of radical change (Hopwood et al. 2005).
Social ecology presupposes a dialectical relationship between humanity and nature. This leads to considering that environmental concerns must be rooted in social criticism by aiming to achieve radical social reconstruction.
Ecofeminism advances the relationship between environmental degradation and the subordination of women. This trend runs parallel to ecosocialism by assuming that capitalism attempts to detach social life from nature through its class and gender-dividing politics.
Based on the writings of Marx and Engels, ecosocialism establishes a link between environmental damage and capitalism‘s exploitation of people and the environment. Ecosocialists argue that changes in the material conditions and social structure of society are necessary to overcome both environmental crises and injustice.
The reformist point of view is supported by several government agencies and non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Reformers identify a key role for governments in sustainable development’s assumption that reform of the political system, as an anchor for democracy and participation, plays a role in sustainable development (Hopwood et al. 2005).
This point of view is based on the observation that inequalities in development, which are a major cause of the crisis of sustainability facing the world at the beginning of the 21st century, are also at the root of ecological inequalities woven by economic power relations. Indeed, calculations of the ecological footprint show that “citizens of rich countries need an average of 4–10 global average hectares (10–25 acres) to support their lifestyles, whereas the poor get by on less than half a hectare (one acre)” (Rees 2008, p. 694). This issue of unequal development is further branched out to evoke territorial inequalities, inequalities in access to basic goods, inequalities in the face of risk and power inequalities (Chaumel and La Branche 2008). Inequalities in human development are considered causes that increase environmental degradation and consequently weaken ecosystems through deforestation and the loss of biodiversity resulting from the actions of the beneficiaries of their services (Laurent 2009).
1.3.4. Agrifood issues
Food systems are systems of social practices of food production and consumption that address several social, cultural, ethical and environmental aspects. They are systems that are not immune to the impacts of the economic-social forces in perpetual dynamics in human society.
1.3.4.1. Food literacy
Wever (2015) puts forward the hypothesis that we can “read the world while eating”. In this approach, agrifood issues are conceived as food literacy issues that the author conceptualizes as a set composed of the three knowledge domains identified by Habermas: empirical and analytical knowledge and skills, historical and hermeneutic knowledge and skills, and critical and emancipatory knowledge and skills. This author also proposes the development of a food literacy that goes beyond the consumerist approach (the ability of individuals to understand the origin and production of food and the application of this knowledge to make choices) towards a critical literacy aimed at unveiling the hidden power structures in food systems (Yamashita and Robinson 2016). This food literacy provides the foundation for a political literacy whereby people can exercise power to unlock and reshape the existing food system. According to this kind of literacy approach, food appears to be more than a “compilation of vitamins and nutrients; it is physical and social, personal and political, and inanimate yet animating entity” (Freedman 2011, p. 81).
1.3.4.2. Food democracy
The goal of food literacy is the development of an alternative democracy (Booth and Coveney 2015) that can support social movements for food justice, sovereignty or citizenship. These movements involve collective actions for the transition towards the sustainability of agrifood systems (Hassanein 2008). Booth and Coveney (2015) also propose a distinction between food sovereignty and food justice as alternative movements based on food democracy.
The two authors drew on the work of Renting et al. (2012) to conceptualize food democracy as a redistribution of power in the agrifood system where citizens increasingly claim their influence on the organization and functioning of food production. They thus move from the situation of passive consumers to that of active citizens by exploring new means of engagement.
The growing involvement of citizens leads to relationships with producers. The interfaces between the state, the market and civil society are generally fraught with tensions and contradictions. In the long term, this can lead to new alliances, institutional arrangements and the creation of organizational models for sustainable food systems (Booth and Coveney 2015).
These authors have also exploited the work of Hassanein (2008) to identify the following five dimensions of food democracy:
– collaboration for the sustainability of the food system, whereby democracy aims at bringing about collective action to address problems and increase the power of citizens;
– information about the food system based on a democratic theory that recognizes the importance of individuals with the knowledge to participate effectively;
– sharing ideas about the food system with others through ongoing discussion and deliberation that allows citizens to clarify food issues and discuss related values;
– developing the effectiveness of food systems in a political system which builds skills among citizens to determine a proper relationship with their food and resolve community food problems;
– orientation towards “community goods” by involving citizens who care about the public good and who are willing to look beyond their own interests and recognize the value of mutual support and interdependence.
1.3.5. Issues concerning environmental technology and environmental management
Environmental technologies are socio-technical systems. They correspond to the expansion of environmental concerns in technology products to socio-technical systems (Kanda et al. 2016).
Environmental technologies include:
– clean technologies such as renewable power generation and energy consumption technologies;
– recycling technologies;
– water, air or soil pollution control technologies;
– technologies developed with the specific objective of repairing damage caused by human activities through the application of biotechnology for the remediation of contaminated sites or through the application of innovative agricultural techniques to restore biodiversity (Smith and Stirling 2008, 2010).
There is a classification that proposes three categories of environmental technologies (Vachon 2007), where the term “technology” is broadly defined to include the design, equipment and operating procedures that limit or reduce the negative impacts of products and processes on the natural environment. In this classification, environmental technologies include:
– pollution prevention technologies, which are defined as structural investments that reduce or eliminate pollution at the source;
– pollution control technologies, which are structural investments that ensure proper waste disposal, reduce the release of pollutants or correct environmental damage;
– management systems, which are infrastructure investments that propose improvements to environmental performance through environmental impact assessment procedures when making investment decisions.
Additionally, environmental technologies have the characteristic of integrating a broad socio-political agenda of sustainability. This allows them to internalize, along with medical technologies and information communication technologies, the issue of desirable societal transformation.