Does it stick?

On 'Does it stick' I collect articles related to my PhD research on Sustainable Consumption in Vietnam. I extract those notions and thoughts I think will stick with me, that will be useful to understand how the middle class in Vietnam can be motivated to consume (more) sustainable.

[doesitstick]

EU, Vietnam and Food Trade

They are expected to promote as safe, high-quality and nutritious a range of agricultural and food products like fruits and vegetables, fresh meat, poultry, processed foods, milk and dairy products, and wine and spirits.

Focus on export to EU; production in VN for EU; import from EU; or all three?

Read more at http://vietnamnews.vn/economy/345286/eu-food-firms-to-seek-vn-business.html#r2Axbb0FWQB23zfA.99

[doesitstick]

We blijven veel voedsel weggooien: 135 kilo per persoon

Uit recente rapportages blijkt dat er van de overheidsdoelstelling om de voedselverspilling minstens 20 procent terug te dringen niets terechtkomt.

[doesitstick]

Nederlander koopt eten goedkoper dan Belg of Duitser

Uit onderzoek van het CBS komt naar voren dat Nederlands voedsel het goedkoopst van heel West-Europa is.

[doesitstick]

Co-creation for sustainable food behaviour, a step-by-step guide for SMEs in Vietnam.

Thank you for taking the time to look into this booklet and thinking about organizing a co-creation workshop.

When you read this report you will be thinking about organizing a cocreation workshop for sustainable consumption, that is good news. This means that you want to understand your customer better and help Vietnam to get more sustainable.

There are two simple rules for co-creation and that is that the company listens and the customer talks. It is you, the company that wants to understand the customer better, so the customers should be the ones doing most of the talking. The second rule is that the customer can not give any wrong answer. The customer talk about what they want and what they feel so they can not be wrong.

If you understand these two ruled for co-creation, you understand half of the work for a successful co-creation already. Now read the booklet and see what else is needed for the co-creation workshop to be a success.

Good luck!

[doesitstick]

Sustainable fashion

https://studiojux.comIt is not that hard to find clothing brands that operate in an ethical, social and sustainable way. After having seen the movie The True Cost, once again I was reminded how bad it is to buy at H&M, Zara and so on, or how good it is to buy clothes from better sources. ‘But it is so hard’ or ‘we’ll do that when we make more money’ No, it’s not hard and we can afford it already. So, to make it easier,  I have compiled a list of shops where to buy this ethically, socially and sustainably produced fashion according to budget. 

1) Easily affordable: not your cheap H&M prices but still easily affordable. 

T-shirt: 20-40 USD, Sweater: 40-60 USD, long pants: 50-120 USD

http://www.krochetkids.org 

https://www.everlane.com

http://www.armedangels.de

http://www.braintreeclothing.com (bamboo, hemp and so)

http://www.patagonia.com/us/home (outdoor clothing)

2) A bit pricy, but worth it: more pricy probably than what you would normally spend on a t-shirt or pair of jeans, but these collections are very nice indeed. So maybe it is worth buying one of these items instead of three that you like less.  

T-shirt: 40-60 USD, Sweater 60-100 USD, Jeans: 100-200 USD, 

https://www.oliberte.com (shoes)

http://iouproject.com (asian hipster style)

http://www.peopletree.co.uk (on the expensive side)

http://ssekodesigns.com (shoes)

http://www.indigenous.com

http://www.ravenandlily.com (not a big fan of the style though...)

3) High end: the clothes from these brands probably exceed your budget, even your upper limit. Although, maybe for very special occasions you would invest that extra amount of money?

T-shirt: 50-100 USD, Sweater: 100-150 USD, Jeans: 150-250 USD

http://www.peopletree.co.uk

http://ssekodesigns.com

https://zady.com

http://www.apolisglobal.com

http://modavanti.com

http://www.cuyana.com

http://www.shopethica.com

https://www.thereformation.com

https://redearthshop.com (accesoires)

http://www.popinjay.co (accesoires)

4) Unaffordable: but pretty nonetheless. Probably you have never bought a real Gucci or Louis Vuitton either, so these brands are just for looking and dreaming and inspiration. (I won’t even mention the prices)

http://www.stellamccartney.com/us 

http://maiyet.com 

http://masterandmuse.com 

http://www.eileenfisher.com (but still one of the cheapest in this category)

and, 2nd hand is also good:

https://www.fashionproject.com 

https://www.schoola.com 

Stores / brands in the Netherlands

https://studiojux.com

https://www.missgreen.nl

https://www.kuyichi.com

http://www.mudjeans.eu

http://www.mudjeans.eu

http://www.zazuamsterdam.nl

http://intiknitwear.com

http://wintervacht.nl

http://www.re-5.nl

https://www.saintbasics.com

https://www.geitenwollenwinkel.nl

http://www.watmooi.nl/shop/

http://www.brandmission.nl

http://www.goodfibrations.nl

https://charliemary.com

[doesitstick]

Green tags a marketing trend in VN - Climate Change - VietNam News

Green labels marking eco-products have become trendy marketing devices in Viet Nam.

[doesitstick]

Is it time for an antibiotic-free label on our food?

Companies are being urged to act on antibiotics in food supply chains to help tackle the spread of untreatable infections from animals to humans

Vietnam, has a high dose of antibiotics in food, but so does northern Europe, including the Netherlands. 

[doesitstick]

Liwen says that the informal recycling system is so widespread and efficient that instead of trying to get rid of it or replace it the government should work with it to improve recycling levels.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/may/26/why-chinas-waste-pickers-are-a-better-alternative-to-incineration?CMP=new_1194&CMP=

[doesitstick]

It is not unsurprising to discover that environmental issues are now the number one cause of public protests in China - overtaking land and labour issues.

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/7483-China-s-pollution-protests-could-be-slowed-by-stronger-rule-of-law

[doesitstick]

China's middle class turns to organics after food safety scares

In Beijing and Shanghai the number of specialist and boutique food shops selling organic food is growing, with many willing to pay a premium for good-quality, safe food

“Food safety is definitely among the top concerns of Chinese people,” says Wang Jing, a food and agriculture campaigner with Greenpeace China.

Emily Xu, a young mother who runs a children’s reading and writing studio in Shanghai, says food safety is a big concern for her and many of her friends, particularly since their children were born. “The more you learn about [food safety scandals] the more upset you will be. Sometimes you just feel helpless because you can’t change the air or you can’t change the soil, you can’t change the way farmers do the farming. And it seems the government can’t do anything to help. More and more, I have friends who choose to emigrate.”

Many urban residents seek out alternative food sources. Organic food and imported products have risen in popularity and are considered a safer option than the traditional “wet” markets where fresh vegetables, meat and fish are sold. In cities such as Beijing and Shanghai, the number of specialist and boutique food shops selling organic food is growing, especially among the Chinese middle class and expatriate community who have disposable income and are willing to pay a premium for good-quality, safe food.

Many city residents are buying directly from farmers they trust who grow vegetables without pesticides. Community-supported farms have become increasingly popular, says Wang, along with farmers’ markets. A small group of consumers has also begun to grow food themselves, sometimes renting land on the outskirts of the cities.

[doesitstick]

Consument baalt van verpakte groente

Maar verpakte groente is meestal beter voor het milieu, zegt Milieu Centraal.

In plastic wrapped cucumbers stay fresh much longer and the environmental impact of the packaging is less than that of the cucumber itself so saving it is more environmentally friendly in the end. Supermarkets will need to inform consumers about the functionality of the packaging.

[doesitstick]

Less material consumption is not the end for business

Emphasising healthy food, regular engagement with nature and physical activity could create substantial financial dividends

[doesitstick]

By Richard Wilk on SCORAI

I know people on the list may be tired of hearing this. But here I go again. For at least the last 10,000 years the most effective way of reining in the accumulation of wealth and power has been shaming. When people are acting in ways that endanger the group, that undercut sustainability, the group brings social pressure to bear, and it seems to be a fundamental form of socialization, not just limited to humans, but present in many other primates.  The moral disapproval of other people is emotionally powerful and ultimately very threatening. In many egalitarian societies people who did not change their behavior after being shamed could be driven out of the community, subjected to physical punishment, or even death.

Now I am not suggesting that high consumers should receive the death penalty. The problem is that smoking and drunk driving are practices that are physically harmful in a visible and direct way.  There is no such personal harm in consuming much more than your share of common property resources like the atmosphere and fresh water. Further, the damage to the wider community is almost invisible in a global consumer society that moves costs and benefits around over large distances and long periods of time.

Enter the California drought and the water 'crisis.' All over the state people are asking why the rich should have lush green lawns when everyone else is watching their yard turn brown, and bearing the cost of new kinds of landscaping. As in past droughts, some communities have responded by publishing the names and addresses of the highest residential (and sometimes industrial) water users. The tactic does not always work, particularly with part-time residents or those hiding behind shell companies.  But what it does is revive a long-lost discussion about the rights of individuals versus the good of an entire community. Why should some people suffer, while others do what they like? What is the incentive to save water, or cut down CO2 emissions if your neighbor is just going to buy up anything you save. A typical commons dilemma.

Of course it is hard to shame a country - the Japanese defiance of the international community over whaling is a goo9d example. But at the same time it draws attention to the communal nature of ocean resources, and promotes surveillance and enforcement regimes that document and measure the effects of one country's bad behavior. Shaming works best in smaller communities, where it disrupts important relationships, and affects friends and family. Why can't we do this with greenhouse gasses? Why can't we start with something like yachts - who knows the carbon footprint of a private 70 foot yacht?  Should we just be putting a higher price, a luxury tax on yachts (a tax that did not last very long once George Bush was elected)?  We have seen that this has no effect at all on the super-rich. When you have billions, who cares about a yacht luxury tax?  Sumptuary laws that limit or forbid some kinds of consumption have had a bad rap from economic historians, whose common wisdom is that they simply don't work in the long run. But we don't have a long run here - we have to start getting people to think about the environmental costs of consumption NOW, or face catastrophic sea level rise, which will not hurt people with yachts or good insurance.

So. I am not sure why nobody takes this proposal to use shame as a tool is resisted by so many of our colleagues. It is certainly more practical in the short run than promoting degrowth (which many interpret as "stay poor"), which is abstract and invisible.  Tell me why this is not worth trying!

[doesitstick]

Louise Fresco marathon interview, talking to Marta, Katleen and Kadri in London

Sustainability and sustainable consumption are not a matter of right and wrong, not a matter of better or less but a matter of different and conscious decision making. But there is no scale of sustainability from 1 being bad to 10 being good. There is not a 100% in sustainability, that when reaching 100 you are perfectly sustainable or the product is. It does not exist for a person or a product to be 100% sustainable, or it should not exist. So how can we make better choices if there is no scale? Or, let's rephrase, more sustainable choices without knowing what is sustainable?  

For food especially it is a difficult situation because we are confronted with numerous options every day. Louise Fresco also argues that it is very difficult, if not impossible for consumers to weigh the pro's and con's of natural tomatoes from Indonesia or others from Germany. Which farmers were treated better? Do the Indonesian farmers maybe need the money more than the German farmers? Or are the Indonesian fa4rmers treated badly? Do the kilometres travelled really have such an impact on the environment or is it the same if I would 5take the car to the supermarket? And what sort of chemicals did either of them use? And what if we leave the tomatoes too long and they go bad and we have to throw them out, how much energy and water do we waste then?  

Sustainability and sustainable consumption are still being defined and will be defined over and over in the future because the possibilities of our technologies and knowledge will keep on growing. Therefore the most important thing for a more sustainable production and consumption pattern is that we, producers and consumer, start thinking about the choices we have. That we acknowledge we have a choicer and that we do not just simply choose the cheapest or the fastest options. That is also why consumers should not be nudged into decisions because there is no right and wrong, there is just the case of more informed decision making. Nudging promotes the opposite: latent decision making.

Conscious decision making for sustainable production and consumption means that we will also have to make more informed choices. Producers and consumers will have to be handed knowledge that will include sustainability as a factor in the decision process. Knowledge does not just have to be made available but also understandable and transparent.

Luckily there are some companies that show on their packaging that they used natural, or biological ingredients, fair wages for the farmers or no chemicals. Pfieu, so we can choose these products? What if these products are not claiming the truth, then it will get even more confusing and that is what is happening in Vietnam. On top of all the available options and differences between them, another level of choice and uncertainty is laid on top of it: the layer of trust. This makes that another layer of choice or option or needed understanding is added and this is overwhelming. Sometimes even so overwhelming that people just do not want to think about all of this any more because this last layer added one too many and now people are discouraged. They just go to the cheapest or most convenient option.

Greenwashing is related to this but it has two sides. It has the very negative side of companies that claim that their products are sustainable in one way or another when they are actually not. This is harmful for sustainable products in general and very negative for trust and people's empowerment for choice. However, there is another level of what you can call greenwashing and that is making sustainable products just because the trend is to do so, just because certain consumers will then we more interested in the products. This seems like a good effect of the sustainable trend, companies that otherwise would not act sustainable will now act sustainable because consumer demand is depicting it. One could say, the more companies do so, the better. There is a negative side to it as well though and that is that these companies do not change their way of thinking, they will not innovate and just copy others and they will not strive to do better when it is not asked from them by the consumers. This might stall progress and a shift in the system that is needed.

[doesitstick]

http://unilever.com/images/slp_Unilever-Sustainable-Living-Plan-2013_tcm13-388693.pdf

Unilever puts most emphasis on or possible win in the consumer phase.

[doesitstick]

The 2014 Global Nutrition Report link found that investing in nutrition is key to development efforts related to food, poverty, health, gender and employment. For every $1 spent on nutrition at least $16 will be returned in economic benefits. The effects are inter-generational – well-nourished children are more able to reach their full cognitive and physical potential and to raise healthy families, helping to secure healthy future generations.

http://unilever.com/sustainable-living-2014/news-and-resources/sustainable-living-news/Improving-health-and-nutrition-for-25million-farmers.aspx

[doesitstick]

Why pictures of polar bears don't always tell the truth about climate change

Images are a powerful and increasingly prolific tool for communication. They can convey complex messages instantly, in a way that is easy to remember – and as a result are frequently shared online. They also have the potential to transcend the language barriers inherent to written and spoken word – particularly significant when conveying a global problem like climate change to an international community.

However, in this article it is suggested that people are not always activated because fighting climate change is abstract and vague. It is necessary to find the right pictures and to know what their effects might be.