The Task Force on Environment, Sustainability and Climate (TFESC) of Academia Europaea investigates ways of enhancing global science policy communication on the topic of food security and sustainability. This Focus reports the initial outcome of this investigation in the form of three articles. First, given the complexity of the link between food security and sustainability, and in particular the two-way relation between the impact of food production on sustainability, on the one side, and of ecological degradation on food security, on the other, we explored the ways in which new Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) can provide more comprehensive knowledge on the question. Second, even though knowledge and awareness of the link between food security and sustainability have grown, this has by and large not yet translated into significant transformations of attitudes and actions by consumers. In this light, we analysed the implications for communication strategies. Acknowledging the necessity of global coordinated action, third, we analysed the experience of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is often hailed as a model for a global science–policy interface that provides the necessary link between producers of relevant scholarly knowledge and office-holding policymakers. This introduction explains the background to the TFESC investigation and outlines the reasoning in the three following articles.

One third of greenhouse gas emissions comes from the production, distribution and disposal of food. Animal products generally have a higher environmental footprint than plant-based foods, with grains, fruits and vegetables having the lowest impact and ruminant meat having the highest. Reducing meat consumption benefits the environment – but also improves health outcomes; for example, reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Consumers have some degree of freedom in their daily behaviour and can contribute to both planetary sustainability and personal health through their food choices. In this article, we focus on consumers as key actors in the food system and propose a framework for communication goals to stimulate changes in food choices. We argue that communication efforts need to (1) frame food choices as both healthy and sustainable (‘dualistic framing’), and (2) inform about the health and sustainability consequences of food choices. Moreover, we argue that communication efforts also need to (3) support the socio-emotional readiness to make healthy and sustainable food choices, for example by emphasizing the hedonic value of plant-based foods. The conceptual framework will be useful both to inspire future research and guide practical campaign work.

Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) have become critical tools for analysing the complex interactions within agriculture and food systems, offering valuable insights for evidence-based policymaking. This article reviews 12 widely applied agriculture and food Integrated Assessment Models, categorizing them into four primary sub-groups: Food Security, Land Use, and Socio-economic Models; Hydrological and Water Resources Models; Land, Crop, and Food Production Models; and Food–Energy–Water Nexus Models. The review highlights their respective capabilities, including cost minimization, depth of the food–energy–water nexus analysis, integration with other domains and tools, and spatial and temporal resolution. A comparative assessment underscores each model’s unique strengths, such as resource intensity accounting in FABLE, climate-focused numerical analysis in MAgPIE and IMPACT, resource balance optimization in GCAM, and scenario-based water resource allocation in WEAP. Synergies between models and their integration with other domains, including energy and economic systems, are also explored, demonstrating their potential for producing holistic scenarios addressing climate adaptation, resource constraints and dietary transitions. The findings emphasize the significant role Integrated Assessment Models play in advancing the EU’s sustainability agenda, including the Green Deal and Common Agricultural Policy. These integrated approaches are crucial for crafting strategies that enhance food system resilience, optimize resource use, and support climate goals, positioning IAMs as indispensable instruments for shaping sustainable and equitable food systems worldwide.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has, over almost 35 years, developed into a model for effecting science-led governance for global environmental change. However, on the back of the sixth Assessment Report, and with preparations underway for the seventh, the IPCC arguably faces an identity crisis. With many inside and outside the IPCC perceiving a persistent disconnect between this immense scientific enterprise and meaningful political action, some argue the IPCC is failing to fulfil its social contract. At this important juncture, which could have implications for other spheres of global governance, a pilot study was conducted, interviewing IPCC authors about how they perceive the IPCC’s social contract has evolved according to the interplay of key elements that IPCC members draw on to define the organization’s identity and authority. Building on a long history of critical social science about the IPCC, this study found that authors discussed a weave of identity elements, which were categorized under three headings: (i) task identification and interpretation; (ii) mode of operation; and (iii) shifting key concerns. As scoping exercises ramp up for the seventh Assessment Report, IPCC leadership will need to be mindful of how groups inside and outside the IPCC are re-crafting the identity and authority of the organization.