IJFS#1096_bozza


	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 200 

REVIEW 
 
 
 
 
 

RELATION BETWEEN INNOVATION 
AND SUSTAINABILITY IN THE AGRO-FOOD SYSTEM  

 
 
 
 

H. EL BILALI 
Centre for Development Research (CDR), University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), 

Borkowskigasse 5, 1190 Vienna, Austria 
Corresponding author: Tel: +43 14765416920; Fax: +43 14765416909 

E-mail address: hamid.elbilali@boku.ac.at 
 
 
 
 
 

ABSTRACT 
 
This review paper explores the complexity of relation between innovation and 
sustainability and relates it to the agro-food arena. Many scholars argue that meeting the 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) requires major transformation in modes of 
innovation. As for the agro-food system, relationship between innovation and 
sustainability is far from straightforward. Innovation (especially technical one) provides a 
fertile ground for alternative agro-food movements to criticize the over-industrialization 
of the food system. However, it seems that it is not about questioning innovation tout 
court, but about what type of innovation (see, sustainable innovation) should be promoted 
to foster transition towards sustainable food systems. 
 
 
 
 
 

Keywords: social innovation, sustainability transitions, sustainable agriculture, sustainable food systems, 
sustainable innovation, technical innovation 

 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 201 

1. INTRODUCTION 
 
Innovation is rather an ambivalent term and that may explain the existence of different 
understandings of what innovation means. In fact, innovation has been defined in many 
different ways to the point that there is somehow a ‘lack of definitional clarity’ (SHAVER, 
2016). OECD and EUROSTAT (2005) describe innovation as “the implementation of a new or 
significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new 
organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation or external relations”. 
Innovation refers to a complex phenomenon, involving the production, diffusion and 
translation of scientific or technical knowledge into new products, techniques, services 
(MENRAD and FEIGL, 2007). According to STERRENBERG et al. (2013:62), “Innovation is 
the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are 
accepted by markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that 
innovation refers to the use of a new idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the 
creation of the idea or method itself”. This definition clearly shows that there are different 
types of innovation, with different degrees of application in the agro-food sector.  
There are also broader understandings of innovation. According to STEPS CENTRE 
(2010:1), innovation means “new ways of doing things. This includes not only science and 
technology, but – crucially – the related array of new ideas, institutions, practices, behaviours and 
social relations that shape scientific and technological patterns, purposes, applications and 
outcomes”. Innovation concept is strongly linked to that of knowledge, which is 
fundamental to move towards sustainable practices (GRIN et al., 2010). Knowledge plays 
an important role in transitions to sustainable food systems. Therefore, it is important to 
pay attention to the different types of knowledge (information, skills, judgment and 
wisdom) that are needed in different situations (LOCONTO, 2016). However, knowledge, 
as well as innovation, needed to make transition is often contested and inconclusive 
(BATIE, 2008; LEVIN et al., 2012; PETERS and PIERRE, 2014). 
The literature contains many categorisations of innovation along many different 
dimensions. According to STUMMER et al. (2010), innovations can be categorized 
according to innovation type (product, service, process, market), dimension (objective or 
subjective), scope of change (radical, incremental, reapplied), or how innovation was 
created (closed or open). The OECD and EUROSTAT (2005) distinguish product, process, 
marketing and organisational innovations. Agricultural innovation as well as innovation 
in agri-food can be classified using the same categories (AVERMAETE et al., 2004; 
AVOLIO et al., 2014).  
SCHUMPETER (1934, 1942) is often identified as the first to feature innovation as a central 
driver of the economy and to reject neoclassical economics’ idea of a static equilibrium. 
His idea that the process of innovation “incessantly revolutionises the economic structure from 
within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one” (SCHUMPETER, 
1942:83) continues to be influential to this day. However, Schumpeter and his followers 
employed the so-called ‘linear model’ in which innovation begins with an invention, is 
developed into a commercially viable technology in a firm, and is then diffused into the 
market place (TWOMEY and GAZIULUSOY, 2014). A consequence of this model was a 
strong prioritisation of research and development (R&D) and the entrepreneur as the 
driver of innovation. This is sometimes referred to as the technology- or supply-push 
perspective of innovation. An alternative perspective put forward in the 1950s and 60s, but 
still within the linear model approach, was that demand for products and services is more 
important in stimulating innovation activity and is known as the demand-pull perspective 
(SCHMOOKLER, 1966). 
In the last decades there has been a shift from an innovation concept centred on research 
to innovation as a result of interactions among several actors that establish diverse 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 202 

networks and linkages (WORLD BANK, 2006) in an innovation system. In fact, over the 
last fifty years, a more nuanced and richer picture of the innovation has emerged, with a 
wider set of implications for those hoping to assist, shape or direct innovation process. 
Modern innovation theory has moved towards the recognition that innovation is a joint 
activity involving a large number of actors with different interests, perceptions, 
capabilities and roles (TWOMEY and GAZIULUSOY, 2014). It also reshaped the relation 
between innovation and science (TYFIELD, 2011). An interesting further development was 
the recognition of the importance of users (firms and individual consumers) in the 
innovation process (VON HIPPEL, 2005; BOGERS et al., 2010).  
According to OSBURG (2013), innovation theory has seen constant change of its focus over 
the last decades: concept of newness (1950s), management theory (1960s), demand side 
(1970s), process innovation (1980s), service innovations (1990s), and, more recently, open 
innovation (CHESBROUGH, 2003a) and social innovation (VAN DE VEN et al.,   2008).  
Appreciation of the importance of actor networks is a key idea in modern innovation field. 
In the mid-1980s the concept of ‘innovation systems’ (FREEMAN, 1995; HEKKERT et al., 
2007; JACOBSSON and BERGEK, 2010) was introduced. Innovation systems (IS) theory is 
a heuristic framework that starts from the basis that innovation occurs in the context of an 
entire system. Furthermore, there have been efforts towards integrating innovation 
systems approach and the socio-technical transitions (MARKARD and TRUFFER, 2008). 
The socio-technical transition approach (KEMP, 1994; GEELS, 2005; ROTMANS et al., 2000) 
is an umbrella term that includes, among others, the Multi-Level Perspective on socio-
technical transitions (MLP). The MLP approach differs in focus and scope from the IS 
approach; MLP is conceived in a societal context that is broader than the innovation 
systems approach (GEELS, 2005). A central theme of MLP is the recognition of the co-
evolutionary development of technologies, institutions and social and economic 
subsystems. MLP is particularly powerful in understanding the complex interplay of 
different forces at the macro-, meso- and micro-level in creating disruptive change 
(GEELS, 2010; GEELS, 2011). 
The modern theory of innovation provides a number of concepts and insights similar to 
that of transition (TWOMEY and GAZIULUSOY, 2014; TYFIELD, 2011). The common term 
‘transition’ is often used interchangeably with the term ‘systems innovation’, either at the 
technology system or society-wide level. KEMP and ROTMANS (2005), however, argue 
that “For the purposes of managing change processes to sustainability it is useful to use the concept 
of a ‘transition’ rather than system innovation” since it brings into focus the new state, the 
path towards the end state, the transition problems and the wide range of internal and 
external developments which shape the outcome.  
The concept of “transitions” was first coined by Alex de Tocqueville in the 19th century 
(COENEN-HUTHER, 1996). The term was also utilized in other research areas, such as 
evolutionary biology, demography, and studies on power relations (MARODY, 1996). In 
the 1990s, the ‘transition’ concept was introduced within socio–technical research. In the 
latter, ‘transitions’ initially referred to large-scale transformations within society or 
important subsystems, during which the structure of the societal system fundamentally 
changes (ROTMANS et al., 2001). More recently, the definition has been refined in such a 
way by LOORBACH and ROTMANS (2010) that the concept now stands for “a 
fundamental change in structure (e.g. organizations, institutions), culture (e.g. norms, behaviour) 
and practices (e.g. routines, skills)”. According to STERRENBERG et al. (2013:9), radical 
systems innovations or transitions involve “innovations that are directed to redesigning entire 
systems of practices and provisions, instead of individual products or processes”. Transitions 
efforts have often borrowed from different strands of research and disciplines, resulting in 
a myriad of approaches towards understanding and exercising transitions (LACHMAN, 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 203 

2013). Overviews of transition theories and approaches can be found in GEELS (2005), 
OLSTHOORN and WIECZOREK (2006), GRIN et al. (2010), and MARKARD et al. (2012). 
The momentum generated by the diffusion of the term ‘sustainable development’ (WCED, 
1987) spurred an interest in research on transitions towards sustainable futures 
(MARKARD et al., 2012; LACHMAN, 2013; FALCONE, 2014). Ambiguity, complexity, 
interconnectedness and multidimensionality of sustainability problems imply that 
incremental changes are no more sufficient and there is a need for transformative change 
at the systems level (STRN, 2010). Embracing the goal of transition towards sustainable 
systems, the notion of ‘sustainability transition’ was coined (GEELS, 2011; KEMP and 
VAN LENTE, 2011; LACHMAN, 2013). MARKARD et al. (2012:956) defined sustainability 
transitions as “long-term, multi-dimensional and fundamental transformation processes through 
which established socio-technical systems shift to more sustainable modes of production and 
consumption”. Sustainability transitions are needed also in the agro-food arena to move 
towards sustainable food systems.  
According to the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE, 
2014), “A sustainable food system (SFS) is a food system that delivers food security and nutrition 
for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security 
and nutrition for future generations are not compromised”. This definition clearly shows the 
strong linkage between food system sustainability and long-term food security. The 
International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-FOOD, 2015) pointed 
out that a multi-directional flow of knowledge between the worlds of science, policy and 
practice is needed to foster a genuine transformation of food systems, which is necessary 
to make transition towards sustainability. This is urgently required, among others, 
because food systems are complex ‘social-ecological’ systems that require different sources 
of knowledge to be combined. Therefore, there is a need for a real food-related knowledge 
revolution to overcome persistent lock-ins and path dependencies. Transition will most 
likely not depend on one or even a small number of technological innovations, but is likely 
to arise from a constellation of mutually interacting systems of innovations (TWOMEY 
and GAZIULUSOY, 2014). This is particularly true in the case of food system where social 
innovations seem also important. According to HINRICHS (2014), social and 
organizational innovations are as central to sustainability transitions in food systems as 
any particular innovative technology. Social innovation will likely play an important role 
in transitions to sustainability in agriculture and food sector that may not be primarily 
technology-driven (DARNHOFER, 2015) and the transition to sustainable food systems 
requires complex and holistic change processes in which social innovation plays as big a 
role as technological innovation (IPES-FOOD, 2015). 
The review paper aims to analyse innovation narratives in sustainability literature. In 
particular, the paper explores the complexity of relation between innovation and 
sustainability with a particular focus on agro-food systems.  
The paper is structured as follows. In section 2, I explore the complex relation between 
innovation and sustainability (cf. sustainable development) by analysing, among others, 
references to innovation in the outcomes of the main conferences on sustainable 
development as well as in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This section also 
introduces the concept of Sustainability-Oriented Innovation (SOI) with particular 
reference to sustainable innovation and eco-innovation as a way to combine innovation 
and sustainability. In section 3, I analyse the relation between innovation and 
sustainability in the agro-food arena and I highlight harmony and conflict areas. 
Sustainable intensification is taken as an example to show diversity of perspectives, 
agendas and visions regarding sustainable agriculture. The section also analyses attitude 
of some alternative agro-food movements (e.g. organic agriculture, agro-ecology, food 
sovereignty, Slow Food) towards innovation. 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 204 

2. INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY: 
EXPLORING MULTIFACETED LINKAGES 
 
The relation between innovation and sustainability can be analysed at least in two 
different ways: innovation as a driver of sustainability (role of innovation in achieving 
sustainable development) or sustainability as a driver of innovation (sustainability as a 
new paradigm and guiding concept for innovation).  
Innovation, science and technology have essential roles to play in meeting the interlinked 
global environmental, social, and economic challenges of environmental sustainability, 
poverty reduction, social justice and climate change (STEPS CENTRE, 2010; UN, 2012). In 
fact, innovation is seen as a route to economic growth and competitive economy as well as 
to propose effective solutions to real problems such as poverty and environmental 
challenges (STEPS CENTRE, 2010). The International Assessment of Agricultural 
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD, 2009) highlights that 
knowledge, science and technology (AKST) is crucial to address different sustainable 
development issues such as food insecurity and poverty. It sheds also light on the fact that 
the scope of agricultural knowledge goes beyond the narrow confines of science and 
technology (S&T) and encompasses other types of relevant knowledge that is held by 
agricultural producers, consumers and end-users.  
The contribution of innovation to sustainability is highlighted in many strategic and policy 
documents dealing with sustainable development such as the outcomes of the recent 
world conferences of Rio, Johannesburg and Rio+20 (Box 1). 
Innovation was also addressed recently in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 
Development and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Box 2). According to LEACH et 
al. (2012:2), delivering SDGs requires a radically new approach to innovation. They add 
that “What is now needed is nothing short of major transformation—not only in our policies and 
technologies, but in our modes of innovation themselves—to enable us to navigate turbulence and 
meet SDGs that respect the safe operating space”. 
Sustainability is considered nowadays a driver for innovation especially in the private sector (e.g. 
NIDUMOLU et al., 2009). Many companies are seizing the strategic opportunities in innovation for 
sustainability. In fact, sustainability, environmentalism, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) 
have become during the last decades buzzwords among multinational corporations, agribusinesses 
included, with a risk of ‘green-washing’ (e.g. MUNSHI and KURIAN, 2005). Many private firms 
see nowadays sustainability as a key factor for their competitiveness and understand that innovation 
will be crucial factor in developing sustainability. Sustainability is often understood as the 
voluntary integration of environmental, economic and social concerns in firm operations 
(VILANOVA and DETTONI, 2011). KASKINEN et al. (2013) suggest that there are 
fundamentally three ways of incorporating sustainability into companies; risk aversion strategy (use 
of certificates and standards as a reaction to an external critique), cost-effectiveness strategy (cost 
savings through a smart and effective use of resources), and differentiation strategy (using 
sustainability to distinguish company’s offering on the market). As put by DEARING (2000:2), the 
operational and commercial challenges for companies are “[…] to learn to treat sustainable 
development as a framework for innovation and to use and extend established management 
principles to make this framework operational and effective”. 
 
	
	
	
	
	



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 205 

	

	
	

 

Box 1. Innovation in the outcome documents of world conferences on sustainable development. 

 

In ‘Our Common Future’, the final report of the World Commission on Environment and 
Development (WCED, 1987) – that, among others, mainstreamed the concept of sustainable 
development – there is quite a number of references to innovation. The document is rather critical 
towards innovation and calls for reorienting technology and managing risk by enhancing capacity 
for technological innovation in developing countries and adapting recent innovations to their 
needs. It also calls for broadening the scope of innovation beyond product and process 
innovations. Our Common Future emphasizes the need to blend traditional and modern 
technologies and to promote collaborative learning in agriculture: “Researchers must learn from and 
develop the innovations of farmers and not just the reverse” (p. 116). This is a clear stance against linear 
innovation model. It should be highlighted that much of the focus of Our Common Future is on 
technological innovation, whereas there is no reference to social innovation; the document even 
reports that traditional social systems and community control over agricultural practices “may have 
limited the acceptance and diffusion of technical innovations” (p. 44). 

Interestingly, the first reference to innovation in Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment 
and Development (UN, 1992), was in its chapter on Changing Consumption Patterns where it 
highlighted the multiple sources of innovation “Peoples' organizations, women's groups and non-
governmental organizations are important sources of innovation” (p. 15). This broader scope of 
innovation is confirmed in chapter on conservation of biological diversity that calls for promoting 
“the wider application of the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities” (p. 
150). Besides ‘technological innovation’, there is also a clear reference to ‘social innovation’ (p. 129) 
as well as ‘informal innovations’ (p. 156), and ‘indigenous innovations’ (p. 319). Innovation is 
considered as important to prevent pollution and control environmental degradation. However, 
Agenda 21 also highlighted the importance of assessing the relationship between innovation and 
development as well as effects of innovation. There is also an entire chapter dedicated to science 
for sustainable development. 

In the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002 (UN, 2002) 
as well as in the report of the Summit (UN, 2002a) there is only one reference to innovation in 
relation to recognition of the rights of local and indigenous communities as holders of traditional 
knowledge, innovations and practices regarding biodiversity. 

The Future We Want, outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable 
Development 2012 (UN, 2012a), includes also a few references to innovation. In its preamble, it 
calls for continued and strengthened international cooperation in the area of innovation to achieve 
sustainable development. It also recognizes the critical role of promoting innovation especially in 
developing countries and invites governments to create enabling frameworks that foster 
environmentally sound innovation, including in support of green economy. In its Framework for 
action, it emphasizes the importance of investments in scientific and technological innovation in job 
creation. Once again, the traditional knowledge and innovations of indigenous peoples in relation 
to biodiversity are recognized. Further references to innovation are in the context of education and 
finance.	



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 206 

 
 
 
According to SZEKELY and STREBEL (2012), ‘strategic innovation for sustainability’ – 
which focuses on the use of innovation to improve performance in environmental, 
economic and social dimensions of sustainable development - entails improvements that 
are not only technological/technical but also in business models, thinking, operating 
procedures and practices, processes, and systems. They consider that types of innovation 
for sustainability ranges from incremental innovations in products and services or eco-
design (e.g. innovations that focus on improvement in eco-efficiency through reduction in 
resource inputs such as energy, materials, wastes and emissions), to radical innovations in 
value chains and processes, to ‘game-changing systemic innovation’. Radical 
transformation of supply chains aims to take more account of the impacts of a company’s 
products and operations, including environmental (e.g. raw materials sourcing, end-of-
life), economic (e.g. competitiveness) and social (e.g. labour conditions) issues. Examples 
of ‘game-changing innovation’ include collaborative consumption (e.g. car sharing and 
sharing economy in general), that has been enabled by information technology, as well as 
social entrepreneurship (e.g. micro-credit to the poor). This reminds of the concept of 

Box 2. Innovation in the 2030 Agenda for Development Sustainable and SDGs. 

 

The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted on September 25th, 2015, a set of 17 goals 
(and 169 targets) as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015). The only 
SDG where innovation is explicitly mentioned is SDG9 ‘Build resilient infrastructure, promote 
inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation’. There are only few references to 
innovation in the adopted Agenda. Innovation is considered in the Agenda preamble especially 
regarding its potential in medicine and energy sectors as well as in sustainable urban 
development; interestingly no reference to agriculture here. Moreover, there was no reference to 
innovation either in relation to the targets of SDG2 ‘End hunger, achieve food security and improved 
nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture’. Only in the case of SDG8 ‘Promote sustained, inclusive 
and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all’, technological 
upgrading and innovation are considered essential to achieve higher levels of economic 
productivity and there is a call to promote development-oriented policies that support, inter alia, 
creativity and innovation. Innovation is further mentioned two times in targets of SDG9 in 
reference to upgrading technological capabilities of industrial sectors by, inter alia, encouraging 
innovation especially in developing countries. Nevertheless, the part of the document that 
abounds with references to innovation is that related to SDG17 “Strengthen the means of 
implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development” especially in sections 
dealing with technology (see, access to science, technology and innovation; innovation capacity-
building mechanism for least developed countries), and means of implementation and the global 
partnership (see, Addis Ababa Action Agenda, which addresses also systemic issues in science, 
technology and innovation, and established a Technology Facilitation Mechanism - TFM; private 
business activity, investment and innovation). It seems, anyway, that there is a recognition of, and 
maybe also concerns about, the role of technology and innovation in sustainable development and 
that may explain the establishment of many mechanisms for follow-up of this issue during the 
implementation of the 2030 Agenda. In fact, TFM - that involves representatives of Member States, 
civil society, the private sector and the scientific community – is composed of a United Nations 
inter-agency task team on science, technology and innovation for the SDGs; a collaborative multi-
stakeholder forum on science, technology and innovation for the SDGs; and an online platform to 
share information on existing science, technology and innovation initiatives. 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 207 

‘open innovation’ (e.g. CHESBROUGH, 2003; CHRISTENSEN et al., 2005) that calls for a 
more open approach towards knowledge management and dissemination to assure a 
wider access to, and consequently use of, knowledge and innovation. Open innovation 
concept stresses innovation and knowledge as public goods (e.g. STIGLITZ, 2007) to which 
a wide range of stakeholders should have access. Open innovation is the opposite of 
closed innovation. Processes of closed innovation focus on in-house development of 
innovation before their dissemination to external stakeholders. On the contrary, open 
innovation focuses on “[...] the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate 
Innovation” (CHESBROUGH, 2003). However, finding a balance between reward (for 
innovation and creativity) and accessibility remains one of the fundamental challenges in 
science, technology and innovation ecosystems. 
There is a growing emphasis on the concepts of ‘responsible’, ‘sustainable’, ‘social’ and 
‘ecological’ innovation (Table 1).  
 
 
Table 1. Some definitions of concepts of sustainable innovation, eco-innovation and social innovation. 
 

Concept Definition Source 

Sustainable 
innovation 

Sustainable innovation is a process where sustainability considerations 
(environmental, social, financial) are integrated into company systems 
from idea generation through to research and development (R&D) and 
commercialisation. This applies to products, services and technologies, 
as well as new business and organisation models. 

CHARTER and 
CLARK, 2007  

Creating new or improved products, services, technologies, processes 
and management techniques that produce environmental or social 
benefits along with economic value.  

CHONKOVA, 2015 

Sustainability-driven 
innovation 

The creation of new market space, products and services or processes 
driven by social, environmental or sustainability issues. 

KEEBLE et al., 
2005 
 

Eco-innovation 

The process of developing new products, processes or services which 
provide customer and business value but significantly decrease 
environmental impact. 

FUSSLER and 
JAMES, 1996 

Eco-innovation is the production, assimilation or exploitation of a 
product, production process, service or management or business 
method that is novel to the organisation (developing or adopting it) and 
which results, throughout its life cycle, in a reduction of environmental 
risk, pollution and other negative impacts of resources use (including 
energy use) compared to relevant alternatives. 

KEMP and 
PEARSON, 2008 

The production, assimilation or exploitation of a novelty in products, 
production processes, services or in management and business 
methods, which aims, throughout its lifecycle, to prevent or substantially 
reduce environmental risk, pollution and other negative impacts of 
resource use (including energy). 

EC 
2008 in 
CARRILLO-
HERMOSILLA et 
al., 2010 

Social innovation 

Social innovations ‘are new solutions (products, services, models, 
markets, processes etc.) that simultaneously meet a social need (more 
effectively than existing solutions) and lead to new or improved 
capabilities and relationships and better use of assets and resources. 

CAULIER-GRICE  
et al., 2012 
 

Social innovations are new ideas that meet social needs, create social 
relationships and form new collaborations. These innovations can be 
products, services or models addressing unmet needs more effectively. 

EC, 2017 

Innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of 
meeting a social need and are predominantly developed and diffused 
through organizations whose primary purposes are social.  

MULGAN et al., 
2007 

 
 
 
 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 208 

Responsible innovations (RI) address so-called ‘grand challenges’ of our time, such as 
climate change (EC, 2013), but they are also associated with a range of socio-ethical issues. 
The NETWORK FOR BUSINESS SUSTAINABILITY (2012) identified multiple definitions 
relating to ‘Sustainability-Oriented Innovation’ (SOI): eco-innovation, ecological 
innovation, environmental innovation, frugal innovation, green innovation, green product 
innovation, inclusive innovation and social innovation. Sustainable innovation means 
paying attention to ecological integrity along social values diversity, promoting fairer und 
wider distribution of innovation benefits, encouraging plural innovation pathways, 
fostering inclusive and participatory governance of innovation processes (STEPS CENTRE, 
2010). SOI is differentiated from conventional innovation in its purpose and direction as it 
adds environmental and social consideration to economic profit (BOS-BROUWERS, 2010). 
Key drivers of sustainable innovation include environmental and resource risks, 
sustainable consumption and production (SCP) policies, product environmental regulation 
and other product policy initiatives as well as market and financial drivers (CHARTER 
and CLARK, 2007). Also for CHONKOVA (2015), drivers of sustainable innovation 
include compliance with existing regulation or anticipating future regulations, cost 
savings by improving resource efficiency as well as social and supply chain pressures. 
Meanwhile, according to NIDUMOLU et al. (2009) to become sustainable, companies 
should go through five distinct stages of change: viewing compliance as opportunity, 
making value chains sustainable, designing sustainable products and services, developing 
new business models and creating next-practice platforms. 
Sustainable innovation is widely recognised as a critical dimension of sustainable 
development as well as sustainable consumption and production (SCP), sustainable food 
systems included. In fact, the crucial importance of sustainable innovation in these 
contexts has been recognised since the 1980s and was reinforced since the 1990s not only 
by United Nations (UN) but also in the European Union (EU). However, sustainable 
innovation has remained mainly peripheral. Nevertheless, the subject is now rapidly 
moving to centre stage to meet sustainable development challenges of a growing 
population. In fact, the urgency of adopting sustainable innovation is nowadays 
recognised as a fundamental step towards a sustainable future (CHARTER and CLARK, 
2007). For instance, the European Commission (EC) issued in 2016 two strategic notes 
dealing with innovation and sustainability namely ‘Opportunity Now: Europe's mission to 
innovate’ (EPSC, 2016) and ‘Sustainability Now! A European Vision for Sustainability’ (EPSC, 
2016a). 
GERHARDT and HUBBERT (2009) distinguish between conventional innovation 
(characterised by low sustainability, both environmental and social), green innovation 
(based on natural resources use and with positive or neutral environmental impact), social 
innovation (that contributes to social well-being and is accessible by consumers in 
emerging and developing countries) and sustainable innovation, that’s to say addresses 
the triple bottom line (ELKINGTON, 1997) i.e. is environmentally, socially and 
economically sustainable. Sustainable innovation covers the spectrum of levels of 
innovation from incremental to radical. STEVELS (1997) defined four levels of innovation 
in the context of environmental improvement; from incremental, re-design or green limits, 
functional or product alternatives, to systems design. According to the NETWORK FOR 
BUSINESS SUSTAINABILITY (2012, 2012a), firms can adopt different pathways to become 
sustainable. These range from ‘Operational Optimization’ (small incremental changes to 
improve eco-efficiency) to ‘Systems Building’ (radical and disruptive changes that have a 
positive societal impact) through ‘Organizational Transformation’ (new products, services 
or business models). 
A concept similar to green innovation, and to a certain extent also sustainable innovation, 
is that of eco-innovation (e.g. KEMP and FOXON, 2007; CHARTER and CLARK, 2007; 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 209 

REID and MIEDZINSKI, 2008; CARRILLO-HERMOSILLA et al., 2010). However, 
CHARTER and CLARK (2007) pointed out that although the two terms, sustainable 
innovation and eco-innovation, are often used interchangeably, sustainable innovation 
embraces all dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic, social/ethical) while 
eco-innovation addresses mainly environmental and economic dimensions. ANDERSEN 
(2005) distinguishes the following five categories of eco-innovations: add-on innovations, 
integrated innovations, eco-efficient technological system innovations, eco-efficient 
organizational system innovations, and general purpose eco-efficient innovations. Eco-
innovation can be analysed in terms of its target (product, process, marketing method, 
organisation, institution), mechanism (modification, re-design, alternatives, creation) and 
impact (effect on the environment). Systemic changes, such as creation and alternatives, 
generally generate higher environmental benefits (OECD, 2009). The drivers for eco-
innovation include cost reduction, increasing market share, pressure from regulation or 
communities, improving technical efficiency, green ethos, profits from commercialisation, 
and improving the company image (KEMP and FOXON, 2007). 
Many companies as well as a number of governments use eco-innovation to describe their 
contributions to sustainable development. For instance, eco-innovation is considered to 
support the Lisbon Strategy for competitiveness and economic growth in the European 
Union (EU) while preventing or substantially reducing negative impacts on the 
environment, pollution and improving resource efficiency (OECD, 2009; EC, 2012). The 
Lisbon Strategy called for focusing on innovation and sustainable development and was, 
thus, a clear example of focus on sustainable innovation. This tendency to focus on 
sustainable innovation in the EU was reaffirmed in the declaration on the ‘Strategy for 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ that should drive the EU until 2020. Other key 
international organisms (e.g. OECD), UN agencies (e.g. ILO, WTO) as well as the World 
Economic Forum advocated similar approaches (VILANOVA and DETTONI, 2011). In 
fact, according to OECD (2008), eco-innovation is considered to have promise for 
improving environmental conditions without compromising economic growth. While eco-
innovation has focused mainly on environmental technologies, there is a tendency to 
broaden the concept scope in order to accommodate more societal concerns (RENNINGS, 
2000; METI, 2007). Therefore, the overarching concept of eco-innovation is seen as 
providing vision for pursuing sustainable development.  
A further concept related to sustainable innovation is that of social innovation (e.g. 
NICHOLLS and MURDOCK, 2012; CAULIER-GRICE et al., 2012; OSBURG and 
SCHMIDPETER, 2013), that deals with the integration of environmental and social issues. 
As put by OSBURG (2013), social innovation is about adding the social element to 
innovation or the applied theory of innovation with addition of a relevant and significant 
social component. According to CHONKOVA (2015), social innovation can be both 
business oriented (product, process, organisational, marketing) and/or socially oriented 
(i.e. social innovation). Social innovations are considered good not only for the economy 
but also for society (CAULIER-GRICE et al., 2012) as they engage with social problems in a 
way that is more efficient, just, effective or sustainable than existing solutions (PHILLS et 
al., 2008). Nevertheless, social innovations are not value neutral but rather socially and 
politically constructed, and context dependent (CAULIER-GRICE et al., 2012). According 
to OSBURG (2013), open innovation is a must for social innovation, that cannot work with 
closed innovation processes, as solving current problems in today’s societies requires a 
constant collaboration across sectors and between different categories of stakeholders. 
CAULIER-GRICE et al. (2012) identified eight common features of social innovation: cross-
sectoral, open and collaborative, grassroots and bottom-up, pro-sumption (see, production-
consumption) and co-production, mutualism, creating new roles and relationships, better 
use of assets and resources, and developing assets and capabilities. 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 210 

In a Manifesto on innovation, sustainability, development, STEPS CENTRE (2010) called 
for a radical shift in how we think about and perform innovation towards a greater respect 
for and integration of cultural variety, democratic accountability and regional diversity. 
Moving towards innovation for sustainability and sustainable development means 
nothing less than a radical change in the whole innovation process including agenda 
setting, capacity building, governance, monitoring, evaluation accountability as well as 
funding. For that, three arrays of questions related to direction, distribution and diversity, 
should be addressed (Table 2). These three issues are interrelated. For instance, direction 
matters also because it shapes innovation benefits, risks and costs distribution. Meanwhile, 
the appraisal of innovation directions needs to take into account also benefits distribution 
and to address social equity and justice issues. Furthermore, taking seriously direction and 
distribution questions, means pursuing deliberately a diversity of innovation pathways to 
accommodate different needs and aspirations including those of marginalised and poor 
groups such as small-scale farmers. This, in turn, implies paying attention not only to 
technical dimension of innovation but also social and organisational ones (STEPS 
CENTRE, 2010). These questions are not only still actual but also particularly relevant in 
agro-food systems. 
 
 
Table 2. Arrays of questions regarding innovation for sustainable development. 
 

Issue Questions to be addressed 

Technical, social and political directions for change 
What is innovation for? 
Which kinds of innovation, along which pathways?  
And towards what goals? 

Distribution 
Who is innovation for? 
Whose innovation counts?  
Who gains and who loses? 

Diversity 
What - and how many - kinds of innovation do we need to 
address 
any particular challenge? 

 
Source: STEPS CENTRE (2010:9). 
 
 
3. COMPLEX AND MULTIFACETED RELATION BETWEEN INNOVATION 
AND AGRO-FOOD SUSTAINABILITY 
 
Innovation has become a key issue in the discussion about the relation between agriculture 
and sustainability (e.g. FAO, 2012; EIP-AGRI, 2013; FAO, 2013; IPES-FOOD, 2015; 
GLOBAL HARVEST INITIATIVE, 2016). In general, there is a broad consensus on the 
critical role of innovation to make agriculture not only more competitive but also 
sustainable. In fact, agricultural innovation is considered vital for meeting the challenges 
of agriculture development, adapting to climate change and achieving food security 
(IAASTD, 2009; IICA, 2014; EC, 2016; UNCTAD, 2017). Innovations and modern 
techniques can strengthen food system resilience, improve resource efficiency in 
agriculture, and secure social equity thus contributing to the achievement of sustainable 
food security (HLPE, 2017). The European Union has placed emphasis upon innovation as 
a key element in achieving transformation towards sustainable agriculture (HERMANS et 
al., 2010; DWYER, 2013).  
Agricultural research and development (R&D) has been shown to very profitable 
(ALSTON et al., 2000; RAO et al., 2012) and to improve agricultural development, 
economic growth, and poverty reduction (IAASTD, 2009). However, assessing innovation 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 211 

in agriculture only through investment in agricultural R&D shows clearly that the linear 
model of innovation is still dominant in official arenas and, especially, when it comes to 
innovation statistics. Nevertheless, IAASTD (2009) highlights that “There is ample evidence 
available from the literature that AKST investments have contributed significantly to 
organizational and institutional innovations in the form of methods, tools development, capacity 
strengthening, and understanding how institutes interact with each other in achieving 
developmental goals” (p. 516).  
The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE, 2017) identified 
in a recent note knowledge and technology as critical emerging issues for food security 
and nutrition. As there are diverging views on the suitability of different innovations and 
technologies to improve food security in a sustainable way in different contexts and for 
different kinds of users – for instance, in the context of small-scale agriculture and agri-
food supply chains (e.g. PEANO et al., 2015; WETTASINHA, 2016), HLPE (2017) 
recommended to assess all innovations and technologies against their long-term 
environmental, economic and social impacts. Such an assessment should take into 
consideration not only technical sustainability and economic profitability but also 
environmental friendliness and social justice in each use context (e.g. DUNMADE, 2002; 
KRIESEMER and VIRCHOW, 2012). 
The relation between innovation and sustainability (including sustainability transitions) in 
agro-food system is more complicated than in other systems and sectors. Although more 
recent sustainability transitions research has stressed that important sustainability 
innovations can be social rather than technological (SEYFANG and SMITH, 2007; 
KIRWAN et al., 2013), research on food systems change has long favoured a different 
vocabulary of civic initiatives, community development projects and social movements to 
reference what sustainability transitions researchers present as manifestations of 
‘grassroots innovations’ for sustainable development (HINRICHS, 2014). It is widely 
admitted nowadays that to meet sustainability challenges, more attention should be paid 
to social innovations, grassroots innovation actors and processes (LEACH et al., 2012; 
MOULAERT, 2013; SMITH and SEYFANG, 2013; LOCONTO et al., 2017). Similarly, 
IAASTD (2009), suggests that future agricultural innovation needs to address not only 
simple technological and technical issues but also social ones and to innovate in scales of 
thinking and action in order to contribute more effectively in addressing pressing 
challenges such as climate change and food security. Likewise, innovation in rural 
development is widely understood, especially in the European Union, in terms of social 
innovation (i.e. encouraging collective learning cultures, networks, interactions) and 
cultural innovation (i.e. improving rural context) rather than in the narrow sense of 
technological innovation (DARGAN and SHUCKSMITH, 2008; DWYER et al., 2012; 
HERMANS et al., 2010). This broader understanding of innovation in agriculture is 
nowadays widespread predominantly in developed countries such as those of the 
European Union, as clearly stated by its Standing Committee on Agricultural Research 
(SCAR): “Innovation is not restricted to a technical or technological dimension. It increasingly 
concerns strategy, marketing, organization, management and design” (SCAR-EU, 2012).  
Innovations imply different directions of development, not all of which are sustainable, 
and which should be subject to democratic debate (STRN, 2010). Critically inclined 
research on agricultural and food systems change has generally viewed capital-intensive 
technologies as contributing to the vast restructuring of food and agriculture and 
‘sustaining the unsustainable’ (BUTTEL, 2006), especially referring to genetically modified 
(GM) crops. Because some technologies have abetted industrialization, consolidation, and 
global neo-liberalization of food and agriculture, technology may be categorically 
dismissed by some scholars and food system actors as a potentially productive analytical 
entry point for work on sustainability transitions in food and agriculture (HINRICHS, 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 212 

2014). In fact, innovation and technology in agriculture may also negatively affect the 
environment and rural livelihoods and that may explain increasing mistrust in certain 
institutionalized forms and fields of science (MILLSTONE and van ZWANENBERG, 2000) 
such as genetics. Management of collective rights and intellectual property rights - IPR (cf. 
fields of big data and genetics) is particularly problematic and challenging in the 
agricultural sector (HLPE, 2017). In this regard, biotechnologies raise many ethical 
concerns as highlighted by the European Group on Ethics in Science and New 
Technologies (EGE, 2008:59): “The current IPR system (for plant varieties and GM crops) could 
pave the way for market predominance where a few companies control much of agricultural 
production, with an impact on innovation and the growth of local economies in developing 
countries”.  
The three perspectives on sustainable food security and food system sustainability 
analysed by GARNETT (2014) – namely efficiency, demand restraint, food system 
transformation – also reflect different values and ideologies on the role of technology and 
innovation in the agro-food arena. For the efficiency perspective, the boundaries of 
environmental limits can be expanded or overcome by using technology to accommodate 
humanity. The vision underlying the efficiency perspective is that technology can be used 
to deliver development goals (e.g. food security, well-being) with less environmental 
impact. Therefore, it can be assumed that advocates of this perspective have a positive 
attitude towards new technologies and innovation. Meanwhile, for the demand restraint 
perspective, technology is sometimes problematic and can be used by humans to further 
damage the environment and nature. 
Nevertheless, innovation has always occurred in agriculture as farmers have adapted 
agricultural practices to changing climate and environment conditions. However, many 
scholars dealing with agro-food system do not feel comfortable with the current narrow 
definition of innovation meaning technological and commercialised innovation 
(LEVIDOW, 2015). This narrow ‘technological-deterministic’ understanding of innovation 
dates back to the early 20th century, when innovation was considered as synonymous of 
adoption of commercial technological inventions. This innovation model, that emphasises 
capital-intensive technology, has become profoundly entrenched in research and policy 
frameworks. The model ignores existing farmers’ knowledge and marginalises their 
cooperative exchange and learning networks and undervalue their capacity to innovate 
while favouring a linear knowledge transfer (MOSCHITZ et al., 2015) based on the 
Transfer of Technology (ToT) model (LIONBERGER, 1960; HAVELOCK, 1969; 
CHAMBERS and JIGGINS, 1987). ToT model stimulates farmers to capture economies of 
scale and encourages externalization of significant environmental and social costs (e.g. 
LAL et al., 2005; MUKHERJEE and KATHURIA, 2006; IAASTD, 2009).  
According to IAASTD (2009) report, in general, no recognition is given to farmers’ local 
and traditional knowledge and their innovation in official systems of agricultural 
knowledge and science. In fact, the “role of traditional, indigenous knowledge is already being 
undermined as a result of the growing disconnection with ongoing research activity” (SCAR-FEG, 
2007:11). The linear innovation model has privileged laboratory-based and scientific 
knowledge in research agendas at the expense of farmers’ agro-ecological knowledge 
(VANLOQUEREN and BARET, 2009). This process was seen as causing profound social or 
cultural changes (GODIN, 2008, 2015), that are not always positive on farming and rural 
communities. Moreover, inequitable power relationships in agricultural knowledge and 
information system create barriers to farmers’ innovation (SILICI, 2014). Therefore, in 
order to contribute more effectively to achieving sustainable food and nutrition security, 
agricultural research in particular and food-related research in general should adopt a 
‘food system approach’ and address at the same time profitability, productivity and 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 213 

sustainability in agricultural and food systems (GLOBAL PANEL ON AGRICULTURE 
AND FOOD SYSTEMS FOR NUTRITION, 2016). 
Multinationals and consulting firms in the agro-food sector seem nowadays more aware 
about concerns regarding technology and innovation in agriculture. However, they stress 
the importance of classical technologies (fertilizers, crop protection products) in meeting 
food security challenge through increase in productivity. For them, the slowing down or 
plateauing of crop yields, especially cereals, is a big threat to future global food security 
that requires new breakthrough innovations for the ‘sustainable’ intensification of 
production. The latter include digital innovation (e.g. soil sensors, drones), biotech 
innovations (e.g. genetically engineered plants and animals) and process innovation (e.g. 
vertical farming, hydroponics, aquaponics). However, acceptance of these innovations and 
technologies is still a problem in agriculture sector: “While these technological innovations 
have the potential to make a positive impact on agribusiness, the challenge is to find common 
ground between the significant social, political, and environmental concerns and the business 
interests surrounding these disruptive changes” (ATKEARNEY, 2016:3). In order to gain such 
an acceptance, the advantages of such technologies for smallholder farmers in developing 
countries as well as relevance of these breakthrough innovations in reducing the carbon 
footprint of agriculture and its contribution to climate change are often highlighted. 
Further moves include global transfer of knowledge, also to developing countries, 
transparency and the democratization of data and better collaboration between 
agribusiness, government and the civil society (ATKEARNEY, 2016).  
Many agro-food companies, including multinationals, are paying more attention to 
sustainability issues. A clear example of that is publication of periodical sustainability 
reports (e.g. MONSANTO, 2017) or dedicating a section of annual reports to sustainability 
(e.g. BAYER, 2017; BASF, 2017). In its Sustainability Report, Monsanto makes even a clear 
reference to SDGs and states that its key principles are: act ethically and responsibly, advocate 
for biodiversity, advance product stewardship, create a great work environment, drive modern 
agricultural innovation, engage communities and society, foster collaboration and transparency, 
improve global food and nutrition security, reduce our environmental impact (MONSANTO, 
2017:5). Therefore, there is a clear intention to connect agricultural innovation and 
technology with societal challenges such as food security, environmental protection, 
biodiversity as well as ethical concerns. This move of agri-multinationals is often 
considered as an example of incremental change or even, worse, of ‘greenwashing’ (e.g. 
SCANLAN, 2013). However, for instance, SZEKELY and STREBEL (2012) consider the 
Unilever’s transformation of its tea supply chain for its Lipton brand to certified 
sustainable tea as an example of ‘radical innovation’. In fact, Unilever entered into a 
partnership with the Rainforest Alliance (RfA) to certify tea supplies focusing on the areas 
of environmental protection, employee welfare and farm management. This shows clearly 
the divergences in opinions regarding sustainability transitions in the agro-food arena. In 
fact, there are several contending paradigms and narratives about sustainable agriculture 
and way to achieve it (VAN DER PLOEG, 2009; LEVIDOW, 2011; ELZEN et al., 2017). A 
clear example of these contending agendas about agricultural innovation are the ´life 
sciences & global value chains’ (see, knowledge-based bio-economy) and ‘agroecology & agro-
food-energy relocalisation’ in the EU (LEVIDOW, 2011). 
Sustainable intensification (e.g. GARNETT et al., 2013) is a good example to show diversity 
of visions, agendas and perspectives regarding sustainable agriculture. It clearly shows 
trade-offs not only between productivity and sustainability aspirations but also between 
innovation (that ideally should help improving, simultaneously, both productivity and 
sustainability) and sustainability. Sustainable intensification agendas promote a ‘toolkit’ of 
various options and techniques for reconciling higher productivity with environmental 
sustainability. The orthodox consensus on ‘technological intensification’ has been 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 214 

challenged by a variety of concerns such as environmental protection, animal welfare, and 
food quality and safety (LOEBER and VERMEULEN, 2012). Nevertheless, some agri-
companies have seized the ‘sustainable intensification’ momentum to rebrand their 
products as sustainable intensification tools (CONSTANCE et al., 2016). In fact, the 
neoproductivist agenda (e.g. ALMÅS and CAMPBELL, 2012) has been widely articulated 
under a sustainable intensification approach that encompasses various agroecological but 
also even biotechnological methods to increase yield, while also lowering the burdens on 
the environment (GARNETT and GODFRAY, 2012). In some contexts, the sustainable 
intensification toolkit is reduced to only biotechnological solutions such as GM crops 
(YOUNG, 2013). Meanwhile, counter-hegemonic global food movements embrace 
agroecology and community-based food systems. They promote a concept of ‘eco-
functional intensification’ (NIGGLI et al., 2008). However, there are also some attempts to 
reconcile these two opposed agendas. For instance, a report from the Rural Investment 
Support for Europe (RISE) mentioned six systems to achieve sustainable intensification 
(BUCKWELL et al., 2014): agroecology, biodynamic, organic, integrated, precision farming 
and conservation agriculture. Similarly, in the European Union, where mainly capital-
intensive technological innovation is emphasized, agroecology has been promoted as a 
different kind of practice that combines know-how, organizational, social and 
technological innovation (IFOAM EU GROUP et al., 2012). Disagreement about model of 
agriculture that allows reconciling productivity (cf. innovation) and sustainability 
(especially environmental one) was evident during the setting up of the European 
Innovation Partnership (EIP) for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI). 
In the end, the Strategic Implementation Plan of EIP-AGRI encompassed different 
approaches such as sustainable intensification, organic farming, low-external input 
systems (EIP-AGRI, 2013). 
The attempt to show at least an apparent compatibility and harmony between 
productivity (see, technological innovation) and sustainability in agriculture is somehow 
exported to other world regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa. For instance, four different 
pathways to sustainable intensification of agri-food systems in Africa were identified in 
the PROIntensAfrica project (a Horizon 2020 coordination and support action): 
conventional agriculture pathway, eco-technical pathway, agroecology pathway, and 
organic agriculture pathway (PROIntensAfrica, 2017). 
Generally speaking, some alternative agro-food movements (e.g. food sovereignty, Slow 
Food, agroecology) have a critical attitude towards innovation (especially 
technical/technological one) while others (e.g. organic agriculture) have evolved towards 
a more accommodating position. In the manifesto ‘Food Sovereignty: A Future Without 
Hunger’, presented by Via Campesina at the 1996 World Food Summit (VÍA CAMPESINA, 
1996), there is no reference to innovation. This clearly shows a critical attitude towards 
innovation of this peasant movement. However, access to technology by peasant families, 
especially women, is stressed. In the Declaration of Nyéléni (NYÉLÉNI, 2007), food 
sovereignty movement did again no reference to innovation, be it technical or social. 
However, it made it clear that it is fighting against “Technologies and practices that undercut 
our future food producing capacities, damage the environment and put our health at risk. Those 
include transgenic crops and animals, terminator technology, industrial aquaculture and 
destructive fishing practices, the so-called white revolution of industrial dairy practices, the so-
called ‘old’ and ‘new’ Green Revolutions, and the “Green Deserts” of industrial bio-fuel 
monocultures and other plantations” (p. 3). Slow Food movement pays a particular attention 
to the ecological, economic, social and cultural sustainability of the local agro-food 
systems (e.g. SLOW FOOD, 2013; PEANO et al., 2014). It can be argued that the movement 
has a critical stance with respect to innovation and technology. In fact, references to 
innovation can be hardly found in the declarations of the movement (e.g. SLOW FOOD, 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 215 

2008; Slow Food, 2009). The term innovation has also no place in Slow Food terminology 
(SLOW FOOD, 2015). The organic agriculture movement seems to have nowadays, as it 
was not always the case, a more accommodating attitude towards innovation. In fact, 
innovation is even part of the official definition of organic: “Organic Agriculture is a 
production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological 
processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with 
adverse effects. Organic Agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the 
shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved” 
(IFOAM, 2010). 
One of agro-food alternatives is agroecology that has been coined by scientists with the 
intention to open up scientific preoccupations and to contest technocratic governance of 
agricultural innovation, oriented towards commercial benefits, agricultural intensification 
and expansion of global trade (ELZEN et al., 2017). Agroecology is not against innovation 
in general but certain types of innovation. In fact, as the Institute for Agriculture and 
Trade Policy (IATP, 2013) points out agroecology “is by definition an innovative, creative 
process of interactions among small-scale producers and their natural environments”. However, 
agroecology faces the task of challenging the dominant models of innovation in 
agriculture. Beside technological-scientific innovation, it embraces also know-how, social 
and organisational innovation forms (IFOAM EU GROUP et al., 2012). Agroecology 
promotes social and organisational innovation as an alternative strategy across the whole 
agro-food chain with the aim of strengthening connection between agro-ecological farmers 
and consumers that support their agro-ecological innovations. These agro-ecological 
initiatives are variously known as short food supply chains (SFSCs) or alternative agro-
food networks and they are clear examples of social innovation (GALLI and BRUNORI, 
2013). Such new agro-ecologically-inspired local networks and citizen-community 
alliances can counterweight the dominant agri-food system (FERNANDEZ et al., 2013) 
provided that they professionalise their skills, maintain consumer loyalty, constantly learn 
and continuously innovate (KARNER, 2012) thus developing genuine and sustainable 
local food systems.  
Agro-ecological innovation is key to the transition towards sustainability in the current 
agro-food system (LEVIDOW, 2015). Thanks to many social and grassroots movements 
(e.g. La Via Campesina), the Latin American agroecology agenda (e.g. National Plan of 
Agroecological and Organic Production, PLANAPO, in Brazil), inspired transformational 
strategies elsewhere such as in Europe. Indeed, according to the EU’s Standing Committee 
on Agricultural Research (SCAR-FEG, 2009), agro-ecological principles should be given 
priority in agriculture research agendas in the European Union. In this context, the 
European organic sector promotes agro-ecological research with the concept of ‘eco-
functional intensification’ linking farmers’ knowledge and innovation with scientific 
research (NIGGLI et al., 2008). This new understanding of ‘agro-ecological innovation’ is 
promoted by a European alliance involving civil society organisations and farmers 
(ARC2020 and FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE, 2015).  
Nevertheless, agro-ecological methods, but not necessarily agro-ecological principles, 
were adopted also by some conventional agriculture actors, such as agrochemical 
companies and some governments, that incorporated agro-ecological methods into 
‘sustainable intensification’ agendas. Such a move and process was criticized by many 
farmers’ organisations, NGOs and social movements (LEVIDOW et al., 2014; ARC2020 and 
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE, 2015; LEVIDOW, 2015a).  
LEVIDOW (2011) explained very nicely the complicated relation between innovation and 
sustainable agriculture: “Nowadays most innovations are promoted under the banner of 
‘sustainable development’, but there are different accounts of what is to be sustained. Likewise 
sustainable agriculture has different accounts, so it has become an ambiguous concept – even a 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 216 

contentious one”. Accounts of what is to be sustained include agriculture growth, natural 
resources, current production patterns, livelihoods, ecosystem services, communities, etc. 
This adds to tensions between and multiple interpretations of environmental, social and 
economic sustainability in agriculture. 
 
 
4. CONCLUSIONS 
 
This paper argues that a better understanding of the complex and multifaceted relation 
between innovation and sustainability in the agro-food arena is crucial to make more 
effective transition towards sustainable food systems as perception towards innovation in 
agro-food can be an obstacle to or a lever for the deep and radical change that is needed. 
It is clear nowadays that innovation is needed to foster sustainability transitions in food 
system from production to processing, distribution and consumption. While technical 
innovations are widely used and advocated for a sustainable intensification of food 
production, social and organisational innovations seem more relevant in the other stages 
of the food system as they allow improving food chain functioning and governance. 
However, although innovation and technological progress have had significant benefits in 
terms of achieving food security, relationship between innovation and sustainability is far 
from straightforward. In fact, the food system is for sure a contested arena where different 
worldviews and narratives are confronted and this applies also to innovation. Moreover, it 
should be highlighted that food has also a strong cultural connotation and, for that, all 
changes in agro-food arena are carefully scrutinised. Simply put, while many food system 
actors emphasize the positive role of innovation and technology in driving progress 
toward sustainable food systems; innovation (especially technical one) provides fertile 
ground for alternative agro-food movements (e.g. organic agriculture, Slow Food, agro-
ecology, food sovereignty) to criticize the over-industrialization of food system. These 
movements seem more benign towards social innovations, especially grassroots ones, that 
are seen as a means to bring about the transition towards more sustainable, inclusive and 
equitable food systems.  
Ultimately, it seems that the issue is not about questioning innovation tout court, but about 
what type of innovation should be promoted. In other words, it is not about being pro- or 
anti-innovation, but about addressing real, essential questions of innovation politics 
related to direction of change pathways in agro-food systems, distribution and equity, and 
diversity of options. While moving towards ‘sustainable’ or ‘sustainability-oriented’ 
innovation seems to be a good compromise and a step in the right direction, thus making 
transition towards sustainable food systems smoother and more effective, there is no 
doubt that this does not represent a panacea per se as even the concept of ‘sustainability’ is 
contested. In fact, one can always ask, a sustainable innovation for whom (as there are 
winners and losers in any transition or change), where (as sustainability is place- and 
context-specific), etc. Therefore, it can be assumed that innovation approaches need an 
increased dose of ethics, rules and values when they are applied to food systems and that 
is also true for all discourses and paradigms regarding sustainability transitions. 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
I would like to thank Dr. Les Levidow (The Open University, United Kingdom), Dr. Erik Millstone (University of Sussex, 
United Kingdom) and Dr. Allison Loconto (FAO & INRA, France) for constructive comments and valuable suggestions 
on earlier versions of this paper. 
 
 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 217 

REFERENCES 
 
Almås R. and Campbell H. eds. 2012. Rethinking Global Agricultural Regimes: Food Security, Climate Change and the 
Future Resilience of Global Agriculture. Research in Rural Sociology and Development Series. Emerald publishing, 
Bingley (UK).  
 
Alston J.M., Marra M.C., Pardey P.G. and Wyatt T.J. 2000. A Meta Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural R&D: Ex 
Pede Herculem? IFPRI Research Report 113. IFPRI, Washington D.C. Retrieved from 
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/ publications/rr113.pdf (April 11, 2017). 
 
Andersen M. M. 2005. Eco-innovation indicators. Background paper for the workshop on eco-innovation indicators; 
Sept. 29 2005. European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen.  
 
ARC2020 and Friends of the Earth Europe. 2015. Transitioning Towards Agroecology: Using the CAP to build new food 
systems. Agricultural and Rural Convention (ARC2020), Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.arc2020.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/arc2020-brochure-5-with-hyperlinks.pdf (May 21, 2017). 
 
AtKearney. 2016. Innovation in agriculture: the path forward. Retrieved from 
https://www.atkearney.com/documents/10192/7853238/Innovation+in+Agriculturethe+Path+Forward.pdf/4e2d0e75
-eea6-42e4-bc6d-6a75450ad8bf (May 11, 2017). 
 
Avermaete T., Viaene J., Morgan E.J., Pitts E., Crawford N. and Mahon D. 2004. Determinants of product and process 
innovation in small food manufacturing firms. Trends in Food Science & Technology 15(10):474-483. 
 
Avolio G., Blasi E., Cicatiello C. and Franco S. 2014. The drivers of innovation diffusion in agriculture: evidence from 
Italian census data. Journal on Chain and Network Science 14(3): 231-245. DOI: 10.3920/JCNS2014.x009. 
 
BASF. 2017. BASF Report 2016 - Economic, environmental and social performance. Retrieved from 
https://www.basf.com/documents/corp/en/about-us/publications/reports/2017/BASF_Report_2016.pdf (May 10, 
2017). 
 
Batie S.S. 2008. Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(5):1176-1191. 
Bayer. 2017. Bayer Annual Report 2016 - Sustainable Conduct. Retrieved from 
http://www.annualreport2016.bayer.com/servicepages/downloads/files/bayer_ar16_sustainability.pdf (May 9, 2017). 
 
Bogers M., Afuah A. and Bastian B. 2010. Users as innovators: A review, critique, and future research directions. Journal 
of Management 36(4):857-875. 
 
Bos-Brouwers H.E.J. 2010. Sustainable innovation processes within small and medium-sized enterprises. PhD thesis. VU 
University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics, Amsterdam. 
 
Buckwell A., Nordang Uhre A., Williams A., Polakova J., Blum W.E.H., Schiefer J., Lair G., Heissenhuber A., Schiebl P., 
Kramer C. and Haber W. 2014. The Sustainable Intensification of European Agriculture. RISE Foundation, Brussels. 
 
Buttel F.H. 2006. Sustaining the unsustainable: Agro-food systems and the environment in the modern world. In: “The 
handbook of rural studies”,  P. Cloke, T. Marsden, P. Mooney (Ed.), pp. 213-229. Sage, Thousand Oaks (CA). 
 
Carrillo-Hermosilla J., del Río P. and Könnölä T. 2010. Diversity of eco-innovations: Reflections from selected case 
studies. Journal of Cleaner Production 18:1073-1083. 
 
Caulier-Grice J., Davies A., Patrick R. and Norman W. 2012. Defining Social Innovation. A deliverable of the project “The 
theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE); 7th Framework 
Programme; European Commission, DG Research, Brussels. 
 
Chambers R. and Jiggins J. 1987. Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers. Part I: Transfer-of technology and 
farming systems research. Part II: A parsimonious paradigm. Agric. Admin. Extension 27:109-128. 
 
Charter M. and Clark T. 2007. Sustainable Innovation - Key conclusions from Sustainable Innovation Conferences 2003–
2006 organised by The Centre for Sustainable Design. The Centre for Sustainable Design, Farnham (UK). 
 
Chesbrough H. 2003a. The Era of Open Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2003. Retrieved from 
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-era-of-open-innovation (May 10, 2017). 
 
Chesbrough H. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard 
Business School Publishing, Boston. 
 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 218 

Chonkova B. 2015. Why is Sustainability a Driver for Innovation? CASI webinar 2015 “Sustainable Innovation and Public 
Participation: An Assessment and Management Framework”; December 9-10, 2015. Retrieved from 
http://www.casi2020.eu/app/web1/files/download/casi-webinar-blagovesta-choncova-session1.pdf (May 8, 2017). 
 
Christensen J.F., Olesen M.H. and Kjær J.S. 2005. The Industrial Dynamics of Open Innovation - Evidence from the 
transformation of consumer electronics. Research Policy 34(10):1533-1549. 
 
Coenen-Huther, J. 1996. Transition as a topic for sociological analysis. In “Building Open Societies and Perspectives of 
Sociology in East-Central Europe”, R. Sztompka (Ed.). International Sociological Association (ISA), Krakow. 
 
Constance D., Konefal J. and Grant K. 2016. Unpacking Sustainable Intensification: discourses from agribusiness. 
“Contested Sustainability Discourses: From Food Sovereignty to Sustainable Intensification” track at the International 
Sociological Association (ISA) conference, 10-14 July 2014, Vienna.  
 
Dargan L. and Shucksmith M. 2008. LEADER and Innovation. Sociologia Ruralis 48(3):274-291. 
 
Darnhofer I. 2015. Socio-technical transitions in farming: key concepts. In “Transition pathways towards sustainability in 
agriculture. Case studies from Europe”, L.-A. Sutherland, I. Darnhofer, G. Wilson and L. Zagata (Eds.), pp. 17-31. CABI, 
Wallingford. 
 
Dearing A. 2000. Sustainable Innovation: Drivers and Barriers. OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology 
Policy (TIP) workshop; 19 June 2000. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/2105727.pdf (May 7, 
2017). 
 
Dunmade I. 2002. Indicators of sustainability: assessing the suitability of a foreign technology for a developing economy. 
Technol. Soc. 24(4):461-471. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00036-2. 
 
Dwyer J. 2013. Transformation for sustainable agriculture: what role for the second Pillar of CAP? Bio-based and 
Applied Economics 2(1):29-47.  
 
Dwyer J., Buckwell A., Hart K., Knickel K., Menadue H., Mantino F., Erjavec E. and Ilbery B. 2012. How to improve the 
sustainable competitiveness and innovation of the agricultural sector? IP/B/AGRI/IC/2011_100. European Parliament, 
Brussels. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2012/474551/IPOL-
AGRI_ET(2012)474551_EN.pdf (May 6, 2017). 
 
EC 2012. Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe. European Commission (EC), Brussels. Retrieved 
from http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/official-strategy_en.pdf (May 5, 2017). 
 
EC 2013. Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on 
Responsible Research and Innovation (Ed.). European Commission (EC), Brussels.  
 
EC 2016. European Research and Innovation for Food and Nutrition Security. Commission Staff Working Document; 
SWD(2016) 319 final. European Commission (EC), Brussels. 
 
EC 2017. Social innovation. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/policy/social_en (June 
24, 2017). 
 
EGE 2008. Ethics of modern developments in agricultural technologies. Opinion of the European Group on Ethics (EGE) 
in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission. Brussels. DOI: 10.2796/13650. 
 
EIP-AGRI. 2013. Strategic Implementation Plan: European Innovation Partnership - Agricultural Productivity and 
Sustainability (EIP-A). Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eip/pdf/strategic-implementation-plan_en.pdf (April 13, 2017). 
 
Elkington J. 1997. Cannibals with forks. Capstone, Oxford. 
 
Elzen B., Augustyn A., Barbier M. and van Mierlo B. 2017. AgroEcological Transitions: Changes and Breakthroughs in 
the Making. DOI: 10.18174/407609 
 
EPSC 2016. Opportunity now: Europe’s mission to innovate. EPSC (European Political Strategy Centre) Strategic Notes, 
Issue 15, 5 July 2016. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/sites/epsc/files/strategic_note_issue_15.pdf  (May 4, 
2017). 
 
EPSC 2016a. Sustainability Now! A European Vision for Sustainability. EPSC (European Political Strategy Centre) 
Strategic Notes, Issue 18, 20 July 2016. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/sites/epsc/files/strategic_note_issue_18.pdf (May 4, 2017). 
 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 219 

Falcone P. M. 2014. Sustainability Transitions: A Survey of an Emerging Field of Research. Environmental Management 
and Sustainable Development 3(2):61-83.  
 
FAO 2012. Greening the Economy with Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). 
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2745e/i2745e00.pdf (May 9, 2017). 
 
FAO 2013. Climate¬-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Retrieved from 
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3325e/i3325e.pdf (May 14, 2017).  
 
Fernandez M., Goodall K., Olson M. and Méndez V.E. 2013. Agroecology and alternative agri-food movements in the 
United States: Toward a sustainable agri-food system. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37(1):115-126.  
 
Freeman C. 1995. The ‘National Systems of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics 19:5-
24. 
 
Fussler C. and James P. 1996. Eco-innovation: A Breakthrough Discipline for Innovation & Sustainability. Pitman 
Publishing, London. 
 
Galli F. and Brunori G. eds. 2013. Short Food Supply Chains as Drivers of Sustainable Development: Evidence 
Document. FP7 project Foodlinks (GA No. 265287), Laboratorio di studi rurali Sismondi. Retrieved from 
http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/CoPs/evidence-document-
sfsc-cop.pdf (April 14, 2017). 
 
Garnett T. 2014. Three perspectives on sustainable food security: efficiency, demand restraint, food system 
transformation. What role for LCA? Journal of Cleaner Production 73: 10-18. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.045. 
 
Garnett T. and Godfray C. 2012. Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture. Navigating a course through competing food 
system priorities. Food Climate Research Network and the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University 
of Oxford, Oxford (UK). 
 
Garnett T., Appleby M.C., Balmford A., Bateman I.J., Benton T.G., Bloomer P., Burlingame B., Dawkins M., Dolan L., 
Fraser D., Herrero M., Hoffmann I., Smith P., Thornton P.K., Toulmin C., Vermeulen S.J., Godfray H.C.J. 2013. 
Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies. Science 341(6141): 33-34. DOI: 10.1126/science.1234485 
 
Geels F.W. 2005. Technological Transitions and System Innovations: A Co- evolutionary and Socio-Technical Analysis. 
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.  
 
Geels F.W. 2010. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research 
Policy 39(4):495-510.  
 
Geels F.W. 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environmental 
Innovation and Societal Transitions 1(1):24-40. 
 
Gerhardt C. and Hubbert J. 2009. Innovation, sustainability and the “tripe bottom line”. In “Innovation, sustainability 
and complexity – A synopsis of the European Best Innovator Club annual meeting”, AT Kearny. Retrieved from 
https://www.atkearney.com/documents/10192/530110/Innovation_Sustainability_and_Complexity.pdf (May 3, 2017). 
 
Global Harvest Initiative. 2016. Productivity and Innovation: Sustainable Agricultural Growth in an Uncertain Season. 
2016 GAP Report. Retrieved from http://www.globalharvestinitiative.org/GAP/Productivity and Innovation.pdf (May 
13, 2017).  
 
Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. 2016. Food systems and diets: Facing the challenges of the 
21st century. London, UK. 
 
Godin B. 2008. Innovation: the history of a category. Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation; Working Paper No. 
1. Retrieved from http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/IntellectualNo1.pdf (May 2, 2017). 
 
Godin B. 2015. Innovation Contested - The Idea of Innovation Over the Centuries. Routledge, London. 
 
Grin J., Rotmans J., Schot J., Geels F.W. and Loorbach D. 2010. Transitions to Sustainable Development. New Directions 
in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. Routhledge, New York. 
 
Havelock R.G. 1969. Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Center for Research 
on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 
 
Hekkert M.P., Suurs R.A.A., Negro S.O., Kuhlman S. and Smits R.E.H.M. 2007. Functions of innovation systems: a new 
approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 74:413-432. 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 220 

 
Hermans F., Klerkx L. and Roep D. 2010. Review of Relevant EU policy documents on Innovation. Wageningen 
University, Wageningen. 
 
Hinrichs C. C. 2014. Transitions to sustainability: a change in thinking about food systems change? Agric Hum Values 
31: 143–155. DOI: 10.1007/s10460-014-9479-5. 
 
HLPE 2014. Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems. High Level Panel of Experts on Food 
Security and Nutrition (HLPE), Rome. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3901e.pdf (April 15, 2017). 
 
HLPE 2017. 2nd Note on Critical and Emerging Issues for Food Security and Nutrition. A note by the High Level Panel 
of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. 
 
IAASTD. 2009. Agriculture at a Crossroads - Global Report. International Assessment of Agriculture Knowledge, Science 
and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Island Press, Washington DC (USA). Retrieved from 
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/Investment/Agriculture_at_a_Crossroads_Global_Report_IAASTD.pdf 
(April 18, 2017). 
 
IATP 2013. Scaling Up Agroecology: Toward the realization of the right to food. Institute for Agriculture and Trade 
Policy (IATP), Minneapolis. 
 
IFOAM EU Group, ARC 2020 and TP Organics. 2012. Agro-ecology: Ten examples of successful innovation in 
agriculture. Retrieved from http://tporganics.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/tporganiceu-agroecology-ten-
innovation-en-2012.pdf (April 16, 2017). 
 
IFOAM 2010. IFOAM Declaration for Living Change - Organic Agriculture Offers Solutions for Global Challenges. 
Retrieved from 
http://organic-market.info/easyCMS/FileManager/Dateien/IFOAM_declaration_livinng_change_2010_en.pdf (June 
17, 2017). 
 
IICA 2014. Innovation in agriculture: a key process for sustainable development. Institutional position paper. Inter-
American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), San Jose (Costa Rica). 
 
IPES-Food 2015. The New Science of Sustainable Food Systems: Overcoming Barriers to Food Systems Reform. 
International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). Retrieved from www.ipes-
food.org/images/Reports/IPES_report01_1505_web_br_pages.pdf (April 17, 2017). 
 
Jacobsson S. and Bergek A. 2010. Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: contributions and 
suggestions for research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transition 1(1):41-57. 
 
Karner S. ed. 2010. Local Food Systems in Europe: Case studies from five countries and what they imply for policy and 
practice. Retrieved from http://www.faanweb.eu/sites/faanweb.eu/files/FAAN_Booklet_PRINT.pdf (May 10, 2017). 
 
Kaskinen T., Neuvonen A., Tarvainen A. and Korhonen S. 2013. Connecting sustainability and continuous innovation: 
Successful sustainability strategies in mid-size Finnish companies. Demos Helsinki, Helsinki. Retrieved from 
http://www.demoshelsinki.fi/julkaisut/connecting-sustainability-and-continuous-innovation-successful-sustainability-
strategies-in-mid-size-finnish-companies (May 11, 2017). 
 
Keeble J., Lyon D., Vassallo D., Hedstrom G. and Sanchez H. 2005. Innovation High Ground Report: How Leading 
Companies Are Using Sustainability-Driven Innovation to Win Tomorrow’s Customers. Arthur D. Little. 
http://www.adlittle.com/downloads/tx_adlreports/ADL_Innovation_High_Ground_report_03.pdf 
 
Kemp R. 1994. Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability: the problem of technological regime shifts. 
Futures 26(10):1023-1046. 
 
Kemp R. and van Lente H. 2011. The dual challenge of sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal 
Transition 1(1):121-124. 
 
Kemp R. and Rotmans J. 2005. The Management of the Co-evolution of Technical, Environmental and Social Systems. In 
“Towards environmental innovation systems”, M. Weber and J. Hemmelskamp (Eds.), pp. 33-55. Springer, Berlin & New 
York. 
 
Kemp R. and Pearson P. eds. 2008. Final report of the project “Measuring Eco- Innovation”. Maastricht. Retrieved from 
http://www.merit.unu.edu/MEI/index.php (May 12, 2017). 
 
Kemp R. and Foxon T. 2007. Eco-innovation from an innovation dynamics perspective. Deliverable 1 of MEI (Measuring 
Eco-Innovation) project - Sixth Framework Programme, European Commission, Brussels. 
 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 221 

Kirwan J., Ilbery B., Maye D. and Carey J. 2013. Grassroots social innovations and food localization: An investigation of 
the local food programme in England. Global Environmental Change 23(5):830-837. 
 
Kriesemer K. and Virchow D. 2012. Analytical framework for the assessment of agricultural technologies. Report 
published by SATNET Asia project and Food Security Center (FSC). Retrieved from 
http://www.satnetasia.org/public/SATNET-Asia-Analytical-Framework.pdf (May 13, 2017). 
 
Lachman D. 2013. A survey and review of approaches to study transitions. Energy Policy 58:269-276. 
 
Lal R., Uphoff N., Stewart B.A. and Hansen D.O. 2005. Soil carbon depletion and the impending food crisis. CRC Press, 
Baton Rouge, Fl. 
 
Leach M., Rockström J., Raskin P., Scoones I., Stirling A. C., Smith A., Thompson J., Millstone E., Ely A., Around E., Folke 
C. and Olsson P. 2012. Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecology and Society 17(2): 11. DOI: 10.5751/ES-04933-
170211 
 
Levidow L. 2015. Agroecological Innovation. In “Feeding the People: Agroecology for Nourishing the World and 
Transforming the Agri-Food System”, A. Hilbeck and B. Oehen (Eds.), pp. 34-39. IFAOM EU Group, Brussels.  
 
Levidow L. ed. 2011. Agricultural innovation: Sustaining what agriculture? For what European bio-economy? Final 
report of the project “Co-operative Research on Environmental Problems in Europe” (CREPE). Retrieved from 
http://crepeweb.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/crepe_final_report.pdf (May 14, 2017). 
 
Levidow L. 2015a. European transitions towards a corporate environmental food regime: agroecological incorporation or 
contestation? Journal of Rural Studies 40:76-89. 
 
Levidow L., Pimbert M. and Vanloqueren G. 2014. Agroecological research: Conforming – or transforming the dominant 
agrofood regime? Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38(10):1127-1155.  
 
Levin K., Cashore B., Bernstein S. and Auld G. 2012. Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining 
our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences 45(2):123-152. 
 
Lionberger H. 1960. Adoption of new ideas and practices. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. 
 
Loconto A. 2016. The role of knowledge in transitions to sustainable food systems: examples from institutional 
innovations. In “Knowledge and Information for Sustainable Food Systems”; A Workshop of the FAO/UNEP 
Programme on Sustainable Food Systems, 10–11 September 2014, Rome; A. Meybeck and S. Redfern (Eds.), pp. 203-216. 
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5373e.pdf (May 15, 2017). 
 
Loconto A., Poisot A. S. and Santacoloma P. 2017. Sustainable Practices, Sustainable Markets? Institutional innovations in 
agri-food systems. In “AgroEcological Transitions: Changes and Breakthroughs in the Making”, B. Elzen, A. Augustyn, 
M. Barbier and B. van Mierlo (Eds.), pp. 176-194. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18174/407609 (accessed May 16, 2017). 
 
Loeber A. and Vermeulen T. 2012. The art of 'doing' sustainable agricultural innovation: approaches and attitudes to 
facilitating transitional projects. In “System innovations, knowledge regimes, and design practices towards transitions 
for sustainable agriculture”, M. Barbier and B. Elzen (Eds.), pp. 102-117. INRA.  
 
Loorbach D. and Rotmans J. 2010. Transition Management and Strategic Niche Management. Dutch Research Institute 
for Transitions, Rotterdam. 
 
Markard J. and Truffer B. 2008. Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated 
framework. Research Policy 37(4):596-615. 
 
Markard J., Raven R. and Truffer B. 2012. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. 
Research Policy 41(6):955-967. 
 
Marody M. 1996. Transition as a topic for sociological analysis. In “Building Open Societies and Perspectives of 
Sociology in East-Central Europe”, R. Sztompka (Ed.), pp. 43-51. International Sociological Association (ISA), Krakow.  
Menrad K. and Feigl S. 2007. Innovations in traditional food products in small and medium-sized companies of the food 
industry: Review of literature. University of Applied Sciences of Weihenstephan, Straubing (Germany).  
 
METI 2007. The Key to Innovation Creation and the Promotion of Eco-Innovation. Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade 
and Industry (METI), Tokyo. 
 
Millstone E. and van Zwanenberg P. 2000. A crisis of trust: for science, scientists or for institutions? Nature Medicine 6: 
1307–1308. DOI: 10.1038/82102 
 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 222 

Monsanto. 2017. Growing better together. Monsanto 2016 Sustainability Report. Retrieved from 
https://monsanto.com/app/uploads/2017/05/2016-sustainability-report-2.pdf (May 17, 2017). 
 
Moschitz M., Roep D., Brunori G. and Tisenkopfs T. 2015. Learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture: 
processes of co-evolution, joint reflection and facilitation. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 21(1):1-11. 
 
Moulaert F. 2013. The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and 
Transdisciplinary Research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. 
 
Mukherjee S. and Kathuria V. 2006. Is economic growth sustainable? Environmental quality of Indian States after 1991. 
Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 9:38-60. 
 
Mulgan G., Tucker S., Ali R. and Sanders B. 2007. Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be 
accelerated. Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, University of Oxford, Oxford. 
 
Munshi D. and Kurian P. 2005. Imperializing spin cycles: a postcolonial look at public relations, green-washing, and the 
separation of publics. Public Relations Review 31:513-520. 
 
Network for Business Sustainability. 2012. Innovating for Sustainability: A Systematic Review of the Body of Knowledge. 
Retrieved from http://nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/nbs-systematic-review-innovation.pdf (May 18, 2017). 
 
Network for Business Sustainability. 2012a. Innovating for sustainability: A guide for executives. London (Canada). 
 
Nicholls A. and Murdock A. 2012. Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets. Palgrave Macmillan, 
New York. 
 
Nidumolu R., Prahalad C.K. and Rangaswami M.R. 2009. Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. 
Harvard business review 87(9):57-64. 
 
Niggli U., Slabe A., Schmid O., Halberg N. and Schlüter M. 2008. Vision for an Organic Food and Farming Research 
Agenda to 2025. IFOAM-EU Group, Brussels. Retrieved from 
http://tporganics.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/tporganiceu-vision-research-agenda.pdf (April 19, 2017). 
 
Nyéléni. 2007. Declaration of Nyéléni. Retrieved from https://nyeleni.org/IMG/pdf/DeclNyeleni-en.pdf (June 16, 
2017). 
 
OECD and Eurostat. 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. Third edition, 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris. 
 
OECD 2008. Environmental Innovation and Global Markets. Report for the Working Party on Global and Structural 
Policies, ENV/EPOC/GSP(2007)2/FINAL. OECD, Paris.  
 
OECD 2009. Sustainable Manufacturing and Eco-Innovation - Framework, Practices and Measurement. Synthesis Report. 
OECD, Paris. 
 
Olsthoorn X. and Wieczorek A.J. eds. 2006. Understanding Industrial Transformation: Views from Different Disciplines. 
Springer, Berlin. 
 
Osburg T. 2013. Social Innovation to Drive Corporate Sustainability. In: “Social Innovation - Solutions for a Sustainable 
Future”, T. Osburg and R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), pp. 13-22. Springer, Berlin.  
 
Osburg T. and Schmidpeter R. eds. 2013. Social Innovation - Solutions for a Sustainable Future. Springer, Berlin. DOI: 
10.1007/978-3-642-36540-9_2 
 
Peano C., Migliorini P. and Sottile F. 2014. A methodology for the sustainability assessment of agri-food systems: an 
application to the Slow Food Presidia project. Ecology and Society 19(4): 24. DOI: 10.5751/ES-06972-190424 
 
Peano C., Tecco N., Dansero E., Girgenti V. and Sottile F. 2015. Evaluating the sustainability in complex agri-food 
systems: The SAEMETH framework. Sustainability 7(6): 6721-6741. DOI: 10.3390/su7066721 
 
Peters G.B. and Pierre J. 2014. Food policy as a wicked problem: contending with multiple demands and actors. World 
Food Policy 1(1):2-9. 
 
Phills A.J., Deiglmeier K. and Miller D.T. 2008. Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 
2008. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/rediscovering_social_innovation (June 20, 2017). 
 
PROIntensAfrica 2017. Pathways to sustainable intensification of the agri-food system in Africa. Retrieved from 
http://www.intensafrica.org/documents (May 23, 2017). 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 223 

 
Rao X., Hurley T.M. and Pardey P.G. 2012. Recalibrating the Reported Rates of Return to Food and Agriculture R&D. 
Staff Paper. St. Paul University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics. Retrieved from 
http://ageconsearch.umn. edu/handle/135018 (May 24, 2017). 
 
Reid A. and Miedzinski M. 2008. Eco-innovation. Final report for Sectoral Innovation Watch. Technopolis Group, 
Brighton.  
 
Rennings K. 2000. Redefining Innovation: Eco-innovation Research and the Contribution from Ecological Economics. 
Journal of Ecological Economics 32:319-332.  
 
Rotmans J., Kemp R. and van Asselt M. 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. 
Foresight 3:15-31. 
 
Rotmans J., Kemp R., van Asselt M.B.A., Geels F.W., Verbong G. and Molendijk K. 2000. Transitions & Transition 
Management: the case of an emission-poor energy supply. International Centre for Integrative Studies, Maastricht. 
 
Scanlan S.J. 2013. Feeding the Planet or Feeding Us a Line? Agribusiness, ‘Grainwashing’ and Hunger in the World Food 
System. Int. Jrnl. of Soc. of Agr. & Food 20(3):357-382. 
 
SCAR-EU 2012. Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems in transition – A reflection paper. Standing Committee 
on Agricultural Research (SCAR-EU), Brussels. Retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/ki3211999enc_002.pdf (May 25, 2017). 
 
SCAR-FEG 2007. FFRAF Report: Foresighting Food, Rural and Agri-futures. Standing Committee on Agricultural 
Research-Foresight Expert Group (SCAR-FEG), Brussels. 
 
SCAR-FEG 2009. New challenges for Agricultural Research: Climate change, food security, rural development, 
agricultural knowledge systems. 2nd Foresight Exercise. Standing Committee on Agricultural Research-Foresight Expert 
Group (SCAR-FEG), Brussels. Retrieved from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/83dfc16f-18b8-41cb-8e84-f69b97ff1bc3/language-en (May 26, 2017). 
 
Schmookler J. 1966. Invention and Economic Growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA). 
 
Schumpeter J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA). 
 
Schumpeter J. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper & Row, New York. 
 
Seyfang G. and Smith A. 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy 
agenda. Environmental Politics 16:584-603. 
 
Shaver E.F. 2016. The Many Definitions of Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.ericshaver.com/the-many-
definitions-of-innovation (May 27, 2017). 
 
Silici L. 2014. Agroecology: What it is and what it has to offer. IIED Issue Paper. IIED, London. Retrieved from 
http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14629IIED.pdf (May 28, 2017). 
 
Slow Food. 2008. Good Food Declaration. Retrieved from https://www.slowfood.com/good-food-declaration (June 15, 
2017). 
 
Slow Food. 2009. A Declaration for Better Food. Retrieved from https://www.slowfood.com/a-declaration-for-better-
food (June 15, 2017). 
 
Slow Food 2013. Slow Food’s Contribution to the Debate on the Sustainability of the Food System. 
https://www.slowfood.com/sloweurope/wp-content/uploads/ING-food-sust.pdf (January 13, 2018). 
 
Slow Food. 2015. Slow Food terminology. Retrieved from https://www.slowfood.com/about-us/slow-food-
terminology (June 15, 2017). 
 
Smith A. and Seyfang G. 2013. Constructing grassroots innovations for sustainability. Global Environmental Change 23: 
827-829. 
STEPS Centre. 2010. Innovation, Sustainability, Development: A New Manifesto. STEPS Centre, Brighton (UK). 
 
Sterrenberg L., Andringa J., Loorbach D., Raven R. and Wieczorek A. 2013. Low-carbon transition through system 
innovation: Theoretical notions and applications. Pioneers into Practice mentoring program 2013. Retrieved from 
http://www.transitiepraktijk.nl/files/Low-carbon transition through system innovation 2013 reader final.pdf (April 19, 
2017). 
 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 224 

Stevels A. 1997. Moving companies towards sustainability through eco-design: Conditions for success. J. Sustain. Prod. 
Des. 3:47-55. 
 
Stiglitz J.E. 2007. Knowledge as a Global Public Good. In “International Intellectual Property in an Integrated World 
Economy”, F. Abbot, T. Cottier, F. Gurry (Eds.). Aspen Publishers, New York. 
 
STRN 2010. A mission statement and research agenda for the Sustainability Transitions Research Network. Sustainability 
Transitions Research Network (STRN). Retrieved from 
http://www.transitionsnetwork.org/files/STRN_research_agenda_20_August_2010(2).pdf (January 6, 2017).  
 
Stummer C., Guenther M. and Köck A.M. 2010. Grundzuege des Innovations- und Technologiemanagements. Facultas, 
Vienna.  
 
Szekely F. and Strebel H. 2012. Strategic innovation for sustainability. International Institute for Management 
Development (IMD), Lausanne. 
 
Twomey P. and Gaziulusoy A. I. 2014. Review of System Innovation and Transitions Theories - Concepts and 
frameworks for understanding and enabling transitions to a low carbon built environment. Working paper for the 
Visions & Pathways project, March 2014. Retrieved from http://www.visionsandpathways.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/Twomey_Gaziulusoy_Innovation-and-Transition-Theory.pdf (January 26, 2017). 
 
Tyfield D. 2011. Food systems transition and disruptive low carbon innovation: implications for a food security research 
agenda. Journal of Experimental Botany 62(11): 3701–3706. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/err123 
 
UN 1992. Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development; 3-14 June, 1992; Rio de Janerio, 
Brazil. United Nations (UN) Division for Sustainable Development, New York. Retrieved from 
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (June 30, 2017). 
 
UN 2002. Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. World Summit on Sustainable 
Development; 26 August – 4 September 2002; Johannesburg - South Africa. Retrieved from 
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf (July 2, 2017). 
 
UN 2002a. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Johannesburg, South Africa; 26 August - 4 
September 2002. Retrieved from http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/131302_wssd_report_reissued.pdf 
(July 2, 2017). 
 
UN 2012. Science, technology and innovation for sustainable development in the global partnership for development 
beyond 2015. The UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. Retrieved from 
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/thinkpieces/28_thinkpiece_science.pdf (May 29, 
2017). 
 
UN 2012a. The Future We Want. Outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Rio 
de Janeiro, Brazil; 20–22 June, 2012. Retrieved from 
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/733FutureWeWant.pdf (July 2, 2017). 
 
UN 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General 
Assembly on 25 September 2015. Retrieved from 
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (May 24, 2017). 
 
UNCTAD 2017. The Role of Science, Technology and Innovation in Ensuring Food Security by 2030. United Nations 
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Retrieved from 
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/dtlstict2017d5_en.pdf (May 30, 2017). 
 
Van de Ven A.,  Polley D.,  Garud R., and Venkataraman S. 2008. The Innovation Journey. Oxford University Press (USA). 
Van der Ploeg J.D. 2009. Transition: Contradictory but interacting processes of change in Dutch agriculture. In 
“Transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food chains in peri-urban areas”, K. Poppe, C. Termeer and M. 
Slingerland (Eds.), pp. 293–307. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen. 
 
Vanloqueren G. and Baret P.V. 2009. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops 
genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy 38(6):971-83. 
 
Vía Campesina. 1996. Food Sovereignty: A Future without Hunger. Retrieved from 
http://www.acordinternational.org/silo/files/decfoodsov1996.pdf (June 25, 2017). 
 
Vilanova M. and Dettoni P. 2011. Sustainable Innovation Strategies. Exploring the cases of Danone and Interface. 
Institute for Social Innovation, Sant Cugat del Vallès (Barcelona). 
 
von Hippel E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA). 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 225 

 
WCED 1987. Our Common Future. Final Report of World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 
New York. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (June 30, 2017). 
 
Wettasinha C. (2016). Small-scale Farmer Innovation for Sustainable Agriculture - Building on Indigenous Knowledge to 
Move towards Farmer-led Joint Research. http://uncapsa.org/sites/default/files/pn1612.pdf  
 
World Bank. 2006. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems. The 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) - The World Bank (WB), Washington DC. Retrieved 
from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Enhancing_Ag_Innovation.pdf (June 22, 2017). 
 
Young R. 2013. Sustainable intensification. Sustainable Food Trust. Retrieved from 
http://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/sustainable-intensification (April 22, 2017). 
 
 
 
 

Paper Received December 13, 2017  Accepted January 16, 2018