Innovation Trajectories and Sustainability in The Food System

sustainability
Article
Innovation Trajectories and Sustainability in the
Food System
Valeria Sodano
Department Political Science, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; [email protected]

Received: 31 December 2018; Accepted: 23 February 2019; Published: 28 February 2019
Abstract: The goal of the study is to answer the question of whether the current processes
of technological change and innovation within the agri-food system could help to increase its
sustainability. Four strands of literature are used to unveil the nexus between sustainability and
innovation: models of technical change and innovation, sustainability definitions, agroecology as a
science and political movement, and the conceptualization of food regimes. The results indicate that
innovation processes in the system follow two innovation trajectories, leading to two different food
regimes, with opposite effects on sustainability. Since market forces push towards the less sustainable
regime, adequate interventions are required in order to assure the sustainability of the system.
Keywords: innovation; sustainability; food regime
1. Introduction
The agri-food system has recently undergone profound changes under the thrust of innovations
that, until just a few years ago, had been difficult to predict. The twenty-first century system is
extremely different from that of the end of the previous century. The technologies developed in the
field of genetics, new materials, and communication have in fact revolutionized the way in which food
is produced, marketed, and consumed. The very idea of food has changed, turning from that of a
trivial consumer good needed to fulfill basic human needs to that of a commodity closely connected to
human health, to the preservation of the environment, to social justice, and to the development of new
economic activities.
In the face of material changes, there has been limited research effort that attempts to describe and
interpret technological changes so as to allow adaptation of the institutional framework in a way that
both tackles the negative side effects of innovation (minimizing innovation risks) and allows society to
fully benefit from it (maximizing innovation benefits).
Currently, the discourse on innovation in the agri-food system takes for granted that innovation is
meant to seek the twofold objective of increasing sustainability whilst meeting the increasing demand
for food associated with the rocketing world population [1,2]. That is to say that innovation should
help to address the two main grand challenges of our time, i.e., protecting the environment and
reaching food security at a global level.
Over the last few years the debate on innovation in the agri-food system has been increasingly
associated with the issue of sustainability. In the EU the emphasis on sustainability is part of the
rhetorical discourse surrounding environmental issues, which have led to the changing of the wording
of EU economic policies without changing the previous sole objective of enhancing growth and
competitiveness. In this regard, it is worth noting that in 2012, in the EU budget, the heading “cohesion
and competitiveness for growth and employment” was replaced by the heading “sustainable growth”.
While governments (such as the EU) and international development agencies (such as the FAO
and the OECD) seem to sustain many forms of innovation, ranging from digital technologies and
nanotechnologies to local product marketing systems, vertical agriculture, and bio-farming, some
Sustainability 2019, 11, 1271; doi:10.3390/su11051271 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1271 2 of 19
scholars have shown how conflicts exist among these diverse innovations and how some of them
could pose high societal and environmental risks. Two divergent visions of innovation in the agri-food
system may be identified: the life science vision, which is consistent with the agro-industrial model
and is part of the dominant Western countries’ policy discourse, and the perspective of agroecology,
which is politically and academically marginalized. These two competing visions have also been
indicated as divergent socio-technical paradigms of agricultural innovation [3,4].
This paper seeks to give an account of theoretical approaches and assessment frameworks useful
to help answer the question of whether the undergoing innovation processes in the agri-food sector
may help increase its sustainability. Four strands of literature are referred to in order to unveil the nexus
between sustainability and innovation: models of technical change and innovation, sustainability
definitions, agroecology as a science and political movement, and the conceptualization of food
regimes. The offered analysis of the proposed topics is genuinely qualitative and descriptive in nature.
It does not attempt to offer a complete review of the literature concerning the topics dealt with, nor to
identify complete and theoretically robust analytical frameworks. Both such objectives would require a
massive research effort that is beyond the resources available to the author. Instead, the work attempts
to identify some aspects of the innovation processes in the agri-food sector that would urgently require
tackling at the analytical, descriptive, and normative levels. The final goal is to contribute to raising a
critical debate on the issue of innovation and sustainability in the agri-food system.
2. Materials and Methods

In order to answer the question of whether the current processes of technological change and
innovation within the agri-food system could help to increase its sustainability, a tentative framework
was built to assess, at a purely qualitative level, the foreseeable contribution of the current innovation
processes to the sustainability objective. The framework was built through a joint reading of the concept
of sustainability, the theories of technological change and innovation, and the food regime theory. First,
the concept of sustainability was briefly reviewed to identify the definition that is generally accepted
in the associated literature and commonly shared by scholars, policy makers, and businesses. Secondly,
the main theories of technological change were reassumed in order to identify the conceptual tools
that would seem more suitable to analyze the current innovation processes in the food system. Thirdly,
the concept of a food regime was used to identify the presence in the system of adequate incentives to
drive innovation processes towards sustainability goals. The obtained framework has no analytical
purposes; it only helps to develop a reliable narrative of how innovation and technical change might
possibly push the system towards sustainability. It is merely an attempt to initiate a discourse on the
political and institutional changes required for science and technology to serve all people, now and for
future generations.
2.1. Defining Sustainability

The concept of sustainability has been at the center of the environmental debate since a definition
of sustainable development was given by the Brundtland Commission in 1987: “Development that
meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs and aspirations” [5]. Since then many definitions and conceptualizations of sustainability
have been offered in literature. One famous and everlasting concept is that of the Triple Bottom
Line (TBL), which is a sustainability-related construct coined by Elkington [6] firmly maintaining
that sustainability should be conceived of and assessed with reference simultaneously to the three
environmental, economic, and social spheres. Following the TBL, sustainable development has been
viewed as the overlapping area among three development dimensions [7]: economic (i.e., economic
growth, private profits, market expansion, and externalized costs), ecological (i.e., carrying capacity,
sustainable yield, resource conservation, and biodiversity), and community (i.e., local self-reliance,
basic human needs, equity, participation, social accountability, and appropriate technology).
Ethical and political implication of sustainability have also been investigated. Some authors have
shown that an ethical pragmatism, rather than universalism, would better accommodate sustainability
policy choices [8]. Moreover, while biocentric and ecocentric ethics cannot be totally dismissed without
compromising sustainability, it has been argued that an anthropocentric ethic is more likely to find
wide social consensus [9]. With respect to the political issue, there is a general agreement on the role of
a real participatory democracy, meaning that a community-based bottom-up approach, deliberation
and democratic decision making are necessary ingredients for attaining sustainability [8].
Enhancing sustainability has become over time a high priority objective stressed roughly in
any strategy and policy plan set out both by public and private institutions (at local, national,
and international levels). For instance, transnational companies (TNCs) in their annual reports
addressed to their stockholders and stakeholders usually quote their commitment to sustainability,
with examples of concrete policies allegedly carried out to make their activities more sustainable [10].
Notwithstanding the will (be it genuine or otherwise) to achieve sustainability goals, the latter
are almost never reached either by the private or by the public sector. With respect to public
institutions the reason lies in the many trade-offs within the policies meant to pursue sustainability.
Generally, economic objectives are inconsistent with not only environmental but also social objectives.
Sustainability involves equity (so closely that the two concepts depend upon each other), i.e., fair
resource distribution among generations as well as among individuals and nations (and in its broader
ecological definition, among different forms of life and ecosystems) at the present time. However,
equity is an ethical issue that, at least with reference to orthodox economics, is not part of the economic
sphere. At the same time, there is the well-known conflict between economic objectives, such as
growth, and environmental objectives, such as constraining polluting production processes.
With respect to the private actors, sustainable objectives should be pursued through
consumer and/or corporate social responsibility. That is, consumers and firms, freely, voluntary,
and independently from one another, should renounce consumptions and profits in order to avoid
adverse effects on society and the environment. It is easy to understand the limits of social responsibility.
On empirical grounds it is evident that if economic agents had acted responsibly, we would not been
experiencing such high resource and environment depletion. On theoretical grounds it is inconceivable
that socio-economic models be built that simultaneously need assumptions of strong rationality and
selfishness alongside weak rationality and reciprocity; one must choose, and choosing the second
assumption means abandoning the neoclassical approach, a choice that does not yet seem to be on the
agenda of the leading economists and policy makers [11].
2.2. Innovation Theories

Economic development is based on technological change and innovation. According to
neoclassical economics, technology, constituting the very same production functions, is responsible
for the production possibilities and for input productivity. It is supposed to be exogenous to the
economic sphere, belonging instead to the scientific and societal sphere; as a consequence, economists
only have to study the effects of new technologies in terms of new market equilibria; i.e., in terms
of level, composition, and price of the production. Nothing is said of the source of innovation.
Schumpeter has been considered the first economist to put the technological issue at the center of
economic theory. He showed how technological change and, more generally, innovation (through
the process of creative destruction) are the vital energy that allows capitalist economies to function
and flourish. The Schumpeterian lesson, however, took decades to stimulate the theoretical debate
on the topic of technological change. It was only in the 1960s that economists began to carefully
analyze the phenomenon of technological change. The first theoretical development was within
the neoclassical approach, through the models of induced technological change [12]; such models
explained technological change either as demand pull driven or as a response to relative prices of
production inputs (technological innovation would allow users to raise the productivity of the input
that is becoming scarce and costlier). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Nelson and Winter, fully
reaping the legacy of Schumpeter and within the heterodox economic research program, introduced
the evolutionary approach. This builds on the behavioral theory of the firm in order to describe
technological change as the search for better techniques and the selection of successful innovations by
the market, according to a natural technological trajectory [13] or technological paradigm [14]. At the
same time that Nelson and Winter, Arthur, and later David developed a third approach [15] to the
analysis of technological change, the theory of path dependence, which well applies to technological
innovations characterized by network externalities and increasing returns to scale, emerged. Central
to this theory is the concept of technological lock-in; once a technology is chosen, even if there
are better technologies available, due to positive network externalities, it becomes the best choice
for other users as well. Positive network externalities exist if the benefits (or, more technically,
the marginal utility) are an increasing function of the number of other users. In the 1980s and
1990s, Freeman and Perez [16] offered a fourth more encompassing narrative of the interrelationships
between technological change and economic growth, by elaborating the concepts of technology systems
and technological revolutions. A technological revolution represents a shift to a new technological
paradigm, where an innovation, which is at the same time radical and generic, spreads to many sectors,
giving rise to clusters of derived innovations that form technology systems. The latest revolution, which
ushered the system into the current ICT (Information and Communication Technology) technological
paradigm, has been determined by the propulsive force of ICTs, and follows the previous petrochemical
technology-based revolution. “The technology systems, grouped in a technological revolution, overlap
and generate externalities and markets for each other, thus influencing the direction of further
innovation. Technological revolutions are clusters of interrelated technology systems that only merit the
term ‘revolution’ because they extend far beyond the boundaries of the new industries they introduce.
Such surges of change eventually transform the rest of the economy, elevate the expected level of
productivity across the board, rejuvenate mature industries and open new innovation trajectories,
not only within the new technologies, but also through their application to rejuvenate all the other
industries and activities” [17].
These four approaches stem from the rediscovery that occurred in the 1980s of the old
institutionalisms, which led to the development of new research agendas in the field of economics,
such as evolutionary economics, neo-institutionalism, and economic sociology. Nevertheless, while all
of them accept the three basic pillars of the institutionalist approach (the rejection of methodological
individualism, and the acknowledgment of bounded rationality and social embeddedness of
the economic activities), they differ with respect to the degree in which they accept putting
socio-institutional variables at the very core of the economic inquiry and therefore recognize the
importance of ethical (struggle over value judgments) and political (struggle over power detention)
choices in driving techno/economic trajectories. In this respect, the fourth approach is the one that goes
furthest towards embracing the institutionalist approach. Finally, a fifth approach is to be mentioned,
again developed in the context of heterodox economic theories, but more specifically in the context of
critical theories in the same vein as Marxist and structuralist perspectives, which flourished in the first
half of the twentieth century. Within this approach, Noble [18] and Feenberg [19] have highlighted
the political dimension of technology, questioning the ideology of technological determinism and
exploring the way in which technological innovation affects and is affected by power relationships
within society.
Unlike the limited interest at the theoretical level, at least until the last quarter of the twentieth
century, the issue of technological change has instead often been addressed at the policy level. In many
countries, there has been an active role of the state in promoting science and research and development
(R&D) activities, the latter being considered key sources of economic development and national
economies competitiveness. In particular, the agricultural sector has historically been the target of
heavy public investments in R&D, through specifically dedicated government bodies. In the U.S,
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and in the
EU the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are outstanding examples of such state engagement in
agricultural research. The U.S. has also funnelled agricultural research funds into less developed
countries, helping to establish important international research institutions such as the IRRI in the
Philippines, the IITA in Nigeria, the CIMMYT in Mexico, and the CIAT in Columbia. International
organizations such as the WB, FAO, and UNDP have also historically engaged in agricultural research
with the formation, for example, in 1971 of the CGIAR. However, it is worth noting that in the same
period in which a theoretical interest in the issue of technological change and innovation started to
flourish, state intervention all over the world started to decline. At the end of the 1980s, the public
sector support for both national and international food and agricultural research began to substantially
decline [20,21].
2.3. Food Regime Theories

The food regime approach has addressed the issue of how the evolution of the agri-food system is
inscribed within the larger process of capitalistic accumulation. Even if such approach does not try
directly to explain the linkages between sustainability and technological change, it nevertheless uses a
transdisciplinary institutionalist-like approach that turns out to be very helpful to that end.
Literature on food regime, inaugurated by Friedmann [22–25], is anchored to the theories
of the world system and of regulation and was first elaborated within the research field of
international relations and international political economy. Currently, it is an interdisciplinary
approach, encompassing the fields of economics, history, politics, sociology, and law [26]. Friedman’s
basic definition of food regime is “a rule-governed structure of production and consumption on a
world scale” [23]; accordingly, a particular food regime is characterized by a hegemonic power that is
able “to dictate the rules.”
So far, three food regimes have been described: the “Settler-Colonial” regime, spanning between
1870 and 1914, led by Britain with its policy of cheap food; the “Surplus” regime, between 1945
and 1973, led by the United States, which, under the umbrella of food aid programs, invaded their
informal empire of postcolonial states with their food surpluses; and the neoliberal food regime
(sometimes also referred to as “food from nowhere” regime or “corporate” food regime [27], where the
hegemonic powers are no longer nation states but the large TNCs controlling the global food chains.
It is with reference to this last regime that the relationship between sustainability and innovation has
to be investigated.
The neoliberal food regime has been shaped by the four credos of neoliberalism—deregulation,
international trade liberalization, reduction of public expenditure, and privatization—which have
produced a new international food order, characterized, inter alia, by [26]: (1) a high level of
consolidation at the manufacturer and retail level, with a dramatic rise of corporate power; (2) an
international division of labor based on the organizational features of global food commodity chains,
with the rise of export zones in the global south and the displacement of independent producers
and small scale agriculture; (3) an increasing market differentiation, with low-quality mass products
alongside “high-tech/high quality” rich products; (4) new technologies and intellectual property rights
as the new frontiers for profit extraction; (5) the accelerated depletion of natural resources, with a
global food system increasingly dependent on oil and massively contributing to climate change [28,29].
While the previous regimes were undermined and overcome by changes in the balance of power
at the geopolitical level, it is still not clear what will bring the neoliberal regime to its turning point.
There are at least three fields where conflicts and a sudden market structure and strategy changes
might lead to a regime change.
The first area of conflict is along the food supply chain for the leadership of the marketing
channel. A characteristic of the neoliberal regime has been the subversion of competitive equilibria
along the marketing channel, with retailers gaining disproportionate bargaining power in vertical
relationships with their suppliers; as a consequence, food manufacturers have lost their dominant
position, which had previously guaranteed high profits due to the exercise of monopolistic and
monopoly power. Currently, retailing chains risk losing their strategic and economic power for the
benefit of E-commerce companies, which are absorbing a rapidly increasing share of food purchases.
Moreover, the new marketing tools that are being created through the use of big data platforms and
the associated information technologies could trigger unexpected moves by big players at every stage
of the marketing chain; mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances at horizontal and vertical levels
could dramatically reshape power relationships along the food chain.
The second area of conflict and strategy change is at the top of the food chain, among agriculture
input suppliers. Here the traditional division between agro-chemical, seed and farm machinery
industries is becoming increasingly blurred. Whereas in the neoliberal regime the genetically modified
(GM) seed technology has spurred the takeover of plant breeders by pesticide manufacturers, the new
digital and biological technologies could create incentives for conglomerate consolidation, uniting
agrochemical, fertilizer, seed and tractor industries [30].
The third area of conflict refers to social preferences and cultural changes and is linked to the
ecological awareness that has become widespread in society at large, in public institutions, and in
political discourse. In this regard, the popularity of the concept of sustainability represents the
material consolidation of a cultural and political path that begins with the first ecological battles of
the seventies. It should be noted that the neoliberal regime has seen the simultaneous strengthening
of two opposing fronts: on the one hand, the big corporations responsible for major environmental
problems and on the other the environmentalist front consisting of public and private organizations
engaged in various sectors of society and economy. These two fronts consist of opposite visions of
society and life with different ethical values and political views. In order to resist the agribusiness
power, the environmentalist front has hinged upon many organizational and cultural experiences:
the rise of grassroot movements, such as urban farming or the Via Campesina and the project of
Food Sovereignty; new food styles, such as vegetarianism and veganism; new food ethics, such as
anti-speciesism; new agricultural production methods, such as organic and biodynamic agriculture;
new agricultural-related disciplines, such as agroecology; and new marketing organizations based on
environmental and ethical certification, such as fair trade, short supply chains, and consumer groups
buying locally produced food.
While the first two areas of conflict are generated by the innovation opportunities given by
digital technologies, the third area of conflict is generated by the general acceptance of the criterion of
sustainability as a guide for social and economic organization.
Scholars of food regimes have identified the possible trajectories of change stemming from
the third above-mentioned conflict, i.e., the one stemming from the sustainability concept. At the
global level, Friedman has envisioned the possibility of social movements proposing agroecology
and food sovereignty in order to seriously challenge the neoliberal food order, but without giving an
accurate account of what the new food regime might look like. At the European level, Levidow [3]
has suggested two possible trajectories: a corporate-environmental food regime vs. the agroecological
alternative. According to this author, the corporate-environmental food regime could be backed by
the two agendas set by the EU under the umbrella of sustainability, the bioeconomy agenda, and the
sustainable intensification project; while the first marginalizes agroecology, the second incorporates it
as one of the “green” practices, which include biotechnologies and nanotechnologies, meant to pursue
sustainability. Whichever agenda is chosen, the corporate-environmental food regime reinforces the
neoliberal productivist narrative, promoting technological innovation and thus increasing productivity
in view of the rising world population. On the contrary, the agroecological alternative addresses the
“feeding a growing population” problem from a larger perspective, recognizing poverty and social
inequalities (among genders, classes and races) as well as environmental degradation as the main
issues to deal with in order to guarantee universal access to food. In this perspective, the displacement
of corporate power over resources and markets, along with socio-political reforms for fostering social
justice, is as important as ecological agronomic practices to assure food security.
3. Technological Change and Innovation in the Food System
3.1. Technological Change and Innovation in the Agri-food System: Where We Are
Historically, the activities devoted to the production of food have undergone many technological
changes. Changes occurred over the last two centuries have been widely studied. Throughout the
nineteenth century, the main technological innovations were the horse drawn machines with the
introduction of important mechanical innovations such as mowers, mechanical reapers, and threshing
machines. Agricultural marketing also underwent major changes with the first canned food entering
the market, the rise of commercial agriculture, and the gradually demise of family-oriented farms in
more developed countries. At the beginning of the twentieth century animal power was gradually
replaced by the new fuel-based sources of energy, with the first prototype of the gasoline tractor built in
1892. In the same period, there were many technological innovations in food processing and marketing,
with the introduction of new forms of packaging, the increase of long-distance trade, and the new food
retail formats accompanying the ongoing urbanization processes. The major, long-lasting, technological
changes of the last century were referred to as the green revolution, based on the use of new highly
productive varieties of wheat and the extensive use of chemicals as both fertilizers and pesticides.
The green revolution, characterized by capital-intensive production processes, led to an extraordinary
increase in productivity. In the USA in 1860, 1 farm work could feed 4–5 persons, which became 22.8
in 1957 [31]. At the end of the last millennium, biotechnology brought the main technological changes
into the agri-food sector, followed in more recent years by nanotechnologies and digital technologies.
While it is easy enough to recall the main technological innovations that have affected the food
sector over the past two centuries, it is rather difficult to evaluate their effects on the economic, political,
social, and environmental spheres. It is beyond the scope of this paper to even roughly mention some
of the literature on the history and the assessment of technological change in agriculture. The focus
will be instead on the current processes of innovation and their effects in term of sustainability.
Different strands of literature give slightly different meanings to the word innovation. Here the
reference will be to the Schumpeterian definition, which makes a distinction between invention,
innovation, and diffusion. While the invention of a new product or process occurs within the
techno/scientific sphere, an innovation is an economic fact. When an innovation meets positive
economic outcomes a process of diffusion starts; a vast diffusion is what really transforms what was
once an invention into a socio/economic phenomenon. Thus, “inventions can occur anytime, but not
all of them become innovations and not all innovations diffuse widely (,) which means that the world
of the technically feasible is always much greater than that of the economically profitable (,) and this,
in turn, is much greater than that of [the] socially acceptable” [32].
In describing the innovation processes, we also accept the periodization given by Perez for the
five technological revolutions that have occurred since 1771, with each revolution leading to a new
technological paradigm. After the age of oil and the post-war golden age, which entailed the green
revolution at the agri-food system level, at the beginning of the 1970s, the ICT revolution ushered
the global socio-economic system into a transitional era. According to Perez [32], this transitional era
would hopefully lead to the sustainable, global ICT golden age, i.e., an age where a new period of
prosperity is fed by the digital innovations at the technological level and by the endorsement of the
sustainability concept at the sociocultural and institutional/policy level. “The aspiration to ‘green’
combined with the technologies of ICT has resulted in the gradual emergence of what we call a ‘smart
green lifestyle’” [33].
The last technological revolution occurred simultaneously with a political revolution, the advent
of neoliberalism, and a socio-cultural revolution, which brought the environmental issues to the
attention of society at large and gave birth to the concept of sustainability.
Given these premises, the innovation processes in the agri-food sector need to be situated in
the current ICT technological paradigm and in the current dominant political system (neoliberalism)
and with reference to the influence that the concept of sustainability is having at the socio-cultural
level. It is, however, important to keep in mind that, while digital technologies and neoliberalism have
already reached a hegemonic position, sustainability still occupies a marginal position, since it is not
a well-accepted concept (nor a guide for policy design) by some sectors of society and is sometimes
misunderstood even by those praising it. Moreover, it is also used in deceitful ways by actors, often
large companies, trying to “green” their public image.
In what follows, first a presentation of the major agribusiness-driven innovations available for
the agri-food sector is offered, showing their possible negative outcomes in terms of sustainability.
Secondly, the agroecology alternative is proposed as a possible, more sustainable innovation trajectory.
Third, a discussion is offered on how economic organization and competitive equilibria in the
food system, and the accelerating innovation processes occurring in the digital technology system,
disadvantage agroecology as a viable alternative to an environmental–corporate-led food regime. The
concluding remarks contain policy suggestions.
Table 1 presents a list of innovations already adopted or ready to be launched in every stage of
the food supply chain. The list does not contain references to agroecology-based innovations, which
will be dealt with in the next section. It is generic and presents the innovations most often discussed
by the popular press, given that recent reviews are only available for some sectors [34,35].
Table 1. Major agribusiness-driven innovations available for the agri-food sector.
Industries Innovations Types

New techniques of genetic engineering (gene editing
Agriculture Process/Product, Radical
and gene drive through CRISPR-induced alteration).
ICTs: Smart/precision agriculture (drones; aerial
imaging, spraying, and weeding robots; wireless
sensors to collect data from a field or greenhouse and
Process, Radical
to enable automatic cultivation systems; sensors and
ingestible microchip to track cattle’s activity levels
and health; autonomous farm vehicles).
Microbial biocontrol agents (Biopesticides). Process, Incremental/Radical
Genetically modified microbial biocontrol agents. Process, Radical
Nanotechnologies (Nanoformulation of
Process, Radical
agrochemicals; Nanosensors).
Nanotechnologies (packaging, food supplements and
Process/Product, Radical
additives, nano antimicrobic cookware).
Food
Synthetic biology-based nutraceuticals. Process/Product, Radical
manufacturing
ICTs (blockchains for traceability systems; smart
labels; automatic food processing machines; big data
platforms for procurement and marketing
management).
Animal food made from insects. Process, Product, Radical
ICTs (automatic logistic; in-store analytics; big data
platforms; blockchains for traceability systems;
Retailing Process/Product, Radical
portable gluten sensors; personalized e-commerce
software and devices).
Food service Neurogastronomy. Process/Product, Radical
ICTs (robot chefs; drone waiters; smart vending
machines; self-dispensing beer and wine machines;
nutritional scanners; smartphones bill payment apps;
mind-reading menus; portable gluten sensors).
An analysis of these innovations starting from the extensive literature of economic innovation
theory is beyond the objectives of this study. Nonetheless, in the table the quoted innovations are
tentatively classified with respect to two widely used criteria of radical (vs. incremental) and product
(vs. process) innovation, which are only some of the criteria used within the managerial theories of
innovation sprouted from the seminal work of Drucker [36]. Radical innovations are those which
have significant impacts on market equilibria and economic activity; they may entail high benefits but
also high risk and are often the consequence of important scientific and technological advancements.
As reported in Table 1, most of the ITCS-related innovations in the food sector tend to present the
features of radical more than incremental innovations.
All the listed innovations use at least one of the technologies that have been most affecting the food
system in recent years: biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, and digital technologies (the latter including
both “hardware” components and software components such as artificial intelligence, blockchains,
and big data processing systems). Since progresses in biotechnologies and nanotechnologies also
depend on the increasing data processing capabilities, these three areas of innovation may all be
considered as three technology systems inscribed within the ICT revolution referred to by Perez.
It is very difficult to ascertain how much these innovations may be able to raise the food system’s
sustainability, since to that end each of them would require a case-by-case benefit–risk assessment.
Nevertheless, it is possible to sketch some possible negative outcomes in terms of sustainability that
seem very likely to occur given some innovation risks and the current economic and political situation.
Reviewing digital innovations in agriculture, food processing, distribution, and consumption,
Bilali and Allahyari [37] explore the contribution of ICTs to transition towards sustainability along
the food chain. They highlight the benefits, in terms of increasing resource productivity, reducing
inefficiencies, decreasing management costs, and improving food chain coordination, but also
point to drawbacks of ICTs as well as the factors limiting their uptake in agriculture. Providing
potential negative impacts of ICTS, they quote: problems of e-waste in rural areas, increasing
control of food markets by few multinationals, disconnection between producers and consumers
through virtual relations, increasing dependency on technology, and risk of exclusion of small-scale
and computer-illiterate producers, especially in developing countries [38–40]. Concerns about the
marginalization of small-scale producers have also been raised in literature studying the adoption of
precision agriculture technologies (PATs). While PATs can have positive impacts on farm productivity
and may help to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions [41], their adoption has been reported to be
positively associated with farmers’ income, farmers’ education, and familiarity with computers and
farm [42].”
Innovation risks may arise at environmental, economic, and social levels. Environmental risks
are mainly associated with nanotechnologies and biotechnologies. New forms of non-degradable
pollutants, a loss of biodiversity, ecosystem disruptions (particularly reported for gene drive
technologies), an increased resistance of weeds, soil depletion, potential toxic effects on non-target
organisms (for instance in the case of microbial pest control agents (MPCAs)), damage to soil structure
and fertility, and a reduction of microbial biomass and diversity are all risks that have been reported
for nanotechnologies [43,44] and biotechnologies [45].
Economic risks may be associated with innovations in all three technological areas (bio, nano,
and digital) and arise from [46,47] (1) the possible disruption of markets (for traditional products that
are replaced by innovative products), (2) the displacement of workers due to a more capital-intensive
mode of production, and (3) the further consolidation of food systems, with the largest corporations
better able to exploit the profit streams from the patents on the new technologies.
Social risks may be more difficult to perceive. The generally reported social risks associated
with the technologization of the food system are: (1) the possible negative health effects (due to the
presence of toxic substances—from new materials, additives, bioengineered organisms, and new
pesticides—in food and the environment and to the loss of healthy traditional food styles), (2) the loss
of food sovereignty by local communities and entire countries, (3) the exacerbation of social injustices
due to the uneven distribution of the negative health and economic impacts of new technologies due
to gender and social classes inequalities, and (4) the loss of privacy and the decrease of autonomy
and self-determination in consumer behavior (in relation to the use of personal data for marketing
purposes achievable with digital technologies).
All of the above-mentioned risks require the implementation of careful risk analysis and
management policies by both the public and private sectors. Moreover, the decision about the level
of risk to be borne should be taken in a democratic context, with a high degree of knowledge and
awareness on the part of citizens and using participatory decision-making tools. Unfortunately, many
constraints at political and economic levels all over the world curtail the capability of states and
societies to effectively tackle the innovation risks.
At the political level the main obstacle comes from the still lasting neoliberal ideology that has
been shaping the world’s societies and economies for more than four decades. Deregulation and
privatization being its pillars, neoliberalism has renounced the more effective regulatory instruments
that can be used to protect society from innovation risks (such as standards, accurate premarket risk
assessment, strong liability laws, and so on) and has instead promoted private regulation, which has
given corporations the power to set the institutional stage that fits their vested interests instead of
social well-being [48].
At the economic level, the current presence of three factors is likely to hinder more than promote
risk prevention policies. First, there is the extremely high unequal distribution of wealth, which
weakens the ability of most people, striving to meet their basic needs, to fully understand technological
risks and to call for adequate prevention measures. Second, there is the fast-rising level of concentration
in many economic sectors. This is associated on the one hand with aggressive competitive policies,
where the requested speed of innovation leaves no room for careful risk analysis, and, on the other hand,
with the preference given to shareholders instead of stakeholders at large, with the goal of inflating the
value of companies for merger and acquisition purposes. Third, there is the strong interlinkage between
national economies. The trade liberalization of the 1990s and 2000s entailed deregulation choices to
eliminate non-tariff barriers, which ended up lowering the level of environmental protection. The
recent return to protectionism initiated by the Trump administration seems to make things even worse,
disrupting the existing scant international cohesion to cope with global risks. The disappointing results
of international climate change negotiations (COP24) held recently in Katowice are an outstanding
example of such dynamics.
3.2. Agroecology as An Alternative Innovation Trajectory for Fostering Sustainability

The term agroecology was originally used with reference to the application of ecology in
agriculture, therefore designating a scientific discipline that somehow merges agronomy and ecology.
Agroecological research concerned the comprehension of the interaction between ecosystems and
agricultural practices aimed particularly at finding an innovative means of plant protection. From the
1970s, agroecology continued to be defined as a scientific discipline but also emerged as a movement
within the then sprouting environmentalist movements [49,50]. Currently, agroecology can be thought
of as science, movement, and practice; it aims at a sustainable food system, questioning the agribusiness
model with its negative environmental and social impact [51,52]. Agroecological farming practices
seek to optimize ecological processes, thus minimizing the need for external inputs by providing an
array of ecosystem services such as biodiversity maintenance and soil fertility enhancement [53,54].
Intercropping, agroforestry, wildflower strips, and conservation tillage are examples of agroecological
practices that nevertheless, to be effective, need to be adapted in the local context through the
development of tailor-made practices integrating general scientific principles with farmers’ knowledge
of the specific pedoclimatic, social, and economic context. Agroecology is also important for the
achievement of the objectives set within the climate-smart agriculture perspective [55].
As a social and political movement, agroecology fights the power of the agribusiness by promoting
short food supply chains that reconnect producers and consumers, and therefore food, with agriculture
again. Experiences such as community-supported agriculture are considered advanced models for
sustainable food systems [56,57]. Agroecology has been described as a technological paradigm
alternative to the genetic engineering and ICT paradigm. The two paradigms would differ with respect
to their objectives (engineering systems vs. engineering plants) and to the scientific paradigm on which
they rely (ecology and holism vs. reductionism) [58].
Innovation is at the core of the agroecology project, but the desired innovation processes are very
different from those featured by the agribusiness-led model. In the latter, innovation is produced
by technologically advanced actors of the food chain, such as the biotechnology, nanotechnology,
and machinery industries, and “offered” to the other more traditional actors, such as agriculture
and food manufacturing. The agroecology model instead features a process of co-innovation,
which combines both scientific and traditional knowledge that complement and reinforce each
other. Farmers need to be placed at the very center of such a process of co-innovation, through
bottom-up and territorial processes, helping to deliver contextualized innovative solutions to local
problems [59]. To that end, it is important to foster knowledge exchange and share practices, and to
create opportunities for collaboration and innovation.
As recently stated in an FAO document [60]:
“By enhancing their autonomy and adaptive capacity, agroecology empowers producers and
communities as key agents of change. Rather than tweaking the practices of unsustainable agricultural
systems, agroecology seeks to transform food and agricultural systems, addressing the root causes
of problems in an integrated way and providing holistic and long-term solutions. This includes an
explicit focus on social and economic dimensions of food systems. Agroecology places a strong focus
on the rights of women, youth and indigenous peoples.”
In the same document, FAO recognizes that agroecology has the potentiality to guide countries
to transform their food and agricultural systems, to mainstream sustainable agriculture on a large
scale, and to achieve Zero Hunger and multiple other SDGs. To this end, the following 10 elements of
agroecology should be preserved:
• “Diversity; synergies; efficiency; resilience; recycling; co-creation and sharing of knowledge

(describing common characteristics of agroecological systems, foundational practices and
innovation approaches).
• “Human and social values; culture and food traditions (context features).
• “Responsible governance; circular and solidarity economy (enabling environment)” [60].
Notwithstanding its high sustainability potential, due to its capability to encompass all three
dimensions of sustainability, agroecology might pose two kinds of risks. The first is the economic
risk for economic actors (and communities) who choose the slower innovation process proposed by
agroecology; these actors could lose competitiveness with respect to actors following the agribusiness
model, and even risk being out the market. The second is the environmental risk associated with the
slow pace and local specificity of innovation processes; this means that, in the face of the fast and
pervasive environmental degradation due, for example, to global warming, agroecological solutions
could come too late and be applicable only in some places. On the contrary, the one-bullet solutions
proposed by the agribusiness model, whenever effective and devoid of negative side effects, could
offer fast solutions in many places. Therefore, the risk exists that staking everything on agroecology
could divert research funds and efforts from alternative technological solutions and limit, for instance,
the full exploitation of possible nano and biotechnology benefits. In any case, both these risks could
be tackled through (1) a regulatory system requiring more risk assessment of new technologies, thus
slowing the introduction of agribusiness-led innovations and enabling a level playing field competition
between the two innovation models, and (2) assuring that science plays its due role in the co-innovation
processes of agroecology, thus also allowing bio-nano and digital technologies to contribute, whenever
possible, to the agroecology project.
4. Moving Forward: The Coming Food Regime

The sketched characterization of the two described innovation trajectories (the agribusiness-led
and the agroecology innovation trajectories) may seem too simplistic and categorical, considering
that certain technologies such as the use of MBAs can be consistent with both. Nonetheless, such a
characterization, which shifts the attention from the type of innovation itself to the actors responsible
for innovation, helps to foretell where power will reside in the next food regime and therefore the
regime’s structural and institutional features. The agribusiness-led innovation trajectory may lead to
the environmental–corporate food regime (ECFR), where power would continue to be owned by large
corporations. The agroecology innovation trajectory instead may lead to the agroecology food regime
(AEFR), where power could be returned to the people.
The ECFR would retain the characteristics of the neoliberal regime but with changes in structure,
firms’ strategies, and power relations caused by technological innovation (nano, bio, and digital
innovations). Processes of deregulation, privatization, and financialization would continue. Trade
liberalization would be practiced along with bilateral trade wars. Inequality in wealth distribution
would continue to grow. Consolidation processes would continue, but leading actors might change
in response to the phenomena of “creative destruction” caused by technological innovation. The
food supply chain would probably be led by the companies better able to master the new digital
technologies. Food would increasingly be engineered with a growing distance from agriculture and
an increasing risk of people losing knowledge of the basic simple processes of food growing and
processing. The ECFR would be unlikely to improve sustainability since it would embrace the same
unsustainable business-as-usual philosophy, overlooking the environmental and social dimensions
of sustainability.
The AEFR, instead, would imply overcoming the neoliberal creed together with many tracts of the
neoliberal food regime. It would entail the slowdown of privatization processes by limiting patents,
redistributing land property, and ensuring that local communities have the right to decide on the use
of the natural resources of their territory, considered as common pool resources. It would also entail
the introduction of appropriate regulatory systems to safeguard the environment and protect against
the risks of new technologies. A priority would be to reintroduce and maintain knowledge of the food
growing and processing methods in order to respect the principles of food sovereignty. The AEFR
would probably assure a higher degree of sustainability, since it explicitly endeavors to integrate the
three components of sustainability, i.e., economic, social, and environmental. Nevertheless, it would
be the less likely food regime to succeed, since the scale pan between its weaknesses and strengths
hangs in favor of the weaknesses, which is the opposite of what happens in the case of the ECFR.
Table 2 summarizes the main strengths and weaknesses of the two regimes. What immediately
emerges is that the points of strength of the ECFR are associated with phenomena and dynamics that
are already operating in the system. A growing consolidation of the system is clearly already occurring.
Table 3 reports the top five companies’ worldwide market share for agricultural input industries,
following the recent Bayer–Monsanto merger. The concentration in these sectors is impressive,
but concentration is high towards the bottom of the food chain, with the first four companies controlling
90% of the grain trade sector and the top 10 companies of the food and beverage processing industries
controlling 37.5 share of the world market. Food retailing is also very concentrated in many countries,
such as in Germany, with the top four concentration ratio equal to 85% [30]. However, the most
worrying processes of consolidation are those involving vertical integration and conglomerates, which
are much less monitored by the antitrust authorities than horizontal concentration [61]. These new
processes of consolidation are being spurred by the technologies of the big data platforms. Over
the last years, all major companies in the food chain have been storing huge quantities of data and
acquiring small software, drone, and digital intelligence companies. At the same time, they have been
investing to develop machineries, seeds, and chemicals that may be integrated in data-dependent
precision agriculture technologies; as a consequence, there are incentives to intersectoral merges and
acquisitions. Farm machinery companies such as John Deere, AGCO, and CNH already have alliances
with seed, pesticide, and fertilizer companies; Bayer has alliances with all of the major farm machinery
companies and is heavily investing in crop nutrients [59]. Major companies are fighting to control
the two hubs stemmed from technological innovation: “the software hub that coalesces the genomics
information expressed by plant seeds and livestock breeds; [and] the hardware hub, around farm
machinery, which can coalesce the data from every production location and forward it whenever it
wishes and for whatever use” [62].
Table 2. Weaknesses and strengths of the two food regime models.
Weaknesses Strengths
The economic component of sustainability Consolidation, economic and
predominating over the environmental and the political power.
social components. Endorsed by neoliberalism.
Possible low social consensus (social movements Integration in the processes of
ECFR opposing corporate power, sustainability conflict, financialization.
(environmental–corporate low consumer acceptance of Innovations exploitable through patents.
food regime) technology-related risks). Market segmentation.
Low profitability of the proposed innovations Benefiting from its integration in the current
(failure of the new products). technology paradigm (network
Clashing interests of food chains actors (conflicts externalities, scale and scope economies).
along the supply chain). Centrality in the current research agenda.
Marginalization within the current
The environmental and social components
technology paradigm.
of sustainability predominating over the
Marginalization in the current research agenda.
economic component.
Opposed by neoliberalism.
Possible high social consensus (of the most
AEFR Not integrated in the processes of financialization
politically active part of the population
(agroecology food of the economy.
sensitive to social and
regime) Long period and localized tailor-made innovations.
environmental issues).
Innovations not exploitable through patents.
Possible increase of interest by international
Meeting only a small share of
agencies committed to social justice and
consumers’ preferences.
environmental protection.
Low profitability of the proposed innovations.
Table 3. Agricultural industries—market shares of the top five companies, 2017 (estimates based on
recent M&A).
Seed Agrochemical Fertilizer Farm Machinery

Bayer-Monsanto ChemChina-Syngenta
Nutrien (Canada) 5.5% John Deere (USA) 15%
(Germany) 33% (China) 23.5%
Corteva Agriscience Bayer-Monsanto
Yara (Norway) 4.7% Kubota (Japan) 9.1%
(USA) 21.3% (Germany) 22.9%
ChemChina-Syngenta The Mosaic Company CNH Industrial
BASF (Germany) 12.4%
(China) 7.4% (USA) 3.6% (Netherlands) 8.2%
Corteva Agriscience
Limagrin (France) 4.8% CF Industries (USA) 2.1% AGCO (USA) 6.1%
(USA) 11.3%
KWS (Germany) 3.9% FMC (USA) 4.6% Israel Chemicals (Israel) 1.6% CLAAS (Germany) 3%
70.4% 74.7% 17.5% 41.4%
Source ECT Group, 2018.
New actors are also entering into the supply chain. Venture capital has shown growing interest in
new hardware and software agricultural technologies. Famous but unexpected giants like Amazon,
Alibaba, Google, Microsoft, and Tencent are extending their activities into the food sector, and powerful
financial players like BlackRock and Blackstone already control significant shares of stocks of large
companies like Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, and Syngenta [63]. The consolidation processes are
driven by digital technologies, which means that the ECFR can be considered to be embodied in the
current technology paradigm following the ICT revolution. This is another strength of the ECFR
because it can take full advantage of the network externalities and scale economies characterizing the
diffusion of digital technologies, which leads to a situation of lock-in and path dependence, making
the ECFR invigorate and develop through self-reinforcing mechanisms.
Another strength of the ECFR lies in the possibility it could offer to firms to carry out profitable
differentiation strategies. Currently, the food market is highly segmented, with a cheap and low-quality
food segment, which includes the poorest consumers, and a plethora of high-quality food segments,
tailored to wealthy consumers who exhibit a great variety of food preferences, namely for food that is
defined healthy, fair, vegan, enriched, low-sugar, low-fat, local, organic, fine, gluten-free, exotic, luxury,
and so on. Using all the potentiality of big data platforms, powerful food manufacturers and retailers,
who have access to a huge amount of information on consumer preferences and food styles, can design
a marketing mix that precisely matches the expectations of customers in every targeted segment, with
price discrimination policies guaranteeing very high profits.
Lastly the ECFR is consistent with the political belief of neoliberalism, which is still dominant,
and with the ongoing process of financialization of the world economy, so it does not encounter
any obstacles from the regulatory bodies and the powerful financial institutions, which set the
economy’s rules.
The same elements that constitute strong points for the ECFR are, with a different sign, weak points
for the AEFR. The opposition to corporate power (and therefore to consolidation and financialization
processes) and to the extreme capitalistic accumulation endorsed by neoliberalism has placed the
AEFR in a position of disadvantage in the current competitive and institutional framework. Contrary
to the ECFR, the innovations proposed by the AEFR, which are not integrated within the dominant
technology paradigm, do not benefit from positive externalities and scale economies. This, in turn,
does not favor their introduction and diffusion. Finally, being tailored on the fulfillment of rights
and equity more than on the value of consumers and profitability does not bear fruit, since the AEFR
would offer a product variety that more than likely would not meet the consumer preferences that
have already been shaped by the neoliberal food regime.
The points of weakness of the ECFR are mainly the area of conflict in the neoliberal food regime
stemming from the growing awareness of the environmental problems as well as the diffusion
of the principles of sustainability within the society and institutions, which generates opposition
to the irresponsible business-as-usual behavior of firms in the food system. Consequently, strict
state regulatory policies and low consumer acceptance of technology-related risks might shift the
technology trajectory towards agroecology. Another weak point could come from excessively
aggressive competitive strategies of companies, which could generate innovation failures and/or
financial troubles, changing the course of the innovation trajectory.
A genuine commitment to sustainability is the only element of strength of the AEFR. Compared
to the ECFR, which mainly takes into account the economic dimension of sustainability, the AEFR
also tries to consider, and maybe even more so, the environmental and social dimensions of the
phenomenon. Therefore, it is supported by international agencies having a strong commitment to
social justice and environmental protection, as is shown by the recent statements released by the FAO
in favor of agroecology [64].
5. Conclusions
At first it was the green revolution, where improved seeds, agrochemicals, and mechanization
were the driving technologies in the agri-food system. The current technological revolution, instead,
is driven by digital technologies, which refers to ICT in its broader meaning, encompassing
software-like components, such as AI, big data platforms, and blockchains, and hardware-like
components, such as robots, drones, and sensors (electrical, biological, acoustical, and visual sensors,
also using bio-nano engineered materials). In a way, GMOs, introduced in the 1990s, were still part of
the previous innovation wave that was centered on the introduction of new seeds and chemicals. It is
only since the late 2000s that the fast development in genetic engineering and synthetic biology enabled
by new digital technologies has spurred the truly revolutionary innovations in the agri-food system.
In this paper, literature focused on sustainability, innovation, and food regimes helped to answer
the question as to whether the innovation processes currently occurring in the food system are likely
to improve its sustainability.
A tentative answer to such a question is that innovation processes in the system seem to follow two
innovation trajectories, leading to two different food regimes, with opposite effects on sustainability.
The first trajectory, driven by agribusiness, pushes towards the ECFR; this regime is very similar to the
previous neoliberal food regime and therefore would probably follow its unsustainable pattern. The
second innovation trajectory, driven by the agroecology movement, leads, instead, to the AEFR, which
proposes highly sustainable food production and consumption patterns.
Innovation theories and the concept of sustainability both help to understand which forces are
pushing towards one or the other regime.
The theory of technology systems and technological revolutions demonstrates that the current
innovation processes in the food system, that for the most part belong to the agribusiness-driven
trajectory, are situated in the ICT technological paradigm. This means that innovations in the food
system are only partly chosen by actors in the system; they are, instead, largely determined by
phenomena of network externalities, path dependence, and technology lock-in associated with the
establishment of a new paradigm following a technology revolution. The fact that the innovation
trajectory leading to the ECFR is fully consistent with the current technology paradigm is the main
point of strength of the ECFR.
The concept of sustainability, on the other hand, helps to understand the forces that push towards
the AEFR. The AEFR has the chance to succeed in contexts and conditions in which the concept of
sustainability becomes deeply rooted in culture and society. In such cases, social forces would bring
policy makers to build an institutional framework capable of shifting economic incentives towards the
agroecology innovation trajectory, even within the ICT technology paradigm.
The leading economic actors within the food system are thus following an innovation trajectory,
available within the ICT technology paradigm, that tends to exacerbate the unsustainable patterns
followed by the previous neoliberal regime. The transition to the ICT paradigm is almost complete, and
it would be difficult and even detrimental to stop its development. The opportunities offered by digital
technologies might serve both the ECFR and the AEFR. Nevertheless, the innovations already visible
and those in the pipeline clearly are going to feed corporate power, profit accumulation, and social
inequality, with controversial effects on the environment; many technologies that seem to bring clear
environmental benefits in the short term might have unexpected negative side effects and high risks in
the future, some of which being even global and systemic.
Perez [32] has explained how a technology paradigm shift needs to be accompanied and supported
by adequate institutional changes, which implies innovation within the political sphere, to be able to
bring as many benefits as possible. Therefore, policy makers should design policy interventions that
are adequate to make the ICT paradigm give rise to innovations that serve the agroecology movement
and sustainability more than the vested corporate interests. If we examine more in depth the points
of strength of the ECFR previously listed in Table 2, it is possible to identify the following fields
of intervention.
(1) Strengthening competition policy. Stricter laws should be enacted. More attention should be
paid to vertical and intersectoral (conglomerates) M&As, anticompetitive effects of strategic alliance
and collaborative relationships, vertical restraints, and coordination among antitrust authorities of
different countries.
(2) Patent laws. These should be revised and adapted to the new technologies and their
transnational diffusion and control. The objective should be to find the right equilibrium between their
procompetitive effect (incentives to R&D investments) and their anticompetitive effects (monopoly
power and innovation closure effects). International harmonization should be also considered.
(3) Strengthening environmental regulations. The neoliberal deregulation diktat should be
overcome. Recovering the role of the state regulator would facilitate the achievement of environmental
protection objectives and would also facilitate firms that would face a clear institutional framework.
A greater importance should be given to inter-countries harmonization, without excluding the use of
non-tariff barriers in the event of regulatory differences.
(4) Technology risk analysis. Technological changes involve many kinds of risks that are
systemic and global [65–67]. Negative outcomes may be prevented through effective technology
risk analysis. The last technological revolution, together with economic growth, has caused most of the
environmental problems we are still struggling with today. Compared to the last century, we now have
the tools and the knowledge for a more careful assessment and prevention of risks. What is lacking is
the political will. An essential element of risk analysis should be the democratization of risk control,
which in the first instance requires the knowledge and awareness of citizens. Unfortunately, many
technology risks, especially those of social and political nature, are unknown to most people [68,69].
In this respect, the public sector should ensure a higher level of education that embraces the knowledge
of new technologies and the risks they pose.
(5) Funding public research. Substantial investments in public research are essential to curb the
privatization of knowledge that is the basis of many social risks related to technological change.
(6) Poverty alleviation and food security policies based on the principle of food as a human
right. Agroecology proposes a multifaced approach to reach global food security while preserving
democracy and the environment. Technology is only one element of this approach. Economic justice
and gender equality are other important elements. Food security may be achieved without pressing
the accelerator on the commercialization of new technologies; it rather requires wealth redistributive
policies and the fulfillment of women rights. The same demographic growth can be held back by
fighting against poverty and defending the political, civil, and social rights of women. These objectives
require cultural and institutional innovations, which require smart and wise human beings well before
smart agriculture.
Finally, it is worth stressing that all the interventions suggested require a change in the dominant
political belief, i.e., neoliberalism. Such a political revolution is more difficult to achieve than the
technology revolution; nevertheless, there is room for a gradual shift that could be triggered by the
further spread of the principles of sustainability. For sustainability to influence the political sphere,
it is necessary to consider its three dimensions separately and clearly show and communicate the
trade-offs that often exist between environmental, social, and economic sustainability objectives. When
a trade-off occurs, a political and/or ethical choice is required. The role of the public sector is then to
make decisions in a transparent and democratic way, involving all vested stakeholders and the citizens
at large. The concept of sustainability has become a blanket that is too large, often serving to cover,
instead of unveiling and tackling, environmental and social problems. Most documents by public
and private institutions dealing with the environment and technology risk either forget to consider
all three dimensions of sustainability or prefer to focus on one instead of the others and, in the case
of a trade-off, do not make the politics underlying the choice explicit. Sometimes it would be more
convenient to name one sustainability dimension at a time. How sustainability policies may very often
pursue one goal at the expense of others should be investigated.
The sustainability assessment of current innovation waves in the food system is an issue, which
has been given little attention thus far. This study has the credit of putting the complexity of such an
assessment at the foreground and highlights the need to resort to multiple theories and approaches,
such as sustainability science, innovation theories, and food regime approaches. An important result of
the paper is the identification of the two alternative technology trajectories leading to two food regimes,
and the description of the forces that push towards one or the other alternative. Nevertheless, due to its
qualitative approach, the study is limited in its scope. Further development and examinations should
include, among other things, extensive reviews of ongoing innovations, case studies of sustainability
technology assessment, critical text analysis of public documents suggesting technological innovation
as a sure way towards sustainability, and analysis of power relations within the system and their effect
on innovation choices and sustainability.
Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.
References
1. OECD. Analysing Policies to Improve Agricultural Productivity Growth, Sustainably: Revised
Framework. 2015. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/agricultural-policies (accessed
on 20 September 2018).
2. European Commission. A Strategic Approach to EU Agricultural Research Innovation. 2016. Available
online: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020 (accessed on 6 September 2018).
3. Levidow, L. European transitions towards a corporate-environmental food regime: Agroecological
incorporation or contestation? J. Rural Stud. 2015, 40, 76–89. [CrossRef]
4. Levidow, L.; Birch, K.; Papaioannou, T. Divergent Paradigms of European Agro-Food Innovation. Sci. Technol.
Hum. Values 2013, 38, 94–125. [CrossRef]
5. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). Our Common Future; Oxford University
Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
6. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks—Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; New Society Publishers: Stoney
Creek, CT, USA, 1997.
7. Bell, S.; Morse, S. Measuring Sustainability: Learning by Doing; Earthscan: London, UK, 2003.
8. Norton, B.G. Sustainability; The University Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005.
9. Kortenkamp, K.V.; Moore, C.F. Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: Moral reasoning about ecological
commons dilemmas. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 261–272. [CrossRef]
10. Sodano, V.; Hingley, M.K. Corporate social responsibility reporting: The case of the agri-food sector.
Economia Agro-Alimentare/Food Economy 2018, 20, 93–120. [CrossRef]
11. Sodano, V. Innovation and food system sustainability: Public concerns vs. private interests. In Proceedings
of the EAAE Seminar ‘System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks’, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria, 18–22
February 2008.
12. Ruttan, V.W. Induced Innovation, Evolutionary Theory and Path Dependence. Econ. J. 1997, 107, 1520–1529.
[CrossRef]
13. Nelson, R.R.; Winter, S.G. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change; Harvard University Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 1982.
14. Dosi, G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the
determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Policy 1982, 11, 147–162. [CrossRef]
15. Ruttan, V.W. The transition to agricultural sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 5960–5967.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Freeman, C.; Perez, C. Structural crisis of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. In Technical
Change and Economic Theory; Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L., Eds.; Printer Publisher:
London, UK, 1988; pp. 38–66.
17. Perez, C. Technological Revolutions and Techno-Economic Paradigms; Working Papers in Technology Governance
and Economic Dynamics no. 20; The Other Canon Foundation: Oslo, Norway, 2009.
18. Noble, D.F. Progress without People; Between the Lines: Toronto, ON, USA, 1995.
19. Feenberg, A. Transforming Technology; Oxford University Press: London, UK, 2002.
20. Ruttan, V.W. Changing Role of Public and Private Sectors in Agricultural Research. Science 1982, 216, 23–29.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Ruttan, V.W. Productivity Growth in World Agriculture: Sources and Constraints. J. Econ. Perspect. 2002, 16,
161–184. [CrossRef]
22. Friedmann, H. International regimes of food and agriculture since 1870. In Peasants and Peasant Societies;
Shanin, T., Ed.; Basil Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1987; pp. 258–276.
23. Friedmann, H. The political economy of food: A global crisis. New Left Rev. 1993, I/197, 29–57.
24. Friedmann, H. Feeding the empire: Pathologies of globalized agriculture. In The Empire Reloaded; Panitch, L.,
Leys, C., Eds.; Monthly Review Press: London, UK, 2004.
25. Friedmann, H.; McMichael, P. Agriculture and the state system: The rise and fall of national agricultures,
1870 to the present. Sociol. Ruralis 1989, 29, 93–117. [CrossRef]
26. Sodano, V. Food Policy beyond neo-liberalism. In Sociological Landscape Theories, Realities and Trend; Erasga, D.,
Ed.; InTech: Vienna, Austria, 2012; pp. 375–402. Available online: http://www.intechopen.com/books/
(accessed on 13 November 2018).
27. McMichael, P. A food regime genealogy. J. Peasant Stud. 2009, 36, 139–169. [CrossRef]
28. Garnett, T. Cooking up a Storm. 2008, Food Climate Research Network. Available online: https://www.fcrn.
org.uk/sites/default/files/CuaS_web.pdf (accessed on 12 September 2018).
29. Shiva, V. Soil Not Oil; South End Press: Brooklyn, NY, USA, 2008.
30. IPES-Food. Too Big to Feed: Exploring the Impacts of Mega-Mergers, Concentration, Concentration of Power
in the Agri-Food Sector. 2017. Available online: www.ipes-food.org (accessed on 6 October 2018).
31. Rasmussen, W.D. The Impact of Technological Change on American Agriculture, 1862–1962. J. Econ. Hist.
1962, 22, 578–591. [CrossRef]
32. Perez, C. Technological revolutions, paradigm shifts and socio-institutional change. In Globalization, Economic
Development and Inequality: An alternative Perspective; Reinert, E., Ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2004;
pp. 217–242.
33. Perez, C.; Murray, T. A Smart Green ‘European Way of Life’: The Path for Growth, Jobs and Wellbeing. BTTR
WP 2018-01. Available online: http://beyondthetechrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/BTTR_
WP_2018-1.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2018).
34. Lewrick, M.; Omar, M.; Williams, R., Jr.; Tjandra, N.C.; Lee, Z.-C. Radical and Incremental Innovation
Effectiveness in Relation to Market Orientation in the Retail Industry. In Successful Technological Integration
for Competitive Advantage in Retail Settings; Pantano, E., Ed.; Business Science Reference: Hershey, PA, USA,
2015; pp. 239–268.
35. Steiner, B.E. A phenomenon-driven approach to the study of value creation and organizational design issues
in agri-business value chains. Ec. Agro-Alimentare/Food Economy 2017, 19, 89–118. [CrossRef]
36. Drucker, P. The Practice of Management; Harper: New York, NY, USA, 1954.
37. Bilali, E.; Allahyari, H. Transition towards sustainability in agriculture and food systems: Role of information
and communication technologies. Inf. Process. Agric. 2018, 5, 456–464. [CrossRef]
38. Zewge, A.; Dittrich, Y. Systematic mapping study of information technology for development in agriculture
(the case of developing countries). Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 2017, 2, 1–25. [CrossRef]
39. Deichmann, U.; Goyal, A.; Mishra, D. Will digital technologies transform agriculture in developing countries?
Agric. Econ. 2016, 47, 21–33. [CrossRef]
40. Ali, J.; Kumar, S. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) and farmers’ decision-making across
the agricultural supply chain. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2011, 31, 149–159. [CrossRef]
41. Balafoutis, A.; Balafoutis, A.; Beck, B.; Fountas, S.; Vangeyte, J.; Wal, T.; Soto, I.; Gómez-Barbero, M.;
Barnes, A.; Eory, V. Precision Agriculture Technologies Positively Contributing to GHG Emissions Mitigation,
Farm Productivity and Economics. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1339. [CrossRef]
42. Pierpaoli, E.; Carli, G.; Pignatti, E.; Canavari, M. Drivers of precision agriculture technologies adoption: A
literature review. Procedia Technol. 2013, 8, 61–69. [CrossRef]
43. Sodano, V.; Gorgitano, M.T.; Quaglietta, M.; Verneau, F. Regulating food nanotechnologies in the European
Union: Open issues and political challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 54, 216–226. [CrossRef]
44. Pandey, G. Challenges and future prospects of agri-nanotechnology for sustainable agriculture in India.
Environ. Technol. Innov. 2018, 11, 299–307. [CrossRef]
45. Jacobsen, S.E.; Sørensen, M.; Pedersen, S.M.; Weiner, J. Feeding the world: Genetically modified crops versus
agricultural biodiversity. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 651–662. [CrossRef]
46. Scrinis, G.; Lyons, K. The emerging nano-corporate paradigm: Nanotechnology and the transformation of
nature, food and agri-food systems. Int. J. Sociol. Food Agric. 2007, 15, 22–44.
47. Invernizzi, N.; Foladori, G.; Maclurcan, D. Nanotechnology’s controversial role for the south. Sci. Technol. Soc.
2008, 13, 123–148. [CrossRef]
48. Sodano, V. Food nanotechnologies and policy challenges. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2018, 16, 5–10. [CrossRef]
49. Wezel, A.; Bellon, S.; Doré, T.; Francis, C.; Vallod, D.; David, C. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a
practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 503–515. [CrossRef]
50. Dalgaard, T.; Hutchings, N.J.; John, R.; Porter, J.R. Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 100, 39–51. [CrossRef]
51. Guzman, E.S.; Woodgate, G. Agroecology: Foundations in Agrarian social thought and sociological theory.
Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2013, 37, 32–44.
52. Gliessman, S. Agroecology. In The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015.
53. Altieri, M. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture, 1st ed.; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1995;
ISBN 1-85339-2952.
54. Hatt, S.; Artru, S.; Brédart, D.; Lassois, L.; Francis, F.; Haubruge, E.; Garré, S.; Stassart, P.; Dufrêne, M.;
Monty, A.; et al. Towards sustainable food systems: The concept of agroecology and how it questions current
research practices. A review. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2016, 20, 215–224.
55. Saja, S.; Torquebiau, E.; Hainzelin, E.; Pages, J.; Maraux, F. The way forward: An agroecological perspective
for Climate-Smart Agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 250, 20–24. [CrossRef]
56. Kremen, C.; Miles, A. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems:
Benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 40. [CrossRef]
57. Khadse, A.; Rosset, P.M.; Morales, H.; Ferguson, B.G. Taking agroecology to scale: The Zero Budget Natural
Farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. J. Peasant Stud. 2018, 45, 192–219. [CrossRef]
58. Vanloqueren, G.; Baret, P.V. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops
genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 971–983. [CrossRef]
59. Douthwaite, B.; Hoffecker, E. Towards a complexity-aware theory of change for participatory research
programs working within agricultural innovation systems. Agric. Syst. 2017, 155, 88–102. [CrossRef]
60. FAO. FAO’s Work on Agroecology: A Pathway to Achieving the SDGs. 2018. Available online:
https://www.rural21.com/uploads/media/rural2018_02-S14-16.pdf (accessed on 12 September 2018).
61. Sodano, V.; Verneau, F. Competition Policy and Food Sector. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2014, 26, 155–172.
[CrossRef]
62. ETC Group. Blocking the Chain: Industrial Food Chain Concentration, Big Data Platforms and Food
Sovereignty Solutions. 2018a. Available online: www.etcgroup.org (accessed on 6 October 2018).
63. ETC Group. BlackRock and a Hard Place Is the Industrial Food Chain Unravelling or Rewinding? ECT
Communique. 2018b. Available online: www.etcgroup.org (accessed on 6 October 2018).
64. FAO. Regional Symposium on Agroecology for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems in Europe and Central Asia;
FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016.
65. Hellstrom, T. Systemic innovation and risk: Technology assessment and the challenge of responsible
innovation. Technol. Soc. 2003, 25, 369–384. [CrossRef]
66. Hellstrom, T. New vistas for technology and risk assessment? The OECD Programme on Emerging Systemic
Risks and beyond. Technol. Soc. 2009, 31, 325–331. [CrossRef]
67. Heurtebise, J.Y. Global risks: Cause and consequence of the new interactions between science, technology
and society. In The Handbook of Global Science, Technology, and Innovation; Filippetti, A., Archibugi, D., Eds.;
Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 557–574.
68. Miller, C.; Coldicutt, R.; Kitcher, H. People, Power and Technology: The 2018 Digital Understanding Report;
Doteveryone: London, UK, 2018; Available online: http://understanding.doteveryone.org.uk/ (accessed on
20 September 2018).
69. O’Neil, K. Weapons of Math Destruction; Broadway Books: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Innovation Trajectories and Sustainability in The Food System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovation Trajectories and Sustainability in The Food System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovation Trajectories and Sustainability in The Food System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: innovation; sustainability; food regime

Sustainability 2019, 11, 1271; doi:10.3390/su11051271 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Defining Sustainability

2.2. Innovation Theories

2.3. Food Regime Theories

3. Technological Change and Innovation in the Food System

Table 1. Major agribusiness-driven innovations available for the agri-food sector.

Industries Innovations Types

3.2. Agroecology as An Alternative Innovation Trajectory for Fostering Sustainability

• “Diversity; synergies; efficiency; resilience; recycling; co-creation and sharing of knowledge

4. Moving Forward: The Coming Food Regime

Table 2. Weaknesses and strengths of the two food regime models.

Seed Agrochemical Fertilizer Farm Machinery

Funding: This research received no external funding.

You might also like