Over the last several decades, policymakers and stakeholders in the European Union (EU) have put considerable effort into increasing the adoption of organic farming, with the overall objective of its sustainable development. However, the growth of the organic sector has come with many challenges that jeopardize its sustainability. The question then is how to move organic farming in Europe forward and at the same time capitalize on its potential contribution to sustainability? Organic farming in the EU is a highly complex and dynamic food system and as such this question cannot be answered in isolation using a one-dimensional mind-set and tools of the past. In this paper, we use three system archetypes—Limits to Growth, Shifting the Burden and Eroding Goals—to sharpen our ability: (1) to analyze and anticipate difficulties in the development of organic farming in the EU under the current policy measures; and (2) to find effective ways to address these difficulties. A system archetype consists of a generic system structure that leads to unintended behavior over time and effective strategies for changing the structure into one that generates desirable behavior. The analysis reveals that in order to move forward, policymakers and stakeholders should reemphasize fundamental solutions rather than quick fixes that often generate unintended consequences. Specifically, Limits to Growth shows us that the leverage for moving organic farming out of the niche does not necessarily lie in increasing subsidies that push engines of growth, but rather in anticipating and managing its limits arising from, for instance, market dynamics or intrinsic environmental motivation. In turn, Shifting the Burden brings to attention how easily and unnoticeably the EU’s organic farming system can become dependent on third countries thereby undermining its own sustainability. Finally, Eroding Goals highlights that is it important to continuously improve regulatory standards based on an external frame of reference, as otherwise organic farming in the EU will continue on its trajectory towards conventionalization.

How scientists frame problems impact the solutions offered. Since the late 1940s development has been equated with modernization, technology adoption, and economic growth. Contrasting to this technocentric view, an ecocentric view has developed since the 1960s. Despite the criticism of technocentric views and increasing evidence that modern human societies are not reaching their environmental and social goals, technocentric views have remained predominant in the sustainable development discourse. Using a Kuhnian lens, the divide between technocentric and ecocentric perspectives can be framed as distinct paradigms within the sustainable development discourse. This paper outlines the continuation of the divide between technocentric and ecocentric worldviews within sustainability transition studies. It shows that the technocentric view remained predominant and that socio‐technical transition theory fails to break with technocentric and growth‐focused approaches to progress and development. The paper concludes by outlining what could be gained if an ecocentric view became more weight.

Since the introduction of the sustainability challenge, scientists disagree over the interpretation of the term “sustainability.” Weak and strong sustainability are the two main interpretations of sustainability, which are opposing each other. Some researchers stated that the interpretation of the term depends on the context; others disagree pointing out that it always implies the meaning of continuation. The term “sustainability” can be used as attribute, which adds a certain characteristic to the noun. If something can be attributed as being sustainable, it can also be unsustainable. The sustainability challenge consists of shifting from the current unsustainable towards a sustainable system. This paper outlines that the weak sustainability term is illegitimate, as it leads to a contradiction with the acknowledged assumption that the current state is unsustainable. This contradiction is revealed through an analysis of the occurrence of decoupling in agriculture: Agricultural land use could be decoupled from agricultural production, but only with the trade-off of massive increases in fertilizer, pesticide, energy and water usage. This paper outlines an inherent inconsistency within the ongoing discussion about the interpretation of sustainability. Through identifying the invalidity of the weak sustainability interpretation the focus can be shifted form the discourse to the sustainability challenge itself.

Perfectly operating markets only exist in theory. Market failures are known to not only inhibit the proper functioning of the market, but also affect sustainability and thus a sustainability transition. In this regard, much attention has been paid to externalities or missing markets, even though these are not the only market failures. In this paper, we argue that market power and its relationship with sustainability has been neglected, despite the fact that, back in 1931, Hotelling indicated the connection between the two concepts. However, research that has been dealing with this connection has not been comprehensive and has only looked at one aspect of sustainability and market power. Due to the rising relevance of market power as well as of sustainability concerns, the connection between the two deserves thorough attention. Accordingly, we propose initiating a new interdisciplinary research agenda to comprehensively analyze the complex relationship between market power and sustainability.

Sustainability science and sustainability transition studies are interdisciplinary fields. Interdisciplinarity is understood to support out-of-the-box thinking and thus facilitate scientific advancements. Interdisciplinary research projects dealing with complex issues might need project management approaches that support learning, adaptation, and innovation. Agile is a management approach that has been developed to facilitate collaboration, learning, creativity, innovation, and reflectivity. Due to these qualities, Agile might be a suitable approach to managing interdisciplinary research projects. Agile project management is still new in academic research settings. Only limited information about how to apply it in an academic setting exists. To fill this gap the Agile principles are translated to fit the academic context. The article then outlines how Agile principles can be applied to an academic research program, that did not consciously plan to apply this approach. The translation of the principles will permit other researchers to intentionally use them in their interdisciplinary research projects. Furthermore, other researchers can build on the insights provided in this article to overcome the challenges that Agile can bring.

Market power is a complex matter that is approximated with quantitative indicators within economics. However, these indicators may not fully capture market power, or they may fail to identify it, although it may be present. Moreover, a quantitative approach restricts market power as a concept, impeding the ability to discuss its relationship with other concepts, such as sustainability. This paper extends the definition of market power, following Foucault’s understanding of power and the associated theoretical discussions of power from different disciplines. We extended Foucault’s work by including systems thinking to capture the importance of the prevalent system’s paradigm, which is the ultimate initiator of action. Apart from distinguishing different elements of power, we also integrate an instrumental view on the elements of power. The developed frame allows us to understand the dynamic character of power as a force that strives to maintain or ameliorate the position of the paradigm that it serves. Based on this frame, we outline how this extended understanding of power can be used to analyze market power itself, and its relation with sustainability.