International Sustainable Development Research Conference 2000
STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE SHOPPING, COOKING AND
EATING FOR 2050 – SUITABLE FOR EUROPE?
By
C. William Young*, Jaco Quist** and Ken Green*
*CROMTEC, Manchester School of Management, UMIST, UK.
**Technology Assessment Group, Delft University of Technology, The
Netherlands
Abstract
The paper will report results from a part of the SusHouse (Strategies Towards the Sustainable
Household) project. This is an EU-funded research project concerned with developing and
evaluating strategies to bring about household activities that are more sustainable. Three
household functions are being studied in the SusHouse project: Clothing Care, Shelter,
Shopping, Cooking and Eating. This paper focuses on the results of the latter household
activity from The Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
The project has used experts from different stakeholder groups to develop scenarios for
sustainable shopping, cooking and eating for 2050 based on a Factor 20 reduction in
associated environmental impacts. These scenarios were assessed for economic credibility,
environmental reductions and consumer acceptance. A second set of workshops developed
strategies and policies for moving households towards the scenarios. Methodology and
results from the second set of workshops in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom are
reported. The paper also discusses if the developed strategies and policies can be
implemented at a European level.
Introduction
One of the major issues at the turn of the 21st century is how to achieve environmental sustainability,
in the context of an increasing environmental burden, a growing world population growing and
increasing global wealth. Some claim that we have to improve our environmental efficiency by a
Factor 4, enabling the world to double its wealth while halving the environmental burden (Von
Weizsäcker et al., 1997). Others, including the Dutch governmental programme for Sustainable
Technological Development (STD) and our 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, i.e. by Factor 20 (Weterings & Opschoor, 1992; Vergragt & Jansen,
1993; Vergragt, 1998).
A Factor 20 efficiency improvement by 2050 is in response to an assumed doubling of the world
population, combined with a fivefold increase of wealth per capita, with a halving of the total global
environmental burden. This requires not only that we considerably change our production processes,
but also our consumption patterns taking into account that these are strongly interconnected and
interdepentdent (for a review on household consumption and its environmental impact see e.g.
Noorman and Schoot Uiterkamp, 1998). It has been argued solutions to all environmental problems
could be arrived through good housekeeping and incremental technological innovation. However it is
unlikely that technological solutions alone will lead to a 90-95% worldwide reduction of environmental
burden, energy consumption and emissions per capita. On the other hand it is also unlikely that
greening consumption patterns alone are the key when prosperity grows. Technological solutions will
have to be combined with profound social changes: in lifestyle and culture, reducing resourceintensive modes of consumption.
1
This paper describes part of the SusHouse (Strategies towards the Sustainable Household) project
that is exploring possible strategies for the sustainable household based on Factor 20 by the year
2050. The SusHouse project assumes that a combination of technological, cultural and institutional
changes are necessary to achieve a Factor 20 improvement in environmental impacts and explores
what and how households can contribute to it. This improvement is analysed from the point of view of
the household’s contribution in achieving Factor 20. Key elements of the project include broad
stakeholder participation in the interactive construction and assessment of sustainable normative
scenarios (referred to as Design Orienting Scenarios – DOSs in the SusHouse project). The overall
approach is rooted in disciplines like Constructive Technology Assessment, Technology & Industrial
Design Studies and Participatory Policy Analysis, while constructivism and actor learning processes
are important too (for a more detailed elaboration on this matter, see Quist et al, 1999).
Shopping, Cooking
& Eating
Germany
Hungary
Italy
Netherlands
UK
Clothing Care
Shelter









Table 1: Overview of where the household functions are being studied
The project has divided the household into three areas or functions, namely: Clothing Care,
Shelter and Shopping, Cooking and Eating (SCE). The SusHouse project is being studied in
five European countries by six research teams but each household function is studied in just
three countries, (see Table 1). The SusHouse project has various stages, from stakeholder
workshops generating ideas and the development of Design Orienting Scenarios (DOSs), to
assessments and strategy workshops, (see Figure 1). The SusHouse project is stakeholderoriented and interactions mainly take place through workshops. Utilising the knowledge and
experience of experts from different stakeholder groups from industry, government,
universities, and public interest groups (through a first set of creatiivity workshops), the project
group is formulating normative scenarios of possible developments of these household
functions for the year 2050, including technological and cultural innovations. The DOSs have
been evaluated for decreased environmental burden, economic credibility and whether they
are acceptable to European consumers. Finally, the DOSs and the assessment results were
discussed by stakeholders (through workshops) and strategies and policies developed for
moving households towards the scenarios. The project has completed the second set of
workshops and is evaluating the results.
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: The stages in the SusHouse project.
2
This paper will focus on the household area of Shopping, Cooking and Eating (SCE) in The
Netherlands and the United Kingdom (Green, 1998; Quist et al., 1998). This paper contains the
following sections:
 Background: the household function of 'Shopping, Cooking and Eating' (SCE), also
dealing with some main characteristics and the identified unsustainabilities.
 A description of the Design Orienting Scenarios (DOS) developed following the stakeholder
workshops.
 Results from the strategy workshops.
 A general discussion of the developed strategies and it applicability to European policy.
Background to the Shopping, Cooking and Eating (SCE) function
The Shopping, Cooking and Eating (SCE) area is a complex one. It covers agriculture,
(including the inputs to agriculture), through food processing, food shopping, home storing,
cooking, eating, clearing away, to the disposal of associated food waste. 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, chemicals 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 versus direct
purchase from wholesalers and 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).
The Project is aimed to develop strategies for sustainable Shopping, Cooking and Eating from
the perspective of the household, identifying organisational forms for the household, without
externalising the household’s unsustainabilities to the retailing, food processing and
agricultural industries. As stated in the introduction, stakeholder workshops developed ideas
of sustainable shopping, cooking and eating which were developed into Design Orienting
Scenarios (DOSs) which are presented in the next section.
Design Orienting Scenarios (DOS)
The results of the stakeholder creativity workshops were developed by the research teams
into Design Orienting Scenarios (DOS) using a methodology developed by Manzini & Jégou
(1999). A DOS in the Sushouse project can be seen as a design for a much more sustainable
fulfilment of a household function in future enabling to develop trajectories and proposals
contributing to the realisation of a particular DOS and aiming to stimulate activity of key actors
(policymakers, companies, researchers etc.) concerning the implementation of trajectories
and proposals. 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. A typical DOS consists of a vision, a story-board and proposals for
product-service systems. Each DOS has a 'story-board' which provides a snapshot of a
person living in that particular scenario in the year 2050 encompassing all the proposals in
that DOS (for further information see Manzini & Jégou, 1999). The DOS also contains
essential characteristics highlighting how the household would operate in terms of shopping,
storing, cooking, eating, clearing away and wastage. The essential characteristics also
3
contain a preliminary environmental assessment of the DOS, highlighting potential reductions
or increases in environmental impacts of the DOS. Table 2 summarises the DOSs developed
in the Shopping, Cooking and Eating household function by The Netherlands and the UK.
Design Orienting Scenarios
The
Netherlands
X
UK
Hi-tech Eating
The household contains various hi-tech pieces of equipment for storing,
cooking, eating and wastage, e.g. ‘smart’ cooker that either reads the ‘smart’
packaging on the food or scans the bar code from the bulk food packaging for
cooking information and an intelligent eco-efficient fridge. Water and energy
is re-used as much as possible in the house. All appliances are either rented
because they are so expensive or if they are bought the appliance’s lifetime
energy has to be bought at the same time.
X
X
Neighbourhood Food Centre (Super-Rant)
At diner meal times households members go to the Neighbourhood Food
Centre Super-Rant, combining elements from the 20th century supermarket
and restaurant and where they can have an individual catering subscription to
the neighbourhood cook and can eat together or take the meal home. In the
Supermarket part of the Super-Rant people can do their food shopping and
many people have put away their kitchen, only the fridge, microwave, water
cooker and coffee machine are left..
X
Local & Green
Food is supplied from local, organic sources. People eat in street corner
eating-houses, or purchase food in local street corner shops to prepare and
eat at home. People prefer unprocessed foods and do not use ready-mades
& convenience products.
Virtual Shopping
Food is selected and purchased using ‘interactive’ Net shopping in virtual
reality from the household. The food is delivered to either direct to the
household or to the household’s local ‘street distributor’.
X
X
Table 2: DOSs developed from ideas in the stakeholder workshops.
Both countries have developed two similar DOSs from the stakeholder workshop ideas,
namely: Local and Green and Hi-tech Eating. Each country has also developed separate
DOSs, which may be an indication of the differences and similarities between the two
countries. In the Netherlands, the food service sector is growing steadily and is considered an
attractive strategy for adding value thereby reducing the environmental impact per unit of
expenditure, especially when wealth grows in future. However, it will require strong
improvements and changes in the sustainability of the ingredients, the efficiency of
professional kitchen equipment and the behaviour of the people working in the catering sector
for a strong reduction in environmental impacts. The Virtual Shopping DOS developed in the
UK highlights some trends towards internet shopping and the associated reductions in
shopping transport environmental impacts.
Following the development of the DOSs in The Netherlands and the UK, three assessments
of the DOSs were conducted, this is discussed in the next section.
DOS assessments
Following the developments of the DOSs, three assessments were conducted for
environmental reductions, economic credibility and consumer acceptance. The environmental
assessment used indicators to assess if the DOSs achieved a Factor 20 reduction in
household environmental impacts. It will be elaborated more thoroughly in another paper at
this conference (Bras & Knot, 2000). The economic assessment used a questionnaire to
assess each DOS for economic credibility in areas of competition and employment etc.
Finally, the consumer acceptance used consumer focus groups to evaluate the acceptability
of the DOSs to European consumers and aimed to identify consumer adoptor profiles for
specific DOSs. It appeared that consumers are very capable of evaluating the presented
scenarios for the far future and could easily explain if and how they could fit in their present
4
way of life. Tables 3 summarises three UK and 1 NL DOS assessment results as an example,
while more detailed elaborations will be available soon (Quist, 2000; Young, 2000).
Super-Rant (NL)
Reduction of water usage
Reduction of packaging waste
Reduction of Equipment a& SCE related
energy usage in the household

Strong increase of energy usage related
to eating out which can be larger than
than than the reduction in the household.

Pesticide manufacturing industry – major 
Less SCE related worksho in the
reduction.
household

Localisation of agriculture supply.

Merging of Retailers & Foods servicers

Processing in regional organisations.

Increasing Food service sector

Retailers from large supermarkets to

Less food shopping due to eating in
numerous smaller local shops.
Super-Rant

Current local organic retailers –

Wholesale deliver less to retalers & more
advantage.
to Fcaterrers

Increase in the number organic eating
Different types of supply chains possible
place.
(botth local& green and global large
scale)

Less need for consumer food packaging

Kitchen manufacturers change to
professional market
Liked:
Liked

Seasonality.

Take-away possiblitlities

Communal arrangement.

Return packaging

Sociability.

Hiring well equipped kitchens

Organic.
Disliked

Locally grown food.

No kitchen
Disliked:

Eating in group

Lack of choice.

Not choosing yourself

(to) Little privacy
Environmental assessment 



Economic analysis
Consumer acceptance
Local & Green (UK)
Reduction in pesticide use.
Reduction in food transport.
Reduction in home cooking.
Reduction in packaging



Table 3: Example UK & Dutch SCE DOS assessment results.
Strategy workshops
The strategy workshops aimed not only to develop strategies and policies to start to move
society towards the DOSs, but focused on the development of implementation proposals,
concrete stakeholder co-operation around such proposals, research agendas (for lacking
knowledge) and concrete short term follow-up as well. The workshops consisted of
stakeholders from the shopping, cooking and eating supply chain including representatives
from government, business, research and public interest groups with policy implementation
roles or knowledge within their organisations and were essentially based on the methodology
developed by Van der Wel & Quist (1999). The stakeholders brainstormed the strategies and
policies based on the DOSs and the associated assessment results, while they could also
give feedback on DOSs and assessment results for instance with respect to unforeseen
effects. The UK strategy workshop results are summarised in table 4, while for the SuperRant DOS results from the Netherlands are added. Presently, workshop results are being
translated into an action agenda containing not only policy recommendations (both generic
and specific for DOS realisation), but concrete implementation proposals for new productservice systems and identified knowledge gaps as well.
5
Local and Green Results (UK):

Price signals – distance taxes (different taxes for different modes of transport) and boundary taxes.

Legislation to regulate imports and exports.

Local planning legislation to protect and maintain agricultural land and the move to smaller numerous farms.

Local credit card, if buy from e.g. Manchester area rewards local people shopping locally.

Support local farming groups – develop local food economy, financial support and incentives.

Place VAT on ‘luxury’ food imported except food imported for nutrition.

Develop Local Economy for example using Local Economic and Trading Scheme (LETS).

Subsidies to organic growers – conversion and support.

Tax on pesticides feeding into organic growers subsides.

Information to farmers on organic methods – share best practice through National Farmers Union (NFU),
charities or government bodies.

Instigate waste management programme by water companies – share best practice.

Household training in cooking skills – schools and commercial.

Multi-functional communal kitchens, e.g. schools feed neighbourhood.

Tax breaks for local ‘eating houses’ and tax eating in home.

National standards – organic and hygiene – Food Standards Agency.

Government and Food Standards Agency (FSA) could create network of Public eating-places.

Town infrastructure maintain/refurbishment/create markets (venue – street and indoor) with good access
planning through local planning and retailers.

Reverse out of town planning trends and legislation (PPG6) for town centre with externality taxes.

Have all shops under one roof including pharmacy and CAB.
Virtual Shopping results (UK):

Retailers provide internet equipment.

Local public access – universal for all – internet equipment installed in houses and community centres.

Subsidy on ‘on-line’ shopping – incentive scheme, e.g. computers for schools.

Tax on parking spaces including supermarkets.

Hygiene policy (HACCP) for food delivery and ‘street distribution’.

Security – Locked coded fridge 2 – sided.

Village warehouse for storage through groups of people such as co-operatives.

Open schools as food distribution centres – provide budget for staffing.

Local delivery point from bulk place – able pay premium for disabled and old.

Overhaul legislation on labelling etc – provide a relatively high level of minimum standard.

Managed central database of dietary and environmental information – provided by manufacturers – provide Chief
Medical Officer information.

Simplify packaging – standardisation e.g. 10 jars/boxes (labelling on Net) – legislation.

Waste return – picked up by food supplier – industry legislated to do it.

Storage for week – Local Government provides storage on street.

E-money – smart-card – financial institutes.
Hi-Tech Eating (UK):

Appliance rental legislation or life cycle costs – disposal taxes.

Energy purchased annually or similar for appliances.

Meter energy use and receive rebate if use less than agreed/allocated.

Labelling – cost of electricity over lifetime – mandatory disclosure of running costs by sales staff – legal
requirement of sales contract to customer (plain English).

Mandatory home economics and ‘life’ skills at school including energy efficiency and running costs.

Returnable fridges with deposits.

FSA tests with public confidence – independent for GM food.

Subsidies for GM farms.

Local Government provide separator machinery and services for recycling etc.

Compulsory use of waste separator– fines.

No bin collections.

Demos of equipment in community by appliance manufacturers.

Requirement for equipment installation in house building regulations.

Help and support services – legal requirements for manufacturers.
Super-Rant (NL):

Food quality control is important when the whole neighbourhood eats in the Super-Rant.

Concept offers opportunities for combining functions: Super-Rant at night in school or company canteens.

Combining Catering & Retail logistics & Supply will increase the environmental efficiency.

Strong reduction of environmental impact catering sector is necessary: it requires new technology, improved
resource usage, sustainable supply chains & changes in present practice.

Values in this DOS wiil be important in future and should be stimulated (for instance by the government).

Pilots could be done by co-operating restaurant (chains) and retailers with support by local authorities in new
quarters and on the countryside.
Table 4: SCE Stakeholder Workshop Results
6
Conclusions
The results of this research indicate that the food consumption and shopping habits in relation
with the food production system should drastically change to achieve a Factor 20 reduction in
our environmental impacts in the future. The DOSs suggest a change in the proportion
between consumption of ready to-eat meal and fresh food, eating in and eating out, the
traditional shopping and virtual shopping.
In general the environmental assessment, consumer analysis and economic assessment
suggested that in relation to the UK DOSs:
 Local and Green had large reductions in environmental impacts, high acceptance by
consumers but large economic changes.
 Virtual Shopping had some reductions in environmental impacts, moderate acceptance by
consumers and moderate economic changes.
 Hi-Tech Eating had small reductions in environmental impacts, moderate acceptance by
consumers and little economic changes.
 Super-Rant in the Netherlands had little reductions in environmental impacts, low
acceptance by consumers and moderate economic changes.
Hence the Local and Green DOS is favourable for environmental reductions and consumer
acceptance but with large economic changes. While on the other hand, Virtual Shopping and
Hi-Tech Eating had relatively small environmental impact reductions, moderate consumer
acceptances but with little changes to the economy. Therefore the Local and Green DOS is
the favourable option for the sustainable household but only if the economy accepts the
drastic changes without causing secondary and tertiary environmental impacts. However,
even if it is not acceptable completely, it will have elements that are acceptable and will
reduce the environmental impact after implementation.
In reality the three DOSs could be combined into one household lifestyle. This could take the
form of households consuming locally grown organic food either bought through virtual
shopping or from local shops etc. The household could also install smart kitchen appliances
to cool, cook and recycle food etc. It should be noted however, that combining the DOSs
should be done carefully because the negative features may out weigh the positive features.
In other words, a combination of the DOSs my result in more environmental impacts as
compared to the current situation, i.e. householders are still visiting the supermarkets in cars
and additionally having food delivered to their houses, doubling the transport.
Can the results of the SCE SusHouse projec be applied to European sustainable shopping,
cooking and eating policies? This may be possible for the common DOSs such as Local and
Green and Hi-Tech Eating if these are the goals of the EU. Another approach would be to
identify elements of the DOSs, which could be implemented at an EU level such as the
promotion of organic food or funding research that will generate lacking fundamental and
applied knowledge. To implement the policies that reduce or eliminate environmental impacts,
again such as organic food or virtual shopping or adapting the research policy towards new
topics supporting sustainable SCE could be another approach in taking the results of the
SusHouse project to an EU level. It is up to the EU now to bring the results in EU policy
making processes and to implement the different policy recommendations from the SCE
SusHouse project. When customised for local differences, all EU countries can benefit from
our results (knowing that our input will only be one of the numerous inputs in the policy
making process).
This paper has presented a methodology which has the potential for applications in other
situations to explore not only sustainability innovation but innovation in general, using the
knowledge and interaction of stakeholder groups. It can also be seen as a European bottom
up approach bringing visions, scenarios, innovations, policy recommendations etc. from the
national level to the European level, where they can be used for policy making processes
(taking into account both the similarities and the differences). Of course when implementing
EU policies, they should be customised on the national level taking into account the relevant
national differences. From this point of view, the applied methodology could also have
7
considerable potential as a EU policy instrument supporting sustainable development in
general and more specific innovations towards sustainability.
Acknowledgements
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 nr. ENV4-CT97-446.
References
Bras, R. & Knot, M. (2000), Environmental Assessment of Future-Scenarios in the
SusHouse project, paper at the 6th Int. Sustainable Development Research
Conference, April 13-14 2000, Leeds, UK.
Green, K. (1998), Shopping, Cooking and Eating Function Format, internal document,
SusHouse project.
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.
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.
Quist, J., Vergragt, P. & Young, W. (1999). Demand Side Innovations Towards Sustainability
Using Stakeholder Workshops, paper at the 5th Int. ASEAT Conference Demand,
Markets, Users and Innovation: Sociological and Economic Approaches, 14-16
September 1999, Manchester.
Quist, J. (2000, forthcoming), Towards Sustainable Shopping, Cooking and Eating in the
Netherlands: final report for the Dutch SCE function, internal document
SusHouse project.
Tansey, G. & Worsley, T. (1995), The Food System – A Guide, Earthscan, London.
Van der Wel, M. & Quist, J. (1999), Workshop Organisation Task Format part II, internal
document SusHouse project, December 1999.
Vergragt, P. & Jansen, L. (1993), Sustainable Technological Development: the making of
a long-term oriented technology programme, Project Appraisal, 8, No. 3, 134140.
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.
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
Young, W. (2000), UK Shopping, Cooking and Eating Full Report, internal document
SusHouse project.
8