Taking a S and h ough Food Choices? Cha ac e is ics o Poli ical Food
Consump ion and Consume s in Finland
Ma i Ni a · Piia Jallinoja
Ma i Ni a
Facul y o Educa ional Sciences
Uni e si y o Helsinki
P. O. Box 9 (Sil a uo enpenge 10)
FI-00014 Uni e si y o Helsinki, Finland
[email p o ec ed]
Tel. +358 29 412 0916, +358 50 574 4967
Piia Jallinoja
Facul y o Social Sciences
Uni e si y o Tampe e
P. O. Box 100
FI-33014 Uni e si y o Tampe e, Finland
piia.jallinoja@u a. i
Tel. +358 50 437 7047
This is he pos p in e sion o he a icle, which has been
published in Ecological Economics, 2018, Volume 154, 349-360.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.013
2
Taking a s and h ough ood choices? Cha ac e is ics o poli ical ood
consump ion and consume s in Finland
Abs ac
This s udy looks a ood as a ealm o poli ical consump ion by examining buyco ing and
boyco ing o oods o e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al easons in Finland. The esul s o an
In e ne -based su ey (N=1,021) showed ha a ound hal o he esponden s o en o occasionally
bo h buyco ed and boyco ed oods. Mul inomial eg ession models indica ed ha women, he
highly educa ed, he poli ical le , hose who dona ed o cha i y, hose whose ood choices we e
mo i a ed by domes ic o igin and e hical ood p oduc ion, and hose who us ed ha consump ion
choices, ins i u ional ac o s and he media can ad ance e hical ood p oduc ion and consump ion,
we e mos likely o be ac i e in buyco ing and boyco ing. Buyco e s/boyco e s we e e y ac i e
in buying local ood bu less eage , o ins ance, o buy o ganic o Fai T ade p oduc s o o educe
he use o mea o milk. The a icle concludes by c i ically assessing he complex ela ionship
be ween buyco ing/boyco ing and sus ainable p ac ices and sugges ing ha consume s may be
mo e willing o ans o m hei ea ing pa e ns i o he socie al ac o s, oo, make an e o o
in luence e hical ood consump ion.
Keywo ds (4-6)
boyco ing; buyco ing; ood; poli ical consump ion; su ey
3
1 In oduc ion
Since consump ion pa e ns ela ed o housing, a ic, and ood a e signi ican sou ces o
g eenhouse gas emissions and o he en i onmen al p oblems (Nissinen e al., 2015), he deba es on
he ole o consump ion in ad ancing sus ainabili y a e now p ominen bo h in e e yday li e, he
media and a ious poli ical s a egies. In social and poli ical s udies since he la e 1990s, p ac ices
ha y o con ibu e o sus ainable ansi ions ha e been e med as en i onmen ally iendly,
sus ainable, e hical, conce ned, esponsible, o poli ical, because hey expand he ocus om sel -
ega ding p e e ences in consump ion, such as p ice o sa e y, in o wide socie al conce ns (e.g.,
Ba ne e al., 2011; Bos öm e al., 2005; Michele i, 2003; Sassa elli, 2014; S olle and Michele i,
2013). In he classic discussion on poli ical consume ism, Michele i (2003) e e ed o hese
di e en o ien a ions as “p i a e i ues” and “public i ues”, hus making a concep ual di e ence
be ween sel -in e es and al uism, bu a he same ime no ing ha in poli ical consump ion
p ac ices, hese wo i ues end o be ied oge he .
Poli ical consump ion has been de ined as consume s using he ma ke o become poli ically
ac i e and as consump ion ha includes “social, cul u al and animal- ela ed conce ns ha go
beyond he immedia e sel -in e es s o he indi idual consume o household” (Klin man and
Bos öm, 2006, 401). The phenomenon has been analysed om a a ie y o pe spec i es including
also c i ical deba es. Fi s , poli ical consump ion has been in e p e ed as an inc ease o mo e
pe sonalized o ms o poli ical pa icipa ion and ci izen mobiliza ion a ound economic jus ice,
en i onmen al p o ec ion, human igh s and animal wel a e (Benne , 2012). In such discou ses,
poli ical consump ion is celeb a ed as an in luen ial means o ci izens o enew democ acy and
de elop consciousness abou he socie al consequences o consump ion (Willis and Scho , 2012),
exe poli ical p essu e on go e nmen s and companies, make a di e ence a he le el o e e yday
li e, and become empowe ed h ough “indi idualized collec i e ac ion” (Michele i, 2003).
Second, i has been asked whe he placing he esponsibili y o global sus ainable ansi ion
on consume s is jus i ied, o whe he o he measu es a he le el o he poli ical sys em may be
mo e legi ima e and e ec i e (e.g., Jacobsen and Duls ud, 2007; Kjæ nes, 2012). Resea che s
c i ical o he idea o poli ical consume ism ha e no ed ha a ious complexi ies o e e yday li e
and se e al compe ing social esponsibili ies and mo al commi men s, o ins ance wi hin he
amily, may no be easily econciled wi h making delibe a e and so e eign ma ke choices based on
e hical conside a ions (Jacobsen and Duls ud, 2007). I is also e iden ha social, cul u al and
4
economic di isions such as hose based on educa ion and income, place o li ing, and in e es in
socie al issues c ea e unequal oppo uni ies o people o ake pa in making e hical choices on he
ma ke (e.g., Ca agna e al., 2014; Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014; Michele i e al., 2012).
A hi d pe spec i e on poli ical consume ism is based on he no ion ha in he age o
indi idualisa ion and e osion o adi ional communi ies, pa icipa ion in consump ion pa e ns
aiming a a mo e sus ainable wo ld may be a means o people o build new social ies, collec i e
iden i ies and a sense o belonging in “imagined communi ies” (Long, 2010; Ande son, 1983). In
la e mode n socie ies, his akes place pa icula ly h ough consump ion p ac ices and li es yles
(Giddens, 1991; see also Bild gå d, 2008). This app oach asks whe he poli ical consume ism is
p ima ily abou indi iduals in en ionally aiming a changing he ma ke o whe he i is be e
concep ualised as la e mode n iden i y building. In he la e , endiness and pleasu e pu sui s may
equal o e en o e ake sus ainabili y conce ns, as exempli ied in he ecen ise o eganism and he
popula i y o egan p oduc s no only among egans bu omni o es and lexi a ians, oo (Jallinoja
e al., 2018).
Poli ical consump ion in e e yday pu chase p ac ices akes a a ie y o o ms: p oduc s can be
boyco ed (a oided) o exp ess poli ical sen imen , o hey can be “buyco ed” ( a ou ed) o show
suppo o he alues he p oduc ep esen s (Michele i and S olle, 2006). People may buy eco-
labelled, o ganic, ai ade o animal- iendly p oduc s, o e ain om buying p oduc s ha a e
seen as e hically p oblema ic. While buyco ing signi ies con o ming o making a di e ence
h ough he ma ke , boyco ing may also ep esen a esis ance o consume is alues h ough
abs aining om buying. Howe e , Neilson (2010) a gues ha buyco ing equi es mo e delibe a ion
and e o han boyco ing, and ha he o me can be seen as a “ ewa ding s a egy” whe eas he
la e is be e desc ibed as a “p o es s a egy.” Copeland (2014) ound ha buyco ing is associa ed
wi h no ms o “engaged” and boyco ing wi h no ms o “du i ul” ci izenship. Since boyco e s end
o be less us ing owa ds na ional (Koos, 2012) o poli ical ins i u ions (Copeland, 2014),
boyco ing may be mo e cha ged wi h poli ical meaning han buyco ing. In addi ion, poli ical
consump ion ela es no only o boyco ing and buyco ing, bu also o discu si e s a egies and
li es yle poli ics (Michele i and S olle, 2012). E e yday p ac ices may be cha ac e ised by all o
hese ou o ms: o ins ance, ege a ians buy ege a ian o egan p oduc s (buyco ), ejec mea
p oduc s (boyco ), engage in discou ses on ege a ianism/ eganism, and y o change hei
li es yles (see, e.g., de Rezende, 2014).
5
The e is a s ong adi ion o analysing buyco ing and boyco ing as a gene al ca ego y (e.g.,
he Eu opean Social Su ey 2002/2003, see Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014; Neilson, 2010; Neilson
and Pax on, 2010; Sando ici and Da is, 2010), a he han o pa icula p oduc ypes. Al hough
he e is an ample body o esea ch on e hical and sus ainable ood consump ion, s udies on
buyco ing and boyco ing ha e no ocused on ood in pa icula . We chose o ocus on ood, in
o de o gain a mo e de ailed pic u e o how buyco ing and boyco ing o ood is associa ed wi h
pe cep ions and p ac ices ela ing o sus ainable ood choices. Ea ing, as many o he sphe es o
consump ion, is o a good pa a ou inised e e yday phenomenon and changing hese ou ines
equi es e o and a suppo ing social and cul u al en i onmen (Wa de, 2016). Food and ea ing
ela ed choices a e made mul iple imes each day a homes, g oce y shops, school and wo kplace
can eens, ca es and es au an s, and buying, p epa ing and ea ing ood cons i u es a subs an ial pa
o people’s daily hy hms and ime use (Holm e al., 2016; Pääkkönen and Hani i, 2012). Wha is
pa icula ly cha ac e is ic o cu en ood ela ed discou ses and p ac ices is ha ood is a highly
mo alized sphe e o consump ion and a ealm o “poli ico-e hical p oblema isa ion” (Sassa elli and
Da olio, 2010, 226). Public discou ses on ood a e loaded on he one hand wi h an e hos o ee
choice and enjoymen , and on he o he hand wi h public policy e o s ha encou age people o
go e n hei ea ing in o de o adop heal hie and mo e sus ainable ood consump ion pa e ns
(G onow, 2015; Jallinoja e al., 2016a; Sassa elli, 2004).
In he p esen s udy we chose o ocus on boyco ing and buyco ing o ood, since we wan ed
o explo e he daily pu chasing p ac ices, i.e., he mundane e e yday ac i i ies ha all consume s
a e aced wi h equen ly. While ocusing on boyco ing and buyco ing, we ake in o accoun Julie
Gu hman’s (2008) sugges ion ha con empo a y ood ac i ism in e sec s wi h neolibe al
a ionali ies such as consume choice, localism, and sel -imp o emen . We aim o explo e poli ical
consump ion as “eme ging in he cu en age o globaliza ion, In e ne communica ion, […]
indi idualiza ion and enhanced consume choice” (S olle and Michele i, 2013, 202). Agains his
backg ound, we analyse (a) o wha ex en Finnish consume s engage in buyco ing and/o
boyco ing ood p oduc s o e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al easons, (b) how buyco ing and
boyco ing a e linked wi h ood- ela ed p ac ices ha a e ega ded as sus ainable, and (c) how
socio-economic backg ounds, poli ical o ien a ion, ea ing mo i a ions, and in pa icula opinions
and us in a ious ac o s’ powe and in luence in he sus ainabili y o ood p oduc ion and
consump ion a e associa ed wi h buyco ing and boyco ing. By examining a la ge numbe o
po en ially ele an de e mining ac o s o boyco ing and buyco ing we a e able o assess hei
ela i e impo ance.

6
In he ollowing sec ions, we i s desc ibe indings o ea lie empi ical s udies on backg ound
ac o s o poli ical consump ion and hen p esen ou da a and esul s. In he discussion and
conclusion, we add ess he social s a i ica ion o poli ical ood consump ion and he oles ha
consume s see o a ious socie al ac o s in ad ancing sus ainabili y. In pa icula , we c i ically
assess he complex ela ionship be ween buyco ing/boyco ing and a ious ood p ac ices ega ded
as sus ainable, and discuss he policy implica ions o he esul s.
2 Explaining Poli ical Consump ion
In Eu ope, he e a e a ia ions be ween he coun ies as ega ds le els o poli ical consump ion: i is
a much mo e common p ac ice in he no he n and wes e n han in he sou he n and eas e n pa s. In
he Eu opean Social Su ey (ESS) 2002/2003 (see Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014; Koos, 2012;
Michele i e al., 2012; S olle and Michele i, 2013), 23–33% o he esponden s in he No dic
coun ies epo ed ha ing boyco ed a p oduc and 44–55% ha ing chosen a p oduc o poli ical,
en i onmen al o e hical easons du ing he pas yea , whe eas in Sou he n Eu opean coun ies he
sha e o buyco ing was 7–12% and o boyco ing well below 10%. Finns, oge he wi h o he
No he n Eu opeans, Ge mans, and he Swiss, we e among he mos ac i e poli ical consume s in
Eu ope: 42% o Finns epo ed ha ing buyco ed and 27% ha ing boyco ed (Fe e -Fons and
F aile, 2014). Such coun y di e ences a e hypo hesized o ela e o he le el o poli ical
pa icipa ion, economic de elopmen , ma ke s uc u es, a ailabili y o e hical p oduc s,
ins i u ionalisa ion o labelling schemes, and consume s’ mobilisa ion in al e na i e ood
mo emen s (see, e.g., Koos, 2012; S olle and Michele i, 2013; Te agni and Kjæ nes, 2005).
Al hough in su eys such as hose abo e, ques ions on buyco ing and boyco ing ha e been
ope a ionalised in o sepa a e i ems, he di e ences in he social backg ound ac o s explaining
boyco ing and buyco ing ha e been ound o be qui e small (Koos, 2012; Sando ici and Da is,
2010). Consequen ly, in he analysis many s udies ha e used a combined a iable including bo h
p ac ices. S udies ha e shown ha a numbe o socio-economic and o he ac o s a e associa ed
wi h poli ical consump ion (ope a ionalised as buyco ing, boyco ing o bo h). As shown below, in
some cases he esul s ha e been inconsis en , p obably due o ac o s ela ed o a ying na ional
and cul u al con ex s and s udy se ings.
7
Many s udies ha e shown ha women a e mo e ac i e poli ical consume s han men
(Ca agna e al., 2014; Koos, 2012; Michele i e al., 2012; Neilson and Pax on, 2010; Sando ici
and Da is, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005; Tobiasen, 2005), whe eas o he s ha e epo ed no gende e ec
(Be lin, 2011; Echega ay, 2015).
Fu he mo e, ea lie esul s indica e almos consis en ly ha he highly educa ed a e mo e
likely o be poli ical consume s han o he s (e.g., Be lin, 2011; Ca agna e al,. 2014; Fe e -Fons
and F aile, 2014; Michele i and S olle, 2012; Neilson and Pax on, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005;
Tobiasen, 2005). Mo eo e , people li ing in u ban en i onmen s a e mo e o en poli ical consume s
(Michele i and S olle, 2005; Neilson and Pax on, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005; Zhang, 2015) compa ed
o hose li ing in he coun yside. Howe e , Be lin (2011) did no ind he le el o u bani y o ha e
an e ec on poli ical consump ion.
S udies on he ole o age in poli ical consump ion, howe e , indica e mo e he e ogeneous
esul s. On one hand, i has been sugges ed ha he young a e no as ac i e as olde gene a ions in
poli ical consump ion (e.g., Michele i and S olle, 2006). On he o he hand, he young (Sando ici
and Da is, 2010; Zhang, 2015) and he young and he middle-aged (Michele i and S olle, 2012;
Michele i e al., 2012; S ømsnes, 2005) ha e been ound o be mo e ac i e in poli ical
consump ion. Fe e -Fons and F aile (2014) showed ha in he ea ly 2000s, in some coun ies he
mos ac i e g oup was he younges (15–34-yea -olds), bu in o he coun ies, such as Finland, he
middle-aged (35–54-yea -olds) we e mos ac i e. Tobiasen (2005) concluded ha in Denma k age
di e ences in poli ical consump ion we e diminishing, and Be lin (2011) ound no age e ec in
Sweden.
As ega ds ac o s ela ed o poli ical o ien a ion and solida i y, ea lie s udies ha e shown
ha hose who iden i y hemsel es o he le (Be lin, 2011; Michele i and S olle, 2012; Sando ici
and Da is, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005) o o he le /g een (Michele i and S olle, 2005) a e a leas
somewha mo e ac i e poli ical consume s. Neilson (2010) ound ha poli ical consume s we e
mo e al uis ic han non-poli ical consume s (see also S ømsnes, 2005; Tobiasen, 2005), and
Baumann e al. (2015) concluded ha poli ical consump ion was associa ed wi h dona ing o
cha i y. Acco ding o Michele i and S olle (2012), hose who alue “solida i y ci izenship”, i.e.,
show conce n o hose who a e wo se o , a e mo e likely o be ac i e in poli ical consume ism
(see also Koos, 2012).
8
In he discussion o new o ms o pa icipa ion, poli ical consump ion has been associa ed
wi h he decline o ci izens’ us in poli ical ins i u ions (Sassa elli, 2014; Willis and Scho , 2012).
S udies in he No h and Sou h Ame ica and Eu ope ha e sugges ed ha low us in ins i u ions and
poli ics (Echega ay, 2015; Neilson and Pax on, 2010; Sc uggs e al., 2011; Tobiasen, 2005; Zhang,
2015) a e associa ed wi h poli ical consump ion. In Neilson’s Eu opean-wide s udy (2010), poli ical
consume s had lowe us in ins i u ions han non-poli ical consume s (see also Koos, 2012), while
Be lin (2011) ound in his s udy in Sweden ha low us in “s a e pe o mance” in ad ancing
sus ainabili y and high us in “go e nmen al sus ainabili y ins i u ions” (i.e., en i onmen al
agencies and he consume agency) we e associa ed wi h poli ical consump ion. In con as ,
S ømsnes (2005) ound ha in No way, poli ical and non-poli ical consume s did no subs an ially
di e om each o he in hei us in poli ical ins i u ions.
Fu he mo e, ea lie esea ch indica es ha being ac i e in poli ical consump ion and in o he
poli ical ac i i ies a e no mu ually exclusi e (e.g., Baumann e al., 2015; Willis and Scho , 2012).
Acco ding o de Zúñiga e al. (2013), an associa ion can be ound be ween poli ical e icacy (i.e.,
belie ha one can in luence he go e nmen ) and poli ical consump ion. Some s udies ha e
ecen ly also ocused on he ole o he in e ne in poli ical consump ion. Wa d and de V eese
(2011) ound ha in he UK, socially conscious consump ion among young people was associa ed
wi h online pa icipa ion, i.e., using he in e ne o pa icipa o y pu poses, and de Zúñiga e al.
(2013) ound ha social media use was associa ed wi h poli ical consume ism in he US.
In addi ion o he socio-economic and poli ical pa icipa ion aspec s o poli ical consump ion,
in his s udy we a e in e es ed in he ways in which people’s ea ing mo i a ions a e in e linked wi h
hei engagemen in ood- ela ed poli ical consump ion. Fo example, he e is some e idence ha
sus ainabili y conce ns and poli ical consump ion end o go hand in hand wi h heal hiness conce ns
(Jallinoja e al., 2016b; Michele i and S olle, 2012; Ni a e al., 2014; Tobiasen, 2005; Willis and
Scho , 2012), sugges ing ha “sel - ega ding” and “o he - ega ding” mo i a ions a e no mu ually
exclusi e. Because ood p oduc s ma ke ed as e hical o en i onmen ally iendly a e o en mo e
expensi e han con en ional oods, p ice migh be a mo e impo an conce n o non-poli ical han
o poli ical consume s. Finally, in Finland domes ic o igin is one o he aspec s ha consume s
ega d as e y impo an in ood (e.g., Eu opean Commission, 2014a) and also ela e o he e hics o
ood (Mäkiniemi e al., 2013; Uusi alo and Oksanen, 2004).
9
Based on a la ge body o ea lie esea ch i is ob ious ha poli ical, e hical, ecological and
esponsible ood consump ion may include a numbe o p ac ices such as buying o ganic ood, local
ood o Fai T ade p oduc s, buying di ec ly om a me s, a oiding ood was e, educing he use o
animal p o ein, o adop ing a ege a ian o egan die , o name a ew (see, e.g., Beagan e al., 2010;
Halkie 2018; Johns on e al., 2011; Lea & Wo sley, 2008; Toble e al., 2011). Howe e , people
may engage in such p ac ices o many easons o hey may no hink o he p ac ices as delibe a ely
poli ical, e hical o ecological (Ni a e al., 2014; Sope , 2008). In he s udy o poli ical ood
consump ion i is hus impo an also o s udy he ways in which buyco ing and boyco ing a e
associa ed wi h such p ac ices.
Ou case, Finland, is a coun y cha ac e ized by ela i ely high us in he sa e y, quali y and
eshness o ood and in a ious ac o s in he ood sys em, such as na ional and Eu opean ood
sa e y agencies, ood manu ac u e s and shops (Eu opean Commission, 2010). Based on su ey
esul s, he mos impo an ood choice c i e ia o Finnish consume s include quali y, as e and
eshness, p ice, and heal hiness (Lenne näs e al., 1997) as well as domes ic o igin (Pel oniemi &
Y jölä, 2012). Finns a e mo e wo ied abou a m animal wel a e han abou a ious sa e y- ela ed
conce ns such as pes icide esidues o ood poisonings (Eu opean Commission, 2010). In ecen
yea s sus ainabili y aspec s ha e gained g ound in Finnish public discussion and also ood ma ke s:
be ween 2011 and 2015/2016, he sales o o ganic oods g ew by 67% (P o Luomu, 2017) and ha
o ai ade p oduc s by 69% (Fai T ade Finland, 2016). Despi e he apid inc ease, he ma ke
sha e o o ganic oods emains a 2% o o al e ail sales (P o Luomu, 2017).
3 Ma e ials and Me hods
3.1 Da a Collec ion
The s udy is pa o a p ojec en i led ‘E iciency o he ood ma ke and anspa ency o ood
p icing in Finland’. The da a collec ion was commissioned o a Finnish ma ke ing esea ch
company Talous u kimus Oy which could p o ide an In e ne -based su ey wi h a panel based on a
s a i ied sample o he Finnish popula ion1. Since 86% o he Finnish popula ion uses he in e ne
(S a is ics Finland, 2014), u ilizing an In e ne panel p obably does no cause subs an ial bias in he
ep esen a i eness o he esul s.
16
Table 4 Pe cen age o esponden s ag eeing wi h s a emen s on en i onmen al, e hical and animal wel a e
aspec s o ood p oduc ion and consump ion among he g oups o 1) bo h buyco ing and boyco ing, 2)
buyco ing no boyco ing, 3) boyco ing no buyco ing and 4) nei he buyco ing no boyco ing (% o ally
o somewha ag eeing, N=1,021)
% o hose
bo h
buyco ing
and
boyco ing
(n=403)
ag eeing
% o hose
buyco ing
and no
boyco ing
(n=65)
ag eeing
% o hose
boyco ing
and no
buyco ing
(n=74)
ag eeing
% o hose
nei he
buyco ing
no
boyco ing
(n=479)
ag eeing
% o all
esponden s
(N=1,021)
ag eeing
P-
alue
(Exac
Sig, 2-
sided)
Pu chase p ac ices
I o en buy Fai T ade p oduc s.
46.2
29.2
25.7
12.7
27.9
.000
I o en buy o ganic oods.
45.9
38.5
25.7
14.4
29.2
.000
I o en buy local oods.
75.2
67.7
70.3
45.1
60.2
.000
I a ou sus ainably caugh ish.
77.2
70.8
63.5
47.2
61.7
.000
I o en buy oods di ec ly om
p oduce s, e.g., a ood ci cle o a a m.
21.8
13.8
14.9
7.9
14.3
.000
I a oid buying ood p oduced in a
coun y he poli ics o conduc o which
I don’ wan o suppo .
90.3
66.2
77.0
44.1
66.1
.000
I a oid buying p oduc s by
manu ac u e s I don’ us o ac
esponsibly.
90.3
78.5
78.4
46.3
68.1
.000
O he en i onmen al ood ac i i ies and iews
I o en h ow ood away.
15.1
20.0
17.6
19.0
17.4
.459
I ha e cu down using mea o milk
p oduc s because o en i onmen al o
e hical easons.
26.1
7.7
10.8
3.8
13.3
.000
I ha e con ac ed a ood manu ac u e o
a e aile o ask abou he o igin o hei
p oduc s o o gi e eedback abou i .
17.4
13.8
17.6
6.7
12.1
.000
I ollow he discussion in he media on
a m animal wel a e o he
en i onmen al impac s o ood.
77.9
66.2
51.4
39.2
57.1
.000
I ha en’ hough much abou wha kind
o ood should be a ou ed o educe
en i onmen al impac s.
25.1
33.8
48.6
62.2
44.8
.000
I is di icul o make e hical ood
choices.
63.0
63.1
56.8
52.2
57.5
.010
Following a egan o o he ege a ian
die .
6.2
1.5
0.0
1.3
3.1
.000
4.3 Mul inomial Reg ession Analysis Resul s
In he mul inomial eg ession analysis, mos unadjus ed e ec s o bo h compa isons (“bo h” s.
“nei he ” and “ei he ” s. “nei he ”) we e s a is ically signi ican a he p < .05 le el (Table 5).
Howe e , he unadjus ed e ec s o age g oup, li ing a ea and aluing low p ice p o ed o be la gely
insigni ican . The Nagelke ke R squa e o model 1 emained ela i ely low (.073). Fo models 2
and 3 i can be conside ed easonable (.312 and .234, espec i ely).

17
In model 1 o he “bo h s. nei he ” compa ison, women and hose wi h in e media e o
highe educa ion we e mo e likely o engage in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing han men and hose
wi h basic educa ion. In he “ei he s. nei he ” compa ison hose wi h in e media e o high
educa ion we e mo e likely han hose wi h basic educa ion and he 35–49-yea -olds we e less likely
han he younges g oup o pa icipa e in ei he buyco ing o boyco ing.
Model 2 did no ema kably change he esul s in Model 1 ega ding he sociodemog aphic
a iables. Fo he “bo h s. nei he ” compa ison, women, hose wi h in e media e o high educa ion,
dona ing o cha i y, wi h le poli ical o ien a ion, us ing in he in luence o pa icipa o y
ac i i ies and consump ion choices as well as belie ing in he powe o ins i u ional ac o s and he
media we e mo e likely han o he s o pa icipa e in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing. Fo he “ei he
s. nei he ” compa ison, he younges age g oup (al hough he di e ence o he oldes g oup was
no signi ican ), hose wi h in e media e educa ion, and hose us ing in he in luence o
consump ion choices we e mo e likely han o he s o pa icipa e in ei he buyco ing o boyco ing;
and hose wi h cen e poli ical o ien a ion we e less likely han o he s o do so (Table 5). In
addi ion, al hough Model 2 indica ed di e ences be ween he g oups, Table 5 (column “N”) also
shows ha he majo i y o all esponden s belie ed in he powe o ins i u ional and ma ke ac o s as
well as he media, and us ed ha hey can in luence h ough consump ion choices. In con as , less
han hal o all esponden s belie ed ha hey can in luence h ough o ing and poli ical pa ies, and
an e en smalle sha e us ed ha hey can in luence h ough pa icipa o y ac i i ies, social media o
by con ac ing companies.
In model 3 o he “bo h s. nei he ” compa ison, he elde ly and hose wi h he lowes
educa ion we e less likely han o he s o engage in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing, and hose li ing
in he capi al a ea (al hough he di e ence o he coun yside, i.e., “o he municipali y” was no
signi ican ), aluing domes ic o igin and e hical aspec s o oods we e mo e likely han o he s o do
so. In model 3 o he “ei he s. nei he ” compa ison, he wo middle-aged g oups, hose wi h he
lowes educa ion, hose li ing ou side capi al egion (al hough only he “o he ci y” di e ed
signi ican ly), and hose wi h a ”cen e” poli ical o ien a ion we e less likely han o he s o engage
in ei he buyco ing o boyco ing, whe eas hose ega ding heal hiness as “ a ou ing” as impo an
and hose aluing he e hical aspec s o oods we e mo e likely han o he s o do so (Table 5).
18
Table 5 Resul s o mul inomial eg ession analysis o poli ical ood consump ion (odds a ios and
s a is ical signi icance, N=1,021)1
Unadjus e
d e ec s,
odds a io
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
N
Bo h s.
nei he
Ei he
s.
nei he
Bo h s.
nei he
Ei he
s.
nei he
Bo h s.
nei he
Ei he
s.
nei he
Bo h s.
nei he
Ei he
s.
nei he
Gende
man
540
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
woman
481
1.841***
1.139
1.758***
1.090
1.466**
1.176
1.184
0.762
Age
18–34
195
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
35–49
211
0.998
0.485*
1.148
0.503*
1.001
0.430*
0.947
0.429*
50–64
323
1.100
0.706
1.261
0.734
0.775
0.535*
0.922
0.541*
65+
292
0.747
0.851
0.901
0.906
0.658
0.756
0.619*
0.635
Educa ion
basic
182
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
in e media e
562
1.700**
1.896*
1.617*
1.986*
1.610*
2.071*
1.698*
2.106*
high
277
2.901***
1.928*
2.688***
1.895*
2.431***
1.757A
3.369***
2.334*
Li ing a ea
capi al dis ic
221
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
o he ci y > 100 000
inh.
193
0.778
0.585
0.767
0.577A
0.745
0.597
0.591*
0.479*
smalle ci y
415
0.720A
0.713
0.746
0.732
0.689 A
0.693
0.631*
0.679
o he municipali y
192
0.705
0.592
0.747
0.654
0.793
0.644
0.699
0.653
Dona ing o cha i y
ne e / a ely/DK
550
1
1
1
1
min. a ew imes a yea
471
2.736***
1.252
2.246***
1.018
Poli ical o ien a ion
igh
351
1
1
1
1
cen e
327
0.896
0.472**
1.042
0.533*
le
343
2.209***
0.782
1.881**
0.739
In luencing by o ing
and h ough poli ical
pa ies
no/li le/DK
551
1
1
1
1
qui e/ e y much
470
2.519***
1.537*
1.067
0.935
In luencing by
pa icipa o y ac i i ies
no/li le/DK
739
1
1
1
1
qui e/ e y much
282
4.546***
1.789*
2.136***
1.204
In luencing by social
media
no/li le/DK
851
1
1
1
1
qui e / e y much
170
3.239***
1.367
1.135
0.824
In luencing by
con ac ing companies
no/li le/DK
700
1
1
1
1
qui e / e y much
321
2.674***
1.472A
1.369 A
1.086
In luencing by
consump ion choices
no/li le/DK
333
1
1
1
1
qui e / e y much
688
4.967***
2.950**
*
2.714***
2.690**
*
Powe o ins i u ional
ac o s
no/li le/DK
347
1
1
1
1
qui e / e y much
674
3.330***
1.995**
1.641**
1.534A
Powe o he media
no/li le/DK
278
1
1
1
1
qui e / e y much
743
3.341***
1.805**
1.503*
1.192
Powe o ma ke
ac o s
no/li le/DK
144
1
1
1
1
qui e/ e y much
877
3.972***
2.265**
1.462
1.441
Heal hiness as
” es ic ing”
no/li le/DK
388
1
1
1
1
qui e/ e y much
633
1.238
1.641*
0.797
1.129
Heal hiness as
” a ou ing”
no/li le/DK
202
1
1
1
1
qui e/ e y much
819
2.382***
2.894**
*
1.487A
1.894*
Low p ice
no/li le/DK
184
1
1
1
1
qui e/ e y much
837
0.738
0.820
0.738
0.827
Domes ic o igin
no/li le/DK
224
1
1
1
1
qui e/ e y much
797
3.521***
2.120**
2.051**
1.379
E hics o p oduc ion
no/li le/DK
458
1
1
1
1
qui e/ e y much
563
5.152***
3.249**
*
4.491***
3.006**
*
Nagelke ke R squa e
.073
.312
.234
1*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, Ap<.10
5 Discussion
Ou esul s indica ed ha one in se en esponden s epo ed ha hey o en bo h buyco ed and
boyco ed ood p oduc s o e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al easons, sugges ing ha he sha e o
Finns s ongly commi ed o such ac i i ies is qui e small. Howe e , ou ou o en esponden s
epo ed a leas occasionally bo h buyco ing and boyco ing. The esponden s in his “bo h” g oup
19
can hus be cha ac e ized as being a leas somewha ac i e as buyco e s and boyco e s. Li le less
han hal o he esponden s nei he buyco ed o boyco ed, o ming a non-ac i e g oup o
consume s who did no iden i y hemsel es wi h buyco ing o boyco ing ac i i ies. The semi-
ac i e g oup who ei he buyco ed o boyco ed was much smalle han he wo o he g oups
(app oxima ely one in se en esponden s).
Few ea lie s udies o buyco ing and boyco ing in Finland exis bu he Eu opean Social
Su ey (ESS) 2002/2003 (e.g., Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014; Koos, 2012; Michele i e al., 2012)
can be used as an indica i e baseline o compa ing ou esul s wi h. Howe e , some quali ica ions
should be no ed: whe eas ou ques ions ocused on he equency o buyco ing and boyco ing o
ood p oduc s, he ESS o e ed only “yes” and “no” esponse op ions o he ques ions on
buyco ing/boyco ing p oduc s (in gene al, no ood p oduc s in pa icula ) du ing he pas yea .
The ESS ound ha 47% o Finns had ei he buyco ed o boyco ed p oduc s du ing he p e ious
yea (Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014), and in ou s udy 40% o he esponden s had a leas
occasionally buyco ed and boyco ed ood p oduc s. Al hough hese numbe s a e no di ec ly
compa able, hey sugges a oughly simila sha e o he popula ion o be a leas some imes making
ood choices based on e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al easons. Howe e , i can also be a gued
ha e en i he ESS esul s sugges ha poli ical consump ion is a ela i ely widely sha ed p ac ice
in he No dic coun ies compa ed o mos o he Eu opean coun ies, ou esul s poin o qui e a
modes sha e o consume s o en buyco ing and boyco ing.
5.1 How Widely A e Va ious Sus ainable Food Consump ion P ac ices Sha ed among he Ac i e,
Somewha Ac i e and Non-Ac i e G oups?
One p ac ice, no h owing ood away, p o ed o be widely sha ed among all g oups. Buying local
ood and sus ainable ish and a oiding ood om un us wo hy sou ces we e no as widesp ead as
a oiding ood was e, bu s ill a subs an ial sha e o all g oups, including he non-ac i e g oup,
epo ed ca ying ou such sus ainable ac i i ies. I migh seem as a con adic ion ha some
consume s epo ed no making choices based on e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al easons, bu a
he same ime ag eed o buying sus ainable ish, o example. Howe e , people ca y ou sus ainable
ac i i ies no only o “poli ical, e hical o en i onmen al” bu many o he easons as well, and hey
may no always consciously “label” such ac i i ies in e ms o e hics, he en i onmen o poli ics.
People’s ood choices a e based on mul iple conside a ions, and he poli ical, e hical and
en i onmen al ones mix wi h o he conside a ions. Fo ins ance, Schoolman (2017) has no ed ha
20
buying local ood is no always associa ed wi h en i onmen al conce ns and ha people buying
local ood do no “ i he mold o he ypical e hical consume ” (ibid., 1). People may buy local ood
because o eshness and as iness, o ins ance, and he a oidance o p oduc s om manu ac u e s
which a e no us ed o ac esponsibly may be based on conside a ions o sa e y and heal hiness
a he han e hics o he en i onmen . Such ambigui ies a e an in e es ing esul as such, and me i a
mo e de ailed in es iga ion in u u e analyses.
In many sus ainable p ac ices, hose who bo h buyco ed and boyco ed epo ed o be mo e
ac i e han o he esponden s. This was he case pa icula ly in a ou ing local ood and sus ainable
ish, a oiding oods om un us wo hy coun ies o manu ac u e s, ollowing media discussion on
animal wel a e and en i onmen al issues, and hinking abou how o make en i onmen ally iendly
ood choices. I is also no ewo hy ha pa icula ly he “bo h” g oup and hose who buyco ed
conside ed making e hical ood choices o be di icul . An explana ion o his may be ha he
challenges o econciling e hical and o he ood ela ed expec a ions and he p ac ical possibili ies
o doing so become a li ed expe ience only when one s a s engaging in e hical ac i i ies.
In e es ingly hough, hese di icul ies do no seem o p e en poli ical ood consume s om ying
o make such choices, al hough hey appa en ly wish ha i would be easie .
Buying di ec ly om a me s, cu ing down on mea o milk use, ollowing ege a ian o
egan die and con ac ing a company o in o ma ion o he o igin o hei p oduc s p o ed o be he
leas a ou ed p ac ices among all consume g oups. Indeed, hese a e mo e demanding han he
mo e popula p ac ices: hey equi e p ac ical e o , use o ime, o changing he accus omed ood
habi s. Ea lie esea ch has shown ha pa icula ly he educ ion o mea consump ion is conside ed
challenging, and no many people in he No dic coun ies, including Finland, a e willing o ea less
mea (Ni a e al., 2014; see also Jallinoja e al., 2016b). Mea enjoys a alued posi ion in he
Wes e n ood cul u es bo h in e e yday and es i e occasions, and changing he accus omed ways
o cooking, ea ing, and socializing a ound ood, and b eaking he es ablished no ms o wha is
conside ed “p ope ood”, is demanding (Jallinoja e al., 2016b; Macdia mid e al., 2016). Buying
di ec ly om a me s is inc easingly popula (Eh ns öm-Fuen es and Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2016),
bu i emains a ma ginal p ac ice compa ed o easily accessible supe ma ke s and hype ma ke s. In
addi ion, since mos ood p oduc s con ain o igin labels, mos people p obably do no conside i
necessa y o con ac he manu ac u e s o mo e de ails on he p oduc s. The gene al us ulness o
Finns owa ds ood and ood manu ac u e s (Eu opean Commission, 2010) p obably u he educes
hei el need o ecei e mo e de ailed o igin in o ma ion.
21
5.2 Who A e he Buyco ing and Boyco ing Consume s?
The adjus ed models in he mul inomial eg ession analysis indica ed ha being ac i e in bo h
buyco ing and boyco ing was mos likely o women (excep in Model 3; sugges ing ha women
and men would no di e in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing i hei ea ing mo i a ions we e
simila ), hose wi h in e media e o highe educa ion; wi h le is poli ical o ien a ion; who dona ed
o cha i y; us ed in he in luence by ci izens h ough pa icipa o y ac i i ies and consump ion
choices; belie ed ha ins i u ional ac o s and he media ha e powe in ad ancing sus ainabili y; and
hose whose ea ing was mo i a ed by domes ic o igin and he e hics o ood p oduc ion. In addi ion,
in Model 3 he oldes age g oup was less likely o be ac i e han he o he age g oups, sugges ing
ha he e may be di e ences in he ea ing mo i a ions be ween he age g oups. Those li ing in he
capi al dis ic seemed somewha mo e likely han o he s o be ac i e, bu he di e ence o hose
li ing in he coun yside was no s a is ically signi ican . This indica es ha ac i e buyco ing and
boyco ing o ood is on one hand a p ac ice mos p e alen in he mos u banised a eas, bu also
sugges ing ha people li ing in he coun yside may ha e be e possibili ies o, e.g., buy di ec ly
om a me s.
The ac o s associa ed wi h being engaged in ei he buyco ing o boyco ing (compa ed o
doing nei he ) sha ed some simila ea u es o hose abo e bu he e we e also some di e ences
showing ha many explana o y a iables a e mo e s ongly linked o being ac i e in bo h
buyco ing and boyco ing han in engaging in only one o hem. He e, he younges g oup and
hose wi h high o in e media e educa ion seemed mos likely o be ac i e, bu he e we e no gende
di e ences, and he poli ical le and igh did no di e om each o he . The capi al dis ic seems
mos likely o be ac i e in ei he buyco ing o boyco ing, bu he s a is ical di e ence is signi ican
only o o he la ge ci ies. Heal hiness as “ a ou ing” and he e hics o p oduc ion we e associa ed,
bu domes ic o igin was no associa ed wi h pa icipa ing in ei he buyco ing o boyco ing.
These esul s a e simila o many ea lie s udies as ega ds gende (e.g., Koos, 2012; Neilson
and Pax on, 2010; Tobiasen, 2005), educa ion (e.g., Be lin, 2011; Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014;
Michele i e al., 2012; Neilson, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005), li ing a ea (e.g., Sando ici and Da is,
2010; S ømsnes, 2005), poli ical o ien a ion (e.g., Michele i and S olle, 2012; Sando ici and
Da is, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005), and dona ing (S ømsnes, 2005; Tobiasen, 2005), and co obo a e

22
ea lie indings by sugges ing ha e hical conce ns (Sc uggs e al., 2011) play a ole in poli ical
consump ion.
Acco ding o Fe e -Fons and F aile (2014), class di e ences in poli ical consump ion a e
la ges in coun ies wi h he highes GDP pe capi a, pa icula ly so in Finland and Swi ze land.
O he s ha e cha ac e ised e hical consume s as people wi h cul u al capi al who “enac a se o
ecologically o ien ed high-s a us as es ha a e cen al o hei iden i y p ojec s and s a egies o
claiming s a us and dis inc ion” (Ca agna e al., 2014, p. 160). Baumann e al. (2015) ha e a gued
ha poli ical consump ion may ac as a “bounda y ma ke ” o hose wi h su icien cul u al and
economic capi al. Also ou esul s showed ha he highly educa ed we e mos engaged in poli ical
ood consump ion, sugges ing ha an exclusi e elemen may be in ol ed in poli ical ood
consump ion. The highly educa ed may also be be e in o med and/o mo e conce ned abou
en i onmen al issues han o he s (Eu opean Commission, 2014; Kou o, 2003). I poli ical
consump ion is an in e es mainly o he uppe o middle class, i may e en ually con ibu e o
s eng hening exis ing social hie a chies and excluding hose o whom e hical consump ion is no
possible because o lacking economic o cul u al esou ces.
Compa ed o ea lie esea ch, ou esul s b ing a mo e nuanced pic u e o some issues. Fi s ,
ea lie s udies ha e ound ha heal h conce ns (Ni a e al., 2014; Willis and Scho , 2012) a e
associa ed wi h sus ainable o socially conscious consump ion. Ou esul s in oduce a new
pe spec i e by sugges ing ha boyco ing and boyco ing a e speci ically associa ed wi h
“ a ou ing” heal hy oods, bu no wi h “ es ic ing” unheal hy oods. This sugges s ha poli ical
ood consump ion may be a ype o p ac ice implying a mo e gene al ocus on “posi i e ea ing”,
i.e., a ou ing oods ha a e conside ed as good, bene icial o i uous om bo h heal h (“sel -
ega ding”) and e hical (“o he - ega ding”) pe spec i es. O he s, oo, ha e ecognized ha ce ain
o ms o sus ainable ood consump ion, such as plan -based ea ing, may be connec ed o heal hism,
especially among he middle class, o whom ea ing o ganic salad mix has been “in some sense
pe o ma i e o an eli e sensibili y” (Gu hman, 2003, 53; Jallinoja e al., 2018). Howe e , since he
“ a ou ing” seemed mo e p e alen in he “ei he ” han he “bo h” g oup compa ed o he nei he
g oup, his aspec needs o be s udied u he in u u e analyses.
Second, we ound ha aluing domes ic o igin was associa ed wi h being engaged in bo h
buyco ing and boyco ing. In Finland, ood was a e he second wo ld wa s ongly a ques ion o
ag icul u al poli ics ha ocused on suppo ing he subsis ence o small amily a ms (Kokko and
23
Räsänen, 1997), and e en in he p esen day, ood is in he media ypically amed no only in e ms
o heal h and li es yles bu also as a ques ion o he li elihood o he coun yside and he p omo ion
o na ional and local ood cul u es (see also Bos öm and Klin man, 2009). In his ame, he
a ou ing o domes ic ood is ela ed o bo h suppo ing he na ional economy and local a me s,
and o he idea ha especially Finnish ood is pu e and ecological (c . Bech-La sen e al., 2016 on
he image o he New No dic Cuisine). Ou da a, howe e , does no allow disen angling he oles
ha a ious na ionalis ic, economic, ecological o o he mo i a ions play in he alua ion o
domes ic ood.
Thi d, he esul s sugges ha being ac i e in poli ical consump ion and o he poli ical
ac i i ies a e no mu ually exclusi e. This esul is suppo ed by ea lie esea ch (e.g., Baumann e
al., 2015; Willis and Scho , 2012). Those esponden s who hough ha people can in luence
h ough a ious means a ailable o hem as bo h ci izens and consume s we e mo e likely o
engage in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing. Such ac i i ies included consump ion choices and wha
we e med “pa icipa o y ac i i ies”: ci izens’ ini ia i es; hea ings, elec onic ci izen o ums and
public mee ings; and NGOs. In con as , us ing in ci izens’ in luence on ood p oduc ion and
consump ion h ough poli ical pa ies and o ing did no di e en ia e be ween poli ical and non-
poli ical consume s, no did he belie in he powe o social media (c . Wa d and de V eese, 2011;
de Zúñiga e al., 2014). The esul s indica ed ha he majo i y o all esponden s belie ed in he
powe o ins i u ional and ma ke ac o s as well as he media. A majo i y also us ed ha hey can
in luence h ough consump ion choices, while a smalle sha e belie ed in in luencing h ough
o ing and poli ical pa ies, o by pa icipa o y ac i i ies, social media o con ac ing companies.
These esul s sugges ha Finns do see a ole o hemsel es pa icula ly as consume s – mo e so
han as ci izens – in ad ancing sus ainabili y, while hey also hink ha o he ac o s ha e a ole o
play, oo.
5.3 Limi a ions
Some limi a ions o ou s udy a e o be no ed. Fi s , he esponse a e o ou web-based
ques ionnai e was qui e low (p obably pa ly explained by he ease o igno ing e-mail in i a ions),
and i migh be ha hose who had low in e es in ood did no espond. The ac ha a g ea
majo i y o Finns ha e access o In e ne a home (S a is ics Finland, 2014) suppo s he da a
collec ion me hod, al hough he middle-aged and he elde ly and hose wi h high educa ion we e
somewha o e - ep esen ed. Second, we ha e looked a consume g oups de ined by only wo
24
ques ions on buyco ing and boyco ing. These ques ions ha e he bene i o unc ioning in
ca ego ising consume s in o ela i ely clea ly de ined g oups and enabling compa ison wi h ea lie
s udies. I is howe e ob ious ha he possibili ies o compa ison wi h ano he kinds o
ope a ionalisa ions o poli ical ood consump ion (see, e.g., Halkie & Holm, 2008) o wi h s udies
ocusing on poli ical ood consump ion om a li es yle pe spec i e a e limi ed (S olle & Michele i,
2013, 42).
In o de o gain a mo e nuanced pic u e o poli ical ood consump ion p ac ices ac oss
di e en consume g oups bo h quan i a i e and quali a i e esea ch is needed. The social, cul u al
and economic condi ions o ansi ion in o mo e sus ainable ood consump ion should be explo ed,
including he s udy o a ious ood p ac ices (e.g., ea ing animal- and plan -based oods, gene a ion
o ood was e) and how hey ake shape in in e ac ion wi h o he p ac ices o e e yday li e and
socio echnical changes in socie y. Finally, esea ch is needed on consume s’ us in expe s and
ins i u ional a angemen s in he ealm o sus ainabili y as well as on how his us is associa ed
wi h ood p ac ices and a i udes.
6 Conclusion
Ou esul s ha e shown signi ican social di isions and inequali ies, pa icula ly as ega ds
educa ion, in e ms o how people in a No dic wel a e s a e a e engaged in sus ainable consump ion
p ac ices (c . Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014). Ou esul s also indica e ha some o he p ac ices ha
poli ical ood consume s endo se a e sha ed by many o hose who only seldom o ne e buyco o
boyco oods o e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al easons, sugges ing ha people do no
necessa ily concep ualise hei e e yday p ac ices as “e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al”. I is also
possible ha some en i onmen al and e hical p ac ices many ha e become ou inized and
habi ualized in o li es yles o he ex en ha many people ha e s opped ac i ely ca ego izing hem
as “poli ical”. I can hus be a gued ha poli ical ood consump ion as buyco ing and/o boyco ing
ep esen s oo na ow a pe spec i e on wha can be e med as “socially conscious consump ion”
(A kinson, 2012).
Al e na i ely, i may be ha he pa icipa ion in such p ac ices is mo i a ed a he by heal h o
as e han by e hical o en i onmen al conside a ions, o i may be a combina ion o a ious sel -
ega ding and o he - ega ding ac o s which a e di icul o sepa a e in e e yday li e. O he s ha e
no ed ha consume s may be d i en by bo h al uis ic and sel -in e es ed conce ns a he same ime
25
and ge pleasu e om commi ing o mo e socially and en i onmen ally sus ainable consump ion
(Gab iel & Lang, 2015) o o ‘al e na i e hedonism’, e e ing o a ‘mo al o m o sel -pleasu ing’
(Sope , 2008, 571). F om his pe spec i e, new sus ainable ou ines may well es ablish e en wi hou
consume s e lec i ely de eloping hem, p o ided ha hey a e easily accessible and possible o
in eg a e in o ea ing pa e ns wi hou labo ious changes in e e yday p ac ices. Making such ou ines
easy and ensu ing ha sus ainable and a o dable al e na i es can en e and emain on he ma ke
equi es ac i e pa icipa ion om ma ke ac o s and public au ho i ies alike as well as a sha ed
agenda o sus ainable ood in which all ac o s can pa icipa e on equal e ms. On a poli ical le el, i
is impo an o pay a en ion o he c edibili y o he policies so ha consume s can eel ha no only
hemsel es bu also o he ac o s in socie y, including bo h companies and public policy ac o s,
make an e o o ad ance sus ainable ansi ions.
To conclude, he esul s lend suppo o he idea ha he ansi ion owa ds mo e “sus ainable
culina y cul u es” (Mäkelä and Ni a, 2016) may p oceed h ough se e al ou es. The ansi ion may
include conscious and e lexi e choices wi h a icula ed sus ainable agendas in ol ing delibe a e
buyco ing o boyco ing e o s, bu also a g adual adop ion o sus ainable habi s due o cul u al
changes in social no ms and social se ings. Especially he la e p ocess may be enhanced, o
ins ance, by egula i e measu es and axa ion ocusing on ood p oduc ion and consump ion. Media
ep esen a ions o ood and sus ainable li es yles ha e an impac on bo h p ocesses, and a e c ucial
in po ayals o sus ainable culina y cul u e as ei he dull, as eless and una ac i e, o a he
in e es ing, delicious and e sa ile.
Acknowledgemen s
This wo k was suppo ed by he Finnish Minis y o Ag icul u e and Fo es y (g an
1857/212/2012).
Re e ences
Ande son, B. (1983). Imagined communi ies. Re lec ions on he o igin and sp ead o na ionalism.
London: Ve so Edi ions and NLB.
32
Pääkkönen, H., & Hani i, R. (2012). Time use changes in Finland h ough he 2000s. Helsinki:
S a is ics Finland.
de Rezende, D. C. (2014). Poli ics in Food Ma ke s: al e na i e modes o quali ica ion and
engaging. Re is a de Economia a Sociologia Ru al, 52, 387–400.
Sando ici, M. E., & Da is, T. (2010). Ac i ism gone shopping: An empi ical explo a ion o
indi idual-le el de e minan s o poli ical consume ism and dona ing. Compa a i e Sociology, 9,
328–356.
Sassa elli, R. (2004). The poli ical mo ali y o ood: discou ses, con es a ion and al e na i e
consump ion. In M. Ha ey, A. McMeekin, A., & A. Wa de (Eds.), Quali ies o ood (pp. 176–191).
Manches e : Manches e Uni e si y P ess.
Sassa elli, R., & Da olio, F. (2010). Consump ion, pleasu e and poli ics. Slow ood and he
poli ico-aes he ic p oblema iza ion o ood. Jou nal o Consume Cul u e, 10, 202–232.
Sassa elli, R. (2014). Poli ics o consump ion, poli ics o jus ice: The poli ical in es men o he
consume . In: N. Ma hu (Ed.), Consume cul u e, mode ni y and iden i y (pp. 297–317). London:
SAGE.
Schoolman, E. D. (2017). Building communi y, bene i ing neighbo s: “Buying local” by people
who do no i he mold o “e hical consume s”. Jou nal o Consume Cul u e, published online,
DOI: 10.1177/1469540517717776.
Sc uggs, L., He el, S., Bes , S. J., & Je o ds, C. (2011). In o ma ion, choice and poli ical
consump ion: Human igh s in he checkou lane. Human Righ s Qua e ly, 33, 1092–1121.
Sope , K. (2008). Al e na i e hedonism, cul u al heo y and he ole o aes he ic e isioning.
Cul u al S udies, 22, 567–587.
S a is ics Finland (2014). Väes ön ie o- ja ies in ä ekniikan käy ö 2014. [The use o in o ma ion
and communica ion echnologies in he popula ion. In Finnish.] A ailable a :
h p:// ilas okeskus. i/ il/su i i/2014/su i i_2014_2014-11-06_ i.pd (26.9. 2016).

33
S ep oe, A., Polla d, T. M., & Wa dle, J. (1995) De elopmen o a measu e o he mo i es
unde lying he selec ion o ood: The Food Choice Ques ionnai e. Appe i e, 25, 267–284.
S olle, D., & Michele i, M. (2013). Poli ical consume ism. Global esponsibili y in ac ion.
Camb idge Books Online, a ailable a : h p://ebooks.camb idge.o g/.
S olle, D., Michele i, M., & C épaul (2013). Mapping poli ical consume ism in wes e n
democ acies. In D. S olle & M. Michele i (2013). Poli ical consume ism. Global esponsibili y in
ac ion (pp. 95–134). Camb idge Books Online, a ailable a : h p://ebooks.camb idge.o g/.
S ømsnes, K. (2005). Poli ical consump ion in No way: Who, why – and does i ha e any e ec ?
In M. Bos öm, A. Føllesdal, M. Klin man, M. Michele i, & M. P. Sø ensen (Eds.), Poli ical
consume ism: I s mo i a ions, powe , and condi ions in he No dic coun ies and elsewhe e (pp.
165–181). TemaNo d 2005:517. Copenhagen: No dic Council o Minis e s.
Te agni, L., & Kjæ nes, U, (2005). E hical consump ion in No way: why is i so low? In M.
Bos öm, A. Føllesdal, M. Klin man, M. Michele i, & M. P. Sø ensen (Eds.), Poli ical
consume ism: I s mo i a ions, powe , and condi ions in he No dic coun ies and elsewhe e (pp.
472–485). TemaNo d 2005:517. Copenhagen: No dic Council o Minis e s.
Tobiasen, M. (2005). Poli ical consume ism in Denma k. In M. Bos öm, A. Føllesdal, M.
Klin man, M. Michele i, & M. P. Sø ensen (Eds.), Poli ical consume ism: I s mo i a ions, powe ,
and condi ions in he No dic coun ies and elsewhe e (pp. 113–144). TemaNo d 2005:517.
Copenhagen: No dic Council o Minis e s.
Toble , C., Vissche s, V.H.M., Sieg is , M. (2011). Ea ing g een. Consume s' willingness o adop
ecological ood consump ion beha io s. Appe i e, 57, 674–682.
Uusi alo, O., & Oksanen, R. (2004). E hical consume ism: a iew om Finland. In e na ional
Jou nal o Consume S udies, 28, 214–221.
Wa d, J., & de V eese, C. (2011). Poli ical consume ism, young ci izens and he In e ne . Media,
Cul u e & Socie y, 33, 399–413.
34
Wa de, A. (2016). The p ac ice o ea ing. Camb idge: Poli y P ess.
Willis, M. M., & Scho , J. B. (2012). Does changing a ligh bulb lead o changing he wo ld?
Poli ical ac ion and he conscious consume . The Annals AAPSS (The Ame ican Academy o
Poli ical and Social Science), 644, 160–190.
Zhang, X. (2015). ‘Vo ing wi h dolla s’: a c oss-poli y and mul ile el analysis o poli ical
consume ism. In e na ional Jou nal o Consume S udies, 39, 422–436.
de Zúñiga, H. G., Copeland, L., & Bimbe , B. (2014). Poli ical consume ism: Ci ic engagemen
and he social media connec ion. New Media & Socie y, 16, 488–506.
1 All panel membe s a e ec ui ed o line, i.e., hey ha e been pe sonally in i ed o he panel by phone, le e , o ace- o
ace. The panel s uc u e is based on a na ionwide andom sampling o he Finnish 15–79-yea -old popula ion. The
panel is used o opinion polls and ma ke ing esea ch pu poses. On a e age a panelis pa icipa ed a su ey 0.5 imes
pe mon h in 2014. A he ime o he da a collec ion, he e we e no di ec ewa ds bu a modes p ize d aw among he
pa icipan s.
2 Ins ead o quo a sampling, he agency esponsible o he da a collec ion (Talous u kimus Oy) used s a i ied sampling
due o sho e da a collec ion ime and in o de o a oid bu dening he panel membe s by sending hem in i a ions
which hey e en ually canno answe because hei quo a may be al eady ull.
3 The di e ence be ween he numbe o sen in i a ions (5,341) and ecei ed in i a ions (4,986) was caused by 1) ou -
o -da e con ac in o ma ion o some panel membe s and 2) au oma ic ‘ou o o ice’ no ices.
4 The Eu opean Social Su ey 2002/2003 asked he ollowing ques ions: “Du ing he las 12 mon hs, ha e you done any
o he ollowing? (a) delibe a ely bough ce ain p oduc s o poli ical, e hical o en i onmen al easons, and (b)
boyco ed ce ain p oduc s, wi h esponse op ions yes/no. Koos (2012) no es ha he limi a ion o his o mula ion is
ha he equency o ’delibe a ely buying’ o ’boyco ing’ is no is no asked abou . In his s udy, we speci ically asked
abou he equency, and a ge ed he ques ions on ood p oduc s ins ead o p oduc s as a gene al ca ego y.