Australia lacks innovative and systems-based food policies to address food system challenges that are increasingly compounded by climate change and globalised geopolitical conflicts (Summerhayes and Baker, 2024, UNFSS., 2021). A key barrier is the stagnation of institutional innovations, particularly within the Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) organisations that underpin these policy innovations. The absence of reform has led to reduced funding, fragmented knowledge development and diffusion, languishing growth, stalled adoption of new technologies, and substantial productivity loss, as pointed out by Hunt et al. (2014)over ten years ago. Today, misaligned food-related policies and siloed agencies persist, despite growing calls to transform food systems and policy shifts aimed at accelerating progress towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Summerhayes and Baker, 2024, UNFSS., 2021, United Nations, 2023).
This policy commentary uses the Future Food Systems Cooperative Research Centre (FFS CRC) in Australia as a case study, exploring the potential of a triple-helix policy framework in facilitating institutional innovations and food policy integration.
The FFS CRC was established as a 10-year RD&E organisation in 2019, comprising six Australian universities, four agrifood industry partners, and a broad mix of local and state government agencies from various states and territories at its inception (Future Food Systems, 2019). This structure qualifies it for 50 % federal government co-funding by meeting the requirements of a minimum of three industry partners and two research entities (Australian Government Business, 2025, Future Food Systems, 2019).
However, the FFS CRC distinguishes its institutional innovations from other RD&E organisations by integrating industry, academia, and government. Both institutional structure and functions reflect this triple-helix policy framework. Structurally, its government involvement signifies its innovations in two areas: One is the inclusion of government at state or territory levels, as recommended by Hunt et al. (2014). The other is the local government (Future Food Systems, 2019, Future Food Systems, 2025). This inclusion of local government marks a significant innovation, as Hunt and his coauthors had not yet considered this element at the time of publication (Hunt et al., 2014). In addition, the broader scale of collaboration between stakeholders, especially with government across multiple levels, represents a drastic departure from the market-based approach, a model that has long dominated since the retreat from the state or territory government in the late 1980s (Hunt et al., 2014, Summerhayes and Baker, 2024).
In addition to its structural innovations, the FFS CRC has developed synergistic functions, which reinforce the triple-helix policy framework. Those functions are innovative, extending beyond agriculture to broader food systems, while aligning with elements conceptualised in the earlier Agriculture Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) framework (Bergek et al., 2010, Future Food Systems, 2025, Hunt et al., 2014, Rivera et al., 2005). For example, regional food hubs, high-tech cropping, and value-adding are three signature research programs, supported by 47 industry-based PhD scholarships and industry-sponsored projects, including research on food planning and policy. They also collaborate with the government at state and local levels to co-fund and establish multi-million dollar purpose-built food research facilities, such as the Food Innovation Precinct Western Australia (FIPWA) (Future Food Systems, 2022, Future Food Systems, 2025).
These innovations have led to a substantial increase in stakeholder and partner participation over the past six years, growing from 36 to 95, and a significant expansion of R&D projects from 17 to 45, with some completed and others still in the pipeline, worth $106 million (Future Food Systems, 2025). Further knowledge diffusion and market fitment continue. Particularly, periodic industry-focused research seminars and workshops benefit many smaller businesses in navigating entrepreneurial uncertainties and risks (Bergek et al., 2010, Hunt et al., 2014, Rivera et al., 2005). Enhanced access to funding and resources has also led to research projects that are place-specific and in close collaboration with local government, such as a Living Lab in Coffs Harbour (Future Food Systems, 2022, Future Food Systems, 2025). These early benefits contribute to increased knowledge development and adoption of new technologies, overcoming governance silos, fostering innovative food policies, and supporting food systems with a systems approach.
This case of the FFS CRC highlights a promising model of a triple-helix policy framework in driving innovations in an RD&E institution. While promising, a comprehensive evaluation of this model is needed to fully understand its triple-helix capability and scalability in addressing pressing issues, such as industry dynamics, lag times in research benefit realisation, and policy barriers. Given the four years remaining in its lifecycle, evaluating current co-funding mechanisms is also critical to inform further funding directions and guide future food policy integration necessary to address the evolving challenges of complex food systems and dynamic economies in a globalised environment (Hunt et al., 2014, Summerhayes and Baker, 2024, UNFSS., 2021).
In summary, a triple-helix policy framework has the potential to revitalise RD&E institutions and catalyse innovative and systems-based policy integration for transforming food systems. Embedding such an approach into national policy frameworks will be crucial for advancing Sustainable Development Goals, both nationally and globally (Summerhayes and Baker, 2024, UNFSS., 2021, United Nations, 2023). Scaling and sustaining this triple-helix model require targeted policy support, long-term funding strategies, robust evaluation matrices, and deeper integration across governance levels. We recommend three key actions to support this transformation: Incentivising greater participation from government at both local and state levels can amplify the model’s outreach and impacts. Creating cross-sectoral policy platforms can address food policy misalignment and governance fragmentation. Lastly, establishing evaluation matrices for this model can track and quantify changes in food systems and assess their transformative potential in accelerating progress towards global sustainable development.