Decoding transformative push of agroecological innovation in smallholding farming systems

CONTEXT: Agroecology advocates for economic, cultural, and power transformations in the agrifood system, prioritizing farmers’ autonomy, ecological performance, and equity. Despite numerous publications on innovation claiming to contribute to the Agroecological Transition (AET), few efforts have assessed their transformative impact in addressing structural dynamics and challenges faced by smallholders worldwide. This research aims to evaluate self-labelled agroecological innovations in terms of their contribution to transforming the industrial agrifood regime (IAF). METHODS: Using a systematic literature review (n = 149) and snowball search (n = 8), the study examines niche–regime interaction patterns classified as incremental, reconfigurative, or transformative pushes. Each innovation was assessed for its alignment with the agroecological principles of HLPE (2019) and LVC (2015). A k-means cluster analysis was then performed to identify similar interaction patterns within the agroecological innovation field. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that on-farm technologies dominate academic literature, primarily as non-territorialized innovations deployed or developed by smallholders. Cluster analysis of maximal dissimilarity identifies three niche–regime interaction types: incremental, reconfigurative, and transformative. Over half of the self-labelled agroecological innovations show both minimal alignment with agroecological principles and low potential to disrupt IAF dimensions. In contrast, social and knowledge network innovations, along with agroecological strategic pathways, exhibit moderate to high alignment but demonstrate varied interactions with the IAF, ranging from uncertain outcomes to strong potential for overcoming smallholders’ structural disempowerment. SIGNIFICANCE: The discussion explores the co-optation of the agroecological frame, innovation bias, and innovation-driven agrifood system transformations, contributing to ongoing debates in AET conceptualization and sustainability transformation. Academic engagement with power inequalities, political agency, and the labor burdens innovations impose on smallholders remains limited.