Under the context of increasing demand for transparency, efficiency, and trust in food systems, digital traceability is emerging as a key strategy for improving value creation across agri-food supply chains. This study investigates how different governance structures influence the design and effectiveness of digital traceability systems. We develop an analytical framework linking four guiding questions (why, where, how, and who) to traceability performance and apply it to five Italian supply chains (wine, olive oil, cheese, pasta, and dairy) through 28 semi-structured interviews with companies, cooperatives, and technology providers. The results show that governance models shape traceability adoption and function. In captive systems (e.g., wine), traceability ensures compliance but limits flexibility, while in modular or relational systems (e.g., pasta and cheese), it fosters product differentiation and decentralized coordination. Across cases, digital traceability improved certification processes, enhanced consumer communication (e.g., via QR codes), and supported premium positioning. However, upstream–downstream integration remains weak, especially in agricultural stages, due to technical fragmentation and limited interoperability. The diverse experience data from company interviews reveal that only 30% of firms had fully integrated systems, and fixed costs remained largely unaffected, though variable cost reductions and quality improvements were reported in the olive oil and cheese sectors. The study concludes that digital traceability is not only a technical solution but a governance innovation whose success depends on the alignment between technology, actor roles, and institutional arrangements. Future research should explore consumer-side impacts and the role of public policy in fostering inclusive and effective traceability adoption.

Lack of public funding and environmental deterioration are promoting the search for innovative mechanisms enabling to boost farmers’ provision of agri-environmental climate public goods. This work aims to contribute to the current debate by highlighting the role of innovative contractual solutions through a systematic review of more than 60 articles. The review analyses the potential of result-based and collective contracts as innovative solutions compared to action-based instruments, which are those currently most used. The design of innovative contracts and other mechanisms, e.g., auction and screening contracts, can reduce the policy failures due to asymmetric information. The paper emphasises the trade-off between an accurate design of agri-environmental schemes and the related administrative burden, highlighting the need for a better understanding of the role of mechanisms design into the policy cycle. Some new instruments were not analysed in the review, due to the scarcity of literature, and there is the need of more case studies providing information on the effectiveness of instruments when implemented in different contexts. We fill the gap in empirical evidence through a SWOT analysis that evaluates the effectiveness and acceptability of innovative instruments for policy purposes.

Agri-environmental schemes (AESs) constitute one of the main agricultural policy instruments that address environmental objectives in the Common Agricultural Policy. However, in spite of a 20-year application window and large budgetary shares allocated by EU member states, several studies demonstrate lower-than-expected environmental impacts. The reasons for poor environmental outcomes are the lack of targeting, low participation rates, spatial heterogeneity, and information asymmetry between farmers and public administrators. This study comprehensively analyses the determinants of AES adoption while highlighting patterns of the spatial agglomeration of participation in organic and integrated production. For this, we combine the results of farm-level adoption analysis with a spatial analysis of the participation rate. The results show that both micro- and meso-level characteristics strongly impact AES participation. In fact, farm and household structure, quality of extension services, and territorial conditions all significantly affect AES adoption.