g. Low consumer demand: Linked to the reported relatively high
costs of CSA technological innovations, potential users noted
that if they adopted the technological innovations, this would
lead to price increases for the end products bought by consumers.
The central hindrance noted by potential users was that
consumers were unwilling to pay a price premium for CSA
products. This lack of demand for products produced in line
with CSA principles, meant investment in, and the adoption of
CSA technological innovations made little ‘business’ sense.
We have no products labelled somehow climate friendly.We see no
demand from consumers. (U2)
h. Unequal distribution of costs/benefits across supply chains: The
unequal distribution of costs and benefits across agro-food
supply chains was noted as reducing the motivation of farmers
to adopt CSA technologies. Specifically, this is due to a mismatch
where many of the economic benefits are located downstream,
with consumer products companies or retailers, whilst many of
the environmental/climate benefits are located on the farm.
CSA/sustainability is mostly more costs for farmers, so we want to
farmers to keep the money/benefit. Mostly the economic benefit
goes into the upstream supply chain; we mostly save money on
input reduction (less energy used). (U2)
4.3. Results overview
The results are now able to be plotted on to the initial theoretical
framework (Fig. 2) developed via the review of the literature. This
highlights the key barriers experienced by technological innovation