Chapter 9. Conclusions

The open-ended questions on associations with sustainability in general revealed the top-of-mind associations that people have with sustainability. Environment was among the top two most commonly mentioned concepts in relation to sustainability in each of the countries. Another theme that was prevalent in each of the countries was reuse and recycling. In Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Lithuania and Estonia, these two aspects (i.e., environment, reuse and recycling) were most frequently associated with sustainability. In Finland, durability (i.e., long-lived, long-term, long-lasting) was a main association to sustainability in addition to the environment. In Latvia, the main association was with durability (e.g., endurance, long-lasting, persistence, long-term) in addition to the environment.

The environment and reuse/recycling appeared to be main associations related to sustainability. There are other aspects that are relevant, however, the economic and social aspects of sustainability were not among the most mentioned concepts per country. However, in some countries, social aspects were among the top ten, and in some countries, economic aspects were among the top ten most mentioned.

The closed-ended questions on the meaning of sustainability in general revealed that Nordic-Baltic consumer-citizens are familiar with some elements of sustainability definitions, such as ensuring fair share of resources between us and future generations, that our lifestyle should allow future generations to have a similar lifestyle, and environmentally friendly and health aspects. On the contrary, very few people are familiar with or emphasise the ‘safe and fair’ elements of sustainability definitions. This could indicate that the main idea of sustainability definitions is understood (e.g., the ‘Brundtland report’ definition), but not necessarily all aspects or more recent ways to express the definition of sustainability (e.g., the ‘safe and just operating space’).

In the Nordic countries, a higher share of consumer-citizens believe that we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. This appears to imply that in the Nordic countries a change of the mind-set or technological solutions may be perceived as solutions to the current situation to a higher degree than in the Baltic countries, but it could also indicate a greater call for transformation.

Although there were some country differences, in several elements of sustainability definitions the Nordic-Baltic countries are similar. There are no big differences in terms of individual characteristics.

Consistent with the open-ended associations to sustainability in general and with the understanding of sustainability, environmental-related dimensions of sustainability (Pollution reduction, Climate change prevention, Nature preservation) were among the most important dimensions across the Nordic-Baltic countries. In addition, health was among the most important two sustainability dimensions in Finland and the Baltic countries. On the other hand, culture was among the least important sustainability dimensions across countries. This could be the case because culture has only been discussed as a sustainability dimension more recently (e.g., the sustainable diets definition by FAO, 2012).

Biodiversity is a crucial planetary ecosystem aspect and highly affected by human activity (Steffen et al., 2015). However, consumer-citizens did not rank it among the top two dimensions in the Nordic-Baltic countries, except in Norway. Therefore, it appears as if consumer-citizens are less aware of this aspect of sustainability, which indicates that more information could be provided about this.

Consumer-citizens were most familiar with the issues of less food waste and recyclable packaging as relating to sustainability within food. However, reduction of meat consumption was among the aspects less frequently associated with food sustainability. Carbon emissions were more top-of-mind in the Nordic countries than the Baltic ones. Local and short supply chains were less frequently associated with food sustainability in Lithuania and Latvia. Food waste has received a lot of attention in previous years, and it appears citizens have acknowledged its importance.

The role of food waste seems to show that efforts to communicate about sustainability aspects can result in increased awareness among consumer-citizens. However, the observation that reduction of meat is less frequent appears to show that more communication on the relative impact of meat is needed.

Consumer-citizens see some conflict between achieving economic growth and sustainable development goals, but they see little conflict in achieving healthy eating and sustainable eating. There were minor country differences in this regard. This indicates that consumer-citizens perceive that sustainability goals can be achieved with small economic sacrifices, however, health and sustainability appear not to be perceived at odds.

This implies that where trade-offs need to be made, these should be communicated to consumer-citizens. This relates to labelling initiatives that could take into account various aspects of sustainability.

Certain aspects that consumer-citizens consider when choosing a sustainable product are important across product categories, such as local food. On the other hand, certain aspects vary in importance by product category. For animal-based products, the most important aspects had to do with animal welfare or antibiotics use. For fruits and vegetables, seasonality and pesticides use were very important. Sweet and salty snacks was the category that differed the most from the others, in which case the type of packaging and nutrition and health information were very important. Fresh fruits and vegetables were the category where important aspects were most similar across countries.

As opposed to what was the case for understanding of food sustainability, packaging aspects were generally (except for snacks) of lower importance at the product category level. This implies that consumer-citizens may place highest importance on different aspects depending on product category, which could be considered in communication efforts or labelling initiatives.

Generally, consumer-citizens had difficulties in differentiating between food products in terms of how sustainable these are. For example, plant-based alternatives to meat were seen as more sustainable than ‘meat’, especially in Denmark and Sweden. On the contrary, in the Baltic countries, consumer-citizens believed these are about as sustainable as meat.

Thus, although people are familiar with some of the aspects related to sustainability, they cannot easily apply that information when comparing specific foods. A sustainability label may help to communicate product-related sustainability.

Consumer-citizens across countries had positive attitudes and were willing to use a sustainability label that would be common across the EU and would inform about various aspects of sustainability. Such a label could help people differentiate between products and could take into account specific aspects of relevance per product category.