Workshop on the Economic And Trade Implications of Policy Responses to Societal concerns

Lund University / Research Policy Institute / [email protected]

Dealing with values that differ across concerned consumer groups and policy

makers – ethics/values as elements in societal concerns

Workshop on the Economic And Trade Implications of Policy Responses to Societal concerns

OECD, Paris, 2-3 November, 2009Mikael Klintman, Lund University, Sweden

[email protected]: http://www.fpi.lu.se/en/klintman


1. What are values (in the social sciences)?

”[…] interests, pleasures, likes, preferences, duties, moral obligations, desires, wants, needs, aversions and attractions, and many other modalities of selective orientation (Pepper, 1958:7)

”deeply rooted conceptions about a set of phenomena”(Lindén, 1997:4).

2


2. Four types of values

• Ethical values: right or wrong, morally (in both substantive & procedural issues)

• Aesthetic values: stimulating or unstimulating to the senses: (in extension, A.V. refer to self-expression, style & identity).

• Metaphysical values: corresponding or not corresponding to various outlooks of life.

• Material values: economically or practically valuable (including subjective views).


3. Diverse priorities of Europeans (Spec. Eurobarometer, 276,2007)


Five myths about dealing with values

as elements of societal concerns


Myth I: “The four value dimensions are best dealt with as distinct and clearly separable dimensions of people’s value judgements”Ethical, aesthetic, and material values are often intertwined:

Examples: • Tomatoes falsely labelled as ”domestic” or ”organic” taste better

than unlabelled tomatoes (Ekelund & Tjärnemo, 2004)

• “Conventionally grown, domestic products are often preferred over ecologically grown, foreign ones.

• “Local” and “domestic” are often framed as equal among consumers

A mixture of value dimensions must be dealt with in market and trade policy making

-


Myth II: “Conflicts between deeply rooted values can be dealt with through bringing in better facts of the same kind.”

No, we must distinguish between two types of conflicts:

- disagreements, which take place within one common frame,

and

- controversies, which take place between separate frames.

“[F]raming is a way of selecting, organizing, interpreting, and making sense of a complex reality to provide guideposts for knowing, analyzing, persuading, and acting. A frame is a perspective from which an amorphous, ill-defined, problematic situation can be made sense of and acted on” (Rein & Schön, 1993:146).


Reframing towards resolutionand with NEW TYPE of facts (from new frame)

Reframing towards resolutionand with NEW TYPE of facts (from new frame)

Frame BB1 B2

Facts

DISAGREEMENTS

Frame BB1 B2

Facts

DISAGREEMENTS

FactsFacts FactsFacts

Disagreements & controversiesfrom a framing perspective

CONTROVERSY


Reframing:The intrinsic value of consumer choice & right to know

Reframing:The intrinsic value of consumer choice & right to know

Organic value frame (trad.)

Organic value frame (trad.)

GMO-friendlyframe

GMO-friendlyframe

Example 1: From controversy to frame resolution: GMOs under US organic labelling (cf Klintman, 2006)?



Reframing: (FDA)-Yes, unless princ+-Only product, not process, is relevant

Reframing: (FDA)-Yes, unless princ+-Only product, not process, is relevant

Consumers-right-to know + anti GMO-frame

Consumers-right-to know + anti GMO-frame

GMO-friendly, ”false-implications”frame

GMO-friendly, ”false-implications”frame

Example 2: From controversy to frame resolution: Mandatory GMO-label in the US (cf. Klintman, 2002)?



Myth III: ”Most values within societal concerns surrounding agriculture can be handled within one or two voluntary standards, for instance an organic standard”

11


A wide range of value-based preferencesbeyond the organic frame of ”naturalness”• locally/domestically produced food

• working conditions (partly covered in organics)

• vegetarian/vegan

• climate smart foods (airplane, land use, energy use, etc)

• hunted animals

• reduced water use in food production

• certain GMOs endorsed with environmental arguments?

• aquaculture rather than traditional fishing?

• reduced amounts of food (and of wasted food)

• Further preferences?


Moreover, the values underlying each concern are framed in several ways (e.g., Klintman, 2006)

PRODUCTS PROCESSES

PRINCIPLE-ORIENTEDVALUES

PRODUCT ”QUALITY”, TASTE, PRICE

”NATURALNESS”,”NOVELTY””CLEANLINESS”

CONSEQUENCE-ORIENTEDVALUES

HEALTH, WASTE EMISSIONS

”ENVIRONMENT”FAIRNESS OF WORKING CONDITIONS & TRADEANIMAL WELFARE

13


Myth IV: “downplaying the value-based conflicts that take place in policymaking surrounding societal concerns will reduce confusion and increase trust among the public” • green food consumers are particularly ambivalent and uncertain in their

choices (Connolly & Prothero, 2008),

• green consumers have particularly reluctant attitudes towards claims among various organisations of fully meeting societal concerns (Crane, 2000).

Two unsound positions with regard to policy processes:• simple (blind) trust (which may oscillate to:)

• simple (blind) mistrust

Value-base conflicts should be dealt with openly in order to stimulate a

• reflective trust (in the policy process, Boström & Klintman, 2008)


Myth V (concluding): ”The worst thing about values is that they distort otherwise fairly tame, scientific processes in the food sector”

No, the worst thing is that values are often hidden behind factual claims, and not deliberated.


This raises the following questions • All values should be discussed, but should all value dimensions be

seen in policy decisions?

• What value dimensions (ethical, aesthetic, etc.), and value orientations (principle- & conseq.) ought to be the relevant parts of societal concerns subject to market & trade policies?

• (How) could the relevant value dimensions & orientations be disintegrated in analyses and policy processes?

• How should values based on erroneous or over-simplified, factual claims be dealt with in market & trade policies (e.g., ”local = environmentally friendly”).

• How should ”the intrinsic value of consumers-right-to-know” be dealt with, in light of information overload, and ambiguous implications, in market & trade policies?


Thank you for your attention!


Magnus Boström and Mikael Klintman

Eco-Standards, Product Labelling and Green Consumerism

9780230537378for more book info, see

www.palgrave.com


ReferencesBoström, M., & Klintman, M. (2008). Eco-standards, product labelling and green consumerism. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Connolly, J. & Prothero, A. (2008). Green Consumption: Life-politics, risk and contradictions. Journal of Consumer Culture 2008; 8; 117

Crane, A., 2000, « Facing the Backlash: Green Marketing and Strategic Reorientation in the 1990s, » Journal of Strategic Marketing 8, 277-296.

Ekelund L & Tjärnemo H. (2004a) Consumer Preferences for Organic Vegetables – The Case of Sweden Acta. Horticulturae 655 pp. 121-128.

Eurobarometer (2007). ”Europeans, Agriculture, and the common agricultural policy.”, 276/Wave 66.3TNS EB 2007

Klintman, M. (2002a), ‘The Genetically Modified (GM) Food Labelling Controversy: Ideological and Epistemic Crossovers’, Social Studies of Science, Vol.32, No.1, pp.71–91.

Klintman, M. (2006). Ambiguous Framings of Political Consumerism: Means or end, product - or process orientation? The International Journal of Consumer Studies. Special issue, entitled: ‘Promoting and Debating Political and Ethical Consumerism around the World’ 30 (5), 2006, pp. 427-438.

Klintman, M. & Boström, M., 2006, « ‘Editorial », The International Journal of Consumer Studies. Special issue, entitled: ‘Promoting and Debating Political and Ethical Consumerism around the World’ 30 (5), 2006, 401-404.

Lindén, A-L. (1997). Perspectives on man, value orientation, behaviour and sustainable development. In A-L. Lindén (Ed.), Thinking, Saying, Doing. Lund: Dept. of Sociology, Lund University.

Pepper, S. (1958), The sources of value. Berkeley, CA: UCB press.

Schön, D.A. and M. Rein (1994), Frame Reflection, New York: Basic Books


Diverse priorities in Europe (in pop. categories)(Special Eurobarometer 276, pub. 2007)


In sum

Four things to consider:

• The four value dimensions must be dealt with as intertwined.

• In inter-frame controversies, only frame critical debates and new types of facts & are useful.

• Value differences be discussed as openly as the facts

• The entire range of values cannot be entirely adoped into one or a few policy schemes (e.g., organic labelling), but they should be deliberated in close relation to the current schemes in a frame-critical manner.


National value differencesin Europe


Special Eurobarometer 2007: ”Europeans, Agriculture, and the common agricultural policy.”, 276/Wave 66.3

Workshop on the Economic And Trade Implications of Policy Responses to Societal concerns

Documents

Transcript of Workshop on the Economic And Trade Implications of Policy Responses to Societal concerns