Colocating to scale the impact of new food technologies

A central element to what we’re doing at Qincho is bringing together actors from different fields to find and drive solutions to the unsustainable food system. Understanding how to collocate innovators to maximise their potential of success, and identifying where and how experts can help, means studying the needs of a wide array of players. The idea of finding new efficiencies through partnerships and co-creation means working out complex systems and motivating agents within them to act. That’s why when Dr. Peter Wootton-Beard of the University of Aberystwyth convened a workshop on the Opportunities for Co-Location and Vertical Farming in Wales, we were very excited to attend, learn, and share our experience. During this day-long event, which brought together entrepreneurs, farmers, government officials, and academics, we explored ways to efficiently integrate vertical farming into other businesses.

Co-locating businesses is a complex challenge. The debate was fed by stories, hurdles, and opportunities — each of which deserve some thought.

Stories

For one, colocation is an ambiguous term. One London-based aquaponic farm told the crowd that their seemingly integrated system is actually formed of two distinct ones (a fish farm and a hydroponic vertical farm). This means that while they’re not a co-located business (everything is done in house), they run a co-location of technologies. Another version is that of the Association for Vertical Farming, which is co-located “online” — so in a shared virtual space despite members and staff being peppered around the world. The circular economy proponents are very keen on co-location, as it is a means by which to upcycle waste or redirect flows within a system. They see it as a localised solution. A prominent New York-based vertical farm bootcamp shared stories about how their neighbourhood has evolved into a food hub, with new firms attracted in by the existing talent-pool and atmosphere, without much planning involved.

Hurdles

It was particularly interesting to see that the debate in the room was not about the merits of colocation, but the technicalities. By this I mean that everyone had, within their silos, realised that their operations had leakages — and that colocation was a way of turning these into assets. It was thus to my surprise, and delight, that there was a wide-spread understanding in the room that collocating businesses, anaerobic digestion plants with vertical farms, for example, was desirable. The really exciting thing, however, was that by sharing and learning, it became achievable. The core hurdles that popped up across the room included the perceived lack of buy-in from other stakeholders. This was at times directed at system inertia, at public bodies, or at private, profit-driven, decision-making. But in a way this blame-game was moot by the fact that players from all these sectors were in the room advocating for change.

A different problem was brought up across the board: the need for leadership and a platform for exchange. A place in which to experiment with colocation, or an agent to drive the efforts. This resonates with some of the research we have done, showing that innovators are (quite rightly) too busy developing their solution to devote time to outside-the-box solutions like colocation. For many, this platform or leader is responsible for convening relevant stakeholders, catalysing change, and is key to successful colocation.

Opportunity

Finally, there was widespread talk of opportunities for colocation. For academic and private spheres to share, and public and private sectors to work together. There are opportunities for young businesses to gain support, for older ones to experiment. The overall tone was that colocation itself is an opportunity that can yield higher efficiency, better returns, quicker scaling and other boosts to business. While we haven’t quite figured out how to measure it yet, the opportunity of course extends to the potential for reduced environmental impact and increased social gains.

With this come excellent opportunities for research. In particular, I see three fields where better academic understanding could both increase the uptake of colocation for foodtech as well as deepen its impact.

1. New business models and deep integration of activities to make revenue streams more resilient,
2. Public policy research on how colocation of new food technologies could be designed as a cross-sectorial solution (social, environmental, and economic benefits),
3. Measuring impact and progress.

Concluding thoughts

On the whole, colocation has the potential to mean both economic growth and environmental impact reduction. This is to say that combining businesses and closing loops means more sustainable businesses. It’s a powerful tool to rebalance incentives, a real opportunity for widespread responsible planning and systems-thinking. Coming out of this conference I feel confident that the intention and interest is there, and what’s missing is a platform, the knowledge exchange and leadership. This means that the bulk of the work has been done, that there are rational and economic arguments for colocation despite worries about stakeholder engagement and incentives to co-create.

To scale the impact of novel, sustainable, tech-driven solutions in the food chain and beyond we need a space for colocation, exchange, and innovation. We need to communicate the benefits of new food technologies and attract new talent to the field. Colocation is an efficient way to test solutions, share experiences, and demonstrate their positive returns. That’s why it is the model we chose for Qincho.