• Modern food supply chains are essential yet unsustainable, contributing to global emissions, resource strain, and labor inequality.
• Green defaults establish new standards around procurement, shifting the status quo away from current processes and nudging decision-makers toward more sustainable options.
• Industry alliances and collaborative agreements encourage collective action toward sustainability goals, creating influential social norms and allocating responsibility to individual actors.
• Radical transparency in food systems ensures food products are easily traceable, allowing businesses and consumers to make informed decisions about their purchases.

Modern supply chains have made food more affordable and accessible, but these improvements come with some sustainability costs. Today, food production is responsible for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions.³ Around the world, food supply chains contribute to deforestation, biodiversity loss, water use, and labor inequality.⁴ And the stakes are quickly rising; with the global population expected to reach 10 billion by 2050, demand for food is expected to increase by 60%, creating a substantial strain on our already-stressed planetary boundaries.³ 

Remodeling supply chains is essential for hitting climate targets and safeguarding food security as demands on global food systems surge. The World Economic Forum likens the necessary food transition to the ongoing energy transition, where industries must adopt new power sources, companies must develop new technologies to preserve power, and consumers must change their power consumption patterns.³ A similar transition is necessary in the food industry, focusing on improvements that transform how food is produced, distributed, and consumed. To do this, we must target every step of the supply chain.

Of course, remodeling supply chains is easier said than done. These systems are notoriously complex, involving countless fragmented stakeholders with varying performance objectives, capabilities, and levels of engagement.⁵ Supply chains are also opaque and hard to trace, making it difficult to pinpoint areas for impactful improvement or hold actors accountable. These challenges are frequently driven by behavioral frictions: producers stick to familiar practices, distributors prioritize individual actions over collective effort, and consumers rarely have all the information they need to make strategic shopping decisions. While human behavior is only one piece of the puzzle, targeting decision-making at various levels of the food supply system might be just what we need to nudge everyone toward more sustainable food procurement practices.

Procurement decisions made by governments and large companies can have a major impact on supply chain sustainability. Changes in these practices can shift entire markets, but decision-makers in these positions are often resistant to innovative or technologically advanced procurement and distribution practices. Why? The reason for this reluctance might be as simple as “we’ve always done it this way.”

Status quo bias describes our preference for avoiding change and maintaining the present way of doing things. This bias has been known to shape the behavior of individuals and groups in various contexts, including areas of politics, economics, and sustainability.⁶ Status quo bias frequently stalls uptake of new technologies, keeping adoption rates low simply because decision-makers are drawn to current systems and processes, even if new solutions are better. In fact, research reveals that industry leaders frequently exhibit a status quo bias when deciding between traditional production methods and new, sustainable alternatives.⁷

Why the Status Quo Feels Safer

What causes this draw to the status quo? First, it’s familiar, and familiar feels safe. Switching to more sustainable procurement practices often means assuming new risks. Due to another cognitive bias known as loss aversion, potential losses tend to feel more impactful than equivalent gains, so decision-makers often forego substantial gains to avoid even minor losses.⁶ What does this mean for supply chain sustainability? Buyers stick with the status quo to avoid potential losses that are perceived as unrealistically large.

Of course, resisting change is not always completely irrational. Businesses often stick with familiar suppliers because transitioning to another would create additional costs. Since these costs have already been invested in current practices, it often makes the most sense to stick with the status quo. However, this rational decision-making process doesn’t explain why people often hold onto old systems even when possible gains would exceed any potential risks or transitional costs, which is often the case for sustainability improvements that reduce costs over time, open up new market opportunities, or enhance supply chain resilience.

The Role of Sunk Costs

The sunk cost effect can also help explain the status quo bias in sustainable procurement.6 When money, effort, or time has been invested in a certain course of action, people are motivated to stay the course to justify their past decisions or avoid “wasting” the sunk resources. For example, if a business has spent years developing relationships with its suppliers, this effort can feel like a sunk cost that deters them from switching to more sustainable options. Similarly, farmers who have invested resources into existing practices can be hesitant to make sustainable changes, even if their current approach is costing them contracts.

Research shows that these biases serve as significant barriers to adopting sustainable initiatives.⁷ They cause both individual stakeholders and entire organizations to resist change, underestimate the benefits of innovative practices, and focus on immediate costs over long-term sustainability gains.

Defaults can be powerful for shifting the behavior of both individuals and groups. Think of these as the pre-set options that apply under the status quo. When options are positioned as the default, they require no active choice selection or deliberate decision-making. Creating green defaults, more specifically, means presenting sustainable choices as the standard or baseline option, while less sustainable options can still be actively selected. Research tells us that people are much more likely to stick with default options than actively opt out and choose something else.⁸ 

The Power of Green Defaults

Green defaults have proven effective at shifting decision-making behavior in many fields. For example, green electricity defaults have led to a significant increase in renewable energy adoption among consumers.⁸ What makes defaults so effective? They leverage the same behavioral inertia that encourages the status quo, but intentionally nudge people toward desirable behaviors.

While there is a large body of research on using defaults to shift individual consumer behavior, less attention has been given to macro-level decisions, such as those that drive supply chains. Most behavioral science applications in this area are still emerging. However, some governments have started testing green defaults to encourage sustainable sourcing. For example, in the Sustainable Procurement Playbook for Cities, the Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN) urges jurisdictions to follow in the footsteps of cities like Calgary, Portland, and Seattle in making sustainable procurement the default for all major purchasing decisions. This essentially means giving purchasing staff a clear, standard process to follow when making sustainable purchasing decisions instead of placing the burden on employees to decide what’s feasible.⁹ 

Reinforcing Defaults with Incentives

Since the status quo bias is often reinforced by loss aversion, introducing incentives to encourage sustainable procurement decisions can help leaders shift their focus from potential risks to the benefits of change.⁷ Common examples include policy incentives for circular innovations and subsidies for sustainable products, but also status quo deterrents, like penalties for wasteful behavior. The Danish government, a global leader in sustainable sourcing, offers The Plant Grant to incentivize investments in the plant-based food sector, including breeding, cultivation, processing, sales, and education.¹⁰ Incentives like these add value to green defaults to help companies at all levels of the supply chain overcome the potential risks of making sustainable shifts. 

Food supply chains are global, stretching across farmers, processors, distributors, retailers, and consumers. With actors at each level focused on their own goals, coordination is a significant challenge. But coordination is crucial—no single player can achieve a truly sustainable business model without collaborative effort from other actors in the supply chain. The result is that no single stakeholder feels directly responsible for sustainability, slowing progress and preventing true, impactful change.

Diffusion of responsibility is a well-documented cognitive bias in the context of sustainability.¹¹ When responsibility for the environment is shared by many different people, individuals feel less personal accountability. Issues like climate change, deforestation, and ocean pollution are global problems—not caused or solved by the actions of single companies or even countries. Just as individual consumers might assume that “someone else will take care of it,” supply chain actors often feel that large companies, legal regulators, or consumers are ultimately responsible for driving sustainable practices.

Perceptions of Responsibility Among Food Supply Chain Actors

To better understand how responsibility for corporate sustainability is diffused across the supply chain, researchers in a 2025 study interviewed food supply chain actors in Sweden, a region experiencing high consumer demand for sustainable options.¹² The most common perception shared by supply chain actors was that their responsibility for corporate sustainability was limited to the scope of legal frameworks and regulations. They felt that anything beyond their legal obligations was voluntary, but not necessarily expected. While a few actors felt directly responsible for sustainability, most ascribed responsibility to others within the supply chain—the greatest share was assigned to governments, large organizations, and the most powerful supply chain actors.

Poor communication and information transparency among supply chain actors further contribute to this diffusion of responsibility. Without clear ownership over the issue, supply chain actors are hesitant to share sustainability information, standing in the way of collective efforts to make entire supply chains more sustainable.¹² To make matters worse, many suppliers in developing countries lack access to information, technology, or other resources necessary to implement sustainable changes. Without collective action, sustainability efforts remained scattered and inconsistent across the supply chain.

The prevailing view among food supply chain actors is that responsibility for sustainability is something to deal with individually rather than collectively. But what if we could change this? Global retailers are increasingly bringing other actors into their push for sustainability, allocating responsibility to suppliers through tech-enabled information sharing or certification schemes.¹² What will it take to get more actors on board with these collaborative measures? According to some supply chain actors, stricter regulatory frameworks are necessary for providing the motivational push they need to proceed.¹² Regulations provide clear standards and expectations for individual companies, motivating stakeholders who might otherwise defer responsibility to others.

If regulatory frameworks provide supply chain actors with the “why,” industry collaborations offer them a “how.” Beyond just monitoring suppliers for sustainability compliance, some retailers have started diffusing sustainability into supply chain networks with supplier mentoring.¹³ Rather than simply discontinuing relationships with unsustainable suppliers, supplier mentoring aims to help suppliers implement sustainable practices. Joint development and co-creation—where companies and suppliers team up on sustainability projects—is also emerging as a promising solution for shared accountability.

Collaborative Partnerships in Action

Multi-stakeholder partnerships can be incredibly valuable for advancing sustainability initiatives throughout food supply chains. For example, Barilla's Sustainable Farming initiative in the Po Valley, Italy, brings together multiple farmers to encourage crop rotation to improve soil fertility.¹⁴ Barilla, at the center of the collaboration, leads the change with funding and support, ensuring farmers receive guidance from universities and agronomists to understand how to execute this sustainable farming method. 

Some governments are also pushing food companies to engage in alliances or cooperative agreements to promote supply chain sustainability. For example, the Danish Action Plan for Plant-Based Foods encourages companies to join a “Plant Hub” where companies and knowledge institutions can collaborate to overcome common challenges, such as regulatory barriers, market entry obstacles for startups, and the task of creating plant-based food options that are also tasty.¹⁰ 

Empowering Action Through Perceived Control

These collaborative solutions are effective not only because they boost individual accountability, but also because they increase perceived behavioral control—the belief that individuals’ actions can influence meaningful outcomes. Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, perceived behavioral control is a crucial element in encouraging action. Multi-stakeholder supply chain agreements increase perceived control at every level. Suppliers are given the capabilities and resources to enact change, while buyers are given the tools to directly influence supplier behavior. Not only does this empower individuals to act, but it also normalizes sustainable partnerships, reinforcing the idea that sustainable practices are both possible and expected.

Nearly half of all supply chain leaders only have information about their first-tier suppliers or no information at all—just 7% have deep, multi-tier visibility.¹⁵ The opacity of food supply chain systems reduces pressure on stakeholders to share information, collaborate, or adopt sustainable solutions.¹² Besides serving as a barrier to action, limited visibility also contributes to food waste, as a lack of real-time information about perishable items can result in food spoiling before it gets to the customer.

Psychological Distance and Consumer Intentions

Limited visibility also makes it difficult for customers to make informed buying decisions. While consumers may not be able to shift entire supply chains, their buying power can help incentivize change from the bottom up. After all, most consumers want sustainable options, but they often lack the right information to make sustainable choices in the grocery store.¹⁶ Eco-labeling is a common method to educate consumers, but with an estimated 455 different eco-labels existing across 25 industry categories, the environmental impact of individual food items isn’t always evident.¹⁶ 

This lack of clear information creates a sense of psychological distance between consumers and the impact of their choices. As a result, it’s hard for consumers to feel like their buying decisions matter at all. This may explain part of the gap between consumer intentions and actions—many consumers want to buy sustainable products and support eco-labels, but don’t always follow through.¹⁷ 

Transparency Beyond Information

While consumer education is important, information alone is rarely enough to shift behavior. Part of the reason for this is a lack of trust. Consumers don’t always trust sustainability information that comes directly from brands, especially with the recent rise of greenwashing.¹⁶ Another issue is information complexity. Carbon footprints or other technical bits of information can lack meaning to individual consumers, who tend to think in more abstract terms when it comes to psychologically distant environmental problems. Making food systems more transparent isn’t just about information delivery, but about employing innovative, behaviorally-designed methods to communicate in a way that actually resonates and nudges behavior.

Radical supply chain visibility is essential for shifting consumers' preferences and choices at the end of the food supply chain. By making the environmental impacts of every food item traceable, increasing the visibility of food supply chains not only empowers consumers to make informed decisions but shifts sustainability from an afterthought to a core priority.

Leveraging Blockchain-Based Traceability

Blockchain-based traceability is one way companies are starting to make food supply chains more transparent. When used in food supply chains, blockchain technology allows for the creation of a decentralized, transparent, and virtually tamper-proof ledger that records the journey of a food product from farm to fork.¹⁸ This technology makes it possible to trace food back to its origin within seconds. 

Not only does blockchain traceability help reduce food waste by improving shelf-life management for retailers, but it also allows consumers to verify sustainability claims and understand where their purchase is really coming from. For example, fish supplying company John West includes codes on its tuna cans so customers can trace the product right back to the vessel the fish was caught on.¹⁸ Similarly, produce brand and distributor Silal Fresh integrated blockchain technology into its supply chain management system to record every touchpoint of a good as it moves through the chain.¹⁵ Accompanied by consumer-facing apps, scannable product QR codes, and web-based dashboards for retailers, Silal Fresh’s blockchain-based management system significantly improved satisfaction, trust, and brand loyalty. 

Being able to scan a QR code on a product and see where it came from makes the abstract impacts of individual products feel more tangible, shortening the psychological distance and motivating consumers to make buying decisions that better align with their values.

Reinforcing Traceability with Other Forms of Communication

When it comes to informing consumers specifically about the journey their food takes from farm to table, carbon scores and technical data aren’t always the best way to communicate this information. People often respond better to storytelling. Using storytelling or human-centered framing—rather than abstract numbers—can make the impacts of buying decisions feel closer to home. Part of the reason for this is the affect heuristic, a mental shortcut where we often rely on our emotions rather than technical, concrete information when making decisions. Emotional storytelling is an excellent way to reduce the complexity of sustainability information and help consumers make buying decisions that are both informed and efficient.

The One Planet Network provides several case studies detailing how major brands like Unilever and Rakuten use storytelling to communicate food sustainability to consumers. Many of these brands include emotional storytelling on their websites that can be visited by scanning product QR codes in-store. Coupled with blockchain-based traceability, storytelling can help consumers connect their food choices to real-world outcomes, showing how their actions actually contribute to the larger food system.

One of the most important things to consider when implementing behavioral interventions is that these tools are rarely a fix-all solution, especially when it comes to highly complex food supply chains. While behavioral science can provide valuable insight into the decisions of actors within the system, remodeling entire food supply chains also requires significant structural, economic, and policy changes. Lack of action in any of these areas can limit the reach of behavioral nudges like defaults, collaborative networks, and radical transparency tools. For example, developing regions might not possess the infrastructure to digitize their production systems or use novel technologies like blockchain. Similarly, some supply chain actors might not have access to renewable energy, circular waste management solutions, or sustainable suppliers. Addressing these issues should be a top priority for those intent on remodeling supply chains.

It’s also important to consider potential trade-offs that come with supply chain sustainability. For example, shifting defaults to sustainable suppliers or implementing technology for traceability might help reduce emissions, but these moves can also increase costs. While many consumers are willing to pay a premium for sustainable products, not everyone can afford to do so, especially as the rising cost of living continues to squeeze consumer budgets.¹⁹ Sustainable standards like blockchain technology or certification regulations can also raise costs for producers, distributors, and retailers, potentially pushing smaller players out of the market and reducing important diversity in food supply chains.

Ultimately, creating truly sustainable food supply chains requires a multifaceted approach that aligns behavioral insights with structural changes that make sustainable options both accessible and attainable for everyone involved.

Making food supply chains more sustainable can have an immensely positive impact on the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land and water use, and minimizing costly food waste. This ambitious task doesn’t sound easy, and that’s because it isn’t. But by targeting common cognitive biases and behavioral barriers facing supply chain decision-makers, we can shift attitudes, change norms, and establish new standards around sustainable sourcing, industry collaboration, and radical transparency. 

As the global food system approaches a tipping point, immediate action has never been more crucial. The current model cannot sustain the growing global demand for food products alongside intensifying food inequalities and environmental pressures.²⁰ To reshape the future of food, we need to feed more people without using more land, while lowering emissions. The only way to achieve this is to remodel how food is grown, processed, delivered, and consumed. 

Countries and organizations around the world are promoting practices intended to drive systemic change in food systems, including the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy and Singapore’s 30 by 30 goal to produce 30% of the country’s nutritional needs locally by 2030. Initiatives that focus on technological and infrastructure innovations can help make these plans possible. The trick, as always, is shifting behavior. From nudging stakeholders toward sustainable defaults to empowering individual consumers to make informed food choices, behavioral science can support efforts to remodel food supply chains so that they can sustainably feed our growing planet for decades to come.

Through our collaborative work with governments and organizations around the world, The Decision Lab has applied insights from behavioral science to maximize the impact of sustainability initiatives at every decision-making level, from individual households to global supply chains. Reach out today so we can discuss your sustainability goals. Let’s work together to create a future powered by transparent, efficient, and ethically responsible food systems.

A Blueprint for Climate-Smart Farming

Solidaridad is an international network organization working to make global supply chains more sustainable. To help encourage widespread change among farmers, TDL developed a structured framework for understanding unique incentive formulas that would best work in different regions. Learn about the behavior change framework we developed for Solidaridad and how it can be reused anywhere.

Fostering Sustainable Public Procurement

Public procurement is a major business sector, giving governments significant purchasing power to shift supply chain practices. If we can get governments around the world to commit to sustainable purchasing, the positive impacts can ripple through supply chains to advance environmental objectives and encourage other buyers to jump on the sustainability bandwagon.

1. World Food Program USA. (2021, October 1). 8 facts to know about food waste and hunger. https://www.wfpusa.org/news/8-facts-to-know-about-food-waste-and-hunger/ 
2. Loughlin, B. (2024, January 9). The role of blockchain in sustainable supply chains. Institute of Sustainability Studies. https://instituteofsustainabilitystudies.com/insights/guides/the-role-of-blockchain-in-sustainable-supply-chains/ 
3. Glezer, J. W. (2024). Renovation and reinvention are key to saving our food system. Here's why. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/06/renovation-reinvention-food/ 
4. United Nations Environment Programme. (2021, September 13). 9 ways food systems are failing humanity. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/9-ways-food-systems-are-failing-humanity 
5. Oyedijo, A., Akenroye, T., Bukoye, T., & Yang, Y. (2024). Here’s how we make the $9 trillion global food supply chain sustainable. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/08/food-supply-chain-networks-why-sustainable-practices-fail-and-approaches-to-improve-them/ 
6. Godefroid, M. E., Plattfaut, R., & Niehaves, B. (2023). How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature. Management Review Quarterly, 73(4), 1667-1711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00283-8 
7. Van der Linde, L., Pretorius, L., & Oosthuizen, R. (2025). Investigating the effect of cognitive bias influences on sustainable decision-making in complex systems. Sustainable Futures, 10, 101227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.101227 
8. Kaiser, M., Bernauer, M., Sunstein, C. R., & Reisch, L. A. (2020). The power of green defaults: The impact of regional variation of opt-out tariffs on green energy demand in Germany. Ecological Economics, 174, 106685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106685 
9. Urban Sustainability Directors Network (2016). The buck starts here: Sustainable procurement playbook for cities. https://www.responsiblepurchasing.org/purchasing_guides/playbook_for_cities/rpn_usdn_playbook_for_cities.pdf 
10. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries of Denmark. (2023). Danish action plan for plant-based foods. https://en.fvm.dk/Media/638484294982868221/Danish-Action-Plan-for-Plant-based-Foods.pdf 
11. Kalch, A., Bilandzic, H., Sappler, A., & Stellinger, S. (2021). Am I responsible? The joint effect of individual responsibility attributions and descriptive normative climate messages on climate mitigation intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101711 
12. Sendlhofer, T., & Vanhuyse, F. (2025). The responsibility of corporate sustainability: the case of digitalising sustainability information in a food supply network. British Food Journal, 127(13), 150-170. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2024-0173 
13. Miandar, T., E. Johnsen, T., & Caniato, F. (2024). The role of purchasing and supply management in diffusing sustainability in supply networks: A systematic literature review. Business ethics, the environment & responsibility, 33(3), 505-522. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12622 
14. Pancino, B., Blasi, E., Rappoldt, A., Pascucci, S., Ruini, L., & Ronchi, C. (2019). Partnering for sustainability in agri-food supply chains: The case of Barilla Sustainable Farming in the Po Valley. Agricultural and Food Economics, 7(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-019-0133-9 
15. Van Niekerk, M. (2024, August). From Source to Stomach: How Blockchain Tracks Food Across the Supply Chain and Saves Lives. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/08/blockchain-food-supply-chain/ 
16. Schneider, M. (2023). Consumers want sustainable options. What food producers, suppliers, and retailers can do now. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/01/consumer-power-net-zero-food-producer-retailer-davos23/ 
17. Bishop, J., Thomas, J., & Ahmed, S. (2022). Communicating food sustainability to consumers: Towards more effective labelling. One Planet Network & WWF. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/from-crm/CI-SCP-WWF_Communicating-Food-Sustainability-To-Consumers_2022_0.pdf 
18. Sristy, A. (2021, November 30). Blockchain in the food supply chain – What does the future look like? Walmart Global Tech. https://public.walmart.com/content/walmart-global-tech/en_us/blog/post/blockchain-in-the-food-supply-chain.html 
19. Javaid, I., & Barabas, D. (2024). Consumers willing to pay 9.7% sustainability premium, even as cost-of-living and inflationary concerns weigh: PwC 2024 voice of the consumer survey. PwC. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/news-room/press-releases/2024/pwc-2024-voice-of-consumer-survey.html 
20. Ranganathan, J., Waite, R., Searchinger, T., & Hanson, C. (2018, December 5). How to sustainably feed 10 billion people by 2050, in 21 charts. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts