Investments by the global finance sector contribute to industrial-scale agriculture along with its harmful environmental impacts, making their actions significant in supporting or opposing sustainable food systems transformation. Previous research has shown that institutional investors identify animal agriculture as an important consideration with respect to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues regarding sustainable food systems. This study aimed to explore ways in which so-called ‘responsible’ investors in Australia consider risks related to animal agriculture, and whether existing ESG metrics are ‘fit-for-purpose’ (...) for assessing issues related to sustainable animal agriculture. Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with responsible investors and relevant non-government organisations (NGOs) in Australia. We found that the responsible investment sector lacked mechanisms to recognise the inter-connections between animal agriculture and multiple environmental and social outcomes. Furthermore, we found that investors largely focused on ‘techno’ solutions to the impacts of animal agriculture, such as alternative proteins, through a ‘single issue’ lens. They rarely made connections to other relevant ‘food systems’ issues, such as health. We conclude that holistic approaches are needed to monitor and assess the impacts of animal agriculture in the investment sector and suggest that integrated ‘food systems’ metrics will be necessary to inform these approaches. (shrink)

IntroductionResponsible investment, in which environmental, social and governance considerations are incorporated into investment decision making, is a potentially powerful tool for increasing corporate accountability and improving corporate practices to address broad societal challenges. Whilst the RI sector is growing, there is limited understanding of the extent to which pressing social issues, such as obesity and unhealthy population diets, are incorporated within RI decision making. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which obesity prevention and population nutrition are considered by (...) Australian institutional investors engaged in responsible investment.MethodsA desk-based review was conducted of investment approaches of prominent Australian asset managers and superannuation funds identified as engaged in responsible investment. Relevant information on the incorporation of ESG issues related to obesity and population nutrition was extracted for each investor, drawing on websites, published policy documents and annual reports. Strategies were categorized as: negative/exclusionary screening; positive/best-in-class screening; norms-based screening; ESG integration; sustainability-themed investing; impact/community investing; and corporate engagement and shareholder action. These strategies were compared across investors and by themes related to obesity and population nutrition.ResultsEighteen of the 35 investors indicated that they applied investment strategies that considered issues related to obesity and population nutrition. The most commonly identified strategy was ESG integration, followed by sustainability-themed investing, and positive screening. The ways in which obesity and population nutrition were considered as part of these approaches included relatively high-level general health considerations, considerations around the healthiness of food company product portfolios, and consideration of specific company nutrition policies and practices. The specificity and depth to which RI strategies were disclosed varied.ConclusionThere is significant potential for investment decisions to contribute to efforts to address key social issues, such as obesity and unhealthy diets. Some institutional investors in Australia have recognized the potential importance of incorporating obesity- and population nutrition-related issues into decision-making processes. However, the extent to which these considerations translate into investment decisions and their impact on companies in the food sector warrant further exploration. (shrink)

Issues with current food systems have been problematised through various lenses, including concerns about the dominance of intensively produced animal-source foods (ASFs) or ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in diets on health, environmental sustainability and/or justice grounds. In this commentary, we argue that there is value in adopting a more common framing and approach for these food systems issues based on the understanding that ASFs and UPFs are interlinked manifestations of financialised food systems prioritising the interests of a select few large corporations (...) and their shareholders. Firstly, we outline some of the common drivers of the proliferation of UPFs and ASFs in current food systems, including a regulatory environment that prioritises the interests of large corporations and financiers above other considerations. Based on ecological regulation theory, we then propose multi-sectoral policy options and collective actions to improve both human and planetary health. These include (but are not limited to): re-orienting agricultural subsidies toward more agroecological operations; prioritising equity-focused measures, such as a universal basic income; land use value taxes; and revitalising competition policy to address agri-food industry consolidation. Implementing the proposed actions will likely require strong coordination and advocacy from various civil society groups. We suggest that a framing centred on financialised food systems may create space for allies to mobilise and effectively draw on collective resources, including public health, food sovereignty alliances, labour unions, farmers, small-scale agri-food businesses and retailers, consumer groups, animal welfare groups, governments without vested interests, and intergovernmental organisations. (shrink)