It is better to have many small companies than a few large companies
(BZfE) – Sustainable, transformative nutrition initiatives and companies cause less social and ecological damage. However, they often have higher coordination costs that can be caused by participation processes. This limits their size, say the Oldenburg scientists Niko Paech and Carsten Sperling. Since 2015 you have been working on the NASCENT research project together with colleagues from the University of Oldenburg from the Chair of Corporate Management and Corporate Environmental Policy, the University of Stuttgart, Department of Technological and Environmental Sociology, and the anstiftung & ertomis foundation. The interdisciplinary team wants to find out what contribution sustainable nutrition initiatives can make to the transformation of the food system.
They integrated more than 25 practice partners into their study. These included small and large, young and experienced projects such as food coops, solidarity farming, self-harvest gardens, entrepreneurial networks or producer-consumer cooperatives with annual sales of several million euros.
The new economic forms and initiatives are increasingly replacing conventional trade relations with solidarity-based financing models or flat-rate payments, the economists determined. For example, the olive oil direct marketer ARTIFACT collects additional funds from donors and exchange investors for its olive oil producers. The funds are z. B. used so that the producers can buy small, modern olive oil mills. Investments are paid back over 10 years in the form of olive oil. The company calls this financing concept “economic aid from below”.
In solidarity agriculture there are no more food prices at all. In this economic model, consumers and producers share the costs of production, the harvest and the risks. Production is no longer carried out at market prices, but instead there is a transparent, consensual exchange based on the principle: “You get what you need. I give what I can." Paech and Sperling call this economic principle economic communities.
The transformative companies have in common that they value products and working methods that have very specific social and ecological qualities. They are concerned with trust, consumer participation and positive effects on nature, quality of life, community and social learning. But they also have a special effort for this. In addition to the costs of producing and coordinating the business, Sperling and Paech identified a new type of cost called "Transaction Type 2 Costs". They understand this to mean the effort required to control and stabilize participatory processes, for example the coordination of voluntary work, the division of responsibility, the management of decision-making processes and conflicts. The scientists warn that anyone who underestimates these costs is at risk of failing. “Dealing with personal conflicts is particularly challenging for transformative ventures,” reports Sperling.
The actors usually identify very much with their projects. In this way, scarce finances are compensated for by great commitment. Problems with demarcation can lead to burnout and interpersonal tensions. Transformative food companies must strike a balance between two criteria: they must be large enough to be able to produce at a reasonable cost and at the same time be small enough to handle the participatory processes. In case of doubt, growth does not mean that a company is expanding, but that several small companies emerge from one company. “The special thing about transformative food companies is not that they optimize their supply chain according to sustainability criteria, but that they embed economic activity back into a social context. In some cases, this does not even require more money, but all the more transparency, trust and human sensitivity,” says Sperling.
Gesa Maschkowski, www.bzfe.de
