Switzerland has a strong scientific base, high-quality research outputs, advanced digital infrastructure, and a dynamic innovation system involving public and private actors. These features create favourable conditions for innovation to act as a catalyst for food systems transformation. However, some structural and co-ordination challenges that limit its contribution to systemic change persist. This chapter examines the Swiss innovation system from a food systems perspective. It begins by analysing governance arrangements and mapping key actors. It then reviews the landscape of public and private investment in research and development (R&D), alongside indicators of digital connectivity, R&D performance, and innovation adoption. Attention is given to the uptake of digital technologies on farms. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the role of innovation in advancing the desired transformation of the food system.
Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Switzerland
Abstract
Switzerland has a strong scientific base and produces high-quality agriculture and food research, despite a relatively modest share of global agri-food publications. Its research output is highly cited, reflecting excellence. However, the translation of this knowledge into widespread adoption and system-wide transformation remains uneven.
Innovation in the agro-food sector is supported by a diverse set of public and private actors and funding instruments, but it could benefit from improved co-ordination. Innovation policy is fragmented across governance levels and programmes, which reduces coherence and limits the scaling of transformative solutions across regions and value chains.
Innovation is mainly framed through technological and economic lenses, in line with Switzerland’s strengths in R&D and product-oriented innovation. At the same time, social, organisational, and institutional forms of innovation, which are critical for food system transformation, receive comparatively less attention and support.
Digital infrastructure in Switzerland is highly developed, with near-universal broadband coverage and no pronounced rural-urban divide. This provides strong enabling conditions for digital innovation in agriculture and food value chains, even though differences persist in the quality and type of connectivity.
Despite high awareness of digital technologies among farmers, adoption is uneven and concentrated among larger farms and specific production systems. High investment costs, limited digital skills, concerns over data ownership and privacy, and administrative complexity constrain wider uptake and effective use.
Switzerland has an evolving but fragmented framework for agricultural data governance. Despite ongoing efforts under the DigiAgri-foodCH transition programme, the absence of a unified approach to data ownership, access and interoperability can undermine trust and limit the potential benefits of data-driven innovation.
Private firms in the food sector show relatively high innovation intensity, particularly in product innovation, while business process innovation lags. This suggests opportunities to strengthen innovation aimed at improving efficiency, sustainability and organisational practices.
Switzerland benefits from a dynamic start-up ecosystem, but high costs and regulatory barriers constrain scaling in agri-food. Expanding spaces for experimentation, such as living labs, experimental farms and public procurement pilots, could support testing, learning and the scaling of innovations.
Farmers are not always meaningfully engaged in innovation processes, which reduces the relevance and adoption of new solutions. Participatory approaches, strengthened advisory services, and better-functioning agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (AKIS) are critical to enhance knowledge flows and farmer-centred innovation.
Potential reductions in public funding, combined with fragmented support mechanisms, risk weakening innovation capacity at a time when long-term investment, experimentation and co-ordination are needed to support sustainable food system transformation.
4.1.1. General innovation profile
Switzerland is recognised as a top country for innovation at both the European and global scales…
Innovation is key to address the complex and interconnected challenges facing food systems: ensuring the production of healthy diets for a growing global population, under fair working conditions, while reducing pressure on natural resources, all within a changing climate and degraded ecosystems (Herrero et al., 2020[1]; Parodi et al., 2018[2]; von Braun et al., 2023[3]). Switzerland is on the right track with a sophisticated agricultural innovation system that is embedded within one of the world’s leading national innovation systems. The country ranked first in the 2025 Global Innovation Index (GII) (WIPO, 2025[4]). Globally recognised, the GII measures innovation across several categories including institutions, human capital, infrastructure, and business sophistication.
Switzerland is also classified as an “Innovation Leader” in the European Innovation Scoreboard 2025, with a 157.4 score, ahead of all European Union (EU) Member States and European neighbours (European Commision, 2025[5]). It performed at 139.8% of the EU average in 2025, ranking first among the EU and neighbouring countries. Although still at the top, Switzerland's performance has declined by 1.7 percentage points compared to 2018 and by 1.6 percentage points compared to 2024. The relative strengths of the innovation index are on public-private co-publications, international scientific co-publications, and foreign doctorate students as a percentage of all doctorate students. The relative weaknesses are on direct and indirect government support of business research and development (R&D), high-tech imports from outside the European Union, and exports of medium and high-tech products.
… but structural and regional differences create gaps in innovation performance
The Swiss research and innovation system is highly regarded internationally because of its high level of digital competitiveness and high-quality permeable education system, and its contribution to high quality of life and modern infrastructure. Favourable tax conditions combined with the country’s flexibility in terms of access to international markets through bilateral and multilateral agreements enable it to absorb and stimulate innovation in an agile way (SERI, 2022[6]).
The Swiss research and innovation system has remained resilient through recent years of global economic and political instabilities. However, several challenges remain and affect the system’s performance. These include high operational costs, a shortage of high-skilled professionals, a stringent regulatory environment, limited internal financing for companies investing in R&D, and long amortisation periods of innovations (Spescha, Tran and Wörter, 2025[7]).
Furthermore, despite a strong performance of all Swiss regions, there are disparities in innovation performance between urban and rural areas. Zürich (CH04) and Ticino (CH07) are the two highest-performing Swiss regions and among the top ten most innovative regions in Europe (ranking 4th and 6th respectively). Behind them, Nordwestschweiz (CH03) and Ostschweiz (CH05) rank 16 and 21, trailed by Région lémanique (CH01), Zentralschweiz (CH06), and Espace Mittelland (CH02), which rank 29, 34, and 36, respectively (European Commision, 2025[8]). Structural differences in rural areas such as skills gaps, ageing population, a larger share of small firms, lower productivity growth and lack of place‑based innovation policies creates a gap in innovation ecosystem performance between rural and urban areas in Switzerland (OECD, 2022[9]).
4.1.2. Governance of the agriculture and food innovation system
The governance of the innovation system is well suited to respond to food system challenges…
The Federal Act on the Promotion of Research and Innovation (RIPA) (SR 420.1) outlines the overall federal level mandate in terms of research and innovation, to encourage scientific research and science-based innovation, ensure co-operation between research bodies and use federal funding for research and innovation in an economical and effective way.
The governance of the Swiss innovation system is well suited to address the different needs of the food systems. The Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG) distinguishes between four groups of strategies that guide its research master plan for the agri-food sector: (1) intersectoral strategies to overcome global challenges with a strong link to food systems (e.g. Sustainable Development Strategy 2030); (2) strategies focusing on a specific element of the food system with a link to other national interests (e.g. Biodiversity Strategy); (3) strategies which focus on a particular and timely issue (e.g. Plant Breeding Strategy); and (4) strategies which focus on multiple elements or the entire food system (e.g. Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy) (FOAG, 2024[10]). Most of these strategies cover food system issues beyond the agricultural sector.
Figure 4.1 depicts policy strategies and regulations influential on food systems innovation within the sector and within broader national-international contexts. In addition, there are specific innovation enhancing pathways across the Swiss food system and collaborations between sectors.
Note: The strategies marked by * contain specific innovation objectives.
Source: Adapted from Figure 2 in Plan directeur de la recherche agronomique et agroalimentaire 2025-2028 (FOAG, 2024[10]).
Several policy strategies, laws, and regulations can steer agricultural innovation towards sustainable objectives
Policy strategies and regulations under the Swiss governance model influence innovation capabilities and directionality in the agricultural sector through different measures. In particular, the Federal Act on Climate Protection Targets, Innovation and Strengthening Energy Security (Climate and Innovation Act, KIG) sets the framework for Switzerland’s medium to long-term climate policy. It stipulates that legislation from policy areas, including agriculture, must contribute towards achieving net zero by 2050 (Federal Assembly, 2022[11]). Furthermore, it promises allocating CHF 1.2 billion (CHF 200 million per year for 6 years) to promote the use of innovative technologies and processes, and aid transition investments required by businesses (Federal Assembly, 2022[11]).
The Swiss National Soil Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy (Federal Council, 2020[12]; FOEN, 2022[13]) provide examples of indirect levers for sustainable agriculture innovation. The first of these strategies aims at gathering necessary soil data to measure intervention impacts and provide guidance for federal and cantonal authorities to co-ordinate efforts. While the six overarching objectives range from managing soil consumption to strengthening international commitment, the strategy does not include any specific objective regarding innovation. Similarly, the Biodiversity Strategy contains objectives on a wide variety of areas from conservation to restoration, but nothing regarding innovation at least initially.1 Still, both strategies have indirect influence on agricultural innovation because they spur actors to change behaviour and create new processes in pursuit of objectives.
Policy strategies link value chain co-ordination with innovation to strengthen competitiveness and sustainability
Multiple Swiss policy mechanisms are aimed at supporting value chain co-ordination and innovation to strengthen competitiveness and sustainability. The federal government’s research and innovation funding landscape provides an overview of the various research and innovation promotion activities. For example, the Agriculture Act mandates the Confederation to support joint measures by producers, processors or traders that promote innovation or co-operation throughout the product chain. Similarly, the Food Chain Strategy (Working Group Overall Strategy along the Food Chain, 2015[14]) was developed by FOAG in collaboration with representatives from cantonal offices (COSAC, VSKT, VKCS) to determine responsibilities for ensuring food safety along the value chain. It has been regularly updated to build upon relevant strategies and action plans (WEF, 2015[15]). The Strategy for Structural Improvements also aims to help companies and regions adapt to new economic and environmental challenges and contribute to progress on objectives for sustainable development. More specifically, the strategy prioritises mountain regions and rural areas with the thematic topics of nature and landscape protection, climate, energy, and rural development (FOAG, 2022[16]).
Switzerland is increasingly adopting a comprehensive food systems approach with policy strategies that align innovation with climate, health and sustainability goals
In recent years, Switzerland has increasingly embraced a food systems approach, recognising that the challenges of climate change, nutrition, and sustainability demand cross-sector collaboration. Policies and strategies now seek to bridge traditionally siloed areas, aligning agriculture, health, environment, and trade while embedding similar innovation objectives. For instance, the Long-term Climate Strategy to 2050 sets integrated climate and emissions goals for agriculture, nutrition, waste, and even financial markets (Federal Council, 2021[17]). Similarly, the “One Health” platform brings together multiple federal offices, cantonal specialists, and scientific experts to strengthen interdisciplinary governance across human, animal, and environmental health. Building on this, the Agriculture and Food Climate Strategy 2050 was jointly developed by FOAG, FOEN, and FSVO to ensure coherence across the food chain, from production to consumption. Its ambitious objectives are backed by 42 concrete measures, such as aligning innovation funding and research criteria with system-wide sustainability goals (FOAG, 2023[18]).
Crucially, innovation capacity and knowledge-sharing are identified as key levers to ensure coherence across diverse policy areas, avoid duplication of efforts, and foster competitiveness. Essentially, Switzerland is using cross-sectoral collaboration and innovation as central tools for navigating future agricultural, health, and environmental challenges.
One way to advance this alignment of objectives for innovation is manifested through collaborative and participatory governance mechanisms. The Model Projects for Sustainable Spatial Development programme illustrates this (Box 4.1). By requiring public–private partnerships and co-financing arrangements, the programme encourages stakeholders to form long-term alliances. Its new thematic priority on building sustainable regional food systems positions the programme as an important lever to involve farmers and local actors in co-designing and testing innovative solutions, thereby strengthening territorial innovation capacity and linking food, environment, and regional development goals.
Since its launch in 2002, the Swiss Confederation’s Model Projects programme has brought together cross-sector stakeholders to test innovative methods, approaches, and procedures aligned with preselected thematic priorities. The programme is primarily managed by the Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE) and the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), with a total of nine federal offices involved. Projects may be initiated by any entity (public or private), but public sector involvement is mandatory. The Confederation funds up to 50% of a project’s budget, with a maximum contribution of CHF 200 000 over four years. Programme administrators emphasise forming strong partnerships to secure the remaining financing and identify opportunities to continue the project after the programme ends (RegioSuisse, 2025[19]).
The programme operates in four- to five-year cycles, with the current cohort of projects starting in late 2025 and early 2026 and running until 2030. For the first time, “building sustainable regional food systems” has been introduced as a thematic priority. This focus invites projects to tackle urgent challenges at the intersection of food, biodiversity, and climate protection, while also aligning with the Federal Council’s stated goals and strategies for food systems. The Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG) is responsible for this thematic priority while ARE, SECO, and the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) are involved. Programme application guidelines state that projects should strengthen the links between producers and consumers to have positive effects across the food system (RegioSuisse, 2025[20]).
An evaluation of the 2014-2018 cohort highlighted the programme’s value to innovation. The principles of innovation theory (that innovations are based on recombination of existing factors) are embedded in the model projects programme’s aim to bring heterogeneous actors together to develop and test solutions (Meyer et al., 2022[21]). The evaluation also emphasised the programme’s capacity to evolve between funding cycles to meet present challenges. Evolution is evident in the addition of regional food systems in the latest cycle, which has emerged as a priority for the future direction of agricultural policy (RegioSuisse, 2025[20]). The new theme is an opportunity to involve farmers in the participatory nature of the projects and pursue innovation for Switzerland’s food system.
The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in Switzerland has a broad variety of actors supporting innovations that address the multiple challenges impacting food systems. The AKIS has been widely used to analyse the agricultural sector and can be defined as “the purposeful network interaction for innovations of various actors either from within the agricultural sector or along an agricultural value chain” (Knierim et al., 2015[22]). A thorough description of the Swiss AKIS has been developed in OECD (2022[9]) and more recently in Bänninger (2024[23]). This section expands the analysis to include actors of the knowledge and innovation system in the food sector. It presents the AKIS, describes the actors’ roles in making agri-food innovation a reality, and explores interactions amongst key stakeholders.
The Swiss AKIS is represented using a simplified value chain diagram illustrating the main activities that take place in food systems (Figure 4.2). The system can be divided into five general categories: public authorities, research and education bodies, food innovation centres, the private sector, and the non-profit sector. On the left, main actor categories are indicated by different colours, along with relevant sub-groups. The actors are positioned based on their primary activity, although many are involved in additional stages of value chains. Actors who engage in the same type of activity are grouped under a single banner with only the most prominent ones highlighted (e.g. caterers or labelling organisations). Each plays a different role in influencing innovation and sustainability in the Swiss AKIS.
Note: Colours indicate actor groups. Actors spanning two categories are shown with an outline in the colour of the secondary group. For example, AGRIDEA’s core mission is to disseminate agricultural scientific knowledge (blue), while it is partly funded by public authorities (yellow) and partly through service provision and member contributions (red). FOAG: Federal Office for Agriculture; FOEN: Federal Office for the Environment
EAER: Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research; SERI: State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation; SECO: State Secretariat for Economic Affairs; FSVO: Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office; FOPH: Federal Office of Public Health; FCAB: Federal Consumer Affairs Bureau; ETHZ: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; EPFL: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne; SNSF: Swiss National Science Foundation; Innosuisse: Swiss Innovation Agency; FiBL: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture; AGRIDEA: Swiss Centre for Agricultural Extension and Rural Development; BFH-HAFL: Bern University of Applied Sciences – School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences; ADM: Archer Daniels Midland (Europe); Bühler Group: Swiss technology company in food processing); Fenaco: Swiss agricultural co-operative federation; WWF: Worldwide Fund for Nature.
Public authorities at federal, cantonal and municipal levels provide the framework conditions for innovation…
Public authorities include federal, cantonal, and municipal actors, which play an important role in establishing favourable conditions for innovation. At the federal level, multiple units influence the AKIS, including the Federal Department of Economic Affairs Education and Research (EAER) (that includes the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG)), the State Secretariat for Education Research and Innovation (SERI), and the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO). Federal entities are responsible for implementing legislation related to agriculture, food, health, and consumption.
There are two main federal funding institutions: the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), funding mainly basic and applied research projects, and Innosuisse, the Swiss institution for innovation offering consulting services, funding, and reinforcing networks and collaboration between research and businesses. The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) within the EAER also conduct research and innovation, notably through its National Regional Policy (NRP) programmes, which fund regional and local innovations.
At the cantonal level, the main actors involved in the AKIS are the cantonal offices for agriculture and the cantonal offices for innovation. Regional co-ordination among cantons is further supported by inter-cantonal bodies such as the Conference of Cantonal Heads of Agriculture Departments (KOLAS/COSAC) and the Conference of Cantonal Directors of Agriculture (LDK/CDCA). Further, cantons have the responsibility to support agricultural advisory services in their territory. Depending on the canton, this service is either completed by the canton government itself or externalised to independent organisations. Cantons further fund innovation directly through their own mechanisms, sometimes co-ordinated regionally among cantons, and most cantons put in place tax relief for R&D activities (Gersbach and Wörter, 2024[24]).
At the municipal level, authorities are connected to the AKIS through a range of initiatives: food aid programmes, public food procurement for institutions, and the implementation of food waste reduction strategies. In recent years, municipalities have taken an increasingly important role in food systems innovation by establishing global initiatives, writing charters, and designing frameworks to address local needs (Scharrer and Kubioka, 2025[25]). A few cities and municipalities also engage in innovation, for example by co-financing innovation parcs or specific infrastructures.
Agricultural advisory services play a central role in fostering innovation within the Swiss AKIS. They are mainly public in their organisation and funding but involve strong collaboration with private actors and farmer associations, forming a public–private advisory system. They act as intermediaries between research, policy, and practice. For example, by coaching farmers, translating scientific and technical information into practical knowledge, processing information from digital technologies and transferring it to farmers considering their different skills, and facilitating the adoption of innovative solutions across the sector. Another important role of advisory services is that they promote co-creation with farmers, supporting participatory learning, and strengthening peer-to-peer exchange, which are essential for developing and diffusing context-specific innovations. Cantonal advisory offices deliver direct farm-level advice offered by the education and advisory centre, the agricultural office or a cantonal farmers’ association, depending on the canton. At the federal level, the Swiss-wide advisory centre AGRIDEA is an association supported by all cantons and around 50 agricultural organisations and institutions, which supports the advisory services of the cantons and organisations. It acts as a central aggregator, supporting both cantonal services and cross-region specialisation.
…while universities, research centres and advisory services ensure strong knowledge generation and transfer
Research and education organisations are central actors in Switzerland’s agricultural innovation system, operating at both federal and cantonal levels. Federally, the system is anchored by the two federal institutes of technology (EPFL and ETHZ), Agroscope, the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and AGRIDEA, all of which receive funding from the Confederation. ETHZ has dedicated degree programmes in agricultural and food sciences, while both EPFL and ETHZ have degree programmes in environmental sciences. Agroscope plays a leading role in applied agri-food research, maintaining experimental stations across the country that connect science with practice. Complementing this, FiBL is a private institution (a foundation) that provides independent research on a variety of topics including agroecological practices, organic farming and sustainable food systems. AGRIDEA serves as a key advisory body linking scientific knowledge with farmers and the agri-food sector. Together, these organisations ensure that Switzerland’s agricultural innovation system combines strong research capacity with effective channels for knowledge transfer and agricultural advisory services.
At the cantonal level, universities and universities of applied science (UAS) conduct fundamental and applied research on topics around agriculture and food. Some of the universities, especially the UAS, have dedicated degree programmes in agricultural, food or environmental sciences. Further, agricultural schools and colleges are under the mandate of cantons which educate future farmers. In Switzerland, eligibility to buy agricultural land or receive direct payments is restricted to trained or qualified farmers, which reflects the relevance of training. Farmers must demonstrate professional qualifications in agriculture, which implies holding a federal vocational diploma in agriculture or an equivalent recognised qualification or having several years of practical farming experience. These schools thus play an important role in shaping how farmers approach their work and understand their role in contributing to innovation within the agricultural sector.
Various centres and platforms in Switzerland are dedicated to the promotion of innovation in the food sector. This can be explained by the strong presence of agricultural and food science research within the Swiss higher education system and research and development (R&D) activities in major food companies operating at both international and national levels that contribute to innovation efforts in the sector. Figure 4.2 shows two categories based on their primary purpose and whether they are federal or regional. The first group includes centres affiliated with the two Swiss federal institutes of technology: the World Food System Centre (WFSC) at ETH Zurich, and the Centre for Food Challenges (CFFC) at EPFL Lausanne. Their aim is to bridge research with key actors, notably from the private sector, and foster collaborations to solve key challenges in food systems (EPFL, 2025[26]; WFSC, 2025[27]). The Bern University of Applied Sciences, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (BFH-HAFL) also plays an active role in applied research and knowledge transfer, linking innovation in agriculture and food value chains with education, practice-oriented research, and advisory services. The second group includes centres, platforms, and initiatives that are regional. These centres include the Swiss Food and Nutrition Valley, Swiss Food Research, and Cluster Food and Nutrition, amongst others. These different initiatives have similar objectives, and some share the same members. Co-ordination is therefore necessary to ensure efficient and complementary contribution to the AKIS. As in other countries with multiple government levels, for example Spain, a co-ordination body could help avoid the costs of fragmentation, with a shared national vision of the AKIS that exploits the advantages of its diversity (OECD, 2023[28]).
Farmers are central actors in innovation, despite constraints linked to income structures, succession rules, and gender imbalances in management roles
The private sector in Switzerland is the main driver of innovation and encompasses a range of different actors, starting with farming. Farmers are central actors of the AKIS and, over the past 50 years, have had to adapt their skills to maintain operations. Innovation is thus part of their daily job, but radical innovation is challenging due to lack of time and resources. Structural and socio-economic conditions (discussed in Chapters 1 and 2) can further constrain farmers’ ability to innovate. Heavy reliance on direct payments and off-farm income highlights the financial vulnerability of farm households, while regulatory restrictions on farm succession limit opportunities for new entrants (Huber, El Benni and Finger, 2023[29]; Bürgi Bonanomi, 2025[30]). This can reduce the dynamism as new agricultural entrepreneurs in OECD countries are younger, have higher levels of education and entrepreneurial skills, and are more likely to adopt new technologies than those already working in the sector (Campi et al., 2024[31]). In addition, the low visibility and limited recognition of women in farm management, despite their high participation in the workforce, reduces the potential for tapping into a wider pool of entrepreneurial talent (Contzen and Forney, 2016[32]; Contzen, 2022[33]). These factors together may restrict the capacity of farms to embrace more transformative innovations and slow down generational renewal in the sector.
Despite this, many Swiss farmers have demonstrated strong innovative capacity. Many examples of small-scale and practice-oriented innovations have been reported with farmers’ involvement in different types of initiatives seeking solutions. The platform Star’Terre supports such initiatives by fostering collaboration between farmers, agri-food entrepreneurs, and research institutions to co-develop and scale up innovative business models (Box 4.2). Successful examples include TOPCORN, which promotes locally produced popcorn as a new niche crop, and Swissflax, which revives flax cultivation to produce 100% Swiss linen. Another case is Swisswool, which has transformed coarse Swiss sheep wool − for long considered a low-value by-product − into an input for insulation materials, mattresses and outdoor apparel, creating new market value through its strong environmental and social sustainability credentials. All these initiatives illustrate how bottom-up innovation can contribute to diversification, value creation, and sustainability in Swiss agriculture.
Star’Terre is a regional platform dedicated to strengthening sustainable food systems and fostering collaboration among stakeholders in the Lake Geneva region. It originated as a three-year pilot initiative called “Local Consumption in the Lake Geneva Metropolis”, which was launched by the Swiss Confederation and led by the cantons of Vaud, Geneva, and Fribourg. Building on the success of this pilot, Star’Terre was officially established in early 2020 to continue its foundational activities and to explore new opportunities for innovation and co-operation (Star'Terre, 2025[34]).
The platform pursues several key objectives including encouraging entrepreneurship among farmers, promoting innovation within the agri-food sector, and facilitating intercantonal synergies. These goals are achieved through a combination of public events, tailored support for projects, and the development of an online knowledge base that shares insights and best practices.
Over the years, Star’Terre has supported a wide range of initiatives addressing themes such as circular economy and food waste reduction, local food production and transformation, sustainable agriculture, and the development of innovative food products and distribution models. Each year, the platform opens a call for new projects. Selected initiatives benefit from up to three years of support, which may include strategic guidance, networking opportunities, and increased visibility within the regional ecosystem.
Involving farmers actively in the process can ensure that innovations respond to farmers’ needs and to facilitate their acceptance and uptake, which are essential for success. This can be done through consultation with Farmers associations such as the Swiss Farmers’ Association/Union Suisse des Paysans (SBV/USP), interprofessions, and regional associations.
Private companies interact with farmers through different institutional mechanisms, which can jointly influence the innovation agenda
With the increase in climate shocks affecting agriculture, insurance companies are also becoming important actors in the AKIS. The main agricultural insurer is the Schweizer Hagel, a co‑operative funded in 1880, which offers insurance to its members and redistributes its surpluses. Other private insurance companies offer crop insurance, such as La Mobilière and Zurich Insurance. AXA Climate is conducting pilot projects aimed at subsidising agricultural transition towards more virtuous practices. However, farmers are usually reluctant to subscribe to insurance schemes due to their high cost and low return in the event of a claim (except for hail insurance) (see also Section 2.4).
Several organisations that combine farmers groups and agri-food businesses, called hybrid organisations, also play a role in the AKIS. This includes Fenaco, a farmer-owned co-operative with 40 000 members (including 23 000 active Swiss farmers) that operates on the upstream agricultural chain by procuring input and machinery for farmers, and on the middle of the chain by purchasing agricultural products from its members to process and distribute them (Fenaco, 2025[35]). The co-operative is a major actor in several markets (see also Section 1.1.4). It is responsible for importing and distributing approximately 50% of the fertilisers used in Switzerland, holds the largest share of the national seed market, and supplies over half of the country’s animal feed (Wey and Gosser, 2019[36]; Gentile et al., 2019[37]).
Label organisations, which are also hybrid, but with various membership structures, are other important stakeholders for the AKIS. For example, Bio-Suisse or IP-Suisse are associations led by farmers, while Demeter also integrates actors from the middle of the value chain. Other similar organisations (e.g. Coop naturafarm, or natura-beef for animal welfare) which are owned and operated by Swiss retailers do not follow an association-based governance model. Labels are used for product differentiation, providing more information on nutritional quality, environmental impact, and conditions in which the products were produced (Deconinck and Hobeika, 2023[38]; Giner, Rodriguez and Elasri, 2023[39]). In the AKIS, they are a tool used to communicate sustainability and innovation actions taken by upstream actors to the rest of the value chain.
Private agri-food sector actors dominate R&D funding and performance, with multinationals, SMEs, retail companies, and start-ups driving innovation
The private sector is the main financial driver of innovation in the country, with about two-thirds of R&D activities funded by multinationals, which account for 80% of total R&D investments, while small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) contribute the remaining 20% (SERI, 2022[6]).
Indeed, the agri-food sector includes a wide range of businesses, from start-ups to multinational companies, operating at different scales:
At the domestic scale, retailers Coop and Migros dominate the market, accounting together for around 80% of food retail sales (as discussed in Chapter 1), although Aldi and Lidl have an increasing presence. Both Coop and Migros are legally considered co-operatives, but they operate as business-oriented retailers. They own several subsidiaries that focus on intermediary stages and the processing of food such as Micarna or Frey for Migros, and Bell for Coop. Some independent food businesses also exist, such as Emmi, which is an important actor producing milk-based products that are also exported.
At a larger scale, Switzerland is home to a significant number of multinational agri-food companies and commodity traders including Nestlé, Syngenta, Cargill, and ADM Europe. As major buyers of agricultural goods, these companies’ activities have ripple effects on innovation across multiple components of the Swiss food system.
Restaurants and caterers also play an important role in the Swiss food system. The largest domestic caterer is the SV Group, which operates all over Switzerland for both public and private institutions.
Lastly, and central to the AKIS, start-ups innovate oftentimes at the interface between research, practice, and private sector (Box 4.3).
Switzerland has a strong start-up ecosystem influenced by higher education, the private sector, and significant federal funding. Switzerland hosts 149 agri-food startups, ranking 16th globally and 8th in Europe in terms of the number of companies in the domain (Paglinawan, 2024[40]). In 2023, through Innosuisse, the country launched the Swiss Accelerator to support SMEs and start-ups in reaching markets (Innosuisse, 2024[41]). Start-ups also have a high level of visibility, as they are aggregated on a public government website used to track jobs, investment opportunities, and progress (Venturelab, 2025[42]).
Nevertheless, start-ups face several challenges, including high operational costs and a stringent regulatory framework for food production and safety (Paglinawan, 2024[40]). Experts note that while early-stage food innovation benefits from Switzerland’s strong university research environment, many start-ups relocate abroad for the scale-up phase, where they find more favourable conditions such as state-supported salaries and easier access to growth funding.
An interesting case is that of Essento, the first start-up in Switzerland to develop the production and processing of edible insects back in 2013. They had to face a regulatory impasse that was forbidding the commercialisation of edible insects in the country. The start-up has thus initiated the now effective amendment to Swiss legislation authorising the marketing of edible insects, paving the way for sustainable proteins.
Public-private partnerships and regional innovation platforms foster collaboration across research and industry…
Public-private initiatives have been crucial for the agri-food sector in Switzerland. They provide a platform where government, industry, and civil society actors can align objectives and pool resources to tackle shared challenges. For example, as discussed in Section 3.5, the cross-industry agreement on reducing food loss and waste illustrates how collaborative approaches can translate national strategies into concrete, measurable commitments across the value chain. Similarly, Box 4.4 highlights an initiative collaboratively sparked by the institutions of technology and the private sector and the case of an agricultural co-operative that is normally involved in different types of public-private partnerships.
Public–private partnerships play a key role in driving innovation within Switzerland’s agri-food system. They bring together the complementary strengths of academic research, government institutions, and private industry, and can help translate scientific advances into practical solutions for sustainable food systems. They also foster long-term investment in knowledge, infrastructure, and talent, ensuring that innovation responds to both public policy goals and market needs.
The Future Food Initiative, which started in 2019, is a collaboration between three companies in the Swiss food industry (Bühler, Givaudan, Nestlé) and the two federal universities (ETH Zurich and EPFL). Bringing expertise from industrial and academic research, the initiative aims to advance knowledge and education in food and nutrition sciences, leveraging competences from both academic and industrial research to address grand challenges in food systems.
The programme consists of postdoctoral fellowships financed by the three industry partners. The two food-related centres of EPFL and ETH oversee the initiative, promoting and gathering the applications for the fellowship programme. Each call has specific strategic topics ranging from sustainable agriculture to nutrition and microbiomes (WFSC, 2024[43]). An example of a fellowship project was a student’s research applying robotics and computer vision technologies to food. This fellow focused on improving efficiency of cropping systems by using novel robotic hardware to automate and accelerate phenotyping. By expediting the physical process of growing, phenotyping and assessing nutritional value, the project created new pathways for discovering crops with minimal environmental impact (Future Food, 2021[44]). Through the Future Food Initiative, students are empowered to innovate new solutions to current food systems challenges.
At the farmers’ level, Fenaco has formed partnerships with various organisations to finance or co-ordinate research and development projects. Since 2016, Fenaco has a research framework agreement with the agriculture research centre Agroscope to lead innovations in practice. Through this partnership, the two entities co-ordinate research projects that create added value for Swiss products and provide concrete practice-oriented solutions. A research output example from the Fenaco-Agroscope partnership was the development of a pear variety called “Fred.” After years of intense research, the pear was launched to satisfy multiple desirable qualities including fast production time, resistance to fire blight, long storage capacity, and in-demand flavour (Hug, 2020[45]). Through their collaboration, Fenaco and Agroscope are co-ordinating their research to fulfil the needs of public and private actors across the Swiss food system.
… while consumer associations and NGOs influence transparency, sustainability, and accountability in food systems
Consumers are influential on the AKIS through the actions of consumer-based organisations, which include associations representing the interest of consumers at different levels by investigating, advising, and challenging political and economic decision-makers (FRC, 2025[46]). These associations, partly supported by the Federal Consumer Affairs Bureau (FCAB), are organised along the main language regions of Switzerland. In recent years, together with media outlets, these associations managed to raise public awareness of the profit margins of Coop and Migros, the two leading retailers (Busché and Imsand, 2022[47]; 2022[48]). The issue also entered the political debate through parliamentary requests and a motion in favour of strengthening transparency in the agri-food value chains. While the initiative was approved by the National Council, it was later rejected by the Council of States’ committee in 2025 due to concerns over business confidentiality and administrative burden (Council of States, 2025[49]).
Finally, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and philanthropy influence the AKIS by tackling challenges and holding other actors responsible. NGOs sometimes act as platforms for different types of actors to meet around topics or as support to grassroots innovations. Related to food systems, NGOs focused on environmental sustainability, working conditions, or animal rights include WWF, Greenpeace, Pronatura, Vogelwarte, Public Eye, Terre des Hommes, the Red Cross, Animal Rights Switzerland, and Swiss Animal Protection. Similarly, philanthropy plays an active role in the Swiss AKIS through foundations such as Mercator Foundation, Avina, Seedling, and many others. The Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute (GDI), named after the founder of Migros, is a philanthropic think tank focused on societal and economic trends, including issues related to food. In this domain, it plays a role comparable to that of the centres promoting food innovation described above.
4.3.1. R&D public and private investment
Public investment in agricultural R&D in Switzerland is modest in relative terms, but has steadily grown in absolute value
The government allocated about 2.5% of its total R&D budget to agriculture in 2023 (Figure 4.3). Agriculture’s share of the total government budget allocation for research and development (GBARD) has fluctuated between 2% and 3%, with a slight downward trend until 2012, followed by moderate increases thereafter. This indicates that while agricultural R&D investments grew in absolute value (rising from below CHF 100 million in the mid-2000s to around CHF 200 million by 2023), their relative weight within the broader R&D budget remained modest and relatively stable, suggesting balanced but not disproportionate prioritisation of agriculture within Switzerland’s public R&D portfolio.
Note: Government budget allocation for research and development (GBARD) is a funder-based approach for reporting R&D, which involves identifying all the budget items that may support R&D activities and measuring or estimating their R&D content. It allows linking these budget lines to policy considerations through classification by socio-economic objective. However, it only provides a partial indicator of investment in public agricultural research, since it refers to research funding instruments dedicated specifically to agriculture.
Source: Calculations based on OECD (2025), Government budget allocations for R&D (GBARD) by socio-economic objective ((SEO)[DSD_RDS_GOV@DF_GBARD_NABS07]; https://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/327 (consulted June 2025).
Switzerland’s R&D landscape is heavily industry-driven in terms of funding and performance
Compared to other countries, which are also innovation leaders, Switzerland has relatively little direct public support for innovation. The innovation system rather relies on strong basic research in higher education where collaborations with the private sector emerge (Gersbach and Wörter, 2024[24]). Figure 4.4 (top left panel) presents the distribution of total R&D funding sources and expenditures in Switzerland across different sectors and institutional actors. The private sector is by far the largest contributor to R&D funding (between 61‑69% depending on the year), followed by the government: the Confederation (10‑16%) and the Cantons (7-10%), foreign funds (about 5‑12%), higher education research funds (around 1%), and private non-profit institutions that play a minor role (below 1%). This shows the strong dominance of the private sector financing in Switzerland’s R&D system.
The top right panel shows the performing sectors. Most R&D is carried out by enterprises (70‑74%), with higher education institutions accounting for about 23-28%. The public sector and private non-profit institutions perform only a marginal share (below 2%). Thus, the business sector is the main driver of R&D activity, while universities remain the second key actor. Overall, Switzerland’s R&D is heavily industry-driven in terms of both funding and performance, with universities playing a central role in absorbing public funding and contributing to knowledge generation, while the government and non-profit sectors remain relatively small players.
Note: By “sector of funding” means who provides the R&D, while by “sector of performance”, refers to who performs R&D activities.
Source: Federal Statistical Office (2025), Recherche et développement en Suisse en 2023, https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/statistiques/education-science/technologie/systeme-indicateurs/input-s-t/r-d-suisse/dep-r-d-suisse.gnpdetail.2025-0244.html, accessed August 2025.
In agriculture, the share of the private sector participation in R&D activities has declined
The bottom panel (B) of Figure 4.4 shows the direction of the total expenditure on agricultural R&D, with around 35% going to higher education institutions, 37% to the private sector, and 28% to the Confederation (government research institutions). This highlights the significant role of universities as institutions performing R&D and the reduction in the participation of the private sector in R&D activities in the agricultural sector between 2012 and 2023.
Recent discussions about possible federal budget cuts to education, research, and innovation funding have raised concern among research institutions.2 In the context of the Bildungs-, Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik des Bundes 2025–2028 (BFI Botschaft 2025-28) (SERI, 2024[50]) and the Entlastungspaket 27 (EP27) (FDF, 2024[51]), reductions are being considered for the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), Innosuisse, and other innovation instruments, although these measures are still under political discussion and not yet confirmed. The SNSF has already indicated that, from 2026 onward, it will need to adapt its research funding strategy including suspending some programmes and reducing calls under existing schemes.3
These adjustments apply broadly across disciplines and could also affect R&D in agriculture and food systems, particularly in areas where Switzerland has relied on competitive SNSF funding to sustain international collaborations and exploratory projects. For example, the suspension of the Spark programme and reductions in international schemes such as SPIRIT may limit opportunities for early-stage, high-risk projects and cross-border partnerships, which are key for advancing agri-food innovation. These adjustments risk slowing the renewal of knowledge and the development of solutions for sustainable productivity growth in Swiss agriculture, unless alternative sources of support are mobilised.
Switzerland also promotes applied innovation for sustainability and co-operation
In addition to R&D funding, FOAG has several specific instruments to support innovative projects in agriculture and food systems. These include funding for projects for the sustainable use of natural resources, regional development projects (PDR), and targeted project support instruments that encourage collaboration between public and private actors (FOAG, 2025[52]; 2025[53]). Together with R&D funding, these initiatives play a complementary role in promoting innovation in practice and supporting territorial development.
Switzerland also promotes applied innovation for sustainability through the Programme Sustainable Resource Use in Agriculture (UDR). By linking financial support with experimentation, scientific monitoring, and knowledge sharing, this programme plays an important role in translating innovation and research into practice and guiding Swiss agriculture towards more sustainable and efficient use of natural resources (Box 4.5).
According to Articles 77a and 77b of the Federal Act on Agriculture (1998), the Confederation may provide subsidies for regional or sectoral projects that improve the sustainable use of natural resources (Swiss Confederation, 1998[54]). The Programme Sustainable Resource Use in Agriculture (UDR) supports the implementation of technical, organisational and structural innovations that have a proven positive effect on natural resources such as soil, water and air, or on biodiversity. Subsidies can cover up to 80% of eligible project costs, depending on the ecological and agronomic effects of the proposed measures. Projects must be coherent, co-ordinated, and expected to become self-supporting within a reasonable timeframe (FOAG, 2025[55]).
The UDR programme was launched in 2009, and it promotes innovation in practice by financing projects that combine experimentation, monitoring, and mutual learning. Each project defines both an impact objective and a learning objective and is scientifically monitored over a period of six years, followed by two years of impact observation. The programme emphasises mutual learning: thematic workshops are organised at the end of each project to discuss how results and experiences can be scaled up and integrated into practice, what measures are suitable for wider implementation, and what resources cantonal authorities and advisory services need to facilitate wider adoption.
Between 2009 and 2023, 53 projects have been initiated under this programme, 27 of which had been completed by the end of 2023 (Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture / Agrarbericht, 2024[56]).
4.3.2. Switzerland’s digital connectivity profile
Switzerland has achieved near-universal broadband coverage, with no rural‑urban divide, although differences remain in the quality of connectivity
Switzerland has a high level of broadband connectivity, with 99.9% of Swiss households having access to at least one broadband technology type (European Commission, 2024[57]). Unlike in the European Union, where a gap persists between rural and urban areas, broadband coverage in Switzerland is consistently high across both (Figure 4.5).
Source: Based on European Commission (2024[57]).
The two general broadband groups are Next Generation Access (NGA) and fixed Very High-Capacity Networks (VHCN). NGA has the most coverage with 99% and 98.8% of households at national and rural levels reached, respectively while VHCN networks reached 89.3% and 81.6%. VHCNs are a newer technology group characterised by greater gigabit capacity, increased speed, and lower latency than NGAs. Figure 4.6 compares Switzerland’s NGA coverage to the EU averages for all households and rural households. Rural coverage has reached 99% and is significantly above the EU average of 80%. The only broadband technology that was below the EU average was Fibre to the Premises (FTTP). A type of VHCN, 45% of all Swiss households and 23% of rural households were covered compared to the EU average of 64% and 52%. The lag could be explained by a few factors including high installation costs of FTTP and satisfaction with the quality of other established broadband technologies (European Commission, 2024[57]).
Note: Panel A: Next Generation Access (NGA) includes fixed-line broadband access technologies capable of achieving download speeds meeting the Digital Agenda objective of at least 30 Mbps coverage, such as combination of VDSL, DOCSIS 3.0.
Panel B: Fibre to the Premises (FTTP), also called Fibre to the Home, is a true full-fibre solution, where fibre optic cables run directly into homes or businesses. This offers the highest performance and reliability, but installation is costly, so coverage remains more limited compared with other technologies.
Source: Based on European Commission (2024[57]).
Strengthening digital infrastructure creates new opportunities for innovation and sustainability in the food system
In the early 2020s, the Swiss Confederation pursued a mix of regulatory, strategic, and financial actions to strengthen nationwide internet connectivity. Introduced in 2025, the Gigabit Strategy aimed to provide ubiquitous access to high-speed internet throughout the country with at least 1 gigabit per second (Gbit/s) (OFCOM, 2025[58]). It is supplemented by the 2026 Broadband Promotion Act that will provide subsidies in regions without viable market deployment (OFCOM, 2024[59]). In 2024, the universal service obligation was raised to 80/8 Mbps to ensure baseline connectivity across the country. In terms of infrastructure, Swisscom (partially federally owned) committed in 2024 to expand fiber networks to underserved areas and phase out copper systems (Schädeli, 2024[60]). While Switzerland has a high level of established connectivity, it is taking additional steps in both rural and urban areas to further improve digital connectivity. Increasing connectivity has opportunities to enhance access to information and new innovations throughout the food system and support development towards sustainability.
The co-design of the digital transition programme places digital transformation at the core of agri-food sector innovation and competitiveness
The FOAG considers digital transformation of the agri-food sector as a key tool for administrative simplification, and for an innovative, sustainable and competitive agri-food sector. Following the publication of its Digitalisation Strategy in 2024, which contains measures specifically for FOAG as well as measures for the actors of the agri-food sector, FOAG launched an eight-year transition programme DigiAgri-foodCH (2024-2031) in collaboration with relevant stakeholders (FOAG, 2024[61]). A first output is the communication platform digiagrifood.ch, which enables access to and promotion of knowledge and best practices to all stakeholders.
A relatively modest share of global agri-food publications, an exceptionally high quality of research output
Switzerland ranks 21st globally, with agri-food publications representing 6.3% of its total scientific output and 7.3% of its citations during 1996-2024 (Table 4.1). Switzerland’s contribution to global agri-food publications is 1.0%, rising to 1.7% when measured by citations. However, Switzerland has a share of 17.3% of outstanding agricultural publications, which illustrates the high quality of its publications in agriculture. Other smaller but also advanced economies like Austria (36) and Norway (29) exhibit slightly higher levels of specialisation (6.8% and 9.7% of national outputs, respectively) but contribute with less than 1% each to the global total. New Zealand stands out for its strong specialisation, with 15.7% of its publications and 18.9% of citations in the agri-food domain, although its global contribution remains modest (below 1.1%). At the aggregate level, the EU27 accounts for nearly a quarter of global publications (24.6%) and more than a quarter of citations (28.8%), while OECD Members together generate about 62% of publications and over three-quarters of citations.
1. Cumulative patents from 1994 to 2020. Patents field under the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT) by earliest filing date and location of inventors using fractional counts for Specialisation and Contribution and using whole counts for Collaboration. Agri-food includes patents from IPC classes: A01, A21, A22, A23, A24, B21H 7/00, B21K 19/00, B62C, B65B 25/02, B66C 23/44, C08b, C11, C12, C13, C09K 101/00, E02B 11/00, E04H 5/08, E04H 7/22 and G06Q 50/02.
2. Publications in the field of agricultural and biological science refer to the SCOPUS 2-digit All Science Journals Classification (ASJC) and include the following categories: agronomy and crop science, animal science and zoology, aquatic science, ecology/evolution/behaviour and systematics, food science, forestry, horticulture, insect science, plant science, soil science, and miscellaneous agriculture/biological sciences. Data are based on the fractional counts.
3. Rank indicates the worldwide position based on the cumulative published documents from 1996 to 2024 in the field of Agricultural and biological sciences.
4. Top 10% of the world’s most cited publications in the field of the agricultural and biological science. Cumulative outstanding publications from 2005 to 2021.
Source: Calculations based on International Science Ranking, http://www.scimagojr.com (accessed in September 2025). OECD, STI Micro-data Lab: Intellectual Property Database, http://oe.cd/ipstats; and OECD (2024), OECD STI calculations based on Scopus Custom Data, Elsevier, Version 1.2018; and 2018 Scimago Journal Rank from the Scopus journal title list.
The private sector is highly innovative. Firms in the food, beverages and tobacco sector display higher innovation intensity than the national industry average, particularly in product innovation (Figure 4.7). The share of product-innovative firms in this sector is substantially above the national benchmark, while the overall share of innovative firms is also slightly higher.
Relative to the national industry average, 2023
Note: Shares of innovative firms expressed as deviations from national industry averages (Oslo Manual 2018).
Source: OECD (2025), Business innovation statistics and indicators, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/business-innovation-statistics-and-indicators.html (accessed September 2025).
By contrast, the share of business process innovators is below the national average, suggesting that innovation in this sector is driven more by the development of new or improved products than by changes in organisational structures or production processes. This pattern highlights the sector’s relative strength in product-oriented innovation, while pointing to potential room for improvement in process innovation capabilities. The pattern resembles that in the United Kingdom but is highly different from the innovative behaviour in the industry of countries such as Austria, Japan, Norway, and New Zealand.
Data and digital technologies are increasingly recognised as key enablers of innovation and sustainability in agriculture, supporting more precise use of inputs, improved decision-making, reduced administrative workload and greater transparency along the value chain (Klerkx, Jakku and Labarthe, 2019[62]). In Swiss agriculture, there is growing but uneven adoption of digital technologies. A 2020 survey concluded that about 37% of farms use some driver-assistance systems, while only 17% use electronic measurement systems in plant production; uptake is highest on larger, valley farms and among vegetables/arable crops (Groher et al., 2020[63]). In the dairy sector, around 68% of dairy farmers have adopted at least one digital tool (e.g. in milking or monitoring), though only a small fraction (6%) has adopted full milking robots (Groher, Heitkämper and Umstätter, 2020[64]).
More recent evidence from a survey of 939 randomly selected farmers in the German- and French-speaking parts of Switzerland concluded that 93.1% of the respondents are aware of the existence of the digital technologies available from private providers, while only 12.8% have adopted them (Reissig, Wiseman and Cockburn, 2024[65]). The survey also revealed that farmers’ attitudes towards digital farming technologies depend on factors such as age, education, digital skills, and financial situation. Acceptance of technologies like virtual fences or autonomous robots varies with farm characteristics, perceived risks and benefits, and digital competence. In contrast, the acceptance of fully autonomous hacking robots was influenced by farmers’ perceptions, education level, and risk–benefit perceptions. These results underline that technology adoption is application-specific and highlight the need to strengthen farmers’ digital skills and support informed decision-making (Reissig and Siegrist, 2025[66]).
Swiss farmers face several barriers for the adoption of digital technologies and for taking advantage of their potential benefits despite active national initiatives to support digital agriculture (Ammann, Umstätter and El Benni, 2022[67]; Reissig, Wiseman and Cockburn, 2024[65]). Due to the relatively small size of most farms, the high cost of certain technologies remains a significant barrier to adoption. Nevertheless, strategies such as collective purchasing and the shared use of equipment can help mitigate these constraints and enhance access to innovation. The lack of digital skills can also be a significant barrier. Education and training institutions are beginning to integrate digital tools, reflecting strong interest among students, but curricula and practical applications remain limited. Digital platforms of farm management information systems can help farmers manage compliance, share data, and experiment with precision management (see information on digiagrifood.ch above).
Yet, as in other countries, challenges remain significant for taking advantage of data: high investment costs, concerns about data privacy and ownership, and administrative complexity continue to constrain wider adoption. Generating trust is crucial for the adoption of digital technologies and the generation and sharing of data (McFadden, Casalini and Antón, 2022[68]). For this, it is critical that digital solutions are developed in close collaboration with farmers to ensure their relevance, ease of use, and accessibility (McFadden et al., 2022[69]; Finger, 2023[70]).
Switzerland does not currently have a single, unified federal definition of data governance, but it has developed a comprehensive and evolving framework through multiple legal instruments, strategic initiatives, and collaborative projects. Legal Foundation of data governance is based on the Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP). The DigiAgriFoodCH Transformationsprogramm, led by the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG), includes multiple measures to monitor the digital transformation of the agri-food sector. Six strategic projects aimed at building a sector-wide data space and implementing interoperability and the Once-Only principle. In Switzerland, agricultural data ownership is a complex and evolving issue, shaped by legal ambiguity, decentralised governance, and emerging digital farming practices. There is no single law that explicitly defines who owns agricultural data. Digitalisation strategies should carefully consider potential unintended effects, including the risk of locking in existing systems and reducing future flexibility. Greater attention could also be paid to identifying the types of data that are genuinely needed to enable system improvement and innovation, rather than focusing primarily on expanding data collection.
Policy discussions in Switzerland frame digitalisation for farmers as used to simplify their administrative processes. Robust data protection frameworks are essential to build trust and secure adoption. Given the increase of cyber-attacks, the secured storage of data and software managing is a central element of a successful and safe digitalisation (Finger, 2023[70]). The Confederation notes in this regard that the responsibility of storing data locally and safely does not fall within its remit (Federal Council, 2022[71]). Some key policy recommendations to address the risks of digitalisation in agriculture, include: providing adequate infrastructure; establishing legal and regulatory frameworks for data use and new technologies; strengthening education and extension to reduce the digital divide; supporting network-based solutions beyond individual farms (e.g. co-operation or shared investments); applying economic instruments such as input taxes and result-based payments to align incentives; and co-ordinating standards and frameworks at the international level (Finger, 2023[70]).
Innovation plays a central role in transforming food systems. Switzerland can take advantage of its strong scientific base, high-quality research outputs, advanced digital infrastructure, and a dynamic private sector that performs relatively well in innovation. These assets create favourable conditions for innovation-led transformation. At the same time, several structural and co-ordination challenges limit the extent to which innovation contributes to systemic change across the food system.
Innovation is predominantly framed through a technological and economic lens in most strategic and policy documents. This focus reinforces Switzerland’s strengths in R&D but risks overlooking important social, organisational and institutional forms of innovation that are essential for food system transformation. As already highlighted in OECD (2022[9]), there exist differences in productivity and innovation performances across different rural regions in Switzerland and, consequently, a one-size fits all approach can fall short in tapping the main drivers of innovation. Creating a more integrated policy framework defining broad strategic priorities and aligning incentives for food system innovation would help address these gaps and align efforts among cantons, municipalities, universities, innovation centres and funding mechanisms to avoid inefficiencies and potential duplication across initiatives. Such a framework should explicitly recognise that innovation takes multiple forms, including social and organisational innovation, and not only technological advances.
There still exist digital divides between urban and rural areas, and across groups with differing access to skills, information and resources. Although digital technologies offer significant potential to improve sustainability and productivity, adoption in Swiss agriculture, rural SMEs, local communities, and decentralised service providers remains uneven. High costs, limited digital skills, unclear data ownership and fragmented governance frameworks undermine farmers’ trust and willingness to share or use data. Without greater coherence and clearer rules, Switzerland risks underutilising digitalisation as a driver of innovation and improved decision-making. The eight-year transition programme DigiAgri-foodCH (2024‑2031), which is part of the Digitalisation Strategy in 2024, in collaboration between the FOAG and relevant stakeholders is a step in the right direction. A coherent, national framework for agricultural data governance, clarifying data ownership, access, interoperability and use, would help create trust, while simultaneously strengthening digital skills and advisory support to ensure that farmers can adopt and benefit from digital tools with confidence, thereby reducing inequalities and maximising the benefits from data and digital technologies.
There are co-ordination and incentive gaps that hinder the development and scaling of transformative innovations. Gaps in coherence between innovation goals and broader food-system objectives, as well as uneven capacities across urban and rural regions, create inefficiencies and limit the system’s ability to deliver transformative outcomes. To address this, Switzerland should strengthen alignment across innovation policies, conduct a system-wide mapping to identify duplications and gaps, and establish mechanisms for improved co-ordination between federal, cantonal and municipal levels, considering the examples of co-ordination bodies in European countries’ AKIS. Promoting shared learning platforms across regions would further reduce fragmentation and strengthen synergies.
Farmers are not always engaged meaningfully in innovation processes, which constrains the relevance, adoption, and impact of innovations. Expanding participatory approaches that directly involve farmers, such as the Model Projects for Sustainable Spatial Development initiative, could ensure innovations respond more effectively to on-the-ground needs. Strengthening AKIS structures through sustained support for advisory services, intermediaries and collaborative innovation partnerships would enhance knowledge flows and increase the adoption of farmer-centred innovations.
Planned reductions in public funding, alongside fragmented support mechanisms, risk weakening the innovation capacity required for a transition to more sustainable, resilient and healthy food systems. Recent recommendations from the Swiss Scientific Committee and Citizens’ Council have highlighted the value of non-traditional funding mechanisms, such as a “food transformation fund”, to help overcome fragmentation and build long-term incentives to finance innovation and foster positive attitudes towards change (Fesenfeld et al., 2023[72]). Similarly, a fund for municipalities to tackle food systems challenges to address local needs has been proposed (Scharrer and Kubioka, 2025[25]). Challenge-based initiatives such as the Innosuisse Innovation Booster programme, although more successful in highly technical projects, illustrate how early-stage, exploratory and cross-sectoral innovation can be supported, including in areas such as “Future Food Farming” (OECD, 2022[9]). Exploring mixed finance, public–private partnerships or other innovative funding models, including the Model Projects, could facilitate co-investment, de-risk experimentation and attract new actors such as health and agricultural insurance providers or philanthropic organisations. In this context, reconsidering foreseen cuts to public funding for agricultural knowledge and innovation systems is important, as public investment remains critical to enabling experimentation, farmer engagement and long-term capacity building.
Current practices for the assessment of innovation tend to focus on economic outputs or technological advancement, yet transformative innovation often involves changes in behaviours, organisations or governance processes. Public and private funding bodies could increasingly integrate broader societal value into their decision-making by using corporate responsibility frameworks, true-cost accounting approaches or similar tools. Additionally, the government can adopt policy tools as open government and foresight analysis. When combined with mixed finance, these approaches can help steer investment toward innovations with high public value, especially those with strong environmental or social benefits.
Although Switzerland has a strong start-up ecosystem, high operational costs, and regulatory and institutional constraints create barriers for agri-food start-ups, which often relocate abroad when reaching the stage of scaling up. Creating more spaces for experimentation, such as living labs in universities, universities of applied sciences, experimental farms or public canteens, would allow innovators to test and adapt their solutions in real-world conditions before commercial expansion. On the demand side, retail-led initiatives can also facilitate experimentation and scaling: for example, a contest by a major retailer (Aldi) to select and showcase small producers in its stores provided temporary market access and visibility for innovative products. Cantonal authorities could further support these processes by designating areas where landscape or infrastructure changes can be authorised more rapidly for experimental purposes.
To conclude, Switzerland has strong grounds for innovation, including strong research institutions, an active private sector, and good digital infrastructure, but several enabling conditions need strengthening to allow innovation to act as a true catalyst for food system transformation. Enhancing coherence and co-ordination across governance levels, ensuring meaningful farmer participation, and maintaining public investment are essential to reduce gaps and support long-term capacity building. Broadening the scope of innovation beyond technological advances, improving the assessment of societal impact, and supporting healthier and more sustainable consumption environments will further ensure that innovation contributes to Switzerland’s environmental, economic and public health goals.
References
[67] Ammann, J., C. Umstätter and N. El Benni (2022), “The adoption of precision agriculture enabling technologies in Swiss outdoor vegetable production: a Delphi study”, Precision Agriculture, Vol. 23/4, pp. 1354-1374, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-022-09889-0.
[23] Bänninger, A. (2024), AKIS and advisory services in Switzerland. Updated report for the AKIS inventory (Task 1.2) of the i2connect project, I2Connect, https://meteodocs.llkc.lv/index.php/s/zixorWXnAATMMig.
[30] Bürgi Bonanomi, E. (2025), “Kommentierung von Art. 104 und Art. 104a der Schweizer Bundesverfassung („Agrarverfassung“)”, in Waldmann, B., E. Belser and A. Epiney (eds.), Bundesverfassung, Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag.
[48] Busché, J. and S. Imsand (2022), Deciphering margins: profitability above all, https://enquetes.frc.ch/marges.
[47] Busché, J. and S. Imsand (2022), Omerta in market gardening: the reasons for anger, https://www.frc.ch/omerta-dans-le-maraichage-les-raisons-de-la-colere.
[31] Campi, M. et al. (2024), “The evolving profile of new entrants in agriculture and the role of digital technologies”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 209, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d15ea067-en.
[33] Contzen, S. (2022), Die Rolle der Frauen in der Landwirtschaft, Berner Fachhochschule Monatsthema, https://www.bfh.ch/dam/jcr:6d12dabf-d4cd-4881-8b8e-793929ac250b/sandra-contzen-montagna-5-2022.pdf.
[32] Contzen, S. and J. Forney (2016), “Family farming and gendered division of labour on the move: a typology of farming-family configurations”, Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 34/1, pp. 27-40, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9687-2.
[49] Council of States (2025), Rapport de la Commission de l’économie et des redevances du 28 août 2025 -Iv. pa. (Pasquier-Eichenberger) Michaud Gigon. Pour un observatoire des prix efficace dans les filières agroalimentaires, https://www.parlament.ch/centers/kb/Documents/2022/Rapport_de_la_commission_-E_22.477_2025-08-28.pdf.
[38] Deconinck, K. and M. Hobeika (2023), “Understanding the impact of consumer-oriented assurance schemes: A review of voluntary standards and labels for the environmental sustainability of agri-food products”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 200, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/af917674-en.
[26] EPFL (2025), Center for Food Challenges, https://www.epfl.ch/research/domains/cffc/en/center-for-food-challenges/ (accessed on 2025).
[5] European Commision (2025), European Innovation Scoreboard 2025. Country profile Switzerland, European Commision, https://ec.europa.eu/assets/rtd/eis/2025/ec_rtd_eis-country-profile-ch.pdf.
[8] European Commision (2025), Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2025. Regional profile Switzerland, European Commision, https://ec.europa.eu/assets/rtd/ris/2025/ec_rtd_ris-regional-profile-ch.pdf.
[57] European Commission (2024), Digital Decade 2024: Broadband Coverage in Europe 2023, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-decade-2024-broadband-coverage-europe-2023.
[51] FDF (2024), Botschaft zum Entlastungspaket 27 für den Bundeshaushalt (EP27), Federal Department of Finance (FDF), Bern, https://www.efd.admin.ch/de/entlastungspaket-2.
[11] Federal Assembly (2022), 814.310 Federal Act on Climate Protection Targets, Innovation, and Strengthening Energy Security, https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2023/655/fr?version=20250101.
[71] Federal Council (2022), Digitalisation dans le domaine agricole. Rôle de la Confédération. Rapport du Conseil fédéral au postulat 19.3988, Jacques Bourgeois. Swiss Federal Council, Bern., https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/71534.pdf.
[17] Federal Council (2021), Long-term climate strategy, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj_za_is9CPAxVXRaQEHfPpL18QFnoECCEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bafu.admin.ch%2Fdam%2Fbafu%2Fen%2Fdokumente%2Fklima%2Ffachinfo-daten%2Ffaktenblatt_langfristige_klimastrate.
[12] Federal Council (2020), Swiss National Soil Strategy, https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/soil/publications-studies/publications/swiss-national-soil-strategy.html.
[35] Fenaco (2025), About us, https://www.fenaco.com/en/about-us (accessed on 30 July 25).
[72] Fesenfeld, L. et al. (2023), Wege in die Ernährungszukunft derSchweiz - Leitfaden zu den grössten Hebeln und politischen Pfaden für einnachhaltiges Ernährungssystem, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7543576.
[70] Finger, R. (2023), “Digital innovations for sustainable and resilient agricultural systems”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 50/4, pp. 1277-1309, https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbad021.
[55] FOAG (2025), Programme d’utilisation durable des ressources dans l’agriculture, https://www.blw.admin.ch/fr/programme-dutilisation-durable-des-ressources-dans-lagriculture.
[53] FOAG (2025), Projekte zur regionalen Entwicklung (PRE), https://www.blw.admin.ch/de/projekte-zur-regionalen-entwicklung.
[52] FOAG (2025), Projektunterstützung, https://www.blw.admin.ch/de/projektunterstuetzung.
[61] FOAG (2024), DigiAgriFoodCH, https://digiagrifood.ch/fr/.
[10] FOAG (2024), Plan directeur de la recherche agronomique et agroalimentaire 2025-2028, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiS_JubpdCPAxWOdqQEHWRyDgUQFnoECBkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blv.admin.ch%2Fdam%2Fblv%2Ffr%2Fdokumente%2Fdas-blv%2Fauftrag%2Fforschung%2Fforschungskonzept-2025-2028.pdf.
[18] FOAG (2023), Klimastrategie Landwirtschaft und Ernährung 2050, FOAG, https://www.blw.admin.ch/dam/en/sd-web/-bBGw0kfxxh3/KSLE_2050_Teil_1_D.pdf.
[16] FOAG (2022), Stratégie Améliorations structurelles 2030+, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjhgbyvstCPAxU8AfsDHfVtHQcQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsd.admin.ch%2Fnewsd%2Fmessage%2Fattachments%2F78623.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2s1h4u9-K4Q2v5J7ITu1vp&opi=89978449.
[13] FOEN (2022), Plan d’action Stratégie Biodiversité Suisse Phase 2 (2025-2030), https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiSi7eIr9CPAxVxTqQEHYWiC28QFnoECBoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bafu.admin.ch%2Fdam%2Fbafu%2Ffr%2Fdokumente%2Fbiodiversitaet%2Ffachinfo-daten%2Faktionsplan-strategie-biodiversitaet-schwe.
[46] FRC (2025), L’association | Fédération romande des consommateurs, https://www.frc.ch/association (accessed on 14 September 2025).
[44] Future Food (2021), Fellows and Researchers: Dr. Shiv Ashutosh Katiyar, https://www.futurefoodinitiative.ch/shiv-ashutosh-katiyar.html (accessed on 9 September 25).
[37] Gentile, E. et al. (2019), Fertilizers and pesticides: Price differences between Switzerland and neighbouring countries, Report mandated by the Swiss State Secretariat of Economic Affairs, https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/en/home/Publikationen_Dienstleistungen/Publikationen_und_Formulare/Strukturwandel_Wachstum/Branchenanalysen/fertilizers-and-pesticides-price-differences-between-switzerland.html (accessed on 14 September 2025).
[24] Gersbach, H. and M. Wörter (2024), Challenges for the Swiss Innovation System, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000657551.
[39] Giner, C., D. Rodriguez and A. Elasri (2023), “Developing food labels for improved health outcomes: Insights into simplified nutrition labelling policies”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 203, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c1f4d81d-en.
[64] Groher, T., K. Heitkämper and C. Umstätter (2020), Digital Technologies in Swiss Livestock Production, https://www.agrarforschungschweiz.ch/en/2020/06/digital-technologies-in-swiss-livestock-production/.
[63] Groher, T. et al. (2020), “Status quo of adoption of precision agriculture enabling technologies in Swiss plant production”, Precision Agriculture, Vol. 21/6, pp. 1327-1350, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-020-09723-5.
[1] Herrero, M. et al. (2020), “Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system”, Nature Food, Vol. 1/5, pp. 266-272, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1.
[29] Huber, R., N. El Benni and R. Finger (2023), “Lessons learned and policy implications from 20 years of Swiss agricultural policy reforms: A review of policy evaluations”, Bio-based and Applied Economics, Vol. 13/2, pp. 121-146, https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-14214.
[45] Hug, C. (2020), The perfect pear is called “Fred”, https://www.ufarevue.ch/fre/fenaco-landi/un-nouveau-superfruit-suisse (accessed on 20 October 25).
[41] Innosuisse (2024), Swiss Accelerator innovation projects, https://www.innosuisse.admin.ch/en/swiss-accelerator-innovation-projects.
[62] Klerkx, L., E. Jakku and P. Labarthe (2019), “A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda”, NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, Vol. 90-91/1, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315.
[22] Knierim, A. et al. (2015), “The AKIS Concept and its Relevance in Selected EU Member States”, Outlook on Agriculture, Vol. 44/1, pp. 29-36, https://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2015.0194.
[68] McFadden, J., F. Casalini and J. Antón (2022), “Policies to bolster trust in agricultural digitalisation: Issues note”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 175, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5a89a749-en.
[69] McFadden, J. et al. (2022), “The digitalisation of agriculture: A literature review and emerging policy issues”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 176, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/285cc27d-en.
[21] Meyer, N. et al. (2022), BSS_SEREC_Modellvorhaben_Wirkungsanalyse, https://bss-basel.ch/files/berichte/BSS_SEREC_Modellvorhaben_Wirkungsanalyse.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[28] OECD (2023), Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Spain, OECD Agriculture and Food Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a93d26be-en.
[9] OECD (2022), Enhancing Innovation in Rural Regions of Switzerland, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/307886ff-en.
[58] OFCOM (2025), Gigabit Strategy, https://www.bakom.admin.ch/en/gigabit-strategy (accessed on 16 September 25).
[59] OFCOM (2024), Federal government gigabit strategy, https://digital.swiss/en/action-plan/measures/federal-government-gigabit-strategy.
[40] Paglinawan, J. (2024), The Swiss FoodTech Ecosystem: A Powerhouse of AgriFood Innovation, Forward Fooding, https://forwardfooding.com/blog/foodtech500/the-swiss-foodtech-ecosystem/.
[2] Parodi, A. et al. (2018), “The potential of future foods for sustainable and healthy diets”, Nature Sustainability, Vol. 1/12, pp. 782-789, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0189-7.
[20] RegioSuisse (2025), Mettre en place des systèmes alimentaires régionaux plus durables, https://www.are.admin.ch/dam/are/fr/dokumente/raumplanung/dokumente/modellvorhaben/movo-ernahrung.pdf.download.pdf/TS_Erna%CC%88hrungssysteme_FR.pdf.
[19] RegioSuisse (2025), MoVo: Regionale Ernährungssysteme nachhaltiger gestalten, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OClyqrCTDWk&t=1s.
[66] Reissig, L. and M. Siegrist (2025), “From the attitude towards digitalisation in agriculture to the acceptance of future agricultural technologies”, Smart Agricultural Technology, Vol. 12, p. 101095, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2025.101095.
[65] Reissig, L., L. Wiseman and M. Cockburn (2024), “Farmers and their data: Evaluating the swiss conception of data sharing through the lens of digital farming”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 111, p. 103390, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103390.
[60] Schädeli, A. (2024), Less copper, more fibre for Switzerland, https://www.swisscom.ch/de/about/news/2024/02/08-weniger-kupfer-mehr-glasfaser.html?srsltid=AfmBOooqP-o75WITpsD2Fj72Si8P55_wcfNAGBs-c7GvMYeOtD-3SM3B.
[25] Scharrer, B. and L. Kubioka (2025), Weissbuch städtische Ernährungspolitik: Strategien, Handlungsfelder und Good-Practice-Beispiele aus neun Schweizer Städten, Bern Open Publishing, https://doi.org/10.48620/85185.
[50] SERI (2024), Bildungs-, Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik des Bundes 2025–2028 (BFI-Botschaft 2025–2028), State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), Bern, https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/de/bfi-politik-2025-2028.
[6] SERI (2022), Recherche et innovation en Suisse - Rapport intermediaire 2022, State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/fr/rapport-r-i.
[7] Spescha, A., S. Tran and M. Wörter (2025), Innovation und Digitalisierung in der Schweizer Privatwirtschaft – Ergebnisse der Innovationserhebung 2023 (No. Nr.182), KOF Konjunkturforschungsstelle, https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000717329.
[34] Star’Terre (2025), Star’Terre, https://www.starterre.ch/.
[54] Swiss Confederation (1998), Federal Act on Agriculture (Agricultural Act, LFA), Articles 77a-77b, SR 910.1., https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/3033_3033_3033/en#tit_3_a.
[56] Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture / Agrarbericht (2024), Programme d’utilisation durable des ressources naturelles, https://www.agrarbericht.ch/fr/politique/programmes-regionaux-et-specifiques-a-la-branche/programme-dutilisation-durable-d.
[42] Venturelab (2025), The Swiss Startup Radar, https://www.startup.ch/ (accessed on 22 September 25).
[3] von Braun, J. et al. (eds.) (2023), Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5.
[15] WEF (2015), Mainstreaming Food Innovation: A Roadmap for Stakeholders, https://www.weforum.org/publications/mainstreaming-food-innovation-a-roadmap-for-stakeholders/.
[36] Wey, C. and N. Gosser (2019), An assessment of the role of border protection on agricultural holdings in Switzerland and their upstream industries, Swiss State Secretariat of Economic Affairs.
[27] WFSC (2025), World Food System Center: Phase 3 (2021-2024) Report, ETH Zurich, https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/dual/worldfoodsystemcenter-dam/documents/WFSC-Phase3-Report-2024.pdf.
[43] WFSC (2024), New research on nutrition and health, https://worldfoodsystem.ethz.ch/news/wfsc-news/2024/01/new-research-on-nutrition-and-health.html (accessed on 29 August 25).
[4] WIPO (2025), Global Innovation Index 2025: Innovation at a Crossroads, https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/global-innovation-index-2025/assets/80937/global-innovation-index-2025-en.pdf.
[14] Working Group Overall Strategy along the Food Chain (2015), Strategie Lebensmittelkette, Federal Office for Agriculure (FOAG) and Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO), https://www.blv.admin.ch/dam/blv/en/dokumente/das-blv/strategien/strategie-lebensmittelkette-de.pdf.download.pdf/Strategie_Lebensmittelkette_unterschrieben.pdf.
← 1. After an impact analysis in 2022, new measures related to the economy, knowledge and innovation have been included in the second phase of the action plan (2025-2030) (FOEN, 2022[13]).
← 2. See, for example: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/education/planned-cuts-to-education-and-research-funding-in-switzerland-spark-concerns/76213979 (accessed September 2025).
← 3. See https://www.snf.ch/en/Uo5KXN2tSEFzDqge/news/federal-budget-cuts-snsf-to-adapt-its-research-funding-from-2026 (accessed September 2025).