Skip to Content
SustainabilitySustainability
  • Article
  • Open Access

19 August 2024

An Exploration of Food Sustainability Practices in the Food Industry across Europe

,
,
and
Department of Sport, Exercise and Nutrition, Atlantic Technological University, H91 T8NW Galway, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Abstract

Sustainability is becoming essential and actively debated in the food sector, influencing companies and stakeholders globally. Sustainability practices have been developed and integrated into food industry actions and policies to meet present needs without compromising future needs. The aim of this study was to explore the current sustainability practices across the food industry in Europe and how initiatives are developed, implemented and evaluated to achieve food sustainability targets. This study formed part of a larger European project (2022-1-IE01-KA220-VET-000087508 Digitalisation of Sustainable Health Education). In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 food industry employees with expertise in sustainability across Ireland, Poland, Lithuania, and Cyprus. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Three themes were identified: sustainable practices challenges, facilitators of green practice, and thinking to the future, Complying with the Science-Based Targets initiative, and setting emissions targets such net zero by 2050 and reducing waste output, drove sustainable activities. Participants identified barriers to initiative development and implementation including cost, monitoring time, product quality, and employee engagement. Employee and stakeholder understanding were crucial to sustainability initiative success. Gaps in research were identified as the proliferation of environmental labels and greater company collaboration to share sustainability data. A key consideration highlighted in discussions was the importance of collaboration and education for raising awareness and strengthening the implementation and long-term maintenance of food sustainability practices within industry. Greater collaboration between large food companies to share raw sustainability metric data could strengthen initiative outcomes and raise greater awareness among stakeholders, bridging the knowledge gap with producers or stakeholders who operate on a smaller scale.

1. Introduction

The food industry is intertwined in every continent and culture, shaping dietary habits and economies worldwide [1]. It is constantly evolving to meet the demands of an ever-growing population, while grappling with sustainability and health concerns. The global food industry is facing mounting pressure to address the environmental, social, and economic challenges posed by its operations. A 2021 report by Binns et al. stated that food production is responsible for 20–30% of greenhouse gases [2].
In recent years, sustainability has become a central theme in the food industry, influencing the decisions and actions of food industry stakeholders worldwide. The global food industry has the resources and power to improve sustainability practices worldwide. Data and trends from 2022 show that the “EU food and drink industry employs 4.6 million people, generates a turnover of EUR 1.1 trillion and EUR 230 billion in value added”, making it one of the largest manufacturing industries in the EU [3]. Sustainable practices (SPs) are the strategies implemented by the food industry to improve and harmonize their operations with ecological, social, and economic sustainability imperatives [4]. SPs refer to actions and policies that aim to meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [5]. The food industry recognises that sustainability is not only a moral imperative, but also a business imperative, as consumers increasingly demand products that align with their values and support a more sustainable future [6,7]. This shift towards sustainability encompasses a range of considerations, including sustainable ingredient sourcing, efficient resource management, waste reduction, ethical labour practices, and community engagement [8]. To date, no comprehensive exploration into the intricate processes by which food industry stakeholders develop, implement, and evaluate sustainability practices has been completed.
Exploration of the dynamic landscape of SPs, scrutinizing the development of strategies that resonate with the broader goals of environmental stewardship, ethical sourcing, and societal well-being would build an understanding of best practices and impact future research and development that can inform not only industry stakeholders but also policymakers, researchers, and consumers invested in shaping a more sustainable and equitable food future [9,10]. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have acted as a roadmap across the food industry, guiding companies on steps to address their company’s sustainability, and involve adopting practices that promote sustainable agriculture, reduce food waste, ensure food security, and support economic growth. This means implementing eco-friendly farming techniques, reducing emissions, and conserving natural resources [11]. Additionally, it includes improving supply chain efficiency, minimizing food loss, and ensuring fair labour practices. By aligning with the SDGs, the food industry can contribute to ending hunger, fostering sustainable consumption and production patterns, and addressing climate change, thereby creating a more resilient and equitable food system [12].
The food industry faces many challenges when trying to implement sustainable changes and policies. The global food industry is responsible for major environmental impacts, including biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, water extraction and pollution [13,14]. Yet little has been published on the SPs the food industry is implementing to tackle these challenges. Understanding how SPs have been developed, implemented, and monitored will allow best practice to be identified and provide inspiration for other food companies to improve their sustainability approach and contribute to a sustainable future. The aim of this study was to explore the current sustainability priorities across the food industry in Europe and how initiatives are developed, implemented, and evaluated to achieve food sustainability targets. Therefore, this study set out to answer the following research questions: how are SP initiatives currently developed, implemented, and monitored for effectiveness?

2. Materials and Methods

This study was a joint Erasmus KA2 European funded project led by the Atlantic Technological University, Galway, Ireland and partnered with The Polish Farm Advisory and Training Centre, Łomża, Poland, the Kaunas Food Industry and Trade Training Centre, Kaunas, Lithuania and the University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus2022-1-IE01-KA220-VET-000087508 Digitalisation of Sustainable Health Education, DiSHEd). Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather insight on current food sustainability practices across the food industry sector in Europe.

2.1. Participants

The maximum variation sampling technique was based on the idea of information power, and a moderate sample size was judged sufficient in light of the study’s general objectives and sample specificity. Researchers aimed to recruit a minimum of 20 participants employed in the food industry across the four countries (Ireland, Cyprus, Poland, and Lithuania). Eligibility criteria included adults over the age of 18 years of age currently working in the food industry sector in a role that includes oversight of, or responsibility for, the sustainability initiatives and practices in their company. Participants were identified through LinkedIn, using direct message invitations to those with ‘sustainable/sustainability’ in their job title, and, additionally, through snowball sampling with previously identified contacts who participated in a previous DiSHEd study exploring employer needs and expectations of graduates. Additionally, promotional posts were also shared across project social media channels including X and LinkedIn, to further support maximum variation. This approach was used to guarantee business diversity and inclusion of participants from various sizes and types of food industry companies. Interested participants were invited to complete a consent form and attend an interview. In-depth, semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews were conducted online by the lead researcher in Ireland, Poland, Lithuania, and Cyprus using Microsoft Teams, and lasted between 20 and 52 min (M = 31.2 min, SD = 9.87 min). Each partner country conducted its own interviews, which were then transcribed and forwarded to the lead research team at Atlantic Technological University for thematic analysis.
Approaching the end of the recruitment process for each partner recruiting in their country, an additional eligible participant replied to the advertisement to express interest in taking part in the study. The interview was conducted, and the data were deemed to provide additional beneficial insights into the area of interest, resulting in their inclusion in the final dataset.

2.2. Procedure

A semi-structured interview schedule was designed based on a literature review and discussion of researchers’ experiences, using a mix of open-ended questions, prompts and follow-up questions to encourage interviewees to reflect on and describe their experiences with the development, implementation, and evaluation of current food sustainability practices. The interview schedule as outlined in Table 1 was broad, covering company’s sustainable priorities, current food sustainability practice development and implementation, how those practices are monitored and evaluated to assess alignment with targets, and future sustainability goals and plans. Data from these questions were separated and thematically analysed. All data were anonymised, and each participant was given a unique identifier code, which can be seen reflected in Table 2.
Table 1. Interview schedule outlining questions asked, and importance of the topics covered.
Table 2. Demographic description of participants’ job titles, company, and location.
Our project team consisted of one lead researcher from each of the four partner countries. Ethical approval for the research was granted by the ATU Galway-Mayo Research Ethics Committee after a full board review of the study proposal (RSC_AC_27052023).

2.3. Data Analysis

Following the interview transcription and cleaning, the data were assembled and subjected to a deductive analysis utilising the theme analysis methodology as described by Braun and Clarke [15,16]. This method describes a six-phase thematic analysis, with Phase 1 being familiarisation with the data, which entails transcribing the data from the recordings, going over the interview transcripts again, and making notes on preliminary ideas on the data overall [15,16]. Phase 2 produced preliminary codes by emphasising significant passages from the transcripts, gathering them into a fresh data set pertinent to the study subject, and classifying them according to the intriguing characteristics found in the information. The research team coded the data and discussed discrepancies in interpretation until they reached an agreement. Phase 3 grouped all pertinent data elements associated with each possible theme to search for themes within the data. In Phase 4, the project team convened to assess prospective themes that could emerge. Additionally, a thematic map was created to assess the degree to which the themes accurately reflected the coded extracts. Phase 5 identified the details of each theme and began the overall study by further defining and refining these themes. In Phase 6, the project team convened to go over the refined themes and discuss the comprehensive analysis of the data extracts categorised under each subject that addressed the study questions.
This approach resulted in a comprehensive analysis of the dataset to identify overarching trends, and subsequently categorised the codes into several themes [15]. In order to adopt a more inductive and data-driven approach, we made a conscious effort to avoid being influenced by pre-existing concepts, categories, and definitions from earlier research, whilst also acknowledging our role as researchers in the co-creation of themes. The objective of this study is to enhance the existing knowledge of SPs in the food business. The themes were formulated using the full dataset to ensure their relevance to anyone engaged in work or research in this field. An extensive ‘directory’ consisting of main themes and subthemes was compiled (Table 3) and the corresponding participant quotations organized under each theme or subtheme category. This assisted in modifying the titles, boundaries, and positioning of themes allowing for verification if the themes accurately represented the data. Additionally, it proved to be useful in the practical aspect of producing the analysis.
Table 3. Developed themes, subthemes, sample codes and example quotes.

3. Results

A total of 21 employees with direct responsibility for, or extensive knowledge of, their company’s current food sustainable practices participated in the interviews across the four countries Ireland (n = 6), Poland (n = 5), Cyprus (n = 5), and Lithuania (n = 5). Both male and female participants were included (n = 8 and n = 13, respectively). As displayed in Table 2, a range of companies across the food industry sector were represented, from small, local companies to larger companies with a global reach.
Thematic analysis of the data identified three main themes relating to food sustainability practices and initiatives in the food industry sector: SP Challenges; Facilitators of Green Practice; and Thinking to the Future. These were further broken down into relative subthemes, and example quotes to support the analysis can be seen in Table 3.

3.1. SP Challenges

The theme SP challenges was further broken down into seven subthemes: cost—investment in sustainability; embracing new procedures; time required; accuracy of monitoring procedures; data collection delays; multiple metrics focus to achieve sustainability; and shared understanding. All participating companies represented in this study confirmed that the company had a sustainability policy for practice, except for one. This company however, in the absence of an official policy, were taking steps towards sustainability and aiming to achieve certain sustainability goals.
Across all four countries, challenges were reported when developing and implementing sustainable initiatives. These challenges included cost, employee engagement and understanding, time required, accuracy of monitoring procedures, delayed data collection, and a narrow sustainability focus. Investment in SP requires time and money. The cost of upgrading existing or purchasing new environmentally friendly technologies or equipment was reported as a major challenge when developing an initiative. Improvements and updates are expensive and sometimes outside the scope of a company’s financial potential. Time required to dedicate staff to the development, implementation, and evaluation of new practices was reported as a secondary financial and staff management challenge (see Table 3, 1.3). The process from initial research and planning, to developing the concept, to implementation, is timely, and can pull staff away from other vital tasks.
Participants felt that encouraging employees to embrace new procedures and practices can be challenging, as employees were perceived to desire convenience and favoured minimal changes to day-to-day tasks and responsibilities. Employees perceived the new practice as an added workload. Employers face a challenge in invigorating employees to embrace the new practice and see the value in its implementation from a personal and external consumer perspective. A lack of understanding on sustainability was highlighted as a contributing factor, with employees not really understanding the purpose of what they were doing (see Table 3, 1.2 and 1.7).
When discussing monitoring and evaluation of SPs, the accuracy of data collected was often queried by participants. For example, when measuring food waste, bin-lift weights are recorded and companies may rely on the weight measurement reported on these bills to monitor their waste production. However, not all waste may make it to the bin, and it may be lost down drains. A delay in data collection was also mentioned as a barrier to accurate measuring, as some procedures will only allow data collection at certain points or bills may not be issued on the same day (see Table 3, 1.5).

3.2. Facilitators of Green Practice

This theme was composed of seven subthemes, including education and promotion; embedding across the business; auditing; agreement and understanding amongst employees; sustainable policies for practice; investing benefits; and company working groups. Creating SPs within a company requires research and a foundation of knowledge. Every participant mentioned the importance of reflecting on, or aligning to, national, European or global policies and benchmarks as an integral part of initiative design. These policies, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), provide companies with guidance for setting targets, establishing policies for practice and developing appropriate reporting structures for monitoring and evaluation (see Table 3, 2.5). Alongside this consideration, the use of external auditing was promoted by participants to verify SP outputs and compliance and identify gaps or potential issues that self-reporting may miss.
The approach to the introduction of a sustainability initiative and the acceptance by employees and stakeholders within the company was a recurring point of consideration for the larger companies represented in the interviews. Sustainability initiatives developed by management are an integral part of corporate culture, aiming to promote responsible business practices and environmental awareness. Education, both internally and externally, with consumers or end-users, was stressed as an important aspect of developing and implementing SPs and must be integrated into the design plan from the beginning. Education on the initiative was mentioned as important for communicating the reasons behind sustainability efforts and ensuring compliance and acceptance of the practice by all involved (see Table 3, 2.1).
Dedicated sustainability working groups or staff members was discussed as a positive influence on SPs within a company. Establishing internal sustainability working groups or sustainability leads was reported to improve focus, initiative outcome and company-wide engagement. Teams dedicated to meeting specific sustainable goals were responsible for researching and development, educating staff and stakeholders, and reporting on target achievement progress (see Table 3, 2.7). Creating these opportunities for greater employee engagement in SPs was believed to improve the outcome and allow employees to see the value and purpose behind the initiative.

3.3. Thinking to the Future

This theme was broken down into six subthemes: business improvements; inter-collaboration of companies; sustainable goals; collaboration—community; a multi-pronged approach; and proliferation of environmental labels. Future sustainability goals and targets mentioned by participants expanded on original priorities and included aiming for further reductions in emissions and implementation of sustainable procurement and production practices. Sustainable production process goals were mentioned by many participants as expanding research to explore environmentally friendly food-safe packaging. By 2030, one company is aiming to eliminate plastic in packaging by 90%, due to its lack of development. This company is exploring alternatives like corn films, which are self-degrading but expensive. However, they noted that a future challenge with this approach is the added cost this will place on the consumer. The representative stated that “people are not yet willing to pay for them, so progress is slow”. Other goals revolved around improving existing infrastructure and equipment utilised for environmentally friendly choices, with a focus on choosing renewable energy options for reducing emissions.
Upgrading of infrastructure, equipment and technology to improve current working facilities and move towards becoming more environmentally friendly was mentioned by employees as a future goal when financial funds are available. Plans included switching to renewable energy sources such as solar panels and switching to electrical kitchen equipment to avoid using gas and reduce fuel consumption. Investment in new technology and equipment designed with sustainability at its core was a key goal of participants to ensure they are operating sustainably. Cost was mentioned in conjunction with these desires. Participants reported that grants will be sought, or in some cases they will wait for profits to increase to allow for upgrading or structural improvements to commence (see Table 3, 3.1).
The dairy industry participants reported working towards aligning their science-based targets with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-degree-warming goal. Scopes one and two aim to reduce emissions by 42% by 2020, while scope three aims for a 30/33% reduction. The industry is also focusing on carbon sequestration on land and farms. The plan includes 100% recycled materials on sites, with a focus on the food business. The industry has not set net-zero targets, but aims to drive towards climate neutrality by producing nutritious food while sequestering carbon. The goal mentioned by the larger factory-based companies is to have all factories either carbon neutral or on renewable energy/fossil fuels by 2030.
Future areas for research and improvement included the proliferation of environmental labels, such as eco scores, as they are not as advanced or easy to assess as nutrition labels (see Table 3, 3.6). They require data on various metrics, such as carbon intensity, water use, and land use. However, it is often difficult for these labels to be accurate, due to the lack of primary data. One participant believed that over the next decade, eco labels will become more accurate, allowing food industry professionals to compare ingredients and customers’ food to make informed choices, meaning consumers’ choices based on eco labels are subjective and data are not strong enough. However, they foresee that over the next 5–10 years, companies will collaborate in the supply chain, providing carbon numbers to customers and suppliers, and identifying gaps within the label. Moving towards a shared database centre for sustainability metrics was highlighted as an important future development to further improve SPs through sharing of raw data and best practices.

4. Discussion

This study focused on exploring the current sustainability priorities across the food industry in Europe and how initiatives are developed, implemented and evaluated to achieve food sustainability targets. The sustainability priorities identified within the companies in Poland, Ireland, Lithuania and Cyprus included compliance with the Science-Based Targets initiative, setting emissions targets, minimizing waste generation, optimizing resources and raw materials, switching to recyclable packaging, and sustainable procurement and production.
For effective development and implementation of initiatives, collaboration among stakeholders was mentioned as highly important [4]. Collaboration among stakeholders is crucial for advancing sustainable food practices, as it involves the coordination of efforts and resources across various sectors to address complex challenges in the food system. Multi-stakeholder partnerships are an important factor in achieving sustainable agriculture and food security goals [8,17]. These collaborations bring together actors from government, industry, academia, and civil society to collectively develop and implement strategies that promote environmentally friendly farming practices, reduce food waste, and enhance the resilience of food supply chains [18,19]. Moreover, a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) highlights the need for inclusive and participatory approaches involving diverse stakeholders to ensure the success of sustainable food systems [20]. By fostering collaboration, stakeholders can pool their expertise and resources, leading to more effective and holistic solutions for the challenges posed by food production and consumption. A study by Hoolohan et al. on the water–energy–food nexus challenge further showcases the value of stakeholder engagement to drive learning opportunities and capacity building. The study highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement in nexus research to deal with sustainable development challenges, arguing that a transdisciplinary approach can enhance research quality [21].
The introduction of sustainability initiatives and their acceptance by employees and stakeholders are crucial for larger companies. Education is essential for communicating the reasons behind sustainability efforts and ensuring compliance and acceptance. The successful integration of sustainability initiatives within large companies hinges on effective communication and education to garner acceptance from employees and stakeholders alike [22]. A 2021 review by Graves et al. underscored the significance of education in fostering awareness and understanding of sustainability concepts, asserting that informed individuals are more likely to support and participate in environmental initiatives [23]. Furthermore, a 2020 systematic review on the phenomenon of greenwashing highlighted the fact that companies engaging in transparent communication about the motives behind sustainability efforts are more likely to gain stakeholder trust and commitment [24]. This aligns with the idea that comprehensive education not only imparts knowledge but also instils a sense of purpose, making employees and stakeholders more receptive to the long-term goals of sustainability [25]. Therefore, companies aiming to implement and sustain meaningful sustainability practices should prioritize educational strategies to ensure alignment, compliance, and enthusiastic support from their workforce and the broader stakeholder community.
Future sustainability goals include further reductions in emissions and sustainable procurement and production practices. Packaging is an expanding research area, with many companies aiming to eliminate plastic in packaging by 2030. The development of national systems for packaging recycling and recovery in Europe has improved waste management, but there is still a growing increase in packaging-waste generation. Prevention and innovation are key drivers for reducing packaging waste at the source and minimizing environmental impacts throughout its life cycle. The adoption of measures aiming at improving packaging design and minimizing the environmental impact according to a life-cycle perspective is of growing importance [26,27]. Another goal is to switch to renewable energy sources like solar panels and electrical kitchen equipment to reduce fuel consumption. In Ireland, the dairy industry is aligning its science-based targets with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-degree-warming goal, aiming to reduce emissions to 30% by 2030 [28]. The industry also focuses on carbon sequestration on land and farms, with a focus on producing nutritious food while sequestering carbon [29].
The small study sample captured across the four countries may not be transferable to other European countries’ food industry sectors. However, the participants’ expertise on their company’s policies and current SPs ensures richness of data. The use of existing theory and literature to guide the line of inquiry and the rigorous process of data analysis strengthens the credibility and dependability of these findings. Future research should look at replicating this study across additional European countries to further expand on and strengthen these findings. Additionally, future areas for research should include the proliferation of environmental labels, such as eco scores, which require data on various metrics but are often difficult to assess, due to lack of primary data [30]. Over the next 5–10 years, companies will collaborate in the supply chain, providing carbon numbers to customers and suppliers and identifying gaps within the label.

5. Conclusions

SPs were at the centre of innovation and future proofing for all participating companies, with plans to develop new or further enhance current policies to continue producing quality food in a sustainable way. A key consideration was the importance of education and collaboration for raising awareness and strengthening the implementation and long-term impacts of food sustainability practices within industry. Stakeholders and employees’ understanding of and embracing new food SPs ensures successful integration of the innovation. Additionally, future research into a policy for the sharing of sustainability data between companies to share raw sustainability-metric and evaluation data could strengthen initiative outcomes and direct future research on sustainable policies and practices.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and L.R.; methodology, S.O. and A.M.; software, S.O.; validation, M.M., L.R. and S.O.; formal analysis, S.O.; investigation, S.O.; resources, S.O.; data curation, S.O.; writing—original draft preparation, S.O.; writing—review and editing, M.M., L.R. and S.O.; visualization, S.O.; supervision, L.R.; project administration, A.M.; funding acquisition, M.M. and L.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was part of a joint Erasmus KA2 European-funded project (2022-1-IE01-KA220-VET-000087508 Digitalisation of Sustainable Health Education).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the ATU Galway-Mayo Research Ethics Committee after a full board review of the study proposal (RSC_AC_27052023, 19 May 2023).

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the “Digitalisation of Sustainable Health Education” (DiSHEd) “project co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union under the Grant agreement number 2022-1-IE01-KA220-VET-000087508. We also want to thank the other partners in the DiSHEd consortium for their support with the study design and consultation on the research findings.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Vermeulen, S.J.; Park, T.; Khoury, C.K.; Béné, C. Changing diets and the transformation of the global food system. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2020, 1478, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Binns, C.W.; Lee, M.K.; Maycock, B.; Torheim, L.E.; Nanishi, K.; Duong, D.T.T. Climate Change, Food Supply, and Dietary Guidelines. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2021, 42, 233–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Data & Trends of the European Food and Drink Industry 2022. Available online: https://www.fooddrinkeurope.eu/resource/data-trends-of-the-european-food-and-drink-industry-2022/#:~:text=Data%20%26%20Trends%202022%20shows%20that%20the%20EU (accessed on 13 March 2024).
  4. Hundloe, T. Sustainability Perspectives: Ecological, Economic and Social. In Environmental Impact Assessment; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 49–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. What Is Sustainability? Available online: https://www.sustain.ucla.edu/what-is-sustainability/ (accessed on 13 March 2024).
  6. Schaltegger, S.; Hansen, E.G.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business Models for Sustainability: Origins, Present Research, and Future Avenues. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dyllick, T.; Rost, Z. Towards true product sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 346–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kopina, H. Sustainability: New strategic thinking for business. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2017, 19, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sirdey, N.; David-Benz, H.; Deshons, A. Methodological approaches to assess food systems sustainability: A literature review. Glob. Food Secur. 2023, 38, 100696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Miller, K.B.; Eckberg, J.O.; Decker, E.A.; Marinangeli, C.P.F. Role of Food Industry in Promoting Healthy and Sustainable Diets. Nutrients 2021, 13, 2740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wynn, M.; Jones, P. The Sustainable Development Goals: Industry Sector Approaches, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Available online: https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals (accessed on 10 March 2024).
  13. Garnett, T. Food sustainability: Problems, perspectives, and solutions. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2013, 72, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Notarnicola, B.; Tassielli, G.; Renzulli, P.A.; Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 753–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 2019, 11, 589–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fanzo, J. Achieving Food Security Through a Food Systems Lens. In Resilience and Food Security in a Food Systems Context; Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 31–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Klerkx, L.; van Mierlo, B.; Leeuwis, C. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Concepts, analysis and interventions. In Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Giller, K.E.; Hijbeek, R.; Andersson, J.A.; Sumberg, J. Regenerative Agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook Agric. 2021, 50, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019. Available online: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/nutritionlibrary/publications/state-food-security-nutrition-2019-en.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2024).
  21. Hoolohan, C.; Larkin, A.; McLachlan, C.; Falconer, R.; Soutar, I.; Suckling, J.; Varga, L.; Haltas, I.; Druckman, A.; Lumbroso, D.; et al. Engaging stakeholders in research to address water–energy–food (WEF) nexus challenges. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1415–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lazaro-Mojica, J.; Fernandez, R. Review paper on the future of the food sector through education, capacity building, knowledge translation and open innovation. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020, 38, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Graves, C.; Roelich, K. Psychological Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change: A Review of Meat Consumption Behaviours. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. de Freitas Netto, S.V.; Sobral, M.F.F.; Ribeiro, A.R.B.; Soares, G.R.d.L. Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2020, 32, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bansal, P.; DesJardine, M.R. Business sustainability: It is about time. Strateg. Organ. 2014, 12, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tencati, A.; Pogutz, S.; Moda, B.; Brambilla, M.; Cacia, C. Prevention policies addressing packaging and packaging waste: Some emerging trends. Waste Manag. 2016, 56, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ncube, L.K.; Ude, A.U.; Ogunmuyiwa, E.N.; Zulkifli, R.; Beas, I.N. An Overview of Plastic Waste Generation and Management in Food Packaging Industries. Recycling 2021, 6, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Climate Change Mitigation and the Irish Agriculture and Land Use Sector. Climate Change Advisory Council. Available online: https://www.climatecouncil.ie/councilpublications/councilworkingpaperseries/Working%20Paper%20No.%205.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2024).
  29. Johansson, E.L.; Brogaard, S.; Brodin, L. Envisioning sustainable carbon sequestration in Swedish farmland. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 135, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Meis-Harris, J.; Klemm, C.; Kaufman, S.; Curtis, J.; Borg, K.; Bragge, P. What is the role of eco-labels for a circular economy? A rapid review of the literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 306, 127134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.