Exploring the complexity of food systems assessments: A systematic literature review of frameworks and indicators

There is growing momentum at the global level to assess food systems. This study aims to understand how food systems are being assessed by examining the frameworks, dimensions and indicators used. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review identified 40 studies that primarily focused on assessing food systems or their components through a set of indicators. The review identified twelve key focus areas, of which sustainability assessments and the monitoring of food system performance were the most common. A limited number of studies explicitly defined what “food system” meant and how it was conceptualised in their study – a key point that most studies overlooked. Among the studies that used a framework, two types—conceptual and analytical—were used. Studies often modified frameworks by integrating theoretical concepts, methodological approaches, and disciplinary lenses to align with their goals and contexts. There was significant variation in the types and numbers of dimensions used to assess the same aspects of food systems. This study compiled 1096 indicators, revealing a skewed distribution towards environmental, socioeconomic, and nutrition-related domains. Literature reviews and participatory methods were the two most common approaches for selecting and shortlisting indicators. The predominance of outcome-related indicators compared to drivers and activities suggests that assessments have largely prioritised measuring impacts rather than understanding the underlying drivers and processes that shape food systems. This study highlights the importance of clearly defining food systems and being explicit about the motivations and underlying assumptions for choosing frameworks and indicators. Doing so is vital to ensure consistency in assessments and to advance knowledge for addressing complex food system challenges. • Identified 40 studies assessing food systems using frameworks and indicators. • Twelve key areas were the focus of food system assessment studies. • Most studies did not clearly define what ‘food system’ meant in their study context. • Compiled 1096 indicators, mostly related to environmental, socioeconomic, and nutrition domains. • Assessments focused more on impacts than on drivers and processes shaping food systems.