Pub Date : 2020-12-11DOI: 10.4337/9781800371781.00059
M. Berry
Jean-François Caron was elected mayor of Loos-en-Gohelle in 2001 as a member of the Green Party. An election on this ticket is very unusual in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region, a mining area that used to employ as many as 220 000 people. He succeeded his father as mayor, and this, in the world of ‘mining paternalism’, gave him a sort of endorsement. Previously, Caron had also been in charge of an important group project aimed at developing the town. These unique circumstances set the stage for one of the most surprising transformations of a town and a region ever seen.1
2001年，让-弗朗索瓦·卡隆作为绿党成员当选卢斯昂戈赫勒市长。在北加来海峡地区(north - pas -de- calais)举行这样的选举是非常不寻常的，这个矿区曾经雇佣了多达22万人。他继承了父亲的市长职位，这在“采矿业家长式作风”的世界里，给了他某种认可。在此之前，Caron还负责了一个旨在发展该镇的重要集团项目。这些独特的环境为一个城镇和一个地区前所未有的最令人惊讶的转变奠定了基础
{"title":"How Loos-en-Gohelle, a derelict mining town in the north of France, has become a standard in sustainable development","authors":"M. Berry","doi":"10.4337/9781800371781.00059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371781.00059","url":null,"abstract":"Jean-François Caron was elected mayor of Loos-en-Gohelle in 2001 as a member of the Green Party. An election on this ticket is very unusual in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region, a mining area that used to employ as many as 220 000 people. He succeeded his father as mayor, and this, in the world of ‘mining paternalism’, gave him a sort of endorsement. Previously, Caron had also been in charge of an important group project aimed at developing the town. These unique circumstances set the stage for one of the most surprising transformations of a town and a region ever seen.1","PeriodicalId":256332,"journal":{"name":"Standing up for a Sustainable World","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127778073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-11DOI: 10.4337/9781800371781.00011
C. Henry
The most celebrated pronouncement in economics – Adam Smith’s on the “invisible hand”: “By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it” (Smith, 1776) – today looks as outdated as the Commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Matthew 19:16–19). Instead of a competitive market, where providers meet consumers’ demands, we have at the core of the economy a nexus of dominant firms, the activities of which bring more harm than good: abusers deeply indifferent to the welfare of the people, particularly of their health and the environment in which they live, rather than providers of goods and services meeting their needs. To maintain their dominance, they cover up the harmful effects of their activities, they manipulate the relevant information – scientific knowledge in particular. In democracies they marshal their outsized wealth and power to subvert representative and administrative institutions, the legitimacy of which they hollow out, hence still increasing their domination. In authoritarian regimes, under various forms of state or crony capitalism, firms and public authorities are tightly interwoven; only to the extent they deem it necessary to “keep them happy” – that is, quiet – do they worry about ordinary people. In “market capitalism”, it’s not market, it’s capitalism as it functions today that is the culprit (see, for instance, Philippon, 2019a, 2019b).1 Even worse are the Chinese version, the defunct Soviet one, and various forms of crony capitalism in developing countries. Mark Twain once said, when reporting about the “water wars” along the Colorado River: “Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting about”. In this chapter we illustrate – mainly with references to natural capital, climate in particular, and to public health – another dichot-
{"title":"Capitalism and the curse of external effects","authors":"C. Henry","doi":"10.4337/9781800371781.00011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371781.00011","url":null,"abstract":"The most celebrated pronouncement in economics – Adam Smith’s on the “invisible hand”: “By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it” (Smith, 1776) – today looks as outdated as the Commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Matthew 19:16–19). Instead of a competitive market, where providers meet consumers’ demands, we have at the core of the economy a nexus of dominant firms, the activities of which bring more harm than good: abusers deeply indifferent to the welfare of the people, particularly of their health and the environment in which they live, rather than providers of goods and services meeting their needs. To maintain their dominance, they cover up the harmful effects of their activities, they manipulate the relevant information – scientific knowledge in particular. In democracies they marshal their outsized wealth and power to subvert representative and administrative institutions, the legitimacy of which they hollow out, hence still increasing their domination. In authoritarian regimes, under various forms of state or crony capitalism, firms and public authorities are tightly interwoven; only to the extent they deem it necessary to “keep them happy” – that is, quiet – do they worry about ordinary people. In “market capitalism”, it’s not market, it’s capitalism as it functions today that is the culprit (see, for instance, Philippon, 2019a, 2019b).1 Even worse are the Chinese version, the defunct Soviet one, and various forms of crony capitalism in developing countries. Mark Twain once said, when reporting about the “water wars” along the Colorado River: “Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting about”. In this chapter we illustrate – mainly with references to natural capital, climate in particular, and to public health – another dichot-","PeriodicalId":256332,"journal":{"name":"Standing up for a Sustainable World","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115421740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-11DOI: 10.4337/9781800371781.00014
T. Sterner
To have a reasonable chance of avoiding the worst effects of climate change, the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere needs to be stabilized as soon as possible. This basically means that the whole world must stop emitting carbon completely within the space of less than two generations. For the rich and developed countries, it is reasonable to demand more, leaving a little more room for the poorest countries to adapt a little more slowly. A suitable goal would be decarbonization by 2050. It also happens to be the official goal in Sweden for 2045 and luckily, there is some degree of unity around this goal even though the environmentalists would like to set the date to 2040 and the conservatives maybe 2050 or 2060. The crucial question is, of course, how is this to be done? Activists often focus on demanding percentage reductions, plans or laws. There is, however, no guarantee that these instruments have any effect. A price of carbon is different. It takes effect automatically in a market economy. Societies are complex and there are numerous policy instruments at various levels. This ranges from the European Community with its plans and its instruments (in particular, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme for climate permits for large industry) to the level of municipalities that plan and permit industries and other economic activities at the local level. Sweden has followed in the footsteps of the United Kingdom in implementing climate legislation and planning (Government Offices, 2008). It has followed Germany in subsidizing renewables, but the most striking feature of Swedish policy is the carbon tax. Economists often put much emphasis on carbon taxation as the prime instrument of climate policy. One of the reasons for this is that in a market economy, affecting the price of a good or resource will typically be (1) the most effective way of changing resource allocation, and also it is (2) the most all-encompass-
{"title":"The carbon tax in Sweden","authors":"T. Sterner","doi":"10.4337/9781800371781.00014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371781.00014","url":null,"abstract":"To have a reasonable chance of avoiding the worst effects of climate change, the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere needs to be stabilized as soon as possible. This basically means that the whole world must stop emitting carbon completely within the space of less than two generations. For the rich and developed countries, it is reasonable to demand more, leaving a little more room for the poorest countries to adapt a little more slowly. A suitable goal would be decarbonization by 2050. It also happens to be the official goal in Sweden for 2045 and luckily, there is some degree of unity around this goal even though the environmentalists would like to set the date to 2040 and the conservatives maybe 2050 or 2060. The crucial question is, of course, how is this to be done? Activists often focus on demanding percentage reductions, plans or laws. There is, however, no guarantee that these instruments have any effect. A price of carbon is different. It takes effect automatically in a market economy. Societies are complex and there are numerous policy instruments at various levels. This ranges from the European Community with its plans and its instruments (in particular, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme for climate permits for large industry) to the level of municipalities that plan and permit industries and other economic activities at the local level. Sweden has followed in the footsteps of the United Kingdom in implementing climate legislation and planning (Government Offices, 2008). It has followed Germany in subsidizing renewables, but the most striking feature of Swedish policy is the carbon tax. Economists often put much emphasis on carbon taxation as the prime instrument of climate policy. One of the reasons for this is that in a market economy, affecting the price of a good or resource will typically be (1) the most effective way of changing resource allocation, and also it is (2) the most all-encompass-","PeriodicalId":256332,"journal":{"name":"Standing up for a Sustainable World","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129835236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-11DOI: 10.4337/9781800371781.00070
F. Gemenne, A. Depoux
As most countries of the world were affected by the COVID-19 in the first months of 2020, many of them took radical measures to contain the spread of the pandemic. Thousands of flights were cancelled, schools and shops were closed, industrial production was slashed, people were confined at home. The whole economy came to a standstill. Many of these measures resulted in very significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric pollution. Estimates by Carbon Brief reckon that greenhouse gas emissions in China were down 25 percent in February 2020, while fine particle levels were down 20–30 percent across the country (Myllyvirta, 2020). Global air traffic was reduced by 4.3 percent that same month – and this was before the ban on flights from Europe to the US imposed by US president Donald Trump in early March. Paradoxically perhaps, some of these measures had a positive impact for human health. Marshall Burke, from the Earth System Science Department at Stanford University, calculated that ‘reductions in air pollution in China caused by this economic disruption likely saved twenty times more lives in China than have currently been lost due to infection with the virus in that country’ (Burke, 2020). Though the global impact of the pandemic on climate change will be difficult to assess, given the far-reaching economic, political and social implications of some of the containment measures, one thing is certain: it is possible for world leaders to take urgent and radical measures in the face of an imminent threat, and for the populations to accept them. Yet we haven’t been able, so far, to take similar measures to confront climate change. Until the pandemic outbreak, and despite many calls from activists and scientists alike to declare a state of ‘climate emergency’, emissions were still rising at a yearly increase of 1 per cent.
{"title":"Why are we so much more afraid of COVID-19 than of climate change? Early lessons from a health crisis for the communication of climate change","authors":"F. Gemenne, A. Depoux","doi":"10.4337/9781800371781.00070","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371781.00070","url":null,"abstract":"As most countries of the world were affected by the COVID-19 in the first months of 2020, many of them took radical measures to contain the spread of the pandemic. Thousands of flights were cancelled, schools and shops were closed, industrial production was slashed, people were confined at home. The whole economy came to a standstill. Many of these measures resulted in very significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric pollution. Estimates by Carbon Brief reckon that greenhouse gas emissions in China were down 25 percent in February 2020, while fine particle levels were down 20–30 percent across the country (Myllyvirta, 2020). Global air traffic was reduced by 4.3 percent that same month – and this was before the ban on flights from Europe to the US imposed by US president Donald Trump in early March. Paradoxically perhaps, some of these measures had a positive impact for human health. Marshall Burke, from the Earth System Science Department at Stanford University, calculated that ‘reductions in air pollution in China caused by this economic disruption likely saved twenty times more lives in China than have currently been lost due to infection with the virus in that country’ (Burke, 2020). Though the global impact of the pandemic on climate change will be difficult to assess, given the far-reaching economic, political and social implications of some of the containment measures, one thing is certain: it is possible for world leaders to take urgent and radical measures in the face of an imminent threat, and for the populations to accept them. Yet we haven’t been able, so far, to take similar measures to confront climate change. Until the pandemic outbreak, and despite many calls from activists and scientists alike to declare a state of ‘climate emergency’, emissions were still rising at a yearly increase of 1 per cent.","PeriodicalId":256332,"journal":{"name":"Standing up for a Sustainable World","volume":"185 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133570540","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-11DOI: 10.4337/9781800371781.00067
J. Rockström
We simply have to admit it. Just as Georgina Mace highlights at the outset of her chapter on biodiversity, we have, despite the fact that biodiversity loss is perceived as a concern and has many advocates, largely failed to touch the hearts of citizens at large. The role that nature and climate – in essence, a stable planet – plays in our lives and the lives of our children on Earth has failed to become a driving force behind individual and global action for most people, in most parts of the world. Despite significant progress in our awareness, understanding, and policy engagement in actions to solve global environmental challenges, manifested not least in UN conventions such as the Convention on Biodiversity (UNCBD) and the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted almost 30 years ago, we now face a planetary emergency. The aggregate human pressures on the planet fuelling this emergency are not only continuing to rise, they are reaching dangerous levels, putting us at risk of triggering irreversible loss of ecological functions and a manageable climate (Steffen et al., 2018). Perhaps a central reason for this failure to reach only a minority (< 20 percent) of citizens in countries around the world is our tendency to communicate the climate and nature crises as environmental problems, instead of talking about humans and solutions (Pihl et al., 2019). The coronavirus crisis is a devastating global health shock causing the most abrupt slowdown of the world economy since the global recession in the 1930s. It is also a major moment of learning and reckoning for all citizens in the world. If the world, from political leaders to city dwellers, is able to rise so fast, mobilizing collective action and trillions of US dollars in financial bail-out programmes to address one crisis – COVID-19 – why are we not able to rise in the face of the global climate crisis and nature crisis? These crises, unlike the coronavirus crisis, are putting the future of humanity on Earth at risk. As proposed by François Gemenne and Anneliese Depoux, we need to focus much more on communicating the direct impacts of climate change on human well-being and health. After all, how many recall today that over a time span of only a few excessively hot months in the summer of 2003, 70 000 Europeans (Robine et al., 2008), predominantly elder and weak citizens, died as a result of the most devastating heatwave on record, very likely
我们不得不承认这一点。正如乔治娜·梅斯(Georgina Mace)在她关于生物多样性的章节开头所强调的那样，尽管生物多样性的丧失被认为是一个令人担忧的问题，也有许多倡导者，但我们在很大程度上未能触及广大公民的心。自然和气候——本质上是一个稳定的星球——在我们的生活和我们在地球上的孩子的生活中所起的作用，未能成为世界上大多数地区大多数人个人和全球行动背后的推动力量。尽管我们在解决全球环境挑战的行动方面的认识、理解和政策参与方面取得了重大进展，尤其是在近30年前通过的《生物多样性公约》和《气候变化框架公约》等联合国公约中得到了体现，但我们现在面临着全球性的紧急情况。人类对地球的总体压力加剧了这一紧急情况，不仅持续上升，而且达到了危险的水平，使我们面临引发生态功能不可逆转的丧失和可控气候的风险(Steffen et al.， 2018)。也许，世界各国只有少数(< 20%)的公民无法接触到这种情况的一个主要原因是，我们倾向于将气候和自然危机作为环境问题进行沟通，而不是谈论人类和解决方案(Pihl et al.， 2019)。冠状病毒危机是一场毁灭性的全球健康冲击，导致了自20世纪30年代全球经济衰退以来世界经济最突然的放缓。这也是世界上所有公民学习和清算的重要时刻。如果从政治领导人到城市居民，全世界都能够如此迅速地采取行动，动员集体行动和数万亿美元的金融纾困计划来应对2019冠状病毒病这一危机，那么我们为什么不能在面对全球气候危机和自然危机时采取行动呢?与冠状病毒危机不同，这些危机正将人类在地球上的未来置于危险之中。正如francois Gemenne和Anneliese Depoux所建议的那样，我们需要更多地关注气候变化对人类福祉和健康的直接影响。毕竟，今天有多少人记得，在2003年夏天仅仅几个月的时间跨度内，7万欧洲人(Robine et al.， 2008)，主要是老年人和虚弱的公民，很可能死于有史以来最具破坏性的热浪
{"title":"Introduction to Part VII","authors":"J. Rockström","doi":"10.4337/9781800371781.00067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371781.00067","url":null,"abstract":"We simply have to admit it. Just as Georgina Mace highlights at the outset of her chapter on biodiversity, we have, despite the fact that biodiversity loss is perceived as a concern and has many advocates, largely failed to touch the hearts of citizens at large. The role that nature and climate – in essence, a stable planet – plays in our lives and the lives of our children on Earth has failed to become a driving force behind individual and global action for most people, in most parts of the world. Despite significant progress in our awareness, understanding, and policy engagement in actions to solve global environmental challenges, manifested not least in UN conventions such as the Convention on Biodiversity (UNCBD) and the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted almost 30 years ago, we now face a planetary emergency. The aggregate human pressures on the planet fuelling this emergency are not only continuing to rise, they are reaching dangerous levels, putting us at risk of triggering irreversible loss of ecological functions and a manageable climate (Steffen et al., 2018). Perhaps a central reason for this failure to reach only a minority (< 20 percent) of citizens in countries around the world is our tendency to communicate the climate and nature crises as environmental problems, instead of talking about humans and solutions (Pihl et al., 2019). The coronavirus crisis is a devastating global health shock causing the most abrupt slowdown of the world economy since the global recession in the 1930s. It is also a major moment of learning and reckoning for all citizens in the world. If the world, from political leaders to city dwellers, is able to rise so fast, mobilizing collective action and trillions of US dollars in financial bail-out programmes to address one crisis – COVID-19 – why are we not able to rise in the face of the global climate crisis and nature crisis? These crises, unlike the coronavirus crisis, are putting the future of humanity on Earth at risk. As proposed by François Gemenne and Anneliese Depoux, we need to focus much more on communicating the direct impacts of climate change on human well-being and health. After all, how many recall today that over a time span of only a few excessively hot months in the summer of 2003, 70 000 Europeans (Robine et al., 2008), predominantly elder and weak citizens, died as a result of the most devastating heatwave on record, very likely","PeriodicalId":256332,"journal":{"name":"Standing up for a Sustainable World","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128448021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fridays for Future in Uganda and Nigeria is a student and youth led platform that was launched in February 2019 following the call from Greta Thunberg to school strike. The call motivated us to start the strikes in Africa. We realised that this will help us increase attention when demanding urgent climate action from our leaders. From February 2019 to date, over 20,000 students added their voices to demands for urgent climate action and joint efforts to combat the climate breakdown.
{"title":"The Fridays For Future Movement in Uganda and Nigeria","authors":"Hilda Flavia Nakabuye, Sadrach Nirere, Adenike Titilope Oladosu","doi":"10.4337/9781800371781.00036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371781.00036","url":null,"abstract":"Fridays for Future in Uganda and Nigeria is a student and youth led platform that was launched in February 2019 following the call from Greta Thunberg to school strike. The call motivated us to start the strikes in Africa. We realised that this will help us increase attention when demanding urgent climate action from our leaders. From February 2019 to date, over 20,000 students added their voices to demands for urgent climate action and joint efforts to combat the climate breakdown.","PeriodicalId":256332,"journal":{"name":"Standing up for a Sustainable World","volume":"230 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133552973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.4337/9781800371781.00055
S. Treyer
The food industry has been struggling for years with its impact on the environment. The impacts of input-intensive agricultural production on nature and the environment have been made obvious since the 1960s. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson from 1962 is still an extremely vivid account of the impacts of pesticides on nature, resonating with today’s scientific reports on the effects on pollinators. The algae blooms in Brittany’s coastal waters have been linked for a long time to a structural excess of intensive farming of pigs and chickens that has brought jobs and prosperity to a region previously suffering from underdevelopment, and emigration to other French regions. This has been well known for decades, but the trends of environment degradation have still not been reversed. One obvious explanation of the inability to change is that the downward trends in prices that farmers are being paid for their products make it nearly impossible to ask them to change their practices, because their economic viability is so close to a survival threshold. This is now all well known, and the food industry knows it must do something. What is also well known in the public debate is that power and value are not fairly allocated along the supply chain: farmers have much less power and a small share of the value compared to upstream players (the input industry) or downstream players (processing and retailing) because their negotiation power is scattered and thus weak. That gives enormous responsibility to the large companies of the food industry: they are in power; they have the tools at hand to foster change in the whole supply chain. The different phases of the sustainability strategy in a company like Danone are extremely interesting in this regard. In the late 2000s, this large company in the dairy industry developed a specific innovation and exploration fund, called the Livelihoods Funds, where impact investment1 projects were explored to finance sustainable agricultural practices, landscapes and food supply chains, particularly aiming at finding solutions for carbon storage and biodiversity pro-
{"title":"Radical transformation in global supply chains: can new business models be based on biodiversity in the agrifood industry?","authors":"S. Treyer","doi":"10.4337/9781800371781.00055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371781.00055","url":null,"abstract":"The food industry has been struggling for years with its impact on the environment. The impacts of input-intensive agricultural production on nature and the environment have been made obvious since the 1960s. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson from 1962 is still an extremely vivid account of the impacts of pesticides on nature, resonating with today’s scientific reports on the effects on pollinators. The algae blooms in Brittany’s coastal waters have been linked for a long time to a structural excess of intensive farming of pigs and chickens that has brought jobs and prosperity to a region previously suffering from underdevelopment, and emigration to other French regions. This has been well known for decades, but the trends of environment degradation have still not been reversed. One obvious explanation of the inability to change is that the downward trends in prices that farmers are being paid for their products make it nearly impossible to ask them to change their practices, because their economic viability is so close to a survival threshold. This is now all well known, and the food industry knows it must do something. What is also well known in the public debate is that power and value are not fairly allocated along the supply chain: farmers have much less power and a small share of the value compared to upstream players (the input industry) or downstream players (processing and retailing) because their negotiation power is scattered and thus weak. That gives enormous responsibility to the large companies of the food industry: they are in power; they have the tools at hand to foster change in the whole supply chain. The different phases of the sustainability strategy in a company like Danone are extremely interesting in this regard. In the late 2000s, this large company in the dairy industry developed a specific innovation and exploration fund, called the Livelihoods Funds, where impact investment1 projects were explored to finance sustainable agricultural practices, landscapes and food supply chains, particularly aiming at finding solutions for carbon storage and biodiversity pro-","PeriodicalId":256332,"journal":{"name":"Standing up for a Sustainable World","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125857872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-09117-1_21
Alwyn Taylor
{"title":"Introduction to Part VI","authors":"Alwyn Taylor","doi":"10.1007/978-1-349-09117-1_21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09117-1_21","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":256332,"journal":{"name":"Standing up for a Sustainable World","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116559568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.4337/9781800371781.00066
Neville Hobson
{"title":"Communicators","authors":"Neville Hobson","doi":"10.4337/9781800371781.00066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371781.00066","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":256332,"journal":{"name":"Standing up for a Sustainable World","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129786959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.4337/9781800371781.00018
{"title":"Defenders","authors":"","doi":"10.4337/9781800371781.00018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371781.00018","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":256332,"journal":{"name":"Standing up for a Sustainable World","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128421203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：