3.8 Article

Environmentally Sustainable Meat Consumption: An Analysis of the Norwegian Public Debate

Journal

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER POLICY
Volume 37, Issue 1, Pages 45-66

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10603-013-9246-9

Keywords

Environmentally sustainable consumption; Meat; Self-regulation; Media analysis; Public debate; Environment

Categories

Funding

  1. Norwegian Research Council (NRC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Private consumption is increasingly being blamed for resource depletion and environmental degradation, and the discourse of ascribing environmental responsibility to the individual consumer has become a part of mainstream policy-making. Measures aimed at promoting consumers' voluntary engagement through sustainable consumption now constitute an important part of public sustainability strategies. Nevertheless, the actual progress made in changing people's consumptions patterns in a more sustainable direction has been modest. Based on a quantitative and a qualitative content analysis of articles on environmentally sustainable consumption of meat published in five national and regional newspapers in Norway between 2000 and 2010, it is argued in this article that an important reason for the lack of both political and consumer engagement in the issue can be attributed to a discursive confusion that arises from a simultaneous existence of mainly two clashing discourses on what is actually environmentally sustainable consumption of meat. One that is focussing on the environmentally malign aspects of consumption and production of (especially) red meat, and another that is focussing on the environmentally benign aspects of production and consumption of red meat. The findings imply that the lack of consensus on the character of the problem constitutes a major barrier for the opportunity to change people's consumption patterns in a more environmentally sustainable direction through the use of voluntary measures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available