Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Environment, Economy, Society, and Policy

Abstract

Agri-food systems (AFS) have been central in the debate on sustainable development. Despite this growing interest in AFS, comprehensive analyses of the scholarly literature are hard to find. Therefore, the present systematic review delineated the contours of this growing research strand and analyzed how it relates to sustainability. A search performed on the Web of Science in January 2020 yielded 1389 documents, and 1289 were selected and underwent bibliometric and topical analyses. The topical analysis was informed by the SAFA (Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems) approach of FAO and structured along four dimensions viz. environment, economy, society and culture, and policy and governance. The review shows an increasing interest in AFS with an exponential increase in publications number. However, the study field is north-biased and dominated by researchers and organizations from developed countries. Moreover, the analysis suggests that while environmental aspects are sufficiently addressed, social, economic, and political ones are generally overlooked. The paper ends by providing directions for future research and listing some topics to be integrated into a comprehensive, multidisciplinary agenda addressing the multifaceted (un)sustainability of AFS. It makes the case for adopting a holistic, 4-P (planet, people, profit, policy) approach in agri-food system studies.

1. Introduction

Food systems are high on the international agenda, as shown by the United Nations’ Food Systems Summit scheduled for September 2021. The Summit is part of the Decade of Action to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 and aims to unleash the power of food systems in delivering progress on all SDGs. Indeed, it aims to deliver more sustainable, equitable, and healthier food systems [1] by working on five action tracks viz. ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all; shifting to sustainable consumption patterns; boosting nature-positive production; advancing equitable livelihoods; and building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress [2]. Actors from across the world’s food systems will explore how to mobilize key cross-cutting levers of change (e.g., gender, human rights, finance, innovation) to transform agri-food systems towards sustainability. Sustainable food systems (SFS) are also among the key elements of the European Green Deal [3,4,5] and, more specifically, the Farm to Fork Strategy of the European Union [6,7]. Indeed, the Farm to Fork strategy (F2F) aims at fostering transition towards sustainable, resilient, and inclusive food systems in the European Union [6].

According to the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security [8], “A food system gathers all the elements (environment, people, inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions, etc.) and activities that relate to the production, processing, distribution, preparation and consumption of food and the outputs of these activities, including socio-economic and environmental outcomes”. This definition shows that the concept of food systems goes beyond activities (viz. production, processing, distribution, preparation, and consumption) and encompasses other constituent elements as well as the outputs and outcomes of food-related activities. Food systems encompass food supply chains, food environments, consumer behavior, as well as external drivers (e.g., population growth, urbanization, climate change, trade, globalization, politics) and outcomes (environmental, social, economic) [9]. Food systems overlap with agricultural systems in the area of food production, but they comprise the institutions, technologies, and practices that also govern the way food is marketed, processed, transported, accessed, and consumed [10].

Food systems are at the center of various global challenges such as climate change, resource scarcity, and ecosystem degradation [11,12,13,14]. Indeed, different socio-economic (e.g., poverty, inadequate diets, hunger and malnutrition, social inequalities) and environmental (e.g., climate change, water scarcity, land degradation, biodiversity loss) challenges are strongly affected by the way food is produced, handled, processed, distributed, prepared, and consumed [15,16]. On the one hand, current food systems generate adverse outcomes and, on the other hand, fail to eradicate hunger and malnutrition, especially in the Global South [16,17,18,19]. The failures and vulnerabilities of the current global agri-food system have been particularly manifest during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic [20,21], which affected food supply chains, food environments, and consumption patterns alike [22,23,24,25]. While more than enough food is produced [26], the problem of food insecurity persists [18,27,28]. Future food systems are called upon to achieve food and nutrition security for all while addressing various sustainability challenges, highlighting the urgency of fostering transition towards sustainable agri-food systems [29].

Conceiving food sustainability includes different aspects, such as sustainable agriculture, sustainable diets, and SFS. Although increased attention is devoted to the concept of SFS, only a few definitions exist [8,30,31,32]. In this context, the widely used definition of the HLPE [8] indicates that “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” (p. 31). This definition clearly shows the strong link between SFS and food and nutrition security, viz. food insecurity and malnutrition are an outcome of the unsustainability of food systems. SFSs affect and are affected by policies and legal frameworks related to numerous sectors and fields (e.g., environment, agriculture, health and safety, trade, energy) [13].

There is a broad agreement among scholars and practitioners alike that transforming food systems is among the most powerful ways to make progress towards all 17 SDGs [33,34,35,36]. Rockström and Sukhdev [37] suggested that food connects all the SDGs and positions them in a hierarchy to be delivered on within a safe operating space for humanity. For instance, the interactions of SDG 2 “Zero hunger” (end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture) stray into several other SDG areas [38,39,40]. Indeed, it moves in tandem with SDG 1 (No poverty), SDG 3 (Good health and well-being), and SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production); but there might be trade-offs with SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation), SDG 13 (Climate action), SDG 14 (Life below water), and SDG 15 (Life on land) [41]. In this context, Rockström et al. [34] argued that “Without a great Food system transformation, the world will fail to deliver both on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement” (p. 3).

Despite the growing interest in agri-food systems and their (un)sustainability, there has been, so far, no comprehensive analysis of the scholarly literature in this field. To fill this gap, the present systematic review delineated the contours of the research strand on food systems and analyzed how it relates to sustainability in its environmental, economic, social, and political dimensions. The paper also provides an analysis of the bibliographical metrics of the research field.

2. Methods

The paper drew upon a systematic review of all documents indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) viz. Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded), Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science (CPCI-S), Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Social Sciences and Humanities (CPCI-SSH), and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). The systematic review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [42]. A search was performed on 4 January 2021, using the search query “food system” AND (sustainable OR sustainability), selecting as timespan “all years”. The initial literature search on WoS yielded 1389 documents. The selection of the documents included in the systematic review was informed by the methodology suggested by El Bilali [43,44].

Table 1. Systematic review of food systems in conjunction with sustainability in Web of Science, January 2021: document selection process.

Selection Steps	Number of Selected Documents	Number of Excluded Documents and Exclusion Reasons
Initial search and documents identification on WoS	1389	--
Screening of records based on titles	1389	17 documents excluded because they did not address food systems
Screening of records based on abstracts	1372	51 documents excluded: 12 documents that did not deal with food systems (un)sustainability 39 documents without abstracts (viz. editorial material)
Scrutiny of full texts	1321	32 documents excluded because they did not address SFS
Inclusion in the systematic review	1289	--

provides details on the selection process steps. In particular, to be considered eligible, documents had to refer to both food systems and (un)sustainability. For the purpose of this article, documents dealing with sustainability in agriculture (viz. crop production, animal husbandry, and fisheries/aquaculture), food supply chains, food value chains, food processing, food distribution, food retail, food preparation, diets, food consumption, nutrition, and/or food waste were considered eligible.

The screening of titles allowed us to identify 17 ineligible documents that were excluded. An additional 51 documents were excluded following the scrutiny of abstracts. Moreover, 32 documents were discarded following the analysis of full texts. Therefore, 1289 documents were selected for the systematic review (

Table A1. List of the selected documents.

Publication Year	List of References
2020	Ajates [413]; Ajates [414]; Akinola et al. [415]; Al Sidawi et al. [416]; Alae-Carew et al. [417]; Albert et al. [418]; Al-Jawaldeh et al. [419]; Allaby et al. [388]; Amicarelli and Bux [420]; Amiri et al. [421]; Amiri et al. [422]; Andress et al. [423]; April-Lalonde et al. [424]; Aschemann-Witzel et al. [425]; Augstburger and Rist [426]; Augustin et al. [427]; Baiguzhinova et al. [428]; Bajželj et al. [429]; Baldos et al. [164]; Bartelmeß and Godemann [430]; Bas-Bellver et al. [431]; Basso and Antle [432]; Bazaluk et al. [433]; Becker et al. [132]; Beingessner and Fletcher [434]; Bellows [287]; Ben Hassen et al. [235]; Bencze et al. [435]; Béné et al. [386]; Béné et al. [436]; Benítez et al. [307]; Bentham et al. [437]; Berti [438]; Bisht et al. [198]; Bloom et al. [439]; Blumberg et al. [153]; Bocken et al. [440]; Borelli et al. [189]; Borsellino et al. [236]; Bounie et al. [220]; Boyer and Ramaswami [209]; Boylan et al. [441]; Brandão et al. [442]; Braun et al. [309]; Broekema et al. [313]; Bryceson and Ross [443]; Bumbac et al. [444]; Butler et al. [213]; Cadel et al. [445]; Cadillo-Benalcazar [365]; Campbell [175]; Carino et al. [446]; Carlsson et al. [447]; Cazcarro et al. [78]; Chable et al. [196]; Chapman and Perkins [448]; Chen et al. [76]; Chen et al. [75]; Clay et al. [449]; Coad and Pedley [450]; Colby [451]; Conner [452]; Covarrubias and Boas [106]; Cramer et al. [308]; Culliford and Bradbury [453]; Dai et al. [94]; Dalmoro et al. [454]; Davies et al. [455]; De Bernardi et al. [411]; de Olde et al. [456]; de Sousa and Solberg [457]; Derunova et al. [458]; Derunova et al. [459]; Di Vaio et al. [460]; Diehl [214]; Dijkshoorn-Dekker et al. [461]; Dillon et al. [462]; Dorninger et al. [463]; Downs et al. [464]; Drewnowski et al. [253]; Duro et al. [119]; Duru and Le Bras [317]; Ebel [465]; Echeverría et al. [207]; El Bilali [43]; Eriksson et al. [466]; Esposito et al. [99]; Evans and Johnson [294]; Fardet and Rock [467]; Fardet and Rock [468]; Farmery et al. [469]; Feijoo and Moreira [470]; Fernandez-Mena et al. [230]; Fesenfeld et al. [471]; Fischer and Miglietta [472]; Fleischhacker et al. [320]; Fogarassy et al. [473]; Forber et al. [86]; Formoso et al. [474]; Fortes et al. [475]; Freed et al. [476]; Frison and Clément [477]; Gaitán-Cremaschi et al. [478]; Galli et al. [58]; García-Oliveira et al. [479]; Gausa et al. [480]; Gerritsen et al. [481]; Gerten et al. [61]; Gésan-Guiziou et al. [482]; Ginani et al. [483]; Girard [484]; Giudice et al. [98]; Granheim et al. [485]; Guareschi et al. [486]; Guarnaccia et al. [370]; Gugerell and Penker [487]; Guillaumie et al. [488]; Hanigan and Daley [489]; Hatanaka [490]; Haydon et al. [339]; Hedberg [88]; Hedberg and Zimmerer [247]; Helenius et al. [491]; Hendrickson et al. [492]; Hennchen and Pregernig [390]; Herrero et al. [493]; Heslin et al. [494]; Hilborn et al. [495]; Huang et al. [89]; Huan-Niemi et al. [496]; Jablonski et al. [357]; Jacob et al. [497]; Jacobi et al. [292]; Jehlička et al. [498]; Kahiluoto [389]; Kaufmann et al. [407]; Kemper and Ballantine [165]; Kim et al. [208]; King et al. [499]; Klerkx and Rose [500]; Kopainsky et al. [312]; Ku and Kan [501]; Kuo et al. [502]; Kusch-Brandt [503]; Lajoie-O’Malley et al. [504]; Le Noë et al. [59]; Leclère et al. [176]; Lee et al. [505]; Leite et al. [60]; Leone et al. [319]; Leroy et al. [66]; Lewis et al. [363]; Liang et al. [127]; Lonnie and Johnstone [314]; Lopez et al. [506]; Lourival and Rose [348]; Lowitt et al. [401]; Lu and Halog [231]; Mapiye et al. [507]; Mardones et al. [24]; Martindale et al. [508]; Martindale et al. [509]; Martinelli et al. [510]; Matacena and Corvo [511]; Maughan et al. [264]; Mayton et al. [512]; Mazzocchi and Marino [340]; Mazzocchi et al. [152]; McClements [513]; Mehta et al. [514]; Melesse et al. [371]; Metelerkamp et al. [193]; Meyer [515]; Michell et al. [516]; Millet et al. [517]; Moberg et al. [518]; Mora et al. [80]; Morel et al. [519]; Morris et al. [68]; Mulesa and Westengen [181]; Mullender et al. [520]; Muscio and Sisto [100]; Naja et al. [521]; Negra et al. [215]; Nicol and Taherzadeh [263]; Niederle and Schubert [522]; Nosratabadi et al. [523]; Nowack and Hoffmann [524]; O’Kane and Pamphilon [525]; Omotayo [184]; Omotayo and Aremu [334]; Oo et al. [526]; Palmioli et al. [527]; Park et al. [528]; Pereira et al. [529]; Pham and Turner [322]; Pilipuk [530]; Przelomska et al. [531]; Queenan et al. [67]; Raheem [532]; Ray et al. [332]; Read et al. [101]; Reay et al. [533]; Reinhardt et al. [534]; Resnick [535]; Ricci and Banterle [163]; Ridoutt and Navarro Garcia [177]; Ringling and Marquart [203]; Rippin et al. [321]; Rockström et al. [34]; Rodak [301]; Roig Vila [536]; Rosol [537]; Rossi [538]; Sahal Alharbi et al. [539]; Sampedro et al. [540]; Savary et al. [20]; Schepelmann et al. [541]; Schiller et al. [542]; Schoof et al. [543]; Schramski et al. [95]; Seidel [544]; Sellberg et al. [545]; Sharma et al. [546]; Siegrist and Hartmann [547]; Sigurdsson et al. [548]; Sijtsema et al. [97]; Simón-Rojo et al. [549]; Smaal et al. [261]; Smetana et al. [550]; Soma et al. [551]; Sonnino and Coulson [552]; Stefanovic et al. [553]; Stentiford et al. [316]; Subedi et al. [115]; Sugimoto et al. [554]; Tapsoba et al. [555]; Tello et al. [81]; Temme et al. [375]; Thompson et al. [262]; Tittarelli [556]; Torres [557]; Tortorella et al. [162]; Tricarico et al. [558]; Triste et al. [559]; Ujuaje and Chang [560]; Unger [561]; Usubiaga-Liaño et al. [96]; Valley et al. [562]; van de Vlasakker and Veen [563]; van der Gaast et al. [564]; van Hulst et al. [195]; Vanham and Leip [77]; Vartanova [318]; Vermeulen et al. [372]; Villa et al. [565]; Warshawsky [566]; Weber et al. [567]; Weerasekara et al. [183]; Wegren and Trotsuk [161]; Weidner and Yang [568]; Weissman and Potteiger [377]; Wezel et al. [569]; Wigboldus et al. [570]; Withers et al. [85]; Wyngaarden et al. [71]; Wynne-Jones et al. [571]; Yang et al. [572]; Yang et al. [573]; Zafra-Aparici [574]; Zhang et al. [575]; Zhang et al. [576]
2019	Abu Hatab et al. [577]; Ahmed et al. [354]; Aiking and de Boer [336]; Aleksandrowicz et al. [578]; Alexander et al. [83]; Allen et al. [579]; Álvarez Castaño et al. [580]; Anderson and Leach [581]; Anderson et al. [582]; Anderson et al. [583]; Anderson et al. [584]; Arfini et al. [585]; Arfini et al. [586]; Asano and Biermann [587]; Aschemann-Witzel et al. [588]; Athanatos and Mehrotra [589]; Baldy [343]; Baldy and Kruse [271]; Battersby and Watson [353]; Béné et al. [590]; Béné et al. [591]; Benton [592]; Bersamin et al. [593]; Blesh et al. [594]; Bogard et al. [595]; Bonanomi et al. [367]; Boogaard [596]; Bornemann and Weiland [274]; Bowles et al. [62]; Boyer et al. [143]; Boylan et al. [597]; Broad [598]; Bronson et al. [599]; Bruckner and Kowasch [600]; Bui et al. [297]; Bush et al. [601]; Cachelin et al. [266]; Canavan and Fawzi [602]; Capecchi et al. [603]; Carlsson et al. [604]; Chandrakumar et al. [605]; Chojnacki and Creamer [606]; Chopra [607]; Christman [608]; Cimini and Moresi [133]; Clapp [216]; Clark and Longo [129]; Colinas et al. [609]; Corallo et al. [610]; Corallo et al. [611]; Corke and Olewnik [612]; Corrado et al. [613]; Coteur et al. [614]; Cottrell et al. [615]; Cramer et al. [616]; Crenna et al. [178]; Dawson et al. [617]; De Bernardi et al. [155]; de Krom and Muilwijk [618]; de la Salle [619]; Derqui [620]; Derunova et al. [228]; Derunova et al. [621]; Ding et al. [324]; Doernberg et al. [341]; Dong et al. [391]; Drejerska et al. [622]; Dumont et al. [70]; Egolf et al. [623]; Eker et al. [624]; El Bilali [625]; El Bilali [626]; El Bilali [44]; Esculier et al. [627]; Fanzo and Davis [628]; Fassio and Tecco [35]; Fernandez-Wulff [272]; Ferrari et al. [629]; Filippini et al. [342]; Finley and Fukagawa [630]; Flynn et al. [325]; Fridman and Kissinger [631]; Gaitan-Cremaschi et al. [632]; Garcia-Garcia et al. [633]; Garcia-Gonzalez and Eakin [634]; Garcia-Sempere et al. [635]; Ge et al. [636]; Gentry et al. [637]; Ghinea and Ghiuta [638]; Gillespie et al. [639]; Gliessman et al. [640]; Grant et al. [641]; Grubb and Vogl [398]; Guerrero Lara et al. [335]; Gumbert [273]; Gustafson et al. [642]; Gwin [643]; Halbe and Adamowski [644]; Haysom et al. [645]; Haythorn et al. [646]; Henchion et al. [647]; Horton et al. [104]; Huang et al. [648]; Huang et al. [90]; Hubeau et al. [649]; Jacobi et al. [403]; Jacobi et al. [650]; Janssens et al. [651]; Jeric and Soric [652]; Jin et al. [653]; Jones et al. [654]; Jongerden et al. [229]; Kissinger et al. [128]; Klerkx et al. [655]; Kok et al. [656]; Kos and Kloppenburg [412]; Kraus [221]; Kuokkanen et al. [657]; Lahatte et al. [658]; Lee et al. [659]; Li et al. [660]; Linder [661]; Liu et al. [323]; Lohest et al. [270]; Lombardi et al. [182]; Ma et al. [373]; Macdiarmid and Whybrow [166]; Machida and Yoshida [662]; Mangnus et al. [378]; Marsden et al. [663]; Martinelli and Cavalli [664]; Mastronardi et al. [154]; Mawois et al. [665]; Maye et al. [298]; McInnes [666]; Meier and Oehen [667]; Meneguzzo et al. [109]; Menozzi and Finardi [668]; Mohapatra et al. [669]; Moragues-Faus and Sonnino [344]; Munesue and Masui [102]; Muth et al. [103]; Nemes et al. [670]; Neves et al. [671]; Nikmaram and Rosentrater [672]; Noy et al. [673]; O’Brien and Nisbett [384]; Omotayo et al. [326]; Osman and Nelson [674]; Palumbo et al. [675]; Pan et al. [91]; Pihlajamäki et al. [676]; Prost [275]; Pulker et al. [677]; Quest et al. [385]; Raheem et al. [678]; Ramankutty et al. [679]; Recanati et al. [366]; Reuter [304]; Reynolds et al. [680]; Ridoutt et al. [681]; Rohmer et al. [682]; Rose and Lourival [683]; Rose et al. [684]; Rotz et al. [685]; Royo-Bordonada et al. [686]; Ruiz-Almeida and Rivera-Ferre [283]; Saint-Eve et al. [338]; Sambell et al. [687]; Santo and Moragues-Faus [383]; Schanes and Stagl [688]; Schier et al. [689]; Schreiber et al. [690]; Sharpe and Barling [299]; Shilomboleni et al. [691]; Si and Scott [692]; Silva and Sanjuán [693]; Sipple and Schanz [694]; Smetana et al. [695]; Smetana et al. [696]; Smith [265]; Smith et al. [697]; Sodano [698]; Sokolow et al. [140]; Sonnino et al. [345]; Sowerwine et al. [404]; Spring [174]; Stead [369]; Steiner et al. [19]; Subramaniam and Masron [699]; Swagemakers et al. [700]; Takiya et al. [701]; Tisenkopfs et al. [300]; Tlusty et al. [702]; Vaccari et al. [87]; Valencia et al. [703]; van Bers et al. [704]; van Hal et al. [73]; van Hal et al. [705]; van Oel et al. [79]; Van Zanten et al. [72]; Veldhuis et al. [107]; Verneau et al. [706]; Vieira et al. [707]; Villoria [82]; Virah-Sawmy et al. [708]; Visser et al. [709]; Vittersø et al. [150]; Voinea et al. [710]; Waage et al. [711]; Warne et al. [712]; Warshawsky [713]; Warshawsky and Vos [714]; Weidner et al. [715]; Wetherill et al. [716]; Yuan et al. [69]; Zhang et al. [108]
2018	Ahmed et al. [717]; Ameso et al. [718]; Ball et al. [719]; Barnhill et al. [720]; Beacham [392]; Bertrand et al. [721]; Blay-Palmer et al. [376]; Blazquez et al. [722]; Brekken et al. [723]; Brinkley [724]; Bureau et al. [725]; Butrico and Kaplan [726]; Calancie et al. [379]; Campling and Havice [727]; Castrica et al. [728]; Cerrada-Serra et al. [729]; Chabin et al. [730]; Chaudhary et al. [374]; Chen et al. [731]; Chowdhury et al. [732]; Clapp [733]; Clapp and Isakson [734]; Coleman et al. [251]; Collier et al. [735]; Conijn et al. [64]; Conrad et al. [736]; Corrado and Sala [737]; Dame [738]; Dantas and Silva [739]; Davis et al. [740]; Delaney et al. [741]; Dermody et al. [742]; Derqui et al. [743]; Díaz and Reigada [744]; Donovan [399]; Drewnowski [745]; Drimie et al. [285]; Dumont et al. [746]; Eakin et al. [747]; Eckstein and Young [748]; El Bilali [749]; El Bilali et al. [123]; Elmes [240]; Fang et al. [750]; Figueroa-Helland et al. [751]; Fink et al. [752]; Finlayson [753]; Flores and Villalobos [754]; Forssell and Lankoski [755]; Freudenberg et al. [756]; Fridman and Kissinger [757]; Furman and Papavasiliou [758]; Gaddis and Coplen [259]; Gaechter and Porter [268]; Gallardo-López et al. [759]; Galli et al. [217]; Garcia-Sempere et al. [760]; Gilbert et al. [761]; Gisslevik et al. [762]; Glennie and Alkon [267]; Goggins [763]; Goralnik et al. [764]; Gragg et al. [110]; Grant et al. [765]; Grivins et al. [766]; Hanserud et al. [767]; Hashem et al. [768]; Haylock and Connelly [380]; Hebinck and Oostindie [769]; Hebinck et al. [219]; Hendry et al. [63]; Henriksson et al. [770]; Hernández et al. [771]; Heron et al. [772]; Herrera-Reyes et al. [773]; Heuschkel et al. [774]; Hoolohan et al. [775]; Huambachano [776]; Hubeau et al. [777]; Ilieva and Hernandez [778]; Infante-Amate et al. [779]; Ingenbleek and Zhao [780]; Jacobi and Llanque [284]; Jacobi et al. [781]; James et al. [782]; Jayashankar et al. [783]; Jedelhauser and Binder [784]; Jellil et al. [785]; Karlsson et al. [786]; Kennedy et al. [787]; Kumbamu [788]; Kuokkanen et al. [789]; Lamalice et al. [790]; Lang and Mason [355]; Larimore [791]; Laso et al. [114]; Laso et al. [792]; Lawlis et al. [793]; Le Noë et al. [794]; Levkoe et al. [795]; Liberatore et al. [796]; Limuwa et al. [797]; Lindgren et al. [798]; Lusk and McCluskey [337]; Mabhaudhi et al. [187]; Mantino and Forcina [799]; Maughan [800]; Mehr et al. [801]; Mesquita and Bursztym [170]; Mittal et al. [802]; Mohareb et al. [171]; Moragues-Faus and Marceau [803]; Morawicki and Gonzalez [804]; Moschitz [346]; Moschitzet al. [805]; Muchenje et al. [806]; Mulligan et al. [807]; Mylan [204]; Narayan and Jayakumar [808]; Nogeire-McRae et al. [809]; Olsson [810]; Osendarp et al. [811]; Paciarotti and Torregiani [812]; Peeters [315]; Pellegrini and Fernández [120]; Pereira et al. [813]; Pérez Neira et al. [134]; Pérez-Consuegra et al. [814]; Pitt et al. [815]; Plumecocq et al. [816]; Porter [269]; Pothukuchi [817]; Pothukuchi et al. [818]; Pulker et al. [819]; Rehkamp and Canning [210]; Ritchie et al. [820]; Ritchie et al. [167]; Ritchie et al. [168]; Ritchie et al. [821]; Rivera-Ferre [822]; Rizvi et al. [84]; Robinson [823]; Roblin et al. [350]; Rohmer et al. [824]; Röös et al. [194]; Ruben et al. [825]; Rut and Davies [826]; Rutten et al. [827]; Salavisa and de Fatima Ferreiro [828]; Sarkar et al. [234]; Schmidt and Matthies [829]; Schmutz et al. [151]; Scott [830]; Sebbane and Costa [831]; Seconda et al. [832]; Shepon et al. [833]; Slateret al. [834]; Solberg et al. [188]; Stein et al. [218]; Sušnik [835]; Taylor [836]; Teneva et al. [837]; Thompson [838]; Timpanaro et al. [149]; Torquebiau et al. [172]; Tribaldos et al. [839]; Turhan et al. [327]; Vaarst et al. [840]; Valley et al. [841]; van Dooren et al. [842]; van Kernebeek et al. [843]; Vandermeer et al. [844]; Vasa et al. [845]; Verger et al. [846]; Vroegindewey and Hodbod [847]; Wang et al. [111]; Waterlander et al. [848]; Wegeneret al. [849]; Withers et al. [850]; Yoon and Song [288]; Zheng et al. [851]; Zimmerman et al. [852]; Zurek et al. [250]; Zvaigzne et al. [853]
2017	Adeyeye [854]; Agness et al. [359]; Ahmed et al. [855]; Alexander et al. [856]; Alexander et al. [857]; Alrøe et al. [858]; Arbit et al. [305]; Arcari [859]; Atkey et al. [360]; Audet et al. [237]; Barlett [860]; Bellamy and Ioris [861]; Bellante [862]; Benis and Ferrao [863]; Berardy and Chester [112]; Beretta et al. [105]; Berno [864]; Bogadottir and Olsen [865]; Boyer and Ramaswami [866]; Brimblecombe et al. [867]; Brzezina et al. [868]; Cardoso et al. [869]; Carlsson et al. [870]; Castellanos et al. [871]; Charles [872]; Clapp [873]; Conrad et al. [874]; Coppola and Ianuario [875]; De Marco et al. [381]; Deller et al. [876]; Derqui and Fernandez [877]; Downs et al. [349]; Dubbeling et al. [347]; Dudley et al. [179]; Eakin et al. [878]; Eakin et al. [879]; Ernsteins et al. [880]; Fagioli et al. [881]; Farmery et al. [882]; Fassio [883]; Fiisabiilillah and Maulana [884]; Finley et al. [885]; Forssell and Lankoski [886]; Francis et al. [887]; Galli et al. [888]; Gardner and Hauser [889]; Giuggioli et al. [890]; Gonzalez de Molina and Guzman [891]; Granvik et al. [892]; Hadjikakou [893]; Hallström et al. [894]; Hebinck and Page [409]; Heidelberger et al. [895]; Hessle et al. [896]; Horton et al. [897]; Hubeau et al. [898]; Islam [899]; Knickel et al. [900]; Koniordos et al. [901]; Kotir et al. [902]; Kuhmonen [903]; Kuokkanen et al. [65]; Laforge et al. [904]; Landert et al. [905]; Leventon and Laudan [906]; Ligrani and Niewolny [907]; Lozano-Cabedo and Gomez-Benito [908]; Lutz et al. [909]; McInnes et al. [910]; Messina et al. [911]; Meybeck and Gitz [912]; Meynard et al. [913]; Migliorini and Wezel [190]; Miles et al. [914]; Milestad et al. [915]; Moragues-Faus and Marsden [916]; Moragues-Faus et al. [917]; Murakami et al. [918]; Niewolny et al. [919]; Opitz et al. [920]; Palacios-Argueello et al. [921]; Paloviita [922]; Pensado-Leglise and Smolski [923]; Peters et al. [924]; Polbitsyn [925]; Popkin [926]; Poulsen [927]; Reynolds [928]; Reynolds [929]; Ridoutt et al. [930]; Röös et al. [931]; Röös et al. [74]; Ryan-Fogarty et al. [932]; Sanye-Mengual et al. [933]; Seconda et al. [934]; Seekell et al. [935]; Shankar et al. [936]; Shilomboleni [937]; Simon et al. [402]; Singh-Peterson and Lawrence [938]; Smith et al. [939]; Therond et al. [940]; Tlusty and Thorsen [941]; van Genuchten et al. [942]; van Vliet et al. [943]; VanWinkle [333]; Vastola et al. [199]; Vdovenko and Sokol [944]; Vinnari et al. [945]; Vivero-Pol [242]; Vivero-Pol [243]; von Oelreich and Milestad [946]; Voronin et al. [947]
2016	Allen and Prosperi [948]; Alrøe and Noe [949]; Alrøe et al. [950]; Alsaffar [951]; Balázs et al. [393]; Baritaux et al. [952]; Batat et al. [953]; Bauermeister [954]; Bennetzen et al. [955]; Berti and Mulligan [956]; Bertmann and Yaroch [957]; Blay-Palmer et al. [958]; Brooks [959]; Brunori et al. [960]; Brzezina et al. [961]; Bui et al. [962]; Campbell [963]; Carlisle [964]; Castellanos et al. [965]; Chiffoleau et al. [276]; Cottee et al. [966]; Creech [967]; Crivits et al. [351]; Davies and Bowman [968]; Davis et al. [126]; DeHaan et al. [969]; DeLonge et al. [970]; Dixon and Richards [971]; Doernberg et al. [972]; Dou et al. [973]; Dyen and Sirieix [974]; Eades et al. [975]; Epting [976]; Fabinyi and Liu [977]; Fan and Brzeska [978]; Ferguson [979]; Fontoura et al. [980]; Friant [245]; Fry et al. [981]; Galli et al. [982]; Gasperi et al. [983]; Gillon [984]; Gjerris et al. [985]; Goggins and Rau [986]; Goldstein et al. [211]; Gonçalves et al. [987]; Grigsby and Hellwinckel [988]; Gustafson et al. [989]; Harris et al. [990]; Hatt et al. [991]; Heard and Miller [992]; Himanen et al. [993]; Hisschemoller [994]; Hobart [995]; Hoolohan et al. [996]; Horton et al. [997]; Hunter et al. [998]; Hvitsand [394]; James [999]; Jennings et al. [328]; Johnson et al. [1000]; Jurgilevich et al. [232]; Kline et al. [1001]; Konar et al. [141]; Kristensen et al. [222]; Kuokkanen et al. [1002]; Larsson et al. [1003]; Lassaletta et al. [92]; Li et al. [169]; Lo and Delwiche [368]; Longo [1004]; Lopes [1005]; Lucifero [1006]; Lukito et al. [1007]; MacDonald et al. [124]; Manganiello [1008]; Martin et al. [1009]; McCarthy et al. [1010]; McClintock et al. [1011]; Meek and Tarlau [277]; Mench et al. [1012]; Metson et al. [160]; Meybeck and Gitz [1013]; Moledor et al. [1014]; Monasterolo et al. [1015]; Mourad [1016]; Mundler and Laughrea [223]; Napawan and Burke [1017]; Nau et al. [1018]; Neset et al. [1019]; Nhu et al. [1020]; O’Kane [1021]; O’Keefe et al. [1022]; Omoto and Scott [1023]; Opitz et al. [1024]; Paloviita et al. [1025]; Penvern et al. [1026]; Pérez Neira [256]; Pérez Neira et al. [144]; Peters et al. [1027]; Pitt and Jones [1028]; Ponisio and Ehrlich [1029]; Robinson et al. [145]; Rover et al. [408]; Rundgren [244]; Salgado-Sanchez and Castro-Ramirez [1030]; Sali et al. [1031]; Sjörs et al. [1032]; Smith et al. [1033]; Sonesson et al. [1034]; Sonnino [1035]; Sonnino et al. [1036]; Springmann et al. [1037]; Średnicka-Tober et al. [1038]; Stevens et al. [1039]; Svenfelt and Zapico [1040]; Thyberg and Tonjes [1041]; Uwizeye et al. [1042]; Valenzuela [1043]; Van den Broeck and Maertens [1044]; Vanham et al. [206]; Viola and Marinelli [1045]; Viola et al. [233]; Voinea et al. [1046]; Warshawsky [1047]; Weiler et al. [306]; Weiler et al. [290]; Wilson [1048]; Wright and Ostergard [118]; Wu et al. [1049]; Yamashita and Robinson [1050]; Zimdahl and Holtzer [1051]; Zirham and Palomba [1052]
2015	Aguilar et al. [180]; Alajmi and Somerset [1053]; Allaert [224]; Allen [1054]; Allievi et al. [293]; Barbeau et al. [1055]; Belletti [1056]; Black et al. [1057]; Borska and Kadlecova [1058]; Brinsden and Lang [1059]; Burke and Spiller [1060]; Cadieux and Slocum [1061]; Carolan [1062]; Carroll and Fahy [1063]; Casolani [1064]; Chaudhury and Albinsson [1065]; Christensen and O’Sullivan [1066]; Cisneros-Saguilan et al. [1067]; Clapp [1068]; Clausen et al. [1069]; Cleveland et al. [146]; CoDyreet al. [1070]; Cohen and Ilieva [1071]; Cohen and Reynolds [1072]; Cook et al. [1073]; Cordell and White [1074]; Dentoni and Bitzer [1075]; Escajedo San-Epifanio [291]; Farber [1076]; Farmery et al. [135]; Forssell and Lankoski [1077]; Frankova [1078]; Garnier et al. [158]; Göbel et al. [1079]; Godfray [121]; Godfray and Robinson [1080]; Grace [329]; Grivins and Tisenkopfs [1081]; Hallström et al. [1082]; Hawkes and Popkin [36]; Hayashi and Takemi [362]; Holben and Morrone [1083]; Horst and Gaolach [1084]; Hu et al. [1085]; Inman [225]; Jackson et al. [142]; James and Friel [1086]; Jenkins et al. [1087]; Johnson [1088]; Jones et al. [278]; Jonkman et al. [1089]; Kaput et al. [1090]; Kopainsky et al. [1091]; Krivasonoka and Silina [1092]; Krone [1093]; Kuhnlein [1094]; Langen et al. [1095]; Lawrence et al. [361]; Luckett et al. [186]; Marshall [1096]; Melece and Krievina [1097]; Metson and Bennett [1098]; Migliore et al. [1099]; Monroe et al. [1100]; Moragues-Faus and Morgan [1101]; Morgan [1102]; Motloch and Truex [1103]; Mukuve and Fenner [117]; Mukuve and Fenner [116]; Ng’endo et al. [185]; Nuutila [1104]; O’Kane and Wijaya [248]; Perryman and Schramski [130]; Pirog et al. [1105]; Pothukuchi and Molnar [1106]; Rémésy et al. [1107]; Rudel et al. [125]; Saracin and Vasile [1108]; Schader et al. [1109]; Shannon et al. [289]; Shimokawa [1110]; Springer et al. [1111]; Stanciu et al. [1112]; Straujuma [1113]; Sumner and Wever [1114]; Tanaka et al. [1115]; Tendall et al. [1116]; Tieman and Hassan [1117]; Tjärnemo and Södahl [1118]; Tsuchiya et al. [1119]; Vaarst et al. [1120]; van Grinsven et al. [260]; Vittersø and Tangeland [1121]; Wilkinson [295]; Winters et al. [1122]; Xu et al. [136]; Zampi [1123]; Zhao et al. [1124]
2014	Ackerman et al. [1125]; Al-Ansari et al. [113]; Becker et al. [1126]; Bernstein [279]; Blecha and Leitner [1127]; Caputo et al. [1128]; Challies et al. [1129]; Chico et al. [156]; Cleveland et al. [1130]; Climent-López et al. [1131]; Cordell and Neset [1132]; Cordell and White [1133]; Davis et al. [1134]; Desmarais and Wittman [280]; Duram and Mead [246]; Fanzo [1135]; Fielke and Bardsley [1136]; Francis et al. [1137]; Garnett [11]; Godfray [1138]; Godfray and Garnett [55]; Goonan et al. [1139]; Halloran et al. [1140]; Hoekstra [1141]; Isakson [1142]; Johnston et al. [1143]; Kjrgard et al. [1144]; Kuyper and Struik [122]; Lamppa et al. [1145]; Li et al. [406]; Marschke and Wilkings [1146]; Mintz and McManus [400]; Monardo and Palazzo [1147]; Moresi [1148]; Odegard and van der Voet [1149]; Olson et al. [1150]; Otiman et al. [352]; Peano et al. [1151]; Pearson et al. [1152]; Pereira et al. [1153]; Pinstrup-Andersen [252]; Ridoutt et al. [1154]; Sabaté and Soret [205]; Senanayake and Mukherji [1155]; Sneyd [1156]; Sonnino et al. [358]; Specht et al. [1157]; Thorsøe et al. [1158]; van Mil et al. [1159]; Voisin et al. [1160]; Walter et al. [1161]; Wegerif [1162]; Werkheiser and Noll [1163]; Werner et al. [137]; West et al. [1164]; Westhoek et al. [159]; Yach [1165]; Zanecchia [1166]
2013	Aoki and Akai [138]; Balazs [395]; Cassidy et al. [1167]; Cembalo et al. [1168]; Cordell et al. [1169]; Crivits and Paredis [1170]; Dicks et al. [1171]; Fernandez et al. [1172]; Fraser [1173]; Galt et al. [1174]; Garnett [1175]; Gerlach and Loring [1176]; Gliessman [202]; Glowacki-Dudka et al. [1177]; Gonzalez de Molina [1178]; Hamilton [1179]; Herrero et al. [54]; Hinrichs [1180]; Infante Amate and Gonzalez de Molina [257]; Ingram et al. [1181]; Johns et al. [1182]; Kissinger [131]; Kneafsey et al. [1183]; Lutz and Schachinger [281]; MacRae et al. [1184]; McLachlan and Landman [1185]; Miewald et al. [330]; Pereira [1186]; Rosin [1187]; Shey and Belis [1188]; Sodano and Hingley [1189]; Sonnino [1190]; Spiegelaar and Tsuji [1191]; Spiegelaar et al. [1192]; Vinceti et al. [1193]; White and Stirling [1194]
2012	Anthony [1195]; Blanc and Kledal [1196]; Brunori et al. [1197]; Elser [1198]; Erb et al. [1199]; Gliessman [201]; Guzmán et al. [405]; Kimmons et al. [356]; Kissinger [147]; Kremen et al. [1200]; Lang and Barling [1201]; Longo and Clark [241]; MacMillan and Dowler [1202]; MacRa et al. [1203]; Melece [1204]; Metson et al. [1205]; Morrison et al. [1206]; Mundler and Rumpus [1207]; O’Kane [255]; Post and Mikkola [1208]; Ridoutt et al. [157]; Seufert et al. [49]; Tai [1209]; Warbach et al. [1210]; Yu et al. [173]; Zhou et al. [1211]; Zhou et al. [1212]
2011	Aiking [1213]; Barlett [1214]; Bean and Sharp [1215]; Bloom and Hinrichs [1216]; Bush and Duijf [1217]; Challies and Murray [212]; DeLind [1218]; Dunne et al. [1219]; Ervin et al. [1220]; Garnett [53]; Kelly and Schulschenk [226]; Kniuksta and Caplikas [227]; Kremer [1221]; McCune et al. [1222]; McMichael [1223]; Medina [1224]; Melece [1225]; Metcalf and Widener [1226]; Phalan et al. [1227]; Reeve et al. [197]; Rojas [1228]; Sonnino and McWilliam [1229]; Tansey [1230]; Thibert and Badami [1231]; Virtanen et al. [139]; White et al. [1232]
2010	Adams and Salois [1233]; Allen [1234]; Boyer [282]; Click and Ridberg [1235]; Condon et al. [1236]; Cuellar and Webber [1237]; Gillespie [1238]; Godfray et al. [48]; Godfray et al. [1239]; Howard and Allen [1240]; Kirschenmann [1241]; Mikkola et al. [1242]; Milestad et al. [1243]; Milestad et al. [249]; Moore [1244]; Morgan [1245]; Morgan and Sonnino [1246]; Reilly and Willenbockel [1247]; Woeste et al. [1248]; Young [1249]
2009	Alkon and Norgaard [1250]; Alpas and Kiymaz [1251]; Chiu and Lin [296]; Coley et al. [148]; Ferreira et al. [1252]; Fiscus [1253]; Fresco [1254]; Huang et al. [1255]; Komisar et al. [1256]; Kurita et al. [1257]; Li and Hu [1258]; Loring and Gerlach [1259]; Mikkola [1260]; Peters et al. [1261]; Porcher [396]; Schönhart et al. [1262]; Stroink and Nelson [1263]; Thompson and Scoones [1264]; Trauger [1265]; Wallgren and Hojer [1266]; Wezel and Soldat [1267]; Wezel et al. [57]; Yang and Hanson [1268]
2008	Allen [1269]; Anderson [286]; Brown and Getz [410]; Ferreira [302]; Fonte [1270]; Friel et al. [1271]; Fritz and Schiefer [1272]; Getz et al. [192]; Guthman [1273]; Islam [1274]; Lowe et al. [1275]; Mariola [1276]; Wahlqvist [1277]; Yach [238]
2007	Åsebø et al. [1278]; Friedmann [1279]; Harmon and Gerald [1280]; Ilbery and Maye [1281]; McKay [1282]; Parr et al. [1283]; Rojas et al. [1284]; Schmid et al. [1285]; Wahlqvist and Lee [331]
2006	Allen and Guthman [1286]; Fraser [1287]; Harmon and Maretzki [1288]; Jaffe and Gertler [310]; Kriflik [1289]; Morris and Kirwan [1290]; Slocum [311]; Wright [1291]
2005	Barton et al. [1292]; Buttel [1293]; DuPuis and Goodman [51]; Johnston and Baker [1294]; Kriflik and Yeatman [1295]; Lozier et al. [1296]; Natarajan et al. [1297]; Ostrom and Jackson [1298]; Pingali et al. [1299]; Pretty et al. [254]; Sundkvist et al. [1300]; Wilkins [387]; Winne [1301]; Wivstad et al. [93]
2004	Caraher and Coveney [239]; Clancy [1302]; Kratochvil et al. [1303]; Pothukuchi [1304]; Stonehouse [1305]; Vallianatos et al. [1306]
2003	Allen et al. [56]; Francis et al. [200]; Hassanein [1307]; Heller and Keoleian [1308]; Hollander [1309]; Krupnik et al. [191]; Pelletier et al. [1310]; Peters et al. [1311]; Pimentel and Pimentel [52]
2002	Barling et al. [382]; Hendrickson and Heffernan [1312]; Stuthman [1313]; Wilkins et al. [1314]
2001	Francis and Carter [1315]; Shanklin and Hackes [1316]
2000	Berge [1317]; Combs [1318]; Coveney [258]; DeLind [364]; Hinrichs [50]; Kloppenburg et al. [1319]; La Trobe and Acott [1320]
1999	Lyson and Green [1321]; Sumberg [1322]; Welch and Graham [1323]
1998	Hill [1324]
1997	Kendall [303]; Kolodinsky and Pelch [397]
1995	Hollander [1325]
1994	Bender [1326]; Dahlberg [47]

); these included 1186 journal articles, 100 proceedings papers, and 3 book chapters.

The selected documents underwent both bibliometric and topical analyses. The topical analysis of the selected documents was informed by the SAFA (Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems) approach of FAO [45,46]. The SAFA framework has four sustainability dimensions, 21 themes, 58 sub-themes, and 118 indicators. Interestingly, the SAFA framework considers good governance as one of the four dimensions of sustainability for agri-food systems. Themes consist of a set of core sustainability issues. They can be implemented at any level, national, supply chain, or operational unit and thus, provide a common understanding of what “sustainability” means in a practical context. Each sustainability theme is detailed into sub-themes or individual sustainability issues, with associated explicit sustainability objectives (

Table 2. SAFA (Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems): dimensions, themes, and sub-themes.

Sustainability Dimension	Themes	Sub-Themes
Environmental Integrity (E)	E1 Atmosphere	E1.1 Greenhouse gases; E1.2 Air quality
	E2 Water	E2.1 Water withdrawal; E2.2 Water quality
	E3 Land	E3.1 Soil quality; E 3.2 Land degradation
	E4 Biodiversity	E4.1 Ecosystem diversity; E4.2 Species diversity; E4.3 Genetic diversity
	E5 Materials and energy	E5.1 Material use; E 5.2 Energy use; E5.3 Waste reduction and disposal
	E6 Animal welfare	E6.1 Animal health; E6.2 Freedom from stress
Economic Resilience (C)	C1 Investment	C1.1 Internal investment; C1.2 Community investment; C1.3 Long ranging investment; C1.4 Profitability
	C2 Vulnerability	C2.1 Stability of production; C2.2 Stability of supply; C2.3 Stability of market; C2.4 Liquidity; C2.5 Risk management
	C3 Product quality and information	C3.1 Food safety; C3.2 Food quality; C3.3 Product Information
	C4 Local economy	C4.1 Value creation; C4.2 Local procurement
Social Well-Being (S)	S1 Decent livelihood	S1.1 Quality of life; S1.2 Capacity development; S1.3 Fair access to means of production
	S2 Fair trading practices	S2.1 Responsible buyers; S2.2 Rights of suppliers
	S3 Labor rights	S3.1 Employment relations; S3.2 Forced labor; S3.3 Child labor; S3.4 Freedom of association and right to bargaining
	S4 Equity	S4.1 Non-discrimination; S4.2 Gender equality; S4.3 Support to vulnerable people
	S5 Human safety and health	S 5.1 Workplace safety and health provisions; S 5.2 Public health
	S6 Cultural diversity	S6.1 Indigenous knowledge; S6.2 Food sovereignty
Good Governance (G)	G1 Corporate ethics	G1.1 Mission statement; G1.2 Due diligence
	G2 Accountability	G2.1 Holistic audits; G2.2 Responsibility; G2.3 Transparency
	G3 Participation	G3.1 Stakeholder dialogue; G3.2 Grievance procedures; G3.3 Conflict resolution
	G4 Rule of Law	G4.1 Legitimacy; G4.2 Remedy, restoration, and prevention; G4.3 Civic responsibility; G4.4 Resource appropriation
	G5 Holistic Management	G5.1 Sustainability management plan; G5.2 Full-cost accounting

Source: Prepared by the authors based on data from FAO [45,46].

).

Political aspects are included in the governance dimension (cf. policy and governance), while cultural aspects are addressed within the social dimension (cf. society and culture). A search string was developed for each sustainability dimension to perform searches within the selected documents (

Table 3. Strings used in searches per sustainability dimension within the selected documents.

Dimension	Search String
Environment	air OR biodiversity OR “climate change” OR ecological OR ecology OR ecosystem OR energy OR environment OR footprint OR “greenhouse gas” OR land OR material OR pollution OR soil OR waste OR water
Economy	business OR competitive OR corporate OR economic OR economy OR employment OR “food access” OR income OR investment OR livelihood OR market OR poverty OR price OR profit OR “risk management” OR “value chain” OR “value addition” OR “value creation”
Society and culture	civic OR cultural OR culture OR conflict OR discrimination OR equality OR equity OR ethic OR fairness OR “food safety” OR food sovereignty OR freedom OR gender OR health OR “human safety” OR “indigenous knowledge” OR justice OR labor OR “life quality” OR lifestyle OR livelihood OR power OR “quality of life” OR resilience OR resilient OR responsibility OR right OR social OR societal OR society OR “traditional knowledge” OR vulnerability
Policy and governance	agenda OR accountability OR coalition OR collaboration OR cooperation OR governance OR inclusion OR inclusive OR legitimacy OR “multi-actor” OR “multi-stakeholder” OR participation OR participatory OR plan OR policy OR politic OR roadmap OR strategy OR transparency OR transparent OR vision

). For some differentiated terms we chose the broader non-specific term for full coverage (e.g., air instead of air quality).

This systematic review has some limitations. Firstly, as in any systematic review, the search process affects the results. In particular, the use of the WoS database means that only quality scholarly, peer-reviewed literature was considered (e.g., articles published in journals as well as book chapters and conference proceedings not indexed in WoS and grey literature—such as reports—were not considered in the present paper). Secondly, the search terms’ selection also affects the review results, and this systematic review is no exception in this regard. This applies to the terms used for the initial search, as well as for performing searches within the selected documents. However, different synonyms were utilized to address the different facets of the sustainability dimensions. Moreover, given the high number of documents analyzed, there was a propensity to synthesize and simplify, implying that some sustainability issues were overlooked or not adequately addressed.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Bibliographical Analysis

The analysis of the selected documents suggests that research on sustainable food systems is relatively young; the first document that explicitly refers to a “food system” and relates it to sustainability was from Dahlberg [47] and dated back to 1994. The review shows an increasing interest in sustainable food systems with an exponential increase in the number of publications. Indeed, the annual output of documents in the considered period (1994–2020) ranged from nil in 1996 to a maximum of 272 in 2020 (Figure 1). Meanwhile, the average annual output in the period 1994–2020 was about 47 documents. However, the average yearly output has changed markedly from one decade to another; it was just about two in 1995–2000, increased to about 11 in 2001–2010, then increased more than tenfold in the following decade, 2011–2020, to reach about 116 documents per year.

The bibliometrics of the selected documents (e.g., journals, research areas, authors, affiliation institutions, countries, funding agencies, citations) are presented in

Table 4. Bibliographical metrics: top twenty journals and research areas.

Journals (a *)	Research Areas (b *)
Sustainability (144)	Environmental sciences—Ecology (455)
Agriculture and Human Values (44)	Agriculture (320)
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development (37)	Science technology (310)
Journal of Cleaner Production (36)	Food science technology (146)
Journal of Rural Studies (29)	Nutrition dietetics (119)
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems (23)	Business economics (105)
Food Policy (23)	Geography (103)
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems (22)	Engineering (82)
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (20)	Sociology (67)
Food Security (18)	Public environmental occupational health (64)
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (17)	Public administration (63)
Environmental Research Letters (15)	History philosophy of science (57)
Public Health Nutrition 15	Development studies (32)
British Food Journal (14)	Social sciences (30)
Global Food Security—Agriculture, Policy, Economics, and Environment (14)	Urban studies (30)
Ecology and Society (13)	Meteorology–Atmospheric sciences (23)
Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics (13)	Government law (18)
Agriculture Basel (12)	Education-Educational research (15)
Global Environmental Change–Human and Policy Dimensions (12)	Computer science (14)
Agronomy for Sustainable Development; Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition; PLOS One; Science of the Total Environment (11)	Anthropology (13)

* Figures in brackets refer to the number of documents by (a) journal and (b) research area.

,

Table 5. Bibliographical metrics: top twenty authors, countries, and affiliations.

Authors (a *)	Affiliation Countries/Territories (b *)	Affiliation Organizations (c *)
Sonnino R. (12)	USA (407)	Wageningen University Research (62)
Fanzo J. (9)	England (171)	University of California System (50)
De Boer I. J. M. (8)	Italy (135)	INRAE (43)
El Bilali H. (8)	Canada (117)	CGIAR (33)
Moragues-Faus A. (8)	Netherlands (104)	University of Oxford (33)
Rist S. (8)	Australia (102)	Cardiff University (24)
Béné C. (7)	France (81)	Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation - CSIRO (24)
Cordell D. (7)	Germany (68)	University of North Carolina (23)
Eakin H. (7)	Sweden (62)	Michigan State University (20)
Garnett T. (7)	Spain (50)	Stockholm University (20)
Godfray H. C. J. (7)	Switzerland (50)	Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (20)
Ahmed S. (6)	China (40)	University of Minnesota System (20)
Allen P. (6)	Scotland (35)	University of Minnesota Twin Cities (20)
Brunori G. (6)	Belgium (34)	ETH Zurich (18)
Galli F. (6)	Finland (34)	Agroparistech (17)
Ingram J. (6)	Austria (31)	Cornell University (17)
Klerkx L. (6)	Wales (30)	University of California Davis (17)
Lang T. (6)	Norway (26)	University of London (17)
Milestad R. (6)	South Africa (26)	City University London (16)
Pereira L. M., Peters C. J., Roos E., Smith P. (6)	Brazil, Denmark (25)	University of Bodenkultur Wien (BOKU); University of Edinburgh (16)

* Figures in brackets refer to the number of documents by (a) author, (b) country/territory, or (c) organization.

,

Table 6. Bibliographical metrics: top twenty funding agencies.

Funding Agencies	Number of Funded Studies
European Commission	74
UK Research Innovation—UKRI	47
National Science Foundation—NSF (USA)	39
Natural Environment Research Council—NERC (UK)	22
CGIAR	21
National Natural Science Foundation of China—NSFC	18
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada—SSHRC	17
United States Department of Agriculture—USDA	16
Economic Social Research Council—ESRC (UK)	15
French National Research Agency—ANR	10
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada—NSERC	10
Swiss National Science Foundation—SNSF	10
Australian Research Council	9
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council—BBSRC (UK)	9
Engineering Physical Sciences Research Council—EPSRC (UK)	9
Federal Ministry of Education Research—BMBF (Germany)	9
European Research Council—ERC	8
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Japan—MEXT	8
Spanish Government	8
Swedish Research Council FORMAS, Wellcome Trust	8

and

Table 7. Citation report: top ten publications.

Document Title	Publication Year	Reference	Total Citations	Average per Year
Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People	2010	Godfray et al. [48]	4853	404.42
Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture	2012	Seufert et al. [49]	782	78.2
Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market	2000	Hinrichs [50]	677	30.77
Should we go home to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism	2005	DuPuis and Goodman [51]	567	33.35
Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment	2003	Pimentel and Pimentel [52]	465	24.47
Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)?	2011	Garnett [53]	449	40.82
Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems	2013	Herrero et al. [54]	439	48.78
Food security and sustainable intensification	2014	Godfray and Garnett [55]	384	48
Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: the tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California	2003	Allen et al. [56]	383	20.16
Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review	2009	Wezel et al. [57]	353	27.15

.

As for sources, the analysis of the results shows that Sustainability (144 documents, so 11.17% of the selected ones) is by far the most important outlet for publications on food systems sustainability. Other relevant publication outlets include Agriculture and Human Values (44 documents), Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development (37 documents), and Journal of Cleaner Production (36 documents). Nonetheless, the scholarly literature on SFS was published in 468 other journals and sources (e.g., books, conference proceedings). Most of the selected articles can be linked to the research areas of environmental sciences—ecology (455 documents, so 35.3% of the selected documents), agriculture (320 documents, 24.8%), and science technology (310 documents, 24.05%). Further relevant research areas include food science technology (146 documents), nutrition dietetics (119 documents), business economics (105 documents), and geography (103 documents). Nevertheless, the selected documents can be categorized in 65 additional research areas (e.g., engineering, sociology, public administration, development studies, social sciences, urban studies, meteorology—atmospheric sciences, computer science, anthropology, plant sciences, chemistry), which shows that the field is multidisciplinary. Notwithstanding, it can be argued that while environmental and natural sciences are sufficiently addressed, social sciences and, especially, economics and political sciences are generally overlooked (Table 4).

The bibliometric analysis shows that the most prominent, productive authors are Roberta Sonnino (12 documents); Jessica Fanzo (9 documents); and Imke J. M. De Boer, Hamid El Bilali, Ana Moragues-Faus, and Stephan Rist (8 documents each). However, the 1289 selected documents have been authored by 4079 scholars (so on average more than 3 scholars per document), which shows the dynamism and intensity of collaboration within studies on food systems sustainability. The analysis of countries and affiliations suggests that the study field is north-biased and dominated by researchers and organizations from developed countries. Indeed, the most important affiliation countries are in North America (USA, Canada), Europe (England, Italy, Netherlands, France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Scotland, Belgium, Finland, Austria, Wales, Norway, Denmark, and Portugal), and Oceania (Australia, New Zealand). Surprisingly, about a third of all selected documents (407 documents, so 31.57%) were authored by scholars based in the USA. Interestingly, the top 20 list features some emerging economies, viz. China and Brazil. The only developing countries present in the top 25 list are Kenya and Colombia, which may be due, inter alia, to the presence of some centers of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in both countries. It comes as no surprise that the most prominent organizations in the research field are based in the Global North, namely Wageningen University Research (The Netherlands), University of California System (USA), and National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and the Environment-INRAE (France) (Table 5).

One reason for the north bias might be the funding of the research field. Indeed, the most important funding agencies are based in developed countries and regions (Table 6), namely the European Commission, UK Research Innovation—UKRI, National Science Foundation—NSF (USA), and Natural Environment Research Council—NERC (UK). However, it should be pointed out that the list of the top 20 funding agencies features some international organizations (CGIAR), funding organizations from emerging countries (National Natural Science Foundation of China—NSFC), as well as some philanthropic organizations (Wellcome Trust).

As per the number of citations, the most influential and widely used documents in the research field are Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People [48], Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture [49], and Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market [50] (Table 7).

3.2. Topical Analysis

3.2.1. Environment

Out of the 1289 selected documents, 984 (so 76.3%) addressed issues relating to the environmental sustainability of the agri-food systems. These ranged from the use of resources in agriculture and the food sector, to relations between the agri-food systems and biodiversity or climate change, as well as the pressure of agri-food systems on ecosystems (cf. footprints).

Many scholars highlighted that the operation of food systems should take place within planetary boundaries and safe operating space for humanity [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. For instance, Galli et al. [58] argued that “The food system is increasingly acknowledged as the single largest reason for humans’ transgression of key planetary limits and it is gaining centrality in our societal run-up towards a sustainable future”. While some articles addressed the whole food system or agricultural sector, some focused on single sub-sectors, such as animal husbandry [62,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74], which is widely blamed for environmental and ecosystem disturbance.

The way resources are used is central in determining the environmental sustainability of agri-food systems. These resources include water [75,76,77,78,79]; land [80,81,82,83,84]; nutrients e.g., phosphorus [59,85,86,87,88], nitrogen [60,89,90,91,92], and potassium [93]; and energy [75,76,94,95,96]. In this regard, particular attention has also been paid to circularity/circular economy [72,97,98,99,100] and managing food losses and waste [101,102,103,104,105]. Some articles have taken a broader perspective and addressed different types of nexuses, such as water—energy—food [75,76,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113], water—energy—food—climate [114], water—energy—biodiversity [115], water—land—energy [116], or water—land—energy—nutrients [117]. One way to cope with the increasing scarcity, and even depletion, of resources is to increase their use efficiency [73,87,118,119,120]. However, such increases can lead to agricultural intensification, the concept of which is a matter of huge debate among supporters and opponents [121,122]. Indeed, while some scholars highlight the benefits of “sustainable intensification” [55,121,123,124,125], others are rather critical and point out that “intensification” and “sustainability” are rather two contradictory words, such that intensification can hardly be qualified as sustainable [121,122,123]. In this regard, Godfray [121] pointed out that “there are worries that it might be used to justify intensification per se and the accelerated adoption of particular forms of high-input and hi-tech agriculture” (p. 199).

Agri-food systems have different footprints on ecosystems (both natural and agro-ecosystems) and natural resources, such as ecological footprints [58,126,127,128,129,130,131], nitrogen footprints [60,126], carbon footprints [126,127,128,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139], water footprints [108,126,127,128,140,141,142], and energy footprints [96,134]. The concept of a carbon footprint is linked to that of “food miles” [143,144,145,146,147,148] and is among the reasons put forward to highlight the benefits of localized, short food supply chains (SFSC) [128,148,149,150,151] and alternative food networks (AFN) [146,152,153,154,155]. Similarly, the concept of a water footprint is related to that of “virtual water” [142,156,157], and trade of agri-food products (thus also water embedded in them) [156] can help cope with water scarcity in some countries, especially those with an arid climate. As for water resource management, besides excessive water withdrawal and use [157,158,159], issues relating to water quality [158,159,160] are also addressed.

Climate change is a recurrent topic in the literature on agri-food system (un)sustainability [161,162,163,164,165,166,167]. The literature highlights the dual relationship between agri-food systems and climate change. In fact, agri-food systems are, on the one hand, among the main contributors to climate change through greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [102,137,166,168,169] and, on the other hand, highly affected by climate change [162,164,166]. The existing literature has dealt with both climate change mitigation [162,166,168,170,171] and adaptation [164,172,173]. In this regard, some scholars have highlighted the benefits of climate-smart agriculture [172,174], which has been put forward to address concurrently three challenges: climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, and global food security [172].

Biodiversity is another central theme in the literature on agri-food system sustainability. Indeed, agri-food systems contribute to biodiversity loss [175,176,177,178,179] through, among other factors, changes in land use (cf. deforestation) and habitat destruction, land degradation, and pollution caused by intensive agriculture that leads to some phenomena such as eutrophication in water bodies. Campbell [175] argued that “The food system is the biggest user and polluter of land and water, the biggest driver of habitat and biodiversity loss, and on track to be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases” (p. 261). Agri-food systems have affected not only genetic diversity (of plant and animal species alike) [180,181] but also landscape diversity [182]. Moreover, there is also an ongoing reduction of the number of plants consumed with the erosion of dietary diversity [183,184,185,186] and local knowledge associated with these neglected orphan crops [187,188,189].

Some articles have addressed environmentally friendly agricultural systems such as organic farming [190,191,192,193,194] and agro-ecology [190,195,196], biodynamic agriculture [197,198], and conservation agriculture [199]. Migliorini and Wezel [190] suggested that “Both agroecology and organic agriculture offer promising contributions for the future development of sustainable agricultural production and food systems, especially if their principles and practices converge to a transformative approach and that impedes the conventionalisation of agro-food systems”. Indeed, agro-ecology is considered by many scholars not only as a system to make agriculture more sustainable but also to bring about the transition to sustainable agri-food systems [200,201,202]. Gliessman [201] stated that “Agroecology focuses on the entire food system, from the seed to the table”. The benefits of agro-ecology are not only environmental/ecological but also social and economic, especially for small-scale farmers [202].

Many scholars have called for adopting more sustainable, plant-based diets [60,203,204,205,206] to reduce the environmental impacts of the current food systems. These include examples such as the Mediterranean diet [206,207], vegetarian diets [60,208,209,210], and the vegan diet [211]. However, Forber et al. [86] warned that the adoption of plant-based diets (e.g., vegan, flexitarian) might add to the wastewater phosphorus burden in the UK. This example shows that the adoption of plant-based diets is not a panacea and can have some environmental trade-offs.

3.2.2. Economy

Out of the selected documents, 748 (so 58%) addressed economic issues in agriculture and food systems. The agriculture and food economy is vital in the livelihoods of millions of people, both in rural and urban areas [212,213,214]. Indeed, the agri-food sector is a lever for reducing poverty and vulnerability. This makes the case for increasing sustainable, green investments in the agri-food sector [164,215,216]. Nevertheless, food poverty is still widespread even in developed countries [217,218,219]. Therefore, referring to the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic in poor areas, Bounie et al. [220] stated that “There needs to be a move beyond rehabilitating and increasing agricultural production to addressing the whole food system with a view to link humanitarian assistance and longer-term support to sustainable livelihoods and resilience” (p. 367). Moreover, rural livelihoods need to adapt and become more resilient to the changing climate [213].

Apart from their environmental benefits (cf. fewer food miles, lower carbon footprint), another reason for pushing forward local, short food supply chains is their contribution to regional, local economies [149,221,222,223,224,225,226,227]. This happens, inter alia, through the creation of jobs [223]. For instance, Derunova et al. [228] saw the inclusive development of the agri-food system as a driver for sustained growth in the Russian regional economy. However, Jongerden et al. [229] pointed out that “Even though local policymakers, the international community, and the international organisations emphasise the potential of agriculture for food production, job creation, and income generation, they also tend to consider the current food system problematic because of an alleged low productivity”, especially in developing countries. Referring to SFSCs in Quebec (Canada), Mundler and Laughrea [223] highlighted that “The most positive aspects of these systems are job creation, skills development for farmers, job satisfaction, and the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices” (p. 218). This clearly shows that the economic impacts of SFSCs in particular, and agriculture and food systems in general, are context-specific and vary among countries/territories. Other articles have dealt with the relations between agri-food systems and innovative economic models, such as circular economies [35,100,222,230,231,232], green economies [233], and bio-economies [234].

Markets are a central theme in addressing the economic sustainability of agri-food systems [235,236,237]. While some scholars have highlighted the positive roles of markets [236,238], especially concerning food access, others have seen markets as one of the main drivers of the unsustainability of agriculture and food systems [236,239,240] through processes such as commodification [241]. These different opinions about markets and their role in agri-food systems can be due, among other reasons, to the framing of food as “commons” or as “commodity” [242,243,244]. Some inappropriate market and trade practices have led to the promotion of alternative supply chains such as Fairtrade [245,246]. Moreover, it is essential to highlight that markets are not alike and range from “corporate” markets to more inclusive, democratic ones, such as farmers’ markets [50,150,247,248,249] and community markets [151]. However, Hinrichs [50] argues that “In providing an alternative market, farmers’ markets create a context for closer social ties between farmers and consumers, but remain fundamentally rooted in commodity relations” (p. 295).

The economic sustainability of the agri-food system is also addressed in relation to food accessibility and affordability [240,250,251], which are related to the level of prices of agri-food products as well as their volatility [251,252]. What is alarming is that the increase in food prices might induce many people to substitute nutritious, fresh food with carbohydrates and sugar, which has detrimental health impacts (cf. obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancer) [174], with a consequent increase in public health costs. In this respect, Drewnowski et al. [253] suggested that “Food systems may need to be restructured to ensure that the global food supply provides adequate calories and nutrients at an affordable cost” (p. 1). Elmes [240] argues that “Unequal access to nutritious foods in the United States is attributable in part to an industrial food system that is designed to produce short-term profits for industrial food producers, processors, and distributors that extract surplus labor value through market concentration and opportunistic behavior at the expense of the long-term benefits for consumers, food workers (including farmers), and ecosystems” (p. 1045).

While the concept of price is central in the literature on the economics of agri-food systems, more and more scholars have drawn attention to that of cost and, especially, “full cost” [252,254] or “real cost” [255]. This allows bridging the gap between economic reasoning and other dimensions of sustainability, such as the environment and health. For instance, the concept of “full cost” has been used in relation to “food miles” [254]. Other authors refer to “energy cost” [256,257], “environmental cost” [144,258,259,260], and “nitrogen cost” [89]. Coveney [258] underlined that “Many have argued that environmental costs of food production are hardly ever factored into the profitability equation” (p. 97), which highlights the need for internalizing these costs to get an accurate idea about the real, full cost of food.

3.2.3. Society and Culture

Social and cultural issues are generally overlooked in the literature on agri-food system (un)sustainability. In fact, 737 (so 57.2%) addressed issues relating to society and culture in agri-food systems out of the selected documents.

Many articles referred to “food justice” [261,262,263,264,265,266,267] or “food dignity” [268,269]. Food justice is an evolving concept that puts social justice at the center of the debate on achieving sustainable food systems [264]. The concept of justice is similar to fairness, which is associated with many alternative food networks and supply chains such as Fairtrade [245,246]. Other scholars addressed the concepts of “food democracy” [261,262,268,270,271,272,273,274,275,276] or “food sovereignty” [261,277,278,279,280,281,282,283], which are strongly linked to the way the food system is governed and managed and the inclusion of the different concerned stakeholders in the process of decision making about the future of agri-food systems, especially at the local level. Food democracy is a process that puts people at the center of and gives them a voice in and control over the transition towards more sustainable agri-food systems [270,271]. Baldy and Kruse [271] recognized eight central elements in the concept of food democracy: transparent ideas deliberation processes, mutual knowledge exchange, credibility and legitimacy of knowledge claims, shared language, raising awareness, experience with and expectations of efficacy, role model function of municipalities, and justification and motivation of the normative orientation. These justice-oriented concepts are strongly related to the concept of power; indeed, many scholars consider power imbalances one of the most critical issues in the current agri-food systems [262,264,284,285]. Democratizing the food system is, at the same time, an outcome of and a prerequisite for the empowerment of the different actors involved [274]. Despite the increasing interests in these social aspects of the agri-food systems, referring to urban food strategies (UFSs) in Europe, Smaal et al. [261] found that “UFSs make little explicit reference to social justice and justice-oriented food concepts, such as food security, food justice, food democracy and food sovereignty”.

The scholarly literature has also addressed human rights in relation to agri-food systems [286,287,288,289]. For instance, Anderson [286] argued that “Food security, health, decent livelihoods, gender equity, safe working conditions, cultural identity and participation in cultural life are basic human rights that can be achieved at least in part through the food system” (p. 593) and coined the new concept of “rights-based food systems”. Human rights also relate to labor as they imply decent working conditions and jobs [290]. In particular, the “right to food” is a prominent topic in the literature dealing with eradicating hunger and the achievement of food security [284,287,291,292].

The scholarship on the sustainability of agri-food systems has also addressed several ethical issues [293,294,295,296,297,298,299,300], such as animal welfare [55,294,301,302] or those relating to the use of biotechnologies [303]. Allievi et al. [293] went even farther and made a strong case for considering “ethics” as the fourth dimension of sustainability. Other scholars referred to moral issues [299,304,305,306]. In this respect, Reuter [304] argued that greater attention to the moral dimension of food systems will contribute to more successful food security and agricultural development programs. Likewise, Bui et al. [297] identified inclusive governance and “systemic ethics” (i.e., relating to a systemic understanding of sustainability, including social justice) as key features for initiatives contributing to sustainability transitions in agri-food systems.

The literature has also dealt with gender issues from different perspectives [174,307,308,309,310]. While women play an essential role in the agri-food system, they generally have less power and representation in decision-making processes [307]. Most articles focused on women, but some addressed specific gender categories such as lesbians [308]. Some scholars went a step farther and analyzed social classes and race issues in agri-food systems [267,311]. Nevertheless, the studies on racism and racial issues have mainly come from the US.

Some scholars have called for paying more attention to the relations between agri-food systems, especially diets, and health [253,312,313,314,315]. This is done, among other ways, by operationalizing the holistic and systemic concept of “One Health” [24,316,317], which relates the health of humans with that of animals and ecosystems/environment. Such a call, particularly timely and relevant in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected different components of the agri-food system, such as agricultural production, food distribution, and food consumption and dietary patterns [20,24,98,318,319,320,321], carries implications in terms of food and nutrition security [24,320]. In this regard, referring to nutrition research in the US, Fleischhacker et al. [320] argued that “The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has further laid bare these strains, including food insecurity, major diet-related comorbidities for poor outcomes from COVID-19 such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and insufficient surveillance on and coordination of our food system” (p 721). The focus on health is also related to food safety, which is fairly addressed in the analyzed literature [322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330], especially concerning foodborne diseases [329].

Different components of culture have been addressed in the literature on food system sustainability. These include food culture [266,331,332] and culinary culture [333]. In this respect, many scholars have referred to indigenous, traditional knowledge [188,334,335] and highlighted that its erosion is jeopardizing the sustainability of local diets, as well as the traditions associated with them. Wahlqvist and Lee [331] warned that “There has been a recent awakening of interest and concern about the lack of documentation of traditional and indigenous food cultures which are important not only for their own sake, but for the legacy of food knowledge which they can confer on future generations, provided they are not lost” (p. 2).

Social and cultural issues also play a central role in the transition towards more sustainable diets and food systems. In fact, there have been many attempts to suggest alternative foods, which are more sustainable, but their success also depends on their social and cultural acceptance by consumers [336,337,338]. Many articles have addressed consumers’ attitudes towards alternative products—mainly as alternative sources of proteins—such as pulses [338,339] and insects [336].

3.2.4. Policy and Governance

Policy and governance are largely overlooked in the literature on agri-food system (un)sustainability. As a matter of fact, only 424 (so 32.9%) addressed political and governance issues out of the selected documents.

Articles dealing with policies in the agri-food systems either analyzed the current state of play or focused on policies needed to foster transitions towards sustainable agri-food systems at different levels e.g., regional (European Union), national (e.g., Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, USA), or local (e.g., city, city-region, etc.). In this context, more and more studies have dealt with urban food systems and their transition towards sustainability [261,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347]. However, the empirical findings of Doernberg et al. [341] from German cities showed that “urban food policy activities are still very fragmented and often based on individual initiatives”, as well as the lack of “integrated urban food policies and their implementation through urban food strategies”. They also found that the capacities of municipal actors for policy implementation remain limited due to missing financial and staffing resources. Most studies on urban food systems have focused on developed and industrialized countries. Meanwhile, different types of policy documents have been analyzed e.g., strategies [261,341,348,349,350,351,352], action plans [349], agendas [353], guidelines [354,355,356], standards [357], etc. The analyzed policies and policy documents deal, inter alia, with food and nutrition security [235,349,350,358,359], sustainable and healthy diets [354,360,361], non-communicable diseases [354,362], biodiversity [349,363], organic farming [364], etc. Examples include the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) [365,366], The European Food and Nutrition Action Plan 2015–2020 [367], the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact [342], Nepal’s Multisectoral Nutrition Plan (MSNP) 2013–2017 [349], Healthy food and beverage policy of the City of Hamilton (Ontario, Canada) [360], the Good Food Purchasing Policy (GFPP) in Los Angeles (USA) [368], the Local Food Strategy of Ghent (Belgium) [351]. Particular attention has also been paid to the linkages between sustainability transitions in agri-food systems and the achievement of the SDGs, especially SDG 2 “Zero Hunger” [35,36,369,370,371,372,373,374]. Other articles have addressed synergies and/or trade-offs between policies and their instruments [312,375,376].

Papers addressing governance focused mainly on the local urban level. In fact, many multi-stakeholder mechanisms (that involved actors from the public, private, and civil society realms), aiming at improving the governance of local and city-region food systems, have been analyzed in the literature. These multi-stakeholder groups include food (policy) councils [274,368,377,378,379,380,381,382], networks [281,344,383], and partnerships [384,385]. The innovative governance mechanisms allow increasing the participation and inclusion of stakeholders in managing food systems, thus democratizing it [261,262,268,270,271,272,273,274,275,276]. In this regard, Béné et al. [386] suggested that “To operationalize the great food system transformation and ensure its sustainability, five areas of research and action require more attention: economic and structural costs; political economy; diversity of cultural norms; equity and social justice; and governance and decision support tools”. The active involvement of consumers in the governance of the food system means “moving from consumer to food citizen” [387]. Wilkins [387] put that “The term food citizenship is defined as the practice of engaging in food-related behaviors that support, rather than threaten, the development of a democratic, socially and economically just, and environmentally sustainable food system” (p. 269). The evolution of the framing of food issues and the adoption of more systemic approaches in dealing with food led to the emergence of innovative governance models such as “inclusive governance” [297] and “reflexive governance” [298,358]. The new governance arrangements also give rise to an increase in the control of local communities over their own food systems and the emergence of concepts such as food sovereignty [261,277,278,279,280,281,282,283]. Different models of agriculture and food systems emphasize the role of the community and the importance of its active participation, such as community-supported agriculture [263,388,389,390,391,392,393,394,395,396,397], community gardens [218,390,398,399,400], community seed banks [196], community kitchens [390], and community-based fisheries [401]. This focus on participation led to the emergence of different participatory approaches that do not only cover the whole food chain (from production to consumption), but also associated activities such as participatory research [290,402,403,404,405], participatory breeding [307,406], and participatory certification [407,408]. Besides participation and inclusiveness, accountability [409,410] and transparency [301,411,412] are central in the new governance arrangements for sustainable agri-food systems.

4. Conclusions

A growing body of evidence shows that the world today is not on track towards achieving SDG 2 i.e., ending hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition in all its forms by 2030. Getting on track towards achieving SDG 2 will necessitate a move away from silo solutions towards holistic, integrated solutions that address the global food security and nutrition challenges. Agri-food systems are failing to ensure nutritious and affordable foods, and this is made more difficult in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, if food systems are transformed with improved sustainability and strengthened resilience, they can put humanity on track towards achieving SDG 2. This makes the case for paying more attention to agri-food systems and their (un)sustainability. In this context, the present paper is, to the best of our knowledge, the first that provides a comprehensive overview of the literature dealing with agri-food systems and their relation to sustainability in its environmental, economic, social, and political dimensions. It also provides an analysis of the bibliometrics of the study field.

The review shows an increasing interest in sustainable food systems with an exponential increase in the number of publications over the last decade. However, the study field is north-biased and dominated by researchers and organizations from developed, industrialized countries (e.g., USA, UK, Italy, Canada, The Netherlands, and Australia). Moreover, the analysis suggests that while environmental and natural sciences are sufficiently addressed, social sciences, economics, and political sciences are generally overlooked. However, sustainability dimensions are not mutually exclusive, and most studies addressed more than one dimension.

Accordingly, the paper highlights the need to pay more attention to social issues (e.g., equity, social justice, human rights, ethics, and power) and politics and governance in studies on agri-food systems sustainability. It also suggests the need to address the trade-offs between the different sustainability dimensions. This implies a closer integration between different disciplines, such as natural, social, economic, and political sciences, to better reflect the complexity of contemporary food systems and respond to demands for change from different societal groups and stakeholders. This, in turn, means a shift from linear approaches towards a more interlinked, nested analysis of agri-food system drivers, processes and dynamics, and outcomes. While the focus on understanding the flaws and shortcomings of the current agri-food systems is still needed, the scholarship must devote more attention to identifying instruments and tools to bring about the needed transition towards sustainable agri-food systems. Future systematic reviews on sustainability in agri-food systems could also benefit from a graphical analysis allowing for a network visualization map of the linkages among sustainability dimensions and themes.

Similarly, while the term “food system” is nowadays widely used (as shown by the high number of documents included in this review), the components of and activities within food systems are often analyzed separately, which highlights the need for more integration of “systems science” in studies on agri-food systems sustainability. It is also crucial to strengthen the science–policy interface for improved food system governance. In this context, the paper makes the case for adopting a holistic, 4-P (planet, people, profit, policy) approach in food system studies. Such an approach should combine retrospective studies that focused on causes, sources of pressure, and drivers; present-day studies that have addressed sustainability assessments in different realms of the food system; and prospective studies that envision the future of food systems and advise measures and strategies to foster transitions towards more sustainable agri-food systems. In this respect, the following research areas seem particularly relevant: conceptualization, design, and operationalization of SFS at different levels (global, regional, national, local); methods, approaches, and models for the assessment of agri-food sustainability; sustainability transitions in AFS; new generation of food policies and governance models for SFS; food systems in the context of the SDGs; effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the functioning, performance, and resilience of AFS.

Achieving agri-food system sustainability is one of the pressing challenges of this century. Addressing this challenge requires drawing upon knowledge and expertise from diverse disciplines and intellectual traditions to document the challenges and critical threats to food system sustainability and define an appropriate agenda for research, policy, and action. In fact, it is crucial to develop a common understanding, framing, and vision on aspects of the agri-food system that are threatened and the system features, attributes, and functions that must be relinquished, sustained, or restored. The present paper contributes to this undertaking by synthesizing scholarly literature on agri-food system (un)sustainability. Furthermore, the insights provided by the paper inform not only policy on sustainable food systems but also the upcoming UN Food Systems Summit to bring about the necessary transition to sustainable food systems and unlock the potential of food systems in the post-COVID-19 pandemic recovery and the achievement of the SDGs.