Circular Food Consumption and Policy Levers: A Q-Methodology Investigation

Circular Food Consumption and Policy Levers: A Q-Methodology Investigation Introduction In an era of increasing environmental challenges, the need to rethink how we use, consume, and manage resources has never been more pressing than now. The scarcity of resources pushes us to search for alternative consumption patterns, but as being dependent on what nature provides, it is not an easy problem to solve. Although the European Green Deal aims to promote sustainable consumption, it faces significant obstacles, particularly in translating policy goals into practical changes. In response to this, public institutions worldwide are actively seeking solutions and strategies. In this context, the Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy has been introduced with the aim of making food systems fair, healthy, and environmentally friendly. However, the literature has been deficient in defining the idea of a circular consumer (Yeter et al, 2025), resulting in an unclear understanding of consumer profiles, consumption patterns, and consumer behaviour (Georgantzis Garcia et al., 2021), particularly regarding food in our area of expertise. In an attempt to clarify this aspect, we define circular consumers as consumers who adopt consumption practices aligned with the principles of the circular economy and exhibit increased awareness of food origins, production methods, and the significance of sustainable practices. This awareness defines individuals capable of forming a deep connection with food, who endeavour to adopt more mindful eating practices, think about the entire life cycle of products when acquiring food, strive to reduce food waste and advocate for sustainability within the food system. Despite a strong policy foundation, its impact on consumer behavior remains controversial due to implementation gaps within member states (Mezzacapo, 2024), the dominance of linear production models (Omar & Thorsøe, 2024), and limited consumer participation (Schebesta, Bernaz, & Macchi, 2020). Given the urgency for transition, adopting circular food consumption practices and understanding how different actors engage with these new approaches is crucial. Consumers seek product information, producers focus on value addition and resource use, and the government sets policies and regulates both (Patti, 2023). Before addressing consumer behavior, this study explores the primary perspectives of policy networks on adapting and implementing circular food consumption practices. This study is part of a broader PhD project on circular consumption in aquaculture. It was designed to map policy frameworks to enhance the understanding of circular food consumption before analyzing consumer behavior in aquaculture contexts. We contend that this study will present a framework to understand and support the adaptation of circular food consumption among consumers as viewed through the perspectives of policy networks. Data and research methodology As mentioned above, the chosen target group for this study is the policy network. According to Coleman (2001, p. 11608), a policy network refers to “a set of informal and formal interactions between a variety of usually collective public and private actors, who have different but interdependent interests, engaged in horizontal, relatively non-hierarchical discussions and negotiations to define policy alternatives, formulate policies, or implement them”. Building on this definition, Q methodology was adopted for the study as an effective strategy to examine the policy network’s perspectives on circular food consumption. Q methodology involves several key steps (McKeown & Thomas, 2013); First, a set of statements reflecting diverse viewpoints on a topic is carefully selected (the concourse). Participants then sort these statements along a distribution grid, typically ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement (Q-sorting). The sorted data is analyzed using factor analysis to identify shared perspectives or viewpoints. Finally, these factors are interpreted to reveal distinct patterns of thought among participants. Following the standard steps of Q methodology, a structured set of 30 concourses was developed based on the existing literature, which aligns well with the guidelines of Q methodology as a manageable number (Brown, 1996). The statements were then reworded to begin with the phrase ‘Circular food consumption …,’ following a structured approach to determine the Q sample (McKeown & Thomas, 2013). These statements were based on the National Policy Framework created by the Circular Economy Foundation (Sosa, et al., 2021) and were categorized under the ‘Environmental, Social, and Governance’ dimensions with an aim to address environmental impacts, social engagement, and governance structures essential for fostering circular food consumption. The framework includes five predictors — ‘Mobilize, Educate, Manage, Incentivize, and Regulate’. Although the framework initially designed for policymakers, its core principles—systemic change, awareness-building, stakeholder engagement, and incentivization—are equally relevant for influencing the adaptation of consumers’ circular practices. To maintain consistency between the number of statements and the ESG dimensions, two statements were selected for each predictor, resulting in ten statements per dimension and a total of thirty statements. A sample of 15 participants were anonymously recruited from the policy network. This group included policymakers, agency or authority directors, representatives from intermediate bodies, and academics involved in civil society (Vecchio et al., 2024). In the case of academics in particular, their inclusion in the civil society group is at a level where they indirectly influence policy, as their participation in policy-making is based largely on expertise and a desire to help society, not on the benefit of the government or institutions. The selection of individuals with a high level of subject matter awareness (Watts, 2012) prompted the use of a convenience sample. This involved identifying researchers within the policy network who represent various tiers and actively contribute to the field of food consumption, both through their academic or professional endeavors and their influence on policymakers' decisions. This study, serves as a European case study, primarily features policy makers in subnational, transnational, or intermediate roles, despite including some national level officials. This composition offers a comprehensive perspective on policy processes rather than a focus on national representation. On the other hand, although the number of participants may seem small, it aligns with the methodology as it suggests that the minimum number of participants should be half the number of statements (Stephenson, 1935). Each participant was asked to sort the 30 statements along a predefined scale ranging from -4 to +4, reflecting their subjective perspectives. Subsequently, factor analysis using Principal Component Analysis was performed to identify shared patterns of opinion, providing insight into how policy networks interpret and engage with circular food consumption. In the following section the discussion of first preliminary results will be provided. Discussion of results The Q-methodology analysis reveals four distinct perspectives on circular food consumption, each emphasizing different pathways to achieving sustainable food systems. These perspectives highlight the complexity and multidimensionality of circular food consumption, suggesting that successful implementation depends on addressing diverse stakeholder priorities. The first perspective, “The Power of Partnerships—Collaboration Drives Circularity,” emphasizes the critical role of stakeholder collaboration and collective action. This view suggests that fostering cooperation among various actors—from policymakers to consumers—is fundamental for advancing circular food systems. High-ranking statements highlight the importance of ‘incentivizing low-environmental-impact technologies, and better resource management strategies’, reflecting a belief that shared responsibility and collaborative governance are essential for sustainable outcomes. This perspective aligns with policy approaches that prioritize ‘multi-stakeholder engagement, and financial support’ as key enablers of change. The United Nations Development Programme underscores the necessity of a systemic, multi-level, and participatory approach to address the complex challenges in food systems (UNEP, FAO, & UNDP, 2023). As a result, the results of this cluster align well with the predictors Mobilise and Manage as there is a focus on fostering multi-stakeholder collaboration to drive collective action and long-term change, and a focus on addressing better resource management strategies through collaborative governance approaches, respectively. In contrast, the second perspective, “Rules and Roots—Institutionalizing Circular Practices,” prioritizes ‘regulatory frameworks and institutional support’ as the primary drivers of circular food consumption. The opinion in this cluster emphasizes the need for ‘sustainability-focused consumer protection regulations, compliance mechanisms, and public procurement policies’ to foster trust and ensure the long-term adoption of circular practices. The emphasis on ‘government intervention’reflects a more top-down approach, highlighting the belief that robust institutional structures are necessary to embed circularity in food systems. The European Union's regulatory frameworks, such as the Packaging Act, aim to reduce single-use packaging and promote reusable alternatives, illustrating the role of legislation in driving circular economy initiatives (Kleiner, Strenger, & Schmid, 2024). Here the results support the predictors Regulate and Manage as it involves structuring institutional processes to ensure long-term adoption and implementation of circular practices, and also highlights the role of government intervention in shaping and enforcing systemic change. The third perspective, “From Awareness to Action—Educating for a Circular Future,” underscores the ‘importance of education and public awareness’ in facilitating circular consumption. Statements linked to ‘raising awareness of environmental benefits, promoting lifelong learning, and engaging communities’ reflect a belief that behavioral change depends on ‘informing and empowering’ consumers. This perspective suggests that ‘governments and organizations’ should prioritize ‘education campaigns, and skill development’ as tools for fostering circular consumption patterns. The United Nations Environment Programme emphasizes that multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for the transition to sustainable food systems, highlighting the role of inclusive initiatives in driving change (UNEP, FAO, & UNDP, 2023). As it is reflected in the naming of the cluster, here the results underpins the importance of predictor Educate as the core emphasis is on the public awareness, lifelong learning, and consumer engagement to facilitate behavirol change to circular practices. Finally, the fourth perspective, “Circularity Pays—Market-Led Innovation and Economic Gains,” highlights ‘market-driven solutions, and economic incentives’ as key motivators. This perspective emphasizes the ‘economic and environmental value’ of circular models, particularly the ‘long-term savings, and improvements in product quality’ they offer. The focus on ‘financial incentives’ suggests that market mechanisms, when coupled with ‘regulatory transparency’, can drive the widespread adoption of circular food practices. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation provides examples of circular economy practices in the food industry, demonstrating how economic incentives can promote circularity. The perspective obtained from this clusted can be supported by the predictors Incentivize and Regulate as the central focus here is on economic and fifncial incentives to promote market-led innovation and circular models while it suggests the importance of regulatory transperancy to support and sustain market-driven circular practices. While these results are prelimanary as data rathering continues, these perspectives present distinct viewpoints, commonalities emerge across factors. Notably, all groups recognize the importance of multi-level engagement, and the need for transparent regulatory frameworks. However, the degree of emphasis on collaboration, regulation, education, or market mechanisms varies significantly, reflecting divergent priorities among stakeholders. To conclude, even though in the existing literature there are quite remarkable number of studies trying to explore viewpoints, opinions, and perspective of various stakeholders, perspective of PN most of the time remain overlooked on several key matters (Vecchio et al., 2024). In this context, the present paper aims to address the gap that is perspectives of PN on the transition of CFCP which is a very timely subject waiting to be discovered in a remarkable way under CE approach by using Q methodology. To conclude, nevertheless the methodology used in this study is a method that has been widely used in the literature, this study aims to provide a solid contribution beyond providing a novelty—like a brick in the wall—that can serve as a foundation for future work needed to enable the transition to CFCP, which constitute the main theme of the study, through its integration into the topic and practical application. Main conclusion At this point these findings have practical implications for policymakers seeking to design effective circular food policies. A one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to succeed; instead, policies should integrate diverse strategies that address the unique concerns of each perspective. Furthermore, the study contributes to theoretical discussions by demonstrating how circular food systems are perceived through institutional, behavioral, and market-based lenses, providing a nuanced understanding of the socio-economic dynamics underpinning sustainable consumption. The findings of the study show that policy networks have the capacity and responsibility to steer the CFCP transition, but decisions to be taken in this direction should be carefully and comprehensively considered and implemented. Policy makers should use tools such as food zones, local food circuits and targeted education campaigns (Brunori et al., 2016) that promote circular values without excluding stakeholders who are currently less prepared and aware of the transition. Based on the examples given within the scope of the estimators applied in the study, it can be said in terms of real-life effects that public procurement, incentive-based schemes and regulatory nudges can serve as powerful facilitators for the CFCP transition when responsibly integrated (Sousa et al., 2021; Hartley et al., 2023). However, it should not be overlooked that this transition should not reproduce socioeconomic inequalities in food systems or exclude producers and consumers who are not yet fully compliant with circular principles (Acosta Llano et al., 2025). Instead, modernization and differentiation efforts should adopt a collectivist mentality and ensure that policy innovations promote solidarity and inclusiveness. The CFCP should be built on society models that emphasize resilience, shared responsibility, and shared governance, thus delivering not only a sustainable food system but a more equitable one. In summary, the successful transition to circular food systems requires a multifaceted approach that considers the varied priorities of stakeholders, leveraging collaboration, robust regulatory frameworks, educational initiatives, and market-driven incentives to foster sustainable practices. Essential references Acosta Llano, E., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. And Haapanen, L. (2025), "Blockchain for the circular economy, implications for public governance", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 30-52. Brown, S. (1996). Q Methodology and Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4). Brunori, G., Galli, F., Barjolle, D., Van Broekhuizen, R., Colombo, L., Giampietro, M., Kirwan, J., Lang, T., Mathijs, E., Maye, D., De Roest, K., Rougoor, C., Schwarz, J., Schmitt, E., Smith, J., Stojanovic, Z., Tisenkopfs, T., & Touzard, J.-M. (2016). Are Local Food Chains More Sustainable than Global Food Chains? Considerations for Assessment. Sustainability, 8(5), 449. Coleman, W. (2001). Policy Networks. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 11608-11613. Fernqvist, F. (2021). Farm to Fork Strategy – a consumer perspective. SLU Future food, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Foundation, T. E. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/food/examples Georgantzis Garcia, D., Kipnis, E., Vasileiou, E., & Solomon, A. (2021). Consumption in the Circular Economy: Learning from Our Mistakes. Sustainability, 13(2), 601. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020601 Kleiner, A., Strenger, M., & Schmid, M. (2024). Rethinking Our Food Systems: A Guide for Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration. Frankfurt am MAin: DLG. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (2013). Q methodology. California: SAGE. Mezzacapo, E. (2024). Mind the Gap: Assessing Member States’ Implementation of Farm to Farm-to-Fork Targets within the 2023–2027 Common Agricultural Policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 15(2), 265-279. Omar, A., & Thorsøe, M. (2024). Rebalance power and strengthen farmers’ position in the EU food system? A CDA of the Farm to Fork Strategy. Agric Hum Values(41), 631-646. Patti, S. (2023). Circular Economy and Policy. Catania: Springer. Schebesta, H., Bernaz, N., & Macchi, C. (2020). The European Union Farm to Fork Strategy: Sustainability and Responsible Business in the Food Supply Chain. European Food and Feed Law Review, 15(5), 420-427. Sosa, L., Colloricchio, A., Novak, M., Raspail, N., Brown, E., Papu, N., . . . Sutherland, A. (2021, January 20). Circular Economy Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.circle-economy.com/resources/the-national-policy-instrument-framework Sousa, P., Moreira, M. J. P., Moura, A. P. d., Lima, R. C., & Cunha, L. M. (2021). Consumer perception of the circular economy concept applied to the food domain: an exploratory approach. Sustainability, 13(20), 11340. UNEP, FAO, & UNDP. (2023). Rethinking Our Food Systems: A Guide for Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration. Nairobi, Rome and New York. Vecchio, Y., Masi, M., Del Giudice, T., De Rosa, M., & Adinolfi, F. (2024). Technological innovation in fisheries and aquaculture: What are the “discourses” of the Italian policy network? Marine Policy, 159. Watts, S. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method & interpretation. Yeter, G., Vecchio, Y., Masi, M. et al. Circular consumption in agri-food to become sustainable: a semi-systematic review. Circ.Econ.Sust. (2025).