The research leading to these results has received funding

from the european unions seventh framework programme

for research, technological development and demonstration
under grant agreement n 311778.
 WP2:
Scoping / framing:

GLAMUR 2 4 Analysing the

communication of
food chains and
assessing the
sustainability of
Global and
their performance

WP3:
6
Local food
chains Database

8 WP4:
Comparing food
Development

chains

10 WP5:
12WP6: Participatory
integrated
assessment
Policy analysis and
recommendations

GLAMURs
16
Policy
recommendations
GLAMURs
Main Messages

14
 GLAMUR:
assessing
the sustainability
of Global and Local
food chains
What is Global food? And when is food Local? How
2
should food chain sustainability performance be meas-
ured? These are some of the questions that the
GLAMUR project has addressed over its three years of
research (February 2013 January 2016).
Operating under the EU 7th Framework Research Pro-
gramme, the GLAMUR Consortium (15 partners from
10 European countries) investigated how the sustain-
ability performance of food chains varies along the
Local-Global continuum, what characterises perform-
ance differences between more global and more local
food chains, and what the implications are for European
and Global policymaking and public-private strategies
to increase food chain sustainability.
Food systems operate at multiple scales and layers and
GLAMUR used a multi-criteria assessment approach to
compare Global and Local food chain performance,
adopting a more holistic understanding of sustainability
that included five dimensions - environmental, eco-
nomic, social, health and ethical.
The end goal was to provide consumers and policy
makers with better knowledge and decision-making
tools to enable more sustainable food choices and
pathways. Reflexive governance by value chain players
is also envisaged to address the challenge of shaping
sustainability performance in a way that captures food
system complexity but also develops clear policy op-
tions.
What did GLAMUR do?
In a nutshell:
GLAMUR developed and validated a perform-
ance criteria matrix, with 24 attributes for assess-
ment and comparison of food chains along the
local-global continuum.
GLAMUR employed four different methodolo-
gies (participatory evaluation, Llife Ccycle
Aassessment (LCA), metabolic analysis and
shadow pricing) to examine the economic, environ-
mental, health, social and ethical dimensions of
eight product commodities (apples, berries, grain
(wheat-to-bread), pork, cheese, wine, tomatoes
and asparagus) and of global-local food chains in
public procurement.
Key attributes were identified for each commod-
ity (using the multi-criteria performance matrix) and
sets of indicators were constructed, with analy-
sis of the underlying factors (e.g. political, legislative,
geographical etc.) that influenced the performance
of the indicators in the respective dimensions (eco-
nomic, environmental, social, health and ethical).
The sustainability performance levels of chains in
each country were assessed and this provided a set
of results for cross-country comparisons.
The validity of the four methodologies used for
analysis were also compared and evaluated.
GLAMUR used a participatory approach and devel-
oped a multi-criteria characterisation of the perform-
ance of food chains. The approach also integrated
values, perceptions and expectations around food
choice and food policies from stakeholders, including
food businesses, civil society organizations and
public authorities.
Interaction occurred during conferences, stakeholder
workshops, participatory checklist compilation exer-
cises and interviews. This stakeholder engagement
aimed to ensure that the project findings were dis-
cussed and validated from a range of perspectives
and viewpoints.
GLAMUR information:
what and where
The GLAMUR findings and knowledge base is fully
available. The project rationale, methodology, research
findings, reports, messages and recommendations are
all accessible on glamur.eu. Project dissemination has
also taken place through newsletters, scientific and grey
literature, conference presentations, webinars and ex-
pert meetings. There is even a cartoon that brings
GLAMURs work to life and helps make the projects
messages more accessible to the public.

3
What did GLAMUR find?
GLAMUR reveals not only the differences, overlaps
and synergies between Global and Local supply
chains, but also the blurring of boundaries and
trade-offs that take place between the sustainability
dimensions.

Multidimensional and multi-scale performance as-

sessment is a key to sustainable pathways for food
chains; its multi-stakeholder approach moves be-
yond assumptions such as Local versus Global, and
can provide informed reflexivity on narratives used
to frame the performance of the food system.

The need for more coherent policies that recognise

the hybridity and interconnectedness of Global and
Local food systems and where policy interventions
go beyond market mechanisms and adapt to chain
diversity and context.

Insights from GLAMURs research on sustainable per-

formance assessment in food chains and the use of
multi-criteria methods - are described in this booklet. It
concludes with the policy recommendations and the
projects main messages.
 WP2:
Scoping / framing:
Analysing the
communication
of food chains and
their performance course framing food chain performance. The second
grouping, entitled territoriality and global competition,
emphasised territoriality as the dominant performance
frame, although the performance discourse was also
linked to a market-based neoliberal model. The third
grouping, entitled neoliberalism and food system sus-
tainability, had neoliberalism as the dominant perform-
ance frame, set against increasing food system
sustainability and global food security concerns.

Key findings/highlights
Prevailing methods of food chain evaluation are
overwhelmingly economically-oriented.
Goal The need to incorporate an inclusive and wide range
4
The aim of this work package is to align the multiple of perspectives and multiple dimensions of food
meanings that are attributed to food chains, having re- chain performance.
gard for the contexts involved, and to create a common The importance of recognizing and understanding
understanding of food chain performance that has been the context in which performance is being as-
developed and substantiated by scientific evidence. sessed.
Moving beyond global-local distinctions to explore
Main Results the potential of both supply chains for system trans-
The main result of this WP was the development of a formation and improved performance.
multi-criteria matrix comprised of 24 attributes of food
supply chain performance. This involved taking a multi-
dimensional approach to the performance of food
chains that encompassed their economic, social, envi-
ronmental, health and ethical dimensions. In addition,
it entailed an examination of a wide range of perspec-
tives that covered the public, scientific, market and pol-
icy spheres of discourse and interaction. It became
clear that an appreciation of both the geographical and
national political-economic context was critical in order
to explain and understand how the performance of food
chains was perceived, and attributes communicated
and valued across the range of 12 countries examined.
In order to help explicate these differences, three coun-
try groupings were developed. The first, entitled socio-
economic and structural development, emphasised
socio-economic development as the dominant dis-
Composite Matrix
Dimension/Sphere Economic Social Environmental Health Ethical

Public Affordability Information & Resource use Nutrition Animal welfare

Creation & communication Pollution Food safety Responsibility
distribution of Food security Traceability Labour relations
added value Fair trade
Contribution to
economic
development

Scientific Contribution to Consumer Resource use Nutrition Fair Trade

economic behaviour Biodiversity Food safety Animal welfare
development Territoriality Efficiency
Technological Technological 5
innovation innovation
Governance Food waste

Marke Efficiency Information & Efficiency Traceability Fair trade

Profitability / communication Food safety Territoriality
competitiveness Territoriality
Connection Connection
Technological
innovation
Resilience

Policy Creation & Consumer Food waste Traceability Food security

distribution of behaviour Pollution Nutrition Governance
added value Labour relations Food safety
Contribution to
economic
development
Efficiency
Resilience
Food waste
 WP3:
Database
Development
Goal
6
The purpose of WP3 was to collect, analyse and organ-
ize data on the performance of food chains from a set
of case studies. The performance attributes developed
in WP2 have been measured, with both quantitative
and qualitative indicators that are stored into an ad-hoc
database.
Main Results
After exploratory work, the selection of case studies is
presented in the next page . Each category of product
is covered by a minimum of at least a pair of countries
for both a local and a global value chain (at least 4 case
studies for a similar sector). Intermediary cases were
also introduced as it was realized that the distinction
between local and global is better made by studying
the continuum of cases between local and global and
by looking carefully at their interactions.
In total, 39 food value chains were studied. Products
from outside of Europe were also considered with As-
paragus from Peru and Apples from New Zealand. Ex-
ports and exchanges between countries in Europe are
also considered for example in the case of the global
wine exported from France to Switzerland and other
countries. Two additional case studies were conducted
in Denmark, this time not focusing on specific products
but on the problematic of diets in the public procure-
ment and thus studying one local and one global school
meal arrangements.
One of the first results was thus that it is very difficult to
define a set of unique indicators to apply to all case
studies and the selection was thus made case by case.
Therefore, the definition of performance indicators cov-
ering the most relevant attributes for the given context
(sector, countries) was a demanding task. A clear un-
derstanding of the context surrounding the case studies
and peculiar to each country was essential in the ade-
quate selection of performance indicators. This was
done in close interaction with stakeholders in all cases.
Discussion and comparison between cases was done
in WP4.
For some case studies, a more exhaustive and sophis-
ticated quantitative analysis allows further comparing
methods such as LCA, shadow pricing and metabolic
analysis. Results of this comparison were done in WP4
and 5.
Key findings/highlights
The distinction between local and global lies more
on a continuum rather than on a binary contrast:
therefore, inclusion of intermediary cases leads to
interesting discussions and conclusions in WP4.
Participatory approach to select a set of perform-
ance indicators helps to find out the right ones, and
to integrate the understanding of their value into a
specific context (sector, country, value chain).
Tools and approaches were mainly inspired by the
sustainability assessments methods and tools.
Therefore, the results can be discussed with a
broader perspective as well.
A database has been designed and developed, as
a storage room of all data required and produced in
the project.
Case studies of the GLAMUR project
Product Country Products studied by country
category (Partner)
Local Intermediary Global Number
case case case of value chains

Pork Italy (CRPA) Cinta Senese Ham Parma-ham generic 3

case cured Ham

Netherlands Lupine Pork De Hoeve Pork VION pork 3

(WU & CLM)

Dairy (Cheese) Switzerland (FiBL) LEtivaz AOC cheese Le Gruyre 2

AOC cheese

UK (CCRI) 1 Singe Gloucester and Creamery Cheddar 3

2 Farmhouse Cheddar

Fruits & Latvia (BSC) Wild Blueberries Global grey Global legal 3
vegetables blueberries Blueberries

Serbia (BEL) fresh Arilje raspberry Frozen exported 2

Raspberries

Belgium (KULE) Flanders organic Flanders conventional New-Zealand 3 7

apples apples apples

Spain (UAB) Catalonia local Apples Catalonia global 2

(box scheme) organic apples

Spain (UAB) Local organic tomatoes Mixed organic Global organic 3

(box scheme) tomatoes tomatoes

France (INRA) Languedoc-Roussillon Almeria tomatoes 3

tomatoes
1 organic and
2 conventional
Belgium (KULE) White Flanders Green Peru 2
Asparagus Asparagus

Wine France (INRA) AOC Languedoc- AOC Languedoc- bulk Pays dOc red 3
Roussillon red wines Roussillon exported wine
as bottles

Switzerland (FiBL) AOC Valais red wines 1

Grains (bread) UK (CITY) CRFT craft bakery ISB in-store bakery GC plant bakery 3
bread bread white bread

Italy (FIRAB) Floriddias farm Sourdough Tuscan Pan Bauletto 3

bread Bread (Barilla)

TOTAL 39
 WP4:
Comparing food
chains
Goal
8
The objective of WP4 was to compare and contrast the
economic, environmental, health, social and ethical im-
pact of local versus global food chains, and to discuss
the conditions of validity of comparison.
Main results
The comparison did not find generalizable results when
contrasting local with global food supply chains, mainly
because local and global are no clear-cut categories,
as local chains have many global elements and vice-
versa, giving rise to many hybrid situations. In addition,
chain strategies influence performance evaluation.
When chains apply product differentiation strategies, ef-
fects between local and global may even be opposite.
Trade-offs within and across the various sustainability
dimensions apply, such that no superior strategy that
scores well on all dimensions can be identified. In addi-
tion, trade-offs also occur across different scales. More
specifically, trade-offs have been found between:
1 labour productivity and job creation, as higher labour
productivity generally leads to lower costs and prices
and better labour conditions, but as a result less jobs
are created
2 efficiency and diversity, as diversity increases the re-
silience of the chain but at the expense of efficiency
and thus costs and prices
3 price and quality, as higher chain efficiency leads to
lower prices, but less attention to product quality
4 biodiversity/pollution and resource use, as large-
scale operation may save resources and particularly
energy and land per unit of product, but at the ex-
pense of a high pressure on the land being used,
leading to higher pollution and less biodiversity per
unit of land.
5 informal trust-based approaches versus formal pro-
cedures, as informality may lead to more flexibility in
labour relations and in relations vis--vis the con-
sumer and even resilience, but may also result in less
transparency and even misuse.
Difficulties related to measuring indicators consistently
makes an evidence-based approach very difficult, but
a combination of quantitative and qualitative method-
ologies can help to increase the quality of research re-
sults.
Attributes investigated by team
Team Economic Social Health Environmental Ethical

Apples Contribution to Food security Resource use

economic
development Pollution

Biodiversity

Berries Creation and Labour relations Governance

distribution of added
value

Contribution to
economic
development

Bread Technological Information & Nutrition Biodiversity

Innovation communication

Cheese Creation and Information & Nutrition Biodiversity Animal welfare

distribution of added communication Resource use
value
Food security
Contribution to
economic Consumer behaviour
development 9

Pork Contribution to Resource use Governance

economic
development

Resilience

Tomatoes Creation and Food security Resource use

distribution of added
value Pollution

Contribution to Biodiversity
economic
development

Wine Creation and Information & Food safety Resource use Governance
distribution of added communication
value Pollution
Territoriality
Biodiversity
 WP5:
Participatory
integrated
assessment
Goal
10
The aim of this work package is to develop, through
participatory processes, an integrated characterization
of the performance of food chains.
Main Results and Considerations
An integrated characterization of the performance of
food chains has to be based on a set of non-equivalent
criteria of sustainability referring to the economic, social,
environmental, health and ethical sphere. When carry-
ing out such an assessment across different societies
and different social actors it is unavoidable to find legit-
imate but conflicting perceptions of what should be
considered as an improvement. In different societies dif-
ferent social actors do measure and compare trade-offs
over criteria of performance of food chains in different
ways. For this reason, WP5 tested the effectiveness
and the flexibility of various approaches to integrated
assessment used in different case studies of GLAMUR
using both workshops and on-line questionnaires to so-
licit a feed-back from social actors.
The methodological and conceptual results obtained in
WP5 can be divided in three categories: (i) reflections
on the implications of the pre-analytical choices deter-
mining the quality of the integrated assessment; (ii) les-
sons learned on how to make more effective the
comparison when analysing different food chains oper-
ating in different socio-economic, political and geo-
graphic contexts; (iii) analysis of pros and cons of the
two typologies of participatory processes adopted.
Key findings/highlights
Key findings of WP5 point at the complexity of a
process aimed at characterizing the performance of
food chains: (1) the labels defining the dichotomy be-
tween global and local food chains, as GLAMUR
was tasked to do, remain ambiguous and inappropriate
when using the same set of indicators of performance
in different case studies. A more articulated framing of
the meaning of global and local is needed to reflect
the specificity of each case study; (2) the existing story-
telling about the performance of food chains has been
hegemonized by economic narratives. Social actors
admit that the economic dimension is essential, but at
the same time they feel that other criteria referring to
the environment, social and ethical dimensions should
get more attention. A more balanced and complete se-
lection of indicators is needed; (3) it is impossible to
compare food chains having different goals and oper-
ating in different contexts using a standard assessment
of performance (one size fits all). The process of inte-
grated assessment must be able to reflect the speci-
ficity of different food chains and the heterogeneity of
interests and normative values found among social ac-
tors. This requires the adoption of participatory
processes.
Fig. 1 STEP1 Quality Check
A participatory on Issue Definition
In relation to the context
Integrated
Relevant story-telling?
assessment of the Plausible narrative?
performance of food
chains should be
developed using an Descriptive STEP2 Quality Check Normative
iterative procedure Input on Integrated Analysis Input
Quantitative In relation to scales and dimension Choice of
guaranteeing a Analysis Pertinent attributes? Story-telling
check on the quality Congruent integrated assessments?
of the process of
production and use
of quantitative STEP3 Quality Check
information. on Deliberative Process
In relation to the decision making
Is it a fair process?
Is it an effective deliberation?

INFORMED DELIBERATION

Fig. 2
11
The characterization of the performance
of a food chain should be organized in a
way that reflects the unavoidable
existence of different story-tellers.

Food as a commodity Profit Clear rules Infrastructures

investors/entrepreneurs 40 50 60 400 500 600 600 500 400
30 70 300 700 700 300
20 80 200 800 800 200

10 90 100 900 900 100

0 100 0 1000 1000 0

80 335 523
Food as an opportunity Generational replacement Agritourism Satellite activities
for rural development 400 500 600 40 50 60 60 50 40
community/local admin. 300
200
700
800
30
20
70
80
70
80
30
20

100 900 10 90 90 10
0 1000 0 100 100 0

964 0 0

Food security Self-sufficiency Safety Affordability

National government 5 5 5

0 10 0 10 0 10

6 3 8
Food as a threat to Biodiversity Soil healt Water quality
the local environment 40 50 60 400 500 600 600 500 400
NGOs, long term policies 30
20
70
80 200
300 700
800
700
800
300
200

10 90 100 900 900 100

0 100 0 1000 1000 0

80 335 523
 WP6:
Policy analysis and
recommendations
Goal
12
to assess the actual and potential role of public and pri-
vate policies addressing food chains, and address the
significance for policymakers of the performance based
approach and the methodologies employed.
Main results
GLAMURs evidence shows the problematic nature of
current sustainability performance assessments when
used to justify policy interventions in support of scale.
It exposes the loose framing of local versus global
food, and how diversity in supply chains is often place-
specific and affected by cultural context. Policy settings
directly affected performance profiles in the supply
chains studied. There is no simple local-global contin-
uum; chains differentiate as they develop and grow.
There is a need for strategically varied responses. This
evidence highlights why making policy choices, prefer-
ences and/or investment decisions that improve food
chain sustainability performance is such a complex area
for public policy intervention.
We propose
a set of recommendations to encourage
processes of engagement aimed at public pol-
icy, the market and civil society and to address
policy challenges raised by GLAMURs work;
three scenarios of food futures and frame-
works within which food actors operate. These
chart possible directions of travel and enable the
consideration of different entry points for GLAMURs
findings into the real world of policy making.
We identify
existing points of engagement along the local-
global continuum. These provide more detailed
analysis, routed in current reality, and connect
GLAMURs policy challenges with existing policies
and initiatives, enacted at the global, EU, national
and sub-national levels.
Key findings/highlights:
the most urgent challenge for policy is first to do no
harm such as in ensuring hygiene regulations etc.
are adapted to the realities of SMEs;
there is a strong case to bring local food in from
its policy enclave in rural development to occupy
a more central position in EU policy alongside lo-
cality foods;
more coherent policies are needed to recognise
the hybridity and interconnectedness of global and
local food systems and where policy interventions
go beyond market mechanisms and adapt to chain
diversity and context;
there are many possible entry points and
processes of engagement which can clarify the
local/global, drawing upon wider science-based ev-
idence as well as being informed by socio-cultural
values. This mix will ground policy choices on a
wider understanding of food chain performance.

Processes for engagement - steering a more sustainable food system
The Local/Global
distinction is too simple
Public Give higher priority to social European
Policy attributes of food, such as
(Government) human capital and the values
that underpin food systems;
Conduct public consultation
about new methods for giving
consumers broader indicators Applications for
of what is in their food, and
where it comes from;
Market Tough monitoring of false
(Consumers, claims about local and
commerce global food;
and supply
chain) Create a new working party to
consider how to encourage
genuinely sustainable local
food systems, using improved
food metrics;
Civil Society CSOs to educate consumers
about the fluidity of global /
local distinctions;
CSOs to inform themselves
about the weaknesses of
current local/locality terms as
proxies for sustainability
performance.
13
The slipperiness Routes to food sustainability Contradictory policy drivers are Policy The significance of
of local are both fluid and dynamic not helping this messiness blind spots methodology
Better public education about the EU to recommit to a International aspects of EU science call for
Scientific complexity of sustainability, comprehensive food policy and local/global distinction need clarification of multi-criteria
advisory bodies particularly highlighting social and this to link economic, health, particular attention; methods to assess
to improve ethical values alongside hard social, ethical and environmental sustainable performance in
metrics of data such as CO2e and GHGs, policy objectives; Clarification is needed of food chains;
sustainability; and life cycle analysis data; priorities for developing
EU & Member States to review countries over demands that Stop assuming there is
Fostering plural food systems the mix of incentives and they pursue export-led growth always a positive link
GIs need to take along the local-global continuum; disincentives to towards the and sustainability; between local food chains
note of the localization/relocaliz-ation of and rural economic
complexity of
Sub-national levels should consider food chains and to monitor Tax policy needs reform to development;
ALL costs and benefits when enhance transparency and
local implementation;
designations;
setting policies eg. RDP, zoning, support SMEs Relevant sub-national
health benefits, ecosystem DG Sante and DG Environment institutions within food
services; to collaborate more on improving policy to get involved in
food sustainability criteria; multi-criteria education.
Consider reviving Communication
on Building a more Sustainable
Food System;
More transparent Food producers need to be more Address contradictory policy Be clear about reasons for Create better learning for
procedures for prudent in using sustainable and drivers in supply chains to supporting food imports from supply chain management
assessing local local in the same breath and optimize sustainability and developing countries; of the importance of multi-
and locality employgreater care in the use of reduce trade-offs which lower criteria approaches to
foods to clarify sustainability performance standards; Apply transparent social and sustainability;
distinctions for attributes;
ethical standards for food
consumers;
Stop exploiting the messiness exports, FDI and marketing in Share lessons between
Put pressure on government to with false claims; developing countries; stakeholders in short and
Clarify place- help consumers eat and buy more long chains to improve
specific labeling; sustainably; CSR to include performance in Help improve food sustainability performance
improving producer infrastructure in developing
management;
remuneration (income or share countries for internal, South-
of value) in supplier relations; South and export trades
CSOs should Consumers need help to become CSOs should champion EU EU and Member States Development of EU
champion more literate about the policy coherence on impacts of should create sustainable diet standards for consumer-
improved complexity of sustainability in European exports and FDI on guidelines incorporating oriented apps which
regulation and daily food choice. changing consumption in existing nutrition and food- profess to give information
information about developing countries (and based guidelines. to consumers about health,
the degree of impacts on THEIR local food social, ethical and
localness in food. systems). environmental values in
food choice.
 Policy
recommendations

Encourage informed reflexivity Catch up with the consumer

14
This can help democratise food policy by promoting GLAMURs more complex assessment of sustainability
sustainable pathways for food chains, built around ev- is already part of consumers framing of sustainabil-
idence rather than assumptions about performance. ity (and many retailers, manufacturers and CSOs are
aware of these framings). This is ahead of scientists
Address policy incoherence and policymakers, and an endorsement of multi-cri-
All levels of governance from global to sub-na- teria approaches. The EU and its member states
tional need to assess their policymaking processes, in- should create sustainable diet guidelines incorporating
cluding monitoring and financial accounting, to help existing nutrition and food-based guidelines; the Direc-
avoid policy incoherence, taking note, for example, of torate Generals (DGs) should collaborate more on im-
inconsistencies in the application and interpretation of proving food sustainability criteria; and Civil Society
supports (eg. subsidies) and tools (eg. Geographic In- Organisations (CSOs) should champion improved reg-
dications). ulation and information about the degree of localness
in food to inform consumers.
Bring local food in from its
policy enclave
GLAMURs evidence supports a shift from agricul-
tural/rural policy to food policy thinking and act-
ing. We make the case for bringing local food in from
its policy enclave in rural development to occupy a
more central position in EU policy alongside locality
foods. This means that mainstream policy instruments
such as food safety - must be adapted to the scale
and diversity of this part of the food system.
Take greater care in the use
of sustainability performance
attributes
A more central place for local food in policy requires
greater care in the use of sustainability perform-
ance attributes and methods. Policymakers,
CSOs, and small and medium sized enterprises
(SMEs) need to be more prudent in using sustainable
and local in the same breath. Multi-criteria sustainabil-
ity assessment challenges existing sustainability sys-
tems to provide a more integrated framing of their
performance using a multi-stakeholder approach.
Ensure policy choices integrate
a more complex version of
sustainability
GLAMUR has accepted a complex version of what is
meant by sustainability. This develops beyond the old
Brundtland tripartite definition which does not have suf-
ficient breadth for the analysis of modern food systems.
GLAMUR has produced case study evidence that indi-
vidual food products carry more complex meanings;
culture, health and ethics are key attributes of
modern foods and food choice.
Call for new research
15
We propose the following areas for further research:
to investigate and refine methodologies (using a
combination of quantitative and qualitative ap-
proaches) for improved sustainability performance
assessment along the local-global continuum and
across the five dimensions (economic, environmen-
tal, social, health and ethical);
to explore the realities and potential of consumer
choice, which currently turns to the local as a proxy
for anti-homogenisation and a more human scale of
control over food. This more complex meaning of
social within sustainability deserves more explo-
ration within consumer culture.
 GLAMURs
Main Messages
Sustainability performance
assessment is a multi-stakeholder
16
concept and a process that is both
multidimensional and multi-scale
1 Multi-criteria sustainability assessment challenges
existing sustainability systems to provide a more in-
tegrated framing of their performance using a multi-
stakeholder approach.
2 Multidimensional and multi-scale performance as-
sessment is a key to sustainable pathways for food
chains; its multi-stakeholder approach moves be-
yond assumptions such as local versus global, and
can provide informed reflexivity on narratives used to
frame the performance of the food system.
Sustainability performance
assessment draws on multiple
values and multiple interests
3 Sustainability performance assessment combines
hard and soft indicators. It acknowledges that cur-
rent methodologies tend to compartmentalise as-
sessment methods and the dimensions of
sustainability; it recognises the value of combining
science-led evidence with socio-cultural values.
4 Sustainability performance assessment draws on
multiple values and multiple interests and for this rea-
son it is subject to contestation. To increase the de-
gree of general validity of sustainability assessment,
public institutions should ensure that it is based on
participation, on transparency of different positions
and distribution of power among stakeholders, and
on a dialogue between science and society.
Sustainability performance
assessment should recognize
difference, but also the
complementarities and synergies
between global and local food
chains
5 Disparity of power between actors in local and
global chains may affect the way performance as-
sessment methodologies are developed. Sustainabil-
ity performance assessment can be based on
recognition of these differences.
6 Sustainability performance assessment needs to de-
tect when coexistence of local and global food
chains create complementarities and synergies. Scale
matters for some sustainability attributes, not for oth-
ers. In some cases scale improves performance, in
others it is the contrary. A generalized, abstract, com-
parative assessment of local and global food
chains as abstract entities cannot be done.
Sustainability performance
assessment can be a tool for
encouraging transition to
sustainability
7 Performance assessment can be a tool for encour-
aging transition to sustainability along the local-global
continuum. In many cases, better performance can
be achieved through localization of more global
chains or through globalization of more local chains.
Performance assessment can capture the dynamics
of this hybridity in food chains as actors endeavour
to improve sustainability performance with their own
solutions.
glamur.eu