As traditional and responsible investors gain influence in Australia’s food sector, researchers warn that without stronger government vision, market forces could drive nutrition further off course. Can financial disruption support a healthier future, or will it entrench inequality?

Study: Financing food environments: who has the power to drive healthier food investment in Australia? Image Credit: FJZEA / Shutterstock

Over two-thirds of Australian adults are overweight or obese, a statistic from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that highlights the urgent need for healthier food environments. A recent study published in the journal Health Promotion International investigated the dynamics of financing food environments, focusing on who has the power to influence healthier food investments in Australia. The study also explores how financial actors, including traditional and ‘responsible’ investors, shape investment flows in the food system, with the potential to disrupt traditional industry dominance, while raising new risks and opportunities for public health. The researchers also examined the roles of various stakeholders in shaping food-related policies and investments.

Healthy Food Environment

The global rise in diet-related diseases, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, has intensified the focus on creating healthier food environments. These environments encompass the physical, economic, political, and socio-cultural contexts influencing individuals’ food choices and nutritional status. In Australia, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has reached alarming levels, prompting public health initiatives aimed at promoting healthier eating habits.

Efforts to improve food environments often involve multiple stakeholders, including government agencies, private sector entities, and civil society organizations. Government policies can regulate food marketing, labeling, and availability, while private sector investments can influence the accessibility and affordability of healthy food options. Civil society organizations also play a crucial role in advocating equitable food systems and holding other stakeholders accountable.

However, factors such as power dynamics, conflicting interests, and varying levels of influence among stakeholders can hinder the development and implementation of effective food policies. Understanding who holds the power to drive healthier food investments is essential for designing strategies that foster collaboration and promote health equity.

About the Study

The present study aimed to explore the power structures and decision-making processes that shape food environment investments in Australia and provide insights into how healthier food systems can be achieved through strategic stakeholder engagement. Using Moon’s expanded typology of power, which includes economic, network, expert, and moral dimensions, researchers analyzed how actors influence food system investment. The researchers employed a qualitative research design to investigate the power dynamics influencing food environment investments in Australia. They interviewed 22 key stakeholders across various sectors: government, industry, academia, and civil society.

Each interview was approximately 45 to 60 minutes long and was guided by a set of open-ended questions designed to elicit detailed responses about participants’ experiences, perceptions, and insights into food environment financing. The topics covered included the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, the influence of political and economic factors, and the challenges and opportunities in promoting healthier food investments.

The researchers systematically coded the transcripts and categorized the data into themes such as stakeholder influence, policy development processes, and barriers to investment in healthy food environments. The research team held multiple meetings to resolve discrepancies and ensure consistent interpretation of themes, though participants were not directly asked to validate findings. This analytical approach allowed for an in-depth exploration of stakeholders’ complex interactions and power relations.

Key Findings

The study found that while government entities hold structural and institutional power, they were perceived as largely absent in actively shaping food investments, with limited institutional leadership or coordinated strategy. In contrast, large food industry stakeholders predominantly influence food environment investments through lobbying, marketing, and strategic partnerships. These corporations often prioritize profit over health, promoting products high in sugar, fat, and salt. Moreover, their financial resources and political connections enable them to shape policies and investments in ways that favor their interests.

The interviews highlighted that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face significant barriers in accessing finance compared to large corporations, contributing to market consolidation. Additionally, while active in promoting healthier food environments, civil society organizations and public health advocates often lack the financial and political clout to counterbalance the influence of industry stakeholders. However, the study highlighted how these groups can exercise influence through expert and network power, such as coalition-building and leveraging technical knowledge. Their efforts are further hampered by limited access to decision-making processes and insufficient funding.

The study also identified a lack of coordination and collaboration among stakeholders as a barrier to effective investment in healthy food environments. Fragmented efforts and competing interests were found to hinder the development of strategies that prioritize public health. The interviewed participants emphasized the need for stronger governance structures and mechanisms to facilitate collaboration and align investments with health objectives.

Furthermore, the research revealed that current investment decisions in Australia often neglect the social determinants of health, such as socioeconomic status and geographic location. As a result, disadvantaged communities continue to face limited access to healthy food options, exacerbating health inequalities.

The researchers drew attention to the emerging role of the ‘responsible investment’ sector, which incorporates environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles into financial decision-making. This sector was noted for its potential to disrupt traditional industry power dynamics through “patient capital”—long-term investments that tolerate risk. Although this approach shows potential to align finance with health outcomes, the authors cautioned that responsible investing currently occupies a niche space and may not significantly influence broader market behavior without policy support.

To address these challenges, the authors introduced the term ‘profit-plus investing’—a neutral framing for financial strategies that seek both economic returns and social benefits such as improved nutrition, while warning that without stronger policy guidance, these approaches risk becoming superficial or tokenistic.

Conclusions

In summary, the study highlighted the dominance of industry stakeholders and the passive role of government in shaping food environment investments in Australia. It also highlighted the challenges faced by public health advocates in influencing policy and investment decisions to promote healthier food systems. The study also emphasized the financial sector’s underrecognized potential to disrupt unhealthy market trends through strategic investments.

The findings indicated that addressing these challenges requires enhanced collaboration, transparent governance, and inclusive decision-making processes to reduce health disparities across communities and align investments with goals for healthier food environments. The authors call for policy frameworks that support SME access to finance and prioritize equity, alongside coordinated leadership from government to guide financial flows in directions that support public health, especially for disadvantaged populations.