Friederike Elsner , Christian Herzig , Carola Strassner
{"title":"Policy intermediation for agri-food system transition: food policy groups from middle Europe, Australia and United States","authors":"Friederike Elsner , Christian Herzig , Carola Strassner","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Food policy groups (FPGs) are locally grounded approaches that engage with agri-food policy and challenge unsustainable practices. Thereby, FPGs intermediate between actors at the interface of civil society, science, policy and practice. As transition intermediaries, FPGs hold the potential to advance sustainability transitions. Yet, both their policy-related functions and the factors shaping their activities warrant closer investigation. Through the prism of transition intermediary research, we investigate the functions, policy priorities, organizational forms and relationships to government that constitute the policy intermediation of FPGs across three geographical contexts. Based on survey data of FPGs (n = 260) across United States, middle Europe (mainly Germany) and Australia, we conduct a mixed-methods analysis, applying qualitative coding and statistical measures. We find that FPGs primarily intermediate in processes of social innovation, characterized by changing practices and social relations, rather than in the facilitation of technological innovations. We identify nine intermediary functions that remain similar across the three geographical contexts but differ from the functions typically associated with intermediation around technological innovations. FPGs engage in empowerment processes, network-building and work towards achieving collective goals. Due to FPGs’ nature as multi-actor platforms, they are conflict-ridden and arbitrate between distinct agri-food actors. The policy priorities, organizational forms and relationships to government differ across the three geographical contexts and thus seem to be context dependent. A stronger linkage to government does not appear to be associated with the policy priorities an FPG focusses on, suggesting that even FPGs with strong connections to government retain their independence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"173 ","pages":"Article 104227"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125002436","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Food policy groups (FPGs) are locally grounded approaches that engage with agri-food policy and challenge unsustainable practices. Thereby, FPGs intermediate between actors at the interface of civil society, science, policy and practice. As transition intermediaries, FPGs hold the potential to advance sustainability transitions. Yet, both their policy-related functions and the factors shaping their activities warrant closer investigation. Through the prism of transition intermediary research, we investigate the functions, policy priorities, organizational forms and relationships to government that constitute the policy intermediation of FPGs across three geographical contexts. Based on survey data of FPGs (n = 260) across United States, middle Europe (mainly Germany) and Australia, we conduct a mixed-methods analysis, applying qualitative coding and statistical measures. We find that FPGs primarily intermediate in processes of social innovation, characterized by changing practices and social relations, rather than in the facilitation of technological innovations. We identify nine intermediary functions that remain similar across the three geographical contexts but differ from the functions typically associated with intermediation around technological innovations. FPGs engage in empowerment processes, network-building and work towards achieving collective goals. Due to FPGs’ nature as multi-actor platforms, they are conflict-ridden and arbitrate between distinct agri-food actors. The policy priorities, organizational forms and relationships to government differ across the three geographical contexts and thus seem to be context dependent. A stronger linkage to government does not appear to be associated with the policy priorities an FPG focusses on, suggesting that even FPGs with strong connections to government retain their independence.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.