Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=renc20
Environmental Communication
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/renc20
Media Discourse on Sustainable Consumption in
Europe
Maria-Claudia Diaconeasa, Gabriel Popescu, Natalia Maehle, Signe Nelgen &
Roberta Capitello
To cite this article: Maria-Claudia Diaconeasa, Gabriel Popescu, Natalia Maehle, Signe Nelgen &
Roberta Capitello (2022) Media Discourse on Sustainable Consumption in Europe, Environmental
Communication, 16:3, 352-370, DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2021.1999295
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1999295
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 29 Nov 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1710
View related articles
View Crossmark data
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Media Discourse on Sustainable Consumption in Europe
Maria-Claudia Diaconeasa
a
, Gabriel Popescu
a
, Natalia Maehle
b
, Signe Nelgen
c
and
Roberta Capitello
d
a
The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania;
b
Mohn Centre for Innovation and Regional
Development, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway;
c
Geisenheim University,
Geisenheim, Germany;
d
Department of Business Administration, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
ABSTRACT
Given the importance of mass media in forming consumer attitudes,
exploring the main trends in the media discourse on sustainability is of
great interest to businesses, policymakers and researchers. This study
investigates the discourse on sustainable consumption in major
national newspapers in four European countries (Germany, Italy, Norway
and Romania), using food consumption as the specific topic. It provides
a comprehensive analysis of the issues reported in the newspapers
related to the concept of sustainable food from the longitudinal and
comparative perspective and identifies the dimensions of sustainability
reported in the examined newspapers that are associated with
sustainable food in the four different countries. This study adds to the
understanding of how the sustainable food concept has developed in
Europe over time and highlights the factors that have influenced the
development of this concept. The information gaps in the common
understanding of the sustainable food concept are pointed out through
this research, therefore illustrating how to enhance consumer
awareness about this issue.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 21 April 2021
Accepted 24 October 2021
KEYWORDS
Sustainable consumption;
sustainable food; media
discourse; cross-country
analysis; mass media
communication
Introduction
Sustainable production and consumption are accepted as key aspects of inclusive public policy for
both developed and developing countries (UN, 2015). Several studies have analyzed the importance
of sustainability from the production side (Fiala et al., 2021). In addition, research is paying increas-
ing attention to the consumer side of sustainability efforts (ElHaffar et al., 2020). From an individual
perspective, sustainable consumer behavior differs from traditional behavior because it shifts focus
from satisfying the consumer’s immediate personal needs to achieving long-term benefits for
humanity and nature as a whole (White et al., 2019). Therefore, it is important to conduct research
that will create understanding of the dynamics of sustainable consumption.
One of the domains of sustainable consumption that has received a great deal of attention in the
research and public debate on sustainability is sustainable food, broadly defined as food that allows
consumers to pursue their environmental and ethical values (Halder et al., 2020). The focus is given
to sustainable food due to its recognized importance for sustainable development (Sala et al., 2017;
Vermeir et al., 2020) and high level of greenhouse gas emissions created by the food sector (Fiala
et al., 2021). Despite the increased focus on sustainable food, there is a clear need for further
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT Roberta Capitello roberta.capitello@univr.it Department of Business Administration, University of Verona, Via
Cantarane 24, 37129 Verona, Italy
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION
2022, VOL. 16, NO. 3, 352–370
https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1999295
research in this domain. For example, it is important to understand how knowledge about sustain-
able food contributes to shaping consumer attitudes (Verain et al., 2015).
Several studies have explored how various information sources convey sustainability-related
information, for example, business communication, advertising, product information and labeling
(Grunert et al., 2014; Reilly & Larya, 2018 ) . However, it remains underinvestigated how mass
media and national press contribute to the sustainability debate (Diprose et al., 2018) and to the
debate on sustainable food in particular (Bellotti & Panzone, 2016; Fiala et al., 2021).
Mass media performs a role of a gatekeeper by selecting and disseminating information to raise pub-
lic awareness of specific issues (Carvalho, 2007; Strong & Wells, 2020), and can thus shape opinions and
understanding related to sustainable food (White et al., 2019). Moreover, mass media acts as a com-
munication channel for scientists, experts and businesses who want to educate the general public
about sustainability (Summ & Volpers, 2016). Therefore, mass media can not only contribute to increas-
ing public awareness and consciousness, but also generate a “common”understanding of the sustainable
food concept for consumers and businesses (Diprose et al., 2018). It can also increase the sense of indi-
vidual responsibility for making sustainable choices (Lee et al., 2019).
Considering the importance of mass media in forming individual attitudes towards sustainable
food, understanding the main trends in the media discourse on sustainable food is of great interest
to both the food industry and policymakers. For food businesses, better understanding of consumers’
perceptions of sustainable food can help to develop marketing and communication strategies (Reilly
&Larya,2018). Similarly, policymakers can use the media trends to guide public opinion and develop
European and national food policies towards a more sustainable direction (Strong & Wells, 2020).
To address these issues the current study investigates the discourse on sustainable food con-
sumption in major national newspapers in four European countries (Germany, Italy, Norway
and Romania). The focus is set on mainstream national newspapers because they are perceived
by the public as professional and trustworthy (Bellotti & Panzone, 2016; Fiala et al., 2021), providing
an accessible way of assessing national trends and being a good indicator of nationally prevalent
cultural evaluations on a considered issue (Broadbent et al., 2016). Despite a growing interest in
sustainable food in social media (e.g. in Instagram), their information quality is difficult to control
due to the high number of users posting their opinions, which leads to more complexity and makes
social media a peculiar case requiring a study on its own (Mapes & Ross, 2020).
The study attempts to answer the following research questions (RQs):
RQ1: What are the main issues represented in the sustainable food debate in the mainstream national news-
papers in the four analyzed European countries?
RQ2: How have the key issues in the sustainable food discourse evolved over time?
RQ3: Who are the main actors participating in the sustainable food debate?
RQ4: Are there any differences between the analyzed countries in the media discourse related to sustainable food?
The paper includes four main sections. The following section presents the theoretical back-
ground of the study. The methodology section explains the data collection and data analysis pro-
cedures. The findings section presents the country-specific and overall results of the analysis.
The discussion section explains the main findings in the light of the relevant literature and illus-
trates the implications for businesses and policymakers. Finally, we discuss the limitations of the
current study and suggest future research avenues.
Theoretical background
Understandings of sustainable food consumption
Since the Brundtland Report (1987) was issued, broadly defining sustainable development as an
aspiration to meet the current needs without compromising the ability to meet those in the future,
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 353
sustainability became a universal goal which may be applied to any domain, including the one of
food. To provide a background for our investigation, below we discuss the definition of the sustain-
able food concept and present a short overview of the previous research findings on sustainable
food consumption. The existing literature defines sustainable food as a broad category that encom-
passes the following: food produced with minimal negative impact on the environment (Spendrup
et al., 2019); food produced with respect for human rights and animal welfare (Halder et al., 2020);
food produced with artisanal and typical production practices (e.g. traditional products, products
under quality schemes) (Sama et al., 2018); locally produced food (e.g. zero-mile food or local food)
(Elhoushy, 2020); healthy and nutritious food (e.g. plant-based food) (Ibarrola-Rivas & Galicia,
2017); food packaged in recycled and recyclable materials or with no packaging (e.g. paper or bio-
plastic packing) (Beitzen-Heineke et al., 2017); food that leads to minimal waste (e.g. new practices
to store food at home) (Vermeir et al., 2020).
The literature discusses several categories of factors influencing sustainable food choices (posi-
tively and negatively). One category relates to consumer knowledge about food, specifically consu-
mer understanding of the sustainable food concept (Stranieri et al., 2017), and consumer education
about sustainable food (Graça et al., 2020).Another category focuses on the potential benefits of
consuming sustainable food, for example, health benefits (Ibarrola-Rivas & Galicia, 2017); environ-
mental benefits (Krishnan et al., 2020); and increased social responsibility (Sama et al., 2018). A
third category looks at individual-level factors, for example, sustainable practices (Lee et al.,
2019); specific diets and lifestyle changes (Spendrup et al., 2019); favorable attitudes towards
environmental protection (Krishnan et al., 2020) or sustainable habits (Vermeir et al., 2020). A
final category relates to the barriers for buying sustainable food, such as limited availability of sus-
tainable products (Vermeir et al., 2020) and price differences between regular and sustainable food
(Sama et al., 2018).
Importance of cultural background for sustainable food consumption
The previous research demonstrates that cultural dimensions influence peoples’attitudes and
expectations in various domains including sustainability. Vermeir et al. (2020)find that people
with traditional values are more likely to consume sustainable products. In addition, Halder
et al. (2020) claim that collectivism and long-term orientation positively influence sustainable
consumption attitudes, while traditionalism and short-term orientation have a negative effect
on sustainable consumption. Gregory–Smith et al. (2017) argue that willingness to pay for
green products is higher in collectivistic societies. Also, Sulmont-Rossé et al. (2019) claim
that collectivist societies associate good food with positive feelings of happiness and enthu-
siasm, while individualistic societies associate good food with proper nutrition and health
benefits.
In this study, we use the widely accepted cultural dimensions developed by Hofstede (2011)
to discuss the differences in the sustainable food discourse between the four European
countries (Halder et al., 2020; Vermeir et al., 2020). Hofstede’s(2011) cultural dimensions
include power-distance (individuals’reaction to the issue of inequality); uncertainty avoidance
(individuals’reaction to facing an uncertain future); individualism versus collectivism (the level
of individuals’need to belong to a social group); masculinity versus femininity (the level of
emotional expressivity and the roles of men and women in the society); long-term versus
short-term orientation (individuals’focus on the past, present or future); indulgence versus
restraint (individuals’focus on enjoying life).
Sustainable food and media discourse
Mass media can contribute to increasing consumer knowledge on food sustainability by bringing
science ‘out on the street’(Summ & Volpers, 2016), as one of the media’s responsibilities is
354 M.-C. DIACONEASA ET AL.
being a source of science- and technology-related information (Carvalho, 2007). The power of the
media is demonstrated in several studies. For example, Bellotti and Panzone (2016) argue that con-
sumers’awareness of a specific topic increases along with the higher frequency of the topic’s appear-
ance in the newspapers. Moreover, the media influences both political and public agendas (Strong &
Wells, 2020) and contributes to shaping people’s behavior (Summ & Volpers, 2016), therefore it can
serve as a significant tool in promoting sustainable food consumption. Yet, Janoušková et al. (2019)
report low involvement of the British press in the sustainability debate, while Fischer et al. (2017)
demonstrate that in the German newspapers “sustainability”has evolved from being only a fashion-
able word to an elaborated concept of sustainable development.
When discussing the role of media, it is important to consider how the media selects and pre-
sents information. The topic selection process involves several factors: the potential of the infor-
mation to capture readers’attention, the importance of the information, who will advocate for
the information, the socioeconomic context of the reported timeframe, the controversy, novelty
and relevance of the topic for the reader, and the proximity of the topic (Carvalho, 2007).
The way the media frames messages by highlighting particular topics can guide individuals
towards certain attitudes (Atanasova, 2019). Media coverage of various topics (e.g. organic food,
environmental labeling, food prices or sustainability) has a significant effect on consumer behavior
and three main frames are identified by Diprose et al. (2018) in the United Kingdom regarding sus-
tainability: solutions, corporate social responsibility and “sustainable”consumerism. Also, media
has the ability to raise public awareness and influence public opinion on the food policy agenda,
and to shape the policy construction around a specific topic (Strong & Wells, 2020). For example,
the positive framing of sustainable agricultural practices in the farmers-oriented UK press
influenced the farmers to adopt such practices in their work (Rust et al., 2021).
Thus, analyzing the media discourse is extremely important for understanding consumer behav-
ior in relation to sustainable food, therefore truly relevant to businesses and policymakers. For
example, comparing the media debate in different European countries, as proposed in this study,
reveals the national differences in consumers’attitudes towards sustainable food consumption,
allowing businesses to tailor their marketing concepts to the national settings.
As previous cross-country studies point out, the media attention to particular sustainability
related issues has proliferated in the last years, focusing predominantly on climate change (Barke-
meyer et al., 2018; Günay et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2013). By analyzing the newspaper articles in 27
countries, Schmidt et al. (2013)observed a higher media attention to climate change in the carbon
dependent countries with Kyoto Protocol agreements. Nevertheless, after analyzing 113 newspapers
in 41 different countries, Barkemeyer et al. (2017) claim that the topic has progressed from being “a
rich country issue”to being a part of the common news vocabulary who frame it eighter from the
mitigation perspective or from the adaptation perspective (Günay et al., 2021). Yet, in their study on
five countries, Barkemeyer et al. (2018) observe the downside of such great attention given to cli-
mate change, meaning the lack of attention on other sustainable development issues such as biodi-
versity or cleaner technologies. Further limitations of the previous studies on media coverage of
sustainability and climate change are identified by Ghosh and Boykoff(2018), who observe that
these studies have mostly focused on English speaking and developed countries.
The present study draws from the fact that sustainability coverage has internationally grown in
importance in the media through the debate on climate change, involving more and more actors in
the topic and receiving more attention in the public agendas (Ghosh & Boykoff,2018; Schmidt et al.,
2013). On the other one hand, sustainable consumption is getting considerable upsurge in the aca-
demic research and in the public consideration (Vermeir et al., 2020; White et al., 2019), which are
attributing to the food system and the sustainable food consumption a pivotal role to move the
economic system and the society towards more sustainable choices (Béné et al., 2019; Galli et al.,
2020). Therefore, the current study differs from the previous ones by taking on a novel topic of
the media discourse analysis, examining the articles on sustainable food in the main national
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 355
newspapers and comparing different European countries with various cultural and developmental
backgrounds.
Materials and methods
Selected countries
To achieve a comprehensive understanding of the media discourse on sustainable food in Europe,
we selected four countries that represent different regions: Germany (Central Europe), Italy
(Southern Europe), Norway (Northern Europe) and Romania (Eastern Europe). These countries
provide an interesting study context for a longitudinal cross-country comparison. Specifically,
they differ in their level of economic development, which might contribute to a different framing
of the media discourse on food sustainability (Atanasova, 2019). For example, the real gross dom-
estic product (GDP) per capita in 2019 was as follows: Norway 69,770 euros, Germany 35,970 euros,
Italy 26,860 euros and Romania 9130 euros (Eurostat, 2020). The countries also differ in their stage
of ecological development. According to The Footprint Network (2020), Norway has a biocapacity
(i.e. the productivity of a country’s ecological assets) reserve, while the other three countries have a
biocapacity debt.
We also observe differences in terms of average spending on organic food; in 2018, 131.7 euros/
capita in Germany, 79.2 euros/capita in Norway, 57.6 euros/capita in Italy and 2.06 euros/capita in
Romania (FiBL, 2020). However, the organic market occupied a small share of the total food market
in 2018 for all four countries (FiBL, 2020). Moreover, the selected countries also follow different diets.
In 2017, the meat consumption was as follows: Germany 84.8 kg/capita; Italy 78.2 kg/capita; Norway
61.5 kg/capita and Romania 59.6 kg/capita. Whereas the fish consumption was Norway 40.16 kg/
capita; Italy 17.64 kg/capita; Germany 11.22 kg/capita and Romania 5.62 kg/capita (FAO, 2020).
Comparing the four countries based on cultural dimensions by Hofstede et al. (2005), Norway
and Germany share a high trust in the authorities, while the trust in the authorities in Romania is
low due to a high level of corruption, generating a strong feeling of unsafety. Norwegians and Ger-
mans tend to respect and accept new rules, while it takes longer for Romanians to do so. Italy,
Germany and Norway are individualistic societies, focusing on relationships with close family,
while Romania is a collectivist society, where shared responsibility for each society member is
expected. In addition, Romanians focus less on long-term health and wellbeing, while Germans
and Italians have long-term orientation, more easily adapting their traditions to new contexts. Nor-
wegians have a short-term orientation, preferring to see quick results of their work.
Selected media
To analyze the media discourse on sustainable food, the three most influential mainstream national
newspapers from each country were identified based on the official number of readers and avail-
ability of an online article archive (Table 1). We also attempted to include the newspapers reflecting
different political orientations to secure the representation of various political opinions.
We conducted a longitudinal study, extracting the articles published in the five-year period from
January 2014 to December 2018.
As a starting point, we used the key phrase “sustainable food consumption”to search for related
articles in the newspapers’online archives. The search was then expanded by including “sustainable
food”and “sustainability”and “food.”Only articles related to both food and sustainability were
included. The search phrases were used in national languages and included all synonyms of the
key words (see Table A1 in the Appendix).
By following this procedure, we extracted 2155 valid articles from the online archives of the
selected newspapers. The higher number of articles extracted in Italy in comparison with the
other three investigated countries can be mainly explained by the international exposition, Expo
356 M.-C. DIACONEASA ET AL.
2015 “Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life,”hosted in Milan (Italy) in 2015. The theme of the expo-
sition generated great attention around the topics of food sustainability in the media. Several initiat-
ives connected with the Expo theme (for example, workshops, public talks, festivals) were organized
before and after the exposition and many newspaper articles reported and commented them.
1
Food
is a relevant subject for Italian people and a significant component of Italian culture, as it is demon-
strated by the choice of the theme for Expo 2015, and also by previous studies on food discourse in
Italy (Brunori et al., 2013; Tiozzo et al., 2019).
All valid articles were imported to qualitative analysis software (NVivo for Italy, Norway and
Romania, and MAXQDA for Germany). Using this type of software allowed us to manage and cat-
egorize article content and facilitated the cross-country analysis of the media discourse (Jackson &
Bazeley, 2019; Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019).
The articles were analyzed using the following coding process (Saldaña, 2021). In the first stage
of coding, for each country a designated researcher, native speaker, read through the original
sources and classified the content creating “nodes”in the English language. Descriptive and simul-
taneous coding was used. Then a second researcher for each country, also a native speaker, ensured
accuracy auditing the text and the coding. If there was no consensus, the researchers discussed a
particular piece of text and coded until they agreed on the assigned code. In subsequent stages
of the coding, nodes were further reviewed and developed through coding and recoding in each
national team (Saldaña, 2021). This process allowed us to identify the following elements for
each country: main topics in the sustainable food discourse; main actors involved in the sustainable
food debate; key trends in the sustainable food debate over time. At the final stage, further recoding,
Table 1. Selected Newspapers and Number of Valid Articles on the Topic of Sustainable Food in Each Analyzed Country.
Country, total
number of analyzed
articles Newspaper Newspaper ranking by circulation (2018)
Valid articles
extracted
Germany Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
(“Frankfurt General
Newspaper”)
Third largest newspaper. The political orientation is
liberal conservative.
91
n= 334 Süddeutsche Zeitung Second largest newspaper. The political orientation is
progressive liberate, center-left.
159
(“South German Newspaper”)
Der Spiegel Largest news website and magazine. The political
orientation is center-left.
84
(“The Mirror”)
Italy La Stampa Daily general-interest newspaper is the fourth largest
online and fifth largest in print newspaper in Italy.
491
n= 1325 (“The Press”) The political orientation is center-moderated.
La Repubblica (“The Republic”) Daily general-interest newspaper is the second largest
in print and third largest online newspaper in Italy.
489
The political orientation is center-left.
Il Sole 24 Ore Daily economic and financial-interest newspaper is the
largest online and tenth largest in print newspaper.
The owner is Confindustria, the main national
association of manufacturing and service companies
in Italy.
345
(“The Sun 24 Hours”)
Norway Aftenposten Largest newspaper in print and third largest online.
The political orientation is liberal conservative.
170
n= 314 (“Evening Post”)
Dagbladet Second largest newspaper online. It is a liberal
newspaper with a social profile.
75
(“Daily Magazine”)
Verdens Gang (“Course of the
World”)
Second largest newspaper in print and largest online. It
is an independent newspaper.
69
Romania Adevărul Third largest newspaper in print. It is an independent
newspaper.
47
n= 182 (“Truth”)
Evenimentul Zilei Largest newspaper in print. The official orientation is
independent, yet the owner of the newspaper shows
strong connections to a new conservative party.
52
(“News of the Day”)
România LiberăSecond largest newspaper in print. The political
orientation is democratic and pro-capitalist.
83
(“Free Romania”)
Total 2155
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 357
refining and categorizing were conducted by the four research teams working together to discover
differences between countries and identify common themes and trends (see Figure A1 in the
Appendix), building up to the final set of codes, presented in Table 3.
Findings
Main topics in the sustainable food media discourse
Table 2 presents an overview of the main topics in the media discourse across the analyzed
countries.
As it may be observed from Table 2, the top-5 topics in each of the four countries occupy more
than 40% of the newspaper coverage. Yet, there is no topic with a similar importance in all four
countries. For the most common topics, diets and food patterns (including meat consumption)
and health are present in Germany, Norway and Romania, and food industry is common for
Germany, Italy and Norway. Food trends are more important for Germany and Norway, sustain-
able technologies and innovations for Italy and Norway, and the political agenda for sustainable
society is more present in Italy and Romania. The other national top five topics represent particu-
larities of each country, such as the importance given to the events promoting sustainable food in
Italy, especially after the powerful experience of the Milan Expo 2015.
Based on the top-5 topics identified in the media discourse, the understanding of sustainable
food consumption in each country can be summarized in the following way. In Germany, sustain-
able food consumption encompasses specific diets and food trends, including meat reduced diets
and health concerns, but also environmental concerns and sustainability of the food industry. In
Italy, sustainable food consumption involves food-related events, education and information dedi-
cated to sustainable food, focus on sustainable food from policymakers and food industry, and sus-
tainable technology and innovations. In Norway, the concept of sustainable food consumption
relates to the food industry’s initiatives to increase sustainability, sustainable technology and inno-
vations, food trends and diets, as well as health considerations. In Romania, sustainable food con-
sumption covers health concerns, diets and food trends, political agendas for sustainable society,
company strategies in the food industry, as well as the economic aspects of sustainability.
In summary, based on the most common topics in all four countries, the concept of sustainable
food consumption can be defined as the situation when consumers follow sustainable diets and food
trends, political agendas consider sustainable development of the society and food industry partici-
pates in sustainable initiatives and development of more sustainable technologies; all together lead-
ing to better health of the population and environmental protection at affordable costs.
Table 3 presents an overview of sustainable food topics and their weight for the four analyzed
countries. We organize the main findings of the cross-country analysis based on four sustainability
dimensions, namely: the human being, the society, the nature and the economy. These dimensions
reflect the dominant interpretation of sustainability in the literature, through its three mutually
Table 2. Top-5 topics on sustainable food discussed in each analyzed country –percent of total references per country (%).
Germany (42.20%)
1. Diets and food patterns (including meat consumption)
2. Food industry
3. Environmental concerns
4. Health
5. Food trends
Italy (44.16%)
1. Events promoting sustainable food
2. Political agenda for sustainable society
3. Education and information
4. Food industry
5. Sustainable technology and innovations
Norway (51.25%)
1. Food industry
2. Food trends
3. Health
4. Sustainable technology and innovations
5. Diets and food patterns (including meat consumption)
Romania (42.65%)
1. Health
2. Political agenda for sustainable society
3. Diets and food patterns (including meat consumption)
4. Company strategies in the food industry
5. Economic aspects of sustainability and circular economy
358 M.-C. DIACONEASA ET AL.
supportive dimensions: social (business practices related to human capital and community, as well
as social policy and community development through social justice and equity, and social infra-
structure); environmental (the activities that do not compromise the natural resources of future
generations) and economic (the impact of business choices on the economic system) (Elkington,
1997; Purvis et al., 2019). However, several researchers argue that the three dimensions do not
cover all aspects of sustainability, as each individual is a piece of the growth chain, and there
would be no society without an individual (Venkatesh, 2010). Even more, food is a particular pro-
duce, supporting human live. Some authors argue that there is a direct link between a healthy diet,
chosen for personal benefits, and environmental health, as a positive consequence (Tilman & Clark,
2014). Yet, Béné et al. (2019) point out the current unsustainability of modern food systems, con-
sumption included. Therefore, we add a fourth dimension, the human being, as a necessary com-
ponent of the concept of food sustainability. The human dimension considers issues related to
human wellbeing (e.g. health and safety) and individual human actions supporting sustainable
development (e.g. food trends, food choices and diets).
Germany
In Germany, each of the four sustainability dimensions received almost equal attention. As for the
topics, the diets and food patterns one was leading the debate, followed by the topics of food indus-
try, environmental concerns, health, food trend and food waste. Many of the topics are highly inter-
linked, such as diets and food patterns (e.g. meat consumption), health and animal welfare.
The node diets and food patterns include a high and almost equal share of references on two
meat-free diets (vegetarian and vegan). The food industry is the second most frequent topic and
covers articles on the actions of large multinational firms. Next, environmental concerns topic
includes a variety of issues (e.g. CO
2
emissions, palm oil, bees and insects, soy production and
Table 3. Overview of Main Sustainable Food Topics in Four European Countries from January 2014 to December 2018 –percent
of total references per country (%).
Dimension Topic Germany Italy Norway Romania
Human Being 28.13 16.14 29.10 31.75
Health 8.10 2.63 9.45 12.55
Food safety and security 2.96 4.44 1.39 5.13
Food trends 6.57 4.94 11.08 5.83
Diets and food patterns
(including meat consumption)
10.51 4.13 7.17 8.24
Society 17.57 42.03 10.84 23.64
Education and information 4.05 6.87 1.47 5.64
Political agenda for sustainable society 4.11 8.49 3.42 9.06
Events promoting sustainable food 3.83 15.17 3.02 3.74
Ethical aspects of sustainability (including fair trade) 3.28 6.25 0.90 3.23
Local food culture 2.30 5.25 2.04 1.96
Nature 25.07 17.81 25.67 9.38
Environmental concerns 8.21 6.22 6.19 4.75
Packaging challenges 3.17 1.16 0.73 0.89
Organic farming 2.41 1.62 6.68 0.70
Biodiversity 2.79 1.62 3.26 0.13
Sustainable Development Goals 0.16 2.86 0.81 0.38
Food waste 6.13 3.98 2.93 1.84
Animal welfare 2.19 0.35 5.05 0.70
Economy 29.23 24.02 34.39 35.23
Food industry 8.81 6.83 14.59 5.51
Economic aspects of sustainability and circular economy 0.82 3.17 1.87 6.27
Food costs and prices 4.87 0.23 2.36 4.75
Sustainable technology and innovations 5.25 6.80 8.96 3.30
Company strategies in the food industry 3.45 4.75 4.16 6.53
Agricultural policy and support schemes 2.74 2.05 1.55 4.50
Sustainable certification and labeling 3.28 0.19 0.90 4.37
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 359
animal feed). The topic health focuses on meat scandals (e.g. listeria/bacteria infestation, slaughter-
ing of sick cattle in Poland); health effects of meat consumption; natural diets; and weight loss. Food
trends and animal welfare are fourth and fifth in the list. The node food trends include articles on
alternatives to meat products (e.g. insect foods); urban agriculture; packaging-free shopping; and
so-called “super foods.”
The topics that attracted little attention include SDGs, economic aspects of sustainability and
circular economy, animal welfare, local food culture and organic farming.
Italy
In Italy, the society dimension received most of the coverage. The majority of the references dis-
cussed here associated food with a sustainable and fair society. Events promoting sustainable
food and political agenda for sustainable society are the two most popular topics. The key event
discussed is the Expo exhibition held in Milan in 2015, international event that generated many
activities (workshops, festivals or conventions), focused on relevant sustainability issues at global
level. The Milan Charter, a manifesto developed during the Expo, generates considerable debate
around sustainable development in urban areas and the role of local public bodies. In the society
dimension, there was also a significant focus on the challenges related to food education and infor-
mation, ethical aspects of sustainability and local food culture.
In the economy dimension, the food industry and sustainable technology and innovation are the
leading topics. Many articles describe the differentiation strategies of the national food producers
based on sustainability-related initiatives (e.g. eco-friendly agriculture, organic production, novel
food or ecolabels). Sustainability is also related to scientific research and its industrial applications
(e.g. urban agriculture, product traceability biotechnology, eco-packaging or big data
management).
In the nature dimension, the environmental concerns, including the aspects of climate change,
carbon emissions, pollution and green energy, receive particular attention, followed by the debate
on finding new solutions to manage waste.
The human being dimension has two streams of discussion: first, there is a debate on health, food
safety and security; second, sustainable food choices are represented as a new lifestyle through a
growing media coverage on food innovations, new diets, recipes, menus, new retailing types or
restaurants.
The three least discussed topics are sustainable certification and labeling, food costs and prices
and animal welfare.
Norway
In Norway, the top five topics attracting attention in the media are food industry, food trends,
health, sustainable technology and innovations and diets and food patterns. In the topic of the
food industry, there is a particularly strong focus on fish farming and the seafood industry,
which are important to the Norwegian economy, as they contribute to a more sustainable economic
development due to low CO
2
emissions. However, the debate refers to several challenges experi-
enced in fish farming (e.g. spread of diseases and sea lice, use of antibiotics, animal welfare),
which need to be addressed to secure sustainable growth. In addition, there is a great focus on var-
ious food trends, with a prevailing emphasis on vegan and vegetarian food, local short-travelled
food and urban agriculture.
Health is another important topic, where the discussion centers on food healthiness, increase in
food-caused lifestyle diseases and avoiding those by following healthier food diets (e.g. more plant-
based diet).
360 M.-C. DIACONEASA ET AL.
Finally, a large discussion on meat consumption (for and against) is found within the topic of
diets and food patterns. Despite a growing focus on vegetarian and vegan food, Norwegians con-
tinue to consume large quantities of meat.
The five least discussed topics in the Norwegian newspapers are packaging challenges, SDGs,
sustainable certification and labeling, ethical aspects of sustainability, and food safety and security.
Of the four dimensions of sustainability, the economy dimension receives most attention given
the popularity of two topics (food industry and sustainable technology and innovations), closely
followed by the human being dimension and the nature dimension. However, there is little interest
for the society dimension, despite some attention given to the political agenda for sustainable
society and events promoting sustainable food.
Romania
In the Romanian newspapers, most of the references to food sustainability are under the dimensions
of the economy and human being, followed by the society dimension and the nature dimension.
Health and diets and food patterns are two of the top three topics. Two directions of the debate
relate to both of these topics: first, unhealthy food habits (e.g. high intake of fats or sugars, prefer-
ring quantity over quality) and second, advice from experts (e.g. physicians, nutritionists) on chan-
ging those habits (e.g. reducing meat and increasing vegetable consumption, choosing quality
foods). In addition, the high availability of unhealthy products is often discussed.
The topic of political agenda for sustainable society includes two main issues: political initiatives
related to food sustainability (e.g. the food waste law, promoting local food producers, investigating
the different quality standards of food) and criticism of existing initiatives (e.g. issuing the food
waste law without the implementing norms).
Company strategies in the food industry are not mentioned very often, and when they are men-
tioned, it is a counterpoint to government strategies that are being criticized. This node includes
environmental issues (e.g. reducing the use of resources or switching to sustainable inputs) and
social issues (e.g. corporate social responsibility). Other themes here relate to unjustified political
interventions in the market, effects of the economy on food security and local food production.
Another important topic is food costs and prices, with recurring references to limited economic
resources of Romanian consumers. The need for education and information on food and nutrition
is also acknowledged.
Some environmental concerns (increased pollution and waste, consumption patterns that nega-
tively influence nature) receive some attention, while others (biodiversity, animal welfare and
organic farming) receive almost no attention.
Development of the topics during the study period
Figure 1 presents the evolution of the media debate for the four sustainability dimensions in the
four countries.
For Germany, the analysis of the dimensions over time reveals that the largest shifts occur in the
human being and economy dimensions. Particularly, the diets and food patterns topic drops from
approximately 60% in 2014 to 7% in 2018. Under the economy dimension, the food industry topic
undergoes the most significant changes, from approximately 30% in 2014 to 60% in 2018. This high
percentage in the last year of the analysis is mostly driven by discussions about the takeover of Mon-
santo by the German multinational Bayer in 2018, which has been watched with concern by envir-
onmentalists, ecologically-oriented farmers and critical consumers (e.g. regarding biodiversity,
controversial insecticides, the concentration of the agricultural input industry and the conse-
quences for sustainability in the food sector). Articles on company strategies in the food industry
also contribute to the increase in the economy dimension during the analyzed period, increasing
from 4% in 2014 to 22% in 2018. In the nature dimension, references to organic farming drop
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 361
strongly from 17% in 2014 to 4% in 2018, while the relative importance of the topics biodiversity
and packaging challenges increase from 8% to 23% and 20%, respectively, in the study period. For
the society dimension, we register strong fluctuations for the topic events promoting sustainable
food because of specific events particularly relevant in some of the years in the study period (e.g.
in 2017, there was much discussion about the introduction of a weekly veggie day in public can-
teens). The German federal election in 2017 is also very visible, with the topics political agenda
for sustainable society, education and information increasing strongly.
For Italy, the society dimension remains of principal interest throughout the analyzed period. It
reaches the greatest level of attention in 2015, driven by the Milan Expo. In the subsequent years,
the ethical and cultural aspects of sustainability under the society dimension remain the most refer-
enced, but their relative importance to the other dimensions of food sustainability decreases as
references to the other dimensions increase. In fact, the economy dimension gradually attracts
the media interest. It accounts for 28.6% of the discussed topics in 2018 because of growing atten-
tion on sustainable technology and innovations for developing more sustainable production and
marketing systems in agribusiness. References to the nature and human being dimensions also
increase to represent 21.4% and 18.5%, respectively, of the topics discussed in 2018. For the nature
dimension, the emergence of the Fridays for Future movement in 2018 increases the awareness
around the global environmental problems. Under the human being dimension, the increasing
attention is on the topics food trends, diet and food patterns, and health, with a focus on sustainable
food as a fashionable lifestyle and the relationship between unhealthy diets and non-communicable
diseases.
For Norway, the trends for the different dimensions remain more or less the same over the five-
year period. References to the economy dimension increase the most each year, except in 2018 when
the human being dimension increases equally. The human being dimension has the second largest
increase over the study period (except in 2014, when the increases in references to the nature
dimension was higher than that of the human dimension), with the debate on the topics of health
Figure 1. Development of Topics in the Four European Countries in Analyzed Newspapers from January 2014 to December 2018
–percent of total references per country and year (%).
362 M.-C. DIACONEASA ET AL.
and diets and food patterns growing almost each year. The nature dimension has varying degrees of
importance across the five-year period. After occupying the second position in 2014 because of
many discussions on animal welfare and biodiversity, it falls to being the third most referenced
dimension in 2015 and remains there. The attention to the nature dimension in the media debate
in Norway drops significantly in 2017 (due to the decrease in discussions on organic farming); how-
ever, it regains some attention in 2018, with the increased focus on environmental concerns. The
society dimension is the least referenced one. This dimension has some increase in attention in
2015 and 2016, mainly because of the greater emphasis on the topics education and information,
political agenda for sustainable society and events promoting sustainable food. Despite this
increase, in 2018, references to this dimension return to the 2014 level.
For Romania, the economy dimension remains the most important over the study period, except
in 2015, and this interest is mostly because of the references to sustainable company strategies in the
food industry, the economic impact of these strategies and the high costs of food at the national
level, with its implications on the quality of life. The human being dimension is the second in rela-
tive importance over the years, reaching its highest level in 2015 (45.2%). The most important topics
in this dimension are health and food safety and security, which constantly grow over the five-year
study period. The society dimension was the least important in 2014 (around 8%), but references to
this dimension continued to increase in 2018, when it reached 22.8%, mostly due to an increasing
interest in policy actions relating to sustainable certification and labeling food products. The nature
dimension constantly attracts the lowest level of interest, reaching 12.5% in 2018.
Actors participating in the public debate
In Germany, the media debate on sustainable food actively involves all members of the society; food
producers (large and small), retailers (small package-free shops and large supermarkets), poli-
ticians, individual consumers, environmental activists, associations of different types and research-
ers from various fields. Researchers represented in the media debate cover a wide variety of topics,
such as climate research, biodiversity, plant ecology, consumer behavior and nutrition.
In Italy, a highly active actor is the Slow Food movement, with many articles reporting their
events and initiatives organized during the analyzed period, particularly during the Milan Expo
2015. Italian food companies and retailers also actively participate in the debate on food sustainabil-
ity by promoting their strategies (corporate social responsibility) and innovations (new eco-packa-
ging solutions). Other actors are associations of food producers and farmers, professional experts
on food and/or sustainability and researchers. These actors mostly discuss the importance of sus-
tainability for the development and competitiveness of the Italian food system, new frontiers of
research, and technological innovations. Opinion leaders, institutional representatives (e.g. Pope
Francis) and celebrities also participate in the debate. These actors focus more on the social aspects
of food sustainability and environmental concerns. Surprisingly, individual consumers and consu-
mers’associations are not particularly active in the sustainable food debate. However, they are often
mentioned as the main target of many public initiatives and business strategies.
The most active participants in the sustainable food debate in Norway are researchers, company
representatives and representatives from non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The researchers
participating in the debate come from a variety of disciplines (e.g. consumer behavior, agronomy,
technology, climate research, marine science, biology, nutrition and medicine). In addition, a broad
group of companies participate in the debate, for example, restaurants, food producers from various
industries and retailers. The NGOs participating in the debate generally focus on discussion about
climate, sustainability and animal welfare. Surprisingly, government authorities and politicians are
not particularly active in the debate. These are mostly represented by food safety authorities, various
ministries, innovation advisors, research council representatives and the biotechnology advisory
board. Moreover, few farmers and consumers participate in the debate and Norwegian farmers’
association is not very active.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 363
For Romania, the most active debate actors are represented by two categories of professional
experts (i.e. health and nutrition experts and economic and policy experts). Health and nutrition
experts warn about the current food consumption patterns and provide advice on necessary
changes, while economic and policy experts criticize policy decisions and actions, and offer predic-
tions based on those decisions. Other important actors are the authority representatives (both
national and local) who present their food-related actions and results. Generally, the economic
and policy experts and the authorities oppose each other, generating considerable debate on topics
related to health and policy agenda. Food companies and producer associations are also present,
mostly discussing their efforts on sustainable development and requesting authorities’support.
Consumers and NGO representatives are the actors least represented in the debate. Only one
NGO stands out, appearing in several articles about the low quality of food products in Romania.
Discussion
The analysis of the sustainable food discourse in the mainstream national newspapers in four Euro-
pean countries (Germany, Italy, Norway and Romania) offers important insights into the main
issues related to food sustainability and provides a better understanding of how this concept is pre-
sented to the public.
To answer RQ1 and RQ4, the main issues represented in the sustainable food debate in the main-
stream national newspapers were identified and compared across the four analyzed European
countries. Similar to Spendrup et al. (2019) and Jabareen (2008), our results demonstrate the differ-
ences in the sustainable food debate between three developed European countries (Germany, Italy
and Norway) and a less developed European country (Romania). In the developed countries, the
reasons for choosing sustainable products (e.g. provenance, certification, alternative ways of pro-
duction) are particularly framed, while in the less developed country, the focus is on prohibitively
high prices for quality food, which is in line with previous research (Ibarrola-Rivas & Galicia, 2017;
Sama et al., 2018). This can also explain the low level of attention to the nature dimension of food
sustainability in Romania because sustainability-related issues come second after ensuring econ-
omic stability (Jabareen, 2008). Therefore, we argue that the media in developing countries mainly
frames the sustainable food debate by highlighting the affordability of sustainable food, while long-
term health-related and environmental benefits of sustainable food are the frames attracting more
interest in the investigated developed countries.
The media discourse also reflects differences in food traditions and diets between the analyzed
countries. While the media focus on meat consumption and its negative effects on health in Norway
and Germany, the Italian media pays less attention to this issue, and is more focused on local food.
The sustainable food discourse in Romania adopts another framing perspective, focusing on
unhealthy food habits (e.g. high consumption of fats and sugars), high availability of low quality
foods and lower food standards than in Western Europe, and the contribution of these factors to
social injustice (Elhoushy, 2020; Spendrup et al., 2019). The low GDP and quality of life in Romania
explain high consumption of affordable low-quality food, and overlooking the long-term conse-
quences of such diet (e.g. health problems). In Italy, the experience of the Milan Expo 2015 can
be framed as a good practice for promoting sustainable food, the result being in line with Schmidt
et al. (2013) on the fact that powerful events generate a significant interest for the media, measured
in the high number of published articles.
The cultural dimensions (Hofstede et al., 2005) may help to further explain the differences in
how sustainable food is framed in the media discourse. We note a more positive attitude towards
sustainable consumption in the public discourse in Germany, Italy and Norway, supporting Halder
et al.’s(2020) claims that long-term oriented cultures are more inclined towards sustainable con-
sumption. We also find that in the individualistic countries (Germany, Italy and Norway), wellbeing
(e.g. choosing quality food and focusing on nutrition) occupies a central position in the discourse,
in line with Sulmont-Rossé et al. (2019), while in the collectivist society of Romania, the focus is on
364 M.-C. DIACONEASA ET AL.
public health and how it is affected by current food choices. Previous research (Gregory–Smith
et al., 2017; White et al., 2019) argues that collectivist societies have a higher preference for sustain-
able food; however, we do not find support for these findings in Romania, which might be explained
by its challenging socioeconomic conditions.
The identified differences between the analyzed countries indicate that businesses and policy
makers should adjust the way how they frame their media and communication strategies related
to food sustainability to reflect the socioeconomic and cultural context of the country, so that
they suit the audience’s level of development and understanding.
Despite the differences between the media discourses on sustainable food, we identify some basis
for a common understanding of sustainable food in the media discourse across the analyzed
countries. The debate in all four countries refers to healthy food options, which means consuming
food with better nutritional characteristics, lower meat content and reduced artificial additives. More-
over, the discussion on local food and sustainable food certification is present in all the analyzed
countries. The involvement of the food industry in developing sustainable technologies (including
the economicaspects of innovations)and providing sustainable food for the society is another impor-
tant and increasing trend in the debate in the four countries, the same as the political strategies pro-
viding solutions for more affordable and available sustainable food. The events and educational
initiatives aiming to increase public knowledge about sustainable food are also getting a growing cov-
erage in the analyzed period. As discussed by Diprose et al. (2018) and Atanasova (2019), using the
same description of sustainable food in the media discourse contributes to building a common
understanding of sustainable food and raising public awareness of this topic. Identifying the prevalent
patterns in consumers’commonunderstanding of the sustainable food concept can therefore serve as
a powerful communication tool for marketers and policymakers (Reilly & Larya, 2018). By keeping
updated with the national tendencies in food consumption framing (Broadbent et al., 2016), local and
national food strategies could be constantly refined, therefore ensuring long-term relevance for the
consumers. As media coverage of a topic is observed to be a proxy for the general level of public atten-
tion (Barkemeyer et al., 2018), participating in the debate on sustainable food consumption and pro-
viding solutions and support for local production, food safety and technological innovations should
be considered by the public authorities as a useful and accessible mean of communicating to the mass
of consumers and responding to their concerns. Since the need for education on sustainable food
consumption has been observed in all four countries, national campaigns for education on sustain-
able consumption promoted through the newspapers may be considered on the public agendas. The
identified communication gaps, as well as the actors missing (public authorities, NGOs and individ-
ual consumers) in the debate and the main concerns in relation to food (its nutritional quality, health
benefits, provenance and even quantity), addressed in the national media in each country should be
considered as starting points for developing new food policies and communication campaigns by the
public authorities. For example, sustainable individual and business initiatives such as reducing the
use of packaging, support for local producers, organic production and animal welfare should be
encouraged and placed as priorities at a country level.
To answer RQ2, we analyzed the evolution of the sustainable food debate in the study period. As
a result, we note an increase in both the number of articles and a variety of topics. As the media
tends to present topics that confirm readers’existing expectations and beliefs (Summ & Volpers,
2016; White et al., 2019), we conclude that public interest in sustainable food is growing, as also
demonstrated in Bellotti and Panzone (2016). The increase in market share and expenditure on
organic food in all the analyzed countries (Diprose et al., 2018; Fiala et al., 2021; FiBL, 2020) can
also be related to the extensive media debate on sustainable food.
Despite the overall increasing relevance of this topic, we find considerable differences in the
development of the debate across the analyzed countries. While we identify the prevalence of the
society dimension in Italy over the entire study period, the human being and economy dimensions
dominate in Germany and Norway. There has also been a recent increase in the debate under the
nature dimension in both countries. For Romania, the most remarkable change is the increasing
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 365
presence of topics related to nature and society, which indicates a growing interest in long-term
issues, along with the pressing short-term ones. Therefore, we conclude that the general interest
in food sustainability is increasing across different countries, but the type of development is
influenced by a country’s economic and cultural profile.
To address RQ3, we can conclude that the media plays a role as an arena for public debate by
offering multiple actors the opportunity to shape public opinion and consumer behavior (Gre-
gory–Smith et al., 2017; Sama et al., 2018), and our findings demonstrate that a variety of actors
have seized this opportunity in all four countries. Several actors (e.g. researchers, experts, local
farmers and chefs) contribute to the debate by sharing their knowledge on sustainable food, fulfill-
ing the media’s role to disseminate knowledge (Carvalho, 2007). However, in all four countries, we
observe a call for more consumer education on sustainable food.
Conclusion
This study contributes to the literature by highlighting the development of the media debate on
sustainable food. By investigating the discourse on sustainable food in major national newspapers
in four European countries, with different stages of development and with different cultural back-
grounds, over the period of five years, we provide an overview of the principal issues related to the
sustainable food concept from the longitudinal perspective and identify which dimensions of sus-
tainability are associated with sustainable food in different countries. This adds to the understand-
ing of how the sustainable food concept has developed in Europe over time and which factors
influence its development (e.g. socioeconomic and cultural context). Further, we identify the
actors participating in the media debate in each country, thus providing an overview of the
main contributors to the process of forming the sustainable food concept in the public
consciousness.
Stakeholders in the food industry (e.g. policymakers, businesses, producer associations, consu-
mers associations) can utilize the study results as a source of information for developing future
measures and policies to promote sustainable food consumption. For instance, our findings can
help marketers to present the key aspects of their food products based on identified country differ-
ences, e.g. emphasize “organic”or “meat free”in Germany and Norway, “local”or “social”in Italy,
and “safe”in Romania. Such targeted marketing can help businesses to address the main concerns
in each country and build better consumer-targeted marketing strategies at the national and inter-
national levels.
However, we acknowledge several limitations to be addressed by future research. First, we
analyzedthemediadiscourseinonlyfourEuropean countries. Despite the thorough selection
process and our efforts to account for socioeconomic and cultural variations, it might be inter-
esting to extend the current research to other European countries and other continents. Second,
because of the high level of comprehensiveness in our qualitative analysis, we focused on only
three major newspapers in each country. In addition, we did not include social media sources
and further research may consider extending thescopeoftheanalysisbyincludingmoremedia
sources. Third, the media discourse is only one of the factors that influence sustainable food
consumption, and future research should consider other factors such as food policy and regu-
lations. Fourth, despite the importance of food for achieving the SDGs (Sala et al. 2017;Vermeir
et al., 2020), future research can focus on other domains of sustainable consumption (e.g.
energy, mobility, recycling).Finally,themainpurposeofthecurrentstudyistograspthe
main trends in the media coverage of sustainable food consumption in a qualitative analysis.
We do not address the relationship between mass media and sustainable food consumption,
which the future studies are invited to explore, by applying a quantitative research approach
that can also explain media discourse in relation to the different national cultural dimensions
and socio-economic contexts.
366 M.-C. DIACONEASA ET AL.
Note
1. The number of extracted articles in Italy increased from 192 in 2014 to 324 in 2015. The attention towards
food sustainability decreased after the Expo (225 and 238 articles in 2016 and 2017 respectively), but then
it has been refueled by the Future for Friday movement in 2018 with 346 extracted articles.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work is part of the research project “Towards Sustainable Food and Drink Choices among European Young
Adults: Drivers, Barriers and Strategical implications”(SUSCHOICE) (ID 66). SUSCHOICE is a transnational pro-
ject and part of the SUSFOOD2 ERA-Net Cofund on Sustainable Food production and consumption (https://sus-
food-db-era.net) with funding provided by national sources (Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca in Italy,
Norges forskningsråd in Norway, FORMAS in Sweden, Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung in
Germany and Unitatea Executivăpentru Finanțarea Învățământului Superior, a Cercetării, Dezvoltării și Inovării
in Romania) and co-funding by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under
grant agreement No 727473. This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific
Research and Innovation (CCDI-UEFISCDI) within PNCDI III, funding contract number 42/2018.
References
Atanasova, D. (2019). Moving society to a sustainable future: The framing of sustainability in a constructive media
outlet. Environmental Communication,13(5), 700–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1583262
Barkemeyer, R., Figge, F., Hoepner, A., Holt, D., Kraak, J. M., & Yu, P. S. (2017). Media coverage of climate change:
An international comparison. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space,35(6), 1029–1054. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0263774X16680818
Barkemeyer, R., Givry, P., & Figge, F. (2018). Trends and patterns in sustainability-related media coverage: A classifi-
cation of issue-level attention. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space,36(5), 937–962. https://doi.org/10.
1177/2399654417732337
Beitzen-Heineke, E. F., Balta-Ozkan, N., & Reefke, H. (2017). The prospects of zero-packaging grocery stores to
improve the social and environmental impacts of the food supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production,140,
1528–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.227
Bellotti, E., & Panzone, L. (2016). Media effects on sustainable food consumption. How newspaper coverage relates to
supermarket expenditures. International Journal of Consumer Studies,40(2), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.
12242
Béné, C., Oosterveer, P., Lamotte, L., Brouwer, I. D., de Haan, S., Prager, S. D., Talsma, E. F, & Khoury, C. K. (2019).
When food systems meet sustainability–current narratives and implications for actions. World Development,113,
116–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.011
Broadbent, J., Sonnett, J., Botetzagias, I., Carson, M., Carvalho, A., Chien, Y. J., Edling, C., Fisher, D., Giouzepas, G.,
Haluza-DeLay, R., Hasegawa, K., Hirschi, C., Horta, A., Ikeda, K., Jin, J., Ku, D., Lahsen, M., Lee, H-C., Lin, T-L A
…Zhengyi, S. (2016). Conflicting climate change frames in a global field of media discourse. Socius: Sociological
Research for a Dynamic World,2,1–17.https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023116670660
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and development: Our common future.
UN. Retrieved August 6, 2021, from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-
common-future.pdf.
Brunori, G., Malandrin, V., & Rossi, A. (2013). Trade-offor convergence? The role of food security in the evolution of
food discourse in Italy. Journal of Rural Studies,29,19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.01.013
Carvalho, A. (2007). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate
change. Public Understanding of Science,16(2), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506066775
Diprose, K., Fern, R., Vanderbeck, R. M., Chen, L., Valentine, G., Liu, C., & McQuaid, K. (2018). Corporations, con-
sumerism and culpability: Sustainability in the British press. Environmental Communication,12(5), 672–685.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1400455
ElHaffar, G., Durif, F., & Dubé, L. (2020). Towards closing the attitude-intention-behavior gap in Green consump-
tion: A narrative review of the literature and an overview of future research directions. Journal of Cleaner
Production,275, 122556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122556
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 367
Elhoushy, S. (2020). Consumers’sustainable food choices: Antecedents and motivational imbalance. International
Journal of Hospitality Management,89, 102554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102554
Elkington, J. (1997). The triple bottom line. Environmental Management: Readings and Cases,2,49–68.
Eurostat. (2020). GDP per capita at market prices. Retrieved November 17, 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
databrowser/view/sdg_08_10/default/table?lang=en.
Fiala, V., Freyer, B., & Bingen, J. (2021). Environmentally sound agriculture between transformation and confor-
mation: The changing portrayal of the growing organic farming movement in Austria’s newspaper coverage.
Environmental Communication,15(4), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1866636
FiBL. (2020). Area data on organic agriculture in Europe 2018. The Statistics.FiBL.org website maintained by the
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland. Retrieved October 16, 2020, from https://
statistics.fibl.org/europe/key-indicators-europe.html.
Fischer, D., Haucke, F., & Sundermann, A. (2017). What does the media mean by ‘sustainability’or ‘sustainable devel-
opment’? An empirical analysis of sustainability terminology in German Newspapers over two decades.
Sustainable Development,25(6), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1681
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2020). New food balances. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from http://www.
fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS.
Galli, F., Prosperi, P., Favilli, E., D’Amico, S., Bartolini, F., & Brunori, G. (2020). How can policy processes remove
barriers to sustainable food systems in Europe? Contributing to a policy framework for agri-food transitions. Food
Policy,96, 101871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101871
Ghosh, A., & Boykoff,M.(2018). Framing sustainability and climate change: Interrogating discourses in vernacular
and English-language media in Sundarbans, India. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional
Geosciences,99, 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.11.014
Graça, J., Cardoso, S. G., Augusto, F. R., & Nunes, N. C. (2020). Green light for climate-friendly food transitions?
Communicating legal innovation increases consumer support for meat curtailment policies. Environmental
Communication,14(8), 1047–1060. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1764996
Gregory–Smith, D., Manika, D., & Demirel, P. (2017). Green intentions under the blue flag: Exploring differences in
EU consumers’willingness to pay more for environmentally-friendly products. Business Ethics: A European
Review,26(3), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12151
Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, under-
standing and use. Food Policy,44, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001
Günay, D., İşeri, E., Ersoy, M., & Elega, A. A. (2021). Media framing of climate change action in carbon locked-in
developing countries: Adaptation or mitigation? Environmental Communication,15(5), 663–677. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1885462
Halder, P., Hansen, E. N., Kangas, J., & Laukkanen, T. (2020). How national culture and ethics matter in consumers’
Green consumption values. Journal of Cleaner Production,265, 121754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121754
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and
Culture,2(1), 2307–0919. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Vol. 2).
Mcgraw-hill.
Ibarrola-Rivas, M. J., & Galicia, L. (2017). Rethinking food security in Mexico: Discussing the need for sustainable
transversal policies linking food production and food consumption. Investigaciones Geográficas,2017(94), 106–
121. https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.57538
Jabareen, Y. (2008). A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment, Development and
Sustainability,10(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9058-z
Jackson, K., & Bazeley, P. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Sage.
Janoušková, S., Hák, T., Nečas, V., & Moldan, B. (2019). Sustainable development—a poorly communicated concept
by mass media. Another challenge for SDGs. Sustainability,11(11), 3181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113181
Krishnan, R., Agarwal, R., Bajada, C., & Arshinder, K. (2020). Redesigning a food supply chain for environmental
sustainability–An analysis of resource use and recovery. Journal of Cleaner Production,242, 118374. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118374
Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA. Springer International Publishing.
Lee, Y., Park, S. A., Lee, H., Willis, E., & Cameron, G. T. (2019). Resources aren’t everything, but they do help:
Assessing local TV health news to deliver substantive and useful health information. Journal of Communication
in Healthcare,12(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2018.1556959
Mapes, G., & Ross, A. S. (2020). Making privilege palatable: Normative sustainability in chefs’Instagram discourse.
Language in Society,50(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000895
Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins.
Sustainability Science,14(3), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
Reilly, A. H., & Larya, N. (2018). External communication about sustainability: Corporate social responsibility
reports and social media activity. Environmental Communication,12(5), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17524032.2018.1424009
368 M.-C. DIACONEASA ET AL.
Rust, N. A., Jarvis, R. M., Reed, M. S., & Cooper, J. (2021). Framing of sustainable agricultural practices by the farm-
ing press and its effect on adoption. Agriculture and Human Values,38(3), 753–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10460-020-10186-7
Sala, S., McLaren, S. J., Notarnicola, B., Saouter, E., & Sonesson, U. (2017). In quest of reducing the environmental
impacts of food production and consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production,140, Part 2, 387–398. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.054
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications Limited.
Sama, C., Crespo-Cebada, E., Díaz-Caro, C., Escribano, M., & Mesías, F. J. (2018). Consumer preferences for food-
stuffs produced in a socio-environmentally responsible manner: A threat to fair trade producers? Ecological
Economics,150, 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.031
Schmidt, A., Ivanova, A., & Schäfer, M. S. (2013). Media attention for climate change around the world: A compara-
tive analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries. Global Environmental Change,23(5), 1233–1248. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.020
Spendrup, S., Röös, E., & Schütt, E. (2019). Evaluating consumer understanding of the Swedish meat guide—a multi-
layered environmental information tool communicating trade-offs when choosing food. Environmental
Communication,13(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1308402
Stranieri, S., Ricci, E. C., & Banterle, A. (2017). Convenience food with environmentally-sustainable attributes: A con-
sumer perspective. Appetite,116,11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.04.015
Strong, H., & Wells, R. (2020). Brexit-related food issues in the UK print media: Setting the agenda for post-Brexit
food policy. British Food Journal,122(7), 2187–2201. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2019-0582
Sulmont-Rossé, C., Drabek, R., Almli, V. L., van Zyl, H., Silva, A. P., Kern, M., McEwan, J. A,, & Ares, G. (2019). A
cross-cultural perspective on feeling good in the context of foods and beverages. Food Research International,115,
292–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.12.012
Summ, A., & Volpers, A. M. (2016). What’s science? Where’s science? Science journalism in German print media.
Public Understanding of Science,25(7), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515583419
The Footprint Network. (2020). Retrieved September 5, 2020, from http://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/.
Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature,515(7528),
518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved November
17, 2020, from https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E..
Tiozzo, B., Pinto, A., Neresini, F., Sbalchiero, S., Parise, N., Ruzza, M., & Ravarotto, L. (2019). Food risk communi-
cation: Analysis of the media coverage of food risk on Italian online daily newspapers. Quality & Quantity,53(6),
2843–2866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00897-3
Venkatesh, G. (2010). Triple bottom line approach to individual and global sustainability. Problems of Sustainable
Development,5(2), 29–37. https://eco-web.com/edi/090130.html
Verain, M. C., Dagevos, H., & Antonides, G. (2015). Sustainable food consumption. Product choice or curtailment?
Appetite,91, 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.055
Vermeir, I., Weijters, B., De Houwer, J., Geuens, M., Slabbinck, H., Spruyt, A., Van Kerckhove, A., Van Lippevelde,
W., De Steur, H., & Verbeke, W. (2020). Environmentally sustainable food consumption: A review and research
agenda from a goal-directed perspective. Frontiers in Psychology,11, 1603. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.
01603
White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature
review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing,83(3), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 369
Appendix
Table A1. Search words used in each national language to retrieve newspaper articles on sustainable food.
Search words Germany Italy Norway Romania
Sustainability Nachhaltigkeit* sostenibil* bærekraft* sustenab*
Sustainable nachhaltig* sostenibil* bærekraftig* sust*
Food Lebensmittel aliment* mat aliment*
Essen cib* hrană
Nahrungsmittel mangiare mâncare
Notes: *All words containing the searched particle were analyzed for possible selection.
For Romania, because the search of “sustenab,””sust,”“alimente,”“hrană,”“mâncare”revealed several articles related to food,
including healthy food, bio/eco/green food, traditional, local food, so these particular phrases were not added to the search
table in order to exclude overlaping . The searches were made using both diacritics and without them, to expand the results.
For Italy, results have been cleaned from the figurative meanings of the words “aliment*”and “sostenibil*”in order to exclude all
articles that were not related to the subject of sustainable food.
Figure A1. Coding tree.
370 M.-C. DIACONEASA ET AL.
