Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 281–303

Sustainability and New Models of Consumption: The Solidarity Purchasing Groups in Sicily

  • Luigi Cembalo
  • Giuseppina Migliore
  • Giorgio Schifani
Articles

Abstract

European society, with its steadily increasing welfare levels, is not only concerned with food (safety, prices), but also with other aspects such as biodiversity loss, landscape degradation, and pollution of water, soil, and atmosphere. To a great extent these concerns can be translated into a larger concept named sustainable development, which can be defined as a normative concept by). Sustainability in the food chain means creating a new sustainable agro-food system while taking the institutional element into account. While different concepts of sustainability abound, in recent years, spontaneous groups of consumers called solidarity purchase groups (SPG) have been developing. In short, they are characterized by an economy that is not necessarily local, but ethical and equitable, where social and economic territorial relations tend to develop districts and networks. One of the main characteristics of a SPG is the direct relationships between small farms and their customers; a relationship that is characterized by consumer participation and farmer specialization. This study aims to address issues related to organizational frameworks, at farm and chain level, and to assess those elements that lead to consumer choice and satisfaction.

Keywords

Sustainability New models of consumption Solidarity purchase groups Institutions and economics 

References

  1. Anania, G., &Tarsitano, A. (1995). Tecniche di Analisi statistica multivariata per l’individuazione dei “sistemi agricoli territoriali” in Italia, in Cannata G. (a cura di) I Sistemi territoriali Agricoli italiani degli anni’90. Contributi Metodologici. Rubbettino Editore, Messina.Google Scholar
  2. Bianchini, E. (2007). Rivelazione delle Preferenze, Determinanti Sociali dell’Utilità e Rilevanza dei Dati Soggettivi. Studi e Note di Economia. Anno XII, n.2-2007, articolo sul web.Google Scholar
  3. Briamonte, L., & Giuca, S. (2010). Comportamenti e consumi socialmente responsabili nel sistema agroalimentare. Collana Studi sull’impresa, INEA, Roma, ISBN: 978-88-8145-202-6.Google Scholar
  4. Brunori, G., Rossi, A., & Malandrin, V. (2011). Co-producing transition: Innovation processes in farms adhering to solidarity-based purchase groups (GAS) in Tuscany, Italy. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 18(1), 28–53.Google Scholar
  5. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrera, L. (2009). I gruppi di Acquisto Solidale. Una prospettiva solida nella società liquida, in Forno F., Tosi S., (a cura di) Partecipazione e Conflitto. Partecipazione politica e denaro. FrancoAngeli, Milano.Google Scholar
  7. Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer—Do ethics matter in purchase behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cicia, G., Cembalo, L., & Del Giudice, T. (2010). Consumer preferences and customer satisfaction analysis: A new method proposal. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 17(1), 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cicia, G., Cembalo, L., Del Giudice, T., & Verneau, F. (2011). Il sistema agroalimentare ed il consumatore postmoderno: nuove sfide per la ricerca e per il mercato, paper presented in the plenary session at the XIX Congress of the Italian Society of Agro-food Economy, Benevento (ITA), June 9–11.Google Scholar
  10. De Lillo, A., Argentin, G., Lucchini, M., Sarti, S., & Terraneo, M. (2007). Analisi Multivariata per le Scienze sociali. Pearson Paravia Bruno Mondadori, Piacenza.Google Scholar
  11. DeLind, L. B., & Bingen, J. (2008). Place and civic culture: Re-thinking the context for local agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, XXI, 127–151.Google Scholar
  12. European Social Survey. (2010). archivio dati disponibili sul sito http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org, dicember 2010.
  13. Forno, F., & Tosi, S. (2009). Partecipazione e Conflitto. Partecipazione politica e denaro. FrancoAngeli, Milano.Google Scholar
  14. Greene, W. H. (2008). Econometric analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. ISTAT. (2001). XIV Censimento Generale della Popolazione, ISTAT, Roma.Google Scholar
  16. ISTAT. (2010). Struttura della Popolazione Residente, ISTAT, Roma.Google Scholar
  17. Kozinets, R. V. (2001). Utopian enterprise: Articulating the meaning of star trek’s culture of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gazzetta Ufficiale (2006). Financial Law 2007, n. 299, December 27, http://www.parlamento.it/.
  19. Norris, P. (1999). Critical citizens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sandler, R. (2010). Ethical theory and the problem of inconsequentialism: Why environmental ethicists should be virtue-oriented ethicists. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23, 167–183. doi:10.1007/s10806-009-9203-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schifani, G., & Albanese, A. (2010). Diffusione e caratteristiche dei Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale: Primi elementi di un’indagine esplorativa in Sicilia, relazione presentata al seminario INEA Lo sviluppo rurale in Sicilia: Esperienze a confronto tra emergenze e nuove opportunità: La filiera Corta. Palermo, 16 aprile 2010.Google Scholar
  22. Schifani, G., & Migliore, G. (2011). Solidarity purchase groups and new critical and ethical consumer trends: First results of a direct study in Sicily. New Medit, 3, 26–33.Google Scholar
  23. Schotter, A. (2002). Microeconomia. G. Giappichelli Editore, Torino.Google Scholar
  24. Spangenberg, J. H., & Bonniot, O. (1998). Sustainability indicatorsA compass on the road. Wuppertal paper no. 81, February, available at the internet site <http://www.ulb.ac.be/ceese/STAFF/Tom/spangenberg.pdf>.
  25. Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude-behavioral intention” GAP. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, IXX, 169–194.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luigi Cembalo
    • 1
  • Giuseppina Migliore
    • 2
  • Giorgio Schifani
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agriculture Economics and PolicyUniversity of Naples Federico IIPorticiItaly
  2. 2.Department DEMETRAUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations