Steering in a dynamic ecosystem – towards Product Boards 2.0?

Sustainability in the agrifood sector is a public good and therefore requires strong coordination and effective governance. It is no coincidence that the debate on ‘Product Boards 2.0’ has re-emerged. Whereas the former Product Boards were responsible for the collective implementation of rules, levies and campaigns, the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) now explicitly argues for a renewed version. Policy advice from the Council for the Environment and Infrastructure (RLi) and the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands (SER) also points to the absence of sector-wide coordination mechanisms and the need for institutions that can safeguard data, standards and public values. The return of this debate is not accidental. Today’s sustainability challenges show strong parallels with the problems for which the Product Boards were originally established, albeit within a fundamentally changed and dynamic ecosystem of interdependent actors.

Why ecosystem thinking is necessary

The Dutch agrifood sector is often described in linear chain terms, from farm to fork. This metaphor, however, no longer reflects reality. In practice, the food system functions as an ecosystem: a coherent network in which decisions by one actor directly affect other parts of the system. When, for example, a retailer introduces higher sustainability or animal welfare standards, this has consequences for production methods, volumes, prices, market positioning and import flows. No actor operates autonomously. Interventions in one place have effects elsewhere. Solutions therefore cannot be designed per link in the chain but require a system-wide perspective, an ecosystem approach.

Where steering breaks down in the ecosystem

Our report Policy options towards sustainability agreements in the chain (2025) shows that behind the fragmentation of sustainability initiatives lies a deeper coordination and governance problem. Effective sustainability transitions require shared rules of the game, transparent decision-making and a form of public steering that matches this complexity.

Figure 3.1 in the report shows how informal and formal institutions, together with different sources of power, shape the capacity of actors to act. This ecosystem perspective clarifies why sustainability efforts repeatedly stall. The costs and risks of sustainability measures often fall on farmers, while the value or benefits are realised elsewhere in the chain or at societal level. This is not an individual mismatch, but the result of poor coordination and unequal ‘programming power’. Standards and dominant narratives are largely determined by retailers, large processors and NGOs, while farmers have limited influence. Without shared governance infrastructure, sustainability remains dependent on voluntarism and isolated initiatives. At the same time, a common information backbone is missing. Divergent KPIs, measurement methods, audits and data standards hinder comparison, monitoring and scaling up. Standardisation of data and measurements is therefore not a technical side issue but an institutional precondition for effective ecosystem steering.

Fragmentation as a symptom of missing steering

The report also shows that the fragmentation of sustainability agreements is not a problem in itself but a symptom of missing steering. Without shared goals, institutional infrastructure and a neutral space for data, standards and oversight, chain-based sustainability efforts revert to voluntarism. This leads to classic collective action problems. Front-runners incur costs, while others can free-ride without contributing. This free-rider problem undermines scaling up and continuity. At the same time, the absence of shared rules increases the risk of a tragedy of the commons. Individually rational behaviour, such as continuing without sustainability measures, leads to collective environmental damage because actors fear pricing themselves out of the market if they move first. Enforceable governance is therefore necessary. In other words, governance infrastructure must not only coordinate but also discipline.

Public steering without top-down control

The report emphasises that public steering is needed, not in the form of top-down control, but through the setting of goals, stable rules of the game, cooperation infrastructure and the safeguarding of public values. Precisely in an ecosystem characterised by interdependencies and unequal power relations, this form of steering is essential to break lock-ins and enable collective sustainability transitions.

Although the report uses the term ecosystem sparingly, it describes exactly the dynamics in which free-rider behaviour and commons problems structurally recur in the absence of governance. An ecosystem perspective makes visible that these problems arise from structural interactions between actors and shifts the focus from individual solutions to collective rules and governance arrangements.

Steering as governance infrastructure

Effective steering in an ecosystem does not mean hierarchical control, but organised reciprocity. It involves clear rules of the game that make interactions orderly, predictable and sustainable. Steering concerns providing direction through a clear vision and stable objectives, creating shared conditions such as data and standard infrastructures, enabling innovation, setting boundaries on harmful or lock-in-inducing practices, and organising learning and adjustment.

Steering in an ecosystem therefore does not aim to increase the power of a single party, but to create a governance infrastructure with institutional stability.

Ecosystem steering requires shared language and measurement methods

Information is crucial for steering in an ecosystem. Yet across agrifood chains there is a highly fragmented landscape of measurement methods, audit standards, data formats, KPI sets and certification schemes. The absence of shared language, measurement methods and standards has far-reaching consequences. Sustainability initiatives are often not comparable, making it difficult to assess performance across chains or sectors. Retailers are therefore unable to substantiate sustainability claims consistently, putting credibility towards consumers and regulators under pressure. At the same time, farmers face an accumulation of audits, reporting requirements and data requests from different schemes and buyers, resulting in high administrative burdens and declining support for sustainability efforts. This fragmentation also has consequences at public level. Without uniform data and indicators, structural monitoring and evaluation of policy becomes virtually impossible. Insight into progress, effectiveness and necessary adjustments is lacking, even though this information is essential for a learning and robust governance of sustainability transitions.

The absence of a shared language hampers the ability of an ecosystem to collectively focus on common goals. Standardisation of data and measurement methods is therefore not technocratic, but a fundamentally political and institutional challenge.

Historical functions that prove necessary again

The renewed discussion about ‘Product Boards 2.0’ stems from the realisation that the abolition of the Product Boards in 2015 led to the disappearance of essential sector-wide functions. These organisations performed classic forms of collective action governance, such as standardisation, market organisation, data collection, quality assurance and joint financing. It is precisely these functions that appear to be needed again in the current context.

Within a new context

As illustrated in the figure below, the institutional context has changed significantly. Where policy for a long time relied on regulation and the Product Boards, the current situation is characterised by fragmented cooperation and a search for new forms of steering. The report shows that the absence of a publicly legitimate coordination body has resulted in a governance gap, with divergent standards, fragmented initiatives and a strong reliance on voluntary, private cooperation. In complex sustainability challenges, this combination proves insufficient and scaling up fails to materialise. Against this background, the idea of Product Boards 2.0 has returned, not out of nostalgia, but from the need for a modern coordination body that can harmonise chain-wide data and standards, safeguard public values and facilitate cooperation between interdependent actors. In ecosystem terms, this concerns a keystone organisation that enables stability and collective action.

From chain governance to ecosystem governance

Developments in the agricultural sector show that today’s challenges cannot be solved within linear chain cooperation alone. The agrifood sector functions as a complex ecosystem in which costs, benefits, power and information are unevenly distributed.

Sustainability agreements within the chain can contribute to sustainability in the ecosystem, but this requires sound governance: shared standards, neutral data infrastructure, legitimacy, legal certainty and joint investment capacity to scale up sustainability transitions.

The idea of Product Boards 2.0 therefore does not arise from nostalgia, but from systemic necessity. Whether such a structure can indeed provide a solution depends on the extent to which it can operate transparently, openly, future-proof and ecosystem-oriented. The task now is to explore which institutional forms and conditions are best suited to carrying this system challenge.

gedeelde standaarden, neutrale data-infrastructuur, legitimiteit, juridische zekerheid en gezamenlijke investeringscapaciteit om verduurzaming op te schalen.

Het idee van een Productschappen 2.0 komt daarom niet voort uit nostalgie, maar uit systeemnoodzaak. Of zo’n structuur daadwerkelijk de oplossing is, hangt af van de mate waarin zij transparant, open, toekomstbestendig, en ecosysteemgericht kan opereren. Het is nu zaak om te verkennen welke institutionele vormen en voorwaarden deze systeemopgave het beste kan dragen.

Van Wassenaer, L., et al. (2025). Policy options towards sustainability agreements in the chain: searching for a balanced division of roles. Wageningen Social & Economic Research, Report 2025-006.