Societal actors across scales and geographies increasingly demand visual applications of systems thinking – the process of understanding and changing the reality of a system by considering its whole set of interdependencies – to address complex problems affecting food and agriculture. Yet, despite the wide offer of systems mapping tools, there is still little guidance for managers, policy-makers, civil society and changemakers in food and agriculture on how to choose, combine and use these tools on the basis of a sufficiently deep understanding of socio-ecological systems. Unfortunately, actors seeking to address complex problems with inadequate understandings of systems often have limited influence on the socio-ecological systems they inhabit, and sometimes even generate unintended negative consequences. Hence, we first review, discuss and exemplify seven key features of systems that should be – but rarely have been – incorporated in strategic decisions in the agri-food sector: interdependency, level-multiplicity, dynamism, path dependency, self-organization, non-linearity and complex causality. Second, on the basis of these features, we propose a collective process to systems mapping that grounds on the notion that the configuration of problems (i.e., how multiple issues entangle with each other) and the configuration of actors (i.e., how multiple actors relate to each other and share resources) represent two sides of the same coin. Third, we provide implications for societal actors - including decision-makers, trainers and facilitators - using systems mapping to trigger or accelerate systems change in five purposive ways: targeting multiple goals; generating ripple effects; mitigating unintended consequences; tackling systemic constraints, and collaborating with unconventional partners.
MULTIFILE
The childhood obesity epidemic has persisted for over three decades, which has presented serious social, economic and health consequences worldwide. For researchers and policy makers alike, cycling has been a promising focus over recent years for developing long-term physically active lifestyles in urban environments, in addition to contributing to the global quest to combat climate change. Promoting cycling thus presents a win-win situation not just for individuals' well-being, but for multiple involved sectors such as public health, transport ministry and environmental agencies. For children, cycling promotes exercise engagement, active transport opportunities, motor skill development and social interaction. However, across European cities, there are considerable discrepancies in the uptake of cycling amongst children. To understand and subsequently promote children's cycling behavior, it is crucial that the complex social, physical and policy environment, and their interrelationships, are considered. Therefore, in this perspective article, we adopt the socio-ecological model to gain insight into how children's cycling behavior is shaped at the interpersonal, organizational and community level embedded within city policies, relevant to increase future cycling participation in children. Our perspective is based on a review of cycling policies of two European cities, Amsterdam (Netherlands) and Newcastle (UK), where stark contrasts in children's cycling participation can be observed. Our findings show that cycling policies in Amsterdam have mainly contributed to comprehensive organizational level changes, for example, cycling infrastructure development within the city, whereby these initiatives have made significant progress at the community level where cycling has become part of the “Dutch culture”. Hence, cycling is a more common transportation mode among children in Amsterdam than in Newcastle. In Newcastle, policies primarily focus on organizational or community level changes, and progress has recently been accelerated in response to COVID-19. In addition to differences, we have also identified similar challenges in the two cities, such as the urgency to support uptake of cycling for children with low socio-economic background or challenges related to cultural differences. We also propose a “shared (cycle-)path” for policy makers and researchers as working together is crucial in producing multi-component interventions at a policy level that recognize individual, as well as interpersonal, community and organizational factors.
DOCUMENT
Sustainable business models are all the craze right now. Firms are making many claims that their activities create social and environmental value. The realization has finally sunk in that business has a fundamental role to play in addressing the net-zero challenge and the sustainable development goals. John Browne, who in 1997 was the first CEO of an oil major to break ranks with his industry peers on climate change denial, recently repeated in the Financial Times that ‘business can be a force for change on climate’.However, looking at these sustainable business models shows that the value firms promise to create can be quite limited. The majority focuses on cleaning up their own act but fails to assess how their business models are making a difference in tackling climate change, biodiversity loss, or global inequality at a societal level. In our latest publication in Business and Society – Dentoni, Pinkse and Lubberink (2021) –, we argue that there is a need for firms to start organizing their business models in such a way that they support the resilience of the socio-ecological systems – and not just improve their own sustainability performance.
LINK
