Politics within this first domain is mainly established within political economy scholarship, where food systems change (or no-change) is conceived to emanate from power dynamics embedded in instrumental, structural, and discursive forces (Clapp and Fuchs, 2009), reinforced by knowledge and science (De Schutter, 2017; Anderson and Leach, 2019; Duncan et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2021). Specifically, whether food systems change or not depends on the political negotiation of more profound struggles between actors (and their interests) (Harris et al., 2019), the interplay of socially and politically positioned knowledge and evidence (Tomlinson, 2013; Sodano and Gorgitano, 2022) and the structurally-determined rules of the game (Clapp, 2020).¹ Being probably the domain with the largest scholarly engagements, it offers valuable insights into how existing deeply embedded unsustainable structures have come to dominate and lock-in the system into its current trajectory but also how to leverage deep-rooted power dynamics to trigger transformations. However, as Duncan et al. (2019) and others (e.g., Béné and Lundy, 2023) have noted, this initial political-economic perspective needs to be complemented by other approaches acknowledging other forms of power and influence.

Food choices and behaviors, influenced by cultures and social norms (Higgs, 2015), can slow down social change. It can, however, also provide leverage for personal and collective reforms. Politics in this domain is understood in the context of socio-cultural struggles around change processes at individual and social/collective scales. Discussions of values and meanings of (food) actions in social practices (e.g., Spaargaren et al., 2011; Shove et al., 2012; Sargant, 2014) and increasingly, in poststructuralist informed political economy (Duncan et al., 2019) through works such as political consumerisms (Goodman and DuPuis, 2002; Lockie, 2002; Jacobsen and Dulsrud, 2007) makes these politics evident. Yet, issues of culture and norms, as Noack and Pouw (2015) argued, are still under-represented in the literature on food systems and, even when considered, are rarely viewed as political. This makes the inclusion of this domain (even more) imperative in order to extend the horizons and levers of food systems transformations.

Several scholars in development, public administration and governance (Wu et al., 2015; Yee and Liu, 2021), and political economy (Gillespie et al., 2019) have emphasized the political elements of this domain; for example, the discussions of capacities and resources inadequacies, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)’ public administrations, have often been identified as a source of competition between public needs and priorities (e.g., food vs. energy) or between levels of public policy (national vs. sub-national), as well as between food systems sectors (e.g., health vs. education vs. agriculture) (Hampshire et al., 2004; Gillespie et al., 2013; Pereira and Drimie, 2016). The political dynamics in this domain, thus, essentially translate into how the different mixes of competencies (analytical, operational, and political) and capabilities, as well as resources, at individual, organizational, and systemic levels, enable or hinder the initiation of changes in practices and in mental models, to counter resistance and deliver desired food systems outcomes (Gillespie et al., 2013; Holt-Giménez, 2019).

Technological innovations, described in varied literature as engine of (systems) change (Bear and Holloway, 2015; Khan et al., 2021), imbue competition and tensions between the new and the old, as well as between the multiple novelties vying for attention (Herrero et al., 2020). Some argue that “technologies” cannot be detached from what they do (Carolan, 2020, p. 209) and how they come into being (Béné, 2022; de Boon et al., 2022)—which is mainly political, propelling specific values at the expense of others, and ultimately resulting in the reshaping of power relations in food systems (Carolan, 2018; ETC Group, 2022). Through these and other mechanisms (e.g., lobbying), technological innovations are said to be ambiguous (Mialon et al., 2015): on the one hand, they have the potential to catalyze transformations (e.g., hybrid seeds and green revolution), but on the other hand, they are more often than not source of inertia (e.g., farmer capital investment in machinery limiting diversified production or defensive research and development) (ERF, 2008; Hendrickson and James, 2016). In this context, technological innovations emerge through diverse politics—making this space critical in navigating how to deliver transformations.

The first process necessary in transforming food systems is identifying the resistance to change in the current food regime. Scholarships in political economy (De Schutter, 2017; Béné, 2022), socio-technical transitions (Geels, 2014; Anderson C. R. et al., 2019), and innovation theories (Friedman and Ormiston, 2022) have all highlighted resistance—the processes through which newness and change are restrained— as an integral element of food systems and their dynamics (Conti et al., 2021, see also Goldstein et al., 2023 for an extensive review across disciplines). The argument is that dominant incumbents and established institutions may have interests in maintaining and protecting the structures on which their current position and benefits depend (IPES-Food, 2017; Harris et al., 2019; IPES-Food, 2023). The inevitability of resistance and the challenges they pose to food systems sustainability efforts make their identification, understanding, and eventual unlocking, a critical step in the transformation process. In effect, challenging the status quo to overcome change-resisting biases of all forms is a prerequisite for transformation (Pelling et al., 2015; Carriedo et al., 2022; Duncan et al., 2022).

Given the critical position of resistance in transformation processes (Béné, 2022), food scholars have identified and discussed many specific examples relative to the global food systems (see Oliver et al., 2018; Conti et al., 2021; Friedman and Ormiston, 2022; Goldstein et al., 2023) and/or about specific topics within the system, such as the reduction in red meat consumption (Sievert et al., 2021; Béné and Lundy, 2023). Later in this paper, we will enrich these discussions by emphasizing some of these resistances as they emerge within the four political domains introduced above, showing in particular that these resistances can take many different forms of political (in)actions, and that those (in)actions are not confined to the political economy of corporations and governments but are, instead, widespread across the activities of diverse actors, including consumers and civil society.

After identifying and challenging resistances, the second process that needs to take place is creating and maintaining new momentum. Our use of the term momentum is deliberate, as the term is commonly used to describe a force or movement. So, we view momentum as the emergence of a force, power of new and alternative political actions, with the potential to challenge and impact existing regimes in ways that sow the seeds for transformation. Hence, drawing from socio-technical transitions (Geels, 2002; Bremmer and Bos, 2017) and alternative foods networks (Tregear, 2011), we describe new momentums as alternative narratives, innovations, changes in norms, behaviors, and/or institutional arrangements that bear politically different visions from the established regime/model/paradigm. Particularly, this stage is motivated by well-established concepts and processes of transitions/transformation, such as niches in the MLP (Schot and Geels, 2007; Bremmer and Bos, 2017) and the preparation phase of change described by Olsson et al. (2014) and Pereira et al. (2020). However, unlike niches that are novelties from lower levels and sheltered from the rigors of regime competition (Schot and Geels, 2007), new momentums take a systematic and fluid approach as we envision them to manifest across all domains and scales of food systems.

Critical in this process is visioning for alternatives and setting out a different direction for the system (Lam et al., 2022). At this stage, alternative visions, directions, and expectations that drive the trajectory of the food systems transformation are articulated and deliberately crafted into change actions (Lartey et al., 2018; Jia, 2021; Kugelberg et al., 2021). This sets the foundation for the explicit normativity that actors must pursue to deliver transformation. This is where the actual goals of transformation (for example, sustainable healthy diets) are fused into the emerging food systems by employing such visions as the indices for negotiating political actions.

The third process is Converting the new momentum into sustainable options. We take inspiration from niche-regime linkages in MLP (Ingram, 2015; Bui et al., 2016; Lam et al., 2022), diffusion/adoption of innovations under transition dynamics (Silvestri G. et al., 2022), and the recruitment of practitioners in social practices (Shove and Pantzar, 2005; Shove et al., 2012) to describe this stage where the emerging alternative momentum becomes mainstream and replaces the unsustainable dominant practices and structures. It is thus at this stage that the alternative framings, technologies, behaviors and norms, and capacity arrangements created in the prior stage are institutionalized as sustainable options from which potential takers can choose. Converting new momentum into these diffusible and followable prospects involves enlarging, replicating, and moving alternatives into available political opportunities in the broader system for others to follow (Prost, 2019).

However, as Aramyan et al. (2021) argue, motivation alone is not enough to make niches become the norm, in our case, to turn alternatives into sustainable regime options. For this to happen, several conditions need to be fulfilled. In particular, translating framings and agendas into implementable policies is considered central (Kanter et al., 2016; Milat and Li, 2017; Ajates Gonzalez et al., 2018). This involves using policy and policy instruments to institutionalize sustainable alternatives (Tummers, 2019). It also entails turning those alternative narratives into actionable activities (Ajates Gonzalez et al., 2018; European Commission, 2021) and drawing the right external partners and followers to ensure these alternatives become the new standard (Aramyan et al., 2021). In the end, new visions and outcomes must be acceptable to potential takers (Shove and Pantzar, 2005; Shove and Walker, 2014) to draw transformation-worthy engagements.

Finally, cross-cutting the three already outlined processes is managing trade-offs, reducing incoherence, and prioritizing actions. Trade-offs refer here to situations where improvement in one aspect/dimension of the food system or the implementation of one action/policy is associated with decline, losses or limitation in a different aspect/dimension (cf. IPES-Food, 2017). Thus, we draw from (food) systems perspectives (Horton et al., 2017; Mausch et al., 2020) to describe this stage as systematically assessing actions and policies to minimize contradictions and maximize co-benefits in processes and outcomes (HLPE, 2017; Vågsholm et al., 2020; Jagustovic et al., 2021). This stage also involves temporal choices to ensure enhanced long-term actions and outcomes while minimizing unavoidable negative short-term consequences (Gillespie et al., 2013; Ssebunya et al., 2017).

Empirical data indicate that the many complexities of food systems –including competing issues, objectives, goals, and potential outcomes– make those trade-offs and prioritization critical to transformation processes. In this context, some scholars have argued that trade-offs need to be intentionally addressed for true sustainability to occur because diversity in complex systems inherently creates competition (Horton et al., 2017; Herrero et al., 2020; Barrett et al., 2022) or even conflicts (Galli et al., 2018; Bojić et al., 2022). Ultimately, every (in)action results in winners and losers, which must be managed to ensure the least resistance possible in change processes.

In sum, whether in relation to the resistance to change or in establishing alternative(s) leading to new outcomes, trade-offs occur in every food system (in)action and at every stage of the transformation process.

Several sources of resistance to food system transformation related to Powers, discourses and knowledge (top-left part in the framework) can be found in the literature.

Concentration and domination by the “big corporate”—Widely discussed by political economy scholars, the influence of powerful corporate actors is at the heart of the opposition to food system reforms. “Big Food” and “Big Ag,” as they are commonly called, are influential actors who wield enormous powers in their respective segments of the food system (Stuckler and Nestle, 2012; Bronson and Sengers, 2022). Along with new-comers such as technology companies (Microsoft, Google, etc.), they exert tremendous control over the food systems through digital innovations (Abdulai, 2022; ETC Group, 2022), financialization, and capitalization (Clapp, 2014) – often at the detriment of local/indigenous communities (Lugo-Morin, 2020). Meanwhile, recent analyses reveal that the level of concentration in the agro-industry has reached some unprecedented levels: four firms controlled half of global commercial seeds, six companies controlled 58% of seed markets, four firms controlled 68% of the agrochemical market, and three companies controlled about 100% of commercial poultry genetics worldwide (ETC Group, 2022). While classical economists consider concentration positively as it is (theoretically) expected to facilitate economies of scale (Bain, 1954; Gale and Branch, 1982), empirical evidence demonstrate that, on the contrary, high concentration in a sector tends to be associated with lower levels of innovation and competition (US Federal Trade Commission, 2003; ERF, 2008).

Current/dominant regime coalitions’ discourses—Closely linked to this concentration of resources and reinforcing it are specific discourses and narratives adopted by incumbent actors to legitimize their strategies and/or deny outsiders’ entrance into the sector (IPES-Food, 2023). For instance, in addition to various forms of discourses aiming at compartmentalizing food system problems into simplistic or reductionist approaches encouraging quick fixes and technological solutions (Anderson C. R. et al., 2019; ETC Group, 2022), other strategies include alarmist discourses framed around population growth, hunger, and climate change. These powerful stories around the imperative need to “feed the world” solidify a singular emphasis on productivity in favor of corporate-led, intensive systems (Tomlinson, 2013). More generally, through the promotion of concepts such as ecological modernization, climate-smart agriculture, or sustainable intensification, those discourses deflect attention away from indigenous knowledge and local communities’ roles in the future of food system (Lugo-Morin, 2020; Kuhnlein and Chotiboriboon, 2022), toward technocratic solutions where the broader social, cultural, political, and spatial dimensions of food and agriculture are removed or ignored (Holt-Giménez and Altieri, 2013; Canfield et al., 2021a). Whether these are intentional or otherwise is still being debated, as some still view these approaches as good faith efforts to support change (Garnett and Godfray, 2012), while evidence, including lobbying practices (see below), suggests on the contrary that these discourses are more likely to be intentional than coincidental (Baker et al., 2020; Moodie et al., 2021; Schoneveld, 2022).

Lobbying, power of influence of incumbents—The third key source of resistance to change in the food system is the influence exercised by incumbents through their lobbying power—for instance, the fact that, between 2015 and 2016, US food corporations have spent at least $192.8 million to influence GMO labeling legislation, state-based referenda on GMO labeling laws, and other issues relating to consumer access to information (IPES-Food, 2017). Even though lobbying in itself is neither illegal nor necessarily leads to negative public policy (e.g., the Community Food Coalition in the US has successfully lobbied for food reforms on many occasions), in documenting the growing influence and profits of food corporations, Moodie et al. (2021) observe that more often than not corporate lobbying puts profits over public health, thus entrenching current unsustainable trajectories and preventing the emergence of disruptive, more sustainable or healthier alternatives.

Other key-elements contributing to resistance to change in the domain of power, discourses and knowledge are mentioned in Table 2. The first is the economic and political interests of governments. Even though some large food system actors are known to have huge negative externalities on the environment and/or human health, national or local governments may still support these actors simply because their activities contribute substantially to GDP, tax revenues, exports, or employment (Schneider, 2017; Winders and Ransom, 2019; Béné and Lundy, 2023). In the US, for example, agriculture, food, and related industries contributed roughly $1.264 trillion to the country’s GDP in 2021 (USDA, 2023).

Another source of resistance acknowledged in the literature is the influence of scientific paradigms and mainstream science often used to maintain or reinforce particular framing and agenda through what is referred to as instrumentalization of evidence, weak science and other forms of discursive practices (Mandrioli et al., 2016; Parkhurst, 2017; Béné and Lundy, 2023). In this regards, omission or exclusion of indigenous and local knowledge (Antonelli, 2023) or disregard of the role of informal actors such as street vendors (Kawarazuka et al., 2018), is frequent. In parallel, several recent analyses also discuss the dysfunctional policy-science interfaces (Sibanda and Mwamakamba, 2021; Singh et al., 2021; Hainzelin et al., 2023). Sievert et al. (2021) show, for instance, how, in Australia, evidence of the impact of red meat on the environment is continuously challenged as financial interests at the heart of decision-making take precedence over data from challenging science. In Vietnam, Béné et al. (2021) show how evidence and policy agenda are “distorted” toward particular issues (food safety) to the detriment of other longer-term structural trends, such as the rapid emergence of obesity in the urban population.

The second domain of the framework –Cultural norms, expectations, and individual values– widen the consideration beyond the “usual suspects” discussed above (governments, private sector and science) and redirects the attention to a fourth, less often considered in traditional political economy analysis, but equally important group of actors: the consumers. Through this Cultural norms, expectations, and individual values domain, the framework reminds us that consumer lifestyle, habitus, norms, and societal expectations can also create serious resistance to change and maintain production and consumption in unsustainable trajectories (Spaargaren et al., 2011; Shove et al., 2012; Sargant, 2014). These inertias generally result from people preferring to adhere to and follow accepted norms (DuPuis and Goodman, 2005; Berger, 2019), reproducing them even when they are deemed undesirable or harmful (Nyborg et al., 2016). The consumption of red meat is a case in point. Social, personal, and cultural values around eating meat, as shown in the case of Germany (Hübel and Schaltegger, 2022) and Scotland (Macdiarmid et al., 2016) and much of the Western world, continue to reproduce and support the perpetuation of red meat consumption. Amidst these cultural attachments, even the emergence of alternative proteins has not managed to slow down red meat consumption (Gravely and Fraser, 2018), which is projected to grow at least 14% by 2030 (compared to the 2018–2020 level) (OECD and FAO, 2021).

Next, in the list of barriers to change is the Capacity and financial resources domain, including the lack of public capacities and resources. The issues considered here are about how resource inadequacies can undermine the initation and execution of transformational changes, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Pereira and Drimie, 2016; Yee and Liu, 2021). Unsurprisingly, of the many capacity limitations discussed in these examples, financial constraints appear to receive considerable attention (HLPE, 2021). But, while the lack of financial resources is well acknowledged (Millan et al., 2019), poor and ineffective prioritization of actions is where another large part of the challenge lies. The amount of money channeled into harmful subsidies (OECD, 2021; Politico, 2022) demonstrates that resources are often available, but governments are not always effective in deciding the right actions to use them wisely.

The lack of capacities is not limited, however, to financial resources and the way they are allocated between and within ministries. Also challenging is the Lack of know-how in government institutions leading to a poor knowledge and conceptual understanding of what, when, and how to deliver transformation (Yee and Liu, 2021; Zerbian et al., 2022). From their experience in nutrition transition in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, Gillespie et al. (2019) noted, for instance, that the lack of understanding and knowledge of nutrition (as a multi-sectoral issue) is usually a crucial barrier to the prioritization of nutrition in LMICs.

Technological innovations domain refers to two important sources of resistance that are discussed in the literature. The first, and arguably one of the most debated sources of resistance, is the Technological path-dependencies and lock-ins (Oliver et al., 2018; Conti et al., 2021; Friedman and Ormiston, 2022; Goldstein et al., 2023). Drawing largely from dominant traditions in the socio-technical transitions, it is argued that, once established, technologies become entrenched, leading to the exclusion of competing views and practices, thus making the system “blind” to possible alternatives and keeping it moving on the established trajectory (Geels, 2014; Conti et al., 2021; Friedman and Ormiston, 2022). Path-dependency is often used to express that “history matters,” highlighting how “initial moves in one direction elicit further moves in that same direction,” thus elucidating why and how certain technologies manage to dominate markets despite being inefficient, harmful or unsustainable (IPES-Food, 2016; Friedman and Ormiston, 2022).

Absence of alternative technological solutions is the second element discussed in the literature in relation to the resistance of technological innovation to change. The explanation here is that the dominant regime, by using its power to suppress the creation or dissemination of alternative technologies, binds actors to existing options (Conti et al., 2021; Goldstein et al., 2023). Once a dominant technology is established, actors are compelled to use it –as Hübel and Schaltegger (2022) demonstrate in the case of Germany’s meat processing. We note, however, that while the absence of alternative technologies appears a legitimate claim in perpetuating unsustainable practices, resistance may lie in the lack of access to alternatives rather than their actual absence (Holt-Giménez and Altieri, 2013; Holt-Giménez, 2019).

Central to the second stage of transformation (Creating a new momentum), are the Framing of the problem and the associated narratives of change (by and for the policymakers). These framings and narratives are what gives currency to the visions and actions that will have to be adopted to move us toward food systems sustainability (Garnett, 2013; Fraser et al., 2016). While it is important to embrace the plurality of pathways that may drive food systems toward broader sustainability goals (Leach et al., 2020; Duncan et al., 2022), this quest should not ignore the fact that choices will still have to be made on what root problem(s) to focus on and what narratives to amplify (Béné et al., 2019a). There is, therefore, a need for discussion and negotiation between these multiple framings, and policymakers have a critical role to play in the process along with other actors (Fanzo et al., 2021; Duncan et al., 2022). In that context, academic institutions, public bodies, civil society organizations, or independent entities can contribute to challenge dominant regimes by offering alternative framings and narratives (Klerkx and Begemann, 2020; IPES-Food, 2023).

Enabling and incentivizing positive contributions from the private sector—The second element in this process relates to the claim sometimes made that a successful transformation would not be possible without the active involvement of the private sector (see, e.g., FAO, 2019b; Folke et al., 2019; Kennedy et al., 2021). If this was the case, then, powerful steering and guarding mechanisms would still have to be institutionalized to keep these actors aligned with the vision of sustainability, as history has demonstrated that private sector’s self-regulation is more an ideology-driven myth than an actual, efficient, selfguarding tool (Sharma et al., 2010; Stuckler and Nestle, 2012; Ronit and Jensen, 2014; Kelly et al., 2019; Yates et al., 2021). Many would argue instead that more positive outcomes are to be expected through mandatory tools such as strict food environment regulations, food marketing controls, and the strict enforcement of food labeling and taxation of unsustainable foods and practices (Giner and Brooks, 2019; Ngqangashe and Friel, 2022). Sugar-sweetened beverages and nonessential energy-dense food taxes in Mexico, food labeling in Chile and Ecuador, and transfatty acids in Argentina are examples of such mandatory tools (Boza et al., 2017; Corvalán Aguilar et al., 2019; Carriedo et al., 2021), even if the ultimate effectiveness of those interventions remains to be demonstrated, as no evidence of obesity reduction and other targeted metrics have yet been firmly established (Haines, 2017) albeit changes in individual behavior are observed.

Generation of demand for evidence of effectiveness—Another integral element in the process of creating new momentum is to support (or to respond to) the demand for evidence of effectiveness. Evidence of effectiveness is derived from evidence-based policymaking, described as “the use of the best available scientific evidence on the effectiveness of programs, practices, and policies to guide the decision-making process” (Gies et al., 2020, p. 157). Demand for such evidence thus justifies sustainable alternatives by supporting them and ensuring that only actions and interventions that have the potential to lead to sustainability goals are pursued. In that context, the numerous demands expressed by governments and other key-actors in many countries for more food system data, dashboards and monitoring systems (Fanzo et al., 2020, 2021; HLPE, 2022; Béné et al., 2023) and for better understanding of what could constitute appropriate investments and interventions supporting the post-UNFSS process (e.g., Eliasson et al., 2022; Havemann et al., 2022; Herens et al., 2022) is an encouraging example of this dynamics.

Finally, the last two elements mentioned in this part of the framework are The need for horizontal coherence, and a clear Advocacy strategy to change agenda. The need (and the implementation) of horizontal coherence will be discussed in “Delivery of horizontal coherence” below. As for advocacy, the literature suggests that CSOs are often regarded as the most vocal detractors of the dominant paradigm (MacRae and Abergel, 2012), arguing for the democratization of the food systems (Hassanein, 2003; Andrée et al., 2019). Articulation of these alternative visions and associated framings are instrumental in challenging the neoliberal model underlying the current system (Dorninger et al., 2020; Friel, 2021; Duncan et al., 2022). For example, sustained civil society campaigns have led to a crackdown on junk food in countries like Chile, Mexico, or the UK (Carriedo et al., 2021); municipalities around the world are increasingly introducing local/sustainable procurement schemes; and local and national governments (most recently Canada) have established food councils and food policies (Mattioni et al., 2022). Deliberative dialogues, traditional crop and local seed management, and opposition to life patenting also got their start locally or nationally before migrating into regional and global campaigns (Mudigere Sannegowda and Garkoti, 2022).

Raising consumer awareness through communication (see Lizie, 2012) is absolutely crucial in affecting behaviors and norms and in supporting newly created momentums (Freeland-Graves and Nitzke, 2002; Rowe, 2002). Diverse communication approaches can facilitate this (Parsons and Barling, 2021), including public information/campaigns, interpretive tools providing information in accessible ways (e.g., dietary guidelines), and labeling, such as front-of-pack traffic light labels (Vermeulen et al., 2020). Other available mediums include education provision and professional education interventions beyond schools (see Parsons and Barling, 2021). Communication through traditional channels (TV, radio, etc.), social media, inter-personal communication (home, school, peer, etc.), social support networks, and social mobilization through special events and community engagements have all been tested, especially within the nutrition field, with various degrees of success (Gillespie et al., 2013; White et al., 2016; Brouwer et al., 2021). In parallel, the engagement of consumers in alternative food systems, such as increased demand for agroecology practices or organic products in both high and lower-income countries, is attributed to impacts of awareness of critical food issues, such as environmental impacts and animal welfare (Bui et al., 2016; Schiller et al., 2020).

Building counter-narratives—There is no absence of counter-narratives to the neoliberal-driven productivist ideals (Leeuwis et al., 2021; Elechi et al., 2022). Food sovereignty, regenerative agriculture, and rights-based approach, which have been championed by organizations such as Via Campesina and other civil society entities or even the UN, are testaments of these emerging counter-narratives (Claeys, 2013; Holt-Giménez and Altieri, 2013; Anderson and Rivera-Ferre, 2021). These have certainly crept into food policy circles. More efforts are still needed, however, to create successful counter-narratives that can genuinely compete and, if possible, replace the dominant discourse in the long run (Holt-Giménez and Altieri, 2013; Anderson C.R. et al., 2019; Anderson M. et al., 2019). Some possible ways of achieving this are through continuous (evidence-based) advocacy around alternative narratives (see above) and consumer actions that demand transparency and accountability in the food systems (see below).

Leadership and championing—Multiple practical experiences have shown how leaderships across food systems can contribute to, or can be leveraged, for actions. In the case of maternal and child nutrition transition for instance, Gillespie et al. (2013) noted that all success stories of making visible progress toward desirable goals in countries such as Vietnam and Thailand had leadership at their cores. Similar national leadership and championing efforts were reported in several Latin American countries, including Brazil, Peru, or Chile, where one “campeón” was said to have contributed to healthy diets through the enactment of warning labels on healthy foods, restrictions on marketing to children, healthy school food policies and taxes on sugary drink (Swinburn, 2019; see also Corvalán Aguilar et al., 2019). Yet, despite the demonstrated role of championing and leadership, this aspect is one of the most overlooked pieces in food systems (Kang et al., 2022), and more research is needed, especially at the local level, where the outcomes of transformations become visible.

Systemic and strategic capacity building. Systemic capacities are the diverse skills, instincts, abilities, processes, and resources needed by (public sector) organizations to enhance the creation and maintenance of alternative food system actions, while strategic capacities are decision-making forums or multistakeholder platforms in which food systems discussions occur (Gillespie et al., 2013). The objective of capacity building is inherent in most development interventions in the developing world, where this challenge is more pressing (Morkel and Ramasobama, 2017; Masters et al., 2018; Babu, 2020). Although initiatives in these areas of systemic and strategic capacity building are encouraging, the persistent challenges, especially at local level in LMICs, means government activities are often entangled within competition for scarce resources (Wu et al., 2015; Qiao et al., 2019). Overall, existing gaps and failures indicate a need to redirect (food system) capacity building toward more sustainable alternatives created around (local) governments. These (local) governments, which are at the heart of where everyday changes in the food system occur, could indeed safeguard long-term sustainability while reducing external dependence on other parties to drive change efforts.

New sustainable innovations are expected to be instrumental in creating the required momentum (Herrero et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2021; Barrett et al., 2022). Past food systems transformations, including the Green Revolution (Evenson, 2003), the biotechnology revolution (Herring and Paarlberg, 2016), and the ongoing digital revolution (Barrett and Rose, 2020; Birner et al., 2021) have all taken off on the back of technological innovations. The issue, however, is not innovation per se but rather their contribution (or failure thereof to contribute) to sustainable outcomes. While some scholars insist that the current innovation pipeline is healthy with the creation and diffusion of wide-ranging, potentially transformative technologies (e.g., Herrero et al., 2020; Barrett et al., 2022), others remark that the underlying driver of these innovations, ultimately, remains profits, raising doubt about the ability of innovations to guide transformation toward sustainable outcomes (Carolan, 2020; Béné, 2022; ETC Group, 2022). In line with this argument, some other scholars call for more creative financial schemes and a re-orientation (re-alignment) of innovation motives and metrics to encourage sustainable alternatives, including local/indigenous and community-level ones (IPES, 2016; Mazzucato, 2016; Miles et al., 2017; Schiller et al., 2020). Among others, social financing, community investments, ethical banking, alternative currencies, social impact bonds, and impact investing are beginning to gain traction (Stephens, 2021; Feng et al., 2022).

In parallel, the need for creating supporting infrastructures is being emphasized by scholars who argue that food systems will likely be trapped within unsustainable trajectories if the required infrastructures to support local and alternative innovations are not created (Popkin and Reardon, 2018; Ruben et al., 2021). While these calls are legitimate, we argue that more infrastructure does not necessarily equate to sustainable change. The support for alternative sustainable food systems would, therefore, require not only addressing the broader local and regional infrastructural needs that most current calls do acknowledge (Bloom and Hinrichs, 2011) but would also require doing so within the realms of normative goals of sustainability.

Several entry points are highlighted in the framework under this Converting momentum process. Translation of new framing and agenda into concrete policies is the first of them. National food policies, food guides, and sector-specific policy documents are potential avenues to translate framing into concrete and actionable policies. Food systems literature offers successful experiences, such as new policy instruments used to translate agroecology approach into existing agro-environmental measures (Miles et al., 2017), or instruments such as sugar taxes or labeling supporting fair trade or environmental considerations (Grunert et al., 2014). These actions are necessary because, without policy backing, most promises for sustainability would remain abstract statements of good intentions without clear, practical action plans for implementation (Oliver et al., 2018).

Create political coalitions to support change—While translating new framings and agendas into concrete policies is important, creating political coalitions to support changes is also critical (IPES-Food and ETC Group, 2021; Yates et al., 2021). In this domain, combining entities with common alternative visions is recognized to have a higher chance of positive change than working in isolation (Swinburn, 2019; Aramyan et al., 2021; Yates et al., 2021). Many successful examples of coalition wins have been documented in the food systems literature, even though there is no single vision of sustainable food systems (Béné et al., 2019a; Duncan et al., 2022). When well-managed, these coalitions certainly have the potential to provide the impetus to drive sustainable change across diverse issues and contribute to systemic transformation (Blay-Palmer et al., 2016; Prost, 2019).

Next, Evidence-based documentation of coverage, scale, and quality is critical to show how alternatives progress, what works or not, and what areas can be improved (Schwarz et al., 2021; McDermid et al., 2023). In their work on the politics of undernutrition reduction, Gillespie et al. (2013) discussed knowledge and evidence in converting new momentum into results. They note that numerous efforts already exist in several areas, including the growing attention to feasibility studies and formative research, costing studies, monitoring research, and evaluations conducted in relation to food systems. Within these spaces, governments, researchers, and civil society organizations played a critical role in providing evidence in support of interventions (Bhutta et al., 2013; HLPE, 2022). Yet, more targeted and intentional documentation of evidence is still needed (Singh et al., 2021). This is where the research community can be instrumental by providing independent evidence. The monitoring framework proposed by Fanzo et al. (2021) is an example of how consolidated documentation of evidence could be shaped.

Research for alternative food system configurations and “preferred solutions” is the last element under this part of the framework. Roggio and Evans (2022) argue that while there is extensive published research on food insecurity, there is far less consideration of what an effective local food system might look like. This calls for more focused research aiming to uncover the best arrangements and combinations of food systems’ actions that meet the visions of sustainability set out in stage two of the Framework (Creating and maintaining new momentum). However, as already established, there is no single pathway or solution to food systems sustainability and what constitutes sustainable food systems and their attributes vary extensively by scholarship (Fraser et al., 2016; Eakin et al., 2017; Béné et al., 2019a). Hence, it makes sense to have deliberate research portfolios clarifying what configurations attract potential followers. In this regard, the presentation of evidence-based alternatives would likely increase the chance of acceptance and diffusion into the broader regime, thereby moving sustainable configurations beyond niches to becoming the norm (Maye, 2013; Aramyan et al., 2021) in a way that resonates closely with the idea of “bright spots” (Bennett et al., 2016) as advocated in the environmental literature.

Encouraging the role of individuals and civil society is one of the ways changes in societal values can be aligned with desired visions. The innovation diffusion theory shows that a critical mass of people adopting a different (sustainable) behavior can initiate a new norm through social network (Shove et al., 2012; Maye, 2013). Meanwhile, changing social values around food habits can be difficult (cf. Resistance related to culture, social norms, and behavior above). Remaining to be discussed in this context is the importance of consumer engagement that emanates from advocacies. Scholars have often viewed civil society advocacies as important to creating alternatives to the dominant food systems, at least in the eyes of consumers, allowing them to move from being passive consumers to becoming active citizens (Jacobsen and Dulsrud, 2007; De Schutter, 2014). The idea of consumer’ engagement as a form of political consumerism involves mechanisms through which consumers use purchasing and sometimes protest power to shape food system actions (Boström and Micheletti, 2019; Hossain and Scott-Villiers, 2019; O’Brien and Macoun, 2022). Through actions such as ethical food labeling (e.g., organic, fair trade, or halal), consumers can demand accountability from other actors and decision-makers and shape broader societal values regarding food system activities (Evans and Miele, 2017; Keller et al., 2017).

Alignment of consumer demand with food systems sustainability objectives—The rise of terms like sustainable and ethical consumption (Friel et al., 2014; Sargant, 2014; van Gameren et al., 2015) and environmental sustainable consumption in particular (Vermeir et al., 2020) opens conversations around the question of the alignment of consumer demands to sustainable consumption (Reisch et al., 2013; Verain et al., 2015). Within these discussions, information-based instruments (e.g., food labels), market-based initiatives (e.g., taxes), direct regulations (e.g., control of unhealthy foods and drinks advertising), and “nudges” (e.g., “buy-local” campaigns) are commonly proposed (Reisch et al., 2013; Vermeir et al., 2020; Vermeulen et al., 2020). While these diverse mechanisms could facilitate the alignment of consumer demands to sustainability objectives, such changes may not happen, however, unless the right socio-economic conditions and the capacities of public sector entities to support such initiatives are in place (Green et al., 2013; Cornelsen et al., 2015) -see next point.

Delivery and operational capacity around compliance and enforcement—In addition to supporting the critical role of consumers, the ability of the public sector to ensure compliance and enforcement around food systems is pivotal (Wilkinson et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2015; Pudjiastuti, 2021). New public programs can help minimize the greenwashing that voluntary standard settings have created amid the voids (Fulponi, 2006; Guo et al., 2019). However, the ability to strengthen these capabilities may partly hinge on reinforcing the public resources base (Verbruggen, 2013). In that context, there is recognition that a diverse mix of capabilities is needed to stimulate transformative practices (Den Boer et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021). In their proposal for processes needed for nutrition transition, Gillespie et al. (2013) outlined three key capacities required for the implementation and enforcement of nutrition actions: (i) individual capacity by way of methods and skills, (ii) organizational capacity by way of staff and infrastructure, and (iii) systemic capacity by way of structure, systems, and roles. Such capacities would also be required for food systems transformation -see also Systemic and strategic capacity building above.

Identifying new forms of resource mobilization—It is not enough to reinforce the capacities of the public sector. New forms of resource mobilization to scale sustainable alternatives are also needed (Bhatia and Ghanem, 2019; FAO, 2019a). Financial resources are critical in those mobilizations (Hasnain and Chaudhury, 2021; Díaz-Bonilla, 2023). At least $80 billion in annual investments throughout food value chains are estimated to be required to meet the expected 70% rise in food demand by 2050 (World Bank, 2020). Alternative and sustainable finance schemes, such as social finance (Stephens, 2021) or blended finance that mobilizes commercial banks, non-bank financial institutions, and their clients, are being tested, with varied degrees of success (Apampa et al., 2021; Convergence, 2021). These schemes de-risk the financing of food systems activities by drawing from diverse sources in an otherwise limited pool of support (Havemann et al., 2022). Some scholars, however, are still skeptical of these alternative resource mobilizations, pointing out that they depend on capital from the private sector, where incentives to address social and environmental concerns are rarely the priority (Barrett et al., 2022).

Alignment of innovations with sustainability indicators is needed to ensure technologies and novel ideas contribute to supporting sustainable alternative visions of food systems. By aligning innovations to sustainability indicators, we mean to ensure that novelties have sustainability as an explicit goal (Matthews et al., 2019; Béné, 2022) and that there are readily verifiable indicator systems/frameworks to guide innovation processes. Laudable efforts to develop frameworks for sustainability indicators are already available (Béné et al., 2019b, 2023; Aznar-Sánchez et al., 2020; Silvestri C. et al., 2022). But also important is curating and presenting these indicators in accessible ways and as a means for accountability. Here, dashboards and other visualization mechanisms are used to turn indicators into guides from which the innovation processes can be assessed (Poponi et al., 2022) or as decision-support tools that can be used to support the alignment of efforts toward sustainability (Fanzo et al., 2020; Béné et al., 2023). Though understandable, the focus on monitoring progress rather than on process limits the suitability of these tools for aiding decisions and for using them as accountability tools. Similar initiatives focusing on normative goals could serve as a springboard for aligning innovations with sustainability.

Creating a business case for innovation using financial instruments—Even with the right alignment, sustainable alternatives still need to make business sense for actors to use them. Undoubtedly, thus far only innovations that yield profits make it to the market (Whitfield, 2017; ETC Group, 2022). Turning this phenomenon toward sustainability would require attention to true cost accounting to cater to social and environmental costs (Gemmill-Herren et al., 2021; Michalke et al., 2023). Financial instruments could open the door for sustainable alternative innovations: once an innovation shows promising ecological and/or social properties, regulations and financial instruments such as green bonds, green banks, and green investment funds could be used to support their successful emergence (Horbach, 2005; Gyura, 2020; Maltais and Nykvist, 2020). This is not to ignore of course that currently financial instruments such as derivatives, hedge funds, futures markets, and private equity companies are often reorganizing the power structures in the agro-food systems in ways that are detrimental to the sustainability of food systems (Burch and Lawrence, 2009; Clapp, 2014).

Documenting and quantifying trade-offs - The inherent nature of trade-offs and their implications for food systems’ decision-making makes it necessary to document them at every stage of the transformation process (as represented in Table 3). Though fragmented, efforts to develop systematic frameworks for food systems analysis are being proposed (Zurek et al., 2018; Gaitan-Cremaschi et al., 2019; Amiri et al., 2020), with the ambition to improve the general understanding about trade-offs and synergies. Within different system contexts, there exist specific strategies and approaches for quantifying trade-offs, including trade-off analysis, visioning and backcasting, modeling tools, foresight processes, trend analysis or scenario planning (Lentz, 2021; Wiebe and Prager, 2021; Zurek et al., 2021; Béné et al., 2022). These different tools have been used to inform national governments and stakeholders (Knight et al., 2022). The experience of these cases shows that a participatory process bringing together scientists and stakeholders (i.e., public and private sector actors, as well as local population representatives and civil society organizations) is crucial for trade-off identification and prioritization (Antle and Valdivia, 2021; Tui et al., 2021; Béné et al., 2024). As part of this process, the visualization of the results is key and should include outcomes, pathways, and decisions and how these affect the various components. Dashboards, scorecards, indices, and profiles are common visualization techniques (HLPE, 2022) and successful examples abound to learn from, especially in the nutrition field (Manorat et al., 2019). Equally important is the need for high-quality data (Béné et al., 2019b; Fanzo et al., 2021; HLPE, 2022).

Strengthening delivery of vertical coherence—Vertical coherence—where the different levels of government (international, national, regional, and local) follow common policy objectives and align food systems’ actions toward agreed normative goals (OECD, 2015, 2016)—is critical to managing trade-offs and ensuring synergies at different levels. To strengthen coherence in food systems transformations, multi-level governance initiatives are often suggested (OECD, 2010, 2016; Marzeda-Mlynarska, 2011) to (i) encourage participatory governance and strategic planning at all relevant scale(s), (ii) provide an analytical foundation for short and long-term planning, (iii) support experimentation and innovation, and (iv) establish a long-term planning horizon (OECD, 2010). The institution of governance arrangements around these principles could enhance the coherence of food systems policies while minimizing potential trade-offs. But, while vertical coherence is instrumental to managing trade-offs, it certainly is not enough to ensure holistic food systems transformation; catering for inconsistencies between different sectors at the same level through multi-sectoral (horizontal) coordination is indispensable -see below.

The use of multi-stakeholder platforms to establish collaborative or pluralist governance is the next element in the framework. Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs), that is, “governed spaces for multistakeholder interaction, bringing together multiple actors (from different sectors), involving a certain level of institutionalization” (Herens et al., 2022), have emerged as potential mechanisms for actions in the sphere of food system transformation. According to Thorpe et al. (2021, p. 3), the interest in MSPs is driven by “a recognition that transformation in complex systems cannot be achieved through simple or technical fixes, (…). Instead, change requires new forms of governance which bring stakeholders together to plan and act in new ways.” The potential governance-shaping roles of MSPs have led to their proliferation with hopes of stimulating alternative food systems governance (Termeer et al., 2018; Bedeau et al., 2021; Kugelberg et al., 2021). Yet, their impacts on food systems transformation have been mixed so far. While some MSPs, such as the Scaling-up Nutrition Platform (SUN), are arguably successful in their causes, they appear less effective in driving shifts to systems-based narratives (Herens et al., 2022). One key challenge is cited as the “stakeholder’ paradigm”— grounded in a largely undifferentiated categorization of actors (“stakeholders”)—allowing powerful corporations to dominate governance processes (IPES-Food, 2023). The hijacking of the UNFSS processes and duologues to further corporate interest is a case in point on how platforms can be turned against the true ideals of transformation (Canfield et al., 2021b; Clapp et al., 2021; Yates et al., 2021). This means that despite their potential to facilitate positive change, MSPs may still have limited capacity to deliver radical food systems transformations, unless critical issues, including leadership, motivations, capacities, and clear guidance, are addressed (De schutter et al., 2021; Herens et al., 2022).

Delivery of horizontal coherence (multisectoral coordination)—Because the complexity of food system processes and outcomes cannot be overcome through siloed interventions (Torres-Salcido and Sanz-Canada, 2018; Augustin et al., 2021; Mattioni et al., 2022), conventional governance mechanisms are generally inadequate (Termeer et al., 2018; Bedeau et al., 2021). Instead, evidence shows that multi-sectoral coordination to food systems can positively influence development and practices. For example, Brazil’s award-winning social protection program, the Bolsa Familia, is said to have been successful because of the multisectoral governance of its implementation (see Kushitor et al., 2022). Likewise, as Fanzo et al. (2020) argued, the alignment of nutrition and agricultural development and environmental sustainability, which are at an all-time high today, are consequences of multi-sectoral coordination. There is still massive room for improvement, however, and establishing cross-sectoral platforms that can be used to develop and share food systems information, knowledge, and coordination expertise are an important step in that direction.

Establishing accountability of and to citizens and CSO is integral to managing trade-offs and ensuring synergies. Mechanisms to hold food systems decision-makers, especially private actors and governments, accountable have been extensively discussed by alternative food systems and governance scholars (Renting and Wiskerke, 2010; Kraak et al., 2014; Andrée et al., 2019). In their work on strengthening accountability for healthy diets, Swinburn et al. (2015) outlined several accountability mechanisms to be leveraged by consumers and CSOs to hold private companies accountable: legal (constitutional rights to food), quasi-regulatory (codes of conduct and ethics guidelines), political (shareholder activism), market-based (consumer demand and boycotts), and communication (media, advocacy campaigns, social media, public forums, petitions, and demonstrations). Overall, CSOs continue to progress in holding businesses and governments accountable. Yet, Swinburn et al. (2015) and others note that current measures to increase the transparency of government processes are confined to public communications depending on media, formal channels through government committees, and advocacy mechanisms. These measures, though encouraging, are deemed insufficient because they are voluntary rather than mandatory (Swinburn et al., 2015). Even for mandatory ones, CSOs may still lack enforcement power, legal accountability mechanisms or access to effective justice (IPES-Food, 2023). Civil society advocates have, therefore, underlined the essence of legally binding instruments, with baseline examples drawn from successful mechanisms such as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the WHO Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors, and the WHO Financial Regulations and Financial Rules (IPES-Food, 2023).

Prioritization and sequencing of financing—All actions that remove barriers, create alternative visions, and convert them into sustainable options should ideally be implemented simultaneously. However, among many challenges, the resource and capacity constraints discussed earlier make prioritizing and sequencing necessary at every step of transformation (Kuchiki, 2004; Gillespie et al., 2013). There is no one standardized approach to prioritizing actions, as evidenced by governments’ continuous contemplation on what to do first amidst competing pressing demands. At present, the prioritization of actions is primarily influenced by economic viability, visibility, and political gains (Timilsina, 2007). But such an approach certainly does not deliver radical food systems transformation, on the contrary. While many alternative prioritization and sequencing tools and processes exist, each has different purposes, strengths, and limitations. Most tools are too broad and lack the context specificity for food systems. Developing food systems-specific prioritization and sequencing tools that consider system-level outcomes and show a deeper understanding of the political economy and ethical dimensions of the process would be critical, going forward (Horton et al., 2017).

Dis-incentivize the emergence of unsustainable technological innovations is a crucial step to managing food systems trade-offs. This involves using instruments, processes and actions to discourage technological innovations that do not contribute to attaining alternative sustainable visions. On multiple occasions, we have noted how current technological innovation pipelines, though argued as healthy (Herrero et al., 2020), are unsustainable, necessitating a change in direction for sustainable food systems transformation (Béné, 2022). But it may not be enough to encourage sustainable innovations; it must be complemented with disincentivizing unsustainable technologies essentially because these are recognized to have shorter-term economic pull than sustainable alternatives (Miles et al., 2017)—posing a risk of out-competing the latter when left to compete. Theoretically, measures of regulations, taxes, and subsidies could also serve as disincentives to unsustainable technologies, if designed appropriately. In fact, the successes of sugar and beverage taxes leading some corporations to adjust their strategies (Roache and Gostin, 2017; Carriedo et al., 2021) testify to how such disincentives can influence the direction of innovations. Complementary regulatory measures are still required, however, to ensure that these taxes are not transferred to consumers by “smart businesses.”

It must also be acknowledged that placing disincentives is not a straightforward process, partially because of the challenges in assessing what is truly sustainable and what is unsustainable. For instance, some argue that “sustainable technology” does not exist because no one technology can meet all the metrics of sustainability (Kemp, 2010). Likewise, it can be argued that technologies are not inherently “bad” or “good” (Miller, 2021), and that their effects are dictated by their usage, not their nature. Evident in these claims is the difficulty of determining if an innovation would end up unsustainable. The development of sustainability indicators could provide some foundation for overcoming this challenge.