Food and farming - SUM: Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Stephanie Pope, Kira Stroh
Last updated: October 2nd 2023

1 Definition

The food and farming sector covers a wide range of activities related to the production, transportation, manufacturing, retailing, consumption, and waste of agricultural products.¹ Agriculture can be described as the planned activity of humans to use plants and animals to generate food and fiber. Synonymously, the term farming can be used to describe agriculture, which has the characteristic activities animal husbandry and growing of crops.² Farming products can be classified as in Table 1.

Table 1: Products of the food and farming sector2

There are some distinctive aspects that differentiate the food and farming sector from other production sectors. Among them are dimensions like fluctuations in demand and supply along the seasons, concerns of consumers regarding the traceability and risk management related to health, diet, and security, as well as the consequences of food production on the environment.³

Agriculture is an important foundation for human civilization and the economic development of a country, as it is necessary for the cultivation of food, feed, and essential materials. The sector is also called the backbone of a society, not only providing food but also symbolizing the “cornerstone of human existence”⁴. Beyond food, agrarian culture also contributes to the supply of industrial raw materials, thus establishing a link with various sectors of the economy.(4) ⁵ The economic significance of the sector within a nation is closely linked to its developmental stage. It is of high importance in developing countries, where the livelihood of a large part of the population depends on the primary agricultural sector. However, as nations progress and the tertiary sector becomes more relevant, the economic importance of the sector tends to decline.⁶

Regarding employment in the agricultural sector, there has been a decline of 17% of the global workforce over the period from 2000 to 2020. With 874 million people working in food jobs in 2020, agriculture is nevertheless the second largest employment provider worldwide after the service sector.⁷ In this regard, small farmers accounted for the largest share with 98%, cultivating more than 70% of the entire agricultural land.⁸

Figure 2: Number of employees in agriculture, forestry, and fishing (in million) in 2021 – based on FAOSTAT 2023⁹

Between 2000 and 2022, the value added of agriculture, forestry and fishery increased by 91.6%, globally generating US$3.87 trillion in 2022. In Africa, the value added more than doubled between 2000 and 2022 (+162.8%), while Asia was the primary contributor to the global value added, accounting for 65.6% in 2022.¹⁰

Figure 3: Value added agriculture, forestry and fishing – based on FAOSTAT 202310

The global value added share of agriculture, forestry and fishery in total GDP reached 4.91% in 2022, showing a decline in all regions, except for Africa, since 2000. The largest decease has been in Asia, where the share fell by 27.2% in 2022 compared to 2000, while at the same time the share in Africa has increased by 9.3%.(10) Although its economic scale is modest, the sector’s importance lies in its central role within the agro-industrial value chain and resource use. Consequently, agriculture’s impact on environmental integrity and food security goes beyond its mere GDP share.¹¹

Figure 4: Share of Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) in total GDP – based on FAOSTAT 2023(10)

To demonstrate the economic impact of the food sector on consumers, the ratio of consumer spending devoted to food can be utilized by quantifying the share of personal expenses used for food products and services consumed at home. This share varies across nations. Of the 104 countries analyzed, the highest spenders (Nigeria, Myanmar, Kenya, Bangladesh, and Laos) allocate over 50% of consumer expenditure to food. Conversely, the lowest spenders (USA, Singapore, UK, Ireland, and Switzerland) dedicate less than 10% of their expenses to this area.¹²

Figure 5: Percent of consumer expenditures spent on food that was consumed at home in 2021, by selected countries – based on Economic Research Service USDA 2022(12)

2 Sustainability impact and measurement

The food and farming sector, determining the way we produce, distribute and consume food, has a great impact on our environment and people and their health.¹³ As the world´s population and individual consumption is constantly growing, the demand for food and natural resources is increasing simultaneously.¹⁴ ¹⁵ This great need has been met by increasing the agricultural production through intensification processes, that are causing negative effects on both people and the planet.¹⁶ Moreover, climate change and its effects are strongly interrelated with agricultural productivity, as rising temperatures and extreme weather events threaten food production and security. The other way around, our production methods amplify global warming with their contributions to GHG emissions.¹⁷ ¹⁸ ¹⁹ When dealing with sustainability, one must do so with respect to all three dimensions. But since this entry already mentioned the economic relevance of the food sector, the focus is set on its environmental and social impact.

2.1 Environmental perspective

2.1.1 Emissions

The food industry is responsible for around 23-37% of global GHG emissions, making it one of the main contributors to climate change. Emissions occur along the entire food cycle including agriculture, land use, storage, transport, packaging, processing, retail and consumption. Most of them originate from agricultural production, including land use change like deforestation and peatland degradation. Furthermore linked with land use is the emission intensive pre-production of fertilizers, pesticides, equipment and energy used on farms.²⁰ ²¹ ²² While emissions embedded in the post-production, post-sale and consumption phase are significantly lower, their impact still carries considerable weight.²³: So, although emissions in steps like processing, packaging or refrigerating are essential to preserve and protect foods, failures lead to unnecessary emissions and food waste.²⁴ ²⁵The latter is not only resulting in a complete loss of resources but is also responsible for indirect emissions generated in previous processes as well as direct ones from landfills.²⁶ Additionally, food products are often transported long distances before they reach an end-consumer, further contributing to emissions.(20)

[3]Figure 6: Emissions from the food sector – based on Crippa et al. 2021²⁷

A proper and reliable tool that is used to evaluate the environmental impact of a food product are life cycle assessments that analyse its overall impact from cradle to grave.²⁸ Following ISO standards, this analysis technique makes it possible to identify contributing factors of the environmental effects that are caused by a certain product.²⁹ ³⁰ One standard and well-known method thereby is the calculation of carbon footprints, that measure the total amount of CO_2-e that are directly and indirectly caused by all life stages of an agricultural product. This approach enables to estimate and compare the environmental impact different food products have in terms of emissions.³¹

An important point in this context is that most emissions derive from the production and consumption of animal-based products. Since dietary patterns are globally shifting towards a higher consumption of these, agricultural emissions are expected to rise not only due to population and income growth, but also due to changes in consumption.(21)³² (23)

Figure 7: Carbon footprint of different food products – based on Nemecek & Poore 2018³³

2.1.2 Land use and the terrestrial ecosystem

The food industry is heavily dependent on the use of land to meet the demand of the growing world population.(24) In order to produce enough food, agricultural practices have not only resulted in the expansion of agricultural land but also led to the intensification of farming processes.³⁴ Both developments are having a harmful impact on the environment, as they require additional limited resources like water and energy, involve the use of harmful agricultural chemicals and natural habitats are being destroyed.³⁵ The immense need of land is illustrated by the fact that about half of the earth’s habitable land is used for agriculture at the moment, the majority for permanent meadows and pastures and less than one-third for cropland.(7)

Figure 8: Agricultural land use – based Benton et al. 2021 p.8 ²²

The negative effects this extensive land use causes can be attributed to several distinct categories, which will be elaborated in the following:

Land degradation is one consequence of intensified agriculture, being defined as a negative trend in the condition of land. Expressions of this phenomenon include the long-term decline or loss of biological productivity, ecological health, and/or value.(22) Desertification, a form of land degradation, affects the world´s drylands that are currently covering about 46% of the world´s land area. Therefore, the spreading desertification poses a threat because it severely limits agricultural productivity.(22) When soil is used excessively or managed inappropriately, its natural fertility and function decline and start to degrade. Worldwide, 20-25% of soils are already affected by degradation.³⁶ Furthermore, the use of inputs like pesticides and nutrients contribute to the deterioration of soil health and quality.1 This ongoing process, caused by agriculture, is affecting our environment strongly, as soil plays vital roles in food production like rainwater filtration, climate regulation, and carbon storage.(36) In addition, a reduced land productivity threatens the livelihoods of people who directly rely on natural resources for survival.(22)

Deforestation is primarily driven by agricultural land expansion, as forests are worldwide converted into crop land or cleared for animals to graze.³⁷ The destructions of forests have numerous negative consequences on the environment, not only due to their function as a natural carbon reservoir but also to their diverse ecosystems. The effects are particularly critical in the tropics, which are primarily cleared to cultivate soy, harvest palm oil and raise cattle, while they serve as habitats for the world’s most diverse ecosystems.(1) In countries like Brazil, the world’s largest exporter of beef, cattle grazing poses a great risk for deforestation because it is very land extensive. The deforestation there has resulted in a 19% decrease in forest cover in the amazon since 1970 (as of 2016) that was largely driven by the expansion of agriculture.³⁸

Biodiversity loss is also mainly driven by the impact of the food sector with the current rate of species extinction surpassing the ones of the past 10 million years.(1) The diversity of landscapes are greatly diminished by the use of inputs such as fertilizers or practices like heavy tilling, reducing the quality and quantity of available habitants. Therefore, most wild species cannot thrive even in the most benign farming systems. Moreover, the agricultural conversion of natural ecosystems, such as forests, has been the main reason for the loss of habitats, leading to wildlife species losing their sources of shelter and food vital for survival. Today, agriculture is recognized as a threat to 24,000 out of the 28,000 species that are at risk of extinction.(1)³⁹

Animal Welfare is also threatened by the food industry, as the population of farmed animals is increasing rapidly to meet our food demand. Consequently, there is a growing tendency to allocate fewer resources to each animal and value the individual animal less. As a result, factory farming continues to grow as a cost-effective method of producing animal products, including practices such as battery cages for hens or veal crates for calves. These stressful, crowded, and unsanitary conditions foster disease and without strict regulations, result in animal suffering and abuse, raising concerns about animal welfare.⁴⁰ ⁴¹ ⁴² ⁴³

2.1.3 Fishery and the aquatic ecosystem

The aquatic ecosystem is heavily affected by the food sector, as we intervene through fishing and fish farming as well as downstream pollution, particularly from fertilizers that damage the aquatic system.(1) Over-exploitation has already been causing deceasing yields per unit since the mid-1970s. Trying to compensate this development, there has been an increase in fishing efforts, wider exploitation of the aquatic ecosystem and the strong expansion of aquacultures. The examples of negative impacts the fishery exploitation causes are ranging from physical changes like coastal erosion to alterations in the whole ecosystem structure and function. Furthermore, these actions are causing irreversible changes to the integrity and state of the aquatic ecosystem and its services, as they have led to overfishing, bycatch, and the mismanagement of fisheries as well as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.⁴⁴ ⁴⁵ (7)

Biodiversity loss in the aquatic ecosystem is also a consequence of fishing activities that change the structure of marine habitats, impacting diversity, composition, biomass, and productivity. Fishery practices even increase the overall mortality rate and decrease the life expectancy of fish species, as they are putting significant pressure on stocks. Another significant threat to species is the lost gear of fishing boats, as it engages in ghost-fishing, persistently trapping and entangling animals.⁴⁶ ⁴⁷A different problem related to fishery is bycatch, the unintentional capture of nontarget species, that can directly affect individual species and cause ecosystem-level changes. Additionally, it increases the problem of fishery waste that has significantly increased over the years. It is estimated, that 25% of the total fishery catch including bycatch and processing wastes are discarded.⁴⁸ ⁴⁹

2.1.4 Water use

Water plays an important role in the food industry as it serves as a major component in many products and is required in large quantities for processing.⁵⁰ Elaborating this further, the food processing industry requires significant amounts of water, ranking as the third largest industrial user (following the refined petroleum and primary metals and chemicals industries ⁵¹). Furthermore, it is worth noting that ecosystems are based on both land and water, while the latter is the most extracted natural resource worldwide, with 4,000 billion tonnes.⁵² Agriculture thereby accounts for 70% of the world’s freshwater withdrawals, being equivalent to 2,700 km³per year that is mainly used for irrigation.⁵³ (22) Additionally, it has been estimated that an individual’s daily food, drinking, and sanitation needs require around 2,000 to 5,000 litres of water. With irrigated food production expected to increase by over 50% by 2050, the demand for water will as well, putting more and more pressure on the limited resource. Adding to this issue is the water that is lost in the course of food waste, which concerns one-third of food along its life cycle, adding up to roughly three times the volume of Lake Geneva (3x89km³).(24)(52)

The problem of water scarcity, already being a reality for certain regions that experience severe water stress, is aggravated by agriculture. Water use has more than tripled since 1950, raising concerns about the water supply for humans, animals, and nature, due to compromised water quality and increasing scarcity. Climate change further intensifies scarcity and drought, which exacerbates the problem that is already impacting all continents. ⁵⁴(34)^,(52),(53)

Another problem is water pollution, as the water quality is deteriorating due to nutrient flows and insufficient management practices. Both result in a decrease in biodiversity and in eutrophication, straining the availability of water (for food production) even further.(52) The main pollutants include organic matter, sanitizing products, microorganisms, fertilizers, pesticides, and metals.(54) Furthermore, it is still common to directly discharge untreated industrial wastewater into the environment, causing significant environmental problems.⁵⁵ The maintenance of livestock, the primary contributor to water pollution, has e.g. negative effects on coral reefs and poses a risks to human health.(20)

One method to measure the water use of the food industry is the water footprint, a global calculation standard defining the total volume of freshwater used to produce a (food) product. It is noticeable that the footprints vary greatly between products, with those of animal origin being particularly high. The indicator is also specific to geographical location and takes the volume of polluted water into account. This is important, because the environmental impact of water usage depends on the type and origin of the water, with food products using rainwater for production having a lower impact compared to those with irrigated sources. Additionally, the environmental impact of the same product can vary depending on whether it was extracted from a water-rich or water-scarce area.⁵⁶ ⁵⁷

Figure 9: Water footprint of different food products – based on Mekonnen & Hoekstra 2011⁵⁸ & 2012⁵⁹

2.1.5 Food waste

As indicated previously, food waste has a significant impact on the environment, as approximately one-third of produced food is lost or wasted, equating to 1.3 billion tons per year. This waste is caused by damage, food loss, quality deterioration and food safety problems and creates around 8% of global emissions.(1)^,(22)^,(52)Since wasted food has not reached its purpose of consumption, the distributed emissions and required resources such as land, water and energy can also be considered as waste. The severity becomes greater with increasing production, and it varies depending on the type of product, with animal or dairy products having higher impacts, resulting in the wastage of more resources and emissions.⁶⁰ ⁶¹

The reasons for the high amount of food wastage are numerous, including poor storage and handling techniques, spoilage during transport and processing, and a lack of refrigeration along the supply chains. Hardly 10% of food products are refrigerated correctly, making inaccurate refrigeration along the cold chain a cause for microbial decay, disease and insect damage.(60) Food waste is also generated at retailers and among consumers, and in agriculture due to inedible food, harvest surpluses, and food products not meeting high-quality standards. Quantifying food waste is crucial to assess the impact on the environmental and can be achieved through direct measurement (weighing or volume assessment), waste composition analysis, scanning or counting, mass balance calculation, or by using questionnaires and interviews.⁶² In addition to being an environmental concern, food waste has economic and social implications. Not only does it result in financial losses throughout the food supply chain, but it also exacerbates the challenge of providing enough food for the population, intensifying food insecurity.(22)^,(62)

2.2 Social perspective

2.2.1 Food security

Food, seen from the perspective of a natural resource, is under increasing pressure due to the raising demand of more and more people. Therefore, the food industry greatly impacts the global population, as millions of people become more vulnerable to food insecurity. Additionally, the previously named environmental effects and climate change itself are impacting productivity, food prices, delivery reliability, and the availability of food products, contributing to the pressure on the food system.(22)^,(34)⁶³ (18)^,(26) While the sustainable goal is to achieve food security, by providing economic, social and physical access to sufficient, healthy and nutritious food for the entire population, the current reality is far from it.⁶⁴ On the one hand, enough food is produced to feed everyone, but at the same time unequal distribution of it leaves about two billion people food insecure.⁶⁵ ⁶⁶ This problem is exacerbated by the excessive use of limited water in food production, further endangering food security and the accessibility to safe drinking water for billions of people.(52)

Figure 10: The four pillars of food security – based on Garcia & Wanner 2017⁶⁷

The food sector greatly impacts people´s health, with 800 million people suffering from undernourishment, while two billion adults are overweight or obese.(22)^,(7) Both forms of malnutrition are impacting global health, as approximately 58% of deaths worldwide are caused by diseases related to malnutrition or imbalanced diets.⁶⁸ Especially poor populations are vulnerable and affected by hunger and even well-functioning markets cannot prevent malnutrition, making food insecurity a global issue. In this context, agriculture plays a crucial role, as it not only provides food but also serves as a source of income for many. Around 70% of the poorest individuals are dependent on agriculture, being the backbone of economy especially in developing countries. As a result, roughly 50% of those facing hunger are the ones living in farming families.(18)^,(26)^,(65)

2.2.2 Working conditions

Working conditions are an important part of social sustainability, making food work across its sectors (production, processing, distribution, retail, and service) a meaningful indicator. Even though some jobs within the industry offer growth opportunities, fair wages, and union representation, most of them are defined by low wages, limited benefits, and serious health and safety risks. Also, the health and hygiene of food industry workers can impact others, as they can either ensure food safety or contribute to foodborne disease outbreaks. Furthermore, food workers often experience high rates of food insecurities themselves. This is also the case in great powers like the US, where participation in support programs is twice as high among food workers compared to the overall workforces.⁶⁹ ⁷⁰

A significant portion of jobs in the global food economy are informal, meaning that they are unregulated and without social safety nets for workers. Focusing on agriculture, the conditions are especially poor with low pay, dangerous tasks, and long working hours. ⁷¹ Despite being the second-largest source of employment worldwide with around 870 million people, agriculture faces increasing challenges as fewer people are attracted to the sector, exacerbating already difficult conditions.⁷²^,,(44) In developing countries, the working environment is even worse, while most of the rural youth is engaged in subsistence farming and struggles to find better-paying jobs to escape poverty.(71) Furthermore, poor people there are spending 40-60% of their income on food and in addition, poverty is a leading determinant of child labour.⁷³ It is estimated that 60% of all child laborers work in agriculture. They are often exposed to dangerous farming activities, resulting in severe harm to their physical and mental well-being.⁷⁴ Also the fishing industry has concerning working conditions, including instances of human trafficking and the trade of sexual favors.

Figure 11: Share of child labour worldwide by sector – based on UNICEF & ILO p.13⁷⁵

2.2.3 Gender equality

Another important aspect concerning the social sustainability in the food sector are gender inequalities because the effects previously mentioned in this chapter are affecting the sexes differently. Generally, women in agriculture are more likely to be contributing family workers, while men are more likely to be generating their own income.(7) However, women are often overrepresented in agricultural work while facing disadvantages in terms of lower wages and having limited opportunities compared to men in achieving economic independence or empowerment. In the UK for example, the gender wage gap in agriculture for 2021 was 6.4%. Additionally, women have also less access to land, resources, assets, technologies, and education, which further increases inequalities.(36)^,(71),(76) Overall, women are less likely to own and manage agricultural businesses, with e.g. less than 30% of farms in the EU and only 4% in Switzerland being run by women. Additionally, existing social and cultural norms create further barriers for the empowerment of women working in agriculture.(67)^,(76)

Moreover, women are disproportionately affected by hunger (60% of people facing hunger are women) and they are more likely to live in poverty compared to men.(63) This leads to a higher percentage of their income being allocated towards purchasing food, implying compromises on food quality and/or quantity that often also affect children, since women are overrepresented in single parents households.⁷⁶ Furthermore, the effects of climate change are expected to exacerbate gender inequalities, with women being more vulnerable to its risks. Therefore, gender equality is a crucial factor for achieving food security, as both goals are closely linked.(22)^,(67)

3 Sustainability strategies and measures

Strategies and measures for enhancing sustainability are categorized by their application stages of the value chain, including production, processing, retailing, waste, and recovery. The primary focus of this entry is set on production, due to its significant environmental impact (see chapter 2). Production plays a key role in improving the food industry´s sustainability performance, as producers supply downstream parts of the value chain.⁷⁷ While the large scale of the topic prevents studying downstream parts in this wiki, it is important to note their potential for advancing the sustainability of the sector.

3.1 Farming concepts and strategies

3.1.1 Ecologically oriented cultivation methods

The concepts organic farming, agroecology, regenerative agriculture and conservation agriculture can overlap and complement each other, sharing commitment to environmentally responsible agricultural practices, while they can be distinguished by their core principles/ focuses:

Agroecology utilizes ecological concepts to create and control farming and food systems that are productive, resilient, and environmentally sustainable. It highlights the capacity of local communities to create and expand innovations through farmer-led research and guidance.⁷⁸ Agroecology includes ten components: diversity, co-creation and knowledge sharing, synergies, efficiency, recycling, resilience, human and social values, culture and food traditions, responsible governance and circular and solidarity economy.⁷⁹ It differs from other approaches in its locally focused and participatory approach, empowering producers as drivers of change by promoting their autonomy and adaptability. Instead of minor adaptations to unsustainable farming, agroecology seeks to transform the sector in a way that addresses fundamental challenges, while incorporating social and economic aspects.(78)⁸⁰

Organic farming is a system of agricultural production that is based in large parts on the ethics set by the IFOAM.⁸¹ This refers to the principles of health, ecology, fairness, and care: Organic farming should uphold and improve the well-being of soil, flora, fauna, humans, and the earth as an interconnected whole. Moreover, it should build on dynamic ecological systems and processes, collaborating with them, imitating their patterns, and contributing to their continuity. It is also supposed to be based on equitable connections that ensure fairness in terms of the shared environment and life prospects and adopt a careful and accountable approach to safeguard the health and prosperity of present and forth-coming generations, as well as the environment.(81)⁸²

Conservation Agriculture is a farming approach with three main principles: consistently avoiding/limiting mechanical disturbance of the soil, maintaining a continuous soil covering using biomass mulch, and incorporating diverse types of crops. It is essential that the application of these principles takes place combined. In general, conservation agriculture practices offer a sustainable base upon which additional complementary techniques can be applied.⁸³

Regenerative agriculture predominantly addresses environmental sustainability with a focus on soil-related matters.⁸⁴ Common strategies include limited external inputs, reliance on on-farm resources, incorporation of livestock, avoidance of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, minimized or absent tillage, and the adoption of cover crops. Consequently, it forms a concept extension of conservation agriculture.⁸⁵ ⁸⁶ ⁸⁷

The advantages and disadvantages of these farming concepts are summarized in Table 2.[4]

Table 2: Impacts of agroecology, organic farming, conservation agriculture and regenerative agriculture

	AE	OF	CA	RA
Advantages
Preservation of biodiversity(78)^,(79)^,(83)^,(86)⁸⁸ ⁸⁹ ⁹⁰	X	X	X	X
Prevention of soil erosion(86)^,(88)		X		X
Maintenance of soil fertility(79)^,(83)^,(86)^,(88)	X	X	X	X
Minimization of environmental pollution(83)^,(88)		X	X
Increased carbon sequestration(83)^,(86)^,(88)^,(89)^,(90)	X	X	X	X
Reduced GHG emissions(78)^,(83)^,(86)	X		X	X
Reduced nitrogen oxide emissions(88)		X
Protection of ground and surface water (for example from nitrogen discharge)(89)		X
Efficient use of water(79)^,(83)^,(90)	X		X
Improved aquifer recharge and decreased losses of surface water(83)			X
Decreased acidification of the soil(89)		X
Climate change adaptation(83)^,(86)^,(89)^,(90)	X	X	X	X
Erosion protection(79)^,(83)^,(89)^,(90)	X	X	X
Efficient use of resources(90)	X
Social benefits: enhancing rural well-being and inclusiveness of agro-ecological movements(78)	X
Increased income and enhanced job stability(78)^,(79)^,(90)	X
Increased resistance to pests and diseases(79)	X
Disadvantages
Potentially lower yields within a given area(86)^,(88)^,(89)		X		X
Possibly lower productivity and profitability in the short term(78)	X
Increased methane emissions by use of manure fertilizer when cultivated area is expanded(88)		X

3.1.2 Concepts involving consumers

A strategy that establishes enduring connections between farmers and consumers is community supported agriculture (CSA). Members provide advance payments covering production costs, sometimes coupled with non-monetary contributions like farm work.⁹¹ ⁹² At its core, CSA is a basic contract between a farmer and a member group. Some models involve joint legal entities, encompassing both farmers and consumers, unifying them under shared risks, responsibilities, and harvests.(92)⁹³ ⁹⁴ The majority of CSA farms follows the principles of environmentally friendly agriculture.(91) Due to direct consumer-producer links and accepting varied product aesthetics, CSA reduces food loss and waste by 22 – 70% compared to reference data.⁹⁵ Additionally, most CSA farms use less fertilizers, vehicles, pesticides and energy.(91) Especially the non-renewable energy consumption is significantly lower than in conventional farming systems.⁹⁶ When compared to conventional practices, the GWP can be reduced by 61%, or by 39% compared to organic farms.⁹⁷ Regarding the social effects, the membership improves the health and sustainability behavior of the participants, but CSA does not reach low-income households.(91) Compared to the average in the US, the gender pay gap of CSA farms are one-third lower.⁹⁸

Somehow linked to CSA is crowd farming, a collaboration approach where consumers invest money in individual fruit trees, fields, or animals, while farmers manage the production.⁹⁹ This is facilitated by platforms like Crowdfarming, acting as a marketplace for direct sales. The adoption mechanism provides farmers with the opportunity to pre-sell their goods with reduced risk, for example at the walnut farm Bio Dió, that elevated revenue streams and diversified income sources.¹⁰⁰ Crowd farming reduces (post-harvest) food losses due to the guaranteed market. In Nigeria, smallholder farmers engaging in a crowd farming platform also benefited from timely access to inputs, potentially enhancing overall production performance.¹⁰¹

3.1.3 Linking agriculture with other fields

Agrivoltaics, known as agrophotovoltaics, solar sharing, or agri-solar, involves the integration of solar energy and agriculture, with a differentiation between agrovoltaics (crop + photovoltaic) and rangevoltaics (livestock + photovoltaic).(5)¹⁰²As solar panels are predominantly crystalline silicon modules used, but the company Insolight developed a solar module, specifically designed for agrivoltaics, which provides a large amount of light for the plants.¹⁰³ ¹⁰⁴

The concept of Aquaponics combines recirculation aquaculture (fish farming) and hydroponics (cultivating crops without soil) and uses water and nutrient recycling. Within the closed cycle, hydroponically grown plants are nourished with nitrogen from fish waste. Simultaneously, the water is purified for fish populations by removing the nutrients, imitating natural biological processes within a controlled production environment.¹⁰⁵ ¹⁰⁶

Agroforestry is the combination of agriculture and forestry.¹⁰⁷ This definition includes various agroforestry systems like “silvopastoral, silvoarable, forest farming, home gardens, and hedge, windbreak and riparian buffer strip systems”(107). Thereby, the application is not bound to a specific farming system and trees can be integrated with conventional or ecological farming.(107) The advantages and disadvantages of these farming concepts are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Impacts of agroforestry, aquaponics and agrivoltaics

	AF	AP	AV
Advantages
Increased land use efficiency(5)^,(103)¹⁰⁸			X
Reduced land occupation and pressure on ecosystems(5)^,(103)^,(108)^,¹⁰⁹		X	X
Reduced evapotranspiration and irrigation requirements(5)^,(103)^,(108)^,(109)		X	X
Reduced use of external inputs (pesticides, fertilizer) (79)^,(107)^,(109)	X	X
Reduced waste and pollution(109)		X
Reduced CO2 emissions(79)^,(105),(114) (aquaponics: less transportation due to flexibility of the location; agroforestry: storage of carbon in soil and plants)	X	X
Lower environmental costs compared to separate systems¹¹⁰		X
Increased biodiversity conservation¹¹¹ ¹¹²	X
Increased feeding + nesting opportunities for bees (more pollination)¹¹³	X
Climate change adaptation(79)^,(103)^,(107)¹¹⁴ ¹¹⁵	X		X
Sheltering effects for crops (Protection from extreme weather events like wind, hail, frost, or sunburn)(79)^,(103),(107)^,(114)	X		X
Protection of the soil from erosion and runoff(79)^,(107)¹¹⁶	X
Improved soil fertility(79)^,(107)	X
Increased/ stabilized yields (103)^,(115)^,¹¹⁷ (for agroforestry: in arid regions or periods of drought stress)		X	X
Income diversification, increased/ additional source of revenue(79)^,(103)¹¹⁸	X	X	X
Potential for circular economy in cities (greywater treatment and use for irrigation)(105)		X
Potentially positive effects on public health and food security ¹¹⁹		X
Disadvantages
Lower yields when water is sufficiently available(103)^,(108)			X
Increased cost of agricultural operations(103)			X
Restricted choice of fish and crops¹²⁰		X
Vulnerability to microorganisms(120)		X
Competition of involved plants for nutrients when system is built up¹²¹ ¹²²	X

3.1.4 New concepts of animal food

To address sustainability in livestock farming, a specific approach of agroforestry is silvopasture, where trees, pastures, and forage are combined into a cohesive system. This offers additional benefits to those of agroforestry, as the combination enhances the efficiency and health of livestock and environment, and has a higher influence on climate mitigation than controlled grazing.¹²³ Furthermore, it provides fertilization, weed control, and income diversification, while a drawback could be that it is expensive and slow to implement.(123)¹²⁴

A strategy to decrease GHG emissions in livestock farming is improved cattle feed, that changes the diet to more easily digestible components by the use of feed additives like 3 -NOP[5] or by feeding additives like maize, soy, and concentrates.(123)^,¹²⁵ ¹²⁶ ¹²⁷ ¹²⁸ The use of 3-NOP reduced methane emissions by 29% compared with a control group.(125) Enhancing feed digestibility can optimize intake efficiency, resulting in economic gains through reduced feed amounts and costs.¹²⁹ Additionally, the higher quality of cattle feed can lead to socioeconomic benefits like enhanced food security and higher income through increased animal productivity.(123)

One approach to make fisheries more sustainable is ecosystem based fishery management, which is defined as an attempt “of managing fisheries and marine resources by taking into account the entire ecosystem of the species being managed”¹³⁰. It is said to integrate all three dimensions of sustainability while a disadvantage lays in its complexity of implementation.¹³¹ Another approach, reducing the impact on marine ecosystems is precision seafood harvesting, where fish are sorted underwater, protecting small fish and reducing bycatch. One practice example using this type of harvesting is the company SANFORD.(131)¹³²

A method for promoting sustainability in aquaculture is through integrated multitrophic aquaculture, drawing parallels to the agroecological practices applied on terrestrial grounds. Such a system incorporates species from different trophic levels in a co-culture approach, simulating natural ecosystems by using the waste of one level as another levels input.(90)

To reduce the need for livestock farms, animal proteins can be substituted by insects like caterpillars and grasshoppers, being the most prominent alternative protein source.(90) The insects can be used as feed for animals or directly as protein source for humans, reducing the carbon footprints of consumers. In contrast to broilers fed with soybean meal, the GHG emissions are lowered by about 6.3%, when insects were employed as animal feed, and by 50-67.8%, when directly consumed by humans.¹³³ Moreover, the use of insects can increase land use efficiency: It is estimated, that if half of the existing animal-based food is substituted by mealworm larvae, the agricultural area needed for food production could decrease by 34%. An additional benefit concerning food waste is the ability of insects to transform agricultural byproducts and waste into food sources.¹³⁴ However, in the mentioned comparison, some insect protein options might perform worse in terms of their GWP, depending on production location and species utilized.(133)

3.1.5 Vertical farming

The concept of vertical farming involves cultivating crops in vertical structures within tall buildings.¹³⁵ It can take different forms, the most common being a creation of horizontal planting beds in layers that allow for soil-bound or soil-free cultivation.¹³⁶ ¹³⁷ As VF is independent from local soil quality, it can be applicated worldwide, irrespective of varying climatic and geographical conditions. This enables localized food production, reducing cost and pollution linked transportation.(135)¹³⁸ ¹³⁹ Examples for vertical farms are Sky Greens Farms (Singapore), VertiCrop TM (Vancouver) and Nuvege plant factory (Kyoto). VF frequently employs aeroponic or hydroponic systems to deliver nutrients to plants, also serving as water-efficient methods by reducing water consumption by 70-90% in comparison to conventional agriculture.(135) Additionally, fertilizer use is reduced by up to 50%, as the adoption of a closed-loop irrigation system enables reuse of nutrient solutions. Moreover, VF can contribute to urban sustainability by water recycling, using processed wastewater, crop remnants, and excess urban CO₂ as resources in the cultivation area, GreenSense farms and Aero-Farms being examples of implemeters.(138) At vertical farms, various crops can be harvested at different layers at the same time, also throughout the whole year, enabling the production of a larger amount of food in less time. For example, the amount of lettuce produced by VF on the same area as conventional farming was 23 times higher. Shifting outdoor farming indoors can result in a 20-fold decrease in land usage, leading to increased food production capacity: An example from Israel shows that an acre of open field could nourish 12.5 people daily, whereas indoor cultivation of the same area could feed 97 people. Cultivating plants indoors also offers protection from pests and climate change, resulting in reduced food losses. Furthermore, VF does not utilize traditional farming machinery, leading to reduced fossil fuel consumption. However, a downside of the concept is its limitation in range of crops that can be cultivated. Parallelly, vertical farms face energy-related challenges, particularly concerning lighting. Precise humidity and air conditioning control are also energy-intensive, resulting in high costs for establishing and operating the system.(135) When used as a hydroponic vertical garden inside a building, VF has achieved a reduction of energy consumption by 23%, alongside a 20% decrease in air conditioning usage.¹⁴⁰

3.2 Farming technologies and tools

3.2.1 Agriculture 4.0

Precision agriculture or agriculture 3.0, uses technology to enable precise matching of inputs to animals, plants and locations, and can thus address heterogeneous conditions. For example, precision irrigation can compensate for differences in soil properties in the field through automatic irrigation. The further development of precision agriculture is Agriculture 4.0. ¹⁴¹ ¹⁴² ¹⁴³

Agriculture 4.0, also referred to as numerical agriculture, smart farming, or digital agriculture, is used to describe precision technologies driven by data.(5)¹⁴⁴These technologies include communication technologies, IoT, cloud computing, big data analytics, sensors and robotics, remote sensing, machine learning, deep learning, AI, UAV, UGV, autosteer machinery and DSS.(5)^,(141)¹⁴⁵ ¹⁴⁶ Figure 12 illustrates the core technologies and their connections.

Figure 12: Main technologies in Agriculture 4.0 – based on Araújo et. al. 2021 p. 8 (145)

The main application areas are supervision, regulation, forecasting and logistics: The tools can be used to monitor weather, soil and crops, to control irrigation and fertilization systems or weed and diseases, predict weather patterns, agricultural output, and the progress of crops and livestock, also in terms of supply chain management and product traceability.(145)

Sensors and robotics/ drones are integrated into smart farming for the perception and performance of tasks.(144) The most important sensors used in smart farming are optical, electrochemical, ground or location sensors, and weather stations.¹⁴⁷ The scope of current and potential agricultural applications of sensors, robotics and drones is outlined in Table 4.

Table 4: Current and potential applications of sensors, robotics, or drones in agriculture(5)^,¹⁴⁸

Robots offer the advantage of addressing agricultural workforce scarcity, exemplified by a robotic harvester’s capacity to cover the output of 30 laborers a day, while their continuous operation further enhances productivity. In low-income countries, the adoption of labor-efficient technologies could liberate children from work, give them access to better education and subsequently enhance human capital. Additionally, robots could attract youth by creating skilled job opportunities and potentially reducing rural migration. In a simulation, robotics showed potential for poverty reduction by decreasing the number of poor individuals, which arose from higher wages, reduced food costs, or enhanced productivity in personal production. Moreover, small-scale mechanization provides new opportunities for remote regions, hilly terrains, and soft soil zones, revitalizing previously marginalized areas. The automated harvester, developed by Harvest CROO Robotics, imitates human pickers while maintaining the traditional crop cultivation methods of farmers.¹⁴⁹ In addition, robots can help to decrease the amount of fertilizer, pesticides and water consumption.(148) To illustrate, AgBots have the potential to decrease weed operation costs by up to 90% through decreased pesticide utilization.(149) A disadvantage is that labor-intensive farming in developing countries will prove financially unviable.(148)^,(149) And, while there may be new jobs in constructing and maintaining robots, it is unlikely that these will be located where the eliminated jobs were, which could lead to increased unemployment in rural areas.(148) An application that addresses specifically small scale farmers is Uber-fortractor, offering the possibility to book and hire expensive agricultural equipment.(149)

The Internet of Things (IoT) involves connecting objects to the internet for autonomous communication, enabling the integration of diverse digital technologies and tools into the agricultural production system for enhanced smart farming practices.(83)^,(146)¹⁵⁰ The importance of IoT lies in monitoring data in real-time and shows its utility in combination with other digital tools: IoT-connected sensors observe e.g. energy consumption in a production system, offering insights into inefficiencies, enabling optimization of energy consumption.(5)¹⁵¹ The combination of Big Data and IoT is vital for process optimization and simplifying decision-making.(77)

Cloud computing provides easy, widespread network access to a configurable set of computing resources that can be assigned and released with minimal management involvement, while blockchains are secure digital records implemented without a central entity that enable users in a community to record unalterable transactions in a shared ledger.¹⁵² ¹⁵³ The primary difference lies in their data storage approaches.¹⁵⁴ Commonly utilized blockchain technologies in the food domain involve barcodes such as QR codes, linked with identification and wireless systems like RFID, NFC, and Bluetooth. These are used in plant, animal, and transaction registration, tracing products with quality characteristics that are unobservable for users, establishing transparent pricing, managing trading certificates or automation of transactions.(90)^,(141) Examples for companies that try to enhance the transparency and traceability in the food supply chain are FreshSurety, AgriDigital, Harvest-Mark, FoodLogiQ, Ripe.io and AgriLedger.(141) The increased transparency is an important element for enhancing the social sustainability as it can e.g. help farmers to increase their bargaining power to earn a fair price.¹⁵⁵

Blockchain technologies can reduce food waste by addressing disparities within the value chain e.g. in cold chains, where they can aid in tracking food distance and facilitating surplus distribution in later stages.(141) Moreover, it enables the documentation of complex processes along the entire food chain, simplifying traceability.(90)¹⁵⁶ Its potential application in conjunction with geoinformation systems includes monitoring child labor through risk estimation.¹⁵⁷ However, the impact of blockchain technology may be limited because the tool does not fully eliminate information imbalances, wherefore the accuracy of information cannot be guaranteed.(141)

Accumulating Big Data is important for optimizing resources and increasing yields, helping farmers to improve productivity. Nevertheless, the complexity of the datasets makes it difficult for farmers to identify trends and anomalies. Therefore, using insights from numerous sensors requires machine learning and AI to gain valuable knowledge.(83) This can be used for weed and disease identification, water and soil management, identifying species and forecasting yields.(141)

A Decision Support System (DSS) is software that assists farmers in efficiently utilizing complex data to enhance their decision-making. It allows the conversion of data and analytics results into understandable knowledge, presented in a user-friendly visualization that enables recommendations and user engagement, improving farmers’ decision-making capabilities.(5)^,(145)^,(146) To illustrate, Watson Decision Platform for Agriculture identifies crop diseases from UAV images by combining IBM Watson with IoT and Cloud Computing providing the capability to improve the timing of crop operations. The DSS propera suggests optimal timing for crop activities and sends alerts in case of crop infections, utilizing computer vision, cloud computing, and AI.¹⁵⁸

Agriculture 4.0 can increase yields while decreasing the amount of required production inputs.(83)^,(145)^,(146)^,¹⁵⁹ Moreover, it allows a higher efficiency in irrigation processes, while also reducing herbicide and pesticide usage.(5)^,(144)^,(146) With digital farming, farmers can base decisions on real-time data on soil conditions and weather patterns, thus elevating productivity.(144) A positive environmental impact potentially elevates the food output on present land, thereby mitigating additional land conversion.(159) Additionally, Agriculture 4.0 can increase the production efficiency and the nutritional content of farming products aligning with human needs and well-being.¹⁶⁰ Furthermore, it can reduce food loss arising from suboptimal practices.(77)

At the same time, Agriculture 4.0 could threaten the viability of smallholder agriculture, leading to dominance among prominent Ag-Tech firms and inequitable power dynamics. It further poses a risk to low-qualified workers in rural economies and low income countries, that might lose their job.(146)^,(159) Due to infrastructural conditions or their remote location, digital technology access can be restricted for farmers in specific nations or areas.(146) 77% of farms integrating digital tools are large, suggesting that farm scale might hinder certain farmers’ engagement with Agriculture 4.0, which can negatively impact the ability of small farmers to compete on the global market.(146)^,(159) Additionally, technologies can be tailored to specific crops, potentially leading to specialization and intensification through monocultures, reducing biodiversity.(146)

3.2.2 Biotechnology

Biotechnologyinvolves the application of advanced technologies to engineer biological systems, organisms, cells, or their constituent parts.¹⁶¹

Genome editing (or gene editing) refers to targeted changes of the genetic structure of a plant within its own genetic lineage. This allows for targeted changes at specific genome points, distinguishing it from traditional breeding and accelerating the process. One of the initial gene-edited soybean varieties was introduced by Calyxt.(144)^,¹⁶² The dominant plant genome editing technique is CRISPR, with Corteva currently holding most patents and applications.(144)^,¹⁶³

An advantage of gene editing[6] is its possibility to increase the abiotic stress tolerance (drought, extreme temperatures, salinity) of crops, being helpful in climate change adaptation. Moreover, it is possible to increase the efficiency of water and nitrogen usage, elevate grain yield, and reduce preharvest sprouting.(90)^,¹⁶⁴ Gene editing can also increase the biotic stress tolerance (resistance against insects, infections, fungal diseases) minimizing the need for chemical inputs while increasing yields by mitigating crop losses.(162)^,(164) In comparison nGM crops decrease the amount of pesticides used for GM crops by 37%.¹⁶⁵ The ability to withstand stress contributes to achieving SDG 2 by enhancing food production and reducing hunger across diverse climatic scenarios.(164) Improved yields from GM crops raise farm revenues, diminishing poverty, with an average 69% higher profit gain compared to non-GM crops.(164)^,(165) As the higher yields are also generated on a smaller area, less land needs to be converted to agricultural areas. To hold up global production at the 2016 level, an extra 22.4 million ha would have been required in the absence of GM crops.(163) Moreover, improving product quality by trait modification of fruits and vegetables with non-browning attributes potentially decreases food loss and waste.(162)

At the same time, gene editing can also have negative effects: Crossbreeding between GM and nGM crops through pollen transfer can lead to decreased biodiversity due to the potential invasiveness of the latter. The application of specific herbicides to GM crops resistant to those chemicals might lead to the emergence of highly resistant weeds, posing challenges in their control.(164) Additionally, earnings and simplified weed control have led some farmers to limit crop diversity, often planting herbicide-tolerant crops as monocultures, which favors the growth of resistant weeds and diseases, occasionally resulting in heightened pesticide use.(162) There is a concern that eating GM crops might contribute to the emergence of diseases that are resistant to antibiotics. Furthermore, seed companies hold monopoly power by patents, forcing farmers to buy seeds annually, leading to concerns of unequal profits and impact on their decisions.(164)

The concept of synthetic meat involves the production of meat by in vitro methods outside the animal body.¹⁶⁶ It is also referred to as in vitro/clean/cell-based/cell-cultured/lab-grown/cultured or cultivated meat.¹⁶⁷ The production process involves the following phases:

Figure 13: Production process of synthetic meat – based on Treich 2021 (167)

An advantage of cultured meat in comparison to conventional meat is reductions in terrestrial and freshwater ecotoxicity. However, the mentioned insect- or plant-based food options perform better.¹⁶⁸ Indoor production of synthetic meat, being independent of external conditions and faster, could alleviate food insecurity by adapting to crises and changes in demand. Given the essential role of animal agriculture in developing nations and its weather resilience compared to crop alternatives, the technology might offer limited benefits to these countries. In terms of public health implications, there is a notion that lab-grown meat might have the capability to reduce the likelihood of zoonotic, foodborne pathogens, and viruses. Additionally, it could mitigate direct and indirect emissions originating from agricultural practices (live-stock-generated digestive gases, agrochemical and fertilizer production, tractor-based fossil fuel use).¹⁶⁹ Compared to conventional meat, synthetic meat generates a quarter of the GHG emissions of beef, while also exhibiting lower eutrophication than beef and pork. Furthermore, its land use is over 16 times lower than beef. Nevertheless, these advantages might be offset by increased energy consumption, exceeding that of all mentioned conventional meat products, with levels 1.3 times higher than beef, primarily due to the considerable energy requirements of the growth medium and bioreactor. Compared to conventional meat, insect protein and plant-based alternatives, synthetic meat has the largest impact in terms of inorganic emissions, climate change, and non-renewable energy consumption.(168)

4 Drivers and Barriers

There are numerous factors that can either support or hinder sustainability in the food sector. Because their impact as either a driver or barrier may vary depending on the current situation, most of them possess the capacity to play both roles. Therefore, the following analysis will be categorized into different factor groups that contribute to the shaping of sustainability.

Figure 14: Factors impacting a firm´s sustainability – own figure based on chapter 4

4.1 Resource factors

One group affecting sustainability are the resource factors that derive from supplier, investor and shareholder pressure. Capturing the firm-internal perspective, they include both tangible resources like material and money as well as intangible assets like knowledge or reputation, all being essential for a company.¹⁷⁰

One of the biggest obstacles to the implementation of sustainability strategies is high investments in time and money needed. Accordingly, the lack of financial and material resources, or technologies have a negative impact on the enforcement of sustainability initiatives. Additionally, the necessary expertise in developing and implementing these strategies is often lacking because employees do not have enough experience in that area. Furthermore, collaborations with suppliers are often required, being resource-intensive and requiring sufficient power to convince and influence them. Also, the availability of sustainable products can pose a challenge, as some retailers have faced difficulties in expanding their sustainable sourcing regarding certain products like fair-trade coffee in the past. Moreover, a lack of commitment to sustainable practices among managers can be a significant barrier.(60)^,(17)^,(64)^,(170)^,¹⁷¹

A key driver for sustainability initiatives within a company are productivity improvements and cost savings achieved through resource efficiency such as logistics optimization, reduced water and energy consumption, and minimizing packaging and waste. For example, the British supermarket Asda projected savings of 800 million pounds by 2020 compared to 2005 by implementing measures like reduced packaging and waste. Additionally, commitment to sustainability can help firms to maintain brand value and a good reputation, which also attracts new employees or strengthens employee loyalty. Therefore, supermarkets e.g., introduce private eco brands like Änglamark from Coop to enhance their brand image and gain the trust of customers. The belief of managers in sustainable practices, such as former Coca-Cola CEO Mukar Kent who billed himself as Chief Sustainability Officer, further supports the case for sustainability.¹⁷² ¹⁷³ ¹⁷⁴ ¹⁷⁵^,(64)^,(170)

4.2 Regulatory factors

The second factor group is based on national and international government pressure and includes both coercive and voluntary policy tools. Unlike the resource factors that focus on an internal perspective, the regulatory factors and the following two factor groups are linked to an external viewpoint pertaining to the firm.(170)

Barriers for implementing sustainability within the food industry mainly arise from a lack of governmental leadership and legal requirements in this group. This can be further intensified by discrepancies in regulations across countries, such as varying food safety standards, making it difficult for companies to enforce uniform standards and processes.(170)^,(173)Traditional policies often take isolated approaches to address issues in sectors like water, energy, or food, which is not the most effective solution given their interconnectedness. A helpful approach to better understand this complexity and promote sustainable and equitable management to meet our growing demand is the Water-Energy-Food-Ecosystem Nexus[7], emphasizing the interdependence of these fields.(13)^,¹⁷⁶ However, even with existing laws in place, they can be hindered by ineffective bureaucracy and may fail to be implemented on a regional or local level due to a lack of government oversight and control.(64)^,(176)

One of the main drivers for firms to adopt sustainability strategies is the pressure or encouragement of governments, realized either in form of legislation like energy and waste directives, international regulations like the UN Declaration of Human rights and International Labour Organization conventions, policy instruments like the EU´s Sustainable Consumption, Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan or subventions like the EU´s greening payments for organic farmers. In some cases, firms even implement sustainable practices in anticipation of upcoming stricter regulations in a certain field.(52)^,(18)^,(64)^,(170)^,(174)^,¹⁷⁷ Moreover, governments can also utilize tools in policy-making like the OECD well-being lens and gender budgeting to prioritize gender equality more strongly.(76)Additionally, nutrition education programs, food-related guidelines, and rules for food labeling can foster healthier eating habits and provide guidance to consumers, like the nutrition labelling Nutri-Score in Germany.(67)^,¹⁷⁸ Placing food security as a top priority in the international development agenda further supports the sustainable development of the food sector on a global scale. An example is the listing of SDG2 the goal to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture, being positionedright after SDG1, the goal to end poverty, which is also, as mentioned previously, linked to the food industry.¹⁷⁹^,(67)

4.3 Market factors

The third factor group includes demands, competition, and norms set by market actors like customers, competitors, and service providers. A key aspect thereby is the consumer demand and its influence on the food industry. It acts as a barrier in that consumers have a high preference of cheap products, while sustainable food products typically involve higher prices due to high quality raw materials and international standards applied. This fact makes it difficult for food companies to introduce sustainable improvements while the competition and price pressure are constantly increasing. However, connected with cheap products is also an increase in overbuying food and consequently the contribution to food waste. Moreover, the willingness to pay more for eco-labelled products is low due to the mass of labels and the widespread practice of greenwashing, that is actively misleading consumers regarding a firm’s environmental and social practices. As a result, customers are confused, leading to the distrust in labels and companies as well as creating a negative images about sustainable food products.(64)^,(22)^,(170)^,(172)^,¹⁸⁰ Larger companies with a worldwide suppliers network face challenges in implementing Global Sourcing Standards as the environmental and labour legislations vary and often lack control.(172)^,(7) Additionally, rising income and urbanization are causing a shift in global dietary habits towards an increased consumption of animal products and processed food, putting strain on the environment and people´s health.(32) Transnational companies like KFC or McDonalds play a significant role in the growing fast-food market, which is spreading to developing countries and contributing to the production of cheap, high-calorie processed food on a global scale. This trend is leading to an increase in obesity and diet-related diseases.¹⁸¹ Moreover, global meat consumption is predicted to grow 14% by 2030 compared to 2020, which is concerning as if every country were to adopt the average US diet and meat consumption from 2011, agriculture would require 178% of the global land area.(22)

Customer demand can on the other hand also serve as a driver, as there is a growing desire for environmentally friendly, healthy, and more sustainable food options. This creates an opportunity for food sector companies to increase their sales and gain a competitive advantage by offering differentiated products.(64)^,(170)^,(173)^,(180)^,(181) An example of this shift can be seen in the growth of the global organic food and drink market, reaching sales of over 106 billion euros in 2019.¹⁸² In addition, the dietary shift towards consuming fewer animal products in high-income countries is driving the adoption of more sustainable dietary patterns, as it has the potential to reduce climate change, resource depletion, waste, and improve people’s health. Overall, this development is enhancing food security and by halving the animal-product intake, GHG emissions could be reduced by nearly 5 gigatons CO₂-e per year (18)^,(22)^,¹⁸³ Additionally, third-party certifications, such as Fair Trade, help to ensure compliance with sustainability standards in the supply chain and communicate this to consumers via familiar labels. Similarly, suppliers with high standards in their code of conducts are pushing the sustainable development, as they impact other firms doing business with them.(170)

4.4 Social factors

The final factor group includes actors of society like NGOs, media, and academia along with their values and expectations. One barrier influencing the sustainable development are traditions and norms, when they are having negative effects, such as promoting child labour and hindering women’s empowerment in food-related jobs. The latter effect stems from factors like limited access to education, land, assets, and professional networks, limiting the productivity of their work.(22)^,(74)^,(76)Given that that people’s food preferences are heavily influenced by social and cultural norms, it is essential to develop tailored strategies that take socio-economic and cultural factors into account, in order to achieve dietary changes.(18) Working against a more sustainable business approach is also the absence of a universally accepted scientific methodology on how to balance the environmental and social issues and how to set priorities for improvements. Additionally, it is challenging to define what a sustainable product or strategy truly is, as there are numerous varying approaches, definitions, and constantly evolving trends.(170)

One actor in society that can encourage sustainable practices through pressure and incentives are NGOs. Playing a vital role by providing expertise and promoting products, they can increase public awareness and encourage consumers, contributing to economic growth, societal health, and environmental protection.(64) One example are the valuation and ranking schemes by Greenpeace that have led to the removal of certain fish species from retailers’ shelves.¹⁸⁴ Another important factor is increasing media attention on environmental and social aspects of food production, leading to negative publicity for critical practices. This may result in increasing consumer pressure in the form of food scares and product boycotts, forcing businesses to make sustainable improvements in order to regain the trust and loyalty of customers.(64)^,(170) One example is the BSE food scandal in Germany, that caused many customers to switch to organic meat in search of a safer option¹⁸⁵. Sustainability and health activists can also inspire behavioural changes, such as adopting a more environmentally-friendly diet.(20) Furthermore, scientific alerts can help to improve sustainable supply chains by assisting with strategy development and prioritization.(1)^,(170) For instance, M&S, a British retailer, has employed fishery scientists to shape their seafood procurement policies.¹⁸⁶ Lastly, every citizen can contribute to sustainability by making conscious decisions as a consumer, influencing others by showing sustainable commitment, staying informed, and voting for leaders who prioritize sustainability on their agenda¹⁸⁷.

[1] For details on the topic beverages see the wiki entry Beverages and water supply.

[2] As these are not goods that are used as food or feed to produce animal foodstuffs, they are not considered in further detail within the scope of this wiki entry.

[3] This is an estimation example of GHG emissions from the food sector. The numbers in the literature differ, depending on what products, land use changes, etc. are assigned to the sector for the calculation.

[4] The symbol x marks, whether one of the concepts has the particular (dis-)advantage (x) or not ( ).

[5] 3-NOP is a synthetic compound inhibiting methane production.126

[6] Gene edited crops have not yet become prevalent in agriculture for many years, so that its economic, environ-mental, and social impacts are not well investigated yet. Leveraging the extensive research carried out on long-standing GMs, insights can be applied to gene-edited crops. The equivalence of point mutations in gene editing to natural or traditional mutagenesis yields a diminished occurrence of off-target effects, potentially leading to fewer adverse consequences associated with gene-edited crops.162

[7] You can find more details about the Water-Energy-Food-Ecosystem Nexus here

References

1
Benton, T. G., Bieg, C., Harwatt, H., Pudasaini, R. & Wellesley, L. Food system impacts on biodiversity loss. Three levers for food system transformation in support of nature. The Royal Institute of International Affairs Chatham House (2021).
2
Spedding, C. R. W. An Introduction to Agricultural Systems. Second Edition (Elsevier Applied Science, London, New York, 1988).
3
Mena, C. Delivering Performance in Food Supply Chains. Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition (Elsevier Science & Technology, 2010).
4
Blandford, D. The Contribution of Agriculture to Green Growth. Report to the OECD, 1–36 (2011).
5
Dayioglu, M. A. & Turker, U. Digital Transformation for Sustainable Future – Agriculture 4.0: A review. Journal of Agricultural Sciences (Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi) 27(4), 373–399 (2021).
6
Gagnon, N. Introduction to the global agri-food system. in Green technologies in food production and processing (eds. Arcand, Y. & Boye, J. I.) 3-22 (Springer, Boston, 2012).
7
FAO. World Food and Agriculture. Statistical Yearbook 2021 (Rome, 2021).
8
Zhu, Z., Duan, J., Dai, Z., Feng, Y. & Yang, G. Seeking sustainable solutions for human food systems. Geography and Sustainability 4, 183–187 (2023).
9
FAOSTAT. Employment Indicators: Agriculture. Employment in agriculture, forestry and fishing – ILO modelled estimates (2023). Available at https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/OEA, access: 28.08.2023
10
FAOSTAT. Macro Indicators. Value added Agriculture (2023). Available at https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/MK, access: 28.08.2023
11
FAO. World Food and Agriculture. Statistical Yearbook 2022 (Rome, 2022).
12
Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture. International Consumer and Food Industry Trends. Percent of consumer expenditures spent on food, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco that were consumed at home, by selected countries, 2021 (2022). Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1r4nwtsu/data-on-expenditures-on-food-and-alcoholic-beverages-in-selected-countries.xlsx, access: 28.08.2023.
13
FAO. Building a common vision for sustainable food and agriculture – principles and approaches. (2014).
14
Charles, H. et al. Food Security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812-818 (2010).
15
Baghizadeh, K., Cheikhrouhou, N., Govindan, K. & Ziyarati, M. Sustainable agriculture supply chain network design considering water-energy-food nexus using queuing system: a hybrid robust possibilistic programming. Natural Resource Modeling 35 (2021).
16
Mateo-Sagasta, J.; Zadeh, S.M.; Turral, H.; Burke, J. Water Pollution from Agriculture: A Global Review. Executive Summary for FAO and IWMI. (2017).
17
Yadav, S. S., Hegde, V. S., Habibi, A. B., Dia, M. & Verma, S. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. in Food Security and Climate Change (eds. Yadav, S. S.; Redden, R. J.; Hatfield, J. L.; Ebert, A. W.; Hunter, D.) 1-24 (Wiley Blackwell, 2018).
18
Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C.et al. IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022).
19
ED, L. & LY, X. Revelation of agro meteorology learning from climate change 2014∶ impact, adaptation, and vulnerability. Chin J Agro Meteorol 35(4), 359–364 (2014).
20
Aggarwal, S. Food and climate change. Jindal Global Law Review 10 (1), 121–127 (2019).
21
Blandford, D. & Hassapoyannes, K. The role of agriculture in global GHG mitigation. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers NO. 112 (OECD Publishing, 2018)
22
Shukla et al. IPPC. Climate Change and Land. An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (Cambridge University Press, 2019).
23
Rogissart, L., Foucherot, C. & Bellassen, V. Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Food Consumption: Methods and Results. I4CE Institute for climate economics (2019).
24
Nemecek, T., Jungbluth, N., i Canals, L. M. & Schenck, R. Environmental impacts of food consumption and nutrition: where are we and what is next? Int J Life Cycle Assess 21 (5), 607–620 (2016).
25
Licciardello, F. & Piergiovanni, L. Packaging and food sustainability. in The Interaction of Food Industry and Environment (eds. Galanakis C. M.) 191–222 (Academic Press, 2020).
26
Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M. & Ingram, J. S. I. Climate Change and Food Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 37 (1), 195–222 (2012).
27
Crippa, M., Solazarro, D., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N. & Leip, A. Food is responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food 2, 198-209 (2021).
28
Moresi, M., Cibelli, M. & Cimini, A. Standard methods useable for mitigating the environmental impact of food industry. in Environmental Impact of Agro-Food Industry and Food Consumption (eds. Galanakis, C. M.) 1-30 (Academic Press, 2021).
29
OECD Environmental impacts along food supply chains. Methods, findings and evidence gaps. in: OECD food, agriculture and fisheries 185, 1–48 (2022):
30
Finnegan, W. & Goggins, J. Environmental impact of the dairy industry. in Environmental Impact of Agro-Food Industry and Food Consumption (eds. Galanakis, C. M.) 129-146 (Academic Press, 2021).
31
Pandey, D. & Agrawal, M. Carbon footprint estimation in the agriculture sector. Assessment of Carbon Footprint in Different Industrial Sectors 1, 25-47 (2014).
32
El Bilali, H., Callenius, C. , Strassner, C. & Probst, L. Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions in food systems. Food and Energy Security 8 (4), 1–20 (2019).
33
Nemecek, T. & Poore, J. Reducing food´s environmental impacts trough producers and consumers. Science 360 (6392), 987-992 (2018).
34
Behnassi, M. The Water-Energy-Food Nexus and Climate Perspective: Relevance and Implications for Policy-making and Governance. in Climate Change, Food Security and Natural Resource Management. Regional Case Studies from Three Continents (eds. Behnassi M., Pollmann O. & Gupta H.) 3–17 (Springer Nature, 2019).
35
Lyu, X., Peng, W., Niu, S., Qu, Y. & Xin, Z. Evaluation of sustainable intensification of cultivated land use according to farming households’ livelihood types. Ecological Indicators 138, 1–15 (2022).
36
Pollmannn, O. & Podruzsik, S.. The Impact of Soil Degradation on Agricultural Production in Africa. in Climate Change, Food Security and Natural Resource Management. Regional Case Studies from Three Continents ( eds. Behnassi M., Pollmann O. & Gupta H.) 225–232 (Springer Nature, 2019).
37
Desbureaux, S. & Damania, R. Rain, forests and farmers: Evidence of drought induced deforestation in Madagascar and its consequences for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 221, 357–364 (2018).
38
Assunção, Lipscomb, Mobarak, A. M., Szerman, D. & Lipscomb, M. Agricultural Productivity and Deforestation in Brazil, 1–53 (2016).
39
Phalan, B., Balmford, A., Green, R. E. & Scharlemann, J. P. Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally. Food Policy 36, 62-71 (2011).
40
Phillips, C. J. C. (ed.). Nutrition and the Welfare of Farm Animals. (Springer International Publishing, 2016).
41
Heinzen, T. T. & Russ, A. Using Emerging Pollution Tracking Methods to Address the Downstream Impacts of Factory Farm Animal Welfare Abuse. Pace Environmental Law Review 31 (3), 475–499 (2014).
42
Fardet, A. & Rock, E. Ultra-Processed Foods and Food System Sustainability: What Are the Links? Sustainability 12 (6280), 1–29 (2020).
43
Anomaly, J. What’s Wrong With Factory Farming? Public health ethics 8, 246–254 (2015).
44
Ortuño Crespo, G. & Dunn, D. C. A review of the impacts of fisheries on open-ocean ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74, 2283–2297 (2017).
45
Gascuel, D. et al. Fishing impact and environmental status in European seas: a diagnosis from stock assessments and ecosystem indicators. FISH and FISHERIES 17, 31–55 (2016).
46
Hilborn, R. et al. When is a fishery sustainable? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 72, 1433–1441 (2015).
47
Jennings, S. & Kaiser, M. J. The Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology 34, 201–212 (1998).
48
Caruso, G. Fishery Wastes and By-products: A Resource to Be Valorised. Journal of Fisheries Sciences 9, 80–83 (2015).
49
Lewison, R., Crowder, L., Read, A. & Freeman, S. Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19, 598–604 (2004).
50
Jones, P., Hillier, D. & Comfort, D. Water stewardship and corporate sustainability: a case study of reputation management in the food and drinks industry. Journal of Public Affairs 15, 116–126 (2015).
51
Tekerlekopoulou, A. G., Economou, C. N., Tatoulis, T. I., Akratos, C. S. & Vayenas, D. V. Wastewater treatment and water reuse in the food industry. in The Interaction of Food Industry and Environment (eds. Galanakis C. M.) 245–280 (Academic Press, 2020).
52
Bucatariu, C. A. The concept of (virtual) water in the food industry. in The Interaction of Food Industry and Environment (eds. Galanakis C. M.) 223–242 (Academic Press, 2020).
53
Mancosu, N., Snyder, R., Kyriakakis, G. & Spano, D. Water Scarcity and Future Challenges for Food Production. Water 7, 975–992 (2015).
54
Barbera, M. & Gurnari, G. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the Food Industry (Springer International Publishing, 2018).
55
Asgharnejad, H., Nazloo, E. K., Larijani, M. M., Hajinajaf, N. & Rashidi, E. Comprehensive review of water management and wastewater treatment in food processing industries in the framework of water‐food‐environment nexus. Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety 20, 4779-4815 (2021).
56
Greco, F. & Antonelli, M. Not All Drops of Water Are the Same. in The Water We Eat. Combining Virtual Water and Water Footprints (eds. Antonelli M. & Greco F.) 3–16 (Springer International Publishing; 2015).
57
Hoekstra, A. Y. The Water Footprint: The Relation Between Human Consumption and Water Use. in The Water We Eat. Combining Virtual Water and Water Footprints (eds. Antonelli M. & Greco F.) 35–50 (Springer International Publishing; 2015).
58
Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra, A.Y. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 15, 1577-1600 (2011).
59
Mekonnen, M. & Hoekstra, A. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15, 401–415 (2012).
60
Zanoni, S. & Marchi, B. Environmental impacts of foods refrigeration. in Environmental Impact of Agro-Food Industry and Food Consumption (eds. Galanakis C. M) 239–259 (Elsevier, 2021).
61
Licciardello, F. & Piergiovanni, L. Packaging and food sustainability. in The Interaction of Food Industry and Environment (eds. Galanakis C. M). 191–222 (Academic Press, 2020).
62
Obersteiner, G. & Scherhaufer, S. Environmental impact of food waste. in Environmental Impact of Agro-Food Industry and Food Consumption (eds. Galanakis C. M) 261–283 (Elsevier, 2021).
63
Podruzsik, S. & Pollmann, O. The European Union as a Player in the Global Food Security. in Climate Change, Food Security and Natural Resource Management. Regional Case Studies from Three Continents (eds. Behnassi M., Pollmann O. & Gupta H.) 149–160 (Springer Nature, 2019).
64
Mohseni, S., Baghizadeh, K. & Pahl, J. Evaluating Barriers and Drivers to Sustainable Food Supply Chains. Hindawi – Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1–24 (2022).
65
Yadav, S. S., Hegde, V. S., Habibi, A. B. & Dia, Mahendra Verma, Suman. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. in Food Security and Climate Change (eds. Yadav S. S., Redden R. J., Hatfield J. L., Ebert A. W. & Hunter D.) 1–24 (Wiley Blackwell, 2018).
66
El Bilali, H., Callenius, C., Strassner, C. & Probst, L. Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions in food systems. Food and Energy Security 8, 1–20 (2019).
67
Garcia, A. S. & Wanner, T. Gender inequality and food security: lessons from the gender-responsive work of the International Food Policy Research Institute and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Food Sec. 9, 1091–1103 (2017).
68
Hossain, A. et al. Prospects of organic agriculture in food quality and safety. in Organic Farming for Sustainable Development (eds. Sangeetha, J., Al-Tawaha, A. R. M., Thangadurai D. & Soytong, K.) 321–361 (CRC Press, 2023).
69
Toussaint, M., Cabanelas, P. & Muñoz-Dueñas, P. Social sustainability in the food value chain: what is and how to adopt an integrative approach? Quality & Quantity 56, 2477–2500 (2022).
70
Clayton, M. L., Smith, K. C., Pollack, K. M., Neff, R. A. & Rutkow, L. U.S. Food System Working Conditions as an Issue of Food Safety. New solutions: a journal of environmental and occupational health policy 26, 599–621 (2017).
71
OECD. Jobs for Rural Youth. The role of local food economie – Development Centre Studies (OECD publishing, 2021).
72
Duval, J., Cournut, S. & Hostiou, N. Livestock farmers’ working conditions in agroecological farming systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 41 (22´), 1–10 (2021).
73
Frempong, R. B. & Stadelmann, D. The Effect of Food Price Changes on Child Labour: Evidence from Uganda. The Journal of Development Studies 55, 1492–1507 (2019).
74
Ofuoku, A. U., Ovharhe, O. J. & Agbamu, J. U. Child Labor in Farming Households in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. Journal of Developing Societies 36, 41–55 (2020).
75
UNICEF & International Labour Organization ILO. Child labour. Global estimates 2020, trends and the road forward (2021).
76
Giner, C., Hobeika, M. & Fischetti, C. Gender and food systems. Overcoming evidence gaps. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 184, 1–30 (2022).
77
Kontopanou, M. &Tsoulfas, G. T. Achieving Sustainable Performance in Agri-food Supply Chains Through Digitalization. in Digital Economy and the Green Revolution (eds. Busu, H.) 267–276 (Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, 2023).
78
El Bilali, H. Innovation-Sustainability Nexus in Agriculture Transition: Case of Agroecology. Open Agriculture 4, 1–16 (2019).
79
Yadav, S. et al. Agroecology Towards Environmental Sustainability. in Sustainable Intensification for Agroecosystem Services and Management (eds. Jhariya, M. K., Banerjee, A., Meena, R. S., Kumar, S., Raj, A.) 323-352 (Springer, Singapore, 2021).
80
FAO. The 10 elements of agroecology. Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems (2018).
81
Hossain, A. et al. Prospects of organic agriculture in food quality and safety. in Organic Farming for Sustainable Development (eds. Sangeetha J., Al-Tawaha A. R. M., Thangadurai D., Soytong K.) 321–361 (CRC Press, 2023).
82
IFOAM. The Four Principles of Organic Agriculture (2023). Available at https://www.ifoam.bio/why-organic/shaping-agriculture/four-principles-organic, access: 28.08.2023.
83
Kassam, A. Integrating Conservation Into Agriculture. in Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture (eds. Farooq, M., Pisante, M.) 27-41 (Springer Nature, Switzerland, 2019).
84
Schreefel, L., Schulte, R., Boer, I., Schrijver, A. P. & van Zanten, H. Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the base. Global Food Security 26, 100404 (2020).
85
Project Drawdown. Regenerative Annual Cropping (2020). Available at https://drawdown.org/solutions/regenerative-annual-cropping, access: 28.08.2023
86
Rehberger, E., West, P. C., Spillane, C. & McKeown, P. C. What climate and environmental benefits of regenerative agriculture practices? an evidence review. Environmental Research Communications 5, 52001 (2023).
87
Newton, P., Civita, N., Frankel-Goldwater, L., Bartel, K. & Johns, C. What Is Regenerative Agriculture? A Review of Scholar and Practitioner Definitions Based on Processes and Outcomes. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4, 577723 (2020).
88
Calabro, G. & Vieri, S. Limits and potential of organic farming towards a more sustainable European agri-food system. British Food Journal (2023).
89
Sanders, J. & Heß, J. (eds.). Leistungen des ökologischen Landbaus für Umwelt und Gesellschaft. (Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig, 2019).
90
Garcia-Oliveira, P., Fraga-Corral, M., Carpena, M., Prieto, M. A. & Simal-Gandara, J. Approaches for sustainable food production and consumption systems. in Future Foods (eds. Bhat, R.) 23–38 (Elsevier, 2022).
91
Egli, L., Rüschhoff, J. & Priess, J. A systematic review of the ecological, social and economic sustainability effects of community-supported agriculture. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7 (2023).
92
Wellner, M. & Theuvsen, L. Community Supported Agriculture in Deutschland. Berichte über die Landwirtschaft. Zeitschrift für Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaft. 95 (2017).
93
Strüber, K., Reinartz, A., Scholl, S. & Wähning, P. Handbuch Solidarische Landwirtschaft. Solawis erfolgreich gründen & gestalten (2023).
94
Cone, C. & Myhre, A. Community-Supported Agriculture: A Sustainable Alternative to Industrial Agriculture?. Human Organization 59, 187–197 (2000).
95
Voge, J. et al. Food loss and waste in community-supported agriculture in the region of Leipzig, Germany. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 21 (2023).
96
Pérez-Neira, D. & Grollmus-Venegas, A. Life-cycle energy assessment and carbon footprint of peri-urban horticulture. A comparative case study of local food systems in Spain. Land-scape and Urban Planning 172, 60–68 (2018).
97
Zhen, H., Gao, W., Jia, L., Qiao, Y. & Ju, X. Environmental and economic life cycle assessment of alternative greenhouse vegetable production farms in peri-urban Beijing, China. Journal of Cleaner Production 269, 122380 (2020).
98
Fremstad, A. & Paul, M. Opening the Farm Gate to Women? The Gender Gap in U.S. Agriculture. Journal of Economic Issues 54, 124–141 (2020).
99
Marinchenko, T. E. Digital Technology in Agricultural Sector. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 666, 32024 (2021).
100
Havran, D., Kerényi, P. & Víg, A. A. Social Finance and Agricultural Funding. in Innovations in Social Finance (eds. Walker T., McGaughey J., Goubran S. & Wagdy N.) 269–290 (Springer Nature Switzerland, 2021).
101
Akinwale, J. A., Wole-Alo, F. I. & Oluwole, B. O. Digital Platforms for Linking Agriculture Investors with Smallholder Farmers in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension 27, 65–72 (2023).
102
Jain, P., Raina, G., Sinha, S., Malik, P. & Mathur, S. Agrovoltaics: Step towards sustainable energy-food combination. Bioresource Technology Reports 15, 100766 (2021).
103
Trommsdorff, M. et al. Agrivoltaics: solar power generation and food production. in Solar Energy Advancements in Agriculture and Food Production Systems. in Solar Energy Advancements in Agriculture and Food Production Systems (eds. Gorijan, S., Campana, P.E.) 159–210 (Elsevier Academic Press, 2022).
104
Insolight. The Agrivoltaic Solution Provider | AgriPV (2023). Available at https://insolight.ch/, access: 28.08.2023
105
König, B., Janker, J., Reinhardt, T., Villarroel, M. & Junge, R. Analysis of aquaponics as an emerging technological innovation system. Journal of Cleaner Production 180, 232–243 (2018).
106
David, L. H. et al. Sustainability of urban aquaponics farms: An emergy point of view. Journal of Cleaner Production 331, 129896 (2022).
107
Pantera, Α., Mosquera-Losada, M. R., Herzog, F. & Herder, M. den. Agroforestry and the environment. Agroforest Syst 95, 767–774 (2021).
108
Agostini, A., Colauzzi, M. & Amaducci, S. Innovative agrivoltaic systems to produce sustainable energy: An economic and environmental assessment. Applied Energy 281 (2021).
109
Blidariu, F. & Grozea, A. Increasing the Economical Efficiency and Sustainability of Indoor Fish Farming by Means of Aquaponics-Review. Scientific Papers: Animal Science and Biotechnologies 44, 1–8 (2011).
110
Greenfeld, A., Becker, N., Bornman, J. F., Spatari, S. & Angel, D. L. Monetizing environmental impact of integrated aquaponic farming compared to separate systems. The Science of the total environment 792 (2021).
111
Rendón-Sandoval, F. J., Casas, A., Moreno-Calles, A. I., Torres-García, I. & García-Frapolli, E. Traditional Agroforestry Systems and Conservation of Native Plant Diversity of Seasonally Dry Tropical Forests. Sustainability 12, 4600 (2020).
112
Kuyah, S. et al. Trees in agricultural landscapes enhance provision of ecosystem services in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 1–19 (2016).
113
Kay, S. et al. Agroforestry can enhance foraging and nesting resources for pollinators with focus on solitary bees at the landscape scale. Agroforestry Systems 94, 379–387 (2020).
114
Jhariya, M. K., Banerjee, A., Yadav, D. K. & Raj, A. Leguminous Trees an Innovative Tool for Soil Sustainability. in Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management (eds. Meena R. S., Das A., Yadav G. S. & Lal R.) 315–345 (Springer Singapore, 2018).
115
Amaducci, S., Yin, X. & Colauzzi, M. Agrivoltaic systems to optimise land use for electric energy production. Applied Energy 220, 545–561 (2018).
116
Jhariya, M. K., Banerjee, A., Yadav, D. K. & Raj, A. Leguminous Trees an Innovative Tool for Soil Sustain-ability. in Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management (eds. Meena R. S., Das A., Yadav G. S. & Lal R.) 315–345 (Springer Singapore, 2018).
117
Tyson, R. V., Treadwell, D. D. & Simonne, E. H. Opportunities and Challenges to Sustainability in Aquaponic Systems. HortTechnology 21, 6–13 (2011).
118
Kassie, G. W. Agroforestry and farm income diversification: synergy or trade-off? The case of Ethiopia. Environmental Systems Research 6 (2018).
119
Veludo, M., Hughes, A., Le Blan, B. Introduction to aquaponics: a key to sustainable food production. in Survey of Aquaponics in Europe (eds. Villarroel M., et al.) (2016).
120
Kamareddine, L. A. & Maraqa, M. A. Lifecycle assessment of aquaponics. in Pollution Assessment for Sustainable Practices in Applied Sciences and Engineering (eds. Mohamed, A.-M. O., Paleologos, E. K., Howari F.M.) 1083–1108 (Elsevier, 2021).
121
Guo, H. & Zhao, Y. Using isotopic labeling to investigate root water uptake in an alley crop-ping system within Taklimakan Desert Oasis, China. Agroforestry Systems 95, 907–918 (2021).
122
Jose, S., Walter, D. & Mohan Kumar, B. Ecological considerations in sustainable silvopasture design and management. Agroforest Syst 93, 317–331 (2019).
123
Project Drawdown. Silvopasture (2020). Available at https://drawdown.org/solutions/silvopasture, access: 28.08.2023.
124
Jose, S. & Dollinger, J. Silvopasture: a sustainable livestock production system. Agroforestry Systems 93, 1–9 (2019).
125
Project Drawdown. Improved Cattle Feed (2022). Available at https://drawdown.org/solutions/improved-cattle-feed, access: 28.08.2023
126
Xue, L. et al. Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of the German Meat Supply Chain. Environmental science & technology 53, 5133–5142 (2019).
127
Melgar, A. et al. Enteric methane emission, milk production, and composition of dairy cows fed 3-nitrooxypropanol. Journal of dairy science 104, 357–366 (2021).
128
Satyanagalakshmi, K., Sridhar, G. T. & Sirohi, S. K. An overview of the role of rumen methanogens in methane emission and its reduction strategies. African Journal of Biotechnology. 14, 1427–1438 (2015).
129
Liu, G. et al. Integration of LCC and LCA results to higher system levels: The German meat and EU tomato cases. FBR Food Technology. (2019).
130
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries). Understanding Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (2023). Available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/understanding-ecosystem-based-fisheries-management, access: 28.08.2023
131
Haas, B., Fleming, A., Haward, M. & McGee, J. Big fishing: the role of the large-scale commercial fishing industry in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 14. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 29, 161–175 (2019).
132
SANFORD. Precision seafood harvesting (PSH). Picking and choosing the fish we want before they even come onboard (2023). Available at https://www.sanford.co.nz/sustainability/precision-seafood-harvesting/, access: 28.08.2023
133
Vauterin, A., Steiner, B., Sillman, J. & Kahiluoto, H. The potential of insect protein to reduce food-based carbon footprints in Europe: The case of broiler meat production. Journal of Cleaner Production 320, 128799 (2021).
134
Alexander, P. et al. Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? Global Food Security 15, 22–32 (2017).
135
Kalantari, F., Tahir, O. M., Joni, R. A. & Fatemi, E. Opportunities and Challenges in Sustainability of Vertical Farming: A Review. Journal of Landscape Ecology 11, 35–60 (2018).
136
Beacham, A. M., Vickers, L. H. & Monaghan, J. M. Vertical farming: a summary of approaches to growing skywards. The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 94, 277–283 (2019).
137
Roberts, J. M. et al. Vertical farming systems bring new considerations for pest and disease management. Annals of Applied Biology 176, 226–232 (2020).
138
Avgoustaki, D. D. & Xydis, G. How energy innovation in indoor vertical farming can improve food security, sustainability, and food safety?. Advances in Food Security and Sustainability 5, 1–51 (Elsevier, 2020).
139
Banerjee, C. & Adenaeuer, L. Up, Up and Away! The Economics of Vertical Farming. Journal of Agricultural Studies 2, 40 (2013).
140
Specht, K. et al. Urban agriculture of the future: an overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agriculture and Human Values 31, 33–51 (2014).
141
International Society of Precision Agriculture. Precision Ag Definition | International Society of Precision Agriculture (2021). Available at https://www.ispag.org/about/definition, access: 28.08.2023.
142
Renda, A. The Age of Foodtech: Optimizing the Agri-Food Chain with Digital Technologies. in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals Through Sustainable Food Systems (eds. Valentini, R., Sievenpiper, J. L., Antonelli, M. & Dembska, K.) 171-187 (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2019).
143
Cheema, M. J. M., Khan, M. A. Information Technology for Sustainable Agriculture. in Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture (eds. Farooq, M., Pisante, M.) 585-597 (Springer Nature, Switzerland, 2019).
144
Clapp, J. & Ruder, S.-L. Precision Technologies for Agriculture: Digital Farming, Gene-Edited Crops, and the Politics of Sustainability. Global Environmental Politics 20, 49–69 (2020).
145
Araújo, S. O., Peres, R. S., Barata, J., Lidon, F. & Ramalho, J. C. Characterising the Agriculture 4.0 Landscape—Emerging Trends, Challenges and Opportunities. Agronomy 11, 667 (2021).
146
Lioutas, E. D., Charatsari, C. & Rosa, M. de. Digitalization of agriculture: A way to solve the food problem or a trolley dilemma? Technology in Society 67, 101744 (2021).
147
Triantafyllou, A., Sarigiannidis, P. & Bibi, S. Precision Agriculture: A Remote Sensing Monitoring System Architecture. Information 10, 348 (2019).
148
Sparrow, R. & Howard, M. Robots in agriculture: prospects, impacts, ethics, and policy. Precision Agriculture 22, 818–833 (2021).
149
Torero, M. Robotics and AI in Food Security and Innovation: Why They Matter and How to Harness Their Power. in Robotics, AI, and Humanity (eds. Braun J. von, S. Archer M., Reichberg G. M. & Sánchez Sorondo M.) 99–107 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).
150
Lackes, R. Definition: Internet der Dinge. Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH (2018).
151
Jha, K., Doshi, A., Patel, P. & Shah, M. A comprehensive review on automation in agriculture using artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture 2, 1–12 (2019).
152
Yaga, D., Mell, P., Roby, N. & Scarfone, K. Blockchain technology overview. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Internal report 8202 (2018).
153
Mell, P. M. & Grance, T. The NIST definition of cloud computing. Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-145 (2011).
154
NUTMEG Technologies. Blockchain vs. Cloud Computing (2023). Available at https://nutmegtech.com/blog-2/644-blockchain-vs-cloud-computing.html, access: 28.08.2023
155
Toussaint, M., Cabanelas, P. & Blanco‐González, A. Social sustainability in the food value chain: An integrative approach beyond corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 28, 103–115 (2021).
156
Toussaint, M., Cabanelas, P. & Muñoz-Dueñas, P. Social sustainability in the food value chain: what is and how to adopt an integrative approach? Quality & Quantity 56, 2477–2500 (2022).
157
Termeer, E., Vos, B., Bolchini, A., Van Ingen, E and Abrokwa, K. Digitalization and child labour in agriculture (FAO, 2023).
158
Debauche, O., Mahmoudi, S., Manneback, P. & Lebeau, F. Cloud and distributed architectures for data management in agriculture 4.0: Review and future trends. Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences 34, 7494–7514 (2022).
159
Rose, D. C., Wheeler, R., Winter, M., Lobley, M. & Chivers, C.-A. Agriculture 4.0: Making it work for people, production, and the planet. Land Use Policy 100, 104933 (2021).
160
Zhu, Z., Duan, J., Dai, Z., Feng, Y. & Yang, G. Seeking sustainable solutions for human food systems. Geography and Sustainability 4, 183–187 (2023).
161
Ranjha, M. M. A. N. et al. Applications of Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture: a Mini-Review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India. Section B 92, 11–15 (2022).
162
Qaim, M. Role of New Plant Breeding Technologies for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42, 129–150 (2020).
163
Kaur, N., Sharma, S., Hasanuzzaman, M. & Pati, P. K. Genome Editing: A Promising Approach for Achieving Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants. International journal of genomics 2022, 5547231 (2022).
164
Abdul Aziz, M., Brini, F., Rouached, H. & Masmoudi, K. Genetically engineered crops for sustainably enhanced food production systems. Frontiers in plant science 13, 1027828 (2022).
165
Klümper, W. & Qaim, M. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PloS ONE 9, e111629 (2014).
166
Post, M. J. et al. Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat. Nature food 1, 403–415 (2020).
167
Treich, N. Cultured Meat: Promises and Challenges. Environmental & resource economics 79, 33–61 (2021).
168
Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A. & Heinz, V. Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment20, 1254–1267 (2015).
169
Sergelidis, D. Lab Grown Meat: The Future Sustainable Alternative to Meat or a Novel Functional Food? Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research17 (2019).
170
Chkanikova, O. & Mont, O. Corporate Supply Chain Responsibility: Drivers and Barriers for Sustainable Food Retailing. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 22, 65–82 (2015).
171
Di Bene, C. et al. Barriers and Opportunities for Sustainable Farming Practices and Crop Diversification Strategies in Mediterranean Cereal-Based Systems. Front. Environ. Sci. 10, 1–16 (2022).
172
Ross, R. B., Pandey, V. & Ross, K. L. Sustainability and Strategy in U.S. Agri-Food Firms: An Assessment of Current Practices. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 18, 17–48 (2015).
173
Adams, D., Donovan, J. & Topple, C. Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment 32, 1451–1463 (2023).
174
Massoud, M. A., Fayad, R., El-Fadel, M. & Kamleh, R. Drivers, barriers and incentives to implementing environmental management systems in the food industry: A case of Lebanon. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 200–209 (2010).
175
Emamisaleh, K. & Rahmani, K. Sustainable supply chain in food industries: Drivers and strategic sustainability orientation. Cogent Business & Management 4, 1-18 (2017).
176
Behnassi, M., Pollmann, O. & Gupta, H. (eds.). Climate Change, Food Security and Natural Resource Management. Regional Case Studies from Three Continents (Springer, 2019).
177
Kim, Y. Consumer Responses to the Food Industry’s Proactive and Passive Environmen-tal CSR, Factoring in Price as CSR Tradeoff. J Bus Ethics 140, 307–321 (2017).
178
Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. Hilfestellung für Unternehmen – Einführung des Nutri-Score. Available at https://www.bmel.de/DE/themen/ernaehrung/lebensmittel-kennzeichnung/freiwillige-angaben-und-label/nutri-score/naehrwertkennzeichnung-hilfestellungen.html, access 20.08.23.
179
United Nations. Goal 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. Available at https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal2, access 20.08.23.
180
Jebarajakirthy, C., Balaji, M. S., Yadav, R. & Gupta, M.. Motivators and barriers to sustainable food consumption: Qualitative inquiry about organic food consumers in a developing nation. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing 24, 1–10 (2019).
181
Kearney, J. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society 365, 2793–2807 (2010).
182
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBl & IFOAM – Organics International. The world of organic agriculture. Statistics & emerging trends 2021. (eds. Willer, H., Travnicek, J., Meier, C. & Schlatter, B., 2021).
183
Finnegan, W. & Goggins, J. Environmental impact of the dairy industry. in Environmental Impact of Agro-Food Industry and Food Consumption (eds. Galanakis, C. M.) 129–146 (Elsevier, 2021).
184
Roheim, C. & Sutinen, J. Trade and Marketplace Measures to Promote Sustainable Fishing Practices. ICTSD – International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (2006).
185
Knickel, K., Schaer, B. & Sprenger, B. Macro-level analysis of food supply chain dynamics and diversity (2005).
186
Greenpeace. A Recipe for Change. Supermarkets respond to the challenge of sourcing sustainable seafood (2006).
187
Alonso, M. E., González-Montaña, J. R. & Lomillos, J. M. Consumers’ Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare. Animals 10, without pages (2020).

1
Benton, T. G., Bieg, C., Harwatt, H., Pudasaini, R. & Wellesley, L. Food system impacts on biodiversity loss. Three levers for food system transformation in support of nature. The Royal Institute of International Affairs Chatham House (2021).
2
Spedding, C. R. W. An Introduction to Agricultural Systems. Second Edition (Elsevier Applied Science, London, New York, 1988).
3
Mena, C. Delivering Performance in Food Supply Chains. Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition (Elsevier Science & Technology, 2010).
4
Blandford, D. The Contribution of Agriculture to Green Growth. Report to the OECD, 1–36 (2011).
5
Dayioglu, M. A. & Turker, U. Digital Transformation for Sustainable Future – Agriculture 4.0: A review. Journal of Agricultural Sciences (Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi) 27(4), 373–399 (2021).
6
Gagnon, N. Introduction to the global agri-food system. in Green technologies in food production and processing (eds. Arcand, Y. & Boye, J. I.) 3-22 (Springer, Boston, 2012).
7
FAO. World Food and Agriculture. Statistical Yearbook 2021 (Rome, 2021).
8
Zhu, Z., Duan, J., Dai, Z., Feng, Y. & Yang, G. Seeking sustainable solutions for human food systems. Geography and Sustainability 4, 183–187 (2023).
9
FAOSTAT. Employment Indicators: Agriculture. Employment in agriculture, forestry and fishing – ILO modelled estimates (2023). Available at https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/OEA, access: 28.08.2023
10
FAOSTAT. Macro Indicators. Value added Agriculture (2023). Available at https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/MK, access: 28.08.2023
11
FAO. World Food and Agriculture. Statistical Yearbook 2022 (Rome, 2022).
12
Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture. International Consumer and Food Industry Trends. Percent of consumer expenditures spent on food, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco that were consumed at home, by selected countries, 2021 (2022). Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1r4nwtsu/data-on-expenditures-on-food-and-alcoholic-beverages-in-selected-countries.xlsx, access: 28.08.2023.
13
FAO. Building a common vision for sustainable food and agriculture – principles and approaches. (2014).
14
Charles, H. et al. Food Security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812-818 (2010).
15
Baghizadeh, K., Cheikhrouhou, N., Govindan, K. & Ziyarati, M. Sustainable agriculture supply chain network design considering water-energy-food nexus using queuing system: a hybrid robust possibilistic programming. Natural Resource Modeling 35 (2021).
16
Mateo-Sagasta, J.; Zadeh, S.M.; Turral, H.; Burke, J. Water Pollution from Agriculture: A Global Review. Executive Summary for FAO and IWMI. (2017).
17
Yadav, S. S., Hegde, V. S., Habibi, A. B., Dia, M. & Verma, S. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. in Food Security and Climate Change (eds. Yadav, S. S.; Redden, R. J.; Hatfield, J. L.; Ebert, A. W.; Hunter, D.) 1-24 (Wiley Blackwell, 2018).
18
Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C.et al. IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022).
19
ED, L. & LY, X. Revelation of agro meteorology learning from climate change 2014∶ impact, adaptation, and vulnerability. Chin J Agro Meteorol 35(4), 359–364 (2014).
20
Aggarwal, S. Food and climate change. Jindal Global Law Review 10 (1), 121–127 (2019).
21
Blandford, D. & Hassapoyannes, K. The role of agriculture in global GHG mitigation. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers NO. 112 (OECD Publishing, 2018)
22
Shukla et al. IPPC. Climate Change and Land. An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (Cambridge University Press, 2019).
23
Rogissart, L., Foucherot, C. & Bellassen, V. Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Food Consumption: Methods and Results. I4CE Institute for climate economics (2019).
24
Nemecek, T., Jungbluth, N., i Canals, L. M. & Schenck, R. Environmental impacts of food consumption and nutrition: where are we and what is next? Int J Life Cycle Assess 21 (5), 607–620 (2016).
25
Licciardello, F. & Piergiovanni, L. Packaging and food sustainability. in The Interaction of Food Industry and Environment (eds. Galanakis C. M.) 191–222 (Academic Press, 2020).
26
Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M. & Ingram, J. S. I. Climate Change and Food Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 37 (1), 195–222 (2012).
27
Crippa, M., Solazarro, D., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N. & Leip, A. Food is responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food 2, 198-209 (2021).
28
Moresi, M., Cibelli, M. & Cimini, A. Standard methods useable for mitigating the environmental impact of food industry. in Environmental Impact of Agro-Food Industry and Food Consumption (eds. Galanakis, C. M.) 1-30 (Academic Press, 2021).
29
OECD Environmental impacts along food supply chains. Methods, findings and evidence gaps. in: OECD food, agriculture and fisheries 185, 1–48 (2022):
30
Finnegan, W. & Goggins, J. Environmental impact of the dairy industry. in Environmental Impact of Agro-Food Industry and Food Consumption (eds. Galanakis, C. M.) 129-146 (Academic Press, 2021).
31
Pandey, D. & Agrawal, M. Carbon footprint estimation in the agriculture sector. Assessment of Carbon Footprint in Different Industrial Sectors 1, 25-47 (2014).
32
El Bilali, H., Callenius, C. , Strassner, C. & Probst, L. Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions in food systems. Food and Energy Security 8 (4), 1–20 (2019).
33
Nemecek, T. & Poore, J. Reducing food´s environmental impacts trough producers and consumers. Science 360 (6392), 987-992 (2018).
34
Behnassi, M. The Water-Energy-Food Nexus and Climate Perspective: Relevance and Implications for Policy-making and Governance. in Climate Change, Food Security and Natural Resource Management. Regional Case Studies from Three Continents (eds. Behnassi M., Pollmann O. & Gupta H.) 3–17 (Springer Nature, 2019).
35
Lyu, X., Peng, W., Niu, S., Qu, Y. & Xin, Z. Evaluation of sustainable intensification of cultivated land use according to farming households’ livelihood types. Ecological Indicators 138, 1–15 (2022).
36
Pollmannn, O. & Podruzsik, S.. The Impact of Soil Degradation on Agricultural Production in Africa. in Climate Change, Food Security and Natural Resource Management. Regional Case Studies from Three Continents ( eds. Behnassi M., Pollmann O. & Gupta H.) 225–232 (Springer Nature, 2019).
37
Desbureaux, S. & Damania, R. Rain, forests and farmers: Evidence of drought induced deforestation in Madagascar and its consequences for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 221, 357–364 (2018).
38
Assunção, Lipscomb, Mobarak, A. M., Szerman, D. & Lipscomb, M. Agricultural Productivity and Deforestation in Brazil, 1–53 (2016).
39
Phalan, B., Balmford, A., Green, R. E. & Scharlemann, J. P. Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally. Food Policy 36, 62-71 (2011).
40
Phillips, C. J. C. (ed.). Nutrition and the Welfare of Farm Animals. (Springer International Publishing, 2016).
41
Heinzen, T. T. & Russ, A. Using Emerging Pollution Tracking Methods to Address the Downstream Impacts of Factory Farm Animal Welfare Abuse. Pace Environmental Law Review 31 (3), 475–499 (2014).
42
Fardet, A. & Rock, E. Ultra-Processed Foods and Food System Sustainability: What Are the Links? Sustainability 12 (6280), 1–29 (2020).
43
Anomaly, J. What’s Wrong With Factory Farming? Public health ethics 8, 246–254 (2015).
44
Ortuño Crespo, G. & Dunn, D. C. A review of the impacts of fisheries on open-ocean ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74, 2283–2297 (2017).
45
Gascuel, D. et al. Fishing impact and environmental status in European seas: a diagnosis from stock assessments and ecosystem indicators. FISH and FISHERIES 17, 31–55 (2016).
46
Hilborn, R. et al. When is a fishery sustainable? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 72, 1433–1441 (2015).
47
Jennings, S. & Kaiser, M. J. The Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology 34, 201–212 (1998).
48
Caruso, G. Fishery Wastes and By-products: A Resource to Be Valorised. Journal of Fisheries Sciences 9, 80–83 (2015).
49
Lewison, R., Crowder, L., Read, A. & Freeman, S. Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19, 598–604 (2004).
50
Jones, P., Hillier, D. & Comfort, D. Water stewardship and corporate sustainability: a case study of reputation management in the food and drinks industry. Journal of Public Affairs 15, 116–126 (2015).
51
Tekerlekopoulou, A. G., Economou, C. N., Tatoulis, T. I., Akratos, C. S. & Vayenas, D. V. Wastewater treatment and water reuse in the food industry. in The Interaction of Food Industry and Environment (eds. Galanakis C. M.) 245–280 (Academic Press, 2020).
52
Bucatariu, C. A. The concept of (virtual) water in the food industry. in The Interaction of Food Industry and Environment (eds. Galanakis C. M.) 223–242 (Academic Press, 2020).
53
Mancosu, N., Snyder, R., Kyriakakis, G. & Spano, D. Water Scarcity and Future Challenges for Food Production. Water 7, 975–992 (2015).
54
Barbera, M. & Gurnari, G. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the Food Industry (Springer International Publishing, 2018).
55
Asgharnejad, H., Nazloo, E. K., Larijani, M. M., Hajinajaf, N. & Rashidi, E. Comprehensive review of water management and wastewater treatment in food processing industries in the framework of water‐food‐environment nexus. Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety 20, 4779-4815 (2021).
56
Greco, F. & Antonelli, M. Not All Drops of Water Are the Same. in The Water We Eat. Combining Virtual Water and Water Footprints (eds. Antonelli M. & Greco F.) 3–16 (Springer International Publishing; 2015).
57
Hoekstra, A. Y. The Water Footprint: The Relation Between Human Consumption and Water Use. in The Water We Eat. Combining Virtual Water and Water Footprints (eds. Antonelli M. & Greco F.) 35–50 (Springer International Publishing; 2015).
58
Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra, A.Y. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 15, 1577-1600 (2011).
59
Mekonnen, M. & Hoekstra, A. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15, 401–415 (2012).
60
Zanoni, S. & Marchi, B. Environmental impacts of foods refrigeration. in Environmental Impact of Agro-Food Industry and Food Consumption (eds. Galanakis C. M) 239–259 (Elsevier, 2021).
61
Licciardello, F. & Piergiovanni, L. Packaging and food sustainability. in The Interaction of Food Industry and Environment (eds. Galanakis C. M). 191–222 (Academic Press, 2020).
62
Obersteiner, G. & Scherhaufer, S. Environmental impact of food waste. in Environmental Impact of Agro-Food Industry and Food Consumption (eds. Galanakis C. M) 261–283 (Elsevier, 2021).
63
Podruzsik, S. & Pollmann, O. The European Union as a Player in the Global Food Security. in Climate Change, Food Security and Natural Resource Management. Regional Case Studies from Three Continents (eds. Behnassi M., Pollmann O. & Gupta H.) 149–160 (Springer Nature, 2019).
64
Mohseni, S., Baghizadeh, K. & Pahl, J. Evaluating Barriers and Drivers to Sustainable Food Supply Chains. Hindawi – Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1–24 (2022).
65
Yadav, S. S., Hegde, V. S., Habibi, A. B. & Dia, Mahendra Verma, Suman. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. in Food Security and Climate Change (eds. Yadav S. S., Redden R. J., Hatfield J. L., Ebert A. W. & Hunter D.) 1–24 (Wiley Blackwell, 2018).
66
El Bilali, H., Callenius, C., Strassner, C. & Probst, L. Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions in food systems. Food and Energy Security 8, 1–20 (2019).
67
Garcia, A. S. & Wanner, T. Gender inequality and food security: lessons from the gender-responsive work of the International Food Policy Research Institute and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Food Sec. 9, 1091–1103 (2017).
68
Hossain, A. et al. Prospects of organic agriculture in food quality and safety. in Organic Farming for Sustainable Development (eds. Sangeetha, J., Al-Tawaha, A. R. M., Thangadurai D. & Soytong, K.) 321–361 (CRC Press, 2023).
69
Toussaint, M., Cabanelas, P. & Muñoz-Dueñas, P. Social sustainability in the food value chain: what is and how to adopt an integrative approach? Quality & Quantity 56, 2477–2500 (2022).
70
Clayton, M. L., Smith, K. C., Pollack, K. M., Neff, R. A. & Rutkow, L. U.S. Food System Working Conditions as an Issue of Food Safety. New solutions: a journal of environmental and occupational health policy 26, 599–621 (2017).
71
OECD. Jobs for Rural Youth. The role of local food economie – Development Centre Studies (OECD publishing, 2021).
72
Duval, J., Cournut, S. & Hostiou, N. Livestock farmers’ working conditions in agroecological farming systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 41 (22´), 1–10 (2021).
73
Frempong, R. B. & Stadelmann, D. The Effect of Food Price Changes on Child Labour: Evidence from Uganda. The Journal of Development Studies 55, 1492–1507 (2019).
74
Ofuoku, A. U., Ovharhe, O. J. & Agbamu, J. U. Child Labor in Farming Households in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. Journal of Developing Societies 36, 41–55 (2020).
75
UNICEF & International Labour Organization ILO. Child labour. Global estimates 2020, trends and the road forward (2021).
76
Giner, C., Hobeika, M. & Fischetti, C. Gender and food systems. Overcoming evidence gaps. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 184, 1–30 (2022).
77
Kontopanou, M. &Tsoulfas, G. T. Achieving Sustainable Performance in Agri-food Supply Chains Through Digitalization. in Digital Economy and the Green Revolution (eds. Busu, H.) 267–276 (Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, 2023).
78
El Bilali, H. Innovation-Sustainability Nexus in Agriculture Transition: Case of Agroecology. Open Agriculture 4, 1–16 (2019).
79
Yadav, S. et al. Agroecology Towards Environmental Sustainability. in Sustainable Intensification for Agroecosystem Services and Management (eds. Jhariya, M. K., Banerjee, A., Meena, R. S., Kumar, S., Raj, A.) 323-352 (Springer, Singapore, 2021).
80
FAO. The 10 elements of agroecology. Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems (2018).
81
Hossain, A. et al. Prospects of organic agriculture in food quality and safety. in Organic Farming for Sustainable Development (eds. Sangeetha J., Al-Tawaha A. R. M., Thangadurai D., Soytong K.) 321–361 (CRC Press, 2023).
82
IFOAM. The Four Principles of Organic Agriculture (2023). Available at https://www.ifoam.bio/why-organic/shaping-agriculture/four-principles-organic, access: 28.08.2023.
83
Kassam, A. Integrating Conservation Into Agriculture. in Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture (eds. Farooq, M., Pisante, M.) 27-41 (Springer Nature, Switzerland, 2019).
84
Schreefel, L., Schulte, R., Boer, I., Schrijver, A. P. & van Zanten, H. Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the base. Global Food Security 26, 100404 (2020).
85
Project Drawdown. Regenerative Annual Cropping (2020). Available at https://drawdown.org/solutions/regenerative-annual-cropping, access: 28.08.2023
86
Rehberger, E., West, P. C., Spillane, C. & McKeown, P. C. What climate and environmental benefits of regenerative agriculture practices? an evidence review. Environmental Research Communications 5, 52001 (2023).
87
Newton, P., Civita, N., Frankel-Goldwater, L., Bartel, K. & Johns, C. What Is Regenerative Agriculture? A Review of Scholar and Practitioner Definitions Based on Processes and Outcomes. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4, 577723 (2020).
88
Calabro, G. & Vieri, S. Limits and potential of organic farming towards a more sustainable European agri-food system. British Food Journal (2023).
89
Sanders, J. & Heß, J. (eds.). Leistungen des ökologischen Landbaus für Umwelt und Gesellschaft. (Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig, 2019).
90
Garcia-Oliveira, P., Fraga-Corral, M., Carpena, M., Prieto, M. A. & Simal-Gandara, J. Approaches for sustainable food production and consumption systems. in Future Foods (eds. Bhat, R.) 23–38 (Elsevier, 2022).
91
Egli, L., Rüschhoff, J. & Priess, J. A systematic review of the ecological, social and economic sustainability effects of community-supported agriculture. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7 (2023).
92
Wellner, M. & Theuvsen, L. Community Supported Agriculture in Deutschland. Berichte über die Landwirtschaft. Zeitschrift für Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaft. 95 (2017).
93
Strüber, K., Reinartz, A., Scholl, S. & Wähning, P. Handbuch Solidarische Landwirtschaft. Solawis erfolgreich gründen & gestalten (2023).
94
Cone, C. & Myhre, A. Community-Supported Agriculture: A Sustainable Alternative to Industrial Agriculture?. Human Organization 59, 187–197 (2000).
95
Voge, J. et al. Food loss and waste in community-supported agriculture in the region of Leipzig, Germany. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 21 (2023).
96
Pérez-Neira, D. & Grollmus-Venegas, A. Life-cycle energy assessment and carbon footprint of peri-urban horticulture. A comparative case study of local food systems in Spain. Land-scape and Urban Planning 172, 60–68 (2018).
97
Zhen, H., Gao, W., Jia, L., Qiao, Y. & Ju, X. Environmental and economic life cycle assessment of alternative greenhouse vegetable production farms in peri-urban Beijing, China. Journal of Cleaner Production 269, 122380 (2020).
98
Fremstad, A. & Paul, M. Opening the Farm Gate to Women? The Gender Gap in U.S. Agriculture. Journal of Economic Issues 54, 124–141 (2020).
99
Marinchenko, T. E. Digital Technology in Agricultural Sector. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 666, 32024 (2021).
100
Havran, D., Kerényi, P. & Víg, A. A. Social Finance and Agricultural Funding. in Innovations in Social Finance (eds. Walker T., McGaughey J., Goubran S. & Wagdy N.) 269–290 (Springer Nature Switzerland, 2021).
101
Akinwale, J. A., Wole-Alo, F. I. & Oluwole, B. O. Digital Platforms for Linking Agriculture Investors with Smallholder Farmers in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension 27, 65–72 (2023).
102
Jain, P., Raina, G., Sinha, S., Malik, P. & Mathur, S. Agrovoltaics: Step towards sustainable energy-food combination. Bioresource Technology Reports 15, 100766 (2021).
103
Trommsdorff, M. et al. Agrivoltaics: solar power generation and food production. in Solar Energy Advancements in Agriculture and Food Production Systems. in Solar Energy Advancements in Agriculture and Food Production Systems (eds. Gorijan, S., Campana, P.E.) 159–210 (Elsevier Academic Press, 2022).
104
Insolight. The Agrivoltaic Solution Provider | AgriPV (2023). Available at https://insolight.ch/, access: 28.08.2023
105
König, B., Janker, J., Reinhardt, T., Villarroel, M. & Junge, R. Analysis of aquaponics as an emerging technological innovation system. Journal of Cleaner Production 180, 232–243 (2018).
106
David, L. H. et al. Sustainability of urban aquaponics farms: An emergy point of view. Journal of Cleaner Production 331, 129896 (2022).
107
Pantera, Α., Mosquera-Losada, M. R., Herzog, F. & Herder, M. den. Agroforestry and the environment. Agroforest Syst 95, 767–774 (2021).
108
Agostini, A., Colauzzi, M. & Amaducci, S. Innovative agrivoltaic systems to produce sustainable energy: An economic and environmental assessment. Applied Energy 281 (2021).
109
Blidariu, F. & Grozea, A. Increasing the Economical Efficiency and Sustainability of Indoor Fish Farming by Means of Aquaponics-Review. Scientific Papers: Animal Science and Biotechnologies 44, 1–8 (2011).
110
Greenfeld, A., Becker, N., Bornman, J. F., Spatari, S. & Angel, D. L. Monetizing environmental impact of integrated aquaponic farming compared to separate systems. The Science of the total environment 792 (2021).
111
Rendón-Sandoval, F. J., Casas, A., Moreno-Calles, A. I., Torres-García, I. & García-Frapolli, E. Traditional Agroforestry Systems and Conservation of Native Plant Diversity of Seasonally Dry Tropical Forests. Sustainability 12, 4600 (2020).
112
Kuyah, S. et al. Trees in agricultural landscapes enhance provision of ecosystem services in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 1–19 (2016).
113
Kay, S. et al. Agroforestry can enhance foraging and nesting resources for pollinators with focus on solitary bees at the landscape scale. Agroforestry Systems 94, 379–387 (2020).
114
Jhariya, M. K., Banerjee, A., Yadav, D. K. & Raj, A. Leguminous Trees an Innovative Tool for Soil Sustainability. in Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management (eds. Meena R. S., Das A., Yadav G. S. & Lal R.) 315–345 (Springer Singapore, 2018).
115
Amaducci, S., Yin, X. & Colauzzi, M. Agrivoltaic systems to optimise land use for electric energy production. Applied Energy 220, 545–561 (2018).
116
Jhariya, M. K., Banerjee, A., Yadav, D. K. & Raj, A. Leguminous Trees an Innovative Tool for Soil Sustain-ability. in Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management (eds. Meena R. S., Das A., Yadav G. S. & Lal R.) 315–345 (Springer Singapore, 2018).
117
Tyson, R. V., Treadwell, D. D. & Simonne, E. H. Opportunities and Challenges to Sustainability in Aquaponic Systems. HortTechnology 21, 6–13 (2011).
118
Kassie, G. W. Agroforestry and farm income diversification: synergy or trade-off? The case of Ethiopia. Environmental Systems Research 6 (2018).
119
Veludo, M., Hughes, A., Le Blan, B. Introduction to aquaponics: a key to sustainable food production. in Survey of Aquaponics in Europe (eds. Villarroel M., et al.) (2016).
120
Kamareddine, L. A. & Maraqa, M. A. Lifecycle assessment of aquaponics. in Pollution Assessment for Sustainable Practices in Applied Sciences and Engineering (eds. Mohamed, A.-M. O., Paleologos, E. K., Howari F.M.) 1083–1108 (Elsevier, 2021).
121
Guo, H. & Zhao, Y. Using isotopic labeling to investigate root water uptake in an alley crop-ping system within Taklimakan Desert Oasis, China. Agroforestry Systems 95, 907–918 (2021).
122
Jose, S., Walter, D. & Mohan Kumar, B. Ecological considerations in sustainable silvopasture design and management. Agroforest Syst 93, 317–331 (2019).
123
Project Drawdown. Silvopasture (2020). Available at https://drawdown.org/solutions/silvopasture, access: 28.08.2023.
124
Jose, S. & Dollinger, J. Silvopasture: a sustainable livestock production system. Agroforestry Systems 93, 1–9 (2019).
125
Project Drawdown. Improved Cattle Feed (2022). Available at https://drawdown.org/solutions/improved-cattle-feed, access: 28.08.2023
126
Xue, L. et al. Efficiency and Carbon Footprint of the German Meat Supply Chain. Environmental science & technology 53, 5133–5142 (2019).
127
Melgar, A. et al. Enteric methane emission, milk production, and composition of dairy cows fed 3-nitrooxypropanol. Journal of dairy science 104, 357–366 (2021).
128
Satyanagalakshmi, K., Sridhar, G. T. & Sirohi, S. K. An overview of the role of rumen methanogens in methane emission and its reduction strategies. African Journal of Biotechnology. 14, 1427–1438 (2015).
129
Liu, G. et al. Integration of LCC and LCA results to higher system levels: The German meat and EU tomato cases. FBR Food Technology. (2019).
130
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries). Understanding Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (2023). Available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/understanding-ecosystem-based-fisheries-management, access: 28.08.2023
131
Haas, B., Fleming, A., Haward, M. & McGee, J. Big fishing: the role of the large-scale commercial fishing industry in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 14. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 29, 161–175 (2019).
132
SANFORD. Precision seafood harvesting (PSH). Picking and choosing the fish we want before they even come onboard (2023). Available at https://www.sanford.co.nz/sustainability/precision-seafood-harvesting/, access: 28.08.2023
133
Vauterin, A., Steiner, B., Sillman, J. & Kahiluoto, H. The potential of insect protein to reduce food-based carbon footprints in Europe: The case of broiler meat production. Journal of Cleaner Production 320, 128799 (2021).
134
Alexander, P. et al. Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? Global Food Security 15, 22–32 (2017).
135
Kalantari, F., Tahir, O. M., Joni, R. A. & Fatemi, E. Opportunities and Challenges in Sustainability of Vertical Farming: A Review. Journal of Landscape Ecology 11, 35–60 (2018).
136
Beacham, A. M., Vickers, L. H. & Monaghan, J. M. Vertical farming: a summary of approaches to growing skywards. The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 94, 277–283 (2019).
137
Roberts, J. M. et al. Vertical farming systems bring new considerations for pest and disease management. Annals of Applied Biology 176, 226–232 (2020).
138
Avgoustaki, D. D. & Xydis, G. How energy innovation in indoor vertical farming can improve food security, sustainability, and food safety?. Advances in Food Security and Sustainability 5, 1–51 (Elsevier, 2020).
139
Banerjee, C. & Adenaeuer, L. Up, Up and Away! The Economics of Vertical Farming. Journal of Agricultural Studies 2, 40 (2013).
140
Specht, K. et al. Urban agriculture of the future: an overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agriculture and Human Values 31, 33–51 (2014).
141
International Society of Precision Agriculture. Precision Ag Definition | International Society of Precision Agriculture (2021). Available at https://www.ispag.org/about/definition, access: 28.08.2023.
142
Renda, A. The Age of Foodtech: Optimizing the Agri-Food Chain with Digital Technologies. in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals Through Sustainable Food Systems (eds. Valentini, R., Sievenpiper, J. L., Antonelli, M. & Dembska, K.) 171-187 (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2019).
143
Cheema, M. J. M., Khan, M. A. Information Technology for Sustainable Agriculture. in Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture (eds. Farooq, M., Pisante, M.) 585-597 (Springer Nature, Switzerland, 2019).
144
Clapp, J. & Ruder, S.-L. Precision Technologies for Agriculture: Digital Farming, Gene-Edited Crops, and the Politics of Sustainability. Global Environmental Politics 20, 49–69 (2020).
145
Araújo, S. O., Peres, R. S., Barata, J., Lidon, F. & Ramalho, J. C. Characterising the Agriculture 4.0 Landscape—Emerging Trends, Challenges and Opportunities. Agronomy 11, 667 (2021).
146
Lioutas, E. D., Charatsari, C. & Rosa, M. de. Digitalization of agriculture: A way to solve the food problem or a trolley dilemma? Technology in Society 67, 101744 (2021).
147
Triantafyllou, A., Sarigiannidis, P. & Bibi, S. Precision Agriculture: A Remote Sensing Monitoring System Architecture. Information 10, 348 (2019).
148
Sparrow, R. & Howard, M. Robots in agriculture: prospects, impacts, ethics, and policy. Precision Agriculture 22, 818–833 (2021).
149
Torero, M. Robotics and AI in Food Security and Innovation: Why They Matter and How to Harness Their Power. in Robotics, AI, and Humanity (eds. Braun J. von, S. Archer M., Reichberg G. M. & Sánchez Sorondo M.) 99–107 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).
150
Lackes, R. Definition: Internet der Dinge. Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH (2018).
151
Jha, K., Doshi, A., Patel, P. & Shah, M. A comprehensive review on automation in agriculture using artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture 2, 1–12 (2019).
152
Yaga, D., Mell, P., Roby, N. & Scarfone, K. Blockchain technology overview. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Internal report 8202 (2018).
153
Mell, P. M. & Grance, T. The NIST definition of cloud computing. Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-145 (2011).
154
NUTMEG Technologies. Blockchain vs. Cloud Computing (2023). Available at https://nutmegtech.com/blog-2/644-blockchain-vs-cloud-computing.html, access: 28.08.2023
155
Toussaint, M., Cabanelas, P. & Blanco‐González, A. Social sustainability in the food value chain: An integrative approach beyond corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 28, 103–115 (2021).
156
Toussaint, M., Cabanelas, P. & Muñoz-Dueñas, P. Social sustainability in the food value chain: what is and how to adopt an integrative approach? Quality & Quantity 56, 2477–2500 (2022).
157
Termeer, E., Vos, B., Bolchini, A., Van Ingen, E and Abrokwa, K. Digitalization and child labour in agriculture (FAO, 2023).
158
Debauche, O., Mahmoudi, S., Manneback, P. & Lebeau, F. Cloud and distributed architectures for data management in agriculture 4.0: Review and future trends. Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences 34, 7494–7514 (2022).
159
Rose, D. C., Wheeler, R., Winter, M., Lobley, M. & Chivers, C.-A. Agriculture 4.0: Making it work for people, production, and the planet. Land Use Policy 100, 104933 (2021).
160
Zhu, Z., Duan, J., Dai, Z., Feng, Y. & Yang, G. Seeking sustainable solutions for human food systems. Geography and Sustainability 4, 183–187 (2023).
161
Ranjha, M. M. A. N. et al. Applications of Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture: a Mini-Review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India. Section B 92, 11–15 (2022).
162
Qaim, M. Role of New Plant Breeding Technologies for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42, 129–150 (2020).
163
Kaur, N., Sharma, S., Hasanuzzaman, M. & Pati, P. K. Genome Editing: A Promising Approach for Achieving Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants. International journal of genomics 2022, 5547231 (2022).
164
Abdul Aziz, M., Brini, F., Rouached, H. & Masmoudi, K. Genetically engineered crops for sustainably enhanced food production systems. Frontiers in plant science 13, 1027828 (2022).
165
Klümper, W. & Qaim, M. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PloS ONE 9, e111629 (2014).
166
Post, M. J. et al. Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat. Nature food 1, 403–415 (2020).
167
Treich, N. Cultured Meat: Promises and Challenges. Environmental & resource economics 79, 33–61 (2021).
168
Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A. & Heinz, V. Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment20, 1254–1267 (2015).
169
Sergelidis, D. Lab Grown Meat: The Future Sustainable Alternative to Meat or a Novel Functional Food? Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research17 (2019).
170
Chkanikova, O. & Mont, O. Corporate Supply Chain Responsibility: Drivers and Barriers for Sustainable Food Retailing. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 22, 65–82 (2015).
171
Di Bene, C. et al. Barriers and Opportunities for Sustainable Farming Practices and Crop Diversification Strategies in Mediterranean Cereal-Based Systems. Front. Environ. Sci. 10, 1–16 (2022).
172
Ross, R. B., Pandey, V. & Ross, K. L. Sustainability and Strategy in U.S. Agri-Food Firms: An Assessment of Current Practices. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 18, 17–48 (2015).
173
Adams, D., Donovan, J. & Topple, C. Sustainability in large food and beverage companies and their supply chains: An investigation into key drivers and barriers affecting sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment 32, 1451–1463 (2023).
174
Massoud, M. A., Fayad, R., El-Fadel, M. & Kamleh, R. Drivers, barriers and incentives to implementing environmental management systems in the food industry: A case of Lebanon. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 200–209 (2010).
175
Emamisaleh, K. & Rahmani, K. Sustainable supply chain in food industries: Drivers and strategic sustainability orientation. Cogent Business & Management 4, 1-18 (2017).
176
Behnassi, M., Pollmann, O. & Gupta, H. (eds.). Climate Change, Food Security and Natural Resource Management. Regional Case Studies from Three Continents (Springer, 2019).
177
Kim, Y. Consumer Responses to the Food Industry’s Proactive and Passive Environmen-tal CSR, Factoring in Price as CSR Tradeoff. J Bus Ethics 140, 307–321 (2017).
178
Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. Hilfestellung für Unternehmen – Einführung des Nutri-Score. Available at https://www.bmel.de/DE/themen/ernaehrung/lebensmittel-kennzeichnung/freiwillige-angaben-und-label/nutri-score/naehrwertkennzeichnung-hilfestellungen.html, access 20.08.23.
179
United Nations. Goal 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. Available at https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal2, access 20.08.23.
180
Jebarajakirthy, C., Balaji, M. S., Yadav, R. & Gupta, M.. Motivators and barriers to sustainable food consumption: Qualitative inquiry about organic food consumers in a developing nation. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing 24, 1–10 (2019).
181
Kearney, J. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society 365, 2793–2807 (2010).
182
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBl & IFOAM – Organics International. The world of organic agriculture. Statistics & emerging trends 2021. (eds. Willer, H., Travnicek, J., Meier, C. & Schlatter, B., 2021).
183
Finnegan, W. & Goggins, J. Environmental impact of the dairy industry. in Environmental Impact of Agro-Food Industry and Food Consumption (eds. Galanakis, C. M.) 129–146 (Elsevier, 2021).
184
Roheim, C. & Sutinen, J. Trade and Marketplace Measures to Promote Sustainable Fishing Practices. ICTSD – International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (2006).
185
Knickel, K., Schaer, B. & Sprenger, B. Macro-level analysis of food supply chain dynamics and diversity (2005).
186
Greenpeace. A Recipe for Change. Supermarkets respond to the challenge of sourcing sustainable seafood (2006).
187
Alonso, M. E., González-Montaña, J. R. & Lomillos, J. M. Consumers’ Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare. Animals 10, without pages (2020).