Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Food Governance and the Alignment of Food Security Policies to Sustainable Development: A Case Study of OIC Countries

Abstract

Employing Grey Relation Analysis (GRA) and Leximetrics, this study conducts a comparative analysis of sustainable food governance performance in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation countries (OIC). It assesses the alignment of their food security policies with sustainable development principles. Addressing a gap in the existing literature, the study aims to assess two separate components of food security governance, i.e., policy formulation and policy implementation. This is achieved by focusing on critical intrinsic factors like sustainable agriculture, sufficiency, resilience, and inclusivity, and sustainable finance which are often overlooked in policy formulation and evaluation. The findings reveal inadequate incorporation of sustainable finance, sustainable agriculture, circular food systems, and effective governance principles. Several countries lack concise policies (e.g., Iran, Turkmenistan, Suriname), relying on fragmented approaches, while others adopt regional food security strategies with observed differences in food governance versus policy alignment performance. The study enhances our understanding of food security governance and policy formulation and implementation, offering insights for advancing sustainability in the food security policies of the OIC.

1. Introduction

Achieving food security is not only vital for human survival, but it also impacts sustainable development by reducing poverty, improving health, fostering trade, and promoting economic growth. The FAO (2014) [1] defines food security as the universal access to adequate and safe food. This aligns with the UN (1987) [2] definition of sustainable development: namely, meeting present needs without compromising on those of future generations. The global food system contributes to environmental problems, causing significant biodiversity loss and carbon dioxide emissions, ranking second after the energy sector. Animal agriculture contributes to emissions through methane release from digestion and nitrous oxide from waste, while emissions from the food chain lead to air pollution-related mortality and food output losses. Air pollutants including particulate matter, non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and total nitrogen are released by food systems responsible for negative environmental impacts and agricultural losses. Food chain emissions have steadily increased over the past 50 years, with significant contributions to various pollutants. Land use, change, and agricultural activities account for most greenhouse gas emissions, highlighting the importance of addressing emissions from the global food system [3,4,5].

Both food security and sustainable development exhibit intricate and multifaceted operational structures [6]. Here, the concept of food security includes accessibility, availability, consumption, and stability on domestic, regional, and global levels [7]. The aggregate impact of these components is difficult to assess. Indeed, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework with 17 interconnected goals, and further subcomponents and targets, is a daunting multidimensional set of objectives. Thus, measuring both food security and sustainable development involves multidimensional metrics encompassing numerous indicators [8].

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted both food security and sustainable development. The rapid spread of COVID-19 triggered global health, economic, and humanitarian crises, hindering progress towards SDGs. The pandemic exacerbated inequality, driving poverty levels upward after decades of relative stability, leading to reduced food affordability and heightened global food insecurity. Severe food insecurity affected 928 million people in 2020, up by 148 million from the previous year, challenging the Zero Hunger target. Hunger rates surged by 118 million individuals, while water shortages hindered essential preventive measures. COVID-19′s adverse effects, including malnutrition and heightened poverty, directly affected general health and well-being. The pandemic’s complex implications for both food security and sustainable development are increasingly evident as its various components are continuously examined [9,10,11,12,13].

Given the intricate interplay between food security and sustainable development, it is imperative that the operationalization and execution of food security policies are harmonized with sustainable development imperatives. This study is a comparative appraisal of food security policy enactment and its alignment with sustainable development objectives across member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), despite the multifaceted paradigms within the OIC. Along with the comparative study, a rigorous and methodologically consistent econometric approach is used to scrutinize the congruence of food security policies with the overarching goals of sustainable development.

To address the econometric research gap, the study employed the innovative Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) framework for a comprehensive assessment of food security performance of OIC member countries. GRA, renowned for its capacity to handle multidimensional complexities, facilitates the ranking of solutions across various criteria. This method proved invaluable in resolving intricate challenges arising from complex interrelationships among factors and variables. For example, through the integration of performance attributes for each alternative, GRA effectively streamlines multifaceted issues into singular, informative values.

Further, the study introduces a novel application of Leximetrics analysis to evaluate and rank the strengths and weaknesses of OIC food security policies in alignment with sustainable development objectives. This approach represents a pioneering effort to quantitatively assess policy coherence and effectiveness within this critical domain.

The approach is a rigorous evaluation of OIC sustainable food policies, food security policies and governance that employs a robust empirical analysis to illuminate the existing disparities between policy formulation and actual implementation. By employing a holistic framework for excellence in food security endeavors worldwide, the study lays the foundation for future investigations into refining the paradigms governing the execution of food security policies.

Figure 1 illustrates the study’s thought arrangement, with the introduction emphasizing research problem and objectives, the literature review, and methodology employing Grey Relational and Leximetric analyses for OIC food governance and food security policies. The empirical findings are interpreted, and the study’s inferences and policy implications are discussed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Review

Food security is the state in which all people, always, have easy access to an adequate supply of food that is affordable, nourishing, and fulfills their unique dietary needs and preferences to live a healthy, productive life [14]. Berry et al. (2015) [15] ascertained that effective and efficient reorientation of food security policy formulation, implementation and enforcement to sustainable development is crucial for achieving food security. El Bilali (2019) [16] asserted that food security policies that integrate sustainability into every facet are necessary for an optimal, robust, and long-lasting sustainable food system. However, it has been envisaged that some food security policies undermine the sustainability of food systems, resulting in detrimental consequences on society and the environment, and are core causes of food system underperformance [17,18]. Food insecurity has also been seen to have direct relationship with poverty [19], hunger [20], energy [20], climate [21], water [22], health [23], war [24], and technology [19]. Further, it is generally accepted that food insecurity is primarily caused by wars and conflicts around the globe [25,26].

Given the location of this study, it is pertinent to note that wars and conflicts exert profound and multifaceted impacts on food systems and food supply chains. War damages infrastructure, destroys irrigation systems, and disrupts supply. War impairs consumers’ food access by eroding purchasing power and limiting food availability [23,26]. Consequently, food prices surge both locally and globally, adversely affecting overall food stability. Moreover, international food aid encounters hurdles in addressing escalating food needs during war [27]. Abay et al. (2023) [28] asserted that ongoing conflicts pose substantial risks in exacerbating the prevailing circumstances, leading to elevated food prices, acute scarcities, and the emergence of a worldwide food crisis. For example, the Russia–Ukraine conflict has disrupted the cultivation and output of vital food crops, notably wheat, corn, and barley, in addition to fertilizer production. Nations heavily reliant on food imports from both Ukraine and Russia face imminent food scarcity. Moreover, the escalating prices of food and energy are having a ripple effect on other countries [28,29]. In the same vein, studies also show how food security relies on water availability and access. Diminished water resources reduce crop yields, affecting food availability for both local and global markets. Post-water economics encompasses the efficient allocation of water resources for irrigation and other agricultural needs [29]. Sutcliffe et al. (2021) [30] show that water scarcity can lead to increased production costs and reduced supply, causing food prices to rise. This, in turn, affects consumers’ purchasing power and access to affordable and nutritious food. The global food supply chain relies on water-intensive agriculture. Therefore, effective water management practices are crucial to sustaining food production and addressing food security concerns.

After completing a thorough synthesis of a wide field of 224 primary investigations and a meta-analysis of the higher quality 82 studies, Rosa (2022) [31] demonstrated that most policies and treaties in the world have generally failed to have the expected advantages. Policies fail because of unrealistic expectations, implementing them in decentralized governance frameworks, insufficient collaborative policymaking, and the ebb and flow of the politics involved [32,33,34,35]. From a review of 66 papers that included 73 analyses of individual or combined policies, Bizikova et al. (2020) [36] show that agricultural interventions can have favorable effects on SDG 2.1 and food security. Fifty-two per cent employed a direct food security indicator to assess the effects on food security, whereas the other studies made use of a proxy indicator. Among the 73 evaluations, 49 (67%) had favorable benefits on food security, 17 (23%) had no noticeable effects, and 7 (10%) had adverse consequences. They concluded that there is an emphasis in the literature that the best food security policies imbibe sustainability and promote sustainable development.

Numerous studies perceive the Global Food Security Index (GFSI) as a robust indicator of national food security, confirming its use as an estimate of the performance of food governance, using food availability, affordability, usage, safety, quality, nutritional challenges, and sustainability indicators [37,38,39,40,41]. Other studies have recommended a revision of the GFSI to make it more efficient and robust [42,43,44]. In the same vein, some studies have conducted assessments of national food security performances using the GFSI and indicators of sustainability [41,43,45,46], economic development [47,48,49], governance [38,50,51], and food sovereignty variables like inclusivity [52,53,54], resiliency [55,56,57,58], sufficiency, local production, collective action [59,60], sustainable finance (access to funds, diversified financial products, and financial literacy) [61,62,63,64] and food literacy [65].

In summary, although most studies emphasize that food security policies should contain sustainability, assessments of the alignment of food security policies with sustainability are lacking. The study here aims to fill this gap by conducting a critical in-depth comparative analysis of sustainable food security policies of OIC countries for a more robust and informed analysis. A further aim is to provide an independent comparative analysis of OIC sustainable food governance performance to investigate policy implementation. Using the Grey Relation Analysis (GRA) for the analysis of sustainable food governance performance of OIC countries, Leximetrics analysis is used to investigate the alignment of OIC food security policies with sustainable development principles. Thus, Leximetric analysis is used to assess the effectiveness of the OIC efforts to create food security policies, and GRA analyses their sustainable food policy implementation.

Table 1. Literature summary of assessment and alignment of Agricultural and food security Policies to Sustainability.

Title and Author	Scope	Methods	Conclusion
“Assessment of the Climate-Smart Agriculture Interventions towards the Avenues of Sustainable Production–Consumption” [66]	Soil smart, water smart, knowledge smart, livestock smart, and carbon smart metrics of Bundelkhand region of India.	A relation hierarchical Model, the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) and Fuzzy AHP (FAHP)	Without modernizing agriculture, biodiversity cannot be preserved. Climate-smart solutions may be the solution. This study can help policymakers invest in high-weighted techniques to improve social, economic, and environmental development in agriculture and move toward sustainable production–consumption.
“Agriculture for Sustainable Development: A SWOT-AHP Assessment of Ghana’s Planting for Food and Jobs Initiative” [67]	SWOT-Analysis data of Ghana’s Planting for Food and Job program	SWOT-AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)	At 59.3%, good environmental circumstances were the strongest, followed by agricultural land availability (21.8%). Financial services were the biggest weakness (55.8%), followed by climate overreliance (25.9%). High export potential for agricultural items was the biggest opportunity, at 50.3%. One District One Factory (1D1F) was the second great chance. Climate change was the biggest danger to Ghana’s agriculture sector (57.9%), followed by basic food imports (25%).
“Agro-ecosystem based sustainability indicators for climate resilient agriculture in India: A conceptual framework”. [68]	41 indicators extracted from 1209 published literature in peer reviewed journals.	Weighted Sum Model (WSM) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)	The paper presents a climate change adaptation and mitigation framework with levels of operation and a conceptual model for Climate Risk Management Package for Agriculture.
“The Alignment of Recommendations of Dietary Guidelines with Sustainability Aspects: Lessons Learned from Italy’s Example and Proposals for Future Development” [69]	Italian Society of Food Science and Nutrition	Qualitative: Literature review and content analysis	Italian Dietary Timeline needed review and restructuring to maximize its alignment to sustainability. Nutrition education, local production, food storage, recycling, food purchase planning.
“Systemic Analysis of Food Supply and Distribution Systems in City-Region Systems—An Examination of FAO’s Policy Guidelines towards Sustainable Agri-Food Systems” [70]	Global Food Security Outlook	The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)’s FSDS literature served as the foundation for a qualitative framework model that was created utilizing the Systems Thinking (ST) and System Dynamics (SD) methodologies.	Important food policies, such as those addressing the production capacity of the local territory, land use strategies aimed at developing an urban–rural supply chain, the formulation of local production and new market policies, and technological efficiency in the market, farm, and supply chain, must be strategically enacted and implemented to improve sustainability and the resilience of food systems.
“Strengthening Food Systems Governance to Achieve Multiple Objectives: A Comparative Instrumentation Analysis of Food Systems Policies in Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands” [71]	37 food systems sector policies in Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands	Document analysis and theories of agenda-setting	There were clear policy goals to produce enough food to meet population dietary needs and promote an environmentally resilient food supply, but policy content focused on increasing productive sectors’ food exports and import substitution. Pacific Islands food systems sectors aspire to promote healthful and environmentally resilient food systems, but policy tools should better reflect these goals.
“From Transition to Domains of Transformation: Getting to Sustainable and Just Food Systems through Agroecology” [72]	Examines the enabling and impeding factors that affect the development of agroecology and the capacity of communities to self-organize	Multi-Level Perspective (MLP)	The study examines power and governance dynamics and argues that bottom-up government based on community-self organization is the best way to achieve sustainability and social fairness in food systems. The study identified six crucial domains that are essential for agroecological transformation: “access to natural ecosystems; knowledge and culture; systems of exchange; networks; discourse; and gender and equity.”
“Impacts of the Russia-Ukraine War on Global Food Security: Towards More Sustainable and Resilient Food Systems?” [73]	Agricultural Production of Russia–Ukraine, and other countries, Pre, and Post Russian–Ukraine war.	Qualitative-Literature review and Descriptive statistical analysis.	The war impact on global resource markets and the prospect of major ‘ripple effects’ or ‘risk cascades’ on economies and societies worldwide will increase. Not reforming food systems caused the Ukraine war to start a third global food price crisis in 15 years. Food import dependence, inefficient and speculative grain markets, vicious cycles of conflicts, climate change, poverty, and food insecurity are worsening the effects of the war on food security.

Source: Authors’ estimates.

below provides a comprehensive synthesis of the extant body of literature encompassing antecedent investigations dedicated to the evaluation and harmonization of policies pertaining to Agriculture and Food security within the broader framework of sustainability.

2.2. Grey Relational Analysis (GRA)

Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is a valuable tool for tackling intricate issues and enhancing decision-making by considering various criteria, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative factors. This approach has been extensively employed in research [74,75]. Singh et al. (2022) [75] highlighted that MCDM comprehensively examines all available options to derive an optimal simplified solution. Different MCDM methods exist, each with distinct applications and variations based on criteria such as data aggregation, algorithm complexity, uncertainty handling, and criteria weighting. Grey Relation Analysis (GRA) is a variant of MCDM, and is particularly suited for revealing intricate quantitative and qualitative connections among variables when data are limited [76,77]. Basel et al. (2021) [78] emphasized that GRA consolidates multifaceted performance factors into a single value, facilitating precise ranking of alternatives within a best-choice hierarchy.

GRA has been used extensively to investigate critical relationships along the paradigms of food security [41,79,80,81,82,83] sustainability and sustainable development [84,85,86,87,88], SDGs [89], and governance [76,90,91,92]. In Yao’s (2023) [93] study, the correlation between corporate social responsibility (CSR) regulation and the evolution of sustainable corporate law frameworks was examined. Employing the TOPSIS-GRA methodology, the grey relational analysis demonstrated an accuracy exceeding 80%. The empirical findings underscore the pivotal role of CSR in influencing enterprise growth and sustainability, advocating proactive social responsibility engagement for enduring sustainable development. Sun et al. (2019) [94] assessed six key indicators, encompassing reductions in pollutants (total nitrogen, TN; total phosphorous, TP; ammonium-nitrogen, NH4+-N; and chemical oxygen demand, COD), as well as the associated construction and operational expenditures. They conducted this evaluation within the framework of four systematic approaches that strategically integrated the reuse of treated wastewater (TWR) and nutrients (NR) pertaining to three primary ANPSP sources: crop farming, livestock, and aquaculture. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was employed in conjunction with grey relational analysis (GRA). These findings offer crucial insights for devising effective pollution mitigation systems, specifically tailored for multi-source ANPSP regions, thereby advancing environmental preservation and sustainable agriculture.

Agyemang et al. (2022) [95] explored the dynamics of assessing socially sustainable supply chain criteria (SSCC) within the developing world’s agricultural sector, with a focus on the West African cashew industry. They employed the best–worst method and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) to evaluate seven sustainability criteria, seven ISO 26000 Core issues [96], and characteristics of fifteen managers across fifteen cashew manufacturing firms. The utilization of GRA provided a comprehensive evaluation, shedding light on their impact on SSSC performance. Alternatively, Banaeian et al. (2015) [97] devised a practical approach for green supplier selection within the food industry, employing TOPSIS and Fuzzy Grey Relational Analysis. The study evaluated 24 criteria grouped into four categories, involving two suppliers. The results highlighted the efficacy of employing fuzzy and grey relational analysis in group decision-making for superior green supplier selection, facilitating the establishment of a systematic ranking and selection process based on specific criteria.

2.2.1. Steps in Grey Relational Analysis

• Normalization (Data Pre-processing): To enable a more structured comparison in subsequent analysis, the data to be utilized in GRA are normalized by converting the initial sequence into a decimal sequence within 0.00 and 1.00.

  a

  The original data sequence can be normalized if it follows the “Higher-the-better” pattern as thus:

  $$x{}_i{}^{*}\left(k\right)=\frac{x_i^0\left(k\right)-\min x_i^0\left(k\right)}{\max x_i^0\left(x\right)-\min x_i^0\left(k\right)}$$

  b

  The original data sequence can be normalized if it follows the “Lower-the-better” pattern as thus:

$$x{}_i{}^{*}\left(k\right)=\frac{\max x_i^0\left(k\right)-x_i^0\left(k\right)}{\max x_i^0\left(x\right)-\min x_i^0\left(k\right)}$$

where $x_i^0\left(k\right)$ is the original sequence, $x{}_i{}^{*}\left(k\right)$ is the sequence after the normalization preprocessing, $\max x_i^0\left(k\right)$ is the largest value of $x_i^0\left(k\right)$, and $\min x_i^0\left(k\right)$ is the smallest value of $x_i^0\left(k\right)$

2.

Deviation Sequence: The deviation sequence calculates how far the values from comparable sequences are from the values from the reference sequences.

$${∆}_{0i}\left(k\right)=\left|\left|x_0^{*}\left(k\right)-x_i^{*}\left(k\right)\right|\right|$$

$${∆}_{max}={}_{\forall jϵi}{}^{Max}{}_{\forall k}{}^{Max}\left|\left|x_0^{*}\left(k\right)-x_j^{*}\left(k\right)\right|\right|$$

$${∆}_{min}={}_{\forall jϵi}{}^{Min}{}_{\forall k}{}^{Min}\left|\left|x_0^{*}\left(k\right)-x_j^{*}\left(k\right)\right|\right|$$

The identification coefficient $\gamma \in \left[\mathrm{0,1}\right]$. The default value generally adopted is $\gamma =0.5$.

3.

Grey Relational Coefficient: The Grey relationship coefficient computation reflects the variations between the actual and hypothetical normalized experimental outcomes, and can be computed as thus:

$${\gamma }_i\left(k\right)=\frac{{∆}_{min}+\gamma {∆}_{max}}{{∆}_{0i}\left(k\right)+\gamma {∆}_{max}}$$

where ${∆}_{0i}\left(k\right)$ is the deviation sequence from (2) above

4.

Grey Relational Grade: denotes the average of the grey relational coefficients.

$$X=\frac{1}{n}\sum _{k=1}^{n}i{\gamma }_i\left(k\right)$$

This study then performed the accurate ranking of the computed Grey Relational Grades in the hierarchy of the best choices.

The Assumption of Equal Weighting

In our analysis, we chose to treat all criteria as equally important. This deliberate decision serves multiple strategic purposes:

I.

Transparency and Ease of Exploration: Equal weighting allows for a straightforward and transparent exploration of the data. It simplifies the analysis process, making it more accessible to both researchers and stakeholders interested in understanding the methodology.

II.

Assessment of Complex Criteria Impact: By affording equal importance to all criteria, we enable a comprehensive assessment of how each complex criterion contributes to the results. This approach facilitates a nuanced understanding of the data’s intricate dynamics.

III.

Prevention of Dominance: Equal weighting ensures that no single dimension or criterion dominates the analysis. This is particularly crucial when comparing entities (e.g., countries) with varying levels of performance and competencies across different dimensions.

However, to enhance the rigor and accuracy of our analysis, we complemented this assumption with a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) to compute variable weightings. This data-driven approach objectively assesses the relative importance of each variable, and reassuringly, the PCA-computed weightings align closely with our initial assumption of equal weightings. This convergence lends robustness to our methodology and reinforces the impartiality of the analytical framework.

2.2.2. Justification for Using the Grey Relational Analysis (GRA)

This study is to assess and grade the collective performance of OIC countries within the domains of Sustainability, Food Security, Governance, and Economy. These multifaceted phenomena, each characterized by complex structures, pose a challenge when seeking a holistic evaluation metric for comparative analyses in the realm of sustainable food security across OIC nations. Consequently, the nuanced interactions and dynamics at the convergence of Sustainability, Food Security, Governance, and Economy within this context remain relatively uncharted territory. The intricacies of analyzing and contrasting sustainable food security strategies on a global scale demand a thorough and systematic comparative examination of national performance. To that end, our study adopts the pioneering Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) framework, renowned for its adeptness in navigating the multifaceted intricacies of complex systems. GRA’s capacity to facilitate performance assessment across diverse criteria positions it as an invaluable tool in unraveling the intricate tapestry of food security performance among OIC member states. Additionally, another benefit of GRA is its capacity to analyze the main correlation factors in a system with missing or unreliable data using a relatively modest amount of data.

2.3. Leximetrics Analysis

This study also assesses the impact and alignment of food security policies in OIC states with sustainable development, employing the Leximetrics method for statistical legal analysis. Leximetrics, utilized extensively, assigns numerical scores to legislative forms to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses [98,99,100]. This approach, as described by El-Halaby et al. (2021) [101], involves three stages: variable identification, binary coding of OIC food security policies using assessment criteria, and determining index values by summing scores. Identified variables encompass sufficiency, resilience, inclusivity, partnership, circular systems, security literacy, sustainable agriculture, nutrition, and finance. The index results gauge the cumulative effects of OIC food security policies on sustainable development across recognized benchmarks. Using Leximetrics to analyze recent food security policies in 41 OIC countries provided insights into sustainable development efforts.

2.3.1. Justifications for Using Leximetrics Method

For a robust quantitative assessment capable of measuring and comparing textual data, Leximetrics emerges as a highly apt instrument, as it empowers the quantitative evaluation and comparison of textual content. Thus, it is an effective tool for gauging the presence and degree of sustainability-related components within food policy documents. Importantly, Leximetrics introduces an objective dimension where bias and subjectivity are often present in sustainability assessments. Adhering to standardized criteria and algorithms ensures uniformity and replicability in sustainability analyses across diverse documents and contexts, even those replete with numerous references to sustainability considerations.

Table 2. Sustainable Food Governance Indicator Performance (Criteria).

Criteria	Criteria Components	Criteria Acceptance
Food Security Criteria	Global Food Security Index	Larger is better
	Food Affordability	Larger is better
	Food Availability	Larger is better
	Food Quality and Safety	Larger is better
	Food Utilization Risk	Larger is better
	Sustainability and Adaptation	Larger is better
Economic development, Literacy, and Life expectancy	Human Development Index	Larger is better
Sustainability Criteria	UN SDG Index	Larger is better
	ESG Risk Score	Smaller is better
Governance	Control of Corruption	Larger is better
	Government Effectiveness	Larger is better
	Regulatory Quality	Larger is better
	Rule of Law	Larger is better
	Voice and Accountability	Larger is better
	Political Stability	Larger is better

Source: Authors’ estimates.

details the process of coding decisions. The table serves as a comprehensive reference point. To shed more light on our variable selection and coding process, we established a rigorous criterion: if specific keywords or components of each adopted variable manifested within the context of policy enactments, policy interventions, or any other form of policy formulation within the Food Security policies documents of OIC countries (as accessible through FAOLEX and WFP Food Security country profiles), then the country received a score of 1. Conversely, if such keywords or components were absent, a score of 0 was assigned. This ensures transparency and objectivity in the variable selection and coding process. It leverages the presence or absence of well-defined criteria, rooted in actual policy documents, to yield quantifiable and replicable results. Aligning the methodology with concrete textual evidence bolsters the rigor and reliability of analysis while maintaining clarity and transparency.

Table 2 shows the indicators employed for the assessment of the performance of sustainable food governance within the context of the selected member countries of the OIC.

Table 3. Variables for evaluating OIC Food Security policies alignment to the SDGs.

S/N	Components	Keyword	Coding	Literature
A	Sufficiency		Present (1), Absent (0)	[102,103,104,105,106]
A1	Self-Sufficiency	Sufficient (cy)
A2	Local production of food	Local/Domestic Production
A3	Efficiency in the local production of food	Efficient (cy)
A4	Stable local supply of food	Stability or stable production
A5	Technological Advancement	technology
A6	Innovation	Innovation
B	Resilience			[107,108,109,110,111]
B1	Resilient policies or initiatives	Resilient	Present (1), Absent (0)
B2	Safe food in the face of shocks	Safe food
B3	Affordable food in the face of shocks	Affordable
C	Inclusivity			[112,113,114,115]
C1	Gender Inequality	Gender	Present (1), Absent (0)
C2	Income Inequality	Income/economic Inequality
D	Partnership Peace and Collaboration (PPC)			[116,117,118]
D1	Internal collaboration	Partnership	Present (1), Absent (0)
D2	External collaboration	Collaboration
D3	Peace	Peace
E	Circular Food System (CFS)
E1	Food Loss	Food loss	Present (1), Absent (0)	[119,120,121,122,123]
E2	Food Waste	Food waste
E3	Recycling Waste to value	Recycling
E4	Policy to circular food system	Circular
E5	Storage	Storage
F	Food Literacy (FL)			[124,125,126]
F1	Literacy on diet and nutrition	Literacy/Training/education	Present (1), Absent (0)
F2	Human Development	Human development
G	Sustainable Agriculture			[102,127]
G1	Sustainability	Sustainable agriculture	Present (1), Absent (0)
H	Nutritional Challenges	Nutrition	Present (1), Absent (0)	[128,129]
I	Sustainable Finance			[61,62,63,64,130,131]
I1	Access to funds	Finance	Present (1), Absent (0)
I2	Diversified financial products	Financial products
I3	Financial Literacy	Financial training/education/literacy

Source: Authors’ estimates.

highlights the variables and their corresponding coding utilized in the assessment of the alignment of Food Security policies among member countries of the OIC with the SDGs.

2.3.2. Data Source

The food security policies, strategies, and guides of OIC countries are obtained from the FAO’s FAOLEX database [132] and the World Food Program (WFP) Countries Food security Strategic Plans database [133].

2.4. Definition of Variables

Table 4. Gray Relational Analysis—Sustainable Food Governance components.

Category	Indicator	Definition	Source
Food Security	Global Food Security Index	examines Food availability, affordability, usage, and safety in 113 nations. The index is deduced from 28 distinct indicators by a robust model that blends both qualitative and quantitative methods. The index’s main objective is to determine which nations are most and least susceptible to food insecurity based on availability, affordability, safety, and quality.	[134]
	Affordability	evaluates a consumer’s capacity to buy food, their susceptibility to price fluctuations, and the existence of policies and programs to assist them in the event of a shock.
	Availability	evaluates agricultural output and on-farm capacities, supply disruption risk, national food distribution capacity, and agricultural output research initiatives.
	Quality and Safety	evaluates the food safety as well as the variety and nutritional value of typical diets.
	Sustainability and Adaptation	evaluates a nation’s vulnerability to hazards associated with its natural resources, its exposure to the effects of climate change, and its response to these risks.
Economic Development, Literacy and Life Expectancy	Human Development Index	The Human Development Index (HDI) serves as a concise gauge of human development, encapsulating a country’s average attainments across three fundamental dimensions: longevity and well-being, educational access, and a satisfactory standard of living
Sustainability Criteria	UN SDG Index	evaluates a nation’s overall progress toward meeting all 17 Goals. The result can be seen as a percentage of SDG accomplishment. If a score is 100, then all SDGs have been accomplished.	[135]
	ESG Risk Score	assesses the stability of a sovereign state’s social systems, the state of its environment, and the effectiveness of its governance. It evaluates a country’s performance on ESG issues as well as its vulnerability to ESG-related risks.	[136]
Governance	Control of Corruption	encompasses the assessment of the degree to which public authority is wielded for personal benefit, encompassing both minor and major instances of corruption, along with the influence exerted on the state by privileged elites and private concerns
	Government Effectiveness	encapsulates evaluations of public service quality, civil service competence and its autonomy from political influence, policy formulation and implementation quality, and the government’s credibility in upholding these policies
	Regulatory Quality	Assesses the government’s capacity to craft and enforce effective policies and regulations fostering private sector growth. Standard error denotes the accuracy of the governance estimate
	Rule of Law	gauges the degree to which individuals have trust in and adhere to societal norms, focusing on the efficacy of contract enforcement, property rights, law enforcement, and judicial systems, along with the probability of criminal activity and violence
	Voice and Accountability	assesses the degree to which a nation’s populace can engage in government selection, along with evaluating freedom of expression, association, and an independent media
	Political Stability	Evaluates perceptions regarding the probability of political instability and/or violence driven by political motives.

Source: Authors’ estimates and collation.

below defines the variables components adopted by this study to investigate the OIC sustainable food governance using the Grey Relational Analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Grey Relational Analysis

3.1.1. Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Food Governance Performance of OIC Countries

Table 5. Effective Sustainable Food Security Policy components.

Category	Indicator	Definition
Sufficiency	Local sufficiency	Policies are developed or strengthened to increase the capacity of the local economy to supply (or a specific food crop) and support itself without outside help.
	Local production of Food	Policies are developed or strengthened to increase the capability and ability to produce food locally.
	Efficiency in the local production of food	Policies are developed or strengthened to increase the efficiency of the availability and security of food.
	Stable local supply of Food	Policies are developed to ensure the stable or consistent supply of food in the local economy.
	Innovative Food Security	Policies are put in place to guarantee that innovation is continuously incubated and implemented to ensure food security.
	Technological advancement in ensuring local food security	Policies are put in place to ensure that agricultural automation and other technology advancements are continuously developed and deployed.
Resilience	Resilient	By putting into place policies that increase resistance and capacity to tolerate and recuperate from shocks in a way that guarantees there is enough palatable and accessible food for everyone.
	Safety	Policies are formulated to ensure that safe food is accessible for everyone in the face of shocks.
	Affordability	Policies are formulated to ensure that affordable food is accessible for everyone in the face of shocks.
Circular Food Systems	Food Loss	Policies are formulated to minimize and control post-harvest losses that occurs during food production, processing, and distribution except for retailing and consumption.
	Food Waste	Policies are created to reduce and manage post-harvest losses at the retail and consumer level.
	Recycling	Policies are formulated to facilitate the minimization of waste through recycling or other avenues.
Food Literacy	Literacy on Food Security	Policies are formulated to deepen the food and nutrition knowledge of citizens and all stakeholders, as well as empower them to make sound income and food decisions.
	Human Development	Policies are made to guarantee people’s liberties, opportunities, and enhancement of their well-being.
Sustainable Agriculture	Sustainable Agriculture	Policies are made to support sustainable agricultural methods that benefit the environment and the community to guarantee that there will be enough food to meet the requirements of future generations.
	Sustainability	Policies are put in place to encourage agricultural practices that reduce pollution of the air, water, and land while preserving the earth’s ecosystem and society.
Nutrition Challenges	Nutrition	Policies are formulated to address the national nutrition challenges, and strategic plans to develop the means of supplying or acquiring the food essential to maintaining health and fostering development.
Inclusivity	Gender Equality	Policies are formulated to ensure that women enjoy equitable access and opportunities in the areas of food security.
	Income Equality	Policies are formulated to combat the widespread socioeconomic disparities in a population’s access to affordable and nutritious food.
Collective Action	Partnership	Policies are formulated to foster partnerships between both local and foreign stakeholders in matters concerning food security.
	Collaboration	Policies are developed to promote collaboration between domestic and international parties on issues relating to food security.
	Peace	Policies are created to foster harmony and peace throughout the nation, particularly about food security, and among all stakeholders.
Finance	Access to Funds	Policies are developed to promote access to funds by relevant stakeholders for the purpose of food security.
	Diversified Financial Product	Policies are enacted to ensure that all food security relevant stakeholders have access to a wide range of financial services, including insurance, stocks, and investment goods, as well as other lending products (such as credit cards and home equity loans).
	Sustainable Finance	Policies are enacted to promote funding initiatives that ensure reliable access to nutritious food while considering environmental impact, social equity, and resilient supply chains for long-term well-being.
	Financial Literacy	Policies are formulated to guarantee that all parties involved in food security have acquired the capacity to comprehend and use various financial abilities, such as personal financial management, budgeting, and saving, successfully.

Source: Authors’ Review.

gives the performance scores of the OIC countries across the variables listed above X1 to X15 in year 2022. These variables are duly explained in Table 3 and will be used to conduct the comparative analysis of sustainable food security governance using the Grey Relational Analysis. The computation of the Normalized Data, Deviation Sequence and the Grey Relational Coefficients can be accessed with this Link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PGu3q2jUNirkNA8GEpAk8GId0w9u4DfZ/edit accessed on 2 September 2023). The process of computing these metrics is duly explained in Section 2.2.1 “Steps in Grey Relational Analysis”.

Table 6. OIC country performances metrics for year 2022 obtained from secondary data sources.

Country	X1	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6	X7	X8	X9	X10	X11	X12	X13	X14	X15
Algeria	58.9	66.8	57.3	54.7	0.715	54.2	0.75	−0.614	−0.621	−1.171	−0.816	−1.01	−0.876	0.483	0.103
Azerbaijan	59.8	78.1	56.2	54.5	0.735	44.6	0.76	−0.828	0.248	−0.06	−0.585	−1.53	−0.853	0.319	0.109
Bahrain	70.3	91.3	60.1	76.3	0.643	46.3	0.85	0.168	0.717	0.849	0.471	−1.502	−0.505	0.378	0.169
Bangladesh	54	52.1	61.5	58.4	0.642	43.9	0.63	−0.962	−0.627	−0.846	−0.611	−0.77	−0.97	0.513	0.169
Burkina Faso	49.1	49.5	49.8	52.8	0.545	46.4	0.45	−0.059	−0.726	−0.467	−0.438	−0.109	−1.639	0.55	0.161
Cameroon	46.4	50.4	41.9	56.5	0.555	47	0.56	−1.093	−0.875	−0.923	−1.097	−1.16	−1.407	0.496	0.136
Chad	43.2	50.1	40	44.7	0.413	35.9	0.4	−1.478	−1.424	−1.155	−1.325	−1.42	−1.336	0.537	0.254
Egypt	56	65.2	54.2	45.9	0.687	55.8	0.71	−0.685	−0.432	−0.507	−0.245	−1.51	−1.024	0.601	0.164
Guinea	45.1	47	39	39.8	0.513	56.9	0.48	−0.996	−0.916	−0.964	−1.131	−0.988	−0.97	0.557	0.174
Indonesia	60.2	81.4	50.9	56.2	0.692	46.3	0.72	−0.428	0.379	0.298	−0.225	0.155	−0.506	0.38	0.157
Ivory Coast	46.5	54.2	42.1	44.1	0.584	43.2	0.54	−0.372	−0.502	−0.256	−0.634	−0.471	−0.953	0.565	0.11
Jordan	66.2	85.3	59.8	55.4	0.694	58.9	0.73	0.05	0.227	0.151	0.213	−0.799	−0.276	0.522	0.152
Kazakhstan	72.1	78	67.2	76.3	0.711	65.4	0.83	−0.237	0.064	−0.254	0.09	−0.487	−1.136	0.348	0.081
Kuwait	65.2	80	62.9	67.8	0.645	45.5	0.81	−0.034	−0.038	0.175	0.261	−0.703	0.299	0.241	0.122
Malaysia	69.9	87	59.5	74.7	0.704	53.7	0.81	0.171	0.992	0.722	0.558	−0.155	0.139	0.319	0.132
Morocco	63	74.6	42.9	73.1	0.69	60	0.69	−0.434	−0.067	−0.122	−0.253	−0.607	−0.396	0.453	0.117
Mozambique	47.3	42.6	49.4	41.8	0.536	56.5	0.46	−0.812	−0.765	−0.778	−1.035	−0.613	−1.228	0.642	0.198
Niger	46.3	42.8	41.7	47	0.522	55.5	0.39	−0.547	−0.615	−0.746	−0.405	−0.387	−1.616	0.616	0.256
Nigeria	42	25	39.5	55.6	0.542	53.7	0.54	−1.07	−0.996	−0.933	−0.856	−0.637	−1.779	0.559	0.186
Oman	71.2	88.6	64.3	73.2	0.692	53.6	0.81	0.086	−0.118	0.33	0.406	−1.193	0.507	0.269	0.14
Pakistan	52.2	59.9	58.3	49.4	0.593	37.7	0.56	−0.786	−0.403	−0.732	−0.637	−0.841	−1.667	0.637	0.21
Qatar	72.4	88.6	72.9	71.7	0.668	51	00.85	0.806	1.114	0.958	0.863	0.928	−1.175	0.22	0.096
Saudi Arabia	69.9	83.2	67.2	71.6	0.666	53.7	0.85	0.307	0.496	0.336	0.23	−1.591	−0.584	0.241	0.12
Senegal	51.2	57.9	47.8	53.9	0.587	43.5	0.51	0.058	0.059	−0.312	−0.364	0.193	−0.17	0.586	0.116
Sierra Leone	40.5	36.6	35.5	41.8	0.53	49.8	0.45	−0.431	−1.115	−0.165	−0.965	−0.819	−0.064	0.619	0.188
Sudan	42.8	35.2	48.2	53.9	0.496	34.2	0.51	−1.29	−1.637	−1.465	−1.21	−1.468	−1.935	0.798	0.217
Tajikistan	56.7	59.8	56.2	56.5	0.697	53.1	0.67	−1.338	−0.592	−1.126	−1.185	−1.705	−0.608	0.487	0.11
Togo	46.2	45.7	51	42.3	0.556	45.4	0.52	−0.668	−0.647	−0.633	−0.559	−0.794	−0.802	0.593	0.162
Tunisia	60.3	74.5	54.1	58.8	0.707	49.7	0.74	−0.23	−0.167	−0.389	0.096	0.187	−0.696	0.527	0.102
Turkey	65.3	58.4	65.3	78.5	0.704	61.2	0.82	−0.386	−0.087	−0.082	−0.416	−0.859	−1.098	0.393	0.091
UAE	75.2	86.7	73.8	81.3	0.688	55.2	0.89	1.178	1.399	1.014	0.83	−1.193	0.649	0.147	0.089
Uzbekistan	57.5	52.5	56.3	64.6	0.699	57.9	0.72	−0.808	−0.197	−0.581	−0.886	−1.4	−0.24	0.42	0.077
Yemen	40.1	46.4	26.9	48.7	0.521	37.8	0.47	−1.652	−2.304	−2.008	−1.799	−1.684	−2.588	0.717	0.332

presents the indicators that reflects the performance of OIC member countries in 2022. These metrics are obtained from secondary data sources.

where,

Identifier	Variables
X1	Global Food Security Index
X2	Food Affordability
X3	Food Availability
X4	Food Stability
X5	Food Sustainability and Adaptation
X6	Human Development Index
X7	Control of Corruption
X8	Government Effectiveness
X9	Regulatory Quality
X10	Rule of Law
X11	Voice and Accountability
X12	Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism
X13	UN SDG Index
X14	ESG Risk Score
X15	Nutritional Challenges

3.1.2. Grey Relational Grade and Ranking

With the assumption of equal weight, the Grey Relational Grade of the OIC Grey Relational Coefficient performance, the grades and rankings are computed.

Table 7. OIC Grey Relational Grades and Ranking.

Country	Grey Relational Grade	Grey Relational Ranking
UAE	0.902	1
Qatar	0.820	2
Malaysia	0.728	3
Kazakhstan	0.709	4
Oman	0.702	5
Saudi Arabia	0.684	6
Bahrain	0.684	7
Kuwait	0.649	8
Turkey	0.644	9
Jordan	0.622	10
Morocco	0.598	11
Tunisia	0.592	12
Indonesia	0.590	13
Azerbaijan	0.584	14
Uzbekistan	0.573	15
Algeria	0.550	16
Senegal	0.523	17
Tajikistan	0.517	18
Egypt	0.517	19
Bangladesh	0.492	20
Ivory Coast	0.479	21
Burkina Faso	0.471	22
Pakistan	0.457	23
Togo	0.455	24
Cameroon	0.449	25
Sierra Leone	0.445	26
Mozambique	0.444	27
Niger	0.440	28
Guinea	0.438	29
Nigeria	0.434	30
Sudan	0.389	31
Chad	0.387	32
Yemen	0.356	33

Source: Authors’ estimates.

provides a ranking of countries based on their Grey Relational Grade, signifying their performance relative to sustainable food governance. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) leads the list with a score of 0.902, followed by Qatar at 0.820, and Malaysia at 0.727. Conversely, Yemen, Chad and Sudan occupy the lower positions with scores of 0.356, 0.386, and 0.388, respectively. The ranking offers a comparative perspective on country performance on sustainable food governance, highlighting the UAE as the top-performing country and underscoring Yemen’s and Sudan’s relatively lower scores.

3.2. Leximetrics Analysis

Comparative analysis of OIC food security policies alignment to sustainable development.

Table 8. Leximetric analysis results of OIC food security policies.

Country	X 1	X 2	X 3	X 4	X 5	X 6	X 7	X 8	X 9	X 10	X 11	X 12	X 13	X 14	X 15	X 16	X 17	X 18	X 19	X 20	X 21	X 22	X 23	X 24	X 25	X 26	X 27	∑
Algeria	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	12
Bahrain	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	20
Bangladesh	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	24
Burkina Faso	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	18
Cameroon	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	21
Chad	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	10
Egypt	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	15
Guinea	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	15
Indonesia	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	14
Ivory Coast	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	15
Jordan	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	21
Kazakhstan	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	16
Kuwait	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	15
Malaysia	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	15
Mozambique	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	14
Niger	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	18
Nigeria	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	18
Oman	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	20
Pakistan	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	14
Qatar	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	18
Saudi Arabia	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	20
Senegal	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	15
Sierra Leone	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	16
Sudan	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	18
Tajikistan	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	15
Togo	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	12
Tunisia	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	19
Turkey	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	23
UAE	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	16
Uzbekistan	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	11
Yemen	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	0	16

Where, X1–X27 = {Self-sufficient, local/domestic production, efficiency, stable, technology, innovation, safety, affordable, resilience, gender, inequality, partnership, peace, collaboration, food loss, food waste, recycling, storage, circular, literacy, human development, sustainability, sustainable agriculture, nutrition, access to finance, financial literacy, diversified financial products}.

gives the Leximetrical extracted data from the latest OIC food security strategy documents, with respect to the variables X1–X27 identified above. If the above variables are present in the context of policy enactment and interventions, or as a description of previously implemented policies, 1, is recorded, and 0, otherwise.

4. Discussion

4.1. Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Food Security Governance-OIC

Regarding Food Security and Availability, which encompasses metrics such as the Global Food Security Index (X1), Food Affordability (X2), Food Availability (X3), and Food Stability (X4), countries such as Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE consistently exhibit strong performance, signifying a heightened level of food security and availability in these regions.

In terms of Sustainability and Human Development, which are gauged by indicators including Food Sustainability and Adaptation (X5), Human Development Index (X6), and ESG Risk Score (X14), Bahrain and the UAE demonstrate notable proficiency, indicating a pronounced emphasis on sustainability and human development.

In the realm of Governance and Political Stability, assessed through metrics like Control of Corruption (X7), Government Effectiveness (X8), and Political Stability (X12), Qatar and the UAE exhibit robust governance and political stability.

Nutritional Challenges and ESG Risk, encompassing Nutritional Challenges (X15) and ESG Risk Score (X14), highlight challenges related to nutrition and environmental, social, and governance risks. Several countries, including Yemen and Sudan, face significant challenges in these dimensions. There are regional clusters of countries with similar performances. For example, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states—Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—often appear among the top performers, reflecting their shared socio-economic characteristics and governance systems.

Nations with higher Human Development Index (HDI) tend to perform well in multiple dimensions, including sustainability and governance. This indicates a positive correlation between human development and sustainable governance. Countries like Yemen and Sudan face challenges across various indicators, including high environmental, social, and governance risks, as well as nutritional challenges. This pattern may be attributed to ongoing conflicts and political instability in these regions.

4.2. Comparative Analysis of OIC Food Security Policies Alignment to Sustainable Development-OIC

On average, OIC countries demonstrate notable positive performance in formulating food security policies encompassing attributes such as ‘efficiency’, ‘stability’, ‘safety’, ‘affordability’, ‘resilience’, ‘human development’, and ‘sustainability’, as shown in Table 7. Conversely, attributes like ‘peace’, ‘recycling’, ‘circularity’, ‘financial literacy’, and ‘diversification of financial products’ exhibit lower average scores, suggesting a potential need for heightened attention and enhancement across the dataset’s countries.

Those nations performing well in ‘efficiency’ typically demonstrate high performance in ‘safety’ and ‘affordability’, indicating interrelatedness among these factors. Gender-related metrics (‘Gender’ and ‘Inequality’) exhibit moderate average scores, indicating further scope for advancing gender equality, while income inequality demands significant attention. Metrics associated with financial literacy (‘Financial literacy’ and ‘Diversified financial products’) display lower average scores, highlighting the potential necessity for enhanced financial education and diversification of financial services.

On average, sustainable finance (access to finance, diversified financing, and financial literacy), sustainable agriculture, circular food systems (storage and recycling) and peace are not properly incorporated in OIC national food security policies. In addition, on average, the key words that denote effective governance like accountability, transparency, and rule of law (supervision) are not adequately incorporated into OIC food security governance.

The involvement of international organizations in assisting some countries to draft strategic food security initiatives could significantly help in the alignment of food security policies with sustainable development in policy documents.

4.3. Synchronized Results of Grey Relational and Leximetrics Ranking

Table 9. Comparative Performance Ranking of OIC Countries—Food governance and Food security policy.

	Grey Relational Ranking	Leximetrics Ranking
Country	Sustainable Food Security Governance	Sustainable Food Security Policy
UAE	1	14
Qatar	2	9
Malaysia	3	18
Kazakhstan	4	14
Oman	5	5
Saudi Arabia	6	5
Bahrain	7	5
Kuwait	8	18
Turkey	9	2
Jordan	10	3
Tunisia	12	5
Indonesia	13	25
Uzbekistan	15	30
Algeria	16	29
Senegal	17	18
Tajikistan	18	18
Egypt	19	18
Bangladesh	20	1
Ivory Coast	21	18
Burkina Faso	22	9
Pakistan	23	25
Togo	24	28
Cameroon	25	3
Sierra Leone	26	14
Mozambique	27	25
Niger	28	9
Guinea	29	18
Nigeria	30	9
Sudan	31	9
Chad	32	23
Yemen	33	14

gives the ranking of the OIC countries in accordance with their performance in how their approach to both food governance and food security policies aligns with sustainable development.

The performance matrix below, as computed by this study, is highlighted in

Table 10. Categories of Sustainable Development Performance of Food Governance and Food Security Policies.

Category Matrix		Food Governance (Alignment to SDGs)
		Low 21st–30th	Medium 11th–20th	High 1st–10th
Food Security Policies (Alignment to SDGs)	Low 21st–30th	Togo, Mozambique, Chad, Pakistan	Algeria, Uzbekistan, Indonesia
	Medium 11th–20th	Sierra Leone, Guinea, Yemen, Ivory Coast	Senegal, Tajikistan, Egypt	Malaysia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan
	High 1st–10th	Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan	Tunisia	Oman, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar

Source: Authors’ Estimates.

. Based on how well they compare in terms of sustainable food governance and how well their food security policies are in line with sustainable development, the OIC countries are divided into different categories.

There is considerable divergence in rankings between the two metrics. While some countries perform well in Sustainable Food Security Governance, they may not necessarily excel in Sustainable Food Security Policy, and vice versa. This suggests a distinction between the governance structures in place and the policies implemented. The top-ranked states in Sustainable Food Security Governance, such as the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kazakhstan, and Malaysia, appear to prioritize governance practices that support sustainable food security. These states clearly have robust regulatory frameworks and institutions to manage food security. Countries like Bangladesh, Turkey, and Jordan excel in Sustainable Food Security Policy. This indicates a focus on implementing policies and strategies that align with sustainable development goals related to food security.

The rankings suggest that different countries employ varied approaches to address food security challenges. Some prioritize governance structures and institutions, while others emphasize policy implementation and alignment with sustainability objectives. The rankings also reflect the national development context. More developed nations tend to perform better in governance-related metrics, while emerging economies may excel in policy implementation but face governance challenges. Countries ranking lower in both metrics may face challenges in both governance and policy aspects of food security. These rankings can serve as a starting point for identifying areas where improvements are needed and opportunities for targeted interventions. Some countries demonstrate balanced rankings in both metrics, suggesting a holistic approach to addressing food security challenges. These nations may serve as models for comprehensive food security strategies.

States with a higher score in the “Peace” variable tend to have better political stability. For example, countries like Chad, Sudan, and Yemen, which have lower peace and lower political stability scores, need to make provisions for the enactment and implementation of food security policies. On average, countries with higher scores in “storage”, “recycling”, “circular”, “food waste”, and “food loss” perform better in global food security indices.

4.4. Empirical Results and the Literature

In summary, the literature emphasizes:

• the importance of incorporating sustainability considerations into food security policies.
  The empirical results reinforce this idea by highlighting countries like Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE, that demonstrate proficiency in sustainability and human development, suggesting that these nations are prioritizing sustainable practices.

• that food security policies should align with sustainability principles.
  The empirical analysis reveals that OIC countries, on average, perform well in formulating food security policies that incorporate attributes like efficiency, stability, and resilience; although sustainability-related metrics (e.g., recycling and circularity) have lower scores.

• the importance of assessing the alignment of food security policies with sustainability aspects.
  The empirical results highlight that, on average, OIC countries do not adequately incorporate sustainable finance, sustainable agriculture, circular food systems, and peace into their food security policies.

• the need for comprehensive and sustainable food security strategies.
  The empirical analysis shows that some OIC countries excel in both governance and policy aspects of food security, suggesting a holistic approach to addressing food security challenges.

• the challenges of policy implementation and governance in achieving food security.
  The empirical results align with this by showing that some countries excel in governance but may not necessarily perform well in policy implementation, and vice versa.

• peace is a crucial factor in ensuring food security.
  The empirical results indicate that countries with higher peace scores tend to have better political stability, reinforcing the idea that peace is essential for food security.

• the role of water resources in food security.
  The empirical results suggest that countries scoring higher in “storage”, “recycling”, and “circular” (related to efficient resource use, water resources inclusive) perform better in global food.

5. Conclusions

On average, sustainable finance (access to finance, diversified financing, and financial literacy), sustainable agriculture, circular food systems (storage and recycling) and peace are not properly incorporated in OIC food security policies. In the formulation of some OIC food security policies framework, there is an emphasis on sustainability and diversified instruments (Note: Sustainable financial instruments include green bonds, social bonds, sustainability-linked loans, and impact investments, channeling capital towards environmentally and socially responsible projects while generating returns) of sustainable finance, however, the implementation is not effective. Furthermore, across OIC nations, the development of food security policies often lacks thorough incorporation of fundamental pillars: accountability, transparency, and rule of law (supervision). These pivotal aspects constitute the essence of effective food governance, illuminating the incongruence between robust policy construction and suboptimal execution evident in certain nations. The involvement of international organizations in assisting some states to draft strategic food security initiatives could help in the alignment of such national food security policies with sustainable development.

Some OIC countries (e.g., Iran, Turkmenistan, Suriname) did not document a wholesome food security policy or strategy, but rather enacted numerous segmented policies on different areas relating to agriculture, fisheries, oil, food, and nutrition. Further, some states (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria, and Sudan) performed exceptionally well in food security policy formulation and in alignment with the SDGs but are characterized by low or medium performance in the implementation of food governance: while others (Senegal, Tajikistan, and Egypt) maintain an average performance in both food governance and food security policy alignment to sustainable development.

The UN World Food Program, FAO, and other supra-national institutions have joint Food Security related projects with some countries. These programs facilitate excellent performance in policy formulation and alignment with the SDGs, but more research is needed to investigate the main reasons why these Food Security policies are not properly implemented.

Furthermore, the literature emphasizes the critical role of water resources, peace, and the alignment of food security policies with sustainability principles. These themes align with the empirical results, highlighting the interplay between resource management, political stability, and policy coherence in ensuring food security.

In summary, the empirical analysis corroborates assertions in the literature that sustainable food security hinges on inclusive policies, holistic governance, and the alignment of strategies with sustainability goals. By identifying specific areas of focus and divergence among OIC countries, this research contributes to a more informed and nuanced approach to addressing global food security challenges. The study provides a comprehensive evaluation and grading of OIC country performance in Sustainability, Food Security, Governance, and Economy. It offers a comparative analysis of sustainable food security policy formulation and implementation among OIC countries, assessing alignment with sustainable development across multifaceted and exacting domains.

Future research should delve into the intricate dynamics of sustainable finance, recycling, food waste, food loss, storage, circularity, self-sufficiency, and local production within sustainable food security governance and the alignment of food security policies to sustainable development in the OIC. Understanding the nuanced relationships, or lack thereof, among these variables is essential for crafting comprehensive and effective policies. Additionally, investigating the obscure facets of these elements (such as the limited incorporation of peace and sustainable finance) can uncover hidden challenges and opportunities for enhancing food security initiatives and achieving greater synergy with sustainable development objectives, thus contributing to more resilient and sustainable food systems.

5.1. Limitation of the Research

In our Leximetrics analysis, we specifically focused on instances where sustainability-related terms were employed in the context of policy formulation, intervention, and past policy implementation. However, we encountered challenges, such as synonym usage (e.g., ‘food loss’ referred to as ‘post-harvest loss’) and instances where countries enacted relevant laws without explicit mention of these terms.

5.2. Reservation

The empirical analysis exclusively encompasses food security policies of specific OIC countries accessible through FAOLEX and the World Food Program (WFP) databases as of August 2023. Consequently, any discussions and conclusions drawn from the Leximetrics analysis are contingent upon the data available from the adopted databases. It is acknowledged that there may exist additional food security policy documents for these countries on alternative websites or databases.