7 min read
Highlights
Efficiency was the defining metric of the 20th century, but in a world of poly-crises, resilience has become the ultimate competitive advantage for the food industry.
- The Resilience Shift: The global food system is pivoting from "Just-in-Time" efficiency to a "Just-in-Case" resilience model to combat systemic shocks.
- The Cargill Benchmark: The inaugural Resilient Food Systems Index scores 60 countries, exposing deep vulnerabilities in even the most advanced nations.
- Hormuz as a Catalyst: Recent disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have proven that fertiliser and production shocks are no longer theoretical risks but immediate threats.
- The 11 Billion Entities Challenge: We must rethink food production not just for 9.7 billion humans, but for the 11 billion entities (including 1.3 billion pets) that will share our planet by 2050.
- Reimagining vs. Patching: Modern food systems require a complete reimagining rather than minor technical patches to ensure long-term global security.
For decades, the global food industry has worshipped at the altar of efficiency. We've spent half a century streamlining every link in the supply chain, squeezing out costs, and perfecting the "Just-in-Time" delivery model. It was a race to the bottom on price and a race to the top on volume. And for a while, it worked.
But I believe that era is officially over.
The cracks aren't just appearing; the foundations are shaking. Between geopolitical instability, climate volatility, and a rapidly growing global population, our hyper-efficient systems have become dangerously brittle. We've traded our "cushion" for "cost-savings," and now we're paying the price. The conversation is shifting, and it’s moving fast from how cheap can we make it? to how certain are we that it will arrive?
The Cargill Resilient Food Systems Index
I’ve been closely following the release of the inaugural Resilient Food Systems Index, a new benchmark developed by Economist Impact and supported by Cargill. This isn't just another industry report; it’s a high-resolution map of our global vulnerabilities. By scoring 60 countries on their ability to withstand stress, the index provides a sobering look at where we stand.
What’s fascinating, and deeply concerning, is that high GDP doesn't automatically equate to high resilience. Many nations that look "efficient" on paper are actually "fragile" in practice. They rely on long, thin, complex supply chains that can be snapped by a single regional conflict or a weather event half a world away.
The Global Leaders in Resilience
The 2026 index also gives us a clear snapshot of which nations are currently setting the benchmark for resilient food systems. These are the top 10 performers:
- Portugal (76.83)
- France (76.75)
- United Kingdom (76.34)
- United States (75.30)
- Japan (74.39)
- Netherlands (73.51)
- Germany (73.50)
- Denmark (73.19)
- Singapore (73.00)
- Malaysia (72.98)
So, what makes the top three so resilient?
Portugal leads the entire index with an exceptional Quality and Safety score of 88.53. That matters. It reflects a system built on high food diversity and strict nutritional standards, which together create a stronger buffer against shocks. I believe Portugal’s leadership shows that resilience isn't just about volume; it’s about the quality, breadth, and integrity of the food system itself.
France follows closely, with resilience anchored in strong food affordability and robust availability. Its diversified agricultural base and broad trade connections help it absorb disruption more effectively than nations that rely too heavily on narrow sourcing channels.
The United Kingdom rounds out the top three for similar reasons. Its high performance in affordability, combined with dependable availability through diverse trade networks, demonstrates that resilience is increasingly a function of optionality. In the future, the countries with the most pathways to supply will outperform those with the cheapest single pathway.
What the Scores Really Tell Us
The most telling part is how tightly bunched the scores are. The gap between Portugal at #1, 76.83, and Chile at #20, 69.76, is only about 7 points. In real life, this means three things for the global food system —
- A Shared Ceiling
No one is hitting an 80 — let alone a 100. This tells us that even the most advanced nations have systemic, structural vulnerabilities they haven't solved yet. Being #1 is just being the best of a vulnerable bunch. - Efficiency ≠ Resilience
Look at Australia, #12, and Canada, #18. These are hyper-efficient agricultural powerhouses, but they’re being outranked by nations like Portugal and Malaysia. Why? Because the index rewards Quality, Safety, and Climate Responsiveness over raw volume. In a crisis, having a lot of wheat, the hallmark of efficiency, doesn't help if your soil is depleted or your export route is a choke point. - The "Middle-Zone" Trap
The report notes a 42-point gap between the top and bottom. But within the top 20, the difference is negligible. One bad harvest or one geopolitical event in the Strait of Hormuz could easily swap #12 for #4. It shows that resilience is a moving target, not a trophy you win once.
For a Board or C-suite, it means you can't rely on being in a stable country as a risk strategy. When the top 20 are this close together, everyone is one major shock away from the same supply chain nightmare.
Top-tier affordability + diverse trade access + strong quality standards = national food resilience
The Hormuz Wake-Up Call
We don't have to look far for proof. The ongoing crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is a perfect case study in the "End of Efficiency." This narrow waterway is a literal choke point for global trade, and the recent shocks to fertiliser shipments and energy prices have sent ripples through every farm and supermarket on the planet.
I’ve written before about the Hormuz Fertiliser Shock and why Australian agriculture, in particular, must stop chasing efficiency at the expense of its own survival. When your entire production model depends on a continuous, uninterrupted flow of inputs from a volatile region, you aren't efficient; you're vulnerable.
Resilience means having options. It means diversifying supply, investing in local sovereign technology, and building "slack" into the system so that when one node fails, the entire network doesn't collapse. It’s about moving toward a "Just-in-Case" mindset, because a "Just-Too-Late" scenario is now more probable than ever!
Feeding 11 Billion Entities
When we talk about the future, we often quote the standard figure; we need to feed 9.7 billion people by 2050. But I believe this metric is too narrow.
If we want a truly holistic view of global food demand, we have to look at the 11 billion entities that will occupy our world. This includes the 9.7 billion humans and the roughly 1.3 billion pet cats and dogs that are increasingly treated as family members.
This isn't just a fun statistic; it’s a massive logistical and ethical challenge. Our current "efficient" systems are already struggling to meet current needs without destroying the environment. Catering for the calorie and nutrient requirements of 11 billion entities using a system built for 20th-century stability is a recipe for disaster.
So, how do we solve this? We can't just do "more of the same." We can't simply patch the existing holes in the net.
Reimagining vs. Patching
This brings me to the core of my Reimagining the Global Food System keynote. Most corporate strategy meetings are currently focused on "optimisation"; finding a 2% saving here or a 3% speed increase there. That’s patching.
I believe we need to stop fixing the old system and start building the new one. This means embracing technologies that decouple food production from the limitations of geography and climate. We're seeing a shift toward Sovereign Tech; where nations invest in their own high-tech food security infrastructure to avoid being held hostage by global supply chain shocks.
The UK, for instance, is already making significant moves in this space. Their £50M bet on sovereign food tech is a clear signal that food is now being viewed through the lens of national security. When governments start treating food as a strategic asset rather than a commodity, the entire industry landscape changes.
The Resilience Formula: Diversity + Decentralisation = Stability
If I had to boil down the lessons from the Resilient Food Systems Index into a simple formula, it would be this:
Diversity of Input + Decentralisation of Production = Systemic Stability
We need to decentralise where our food comes from and diversify how it’s made. This isn't just about sustainability; it’s about survival. By using technologies like precision fermentation and indoor agtech, we can create food "hubs" that are local, reliable, and incredibly resilient.
Why This Matters for Leaders
If you're a Board member or a C-suite executive in the food or beverage sector, your primary responsibility is no longer just "growth." It’s "continuity." The Resilient Food Systems Index shows us that the most successful companies and nations of the next decade won't be the ones that were the most efficient yesterday; they'll be the ones that are the most adaptable tomorrow.
I believe that we’ll see a reallocation of capital toward technologies that provide "on-demand" food security. This is the new gold standard. The era of the "globalised commodity" is being replaced by the era of the "localised technology."
Are you ready to move beyond efficiency? Are you prepared to reimagine your business for a world of 11 billion entities? The tools are there. The data is clear. The only question is whether you have the vision to lead the change before the next shock forces your hand.
I believe the leaders who thrive in this new landscape will be those who value resilience over the illusion of perfect efficiency. It’s a shift in mindset that requires courage, but the rewards — a stable, secure, and profitable future — are well worth the effort!
To continue the conversation email me at tony@tonyhunterspeaker.com