The Use of Environmental
Information in Decision Making
Charlotte Lagerberg Fogelberg1
& Fredrik Fogelberg2
1Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
2Hedmark University College, Norway
Jurmala, May 11-14 2005
15 Swedish Environmental Quality
Objectives

Reduced climate impact

Clean air

Natural acidification only

A non-toxic environment

A protective ozone layer

A safe radiation environment

Zero eutrophication

Flourishing lakes and streams
15 Swedish Environmental Quality
Objectives

Good-quality groundwater

A balanced marine environment, flourishing
coastal areas and archipelagos

Thriving wetlands

Sustainable forests

A varied agricultural landscape

A magnificent mountain landscape

A good built environment
Environmental Policy of the
Swedish Government
» The overall aim is
to hand over to the next
generation a society
in which the major
environmental problems
have been solved.«
The Swedish Parliament (Riksdagen) 1999
Divided Responsibility
Central authorities
Regional authorities
Local authorities
15 national
quality objectives
regional objectives
local objectives
interim targets
for each
Political frameworks
1992 UN conference in Rio de Janeiro
Agenda 21 + conventions on climate and biodiversity
2002 UN conference in Johannesburg
measures to

Promote the inclusion of social aspects and environmental costs
into the prices of goods and services

Develop programmes to promote increased awareness in areas
such as education, public information, consumer information,
advertising and media

Develop and introduce efficient tools for consumer information
on issues relating to human health and safety

Promote public procurement that develops and distributes
environmentally sound goods and services
Sustainable consumption of
foodstuffs, housing and transport

Swedish governmental investigation

Final conclusions and suggestions
by end of May 2005
Some opinions of the
governmental investigator

Consider our values, attitudes and habits in
favour of a smarter and more caring lifestyle

Policy must be used more forcefully to

speed up development of greener technology

change price relations in favour of greater social
consumption
Economic growth
Material welfare
Economic welfare
Life satisfaction
Public procurement of foods

Swedish Environmental Management Council

Governmental assignment

Public procurement is governed by law
diskriminering) – how the demands for quotation
are expressed is essential for lawful choice

Easy-to-use instrument for purchasing
organisations caring about environmental issues

All types of simple ”non-composed” foods

Food services

Suggestions ready 2005, implementation 2006
E-info





”Designing and evaluating the impacts of
environmental information in food service
institutions and the food wholesale sector”
Funding from the Foundation for Strategic
Environmental Research
Investigate the behaviour of food purchasing
managers in general and in particular
regarding their use of environmental
information
Environmental profiles of foods
Scenarios
Vegetables and meats








Carrot
Tomato
Apple
Beans and peas
Broccoli
Onion
Chicken
Beef
Parameters for the
environmental profiles

Resource use: water + plant nutrients
+ chemicals + packaging materials

Fuel use: electricity + gaseous fuels +
diesel + petrol

Land use for primary production
Different origin
Sweden
Carrot
Netherlands
Italy
Sweden
Tomato
Poland
Denmark
Netherlands
Spain
Denmark
Onion
Poland
(Hungary)
Sweden
Beef
Brazil
Ireland
Fresh carrot
Inputs such as water, electricity, diesel, soap, chemicals, crop
,
protection agents, fertilizers, lime
Carrot
production
Storage on farm
or packing house
Discarded
carrots
Animal feed
Washing and packing,
incl all processes in
the packing house
Storage at
wholesaler
Handling at food
service institutions
Discarded
carrots
Discarded
carrots
Animal feed
?
Beef, grazing system
Inputs such as water, electricity, diesel, soap, medicines, vaccinations, chemicals for water treatment,
cleaning, liming, termite control
Feed
supplements
Management
of grazing
lands
Calf to
be raised
for meat
Cows grazing
Castrated
bulls grazing
By products
Calf for
dairy cow
recruitment
Calf slaughtered
for veal meat
Slaughtering and
cutting, incl all
processes of the
slaughterhouse
Different parts
ready for
shipping to
different
markets
Storage
Shipping to
Sweden
Complex supply chain
Primary producers,
Spain1
E
Primary producers,
Spain2
Primary producers,
Sweden
E
E
C
D
C
B
E
E
D
A
E
D
C
B
Primary producers,
The Netherlands
C
D
C
B
Many purchasing
managers involved
Profiles depend on method
What you see depends on how you look.
Herman Verhagen (Change 52)
Testing purchaser’s decision

Three environmental aspects were used



energy use
greenhouse gas emissions
toxic substances

Price
Values of env parameters ± 90% of mean
Price ± 7% of mean

Apples and minced meat


Testing purchaser’s decision
Product alternative B:
Energy use: 4.9 MJ/kg
Greenhouse gas
emissions: 1.4 kg CO2-eqv/kg
Toxic substances: 3.2 g/kg
Land use: 33.3 m2/kg
Price: 34.80 SEK/kg
Product alternative A:
Energy use: 92.3 MJ/kg
Greenhouse gas
emissions: 26.6 kg CO2-eqv/kg
Toxic substances: 0.2 g/kg
Land use: 33.3 m2/kg
Price: 40.00 SEK/kg
I prefer
A
I prefer
A and
B equally
I prefer
B
Testing purchaser’s decision again
Product alternative B:
Energy use: 4.9 MJ/kg (+)
Greenhouse gas
emissions: 1.4 kg CO2-eqv/kg (+)
Toxic substances: 3.2 g/kg (-)
Land use: 33.3 m2/kg
Price: 34.80 SEK/kg
Product alternative A:
Energy use: 92.3 MJ/kg (-)
Greenhouse gas
emissions: 26.6 kg CO2-eqv/kg (-)
Toxic substances: 0.2 g/kg (+)
Land use: 33.3 m2/kg
Price: 40.00 SEK/kg
I prefer
A
I prefer
A and
B equally
I prefer
B
Preliminary results

Price by far dominated the preferences

”Toxic substances” was the dominating
environmental parameter

Environmental parameters had greater
impact on choice when labelled with + and –

Different environmental parameters
significant for different products
Final project seminar November 15,
2005
Thank you for your attention!