Appendix 7.2: Documents for analysis of the local level in the UK No.

Social innovation

Reduction practice

Homepage

1

Abundance Manchester

2

Abundance Sheffield

3

Abundance Network

Surplus food collection and distribution Surplus food collection and distribution Surplus food collection and distribution

4

Apples for Eggs

Surplus food swapping

5

Approved Food

Surplus food retail

6

Big Lunch

Food sharing/ community initiative

7 8

Bro Gwaun Transition Town Café Casserole

9

ChicP

10

Cotswolds restaurant invites locals to exchange their fruit & veg for a night out

Surplus food collection and café Food sharing/ community initiative Surplus food collection and re-use Food sharing/ community initiative

11

Feedback/Feeding the 5000

12

Food Cycle

13

Gleaning network UK (Feedback)

Surplus food collection, re-distribution, public campaigning Community initiative, food re-distribution Surplus food collection, re-distribution

https://abundanceman chester.wordpress.com/ https://sheffieldabunda nce.wordpress.com/ http://www.abundance network.org/uk (not accessible any longer) http://applesforeggs. com/ https://www.approvedf ood.co.uk/ https://www.edenproje ctcommunities.com/the biglunchhomepage https://transitionbrogw aun.org.uk/ https://www.casserole club.com/ https://www.chicp. co.uk/ http://www.fdin.org. uk/2010/10/cotswo lds-restaurant-invites-loc als-to-exchange-theirfruit-veg-for-a-nightout/ https://feedbackglobal. org/

14

Hugh’s Fish Fight

Public campaigning

https://www.foodcycle. org.uk/ https://feedbackglobal. org/campaigns/gle aning-network/ https://www.rivercott age.net/campaigns/ hughs-fish-fight (continued)

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

201

(continued) No.

Social innovation

Reduction practice

15

Industry Food Waste Audit Proposal (IFWAP) (This is Rubbish)

Food waste research and campaigning

16

Keelham Farm Shop Vegetable Exchange Scheme

17

Kitchen Canny

18

League of Meals

19

Let’s Get Cooking (Community Interest Company, CIC) Meet 2 Eat

20

https://www.thisisrub bish.org.uk/this-is-rub bish-to-launch-countingwhat-matters-report-atparliament-on-may-day/ Food sharing https://keelhamfarms hop.co.uk/blogs/whatson/vegetable-exchangescheme Food waste behaviour https://www.change change works.org.uk/projects/ kitchen-canny Food sharing community http://www.leagueofm initiative eals.org (not accessible any longer) Food sharing community https://letsgetcooking. initiative org.uk/

23

Food waste mobile app, community National Zero Waste Week Food waste behaviour change, public campaigning People’s Kitchen @ Surplus food re-use People’s Supermarket Plan Zheroes Food re-distribution

24

Rejuce

25

Rubies in the rubble

26

Share your meal UK

27 28 29

Snact The Real Junk Food Project The Rubbish Diet

30

VegSwap

21

22

Homepage

http://meet2eatcate ring.com/ https://www.zerowaste week.co.uk/

http://www.thepeople ssupermarket.org/ https://planzheroes. org/ Surplus food re-use https://www.rejuce. co.uk/ Surplus food collection https://rubiesinther and re-use ubble.com/ Food sharing community http://www.shareyour meal.net/ Surplus food re-use https://snact.co.uk/ Surplus food collection https://trjfp.com/ and café Food waste behaviour http://therubbishdiet. change, challenge blogspot.com/ Food sharing http://www.vegswap. co.uk (not accessible any longer)

All websites, including all subpages, were retrieved on 1 April 2019.

202

T. GUMBERT

References Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL). (2017). Gemeinsam aktiv gegen Lebensmittelverschwendung. Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL). (2019a). Nationale Strategie zur Reduzierung der Nahrungsmittelverschwendung. Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL). (2019b). Initiative ‘Zu gut für die Tonne’. https://www.zugutfuerdietonne.de, cited as “BMEL 2019b”. Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND). (2019). Stellungnahme des Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. (BUND) zur Erarbeitung einer Strategie zur Reduzierung der Lebensmittelverschwendung. Canali, M. (Ed.). (2014). Drivers of current food waste generation, threats of future increase and opportunities for reduction. Fusions, cited as “Fusions 2014”. Cloke, J. (2013). Empires of waste and the food security meme. Geography Compass, 7 , 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12068 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2018). Our waste, our resources: A strategy for England. DEFRA. European Commission (EC). (2010). preparatory study on food waste across EU 27: Final Report/ Technical Report-2010–054. Feedback. (2019). Feedback responds to DEFRA’s New Resources and Waste Strategy. https://feedbackglobal.org/feedback-responds-to-defras-new-resour ces-and-waste-strategy Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (1981). Food loss prevention in perishable crops (FAO Agricultural Service Bulletin, no. 43). FAO Statistics Division. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (2013). Food wastage footprint impacts on natural resources: Summary report (Food wastage footprint). Gille, Z. (2013). From risk to waste: Global food waste regimes. The Sociological Review, 60, 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12036 Growth from Knowledge (GfK). (2017). Systematische Erfassung von Lebensmittelabfällen der privaten Haushalte in Deutschland: Schlussbericht zur Studie, durchgeführt für das BMEL. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Cited as “FAO 2011”. Hanson, C. (2017a). Guidance on interpreting sustainable development goal target 12.3. Cited as “Champions 12.3 2017a”. House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. (2017a). Food waste in England: Eighth report of session 2016–2017a. Cited as “House of Commons 2017a” (House of Commons papers, session 2016/17, HC 429). Dandy Booksellers Ltd.

7

TRACING THE MEANINGS OF RESPONSIBILITY …

203

House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. (2017b). Food waste in England: Government response to the committee’s eighth report of session 2016–2017b: First special report of session 2017–19. House of Commons, cited as “House of Commons 2017b”. House of Commons. Jepsen, D. e. a. (2014). Entwicklung von Instrumenten zur Vermeidung von Lebensmittelabfällen. Im Auftrag des UBA, cited as “UBA 2014”. Kranert, M. e. a. (2012). Ermittlung der weggeworfenen Lebensmittelmengen und Vorschläge zur Verminderung der Wegwerfrate bei Lebensmitteln in Deutschland. Langen, N., & Sahinol, M. (2014). Mysterious numbers in the German discussion of household food waste. In M. Decker, S. Bellucci, S. Bröchler, M. Nentwich, L. Rey, & M. Sotoudeh (Eds.), Technikfolgenabschätzung im politischen System: Zwischen Konfliktbewältigung und Technologiegestaltung (pp. 247–252, Gesellschaft, Technik, Umwelt, Neue Folge, 17). Edition sigma. Lipinski, B. e. a. (2013). Reducing food loss and waste: Working paper, Installment 2 of creating a sustainable food future. Cited as “WRI 2013”. Lipinski, B. e. a. (2017b). SDG target 12.3 on food loss and waste: 2017 progress report.: An annual update on behalf of Champions 12.3. Cited as “Champions 12.3 2017b” . Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065–3081. Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., & Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters - A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 978–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcl epro.2018.02.030 Stuart, T. (2009). Waste: Uncovering the global food scandal (1st ed.). W.W. Norton & Co. Vittuari, M. e. a. (2016). D3.5 Guidelines for a European common policy framework on food waste prevention. Cited as “Fusions 2016”. Waskow, F., Blumenthal, A., Eberle, U., von Borstel, T. (2016). Situationsanalyse zu Lebensmittelverlusten im Einzelhandel, der Außer-Haus-Verpflegung sowie in privaten Haushalten und zum Verbraucherverhalten (SAVE). https://www. dbu.de/phpTemplates/publikationen/pdf/01081610470617r1.pdf Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2008). The food we waste: Food waste report. “WRAP 2008”. Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2014). UK food waste – Historical changes and how amounts might be influenced in the future: Final Report. “WRAP 2014”. Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2018). Surplus food redistribution in the UK. 2015 to 2017 . “WRAP 2018”.

204

T. GUMBERT

Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR). (2019). Was gegen Lebensmittelverschwendung zu tun ist. WDR aktuell, 20.02.2019. https://www1.wdr.de/nachri chten/lebensmittelabfaelle-reduzierung-100.html. Wilts, H. e. a. (2018). Documentation of the expert forum 2017: Effectively reducing food waste - Achieving more together. “UBA 2018”. World Wide Fund Deutschland (WWF). (2015). Das grosse Wegschmeissen. Vom Acker bis zum Verbraucher: Ausmaß und Umwelteffekte der Lebensmittelverschwendung in Deutschland. Wunder, S. e. a. (2018a). Food waste prevention and valorisation: Relevant EU policy areas D3.3 Review of EU policy areas with relevant impact on food waste prevention and valorization. Cited as “Refresh 2018a”. Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., van Herpen, E., Stenmarck, Å., et al. (2017). Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food losses and food waste data. Environmental Science & Technology, 51, 6618–6633. https://doi. org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00401

CHAPTER 8

Contextualizing Responsibilit(ies) in Food Waste Governance

Introduction This chapter aims to connect the specific issues that have been identified as dominant links connecting prescriptions for food waste reductions, the central causes and consequences of food waste generation, and the images of relevant stakeholders involved, to larger rationalities and techniques of governing food waste reductions in the Anthropocene. It is claimed, first, that the notion of responsibility is central to understanding how food waste governance has unfolded so far, and that, secondly, by analysing the broader meanings that have been attached to the ‘thinking’ and ‘doing’ of food waste reductions, we gain intricate knowledge about the directions in which environmental governance is headed, from the global to the local level. In discussing “Sharing, best practices, and cooperation”, I will draw on governmentality scholarship and Young’s social connection model as discussed in Chapter 3. Both bodies of literature are useful to interpret the broader function of this evolving discourse of ‘sharing responsibility’ for food waste reductions. The discussion of the second link “Behaviour change and self-optimisation” features debates on the benefits and dangers of applying behaviour change strategies in the context of sustainable food consumption and household waste avoidance. The notion of ‘responsibilization’, as discussed in Chapter 3, helps to evaluate these approaches and their relevance for governing food waste reductions. Third, the discussion of “Value attribution and valorisation” © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 T. Gumbert, Responsibility in Environmental Governance, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13729-7_8

205

206

T. GUMBERT

goes back to the logics underlying food and waste policy as discussed in Chapter 2. Here, I will argue that an evolving ‘organization of irresponsibility’ must not be understood as the result of combined intended actions of several actors, but rather as path dependencies established by political and legal institutions in relation to food waste governance. Finally, I will conclude this chapter by drawing out the connections between these discussions to assess the overall state and future directions of food waste governance and how the concept of responsibility can be utilized to ‘make sense’ in this regard.

Sharing, Best Practice, and Cooperation Food waste governance has been identified as a field in which the notion of ‘shared responsibility’ is all-pervasive. Since food waste occurs everywhere in the global food system, across all stages and segments of food supply chains, every actor who is involved in the production, manufacturing, distribution, and consumption of food has opportunities, and therefore responsibility, to engage in mitigating the negative consequences associated with waste. There is now a global consensus that efforts have to be undertaken to reduce food waste as effectively and efficiently as possible, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to find public contestations of these global governance efforts. I argue that the application of accountability mechanisms is able to achieve, contrary to a reliance on liability mechanisms, broad cooperation between a diverse set of actors that continuously draws in more actors into current governance mechanisms, but that, at the same time, underlying tensions are concealed and not subjected to political debate. One mechanism that is crucial for understanding this development is that of “exemplary governance” (Death, 2010, 2011), the use of best practices to motivate actors into engaging in food waste reductions. Similarly, by drawing on the Foucauldian notion of “counter-conduct” (Foucault, 1982, 2007), it becomes possible to see that best practice strategies are never ‘totalizing’, but leave room for tensions, articulated by non-governmental actors, to be able to surface. Finally, I will come back to the thought of Iris Marion Young and her conceptualization of responsibility as a “social connection model” (Young, 2011) to evaluate the characteristics of ‘shared responsibility’ that have become dominant in food waste governance.

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

207

As has been argued in Chapter 6, the ‘Champions 12.3’ initiative has since its establishment worked towards increased involvement of private sector partners who are expected to exercise responsible self-government, i.e., governing by creating horizontal partnerships. This is not a new development but has already been a focus since the issue of food waste climbed on international political agendas. The ‘SAVE FOOD’ initiative, established in 2011, is a case in point: the Messe Düsseldorf Group and Interpack, as a leading association of the packaging industry, have together with the FAO and UNEP called on strengthening business dialogue and cooperation to engage the issue of food waste. In fact, the seminal FAO study (2011) had first been presented on the occasion of the first SAVE FOOD conference in the same year. This signifies that the UN and the private sector have always had a common interest in promoting global food waste reductions. Through such partnerships, businesses have gained an unprecedented level of legitimacy and modified their image from ‘culprits of unsustainability’ to pro-active agents for change and corporate social responsibility. Especially in the context of food waste, this has marked a shift in the ways companies “conduct themselves, and the ways in which they are perceived by others” (Death, 2010, p. 83; see also Evans et al., 2017). The importance of creating partnerships and voluntary agreements in environmental governance is far from being exclusive to the governance of food waste. The global summit in Johannesburg in 2002 can be seen as a first instance of broadly applying these mechanisms to the political governance of sustainability and the environment (Death, 2010). Voluntary agreements were seen as a possibility to harness the vitality and creativity of the business sector and to generate financial, technological, managerial, and scientific support for implementing political goals (ibid., p. 70). Multi-stakeholder approaches prescribed voluntary and selforganizing actions for participants, which needed to be transparent and accountable, and have a clear focus on finding solutions on the ground (see also Mena & Palazzo, 2012; Moog et al., 2015). In these discussions, business actors and NGOs were encouraged to find “low-hanging fruits” (Lohmann, 2006, p. 176; cited in Death, 2010, p. 72), i.e., solutions that promise easy and accessible reduction potentials, closely mirroring the discourse of how business actors are addressed in food waste governance. The move towards benchmarks, goals, targets, and best practice approaches—and away from binding obligations—constitutes a continuation of governance efforts that has also been instrumental in reaching the

208

T. GUMBERT

Sustainable Development Goals of the Paris Agreement in 2015 (Gupta & Vegelin, 2016). The INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) require all countries to outline “how and with what effects they will contribute to reducing emissions limiting global warming” (Esguerra et al., 2017, p. 2). These ‘new’ modes of governance are considered ‘soft mechanisms’ which do not rely on legally binding commitments, but rather on public–private partnerships and private certification schemes (ibid.). While the INDCs can be seen as relying on a mechanism of ‘naming and shaming’, which creates reputational risks to strengthen compliance with the negotiated targets, similar approaches have not been included in food waste governance. The ‘sharing responsibility’ discourse has rather contributed to the idea that ‘every reduction counts’ and that therefore national and sector-specific voluntary targets would have no need to be based on stricter monitoring and reporting requirements. Especially the notion of ‘shaming’ actors into engaging with food waste reductions is widely absent. Instead, governance efforts have been organized according to “horizontal accountability” (Hale & Mauzerall, 2004): guidelines and standards are negotiated, and individual performances assessed, within multistakeholder initiatives with the aim to improve and learn from each other. Any form of verticality in these governance arrangements (i.e., authoritative demands) is levelled through “expanded, trans-nationalized […] network forms of governance in flexible and multi-centric ways” (Death, 2010, p. 81). It is therefore important to note that in this broader continuum, there is no steering agent involved who develops concise plans on how food waste governance ought to be exercised. A premium is placed on managerial forms of expert knowledge, which are neutral and objective, and which constitute a necessary prerequisite for any political action, which, in turn, is believed to be directed by scientific knowledge (e.g., by impact assessments and linear causality) (Phillips & Ilcan, 2007; see also Almassi, 2014). Therefore, the government of the self involves all actors: states have to design strategies on managing food waste on the national level, businesses have to engage in technological management and optimization practices, and NGOs have to find innovative solutions and communication strategies on how to address the problem. Carl Death (2010) argues that such “practices of self-auditing and introspection are characteristic techniques of advanced liberal government, whereby standards of responsibility and ‘proper conduct’ are encouraged and internalized” (79).

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

209

At this point, we can derive a first clue about how the notion of responsibility relates to the instrument of cooperative partnerships: responsibility is conceptualized as an inward-looking relationship that prompts actors to look into their own supply chains (or other points of contact) where food waste occurs and take action to optimize and manage the problem. Responsibility is not projected beyond the self towards other complex relations and problems more deeply rooted in the global agrifood system. A mechanism that is closely tied to the instrument of partnerships is that of ‘leading by example’ or best practice approaches. Examples are not just ‘responsible’ business leaders, such as the retailer Tesco in the UK who has been presented as a frontrunner in publishing transparent information on food waste occurring in its supply chains (Champions 12.3 2017b), but especially social innovations that engage in food waste reduction efforts. Interestingly, these initiatives are, though embedded in local and regional structures through their place-specific reduction practices, never confined to the local level. Some have been endorsed and presented as best practice solutions across all scales. The Good Food, for example, is portrayed by the FAO as a “crusader in the fight against food waste”, and a local farmer, who provides The Good Food with produce from his fields, states that “[i]f you want to change the world, you must start with yourself” (FAO, 2019). They have also won the German Federal “Zu gut für die Tonne” award in 2016, organized by the BMEL, which has marked the initiative as one of the most visible social innovations in Germany. In fact, most of the social innovations that are part of the sample analysed in Chapter 6 have at some point been nominated either for awards for social commitment or for sustainable business solutions. Many initiatives (e.g., Culinary Misfits, Restlos Glücklich, Dörrwerk, The Good Food, Food Fighters, Too Good To Go) have also been invited by scientists and policymakers to contribute ‘local insights’ to expert level forums (UBA, 2018, p. 19). While smaller social innovations rely on such highprofile exposure to get attention beyond their local interactions as well as financial funding, the narrative of self-responsibility, social commitment, and cooperation between farmers and distributors of surpluses feeds will into the larger food waste governance agenda. Especially the coverage of the social dimension by these initiatives is desirable from a policy perspective, since they give food waste reduction policies and efforts a ‘human face’ and infuse the technical and managerial policy governance complex with morality, which is otherwise severely lacking.

210

T. GUMBERT

Carl Death (2010) has termed such techniques “exemplary government” that function through “establish[ing] a stage and audience, assembl[ing] a particular cast of actors to perform their roles, and stage-manag[ing] and communicat[ing] their performances in particular ways” (89). In this context, social innovations are not treated as means towards ends, but they are ends in themselves, performing responsible self-government across all stages of food waste governance. It is therefore important to manage and facilitate their participation, even on the global stage, to communicate that food waste reduction is a societal challenge, and that “each and every member of the global population [is] responsible for their own self-government” (ibid., p. 104). In this regard, social innovations are expected to be leaders and voluntary partners that have the ability and responsibility to inspire a broader audience, and they are judged by “the example they set and the responsible conduct they demonstrate[.]” (ibid., p. 116). Such strategies of “exemplary governance” are problematic for various reasons. First, they exhibit a model of agency which encourages first and foremost individualized and choice-orientated responses: think before you waste, purchase reasonably, plan ahead, buy products that are past the ‘best-before’ date, cherish ‘wonky’ vegetables, etc. This leaves, secondly, little room for more democratic or deliberative models of collective action (Martens, 2007, pp. 49–50; cited in Death, 2010, p. 117). Models of collective action, negotiation, deliberation, or participation are not (or only very rarely) part of ‘exemplary’ messages. And third, the focus upon inspirational examples prioritizes those actors that are already legitimately recognized as ‘responsible’ and ‘cooperative’. Initiatives, on the other hand, who raise awareness beyond consumer issues for the structural conditions of food waste generation, are often not covered by the label of ‘social innovation’ and are thus politically marginalized. We see, therefore, that by including social innovations as partners into food waste governance, there are no indications that this would simultaneously lead to an inclusion of different notions of responsibility. Rather, it strengthens the ‘shared responsibility’ discourse by exemplifying that the responsibility for reducing food waste is a global, yet in the end individual task. That is not to say, however, that more critical voices are completely shut out. A notable exemption constitutes the UK-based NGO Feedback, which is both visible on the national and the global stage, and at the same time highly critical of many developments of how food waste is governed. This can be attributed to the fact that the organization has

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

211

been active since the very beginning and even before food waste started to climb on international governance agendas. A large part of this success can be linked to the work of its founder Tristram Stuart (see e.g., Stuart, 2009). Feedback has focused their campaigning efforts on the entire food system, for example by conducting their own research in fields that are neglected by other organizations and governments, such as food waste occurring on farms, or the connections between the structural power of Northern retailers influencing (and concealing) the generation of food waste in the Global South, especially in African countries (Feedback, 2015, 2018). Feedback has used the issue of food waste as a focused lens to bring numerous critical issues in the food system to the fore, while it is at the same time actively involved in designing and developing ‘alternative’ reduction strategies, e.g., by strengthening food commons (urban harvesting, community feasts, etc.) and food citizenship (education about political food issues). This example goes to show that the integration of civil society initiatives in food waste governance is not ‘total’; there are societal reactions that reinforce the directions of current governance schemes and those that try to subvert it. On the surface, this might constitute an instance of what Foucault (1982, 2007) described as ‘counter-conducts’: he argued that power relations are, in principal, strategically reversible, since modern power is only power “when addressed to individuals who are free to act in one way or another” (Gordon, 1991, p. 5), which leaves enough room for intended strategies of “conduct upon conduct” (Foucault, 1982) to fail or being resisted. Interestingly, Feedback conducts both strategies: while the organization is willing to critique unjust relations in the food system, they are also willing to engage in partnerships and constructive dialogue. The ‘true’ counter-conducts and resistances are ultimately invisible in food waste governance. It is important to address them, however, since they constitute a source for alternative understandings of responsibility that has not been present in the analysis. ‘Dissident’ forms of taking responsibility, such as openly voicing political protest, or promoting nonmarketable reduction activities or alternative lifestyles (e.g., lifestyles of the freeganism movement, ‘dumpster diving’ as political protest, etc.) cannot be officially recognized as innovative. This is in no small part due to the legal issues involved in ‘saving’ food from bins owned by private actors. And yet, they constitute a non-quantifiable, incalculable resource and motivation for others to take action against food waste, organizing with others, and understanding their personal and collective

212

T. GUMBERT

responsibility very differently (Barnard, 2016). Arguably, if we understand the often contested term of civil society with Scholte as “a political arena where associations of citizens seek, from outside political parties, to shape the rules that govern one or the other aspect of their common life” (Scholte, 2007, p. 311), then such ‘non-innovative’ practices are what constitutes civil society at its core: the potential of active, critical, and reflexive citizenship (Ellison, 1997). The concept of reflexivity is important in this regard. Reflexivity is not to be confused with the way sociologists like Beck and Giddens have conceptualized it. Beck argues for example that citizens have to become self-reflexive in late modernity to deal with wider processes of the individualization of risks, because “for the sake of economic survival, individuals are compelled to make themselves the centre of their own life plans and conduct” (Beck, 1993, p. 88; cited in Ellison, 1997, p. 712). This can be seen to undermine the development of a broader, collective politics of emancipation (see also Giddens, 1991). Giddens argues that in order to deal with the threat of depoliticized individuals, their autonomous capacities have to be strengthened even further, because he believes in the capability of individuals to choose solidarity and challenge expert systems if they wanted to (ibid.). Ellison argues on the contrary that social agents could never possess this degree of autonomy, and that social life is more complex and fragile (Ellison, 1997). He argues instead for understanding reflexivity as a “defensive strategy” necessary to construct “local attempts to maintain or create solidaristic and participatory, if often temporary, alliances at the grassroots” (ibid., p. 712). This includes, first, reflexively engaging with what lies beyond the officially established boundaries (e.g., in the case of food waste, concerns with land use in other countries, or processes of localization in the global food system), and secondly, to reflexively address and socially connect to agents that have been excluded or not recognized due to their lack of—personal or collective, material, cultural, or intellectual—resources (ibid., p. 715). Because, as many of the social innovations on food waste make clear, food waste reduction is not only about constructing new partnerships, new business models, new indicators, new measurement technologies, and new consumptiontargeted campaigns. It is also about constructing new solidarities, new collective identities, new systems of provision, and new social services. And to that end, ‘non-innovative’ activities, and the way they understand responsibility, can make a valuable contribution.

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

213

Lastly, I want to summarize the above discussion of partnerships, exemplary governance, possible ‘counter-conducts’, and excluded relationships by relating them back to Young’s concept of ‘responsibility as justice’ that also emphasizes ‘sharing responsibility’ as a central element. It is no surprise that the idea of ‘sharing’ that Young has in mind differs to a considerable degree from the practical manifestations of the ‘sharing discourse’ in food waste governance, but there are also interesting similarities to note. First, the accountability mechanisms of food waste governance are to be separated from any notions of liability: through cooperation and best practices, reduction efforts are not isolating individual action in a narrow sense, and they are not ‘backward-looking’ in attributing causal blame for the causes of food waste (Young, 2011, pp. 105–108). They are instead ‘forward-looking’, coordinated actions towards future consequences, and this has to be valued as something that the coordination efforts in food waste governance have achieved. Furthermore, Young’s claim that those that have the “potential or actual power or influence over processes that produce the outcomes” (ibid., p. 144), that have privileges that coincide with that power, and the ability to “reorganize their activities and relationships to coordinate their action […] differently” (ibid., p. 147), has been taken up in current governance efforts. Especially business actors from various sectors, who must be understood as those with the greatest power to change the conditions in which food waste is generated, have started to be part of smaller and larger reduction attempts. However, these ‘shared’ efforts are nevertheless individualized, calculated attempts to solve complex problems by concentrating on practices of self-accounting. The dominant use of specific indicators to measure food waste along supply chains decouples food waste governance from structural conditions of injustice. Young would argue that they have a serious blind spot for “unjust background conditions” (ibid., pp. 107– 108). Young, on the contrary, understands ‘shared responsibility’ as the “acknowledgement of the inchoate collective of which I am a part, which together produces injustice. The ground of my responsibility lies in the fact that I participate in the structural processes that have unjust outcomes”. (ibid., p. 110). To that end, the dominant notion of responsibility in food waste governance is very different from the idea of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ in climate governance. Here, they are also ‘common’, but hardly ‘differentiated’—the dimension of justice is almost completely absent. This lack of justice as a positive category helps

214

T. GUMBERT

to explain the overly managerial focus: reducing food waste is about “getting the job done rather than more lengthy deliberative or democratic processes” (Death, 2010, p. 86). The ‘sharing responsibility’ discourse can thus be seen as an attempt to frame political participation in terms of cooperation, rather than paying attention to the existence of winners and losers of food waste generation (e.g., those who have control over supply chains and can shift the costs and risks of waste to other actors, thus benefiting from waste, and those who are forced to comply). More radical measures, such as obligations to review and change trade standards, or mandatory targets for reduction, largely remain off the agenda. And by addressing these shortcomings, organizations like Feedback, who publicly communicate different solutions and make injustices visible, and promote food citizenship in contrast to seeing every individual only in their role as consumer, can simultaneously foster social connection. This remains an essential prerequisite for collective action and demanding strong political institutions and public regulation (Young, 2011, p. 139).

Behaviour Change and Self-Optimization1 Strategies to motivate behaviour change on the consumption stage and to lead other actors, such as businesses and social innovations, to freely choose techniques of self-optimization, has been identified as a dominant way of linking prescriptions for appropriate policy measures to the event of food waste generation. It is widely assumed, as the analysis has shown, that guiding actors to these forms of self-management will create responsible actions towards effective reductions. While originally applied in the fields of public health and public finances to steer individuals towards ‘better’ behaviours (e.g., physical activity, organ donation, etc.), behaviour change is now broadly applied in the field of sustainable consumption to motivate food consumption, recycling behaviour, and household food waste production (Milford et al., 2015; Mont et al., 2014; Rainford & Tinkler 2011; see Gumbert, 2019). Using behavioural insights to reduce food waste has been applied, among other European nation states, in Norway, Finland, Italy, Hungary, and Portugal, with the agents applying them ranging from private companies, supermarket chains, and food bank 1 The argument presented in this subchapter draws extensively on Gumbert (2019). Where I draw on this chapter, the text is of course directly cited. The structure of the argument may however in parts display distinct similarities.

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

215

associations to national ministries (EC, 2016). While the interpretation of the broader meanings of these behaviour change policies is influenced by governmentality scholarship (as discussed in Chapter 3), the aim here is to provide a discussion of the potential benefits and the threats that the dominance of these approaches pose, while also being explicit about how they relate to responsibility and the ultimate goal of making others responsible. I will argue in this section that the rationality of accountability has been extended to the governance of individual actors to motivate and enable them to engage in self-selected practices of accounting, i.e., in recognizing the problem, calculating their own impact in relation to the problem, and choose appropriate reduction measures. The analytical lens of responsibility is key in this regard to understand the potential shortcomings of these mechanisms, which can be summarized as the individualization of food waste reductions and the depoliticization of those who engage in them. Before relating behaviour change strategies to responsibility, however, it is essential to understand the rationalities and mechanisms by which these measures operate, since responsibility is directly implicated in their effective functioning. In political discourse, behaviour change strategies are now widely known as ‘nudges’ (also choice editing, or choice architecture). A nudge can be considered as any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be cheap to avoid. (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008, p. 6)

The politico-philosophical underpinnings of nudging have been termed by Thaler and Sunstein ‘libertarian paternalism’, since “the idea embraces first and foremost freedom of choice, hence ‘libertarian’, leaving individuals with the same freedom of choice they would have had without their choice environment being altered” (Gumbert, 2019, pp. 110–111). A policy is paternalistic “if it is selected with the goal of influencing the choices of affected parties in a way that will make those parties better off” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2003, p. 175). The form of intervention is therefore also described as ‘soft paternalism’, as “giving people soft nudges into the ‘right’ direction (of adopting specific behavioral patterns); a direction that will ultimately benefit them, with or without them realizing it” (Gumbert, 2019, p. 111). Behaviour change is said to be “beneficial from

216

T. GUMBERT

a policy maker’s viewpoint as well as from the perspective of individuals, simultaneously enhancing individual wellbeing and social welfare” (ibid.). While libertarian paternalism provides a justification for behaviour change, the actual mechanisms are guided by ideas from behavioural economics and psychology “to explain why people behave in ways that deviate from rationality as defined by classical economics” (Marteau et al., 2011, p. 228). Behaviour change strategies start from the principle of ‘bounded rationality’, the idea that rational individual decision-making is limited by cognitive, information and time constraints, which is the reason why individuals are continuously making biased decisions that run counter to their best interests. (Gumbert, 2019, p. 108)

Thaler and Sunstein argue that a number of effects prevent people from making right decisions, e.g., framing effects lead to inconsistent choices, loss aversion leads to very stable, often irrational preferences, etc. (Bornemann & Burger, 2019; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). This means that people “suffer from systemic biases that lead to limited awareness, limited information-processing capacity, and limited self-control” (Gumbert, 2019, p. 111). Nudging is seen as an instrumental technique that helps to overcome the hiatus between irrational and rational behaviours: people should be pushed to develop normative desirable behaviours, and this mechanism can in turn be employed to either reduce, neutralize or even use (or ‘exploit’) these systemic biases for policymaking (Gumbert, 2022). ‘Choice architects’ are persons who indirectly influence the choices other people make, and “when faced with a range of design choices, it is best for choice architects to try to conform to the ‘true preferences’ of people, and since they can hardly ever be known, try to make them ‘best off, all things considered’” (Gumbert, 2019, p. 112). To that end, choice architecture relies on different instruments to induce desired outcomes: providing feedback (additional information helps [people] to make better decisions); providing mappings ([structured] information plans); structuring complex choices (to develop simplifying strategies); giving incentives etc. (ibid.)

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

217

We see that behavioural policy options work first and foremost through giving people targeted, yet pre-structured information, containing an (sometimes more explicit, sometimes more implicit) idea about appropriate behaviour change direction that individual actors are (ideally) to follow. If individual actors adopt these changes, the policy intervention has been effective in creating more rational conduct in relation to a particular goal. Behaviour change and self-optimization can be said to rely on the same mechanism: it is first necessary to identify deficiencies, then select an appropriate strategy to lessen, neutralize, or improve these deficiencies, and finally to do ‘work’ on them, i.e., behave or act accordingly. Incentivizing behaviour change by drawing on overarching policy goals, such as food waste reductions, and motivating individual actors to self-select options to contribute to these goals, can be understood as a technique of steering individuals towards ‘becoming responsible’. The goal of such ‘responsibilization’ strategies goes, however, beyond an interest in furthering individual well-being. Subtle forms of influencing human decision-making can potentially have important consequences (e.g., for sustainability targets): consumers can be greatly affected by apparently modest and inconsequential aspects of the social environment[,] [s]mall changes in that environment may have a large impact on consumer behavior, potentially even larger than that of economic incentives. (Sunstein, 2013, p. 2)

The small changes described by Sunstein are for example ‘green defaults’ (e.g., household energy from renewable energy sources as the default supply option), environmental-friendly settings that apply “when individuals do not take active steps to change them” (Bornemann & Burger, 2019; Sunstein, 2014; Sunstein & Reisch, 2013, p. 4). Such defaults may have major impacts on environmental effects similar to mandates and bans (even larger impacts than information, education, or economic incentives), and yet they respect freedom of choice and heterogeneity within society (Sunstein & Reisch, 2013, p. 5). However, encouraging active consumer choices (e.g., “to waste less food”) is equally important, especially when public officials lack relevant information (which might result in inadequate default rules), or if groups are relatively diverse (so that single measures might lead to contradictory effects) (Carroll et al., 2009; Gumbert, 2019; Sunstein, 2013). Combining behavioural tools (such as social norms to stimulate decreases

218

T. GUMBERT

in consumption) with traditional tools (such as economic incentives) promises therefore to be more effective (in motivating long-term changes towards sustainability) than standard environmental policymaking (EC, 2016, also Gumbert, 2019). This belief is anchored clearly through the increased focus on the actions of private households and the responsibilities of individual citizens to prevent ecological damage (Gumbert, 2022; Ölander & Thorgesen, 2014, p. 341). It can be argued that, from a policy standpoint, the ideal type of citizen/consumer would be “an individual who simultaneously exercises the choices and freedoms bestowed by a neo-liberal economic model, but does so in a way that is socially, economically, and environmentally responsible” (Barr, 2015, p. 93). It is important that consumers can exercise their freedoms in liberal societies, but also that they have a sense of how to conduct themselves as ‘good’ citizens. Behaviour change policies must therefore not solely rely on rationalizing consumer conduct through incentives, but also steer consumption choices through pro-environmental norms and the promotion of ethical behaviours, i.e., images of how to conduct oneself in light of a specific issue. The target of such interventions is therefore to simultaneously create rational actors (homo oeconomini) and responsible consumers. This distinction is very central to understand why responsibility is such an important ‘ingredient’ in designing effective behaviour change. Hausman and Welch (2010), for example, reject the idea to count every exercise of giving information as paternalistic, since “providing information and giving advice treats individuals as fully competent decision maker” (127). To that end, there is indeed nothing wrong with illuminating individuals about the scope of the food waste problem and encouraging them to reflect on their own household practices. But many nudges, instead of simply providing information, aim to “alter people’s behavior by triggering [or blocking] heuristics” (Barton & Grüne-Yanoff, 2015, p. 343). The use of heuristics describes “strategies of judgment or decision that are fast and use only a few cues (instead of the totality of the available information)” (ibid.). Heuristics can be used to make people care about issues that they would typically not care about, such as triggering particular emotions or ethical sentiments that provoke ‘good’ or ‘bad’ reactions. Behaviour change strategies in the context of food waste reductions rely on triggering responsible attitudes for ‘saving’ food before it becomes waste, and this ‘responsibilization mechanism’ constitutes a core element of how responsibility is related to food waste governance

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

219

on the consumption stage. This strategy is at the same time effective and politically problematic. Steering individual actors towards anti-food waste behaviours signifies a prime example of this logic. Since ‘waste’ has a strongly negative connotation, and food is on the other hand imbued with a range of positive values (social, cultural, ethical, etc.), no one wants to be associated with the practice of wasting it. A steering agent who is charged with encouraging food waste reductions can therefore design the most effective nudges by using a combination of rational and ethical choice editing strategies. Triggering particular heuristics is necessary to nudge effectively. This is achieved by using social norms that are conveyed through anti-food waste messages, which are part of information campaigns and feedback systems (Mont et al., 2014, p. 48). Through the “provision of information about others’ behavior as well as ideal-type behavior, a sense of appropriateness is construed and made publicly available” (Gumbert, 2019, p. 117). The ethical maxim of ‘wasting food is bad’ cannot be contradicted, and “selfoptimization and rationalization are presented as the self-evident solution: rationalization is a means to an end, while the end is justified on ethical terms” (ibid.). Nicholas Rose (2000) has described these connections as ‘ethopolitics’, i.e., the government of behaviour, which justifies itself on ethical terms. Instead of merely giving consumers information, “ethopower works through the values, beliefs, and sentiments thought to underpin the techniques of responsible self-government and the management of one’s obligations to others” (Rose, 2000, p. 5). It therefore relies on a set of fixed moral codes that are related to external principles or concepts of human nature. In the sense of ethopower, behaviour change is not only intended to regulate practices of food waste reductions, but also, or especially, those who can freely act on it. Because consumption is constantly asserted as a “sphere of autonomy” which is governed by the “power of the consumer” (Kranert et al., 2012), it constitutes a legitimate field for behavioural interventions. This reasoning is in line with what Foucault described as a liberal rationality of government: to supervise natural mechanisms of behaviour and production, to intervene in irregularities, and to ensure and control the freedom of active subjects (Foucault, 2008, p. 67). While the notion of ‘controlled’ or ‘regulated’ freedom might seem like a contradiction at first glance, it describes very accurately what behaviour change policies do: they preserve the freedom to act, while

220

T. GUMBERT

steering it towards particular goals. Nudging can therefore be considered as a ‘soft’ form of control, since it is about limiting irrational and unsustainable behavioural traits without setting any limits (to the freedom of consumption), instead encouraging self-responsibility. Nudges activate responsible attitudes to strengthen the effectiveness of nudges. Steering agents are removed from sight, thus acting at-a-distance, and individuals consequently do not directly conform to policy demands, but rather to ethical and cultural codes that are understood to be self-evident. Responsibilization strategies rely to some extent on cultural framing. Evans et al. (2017) have asserted that the discourse of “blaming the consumer” (Evans, 2011; Meah, 2014) in food waste governance is not as dominant in the UK as it was a few years ago, when organizations such as WRAP started campaigning on the issue. In Chapter 7 it was shown that especially in current policy documents in Germany and the UK, the figure of the ‘wasteful’ consumer does not play a dominant role. However, it was also confirmed that more indirect ways of attributing responsibility to the sphere of consumption are indeed present, for example by way of bestirring the topos of the ‘throw-away’ society, which is used by many social innovations to describe their motivation for engaging with food waste. For O’Brien (2013), the ‘throw-away’ society thesis is a misrepresentation of the current waste problem, because it describes waste generation as a “mentality problem” that moralizes individual acts, while neglecting changes in population increase, changes in waste disposal practices (e.g. household waste incineration), an increase in consumption incentives, an increase in level of purchases, and other structural factors that have led to rising levels of waste in the twentieth century. He argues instead that we should treat ‘wastefulness’ as a product of “the social and industrial context of [a certain] time” (O’Brien, 2013, p. 27), and when applying a historical sociological perspective, we would rather see that ‘wastefulness’ is unambiguously linked to economic growth, instead of cultural mentality. The problem in this regard is that behavioural policies as well as cultural narratives consequently individualize causes for waste generation, although the influence of structural drivers is fairly obvious and far beyond individual control (Alexander et al., 2013; Evans, 2014; Gille, 2013; Stuart 2009). While WRAP for example has argued that their campaigns as well as various suggestions and devices to alter consumer habits in the UK have been successful (WRAP, 2014, 2018), and others have also argued

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

221

that behaviour change is an effective and legitimate means to drive societies towards becoming more sustainable (EC, 2016; Sunstein, 2013; Sunstein & Reisch, 2013). So what exactly are the potential downsides? The notion of responsibility can help to put some of the critiques that have been voiced into perspective. First, behaviour change policies have been criticized on the basis that they may further an “‘individualization’ of consumption and the concealment of business interests” (Gumbert, 2019, p. 110). It is argued that by evoking ethical and moral consumption choices through market interactions, responsibility and other forms of pro-active engagement are individualized, and the structural contexts in which these individual actions are embedded are mystified (Brooks & Bryant, 2014; Goodman, 2004; Maniates, 2014). Here, it could be argued that anti-food waste messages that encourage consumers to behave more responsibly and waste less do not really ‘fit the case’, since ‘saving’ food is essentially about reducing consumption, not altering consumption. But retailers that engage ‘pro-actively’ with the issue of food waste do so mostly because they see such efforts as an instrument to increase customer loyalty and to reduce disposal costs (Evans et al., 2017). Food waste reductions that apply behaviour change strategies are therefore mostly situated at the intersection of retail and consumption and can be said to be integrated with “the business models and ethos of the mainstream corporate world […] [and thus] erode support for more radical forms of environmental political action” (Brooks & Bryant, 2014, p. 79). Such responsible action can hardly be described as a reflection on the need to further meaningful reductions in relation to food waste generation. Some authors have even argued that nudge strategies would not just individualize environmental action, but diminish personal autonomy in more substantive ways (Bovens, 2008; Goodwin, 2012; Hausman & Welch, 2010; Wilkinson, 2013). Since nudges may carry a clear and subjective opinion regarding certain questions (e.g., how to behave appropriately in relation to food waste), for some authors this kind of influence can be referred to as manipulation, as a technique that “perverts the way [a] person reaches decisions, forms preferences or adopts goals” (Wilkinson, 2013, p. 344). A manipulation is seen in this regard as an “intervention that involves an intentional actor that causes or encourages an alteration within a person’s autonomous decision-making” (ibid.). In regard to responsibility, while individualization denies connection to others and encourages individual actors to think about how they can improve themselves, the ‘diminished autonomy’ claim goes even

222

T. GUMBERT

further in questioning if individuals can understand the implicit goals of behaviour change strategies in terms of responsibility at all, or if they would rather immediately and unconsciously respond to triggers. Lastly, a third line of critical inquiry sees nudges as “depriving the subject of the possibility to engage in deliberation or developing the capacity for judgment” (Gumbert, 2019, p. 114). Some authors assert that given enough time, information, and an appropriate environment, citizens may come to optimal judgements for themselves and others (John et al., 2009, 2011). Various participatory formats can be used to create spaces to “exchange views and experiences that help citizens to reflect on personal needs and their embeddedness in larger social contexts” (Gumbert, 2019, p. 114). Empowering citizens is therefore at the heart of the ‘think strategy’, “focusing on the process of decision-making and how preferences are shaped therein instead of trying to reveal pre-existent preferences” (ibid.). The core idea is that “democratic deliberation has the capacity to lessen the problem of bounded rationality” (John et al., 2009, p. 13). Here, the focus is explicitly on whether choice editing interferes with individuals engaging in collective political and democratic practice. In this perspective, conveying (subliminal) messages to steer behaviour change for reaching political goals betrays the picture of the autonomous, politically educated citizen that liberal democracies want to envision. It is argued that meaningful responsible action can only become manifest in a collective setting, i.e., inside spaces where politics can be exercised, not outside of it. In sum, the benefits and dangers of behaviour change strategies are both real possibilities: they may lead to overall reductions in the amount of food waste generated, but at the same time constitute barriers to address these problems through democratic action (Gumbert, 2022. It has been shown that behaviour strategies to guide individuals towards self-optimization can essentially be understood as practices of self-accounting, of aligning individual behaviours with the larger goal of achieving food waste reductions. To that end, policies promote ‘small and simple gestures’ which should become routine practices (Rumpala, 2011, p. 679). But these strategies go beyond the rationalization of conduct; in fact, their mechanisms cannot be adequately understood without the notion of ‘responsibilization’, the techniques to make others ‘become self-responsible’. The rationality underlying behaviour change strategies “upholds liberal doctrines, as consumers can continue to do their habitual activities as long as they adopt responsible attitudes” (Gumbert, 2019,

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

223

p. 119). Here, the consumer is the pivotal point in regulating sustainable practices and serves to “articulate and legitimate a diversity of programmes for rectifying problematic areas of economic and social life” (Miller & Rose, 1990, p. 24). These problems are however not addressed through the creation of spaces for the collective exercise of responsible citizenship. Rather, “such a politics replaces democratic deliberation with expert knowledge, dialogue with behavioral modifications and persuasive arguments with designed options” (Gumbert, 2019, p. 119).

Value Attributions and Valorization Value attributions to food waste and subsequent processes of valorization have been identified as an important dimension for how individual actors are linked to causes and consequences of food waste generation, and how responsibility is understood and exercised. Since it is constantly asserted by various actors that there is no commonly accepted definition of food waste (Bradshaw, 2018; HoC, 2016), it is interesting to follow different meanings attached to this ‘indeterminate object’ (Alexander et al., 2013; Lepawsky, 2018) and how they are in turn connected to other thematic fields and discourses, and thereby to responsibility. I will argue in this section that the classification of food waste functions as one of the most important areas of contestation among all actors involved in governance activities from the global to the local level. How this contestation plays out is, first, directly tied to understandings and legal codifications of responsibility, and second, consequential for future directions in food waste governance. Since, as I will try to show, the categorization of food waste is linked to responsibility, which is in turn linked to the institutionalization of food waste governance, changing institutional structures involves a redefinition, or a different relation towards, food waste as a regulatory object. To understand the complexities of value attribution in the context of food waste reductions, it is necessary to start by looking at the values of ‘food’ and ‘waste’ in turn. Generally, the talk of ‘food values’ begets an ethical maxim to attribute an intrinsic value to it, but it has also a commodity value, an exchange value, a cultural value (signifying cultural heritage), and social value (producing community and structuring family ties) (Bradshaw, 2018; Evans, 2014; Murcott, 1997). As a resource, food has specific qualities, such as its perishability and short lifespan, which has implications for human consumption as a basic human need (Carolan,

224

T. GUMBERT

2012; Freidberg, 2009). In the EU, food is predominantly subject to regulations of food safety (and addressed through ‘use by’ dates) and food quality (‘best before’ dates) (Bradshaw, 2018). Independent of individual attributions, it is almost common sense to keep food in the food supply and redistribute surplus food for human consumption. When food is considered as ‘waste’, however, these value attributions and corresponding processes of valorization change drastically. Waste is always part of processes of “symbolic classification” (Gregson & Alexander, 2017, p. 10): it evokes notions of ‘dirtiness’, ‘danger’, and being ‘demeaning’, and is seen as “socially contaminating” (ibid.) because it devalues everyone who is in close proximity to it (e.g., waste workers). Waste is however not a negative category per se or simply the opposite of value, because goods that are labelled as ‘waste’ or ‘rubbish’ can be valorized (i.e., rearticulated as things of value) and circulated in alternative economies (e.g., markets for second-hand clothing) (Gregson et al., 2007a, 2007b). In the context of contemporary discourses on the expansion of recycling schemes and using by-products as inputs for new production processes, there is a strong tendency to look towards everything ‘valueless’ with an interest in finding innovative ways to revalorize it and make it useful again (although there are strong limitations in terms of quality of the recycled material and recovery costs; Alexander & Reno, 2012; Binnemans et al., 2013). Food waste as a category is subject to these conflicts of value: should it be channelled towards creating the biggest financial value (as bio-energy and fertilizer), or towards contributing to social and cultural values (for human consumption)? As I will go on to argue, while political and legal regulations try to make this decision easier and clear for actors in the food supply chain by implementing accountability mechanisms, it ultimately remains a question of moral agency. The difficulty of value attribution is already apparent in relation to deciding on a legal definition. Most actors in fact use a somewhat impoverished, composite legal definition by applying the definition of ‘waste’ to the definition of ‘food’: “‘Food’ ‘waste’ is thus any substance, object or product intended or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans (food), which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard (waste)”. (Bradshaw, 2018, p. 14). Bradshaw argues that the definition of waste is holder-specific, meaning that it is relevant who possesses and discards objects, but that it is, from a legal perspective, irrelevant as to which value or other objective characteristics adhere to an object in

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

225

order to define something as waste (ibid.). This only becomes of interest after an object has been labelled as waste, and holders need to get rid of it, in order to decide on management and treatment options (e.g., the distinction of hazardous/non-hazardous waste has immediate consequences for disposal practices). We see that, for most actors handling food, the problem of value attribution and valorization arises right before disposal, and it is here where notions of responsibility are equally relevant. The notions of ‘liability’ and ‘accountability’ are deeply implicated in this general logic of waste. Potential harm arises when a holder no longer attaches any value to an object, has no use for it, and loses self-interest in handling and care. This increases the risk of dumping or disposing of waste unsafely (Bradshaw, 2018, p. 14). Waste regulations concentrate on the point of intended discard, which means that whoever produces or is in possession of an object becoming waste must ensure its safe handling and is in this instance responsible for it. This creates serious problems if the waste that is handled is surplus food. For example, food distribution agencies that collect surplus food from retailers also ‘collect’ the responsibility for safe handling, and since the risk for ‘becoming responsible’ increases through the perishability of food, this creates disincentives for redistribution on the side of charities (Alexander & Smaje, 2008). Also, because there is still general confusion (in the UK and in Germany in particular) about the liability issues connected to food donations on the business side, this creates further incentives to direct food waste straight to anaerobic digestion, ignoring the ‘food waste hierarchy’.2 As this example shows, responsibility is treated in waste policies as a thoroughly negative category—no one wants to be responsible, because responsibility equals exposure to risks. By way of a broader discussion of the limits of food redistribution policies, we also find indications of why accountability mechanisms (e.g., applying the waste hierarchy) fail to meet their goal. Enhancing food

2 However, the model of the waste hierarchy has to be viewed critically, since its application can lead to a general legitimization of waste, neglecting questions of whether current quantities of food are even necessary, or if they are indeed unavoidable (Hultman & Corvellec, 2012). Especially within the current discourse of expanding the Circular Economy in the European context and on national levels (DEFRA, 2018; EC, 2015), a broad imagination of ‘perfect’ economic recovery and valorization is spurred that encourages business actors to see every form of waste as a resource (Gregson et al., 2015).

226

T. GUMBERT

redistribution is a complex and costly endeavour, since effective redistribution relies on “network development, infrastructure requirements, [.] collection logistics” and must be addressed by “VAT exemptions, […] tax relief for donating unsold food, […] [and] clarifications around food safety liability and date labelling” (Bradshaw, 2018, p. 9). Supporting anaerobic digestion is a more straightforward regulatory option, since the legal framework, so-called ‘non-discriminatory subsidies’ (i.e., measures that do not discriminate between edible and inedible food) and established technological infrastructure and financial incentives create a system of clear expectations, legitimate reduction strategies, and greater financial benefits if food waste is funnelled towards energy recovery. Such path dependencies continuously remove edible food from the supply chain while also creating an artificial, structural demand for food as fuel because of technological feedstock requirements (Alexander, 2016; Bradshaw, 2018; HoC, 2017). Anaerobic digestion constitutes a useful strategy to valorize inedible food, which would otherwise run the risk of ending up in landfills. However, although waste holders are legally obliged to apply the waste hierarchy (that clearly prioritizes food distribution vis-à-vis energy recovery), it has to be ‘reasonable’ for them to do so, factoring in technical feasibility and economic viability, and by doing so, given the problematic incentive structure, they in fact ‘officially’ comply with the waste hierarchy by choosing the less preferred recovery option (Waste Regulations, 2011, cited in Bradshaw, 2018, p. 11). If reduction systems are set up in a way that actors don’t have to ‘think twice’ where their waste should go, an organization of irresponsibility unfolds in which everyone is complying to measures specified by waste law, which aims to increase overall sustainability by redirecting food waste from landfills yet disconnects their actions from processes of food surplus production and reducing food poverty. In terms of understanding the object of food waste that is to be regulated, the intrinsic value and importance of food is neglected—food is increasingly perceived as an energy resource. Not only are the structural drivers of food waste not addressed by such technological “end-of-pipe-solutions” (Alexander, 2016), but also new structural drivers are created (e.g., infrastructures relying on organic resources), sanctioned by law. The rising levels of food waste openly appal many retailers in the UK as well as in Germany. They argue that, as rational market actors, they would have no interest in wasting food that could still be sold. And yet, the dynamics described above suggest that their willingness to make progressive changes on an industry level must be

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

227

considered marginal at best. In this sense, accountability is very much at odds with acting responsibly. A central reason for this is the rationality how food waste is understood and valued. Bradshaw argues that categorizing food as waste is never value-free or apolitical, but that it would, on the contrary, be embedded in the “broader, uniquely powerful symbolic and structural work that legal categorization does” (Bradshaw, 2018, p. 18; italics in original), which “reflects and shapes structural valuations of food” (ibid., p. 19). In the case of food redistributions, the categorization of food as waste benefits commercial interests over more sensible food waste reduction targets, as evidenced by the numerous examples of civil society reduction practices that have been discussed earlier in both national contexts. Once food is labelled as waste, it is rather managed than prevented, which, again, ignores the application of the food waste hierarchy. Under these circumstances, politically enhancing the ability of business actors through the promotion of voluntary schemes and self-regulatory initiatives is at odds with finding truly common solutions to the food waste problem. Many schemes may well look like extended manufacturer and retailer responsibility on the surface, yet the structural dynamics of food waste generation prevent such strategies from having a substantial effect. If responsibility is linked to how food waste is understood and vice versa, then the question arises if an alternative prevention regime for food waste is possible. The notion of extended producer responsibility as well as more differentiated definitions of food waste could be “making space for waste in food law” (ibid., p. 21). This argument is underlined by ethnographic studies on food waste in British households. David Evans (2014) argues that the binary of food/waste does not come close to capturing the inherent complexity, even on the household level. By drawing on work by Gregson et al. (2007a, 2007b), he illustrates that food is moved along different stages before it becomes waste. It is first rendered as ‘surplus’, as things that have “the potential to be valued elsewhere such that their social lives can be extended” (Evans, 2014, p. 60), before they slip into the category of ‘excess’, as “objects that cannot be imagined in terms of this productive expenditure” (ibid., p. 61), implying that they are not perceived as having value as a food commodity for someone else. Food as excess is determined to become waste, routinely placed in bins, and there is also the general tendency that food as surplus, because of its perishability, easily slips into the category of excess. In other words, consumers,

228

T. GUMBERT

as well as all stakeholders, are tasked with reimagining the entire underlying supply system and with designing different points of intervention: to prevent food from becoming surplus, to prevent surplus from becoming excess, and prevent excess from becoming waste. The focus is thereby clearly on prevention instead of finding an alternative, ‘valuable’ use for waste. What is needed is a specific sensibility in this regard, for example for consumers to plan purchases and acquire less food, to trade and make use of surplus, to question whether food is in fact excess (‘inedible’), and to collect food waste separately. While public education campaigns touch on all of these intervention points, food waste reduction systems do not exhibit the same rationality. The rationality of ‘responsibility as accountability’ encourages actors only to make effective efforts, while, arguably, a broader sensibility would be needed to make the best use of surplus food. The dominance of the accountability paradigm can therefore help to explain the non-existent, or, at best, very slow development of alternative food waste reduction infrastructures. Counter to these dominant tendencies, to develop and practice a notion of ‘responsibility as care’ attributes values to the commodity of food itself and to people who struggle with supplying themselves and their families with a healthy diet. The best example in this regard is probably that of food waste cafés or food waste shops that operate with a ‘pay-asyou-feel’ scheme (or German ‘Zahl-was-es-dir-wert-ist’) (e.g., The Real Junk Food Project in the UK, or The Good Food in Germany), where surplus food is saved and made available to everyone independent of status and income. This exercise of responsibility in food waste reductions is simultaneously strengthening the community as well as the social well-being aspect. Through giving financial incentives to expand such initiatives, more public spaces would be created to really ‘appreciate’ food instead of just framing behaviour change strategies through an appreciation discourse. At the same time, in a very material sense, surplus food is prevented from slipping into the category of excess. This would not neglect commercial interests but prioritize other values that are already inherent in the possible futures of food waste reductions. With regard to food waste preventions built on an alternative notion of responsibility, probably the most important message that civil society initiatives communicate is that it is important to think ecological and social values in tandem—one follows from, strengthens, and supports the other. Food waste reduction can become a practice of living well within limits (Brand-Correa & Steinberger, 2017; Di Giulio & Fuchs, 2014;

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

229

Fuchs, 2020; Fuchs et al., 2021) in that these initiatives work towards supporting minimal food consumption standards of all members of society (good and healthy food from surplus and excess food) by simultaneously acknowledging environmental limits of resource use (water, land, and energy that went into food production). Whereas current food waste policies still predominantly rely on treating food waste as a category of waste, social initiatives treat food waste as food. What seems like a simple difference is in fact a very powerful change in perspective, with enormous ramifications, were current governance schemes to fully adopt such a ‘food value perspective’ on food waste. Whereas it has been argued that ‘responsibility as accountability’ creates (and mystifies) structural barriers to reform the current governance structure, a different concept of responsibility may help to pave the way in this direction. In sum, because food waste is largely ‘at home’ in waste policy, there is a strong tendency to view it in terms of being generated at the ‘end-ofpipe’, which equals a de-problematization of its structural drivers. At the same time, the notion of the ‘linearity’ of food supply chains attributes responsibility to those actors that reside at the end of the supply chain— food redistributors (charities) and consumers. To address the complexities of food waste generation in waste policy, it is necessary to start seeing it as an “upstream problem of resource management” (Bradshaw, 2018, p. 20). While the rationalities inherent in waste policy create sub-optimal reduction efforts, food law is also not an appropriate home for food waste, since it is rather concerned with questions of food safety, date labelling, and food security, neglecting structural issues for different reasons— e.g., by focusing on the importance of transparent information and food productivity (MacMaoláin, 2015; Marsden et al., 2009). An important change in direction to a more sustainable and equitable food system would therefore be to award the ‘food’ part in food waste the special status it deserves, in order to prevent that food waste, as a policy object, continues to sit uncomfortably between the logics of food policy and waste policy. A problematization and reconceptualization of responsibility, as this section tried to argue, can help to mediate between alternative understandings of food waste and political and legal institutional changes.

Summary Debates about shared responsibility, attributing responsibility to individual actors (consumers, supermarkets etc.), and the valuation of food

230

T. GUMBERT

have been identified as the most dominant threats in governing food waste from the global to the local level. In the discussions of how the focus on partnerships and best practices, and behaviour change and selfoptimization may be understood, we see that responsibility dominantly appears as the coordination of practices that motivate actors to become self-accountable for reductions. In the discussion of value attributions in food waste policy, this understanding of responsibility is further substantiated by the lack of any moral agency on the side of actors handling food waste. But in every of these fields, there are also tensions present: of the neglect of structural conditions of food waste production, of the failure to address citizens as political, autonomous subjects, and of the lack to recognize the social values of food and corresponding reduction practices (see Fig. 8.1). We also see that these understandings tend to stabilize each other: Since ‘food’ is valued positively and ‘waste’ is perceived as an entirely negative category, every strategy that targets food waste and promises reductions is usually supported by all stakeholders. This in turn gives rise to norms of cooperation and consensus, talk of collective endeavours and equal capabilities, thereby easily obscuring unequal relations and differentiated capabilities, as well as many of the suggested tensions inherent in these policy practices. In that regard, we find similarities to the ‘cooperative’ sustainable development discourse (Whitehead, 2014), although I would argue that potential critiques can be discouraged even more successfully in the governance of food waste. Exemplary government techniques also tie in with expanding behaviour change strategies, since leading by example through social innovations constitutes a valuable SHARING, BEST PRACTICE, AND COOPERATION Soft mechanisms without shaming Horizontal accountability Integration of social innovations as ‘exemplary governance’ Responsibility “common, but not differentiated”

BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE AND SELF-OPTIMISATION Leading others to selfresponsibilization Rationalization plus environmental attitudes Normative considerations are discouraged Individualization and danger of depoliticization

VALUE ATTRIBUTION AND VALORISATION Conflictual value attributions Responsibility as risk Economic and technological path dependencies Management instead of prevention

Fig. 8.1 Contextualization of responsibility—Analysis of structures of meaning

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

231

source of motivation for individuals beyond government-led initiatives and targeted campaigns. In all of these fields, complexities and uncertainties are reduced to a point where they become calculable and manageable. In this regard responsibility itself is used as an effective instrument to engage individual actors in “areas where success is easily measurable and favoured ahead of more deeply-rooted, complex and structural issues which resist easy auditing, categorization and benchmarking” (Death, 2010, p. 85). Overall, discussing the meanings of responsibility in food waste governance boils down to a ‘politics of enhancing and securing effectiveness’, on one side, and a ‘politics of enhancing and securing democratic values’ (e.g., justice, equality, personal autonomy, deliberation) on the other. I want to be very clear at this point that a focus on effectiveness is not ‘bad’; in fact, it would be absurd to suggest that effectiveness has no normative value in governing food waste reductions. But a predominant focus on effectiveness, applied through techniques of ‘becoming selfaccountable’ is dangerous (Death, 2010, p. 250), because (a) processes of environmental governance are gradually being disconnected from democratic accountability and legitimacy, and (b) environmental problems are increasingly subject to techniques of management instead of prevention. At the same time, the notion of ‘responsibility as (self-) accountability’ makes it difficult for these issues to become a matter of public contestation.

References Alexander, C. (2016). When waste disappears. RCC Perspectives: Transformations in Environment and Society, 1, 31–40. Alexander, C., Gregson, N., & Gille, Z. (2013). Food waste. In A. Murcott, W. J. Belasco, P. Jackson, & S. W. Mintz (Eds.), The handbook of food research. Bloomsbury. Alexander, C., & Reno, J. (Eds.). (2012). Economies of recycling: The global transformation of materials, values and social relations. Bloomsbury Publishing. Alexander, C., & Smaje, C. (2008). Surplus retail food redistribution: An analysis of a third sector model. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52, 1290– 1298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.07.009 Almassi, B. (2014). Expertise in agriculture: Scientific and ethical issues. Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94007-6167-4_278-2

232

T. GUMBERT

Barnard, A. (2016). Freegans: Diving into the wealth of food waste in America. University of Minnesota Press. Barr, S. (2015). Beyond behaviour change: Social practice theory and the search for sustainable. In E. H. Kennedy, M. J. Cohen, & N. Krogman (Eds.), Putting sustainability into practice: Applications and advances in research on sustainable consumption. Edward Elgar Publishing. Barton, A., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2015). From libertarian paternalism to nudging—And beyond. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6, 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0268-x Beck, U. (1993). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (M. A. Ritter, Trans.). Sage. Binnemans, K., Jones, P. T., Blanpain, B., van Gerven, T., Yang, Y., Walton, A., & Buchert, M. (2013). Recycling of rare earths: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012. 12.037 Bornemann, B., & Burger, P. (2019). Nudging to sustainability? Critical reflections on nudging from a theoretically informed sustainability perspective. In Handbook of behavioural change and public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing. Bovens, L. (2008). The ethics of Nudge. In M. J. Hansson & T. Grüne-Yanoff (Eds.), Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology (pp. 207–220). Springer. Bradshaw, C. J. (2018). Waste law and the value of food. Journal of Environmental Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqy009 Brand-Correa, L. I., & Steinberger, J. K. (2017). A framework for decoupling human need satisfaction from energy use. Ecological Economics, 141, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.019 Brooks, A., & Bryant, R. (2014). Consumption. In C. Death (Ed.), Critical environmental politics. Routledge. Carolan, M. (2012). The sociology of food and agriculture. Routledge. Carroll, G. D., Choi, J., Laibson, D., Madrian, B. C., & Metrick, A. (2009). Optimal defaults and active decisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1639–1674. Death, C. (2010). Governing sustainable development: Partnerships, protests and power at the world summit (Interventions). Routledge. Death, C. (2011). Summit theatre: Exemplary governmentality and environmental diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen. Environmental Politics, 20(1), 1–19. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2018). Our waste, our resources: A strategy for England. DEFRA. Di Giulio, A., & Fuchs, D. (2014). Sustainable consumption corridors: Concept, objections, and responses. GAIA—Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 23, 184–192. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.23.S1.6

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

233

Ellison, N. (1997). Towards a new social politics: Citizenship and reflexivity in late modernity. Sociology, 31, 697–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/003803 8597031004004 Esguerra, A., Helmerich, N., & Risse, T. (Eds.). (2017). Sustainability politics and limited statehood: Contesting new modes of governance (Governance and limited statehood). Palgrave Macmillan. European Commission (EC). (2015). Closing the loop—An EU action plan for the circular economy. COM (2015) 614 final. Evans, D. (2011). Blaming the consumer–once again: The social and material contexts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Critical Public Health, 21(4), 429–440. Evans, D. (2014). Food waste: Home consumption, material culture and everyday life (Materializing culture). Bloomsbury. Evans, D., Welch, D., & Swaffield, J. (2017). Constructing and mobilizing ‘the consumer’: Responsibility, consumption and the politics of sustainability. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49, 1396–1412. https://doi. org/10.1177/0308518X17694030 FAO 2019. Celebrating the diversity in fruits and vegetables. https://www.fao. org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1177113/?fbclid=IwAR1Vc-sUM3ZpNjh7UU sSy9ORoM3qNBnvemiWDoV4wvLOX0KYz0g_gkRE99g&utm_campaign= Feedback. (2015). Food waste in Kenya: Uncovering food waste in the horticultural export supply chain. Feedback. Feedback. (2018). Farmers Tal food waste: Supermarkets’ role in crop waste on UK farms. Feedback. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208– 226). Univ. of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Palgrave Macmillan. Foucault, M. (Ed.). (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79 (Michel Foucault’s lectures at the Collège de France). Palgrave Macmillan. Freidberg, S. (2009). Fresh: A perishable history. Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press. Fuchs, D. (2020). Living well within limits: The vision of consumption corridors. In Routledge handbook of global sustainability governance (pp. 296–307). Routledge. Fuchs, D., Sahakian, M., Gumbert, T., Di Giulio, A., Maniates, M., Lorek, S., & Graf, A. (2021). Consumption corridors: Living a good life within sustainable limits. Routledge. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Polity Press.

234

T. GUMBERT

Gille, Z. (2013). From risk to waste: Global food waste regimes. The Sociological Review, 60, 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12036 Goodman, M. K. (2004). Reading fair trade: Political ecological imaginary and the moral economy of fair trade foods. Political Geography, 23, 891–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2004.05.013 Goodwin, T. (2012). Why we should reject ‘nudge.’ Politics, 32, 85–92. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2012.01430.x Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: An introduction. In C. Gordon, P. Miller, & G. Burchell (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 1–51). Univ. of Chicago Press. Gregson, N., Metcalfe, A., & Crewe, L. (2007a). Identity, mobility, and the throwaway society. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25, 682– 700. https://doi.org/10.1068/d418t Gregson, N., Metcalfe, A., & Crewe, L. (2007b). Moving things along: The conduits and practices of divestment in consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32, 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14755661.2007.00253.x Gregson, N., Crang, M., Fuller, S., & Holmes, H. (2015). Interrogating the circular economy: The moral economy of resource recovery in the EU. Economy and Society, 44, 218–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147. 2015.1013353 Gregson, N., & Alexander, C. (2017). Chapter 1: What is waste? In Government Office for Science. (Ed.), Food waste: A response to the policy challenge (pp. 9– 24). Gumbert, T. (2019). Freedom, autonomy and sustainable behaviors: The politics of designing consumer choice. In C. Isenhour, M. Martiskainen, & L. Middlemiss (Eds.), Politics, power & ideology in sustainable consumption (pp. 107–123.). Routledge. Gumbert, T. (2022). Behavioral economics and nudging. Assessing the democratic quality of sustainable behavior change agendas. In The Routledge handbook of democracy and sustainability (pp. 387–400). Routledge. Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(3), 433–448. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome. Cited as “FAO 2011”. Hale, T. N., & Mauzerall, D. L. (2004). Thinking globally and acting locally: Can the Johannesburg partnerships coordinate action on sustainable development? The Journal of Environment & Development, 13, 220–239. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1070496504268699

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

235

Hausman, D. M., & Welch, B. (2010). Debate: To nudge or not to nudge*. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18, 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-9760.2009.00351.x House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. (2016). Food waste in England: Eighth report of session 2016–17 . cited as “House of Commons 2017a” (House of Commons papers, session 2016/17, HC 429). Dandy Booksellers Ltd. House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. (2017). Food waste in England: Government response to the committee’s eighth report of session 2016–7: First special report of session 2017–19. House of Commons, cited as “House of Commons 2017b”. House of Commons. Hultman, J., & Corvellec, H. (2012). The European waste hierarchy: From the sociomateriality of waste to a politics of consumption. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44, 2413–2427. https://doi.org/10.1068/ a44668 John, P., Cotterill, S., Richardson, L., Moseley, A., Smith, G., Stoker, G., Wales, C., Liu, H., & Nomura, H. (2011). Nudge, nudge, think, think: Experimenting with ways to change civic behaviour. Bloomsbury Publishing. John, P., Smith, G., & Stoker, G. (2009). Nudge nudge, think think: Two strategies for changing civic behaviour. Political Quarterly, 80, 361–370. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02001.x Kranert, M. e. a. (2012). Ermittlung der weggeworfenen Lebensmittelmengen und Vorschläge zur Verminderung der Wegwerfrate bei Lebensmitteln in Deutschland. cited as “Kranert et al. 2012”. Stuttgart. Lepawsky, J. (2018). Reassembling rubbish: Worlding electronic waste. The MIT Press. Lipinski, B. e. a. (2017). SDG target 12.3 on food loss and waste: 2017 progress report. An annual update on behalf of Champions 12.3. cited as “Champions 12.3 2017b”. Lohmann, L. (2006). Carbon trading: A critical conversation on climate change, privatization and power. Uppsala. Lourenço, J. S., Ciriolo, E., Almeida, S. R., & Troussard, X. (EC) (2016). Behavioural insights applied to policy: European Report 2016. Doc. EUR, 27726, 4. MacMaoláin, C. (2015). Food law: European, domestic and international frameworks. Hart. Maniates, M. (2014). Sustainable consumption—Three paradoxes. GAIA— Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 23, 201–208. https://doi.org/ 10.14512/gaia.23.S1.8 Marsden, T., Lee, R., Flynn, A., & Thankappen, S. (2009). The new regulation and governance of food: Beyond the food crisis? Routledge.

236

T. GUMBERT

Marteau, T. M., Ogilvie, D., Roland, M., Suhrcke, M., & Kelly, M. P. (2011). Judging nudging: Can nudging improve population health? BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 342, d228. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d228 Martens, J. (2007). The future of multilateralism after Monterrey and Johannesburg. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Meah, A. (2014). Still blaming the consumer? Geographies of responsibility in domestic food safety practices. Critical Public Health, 24, 88–103. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2013.791387 Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. (2012). Input and output legitimacy of multistakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22, 527–556. Milford, A. B., Ovrum, A., & Helgesen, H. (2015). Nudges to increase recycling and reduce waste. Discussion Paper No. 2015–01. Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2437370 Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085149000000001 Mont, O., Lehner, M., & Heiskanen, E. (2014). Nudging: A tool for sustainable behavior? Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Report 6643. http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91620-6643-7.pdf?pid=14232 Moog, S., Spicer, A., & Bohm, S. (2015). The politics of multi-stakeholder initiatives: The crisis of the Forest stewardship council. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 469–493. Murcott, A. (1997). Family meals—A thing of the past? In P. Caplan (Ed.), Food, health and identity. Routledge. O’Brien, M. (2013). Consumers, waste and the ‘throwaway society’ thesis: Some observations on the evidence. International Journal of Applied Sociology, 3(2), 19–27. Ölander, F., & Thorgesen, J. (2014). Informing versus nudging in environmental policy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37 (3), 341–356. Phillips, L., & Ilcan, S. (2007). Responsible expertise: Governing the uncertain subjects of biotechnology. Critique of Anthropology, 27 (1), 103–126. Rainford, P., & Tinkler, J. (2011). Designing for nudge effects: How behaviour management can ease public sector problem. Briefing Paper, LSE Public Policy Group. LSE Research Online: August 2011. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/37810 Rose, N. (2000). Community, citizenship and the third way. In D. Meredyth & J. Minson (Eds.), Citizenship and cultural policy (pp. 1–17, Cultural Media Policy series). Sage. Rumpala, Y. (2011). “Sustainable consumption” as a new phase in a governmentalization of consumption. Theory and Society, 40, 669–699. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11186-011-9153-5

8

CONTEXTUALIZING RESPONSIBILIT(IES) IN FOOD WASTE GOVERNANCE

237

Scholte, J. A. (2007). Civil society and the legitimation of global governance. Journal of Civil Society, 3, 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/174486807 01775796 Stuart, T. (2009). Waste: Uncovering the global food scandal (1st ed.). W.W. Norton & Co. Sunstein, C. R. (2013). Behavioral economics, consumption, and environmental protection, regulatory policy program working paper RPP-2013–19. MossavarRahmani Center for Business and Government, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10. 1.1.643.4491&rep=rep1&type=pdf Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Nudging: A very short guide. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37 (4), 583–588. Sunstein, C., & Reisch, L. A. (2013). Green by default. Kyklos, 66(3), 398–402. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review, 93(2), 175–179. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Penguin. Waste (England and Wales) Regulations. (2011). SI 2011/988, reg 12. Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2014). UK food waste— Historical changes and how amounts might be influenced in the future: Final Report. “WRAP 2014”. Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2018). Surplus food redistribution in the UK. 2015 to 2017. “WRAP 2018”. Whitehead, M. (2014). Sustainability. In C. Death (Ed.), Critical environmental politics (pp. 257–266, Interventions). Routledge. Wilkinson, T. M. (2013). Nudging and manipulation. Political Studies, 61, 341– 355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00974.x Wilts, H., Nicolas, J., Schinkel, J., Friedrich, C., Steinmann, F., Knappe, F., Theis, S. & Reinhard, J. (2018). Documentation of the expert forum 2017: Effectively reducing food waste—Achieving more together. Dessau-Roßlau: UBA. “UBA 2018”. Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for justice (Oxford political philosophy). Oxford Univ. Press.

CHAPTER 9

Conclusion: Towards Institutions of Forward-Looking Collective Responsibility

Overview In the introduction to this book, it has been argued that the research of responsibility in (global) environmental governance needs to be open to alternative notions of responsibility that exist in particular fields of study in order to more accurately grasp forms and patterns of environmental governance. To achieve this goal, this study designed and applied a 3step approach: (1) tracing elements and dimensions of responsibility, (2) relating them to each other in order to systematize specific variations, and (3) situating these results within broader theoretical discussions on the meanings of responsibility in an empirical context. Chapter 2 outlined the notion of ‘organized irresponsibility’ (Beck, 1986, 1988), defending the claim that the ‘background conditions’ of responsibility attributions need to be taken into account to evaluate if responsible actions are related to and focussed on systemic dynamics of environmental problems. Chapter 3 discussed the current scholarship of responsibility in environmental governance, and concluded that the literature is largely based within the rational choice paradigm, narrowing current conceptualizations. Chapter 4 has broadened this understanding using four distinct bodies of literature: (1) an examination of the philosophical and ethical foundations of responsibility in order to deconstruct dominant notions and open the concept to wider interpretations, (2)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 T. Gumbert, Responsibility in Environmental Governance, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13729-7_9

239

240

T. GUMBERT

the work of Iris Marion Young on political responsibility to problematize current understandings of responsibility in terms of the structural injustices they neglect, (3) (eco-)governmentality scholarship in order to draw attention to the possible (political, social, ecological) side effects of responsibility attributions, and (4) the heuristic of the ‘triangle model’ of responsibility. Chapter 5 described the methodological approach of the study. The ‘triangle model of responsibility’ was applied to food waste governance to systematize how the causes and consequences of food waste are understood (‘event’), who is perceived as a relevant actor in what way (‘identity images’), and what appropriate reduction measures are suggested (‘prescriptions’). Chapter 6 introduced the case study of food waste governance, while Chapter 7 presented the dominant links of responsibility attributions on global, national, and local governance levels. It further discussed their interaction for each level, and finally related the attributions of all three levels to each other in order to derive a triangle model of the most dominant responsibility attributions. Following the empirical study of responsibility, Chapter 8 interpreted the three most dominant links by situating them within the broader sociopolitical context. I will now continue to review the main findings of the study.

Narrow vs. Wide Conceptions of Responsibility The aim of this study was to apply abductive reasoning to the theorizing of responsibility in the field of environmental governance. First, the study derived deductive categories from debates on responsibility in environmental governance and from philosophical and political science scholarship more broadly. It then used these categories to trace and analyze different characteristics and dimensions of responsibility within a particular case study, while remaining open for other elements of the material provided in an inductive way. Analyzing responsibility in this way produced a wealth of information that is very specific in relation to the governance problem, the national contexts, as well as the time horizons that were studied. Although the scope of this study design was not suited to derive general conclusions concerning the meanings of responsibility in the field of environmental governance at large, I nevertheless feel confident to make some remarks on the broader use of responsibility when studying environmental politics.

9

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS INSTITUTIONS OF FORWARD

241

Climate change politics are the pinnacle of environmental research. It is therefore not difficult to imagine that CBDR has greatly influenced how we think about responsibility and how we make use of it, politically as well as scientifically, even if it has come under attack in recent years due to the expansion of emerging economies, the corresponding rise in GHG emissions, and the weakening of its burden-sharing aspect (Bernstein, 2022; Falkner, 2020). The Anthropocene debate has further solidified the notion that today most if not all actors share responsibilities because of the global, common nature of environmental problems, yet due to the unequal distribution of power and resources, responsibilities must be differentiated (Chandler et al., 2018). Consequently, the international community is attempting to find evermore novel and concrete ways of how to define and measure such differentiated responsibilities and develop mechanisms of how responsible conduct can be monitored and enforced (Mason, 2019). It is therefore also no surprise that the concept of responsibility regularly takes on the meaning of accountability. Accountability is characterized by the criteria of voluntariness, wilfulness, and rationality. To the extent that social interactions in modern societies became more complex, it also became more difficult to clearly attribute circumstances and developments to specific actions. This applies in particular to current environmental problems such as the loss of biodiversity, climate change, or deforestation, which are the result of specific structures and institutions (Dryzek & Pickering, 2019). Responsibility-asaccountability is already a reaction to these circumstances: the backwardlooking attribution of causal responsibility as liability focuses on failures and the generation of harms, while accountability is already oriented towards preventing negative consequences in the future. However, accountability is rarely understood as an obligation to make a contribution to desirable conditions such as protecting the environment or guaranteeing human rights. A notion of responsibility that meets the challenges set before us through the advent of the Anthropocene more closely resembles “responsiveness” (Beausoleil, 2017; Pellizzoni, 2004) or the prospective notion of “answerability” (Pellizzoni, 2019), i.e., giving an answer to future challenges. It is not a voluntary requirement, a moral obligation that arises from the fact that we are, individually and collectively, embedded and enmeshed in a global system of structures and institutions with very unequally distributed benefits and burdens (Young, 2004, 2011). Acting responsible entails that individuals, actors, and states with greater economic, financial, technological, and political

242

T. GUMBERT

opportunities must make a larger contribution to sustainable development—especially if they also owe their greater resources and capabilities to the very same unequal political and economic structures. Based on these observations and backed by the in-depth study of a particular case in environmental governance, it is possible to derive a simplified typology of ideal types of environmental or sustainabilityrelated responsibility in order to help researchers to use the concept of responsibility for analytical purposes without necessarily having to engage with the comprehensive triangle model of responsibility as developed in this study. To distinguish manifestations of responsibility, I propose four dimensions: (1) negative vs. positive responsibility, (2) causal vs. moral responsibility, (3) backward-looking vs. future-oriented responsibility, and (4) individual vs. collective responsibility. These characteristics of responsibility have already been discussed in Chapter 4 and have also been included in the coding scheme in Chapter 5. By way of combining these dimensions into a set of two ideal types, it is possible to distinguish a “narrow” and a “wide” conception of responsibility for sustainability (see Table 9.1). Empirically, it is expected that these dimensions constantly mix, which enables the researcher to survey the four dimensions separately in order to derive a more distinct notion of responsibility and using the typology as an evaluative tool. By doing so, the degree and extent of responsible action can be determined, albeit it much simpler terms. Building on these four differentiations, it is possible to derive a “narrow” and a “wide” concept of responsibility in the context of sustainability. A narrow concept of responsibility refers to the dimensions ‘negative’, ‘causal’, ‘backward-looking’, and ‘individual’. Responsibility for the consequences of past actions is assigned to an actor individually Table 9.1 Typology of responsibility for sustainability conceptions

(1) (2) (3) (4)

“Narrow” conception of responsibility for sustainability

“Wide” conception of responsibility for sustainability

negative causal backward-looking individual

positive moral forward-looking collective

Source Author’s own illustration

9

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS INSTITUTIONS OF FORWARD

243

and based on their causal connection to an event. The narrow conception closely resembles a legal understanding of responsibility and is akin to what Iris Marion Young called the “liability model of responsibility” (Young, 2004, 2011). On the other hand, a wide concept of responsibility describes responsible actions as related to collective ideas and visions, based on moral considerations, oriented towards the future, and facilitated through coordinated action. The term is particularly reminiscent of debates on the idea of “forward-looking collective responsibility” (see e.g., French & Wettstein, 2014), in which, among other aspects, the necessity of moral action for orientation towards the future is emphasized. This distinction is initially neutral and not to be understood as normatively prioritizing one conception over the other. The specification “narrow” gives priority to specific and concrete attributions: the scope of responsible action can be clearly determined, and any breaches of duty can be punished (or at least publicly addressed) on a specified basis (i.e., actors become accountable). A “wide” conception gives up the prioritization of clear attribution or imputability in favour of the anticipated, more comprehensive coverage of objects of responsibility through responsible action. The motivation to act because of shared moral convictions, detached from individual attributions of blame for omissions and failures to act, promises ‘more sustainable’, in the sense of precautionary measures in contexts in which risks cannot be precisely measured and in which actions are embedded in complex network structures. The wide conception aims primarily to ensure that responsible action will take place, even under circumstances where the attribution of causes is impossible. At this point, however, the neutral distinction between a narrow and a wide concept of responsibility ultimately becomes normatively charged: a wide conception integrates central normative premises of the concept of sustainability. Ecological problems often occur as unintended side effects of human actions and can hardly be assigned individually in settings affected by constitutive uncertainty about future developments (Beck, 1986, 1988). The complexity and irreversibility of ecosystem changes also shows the importance of precautionary practices (Sondermann et al., 2018). If planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009) and the needs of present and future generations (WCED, 1987) are accepted as a premise of political action, the concept of responsibility cannot be separated from intra- and intergenerational justice dimensions, a fact which obliges us to guarantee all people sufficient access to opportunities to lead a good life as well as the resources needed to do so. Here, the moral agency plays a

244

T. GUMBERT

central role, since responsible action solely based on (often unclear, indeterminate) causal attributions costs too much time given the urgency of today’s sustainability challenges. And yet, Pellizzoni (2019) reminds us not to think in too dichotomous terms when it comes to ideal types. She argues that we should not dismiss established types of responsibility used to hold especially large carbon producers to account and that “backward-looking responsibility is anything but exhausted” (ibid., 138). What Chami and Aguila (2021) call a “principled-approach to environmental governance” can make use of such a wide conception of responsibility to reform governance institutions. With respect to the legal system, they argue that principles fulfil four distinct functions: to help generate new norms and applicable rule, to help courts to interpret unclear provisions, to conciliate when norms contradict each other, and fill the gap when it is difficult to find an answer to a litigious question. Similarly in multi-stakeholder settings, it is often easier to agree on fundamental principles than on technical and financial specificities to solve problems. While principles do not directly produce outcomes, they create a common cultural environment in which new values and norms can emerge. The goal of such a principled-approach is to strengthen the weight of ethical reflections vis-à-vis technical and managerial logics, and create systems and institutions in which stakeholders can see and feel their connection to others as well as their impact on these relations. How might we begin to conceive of such institutions? Dryzek and Pickering (2019) suggest that governance institutions in the Anthropocene should be built on the idea of “ecological reflexivity” to anticipate and prevent ecological state shifts (35). They imagine ecological reflexivity as a 3-stage circular approach, in which recognition (listening, monitoring and anticipating) leads to reflection (learning, rethinking and envisioning) which in turn provokes a response (rearticulation and reconfiguration) (ibid., 36). Echoing these suggestions, I want to outline four ‘building blocks’ of responsible institutions which are supported by this study: 1. Power- and resourceful actors should be expected to take greater responsibility for harm reduction, even if the causal link of their actions to negative outcomes is disputable. In the case of food waste governance, influential actors who have so far benefited from “vastogenic systems” (Cloke, 2013) are in a special position and have acquired the capacity to change existing systemic framework

9

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS INSTITUTIONS OF FORWARD

245

conditions. It is time to publicly call them out to engage in more responsible business practices in their respective field. 2. Future governance initiatives must be built on truly transparent and participatory mechanisms. The goal of a “principled-approach” to governance is to strengthen the weight of ethical reflections visà-vis technical and managerial logics, and create systems in which stakeholders can see and feel their connection to others as well as their impact on these relations as a prerequisite for collective action. David Schlosberg (2016) has used the term “politics of sight” to acknowledge the need for the production of visibilities and their connection to environmental action. 3. Institutions have to enable the mutual observation of members, to create a culture that motivates action and, if necessary, sanctions non-action. This could lead to stronger monitoring instruments and the ability to more comprehensively investigate abuses by transnational companies and set up anonymous complaints procedures. 4. Membership should reach farther than to include only the major industry players as well as the biggest NGOs. Besides the impact factor, spatial and intertemporal relationships pertaining to the governance field should be represented, e.g., through local producer networks and representatives of future generations. By doing so, the unintended and unforeseeable consequences of global production and consumption relations may be addressed, thus gradually helping to reduce “organized irresponsibility” (Beck, 1988).

Review of Findings The governance of food waste is a relatively new field of study in environmental governance. It is therefore especially interesting to evaluate how a new field is organized by participating stakeholders in the context of already existing approaches and guidelines in neighbouring fields. Concerning the guiding research question of this study, the findings suggest that responsibility appears as multiple and varied in its global, national, and local articulations and manifestations. Prescriptions for governing food waste on the global level establish this field in terms of its complexities and uncertainties, and therefore suggest developing concrete and detailed ways of measuring and managing it. National efforts of reducing waste reproduce these definitions and appropriate actions

246

T. GUMBERT

by calling businesses and consumers to rationalize their operations and conducts, while on the local level, prescriptions for food waste reductions are simultaneously reified by the development of innovative solutions for optimization and management, albeit also counter-acted by more normatively oriented goals. This suggests that the need for ‘holding actors accountable’ for reducing food waste is indeed efficacious as an action-guiding notion of responsibility. On both global and national levels of analysis, we find the notion of ‘shared reduction efforts’ to be dominant, and on the local level prescriptions for oughts and best practice approaches are delegated to society at large. But, although responsibility is in principle seen as shared, every actor has to gain exact knowledge about how her/his actions that relate to the event of food waste, prompting them to engage in practices of self-monitoring and self-optimization. The result is that, beneath the veil of shared responsibilities, responsibilities are individualized, segmented, and causally connected to the practices of stakeholders. Food waste governance thus appears to contain elements of all three hypothesized ‘ideal type’ notions of responsibility: it appears simultaneously as ‘shared’, ‘individualized’, and as ‘accountable’, albeit to different degrees and in different constellations. To scrutinize these findings and evaluate them, the analysis has interpreted the three dominant links that were identified as (i) Sharing, best practice, and cooperation, (ii) Behaviour change and self-optimization, and (iii) Value attribution and valorization in the context of their broader socio-political meanings. The dominant links of responsibility attributions tend to stabilize each other: the focus on shared obligations encourages actors to engage in techniques of self-optimization in order to contribute individually to the mitigation of the problem in terms of what they can legitimately do (reflect household practices, business operations, etc.), and the understanding of food waste as a ‘waste’ commodity incentivizes actors to treat it as a management problem. The discussion also showed numerous tensions that are present in these respective areas, for example, the neglect of structural conditions of food waste production, the failure to address citizens as political, autonomous subjects, and the lack to recognize the social values of food and corresponding reduction practices. Through the analytical lens of responsibility, these developing patterns of food waste governance can be understood as a field where a ‘politics of enhancing and securing effectiveness’ is in conflict with a ‘politics of enhancing and

9

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS INSTITUTIONS OF FORWARD

247

securing democratic values’. This begets the more general question of the directions in which food waste governance is headed in the future. Within food waste governance, responsibility is predominantly translated as accountability. In this sense, ‘to be responsible’ means to be able to quantify causes, consequences, and impacts, and evaluate ‘responsible’ action on the basis of indicators and measurements in accordance with (generally) voluntary targets. There are however no ‘forceful’ means of holding culprits accountable. The implementation of accountability mechanisms aims to make the dynamics of global food production and consumption less complex and manageable: these mechanisms compartmentalize spaces for individual action to mitigate negative externalities, render them calculable, and encourage practices of self-accounting. In the case of food waste reduction along food value chains, however, simply specifying responsibilities for different groups of actors, even by negotiating targets and goals, is not a guarantee to establish systems of more responsible action and safeguard against the dangers of ‘organized irresponsibility’. Further, the strong assertion of common responsibilities for food waste reduction on the global level and in transnational networks facilitates participation in partnerships and voluntary mechanisms, but simultaneously establishes a disconnect of accountability vis-à-vis broader issues of justice. This means that partnerships and voluntary agreements help to address the problem of food waste in terms of effectiveness but tend to present it as a depoliticized and technical issue. Hunger, malnourishment, poor working conditions, and structural dependencies are thereby reduced to ‘regrettable facts’, which can simultaneously be addressed by managerial logics of optimization and efficiency, without seeing them as consequences of structural conditions in the food system. But who could take on more ‘responsible’ roles in food waste governance and try to alleviate these political problems? We have seen that the state is neither retreating nor neglecting its responsibility to govern food waste reductions (Heidbrink, 2007; Strange, 1996). What we see is rather a shift towards exercising responsibility through guiding other actors to become self-responsible, thereby governing ‘at-a-distance’ (Gumbert, 2019). In this way, the responsibility of the state is redefined as being responsible for the conduct of others, and less directly for the objects of environmental governance—the reduction of food waste, in this case. The strategies also encourage individual actors to see risks not as a responsibility of the state, but as residing in every actor’s individual domain. As

248

T. GUMBERT

actors can be neatly separated along food value chains, responsibility can be attributed by sector, quantified by indicators, and managed through aligning their conduct with particular targets. Arguably, private households, businesses, and producers should manage themselves to become responsible consumers, responsible businesses, etc. through their interaction with food waste, and if they do, they can function as role models and lead others by example to adopt similar patterns. Responsibility appears as an ‘attitude’ to be internalized, by looking towards own practices (in terms of reducing impacts), instead of being outward directed, towards engaging with others in a relationship of responding to urgent needs. And while food waste reduction is publicly addressed as a moral category, (i.e., as an ‘ethical’ problem), moral agency to engage in reduction practices never appears to be really necessary—accountability mechanisms clearly define what is expected of each and every one. This assumption in line with a governmentality perspective would rule out the state, business actors, and consumers alike as carriers of more forward-looking and collective notions of responsibility. But the analysis has also suggested that especially social innovations that address food waste reductions realize, through their collective practices, alternative notions of responsibility, such as responsibility as care and interconnectedness with distant others. Jonas’ (1979) imperative of responsibility suggests to “act so that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life”, and many initiatives seem to realize this understanding through their engagement with (surplus) food. It is important to reiterate these findings and to suggest that political strategies to guide behaviour and conduct are never ‘total’ in the sense that they would produce definitive reactions. However, mainly due to its general understanding as a normative political concept that is based on moral agency, the responsibility still has a difficult standing in practical political matters of implementation.

Reflection of Approach The ‘triangle model of responsibility’ has been applied as a means to systematize an inherently complex field of study and relate prescriptions, identity images, and events to each other in order to interpret how notions of responsibility shape the field of food waste governance. The methodological approach has been useful to connect a very diverse set of issues, from the global to the local level, to each other and ‘make sense’ of

9

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS INSTITUTIONS OF FORWARD

249

them. The study represents a broad and at the same time detailed interrogation of various similarities and tensions that have surfaced on different levels of analysis. However, the study has also revealed numerous limits of what it set out to achieve, which warrant a more comprehensive reflection. First, Schlenker et al. (1994) have suggested that responsibility is attributed when prescriptions, identity images, and events are individually linked to each other. This represents a challenge for textual analysis: in fact, there have been very few accounts where all three elements have appeared together in close proximity. While the collection of numerous links across the selected documents represents a sufficient source for deriving individual responsibility attributions, they do not constitute attribution in the strict sense of the original concept. This is mainly due to the fact that the ‘triangle model’ was envisioned to relate individual attributions through conducting interviews, with specifically constructed items set up for the use of statistical analysis. However, I want to defend the approach taken here for two reasons: (i) In the context of researching collective actors (ministries, initiatives, etc.), personal responsibility attributions (of interviewees) are difficult (if not impossible) to distinguish from collective/corporate responsibility attributions. Identity images, events, and prescriptions rely on individual judgments, and it would be necessary to compile multiple interviews for a single collective actor in order to control for variations. (ii) The analysis also did not out set to study singular meanings, but rather the synthesis of collective meanings present in a particular field (i.e., objective meanings), which convey notions of responsibility to others because of their public availability and visibility. Therefore, some methodological concessions have been made, which nevertheless have to be acknowledged. Second, the textual analysis has produced a wealth of different codings and attributions, which presented an enormous challenge to work through and study. I have opted for not reducing the information therein any further, for example, by combining or erasing codes, for the sake of keeping with the original operationalization of the methodological approach and in close proximity to the study of Schlenker et al. (1994). By doing so, the software provided me with valuable tools for systematization, but in order to ‘make sense’ of the coded data, the whole material had to be re-read because many subtleties would get lost through quantification. For working more efficiently with this methodology in the future, it will however be helpful to devise strategies to limit the

250

T. GUMBERT

‘growth’ of the material earlier on, although in the context of an interpretive research design, quantifying normatively valued attributions defeats parts of the purpose of the study. Third, the analysis has revealed three considerably different links (i.e., sharing discourse, behaviour change, value attributions) for consecutive interpretive study. It seemed necessary to understand and interpret them with the theoretical approaches already discussed in this study, and at the same time to draw on other sources to do justice to them. This can be interpreted as either a strength or a weakness of the analysis. While this rather ‘open’ approach to theorizing tried to contextualize the inherent meanings more purposefully, it can be argued that interpreting them according to a singular approach would be more coherent and produce more ‘valid’ interpretations. I was torn for the longest time of how to approach this problem, but I finally opted for the ‘open’ approach since it allowed me to draw out more of the specificities of the connections between responsibility and food waste governance, and that was essentially what Chapter 8 tried to achieve. Fourth, the analysis brought many issues to the fore, which the interpretative section could merely touch upon, such as the role of partnerships or multi-stakeholder initiatives. From a (global) governance perspective, it would have been of interest to take a closer look at these actors and to more comprehensively analyze their role in food waste governance. The analysis was, however, set on systematizing and interpreting the entanglements of global, national, and local levels of analysis, which has left the interpretation of some interesting findings wanting. Fifth, and probably most importantly, the study has revealed that the meanings of responsibility are very closely tied to their field-specific actor constellations, bodies of knowledge, and general logics. While it is unadvisable to draw direct conclusions from this study for other fields of environmental governance, or even for studies related to food governance (since the intersection of food and waste rationalities produces very particular challenges and tensions), the study has provided the tools for closer examining responsibility in other fields of environmental governance and beyond.

Future Research Needs Needs for further research present themselves especially in the context of applying the developed methodology to other fields of study. I am

9

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS INSTITUTIONS OF FORWARD

251

particularly curious if the methodology is able to reveal alternative notions of responsibility in other areas, how they vary, and how they compare to responsibility in food waste governance. Particularly how other areas of food governance or waste governance exhibit similar or different ‘traits’ of responsibility is also relevant to contextualize the findings of this study, and in order to generate cautious attempts for generalization, at least in regard to similar aspects. One particular research need I want to emphasize concerns the connection of the logics of accountability to structural dynamics of environmental problems. On the basis of the analysis presented here, I want to raise the following hypothesis: if accountability mechanisms (such as applied in food waste governance through voluntary agreements on sector-specific targets, practices of self-reporting and self-auditing) are disconnected from a broader orientation towards (waste) prevention strategies, and are simultaneously disconnected from those that are tied to the influence of these mechanisms through complex relationships (e.g., farmers in the food system), then accountability schemes will tend to increase the ‘organization of irresponsibility’ within a particular field of governance. ‘Increase’ is however not to be understood in a causal sense. Rather, by neglecting structural drivers of food waste in the global food system, for example, the potential for reductions is not exhausted, business actors can hardly be held accountable for unfair trading practices, and these ‘background conditions’ will continue to exist, and, given current projections for globally rising levels of food waste (BCG, 2018), increase through ‘non-consideration’. The ‘organizational’ aspect of this alleged irresponsibility pertains to the particular ‘type’ of accountability that is unfolding in global and transnational food waste governance. From a principal-agent theory standpoint, accountability is manifested as external accountability, meaning that “those whose lives are impacted, and hence who would desire to hold to account, are not directly (or institutionally) linked to the one to be held to account” (Biermann & Gupta, 2011, 1858). And secondly, accountability is predominantly conceptualized as output-oriented, characterized by a focus on “oversight of operations, or accounting for results or impacts” (Davenport & Low, 2013, 88–89). This means by relying on efficacy, impact assessments, and selfauditing, business actors become ‘accountable’ to each other within multi-stakeholder initiatives, but detached from the wider context of their actions and their consequences. Additionally, accountability, as exercised

252

T. GUMBERT

in this sense, produces an ‘illusion of control’ over the causes of food waste generation by constructing certainty through techno-managerial solutions and objective knowledge, and by focussing on solutions that have the greatest impacts, which are situated ‘downstream’ of food supply chains (managing consumption and disposal) rather than ‘upstream’ (productivity and resource use). These solutions are also directed towards visible fields of food waste generation (retailer and consumer food waste are best researched), instead of tapping into the largely (and often strategically) invisible areas of production. By doing so, these specific accountability mechanisms support and legitimize the continuation of current political trajectories of ecological modernization. Arguably, the eco-economic win–win thinking which is common sense among all actors supports the normalization of the food waste crisis as a standard feature of globalized complex food systems. What is at stake here is both environmental reform and societal progress, as public (re)engagement with largely ‘distanced food systems’ (Clapp, 1994) is made more difficult, and because consumers’ attitudes and behaviours are seen as a(nother) problem to be managed and steered towards sustainable ends. Although this study has not aimed to present conclusive evidence that these connections are empirically sound, the question of how accountability is in fact related to structural background conditions of particular fields of environmental policy and governance nevertheless emerges as a clear need for future research. Finally, further research needs as outlined by the findings of this study concern the connection of behaviour change policies and their impact on personal autonomy and public deliberation. Although there is by now a burgeoning literature on quantifiable results of behaviour change policies (in sustainability-related fields predominantly in terms of reduction impacts), empirical research into the democratic qualities of sustainable behaviour change agendas is basically non-existent (Gumbert, 2022). This constitutes a central concern for future research in this field.

Policy Implications In this section, I want to outline three main policy implications that can be derived from the findings of this study: first, for designing behaviour change policies, second, for attributing different values to food waste reduction, and third, for governing social innovations.

9

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS INSTITUTIONS OF FORWARD

253

First, in regard to policies targeting behaviour change, I agree with Cheryl Hall in that “completely rejecting these activities is not an option” (Hall, 2016, 602). Given that these strategies can be expected to further proliferate in sustainability-related fields to target consumption choices, suggestions to inform policy design are all the more important. Every consideration should be given to make behaviour change strategies— as well as other informational tools—as transparent as possible. Often, such strategies are designed to work unconsciously, i.e., through triggering heuristics (Barton & Grüne-Yanoff, 2015). Instead of relying on these techniques, we are better off “asking citizens the relevant questions, to engage in dialogue and give them the possibility of becoming an environmentally conscious citizen opposed to stripping them off their irrational, harmful biases” (Gumbert, 2019, 120). To that end, nudging could in fact be used to support citizens in “expand[ing] their awareness, experience, and knowledge of the environment in which they live, including their impact on it and its impact on them” (Hall, 2016, 604), and promote alternative responsible actions and behaviours. Additionally, a focus on social practices (promotion of collectively engaging with others), the built environment (better infrastructures for food redistribution), and the material contexts surrounding us are more apt to promote radical shifts in lifestyles than incremental behaviour change. Second, while we see an increase in rhetoric on the ‘appreciation of food’, which signifies the possibility of a broader public conversation on the explicit value of food, policy initiatives have done very little to create the necessary infrastructures for such a discussion. Through giving financial incentives to expand food redistribution initiatives, more public spaces would be created to really ‘appreciate’ food instead of just framing behaviour change strategies through this label, and surplus food would still be prevented from becoming waste. This would not neglect commercial interests but prioritize other responsibility-related values that are already being prioritized ‘on the ground’ by various initiatives, such as community building, solidarity, and care. Additionally, the use of the food waste hierarchy could be strengthened through legislation, and not just be promoted as a voluntary normative orientation, to prioritize food waste prevention and redistribution vis-à-vis anaerobic digestion. In regard to social innovations, it can be assumed that the approach to encourage, manage, and steer such initiatives will be further supported and promoted in the coming years. So far, it is uncertain what role these different bottom-up initiatives can play in the context of socio-ecological

254

T. GUMBERT

transformations of the global food system and its structural conditions of ‘unsustainability’ (Blühdorn, 2013). I want to expand this last point further, since the local level and the observed social innovation projects have been identified as ‘carriers’ of alternative notions of responsibility in the analysis, which begets the question if these initiatives can contribute to the design of alternative political strategies. Revolutionizing a system that has been identified as unjust, inequitable, and in many ways irresponsible—by saving vegetables—could be read as an admission of the poverty of the current political imagination of many initiatives. I want to argue that the work they are doing is already incredibly valuable, but that at the same time, many have missed important opportunities so far. On the one hand, civil society initiatives provide ample reasons for citizens to ‘do something’, in the most literal sense. Through engaging directly with food, for example, by collecting, reusing, or redistributing surpluses, people can build other relations to food, farm workers near and far, and understand the complexities of the current food system, which directly involves different registers of valuation. Even small groups can thereby engage in collective action and (potentially) start to build social connections, which is a necessary prerequisite for addressing structural conditions of injustice (Young, 2011). Connecting one’s own mode of living with others can give rise to notions of solidarity to motivate different actions and function as a resource for moral agency. John Meyer similarly argues that meaningful change can start from the local level through “engag[ing] practices and values that resonate widely in affluent, postindustrial societies, with the aim of fostering more expansive political imagination” (Meyer, 2015, 5). And this is exactly where scepticism about these potentials is justified. Given the transnational nature of most food supply chains, and the powerful interests in maintaining them, it is, without addressing the macro-context of food waste generation, i.e., the legal, political, and economic barriers to substantial reductions, almost impossible for these actions to achieve anything other than (at best) very incremental changes within the current system (Gumbert & Fuchs, 2019; Kasper, 2016). There is a growing awareness among these and similar initiatives for the problems associated with overproduction and the practices of shifting risks to others by dominant actors (Gumbert & Fuchs, 2021; Schlosberg & Coles, 2016). But for social innovation projects to become the urgently needed ‘change agents’ (Jaegaer-Erben & Rückert-John 2016)

9

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS INSTITUTIONS OF FORWARD

255

it is important to actively engage with the political dimension of their own practical reduction efforts. Change starts with the realization that ‘simply’ saving food from bins does not automatically overhaul a system that is built on waste. Some current developments are an indicator that the ‘anti-food waste movement’ capitalizes on this insight: the campaign to “Halve EU Food Waste”, organized by ‘This is Rubbish’, constitutes the biggest coalition of organizations to ever jointly campaign for policy change on food waste. Over 50 organizations from 18 European countries try to lobby the EU on addressing food waste which occurs on EU farms and in the manufacturing sector, to get the EU off its explicit focus on retail and consumption waste, to introduce binding targets, and to support and strengthen the food waste hierarchy through legislation (This is Rubbish, 2017). The campaign touches simultaneously on all three links that have been identified as important debates and as a source of tension in food waste governance, and I want to suggest that a reflection on the concept of responsibility involved may provide guidance on how to envision and communicate an alternative politics of food waste reduction. I want to reiterate a point made earlier that governance efforts to alter the cultural conditions of how we perceive and interact with food, especially consumer attitudes and behaviours, are, from the global to the local, far from being a bad thing. For consumers to become more rational in how they interact with food, and to develop attitudes of environmental responsibility for their own conduct, can have, in itself, positively valuable outcomes in ecological, economic, and social terms. The prescription to follow simple and clear tasks and roles, and triggering particular heuristics on the side of individuals, enables them to become responsible in the way these prescriptions intend to: optimize yourself to waste less food, and if others follow your example, the problem of avoidable food waste will soon cease to exist. This thinking can, however, ultimately create a disconnect from the realities of the current food system, in which waste is still a direct consequence of particular contractual relations between powerful and less powerful actors, and the adherence to the growth (and productivity) paradigm. A report by the Boston Consulting Group estimated recently that projected levels of global food waste could rise annually by 30%, from 1.6 billion to 2.1 billion tonnes (BCG, 2018). A comment by the World Resources Institute (WRI) attributed the causes for the projected increase once again to the growing convenience and cheap availability of food, complaining about a lack “in our attitudes to food

256

T. GUMBERT

waste” (Reuters, 2018). Structural drivers are still not an important part of political debate. Current social innovations in food waste reductions and attempts to build a transnational anti-food waste movement may act as an antecedent to more profound change, if they refrain from aligning their priorities mainly with dominant policy expectations, or see ‘fighting’ food waste as a self-referential lifestyle practice. Instead, it is important to find a social role and to make the experience that together, within their own group and in coordination with others, they can build power that goes far beyond the mere “appreciation” of the value of food. As Young summarizes the problem, “we cannot count on people to do what they should, especially when they are powerful, or weak, or when their perceived interests conflict with discharging these responsibilities” (Young 2011, 147). Instead, the “background conditions themselves [need to be put] into question from a moral point of view” to “reform those institutions to reduce their unjust effects” (ibid., 180). While accountability mechanisms in food waste governance follow a different aim, social innovations could provide this crucial import to the debate by drawing more extensively on the notion of ‘responsibility as justice’ than they have done so far. This does, however, not imply that every initiative has to be politicized. As I have argued, through their alternative practices of ‘doing food waste reductions’, they already take a departure from the dominant prescriptions of awareness-raising, rationalizing consumer conduct, and self-responsibilization. In this regard, more political and less political initiatives can be integrated and benefit from each other, because, as the Germany cooking activist Wam Kat reminds us: “Cooking is a political act. But we cannot all be Che Guevara, one has to peel the potatoes!”.

References Barton, A., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2015). From libertarian paternalism to nudging—and beyond. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 341–359. Boston Consulting Group (BCG). (2018). Tackling the 1.6-billion-ton food loss and waste crisis. Beausoleil, E. (2017). Responsibility as responsiveness: Enacting a dispositional ethics of encounter. Political Theory, 45(3), 291–318. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne (Edition Suhrkamp). Suhrkamp. Beck, U. (1988). Gegengifte: Die organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit. Suhrkamp.

9

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS INSTITUTIONS OF FORWARD

257

Bernstein, S. (2022). The assigning and erosion of responsibility for the global environment. In The Routledge handbook on responsibility in international relations (pp. 138–152). Routledge. Biermann, F., & Gupta, A. (2011). Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1856–1864. Blühdorn, I. (2013). The governance of unsustainability: Ecology and democracy after the post-democratic turn. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 16–36. Chami, L. and Aguila, Y. (2021). A plea for a principled approach to international environmental governance. Pathway to the 2022 declaration. https://www.pat hway2022declaration.org/?post_type=article&p=523 Chandler, D., Cudworth, E., & Hobden, S. (2018). Anthropocene, capitalocene and liberal cosmopolitan IR: A response to Burke et al.’s ‘planet politics’. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 46, 190–208. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0305829817715247 Clapp, J. (1994). The moral economy of the contract. In P. D. Little, & M. J. Watts (Eds.), Living under contract: Contract farming and agrarian transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 78–97). University of Wisconsin Press. Cloke, J. (2013). Empires of waste and the food security meme. Geography Compass, 7 , 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12068 Davenport, E., & Low, W. (2013). From trust to compliance: Accountability in the fair trade movement. Social Enterprise Journal, 9, 88–101. https://doi. org/10.1108/17508611311330028 Dryzek, J. S., & Pickering, J. (2019). The politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford University Press. Falkner, R. (2020). Global environmental responsibility in international society. The Rise of Responsibility in World Politics, 1, 21–23. French, P. A., & Wettstein, H. K. (Eds.). (2014). Forward-looking collective responsibility. Wiley Periodicals. Gumbert Tobias. (2019). Freedom, autonomy and sustainable behaviors: The politics of designing consumer choice. In C. Isenhour, M. Martiskainen, & L. Middlemiss (Eds.), Politics, power & ideology in sustainable consumption (pp. 107–123.). Routledge. Gumbert, T. (2022). Behavioral economics and nudging. Assessing the democratic quality of sustainable behavior change agendas. In The Routledge handbook of democracy and sustainability (pp. 387–400). Routledge. Gumbert, T., & Fuchs, D. (2019). The power of corporations in global food sector governance. In Handbook of the international political economy of the corporation. Gumbert, T., & Fuchs, D. (2021). Moral geographies of responsibility in the global agrifood system. In The Routledge handbook on responsibility in international relations (pp. 153–163). Routledge.

258

T. GUMBERT

Hall, C. (2016). Framing and nudging for a greener future. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, D. Schlosberg, & eds. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (pp. 593–607, Oxford handbooks). Oxford University Press. Heidbrink, L. (2007). Handeln in der Ungewissheit: Paradoxien der Verantwortung. Kulturverl Kadmos. Jaeger-Erben, M., & Rückert-John, J. (2016). Researching transitions to sustainable consumption: a practice theory approach to studying innovations consumption. In E. H. Kennedy, M. J. Cohen, & N. T. Krogman (Eds.), Putting sustainability into practice: Applications and advances in research on sustainable consumption (159184.). Edward Elgar Publishing. Jonas, H. (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation (1st ed., Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch). Suhrkamp. Kasper, D. (2016). Conceptualizing social practices: insights into social change. In E. H. Kennedy, M. J. Cohen, & N. Krogman (Eds.), Putting sustainability into practice: Applications and advances in research on sustainable consumption (pp. 25–46). Edward Elgar Publishing.Mason, M. (2019). Transparency, accountability and empowerment in sustainability governance: A conceptual review. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(1), 98-111. Mason, M. (2019). Transparency, accountability and empowerment in sustainability governance: A conceptual review. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(1), 98–111. Meyer, J. M. (2015). Engaging the everyday: Environmental social criticism and the resonance dilemma. The MIT Press. Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 13, 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/096440104200022 9034 Pellizzoni, L. (2019). Responsibility. In Routledge handbook of global sustainability governance (pp. 129–140). Routledge. Reuters. (2018, August 21). Global food waste could rise by a third by 2030—study. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-food-waste/globalfood-waste-could-rise-by-a-third-by-2030-study-idUSKCN1L61YR Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F., Lambin, E., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.632 Schlosberg, D., & Coles, R. (2016). The new environmentalism of everyday life: Sustainability, material flows and movements. Contemporary Political Theory, 15, 160–181. https://doi.org/10.1057/cpt.2015.34

9

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS INSTITUTIONS OF FORWARD

259

Sondermann, E., Ulbert, C., & Finkenbusch, P. (2018). Introduction: Moral agency and the politics of responsibility. In Moral agency and the politics of responsibility (pp. 1–18). Routledge. Strange, S.(1996).The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in theworld economy.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. This is Rubbish (2017). Policy paper—recommendations on food waste in the waste framework directive. Unpublished. World Commission on Environment and Development, WCED. (1987). Our common future. New York. Young, I. M. (2004). Responsibility and global labor justice. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12, 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004. 00205.x Young, I. M. (Ed.). (2011). Responsibility for justice (Oxford political philosophy). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Index

A Abductive reasoning, 100, 106, 240 Ability to Pay Principle (APP), 58 Accountability horizontal, 15, 208 mechanisms, 7, 17, 33, 44, 55, 56, 64, 121, 206, 213, 224, 225, 247, 248, 251, 252, 256 responsibility as, 3, 9, 12, 16, 74, 75, 92, 100, 112, 161, 162, 175, 176, 178, 195, 197, 228, 229 Agency, 29, 53, 60, 71, 73, 74, 86, 92, 103, 106, 149, 162, 176, 210 Anaerobic digestion, 138, 164, 176, 177, 195, 225, 226, 253 Answerability, 55, 73, 74, 241 Anthropocene, 1, 11, 23, 24, 27–30, 32, 44, 65, 92, 205, 241, 244 Appreciation, 172, 174, 194, 195, 228, 256 Authority, 6, 51–54, 106, 189

Awareness, 27, 33, 59, 109, 121, 133, 136, 139, 152, 153, 155–157, 172, 174, 187, 194, 210, 254 B Bataille, Georges, 38, 39 Beck, Ulrich, 8, 11, 23, 30, 31, 79 Behaviour behavioural change, 151, 183 behavioural economics, 216 sustainable behaviors, 252 Best practices, 15, 33, 85, 124, 127, 128, 139, 161, 169, 174, 176, 193, 206, 213, 230 Biodiversity, 1, 241 Biophysical boundaries, 1 Blame/blaming, 4, 26, 56, 62, 79–81, 85, 92, 123, 194, 197, 213, 243 Business actors, 4, 89, 121, 123, 140, 155, 156, 159, 161, 166, 168, 173, 174, 176, 178, 184, 186, 190, 191, 195, 207, 213, 227, 248, 251

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 T. Gumbert, Responsibility in Environmental Governance, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13729-7

261

262

INDEX

C Capabilities, 2, 58, 59, 82, 197, 230, 242 Causality, 6, 8, 12, 60, 61, 71, 73, 74, 76, 88, 106, 148, 195, 208 constitutive, 101, 103, 105, 130 Change ecological systems, 1 global environmental, 1, 3, 11, 23, 28 Circular economy, 40 Citizens, 3, 4, 9, 15, 82, 86, 87, 129, 157, 175, 185, 188, 195, 212, 218, 222, 230, 246, 253, 254 Climate change, 1, 6, 24, 35, 51, 52, 54, 58, 59, 241 litigation, 6 Coleman, James, 62, 63 Collective action, 32, 33, 44, 62, 64, 80, 81, 210, 214, 245, 254 Complexity, 3, 4, 8, 24, 30, 32, 33, 43, 54, 56, 61, 106, 151, 163, 227, 243 Consumers, 5, 32, 34, 37, 61, 78, 82, 89, 112, 121–123, 149, 153, 155–161, 166, 169, 170, 173, 174, 176, 180–183, 185, 186, 192, 195, 218, 219, 221, 227–229, 246, 248, 252, 255 Consumption, 5, 16, 25, 36, 43, 59, 78, 85, 121–123, 132, 150–152, 155, 159, 161, 163–165, 167, 171, 172, 174, 178, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 192, 194, 196, 206, 214, 218–221, 223, 224, 252, 253, 255 sustainable, 26, 59, 63, 105, 120, 214 Cooperation, 15, 34, 56, 80, 126, 168, 174, 193, 196, 206, 207, 209, 213, 214, 230, 246

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), 33, 51, 52, 54, 55, 59, 155, 207 D Democracy, 4, 222 liberal, 3, 4, 222 Depoliticization, 15, 215 Derrida, Jacques, 75 Dirt, 41, 42 Disconnection, 186, 187, 194 Discourse, 3, 12, 15, 28, 31, 35, 72, 86, 93, 101, 103–105, 114, 135, 164, 176, 197, 207, 210, 214, 220, 224, 230 analysis, 105, 108, 112, 115 Disposal, 24, 43, 106, 111, 135, 164, 190, 221, 225, 252 Duties, 73, 85, 162, 189 E Ecological modernization, 27, 28, 32 Ecology, 28 Education, 58, 60, 151, 166, 169, 175, 211, 217, 228 Effectiveness, 7, 16, 52, 53, 106, 178, 192, 193, 195, 220, 231, 246, 247 Energy recovery, 226 Environment environmental change, 11, 28 environmental hazards, 11 environmental impacts, 12, 62 environmental management, 27, 32 Ethics, 12, 27, 44, 52, 71, 73, 75, 76, 92, 106, 152 Event, 14, 73–75, 78, 82, 88–90, 102, 106, 116, 147, 157, 174, 188, 192, 195, 214, 240, 243, 246 Excess, 37, 38, 40, 152, 227–229

INDEX

Expertise, 27, 84, 127, 133, 154, 162, 193

F Food agrifood system, 16, 36, 39, 122, 134, 192, 209 availability, 36, 37 citizenship, 185, 211, 214 consumption, 205, 214, 229 law, 229 policy, 61, 128, 134, 135, 229 supply chains, 121, 124, 129, 132, 150, 153, 158, 161–163, 172, 173, 175, 178, 187, 191, 192, 194, 206, 229, 252, 254 Foucault, Michel, 83, 84, 206, 211, 219 Freedom, 26, 29, 90, 103, 106, 215, 217, 219, 220 Future, 3, 5, 8, 11–13, 16, 24, 26, 30, 52, 54, 56–58, 75, 80, 88, 91, 106, 108, 125, 161, 162, 173, 176, 188, 195, 197, 206, 213, 223, 241, 243, 245, 247, 249, 252

263

global, 10, 12, 52, 53, 72, 73, 77, 81, 82, 161, 162, 206 neoliberal, 84 networks, 34 private, 39 responsible, 4 transnational, 53 waste, 11, 14–16, 24, 34, 36, 37, 43, 89, 113, 119, 122, 123, 125–129, 135, 136, 147, 150, 160, 161, 163, 164, 175, 177, 189, 192, 193, 195, 197, 205–211, 213, 218, 220, 223, 231, 240, 244, 246–248, 250, 251, 255, 256 Governmentality, 8, 15, 83–85, 205, 215, 248 eco-governmentality, 13, 72, 83, 85 green, 83 Growth, 26, 27, 37, 38, 56, 121, 163, 164, 178, 184, 186, 190, 250, 255 economic, 26, 27, 30, 36, 38, 40, 163, 220 Guilt, 26, 79, 80

H Human-nature relations, 31 G Good life, the, 25, 27, 243 Governance environmental, 3, 7–14, 17, 23–25, 27, 28, 30, 43, 44, 51, 52, 54–57, 62, 64, 65, 71, 72, 77, 82, 84, 87, 88, 92, 99, 105, 108, 109, 112, 114, 115, 119, 205, 207, 231, 239, 240, 242, 245, 247, 250 exemplary, 206, 210, 213, 230 food, 250, 251 fragmented, 6

I Identity images, 13, 14, 72, 89–91, 106, 108, 110, 113, 114, 116, 132, 147, 154, 157, 166, 168, 174, 188, 192, 194–196, 240, 248, 249 Implementation, 2, 3, 85, 129, 133, 136, 137, 168, 177, 247, 248 Individualization, 11, 63, 83, 102, 197, 212, 215, 221 Inequalities, 1, 29, 44, 82

264

INDEX

Information, 5, 36, 56, 85, 88, 89, 113, 124, 126, 139, 151–154, 165, 166, 169, 171, 179, 209, 217–219, 222, 229, 240, 249 Institutionalization, 3, 11, 65, 223 IPCC Negative externalities, 1

J Jonas, Hans, 13, 75, 248 Justice, 4, 13, 15, 16, 25, 59, 66, 85, 183, 196, 213, 231, 243, 247, 250 climate, 51 responsibility as, 13, 71, 77, 81, 213, 256

K Knowledge, 9, 14, 32, 57, 61, 64, 73, 75, 83, 84, 87, 89, 92, 93, 100, 102, 103, 112–114, 120, 124, 126–128, 131, 134, 151, 153, 160, 163, 166, 169–172, 174, 185, 194, 205, 208, 246, 250, 252

L Latour, Bruno, 29, 31 Legitimacy, 4, 28, 51, 53, 54, 106, 162, 189, 207, 231 Levinas, Emmanuel, 75, 76 Liability, 3, 6–10, 12, 54–57, 75–77, 79–81, 92, 100, 135, 206, 213, 225, 226, 241 Limits, 2, 6, 26–28, 40, 44, 105, 127, 178, 220, 225, 228, 229, 249

M Management, 4, 11, 16, 28, 37, 41, 61, 64, 84, 111, 123, 133, 135,

150, 160, 166, 172, 174, 179, 181, 192, 208, 214, 225, 231, 246 Marx, Karl, 37, 39 Meaning dialogical, 102 discursive, 13, 103, 104 interpretive, 100, 101, 105, 115 objective, 13, 102, 104, 105, 147, 195, 249 subjective, 102, 104, 128, 147 Mitigation, 6, 8, 54, 58, 64, 120, 133, 246 Modernity, 31, 212 Monitoring, 5, 33, 60, 65, 82, 114, 124, 131, 151, 166, 208, 244, 245 Morality, 84, 106, 209 moral agency, 12, 25, 27, 28, 30, 52, 65, 73, 162, 164, 178, 188, 224, 230, 243, 248, 254 moral economy, 41

N Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 3, 53, 139, 154, 174 Non-human, 25, 29, 44, 82 Nudging/nudges, 215, 218–222, 253 Nussbaum, Martha, 77, 80–82

O Obligations, 26, 54, 85, 86, 117, 149, 162, 184, 189, 207, 214, 246 Optimization, 172, 181, 183, 192, 196, 197, 208, 217, 246, 247 Organization of irresponsibility, 8, 11, 16, 40, 93, 122, 206, 226, 251 Overproduction, 37, 39, 171, 178, 186, 254

INDEX

P Partnerships business, 162, 196 horizontal, 207 Planetary boundaries, 27, 243 Policy practices, 28, 114, 127, 230 problems, 6 Political Economy, 36 Polluter Pays Principle (PPP), 58 Power, 2, 13, 15, 52, 59, 61, 72, 81–84, 86, 87, 106, 117, 122, 164, 178, 184, 189, 191, 197, 211, 213, 241, 256 Practices, 3, 7, 16, 25, 27, 33, 34, 39, 43, 51, 52, 59, 60, 62, 65, 72, 77, 79, 83–85, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 109, 112, 114, 115, 126, 128, 129, 132, 139, 150, 152, 157, 159, 168, 173–176, 179, 180, 182, 184, 186–188, 190, 192–195, 208, 209, 212, 213, 215, 218–220, 222, 223, 225, 227, 230, 243, 245–248, 251, 253, 254, 256 Precaution, 13, 75, 112 Prescriptions, 13, 14, 72, 88–91, 106, 108–111, 113, 114, 116, 132, 135, 147, 150, 152–154, 156, 157, 165–170, 178–180, 183, 184, 188, 190, 192, 193, 196, 205, 214, 240, 246, 248, 249, 255, 256 Prevention, 16, 122, 132, 135, 152, 153, 170, 227, 228, 231, 251, 253 Production and consumption, 1, 24, 43, 123, 245, 247

265

R Rationality, 12, 36, 39, 71, 74, 90, 106, 126, 160, 161, 215, 216, 219, 222, 227, 228, 241 rational choice, 12, 32, 52, 62–65, 100, 239 Redistribution, 43, 139, 156, 158, 164, 167, 178, 188, 192, 195, 225, 226, 253 Reduction, 14, 16, 36, 39, 40, 43, 65, 89, 116, 120, 122–126, 128, 129, 132, 135–139, 147, 150–152, 154–159, 161–163, 165–174, 177–185, 187–195, 207, 209–215, 226–230, 240, 244, 246–248, 252, 255 Regulation, 3, 7, 12, 34, 52, 54, 57, 61, 85, 106, 134, 135, 137, 155, 214 private, 54 Representation, 3, 82, 132 Resources, 2, 5, 24, 37, 43, 56, 77, 81, 102, 106, 120, 129, 188, 190, 212, 226, 241–243 Responsibility as accountability, 3, 9, 12, 74, 92, 100, 112, 161, 175, 176, 178, 195, 228, 229 as justice, 13, 71, 81, 213, 256 backward-looking, 58, 80, 241, 242 causal, 241 collective, 212, 242 future-oriented, 8, 16, 188, 242 individual, 82, 249 moral, 5, 76, 77, 81, 242 narrow conception, 243 shared, 15, 16, 72, 77, 81, 82, 124, 149, 150, 197, 206, 210, 213, 229, 246 wide conception, 243, 244

266

INDEX

Responsibilization, 9, 13, 71, 72, 84–87, 92, 123, 197, 205, 217, 222, 256 Responsible attitudes, 3, 5, 87, 115, 125, 129, 150, 218, 220 behaviours, 33, 106 Responsiveness, 56, 57, 76, 92, 241 Re-use, 38, 43, 179, 191 Rhetoric, 3–5, 9, 15, 16, 28, 30, 72, 106, 149, 150, 197, 253 Risk, 11, 16, 37, 39, 43, 48, 58, 61, 65, 66, 85, 93, 106, 150, 153, 176, 188, 225, 226

S Shame/shaming, 15, 63, 197, 208 Social connection model, 13, 15, 77, 80, 92, 205, 206 Social welfare, 4 Structures structural background conditions, 13, 15, 17, 64, 252 structural drivers, 16, 164, 220, 226, 229, 251 structural dynamics, 11 Stuart, Tristram, 122, 140, 164, 211, 220 Sufficiency, 25, 27 Surplus, 16, 37–41, 135, 167, 170, 174, 176, 179, 181, 184, 188, 190–192, 224–229, 248, 253 food, 16, 167, 170, 176, 179, 181, 184, 188, 190, 191, 224, 225, 228, 253 value, 37 Sustainability

consumption, 26, 59, 63, 105, 120, 214 sustainable development goals (SDGs), 2, 5, 120, 128, 133, 136, 208 transitions, 2 System, 5, 16, 24, 31, 33, 36 constraints, 4 risks, 4, 8

T Technology, 160, 181 technological infrastructures, 226 Throwaway society, 112, 185 Transparency, 5, 7, 8, 54, 64, 149, 159, 184, 193 Triangle model, 87, 91, 108, 109, 113, 115, 130, 147, 179, 192, 195, 240, 242, 249 Trust, 4, 51, 106

U Uncertainty, 3, 8, 30, 32, 33, 90, 106, 152, 160, 243

V Valorization, 15, 190, 195, 196, 223–225, 246 Value, 4, 5, 10, 15, 16, 33, 36–38, 40–42, 44, 152, 153, 160, 164, 183, 185, 194, 195, 223–227, 229–231, 247, 248, 250, 253, 256 Voluntariness, 106, 176, 178, 197, 241

INDEX

voluntary agreements, 33, 162, 168, 170, 174, 176, 193, 207, 247, 251 W Waste commodities, 5 disposal, 220 law, 226

267

pollutants, 5 techno-regulatory, 122 Wellbeing, 216

Y Young, Iris Marion, 8, 13, 15, 71, 72, 77–81, 92, 191, 205, 206, 213, 214, 240, 241, 243, 254, 256