Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Moral conflicts, premises and the social dimension of agricultural sustainability

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The most cited sustainability definition, by the World Commission on the Environment and Development (Our common future, World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford, 1987), contains a moral imperative, as pointed out by several scholars. While ethical implications have been examined by philosophers and social scientists, concepts such as agricultural sustainability have been challenged less. The present work should contribute to the debate on the implicit moral values of agricultural sustainability and help uncover conflicting moral perspectives regarding agricultural sustainability. Choosing the social dimension of agricultural sustainability as starting point, the idea of conflict interrupting the functionality or longevity of any social system, such as a farm is introduced. Based on the idea of agricultural value chains, different stakeholders’ interests for seven moral conflict scenarios in agriculture and the moral arguments behind them are identified. These are sorted according to ethical theories and argumentation patterns are detected. The three central moral premises, as well as their importance to the sustainability context, are discussed. Finally, working hypotheses are proposed which can help create more comprehensive ideas about the social dimension of agricultural sustainability, furthering the consideration of normative aspects in the context of agricultural sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is validated by the UN’s (WCED 1987) consideration of need satisfaction as a precondition for achieving sustainable development.

  2. Moral action is an action or behaviour intended to do something right or good according to certain societal expectations, such as moral norms. While there are several types of norms, moral norms are universal (under equal circumstances), impartial, and trigger sanctions when omitted (Wolf 1984; Bleisch and Huppenbauer 2011).

Abbreviations

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GEWISOLA:

Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V. (transl. German Society of Economic and Social Sciences in Agriculture)

ILO:

International Labour Organization

UN:

United Nations

WCED:

World Commission on Environment and Development

References

  • Abney, K. 2004. Sustainability, morality and future rights. Moebius 2 (1): 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, R. 2012. Building a sustainable future for animal agriculture: An environmental virtue ethic of care approach within the philosophy of technology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25: 123–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beekman, V., H. de Bakker, H. Baranzke, O. Baune, M. Deblonde, E.M. Forsber, A.P. Nielsen, et al. 2006. Ethical bio-technology assessment tools for agriculture and food production. Final report ethical Bio-TA tools. The Hague: Landbouw Economisch Instituut, Wageningen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blatz, C.V. 1992. The very idea of sustainability. Agriculture and Human Values 9 (4): 12–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleisch, B., and M. Huppenbauer. 2011. Ethische Entscheidungsfindung. Ein Handbuch für die Praxis. Zürich: Versus.

  • Bragues, G. 2009. Adam Smith’s vision of the ethical manager. Journal of Business Ethics 90: 447–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R.A. 2015. Happiness and economic growth: The evidence. In Global handbook of quality of life. Exploration of well-being of nations and continents, ed. W. Glatzer, L. Camfield, V. Møller, and M. Rojas, 283–299. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M. 2012. The ethical reasoning behind sustainable development: A paradoxical opportunity for the reform of developing countries. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 4 (2): 236–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2014. The state of food and agriculture. Innovation in family farming. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2015. The state of food and agriculture. Social protection and agriculture: Breaking the cycle of rural poverty. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. 1982. The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 8 (4): 777–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnett, T., and H.C.J. Godfray. 2012. Sustainable intensification in agriculture. Navigating a course through competing food system priorities. Oxford: Food Climate Research Network, Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gesang, B. 2003. Eine Verteidigung des Utilitarismus. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosetti, G. 2017. Sustainable agriculture and quality of working life: Analytical perspectives and confirmation from research. Sustainability 9 (10): 1749–1771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottwald, F.-T. 2013. Ethik nachhaltiger Entscheidungen. Zur kulturellen dimension nachhaltiger Entwicklung. In Wo steht die Umweltethik? Argumentationsmuster im Wandel, ed. M. Vogt, J. Ostheimer, and F. Uekötter, 415–425. Metropolis: Weimar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregorowius, D., P. Lindemann-Matthies, and M. Huppenbauer. 2012. Ethical discourse on the use of genetically modified crops: A review of academic publications in the fields of ecology and environmental ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3): 265–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, M. 2011. Corporate social responsibility in the food sector. European Review of Agricultural Economics 38 (3): 297–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, M., and H.S. James. 2004. The ethics of constrained choice: how the industrialization of agriculture impacts farming and farmer behavior. University of Missouri Agricultural Economics Working Paper, vol. 3.

  • Hiß, C., A. Heistinger, and F. Thomas. 2017. Von der bäuerlichen Landwirtschaft zur regionalen Versorgungswirtschaft. Funktionale Eigenschaften bäuerlicher Ökonomien als Schlüsselfaktoren für die Gestaltung einer regionalen Versorgung mit Lebensmitteln. Arbeitsergebnisse, vol. 12.

  • Holden, E., K. Linnerud, and D. Banister. 2017. The imperatives of sustainable development. Sustainable Development 25 (3): 213–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, J., and O. Memedovic. 2006. Global value chains in the Agrifood Sector. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huppenbauer, M., and C. Tanner. 2014. Ethical leadership—how to integrate empirical and ethical aspects for promoting moral decision making in business practice. In Empirically informed ethics: Morality between facts and norms, ed. M. Christen, C. van Schaik, J. Fischer, M. Huppenbauer, and C. Tanner, 239–254. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hursthouse, R., and G. Pettigrove. 2016. Virtue ethics. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. Stanford: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • ILO. 1998. Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. Geneva: International Labour Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, H.S. 2006. Sustainable agriculture and free market economics: Finding common ground in Adam Smith. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 427–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janker, J., S. Mann, and S. Rist. 2018. What is sustainable agriculture? Critical analysis of the international political discourse. Sustainability 10 (12): 4707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch, A., T. Weirowski, and N. Hirschauer. 2018. Arbeits- und Lebenszufriedenheit abhängig Beschäftigter in der ostdeutschen Landwirtschaft—eine Explorative Auswertung der Jahre 2000–2015. Presentation at the 58. Jahrestagung der GEWISOLA (Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.), Kiel.

  • Kant, I. 1838. Immanuel Kant’s Sämmtliche Werke. Achter Teil. Leipzig: Leopold Voss.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauppinen, A. 2014. Ethics and empirical psychology—critical remarks to empirically informed ethics. In Empirically informed ethics: Morality between facts and norms, ed. M. Christen, C. van Schaik, J. Fischer, M. Huppenbauer, and C. Tanner, 279–305. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keitsch, M. 2018. Structuring ethical interpretations of the sustainable development goals—concepts, implications and progress. Sustainability 10 (3): 829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, S., K. Willis, S. Johns, and K. Peek. 2012. Supporting farmer and fisher health and wellbeing in ‘difficult times’: Communities of place and industry associations. Rural Society 22 (1): 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjærnes, U. 2012. Ethics and action: A relational perspective on consumer choice in the european politics of food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25: 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laitalainen, E., T. Silvasti, and K.M. Vesala. 2008. Attributions and emotional well-being: Giving up farming in Finland. Rural Society 18 (1): 26–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, J., M. Gjerris, and P. Sandøe. 2006. After Dolly—ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals. Theriogenology 65 (5): 992–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., G. Gereffi, and J. Beauvais. 2012. Global value chains and agrifood standards: Challenges and possibilities for smallholders in developing countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (31): 12326–12331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunner-Kolstrup, C., T. Hörndahl, and J.P. Karttunen. 2018. Farm operators’ experiences of advanced technology and automation in Swedish agriculture: A pilot study. Journal of Agromedicine 23 (3): 215–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maslow, A.H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50: 370–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maslow, A.H. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. 2002. Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken, 6th ed. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijboom, F.L.B., and F.W.A. Brom. 2012. Ethics and sustainability: Guest or guide? On sustainability as a moral ideal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25: 117–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mepham, B. 2008. Bioethics. An Introduction for the biosciences, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niska, M., H.T. Vesala, and K.M. Vesala. 2016. The use of social psychology in rural development? Two readings of rural business owners’ values. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 26: 581–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. 2004. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics 48: 369–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwindenhammer, S., H. Breitmeier, and B. Kirf. 2017. Die Norm der Nachhaltigkeit im globalen Regimekomplex für Ernährung—anerkannt und doch umstritten. Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik 10 (3): 353–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slätmo, E., K. Fischer, and E. Röös. 2017. The framing of sustainability in sustainability assessment frameworks for agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 57 (3): 378–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. 1812. The theory of moral sentiments. In The works of Adam Smith, ed. D. Stewart. Edinburgh, Glasgow.

  • Stocker, M. 1992. Plural and conflicting values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struik, P.C., T.W. Kuyper, L. Brussaard, and C. Leeuwis. 2014. Deconstructing and unpacking scientific controversies in intensification and sustainability: Why the tensions in concepts and values? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8: 80–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.B. 2007. Agricultural sustainability: What it is and what it is not. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 5 (1): 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.B. 2010. The agrarian vision: Sustainability and environmental ethics. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.B. 2015. From field to fork: Food ethics for everyone. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. 1948. Universal declaration of human rights. Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. 1959. Declaration of the rights of the child. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. 2016. Metadata repository. goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vesala, K.M., and J. Peura. 2003. Portfolio farmers, entrepreneurship, and social sustainability. In Local responses to global changes Economic and social development in Northern Europe’s countryside, ed. H. Westlund, L.O. Persson, and A.M. Sätre Åhlander, 219–229. Stockholm: National Institute for Working Life.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waas, T., J. Hugé, A. Verbruggen, and T. Wright. 2011. Sustainable development: a bird’s eye view. Sustainability 3: 1637–1661.

    Google Scholar 

  • WCED. 1987. Our common future. Oxford: World Commission on Environment and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittmayer, J.M., and N. Schäpke. 2014. Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science 9: 483–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, U. 1984. Das Problem des moralischen Sollens. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work would not have been possible without the help I received from many people. I want to acknowledge my colleagues at Agroscope who have shared their time and their practical knowledge with me. My sincere gratitude goes to Prof. Gottwald, Humboldt-University Berlin and Schweisfurth Stiftung, for guiding me through moral philosophy. I further want to thank Prof. Huppenbauer at the University of Zurich for his time and efforts, explaining his framework in detail and my PhD supervisors at Agroscope, Dr. Mann, and the University of Bern, Prof. Rist who again, dedicated their time and shared their critical inputs. Many thanks as well to the anonymous reviewer for helping me improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research group Socioeconomics, Agroscope, Tänikon 1, 8356, Ettenhausen, Switzerland

    Judith Janker

  2. Institute of Geography, University Bern, Hallerstrasse 12, 3012, Bern, Switzerland

    Judith Janker

Authors
  1. Judith Janker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith Janker.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Janker, J. Moral conflicts, premises and the social dimension of agricultural sustainability. Agric Hum Values 37, 97–111 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09972-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09972-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation