Macht, Verantwortung und Information: Der Konsument als Souverän?

Srnka, Katharina J.; Schweitzer, Fiona

doi:10.5771/1439-880x-2000-2-192

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, sharing information (B1.2) only appears together with B1.1 (getting information). Indeed, getting information has often been argued to be a prerequisite for any kind of consumer activity, especially responsible consumption (Schmidt, 2016;Srnka & Schweitzer, 2000). 10 Moreover, the different interconnections we revealed between the domains in the literature can be used as a starting point for further inquiries into necessary and sufficient conditions for consumers to contribute to the transition towards a sustainable bioeconomy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…The literature on (dedicated) innovation systems (Pyka, 2017;Urmetzer & Pyka, 2021) acknowledges that (transformative) innovation processes involve multiple interconnected agents (Loorbach et al, 2020;Schlaile et al, 2017). Similarly, the social connection model of shared responsibility (Young, 2006) argues that corporations, consumers, and other actors within economic systems (e.g., investors, lobbyists, policymakers, media, and other actors in the public sphere; see also Srnka & Schweitzer, 2000) share the power to influence unjust and unsustainable structures (e.g., Barnett et al, 2011;Schmidt, 2016Schmidt, , 2017Schmidt, , 2020Tempels et al, 2017Tempels et al, , 2020Young, 2006). It is important to stress that the social connection model is a prospective concept of shared responsibility, thus focusing on future-oriented capacities of actors for changing a system for the better (Schmidt, 2016;Young, 2006).…”

Section: The Consumer As a Co-creator Of A Sustainable Bioeconomy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the discussion in the previous section, it should be remembered that the question whether consumers are active or passive, and to what extent, appears to be relevant when analyzing innovation processes, including systemic ones in the sense of social and economic transformations (e.g., Randelli & Rocchi, 2017; see also the contributions in Hübner & Schmon, 2019). Indeed, it has frequently been convincingly argued that consumers exhibit various types of power or influence on the structure of economic systems (e.g., Rommerskirchen, 2020;Schlaile et al, 2018a;Schmidt, 2016;Srnka & Schweitzer, 2000). We thus require a differentiated and more nuanced understanding of their potential range and scope (Schlaile et al, 2018a(Schlaile et al, , 2018b(Schlaile et al, , 2020.…”

Section: The Consumer As a Co-creator Of A Sustainable Bioeconomy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Time to Say ‘Good Buy’ to the Passive Consumer? A Conceptual Review of the Consumer in the Bioeconomy

Wilke

Schlaile

Urmetzer

et al. 2021

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful transitions to a sustainable bioeconomy require novel technologies, processes, and practices as well as a general agreement about the overarching normative direction of innovation. Both requirements necessarily involve collective action by those individuals who purchase, use, and co-produce novelties: the consumers. Based on theoretical considerations borrowed from evolutionary innovation economics and consumer social responsibility, we explore to what extent consumers’ scope of action is addressed in the scientific bioeconomy literature. We do so by systematically reviewing bioeconomy-related publications according to (i) the extent to which consumers are regarded as passive vs. active, and (ii) different domains of consumer responsibility (depending on their power to influence economic processes). We find all aspects of active consumption considered to varying degrees but observe little interconnection between domains. In sum, our paper contributes to the bioeconomy literature by developing a novel coding scheme that allows us to pinpoint different aspects of consumer activity, which have been considered in a rather isolated and undifferentiated manner. Combined with our theoretical considerations, the results of our review reveal a central research gap which should be taken up in future empirical and conceptual bioeconomy research. The system-spanning nature of a sustainable bioeconomy demands an equally holistic exploration of the consumers’ prospective and shared responsibility for contributing to its coming of age, ranging from the procurement of information on bio-based products and services to their disposal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%