Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 43–57 | Cite as

Participation in Green Consumer Policies: Deliberative Democracy under Wrong Conditions?

Original Paper


In policy debates about reducing environmental and social harms, political consumerism is often called for by actors from a broad political spectrum. This paper examines traits of deliberative democracy in cases where instruments of political consumerism (eco-labelling, certificates and standards) are developed. The empirical cases are processes surrounding eco-labelled, standardised forestry, food and electricity in Sweden. In green forestry certification, deliberative processes have taken place close to deliberative democracy ideals. Yet, these processes have been made possible because of equal power levels, although power, according to deliberative theory, should be irrelevant. In organic food labelling, a smothering consensus climate has enabled deliberation, although such a policy condition is at odds with certain deliberative democracy ideals. In electricity labelling, its deliberative processes were embraced by everyone, although the problem scope was narrowly defined, whilst fundamental problems were not addressed. If deliberative democracy researchers become involved in critical frame reflection in consumer-oriented policy making, changes can be made that help reduce environmental harms and strengthen public engagement in political consumerism.


Political consumerism Green consumerism Deliberative democracy Market-based deliberation Eco-labelling 



This article is based on research projects financed by the Swedish Research Council (2005-1720), the Swedish Research council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (2005-1014 Programme leader: Karin Bäckstrand), and The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (LETS, Programme Leader: Lars J. Nilsson, Dnr 08/191; V-179-08 ). I thank them all. Data from the cases of organic food and food certification have been collected by Magnus Boström, for which I am very grateful. The first draft of the article has been developed for a worksshop at SCORE in Stockholm in May 2007, Deliberation and Democratic Governance. I would like to thank all participants for their valuable comments.


  1. Ackerman, B., & Fishkin, J. S. (2002). Deliberation day. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10, 129–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahrne, G. (1994). Social organizations: Interaction inside, outside and between organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bendell, J., & Murphy, D. (2000). Planting the seeds of change: Business-NGO relations on tropical deforestation. In J. Bendell (Ed.), Terms for endearment: Business, NGOs and sustainable development. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Bengtsson, B. (2005). Deliberativa utmaningar i ett stadsförnyelseprojekt. Malmö, Sweden: Malmö University College, Technology and Society. Retrieved 4 September 2008 from
  6. Boström, M. (2002). Skogen märks—Hur svensk skogscertifiering kom till och dess konsekvenser. Score Report 2002:3. Retrieved from 4 September 2008
  7. Boström, M., & Klintman, M. (2008). Eco-standards, product labelling and green consumerism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Boström, M., Föllesdal, A., Klintman, M., Micheletti M., & Sörensen, M. P. (Eds.) (2005). Political consumerism: Its motivations, power, and conditions in the Nordic countries and elsewhere. Tema Nord 2005:517, Nordiska Ministerrådet, Copenhagen. Retrieved 4 September 2008 from
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. Hamlin, & P. Pettit (Eds.), The good polity. Normative analysis of the state pp. 17–34. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Dahlberg, L. (2005). The Habermasian public sphere: Taking difference seriously? Theory and Society, 34, 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dickinson, R. A., & Carsky, M. L. (2005). The consumer as economic voter. In R. Harrison, T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The ethical consumer pp. 25–36. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Domask, J. (2003). From boycotts to global partnership: NGOs, the private sector, and the struggle to protect the world’s Forests. In J. Doh, & H. Teegen (Eds.), Globalization and NGOs. Transforming business, government, and society. London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  14. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dunn, W. (1988). Methods of the second type: Coping with the wilderness of conventional policy analysis. Policy Studies Review, 7, 720–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elliot, C. (1999). Forest certification: Analysis from a policy network perspective. Lausanne: EPFL.Google Scholar
  17. Elliot, C., & Schlaepfer, R. (2001). The advocacy coalition framework: Application to the policy process for the development of forest certification in Sweden. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 642–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gregory, R., McDaniels, T., & Fields, D. (2001). Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: Creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  21. Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Henriks, C. M. (2005). Participatory storylines and their influence on deliberative forums. Policy Sciences, 38, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klintman, M., & Boström, M. (2004). Framings of science and ideology: Organic food labelling in the US and Sweden. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 612–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klintman, M., & Boström, M. (2006). “Editorial”, in a special issue entitled “Promoting ethical and political consumerism”. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(5), 401–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klintman, M., & Boström, M. (2008). Transparency through labelling? Layers of visibility in environmental risk management. In C. Garsten, & M. Lindh de Montoya (Eds.), Transparency in a new global order: Unveiling organizational visions. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  26. Korthals, M. (2001). Taking consumers seriously: Two concepts of consumer sovereignty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. KRAV (2000). 15 goda år med KRAV: Vi skriver historia. Uppsala, Sweden: KRAV.Google Scholar
  28. KRAV (2008). Climate marking of food transports. Retrieved 4 September 2008 from
  29. LUI (2002). Mat i Sverige—Delrapport för KRAV, våren 2002. Stockholm, Sweden: LUI Marknadsinformation AB.Google Scholar
  30. Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue and shopping: Individuals, consumerism and collective action. London/Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Micheletti, M., Stolle, D., with Nishikawa, L., & Wright. (2005). A case of discursive political consumerism: The Nike-email exchange. In M. Boström, A. Föllesdal, M. Klintman, M. Micheletti & M. P. Sörensen (Eds.), Political consumerism: Its motivations, power, and conditions in the Nordic countries and elsewhere (255–290). Tema Nord 2005:517, Nordiska Ministerrådet, Copenhagen. Retrieved 4 September 2008 from
  32. Premfors, R., & Roth, K. (2004). Deliberativ demokrati. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  33. Rydén, R. (2005). Marknaden, miljön & politiken: Småbrukarnas och ekoböndernas förutsättningar och strategier 1967-2003. Uppsala, Sweden: Historiska institutionen, Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, T. M. (1998). The myth of green marketing. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  35. Soneryd, L. (2002). Environmental conflicts and deliberative solutions. A case study of public participation in EIA in Sweden. Örebro, Sweden: Örebro Studies in Sociology 5, Örebro University.Google Scholar
  36. SOU (1997). Skydd av skogsmark. Behov och kostnader. Huvudbetänkande av Miljövårdsberedningen (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  37. Sørensen, M. P. (2005). Liberal democratic society and political consumerism—A problematic combination. In M. Boström, A. Föllesdal, M. Klintman, M. Micheletti & M. P. Sörensen (Eds.), Political consumerism: Its motivations, power, and conditions in the Nordic countries and elsewhere (pp. 59–76). Tema Nord 2005:517, Nordiska Ministerrådet, Copenhagen. Retrieved 4 September 2008 from
  38. Van de Kerkhof, M. (2006). Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Science, 39, 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Policy InstituteLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations