Symbolic Boundaries and Dietary Transgressions: A Qualitative Study in Understanding Resistance to Plant-Based Diets in Sustainability Circles
Note: this research was undertaken by Teya Duncan as a project with the University of Newcastle Sociology Department.
While sustainable and ethical consumption is hard to define, it is generally agreed among sustainability and broader scientific communities that a move towards a plant-based diet is a necessity to meet climate targets and reduce the impact of climate change (Berglund, 2019; Oleshuck et al., 2019; Sage, 2014). This research investigates the ways in which professionals working in the broader field of ‘sustainability’ navigate symbolic social boundaries when consuming food products, and how the constraints of these boundaries may encourage a resistance to plant-based diet adoption. The broader field of sustainability is defined as any role where the individual’s primary function requires them to make decisions in relation to environmental or social concerns, and includes those working in corporations, consulting, academia, government, NGOs, small businesses or any other paid role specifically related to sustainability. Through this research I seek to understand the symbolic boundaries that may contribute to a resistance to plant based diet adoption among sustainability professionals.
Background
While research indicates that the prevalence of plant-based products and vegan diets is increasing, many sustainability professionals continue to consume animal products, despite their environmental impact (Berglund, 2019; Leung, 2022; Leblebici Kocer, L. et al., 2023; Oleshuck et al., 2019). Understanding how sustainability professionals navigate identifying sustainable and ethical supply chains, as well as discerning what factors may contribute to resistance among sustainability professionals to adopt a plant-based diet is currently explored in existing literature. This research may aid in the development of more effective advocacy and advertising strategies from pro-vegan groups and corporations, improve food and supply chain literacy among the broader population, and inform policy and strategy to remove barriers to ethical and sustainable consumption. By gaining insights into these dynamics, stakeholders can better understand what constitutes sustainable practice, and influence consumer behaviour to adopt these practices, thereby positively impacting the planet, people and non-human animals and fostering more sustainable food systems.
Literature review
Lamont’s (2002) work on boundaries indicates that an actor’s decision-making is affected by group rules and norms, with transgression of symbolic boundaries leading to exclusion from high-status group membership. Huddart Kennedy (2018) builds on this work, arguing that food choices are critical in the formation and maintenance of group boundaries. Drawing a k-cluster analysis of food shopping data Huddart Kennedy theorises that eating ‘ethically’ may lead to the accumulation of cultural capital in eco-habitus contexts.
The factors which shape consumption patterns is explored by Berglund (2019), who adopts a symbolic interactionist framework to analyse what factors influence the food choices of climate activists. Berglund conducted semi-structured interviews with nine self-identified climate activists in Sweden. Several participants claimed to make ‘sustainable choices’, including a reduction of animal products in their diets, however several participants indicated that they avoid behaviours that may be perceived as hard to relate to or ego-driven, such as adopting a vegan diet, as they may put people off from joining their cause.
Oleshuck (2019) explores the justifications social actors use for the consumption of non-human animal products in opposition to their perceived awareness of animal agriculture’s environmental impact. Through analysis of data from 77 semi-structured interviews, consumer sovereignty was identified as a ‘repertoire’ adopted by meat eaters, who perceived this consumption as invocation of consumer liberty.
The geographic focus of these studies is limited to Canada (Huddart Kennedy et al., 2018; Oleshuck, 2019) and Sweden (Berglund, 2019) and little research has been conducted with regard to Australian demographics. Additionally, while Berglund (2019) does investigate the consumption choices of climate activists, existing literature does not explicitly address the intersection of professional and personal values and consumption patterns in the corporate sustainability space.
Methodology
A constructivist paradigm, acknowledging that each participant’s understanding of sustainability and food choices is guided by subjective perception through their constructed reality, guided the formation of interview questions and analysis of participant data (Waller et al., 2016). Although this format allowed me to interview participants in different geographical areas to myself, it may have hindered my capacity to build the rapport that would come with in-person interviews in a neutral environment (Waller et al., 2016).
Semi-structured interviews were identified as the most appropriate research method for several reasons, including the personal nature of discussion, with questions addressing identity and personal values. This format allowed for greater confidentiality, and transparency in responses, than may be found in a focus group. Additionally, interviews mitigate the risk of groupthink and facilitate individual focus and greater depth in responses given (Waller et al. 2016). The flexibility of the format enabled participants to engage in self-guided discussion, co-creating knowledge and encouraging depth of conversational data.
Ethical Considerations
Ethics approval to conduct this research was granted by the University of Newcastle’s Human Research Ethics Committee adhering to principles outlined in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, ARC, & UA, 2023). This research prioritised the ethical considerations crucial to social research, addressing risks to the researcher, participants, and the institution.
Before conducting research, participants were provided with detailed project information, and informed written consent was acquired (Waller et al., 2016). Additionally, verbal consent was reaffirmed at the start of each interview, as recorded in transcripts. Acknowledging the power dynamic of a researcher-participant relationship, I utilised a collaborative approach to interviews and facilitated a respectful, non-judgemental environment to ensure participants feel empowered to share freely and to be candid in their responses (Waller et al., 2016). I am conscious that discussion of individual definitions of ethics may be a point of vulnerability and discomfort for participants, and as such, I took steps to mitigate emotional impact. A Participant Information Statement, including details of available support services, was provided to all participants before interviews commenced.
I have endeavoured to achieve ethical dissemination of research results, limiting unintended consequences on participants or their professional environments. Measures were taken in transcription to protect participants from harm. Pseudonyms were used, names of workplaces and places of residence were redacted, and specific information on participants’ careers was broadened and generalised to de-identify data and protect confidentiality. Participants were made aware that direct quotes may be used in the research, but no identifying information will accompany this. Integrity, transparency, and honesty were maintained in the analysis, with acknowledgment of personal bias and citation of supporting literature throughout.
Recruitment
Participants were recruited through my existing professional network, utilising both purposive and convenience sampling, and partiipants were initially contacted via LinkedIn. I identified contacts who met the criteria for inclusion, being 18 years or above, able to understand and speak English with more than two years experience in a role where the primary function requires the individual to make decisions in relation to environmental or social concerns.
This criterion reflects the multi-disciplinary nature of sustainability, capturing a diverse range of perspectives and experiences from across the field. A flyer approved by the Ethics Committee was sent as the initial point of contact, and interested participants were encouraged to contact my university email address for further information. Those who emailed were then forwarded a copy of the approved Information Statement and Consent Form. Once signed forms were returned, Zoom meetings were arranged at a time chosen by the participant. Although this recruitment strategy was potentially non-representative and limited the accuracy of generalisations made in findings, I deemed this recruitment strategy best suited to this study scale.
Analysis
Interviews were conducted online over Zoom and were taped and transcribed by the researcher. Transcripts were assessed using thematic analysis, identifying shared points of discussion and recurring themes among participant responses. A significant number of themes emerged, however keeping in mind the scale of this research paper, a small selection of interconnected themes was chosen as the focus of the analysis presented.
Intersecting social and cultural pressures that may influence responses, as well as institutionalised factors of multiple discrimination, such as gender, class, race and financial position were considered. While the limitations of the research scope do not allow for in-depth discussion of the impact these factors may have, their impacts were noted throughout analysis and the formation of results.
Analysis is presented by first outlining how participants define sustainability and identifying what driving factors led to a career in the space, then exploring how this has affected individual food choices. Finally, barriers to aligning food choices with personal sustainability values are explored, including economic barriers, access to information and resistance to the transgression of social boundaries.
Results
Key affordances
All who participated in the research, regardless of professional role, gender, age or cultural background, indicated that their work in sustainability has affected how they consume food. All participants expressed a preference for eating locally sourced foods, and noted the importance of community in sustainability. Advocacy was identified as an integral part of sustainable consumption, and the importance of education in the face of corporate greenwashing was touched on by all participants. With regard to products avoided due to concerns over their lack of sustainability, all interviewees referenced a reduced consumption of meat, however all participants indicated that they continue to eat meat, with some indicating that reduced consumption allows them to “reward” themselves with higher-quality products. There was no indication from participants that these higher-quality products were perceived to have improved climate or ethical impacts.
Contextualising sustainability: insights from industry professionals
Defining sustainability can be a difficult task. As highlighted by Jonathan (a pseudonym), a sustainability consultant in their sixties who has worked in the broader ‘sustainability’ field for 40 years:
“We went to a conference for three days [in the early 1990s], trying to define sustainability. We couldn't define it, and after a while we let go, and we said, we don't know what sustainability is, but we know how to go about doing it”.
Ethan (a pseudonym), a sustainable procurement professional in his early thirties, viewed sustainability as “a complex beast” with “so many multi-facets to it”. He expressed that on a personal level, his definition of sustainability is “living as simply as [he] can”. Olivia, an environmental lawyer in their late twenties, expressed that sustainability requires a connection between people and the planet, as she sees the two as “inextricably linked”, expressing that “you can’t look at nature conservation and protecting the earth without looking at the people that live there”.
All participants cited that while their professional and personal definitions of sustainability differ, the knowledge that they have accumulated through their work has affected the ways in which they consume. A common thread across all interviews was a tendency to prioritise ‘quality’, local produce, with all participants emphasising the importance of community and supporting local farmers. Jonathan expressed the joy that comes with this type of consumption:
“We know the people who have grown it, we know where it's come from. And that's really exciting.”
Olivia echoed the importance of buying locally when attempting to consume sustainably:
“So I think just being aware of where you are, so what grows, and what lives where you are, and how you can adapt your choices to fit, that. It will inevitably have a better impact than eating something that's not suited to where you live.”
This sentiment was also expressed by Ethan, who indicated that knowledge of their local area allows him to better identify the quality of products:
“Somewhere, you [are able to] regionally contextualize...I know where it is and trust that the process is right and that it's not just another tactic. That's where it is, then kind of just making those decisions. It's like, okay, in my head, that area is a relatively low urban environment, relatively clean like waters, good grass, like things kind of play into that, I guess.”
All three participants, regardless of age, gender or professional role, indicated that they have reduced their meat consumption due to its environmental impacts. Ethan expressed that he “rarely, almost never, buy[s] red meat from… the butcher or market or supermarket” citing “the footprint both from a feed perspective and an emissions perspective” as well as the “size of the land per kilogram of product that comes out of it”. Jonathan echoed this justification for a reduction in meat consumption:
“Well, certainly, I moved away from meat a lot more. And I think it's well known now that the environmental impacts of meat production are pretty high, and certainly that's been reinforced by a lot of the work I've been doing on forced labour [and] modern slavery in [the animal agriculture] sector. I think certainly moving away from meat and seafood, has probably been one of the most conscious decisions I've made around it”
Olivia shared a similar sentiment, stating:
“Yeah, I think I try to reduce my meat intake. I do eat meat, but I try to reduce it, because I mean it’s for health benefits as much as it is for climate benefits.”
While every participant expressed that they view meat as a less sustainable option, all indicated that they continue to consume it.
Symbolic boundaries and justifications for consuming ‘unsustainably’
Lamont’s work on boundaries may aid in understanding the tendency for participants to consume foods that are in conflict with their values. Lamont (1992, 2002) theorises that symbolic boundaries, or “conceptual distinctions made by social actors to categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space”, shape individual behaviour (2002, p.168). Huddart Kennedy (2018) connects this theory to consumption, arguing that food choices are a key element of group rules and norms. Choosing foods that lie outside of symbolic group boundaries may be incongruent with participation in an actor’s social or cultural group. Therefore, aligning one’s food consumption choices to the rules of these social groups reinforces social acceptance and membership in high-status circles. Jonathan expressed that social interactions have significantly influenced the way he consumes:
“It comes down to human interaction. Like we all lean on word of mouth and aspire to the people around us in certain ways. And if there's someone that you, I guess idolize, that is doing the things a certain way, you generally kind of jump on suit and wonder how you can kind of be like them”
Jenkins’ (1996) study of collective identity echoes this, highlighting that social actors rely on external verification of the criteria and “shared sense of belonging” within their community (as cited in Lamont, 2002, p. 170). This raises the question: do participants avoid the complete elimination of animal products from their diets due to fear of social ostracisation?
Consumer identity and the value of choice
Oleshuck’s (2019) work on consumer repertoires suggests that that individuals may justify the choice to “maintain meat consumption in the face of evidence documenting meat’s health harms and social-ecological issues” through the lens of consumer sovereignty (p. 354) Oleshuck found that individual right to choose is often valued over the potential wider impacts of consumption behaviours.
A common rhetoric among participants was that a partial reduction in meat consumption can justify the purchasing of higher-quality meat products:
“I kind of then reward myself in a better way by going okay, I'm gonna get a good quality, good cut of it, or like, I kind of compromise with myself as a bit of a mind game. It's like, well, you don't have a very often, therefore you can have a really nice piece of it” (Ethan).
Wrenn (2016) argues that this type of flexitarianism, or the reduction but not elimination of animal products from one’s diet, is seen as a “more forgiving alternative” to veganism” that “allows for the continued consumption of favored products” (p. 571). In some contexts, a vegan diet may be perceived as extremist and a threat to consumer sovereignty. Jonathan, however, argues that this perception of veganism has shifted in recent years:
“Vegans used to have a pretty bad rap about, you know, pushing their agenda onto people. I think that’s softened and become a lot more sophisticated over the years, and it's a lot more acceptable now. Which is fantastic.”
As the reputation of vegans or meat reducers has improved it has become more accepted across a range of groups to reduce meat intake, the threat of boundary transgression through the reduction of meat consumption has lessened (Brockett, 2024). Ethan reflected on a notable shift in social acceptance of “green” behaviours more broadly:
“I guess it's been interesting to see the change in ideologies. Particularly in [my city], but it’s probably representing the broader picture… there's definitely been a change in people's perception of participating in those kinds of ‘green’ actions [and] ‘conscious’ actions.”
Huddart Kennedy (2018) notes that that consumption deemed as “ethical” is emerging as a high-status practice in certain social groups, and individuals may accumulate cultural capital through active participation in ethical markets, or non-participation in practices deemed as “unethical”.
Social contexts and moral dilemmas
Hirth (2020) indicates that “what passes as sustainable or unsustainable production and consumption practices is also negotiated and materialised through boundary work” (p. 238). Whilst all three participants believed the consumption of meat and some other animal products to be harmful to the environment, none explicitly referred to the practice as being “unethical” or “unsustainable”. Lamont (2002) argues that if a social actor changes social groups, they may shift their actions to align with the norms and rules of the new group, seeking to gain acceptance.
Olivia cited health reasons as a key factor in her consuming less meat, whilst simultaneously stating that health reasons prevent her from eliminating meat from her diet entirely. In conflict with this, she stated that she followed an almost entirely vegan diet when living in a setting where most cultural dishes are “vegetable-based”. She indicated that during the time she spend in this area, she “basically [eats] vegan”, however when in an urban Australian area, she consumes animal products. Additionally, she stated that when in the USA she eats hunted meat, highlighting that while hunted meat is not “necessarily anti-sustainable”, she refrains from discussing hunting in an Australian social context due to social taboos. She highlighted the “moral dilemma” she faces with hunting, stating she does not personally participate in the activity:
“I just don't think I could kill an animal personally. If someone has already killed it, I will eat it. Which is very… uh…yeah…. It is what it is”.
She cited arguments against this mindset, such as “if you're going to eat it, you should be able to kill it”, concluding:
“I just don't think I can, and I don’t think that’s… I think that's something I find incredibly upsetting. So my proxy is like, friends and family who are happy hunting, I will eat their hunted meat, and that kind of gets around that moral dilemma for me [laughs]”.
This inconsistency in individual definitions of morality highlights the tendencies for social actors to align food choices to the social group in which they are participating, even if they deem it to be morally “upsetting”. The participant stated that where food is communally shared, she is “very influenced by what other people want to eat and what other people are eating and [she] kind of just go[es] with the flow”. The changes in this participant’s diet in different social and cultural contexts, and the reasons they provide for why this change occurs, may signal an attempt to align their consumption practices with their perceived identity as an ethical consumer, whilst maintaining practices that conform to the boundaries of the group of which they are currently a member.
The cultural imperative of non-human animal consumption
Consumer sovereignty in meat consumption and the consequences of transgressing social boundaries through dietary choices is explored by Sage (2014) in his work on ‘de-meatification’. Sage argues that eating meat has become a cultural imperative and a widespread dietary shift away from meat, as each participant argued is a necessity due to the environmental impacts of animal agriculture, will require actors to “transgress culturally prescribed boundaries around eating” (p.19). Sage argues that individual action would not be effective in creating the scale of change required to address the impact of animal agriculture, and that building effective policy on a global scale is the best way to incentivise change. Participants also questioned the capacity of individual action to affect change:
“I don’t think we're in a stage where we as individuals making really hard-core decisions is necessarily going to give us the answers”
Ethan echoed this rhetoric, stating that “[in] a broader sense of the word sustainability… [their] personal opinion is that you're fighting a losing battle a little bit”. He expressed a belief that “there's always these forces bigger than yourself that're fighting against you.” Olivia expressed a belief that true ethical consumption is “doing what you can, but then actually really taking an active role and advocating for action to also be taken at a bigger level”. She indicated that whilst they believe individuals can make a difference, she views advocacy as a key part of how that is achieved:
“I think individual people can have a difference, I'm not saying that they don't, but is an individual doing something, where they don't talk about it, going actually change anything?”
Drawing similar conclusions as Sage (2014), the participant argued that advocating for companies and governments to make changes is necessary “for ethical consumption, to be possible and plausible at an individual level in a way that's meaningful”, highlighting that an awareness of one’s spheres of influence can lead to more effective advocacy.
Privilege, Access and Advocacy
This idea of strategic advocacy was a common thread in all interviews, with Ethan stating that he “pick [his] battles” when it comes to sustainability. All interview participants reflected on the privilege that affords them choice in what they consume, citing cost as a significant barrier to ethical consumption:
“It probably leans again on that privileged position, I guess. It's a privilege to be able to go to the supermarket, and especially in this current economic state of the world, and particularly in Australia, I guess, with living pressures. People are cutting back left front and centre where they can. So I think to have that even opportunity to consider that in the big spectrum of things is… you're lucky” (Ethan)
Jonathan similarly expressed a need to be aware of one’s audience when advocating for sustainability, highlighting the effects of access on consumer’s available options:
“I reckon you would find that most people, if they’re given choice of not so good food and good food, they'll always get good food. It's really…a lot of that is gonna be driven by the economics and availability of it all”, continuing “I think the key thing there is about people's ability to either choose or pay, and that cannot be understated enough” (Jonathan)
Huddart Kennedy (2018) argues that food choices which can be deemed as luxury or distant from necessity, are expressions of both cultural and economic capital, and one’s ability to participate in markets deemed as ethical may inflate an individual’s cultural capital in particular social groups. However, transgressing boundaries through the consumption of luxury products within the context of groups that do not value unnecessary consumption may negatively impact an individual’s access to cultural capital. It is therefore conceivable that while economic capital does pose a significant barrier to sustainable consumption, individuals with the privilege of choice may adopt rhetoric concerning the cost of sustainable consumption as a means to justify their non-participation, and avoidance of boundary transgression. Olivia acknowledged that while she has a greater financial capacity to access sustainable markets since finishing university and gaining full time employment, she finds that she must navigate choosing between the economical option and the more sustainable one, calling back to the need for advocacy beyond individual action, whilst noting that she may not be able to convince large corporations to make significant change. She stated that “being able to control [her] individual choice” with concern for food was something she could effectively participate in. Several participants highlighted the importance of taking a positive approach to advocacy, particularly expressing a need for awareness of the social and cultural contexts of individual behaviours.
“I think you've got to be very mindful of the social context of the messages you're putting out there, and to be really careful about not being pushy or preachy, because if you're pushy or preachy to people, then they're gonna push back against you, even if the messaging you've got is great”. (Jonathan)
Greenwashing and navigating supply chains
In addition to economic privilege, all participants acknowledged the privilege that comes with knowledge and understanding of sustainability and corporate supply chains, with Jonathan highlighting that while he believes “food literacy is improving”, this only affects “those that can really afford it”.
Both Ethan and Jonathan indicated that their backgrounds in procurement have made them very cautious of brands identifying themselves as sustainable, with Jonathan expressing a belief that :
“people, if they see, you know, the label, they see the packaging, or they see whatever…some of that gets very sophisticated, and it's very clever. People will get fooled into thinking, well, they're buying something a lot more ethical organic but it's not”
Ethan stated that he feels he is able to navigate these uncertain supply chains due the knowledge he has from working in the sustainability space:
“I guess I'm again in a semi-fortunate position that I feel I'm hyper-alert and hyper-aware to greenwashing tactics in that packaging space. However, like everyone's susceptible to it, it's hard to, again, if you're not putting the time and effort into actually breaking down ‘what is the actual case?’, it is very easy to kind of fall into those traps” (Ethan)
Notably, Ethan and Jonathan both touched on packing in the egg industry, with Ethan expressing that ethical consumption of eggs is “a really simple decision to make”. He stated that consumers have “four options: cage, cage free, barn or free range” adding that “the price difference is kind of negligible really, when you start looking at it”. He expressed that it’s “simple things like that” which he advocates for, as “it’s a really simple decision to make”. In contrast to this, Jonathan expressed concern over greenwashing in the egg industry, arguing that it is difficult to ascertain what products are potentially “ethical” and which are less so:
“I think [greenwashing is] going to get more and more complex for consumers to understand. So the classic example I would use there, that I could think of off the top my head, is eggs. So if you go to the supermarket now, really the industrial, you know, poultry hideous factory eggs are pretty small, but everything else is free range, part free range, and on and on and on. And there's a whole war going on about you know. Stocking ratios. Well, what does free range mean? What's the definition of that? And there's so many mixed messages that go out there. Some are a bit vexatious with the big industries playing games of words and stuff. Butting up, against the people that really believe in these things, and are, you know, trying to create “ethical” eggs, you know, as far as you can go with that side of things. So I think the real challenge there is going to be around green washing around food labelling”
Although Ethan acknowledged the traps of greenwashing and was confident that he is informed enough to navigate greenwashing tactics, the comments from Jonathan indicate that even sustainability professionals may struggle to navigate food supply chains. The question then arises, if sustainability professionals struggle to navigate complex supply chains and sustainable or ethical consumption, how is the everyday consumer supposed to? Research suggests that consumers struggle to identify greenwashing tactics, and further research is required to develop solutions to the problem. For a recent discussion of this see Fella and Bausa (Fella and Bausa, 2020).
Conclusions
While participant responses suggest that the consumption of animal products is antithetical to notions of sustainable and ethical consumption, both this study and existing literature underscore a tendency for self-identified sustainable consumers to continue eating animal products. Lamont’s concept of symbolic boundaries may provide a theoretical framework through which to understand the hesitancy to adopt a plant-based diet among sustainability professionals. This reluctance may be interpreted as concerns with transgressing socially accepted notions and rules for food consumption.
Intersecting institutional factors such as culture, class, socioeconomic status and access to information, coupled with intentionally misleading marketing from food producers, pose further barriers to ethical and sustainable consumption. However, among sustainability professionals who possess the economic capital and access to products and knowledge of food systems to effectively navigate greenwashing, an unwillingness to adopt a plant-based diet may be a result of social actors prioritising performing in ways that maintain and elevate their social capital over aligning their consumption choices with their values.
While this study provides interesting insights into the tensions between values, access and dietary consumption patterns among sustainability professionals, several areas warrant further exploration. Future research may include broader demographics of sustainability professionals. Cross-cultural research and explorations of the intersectionality of class, race, gender and socioeconomic status remains unexplored, and in depth analysis of the influence these factors on dietary choices may provide valuable insights.
References
Berglund, K. (2019) There is No Alternative: A Symbolic Interactionist Account of Swedish Climate Activists [Master’s Thesis, Lund University]. Lund University Publications.
Brocket, V. (2024) Which Frame for What Group? Understanding differential frame resonance through standpoint: a case study of the vegan movement. Mobilisation, 29(1), 82-102
Fella, S. and Bausa, E. (2024) Green or greenwashed? Examining consumers' ability to identify greenwashing. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 95(19), 102-281
Hirth, S. (2020) Food that Matters: Boundary Work and the Case for Vegan Food Practices. Sociologica Ruralis, 61(1), 234-254
Huddart Kennedy, E. Baumann, S. & Johnston, J. (2018) Eating for Taste and Change: Ethical Consumption as a High-Status Practice. Social Forces, 98(1), 381-402.
Lamont, M. (1992) Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American Upper-Middle Class. University of Chicago Press.
Lamont, M., Molnar, V. (2002) The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences. Annual Review od Sociology. 28, 167-195
Leblebici Kocer, L., Senturk Ulucak, Z., & Delice Akca, T. (2023) The role of environmental concern in purchasing decision on organic food and the link to greenwashing. Environment, Development and Sustainability.
Leung, M. (2022) Trends in ethical and sustainable consumption. International Journal of Business, Management and Visuals. 5 (2), 30-36.
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia (2023). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council
Oleschuk, M. Johnston, J. Baumann, S. (2019) Maintaining Meat. Sociological Forum, 34(2), 337-360.
Sage, C. (2014) Making and un-making meat: Cultural boundaries, environmental thresholds and dietary transgressions. In M. Goodman & C. Sage (Eds.), Food Transgressions: Making sense of contemporary food politics (pp. 123-140). Ashgate/Routledge.
Waller, V., Farquharson, K., & Dempsey, D. (2016). Qualitative Social Research: Contemporary Methods for the Digital age. SAGE
Wrenn, C. (2016) Free-Rides in the Nonprofit Industrial Complex: The problem of flexitariansim. Animals and Society. 28(5/6), 567-591.
Appendix
Interview Schedule
• When did you become interested in sustainability?
• Is there anything in particular that inspired you to work in the sustainability space?
• What has your career journey in the sustainability space looked like?
• What kind of roles have you held?
• What does sustainability mean to you?
• What does ethical consumption mean to you?
o How does this intersect with your professional understanding of sustainability and ethical consumption
• When advocating for sustainable or ethical consumption, are there any key things you emphasise?
• How does your understanding of sustainability and ethical consumption influence your food choices
• Are there certain foods you prioritise or avoid due to sustainability or ethical considerations?
o Ask to elaborate on reasons behind this if short answer is given
• Have you experienced unwritten social or cultural rules dictating what you should and shouldn’t eat?
· Can you tell me about any of those experiences?