Master’s programme in Sustainable Destination
Uppsala University logotypeSAMINT-HDU 21 020
Degree project 15 credits
June 2021
Entrepreneurship and the
plant-based protein transition
A discourse analysis of packaging of Swedish
plant-based brands
Emma Vandenbroeck
Faculty of Science and Technology
Uppsala University, Visby
Subject reader: Magnus Larsson Examiner: Ulrika Persson-Fischier
Uppsala University logotype
Entrepreneurship and the plant-based protein transition – A
discourse analysis of packaging of Swedish plant-based brands
Emma VandenbroeckAbstract
A protein transition from more animal-based to more plant-based proteins in human diets is essential for the health of the planet and its human population. This thesis focusses on entrepreneurship, one of the many angles of this transition. Through a discourse analysis different meanings are revealed displayed on the packaging of Swedish plant-based brands. This is done on the backdrop of transition theory and specifically the multi-level perspective on transitions. The Swedish context is described through the lens of this perspective using the three levels: niche, regima and landscape, and the processes societal embedding in four environments: user, business, policy and cultural environment. A discourse analysis of packaging reveals three general discourses around plant-based foods, namely that plant-based foods are environmentally friendly, they are part of the everyday and for everyone and plant-based alternative are local and Swedish. Further analysis on how different brands view their role as entrepreneurs showed they see themselves as innovators, facilitators and change-makers through the language used on their packaging.
Table of contents
List of figures ... v
1. Introduction ... 1
1.1 Research problem and background – Diets as a human-environment health nexus ... 1
1.1.1 Environmental impacts ... 1
1.1.2 Human health impacts ... 2
1.1.3 Sustainable diets ... 3
1.2 Purpose and research questions ... 5
1.3 Outline of the study ... 6
2. Transition in theory and context ... 7
2.1 Transition studies and plant-based food ... 7
2.2. Introduction to the multi-level perspective ... 7
2.3 A multi-level perspective on the transition to plant-based proteins ... 9
2.3.1 New product ... 10
2.3.2 Users ... 11
2.3.3 Business ... 13
2.3.4 Policy ... 16
2.3.5 Culture ... 17
2.4 The role of entrepreneurship in sustainable transitions ... 18
3. Methods ... 21
3.1 Packaging and semiotics ... 21
3.2 Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis ... 22
3.4 Case selection and boundaries ... 23
3.4 Data collection and analysis ... 24
3.5 Introduction brands ... 25
3.5.1 Small to medium-sized brands ... 25
3.5.2 Established brands ... 27
3.5.3 Supermarket brands ... 28
4. Results and observations ... 29
4.1. Initial Observations ... 29
4.2 Discourse around plant-based food ... 30
4.2.1 Plant-based food is good for the planet (and you) ... 30
4.2.2 Plant-based food is Swedish ... 32
4.2.3 Plant-based food is for everyone and for everyday ... 33
5. Discourses on packaging around entrepreneurial activities ... 36
5.1 To make it easy ... 36
5.3 To make a change (together) ... 39
6. Discussion ... 42
6.1 Discourse on packaging and the protein shift ... 42
6.2 Transitions and entrepreneurship ... 42
6.3 Suggestions for further research ... 43
7. Conclusion ... 45
7. References ... 46
List of figures
1. Introduction
A shift from animal-based to plant-based proteins within human diets is one of the many transitions society has to accomplish in the coming decades both for the sake of the environment and human health (Aiking and de Boer 2020; Willett et al. 2019). The onset of this transition is already becoming visible, in particular in countries like Sweden. More and more consumers are becoming more aware and adjusting their behaviour accordingly. This change has translated in growing sales of plant-based meat substitutes in Sweden’s supermarkets (SVT 2021) as niche innovations make their way into the regime. New brands have joined the ranks with the older incumbent brands as entrepreneurs see opportunities and the need for well-performing plant-based proteins to adapt the meat-centred Western diet. As will be discussed in this thesis, both entrepreneurs and consumers play important roles in the protein transition, consequently is their discourse an interesting jumping off point for research.
1.1 Research problem and background – Diets as a
human-environment health nexus
1.1.1 Environmental impacts
environmental impact, it only provides 18% of the globally consumed calories (Aiking 2014; Rust et al. 2020).
In Sweden for example, agriculture is responsible for 14% of the national greenhouse gas emissions, of which about half are related to animal husbandry. This does not include any imported food or imported goods related to agriculture (Naturvårdsverket 2020). The food system needs its biophysical foundation to provide food for a growing world population and thus needs to be transformed into a sustainable food system that does not undermines its own means of existence (Willett et al. 2019).
An important note to make is that well managed livestock systems have the ability to sequester carbon, benefit soil health and sustain biodiversity, and thus are able to have a positive environmental impact (Vermeulen, Campbell, and Ingram 2012; Santo et al. 2020; Godfray et al. 2018). These are agroecological approaches such as integrated crop-livestock farming and pasture-based livestock farming (Santo et al. 2020; Vermeulen, Campbell, and Ingram 2012). However today the vast majority of meat consumed is derived from intensive grain-fed factory farming where livestock is fed protein-rich crops suitable for human consumption rather than extensive grazing systems that create new sources of protein (Aiking 2014; Santo et al. 2020). Only 4% of all meat production today is from grass-fed only cattle (Godfray et al. 2018).
1.1.2 Human health impacts
Despite the abundance of food produced globally, almost a billion people are affected by food insecurity and inadequate diets (Tilman and Clark 2014). On the other side of the coin, malnutrition also shows itself in the rising obesity numbers driven by the global nutritional transition towards diets high in processed foods, refined sugars and fats and meat together with more sedentary lifestyles (Tilman and Clark 2014; Aiking 2014). Globally 2 billion people are affected by obesity (Swinburn et al. 2019), surpassing undernutrition, and a leading contributor to poor health in most countries (Swinburn et al. 2019). Obesity is strongly related to a range of non-communicable and chronic diseases such as type II diabetes and coronary heart disease (Tilman and Clark 2014; Swinburn et al. 2019). Although meat is a source of energy and contains many nutrients essential for human health, the consumption of red and processed meat also plays a part in the public health debate (Godfray et al. 2018).
it should be limited to about maximum 200 grams per week (Willett et al. 2019; Godfray et al. 2018).
Secondly there are concerns around the rise of antibiotic resistant pathogens (Santo et al. 2020). The antibiotic use in livestock production is about five times higher than in human health care (Aiking 2014) and is thus an important driver of that resistance. Industrial animal farming puts genetically identical animals in close proximity in indoor spaces, which necessitates this use in antibiotics to keep diseases at bay (McKittrick 2012). Antibiotic resistance is described by the World Health Organisation as one of the largest threats to human health today (WHO 2020). Lastly, livestock production and the resulting close interaction between humans and animals increases the risk of transfers of zoonotic diseases (Jones et al. 2013; Greger 2007). The encroachment of agriculture into wildlife habitats and the close proximity to humans of industrialised livestock production characterised by low biodiversity generates this risk (Jones et al. 2013; Greger 2007). Several virus outbreaks in the past have been linked to the intensification of livestock production like for example the influenza A viruses (Jones et al. 2013). An acceleration in the emergence of zoonotic diseases is driven by the increasing demand for animal-based protein and unsustainable agricultural intensification, among other things (Greger 2007; UNEP and ILRI 2020). The origins of the current COVID19 epidemic have not been cleared out yet, however the role of human-animal interactions is key (UNEP and ILRI 2020).
1.1.3 Sustainable diets
As described in the previous two sections, diets have significant influence on both human and environmental health. Additionally, meat production and consumption specifically are an impactful area of this nexus and the area this thesis focusses on. Broadly, two scenarios can be envisioned, one where meat consumption continues to rise along current global trends, and another where a Great Food Transformation is accomplished with a protein shift to more plant-based proteins (Willett et al. 2019). The beginning of this shift might be visible in Sweden, where meat consumption has been declining since 2016 (Jordbruksverket 2021).
meat consumption would furthermore put the goals of the Paris Agreement out of reach, as the emissions from food production are set to increase with an estimated 80% by 2050 when population growth and dietary shifts are combined (Tilman and Clark 2014; IPCC 2019).
A Great Food Transformation, as described by the EAT Lancet Commission on food in the Anthropocene, seems to be imperative for both human and environmental health (Willett 2019). Just as diets can be detrimental, sustainable diets can be a positive force. A dietary shift towards plant-based proteins could free up several millions of km2 of land (Schiermeier 2019) and vegetarian diets could reduce emissions in 2050 by 45-55% in comparison to 2005/2007 levels (Springmann et al. 2016). In an effort to define a sustainable diet, the EAT Lancet commision calculated a reference diet, based on health requirements for humans (Willett et al. 2019). The most important factor is a shift from animal-based proteins towards plant-based proteins. For the western diet, which puts a lot of its protein out of red meat and processed meat, this is a long way to go (De Boer, Schösler, and Aiking 2014; Vieux et al. 2018). This transformation of diets is often called the protein shift. The below graph (figure 1) shows the discrepancy between the reference diet and dietary patterns in 2016 around the world.
1.2 Purpose and research questions
As detailed by the previous section, it is important for both human health and environmnetal sustainability to reduce meat consumption (Aiking and de Boer 2020; Willett et al. 2019). Even though the contours of a protein transition are becoming visible in certain countries, the global trend in meat consumption is still upwards (Godfray et al. 2018). It is therefore essential to understand how plant-based entrepreneurs in countries where meat consumption, and in this case Sweden specifically, has started to decline, position themselves in the market. The purpose of this study is to look further into how companies selling meat substitutes communicate to their consumers through packaging. Packaging is an interesting medium as it is both restricted and creative in its communication (Wagner 2015). Furthermore, consumers come in contact with packaging on a crucial timing, when deciding what to buy in the supermarket and consequently what to eat. It is a unique opportunity for brands to convey meanings and claims around the plant-based nature of their products.
In Sweden in particular the vegetarian market has seen record numbers in the last year: fresh alternatives saw a 40% increase in sales in 2020 compared to 2019 and the frozen alternatives, which currently dominate, 15% rise (SVT 2021). In the span of 4 years the meat substitutes market more or less doubled in sales in Sweden (SVT 2020; SVT 2021). Although these are record numbers, there is little research on the role and strategies of entrepreneurs in the protein shift in the food industry, besides more general studies on entrepreneurship and innovation in the food industry (Schoen 2017; Kuckertz, Hinderer, and Röhm 2019; Knudson et al. 2004). This study aims to fill up a part of that gap. The interest of Swedish consumer and high variety of meat substitutes available in Sweden make this geographical area an interesting space to conduct this research in. In the very much related industry of non-dairy products, Sweden has shown to be a fertile ground for start-ups, with its most famous case Oatly having grown to become an internationally established company (Bloomberg 2021).
companies, as well as policy makers and sectors closely related to and dependent on the food industry and food culture such as restaurants and tourism.
This study will be guided by the research question: How do plant-based brands position themselves in the market and regime? The following subquestions are formulated:
- What messages and meanings do these brands communicate towards potential customers?
o More specifically, do brands use the concept of the protein shift or related issues such as health and environmental consideration in their branding and packaging? - How do these brands convey their role as entrepreneurs on their packaging?
- Are there differences in discourse and positioning between small brand, brands of TNCs and private labeled supermarket brands?
The aim of this study is two-fold. First to explore the discourses used by Swedish brands and entrepreneurs on packaging of plant-based food and secondly to explore the role of entrepreneurship according to transition theory and how this relates to the discourses used on the packaging of plant-based meat substitutes.
1.3 Outline of the study
2. Transition in theory and context
In the following section I will put the protein shift in its context using the multi-level perspective from transition studies. I will describe the dynamics of the multi-level perspective and apply it to the protein shift in the Swedish context in four environments: user, business, policy and cultural environment. In the final section I will zoom further into the theoretical role of entrepreneurship in a transition, within multi-level perspective and transition theory as a whole.
2.1 Transition studies and plant-based food
In the last two decades a new discipline studying transitions has become established as society faces several sustainability challenges that require fundamental and systemic changes (Markard, Raven, and Truffer 2012). The majority of these studies focus on techno-social transitions in the field of energy and mobility (Markard, Raven, and Truffer 2012; Mylan and Geels 2019). In comparison, transitions in the food system are understudied. The transition to plant-based proteins is essentially not centred around the development of new technologies as is the case in for example energy. Technology does contribute in part to the protein shift in the development of new products as will be discussed further down. However, this transition does clearly fit in the realm of sustainable transitions, defined as ‘long-term, multi-dimensional, and fundamental transformation processes through which established socio-technical systems shift to more sustainable modes of production and consumption’ (Markard, Raven and Truffer 2012). Two key studies where theories from transitions theory have been applied to the food industry, and based alternatives specifically, are: (1) a study by Tziva et al. (2020) which focusses on the plant-based meat processing sector, applying the Technological Innovations Systems framework (Tziva et al. 2020) and (2) a study by Mylan and Geels (2019) which looks at niche-regime interactions in the diffusion of plant-based milk using the multi-level perspective (Mylan and Geels 2019). These studies illustrate how theories from technological transitions can be applied to the protein shift. Drawing from the previously done studies on food system transitions, I will apply the concepts of the multi-level perspective to the protein shift in Sweden. The strength of the multi-level perspective is the interplay between the different levels it defines (Markard and Truffer 2008) and the holistic view on the process of emergence and establishment of an innovation.
2.2. Introduction to the multi-level perspective
from the micro-level, the niches. These are protected spaces where innovations can sprout away from the regime (Geels and Schot 2007). The regime which encompasses the meso-level is described as a relatively stable ruleset conducting practices and procedures and ways of defining problems and handling things. This ruleset is furthermore embedded in institutions and infrastructures (Mylan and Geels 2019). In this way regimes set out an expected pathway for change and development (Markard, Raven, and Truffer 2012). Generally, it is conceptualised that innovations from the niches ‘face uphill struggles’ to gain footing as the processes in the established regime push to maintain the status quo and discourage diversion from the projected path (Mylan and Geels 2019). However, internal processes within the niche (like for example improvements in performance) or external circumstances drive the diffusion of the innovation. These external circumstances play out on the level of regimes but also on the macro-level, the landscapes (Geels and Johnson 2018). Landscapes are deep structural trends who operate on
long time scales. These are trends such as shared beliefs and values but also wars, economic growth and environmental problems (Markard and Truffer 2008; Geels 2002). Changes on the meso- and macro-level can create windows of opportunity for innovations in the niches to become more mainstream (Geels and Johnson 2018). Trends in landscapes, such as climate change, can
for example exert pressure on a regime, which has a destabilising effect, creating opportunities for niches to enter the regime space (Geels 2004). The different levels and their dynamics are illustrated in figure 2 above.
This diffusion is conceptualised in the case study of plant milk in the UK in the study of Mylan and Geels (2019) after Geels and Johnson (2018) as the societal embedding of new products in four environments where interactions take place between novel niches and its actors in one hand and the incumbent actors in the established regimes in the other hand, under the overall influence of developments on the landscape level (Mylan and Geels 2019; Geels and Johnson 2018). These four environments are culture, policy, business and user environment as shown in figure 3. Embedding in user environments refers to the process of domestication of new products by users. Unfamiliar and strange things become part of daily life and routines. Embedding in business environments refers to technical infrastructure but also strategies of pioneers and incumbent firms and the interaction between these actors. Embedding in policy environments envelops the battle ground of subsidies but also the development of regulations, standards and guidelines. In the cultural environment lastly, cultural legitimacy around a product is created through positive discourses and visions often not without resistance of opponent. This can have an effect in other environments by shaping preferences and support (Geels and Johnson 2018).
2.3 A multi-level perspective on the transition to plant-based
proteins
As is clear from the description above the multi-level perspective is an appropriate tool to look at transitions as a whole and can be applied to the food industry as illustrated by the study of Mylan
Business
environment
Policy environment
User environment
Wider publics &
culture
New
product
and Geels (2019). Below I will apply the perspective to the development of meat analogs as a substitute for meat and the wider protein transition in Sweden. This will be more descriptive rather than analytical, where the multi-level perspective is used to put the protein shift in its wider context and describe the current status of the transition in Sweden in particular.
Even though meat consumption is rising globally, in Europe meat consumption has remained stable since 2000 with a slight decrease in the consumption of beef and increased consumption of poultry (European Environment Agency 2018). In Sweden, meat consumption has been decreasing since 2016 dropping from 88,4 kg per capita to 78,6 kg per capita in 2020 (Jordbruksverket 2021). The Swedish board of Agriculture lists an increased awareness for the environmental impact of meat, health considerations, food trends, price and ethics around animal husbandry as reasons for this drop (Jordbruksverket 2021). The market share of the Swedish meat industry is however growing, as Swedes are choosing more and more for Swedish meat (Jordbruksverket 2021). The contours of a protein transition are thus emerging in Sweden as the niche of plant-based food is starting to enter the meso-level of the animal-based agri-food regime. Below I will discuss the societal embedding of the new product, meat analogs, in the four environments previously discussed.
2.3.1 New product
like lupine, field beans and yellow peas (Lee et al. 2020; RISE n.d.). Mycoprotein, most known under the brand Quorn, is a protein made out of the fermentation of the fungus fusarium
venenatum (Souza Filho et al. 2019). Lastly1 are meat alternatives made from algae. These aquatic proteins are not yet widely available and the object of current research but might see increased development in the future (Onwezen et al. 2021; RISE n.d.). In Sweden there is a special focus on the development of legumes and beans that can be grown in the Swedish climate to localise the plant-based protein production (RISE n.d.).
2.3.2 Users
In the user environment, societal embedding can be observed as the user base of meat substitutes expands beyond its niche. This is in part owing to the slow developments on the macro-level such as climate change and the changing values of the younger generations. Meat substitutes have become a regular sight on the supermarket shelves and increasingly so on the plates of Swedes. The rise of the flexitarian
The users or consumers of plant-based meat substitutes have widened over time. As noted by Tziva et al. (2020) and Mylan and Geels (2019) consumers willing to pay and substitute, play a key role in the creation of the plant-based protein niche since policy is hesitant to intervene as will be discussed below (Tziva et al. 2020; Mylan and Geels 2019). Research into European markets has shown that the original demand for meat substitutes was created by conscious vegans and vegetarians in the 1990s often based in concerns around animal welfare (Wild et al. 2014; Tziva et al. 2020; ICA Gruppen 2021a). The current rise of consumption in plant-based products on the hand is accredited to the environmental and health concerns of the younger generations (Axfood 2020; ICA Gruppen 2021a). In the last decennia, climate change has become an increasingly pressing issue, and the impact of the livestock industry has become apparent in reports like ‘Livestock’s long shadow’ by the FAO (Steinfeld et al. 2006). The negative effects of meat consumption on both the environment and health have become part of the public discourse (Tziva et al. 2020). These landscape-level developments have led to a new type of meat consumer: the flexitarian. The word flexitarian was added to the Oxford dictionary in 2014 (Derbyshire 2017) and is defined as a person who eats mostly vegetarian but occasionally consumes meat and fish (Oxford Dictionary n.d.) but definitions in studies and public discourse on how often meat or fish
is consumed varies greatly. Flexitarian diets are on the rise globally. According to a recent Euromonitor report 42% of the world population restricts their meat intake (Euromonitor 2020), although it does not specify to which degree.
Sweden: a special case?
In Sweden recent reports conducted by Axfood (2020), ICA (2021), Orkla (2019), Novus (2020), Swedish Board of Agriculture (2021) and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2018) have uncovered the attitudes and behaviours of Swedes around meat consumption (Axfood 2020; ICA Gruppen 2021a; Ipsos 2019; Novus 2021; Jordbruksverket 2021; Naturvårdsverket 2018). Swedes are increasingly accepting plant-based food on their plates: the percentage of Swedes who never eat vegetarian dropped from 21% to 12% in 2016-2020 according to Axfood’s ‘vegobarometern’2. More than half of Swedes eat vegetarian meals regularly, meaning at least once a week (Axfood 2020; Ipsos 2019). The interest in plant-based foods varies across age and gender. It is mainly younger people and women who are in the lead (ICA Gruppen 2021a; Axfood 2020). This phenomenon is also upheld in studies on consumers in other countries (Hartmann and Siegrist 2020; De Boer, Schösler, and Aiking 2014; Weinrich 2019) and will be further discussed in 2.3.5. However, where the reports on the Swedish population disagree with other such studies is the main motivation behind the reduction in meat consumption. The reports indicate consistently that the wish to reduce one’s environmental footprint and concerns for the climate are the main motivation of Swedes to limit their meat consumption, across all demographics (Axfood 2020; ICA Gruppen 2021a; Novus 2021; Ipsos 2019). This is an interesting contrast to more international research that quite consistently poses that it is in the first place health considerations that lead people to eat less meat, rather than environmental concern (de Boer, Schösler, and Aiking 2017; Austgulen et al. 2018). Does this mean Swedes are more environmentally aware and more concerned? This is an interesting question for further research, but Orkla’s report seem to imply so: 31% of Swedes choose to eat less meat for the sake of the climate, while only 17% of their Nordic and Baltic neighbours do so (Ipsos 2019).
The start of a protein shift has taken shape in Sweden as meat consumption is going down the last four years, and the consumption of plant-based alternatives is going up. This is a trend that is expected to continue in Sweden, but also in the rest of the Western world as for example the plant-based alternative market is expected grow exponentially in the next years (Million Insights 2021). There are however barriers to the switch to plant-based foods on the consumer level such as the
perception of taste, prior beliefs and attitudes (Possidónio et al. 2021; Weinrich 2019; Vainio, Irz, and Hartikainen 2018), which will be further discussed in 2.3.5.
2.3.3 Business
In the business environment, societal embedding is taking place in Sweden as incumbent actors of the regime embrace the innovations from the plant-based niche. This has been expressed by (1) the involvement of incumbent actors with plant-based food, such as funding research and bringing out product lines; (2) the partnerships and collaborations between actors from the niche and regime; (3) innovation and the generation of new products. In the span of 4 years the meat substitutes market more or less doubled in sales in Sweden as consumers become more interested and a bigger range of products become available (SVT 2020; SVT 2021). However, infrastructure and the primary producers are not following at the same speed.
Innovation and development of new products
The food industry in Europe is seen as a traditional and slow-moving industry with low investment in R&D activities (Schoen 2017) and a high fail-rate of new products (Schoen 2017; Curtain and Grafenauer 2019) resulting in few radical breakthroughs (Tziva et al. 2020). However, in recent years shifts in consumer behaviour have led to a changing industry, for which according to Schoen (2017) openness and collaboration is key (Schoen 2017). This will be discussed in the next paragraph.
As illustrated by the brands selected for this study (see 3.5), Sweden also has seen new plant-based start-ups bringing new alternatives to the market, in particular using peas (rather than soy or wheat). However not only start-ups have been developing new products, for example popular fast-food restaurant chain Max, launched their plant-beef patty in 2019 and can be bought in supermarkets under their brand (SVT 2021; MAX 2019). Max has been focussing on sustainability for about 10 years, although imperfectly so (Stiernstedt 2020) and aims to get at least 50% of sales to be from non-red meat products (which does include poultry and fish) by 2022 (MAX 2019). Their plant-beef burger plays an important role in this and is already responsible for half the non-red meat sales (20% of the total sales) (SVT 2021).
Enthusiastic participation of incumbent food industry actors
The response from the regime has been mostly to embrace the niche innovations. Big global food industry actors such as Nestlé and Unilever have bought or started plant-based protein brands. Orkla, a big player in the food industry in the Nordics for example started a new business unit called ‘Orkla Alternative Proteins’ in April 2021 (Orkla 2021). About the development, the CEO of Orkla stated: “We are just at the beginning of a massive shift towards alternative protein sources. For Orkla, alternative proteins are an important priority area that offers major growth opportunities. Our goal is to reach out to everyone with plant-based food (…).” (Orkla 2021). From this discourse it is clear Orkla has seen opportunity in the development of plant-based proteins and wants to be a key player. The ICA group is showing similar signs, having set up their own project called ‘ICA Växa’ which aims to reduce the footprint of their customers shopping by growing the share of Swedish plant-based food in the supermarket (ICA Gruppen n.d.). The embedding of plant-based foods in the business environment is also visible in the supermarket aisles as supermarkets put their own private label plant-based proteins on the shelf and meat substitutes become available for lower prices and the masses. From these developments it is clear that incumbent companies and the market (and by extension the established regime) expects that the increased interest in plant-based meat substitutes is not just a mere trend confined to niches but a start of a significant dietary shift.
of their collaboration with Mycorena, a food tech start-up, to develop a Swedish mycoprotein (ICA Gruppen 2021b). For their project ICA Växa, collaboration and open innovation is key to strengthen local food systems, according to ICA (ICA Gruppen n.d.). RISE, a state-owned research institute and the Swedish Farmer Federation (LRF) are for example collaborating with ICA on this project (ICA Gruppen 2020).
Primary producers and infrastructure lagging
While retailers and processors are embracing the dietary shift, primary producers are lagging behind. Mylan and Geels (2019) suggest this might be induced by the specific hourglass structure of the food system, with primary producers on one side and consumers on the other with a small number of large and multinational actors in processing and retail as a middleman (Mylan and Geels 2019; Howard 2016). As opposed to farmers working within the animal-based regimes, retailers and processors are not deeply invested or locked into the animal-based regime. Their main concern is to create consumer goods markets and as the interest in plant-based food rises, they see the opportunity to appeal to that demand (Mylan and Geels 2019). Farmers on the other side are locked-in by high investments into animal agriculture (Mylan and Geels 2019). Swedish farmers in meat production have so far felt little impact from a dietary shift as Swedes are increasingly choosing Swedish meat as it is perceived to be of higher quality, safer and higher level of animal welfare. This has led to decreased meat imports, but an increased market share of Swedish meat (Jordbruksverket 2021). The plant-based niche has thus not found significant pushback from the regime. However the demand for Swedish legumes is high and sometimes unmet leading to processors sourcing their raw materials from abroad (ATL 2021). Farmers carry a lot of risk changing to an unfamiliar market and are also discouraged by low prices and international competition (AGFO 2018). The sentiment that farmers play a key role is alive in the public discourse around the dietary shift in Sweden. There is an interest to develop legume cultivation in Sweden further by research institutions, NGOs and some farmers to increase self-sufficiency in protein production (Landbygdsnätverket 2019). An example is the FINEST project to lead by RISE (RISE n.d.).
thesis). This is an example of the processes maintaining the status quo of the regime as significant investments are needed in infrastructure to change the trajectory of the animal-based regime.
2.3.4 Policy
Policy has a complicated relationship with plant-based meat substitutes. On one hand governments have supported the development of the niche by funding research and entrepreneurial activities and by changing nutritional guidelines. On the other hand, policy is involved in the preservation of the animal-based regime by favourable agricultural subsidies, food regulations and the absence of regulatory intervention (Tziva et al. 2019). In Sweden too, policy is hesitant to get involved to lower meat consumption (SVT 2019).
Policy has supported through funding; in Sweden for example, state-owned research institute RISE conducts valuable research into sustainable proteins and has helped and worked with plant-based protein start-ups in the past (RISE n.d.). The nutritional guidelines of the Swedish food agency are also favourable towards plant-based products and acknowledge the need for a reduction of red and processed meat (maximum 500 grams per week) (Livsmedelsverket 2021). The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, on which the Keyhole label is based, is currently being updated with a focus on integrating sustainability and dietary guidelines. The new recommendations will be published in 2022 (Nordic Co-operation 2020; 2019).
the European Consumer Organisation has showed consumers are not confused (BUEC 2020) and even the big players such as Nestlé, Danone and Unilever are against the amendment (Waldersee 2021).
2.3.5 Culture
Food is an important part of culture. Culture plays an important role in the embedding of an innovation, more so for food innovations than for example energy innovations as the food one eats is highly embedded in culture while the choice of electricity source is less so (Mylan and Geels 2019). Culture and ideologies offer barriers towards plant-based food often based in the macro-level landscape and expressed in the way of doing things in the regime. Nevertheless, through societal embedding processes of plant-based foods the culture and values around food can change.
Meat specifically has a historical dominant position as a food item in most cultures based on its nutritional value as a protein source. On the contemporary Western plate, it is often the primary component of the main meal (Williams 2000). A meal is often seen as incomplete without its meat element. As previously mentioned, this has not always been the case (Jönsson 2020), as meat was too expensive for many to afford or produce (Williams 2000), adding to the status of meat as a highly valued product and tying it to progress and prosperity (de Bakker and Dagevos 2012). Since the democratisation of meat, meat has become abundant and cheap, but has not lost its cultural embeddedness and symbolic meaning (de Bakker and Dagevos 2012; Williams 2000), making a switch to plant-based foods more difficult.
Meat furthermore has important links to ideologies of power, potency and masculinity (Rozin et al. 2012; Rothgerber 2013; Williams 2000) wherein vegetarianism is painted as weak, sentimental and feminine (Adams 1990; Rothgerber 2013; Chiles and Fitzgerald 2018). This reflected in the consistent gender disparity when it comes to the willingness to substitute and eating more based foods (Siegrist and Hartmann 2019; Weinrich 2019). Women consistently eat more plant-based than men do, also in the Swedish context (ICA Gruppen 2021a; Axfood 2020).
the first motivation to eat more plant based. The second motivation of healthy eating reveals another driver for plant-based food.
A final driver of the societal embedding of plant-based food in the cultural environment is the openness to newness intertwined with the Swedish identity. According to Jönsson (2020) the most important characteristic of the Swedish middle-class identity is to embrace the modern: “To be Swedish was not about guarding traditions3”(Jönsson 2020, 136). This identity developed in the second half of the 20th century and is one of the reasons according to Jönsson (2020) why foreign foods and spices were easily adopted into Swedish food culture in this time (Jönsson 2020). This also shows food culture goes through changes all the time and is not a stationary set of values. Eating raw fish was unthinkable in Sweden in 1980s, but in about one generation it has become normal to eat sushi for lunch (Jönsson 2020).
2.4 The role of entrepreneurship in sustainable transitions
A common belief among environmentalists has long been that nature and business is a contradictio in terminis (York and Venkataraman 2010). Although it cannot be denied that the dominant economic system today has caused severe environmental harm, this does not mean that entrepreneurship, as in the creation of (economic) value, is inherently damaging to the environment. More than that, entrepreneurial action can be a valuable asset to solve the sustainability problems we are plagued by today. Entrepreneurship is in the broadest sense creating new opportunities and possibilities (Sarasvathy 2001; York and Venkataraman 2010). In this way entrepreneurs can contribute by creating new, better and more sustainable products, services and institutions (York and Venkataraman 2010). As York and Venkataraman (2010) put it: “[Entrepreneurship] is inherently concerned with solving problems of uncertainty, innovation and resource allocation. These three elements represent the key areas in which entrepreneurs uniquely act, …” (York and Venkataraman 2010).
There are ranging definitions for sustainable entrepreneurship. The broadest definition considers all entrepreneurs concerned with the triple bottom line rather than just economic profit part of sustainable entrepreneurship, more narrow definitions include the ambition to solve a sustainability issue and transform an industry or society through entrepreneurial processes, this sometimes also called ecopreneurship (Schaltegger and Wagner 2011; Hockerts and Wüstenhagen 2010). Entrepreneurs pursuing a protein shift through their enterprises fall thus into the sustainable entrepreneurship category. These entrepreneurs play an important role in this shift, as described
in the previous paragraph, they create the alternatives to meat through innovation, are equipped to solve problems related to uncertainty and risk and are motivated to make this shift happen. According to Hekkert et al. (2007), entrepreneurs can be ‘either new entrants that have the vision of business opportunities in new markets, or incumbent companies who diversify their business strategy to take advantage of new developments’ (Hekkert et al. 2007). I will rephrase this to both new entrants and incumbent companies can engage in entrepreneurial activities that develop an innovation in a niche and bring it into the meso-level. The distinction being that entrepreneurs are generally conceived to be people and companies are not. While the entrepreneur is often visible behind the start-up, with big established firms this is less so the case. This does not mean that corporations cannot engage in entrepreneurial activities that further develop a niche. As suggested by Hockerts and Wüstenhagen (2010), start-up and incumbent actors play different roles in the sustainable transformation of and industry (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen 2010). It is the interaction and combined impact of the two that advances sustainable transitions (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen 2010).
Start-up pioneers are usually the first to engage with a sustainable niche innovation. They are the ones who first turn the potential into action, often doing risky experiments as a learning experience (Hekkert et al. 2007). They are often idealistic and have a goal to see real social change (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen 2010; Hörisch 2015). The strengths of these pioneers are that: (1) they are not locked into previous investments and product lines, (2) they are not locked into a specific mindset and technology and tend to be more innovative and (3) enjoy more credibility as newcomers offering solutions to problems caused by existing corporations (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen 2010). Some of these pioneers do not want to be part of the regime and do not want to pursue growth, as they see this a root of sustainability problems. Instead they aim to stay in the niche (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen 2010; Hörisch 2015). The weaknesses of pioneers is that they have less reach to both other actors and consumers than the corporations of the regime (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen 2010). They furthermore also have less capital they can invest in their own business but also in influencing the system around them (Hekkert et al. 2007)
gear. However, in a later phase the involvement of incumbents can lead to the watering down of the sustainability ideals championed by growth-focussed pioneers as they try to compete with incumbents (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen 2010). In the Swedish plant-based meat substitute market this last development has not (yet) been observed, however in the neighbouring market of plant-based dairy the acquirement of 7% share of Oatly by Blackstone, an investment company linked to deforestation in the amazon, caused outrage from their initial ethical customer base who perceived this development as a sell-out (Helmore 2020).
3. Methods
In the following section I will first discuss how I approached this research through the lens of social semiotics. Next, I will go deeper into the methodology of multimodal critical discourse analysis which I used to analyse the material: packaging. In the last part I will discuss the research process from case selection to data collection and analysis and provide some background to the selected brands.
3.1 Packaging and semiotics
Semiotics can broadly be defined as ‘the study of signs’ (Bryman 2016, 565; Chandler 2017, 2). It stems originally from the discipline of linguistics, based on the work of Ferdinand Saussure and Charles Sanders Peirce, but has moved beyond the perimeter of language (Chandler 2017, 2). The idea of semiotics concerns itself in simple terms with the meaning generated from a sign - ‘something that stands for something else’ (Bryman 2016, 565). This is conceptualised as a sign being the union of a signifier – the observable, and the signified – the meaning behind the observable (van Leeuwen 2005, 3–4; Bryman 2016, 565). The colour green for example is an observable symbol that, depending on the context, refers to nature and environmentally friendliness (Ledin and Machin 2018). Semiotics is thus a way of examining the generation of meaning through a critical perspective (Chandler 2017). The social dimensions of this meaning generation are of interest for social semiotics in particular. Social semiotics aims to put signs in their social context (Chandler 2017, van Leeuwen 2005), which acts as a code defined by social conventions and past uses and dictates how signs are interpreted (Wagner 2015).
Wagner 2015). The aforementioned case of banning certain words and more on packaging of plant-based dairy products by EU regulators as described previously, is an excellent example of an attempt to severely limit any semiotic materials that could refer to dairy in the mind of consumers, going from the use of milk carton like packaging images of the product (Waldersee 2021).
3.2 Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis
To analyse the packaging of plant-based meat analogs I used the methodology of Multimodal Critical Discourse analysis (MCDA). Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis is where ideas from semiotics and critical discourse analysis come together. Multimodal because packaging consists of more than one form of visual communication (Ledin and Machin 2020) as previously discussed. Materials, colour and iconography were analysed on top of the language used on the packaging. Critical discourse analysis originates from linguistics, just as semiotics (Machin and Mayr 2012). The idea behind critical discourse analysis is that language is socially constructed, meaning language both shapes and is shaped by society. Critical discourse analysis concerns itself with the interrelationship between power, language and ideology (Fairclough 2010). How language is used to promote certain views and naturalise them (Machin and Mayr 2012). According to Machin and Mayr (2012) the aim of MCDA is to ‘denaturalise’ these signs and ‘reveal the kinds of ideas, absences and taken-for-granted assumptions in the images as well as the text’ (Machin and Mayr 2012). This is why critical discourse analysis (and by extension MCDA) is critical and has often been used to critique and to reveal ideologies and social wrongs perpetuated in discourse (Fairclough 2010; Ledin and Machin 2020). However, Fairclough (2010) points out that this critique is not necessarily negative, a positive critique can also be conducted through critical discourse analysis, where the analysis focusses on how wrongs are remedied or mitigated as well as a critique ‘which seeks possibilities for transformations’ (Fairclough 2010).
Discourses around meat substitutes have also been studied previously. In ‘Grilling Meataphors: Impossible™ Foods and Posthumanism in the Meat Aisle’ Muhlhauser et al. (2021) analyse the discourses around the meat substitute of Impossible Foods (Muhlhauser, Drews, and Reitz 2021). Broad (2020) analyses metaphors in an ethnographic study of the meat substitute sector in ‘Making Meat, Better: The Metaphors of Plant-Based and Cell-Based Meat Innovation’ (Broad 2020). Lastly there have been numerous studies published from a range of disciplines on discourses around vegetarianism/veganism and the ideologies around meat consumption. Examples are ‘The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory’ by Adams (1990) and ‘Normalised, human-centric discourses of meat and animals in climate change, sustainability and food security literature’ by Arcari (2017) (Adams 1990; Arcari 2017).
I drew from these studies to conduct a multimodal discourse analysis of meat substitute packaging to investigate which linguistic strategies are used by entrepreneurs and which messages, views and meanings are conveyed in particular meanings of sustainability and the role of entrepreneurship.
3.3 Case selection and boundaries
Three categories of brands were defined: brands of small to medium sized companies, big established brands (often owned by transnational companies) and the supermarkets own private label brand. It has to be noted that there is a continuum between the first two categories rather than two very defined categories. As start-ups become more established and grow bigger it can seem arbitrary to assign them to either category. For this reason, I evaluated certain characteristics to determine their place on the continuum. Firstly, there is a judgement of the size on the company based on the number of employees and turnover. This is based on the European definition of an SME (European Commision n.d.). An SME should have less than 250 employees and a turnover of less than 50 million euros per year. In the case this information was not available, or the brand is part of a conglomerate, a judgement of the independence of the brand and type of conglomerate was made. Below I will describe three delimitations for data collection that define the scope of the study.
stock a bigger variety of products, including lesser known and smaller brands and together hold about 90% of the market share in food retail (Nordea Trade Portal n.d.).
Another delimitation used in the case selection is the requirement of brands to be Swedish to limit the scope of the thesis, as well as creating a common ground among the brands as they are expected to mainly target the Swedish consumer. Again, this is not a straightforward category in a globalised food system. Therefore, ownership was not used as the qualifier, rather brand identity and birthplace were considered. Companies who were originally founded in Sweden, and still target the Swedish customer base were selected. As such brands like Quorn or Beyond Meat were excluded from analysis.
A last delimitation applied to the cases is the nature of the product and brand. The brands selected should be individual meat substitutes in the sense that they contain comparable amounts of protein and little else. A such vegetable patties and veggie balls not made out of protein-rich plants are excluded as well as vegan ready-made meals. Tofu and tempeh products are included, although they are not meat analogs in the strict sense, they are a protein source and in practice often used as such. Furthermore, the choice was made to focus on plant-based brands and remove vegan product lines from non-plant-based brands from the selection, like the ‘Veggie’ line from Felix and the ‘Green Cuisine’ line from Findus. This was purely done due to the limited scope and timeframe of this project. The existence of this type of product lines within traditionally non-vegetarian brands is in itself an interesting development and illustrates further embedding of plant-based proteins within the business environment.
3.4 Data collection and analysis
The information analysed was divided into two sections: visual and textual information. The visual information was analysed following the dimensions of Ledin and Machin (2018): (1) Material and texture, (2) Shape and size, (3) Colours, (4) Typography and (5) Iconography and images, which also includes labels (Ledin and Machin 2018). For the textual information it was recorded if it was displayed either on the primary display panel (front of the packaging) or the secondary panel (back and if applicable sides of the packaging) following Ledin and Machin (2018). The text was divided in different types of information: brand and product name, callout (promotional text on the front of the package) and sell copy (promotional text on the side of the package) and finally the mandatory copy (copy that is compulsory by law and heavily regulated) (Ledin and Machin 2020).
In a first analysis phase the elements and their meanings were analysed in isolation for a systematic analysis of the packaging and to identify underlaying patterns. Later the packaging of one brand is analysed as a whole, adding all the choices together which form the integrated design. This is done to compare the messaging and positioning of the individual brands through their packaging.
In the first cycle of coding a descriptive coding method was used by assigning basic labels to the data to identify the topics on the packaging (Saldaña 2013). The codes were then arranged in clusters such as ‘origin’, ‘environment’, ‘health’ and ‘brand’ referred to as code landscaping (Saldaña 2013). The results from this first cycle coding are the source of chapter 4: analysis, where I discuss the main discourses around plant-based food on the packaging of the selected brands. In a second cycle of coding an exploratory pattern coding method was used to look for underlying themes between codes (Saldaña 2013) as to reveal the roles of entrepreneurship and the discourse around these roles present on the packaging. This is further discussed in chapter 5. To assist in the coding and analysis process a CAQDAS software package (Quirkos) was used. In the analysis and discussion references to the materiality of the packaging as well as quotes from the text will be used to illustrate points. In case the language on the packaging was Swedish, I will translate the text to English and add the original Swedish text in a footnote.
3.5 Introduction brands
Below I shortly introduce each brand based on the information from their own website, archived websites, press releases and announcements in magazines.
3.5.1 Small to medium-sized brands
Lupinta Lupinta is a young company founded by Eslam Salah in Malmö in 2018
from lupin beans, but the company is planning to broaden their product line past tempeh. According to Lupinta, lupin is an alternative to soy that can be grown all over Europe, including Sweden, localising the production of plant-based proteins (Lupinta n.d.).
Peas of Heaven Peas of Heaven is a young company founded in 2019 by Marcus and
Lucas Karlsson in Gothenburg and is owned by the family company Herbert Karlssons Charkuterifabrik (Nilsson 2021). Peas of Heaven has a range of a dozen meat substitutes going from smoked sausages to burgers and have also added a protein drink and vegan Greek style cheese. Peas of Heaven uses mostly pea protein in their products (peasofheaven.se).
Växtchark Växtchark is a brand from Gotlands Korvfabrik AB, both of which were
founded in 2020 by Petter Bendelin in Roma, Gotland (Gotland n.d.). Växtchark is an ultra-local brand and uses Gotlandic lentils and Swedish quinoa as their protein source. They offer plant-based chorizo, sausage and burgers (växtchark.se).
Bärta Bärta is a young brand founded by Pia Qvarnström in 2018 and
produced in Karlshamn out of the wish for a vegan product that was both healthy and good for the environment (Bärta n.d.; n.d.) Bärta has four tempeh products from natural tempeh to flavoured chili lime bites and burgers. Bärta is organic and uses Swedish peas for their products (barta.se).
YiPin YiPin is a tofu brand founded about 20 years ago by the Lu family who
moved to Sweden from China in the 1998 (yipin.se). They produce the tofu in a factory in Vallentuna with organic soybeans grown in Europe. They have several types of tofu blocks, tofu burgers, tempeh and also started with tofu-based spreads (yipin.se).
Astrid & Aporna Astrid & Aporna was founded in Malmö in 2007 as a vegetarian store but
world’s biggest producers of vegan food worked together to bring Astrid & Aporna back on the shelves (Vegomagasinet 2020a). Astrid & Aporna use mostly soy and wheat protein in their products
Oumph! Oumph! is a brand of Food for Progress, a company founded by Anders
Wallerman and Anna-Kajsa Lidell. The brand was launched in 2015 and has grown past the Nordics (Breakit 2016). In 2020 Oumph! was sold to Livekindly collective, a collection of start-up and more established plant-based brands (oumph.se). Oumph has a range of plant-plant-based substitutes made from soy from pulled to chunks to burgers.
3.5.2 Established brands
Frankful Frankful was launched in Sweden in 2020 by Orkla Foods Sweden (Orkla
Sverige 2020), the Swedish division of a multinational corporation active in the Nordics, Baltics, Central Europe and India (Orkla n.d.). It is the first time in 30 years Orkla launched a new brand. With Frankful they take aim at the millennials and the Mexican food market. They launched twelve based taco related products, one of which being a plant-based mince made out of peas (Orkla Sverige 2020).
Anamma Anamma was founded in 1997 in Simrishamn and was bought and fully
integrated with Orkla Foods in 2015 and 2016 respectively (Orkla Foods Sverige 2016). Anamma has a range of vegan frozen products from mince to chicken filets. Most of Anamma’s products are soy-based, however in 2020 certain products also became available in a pea-protein version (Vegomagasinet 2020b).
Hälsans Kök Hälsans Kök has a long, and in some respects, obscure history. The
range of vegetarian and vegan products from schnitzels to burgers made from soy protein (hälsanskök.se).
3.5.3 Supermarket brands
ICA ICA has sold vegetarian products under their own brand for a few years, however, in 2019 they launched the current products on the shelves with additions in 2021 (Vegomagasinet 2019a).
Coop In 2017 Coop launched its line of meat substitutes under its own brand
made from a variety of protein sources: beans, soy and peas (Vegomagasinet 2017).
Änglamark Coop launched Änglamark as its organic brand in 1991 (Coop n.d.). In
2019 Coop added two meat substitutes under the brand using peas from two Swedish farms (Vegomagasinet 2019b). The products were developed with Food for Progress, the company behind Oumph!.
Garant Axfood has sold meat substitutes under its Garant brand since 2015 and
has been launching new products over the years since then (Axfood AB n.d.).
Eldorado Eldorado is Axfood’s budget brand and has a range of vegetarian and
4. Results and observations
4.1. Initial Observations
Before analysing the discourse around plant-based food, two initial observations were made: (1) the discrepancy between the level of information and marketing between the different brands and types of brands and (2) the high level of wacky language on packaging (also referred to as ‘wackaging’) among the small and medium-sized brands.
Some brands have a lot of information and marketing in their sell copies and callouts on their packaging, for others the information is limited to the mandatory copy and little more. Most brands who do not have an extensive sell copy, are supermarket private label brands. Specifically Axfood’s brands Garant and Eldorado and ICAs line stand out. They only mention the name of the product, some instructions and the mandatory copy. Iconography is limited to either a photo of the product or a plastic window to see the product. For Eldorado the aim is clearly to communicate their discount brand status, having “Products to trust. For a low price.4” as their tagline on the front of their packaging. Minimal packaging design with little flourish is typical for discount supermarket brands, and aims to communicate value for money (Ledin and Machin 2018). As a result, not many text quotations will be used from these brands in the following analysis. Änglamark as a supermarket brand is a substantial outlier compared to the rest: of all the packaging they might sport the most extensive sell copy describing the motivation and production of the product in detail. The reason for this is likely that Änglamark is an organic brand rather than a discount brand and appeals to a customer base that is concerned about and interested in the origin of their food.
The second observation made throughout the analysis process is the relatively high level of ‘wackaging’ among the selected brands. ‘Wackaging’ refers to the use of wacky language on packaging that is cutesy, overly familiar and friendly (Grimshaw 2014). In academics it is part of the wider concept of brand anthropomorphism where brands are humanised (Portal, Abratt, and Bendixen 2018). ‘Wackaging’ is a branding strategy that was started in the early 2000s by the branding of ‘Innocent’ a juice and smoothy company now owned by Coca-Cola (Grimshaw 2014). Innocent’s strategy was to gain the trust of consumers and have a unique voice within the juice market (Michail 2015; Burke 2019). The branding strategy has been copied many times since and sometimes has the adverse effect of annoying consumers and appearing disingenuous (Grimshaw
2014; Michail 2015). The brands analysed for this project that harbour multiple instances of wacky language are Lupinta (example: ‘I’m Beantastic!’), Peas of Heaven (example: ‘Deliciously juicy brain melting awesomeness! Oh, and it’s healthy too!’) and Oumph! (example: Epic veggie eating for free range humans). This wacky language is characterised by neologisms, puns, slang terms and general happy hyperbolic language with exclamation marks. It’s character sometimes distinctly reminds of Oatly, the successful plant-based dairy brand which also uses this type of language on their packaging. A comparison to Oatly’s language and strategy are further developed in 5.3.
4.2 Discourse around plant-based food
In the following section I will discuss the clusters I perceived after the first coding cycle (see 3.4) related to the discourse on plant-based food (and their products in particular) on packaging of the selected brands. Three clusters were identified: (1) that plant-based food is good for the planet, and less explicitly also healthy for the consumer, (2) that plant-based food is Swedish or locally produced and (3) that plant-based food is part of the everyday meal and for the everyday person.
4.2.1 Plant-based food is good for the planet (and you)
The ‘eating our product is good for the planet’ discourse can be read in text on about half of the packages spread over all types of brands. Especially Frankful with their tagline ‘Let’s taco about the future!’ have build their brand around being ‘climate smart’. The word combination can be found a total of seven times on their packaging. The contrast to animal-based protein is often inexplicit when mentioning the environment and environmnental impact. Only Frankful, fitting with the overal feel of the brand and Anamma use it as an explicit argument:
“Small climate footprint – did you know that our plant-based mince has
bout 90% lower climate impact than beef mince?” – Frankful
“Anamma’s products have a low climate impact when compared to
animal-based [products]5” – Anamma
Other brands mention how plant-based products are sustainable as they use less of the planet’s resources, without laying the link explicitly to meat. An example is Oumph! but also Änglamark mentions how plant-based food is necessary to to stay within the planet’s means:
“‘Plant-based proteins are easy on the planet’s resources and have a low
climate impact.6” – Oumph!
Other brands use more implicit ways of communicating the environmental factor by saying their product is ‘green’ or ‘planetnyttig’ in the case of Bärta, which is a neologism they created by putting ‘planet’ and ‘nyttig’ together. ‘Nyttig’ can be translated as ‘useful’ or ‘helpful’, implicating their products are not only not harmful to the planet, they leave a positive impact. The colour green and textures related to sustainability are present on several packages, but not always very dominantly. Hälsans kök mainly uses this type of communication: their packages are overwhelmingly green on a printed texture of unbleached cardboard with ample iconography such as leaves refering back to nature. Coop’s veggie mince package too features a green background on the texture of untreated of OSB plywood. This type of non-verbal communication of environmentally friendliness is less present on the packaging of the smaller brands. Green iconography is increasingly associated with greenwashing, the practice of painting something as environmentally friendly while conveniently omitting or falsifying truths and using the iconography of the early organic brands (Wagner 2015). Consumers have become more adept at detecting greenwashing causing companies risk to be viewed as dishonest (De Jong, Harkink, and Barth 2018).
Besides Peas of Heaven’s “Oh and it’s healthy too!”, Bärta’s “Good for you and the planet7” and the meaning of Hälsans kök name (Kitchen of health) there are no explicit references to health on any of the packaging. There are however plenty of indirect references to the nutritional benefits of their products mainly by mentioning that their product is rich in protein and a source of fiber. Bärta also mentions that their product is easy to digest and Oumph! adds that their product contains iron and folic acid. Plant-based products are thus marketed more as an environmentally friendly product rather than a health food, falling in line with Swede’s number one motivation for including more plant-based foods in their diet: reducing their environmnetal impact, and health considerations second.
In an interesting note, animal welfare is almost completely absent from the packaging in this study. Only Astrid & Aporna reminds of an animal activist vegan discourse by mentioning “0% chicken” as opposed to the plant-based protein the product is made out of as most other brands do. The packaging is also adorned with childlike drawings of chicks on their plant-based pieces. The style of their product names using asterixs for certain letters of meat products in a playful way, like
6 “Växtbaserat protein hushållar väl med planetens resurser och har låg klimatpåverkan” – Oumph!. “Hushåller väl does not have a very good direct translation in English. It means to be economical and implies prudence and efficient use of available resources.
K*ckl*ngbitar or Sk*nka (Ch*ck*n pieces and H*m) liking these meat products to an inappropriate curse word that should be hidden. Oumph! refers to animal welfare indirectly with their tagline “Epic Veggie Eating for Free Range humans”. ‘Free range’ is discourse usually found on egg cartons, but Oumph! applies it here creatively in a different sense by connecting it to humans. It implies that their consumer should not feel limited or constrained, but that they are free range and possibly can consume new types of food. Lastly, Anamma mentions animals once on the back of their packaging, in the context of being considerate towards the consumer, animals and the planet. It is interesting that these are both relatively older brands (founded in 2007 and 1997, see 3.5) respectively when before the environmental impact of food became common in public discourse as discussed in 2.2.
4.2.2 Plant-based food is Swedish
Most brands that can claim something about their product is Swedish did so and some would go into more specific detail about the location in Sweden. References to Sweden are in the first place made by refering to the origins of the ingredients “100% Swedish peas8” – Bärta, “Made with Swedish peas” – ICA. Växtchark and Lupinta zooms into the region their ingredients are sourced from: “Gotland-grown lentils9” and “Plant-based protein from Skåne” respectively. Coop’s Änglamark goes as far to identify the farms their peas come on the front of packaging and naming the farmers and region on the back:
“ … made from the Ingrid pea which is grown on Jannelunds farm and
Slätte farm10” – Änglamark
Of the bigger brands, none of which source their raw protein ingredients from Sweden, Anamma and Frankful still lay a connection to Sweden by exclaiming their product is produced in Sweden: “Always prepared in Sweden11” and “Our Taco Mince is produced in Sweden” respectively. YiPin too underlines the fact their tofu is locally produced (“From the tofu factory in Vallentuna12”) and reassures their soy beans are from the EU on the front of their tofu packaging. Bärta, who refers to Sweden the most of all on their packaging, also specify their production location:
8 “100% svensk ärta” – Bärta
9 “Gotlandsodlade linser” – Växtchark
10 “Ärtan Ingrid som odlats på Jannelunds Gård och Slätte gård” 11 “Alltid tillagat i Sverige” – Anamma (Formbar färs)
