Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract

This paper examines how alternative protein producers enact a “good protein economy.” Drawing on ethnography in Czechia, it shows how sustainability metrics coupled with narratives of crisis and innovation turn uncertain futures into economic and moral promises.

Paper long abstract

The alternative protein industry—spanning companies developing cultivated meat, insect-based foods, and plant-based protein sources—presents its products as unquestionably good for the climate, human health, and the economy. To substantiate these claims, companies mobilize sustainability metrics—emissions reductions, land-use efficiency, and feed conversion ratios—as tools of valuation for defining what counts as “good” protein.

Building on and provincializing the concept of the “good economy” (Asdal et al., 2021), we ask: what versions of the good are woven into alternative protein economies in Czechia, and how are they enacted through numbers? Drawing on ethnographic research with cultivated meat and edible insect companies, we examine how quantification practices help articulate visions of sustainable food futures.

We argue that quantification in this context does not operate through mechanical (Porter, 1995) but reflexive objectivity (Reinertsen & Asdal, 2019): future uncertainties and qualitative speculations are acknowledged, stabilized, and subsequently decoupled from the quantified promises foregrounded in corporate presentations and investment pitches. Figures shift from serving as indices to functioning as slogans to persuade consumers. At the same time, numbers alone are insufficient: companies move beyond metrics and mobilize broader narratives of crisis, innovation, and moral responsibility to render these futures credible.

We show that while the original study by Asdal et al. identifies the “good economy” in Norway with the promise of the bioeconomy, in Czechia the goodness of bioeconomic futures remains contested and contextually negotiated. Alternative protein companies are thus forced to actively establish—rather than simply assume—the moral and economic value of bio-based innovation.