Ecological Economics 190 (2021) 107208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

ANALYSIS

Moderately radical? Stakeholders’ perspectives on societal roles and

transformative potential of organic agriculture
Lukas Zagata *, Tomas Uhnak, Jiří Hrabák
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, Kamýcká 129, 165 21 Praha 6 – Suchdol, Czech Republic

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Organic agriculture has achieved many important milestones over the last three decades. Despite these
Organic 3,0 achievements, criticism of the mainstream model of agriculture, which had originally contributed to the success
Agri-food movements of the organic sector, is potentially having a negative impact on its transformative potential. The main goal of this
Organic movement
paper is to provide further empirical evidence that captures ongoing changes in the social discourse of the
Consumers
organic movement. Specific attention is paid to the formation of a relationship between the organic movement
Q Methodology
Czech Republic and other alternative initiatives and conventional agriculture, based on the potentially shared values of sus­
CEE tainability as articulated in the Organic 3.0 strategy. The empirical study was conducted in the Czech Republic.
The study identifies three distinct discourses that show how different groups of stakeholders form their expec­
tations towards organic farming. The findings of our study suggest that their views differ significantly when it
comes to the functions of organic farming in society. Results of the study show that the dominant social discourse
on organic farming principally conveys the Organic 3.0 strategy.

1. Introduction Commission is preparing new initiatives to stimulate the organic sector

Statistics describing the development of organic agriculture largely
show the success of this alternative model of farming. According to the
latest information, in 2018 organically farmed land increased to 2
million hectares, the number of organic producers reached 2.8 million
and, worldwide, 16 countries had more than 10% of organic land in
agriculture (Willer et al., 2020). However, on a global scale, the pro­
portion of organic agriculture still represents only a negligible fraction.
This situation corresponds to a relatively small share of organic food
within overall food production (in the EU, approximately 75 euros per
capita per annum) (Willer et al., 2020). The crop yield gap between
organic and conventional agriculture is repeatedly discussed, with some
authors explicitly undermining the production capacities of organic
agriculture as such (De Ponti et al., 2012; Seufert et al., 2012). More­
over, the organic movement competes in the discourse arena with other
agri-food movements that are introducing their own solutions to the
environmental crisis (Arbenz et al., 2017; Holt Giménez and Shattuck,
2011), suggesting that the organic movement has simply lost its
dynamics.
In this context, a seminal discussion on the future development of
organic agriculture has recently been launched. The European
in the EU. The Farm to Fork Strategy, which is at the heart of the European
Green Deal, sets the ambitious target of achieving at least 25% of agri­
cultural land under organic farming by 2030 (EU, 2020: 11). For this
purpose, the Commission intends to implement a new legal framework
for organic farming that will reflect the nature of this changing sector.
According to proponents of the organic movement, organic agricul­
ture is undergoing a ‘revolution’ (Braun et al., 2010). The movement
seeks a new strategic course to overcome existing complications and to
gain a new position in the current of global agri-food movements. The
specific aim of this discussed strategy, named Organic 3.0, ‘is to enable a
widespread uptake of truly sustainable farming systems and markets
based on organic principles’ (Arbenz et al., 2017: 201). The actual
strategy represents a complex approach that draws on previous ad­
vances in the movement in several mutually corresponding areas (for
more, see Arbenz et al., 2016: 12). Among the proposed changes, the
movement strives for increased openness in collaboration and an
emphasis on the inclusive nature of the organic movement towards the
initiatives that focus on similar goals in the area of sustainability. At the
same time, the movement wishes to maintain a decisive position among
key actors in the growing current of alternative initiatives promoting
sustainable agriculture. Potential partners of the organic movement in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zagata@pef.czu.cz (L. Zagata), uhnak@pef.czu.cz (T. Uhnak), hrabakj@pef.czu.cz (J. Hrabák).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107208
Received 9 November 2020; Received in revised form 4 June 2021; Accepted 17 August 2021
Available online 1 September 2021
0921-8009/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
L. Zagata et al.
this area include many initiatives, such as ‘agroecology, fair trade,
smallholder and family farmers’ movements, food sovereignty alliances,
community supported agriculture, food movements, green fashion,
natural beauty, urban agriculture, and many others’ (Arbenz et al.,
2016: 16). The question is what potential the organic movement has for
developing such collaboration with the above-mentioned initiatives,
with respect to the different discursive frameworks of these social
movements.
In order to enhance the sustainability of farming on a global level,
the organic movement has also started to redefine its relationship with
conventional agriculture. The strategy calls for new linkages that would
enable conventional agriculture to learn from the organic sector and vice
versa (Rasmussen et al., 2017: 165). Setting up this new relationship can
be viewed as a challenge of its own kind, since the organic movement
has historically grown up on a critique of the mainstream model of
agriculture (Conford, 2001; Michelsen, 2001). Setting up this two-way
collaboration and finding a good balance is necessary for the organic
movement, so that it does not lose its symbolic value in the eyes of
members and supporters. The latter mainly includes the large group of
consumers who draw on an idealised notion of agriculture (Costanigro
et al., 2014), but also farmers and other actors whose identity is based on
symbolic opposition to conventional farming (Zagata, 2010).
There are not many empirical findings related to the implementation
of the Organic 3.0 strategy. The concept has been directly analysed by
Zanoli et al. (2018), who explored the future visions of the organic
movement, and von Oelreich and Milestad (2017), who investigated the
transformative potential of new agri-food movements with respect to the
Organic 3.0 strategy.
The main goal of this paper is to contribute to this discussion by
providing further empirical evidence that captures ongoing changes in
the social discourse of the organic movement. Specific attention is paid
to the formation of a relationship between the organic movement and
other alternative initiatives and conventional agriculture, based on the
potentially shared values of sustainability as articulated in the Organic
3.0 strategy. The empirical study was conducted in the Czech Republic,
which is among the top-ranked countries in Europe with respect to the
share of organic agriculture (Eurostat, 2020).
The first section of the paper describes the context framing the
ongoing changes in organic agriculture, namely the factors that are
driving changes within the organic movement, and also includes a
critique of the mainstream model of organic agriculture that is articu­
lated by ‘competing’ food movements. The social discourse on organic
agriculture has been analysed with the use of Q Methodology, which
combines qualitative and quantitative approaches in research. The
result of the study is a classification of the different perspectives on
organic farming, which are represented by three ideal-typical groups of
actors in this study.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Role of the organic movement
‘Organic agriculture’ has been associated with several meanings. It is
understood as an agricultural system, a social movement, or a policy tool
enhancing sustainability and development of rural regions (Dabbert
et al., 2003). The implementation of organic agriculture within these
contexts implies different functions that are intended to be performed in
the eyes of diverse groups of stakeholders (such as soil health, animal
welfare, biodiversity, food production, landscape maintenance as well as
protecting the livelihoods of farmers). Discussion on the new strategy
within the framework of Organic 3.0 provides a sound reflection on the
specific roles, and how organic agriculture is capable of fulfilling these
functions.
The current model of organic agriculture (i.e. in the strategy called
Organic 2.0) has been developed since the early 1990s. The constitutive
element of this model was formalised in organic standards and a
2
Ecological Economics 190 (2021) 107208
complex certification system. Codification of the organic standards was
a prerequisite for developing the control and certification systems of
organic producers and other actors within the organic supply chains. In
1991, a new regulation for integrating the concept of organic agriculture
into the EU Common Agricultural Policy was drawn up. This historical
model of organic agriculture has achieved many successes over the last
three decades. However, a number of critical voices argue that this
originally successful strategy is no longer efficient.
The following sections provide an overview of the major arguments
that are mostly heard in this critical debate. The structure of the key
points is inspired by the main challenges picked up by the Organic 3.0
strategy (for more, see Arbenz et al., 2016: 8). The findings of relevant
studies based on a systematic literature review are added to the pre­
sented arguments.
One of the most frequently mentioned arguments against organic
agriculture is the fact that organic production is too small. However, the
official statistics can be interpreted in two ways. Absolute figures un­
derpinning the growth of the organic sector are striking. In 2018, 2.8
million organic farms were registered, comprising more than 71.5 mil.
ha (Willer et al., 2020: 28). In relative figures, this includes only 1.5% of
the global agricultural land. Moreover, the spatial distribution of
organic farms worldwide is very diverse. One-half of global organic
agriculture is localised in Oceania (50% of the total organic land) and
approximately one-quarter is located in Europe (22%). Organic farming
in these regions also reaches the highest percentages of organically
farmed land (8.6% in Oceania and 3.1% in Europe, or 7.7% in the EU). In
16 countries, the share of organic land in agriculture exceeds 10%, while
most of these countries are in Europe. If we look at the pace of growth,
we notice that the total size of organic land worldwide has doubled
during the last decade (between 2009 and 2018, the increase was 97%),
with the average growth rate of 6–10% per annum in Europe, Asia and
Africa. Currently, the largest market for organic products is North
America (total value of the market was estimated at USD 51 billion in
2018); the second largest market is Europe (approximately USD 45
billion). Shares of the other world regions within the global organic
market are in the order of smaller magnitudes. Mainstream retailers
generate most organic food sales in Europe (Willer et al., 2020: 139).
Overall, evaluation of organic agriculture on the global level is very
complicated with respect to the diverse contexts of the regions of the
world and selected countries. We argue that such diversity creates a
broad space for possible interpretations of the discussion on the question
whether the growth of the organic sector is adequate to the given po­
litical support, and whether one can evaluate such development as a
success.
Secondly, organic agriculture is often criticised for its low produc­
tivity. A traditional line of argument points out that yields in organic
agriculture are lower than in conventional agriculture. However, the
lower yields are traded off by the positive impacts on ecosystems and
particularly on soil quality. With the growing size of organic land on a
global scale, this traditional argument has been challenged in numerous
studies. Agronomists have published several studies that systematically
compared the yields of both agricultural systems. Highly cited review
studies (De Ponti et al., 2012; Seufert et al., 2012) confirm that yields of
organic crops are 20–25% lower, and it is expected that in regions with
highly intensive conventional agriculture, the yield gap would be even
higher (Brückler et al., 2018). It is not surprising that comparative
studies focused on the environmental impacts of agriculture confirm the
positive effects of organic methods (Gomiero et al., 2011; Hole et al.,
2005). Nevertheless, the increasing share of organic land in developed
countries opens up the question of whether organic farming has the
potential to produce sufficient food for the entire population. Such a
complex question does not have a direct answer. Rahmann et al. (2017)
argue that discussion of this issue needs to ‘be applied to different ways
for different regions of the world and for different intensities of farming
systems’. The agricultural sector can fulfil different functions in different
regions with respect to specific natural and socio-economic conditions,
L. Zagata et al.
and through these combinations it can contribute to the sustainability of
agriculture at a regional level (Sutherland et al., 2014).
Another point is the question of ‘conventionalisation’. Rapid growth
of the organic sector has been associated with the loosening of the
ideological foundations of the movement (Tovey, 1997) and the van­
ishing of exclusive features which distinguished the organic sector from
the conventional system (Buck et al., 1997; Guthman, 2000). The gist of
the conventionalisation process is much more complex indeed and re­
lates to many different factors, such as market pressure (Guthman,
2000), agricultural subsidies (Best, 2008; Zagata, 2007) or distribution
channels (Desquilbet et al., 2018). A negative outcome of the con­
ventionalisation in organic agriculture is the interchange of means and
goals: organic farmers meet the required organic standards, but their
farming practices collide with broader organic principles and do not
contribute to the sustainability of agriculture (Arbenz et al., 2016). The
conventionalisation thesis has been intensively discussed in the last two
decades. Currently, research focused on the conventionalisation thesis is
diminishing (Schewe, 2015), and the relationship between organic and
conventional agriculture is being reconceptualised by more complex
theoretical frameworks.
The fourth point is related to the organic certification and control
system. On one hand, codification of the methods has enabled the
movement to grow out of a niche, but, on the other hand, has led to the
creation of a bureaucratic system that is associated with an ‘unafford­
able and impractical burden’ for many farmers (Arbenz et al., 2016). A
major problem of the regulation system is the fact that it implements
top-down technical solutions for practical matters, which are per se hard
to contain (Guthman, 1998: 142). Many studies have captured how the
‘red tape‘interferes with everyday farm work, such as Darnhofer et al.
(2010). Recently, many communities have become interested in inno­
vative forms of certification that respond to the weaknesses of the
original regulation system (Dufeu et al., 2020; Guthman, 2008). Para­
doxically, organic standards represent a ‘black box’ to many consumers
(Scozzafava et al., 2020; Janssen and Hamm, 2012), despite the certi­
fication system being intended to reduce transaction costs for consumers
who seek information on organic food quality (Karstens and Belz, 2006).
Fifthly, organic agriculture is associated with positive values among
the general public. These values are derived from the popular evaluation
of organic methods and a specific combination of different forms of
knowledge (Aertsens et al., 2011). Today, more consumers seek other
values related to sustainability, which are not directly associated with
organic agriculture. This situation challenges the organic movement in
its aims to address a new generation of consumers and to maintain its
position among influential food movements. The new values include, for
instance, the issue of the social conditions of farm labourers, and social
justice in the access to quality food, which used to be a frequently
criticised aspect of organic agriculture (Donald and Blay-Palmer, 2006;
Guthman, 2000). On the other hand, there are many important values
which are realised by the organic movement, of which most consumers
are unaware, or which they consider as being unimportant. Such an
approach touches on basically all ‘deep’ altruistic values that are rarely
reflected among mainstream consumers. According to Stolze and
Lampkin (2009), this problem stems from the model of organic agri­
culture as such. In the pioneering period, organic producers turned to
the consumer to support their principles and practices. Currently, the
organic food market is seen as an end in itself and consumers can pur­
chase organic food without ‘altruistic concerns such as the environment,
animal welfare and social justice’ (Stolze and Lampkin, 2009: 237).
Last but not least, organic agriculture represents a tool that is applied
within agro-environmental policies (European Commission, 2014). In
this context, organic methods of farming are considered ‘alternative’ to
mainstream conventional agriculture. An unintended consequence of
this strategy is that organic agriculture may not be understood as a
mainstream model of agriculture, but rather as a specialised approach
that is used for improving sustainability in a limited context. Relation­
ships between organic and conventional agriculture can become
3
Ecological Economics 190 (2021) 107208
competitive in terms of agricultural policies. At the same time, con­
ventional agriculture is constantly being modernised and introducing
new innovations that accentuate the sustainability of farming. This
approach is exemplified in the idea of sustainable intensification, which
presents conventional agriculture as a system that can generate not only
high yields, but can also put less pressure on the environment and does
not undermine our capacity to continue producing food in the future
(Garnett et al., 2013; Trewavas, 2001).
In any case, institutional analysts point out that the organic sector is
most successful in those countries where organic agriculture does not
conflict with, but ‘constructively competes’ with conventional agricul­
ture (Michelsen, 2009). This type of relationship corresponds with the
idea of ‘learning from each other’, as proposed by the new Organic 3.0
strategy.
The above-mentioned points summarise the main challenges
currently faced by organic agriculture. A response to these criticisms is
included in the Organic 3.0 strategy, which calls for a revised under­
standing of the role of the organic movement. A new strategic course is
required to fully utilise the potential of organic agriculture and also to
inspire mainstream agriculture, which indeed represents a modernisa­
tion project that has reached its limits (van der Ploeg et al., 2000).
2.2. Role of alternative Agri-food movements
In many developed countries, organic has become connected with a
consumption-oriented lifestyle, which contrasts with the politically
charged actions of agri-food movements. In comparison to the organic
movement, these initiatives have become more critical of the dominant
economic system and, according to some authors, are currently taking
the lead in formulating new narratives and strategies, and in providing
more complex and radical visions of the future agri-food sector (Scrinis,
2007).
Their activities range from ‘constructive’ forms (focused on fixing
specific aspects of the dominant agri-food system) to ‘oppositional’ ones
(aimed at a complete change of the dominant agri-food system).
Although organic methods are considered to be an important and
inherent part of alternative agri-food movements, these movements look
critically at many aspects of the mainstream model of organic food
production.
Major criticism is levelled at the sale of organic products that is
carried out in collaboration with conventional supply chains. Such
commodification of organic products replicates existing food in­
equalities, due to the absence of democratisation mechanisms and an
elite consumer environment (Goodman and Goodman, 2007). Despite
the clear potential for the localised production of organic food, organic
products distributed by transnational retail chain stores travel world­
wide (Lyons, 2007). The processing of organic food, once the domain of
the farm gate, is increasingly corporatised by the industry producing
organic processed food (Pollan, 2007). Consequently, the positive
environmental aspects of organic farming are erased, due to the energy
invested and the waste produced in the lifecycle of organic foods, which
mirror the lifecycle of conventional products (Scrinis, 2007).
Although there are attempts to integrate elements of economic
fairness into organic certification schemes, the guarantee of fair income
to producers – unlike in fair trade schemes – is basically missing (Ray­
nolds, 2000). Due to integration of organic into the monopoly manu­
facture and retail, small farms are often left out, with only a small
number of large-scale farms and growers succeeding in the market
competition.
The agri-food movements also critically reflect the role of consumers
who tend to follow a misleading narrative and ignore the fact that
organic consumers and producers have different political interests.
Organic production is then mainly shaped from the side of consumers
who project their personal romantic imaginings on to producers, while
their social and political engagement rarely go beyond the activity of
shopping (Hinrichs and Eshleman, 2014). By ignoring farmers´needs and
L. Zagata et al. Ecological Economics 190 (2021) 107208

applying conventional market strategies to the consumer-producer

relationship, from this perspective the organic food system is deemed
1. Idenficaon of Changes in organic agriculture
to replicate the dominant system and stagnate in terms of providing an
the social discourse Research queson
alternative solution (Goodman et al., 2012).
On the other hand, it is important to note that the current of alter­
native food initiatives does not represent a common critique against
organic agriculture. The organic movement represents one of the
established members of the agri-food initiatives that is attempting to 2. Exploraon of the
Documents analysis
find a way out of the impasse created by agricultural modernisation (van communicaon
300 statements sorted in categories
der Ploeg, 2018). concourse

3. Methods and data

3.1. Research design 3. Development of Structured sampling (4 categories)

the q-set 44 items in the final sample
The social discourse of the organic movement was explored in the
Czech Republic with the use of Q Methodology. The application of Q
Methodology provides the possibility of understanding different ap­
proaches of actors confronted with dilemmas. Academic literature pro­ Sample: 50 parcipants
vides extensive examples illustrating the applicability of this research 4. Data collecon Sorng grid: 11-point scale
tool in many different areas, including environmental policy (Barry and Recorded sorng: 48 q-sorts
Proops, 1999; Ellis et al., 2007) and agriculture (Previte et al., 2007;
Zagata, 2010; Fairweather and Hunt, 2011; Nicholas et al., 2014;
Mandolesi et al., 2015; Zanoli et al., 2018; Wijaya and Offermans, 2019), Extracon of the factors (PCA)
provision of ecosystem services (Bredin et al., 2015; Winkler and 5. Analysis and
Varimax rotaon
Nicholas, 2016) and adaptation to climate change (Hall and Wreford, interpretaon
3-factor soluon
2012; Turhan, 2016).
Within our empirical study, Q Methodology was applied in a stan­
Fig. 1. Design and parameters of the empirical study using Q Methodology.
dard form, inspired by seminal methodological works (Stephenson,
1953; Brown, 1980; McKeown and Thomas, 1988; Watts and Stenner,
2005). Q Methodology combines qualitative and quantitative ap­ engagement in organic agriculture’ and checked by specific recruitment
proaches in research, which allow the focus to be shifted from a questions (Table 1).
particular individual narrative to an analysis of a range of viewpoints Each participant was asked to judge the 44 statements, based on the
that is shared collectively (Previte et al., 2007). The gist of the method is following instruction: Please evaluate the statements with regard to how you
the exploration of social discourses through a representative sample of personally view organic agriculture. Items (i.e. cards with statements) were
stimuli which reflect all relevant perspectives on a given topic. Collected sorted on a grid, in a quasi-normal distribution on a scale reaching from
data are statistically analysed, to group together participants who share ‘-5: strongly disagree’ to ‘+5: strongly agree’ (Fig. 2). Evaluation and the
a similar perspective on a given topic (Dziopa and Ahern, 2011). A relative ranking of statements were then discussed with each participant
detailed description of the parameters of the empirical study is provided during a post-sort interview.
in the following graphics (Fig. 1). Two of the collected sortings (from the group of NGO members and
policy makers) were ex-post excluded from the final data set due to er­
3.2. Data and analysis rors. The final data set thus included 48 sortings. Data were processed
with the use of the Q Method software application (Zabala, 2014). The
The first step of the Q Methodology application was the exploration application utilises the PCA method for factor extraction. Based on the
of the organic agriculture discourse that has emerged during the dis­ statistical and substantial consideration of the results, we opted for a 3-
cussion of the new Organic 3.0 strategy. In order to identify the range of factor solution based on varimax rotation. The plausibility of this solu­
issues that exist in relation to this topic, we conducted an extensive tion was checked in addition by the values of compound reliability co­
analysis of documents, such as strategic plans, policy papers, conference efficients and other statistical characteristics of the extracted factors
papers, research studies, and experts’ interviews published in different (Table 2).
contexts. From this set of documents, approximately 300 statements The substantial interpretation of the results draws on the values of
were sampled and sorted into categories based on their content. During factor scores for each statement (Appendix 1). The presented factor
this process, we excluded duplicated, ambiguous and hard-to- scores show how each statement was viewed by the given group, and in
understand statements. Thereafter, the initial set of statements was this way ‘ideal-typical sorting’, describing the content of the shared
reduced to one-quarter. The final sample (q-set) included 44 statements social discourses, could be constructed (See Fig. 3).
and represented the communication discourse from the perspective of
experts (policy makers, farmers, activists), as well as from lay in­
Table 1
dividuals (consumers). Structure of the sample.
The interviewed actors were sampled with the use of judgemental
Group Counts Operational definition
sampling. It is generally recommended to include 40–60 participants in
a study to achieve a breadth and diversity of viewpoints (Dziopa and farmers 6 agricultural entrepreneur, official registration
policy
Ahern, 2011). Since the potential for generalising study results in the 3 employee of a relevant policy organisation
makers
case of Q Methodology stems from the representativeness of stimuli as NGO formal member or employee of an NGO active in the
well as the representativeness of respondents (Brown and Ungs, 1970), 13
members organic sector
the sample size can be relatively small. The sample in our study person responsible for purchasing food - two groups of
comprised 50 respondents and consisted of different groups of stake­ consumers 28 organic food products bought regularly at least once a
month
holders. Participation in the study was conditioned by ‘active

4
L. Zagata et al. Ecological Economics 190 (2021) 107208

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

Fig. 2. Sorting grid.

should ‘become a priority within national and EU agricultural policies’

Table 2
(#24) and should be potentially ‘adopted on a global scale’ (#19).
Statistical characteristics of the final 3-factor solution.
The absence of criticism when considering the current functioning of
Identification of Group 1 2 3 organic farming goes hand in hand with ignoring some of the newly-
Number of participants 25 13 5 emerging topics that are currently arousing controversy. One example
Eigenvalues 13.03 6.73 4.15 is the question of how to improve the control of organic farms (#12,
Explained variance (%) 27.15 14.03 8.64
#28), on which this group takes a neutral position. Or the question of
Compound reliability coefficient 0.99 0.98 0.95
Standard error F-scores 0.10 0.14 0.22 global trade in organic food, where the environmental costs associated
F1 1.00 0.37 0.38 with transport are contesting the contribution of organic production
Correlation between factors F2 0.37 1.00 0.11 (#43, #9), or the question of the resilience of organic farms (#40, #30).
F3 0.38 0.11 1.00 The neutral evaluation of these statements suggests that members of this
farmers 4 1 1
policy makers 1 0 0
group do not find them important with regard to how they view
Number of participants in the identified organics.
NGO
group 9 0 2
members This group’s view of the relationship between organic and conven­
consumers 11 12 2 tional agriculture is relatively straightforward. This group of actors
neither directly rejects conventional agriculture, nor does it delimit itself
significantly against it. However, they perceive the position of organic
4. Empirical study
farming and organic products as exclusive. They do not place much
importance on the problem of conventionalisation and do not agree with
4.1. Group 1: Alternative farming ethic
the view that the differences between organic and conventional pro­
duction are diminishing (#38). Considering organic and conventional
There was no surprise to find that the actors we interviewed share a
farming as approaches that compete for public support, this first group
rather positive view of organic farming. The first group placed particular
prefers to expand support for the organic approach, rather than to
emphasis on the positive impacts of organic practices and the high
restrict conventional farming (#10, #29). They consider the two ap­
quality of organic food.
proaches to be so different that they cannot either be linked on the basis
A closer look shows that this group primarily prioritises the health
of ‘smart combinations of organic and conventional methods’ (#22),
value. This value results in support for organic farming and the demand
which would potentially contribute to greater sustainability of
for quality food, because ‘the way we produce and consume our food has
agriculture.
a great impact on our health’ (#39). Members of this group are firmly
This group’s views of the organic movement itself are held in a
convinced of the quality of organic food. They believe that ‘organic food
similarly non-conflicting manner. They do not have a distinct opinion on
products are healthier and greener than conventionally produced foods’
whether the organic movement should be ‘more inclusive towards other
(#35). However, among the positive effects of organic farming, they
issues, such as social justice and food sovereignty’ (#18) and certainly
include not only the production of healthy food, but also ‘better live­
do not see a conflict between alternative initiatives such that the
stock welfare’ (#31). Framing of organic farming in this group is thus
‘organic food sector is currently competing with other sustainable ini­
clearly linked to core values and the mission of organic farming as it is
tiatives’ (#13).
understood by conscientious consumers.
In our sample of respondents, this group accentuates the alternative
Stakeholders in this group also positively view the production ca­
farming ethics of organic agriculture that are by no means provided by
pabilities of organic farming. Their evaluation shows that members of
mainstream agriculture. In our study, the perspective was formed by the
this group strongly agree that ‘food security can be achieved with
subjective responses of all categories of stakeholders (i.e. consumers,
organic agriculture’ (#3). With this attitude, they make discussion
farmers, policy makers and NGO activists). Without further quantifica­
irrelevant about the sensitive question whether organic farming can feed
tion of the representation of this view in society, it can be stated that this
us. In this context, they disagree with the opinion that organic farming
is one of the main discursive framings of contemporary organic farming.
‘requires too much land usage for minimal yields’ (#32), as well as with
the claim that organic farming ‘needs to be more productive’ (#20). This
positive assessment seems to influence their belief that organic farming

5
L. Zagata et al.
4.2. Group 2: Niche market for quality food
The second of the identified groups has much in common with the
previous group. They also acknowledge the positive aspects of organics,
but associate the main strengths of organic agriculture with the high
food quality.
Just as the first group, this group believes that the way in which
agriculture operates has major implications for human health (#39).
This view is based on acknowledging scientific evidence demonstrating
the positive effect of organic production on health and the environment
(#35). This positive approach to organic food is also expressed in the
belief that organic food is ‘more nutritious’ (#26) and should be inte­
grated into the diet in schools and hospitals as part of the public
6
Ecological Economics 190 (2021) 107208
procurement of food and public catering services (#16). However, high
quality organic food makes it a luxury item. A sustainable lifestyle is
thus ‘more expensive’ for consumers (#5), and the higher price of
organic food limits it from being available to the wider population
(#17). From this point of view, organic farming acquires the character of
exclusivity.
According to this group, the exclusivity of organics limits the other
functions of organic farming. This group is certainly not convinced that
organic farming ‘can provide more than enough nutrition for the entire
European population’ (#6). However, it should be added that the rela­
tively lower productivity of organic farming is not perceived to be a
weakness, but rather considered as an inevitable part of organic farming.
They do not agree that organic farms have lower yields per se (#32), and
L. Zagata et al.
Fig. 3. Structure of the shared discourses based on distinguishing statements.
Fig. 3. (continued).
do not require organic farming to be ‘more productive’ (#20). In their
eyes, organic farming represents a specific niche, which focuses on the
production of quality foods, and which does not aspire to be universally
accepted, as it does not meet all the demands placed on contemporary
agriculture. From this point of view, they do not expect organic farms to
be more resilient than conventional farms. They are not convinced that
organic farms ‘can better tolerate periods of drought’ (#30) or that they
would be better adapted to ‘volatile fluctuating market prices and
climate change’ (#40). For this reason, they are also most reserved
about the possibility of extending organic farming methods to a ‘global
scale’ (#19).
The concept mentioned above also implies a specific group’s view of
the relationship between organic and conventional agriculture. The
strength of organic farming is to produce high quality food, which is
distinct from the mainstream food production. Therefore, it cannot be
expected that ‘organic farms can learn from conventional farms’ (#44).
Rather, they are in favour of creating clever combinations of both ap­
proaches, which ultimately ‘could contribute toward increase of sus­
tainable farming in global agriculture’ (#22). Overall strengthening of
sustainability represents one of the important values of this group, as
evidenced by the highly positive acceptance of the statement that agri­
cultural subsidies ‘should be oriented much more towards protection of
the environment and climate’ (#33).
This second group emphasises two aspects of organic farming - the
production of quality foods and the positive environmental impacts of
organic practices. With respect to these exclusive goals, organic farming
in their eyes is viewed as a specialised niche that can hardly substitute
for the conventional farming system in food production. To ensure all
the social functions of agriculture, it is important that organic farming
operates alongside conventional farming. While hard to quantify, we
view this perspective as a subdominant position in the social discourse
on organic farming.
4.3. Group 3: transformative potential for increasing sustainability
The third group perceives organic farming as a counterweight to
conventional agriculture. Their perspective on organic farming
7
Ecological Economics 190 (2021) 107208
prioritises the potential of organic principles to transform the farming
system into a truly sustainable form.
In considering the functioning of organic farming, this group notes
the more complex issues that ensure the sustainability of agriculture as a
whole. While comparing organic and conventional practices, they point
out the ‘hidden benefits’ of conventional agriculture, ‘if ecological costs
would be fully integrated into the price of the products, industrially
produced food would be much more expensive’ (#14). From their point
of view, this needs to be changed in the future, so that the policy has to
‘take into account the true cost of industrial farming’ (#2). In addition,
higher food prices could contribute to reducing food waste (#15).
A great deal of attention in the discourse is paid to the topic of
organic food, in which case ‘consumers need to have a greater under­
standing of the work involved in food production’ (#37). This group
relies on informed consumers, who contribute to the transformation of
agriculture by their conscious shopping for quality foods. For this pur­
pose, the ecological sector ‘needs to improve communication with
consumers’ (#1). This group considers information on the benefits of
organic farming as essential, as well as on the inadequacy of conven­
tional agriculture. From their point of view, the demand for organic food
is not really limited by the fact that the purchase of organic food is
beyond the financial means of consumers, but rather that insufficient
information about the quality of organic food plays a role (#17). In their
view, living in a sustainable way does not necessarily actually mean
higher cost (#5). However, despite the important role they assign to
consumers, this group is not convinced that support for organic farming
should only be driven by consumer demand. For the process of the
transformation of agriculture, they perceive policy as playing an
important role (#42).
This group perceives organic agriculture rather positively. Just as the
two previous groups, this group acknowledges the quality of organic
food and agrees that it has a positive impact on the health of the pop­
ulation (#35), and defends its expansion among organisations in the
public sector (#16). Contrary to the second group, this group takes note
of the environmental contribution of organic farms. They consider
organic farms to be more resilient to ‘volatile fluctuating market prices
and climate change’ (#40), but also to ‘periods of drought and other
L. Zagata et al.
extreme weather fluctuations’ (#30). However, this relatively high
praise for organic farms is compensated for by their down-to-earth
attitude towards the productivity of organic farming.
The third group counts among the main priorities not only the pro­
duction of high quality food, but also the fulfilment of seminal envi­
ronmental functions. Organic agriculture, in their eyes, needs to be
supported, since it has the potential to transform the current system of
food production and consumption into a more sustainable form. While
again hard to quantify, we view this perspective as a second subdomi­
nant discourse within the organic movement.
Note: Each diagram includes statements with the highest and lowest
factor scores (+5 and − 5), second highest and second lowest factor
scores (+4 and − 4), as well as distinguishing statements that were
scored +3 or − 3 if the factor scores for the statement were statistically
significant. The font sizes in the diagram reflect the values of the factor
scores (±5 = large bold, ±4 = medium-sized, ±3 = small italics).
Statements with negative factor scores are displayed in red color.
5. Discussion and implications
As stated previously, the purpose of this study is to explore the
ongoing changes in the social discourse on the organic movement. Based
on the analysis, we have identified three distinct discourses that show
how different groups of stakeholders form their expectations towards
organic farming and the functions that organic farming should perform.
Most participants in our study associate organic agriculture with
food production which is understood as a healthier and more
environmentally-friendly option, in comparison to conventional food
products. These findings are in agreement with the extensive evidence
presented in international consumer studies which identify health, taste
and positive environmental impacts among the key properties of organic
food (Aertsens et al., 2009). They are also in accordance with the public
polls reporting that approximately three-quarters of EU citizens (78%)
agree that organic food products are produced using better environ­
mental practices than other food products (Eurobarometer, 2018).
In contrast to the general criticism focused on the low productivity of
organic agriculture, most stakeholders in our study advocate the pro­
duction capacities of organic farming. They do not see organic agricul­
ture as a ‘trade-off’ between positive impacts on the environment and
lower productivity, but recognise the potential of organic farming to
achieve both. In this context, it is important to note that there is evi­
dence available that organic agriculture can produce sufficient food on a
global per capita basis and in this way can contribute to the ‘real
ecological modernisation of agriculture’ (Horlings and Marsden, 2011).
However, this vision may not be accepted by all proponents of organic
farming - particularly by those who understand organic farming as a
specialised niche market, appraise the high quality food production
function and do not expect organic farming to expand this role.
Increasing the acreage of organic land does not rank among the prior­
ities of this group.
The findings of our study suggest that evaluation of the organic
sector’s functions represents a new dividing line in the discussion on the
future of agriculture. With the upscaling and mainstreaming of the
organic sector, the ‘common ground’ for organic and conventional
agriculture increases. Due to this, the problem of finding a new balance
between both sectors arises. The dominant social discourse identified in
our study directly acknowledges that organic farming is capable of
‘feeding the world’. This perspective presents organics with an oppor­
tunity for the further growth and mainstreaming in the food production
system. Nevertheless, such an aspiration inevitably places organic
agriculture in a competitive relationship with conventional agriculture.
The findings in our study provide support for the assumed potential
of the organic movement to progress beyond the current organic stan­
dards. The dominant and one of the subdominant discourses expect
organic farming to include a wider range of sustainability issues. This
evidence corresponds with the empirical studies that describe the
8
Ecological Economics 190 (2021) 107208
potential for such extension on the consumers’ side as the ‘organic-plus’
trend (Schleenbecker and Hamm, 2013), or in relation to the voluntary
organic standard-setting organisations (Ascui et al., 2020). This suggests
that consumers are interested in the additional ethical attributes of
organic food production and, moreover, exhibit the positive willingness-
to-pay for such features (Zander and Hamm, 2010).
The future strategy of the Organic 3.0 organic movement places
specific emphasis on establishing new links with other like-minded
movements and organisations (Arbenz et al., 2017). There is no evi­
dence in our study that the organic movement would find itself in a
competitive relationship with other agri-food movements. However, the
role of the organic movement in the ongoing transformation of agri­
culture and the food production system is perceived differently by
different groups of stakeholders. One of the identified (subdominant)
discourses within the organic movement accentuates the potential of
organic farming to assume this role. The content of the dominant social
discourse suggests that this might be an acceptable course for many
organic proponents.
The current strategy of the organic movement has left many of its
radical founding values far behind, as was explained by Tovey (1997).
However, it would be somehow misleading to evaluate the trans­
formative potential of the social movement based solely on the aspect of
radicality. Organic agriculture can be understood as a movement that
follows a ‘builder’ approach to social change (in contrast to a ‘warrior’
approach), if we borrow the concepts of Friedmann to describe the agri-
food transformation (Friedmann and McNair, 2008). The gist of the
identified discourses supports this approach, which benefits from the
formalised position of organic farming in official policy and relies on
prefigured institutions to fulfil the strategy of the movement. Our study
findings suggest that there is general consensus on this approach among
organic proponents. The institutionalised position of the organic
movement can be viewed as a specific resource which may not be
available to more radical currents in agri-food movements. Combining
the strengths of each movement can create the desired synergies among
like-minded agri-food movements which strive for increased sustain­
ability in agriculture.
6. Conclusions and limitations
It is important to note that the findings of this study are not gen­
eralisable to the entire organic sector. Since the potential for the
representativeness of the results stems from the representativeness of
the statements, the study provides an insight into the existing structure
of the international social discourse on the Organic 3.0 strategy. The
identified perspectives reflect the national context of the Czech Republic
and we can expect to identify similar structuration of the discourse if the
study was replicated in a similar context.
The initial perspective on organic agriculture was firmly associated
with the notion of an alternative approach to farming and food pro­
duction of a higher quality, in comparison to conventional food prod­
ucts. In our study, we identified three discourses that demonstrate how
different groups of stakeholders specifically construct this notion.
All of the identified group perspectives draw on a positive approach
to organic farming. However, their views differ significantly when it
comes to the functions of organic farming in society. Our findings sug­
gest that the dominant social discourse on organic farming principally
conveys the Organic 3.0 strategy. At the same time, it is important to note
that there are some organic stakeholders who are in favour of organic
farming principles, despite possibly disagreeing with the future strategy
of the movement, because they do not agree with some of the founding
elements. The reasons are twofold. The first is scepticism of the pro­
duction capacities of organic farming. The second is the conventional
sector, to which organic farming of necessity remains in opposition.
These two aspects will probably stir up future controversy and create
new divisions in the discussion on organic agriculture and its position in
the food production system.
L. Zagata et al. Ecological Economics 190 (2021) 107208

Declaration of Competing Interest assisted in improving this article. Research for this paper was financially
supported by the Czech Science Foundation as part of the project “Study
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. on Sociotechnical Transition to Sustainability of Agri-Food Sector in the
Czech Republic” (17-01019S).
Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the two anonymous reviewers who greatly

Appendix A. Appendix 1 List of statements

Statement Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

1. Organic farming and the food sector need to improve communication with consumers. − 1 2 3
2. The future policy needs to take into account the true cost of industrial farming. 2 0 4
3. Food security cannot be achieved with organic agriculture. − 5 2 − 3
4. Food products that have been produced using artificial fertilizers, chemical treatments or GMO should be clearly labelled. 3 2 − 1
5. A more sustainable lifestyle is more costly for the consumer. − 1 3 − 2
6. Organic agriculture can provide more than enough nutrition for the entire European population. 2 − 5 1
7. The dependency on subsidies has a very negative effect on the autonomy and stability of farms. 1 0 1
8. Ideological barriers between supporters and opponents of organic agriculture need to be overcome to pave the way for reaching higher
0 1 − 1
sustainability.
9. Consumers have more trust in local production, as opposed to organic products, which are globally traded and whose origins and production are
0 2 2
not always clear.
10. Organic production must continue to grow to change conventional systems, contributing to solving global problems. 2 1 0
11. The controls on organic farms should be strengthened, eliminating any derogations. − 2 0 − 3
12. Regulations for organic farmers and producers must be simplified. 0 − 1 − 1
13. Organic farming and the organic food sector are currently competing with other sustainability initiatives. − 2 − 2 0
14. If ecological costs would be fully integrated into the price of the products, industrially produced food would be much more expensive. 3 0 5
15. Higher prices for food could perhaps contribute to a higher appreciation of their value and resulting in less food waste. − 1 1 3
16. Organic products should be widely available in hospital catering, school canteens, green management and public areas. 2 3 3
17. More people would choose seasonal, regional and organic food products if they had the financial option. 0 2 − 5
18. The organic movement should be more inclusive of other issues, such as social justice and food sovereignty. 1 − 2 0
19. Organic farming needs to be adopted on a global scale. 3 − 1 0
20. Organic agriculture needs to be more productive. − 3 − 1 − 1
21. Lack of information is a major factor which limits the uptake of organic methods in modern agriculture. − 3 − 1 3
22. Smart combinations of organic and conventional methods could contribute towards an increase of sustainable farming in global agriculture. 0 3 1
23. Financial subsidies provided by the EU are not available for small farms and this should be addressed directly. 2 0 − 4
24. Organic agriculture should become a priority within national and EU agricultural policies. 4 0 2
25. Local food production is more important than organic-based food production. − 2 1 − 2
26. Organically produced food is not more nutritious. − 3 − 4 − 2
27. Small-scale producers and consumers should have a significant voice in the political decisions concerning food and agriculture. 1 − 1 0
28. Organic farmers should be given more room to autonomously develop sustainable solutions. 1 − 1 0
29. Agro-industry and mass animal production must be restricted and subsidies withdrawn. 1 − 2 − 4
30. Organic farms can better tolerate periods of drought and other extreme weather fluctuations. 1 − 3 2
31. One of organic agriculture’s strengths is improved livestock welfare. 4 3 − 1
32. Organic production requires too much land usage for minimal yield. − 4 − 2 − 2
33. All subsidies for agriculture should be oriented much more towards protection of the environment and climate. 3 4 1
34. Organic agriculture does not contribute to employment in rural areas. − 3 − 4 − 2
35. There is no scientific proof to verify that organic food products are more healthy and environmentally friendly than conventionally produced
− 4 − 3 − 3
food.
36. The increasingly present term of “regional” in opposition to “organic” creates confusion for consumers. − 2 0 1
37. Consumers need to have a greater understanding of the work involved in food production. 0 4 4
38. At present the gap between “conventional” and “organic” production has become smaller and the differences blurred. − 2 − 2 1
39. The way we produce and consume our food has a big impact on our health. 5 5 0
40. Organic farms can better adapt to volatile fluctuating market prices and climate change. 0 − 3 2
41. Precision farming and digital technologies are necessary innovations that should be implemented in organic agriculture. − 1 1 − 1
42. The support for organic agriculture should be provided mainly from the consumers’ side. − 1 0 − 3
43. Organic products are often imported and therefore are not necessarily environmentally friendly. 0 1 2
44. Organic farms can learn from conventional farms. − 1 − 3 0

References Ascui, F., Farmery, A.K., Gale, F., 2020. Comparing sustainability claims with assurance
in organic agriculture standards. Austral. J. Environ. Manage. 27 (1), 22–41.
Barry, J., Proops, J., 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecol.
Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K., Van Huylenbroeck, G., 2009. Personal
Econ. 28 (3), 337–345.
determinants of organic food consumption: a review. Br. Food J. 111 (10),
Best, H., 2008. Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis: a case study
1140–1167.
from West Germany. Agric. Hum. Values 25 (1), 95–106.
Aertsens, J., Mondelaers, K., Verbeke, W., Buysse, J., Van Huylenbroeck, G., 2011. The
Braun, S., Rahmann, G., Strotdrees, S., Strotdrees, L., 2010. R-Evolution des Ökolandbaus
influence of subjective and objective knowledge on attitude, motivations and
(BÖkolandbau).
consumption of organic food. Br. Food J. 113 (10− 11), 1353–1378.
Bredin, Y.K., Lindhjem, H., van Dijk, J., Linnell, J.D.C., 2015. Mapping value plurality
Arbenz, M., Gould, D., Stopes, C., 2016. Organic 3.0-for Truly Sustainable Farming and
towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: AQ
Consumption.
analysis. Ecol. Econ. 118, 198–206.
Arbenz, M., Gould, D., Stopes, C., 2017. ORGANIC 3.0—the vision of the global organic
Brown, S.R., 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in POLITICAL
movement and the need for scientific support. Org. Agric. 7 (3), 199–207.
science. Yale University Press.

9
L. Zagata et al.
Brown, S.R., Ungs, T.D., 1970. Representativeness and the study of political behavior: an
application of Q technique to reactions to the Kent state incident. Soc. Sci. Q.
514–526.
Brückler, M., Resl, T., Reindl, A., 2018. Comparison of organic and conventional crop
yields in Austria. Die Bodenkultur: J. Land Manage. Food Environ. 68 (4), 223–236.
Buck, D., Getz, C., Guthman, J., 1997. From farm to table: the organic vegetable
commodity chain of northern California. Sociol. Rural. 37 (1), 3.
Conford, P., 2001. The Origins of the Organic Movement. Floris Books, Edinburgh.
Costanigro, M., Kroll, S., Thilmany, D., Bunning, M., 2014. Is it love for local/organic or
hate for conventional? Asymmetric effects of information and taste on label
preferences in an experimental auction. Food Qual. Prefer. 31, 94–105.
Dabbert, S., Haring, A.M., Zanoli, R., 2003. Organic Farming : Policies and Prospects.
Zed, London.
Darnhofer, I., Lindenthal, T., Bartel-Kratochvil, R., Zollitsch, W., 2010.
Conventionalisation of organic farming practices: from structural criteria towards an
assessment based on organic principles. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 30 (1),
67–81.
De Ponti, T., Rijk, B., Van Ittersum, M.K., 2012. The crop yield gap between organic and
conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst. 108, 1–9.
Desquilbet, M., Maigné, E., Monier-Dilhan, S., 2018. Organic food retailing and the
conventionalisation debate. Ecol. Econ. 150, 194–203.
Donald, B., Blay-Palmer, A., 2006. The urban creative-food economy: producing food for
the urban elite or social inclusion opportunity? Environ. Plan.-Econ. Space 38 (10),
1901–1920.
Dufeu, I., Le Velly, R., Brechet, J.P., Loconto, A., 2020. Can standards save organic
farming from conventionalisation? Dynamics of collective projects and rules in a
French organic producers’ organisation. Sociol. Rural. 60 (3), 621–638.
Dziopa, F., Ahern, K., 2011. A systematic literature review of the applications of Q-
technique and its methodology. Methodol. Europ. J. Res. Method. Behavior. Soc. Sci.
7 (2), 39–55.
Ellis, G., Barry, J., Robinson, C., 2007. Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’:
applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals.
J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 50 (4), 517–551.
EU, 2020. Farm to Fork Strategy – for a fair, Healthy and Environmentally-friendly Food
System. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/food/farm2fork_en. Accessed on 04/
03/2021.
Eurobarometer, S., 2018. Special Eurobarometer 473. Agriculture and the CAP. View,
Europeans.
European Commission, 2014. Action Plan for the Future of Organic Production in the
European Union. European Commission Brussels.
Eurostat, 2020. Organic production – EU(27). Available from. https://agridata.ec.europa
.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/OrganicProduction.html. Accessed on 18/10/
2020.
Fairweather, J.R., Hunt, L.M., 2011. Can farmers map their farm system? Causal
mapping and the sustainability of sheep/beef farms in New Zealand. Agric. Hum.
Values 28 (1), 55–66.
Friedmann, H., McNair, A., 2008. Whose rules rule? Contested projects to certify ‘local
production for distant consumers’1. J. Agrar. Chang. 8 (2–3), 408–434.
Garnett, T., Appleby, M.C., Balmford, A., Bateman, I.J., Benton, T.G., Bloomer, P.,
Burlingame, B., Dawkins, M., Dolan, L., Fraser, D., Herrero, M., Hoffmann, I.,
Smith, P., Thornton, P.K., Toulmin, C., Vermeulen, S.J., Godfray, H.C.J., 2013.
Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341 (6141),
33–34.
Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., Paoletti, M.G., 2011. Environmental impact of different
agricultural management practices: conventional vs. organic agriculture. Crit. Rev.
Plant Sci. 30 (1–2), 95–124.
Goodman, D., Goodman, M.K., 2007. Localism, Livelihoods and the ‘Post-Organic’:
Changing Perspectives on Alternative Food Networks in the United States.
Goodman, D., DuPuis, E.M., Goodman, M.K., 2012. Alternative Food Networks:
Knowledge, Practice, and Politics. Routledge.
Guthman, J., 1998. Regulating meaning, appropriating nature: the codification of
California organic agriculture. Antipode 30 (2), 135.
Guthman, J., 2000. Agrarian Dreams?: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California, 2.
University of California, Berkeley.
Guthman, J., 2008. The Polanyian way? Voluntary food labels as neoliberal governance.
Antipode 39 (3), 456–478.
Hall, C., Wreford, A., 2012. Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in
the livestock industry. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 17 (2), 207–222.
Hinrichs, C., Eshleman, J., 2014. Agrifood movements: diversity, aims, and limits. In:
Rural America in a Globalizing World: Problems and Prospects for the 2010s,
pp. 138–155.
Hole, D.G., Perkins, A., Wilson, J., Alexander, I., Grice, P., Evans, A.D., 2005. Does
organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 122 (1), 113–130.
Holt Giménez, E., Shattuck, A., 2011. Food crises, food regimes and food movements:
rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? J. Peasant Stud. 38 (1), 109–144.
Horlings, L.G., Marsden, T.K., 2011. Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the
conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that could
‘feed the world’. Glob. Environ. Chang. 21 (2), 441–452.
10
Ecological Economics 190 (2021) 107208
Janssen, M., Hamm, U., 2012. Product labelling in the market for organic food: consumer
preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food
Qual. Prefer. 25 (1), 9–22.
Karstens, B., Belz, F.M., 2006. Information asymmetries, labels and trust in the German
food market - a critical analysis based on the economics of information. Int. J.
Advert. 25 (2), 189–211.
Lyons, K., 2007. Supermarkets as Organic Retailers: Impacts for the Australian Organic
Sector. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
Mandolesi, S., Nicholas, P., Naspetti, S., Zanoli, R., 2015. Identifying viewpoints on
innovation in low-input and organic dairy supply chains: a Q-methodological study.
Food Policy 54, 25–34.
McKeown, B., Thomas, D., 1988. Q Method. Sage, Newbury Park.
Michelsen, J., 2001. Recent development and political acceptance of organic farming in
Europe. Sociol. Rural. 41 (1), 3.
Michelsen, J., 2009. The Europeanization of organic agriculture and conflicts over
agricultural policy. Food Policy 34 (3), 252–257.
Nicholas, P.K., Mandolesi, S., Naspetti, S., Zanoli, R., 2014. Innovations in low input and
organic dairy supply chains-what is acceptable in Europe? J. Dairy Sci. 97 (2),
1157–1167.
von Oelreich, J., Milestad, R., 2017. Sustainability transformations in the balance:
exploring Swedish initiatives challenging the corporate food regime. Eur. Plan. Stud.
25 (7), 1129–1146.
van der Ploeg, J.D., 2018. From de-to repeasantization: the modernization of agriculture
revisited. J. Rural. Stud. 61, 236–243.
van der Ploeg, J.D., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knickel, K., Mannion, J., Marsden, T., de
Roest, K., Sevilla-Guzman, E., Ventura, F., 2000. Rural development: from practices
and policies towards theoryx. Sociol. Rural. 37 (1), 21.
Pollan, M., 2007. Second Nature: A gardener’s Education. Open Road+ Grove/Atlantic.
Previte, J., Pini, B., Haslam-McKenzie, F., 2007. Q methodology and rural research.
Sociol. Rural. 47 (2), 135–147.
Rahmann, G., Ardakani, M.R., Bàrberi, P., Boehm, H., Canali, S., Chander, M., David, W.,
Dengel, L., Erisman, J.W., Galvis-Martinez, A.C., 2017. Organic agriculture 3.0 is
innovation with research. Org. Agric. 7 (3), 169–197.
Rasmussen, I.A., Rahmann, G., Løes, A.-K., 2017. Special issue of organic
agriculture—organic 3.0. Org. Agric. 7 (3), 165–167.
Raynolds, L.T., 2000. Re-embedding global agriculture: the international organic and fair
trade movements. Agric. Hum. Values 17 (3), 297–309.
Schewe, R.L., 2015. Letting go of ‘conventionalisation’: family labour on N ew Z ealand
organic dairy farms. Sociol. Rural. 55 (1), 85–105.
Schleenbecker, R., Hamm, U., 2013. Consumers’ perception of organic product
characteristics. A review. Appetite 71, 420–429.
Scozzafava, G., Gerini, F., Boncinelli, F., Contini, C., Marone, E., Casini, L., 2020. Organic
milk preference: is it a matter of information? Appetite 144, 8.
Scrinis, G., 2007. From techno-corporate food to alternative Agri-food movements. Local
Global 4, 112–140.
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A., 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and
conventional agriculture. Nature 485 (7397), 229–232.
Stephenson, W., 1953. The Study of Behavior; Q-technique and its Methodology.
Stolze, M., Lampkin, N., 2009. Policy for organic farming: rationale and concepts. Food
Policy 34 (3), 237–244.
Sutherland, L.-A., Wilson, G., Zagata, L., Sutherland, L.-A., Darnhofer, I., Wilson, G.,
Zagata, L., 2014. Introduction. In: Transition Pathways Towards Sustainability in
Agriculture: Case Studies from Europe. CABI, pp. 1–16.
Tovey, H., 1997. Food, environmentalism and rural sociology: on the organic farming
movement in Ireland. Sociol. Rural. 37 (1), 21.
Trewavas, A., 2001. Urban myths of organic farming. Nature 410 (6827), 409–410.
Turhan, E., 2016. Value-based adaptation to climate change and divergent
developmentalisms in Turkish agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 121, 140–148.
Watts, S., Stenner, P., 2005. Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation.
Qual. Res. Psychol. 2 (1), 67–91.
Wijaya, A., Offermans, A., 2019. Public agricultural extension workers as boundary
workers: identifying sustainability perspectives in agriculture using Q-methodology.
J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 25 (1), 3–24.
Willer, H., Schlatter, B., Trávnícek, J., Kemper, L., Lernoud, J., 2020. The World of
Organic Agriculture Statistics and Emerging Trends 2020. Research Institute of
Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland. ISBN 9783037361184, 337.
Winkler, K.J., Nicholas, K.A., 2016. More than wine: cultural ecosystem services in
vineyard landscapes in England and California. Ecol. Econ. 124, 86–98.
Zabala, A., 2014. qmethod: A Package to Explore Human Perspectives using Q
Methodology.
Zagata, L., 2007. Bio cash-cow? Context and content of Czech organic farming. Agric.
Econ.-Zemedelska Ekon. 53 (1), 45–53.
Zagata, L., 2010. How organic farmers view their own practice: results from the Czech
Republic. Agric. Hum. Values 27 (3), 277–290.
Zander, K., Hamm, U., 2010. Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of
organic food. Food Qual. Prefer. 21 (5), 495–503.
Zanoli, R., Cuoco, E., Barabanova, Y., Mandolesi, S., Naspetti, S., 2018. Using Q
methodology to facilitate the establishment of the 2030 vision for the EU organic
sector. Org. Agric. 8 (3), 265–273.