Although it is not clear yet what a full-grown circular economy (CE) is going to look like, it is clear that the challenges of transitioning to a CE are both impressive and urgent. The Dutch government has expressed the ambition to establish a CE in the Netherlands in 2050. In the wake of this, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality laid down a vision on circular agriculture (CA). A key question with respect to both CE and CA is if and to what extent this means business as unusual: How distinct is circular business from normal business operations? The ways in which the notions of CE and circular business models (CBMs) are often introduced suggest a big difference. However, closer scrutiny also reveals that in practice the impact of circularity is less obvious. Against the backdrop of such opposite observations, this paper examines how Dutch farmers perceive circularity and what implications this has for their production practices. Interviews (n = 13) with Dutch farmers show that circular business is adapted in normal business management by some and regarded as a genuine alternative to the conventional food system by others. By taking Dutch farmers as an example, this paper aims to contribute to our understanding of how CE is interpreted in small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) is about an interactive and comprehensive development of new technologies, also addressing social needs and ethical issues. But how do these ambitions of RRI relate to the practice of technological innovations? Nanotechnology is currently a large-scale techno-scientific development that offers many chances and opportunities but also raises concerns. Focusing on the issues of power, information (asymmetries) and responsibility we will describe the Dutch policy, assessments and debates on nanotechnology in general and on nanofood in particular. RRI assumes a willingness of all stakeholders to share or communicate information, but the case of nanofood exemplifies that industry can be reluctant to do this because of the fear that discussions will take a ‘wrong direction’. We conclude that information asymmetries can be a principal problem for a more inclusive nanofood development and that policies that wish to strengthen RRI should take this into account.

Sustainable approaches in the agricultural sector are important to addressing problems relating to food security and nutrition around the globe. To obviate these problems, it has become crucial to administer methods of farming that are ecologically compatible, holistic and organic in nature. Dutch farmers are moving towards more sustainable and circular production methods to respond to the various challenges, including biodiversity loss and climate change, whilst maintaining a viable business model. To generate further insight into circular and nature-inclusive or nature-positive agricultural business models (CNABM), we describe a conceptual framework that could help farmers, their advisers and, possibly, funding organisations to identify critical success factors for the implementation of circular and nature-inclusive or nature-positive business models in a qualitative way. The framework was built on a synthesis of existing literature and seven empirical case studies drawing on in-depth interviews. Prior to the case studies, the framework was tested through a desk study focused on sugar-beet cultivation. Based on existing literature and the pilot case on sugar-beet cultivation, we found that three conditions are needed in order to identify these critical success factors. (1) It is important to consider the barriers and drivers in the social and physical contexts within which entrepreneurs involved in such business models operate (‘adoption factors’). (2) Sustainable business models should go beyond delivering economic value and include other forms of value for a broader range of stakeholders. Moreover, attention should be paid to strengths and weaknesses of the business model. (3) Traditional business models (e.g. the business model canvas, or BMC) should be extended to include sustainability-related elements (sustainability impact). The framework proved useful for identifying the business models, along with their vulnerabilities and potential opportunities. Although the framework is meant for use with circular and nature-inclusive or nature-positive agricultural business models, it can be applied to other sustainable agricultural business models as well.

In this article we present a study of assessments of nanotechnology in food and agriculture. The study was conducted as a part of a project studying the need for integrated assessment of emerging science and technologies. The article first introduces central hopes and concerns regarding nanotechnology in food and agriculture, and how these are assessed in different assessment spheres. The question of whether there is a need for more integration in assessments in this field is then introduced and the multiple interpretations of this notion are discussed, first in a sustainability context and then in the specific context of emerging science and technologies. This serves as the basis for analysing the current status of integration of nano-food assessments. The validity of our findings is discussed and the article ends with a summary of the main conclusions from the discussion.