Implementing Ireland’s Food Vision 2030 within the Fresh Produce Sector: An Investigation of the Barriers and Enablers Using Systems Thinking Principles

Abstract

The Irish Food Vision 2030 (IFV 2030) seeks to restructure Ireland’s agricultural food system to deliver long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability in keeping with its commitment to the European Green Deal and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. This study investigates the effectiveness of the IFV 2030 in delivering on this commitment across the fresh produce supply chain in Ireland using a combination of data collected from stakeholders through a survey and systems thinking principles. A review of the literature and Foucault’s genealogical methods guided the development of the survey. Systems thinking principles were used to review the IFV 2030 and assess its capacity to deliver large-scale change for a sustainable Irish food system. Barriers to change were identified, including historical patterns of behaviour between EU and Irish policymakers that have repeatedly hindered progress towards large-scale change events. The results demonstrate that successful, long-term change will depend on the involvement and incentives of stakeholders within the supply chain. Continuous stakeholder engagement is required through a bottom-up organisational and supply chain approach to deliver long-term sustainability within the fresh produce sector. Using a systems thinking lens brings benefits through transdisciplinary collaboration and fosters the multiple stakeholder perspectives needed to deliver new ideas and solutions.

1. Introduction

The food supply chain is not only significant to global food security, but it is also important to the anthropological functioning of human existence [1,2,3]. Hence, the way food is produced needs to be planned for posterity. Critical actors and organisations within the food system supply chains contribute to the “well-being of society” by ensuring societal stability through food security, employment, trade, and social development [4]. Meeting food demands for a growing global population while achieving sustainability goals presents a complex and significant challenge for food producers globally [4,5].

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 38% of global land is under agricultural management [6]. Current agricultural practices are having significant impacts on biodiversity, global water security, and degradation of land and ecosystem services [7,8,9]. Pravalie [8] demonstrated 17 land degradation pathways occurring globally and that current agricultural practices are economically unsustainable as a result. As such, the current food system poses a threat to long-term food, trade, and environmental security, with potentially irreversible consequences [4,5,10,11,12,13,14]. Pravalie [8] predicts an increase of 60–70% in current annual food production will be needed to feed an estimated 9 billion people by 2050. The enormity of this challenge will be compounded by estimates that annual yield will fall by 50% in certain parts of the world in the next 20 years [9,15].

Europe, along with other nations, are actively taking steps to encourage food producers to adopt more sustainable practices [4,5]. Europe has introduced a roadmap through the European Green Deal (EGD) Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy that is specifically aimed at restructuring the food system [5]. The F2F strategy centres on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and requires all member states to demonstrate economic, social, and environmental sustainability through responsible food supply chains.

In 2021, Ireland introduced the Irish Food Vision 2030 (IFV 2030) to implement the goals of the EGD-F2F strategy [16,17,18]. This requires Agri-organisations to restructure their current business strategies to achieve sustainability goals for long-term viability across the entire supply chain.

However, a report for the European Union by Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEAs) concluded that the implementation strategy is failing to deliver the goals of the F2F [19]. SAPEAs determined that the EGD proposals for implementation across all member states are full of complex information and conflicting messages. SAPEA suggested that green targets are missed due to the limited workable policy of current implementation strategies [19].

As an EU member state, Ireland is obligated to implement the directions of the EGD F2F. In Ireland, national large-scale change (LSC) is coordinated and driven by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine (DAFM). The DAFM affirms, through the IFV 2030, the importance of achieving all the 17 SDGs for a secure and sustainable food system. Historically, Ireland has struggled to reach its green targets [20,21,22]. This is further supported by a recent review conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Climate Change Advisory Council (CCAC) that demonstrated that Ireland is not on track to reach its National Climate Action Plan targets set by the EGD F2F and IFV 2030 [20,22,23]. Moreover, SAPEA analysis of the EGD and a report by Clark [21] showed that Ireland is ranked 8th among the fourteen EU nations in the “Sustainable Progression Index”.

The horticultural fresh produce industry in Ireland is the fourth largest sector after dairy, beef, and pigs [24]. The fresh produce sector in this study refers to the commercial horticulture fresh produce supply chain from primary production (farm) to the customer (retailer) for the production of fresh food for public consumption. The current study considers six sub-sectors related to societal dietary health [25]. The sub-sectors include field crops, protected crops, soft fruit, top fruit, potatoes, and mushrooms; this study excludes produce for amenity horticulture.

A report by Teagasc [26] (Irelands semi-state owned agricultural and food development authority) described the importance of the fresh produce sector, considering the role it plays on societal health, since healthy food contributes to mental and physical well-being, while unhealthy diets low in consumption of fruit and vegetables are one of the major risks related to non-communicable disease [21]. Clark [21] also demonstrated how Ireland’s food production ranks poorly against the UN’s SDGs. Sustainable transformation within the fresh produce supply chain was selected as the focus of this paper owing to the critical role fresh produce plays in societal well-being.

1.1. Theoretical Framework

Research by Redman [27] demonstrated that for a system to incorporate sustainable change, it needs to include the resilience capacity to maintain its function in spite of unforeseen shocks or pressures. It is imperative that sustainable transformation is both robust and flexible to avoid failure or regression [13,27,28,29].

The literature unanimously identifies resource depletion, biodiversity loss, land use issues and GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions as major global concerns that can only be addressed by Large Scale Change (LSC) [5,13,30,31,32]. Hornsey et al. [33] characterised this as a “wicked system” or “wicked problem” [34]. Arnold [16] and Thomas [18] corroborate this, depicting land, biodiversity and GHG emissions as significant issues or “wicked problems” associated with an unsustainable food system.

Wicked systems associated with food systems not only affect humankind but have a major consequence on the natural world’s food supply, habitats, and ecosystem functionality [7,35]. The committee and strategists behind the development of IFV 2030 describe the food system as a multi-dimensional and complex agri-system associated with issues that could be considered wicked problems [16,17,18]. Hornsey et al. [33] warned of the complexity of intervening in a wicked system, where small changes in a system can lead to larger and unintended changes, or trade-offs, between connected systems, known as a “ripple effect”.

1.1.1. Foucault’s Genealogical

Foucault’s concept is a qualitative research method that delves into human and social science behaviour and identifies patterns of historical and current political discourse [36]. The methodology outcome uses text and content for a clear understanding of patterns involved in social and political transformational relationships for LSC events. Foucault’s genealogy, as a predicate on behavioural change, can be useful in establishing important baseline information on the knowledge and skills already functioning within the IFV 2030. Foucault’s genealogical method analyses historical policy behaviours and interactions, allowing critique of the present based on three criteria:

• Formation—based on a set of rules that forms objects, concepts, and theoretical options.
• Transformation—with emphasis on the “point in time” at which changes in policy or the implementation of new policy were decided.
• Correlation—Isolating the discourse in the context of social, political, and economic relationships to find a repeated path of dependence, also known as Foucault’s order of discourse [36].

Table 1. Analysis of Historical Large Scale Change (LSC) and the Ireland Food Vision (IFV) 2030 using Foucault’s genealogical method.

Large Scale Change: Historical Patterns Vs IFV 2030
Year	Ireland’s Inception into the EU	Year	Implementing The IFV 2030
1972	Ireland casts a vote and strongly agrees to join the EU (EEC) among the other member states, however, there is variable multi-governance issues and poor understanding of structure [37].	2019	The EGD F2F is introduced to all member states; Shows variable multi-governance issues and poor understanding [19].
1973	Ireland joins the EU. Use of directives and policy introduction accompanied by heavy funding [37].	2019	IFV 2030 use of directives and policy introduction accompanied by heavy funding [17].
1973	Economic, behavioural and cultural change required to support new directives and policies [37].	2019	Economic, behavioural and cultural change required to support new directives and policies [19]
1973	Agriculture to comply with EU standards, CAP reformation [37].	2020	Agriculture to comply with Europe and CAP and standards [38,39].
1977	EU timelines not met and hindered by limited capacity to review structures and processes [37].	2021	EPA shows the Irish GHG emissions increased by 4.7 per cent in 2021 compared to 2020 [40].
1977	Reactive and adhoc period in relation to policy implementation [37].	2022	Reactive and ad-hoc implementation for transformative policy for sustainability [19,39,41].
1977	Systematic approach introduced, but with little collaborative communication and cohesion to achieve a smoother transition to EU structures and policies [37].	2022	An attempt at a systematic approach with lack of cohesion between departments. Ireland seems to be lacking a systems approach to transition the EGD through the IFV 2030 for a sustainable food system [38,39].
1992	Limited workable policy through implementation strategies/MacSharry CAP reform [37].	2023	Limited Workable policy through current implementation strategies [20,22].
1999	Ireland struggles to implement EU directives.	2023	Ireland struggles to implement EU directives.

uses Foucault’s genealogical method to identify and compare progressions of the IFV 2030 for LSC against historical LSC events within Irish agriculture. Table 1 was generated by reviewing the scientific literature to outline patterns of similarity through Foucauldian critical discourse analysis that inhibit the successful implementation of the IFV 2030.

Table 1 demonstrates how EU policy and directives are received and disseminated by Ireland through a certain type of political discourse. Foucault’s genealogical method discerned any outcomes of the IFV 2030 based on historical EU and Irish convergence for LSC using discourse analysis. As seen in Table 1, academic literature and government papers indicate that historical Irish behavioural change, through LSC methods (EU Directives and policy), follows a reactive and wasteful chain of events [37]. Two reports on separate LSC events demonstrated that historical and current political discourse hinder implementation strategies.

A review of papers analysing historical interactions between EU policy direction and Irish enactment into national policy shows similar transitioning trajectories. Jackson et al. [19] concluded that the EGD-F2F political discourse for implementation strategy is restricting information on workable policy. Table 1 shows a repeated path of dependence between historical EU and Irish political channels and the modern political processes for the implementation of the IFV 2030. The research papers viewing both historical and current implementation described the same issues for the successful execution of LSC. Repeated political neglect towards knowledge and understanding of co-creation are causing barriers and delays in the integration of EU F2F initiatives for a sustainable food system through the IFV 2030.

Overall, the literature implies that the current implementation of the F2F and IFV 2030 roadmap (

Table 2. A summary of the IFV 2030 main priorities for GHG emissions, Biodiversity, and Land Use [42].

	IFV 2030 GOALS
Goals	Activity	Mission#Goal
GHG	There are seven goals in this mission that aim to deliver a climate-neutral food system by 2050, with verifiable progress achieved by 2030 (i.e., emissions reductions, carbon sequestration, improvements in air quality, restoration, and enhancement of biodiversity).	Mission 1—Goal 1
Biodiversity	It is envisaged that by 2030, 10% of farmed area will be prioritised for biodiversity, spread across all farms throughout the country [42]	Mission 1—Goal 1; 2; 3; 4
Land Use	The IFV 2030 missions directs primary producers towards care and use of multiple ecosystem services (i.e., supporting biodiversity and land use) [42]	Mission 1—Goal 1; 2; 3; 4

) for sustainability is being disseminated through regulatory bodies. The research so far showed the targets of the EGD F2F and IFV 2030 are not delivering on goals to protect degrading ecosystems and biodiversity, enhance land use practices, and reduce GHG emissions.

Table 2 shows critical environmental issues (land use, biodiversity loss, and GHG emissions) that are incorporated into the IFV 2030 for LSC in the fresh produce supply chain, each important to the IFV 2030 objectives for a sustainable food system and the stakeholders’ sustainability goals.

1.1.2. The 3 Pillars of Sustainability Framework

Figure 1 shows the three pillars of sustainability for the fresh food sector, which worked as a concept map for this study, using insights from the literature review and the IFV 2030 missions (Table 2). Each pillar shows a suite of activities pertaining to the stakeholder’s transdisciplinary inputs and responsibilities for a sustainable food system model. Figure 1 uses a multidisciplinary approach, using the empirical evidence gathered from the literature review as a sustainability framework. The social and economic pillars represent well-being, growth, and prosperity [43]. The environmental pillar represents the critical elements of the ecosystem’s well-being [43].

The principles of Figure 1 are fundamental in achieving a resilient food system, one with a harmonised system of social, environmental, and economic activity [12]. The red text box, central to Figure 1, illustrates how sustainability is currently being directed by the IFV 2030 (Table 2) regulatory bodies within the fresh food supply chain. It identifies how the implementation of the EGD-F2F and IFV 2030 roadmap is being disseminated for a sustainable socio-economy, with climate neutrality at the core [5].

1.1.3. Organisational Harmonisation

According to Ademi et al. [44] and Fortis et al. [45], standards and frameworks are explorations for learning among organisations that guide the activities and performance of their objectives. In terms of the commercial horticultural fresh produce supply chain stakeholders and respective organisations, Ademi et al. [44] demonstrated that knowledge transfer overcomes the barriers to implementing sustainable measures through LSC. Ademi et al. [44] described this as “knowing about one’s own as well as others’ expertise enables team members to retrieve needed knowledge efficiently and effectively from the ‘experts’ within the group”. The complexity and difficulty are in the altering of the core functioning of the stakeholder organisations with the impregnation of sustainability into organisational embedded structures [44,45]. According to Siddh et al. [32] and Ademi et al. [44], the nexus approach is key to achieving sustainable change, warranting accountability and ensuring sustainability initiatives are equal across multiple organisations, as outlined in Figure 1.

1.2. Aims and Objectives

The overall aim of this study was to employ a sustainability assessment by investigating the potential of the EGD F2F and IFV 2030 as a roadmap for the transition to a sustainable fresh produce supply chain in Ireland. Sustainable performance is determined by the behavioural and collaborative engagement of all the supply chain stakeholders [32,46]. The fresh produce sector is no exception to that, and as demonstrated by Siddh et al. [32], to be viably sustainable within the fresh produce sector, multiple organisations must be involved in several partnerships that interact together. This includes the entire supply chain from factor markets, primary production (Farm), storage, distribution, consumption, and waste [12].

This study aims to explore the views of key stakeholders across the fresh produce supply chain towards the implementation of Ireland’s Food Vision 2030. Moreover, this paper looks bilaterally at the Irish fresh produce sector among the commercial supply chains through the analysis of historical and current pathways for LSC. Through a design framework, this study aims to provide actionable recommendations regarding missed environmental and climate targets for a sustainable Irish food system. Systems dynamics was used to define a successful strategy for the implementation of the F2F and IFV 2030.

2. Methodology

2.1. Data Collection

A mixed methods approach was used to collect data from key stakeholders/actors within the fresh produce supply chain. The term stakeholders in this study refers to organisations within the fresh produce supply chain. Insights were sought on stakeholders’ current interconnectedness, knowledge and understanding of sustainability, and engagement in policy implementation for sustainable change within the supply chain. All data related to LSC focused on the EGD F2F and IFV 2030. The data was collected by means of an online survey and analysed using systems thinking methods.

This study reviewed academic literature and government white papers to guide the systems thinking methodology for a design framework. Foucault’s genealogical approach, based on the literature, focused on historical and current EU Directives for policy change knowledge sharing and behaviours and interactions associated with political challenges. This included key policy documents and data relating to the EGD-F2F strategy, Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Ireland’s Climate Action Plans for 2030. The focus is on current practices within the fresh produce supply chains, particularly those relating to environmental sustainability.

Emphasis was placed on current stakeholder engagement, knowledge, and understanding from a bottom-up–top-down structure of policy and LSC strategies as directed by the IFV 2030. The three pillars of sustainability [47] using transdisciplinary collaboration and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were reviewed as part of this study as a model for long-term sustainability for posterity. The iceberg model framework structure was used to present the findings

2.2. Iceberg Model Framework Structure

The framework was based on the principles of systems thinking (the layout structure of the entire article follows the iceberg model (

Table 3. The Iceberg Model Mixed Methods and Design Framework.

Systems	Tools	Diagnostics	Description/Use
React	Literature Reviewed	Event	Observable Behaviour: analyse the literture and white papers.
Anticipate	Foucault’s Methodology/System Archetypes	Patterns	Foucault’s historical analysis Methodology/System Archetypes documenting patterns of Behaviour based on the literature reviewed
Design	Survey	Structures	Identify underlying systemic structures through a survey
Transform	Systems Dynamics and Concept Maps	Mental Model	Potential to transform the system using system dynamics and concept maps: potential for LSC through the 3 pillars of sustainability

demonstrates the mixed methods using a design framework used for this paper).

2.3. Survey

The aim of the survey was to enhance understanding of the current state of play across the sector in relation to the IFV 2030, particularly the level of awareness and knowledge of the policy, existing collaboration and interconnectedness across the supply chain, and the willingness amongst individual stakeholders to engage with and deliver on the IFV 2030 policy objective.

Based on the literature reviewed for this study, the survey was created based on an investigative model for knowledge transfer, policy understanding and willingness for change.

The survey was developed in Qualtrics XM (first release 2005, copyright year 2021, US, available online at https://www.qualtrics.com) and approved by the research ethics committee of Atlantic Technological University, Sligo (FSS202310 and 21 March 2023). The survey was piloted before going live with target participants from 6 May to 10 June 2023. The question grid of the survey can be seen in the Supplementary Materials.

2.3.1. Participants Selection

The participants selection for this study was based on detailing the current functioning and organisational learning of the fresh produce supply chain and were selected based on 3 main stakeholder organisations: government (policy writing and regulation), primary producer (farming), and retailer (buyer). This was to elicit 3 main facets important to systems thinking and true long-term LSC events.

Four main points were examined when considering stakeholder insights into LSC for the Fresh Produce Sector through the IFV2030:

(1)

Participant’s current knowledge of the IFV2030 implementation and interconnectedness using a bottom-up, top-down knowledge base (i.e., level of collaboration between key stakeholders of the fresh produce supply chain).

(2)

Participants’ current involvement is both internally within their sector (i.e., level of collaboration between actors within sector organisations) and holistically within the supply chain management for sustainable change.

(3)

Participants Knowledge and understanding for the implementation of the IFV2030

(4)

Level of buy-in and willingness to be involved in the implementation of the IFV2030

2.3.2. Participant Recruitment

The participants for the survey were recruited via gatekeepers via different media (i.e., email and social media apps). Participant information was provided to inform them about the anonymity of the participant’s participation and the rules for information use.

Participants representing a bottom-up-top-down structure and providing data relating to the three key stakeholders for the fresh produce supply chain captured 25% responses from a senior management level, 44% of responses representing junior to middle management roles, and 31% identifying as either general operatives or an undefined/undisclosed ranking.

2.4. Systems Thinking Methodology

This study used system thinking methodologies to understand the complexity of the food system and associated supply chains. The addition of systems dynamics was guided by insights from the literature reviewed, which informed a design framework for actionable recommendations. System archetypes were used to identify common patterns of behaviour that characterise the barriers to the successful implementation of the IFV 2030. Through understanding the system archetypes, effective levers for mitigating such barriers can be identified [13].

2.5. Data Analysis

Data analysis via the online survey focused on three key stakeholders (Government, Primary Producer and Retailer) in the fresh produce supply chain. A total of 46 participants represented the respective stakeholder groups, distributed as follows: Government (26%), Primary Producers (48%), and Retailers (26%). Most respondents were recruited from major retailers, with the exception of one respondent who worked as a distributor for the retailer and a second who was involved in a Co-op store. IBM SPSS was used to generate uni-variate statistics (percentages, means, standard deviation, and range). Excel was used to generate tables and graphs.

Table 4. Systems thinking tools were used for this study.

System Thinking Tools for Analysis and Design
Tools	Description	Source
Iceberg Method	A framework to interrogate relationships within the system, seeking patterns and root cause identification.	[13]
System Dynamics	Use of diagrams to display system elements and identify system flows and cascading events	[14]
System Archetypes	Systems archetypes are used to identify and analyse patterns of behaviour in a system and produce solutions to reoccurring problems.	[13]
Concept maps	A tool to illustrate and use critical thinking to identify and map system components and connections	[48]
Foucault’s Genealogical Method	A pattern identification tool based on historical behavioural that can help predict a future outcome.	[36]

summarises how systems thinking tools were used in this study to explore complex problems and diagnose root cause issues and anomalies pertaining to LSC events [14,29].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Survey Results

The survey provided critical insights into the involvement of stakeholders in critical policy change for sustainability across the fresh produce supply chain. Participant selection focused on providing insights from bottom-up/top-down perspectives relating to decision-making within respective organisations and across the supply chain. The data collected from the survey responses was aggregated according to the three stakeholder groups. Participants provided data relating to their position of responsibility within their organisations, with 25% of respondents holding senior management positions, 44% representing junior to middle management roles and 31% identifying as either general operatives or an undefined/undisclosed ranking. All respondents within their sectors showed an average of over 9 years of service for their respective organisations. This experience implies an important level of disciplinary knowledge when assessing the participant’s responses in the context of their organisations. Furthermore, Goyal [49] showed that experienced employees are more inclined to achieve the SDGs, and studies also suggest that longer-serving employees are better equipped with the skillsets needed to envision and facilitate sustainable change [44,45,50,51].

Figure 2 provides insights into the level of awareness respondents have in relation to climate change and its impact on the food sector. All respondents have some awareness of climate change, and the majority of respondents across all stakeholder groups recognised climate change as a threat to the food sector (government, 84%; food producers, 82%; and retailers, 75%). Awareness levels are important to establish as a foundation for engagement and sustainable transition.

Whole System Interaction for LSC

To analyse the level of collaboration and connectedness within the fresh produce supply chain, each respondent was asked a series of questions to identify their level of involvement, buy-in and willingness to participate in policy implementation. The survey investigated the respondent’s perception of the policy development process from the bottom-up (i.e., ideas in relation to company goals involving all levels of employees within an organisation) supported by top-down management (i.e., Leadership) within their respective organisations in the fresh produce supply chain.

The majority of government respondents (policy writers) perceive the process of policy development to be consultative (67%), but less than 10% consider it to be collaborative. Respondents from the retail sector believe the process of policy writing is mostly consultative (42%), with some believing it to be collaborative (17%). This contrasts with responses from Primary Producers, where just 18% believe the process to be consultative and 0% view it as collaborative.

Respondents who believed there was no engagement also differed across each stakeholder group. Just 8% of government employees surveyed believe there is no engagement in policy development, whereas this stands at 17% and 27% amongst retail and primary producer stakeholders, respectively.

This data indicates that stakeholder actors differ in their perception of how policy is developed and implemented with respect to stakeholder engagement and collaboration.

Skippari et al. [52] demonstrated how perceptual barriers can be as damaging as actual barriers in preventing collaborative innovation and achieving intended outcomes. As demonstrated in the survey, a key group of actors within their respective sectors perceive the process to be non-collaborative. Skippari et al. [52] demonstrated that non-collaborative processes block exposure to new ideas and comprehensive information sharing and engagement among all stakeholders. The lack of exposure to transdisciplinary ideas delays shared knowledge to avoid unintended consequences or opportunities to implement LSC.

Research for this paper highlighted the criticality of knowledge sharing through top-down-bottom-up engagement between all actors to achieve LSC for sustainability [13,27,28,29]. Hornsey et al. [33] described the complexity of intervening in a wicked system and the danger of creating a ripple effect without bottom-up knowledge.

Figure 3 illustrates the respondents’ involvement in policy writing within their organisation from a top-down-bottom-up structure. Respondents who feel they are always involved are marginally highest within primary producers (23%), compared to respondents from government (17%) and retailers (17%). The majority of respondents across all stakeholder groups feel they are either ‘somewhat’ or ‘mostly involved’ in policy development within their organisation (government 75%; primary producers 49%; retailers 66%). The percentage of respondents with no involvement in policy for their organisation includes government at 8%, primary producer at 27%, and retailer at 17%.

Insights were sought through the survey on how internal policy related to sustainable change is implemented within organisations for the fresh produce sector. Respondents from the government show the highest knowledge of internal policy measures (77%), while responses from retailers and primary producers demonstrated lower levels of policy knowledge at 66% and 50%, respectively.

Table 5. Respondents’ confidence and knowledge in LSC plans by policymakers.

Sector	Prefer Not to Say	IFV 2030 Will Not Achieve Any of Its Goals	IFV 2030 Will Achieve Its Most Important Goals	IFV 2030 Will Achieve All of Its Goals	Never Heard of the IFV 2030
Government	8.0%	33%	51%	8.0%	0%
Food Production	5.0%	31.%	41.%	9.0%	14.%
Retailer	0%	8.0%	37%	8.0%	47%

shows participants’ confidence in the policy written for the IFV 2030. It is noted that almost half of the respondents from the Retailer cohort have never heard of the IFV 2030 (47%). Respondents who show full confidence that the IFV 2030 will achieve all goals is low across all stakeholder groups (government (8%), primary producers (9%) and retailers (8%).

Results from Table 5 indicate a disconnect among the stakeholders regarding knowledge of the IFV 2030, potentially implying an unequal exposure to what the IFV 2030 is trying to achieve. This potentially implies a siloed implementation strategy when auctioning policy and sustainable vision of the IFV 2030 among the key stakeholders for LSC. Without holistic knowledge among all members of the supply chain regarding the IFV 2030s existence or intended vision for a sustainable food system, there is limited accountability and “buy-in” from all of the supply chain stakeholders.

Figure 4 shows declining levels of knowledge and involvement in the development of the IFV 2030 roadmap from government to primary producers to retailers. In terms of knowledge, the government (policy writers and implementation strategists) shows the highest understanding (71%), followed by the primary producer (46%) and retailers (38%). A similar pattern of knowledge decline can be seen when respondents were asked if they felt they were involved in the development of the IFV 2030 across government (28%), primary producer (25%), and retailer (23%) from a top-down-bottom-up perspective.

47% of respondents from the government, 41% from primary producers and 52% from retailers perceived that the appropriate actors are included in the development of policy for LSC. This suggests that between 48% and 59% of respondents are either unsure or feel that the correct actors are not involved. This illustrates uncertainty and a lack of consensus across stakeholder groups in relation to which actors should be involved in policy development for sustainable change. This may suggest a gap in how actors and stakeholders understand the missions outlined in Table 2, suggesting a lack of recognition by policymakers for a bottom-up and collaborative culture for LSC. Without a bottom-up culture approach, a lack of “buy-in” creates barriers delaying sustainable change and the associated policy implementation.

Figure 5 shows that all respondents are willing to be involved in policy collaboration for their sector, with 0% showing no interest in policymaking. It is important to establish willingness in the context of a bottom-up-top-down collaboration among key stakeholders for co-creation within the fresh produce supply chain [53].

3.2. Design Framework Methods

The results from the survey and Foucault’s genealogical methodology found similar patterns between historical and current policy strategies for the implementation of LSC. Foucault’s methodology (Table 1) demonstrated that the IFV 2030 implementation process follows similar political channels and processes when compared to historical Irish processes for LSC initiated by the EU. Brouwer et al. [39] demonstrated that the IFV 2030 procedures follow reactive and wasteful events, a similar description to Laffan’s [37] analysis of historical Irish LSC events. Using Foucault’s principles, given that historical LSC events have not successfully met targets, it can be surmised that the IFV 2030 will continue to follow the same course, and Ireland’s sustainability targets will not be achieved.

Insights from systems thinking theory (Table 4), Foucault’s methodology and Hornsey et al. [33] indicate that when faced with missed targets, the political arena is pressured to intervene. This type of intervention can be deemed as a retrospective reaction brought on by public pressure, forcing politicians to make quick decisions to solve complex problems (such as climate change, land, and biodiversity degradation) [33]. Hornsey et al. [33] demonstrated how such decisions, made without incorporating the necessary knowledge through collaborative channels, can create ripple effects that lead to unintended consequences.

3.2.1. System Archetypes

System archetypes were used to characterise barriers to the successful implementation of the IFV 2030 within the fresh produce supply chain. Archetypes were identified using insights from literature, Foucault’s genealogical methodology, system thinking tools, and the stakeholder survey. Systems dynamics was used to visualise constraints in relation to the system as a whole. A dynamic map of archetypes was developed with a focus primarily on the ability of organisations to implement the IFV 2030 and secondly on the likely success of the IFV 2030 in relation to targets for sustainability (specifically greenhouse gas emissions, land use and biodiversity).

Fixes That Fail

Foucault’s methodology (Table 1) identifies patterns in Ireland’s current LSC events for sustainability. It was found that current structures for policy writing, implementation and evaluation are not a cohesive pathway. Instead, this falls under an acquisition archetype of “Fixes that fail” or “Sacrificing Quality” [13].

As demonstrated in Figure 6, “fixes that fail” [13] show a negative outcome despite the IFV 2030 increase in efforts to create a sustainable food system. The latest reports are showing that the current trajectory of GHG and biodiversity restoration is significantly off target (Table 1) [20,22]. Figure 6 shows how scheduled pressure and lack of cohesion are hindering the success of the IFV 2030 in implementing the LSC needed to offset the environmental issues.

Foucault’s analysis (Table 1) demonstrated many repeated patterns of political discourse between historical policy implementation and the current implementation of the IFV 2030 in Ireland. As seen in Figure 6, these are associated with unintended consequences such as policy implementation through non-collaborative channels [37] (Table 1). The most significant consequence is system delays due to a lack of supporting knowledge from the bottom-up actors [13,46]. System constraints appear in the policy arena due to delays in learning across the system, which leads to missed targets for EGD-F2F and IFV 2030 [19,22].

Delays add political pressure to fix the problem to ensure targets are realigned to meet the 2030 deadline. Figure 6 demonstrates this as a retrospective reaction that leads policymakers to “rework the problem” (e.g., introduce a new policy, reform policy, extra funding), creating more fixes through policy to achieve the original goal [50]. Currently, the implementation of IFV 2030 is showing a reinforcing loop scenario, with imminent delays that require more resources to achieve the intended goals. This, in turn, increases the chance of unintended consequences.

A mitigating factor in balancing the system is to use collaborative stakeholder engagement for proactive problem-solving to ensure policy is co-created for a smooth LSC event. The survey results highlighted many knowledge gaps between stakeholders for the implementation of the IFV 2030s for LSC.

The survey further deep-dived beyond collaboration among the supply chain stakeholders and sought an understanding of collaboration within each of the stakeholder’s respective organisations, depicted in Figure 3. The type of discourse looked at in Figure 3 involved the creation and implementation of policy for sustainable change from a top-down and bottom-up perspective (i.e., senior leadership to lower levels of the employment structure) internally within each stakeholder’s organisation. Figure 3 demonstrates that the direction for sustainable restructuring within an organisation is directed from the top-down to the lower-level employment tiers. This implies the current process of managing policy change in the fresh produce supply chain is not collaborative both among the stakeholders of the fresh produce supply chain and within the culture of each of the stakeholder’s organisations.

This study suggests that for a long-term and truly sustainable food system, the chain of information from the stakeholder level (government, primary producer, retailer) requires “bottom-up” transdisciplinary knowledge [13,46]. Stakeholder knowledge needs to be co-created within a system that is sufficiently agile and reflexive in order to be capable of responding to unforeseen consequences [21]. Figure 5 demonstrated that all stakeholder groups showed interest in co-creation for policy change and implementation for LSC to mitigate rising GHG land and biodiversity loss.

Limits to Success

Figure 7 demonstrates a “Limits to Success” [13] archetype scenario with a reinforcing loop (R) linking to a balancing loop (B). The constraint identified for the implementation of the IFV 2030 is the lack of cohesion among the supply chain stakeholders. Table 5 demonstrated significant gaps in information flow pertaining to the implementation of the IFV 2030. The results from the survey (Figure 4) also showed variation in awareness or knowledge of the IFV 2030s across the stakeholder groups. Respondents representing government organisations showed the most awareness and knowledge of the IFV 2030 (71%), while respondents in the retailer cohort demonstrated the least knowledge of the IFV 2030, with almost half of the respondents (47%) unaware of the IFV 2030 (Table 5). This limits success by creating a major delay due to an absence of equally shared information in relation to policy. As an example of this, a primary producer’s cost of work is proportionately determined by standards of quality, both for conformance with policy and retailer demands. This is problematic since the survey results show that the retailer lacks knowledge of the IFV 2030 (e.g., 47% have never heard of the IFV 2030). This puts the primary producer in an isolated position among the stakeholders, as it must respond to the requirements of the IFV 2030 within its own organisation and effort, which is unrecognised and, therefore, undervalued by the retailer. A collaborative approach to IFV 2030 across the entire supply chain would help to mitigate this constraint.

In parallel with Figure 7, Foucault’s analysis of the political arena (Table 1) found patterns between historically unsuccessful LSC events and the current implementation of the IFV 2030. Historically, Ireland has struggled to reach its green targets related to GHG, land and biodiversity [21]. Social Justice Ireland (SJI) reports that Ireland’s climate action targets for 2030 rank 8th in the 2024 Sustainable Progression Index out of fourteen EU countries [21,22,23].

Foucault’s analysis (Table 1), Figure 3 and Figure 7 and Table 5 imply a delay in knowledge sharing due to lack of collaboration both at an EU level and national level. It was demonstrated that Ireland’s response to meet EU policy has historically been slow. Ireland and the EU typically drive LSC through a series of overhauls supported by heavy funding, European Directives, and the reformation or introduction of new policies (e.g., CAP) [16,37,54].

Accidental Adversaries (Escalation)

Figure 8 shows an “Accidental Adversaries” structure [13]. This system archetype is synonymous with a lack of understanding between two (or more) stakeholders and illustrates how a lack of knowledge, understanding and buy-in can create accidental adversaries in the fresh produce supply chain. Figure 8 demonstrates how A (primary producer) is incurring costs through a new policy for sustainability, while B (retailer) is responsible for securing quality fresh produce at competitive pricing through a tendering process. This adds more pressure on the primary producer to maintain product standards and quality, lower prices and comply with sustainability targets related to the IFV 2030. Through competitive bidding and added costs to implement the IFV 2030, the primary producer receives less profit return and fails to invest in implementing innovations needed to drive change. This scenario can lead the primary producer to get caught into another archetype trap known as “drifting goals”. The lack of funds for investment can lead to a lowering of the goal to meet the bidding demand from the retailer. In the long term, this has an adverse effect on the retailer as lowering the goal may reduce product quality, supply stability and overall yield availability.

Growth and Underinvestment

Figure 9 is an example of a system archetype where the main themes also align with “limits to success” and “accidental adversaries” archetypes [13]. “Growth” represents achievement and performance for a sustainable food system through the IFV 2030; “Underinvestment” is the lack of transparent and effective knowledge transfer from the IFV 2030 to the key stakeholders within the supply chain. A report by Jackson et al. [19] demonstrated how existing policy can hinder the success of sustainable implementation. The accidental adversaries’ archetype showed how unequal policy disseminated between key stakeholders limits the success of the IFV 2030 and also limits, or hinders, the successful partnership of stakeholders within the supply chain. This can lead to perceived unfairness [52] and lack of buy-in from all the actors, creating an “accidental adversaries (escalation)” archetype.

3.3. Design Framework through Dynamic Systems

Systems archetypes identified in this study informed the creation of a design framework using the dynamics of a system (causal loop) diagram. Systems dynamics is a useful tool for interpreting the behaviour of a system. The causal loop diagrams below depict the current and future state of the Irish fresh produce food system in relation to the implementation of sustainability policy.

3.3.1. Conventional Agriculture Supply Chain

The literature researched for this study clearly outlined a current food system that is contributing to major global climate-related issues [31,32]. All parts of the food supply chain are contributors to land degradation issues (including biodiversity loss) and the release of anthropogenic GHG emissions (CO₂eq) into the atmosphere [8,9,35]. Studies by Pravalie [8] and Brouwer et al. [39] demonstrated how unsustainable land use is causing major annual economic losses through global crop losses owing to extreme weather events [9]. This signifies that all three pillars of sustainability are threatened by the global food system.

Figure 10 shows an example of a “Wicked System” involving a series of drivers creating positive and negative feedback loops within the system. The input dangle in this causal loop diagram is the current conventional supply chain. The main goal of the conventional fresh produce supply chain is to create economic growth and to supply food security for the short term. However, conventional agriculture is dependent on land use and contributes to a reduction in biodiversity. This has two causal effects: a reduced ability of the natural environment to absorb and sequester GHGs and a reduced capacity of living systems to support life and maintain resilience.

Figure 10 illustrates an input dangle, titled “conventional fresh produce supply chain”, where the elements of the supply chain are related to factor markets (Agri inputs) and primary production (farm) of fresh produce and including all inputs of downstream organisations to the retailer and post-consumption. The causal loop diagram demonstrates the consequences associated with the activities of the fresh produce supply chain on three major environmental variables (biodiversity, land use, and GHG emissions). As system resilience diminishes, the food system becomes less secure, driving the need for further land use change to produce food. As land becomes scarcer and environmental stability decreases, the production of healthy fresh produce decreases, which has negative consequences for human health and the cost of living [55,56]. This puts pressure on the economic pillar to increase its growth in this sector by creating more fresh produce using more land.

3.3.2. F2F and IFV 2030 LSC for Sustainability

Jackson et al. [19] discussed how EU policy initiatives are “key in transitioning to a sustainable food system”. However, it was concluded that implementation was difficult due to several factors. Jackson et al. [19] described how political channels of communication are hindering implementation progress for a LSC event for a sustainable European food system. The report concluded that the F2F capability for LSC change was limited in detailing workable policy and will fail to reach 2030 targets.

As part of the EU's standards, Ireland is obliged to serve the F2F agenda through the 2030 IFV. Brouwer et al. [39] and Foucault’s methodology both concluded that Irish political channels addressing climate and environmental issues are also hindering progress for LSC and are not meeting international targets. This type of communication implies that implementation of the F2F and IFV 2030 is hindered by the lack of transdisciplinary collaboration.

Figure 11 shows how a ripple effect creates a reinforcing loop by putting increasing pressure on the organisational economic and social pillars (e.g., supply chain instability). As food security declines and supply chains become more fragile, access to fresh food will be affected. Fresh food is critical to human health and well-being, and if it decreases, it will increase pressure on the health system. Added pressure on the health system will drive up the cost of living and require more funding from the economic pillar. In response, the economic pillar will be pressured to grow further to sustain the extra costs from the social pillar, thus requiring more of the environmental pillar, and a systems trap ensues.

Figure 11 shows the outcome of the implementation of the IFV 2030 strategy. The theoretical framework (systems thinking, Foucault’s analysis of political discourse, and the survey) identified a lack of collaboration among key stakeholders as a major barrier to the implementation of a sustainable fresh produce food sector. Figure 11 demonstrates how the input dangle (Figure 11 (Part 1)) representing the IFV 2030 roadmap, leads to a “limits to success” archetype associated with the three pillars of the fresh food system (Figure 11 (Part 2)), with another archetype “Fixes that Fail” creating a ripple effect of social, economic, and environmental related issues. Figure 11 (Part 2) represents a dynamic system map of Figure 11 (Part 2) in action for the implementation of the IFV 2030 roadmap. Figure 11 (Part 2) feeds into Figure 11 (Part 3), a causal loop diagram of the impact of the fresh produce industry and supply chains on societal social performance, economic performance, and effects on the environment through negative effects associated with three variables (depicted in red text) land use, biodiversity and GHG emissions. The marine and terrestrial variables of the causal loop diagram represent the ecosystems of land and water from the point of view of natural capital and the consequence of unsustainable action currently practised in the fresh produce supply chain to ensure its continued capacity to support it. According to Figure 11, using the current structure to implement the IFV 2030 roadmap to implement the LSC of the conventional fresh produce supply chain demonstrates a ripple effect. The ripple effect is evidence of a disconnect between critical stakeholders within the fresh produce supply chain and the unequal dissemination of policy across stakeholders in the sector. The cause of the ripple effect draws from archetypal behaviours brought on by the implementation of the IFV 2030 through repeated historical procedures, as demonstrated by Foucault’s analysis (Table 1). If the wicked system continues to create ripple effects, it will contribute to additional pressure on the natural living system. Figure 11 demonstrates the criticality of collaboration between the variables and the level of structure to connect them. The level of collaboration is attributed to the implemented structure and mitigates through signalling unintended consequences unforeseen by the IFV 2030 of how a target variable changes.

3.3.3. A Sustainable Food System Map

Figure 12 outlines the main elements of a sustainable food system for the fresh produce supply chain centred on interdisciplinary co-creation through stakeholder engagement. The three pillars model described in Figure 12 demonstrates a resilient and robust food system accomplished through the collaborative implementation of the IFV 2030. The red text box at the core of the three pillars illustrates how transdisciplinary collaboration and co-creation intersect all pillars of a sustainable food system. Implementing the IFV 2030 through the concepts of Figure 12 implies a sustained anthropological system in balance with the environmental pillar [43].

In the current food system, the three pillars of sustainability are imbalanced. Viewing each pillar through a system thinking lens of cause-and-effect highlights trade-offs active in each pillar. Three critical components are needed for the transition to a sustainable food system [32,46]:

I.

Fresh produce economic value

II.

Social importance

III.

Environmental impact

The IFV 2030 views the commercial horticultural fresh produce sector as important for maintaining a healthy societal balance of economic, social, and environmental performance through actions and practices according to principles of the three pillars of sustainability (Figure 12). Using systems maps to view the three pillars of economic, social, and environmental sustainability demonstrates the relationships and interconnectedness of elements within the fresh produce supply chain. The anthropological pillars associated with socio and economic activities demonstrate the systems archetype “Limits to Growth” (Figure 7). Reinforcing feedback loops of economic growth and social need are linked to a balancing loop of environmental activity and performance. This reinforcing growth creates more success and increases performance, driving more growth. The balancing loop within the environmental pillar (e.g., limited resources) constrains the performance of the social and economic pillar (e.g., recession). The economic and social boom activity slows down in response to the limiting constraints.

Breaking the limiting factor regarding sustainability for the sector requires engagement and buy-in between all stakeholders in the sector [13,53]. The results from the survey demonstrated a perceived lack of co-creation, with less than 17% of respondents believing the process to be collaborative. This suggests that the process of policy development is missing key interdisciplinary contributions which could facilitate the transition required for IFV 2030. Thomas [18] demonstrated the complexity of introducing the missions of the IFV 2030, and Clark [21] postulates that the incorporation of interdisciplinary skills across the supply chain can inform policymakers on potential causes and consequences of barriers to implementation, ripple effects and unforeseen issues.

Figure 13 illustrates the three pillars of sustainability as a dynamic map, using the red box describing co-creation as an enabler for the IFV 2030 within the fresh produce sector. This figure demonstrates the importance of a combined effort across stakeholders invested in the product life cycle to create and apply appropriate interventions [53,57].

3.4. The Design Framework Outcome

Figure 13 demonstrates the importance of adopting new political channels for writing and implementing sustainability policy to meet sustainability goals. Figure 12 depicts how the three pillars of sustainability conceptualise the transdisciplinary inputs of all stakeholders and respective actors within the fresh food supply chain. Ultimately, using a collaborative approach, implemented equally and with accountability across all stakeholders, will better support the delivery of LSC to achieve Ireland’s national sustainability targets as intended by the IFV 2030 missions (Table 2).

Figure 13 demonstrates the concept of using a collaborative supply chain model based on the three pillars of sustainability to support the successful implementation of the IFV 2030. The red text box central to Figure 13 (Part 1) depicts the implementation of LSC for a sustainable supply chain using collaboration for co-creation and through organisation accountability for interconnected development to meet the intended environmental targets as outlined by the IFV 2030. Figure 13 (Part 2) depicts, through a dynamic map, the implementation of the IFV 2030 roadmap in practice. Figure 13 (Part 3) demonstrates the intended impact of meeting environmental targets. Using a collaborative and integrated implementation of LSC significantly reduces the amount of corrective action needed and mitigates any delay in progress towards sustainable fresh produce. Figure 13 (Part 3) implies positive consequences for the development of the commercial horticultural fresh produce industry as set out by the IFV 2030 [25]. All system components of Figure 13 (Part 3) benefit from sustainability targets implemented through collaborative channels as directed by the IFV 2030. As outlined by KPMG [25] and Story et al. [56], fresh produce consumption has increased benefits for the health system. Figure 13 (Part 3) demonstrates the importance of the horticultural fresh produce sector to maintain a healthy life of economic, social and environmental performance and actions the practices need to be incorporated into the fresh produce supply chains to ensure food is produced according to principles of the three pillars of sustainability.

4. Limitations

One of the main limitations of this study was the small number of participants. However, the findings of this position paper, supported by systems thinking frameworks, have given insights and actionable recommendations for LSC for the fresh produce supply chain, as described in the next section.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The aim of this study was to identify the potential of the IFV 2030, as directed by the EGD-F2F, as a roadmap for sustainable change for the Irish fresh produce sector, a sector that plays a significant role in the well-being of society. The literature reviewed for the theoretical framework identified major knowledge gaps and demonstrated a need for knowledge and expertise across multiple disciplines and organisations for a true long-term sustainability plan. This study identified non-collaborative and hierarchical direction as a knowledge gap associated with delaying sustainability progress in addressing climate-related issues such as rising GHG emissions, biodiversity loss and land degradation. The use of Foucault’s genealogical methods highlighted a critical discourse where Ireland and EU communications are locked in repeating patterns of historical interactions. It was found that Ireland’s inception into the EU was characterised by similar ad-hoc and wasteful interactions for large-scale change events, which is influencing current political discourse.

It was established that policy implementations are circulated through non-collaborative channels, which are missing the interdisciplinary connectedness of competent actors within the fresh produce supply chain. The data collected from stakeholders across the fresh produce sector, together with systems thinking methodologies, were used to diagnose barriers and unintended consequences for the implementation of the IFV 2030. This study found key issues with the implementation of the F2F and IFV 2030 commitments, identifying barriers and potential ripple effects.

Through the identification of system archetypes and illustrations using systems dynamics, the study showed that the EGD-F2F and IFV 2030 are not on target to reach their main objectives. The survey demonstrated that current stakeholder engagement, knowledge and understanding for a sustainable supply chain is fragmented. It is evident that the EGD F2F and IFV 2030 implementation strategy does not follow an interdisciplinary implementation model, as described in the three pillars of the sustainability model. The current implementation strategy is still hierarchical among the stakeholders in the fresh produce supply chain. For critical large-scale change, the chain of information needs to be altered to allow critical feedback from all stakeholders and highlight unintended consequences through collaborative channels for policy evaluation.

This study highlighted the need for further research with a larger sample size of actors and stakeholders in the fresh produce chain to solve complex problems. Through knowledge sharing of everyday practices and through organisational learning and stakeholders’ shared accountability of policy and sustainability standards, it is possible to remove unforeseen barriers pertaining to achieving critical environmental targets. It is critical that primary producers, retailers, and policymakers emphasise the value of the product, both in terms of the work performed in producing it in a sustainable manner and the value fresh produce has to society and the consumer. Restructuring to sustainable practice means reshaping and rethinking the value of how fresh produce is produced and marketed.

This study diagnosed real-world problems and provided potential solutions for the successful implementation of large-scale reform for environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Systems thinking highlighted how transdisciplinary collaboration and continuous stakeholder engagement can be performed to ensure Ireland’s environmental targets are met. Drawing upon multiple stakeholder perspectives facilitates the successful delivery of new policies, innovative ideas, and solutions through cross-disciplinary participation, co-creation, and support.