Demand Side Innovations Towards Sustainability
Using Stakeholder Workshops
1
By* Jaco N. Quist1, Philip J. Vergragt1 & C. William Young2
Technology Assessment Group, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
2 CROMTEC, Manchester School of Management, UMIST, UK.
* Alphabetical order.
Abstract
With a growing world population and increasing global economic wealth, radical changes to our
production and consumption patterns will need to occur to achieve sustainable development. Some
claim that we have to improve our environmental efficiency by a Factor 4, which would enable the
world to double its wealth while halving its environmental burden. Others stress that we will have
even to fulfil social needs in 2050 twenty times more environmentally efficiently, i.e. by a Factor 20.
Obviously, this will require both technological and cultural changes, which can be characterised in
terms of innovation.
In this paper we aim to explore the relation between innovations towards sustainability from the
demand side. Reference will be made to different types of innovations before we discuss the role of
demand side innovation towards sustainability. A stakeholder workshop methodology will be
presented as an example of organising interaction processes for innovation. The stakeholder
workshop methodology has been developed as part of the European Union funded research project,
‘strategies towards the sustainable household (SusHouse)’. The results of research done in The
Netherlands and the United Kingdom, on sustaining the household function of ‘Shopping, Cooking
and Eating’, are used to illustrate this methodology including the construction of Design Orienting
Scenarios based on the workshop results. The paper concludes as to the applications of this
stakeholder workshop methodology, its limitations, and its implications as to demand-side innovation
processes.
1 Introduction
One of the biggest 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. We need to sustain radically our ways of production and our consumption patterns
within the next decades. 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., 1997]. Others, among them the Dutch governmental programme for
Sustainable Technological Development (STD) and the EU-funded research project ‘Strategies
towards the Sustainable Household (SusHouse)’, 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; Vergragt, 1998]. 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.
It has been argued that eventually technological innovation could find solutions for all environmental
problems through good housekeeping in companies, eco-designed products and incremental
technological innovation. It is our opinion, however, that good housekeeping in companies,
incremental technological innovation and eco-designed products will not be able to attain a worldwide reduction of 90 to 95% of the environmental burden. Nor that sustaining consumption patterns
alone e.g. through green training programmes for consumers will be able to attain that level of
reduction, while our wealth will increase. Nevertheless, in the Netherlands the Eco Team Programme
for consumers, an activity of the Global Action Platform, has shown some remarkable results in
reducing the environmental impact of households [van Luttervelt et al., 1997; Harland and Staats,
1
1997] and, additionally, seems to contribute considerably towards greening consumer demand.
Therefore, to our opinion, solutions will have to be found in technological system innovations in
combination with profound change in lifestyle and culture, reducing resource-intensive modes of
consumption. We mention two attempts here:
1. the STD programme in the Netherlands; and,
2. the European project ‘Strategies towards the sustainable household (Sushouse)’, which will be
elaborated more thoroughly in this paper.
Taking the factor 20 as a challenge for technology at the STD-programme and applying an interactive
and stakeholder-oriented approach combined with back-casting methodology, a number of examples
of sustainable future need fulfilment were developed in need areas like nutrition, housing, and
mobility [STD, 1997]. These examples were elaborated in projects and included not only radical
technological innovations that met the factor challenge but also the identification of cultural and
structural conditions for implementation. During the STD programme it appeared not only that quite a
number of sustainable technologies are available but also that present cultural and structural
conditions restrict their further development and implementation [Aarts, 1997]. The factor 20
innovation projects were very complex due to:
 the large number of variables;
 the large number of actors involved;
 the combination of different innovations
 the soft innovations required (e.g. rules, legislation, paradigms, social structures, perceptions); and,
 the system changes when implementing it in society.
For those kind of complex innovations here we use the term system innovations. Thus, the question
arises: what can be the role of the consumer demand side innovation, especially when considering
long-term innovations towards sustainability?
The SusHouse project, an EU-funded research project concerned with developing and evaluating
strategies for transitions to sustainable households, has been inspired by the STD programme
[Vergragt, 1998]. The starting point is that a combination of technological, cultural and structural
changes is necessary to achieve Factor 20 environmental gain through system innovations. The focus
is on sustaining household function fulfilment and how and what households can contribute to Factor
20 changes. Three household functions are being studied in the SusHouse project:
1. Clothing Care;
2. Shelter; and,
3. Shopping, Cooking, and Eating.
Every function is being studied in three European countries (see Table 1), while six research groups in
the five countries are involved. The Project’s approach [Vergragt, 1998] was applied earlier in the
Sustainable Washing project [Vergragt and Van der Wel, 1998] and has as key elements the broad
involvement of stakeholders and the interactive construction and assessment of scenarios describing
the sustainable fulfilment of household functions. However, the same question arises: what is the role
of the consumer demand side innovation?
Shopping, Cooking, Clothing Care Shelter
& Eating
The Netherlands


UK


Italy


Germany


Hungary

Table 1: Overview of studied household functions and countries
This paper focuses on the role of consumers and consumer demand side innovations towards
sustainability including the perspective that with respect to system innovations, consumers and
2
citizens are important. In addition, it is necessary to mention that this paper’s title refers to demand
side innovations, which should be taken as the influence of consumer demand side innovations
thereby excluding the demand side innovations in business-to-business relations. Reference will be
made to different types of innovations and the role of the consumer demand side innovations before
we discuss theoretical background for the Sushouse approach of organising interaction processes for
innovations towards sustainability. The approach includes a stakeholder workshop methodology and
interactive scenario construction. It will be illustrated by results from workshops held in The
Netherlands and the United Kingdom on sustaining the Shopping, Cooking and Eating function. This
paper has the following sections (following introduction):
 Innovations towards sustainability and the role of the consumer demand side innovation.
 The Sushouse approach: exploring a methodology for system innovations.
 Background of the SCE-function in the Sushouse project.
 Stakeholder workshop methodology & scenario construction.
 Conclusions: a general discussion of the application of the stakeholder workshop methodology.
2 Innovations towards sustainability and the role of the consumer demand
side innovation
In this section three types of innovations towards sustainability are described, following Brezet [1997]
including consumer demand side innovation: product innovation, function innovation and system
innovation. Though it is difficult to bring innovation, production and consumption together in one
research frame, innovation is linked with consumption patterns through production and product usage.
According to Brezet [1997], who also distinguished product redesign - that we left out here – the
innovation types are expected to show a growing environmental gain (from product to system
innovation), while development and implementation time is also expected to be longer.
2.1 Product innovation
Sustainable product innovation (also known as eco-design), is known research field in which
environmental aspects are integrated in early stages of the product innovation process. The aim is to
increase the eco-efficiency of the product whilst also meeting other design criteria. It is possible to
optimise the use materials, energy and toxicity in production, consumption and disposal. While it is
also possible to apply more extended life cycle assessments that evaluate from the cradle to the grave
on a number of environmental themes [Van Hemel and Brezet, 1997].
Concerning the consumer’s role we mention earlier, for consumers the eco-efficiency or the
environmental impact of a product can be a product aspect comparable to the well-known product
attributes. Consumers can incorporate it in their decision making process of buying, but only if they
consider sustainability as a relevant attribute. However, this is after the innovation process. Secondly,
consumers can also create a green demand encouraging sustainable product innovation by buying green,
for example in our introduction we mentioned the Eco Team Programme, which was based on a bottomup empowerment approach. Green demand gives companies the opportunity to sustain their products
and production if consumers (the market) ask for it. However, the opposite happens actually more
regularly as was for instance in the case in of organic foods selling in Dutch supermarkets. Public
interest can also strongly support the creation of a green demand, for example Greenpeace pressuring
fridge manufacturers for CFK free fridges.
Thirdly, a different approach is to involve consumers or their representatives in an early stage of the
design and development process. This can not only reduce the number of market failures, but it. can be
seen as a condition for sustainable product development and can be supported by obtaining insight in
deeper convictions and values of consumers with relation to the product and its usage.
2.2 Function innovation
3
Function innovation focuses on the functions fulfilled by a product or a service, searching for
alternative function fulfilment. It includes both alternative function fulfilment by another product e.g.
meat substituted by vegetable protein foods and by-product service combinations, like laundry
services and car sharing facilities. Function innovation is considered to be important from the
perspective of sustainability. It can lead to dematerialization and it is claimed that the potential for
environmental improvement is higher than of sustainable product development [RMB, 1997] which
was explored further by Goedkoop et al [1999]. Increasing the service component should (partly)
compensate for our growing wealth, while an ever-increasing amount of physical products will
decrease the effect of a growing eco-efficiency per product. Goedkoop et al [199] described a few
examples including the laundry service and car sharing. However, the product-to-service switch does
not always decrease the environmental burden as the example of the food catering sector shows:
eating out requires in most restaurants more direct and indirect energy usage per meal than at home,
though the environmental burden in units of expenditures decreases [Quist et al., 1998].
When considering services as ‘products’, the following are important:
 consumers can take sustainability as a relevant product aspect,
 consumers can create a green demand and
 early involvement of consumers and/or their representatives and combined with a thorough insight
of consumers’ deeper convictions and values related to the function fulfilment.
The latter might be even more important when alternative function fulfilment assumes cultural
changes or affects cultural & non-rational aspects. This is definitely the case with a car sharing system
or the large-scale substitution of meat by vegetarian protein foods having a much lower environmental
impact. In the Novel Protein Foods project at the STD programme it was therefore aimed to develop
Novel Protein Foods that could satisfy all the functions of meat including social status to your guests
and nutritional value, and that were able to replace meat on a large scale in 2040. The latter resulting
in a considerable decrease of the environmental impact of meat production and consumption. The
incorporation of consumer aspects and interests was ensured by thorough consumer research and by
the application of a CTA based method called ‘future images for consumers’ in which not only
representatives from public interest groups participated, but from research bodies, government and
marketing and new business development departments of companies participated as well. [STD, 1996;
Quist et al., 1996].
2.3 System innovations
System innovations are complex innovations due to:
 the large number of variables;
 the large number of actors involved;
 the combination of different innovations, the so called soft innovations required for meeting
cultural and institutional conditions (e.g. rules, legislation, paradigms, social structures,
perceptions); and,
 the system changes when implementing in society.
Though systems can be defined on different levels, systems are on a societal level like industrial
sectors, cities, regions, large infrastructure and households. System innovations are important for a
sustainable development, as combinations of innovations on a system level including technological
and cultural, which are necessary to have sufficient environmental gain.
Concerning the consumers’ role, the Novel Protein Foods project, mentioned earlier, can be taken as
example. As large scale substitution of meat by Novel Protein Foods would lead to considerable
economic changes by the decrease of the meat sector and the expansion of a new protein food sector
[STD, 1996, Quist et al, 1996]. So, the function innovation leads to system changes affecting not only
consumers (due to the assumed change of their consumption pattern), but many other actors including
suppliers and farmers. These consequences on a societal level and make it important not only to involve
consumers early (both in their role as consumer and as citizen), but to involve all affected actor groups
in an early stage of the design and development process.
4
3 The Sushouse approach: exploring a methodology for system innovation
In the previous sections we urged that combinations of technological, cultural and institutional
changes are necessary to achieve considerable environmental gain supporting sustainable
development. Those type of innovations - we use the term system innovations – will be accompanied
by product and function innovations. Additionally, we stated that the involvement of consumers and
organisations representing them, early in the innovation process can be seen as a condition for
innovations towards sustainability, while it can be as important to involve other affected actor groups.
In this section we will focus on the approach applied in the Sushouse project from the perspective of
system innovations as described in this paper. Though the methodology is still under development and
testing in the course of this project, we have explored the background and theories of important
elements including broad stakeholder involvement, interactive construction of scenarios (for the
future sustainable fulfilment of household functions) and consumer acceptance and participation.
We- start describing the Sushouse approach briefly before elaborating some of its background. It is
based on broad and early stakeholder involvement for future function fulfilment [Vergragt, 1998], and
was earlier applied in the Sustainable Washing project [Vergragt and Van der Wel, 1998]. 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. Next, scenarios and results from the analyses will be discussed again with stakeholders
after which modification can be made to increase their credibility.
Important elements and background theories of the Sushouse approach include:
 Interactivity based on a constructivistic or discourse paradigm in which results stem from
processes of social interaction involving various social actors. Both in policy sciences and
dynamics of technology it led to the development of different kind of social network theories in
which actors negotiate for their interest and create a social construction. Those theories were for
example applied in the methodologies of Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) [Schot and
Rip, 1996] and Interactive Technology Assessment (ITA) [Grin et al., 1997] that were meant to
broaden the design process both for technology and policy development. In the Sushouse project
we aim to broaden the design process of the scenarios that can be seen as a constructions based on
the creative ideas and opinions from stakeholders from different societal groups.
 Social interaction between actors and negotiations, which also takes place in CTA and ITA,
leading to societal learning processes about values, attitudes and underlying convictions. This is
called higher order learning [Schot and Rip, 1997] and was for example conceptualised on actor
level by Sabatier [1987]. This is not only important when looking for acceptable creative solutions
for present problems with opposing actors involved, as was proposed by Grin et al. [1997], but it is
also important for finding acceptable creative solutions for future problems like sustainability, as
different societal groups have their own perception of sustainability and how sustainability
problems should be solved.
 Normative scenarios (known as Design Orienting Scenarios DOS in the SusHouse project), play an
essential role in the Sushouse project and are the result from a broadened design process (through
workshops and interviews) in which stakeholders from companies, public interest groups,
consumer organisations, government and research bodies participated. So, the scenarios can be
considered as multi-actor constructions containing future visions that should be credible for the
different stakeholder groups as they do not only incorporate their ideas but also some of their
opinions and values. Of course, it is not likely that the construction process of the Design
Orienting Scenarios following the format developed by Manzini and Jegou [1998a], combines all
creative ideas, values, elements and visions of the participating stakeholders. So, it is necessary to
check if the scenarios are considered to be attractive and under what conditions they could be
5
acceptable for the different stakeholder groups. That can be done by putting iterations in the design
process. In the Sushouse project it is done by consulting the stakeholders about scenarios and
assessments after which scenarios can be modified.
 The enhancement of creativity in the design process and the workshops is necessary in order to
result in new ideas and creative solutions. To achieve this, workshop participants and other
interested actors need to think outside their existing frameworks and are stimulated to examine
how that can lead to new creative innovations including combinations of cultural changes and
technological innovations. So, we aim to broaden the design process in two ways:
 by enhancing the creativity when thinking about new solutions; and,
 by including the ideas and opinions of different societal groups.
 The methodology of back-casting means that first the desired sustainable future vision or
normative scenario is constructed after which it is possible to define the steps or the trajectory how
to reach that sustainable future or proposal that fits in that future. Back-casting enhances the
possibility of identifying radical innovations and changes compared to thinking from the present
situation. The methodology of back-casting was applied before at the STD programme [STD,
1997; Vergragt, 1998]. In the Sushouse project, back-casting will be done after construction and
assessments of the scenarios.
1. Problem Orientation
2. Stakeholder Analysis &
Involvement
3. Stakeholder Creativity
Workshop
4. Scenario Construction
5. Scenario Assessment
6. Back-casting Workshop &
Stakeholder Consultation
7. Realisation and
Implementation
Figure 1 Schematic representation of the Sushouse approach showing the different steps and
possible iterations
Based on the elements discussed above, a number of steps can be distinguished in the Sushouse
approach as shown in Figure 1, starting with a problem orientation and a stakeholder analysis and
ending with realisation and implementation step. The final step towards realisation and
implementation of ideas and proposals from the sustainable scenarios, however, is not included in the
project itself. It can be seen as follow-up or spin-off, which requires activities of actors outside the
present research team, though they can be part of the involved stakeholder group. Figure 1 also shows
the iterations to improve the joint construction of the scenarios based on the assessment results and
stakeholder feedback. Though it is possible to iterate several times, which is indeed suggested
6
following the argumentation circles of the ITA approach [Grin et al, 1997], the number of iterations in
the Sushouse approach is limited to one.
Figure 1 also shows how crucial the interactivity with stakeholders is in the Sushouse project: in an
early stage they bring in their ideas, creativity, visions and opinions, while in a later step their
feedback on scenarios and assessment results will be used to improve the scenarios. As mentioned
earlier workshops are the main vehicle for stakeholder interaction and external inputs in the
innovation process. In the following sections therefore the developed stakeholder workshop
methodology will be elaborated for research carried out in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom
on sustaining the household function of Shopping, Cooking and Eating, including the construction of
the Design Orienting Scenarios based on the results of the creativity workshops.
4 The SCE function in the Sushouse project
The SCE function is a complex one and is in the Sushouse project studied in Hungary, The
Netherlands and the United Kingdom. It covers agriculture, and the inputs to agriculture, through food
processing, shopping, home storing, cooking, and 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]. 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 and determining:
 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:
 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) [Green, 1998; Quist et al., 1998].
Based on all these observations, the SCE-research group defined a four-level supply chain. This is
illustrated in Figure 2. 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 intra-national differences (e.g. between town and
countryside).
The Project is aiming to develop strategies for sustainable Shopping, Cooking and Eating from the
perspective of the household (level 1 in Figure 2), identifying forms of household organisations that
does not externalise the household’s unsustainabilities to the retailing, food processing and
agricultural industries (levels 2-4 in Figure 2).
7
4
3
2
1
CLEARING UP
EATING
T
T
HOME COOKING
SMALL
SCALE
GROWING
TAKE-AWAY
RESTAURANT &
WORK CANTEEN
S
S
S
T
T
RETAILER
T
T
T
T
WHOLESALE
R
T
(SEMI) - PREPARED MEALS
CANNED
FREEZE-DRIED
FROZEN
FRESH FOOD
ADDED-VALUE FRESH
PROCESSED FOODS
T
IMPORTS
(PROCESSED FOODS)
PROCESSABLE INGREDIENTS
T
T
LOCAL
AGRICULTURE
T
Metal & Plastic
manufacturers.
T
Fertilizer & pesticide
/herbicide
manufacturers.
EXPORT
IMPORTS
(AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS)
Figure 2: The SusHouse shopping, cooking and eating supply chain.
KEY:  = flows of goods and services, S = storage & T = transport.
8
EXPORT
5 SCE Workshop Methodology and DOSs
One of the basic ideas of the SusHouse Project is to involve stakeholders in the process of
(re)designing the fulfilment of a household’s needs compatible with the concept of sustainable
development. Achieving a sustainable future is not just a technical issue, but requires enrolment of
and co-operation between social actors/stakeholders; such co-operation is a central issue for the
achievement of drastic changes in production and consumption patterns and arrangements. The
purposes of the project’s stakeholder workshops were [Van der Wel, 1998]:
 To create interaction between relevant actors for discussions of their various points of view.
 To generate new images/visions ('scenarios') of possible future need fulfilment.
 To develop a methodology for the production of broadly endorsed future images and contributions
to a strategy towards the sustainable household.
The aim of the SusHouse stakeholder workshops was to bring together experts from the different
stakeholder groups including companies, public interest groups, government and researchers. The
workshop methodology was developed from van der Wel [1998] and Manzini & Jégou [1998a] and
applied in Hungary, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. This paper concentrates on the latter
two countries. The workshops took place in late 1998.
The SusHouse scenario-building Workshop method consisted of four elements:
 Stakeholder involvement and workshop organisation.
 Acquaintance and introduction.
 Creativity-session (diversification)
 Clustering and elaboration (convergence).
These elements are discussed in general below, with some comments on differences between UK and
the Netherlands.
5.1 Stakeholder involvement and workshop organisation
SCE experts from different stakeholder groups were recruited to participate in the workshops based
on the methodology of Pacchi [1998]. Experts were recruited from the whole SCE supply chain (see
Figure 1) to emphasise that sustainability from the point of view of the household implies a view of
the whole SCE supply chain. Table 2 illustrates the organisations who participated in the British and
Dutch workshops.
Stakeholder category
Consumer & environmental
NGOs
The Netherlands
Dutch Association of Rural Woman
Environmental Information Organisation Milieu Centraal
Dutch Centre for Nutrition
Food Service Sector
Dutch Branch Organisation for Catering
Retail & Wholesale
-
Kitchen equipment
manufacturers
ATAG Kitchen Group
Philips DAP (Domestic Appliances & Personal Care)
Van Kempen & Begeer
Unilever
Boekos meat products and vegetable protein foods
Food producers
Research and Consultancy
Government
Research Station for Floriculture and Glasshouse Vegetables
Kathalys, Centre for Sustainable Product Innovation (2x)
Wageningen Agricultural University, Integrated Food Technology Group
Section of Environmental Product Design, Delft University of Technology
SWOKA, Institute for Strategic Consumer Studies
National Council for Agricultural Research
Ministry of the Environment, Products and Consumers Division
Governmental Programme for Sustainable Technological Development
United Kingdom
Consumers’ Association.
Going for Green.
Institute of Home Economics.
National Food Alliance.
Soil Association.
Tesco Stores Ltd
Union of Shop, Distributing and Allied
Workers (USDAW).
Electrolux Industrial Design Centre.
Institute of Food Science & Technology.
Institute of Packaging.
National Farmers’ Union.
Institute of Food Research.
Leeds Metropolitan University.
Open University.
University of Ulster.
Consumer Panel, Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Fisheries (MAFF).
Table 2: Participants in the stakeholder workshops from the SCE supply and consumption chain.
9
5.2 Acquaintance and introduction
At the start of the Workshop participants meet one another informally, followed by a short
introduction to the SusHouse project, outlining current need fulfilment, its unsustainable aspects and
the challenges for a sustainable future; this is aimed at achieving a shared commitment to the problem
definition as well as a warm-up for creativity brainstorming.
5.3 Creativity session (Diversification)
This session involved a free brainstorm session on ways of achieving sustainability in SCE, using
established brainstorming methods ("every opinion is a good one", "criticism is not allowed", "system
boundaries may be exceeded" etc.)
5.4 Clustering and elaboration (Convergence)
Each group clustered the ideas into more or less coherent groups, followed by further elaboration of
these clusters into concrete proposals for new products and services as well as required cultural and
institutional changes.
The results of the workshops were subsequently developed by the research teams into “Design
Orienting Scenarios” (DOS) using a methodology developed by Manzini & Jégou [1999]. A DOS
aims to stimulate activity (of policymakers etc) to design scenarios for the sustainable household.
Each country has developed three DOSs which include between three and four similar proposals (for
products and services) emerging from the clustering process in the stakeholder Workshops. Each DOS
is a 'vision' which provides a snapshot of a person living in that particular scenario in the year 2050
encompassing all the proposals in that DOS. Table 3 summarises an example of a DOS while table 4
summarises the DOSs developed in The Netherlands and the UK.
'LOCAL & GREEN'
Vision:
Shopping: The household usually goes to the local corner shop for small speciality ingredients, but for regular bulk food we
obtain food from the local food co-operative or go to the local farm. (The regional wholesalers and food processors supply our
local food co-operative and corner shop. Local farms supply them in turn).
Cooking: At meal times we either prepare food in our kitchen or in our street we share the cooking more, or we eat at the local
corner-eating house.
Eating: The food the household eats is what can be grown locally in the North West of England and we can only get fresh food
that is in season (e.g. apples in Autumn, lamb in the Spring, etc.). This means that there will be products unavailable but there
are also local alternatives. All my food is organic, i.e. grown without the use of fungicides/herbicides/pesticides, in a way that
encourages biodiversity.
Proposals:
1.
2.
A large number of eating places for organic food.
A large number of organic food shops (chains or private).
Table 3: An example summarising a Design Orienting Scenario (DOS).
Design Orienting Scenarios
Local & Green
Virtual Shopping
Neighbourhood Food Centre
Hi-tech Eating
The Netherlands
X
X
X
UK
X
X
X
Table 4: DOSs developed from ideas in stakeholder workshops.
6 Conclusions
In this paper we have defined three types of innovations towards sustainability, namely on the product
level, the function level and the system level, each of them having different implementation time
horizons and potential environmental gains. Concerning the role of the consumer demand side
innovations towards sustainability, we have described the creation of a green consumer demand (for
10
which we mentioned several possibilities including the co-ordinated contribution of public interest
groups like Greenpeace). Additionally we mentioned the early involvement of consumers and/or their
representatives in the design and innovation process. Focusing on system innovations we concluded
that not only consumers and the organisations representing them should be involved in an early stage,
but that all affected actor groups should actually be involved.
Next we have described a methodology applied in the Sushouse project as an approach for long-term
system innovations towards sustainability including an exploration of the theoretical background of
the main elements of this approach: interactive normative scenario construction (through workshops)
and the use of interactive constructed normative scenarios as multi-actor constructions. We have
illustrated this by describing in more details the application of the stakeholder workshop methodology
and the construction of Design Orienting Scenarios based on the workshop results. The results for the
SCE function in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom illustrated that stakeholders could develop
numerous and variable ideas which could be grouped and developed into rough scenarios which could
translated into Design Orienting Scenarios. An important issue is that the stakeholder groups involved
in the British and Dutch workshops (including consumer and environmental organisations) were
willing to develop ideas for sustainable shopping, cooking and eating.
However we do not know yet if the DOS-scenarios are really joint constructions supported by a wide
range of social actors, how sustainable they are and whether they are attractive for consumers and
econonically credible. Therefore, three assessments of the DOSs are currently being conducted. The
first is an environmental assessment using indicators to assess if the scenarios achieve a Factor 20
reduction in household environmental impacts. The economic assessment uses a questionnaire to
assess each scenario for economic credibility in areas of competition and employment etc. Finally, the
consumer acceptance analysis uses consumer focus groups to evaluate the acceptability of the
scenarios to European consumers.
Acknowledgements
The authors like to state that their order is only alphabetical and they contributed equally to this paper.
Additionally, 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
 Aarts, W., (1997). Voorbeelden van Duurzame Technologische Ontwikkelingen vergeleken (examples of
sustainable technological developments compared), STD working document DTO3, Delft, The
Netherlands.
 Anonymous (1999), SusHouse workshop verslag: verduurzaming huishoudfunctie Voeden in Nederland
(Sushouse workshop report: sustaining the household function of Nutrition in the Netherlands), internal
document, SusHouse project.
 Brezet, H. (1997). Dynamics in ecodesign practise. In: UNEP IE: Industry and Environment, vol 20, pp. 2124.Green, K. (1998), Shopping, Cooking and Eating Function Format, internal document, SusHouse
project.
 Goedkoop, M.J., van Halen, C.J.G.; te Riele, H.R.M. and Rommens, P.J.M. (1999). Product Service
Systems: ecological and economic basics, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Storrm C.S. and Pre Consultants.
 Green, K., Simms, J., & Young, C.W. (1999), UK Shopping, Cooking and eating Workshop Report,
internal document, SusHouse project.
 Green, K., W. Young, J. Simms, J. Quist and K. Anderson, (1999), ‘Towards Sustainable Shopping, Cooking,
and Eating using Stakeholder Workshops’, 2nd Int. Homes Symposium, Groningen, June 3-4 1999.
11
 Grin, J., H. van de Graaf, R. Hoppe and P. Groenewegen, (1997), Technology Assessment through
interaction – a guide, Rathenau Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands.
 Harland P. and H.J. Staats, (1997), Effecten van het Eco Team Programma op lange termijn: de situatie
2 jaar na deelname (Effects of the Eco Team Programme on the long term), Report E&M/R-97/67,
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Leiden, The Netherlands.
 Hemel, C.G., and Brezet, J.C. (eds.), (1997). EcoDesign; a promising approach to sustainable production
and consumption, UNEP, Paris.
 Manzini, E. & Jégou, F. (1998a), Scenario Building Format, internal document, SusHouse project.
 Manzini, E. & Jégou, F. (1998b), ‘Scenarios for sustainable households’, Greening of Industry Network
Conference, Rome, Nov. 15-18.
 Manzini, E. & Jégou, F. (1999), Design Orienting Scenario: Building Format, internal document,
SusHouse project.
 Noorman, K. J. & Schoot Uiterkamp, T. (Eds.) (1998), Green Households? Domestic Customers,
Environment and Sustainability, Earthscan, London.
 Pacchi, C. (1998), Stakeholder Identification: Task format & Executive Summary, internal document,
SusHouse project.
 Quist , J., O. de Kuijer, A. de Haan, H. Linsen, H. Hermans, I.Larsen, (1996). Restructuring meat
consumption: Novel Protein Foods in 2035, paper at the Greening of Industry Network Conference,
Heidelberg, Nov. 24-27.
 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, Greening of Industry Network Conference, Rome November 15-18, 1998.
 RMB, (1996), Advies Duurzame Consumptie: een reeel perspectief (Advice on Sustainable
Consumption: a reasonable perspective), Dutch Council for the Environment (RMB), The Hague, The
Netherlands.
 Sabatier, P., (1987), ‘Knowledge, Policy-oriented Learning, and Policy Change’, Knowledge, 8, 649-692.
 Schot, J. and A. Rip, (1996), ‘The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment’, Technol.
Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 251-268.
 STD, (1996). Novel Protein Foods in 2035: anders eten in een duurzame toekomst (in Dutch), STDoffice, Delft, The Netherlands.
 STD, (1997), Visie en sleutels tot een duurzame welvaart (Vision and keys to sustainable prosperity),
STD office, Delft, The Netherlands.
 Tansey, G. & Worsley, T. (1995), The Food System – A Guide, Earthscan, London.
 Van der Wel, M. (1998), Workshop Organisation, internal document, SusHouse project.
 Van Luttervelt, Harland, P., Staats H.J. & Stoffers, M. (1997), ‘Het Eco Team Programma’, in: Handboek
Milieucommunicatie, Samson Press, The Netherlands.
 Vergragt, P. & Jansen, L. (1993), Sustainable Technological Development: the making of a long-term
oriented technology programme, Project Appraisal, 8, No. 3, 134-140.
 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,
Greening of Industry Network Conference, Rome November 15-18, 1998.
 Vergragt, P. & van der Wel, M. (1998), ‘Back-casting: An Example of Sustainable Washing’; in: Roome, N.
(Ed), Sustainable Strategies for Industry, 171-184, Island Press, Washington DC.
 Von Weizsäcker, E., Lovins, A.B. & Lovins, H.L. (1997), Factor Four. Doubling Wealth - Halving
Resource Use, The New Report to the Club of Rome, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London
 Weterings, R.A.P.M. & Opschoor, J.B. (1992), The Environmental Capacity as a Challenge to
Technology Development, RMNO (Advisory Council for Research on Nature and Environment), Rijswijk,
The Netherlands.
12