Behavioral and managerial changes towards sustainable development in the food system

The agri-food system stands at a crossroads: by 2050, the global population is expected to reach 9.7 billion, necessitating a 50-60% increase in food output (Alexandratos & Bruinsma, 2012; Falcon et al. 2022; Grafton et al. 2015; Makuvaro et al. 2018). These challenges will exacerbate the already critical situation, with 673 million people suffering from hunger (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO, 2025), 890 million people being obese, and 2.5 billion overweight (World Health Organization, 2025), while over 2 billion people across the globe are experiencing micronutrient malnutrition (Passarelli et al. 2024). Simultaneously, the agri- food sector is currently responsible for nearly one-third of the total greenhouse gas emissions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2020; Smith et al. 2019). These interconnected challenges underscore a systemic crisis and an urgent need for a profound transformation of the agri-food system toward sustainability, ensuring ongoing access to nutritious food for current and future generations. My dissertation, “Behavioral and managerial changes towards sustainable development in the food system”, examines sustainability in the agri-food sector as a collective goal that requires prioritizing long-term societal interest over short-term individual gains. I do this through the lens of Collective Action Theory.My research approach is pragmatic in nature (Morgan, 2007; Shannon-Baker, 2016). For instance, I selected research methods based on their usefulness for understanding and explaining my research question. This principle led me to employ a mixed-methods approach (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019), which allowed me to understand the complex cooperation problems within the agri-food sector across two real-world arenas: communal irrigation systems in Argentina and the corporate sector in Belgium. In Argentina, I explored real-world social dilemmas associated with communal irrigation systems through a framed field experiment with small-scale farmers. To replicate real conditions, I adapted an experimental setting (Anderies et al. 2013), in collaboration with local actors (government officials and technicians), and conducted several pilot tests with students. While the framed field experiment provided me with rich behavioral data, the post-experimental surveys, semi-structured in-depth interviews, and non-participatory observations uncovered qualitative and relational aspects. Meanwhile, in Belgium, a nationwide survey mapped the ecological responsiveness motives of the corporate sector and assessed the ability of explanatory variables to predict them. I developed this survey in collaboration with the corporate sector and refined it through several pilot testing rounds involving colleagues and representatives from firms to ensure it reflects corporate pro- environmental motivations. Overall, this methodological design reflects my interest in linking theory with practice by co-producing the methodological instruments with those involved in xivreal-world problems (small-scale farmers and firms) and conducting several pilot tests to ensure a realistic representation.Aligned with this methodological grounding, I am very interested in working with grassroots organizations, such as water associations or cooperatives, and key actors in the agri-food system who have the leverage to reduce the sector’s ecological footprint. During the fieldwork, I assumed several roles (facilitator of the experiments, observer of their realities, and translator of complex contexts), but always honored the local, grounded knowledge that informs this dissertation by maintaining an analytical distance.Complementing this practical focus, ethics and values are central to my research approach. To this end, I obtained informed consent from all informants (small-scale farmers and firm representatives) (Singer & Couper, 2010) and provided fair compensation to those who invested significant time during data collection (small-scale farmers in the experimental sessions) (Harrison & List, 2004). Furthermore, consistent with the dissertation’s ethical standards, all data were kept confidential and reported only in aggregated form or with coded informants’ details (no personal data was revealed).My dissertation can be considered systemic for several reasons. First, it is problem-driven and guided by a real-world problem (Bergmann et al. 2021; Zucca et al. 2021). Second, methodological decisions are based on the best-fit principle to address the research question, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methods (Helgheim, van der Linden & Teryokhin, 2024). Third, I designed the research questions to advance theory development through a hypothesis-testing approach, using triangulated information to serve this purpose. Fourth, I engaged many actors in the dissertation development to account for the diverse voices and inputs, thereby improving the realism and quality of the data gathered. To this end, I consulted with government officials and technicians to adapt the experimental setting, students to test the experimental adaptations, colleagues and firms’ representatives to test the survey structure, small-scale farmers and firm representatives to collect the information (Norström et al. 2020). Lastly, but not least, my supervision committee broadened my understanding of the problem through their areas of expertise (econometric, psychological, and sustainability) in addition to behavioral and managerial economics (Bergmann et al. 2021; Jahn, Bergmann & Keil, 2012). Thus, the systemic approach permeates all aspects of my dissertation, from problem development to academic supervision.From this systematic foundation, and through three empirical studies, my dissertation presents robust evidence in support of my main argument: collective action is crucial to overcoming the challenges of food sustainability. In the first chapter, I demonstrate that while institutional robustness is crucial for overcoming uncertainty, individual and group dynamics, along withxvtheir features, also play a significant role. In Chapter 2, I demonstrate that while institutions and networks help overcome classical common-pool resource social dilemmas in an asymmetric setting under uncertainty, trust does not seem to have this capacity. Finally, in Chapter 3, I demonstrate that ecological responsiveness motives vary among firms and that certain demographic and motivational variables may have predictive capacity.To organize these findings, my dissertation follows a typical cumulative dissertation structure. The reader will find an extensive introduction that disentangles the problem at stake, outlines the research question, presents the guiding hypothesis, and includes a relevant literature review and the methodological approach. Later, the dissertation continues with a discussion of the three evidence-based research studies I conducted. These are:Chapter 1 - The role of institutional robustness in a collective action dilemma under environmental variations.Chapter 2 - Does uncertainty lead to cooperation or competition in collective action? The role of social capital.Chapter 3 - Firms’ ecological responsiveness motivations: are internal and external drives of pro-environmental initiatives and key firm features potential predictors?My dissertation concludes by synthesizing key findings, providing policy guidance based on these novel insights, and encouraging future researchers to explore collective action research further. Key methodological contributions—including the development of methodological tools, detailed protocols, surveys, and interview guides—are available in the appendices to aid future comparative research across diverse contexts.As you began reading, I would like to take a moment to express my gratitude for your interest in my work. I hope my dissertation earns the time you will invest in reading it.