Towards sustainable shopping, cooking and eating in the
Netherlands: a new strategy aiming at sustainable food
consumption and production systems in future1
Jaco Quist
Technology Assessment Group, Delft University of Technology,
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management,
De Vries van Heijstpl. 2, NL-3028 RZ Delft,
email: j.n.quist@tbm.tudelft.nl
Abstract. This paper describes part of the project ‘Strategies towards the Sustainable
Household – Sushouse’. The Sushouse project is concerned with developing and evaluating
strategies for transitions to sustainable households. This paper presents results from the
research on the Shopping, Cooking and Eating function in the Netherlands including the
interactive construction and assessment of sustainable scenarios for 2050. It concludes that it
is very well possible to involve stakeholders in multi-actor innovation processes towards
sustainability using stakeholder workshops and scenarios.
Keywords: sustainability, nutrition, scenarios, households, technological & cultural change
1. Introduction
One of the major issues at the turn of the 20th century is how to achieve sustainable
development in which the environmental burden will decrease while the world population is
growing and global wealth increases. Some claim that we have to improve our environmental
efficiency by a Factor 4 which would enable the world to double our wealth while halving the
environmental burden (Von Weizsäcker et al. 1998). Others, among them the Dutch
governmental programme for Sustainable Technological Development (STD) and the
SusHouse project, stress that we will have to fulfil social needs in 2050 twenty times more
environmentally efficiently - which means by a Factor 20 (Vergragt and Jansen 1993,
Weterings and Opschoor 1992).
Factor 20 in 2050 is based on a doubling of the world population combined with a fivefold
increase of wealth per capita while halving the total global environmental burden. Applying
an interactive and stakeholder-oriented approach at the STD programme combined with backcasting methodology, a number of examples of sustainable future need fulfilment were
developed in need areas like nutrition, housing, and mobility (Weaver et al 2000). These
example projects included radical technological innovations that met the factor challenge and
the identification of cultural and structural conditions for implementation. One of the projects
focused on the future development of Novel Protein Foods that could take over the dietary
and cultural role of meat, but can be produced many times more environmentally friendly
than present meat production (Quist et al. 1996).
1 Paper for the Shaping the Future Conference at the EXPO 2000 in Hanover, revised version April 2000.
1
Concerning the factor 20, it is assumed here that neither good housekeeping in companies,
incremental technological innovation, eco-designed products, nor sustainable consumption
alone will be able to attain a world-wide reduction of 90-95% of the environmental burden.
From the viewpoint of sustainability it is also important to realise that production and
consumption systems are interdependent and that they are connected to each other through
distribution, retail and shopping. SusHouse (Strategies towards the Sustainable Household), a
EU-funded research project concerned with developing and evaluating strategies for
transitions to sustainable households, recognises these viewpoints (Vergragt 1998). The
Sushouse project focuses on three household functions and shares with the STD programme
the ambition to fulfil needs twenty times more environmentally efficiently in the future.
This paper describes part of the Sushouse project and deals with the Shopping, Cooking and
Eating function (SCE) which is being studied in Hungary, The Netherlands and the United
Kingdom (see also Table 1) and focuses on results from SCE research in the Netherlands.
2. SusHouse background and methodology
The starting point of the Sushouse project is that a combination of technological, cultural and
structural changes is necessary to achieve Factor 20 through system innovations. Next to the
Shopping, Cooking and Eating function, the Shelter function and the Clothing Care functions
are studied in the SusHouse project. Every household function is being studied in three
European countries (see Table 1), while six research groups in the five countries are involved.
It is worthwhile to mention that the Project aims to develop strategies for sustainable
household functions from the perspective of the household, without externalising the
household’s unsustainabilities to the retailing, manufacturing or primary production
industries.
Table 1 Overview of the household functions and the countries were these are studied
The Netherlands
UK
Italy
Germany
Hungary
Shopping, Cooking,
Eating (Nutrition)
Clothing Care
X
X
X
X
X
Shelter
X
X
X
X
The Project’s approach (Vergragt 1998) was applied earlier in the Sustainable Washing
project (Vergragt and Van der Wel 1998) and is briefly as follows. With the help of
stakeholders from industry, government, universities, and public interest groups (through
interviews and creativity workshops), the project group formulates normative scenarios of
possible developments of these household functions for the year 2050, including
technological and cultural innovations. The scenarios will be evaluated as to whether they
decrease the overall environmental burden, whether they are economically credible and
whether they are acceptable to European consumers. Finally, the DOSs and the assessment
results are discussed by stakeholders through a 2nd workshop focusing on strategies, policy
recommendations and implementation proposals for moving households towards the
scenarios. A more detailed discussion on the methodological background can be found
elsewhere (Quist et al. 1999, 2000).
2
3. Shopping, Cooking and Eating
The SCE function is a complex one. It covers agriculture, and the inputs to agriculture,
through food processing, shopping, home storing, cooking, eating, to the disposal of waste
and of consumer durables. The food industry, including primary agricultural production, is a
major employer in all countries considerably contributing to the economy, but also a
phenomenal user of energy and other inputs (Tansey & Worsley 1995), what is definitely the
case in the Netherlands. It involves issues of nutritional balance and adequacy, and
incorporates strong cultural and emotional aspects. It includes decisions of household
members influencing consumption and purchasing patterns, determining (Quist et al. 1998):
 the balance between eating-in and eating-out/home delivery/take-away;
 the timing and types of meals eaten;
 the balance between pre-prepared and unprepared food;
 the organisation of cooking and shopping; and,
 how much food is grown in hobby gardens and how much is bought.
These decisions of household members have direct implications for (Quist et al. 1998):
 the food service sector (eating-out versus take-away and home delivery);
 the retailing sector (purchase from supermarkets or smaller food retailers, direct purchase
from wholesalers, direct purchase from growers); and,
 the food-processing sector (different patterns of household eating will change the balance
between different processing methods).
Based on all these observations, the SCE-research group defined a four-level Food
Consumption and Production System. This definition of the SCE supply chain is in general
terms because the precise structure of each level will differ between the three countries.
However, the precise structure will not only depend on the country but in some cases on intranational differences (e.g. between town and countryside). Considering the reduction of the
environmental impacts of the Food Consumption and Production System, several approaches
can be distinguished including (Quist et al. 1998):
 decreasing the environmental burden of food products in the production chain;
 improving the performance of (new) kitchen equipment (for households and the food
service sector), especially decreasing energy usage;
 changing human behaviour at home (heavily) influencing the usage of inputs and the
volume of (food) waste produced;
 adding value by adding service can be an interesting strategy to decrease environmental
burdens.
4. Sustainable scenarios for SCE in the Netherlands
Scenario construction was based on the results from the stakeholder creativity workshop for
SCE in the Netherlands (Quist and Maas 1999, Quist 2000) and followed the Design
Orienting Scenarios (DOS) methodology developed by Manzini and Jegou (1998). The aim of
the stakeholder creativity workshops was to bring together experts and representatives from
the different stakeholder groups including companies, public interest groups, government,
researchers and possible future stakeholders in order to generate ideas and concepts for
sustainable function fulfilment in future (Quist et al. 1999, 2000). DOS type scenarios for the
3
fulfilment of household functions include a vision describing the general atmosphere and the
main characteristics of sustainable function fulfilment. Additionally, it contains proposals for
product-service systems that contribute to the realisation of the sustainable function fulfilment
and a snapshot living in that particular scenario in the year 2050 encompassing all the
proposals in that DOS while supported by visualisations. For SCE in the Netherlands the
following DOS were developed (Quist 2000):
1. Intelligent Cooking & Storing (ICS). This DOS is about a household that can be
characterised by high-tech, convenience, do it your self and acceleration of life. Kitchen
and food management are optimised with help of intelligence, water and energy are reused where possible and the intelligence helps ordering (electronically) and delivery.
Meals are either based on a mixture of sustainable ready-made and pre-prepared
components (including vegetarian or novel protein foods replacing meat) or ready-made
meals having a chip communicating with the microwave how to cook it properly.
Packaging is biodegradable and contains a chip with relevant consumer information about
origin and treatment and preparation.
2. Super-Rant (SR, Neighbourhood food centre). This DOS combines elements from the
present supermarket and restaurants in a neighbourhood food centre in a compact city
where you can go for having your meal (e.g. by a subscription to the neighbourhood
cook), food shopping, purchasing a take-away meal or eating together for different prices.
In many households only the microwave, a water cooker and a small fridge are left. Waste
is collected and used for local energy production. Foods are grown sustainable.
3. Local Green Diet (LGD). In this DOS household members buy and eat seasonal foods
that are locally grown and purchased at local shops, small supermarkets, from the grower
or the hobby garden as ‘fresh’ unprocessed ingredients. Imported products are still
available but limited and expensive due to the incorporation of environmental costs.
5. Assessment of DOSs
Three assessments of the DOSs have been conducted to investigate how sustainable they are,
whether they are attractive for consumers and whether they are economically credible. The
first is the consumer acceptance analysis using consumer focus groups to evaluate the
acceptability of the scenarios to European consumers. The environmental assessment uses
indicators to assess if the scenarios achieve a Factor 20 reduction in household environmental
impacts. Finally, the economic assessment uses a questionnaire to assess each scenario for
economic credibility in areas of competition, employment, etc. Results are only briefly
described here, while more detailed elaboration of the assessment results can be found
elsewhere (Quist 2000).
Focus group research revealed that consumers consider the DOS ‘Intelligent Cooking and
Storing’ to be the most probable one, fitting very well to young people. Nevertheless, some
elements were rejected especially when people thought they would run out of control. The
DOS ‘Local Green Diet’ was rather popular too, especially due to the garden and the focus on
local small scale production systems, while the restricted supply of varieties did not seem to
be a large barrier. The DOS ‘Super-Rant met most criticism, mainly related to the elements
‘minimising the kitchen’ and ‘group-wise eating’, though the service component was
appreciated.
4
Preliminary results from the environmental assessment indicate that environmental benefits
stem from the use of sustainable grown ingredients in all DOSs, while additional benefits
stem from biodegradable packaging and kitchen optimisation (cascade usage of resources) in
the DOS ‘Intelligent Cooking and Storing’, local up-scaling of meals and addition of service
in the DOS ‘Super-Rant’ and last but not least local production, home composting and
unprocessed foods in the DOS ‘Local Green Diet’.
The economic analysis indicates roughly that the DOS ‘Intelligent Cooking and Storing’
offers opportunities for kitchen appliance and system manufacturers, supermarkets increasing
their service and co-operating with mail house delivers and producers of biodegradable
packaging, while the influence of primary agricultural producers will decrease. The DOS
‘Super-Rant’ is attractive for both the catering sector and the supermarket sector, while
eventually the two sectors might merge. The DOS ‘Local Green Diet’ is attractive for local
and regional producers including farmers, though the regional orientation and low levels of
processing will strongly affect the existing food system.
6. Conclusions
This paper has illustrated a methodology which was developed as part of the Sushouse project
having both a ‘constructive’ participatory design component and an assessment component. It
presents results of research on the SCE function in the Netherlands. The results of the
application of this methodology illustrated that stakeholders from different societal groups
were willing not only to participate in workshops but also to share and develop ideas for
sustainable shopping, cooking and eating in future. The numerous and variable ideas could be
grouped in Design Orienting Scenarios and assessment results indicate that all DOS have
definitely an environmental gain, that consumers were very capable of evaluating these future
scenarios and have preferences (and rejections) for specific scenarios and scenario elements
and that each DOS offers specific economic opportunities and threats.
However, the Sushouse project does not aim to develop the most sustainable scenario but
supports the development of more sustainable alternatives to present lifestyles. In future it is
very likely that the developed DOSs, which can also be seen as lifestyles, will exist at the
same time, while it is also possible that elements will be rearranged, resulting in other DOSs
and lifestyles. However, such combining should not lead to a decrease of the environmental
efficiency gain. A second stakeholder workshop scheduled for early 2000 was supposed to
deal with this when giving feedback on the results, but to focus on realisation and
implementation of (elements of) the developed DOS as well. Results included necessary
technological and cultural changes, suggestions for improving the DOSs, implementation
proposals and supporting policy recommendations. This is relevant as development and
implementation by stakeholders is necessary for realising the environmental improvements.
Finally, the Sushouse methodology has also been conducted on SCE in the United Kingdom
and Hungary and on the other two SusHouse functions, namely: Shelter and Clothing Care.
Hence, the methodology has been applied nine times in five European countries and next
steps include international cross cultural comparisons possible not only within each function
but for the different assessments as well. This is scheduled for mid 2000, though some
preliminary comparisons for SCE have been presented (Green et al. 1999, Young et al 2000).
5
acknowledgement
The SusHouse project is a collective endeavour of six research groups in five European
countries which are: Technology Assessment Group, Delft University of Technology, (the
Netherlands); Szeged College of Food Industry (Hungary); Dept. of Industrial Design,
Politecnico di Milano (Italy), Avanzi (Milano, Italy), Manchester School of Management,
UMIST (UK), Lehrstuhl Markt und Konsum (Universitat Hannover, Germany). The
contributions of all involved researchers to the project methodology and discussions have
been essential to the work described in this paper. This research has been supported by the EU
DG 12 Environment and Climate RTD Programme, Contract no. ENV4-CT97-446.
References
Green K., Quist J., Szita Toth K., Toth L. and Young W. (1999) Scenarios for Shopping, Cooking and
Eating in 2050: a three-country study, paper 8th GIN Conf. Ways of Knowing Stream, November 1999,
Manzini E. & Jégou F. (1998), ‘Scenarios for sustainable households’, in: Brand, E. de Bruijn, T. & Schot, J.
(eds.), Partnerships and Leadership Building Alliances for a Sustainable Future, Proceedings, Greening of
Industry Network Conference, Rome November 15-18.
Quist J, Knot M, Young W, Green K, Vergragt P. (2000, forthcoming), ‘Strategies Towards Sustainable
Households Using Stakeholder Workshops and Scenarios’, submitted the Int. Journal of Sustainable
Development’s special issue on sustainable household consumption.
Quist JN, Vergragt PJ and Young CW (1999). Demand Side Innovations Towards Sustainability Using
Stakeholder Workshops, 5th Int. ASEAT Conference Demand, Markets, Users and Innovation: Sociological
and Economic Approaches, 14-16 September 1999, Manchester
Quist, J & Maas Th., (1999), SusHouse workshop report: sustaining the household function of Nutrition in the
Netherlands, internal document, SusHouse project, DUT (in Dutch).
Quist J (2000), Towards Sustainable Shopping, Cooking and Eating in the Netherlands: full report, Sushouse
project, DUT, The Netherlands.
Quist J, Szita Toth K, Green, K (1998), ‘Shopping, Cooking and Eating in the Sustainable Household’, in:
Brand, E. de Bruijn, T. & Schot, J. (eds.), Partnerships and Leadership Building Alliances for a Sustainable
Future, Proc. Greening Industry Network Conference, Rome.
Quist J, De Kuijer O., De Haan A, Linsen H, Hermans H, Larsen I (1996). Restructuring meat consumption:
Novel Protein Foods in 2035, paper at the Greening of Industry Network Conf., Heidelberg, Nov. 24-27.
Tansey G, Worsley T (1995), The Food System – A Guide, Earthscan, London.
Vergragt P (1998) The Sustainable Household: Technological and Cultural Changes, in: Brand, E., de Bruijn, T.
& Schot, J. (eds.), Partnerships and Leadership Building Alliances for a Sustainable Future, Proceedings
Greening of Industry Network Conference, Rome Nov. 15-18.
Vergragt PJ, Jansen L, (1993) Sustainable Technological Development: the making of a long-term oriented
technology programme, Project Appraisal, Vol. 8 no. 3 pp. 134-140.
Vergragt P, Van der Wel M (1998), Back-casting: An Example of Sustainable Washing; in: N. Roome (ed.),
Sustainable Strategies for Industry, pp 171-184, Island Press, Washington DC.
Von Weizsäcker E, Lovins AB, Lovins HL (1997) Factor Four. Doubling wealth - Halving resource use, The
new report to the Club of Rome, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.
Weaver P, Jansen L, Van Grootveld G, van Spiegel E, Vergragt P (2000) Sustainable Technology Development,
Greenleaf Publishers, Sheffield.
Weterings RAPM, Opschoor JB (1992) The environmental capacity as a challenge to technology development,
Advisory Council for Research on Nature & Environment (RMNO), Rijswijk, NL.
Young CW, Quist J Green K, (2000). Strategies for sustainable shopping, cooking and Eating 2050 – Suitable
for Europe?, Proc. Int. Sustainable Development Research Conf. 2000, Leeds, April 13-14, pp. 430-437.
6