How Do Alternative Food Initiatives Contribute to Food System Transformation?
- Bekki
- 4 days ago
- 3 min read
I’m delighted to share a new article that Kimberly Nicholas and I have just published in Agriculture and Human Values in which we propose an assessment framework for alternative food initiatives that incorporates not only what their outcomes are, but also how these outcomes contribute to food system transformation towards sustainability.
Why this paper?
Alternative food initiatives (AFIs)—from community-supported agriculture to food cooperatives—are often described as important drivers of sustainability transformations. Yet, despite a growing body of empirical research, we still lack robust ways of assessing how these initiatives actually contribute to broader food system change.
Much of the existing literature focuses either on what initiatives produce (their outcomes) or on the processes through which initiative attempt to deliver these outcomes. What is often missing is (1) processes through which initiatives' outcomes lead to food system transformation, and (2) a way of systematically connecting these outcomes and processes.
Our paper addresses this gap by introducing a framework that brings outcomes and transformation processes into direct conversation with one another.
The core idea of the framework
The framework helps to assess:
What initiatives produce (their outcomes), and
How these outcomes contribute to wider food system transformations (i.e., transformation processes).
Rather than treating outcomes and processes as separate dimensions of assessment, we argue that it is their intersection that really matters.
Looking at these intersections allows us to:
Reveal the multiple processes through which a single outcome can contribute to transformation
Clarify how initiatives that may look similar on the surface can pursue different—and often complementary—transformation pathways
Make visible the micro-political dynamics and often implicit assumptions about how change is expected to happen
In other words, the framework helps to surface not only what initiatives do, but also the beliefs, strategies, and power dynamics that shape how they understand and enact sustainability transformations.

How might this framework be useful?
We see the framework as a practical tool for both research and practice.
For researchers
Researchers may use the framework to:
Study how outcomes and transformation processes interact, rather than analysing them in isolation
Compare initiatives in ways that are sensitive to context, rather than relying on one-size-fits-all indicators
Surface micropolitical dynamics and implicit theories of change that often remain unspoken
Strengthen assessment, evaluation, and theory-building around sustainability transformations
For practitioners and change agents
For those working within alternative food initiatives, the framework can support:
Reflection on whether everyday practices align with longer-term transformation goals
Clearer communication of contributions to change (for example, to funders or policymakers)
Learning and strategic thinking within and across initiatives
Recognition of complementarities between different initiatives, rather than assuming there is a single “best” model to scale up
Why this matters
If we want food system transformations to be both effective and just, we need better ways of understanding how change unfolds in practice—and how different initiatives contribute in different ways. Our hope is that this framework can support more coherent reflection, assessment, and communication, while also opening space for critical discussion about power, politics, and plural pathways to sustainability.
If you’re working on food systems, sustainability transformations, or alternative economies, I’d love to hear whether—and how—this framework might be useful in your own work.
Reference
Laycock Pedersen, R., & Nicholas, K. A. (2026). A framework for assessing the contribution of alternative food initiatives to food system transformations towards sustainability. Agriculture and Human Values, 43(1), 17.


Comments