Sustainable agriculture - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Viona Louisa Röckendorf
Edited by: –
Last updated: May 11, 2026

Executive summary

Sustainable agriculture aims to meet rising demand for food and other agricultural products while protecting ecosystems, supporting livelihoods, and sustaining farm profitability over the long term. The concept has many definitions, but most converge on three goals: ecological soundness (protecting natural capital), economic viability (keeping farms productive and profitable), and social responsibility (ensuring acceptable and equitable outcomes for workers, farmers, and communities).

The agricultural sector is economically and socially central, employing a large share of the global workforce and providing inputs to complex agri-food supply chains. At the same time, current production patterns drive significant environmental pressures, including greenhouse gas emissions, land-use change and deforestation, land degradation, biodiversity loss, nutrient pollution, and freshwater depletion. These impacts differ by product and farming system, with animal-source foods often showing higher climate and water footprints than many crops.

Because there is no single universal definition or measurement method for sustainable agriculture, organizations typically rely on frameworks and indicators to translate goals into measurable performance. The article highlights the FAO’s SAFA framework as a comprehensive approach that can be adapted to different contexts, and it summarizes indicator-based approaches that operationalize sustainability at farm level (for example, using indicators for soil health, water use, input intensity, profitability, and equity in access to resources). Effective indicator selection depends on data availability, context, and stakeholder participation.

For organizations with agricultural supply chains, implementation depends on governance models and structured processes. Companies can promote sustainable practices through direct partnerships with farmers or by working through suppliers and standards. A practical implementation cycle includes risk assessment, outcome and indicator selection, adoption of principles and practices, and monitoring and continuous improvement. At farm level, common practice areas include diversified cropping and rotations, cover crops, reduced tillage, integrated nutrient and pest management, improved water and livestock management, agroforestry and landscape elements, and targeted digital tools.

Finally, the transition faces important drivers and barriers. Policy and market signals, consumer expectations, and technological innovation can accelerate adoption, while misaligned incentives, financing constraints, short-term profitability trade-offs, biophysical constraints, and capability gaps can slow it down. Coordinated regulation, finance, and capacity building—designed with farmers and local stakeholders—are critical to scaling sustainable agriculture across regions and commodities.

1 Introduction

Agriculture underpins human societies, by producing food and other essential resources.¹ Yet, the sector must fulfill human needs, but it is also exposed to tremendous challenges. Global crop demand is projected to double from 2005 to 2050, largely driven by an estimated increase of 2.3 billion people in the world population by the first half of the 21st century.² Yet farmers will face many challenges, including the effects of climate change, loss of biodiversity, pollution, and soil degradation, as well as increasing price volatility, negatively impacting their incomes, livelihoods, and rural development, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ Agriculture is confronted with all these problems, but at the same time it has caused many of them.³ ⁷ Although it is recognized as one of the sectors being most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, agricultural emissions account for approximately one fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions.³ The sector faces multiple economic vulnerabilities related to climate shocks and to crises such as wars or pandemics, which strain the resilience of the food supply chain.⁸ ⁹ ¹⁰ Between 2008 and 2018, countries with the lowest income experienced financial losses of approximately US$108 billion as a result of reduced agricultural and livestock production caused by natural disasters.⁸ With the increase in the world population, these challenges will become even more pressing under a business-as-usual scenario, posing the threat of irreversible environmental impacts.² Further, the dependency on high external inputs, such as fossil fuels, debt capital, and agrochemicals, has negative effects on the economic viability at the farm level.¹ Current practices of high external input farms contribute to declines in soil quality and productivity, which, in turn, reduces financial returns and increases health risks for humans and animals.¹ ¹¹ ¹² On the other hand, farmers face financial constraints that impede the introduction of sustainable farming practices. Smallholder farmers who rely on only 12 percent of the world’s farmland, constitute 84 percent of farms worldwide, have few sources to invest in sustainable farming practices whilst living in regions with high social-ecological vulnerability.¹³ ¹⁴ ¹⁵ Food security¹⁰⁸, poor working conditions¹¹⁰ and equity issues¹¹⁴ further impede the social sustainability of the agricultural sector. These challenges underscore the imperative of transitioning towards sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture (SA) has emerged as a promising approach that aims to meet the demand for agricultural products while aligning with environmental and social concerns.¹⁶ In line with the 1987 Brundtland Report the concept has gained broad recognition, although its intellectual foundations of SA developed decades earlier.¹⁷ Today, the term is conceptualized differently across various scientific disciplines, encompassing a diverse range of topics that are debated simultaneously and reflecting alternative, partially conflicting perspectives.¹⁸ The heterogeneous nature of the discourse complicates its practical implementation, which is an integrated and multiobjective task that must consider various contexts and scales.¹² ¹⁹ ²⁰ ²¹ ²² While there is broad consensus about the need for SA, operational, transdisciplinary implementation approaches are scarce, which fill the gap between practitioner-oriented and theoretical approaches. This article addresses this gap by providing operational implementation strategies, building on a comprehensive review of the current state of research on SA.

2 Literature review

The literature review is structured into three chapters. Chapter 2.1 introduces the conceptual foundations of SA, Chapter 2.2 presents an overview of the agricultural sector, and Chapter 2.3 addresses the sector’s sustainability impacts and the measurement of agricultural sustainability.

2.1 Conceptual foundations of sustainable agriculture (SA)

The following chapter introduces the conceptual foundations of SA that are prevalent in the scientific discourse to answer the first research question on what SA is. Central definitions, implications for a universal definition and recurring goals of SA are discussed in Chapter 2.1.1 Subsequently, the historical evolution of SA is outlined in Chapter 2.1.2, demonstrating how various factors have influenced the emergence of the term, and brought forth various approaches to SA. Chapter 2.1.3 presents a typology that structures the different conceptual approaches to SA.

2.1.1 Definition of SA

Sustainable Agriculture (SA) lacks a universally accepted definition, counting more than 70 different definitions.²³ A frequently referenced definition regards to „[…] sustainable agriculture [as] one that, over the long term, enhances environmental quality and the resource base on which agriculture depends, provides for basic human food and fiber needs, is economically viable, and enhances the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.“ (American Society of Agronomy, 1989, as cited in ¹⁸). Another established definition defines it as an “integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site specific application that will, over the long term: (a) satisfy human food and fibre needs; (b) enhance environmental quality; (c) make efficient use of non-renewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate appropriate natural biological cycles and controls; (d) sustain the economic viability of farm operations; and (e) enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.” (U.S. Farm Bill, 1990, as cited in ¹⁸).

Despite these definitions, the term remains ambiguous which can be attributed to its normative character and the influence of different scientific disciplines.¹⁸ In addition, the concept has been shaped by contemporary issues, discourses, and normatives over time.¹⁸ ²⁴ Climate change, for example, evolved to a key topic in the scientific discourse, after having no or little relevance in the past.¹⁸

However, common conceptual elements of SA are identifiable across definitions. One of these is the acknowledgement of agriculture‘s multifunctionality, since it not only produces food, but has various unique functions and ecosystem services.¹² ¹⁸ ²⁵ Moreover, the role of both positive and negative externalities arising from agricultural practices gained consideration in the discourse.¹¹ ¹² ¹⁸ The understanding of SA is further shaped by the long-term perspective as an integral principle, which also manifests in the overall goal of SA to secure the needs of the present and future generations.¹⁸ Finally, scholars stress that SA must consider various contexts and scales and conclude that there is no universal configuration of agricultural measures that can be applied to different contexts.¹² ¹⁸ ²⁶

However, SA can be conceptualized by referencing to a series of goals that it aims to fulfil that relate to the three dimensions of sustainability.¹⁸ Ecological soundness, economic viability and social responsibility represent the overall goals of SA for each of the three sustainability pillars.¹⁸ ²⁷ ²⁸ ²⁹ Ecological soundness strives to preserve and enhance the natural environment, and the general goal of social responsibility refers to integrating socially acceptable agricultural activities. Economic viability refers to the long-term productivity of operations, although its definition is contested as well.³⁰ In addition, there are overarching goals of SA that cannot be assigned to any of the pillars. Figure 1 illustrates the goals of SA within overarching, environmental, social and economic goal categories based on the systematic literature review conducted by Velten et al. (2015).¹⁸ It must be noted that the scope of the study was limited to sources from social science and humanities, rendering the list as not exhaustive, though giving a good overview on recurring goals of SA.¹⁸

Figure 1: Goal categories of SA within sustainability pillars and overarching goals (own illustration adapted from ¹⁸)

2.1.2 The evolution and conceptualization of SA

Examining the chronological emergence of the different approaches to SA and considering their historical contexts allows for a comprehensive understanding of the current discourse on SA. Long before the SA term gained prominence in the 1980s, a multitude of different approaches and schools of thought about different aspects of SA already existed. Even though not all of these approaches were incorporated in the debates on SA in the 1980s, they shaped its intellectual foundations.²⁷

The most important reference point for in the evolution of SA is the industrialization of the 19th and 20th century.³¹ Mechanization, technological innovations and new scientific methods revolutionized agricultural production, and brought forth a system that is referred to as industrial, conventional, or high-input agriculture.¹ This system highly depends on agrochemicals (pesticides and synthetic fertilizers), fossil fuels for machinery, and new, high-yielding crop varieties. Farming systems shifted towards monocropping systems (growing a crop on the same field without any crop rotation season after season), promoted by governmental subsidies, neglecting adverse impacts.¹ By the early 1900s, these developments brought up two movements among farmers and scientists, consisting of proponents of the industrial progress and those who applied knowledge on natural processes to improve agricultural productivity. The latter paradigm manifested itself in the emergence of the concept of alternative agriculture (AA). Rather than relying on chemical inputs, AA aims to use biological resources and utilize ecologically beneficial interactions¹, while adopting a selection of technological advancements from conventional agriculture (p. 5-6).³²

The first clearly defined and coordinated scientific movement that represents contemporary approaches to SA is biodynamic agriculture (BDA) developed by Rudolf Steiner in 1924 in response to the adverse effects due to high-input agriculture in Europe (p. 7).³² Although the esoteric elements of this approach are regarded as pseudoscientific in the contemporary scientific discourse¹¹⁵, the biodynamic school of thought laid important groundwork for subsequent paradigms, as it was the first to describe principles referring to the diversification of production systems (p. 6-7).³² In parallel but also building on the biodynamic movement, the scientific movement with principles of composting at its core developed. Sir Howard’s book “An Agricultural Testament” from 1943 was an important landmark for the idea of humus farming (p. 8).³² It sparked subsequent works that were centered around soil fertility and soil management practices that, in turn, were oriented toward ecological processes. Applying a holistic approach to agriculture instead of using chemical inputs that was a tenant of this movement, which brought forth organic (OA) and later on regenerative agriculture (RA) (p. 8-9).³²

Despite all these efforts that regained importance further down in the timeline, conventional agriculture spread tremendously in high-income countries by the late 1950s (p. 9).³² As a result, the proportion of costs related to capital increased, threatening the economic viability of farming by the late 1970s in U.S. agriculture.¹ On the global scale, the Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s represents another significant reference point for the history of SA (p. 10).³² ³³ Crop engineering introduced high-yielding crop varieties of rice and wheat, that were highly responsive to synthetic fertilizers, and were developed for farmers in low income countries at that time, foremost Asia and Latin America.³³ Although these innovations saved millions from starvation due to increased food production, it resulted in trade-offs between agricultural productivity and both the environmental and socioeconomic impacts, exemplifying current debates on the sustainability of agriculture.³³

In response to the economic challenges for farmers in the U.S., OA was revived and received significant attention in 1979 through the empirical exploration of its economic viability.¹ Moreover, the AA movement regained momentum through a study assigned by the US Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council in 1984 (p. V).¹ ³⁴ At around the same time, regenerative agriculture (RA) and agroecology were articulated, which focus on the improvement of biological resources, favoring agricultural productivity.²⁹ ³⁵ ³⁶ ³⁷ ³⁸ Introduced by the seminal work by Pretty (1997), Sustainable Intensification was introduced as an approach to sustainable agriculture that links the intensification of agriculture in order to meet increasing food demands without causing irreversible damage to natural resources.³⁹ ⁴⁰

Following the publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987, the term SA gained recognition alongside the idea of sustainable development, and the subsequent SA approaches became conceptually aligned to the broader sustainability paradigm.¹⁸ As one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), target 2.4 explicitly refers to sustainable food production and resilient agricultural practices, emphasizing that agricultural productivity should not be pursued at the expense of sustainability. It highlights that resilient agricultural practices are a means to increasing productivity and production, while at the same time safeguarding ecosystem services (p. 1).⁴¹ In light of the acknowledgement that the sector is highly relevant to address global social-ecological problems, climate-smart⁴¹⁵⁰ and nutrition-sensitive⁵² ⁵³ agriculture emerged. Precision agriculture (PA) emerged from a more technocratic approach as a result of technological advances in agriculture. PA was the origin of Smart Agriculture, or Agriculture 4.0, which uses digital technologies favoring agricultural sustainability.⁴²

2.1.3 Approaches to SA

SA is associated with an extensive terminology, both on a paradigmatic level and an operational level, reflecting the conceptual diversity of the subject. Each approach addresses different aspects of SA, and the reconciliation of the different schools of thought and their associated practices remains a challenge.²⁹ Yet, most terms are related to ecological sustainability.¹² Hayati et al. (2010) conclude that “[s]ustainability in agriculture is a complex concept and there is no common viewpoint among scholars about its dimensions” (p. 73).⁴³ For this reason, a typology of SA approaches was created as part of the literature review, categorizing the most prominent approaches, as shown in Table 1. This structure aims to close the gap left by a lack of synthesis between approaches and should not be interpreted as a comprehensive classification of SA approaches.

Building on the typology of approaches presented in Table 1, each approach is described in the following. While some approaches are characterized by paradigms with a systemic perspective (Group A) or guiding principles (Group C), others are encompassing clearly defined standards and characteristic practices (Group B). Some approaches (Group D) are defined through characteristic farming practices but are not rigorous standards. Group E approaches are considered separately as they represent transformative, technology-based farming approaches. It must be noted that the following section contains a non-exhaustive selection of prevailing approaches to SA, aiming to contribute to an understanding of SA. In the further course of this thesis, in Chapter 3.1.3., sustainable farming practices of the individual SA approaches are discussed.

Table 1: Typology of approaches to sustainable agriculture (own illustration)

Agroecology: Agroecology is regarded as a transdisciplinary scientific discipline, a social or political movement, and a set of agricultural practices.³⁸ ⁴⁴ As a science, it studies ecological processes in agroecosystems (modified ecosystems for the purpose of agricultural production) and derives practices to make these systems more sustainable.⁴⁵ An integral concept related to the term is that agroecology follows a system-based approach to agricultural sustainability which stresses the transformation of the whole food system, which is why it was assigned to Group A.³⁷ Although many authors argue that agroecology cannot be confined to a standardized set of practices, harnessing natural processes and beneficial interactions are guiding principles to the management of sustainable agroecosystems.³⁷ ³⁸

Sustainable intensification: Sustainable intensification (SI) of agriculture refers to an approach, scientific discourse, paradigm shift, process or system aimed at increasing agricultural yields without adverse impacts on the environment.¹⁵ ⁴⁰ ⁴⁶ ⁴⁷ Hence, SI does not cite a distinct method or farming practices for agricultural production.⁴⁰ Part of the SI discourse is its food system approach, which qualifies it for Group A. Accordingly, Rockström et al. (2017) define SI as: “[…] practices along the entire value chain of the global food system that meet rising needs for nutritious and healthy food through practices that build social–ecological resilience and enhance natural capital within the safe operating space of the Earth system”.¹⁵

Organic agriculture: Organic Agriculture is legally regulated in Europe (EEC Reg.2092/91 and EC 834/2007) and in various other countries, and can therefore be assigned to Group B.³⁷ Technical production standards are specified and compliance is monitored by inspection authorities (p. 50).⁴⁴ The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) formulated broad principles for OA, and has a more holistic and systemic understanding of organic agriculture. The IFOAM defines it as a system that safeguards the health of soils, ecosystems and people, emphasizing the vital role of ecological processes, biodiversity and nutrition cycles instead of heavy reliance on external inputs. The regulatory principles have a stronger focus on the operationalization of biological processes for farm management, and on restrictions regarding external inputs.³⁷

Biodynamic agriculture: Biodynamic agriculture (BDA) evolved from being a form of alternative agriculture to being regarded as a form of organic agriculture, due to their aligned principles.⁴⁸ It was the first one that described principles such as diversified production, recycling of resources, reduction of chemical inputs, and decentralization of production systems (p. 6-7).³² Biodynamic production is internationally certified by the Demeter® label, thus meets the requirements for Group B. The application of specific (“biodynamic”) preparations to soil or crops is regarded as a defining characteristic of BDA, which is one of the distinguishing factors from OA.⁴⁸

Climate-Smart agriculture: The Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) approach, introduced by the FAO, aims to transform agricultural systems to strengthen food security in face of the adverse impacts of climate change. This overarching goal is translated into interventions that are oriented toward productivity increases, resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change, and reduction of agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.⁴⁹ ⁵⁰ CSA operates on a governance and policy level, focusing on coordination and capacity-building of different stakeholders.⁵⁰ These characteristics explain the classification of CSA in Group C.

Conservation agriculture: Conservation agriculture is defined by three principles centered on soil conservation. Together, minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover, and diversified cropping systems increase soil health by reducing soil erosion, enhancing soil water storage capacity, and increasing soil organic matter and nutrient content.⁵¹ As CA does not focus on a systemic perspective, it is classified in Group C.

Nutrition-sensitive agriculture: This approach is characterized by agricultural measures that have nutrition-centered outcomes. Instead of focusing solely on productivity improvements to minimize undernutrition, interventions of NSA target its fundamental determinants. These interventions follow five core pathways: agricultural production, knowledge on nutrition, farm income, women’s rights, particularly in decision-making and participation, and improving institutional effectiveness at the local level. As they are often highlighted by international organizations such as the FAO, NSA can be assigned to Group C.⁵² ⁵³

Alternative agriculture: Alternative agriculture does not refer to a standardized set of farming practices. Instead, alternative systems emphasize biological processes, such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation and pest-predator dynamics. They depend on reduced external inputs, prioritize optimized utilization of the biological and genetic resources of crops and livestock, align cropping schemes with the productive and physical capacity of arable lands and emphasize the conservation of energy and the natural resource base for agriculture (p. 4).⁵⁴ AA applies many farming practices that are used in organic, biological, low-input or regenerative agriculture.²⁷ As in Chapter 2.1.2 outlined, the approach evolved through synergies between practitioners and scientists, while receiving support by government initiatives. Therefore, AA can be assigned to group C.

Regenerative agriculture: Regenerative agriculture can be described as an approach that integrates food production with the restoration and maintenance of biodiversity, water resources, and soil health, while also enhancing economic viability of farms.⁵⁵ ⁵⁶ Although lacking a clear definition, a core concept among scholars revolves around soil health.¹⁹ ⁵⁷ ⁵⁸ It is important to emphasize that there are certifications for RA products by (non-profit) organizations (e.g. Regenerative Organic Certified®).¹⁹ However they have no standardized certification criteria, which is why RGA was classified in group D. However, it can be seen as a hybrid form of B and D.

Precision agriculture: Precision agriculture (PA) is an approach that makes use of data based informed technologies for the management of spatial and temporal variabilities in crop and livestock production. Thereby, it aims to improve crop productivity, resource use optimization, and environmental health. Smart Agriculture/Agriculture 4.0 is regarded as the advanced form of PA.⁵⁹

Smart agriculture/agriculture 4.0: Due to the emergence and integration of data-driven, transformative technologies in precision agriculture, Smart Agriculture, also referred to as Agriculture 4.0, emerged. These advanced technologies leverage optimized resource use and reduce environmental impacts.⁴² As both PA and Smart Agriculture are driven by technological innovation, they fit into category E.

Although the SA approaches differ in their focuses, recurring characteristics can be derived. Many of the approaches emphasize the importance of resource efficiency and the use of biological processes instead of external inputs, but some also focus on the role of agriculture in food security. In contrast, the based on the findings above, the other social sustainability goals (e.g. good working conditions) and economic viability of farms are less prominent among scholars.

To sum up, this chapter shows that the academic discourse does not follow a consistent definition of SA. The term remains ambiguous due to its normative nature and the influence of various academic disciplines and schools of thought. The typology shows that SA’s goals have been prioritised differently by various approaches to SA. The historical background of the term’s emergence helps to explain the diversity of concepts and ideologies associated with SA.

2.2 Overview of the agricultural sector

The following chapter characterizes the agricultural sector based on its products and structural features. This establishes the definitional basis for the subsequent chapters of this study and specifies its scope.

3.2.1 Products and sector structure

Agriculture comprises activities related to crop cultivation and animal husbandry for food and non-food production such as fiber or biofuels in specialized or mixed production systems (p. 99).⁶⁰ Mixed agricultural systems entail at least two farming activities, such as growing of annual or perennial crops or animal husbandry (and forestry and fishery).⁶¹ Agriculture is situated within the primary sector (p. 1456)¹¹⁶, frequently grouped together with forestry and fishery as one sector.⁶² ⁶³ Given the focus of this study on SA, fisheries and forestry are excluded from the scope of this study, as the SA discourse, as outlined in Chapter 3.1, concentrates on crop production and animal husbandry. The extended definitional approach is applied by the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) by the United Nations, which serves as a universal reference classification system for economic activities. Here, the agricultural sector includes forestry and fishery but excludes any processing activities of primary agricultural products (raw materials) that belong to the secondary sector (e.g. food production) but also construction work on fields (e.g. terracing) or marketing activities. On the other hand, it includes support activities for crop- and animal production by external workers, and seed propagation activities (p. 65).⁶² Table 2 contains a list of primary agricultural products, excluding forestry and fishery products (p. 65-74).⁶²

Table 2: List of primary agricultural products, and support and post-harvest activities (own illustration based on ⁶²)

Primary agricultural crop products are divided into non-perennial crops that do not overwinter several growing seasons (e.g. wheat), and perennial crops that regrow after harvesting, such as apples (p. 65).⁶² Plant propagation activities involves growing of new plants from different parts of plants, such as cuttings or seedlings (p. 70).⁶² The raising and breeding of different livestock, including their products, such as milk or eggs, are categorized under animal products (p. 71-74).⁶² Support activities to agriculture, such as the preparation of fields, are also part of the agricultural sector, as well as post-harvest crop activities, which prepare the raw products for subsequent primary markets (p. 73).⁶²

As shown in Figure 2, primary crops had a bigger share in global production compared to primary livestock products, and cereals were the commodity group with the highest share in global production volume in.⁶⁴ The production of primary crops accounted for 9.9 billion metric tons in 2023 and increased about one third between 2010 and 2023 (p. 4).⁶⁵

Figure 2: Global primary crop production volumes in billion metric tons in 2023 (own illustration based on ⁶⁵)

After cereals, sugar crops dominated production volumes, followed by vegetables, oil crops, fruit, roots and tubers, and other primary crops. Within the cereal commodity group, maize, rice and wheat had the highest share in production volume. Among sugar crops, sugar cane corresponded to the main sugar source (p. 4).⁶⁵ Chicken meat, chicken eggs, and cattle milk had the highest share in global production volumes among primary livestock products (p. 10).⁶⁵

As an integral part of the agricultural supply chain (ASC), which is also referred to as the agri-food supply chain, the sector delivers primary agricultural products to subsequent sectors, predominantly for food production.⁶⁶ Structurally, the ASC is comparable to manufacturing supply chains, but ASCs are additionally characterized by perishability, seasonality and supply spikes which are subject to supply chain risk management.⁶⁶ Industrialized agricultural systems are highly dependent on upstream sectors for inputs and equipment (e.g. seeds, fuel, machinery, agrochemicals and pesticides), which is increasingly viewed as a supply chain risk for enterprises.¹ Recent external shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war, revealed this vulnerability of the sector. Its high strategic importance in the macroeconomic context was demonstrated, since import-dependent countries for agri-products struggled with high supply costs, and low-income countries that were dependent on the sectors for financial stability, were also negatively affected.⁸ ⁹ ¹⁰ The highly globalized supply chains were disrupted through lockdown measures, which resulted in the rise of food insecurities in these countries.⁹

Another characteristic of the agricultural sector is the structural diversity of farms.¹⁴ ⁶⁷ Based on the commonly used size-based definition for smallholder farmers (< 2 ha), Lowder et al. (2021) estimated the number of global smallholder farmers as 510 million. Producing about 35% of global food, they account for 84 % of all farms worldwide with the biggest share located in China, followed by India. Yet, they farm on about 12% of global farmland.¹⁴ Smallholders, especially in low-income countries, are organized in farmer cooperatives to overcome market failures, which can ensure more stable product sales at less volatile prices.⁶⁸ ⁶⁹ However, the biggest share of global agricultural land (70%) is used by farms that exceed a size of 50 ha, making up the largest 1% of worldwide farms.¹³

2.2.2 Economic Importance

According to Workie et al. (2020), agriculture is „the backbone of the economy and provides livelihood“ in many developing countries.⁹ Globally, the sector accounts for second-highest employment numbers following the services sector (p. 6).⁷⁰ Following the ISIC approach of accounting for agriculture, forestry and fishing together, they employed 916 million people in 2023 globally which corresponds to 26% of the workforce (p. 2)¹¹⁷. In 2000, 40% of the global workforce was occupied in agriculture, forestry and fishing. This downward trend was not continuous within this time span (except for Europe), since the COVID-19 pandemic reversed rural-urban migration, especially in Africa and Asia, where workers re-migrated to rural areas (p. 4).⁷⁰ Generally, such decline is driven by rising income levels (p. 6)⁷⁰, or the introduction of agricultural technologies that replace labor.⁷¹ From 2000 to 2023, the global value added of the agriculture, fishing and forestry sector almost doubled to USD 4.0 trillion in.⁶⁴ Regional developments varied considerably in terms of value added. Africa experienced the most considerable growth in the 23-year period (+169%) in value added. Asia contributed most to the global value added in 2023 (66%) due to its high share of global cropland, but its share in global gross domestic product (GDP) sunk substantially (p. 1).⁷⁰ This was the result of efforts to shift to a non-agrarian economy.⁷¹ Europe, North- and South America (the Americas), and Oceania grew by 18%, 60% and 53% respectively in value added between 2000 and.⁶⁴ Despite the tremendous increase in global added value, the share of agriculture, forestry and fishing in global gross GDP remained relatively constant at roughly 4% during this period (p. xii).⁷⁰ Up to 2019, the share of agricultural GDP declined globally except for Africa and the Americas. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the agricultural sector including fishery and forestry experienced an artificial increase to global GDP, since the contribution of industry and services sectors to GDP decreased (p. 2).⁷⁰

In light of the sector‘s position in global ASCs, it must be mentioned that the actual value capture especially related to food production is made off-farm in the downstream industries of agriculture.⁷² Together, agricultural production and the upstream industry providing production inputs, account for roughly 16% of the total food value, whereas the remaining 84% are generated post-farm gate.⁷³ Clapp (2022) further argues that „[t]he top 10 food and beverage companies, for example, account for around 40 percent of the sales of the top 100 firms in the sector.“, illustrating that agriculture is heavily influenced by oligopoly concentration (p. 48).⁷⁴ The downsides of these oligopolistic structures are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.2.2 Another imbalance regarding value creation can also be identified when comparing country-level trade and employment patterns. Evidence shows that low-income countries have higher employment in primary production, whereas high-income countries profit from downstream activities related to agriculture.⁷⁵ Drawing on the ratio of exports and imports of food (net trade) on a regional scale, the Americas were the leading net exporter (+$ US 148 billion), and Asia the leading net importer (−$ US 281 billion) of agricultural products in 2023 (p. 23).⁷⁰ Brazil accounted for the highest net exports (+$ US 115 billion) and China (−$ US 161 billion) for the highest net imports (p. 23).⁷⁰

2.3 Sustainability impacts and measurement in agriculture

The following chapter addresses the sector’s environmental, social, and economic sustainability impacts, including the impact of different agricultural products on the three dimensions of sustainability. In addition, two approaches for measuring agricultural sustainability are presented. The first approach provides a set of operational indicators for measuring farm-level sustainability, which is complemented by a comprehensive framework for assessing agricultural sustainability that can be used and adapted in different contexts.

2.3.1 Environmental impacts

Agricultural production is one of the main drivers of degradation of the natural environment and negatively affects its critical Earth system processes.⁷⁶ ⁷⁷ The sector’s most significant impacts on environmental sustainability comprise climate change (CC), land-use change (LUC) and land degradation, biodiversity loss, perturbation of nutrient cycles and agricultural contaminations and water depletion.

2.3.1.1 Climate change

Agriculture and the environment have a reciprocal relationship, since they inherently influence each other through feedback mechanisms.⁷⁸ Scenario-based projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) extensively report on the multitude and regional differences of negative impacts of climate change on agricultural crops and livestock (p. 717).⁷⁹ Conversely, agriculture is regarded as a significant driver of CC. According to the IPCC, agricultural production of crops and livestock is estimated to account for 9-14% of global GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Another 5–14% are attributable to land-use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF), which are accounted for separately from agricultural production. The 9-14% are solely based on on-farm, non-CO2 emissions, not accounting for the drainage of organic soils or on-farm energy use, and emissions due to land-use changes (p. 439).⁸⁰ In absolute terms, farm-gate emissions accounted for 7.8 Gt CO2e, land-use change for 3.1 Gt CO2e and pre- and post-production for 5.3 CO2e in.⁸¹ Together, they made up approximately one third of global GHG emissions (p. 2).⁸²

Between 2001 and 2011, enteric fermentation accounted for the highest share of agricultural GHG emissions with 40%, followed by pasture livestock manure (16%), synthetic fertilizer use (13%), anaerobic digestion processes consistent with rice cultivation (10%), manure management (7%) and savanna burning (5%) among other emission sources (p. 22).⁸³ Unlike other sectors, agriculture releases emissions with a particularly high global warming potential. These include methane (CH4), with agriculture accounting for almost 50% of global anthropogenic emissions. In addition, agriculture accounts for around 75% of global nitrous oxide emissions (N2O).³ CH4 emissions are mainly attributable to enteric fermentation, while N2O emissions are attributable to various contributors mentioned above, such as manure leftovers and synthetic fertiliser application (p. 8, 20).⁸³ Accordingly, at product level, animal products account for the highest share of GHG emissions, as shown in Figure 3.⁸⁴

Figure 3: GHG emissions of food products (kgCO2e per kg product) (own illustration based on ⁸⁴)

Figure 3 illustrates the carbon footprint of a selection of food items. Based on a comprehensive study, Poore and Nemecek (2018) determined the GHG emissions of agricultural products from the production of inputs up to retail. The production of dark chocolate and coffee generates comparably high GHG emissions, as the study is not limited to farm-level emissions and the production of these two products is often associated with deforestation. If looking at the composition of different product groups, the relative contributions of different input categories vary. However, Figure 3 shows the total of all emissions, disregarding the relative contributions. Finally, it is crucial to note that different management practices and farming system configurations influence the emission intensity of the respective product.⁸⁴

2.3.1.2 Land-use change and land degradation

Land-use change (LUC) refers to the conversion of natural to agricultural land which has accelerated in the 1960s consistent with the global expansion of agriculture.¹² According to Te Wierik et al. (2025), 37% of the global land cover is used for agriculture, from which, in turn, two thirds are used for livestock grasslands, while the remaining third is devoted to crop production.⁷⁷ Agriculture is regarded as the main driver of deforestation (as one form of LUC), particularly in tropical forest biome, which has far-reaching impacts on vital biophysical processes regulating climate, biodiversity and services by ecosystems.⁸⁵ ⁸⁶ Deforestation is mostly driven by commercial agriculture, not by subsistence farming, and the largest proportion of LUC is attributable to food products, not lumber and biofuel demands.⁷⁷ ⁸⁷ Across tropical forests, expansion of pastoral land accounts for about 50% of deforestation, followed by oil palm and soy expansion accounting for around 20%. The remaining share is attributed to other crops, such as rubber, cocoa, coffee or rice.⁸⁶

Conventional farming practices result in different forms of land degradation by accelerating soil erosion and nutrient depletion, salinization of soils, groundwater depletion and soil and water contaminations.⁸⁸ Arguably, there are lacking reliable assessments on the current degradation status of global agricultural lands⁹⁰, but about 35% of global agricultural lands are affected by land degradation, which negatively affects crop productivity, and therefore decreased the food production capacities of agricultural lands.⁸⁹

2.3.1.3 Biodiversity loss

Agricultural intensification and expansion has resulted in extensive terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity loss, due to habitat loss or fragmentation, pollution from agrochemicals, invasive species and the impacts of climate change.⁹⁰ ⁹¹ Despite provisioning crucial ecosystem services, approximately 80% of the mammal and bird species that are currently at risk of extinction, have this extinction status due to habitat loss and fragmentation, which are linked to agriculture. Therefore, agriculture is regarded as the biggest threat to biodiversity.⁹²

2.3.1.4 Perturbation of nutrient cycles

Nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) pollution is a result of extensive fertilizer use for crop productivity, N-fixating plants, intensified livestock production and poor manure management, resulting in significant perturbations of biogeochemical cycles, and leading to eutrophication and biodiversity loss in aquatic ecosystems.⁷⁷ ⁹³ ⁹⁴ ⁹⁵ ⁹⁶ ⁹⁷ Excessive supply of these macronutrients results in surface water runoffs, but also accelerates global warming through nitrous oxide emissions entering the atmosphere.⁷⁷ Crop production is the main driver of anthropogenic perturbations of global N cycles, which lead to a doubling of nitrogen pollution on the land surface compared to pre-industrial agriculture levels.⁹⁸ Approximately 78% of global eutrophication is attributable to the sector’s activities,⁸⁴ and global critical thresholds for N and P are exceeded.⁹⁹

2.3.1.5 Water depletion

Accounting for about 70% of freshwater extraction, agriculture represents the most water-consuming sector, followed by the industrial sector (about 22%).¹⁰⁰ The remainder are used for domestic uses.¹⁰¹ The main purpose of the water is for irrigated agriculture.¹⁰² Unsustainable groundwater extraction practices, whereby water is extracted at rates that exceed the rate of replenishment, are employed by over two billion people globally. Moreover, a share of 40% of the sector’s production relies on these practices.¹⁰² This depletion accelerates freshwater scarcity, especially increasing threats to regions where water scarcity is already prevalent.¹⁰³ About two thirds of irrigated croplands is faced with freshwater scarcity for one month per year, with almost 40% affected for up to five months.¹⁰⁴ Moreover, according to Ingrao et al. (2023), freshwater scarcity is increasingly acknowledged “[…] as a global socio-environmental threat, that directly interacts with food and energy security […]”.¹⁰⁰ Livestock products, such as meat, eggs, and dairy products, have higher water demands than most crop products.⁸⁴ ¹⁰⁵ This high water demand of animal products is also reflected in the results of the study by Poore and Nemecek (2018), as shown in Figure 4.⁸⁴

Figure 4: Freshwater withdrawals of food products (litres per kg product) (own illustration based on ⁸⁴)

Again, the scope of the study (up to retail) and the fact that the values depend on the type of farming system must be taken into account. Rice production employs highly water-intensive practices, whereas nuts are characterized by low yields in relation to the high water requirements for production. Compared to crop products, animal products are generally more water-intensive, as their feed also consumes water in addition to livestock drinking water.⁸⁴

2.3.2 Social impacts

The connection between agriculture and social sustainability impacts is reflected in the fact that it is linked to 16 out of the 17 SDGs (xviii).¹⁰⁶ The following section focuses on food security, working conditions, and gender equality as key social impacts of the sector.

2.3.2.1 Food security

Although the world’s food supply has increased significantly since the 1960s¹², and per capita agricultural output surpassed global population growth¹¹⁸, conservative estimates account for 638 million people facing hunger in 2024, representing 7.8 % of the population worldwide (p. 4).¹⁰⁷

In agricultural households, food security depends on sufficient food production through subsistence farming or on the financial means to access food.¹⁰⁸ Despite producing up to 80 % of the food supply in Asian and sub-Saharan Africa¹¹⁴, smallholders are particularly susceptible to food insecurity due to structural problems, such as physical, political, and economic disadvantages.¹⁰⁸ ¹⁰⁹ Their susceptibility is exacerbated by unprofitable participation in commodity markets, which, in turn, result in low incomes and poor economic resilience to shocks.¹⁰⁸ ¹⁰⁹ Further, food price inflation due to external shocks has been exacerbating food insecurity of smallholders and people affected by poverty particularly in low-income countries (p. xvii).¹⁰⁷ Most of these households source their food from commercial markets, even the proportion of people whose livelihoods depend on agriculture. Therefore, incomes generated through farming activities are often negated by high food prices, hindering rural development and the combating of poverty and food insecurity (p. xviii).¹⁰⁷

3.3.2.2 Working conditions

Working conditions are an established indicator of social sustainability (p. 2488).¹¹⁰ The agricultural sector is regarded as one of the most dangerous economic sectors, despite its high proportion of employees, representing about one third of the working population.¹¹¹ Especially in low-income countries, workers face precarious working conditions where health and safety measures are often lacking, coupled with low wages.¹¹¹ Further, the probability for occupational accidents and diseases is higher, as the work is typically associated with the use of farming machinery and agrochemicals.¹¹¹ In addition to established hazards, employees in agriculture are increasingly exposed to the impacts of climate change and the associated natural disasters, as well as other health risks from diseases.¹¹² At the same time, wages in the agricultural sector are comparably low, which is typically accelerated by the absence of trade unions.¹¹¹ ¹¹³ Further disadvantages for employees arise from job insecurity, low wages that are subject to fluctuations, inadequate social security mechanisms, such as pensions, health, and disability insurance.¹¹¹

The sector‘s susceptibility to social injustice, is attributable its workforce composition.¹¹⁴ ¹¹¹ ¹¹³ As mentioned above, smallholder farmers constitute the largest group of workers, supported by migrant workers and millions of informal workers in low-income countries, where they are constrained to secure decent working conditions and adequate wages due to established structures.¹¹⁴ Finally, social injustice in the agricultural sector has a significant impact on children, who are a particularly vulnerable group. According to the International Labor Organisation (ILO), 60% of global child labor is carried out in agriculture, with the majority working in family farms (p. 56).¹¹⁵

2.3.2.4 Gender equality

In Oceania, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, more than half of the workforce is female.¹¹⁶ Although women account for a large share of the global workforce in the agricultural sector, gender inequalities are established in almost all agrarian societies with pronounced patriarchal labor relations.¹¹⁷ These inequalities are reinforced by the fact that most customary and statutory tenure rights of agricultural land are owned by men, giving women little to no decision-making power. Further, women typically have fewer labor resources, since they are occupied with unpaid activities, such as household labor (e.g. care work), which reduces their individual income.¹¹⁶ Moreover, women in farming households have less access to credit, education and knowledge, advisory services, and technology.¹¹⁸ ¹¹⁹ Consequently, the gender inequality in agricultural productivity is estimated to be 4-25%, based on country and crop. This gender gap results in economic losses, accounting for $105 million in Tanzania for example (p. 3).¹²⁰ Compared to men, women are disproportionally affected by poverty and food insecurity, which makes it even more vital to enable women to these critical resources.¹¹⁶

2.3.3 Economic impacts

A central aspect of the sector’s economic sustainability impacts is the economic viability of farming systems.¹²¹ According to Latruffe et al. (2016), „economic viability [determines] whether a farming system can survive in the long term in a changing economic context”.¹²² In low-income countries, many farms struggle to ensure economic viability due to inaccessible extension services and loans, usually favoring large farming enterprises.²⁶

Further, long-term economic viability is dependent on the state of the natural resource base.

Conventional farming practices deplete the natural resource base of agriculture, such as soil and water. Attempts to quantify how many harvests remain before agricultural soils are degraded underscore the severity of the negative impacts on economic viability.¹²³ This degradation of the natural resource base caused by unsustainable farming represents a negative externality that has not yet been sufficiently monetized (p. 9).¹²⁴

Further, the depletion of natural resources is already linked to higher external input costs to meet the production demands. For example, soil destruction manifests in higher fertilizer inputs compensation for degraded soils. In 2014, the yearly costs of US-maize production, which compensated for N losses in soil, accounted for $US 253-298 million.¹²⁵ The high dependence of agricultural production on upstream suppliers (see section 2.2.1) increases the market power of influential companies, which then dictate the prices of agricultural inputs (for further influencing factors, see section 3.2.2).⁷²

This chapter highlights the most important effects of agriculture on social, economic and environmental aspects. It shows that environmental and economic sustainability are intertwined. At the same time, social sustainability is of particular importance, as a large proportion of the global working population is employed in agriculture. It also highlights that gender inequalities negatively affect the well-being of women but also lead to economic losses.

2.3.4 Measuring sustainability in agriculture

As discussed in Chapter 2.1, there is no universal definition of SA. As a result, no standard method exists for accurately quantifying sustainability across diverse agricultural systems and different spatial and temporal contexts.¹²⁶ Given this challenge, this chapter first introduces a comprehensive, framework-based approach, followed by an indicator-based approach for measuring agricultural sustainability. The latter exemplifies how sustainability objectives can be operationalised at farm level.

The Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA) provides a comprehensive framework for the sustainability assessment across the value chains of agriculture, forestry and fisheries (p. 3).¹²⁷ Due to its holistic approach, it is applicable in various contexts, and has been extensively used in science to assess sustainability at the farm level.¹²⁸ As shown in Figure 5, the reference framework is structured in three interlinked levels (p. 3).¹²⁷

Figure 5: SAFA framework structure (own illustration according to ¹²⁷)

In its original form, the framework consists of 21 themes, which reflect core sustainability issues for each of the environmental, economic and social dimensions. Each theme is associated with individual sustainability issues, which are aggregated in 58 sub-themes. Moreover, SAFA provides theme goals and objectives for the subthemes. (p. 4).¹²⁷ The following example illustrates the SAFA structure: For the theme “decent livelihood”, the objective is formulated as “the entity provides assets, capabilities and activities that increase the livelihood security of all personnel and the local community in which it operates.” The “right to quality of life” is one of three sub-themes with the objective “all primary producers, small-scale producers and employees enjoy a livelihood that provides a culturally appropriate and nutritionally adequate diet and allows time for family, rest and culture.” Finally, the wage level is a proposal for quantitative measurement to fulfil the objective of the sub-theme (p. 22).¹²⁷

Each SAFA sub-theme is accounted for by one up to three examples for default indicator(s), resulting in a total of 116 performance indicators (p. 3).¹²⁷ In this context, a default indicators is a suggestion for quantitative and qualitative measurement criteria for sustainability performance (p. 4).¹²⁷ All topics and sub-topics that are applicable for measuring agricultural sustainability on the farm level are listed in Table 3. The full set of default indicators can be found in the SAFA guidelines published by the FAO (2014).¹²⁷

Table 3: SAFA framework components (own illustration adapted from ¹²⁷)

Note: Themes and sub-themes marked with an asterisk are derived from WBCSD.¹²⁹

Since this chapter focuses on farm-level sustainability measurement, three adjustments were made to the framework. Firstly, the governance dimension and the topic of product quality and information were excluded, as they focus on food and agriculture systems. In addition, two additional topics (working conditions and civil and political rights of workers and communities), derived from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), relating to the social dimension of sustainability, were added (p. 7).¹²⁹ This is to ensure that the framework accounts for occupational risks associated with production activities in the agricultural sector.

In contrast to SAFA’s comprehensive reference framework, Zhen and Routray (2003) propose a series of operational indicators for the measurement of agricultural sustainability, and present valuable selection criteria for indicators.²⁶ The authors focus on operational indicators that are specifically applicable to measuring the sustainability of cropping systems in developing countries, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Operational indicators for farm-level sustainability within sustainability dimensions (own illustration according to ²⁶)

The indicators were chosen based on selection criteria such as data availability, availability of threshold values, and predictivity. Economic indicators include net farm income, benefit-cost ratio of production, crop productivity, and per capita production.

Agricultural production is economically sustainable if net farm income is higher than 0, or expenses are covered by gross production income. Similarly, the benefit-cost ratio of production can also be used as an indicator of the profitability of the farming activity, indicating higher benefits if the ratio is greater than.¹ Crop productivity is measured by the ratio of crop yield per hectare of land. If the yield is not declining over time, it further indicates sustainable agricultural development from an economic perspective. Per capita production is applicable when the agricultural products can be consumed by the farmers, indicating self-sufficiency in food.

In addition to food self-sufficiency, proposed social indicators further include equality in income and food distribution, access to resources and support services, farmers‘ knowledge and awareness of resource conservation. Equality in income and food distribution is assessed with regard to disparity between small- and large-scale farmers. Equality in access to resources and support services is considered a key indicator for agricultural sustainability, since farmers must have the means to facilitate the introduction of sustainability measures while ensuring that there are no negative implications for productivity.

Environmental indicators, such as the amount of fertilizers/pesticides and irrigation water used per unit of cropped land, soil nutrient content, depth of groundwater table, quality of groundwater for irrigation, water use efficiency and nitrate content of groundwater and crops represent suitable sustainability indicators for crop systems in low-income countries. In terms of soil health, the application of agrochemicals should be adapted to the status of soil nutrients, which is determined, for example, by threshold values for soil organic matter. Regarding water, the amount of irrigation water should not exceed the water demands of the respective crop and water replenishment rates, which is why the depth of groundwater table should be monitored as well. Further, measuring water use efficiency allows for adjustments on irrigation methods based on crop production and water consumption. The quality of groundwater for irrigation as well as nitrate content of groundwater allow for adjustments or establishments of soil management practices or adjustment of the quantities of agrochemicals.²⁶

Finally, it should be mentioned that there are some criteria to follow when selecting farm-level sustainability indicators. The factors that result in a sustainable system vary due to different sets of conditions (e.g. climate factors or soil types) and ideological or cultural perspectives.²⁴ Another selection criterion is sufficient data availability, complemented by the existence of suitable indicator threshold values.²⁶ Data availability may be restricted by a lack of farm records and limited capacities and financial resources for commissioning impact analyses.¹³⁰ Moreover, scholars stress that carefully selected indicators are required for the assessment of farm-level sustainability that involve key stakeholder participation.¹³¹ Lastly, it is important to understand the causality of changes. Natural disturbances should be distinguishable from anthropogenic disturbances.²⁶

As there is no distinct set of approaches for measuring agricultural sustainability, that can be applied to different contexts, the SAFA bridges this gap by introducing a comprehensive, framework-based approach that can be adapted to different contexts. As one of its key strengths, its structure allows for a systematic adaptation depending on individual sustainability goals and objectives. The indicator-based approach exemplifies how sustainability objectives can be measured at farm level, highlighting the significance of indicator selection criteria, such as data availability, availability of threshold values, and predictivity. This chapter rounds off the literature review and completes the analytical basis for the following chapters.

3 Practical implementation

The following chapter addresses the second research question and examines how SA can be implemented in practice. Chapter 3.1 presents approaches to implementing SA, while Chapter 3.2 examines factors that promote and/or hinder sustainability in the agricultural sector.

3.1 Approaches to implementing sustainable agriculture

While the scientific discourse surrounding SA extensively discusses different farming practices that can be implemented at the farm level, companies constitute a key stakeholder group that can support farmers in transitioning to SA. Therefore, Chapter 3.1.1 is devoted to identifying approaches for practical implementation in the private sector by addressing sustainability governance in complex agricultural supply chains. In the subsequent chapter, a four-step implementation framework is presented, which companies with an agricultural supply chain can use for systematic implementation. Finally, Chapter 3.1.3 discusses and critically examines sustainable farming practices that can be adopted at the farm level.

3.1.1 Agricultural supply chain implementation models

In our globalized world, farmers are dependent on upstream companies that purchase their produce. Hence, supply chain governance of these firms can incentivise the implementation of SA through their supply chains. This section outlines the measures that such companies can take depending on their supply chain model. The Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) has developed a simplified representation of agricultural supply chains. As shown in Figure 7, they differ primarily in whether sourcing is done directly (A) or indirectly (B) from farmers or cooperatives (p. 51).¹³² Sourcing from anonymous commodity markets, where the suppliers are not known, falls outside the scope of this article. Furthermore, the SAI model does not reflect the diversity of actors involved in the agricultural supply chain, which is why potential intermediaries and processing companies are not considered here.

Figure 7: Simplified agricultural supply chain models with direct (A) and indirect (B) sourcing (own illustration adapted from ¹³²)

Indirect supply chain models are characterized by having an intermediate supplier through which the commodities are sourced. Supporting farmers directly is often assumed to be outside the scope of responsibility here, which is why sustainability initiatives assist suppliers in supporting farmers. This can be done via supplier trainings enabling them to develop their own programs to support their supplying producers. Another option for indirect sourcing is for companies to choose to only source from suppliers who meet third-party sustainability standards (p. 52).¹³² In fact, setting individual supply chain standards is the most established incentive for the realization of a sustainable sourcing strategy across the world’s top 250 businesses with more than 90% across all sectors, to control the suppliers.¹³³ In case of Unilever, third-party standards have additionally been cross-checked against internal sustainability standards. Unilever “[…]support[s] suppliers to select the most appropriate external standard(s) for their operations and/or commodities in the knowledge that they will also be aligned to our Principles” (p. 4).¹³⁴ However, setting internal standards for the supply chain and monitoring them through third parties poses risks related to the auditing process. According to Lebaron and Lister (2015), “the audit process is less equipped to detect or properly remediate fundamental violations to social or environmental codes, such as labor right violations or other major shifts to management practices.”143

Under a direct sourcing approach, the sourcing company maintains direct sourcing relationships with many individual farmers or a cooperative and is therefore responsible for supporting them either through its own programs or by involving third parties. The companies offer farmers access to training, extension services and self-assessment tools enabling them to adopt environmentally and socially sustainable practices (p. 51).¹³⁴

The Dutch chocolate manufacturer Tony’s Chocolonely (TC) can be referred to as a best practice example for the direct sourcing approach. Through their “Tony’s Open Chain” approach, consisting of five sourcing principles, the company has set a new industry standard for fair and sustainable cocoa supply chains, which addresses key sustainability challenges in cocoa production. The interventions described in the following refer to TC’s five sourcing principles, covering traceability, fair prices, long-term commitments, collaboration with cooperatives, such as quality and productivity (p. 19).¹³⁵ Table 4 provides an overview of sustainability challenges in TC’s supply chain and the respective supply chain interventions.

Table 4: Sustainability challenges and supply chain interventions in Tony’s Chocolonely’s Cocoa supply chain (own illustration based on ¹³⁵)

The results of Tony’s Chocolonely’s 2023/2024 impact report illustrate the benefits of the company’s direct, partnership-based supply chain model, which enables the implementation of SA.

TC implements its farmers-first approach through five-year sourcing commitments with 10 partner cooperatives across Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. Farmers are protected from price fluctuations, as part of the agreement specifies fixed quantities of cocoa at fixed prices in risk-sharing contracts. Income insecurity risks are further reduced by TC paying higher cocoa prices. The prices are up to 44% above the government minimum price for cocoa and are also based on Fairtrade’s Living Income Reference Price for cocoa (p. 18).¹³⁵ On a social level, TC prioritizes combating child labor and the promotion of fair and safe labor. The ILO’s Child Labor Monitoring & Remediation System (CLMRS) is used as a tool to reduce child labor. Thanks to the high traceability of the direct supply chain model, the company was able to cover 98% of households with the CLMRS in 2023/2024 (p. 50).¹³⁵ To counteract forced labor, the establishment of grievance mechanisms at partner cooperatives was promoted (p. 18).¹³⁵ In addition, designated labor groups are assigned to particularly hazardous farming activities, such as cocoa tree pruning or agrochemical spraying (p. 46).¹³⁵

In addition, the sourcing model enables combating the systemic issue of deforestation in cocoa production. TC achieved 100% traceability of cocoa beans by monitoring them using GPS polygon data, resulting in 99.95% verified cocoa beans without deforestation. As a result, cocoa sourced from partner cooperatives’ farms had up to 95% lower emissions compared to regional averages (p. 3).¹³⁵ This success is partly due to TC’s participatory approach to deforestation with its partner cooperatives. Instead of demanding top-down information from the cooperatives to meet policy requirements such as the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR), they support the cooperatives in preventing non-compliance. This includes training and support for the interpretation of risk assessments, as well as the implementation of interventions for prevention and remediation (p. 44).¹³⁵

Finally, TC offers training and workshops to promote sustainable farming practices, such as practices to increase soil fertility or Integrated Pest Management (IPM) training (for further information on IPM, please see Chapter 3.1.3). There are also plans to promote agroforestry practices, which encourage the planting of shade trees and aim to promote biodiversity and overall farm health. The promotion of agroforestry is also part of efforts to reduce GHG emissions and make farmers more resilient to climate shocks (p. 45-46).¹³⁵ TC’s Open Chain approach shows that these efforts are also economically viable. Due to a drought in 2023/2024, cocoa yields in the countries of origin have declined by an average of 20%. However, production in the most productive partner cooperative decreased only by 11.4% (p. 18).¹³⁵ As these producers benefitted from increased cocoa prices, it highlights that TC’s approach is effective in strengthening farmers’ resilience to climate shocks compared to conventional cocoa farmers (p. 39).¹³⁵ In summary, this example has shown that the direct sourcing model is an effective approach for implementing SA that aligns environmental, social, and economic sustainability, while creating operational resilience with the farmers at the center. Challenging traditional top-down supply chain governance models, the partnership-based sourcing model is transferable to other commodities, such as hazelnuts, coffee or grains. For further examples, please refer to the report commissioned by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) (2025).¹³⁶

3.1.2 Implementation process framework

Independently from the sourcing strategy, the implementation of SA needs a structured process, that coordinates the implementation of SA. The previous chapter has demonstrated the interventions that can be undertaken through appropriate supply chain governance, but it does not provide a structured approach tailored to companies with agricultural supply chains. The SAI Platform introduced the Regenerating Together global framework which addresses this gap by providing a structure for the identification, implementation and monitoring for suitable SA measures. The iterative process consists of risk assessment, outcome selection, principles and practice adoption, and monitoring and assessment, as shown in Figure 8 (p. 4, 6).¹³⁷

Figure 8: The four-step process to implementing SA (own illustration adapted from ¹³⁷)

The risk assessment serves to identify the most pressing sustainability risks that are connected to the company’s activities requiring mitigation (p. 6).¹³⁷ The SAFA framework approach for sustainability assessment presented in Chapter 2.3.4 can be utilized for this step. This is followed by the outcome selection which translates the material risks into quantifiable proxies. For information on the appropriate selection of sustainability indicators, please also refer to Chapter 2.3.4 In addition, this step should involve a participatory approach in workshops with local stakeholders to select sustainability indicators for measuring sustainability at farm level.¹³¹ For traceable results tracking, it is recommended to introduce baseline values at this stage. In the next step, suitable SA principles are selected in consultation with stakeholders (p. 7, 8).¹³⁷ For further information on farming practices, please refer to Chapter 3.1.3 In line with the final step, monitoring and assessment, the sustainability performance is monitored and audited against the predefined baseline values and overall targets to the intervention. It provides the basis for subsequent adaptations and ensures accountability for ensuring sustainability targets and lays the foundation for the revision of the risk assessment in subsequent process cycles (p. 8, 11).¹³⁷

3.1.3 Farming practices

On the farm level, sustainable farming practices represent the central instrument for the implementation of SA. The measures mitigate environmental risks such as poor soil health, vulnerability to pests, GHG emissions, and biodiversity loss, while strengthening farmer’s economic resilience and the sustainable development of communities in terms of economic and social sustainability.⁵⁵ ¹³⁸ Table 5 contains popular practices that can be implemented at the farm level. Synthesised from extensive literature on different SA approaches, the practices can be divided into the categories of crop management, tillage, residue management, fertilizers and pesticides, water management, livestock management, landscape elements, erosion management, land-use management systems, and digital farming technologies. Many of the SA approaches have overlaps regarding farming practices, for example, crop rotation is suggested consistent with Organic Agriculture, Regenerative Agriculture, Conservation Agriculture, Agroecology, Biodynamic Agriculture and Sustainable Intensification.¹ ⁴⁰ ⁴⁸ ⁵⁴ ⁵⁵

Table 5: Overview of sustainable farming practices (own illustration)

Crop diversification practices (1-3) share the common feature of diversifying the existing cropping system. Compared to monocropping systems, these practices improve soil health by protecting against erosion and increasing the resilience of crops to pests and climate shocks. They can also promote biodiversity and lead to economic benefits for farmers. On a global level, they have the potential to contribute to food security.¹³⁹

Cover crops (CCs) are planted after harvest and before the next sowing. They serve as natural erosion control, weed suppression, and overall soil nutrient content, and sold for profit.¹⁴⁰ The study by He et al. (2025) found that legume CCs can increase SOC by 5.9% and yield by 16.0%.¹⁴¹ N2O emissions increased by 36.2%, representing a trade-off. In terms of economic viability, CCs can offset implementation costs by reducing required fertilizers for subsequent harvests. Other benefits include reduced environmental pollution due to reduced synthetic fertilizer use and improved air quality.¹⁴¹

Intercropping diversifies farming systems by cultivating a cash crop simultaneously with a non-cash crop, thereby harnessing their beneficial interactions.¹⁴² Similarly to CC cultivation, intercropping decreases the need for agrochemicals and can increase crop quality, but impacts regarding yield improvements remain ambiguous due to competition for land.¹⁴³ ¹⁴⁴

Perennial crops also show a reduced need for agrochemicals and are additionally associated with lower seed costs compared to monocultures. Yet, biotechnological efforts have not been able to discover perennial crop types which can compete with yields of high-yielding annual crops.³¹

Crop rotation refers to alternating the types of cash-crops cultivated on a specified area per season or year, which has a particularly positive effect on soil nutrient status and pest control.¹⁴⁴

In addition to the limitations of individual crop diversification practices already mentioned, farmers face further challenges. Documented obstacles include the lack of feasibility of applying the practices due to environmental factors and the need for specific knowledge to supervise implementation. Choosing diversification over growing economically profitable crops is also a key decision. This decision involves the long-term assessment of risks that, in the short term, can potentially limit the economic viability of farmers cultivating high-yielding monocultures. In the long term, however, diversification can make farming systems more resilient to shocks.³¹ The discussion above repeatedly highlights that agrochemical inputs are reduced. However, it has been neglected that diversified systems have higher labor requirements, which poses a particular hurdle for smallholders who already have very limited labor resources. Financial resources are also a limiting factor, as the transition to a diversified system requires significant investment, for example, in seeds.¹⁴⁵

Conservation tillage practices (4-5) aim to minimize or eliminate mechanical soil cultivation in order to promote physical properties and thus soil vitality and fertility. These are often combined with residue management practices (6), which involve leaving crop residues on the fields to protect against erosion (crop residues cover) or actively applying them (mulching). Since conservation tillage practices require less fuel inputs, input costs are reduced. For example, a study on rice-wheat systems has shown that significant cost savings (US$60 per hectare) can be achieved through zero tillage (Hobbs and Gupta 2004, as cited in ¹⁴⁶). Although reduced soil disturbances offer many advantages, Tadjiev et al. (2023) argue that zero tillage can create false expectations among smallholders.¹⁴⁶ Tillage is an efficient practice for weed suppression which is why reduced tillage increases costs for weed management, and labor as a substitute for the machines.¹⁴⁷ ¹⁴⁸

Organic fertilizers such as green manure (cover crop residues) and animal manure serve as alternatives to synthetic fertilizers. These amendments increase soil organic carbon (SOC) with positive effects on biological soil properties.¹⁴⁹ In a 50-year long-term experiment, Blanchet et al. (2016) found a crop yield increase of 3.5% with animal manure compared to mineral fertilisers, but green manure did not significantly increase yields, although it improved SOC by 2.45% (SOC with animal manure 6.40%).¹⁴⁹ One possible trade-off of green manure is that it does not supply the soil with the optimal amount of the most important plant macronutrients (N, P) and thus has a negative impact on crop yield.¹⁴⁹

Integrated nutrient management (INM) involves optimized fertilizer application. Field experiments demonstrated that INM has the potential to increase crop yields by 8-150% relative to conventional methods, while enhancing water-use efficiency and reducing GHG emissions.¹⁵⁰

Another option for reducing external inputs is Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which has great potential for minimising pesticide use while increasing yields.¹⁵¹ Extensive field experiments across 85 countries in Asia and Africa demonstrated that IPM has the potential to decrease pesticide inputs by approximately 70% and simultaneously increase crop yields by about 40%. Although it has been proven to be a very promising measure, it requires a lot of agronomic expertise for successful implementation.¹⁵²

Water management practices, such as rainwater harvesting, are a readily accessible means of addressing water scarcity, which hinders crop irrigation and complicates livestock management. This practice is particularly suitable in the regions of East and West Africa and South-East Asia. The introduction of this practice has resulted in 60-100% increases in crop yield in Uganda, Burundi, the United Republic of Tanzania and India in a field experiment. (p. 1).¹⁵³ Terracing and contour farming can be used both for retaining soil moisture in arid regions and for preventing water erosion in humid regions. Terraces are soil embankments built perpendicular to the slope of the farmland. In arid regions, they facilitate rainwater harvesting, and in humid regions, they reduce negative impacts of water erosion due to runoff. Contouring refers to the construction of ridges and furrows positioned perpendicular to the slope of the farmland. Similarly, they facilitate water infiltration in arid regions. by guiding the runoff along the slope to allow for enhanced water infiltration. The disadvantage of terraces is that they represent a costly investment and are also expensive to maintain (p. 151–152).¹⁵⁴ Furthermore, non-parallel constructions increase operational time by 20% compared to parallel systems.¹⁵⁵

Practices related to livestock management focus primarily on the reduction of GHG emissions. Manure management practice, such as using anaerobic manure digesters are an effective means to reduce these emissions or leakages into the environment. Co-benefits include digestates, which can be used as a substitute for synthetic fertilizers and for heat/power generation. However, affording this technology is costly for the farmer (p. 21).¹⁵⁶ Sustainable grazing management allows the pasture to recover, resulting in economic benefits, as the soil is not degraded by intensive grazing. (S. 95).¹⁵⁷ It is an effective strategy to reduce GHG emissions through soil carbon increases and preventing erosion. Economic benefits include increased feed availability and therefore potential to increase number of livestock (p. 20).¹⁵⁶ The positive effects are strongly dependent on local conditions and grazing strategy, and thus also on how much they positively influence sustainability.¹⁵⁸

Multifunctional landscape elements primarily promote soil carbon storage, reduce soil erosion and biodiversity. Hedges are crucial for biodiversity and its ecosystem services, and windbreaks are used to prevent wind erosion. Both fulfil this function and vice versa. They are also of great value for integrated pest management (p. 1-2).¹⁵⁹ One trade-off is that they may require some land to be withdrawn from production. This is also a limitation for the implementation of vegetative buffers, in which part of the agricultural land is left free as a buffer zone for the purposes mentioned above (p. 21).¹⁵⁶ It serves in some cases to distribute runoff water and prevent sediments, nutrients, pesticides and other components from entering surface waters on the outside of the farmland.¹⁶⁰

Among the many different land-use management systems, agrisilvicultural (crops and trees), silvopastoral (livestock and crops) and agrosilvopastoral systems (crops, livestock and trees) are widely used systems (S. 31).¹⁶¹ These systems harness various synergies and reduce the negative effects of negative environmental impacts (soil erosion, degradation), contribute to climate change adaptation, resilience to climate and economic shocks.¹⁶² One key advantage of these agroecological farming systems is that they enable economic diversification for farmers. Moreover, they are regarded as crucial practices in combating food insecurity (p. 360-361).¹⁶³

The following best practice example of agroforestry implementation, published by the IIED, clearly confirms that this approach brings economic, environmental and social benefits, but also requires organisational support, which is facilitated through collective governance in this case.¹⁶⁴ The Bolivian Coffee Growers Association of Taipiplaya (ASOCAFÈ) is a producer organization which was founded “[…] with the main objective of contributing to the increase in family yields and export volumes through the implementation of practices that improve and diversify coffee production systems.” (p. 8).¹⁶⁴ Further, the improvement of the livelihoods and economic prosperity of the 199 family farmers is central to its mission, which is achieved through cooperative measures and access to fair markets. ASOCAFÈ applies an agrisilvicultural system, combining coffee with timber tree cultivation, and subsistence crops, such as banana which are planted in different strata. By combining agroforestry with collective governance efforts, farmers generated additional income and decreased food insecurity. At the same time, soil health and biodiversity were increased due to the farming practice. This was facilitated through the provision of training, technical extension services and better access to good quality seeds financed by external funding projects (p. 7).¹⁶⁴ However, the study points out that costs for the initial set up of the system and labor for the maintenance of the system pose challenges (p. 20).¹⁶⁴ Additional challenges pose the demand for extension services and a lack of funding for equipment (p. 29).¹⁶⁴ In the long term, loans are indispensable for scaling up the system (p. 24).¹⁶⁴

Digital Farming Technologies are used help to leverage resource efficiency and to make informed decisions in farm management. Remote sensing technologies (drones and satellites) facilitate real-time crop monitoring by informing farmers on crop anomalies by gathering high-resolution imagery of agricultural lands.¹⁶⁵ ¹⁶⁶ ¹⁶⁷ ¹⁶⁸ Soil and crop sensors provide real-time data to the Internet of Things (IoT), which connects the sensors of the farming system. This interconnected network enables farmers to make real-time, data-based (informed) decisions.¹⁶⁹ ¹⁷⁰ Through the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI), patterns and trends can be detected, enabling farmers to increase their resource-efficiency, and take preventive measures in the event of droughts or disease outbreaks.¹⁷¹ ¹⁷² ¹⁷³ AI-controlled robots can take over tasks that are performed by humans in traditional agricultural systems. They are characterised by high precision, resource efficiency, and are unrestricted in terms of working conditions compared to farm workers.¹⁷⁴ Digital farming technologies have the potential to increase yields, and are a cost-efficient alternative to labor, while improving resilience to variable climate conditions. Regardless, implementation costs, the need for technology training, such as risks associated with data security and protection remain challenges for widespread implementation.⁴²

This chapter demonstrates that sustainable farming practices are a key means of implementing SA. However, governance mechanisms in the supply chain are central to the transition to SA at the sectoral level, while structured processes are essential to identify, coordinate and monitor appropriate practices.

3.2 Drivers and barriers

The following chapter deals with a critical review of factors that promote and/or hinder sustainability in the agricultural sector. In this context, political and regulatory, environmental, economic, social, and technological drivers and barriers are examined.

3.2.1 Drivers

Political drivers: International sustainability commitments, such as the Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement, initiated political and institutional implementation of SA on national levels.⁴¹ In Europe, this resulted in the formulation of emission reduction targets for the agricultural sector. Moreover, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and other regulations, such as the EU Nature Law, EU Nitrate Directive, and the Water Framework Directive are critical policies decrease the sector’s negative impacts on sustainability.¹⁷⁵ The CAP serves to achieve the goals of the European Green Deal in the agricultural sector.¹⁷⁶ CAP financing mechanisms include subsidies, for example in the form of direct payments or financial compensation for the introduction of sustainable farming practices. However, these are criticized for subsidizing practices that have negative sustainability impacts.¹⁷⁶ Corresponding strategies to the CAP, such as the EU Farm to Fork Strategy and EU Biodiversity strategy further specify goals for the transition to SA.¹⁷⁶ The Farm to Fork Strategy, for example, formulated targets to reduce pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 50% until 2030, and to increase organic agriculture to 25% until 2030 (p. 9, 11).¹⁷⁷

For agrifood companies, the introduction of the 2023 Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) constituted an important landmark which standardized sustainability reporting in Europe. Its scope initially included large, high-turnover companies, but also a fraction of small- and medium-sized enterprises, which were required to report on their sustainability performance using a uniform reporting standard. This transparency regulation also included target commitments to improve sustainability in order to pass the audit, which encouraged the private sector to improve its sustainability performance through sustainable initiatives (European Commission, 2023, as cited in ¹⁷⁵).

Environmental drivers: As outlined in Section 2.1.1.1, agriculture and the environment have a reciprocal relationship. Agricultural production is one of the main drivers of degradation of the natural environment and negatively affects its critical Earth system processes.⁷⁶ ⁷⁷ Environmental drivers raise pressure for the implementation of SA, since the long-term capacity of agricultural systems und diverse Earth system processes are threatened without intervention. As discussed in Chapter 3.1.3, sustainable farming practices have a positive effect on the natural resource base, which can lead to increases in yields.

Economic drivers: Specifically in the long run, sustainable farming systems have the potential to exceed those of conventional farming systems.¹ Farmers are more equipped to withstand climate shocks through diversified systems and non-degraded resources, such as soil and water, which the production depends on.¹⁷⁸ In addition, through the use of ecosystem services, and through safeguarding the natural resources, farmers are less dependent on upstream inputs.¹³⁸ ¹⁶² Already in short and medium term, farmers who are less resilient to external shocks are not likely to withstanding or recovering.¹⁷⁹ As outlines in Chapter 3.1.3, the interventions by Tony’s showed an increase in farmer’s resilience, recognizable by the fact that their profits were higher compared to the sector-wide profits (p. 39).¹³⁵ If subsidies are in place, yield losses of sustainably produced products can be compensated. Moreover, premium prices for these products can compensate for lower yields.¹⁸⁰ Carbon credits is an additional mechanism that incentivises the adoption of sustainable farming practices.¹¹ The Danish Start-Up Agreena rewards farmers by adopting sustainable farming practices which can be monetized by tradeable CO2e credits (p. 1).¹⁸¹

Social drivers: The calls for a sustainable intensification show that agriculture is under high pressure to meet the ever-increasing food demand.¹⁵ Furthermore, the consumer demand for healthier, fairly traded and sustainably produced foods is increasing.¹⁸² Although certifications have been criticized in their effectiveness¹⁷⁹, certification mechanisms have the ability to reward and promote sustainable farming practices as exemplified by regenerative or organic certification labels.¹⁸³ Between 2012 and 2018, the total area of organically managed lands increased by about 37%, reflecting the overall increasing trend in all EU member states (p. 21).⁶³ Since the expansion of organic agriculture is facilitated through financial aids, this can be interpreted as an interplay of political and social drivers (p. 3).¹⁸⁴ Accordingly, agricultural sustainability is part of the social discourse which influences political decisions. According to Witt et al. (2025), the demand for transparency regarding information of the sustainability impacts of agriculture translated into the first carbon tax on livestock products worldwide, adopted in Denmark in 2024.¹⁷⁵

Technological drivers: Technological advancements have provided many benefits in the agricultural sector by increasing resource efficiency, reducing costs, countering labor shortages, and preventing yield losses due to informed management decisions.⁴² ¹⁸⁵ As described in Chapter 2.1.3, technological innovations brought forth Precision and Smart Agriculture, illustrating the continuous evolvement in the use of digital farming technologies. As discussed in Chapter 3.1.3, the integration of transformative technologies into machinery, such as GPS and AI, created numerous opportunities for the implementation of sustainable farming practices.¹⁸⁵

3.2.2 Barriers

Political barriers: Policy is a decisive factor for shifting from conventional to sustainable agricultural practices.⁵⁵ Policies often prioritize food provision over protecting the natural resource base which hinders the adoption of these practices on the farm level (p. 6).⁵⁴ The combination of lacking regulation favoring SA results and a lack of financial incentives for the adoption of SA accelerates this problem. Moreover, regulations often favor conventional practices, reflecting the misalignment between scientific and policy interest.¹⁸⁶ In the EU, political incentives, such as the CAP, are in place, but they do not necessarily support SA even though it is formally intended. These include, for example, subsidies that flow into the production of meat and dairy products, although there is a proven track of their negative environmental impacts and resource inefficiency.¹⁷⁶

The latest political developments in the EU concerning the CSRD is a major setback for achieving the goals of the Green Deal. In line with the 2025 Omnibus regulation, many companies fall out of scope of CSRD, disproportionally affecting companies in the agricultural sector. Critics emphasize that the agricultural sector plays a key role in the Green Transition, which makes this political development appear contradictory.¹⁸⁷ Although there is a lack of regulatory consistency, companies advocated against the Omnibus regulation. The Swedish food company Oatly is one of 88 companies that signed a statement which emphasized that regulatory simplification should not be carried out at the expense of European sustainability goals, illustrating the paradigm shift across the sector (p. 1, 9).¹⁸⁸

Although companies are indispensable for the transition to SA, political lobbying of influential firms shape policies and regulations through employing former policymakers and commissioning pseudo-scientific studies.⁷⁶ The problem that there are a few, very influential companies dominating the global market of agricultural commodities further accelerates this problem. Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Cargill and the Louis Dreyfus Company control around 70 % of the global agricultural commodity market (p. 26).¹⁸⁹ In addition, the agrifood value chain is characterized by oligopolies, which increase their influence on markets and policies through takeovers and mergers (p. 6, 10-11).¹⁸⁹ Procurement policies prioritize predominantly profit-maximization and industrial agriculture. Through their market power, they benefit from value capture, instead of farmers and their workers. Moreover, detrimental working conditions and poverty in the agricultural sector are the result of price pressures imposed by upstream firms. The price pressure simultaneously encourages industrial farming, which is aimed at maximising yield although negatively affecting environmental sustainability (p. 6).¹⁸⁹

Environmental barriers: Biophysical properties of the agricultural land can hinder the adoption of sustainable farming practices. Practices such as contour farming require a specific topography. Soil properties and thus water availability can also limit the options of suitable practices. Depending on the climate, soil organic carbon enrichment through sustainable tillage practices can succeed or lead only to a minimal increase, e.g. in semi-arid climate minimal success.¹⁹⁰ Ultimately, the success of sustainable practices depends on the specific environmental conditions of the farming system, given the varying responses of different crops to sustainable practices.⁴⁸

Economic barriers: Core economic barriers for the adoption of sustainable farming practices concern macroeconomic conditions, the lack of sufficient financial resources and trade-offs between long-term and short-term profits, and macroeconomic conditions.¹

In addition to natural resource degradation and external input dependency, external shocks pose a threat to the economic viability of farming systems. Between 2008 and 2018, natural disasters caused an economic damage estimated at around US$108 billion in low-income countries.⁸ Fluctuations in commodity prices, which arise on a macroeconomic scale, further exacerbate threats to the economic viability of farmers, where price instabilities result in income uncertainties for producers.¹⁹¹ The economic damage that can result from overproduction affects farmers through lower market prices, making it more difficult to offset upfront financial investments. Even interventions such as subsidies are often not sufficient to counteract these damages.⁷² The best practice example from section 3.1.1 shows that fixed contracts, such as those between TC and its partner cooperatives, are an established measure for protecting farmers from these external shocks (p. 30).¹³⁵

Insufficient capital of farmers, funding, access to loans, such as subsidies hinder the transition to of sustainable farming.¹⁹² Additionally, the trade-off between short-term and long-term economic benefits poses another challenge.⁵¹ ¹⁹³ Ecological benefits and the improvement of the natural resource base might not offset economic losses of established, high-yielding crops combined with upfront investments and higher maintenance costs in the short-term.¹⁹⁴ According to Lotter (2015), it takes about five years to achieve an optimal return on investment when converting a conventional to an organic farming system.¹⁹⁵ In order to be organically certified, a farming management should be compliant to certification standards for a period of three years, before farmers can demand premium prices for certified products.¹⁹⁶ In addition, farmers are vulnerable to volatile prices, as investments burden the liquidity of their businesses during this transition period.¹⁹⁷ A study commissioned by the Institute for European Environmental Policy highlights that financial aid is indispensable during this transition period (p. 1).¹⁹⁸

Lastly, negative externalities have yet not been incorporated into the pricing of agricultural products, making the possibility of financially rewarding the cultivation of sustainable products through internalization unavailable (Hussen, 2004, Sturm and Vogt, 2018, as cited in ¹²⁴). In order to raise awareness, the German supermarket chain PENNY launched the first campaign revealing the true environmental costs of a selection of food products in 2020 (p. 94).¹²⁴ The TCA calculations were conducted in cooperation with two German universities, assessing the impacts of GHG emissions, LUC, energy use and reactive nitrogen. An additional price tag disclosed the hidden costs of the environmental impacts in one of PENNY’s retail stores (p. 95).¹²⁴ In a subsequent campaign, True Cost products were sold, which lead to decline in sales for these products. However, this campaign is regarded as a pioneering approach incentivizing purchasing of sustainable products in addition to awareness raising, leveraging a industry standards for sustainability efforts (p. 98-99).¹²⁴

Social barriers: Sustainable practices can lack social acceptance among farmers, since they deviate from established farming practices. This can be exacerbated by a lack of agronomic and technical expertise in combination with a bias regarding the complexity of the adjustments and the long-term benefits of new practices. For this reason, it is important to offer technical and agronomic advisory services, as ultimately the farmers bear higher costs in the initial phase.¹⁹³ At the consumer level, sustainably consciousness is existent, but the willingness to pay higher prices remains a barrier. According to a PwC study, about 50 % of German people raise concerns regarding pesticide use of food products and 75% express concerns on the impacts of climate change. However, only about 30 % of the surveyed people would pay higher prices for sustainable products (p. 4).¹⁹⁹

Technological barriers: The introduction of digital farming tools is associated with economic and regulatory barriers, but face also technical implementation constraints. Digital farming technologies typically consist of multiple tools, that need to be integrated seamlessly (p. 8).²⁰⁰ Already existing machinery have the potential to not be compatible with digital farming tools, which would require new investments for machinery (Pedersen and Lind, 2017, as cited in²⁰⁰). Moreover, digital farming technologies, such as variable-rate technologies for fertilizer application, need extensive information on the environmental conditions, such as soil, water and weather conditions of a farm in order to be effective. Due to a lack of decision support regarding these matters, the success of variable-rate technologies for fertilizer application has yet been limited, and cost savings remain largely unavailable (p. 8, 17).²⁰⁰ Even though extensive data availability is given, decision support is indispensable, since farmers may lack the capacity to interpret the extensive data for the optimal management of their farm (p. 11).²⁰⁰ Technical barriers further concern the reliability of remote sensing solutions due to naturally induced disruptions of data measurements, through cloud cover for example, which constrain the practical implementation of these systems (p. 9).²⁰⁰

This chapter shows that political and regulatory, environmental, economic, social, and technological factors can both promote and hinder sustainability in the agricultural sector. While factors provide incentives and exert pressure towards transitioning to SA, persistent political, structural and macroeconomic limit its implementation. The transition requires challenging prevailing top-down supply chain governance in the sector, and the resolution of economic risks for farmers.

4 Conclusion

This study synthesised the complex, multi-objective issue of sustainable agriculture following a comprehensive approach. The first part of the literature review identified and structured different definitional perspectives on SA, which are reflected in the different approaches to SA. These approaches show a long historical evolution, even before the formal introduction of the term, emphasising the necessity for transitioning to SA. The presented typology of SA approaches aimed to advance the understanding of SA, highlighting the ambiguity of the term. Contrary to the widespread focus on environmental sustainability in the goals of SA, the literature review showed that the agricultural sector influences all three dimensions of sustainability and is therefore a key sector for achieving various SDGs at the same time. Measuring agricultural sustainability depends on the respective farming system, which faces individual sustainability challenges. This study therefore presented a framework for assessing sustainability in the agricultural sector that can be adapted to the specific context and illustrates how indicator-based measurement can be designed.

The practical implementation chapter addressed the question of how SA can be implemented. It discusses the interventions that companies with an agricultural supply chain can undertake, highlighting the potential of the partnership-based supply chain model. Further, the implementation process framework provides guidance on how SA can be implemented in a structured manner. On the farm level, sustainable farming practices represent the central instrument for the implementation of SA. Although they offer several economic, social and economic advantages, they are often connected to short-term economic trade-offs during the transition period. Farmers therefore need additional support to overcome these challenges, as the adoption of these practices is crucial to ensuring the sector’s long-term resilience to external shocks and meeting production demands. Yet, political and economic obstacles are the main factors hindering the transition to a sustainable agricultural sector. Sustainable agriculture can only be achieved through coordinated regulatory and financial measures that involve farmers as a key stakeholder group.

References

1
Reganold, J. P., Papendick, R. I. & Parr, J. F. Sustainable Agriculture. Sci. Am. 262, 112–120 (1990).
2
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 20260–20264 (2011).
3
Tubiello, F. N. et al. Pre- and post-production processes increasingly dominate greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14, 1795–1809 (2022).
4
Sakai, Y., Estudillo, J. P., Fuwa, N., Higuchi, Y. & Sawada, Y. Do Natural Disasters Affect the Poor Disproportionately? Price Change and Welfare Impact in the Aftermath of Typhoon Milenyo in the Rural Philippines. World Dev. 94, 16–26 (2017).
5
Ewert, F., Baatz, R. & Finger, R. Agroecology for a Sustainable Agriculture and Food System: From Local Solutions to Large-Scale Adoption. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 15, 351–381 (2023).
6
Maja, M. M. & Ayano, S. F. The Impact of Population Growth on Natural Resources and Farmers’ Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change in Low-Income Countries. Earth Syst. Environ. 5, 271–283 (2021).
7
Koohafkan, P., Altieri, M. A. & Gimenez, E. H. Green Agriculture: foundations for biodiverse, resilient and productive agricultural systems. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 10, 61–75 (2012).
8
Rojas-Reyes, J. J., Rivera-Cadavid, L. & Peña-Orozco, D. L. Disruptions in the food supply chain: A literature review. Heliyon 10, e34730 (2024).
9
Workie, E., Mackolil, J., Nyika, J. & Ramadas, S. Deciphering the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on food security, agriculture, and livelihoods: A review of the evidence from developing countries. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2, 100014 (2020).
10
Zhang, H. et al. Global environmental impacts of food system from regional shock: Russia-Ukraine war as an example. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11, 191 (2024).
11
Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. & Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677 (2002).
12
Pretty, J. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 447–465 (2008).
13
Lowder, S. K., Sánchez, M. V. & Bertini, R. Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated? World Dev. 142, 105455 (2021).
14
Lowder, S. K., Bhalla, G. & Davis, B. Decreasing farm sizes and the viability of smallholder farmers: Implications for resilient and inclusive rural transformation. Glob. Food Secur. 45, 100854 (2025).
15
Rockström, J. et al. Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio 46, 4–17 (2017).
108
Orou Sannou, R., Kirschke, S. & Günther, E. Integrating the social perspective into the sustainability assessment of agri-food systems: A review of indicators. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 39, 175–190 (2023).
110
Toussaint, M., Cabanelas, P. & Muñoz-Dueñas, P. Social sustainability in the food value chain: what is and how to adopt an integrative approach? Qual. Quant. 56, 2477–2500 (2022).
114
Kissi, E. A. & Herzig, C. Labour relations and working conditions of workers on smallholder cocoa farms in Ghana. Agric. Hum. Values 41, 109–120 (2024).
16
DeLonge, M. S., Miles, A. & Carlisle, L. Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture. Environ. Sci. Policy 55, 266–273 (2016).
17
Tait, J. & Morris, D. Sustainable development of agricultural systems: competing objectives and critical limits. Futures 32, 247–260 (2000).
18
Velten, S., Leventon, J., Jager, N. & Newig, J. What Is Sustainable Agriculture? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 7, 7833–7865 (2015).
19
Newton, P., Civita, N., Frankel-Goldwater, L., Bartel, K. & Johns, C. What Is Regenerative Agriculture? A Review of Scholar and Practitioner Definitions Based on Processes and Outcomes. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 577723 (2020).
20
Caron, P. et al. Food systems for sustainable development: proposals for a profound four-part transformation. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 38, 41 (2018).
21
Teixeira, H. M. et al. Understanding Farm Diversity to Promote Agroecological Transitions. Sustainability 10, 4337 (2018).
22
Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).
23
Pretty, J. N. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev. 23, 1247–1263 (1995).
24
Brodt, S. Sustainable Agriculture. Nat. Educ. Knowl. 3, (2011).
25
Altieri, M. A. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 74, 19–31 (1999).
26
Zhen, L. & Routray, J. K. Operational Indicators for Measuring Agricultural Sustainability in Developing Countries. Environ. Manage. 32, 34–46 (2003).
27
Philip Robertson, G. & Harwood, R. R. Agriculture, Sustainable. in Encyclopedia of Biodiversity 111–118 (Elsevier, 2013).
28
Karami, E. & Keshavarz, M. Sociology of Sustainable Agriculture. in Sociology, Organic Farming, Climate Change and Soil Science (ed. Lichtfouse, E.) vol. 3 19–40 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010).
29
Yunlong, C. & Smit, B. Sustainability in agriculture: a general review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 49, 299–307 (1994).
30
Spicka, J., Hlavsa, T., Soukupova, K. & Stolbova, M. Approaches to estimation the farm-level economic viability and sustainability in agriculture: A literature review. Agric. Econ. Zemědělská Ekon. 65, 289–297 (2019).
31
Crews, T. E., Carton, W. & Olsson, L. Is the future of agriculture perennial? Imperatives and opportunities to reinvent agriculture by shifting from annual monocultures to perennial polycultures. Glob. Sustain. 1, e11 (2018).
32
Harwood, R. R. A History of Sustainable Agriculture. in Sustainable agricultural systems 3–19 (Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa, 1990).
115
International Labour Office. Accelerating Action Against Child Labour: Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work – 2010. https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/Global_Report_on_Child_Labour_2010_En.pdf (2010). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
33
Evenson, R. E. & Gollin, D. Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 300, 758–762 (2003).
34
Van Zyl, J. Alternative agriculture, by the Committee on the Role of Alternative Farming Methods in Modern Production Agriculture, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1989. Dev. South. Afr. 7, 289–295 (1990).
35
Robertson, G. P. A Sustainable Agriculture? Daedalus 144, 76–89 (2015).
36
Altieri, M. A., Letourneau, D. K. & Davis, J. R. Developing Sustainable Agroecosystems. BioScience 33, 45–49 (1983).
37
Migliorini, P. & Wezel, A. Converging and diverging principles and practices of organic agriculture regulations and agroecology. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 63 (2017).
38
Wezel, A. et al. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29, 503–515 (2009).
39
Pretty, J. N. The sustainable intensification of agriculture. Nat. Resour. Forum 21, 247–256 (1997).
40
Pretty, J. & Bharucha, Z. P. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Ann. Bot. 114, 1571–1596 (2014).
41
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. SDG INDICATOR 2.4.1. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/3e3a18b0-ff0d-4dbc-bdbf-ebb854419fd3/content (2019). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
50
Lipper, L. et al. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 1068–1072 (2014).
52
Jaenicke, H. & Virchow, D. Entry points into a nutrition-sensitive agriculture. Food Secur. 5, 679–692 (2013).
53
Sharma, I. K., Di Prima, S., Essink, D. & Broerse, J. E. W. Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture: A Systematic Review of Impact Pathways to Nutrition Outcomes. Adv. Nutr. 12, 251–275 (2021).
42
Mgendi, G. Unlocking the potential of precision agriculture for sustainable farming. Discov. Agric. 2, 87 (2024).
43
Hayati, D., Ranjbar, Z. & Karami, E. Measuring Agricultural Sustainability. in Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture (ed. Lichtfouse, E.) vol. 5 73–100 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010).
44
Caporali, F. Agroecology as a Transdisciplinary Science for a Sustainable Agriculture. in Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture (ed. Lichtfouse, E.) vol. 5 1–71 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010).
45
Caporali, F. Agroecology as a Science of Integration for Sustainability in Agriculture. Ital. J. Agron. 2, 73–82 (2007).
46
Loos, J. et al. Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification”. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 356–361 (2014).
47
Garnett, T. et al. Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies. Science 341, 33–34 (2013).
48
Santoni, M., Ferretti, L., Migliorini, P., Vazzana, C. & Pacini, G. C. A review of scientific research on biodynamic agriculture. Org. Agric. 12, 373–396 (2022).
49
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook Executive Summary. https://www.fao.org/climatechange/37491-0c425f2caa2f5e6f3b9162d39c8507fa3.pdf (2013). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
51
Gonzalez-Sanchez, E. J., Veroz-Gonzalez, O., Blanco-Roldan, G. L., Marquez-Garcia, F. & Carbonell-Bojollo, R. A renewed view of conservation agriculture and its evolution over the last decade in Spain. Soil Tillage Res. 146, 204–212 (2015).
54
National Research Council. Alternative Agriculture. (1989).
55
Sher, A. et al. Importance of regenerative agriculture: climate, soil health, biodiversity and its socioecological impact. Discov. Sustain. 5, 462 (2024).
56
Rhodes, C. J. The Imperative for Regenerative Agriculture. Sci. Prog. 100, 80–129 (2017).
57
Schreefel, L., Schulte, R. P. O., De Boer, I. J. M., Schrijver, A. P. & Van Zanten, H. H. E. Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the base. Glob. Food Secur. 26, 100404 (2020).
58
Beacham, J. D., Jackson, P., Jaworski, C. C., Krzywoszynska, A. & Dicks, L. V. Contextualising farmer perspectives on regenerative agriculture: A post-productivist future? J. Rural Stud. 102, 103100 (2023).
59
Pierce, F. J. & Nowak, P. Aspects of Precision Agriculture. in Advances in Agronomy vol. 67 1–85 (Elsevier, 1999).
60
Lewandowski, I. et al. Primary Production. in Bioeconomy (ed. Lewandowski, I.) 97–178 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018).
61
Baker, E. et al. Mixed farming systems: potentials and barriers for climate change adaptation in food systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 62, 101270 (2023).
116
Huyer, S. Closing the Gender Gap in Agriculture. Gend. Technol. Dev. 20, 105–116 (2016).
62
United Nations. International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC), Rev.4. (United Nations, s.l, 2008).
63
European Commission. Statistical Office of the European Union. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics: 2020 Edition. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2785/143455 (2020). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
64
MISSING_REFERENCE_2023
65
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Agricultural Production Statistics 2010–2023. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd3755en (2024). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
66
Yadav, V. S., Singh, A. R., Gunasekaran, A., Raut, R. D. & Narkhede, B. E. A systematic literature review of the agro-food supply chain: Challenges, network design, and performance measurement perspectives. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 29, 685–704 (2022).
67
Lowder, S. K., Skoet, J. & Raney, T. The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide. World Dev. 87, 16–29 (2016).
68
Ruml, A., Ragasa, C. & Qaim, M. Contract farming, contract design and smallholder livelihoods*. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 66, 24–43 (2022).
69
Barrett, C. B. et al. Smallholder Participation in Contract Farming: Comparative Evidence from Five Countries. World Dev. 40, 715–730 (2012).
70
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. World Food and Agriculture – Statistical Yearbook 2025. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd4313en (2025). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
117
Contzen, S. & Forney, J. Family farming and gendered division of labour on the move: a typology of farming-family configurations. Agric. Hum. Values 34, 27–40 (2017).
71
Headey, D., Bezemer, D. & Hazell, P. B. Agricultural Employment Trends in Asia and Africa: Too Fast or Too Slow? World Bank Res. Obs. 25, 57–89 (2010).
72
Amanor, K. S. Global Value Chains and Agribusiness in Africa: Upgrading or Capturing Smallholder Production? Agrar. South J. Polit. Econ. Triannual J. Agrar. South Netw. CARES 8, 30–63 (2019).
73
Cucagna, M. E. & Goldsmith, P. D. Value adding in the agri-food value chain. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 21, 293–316 (2018).
74
Clapp, J. The rise of big food and agriculture: corporate influence in the food system. in A research agenda for food systems (ed. Sage, C.) 45–66 (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA, USA, 2022).
75
Lim, S. & Kim, S. W. Global agricultural value chains and employment growth. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. Assoc. 1, 402–418 (2022).
76
Witt, N., Graversgaard, M. & Thorsøe, M. Undisclosed transgressions? Lacking acknowledgements of large agrifood firms on their impacts on the planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 30, art8 (2025).
77
Te Wierik, S. et al. Identifying the safe operating space for food systems. Nat. Food (2025).
78
Gallardo, R. K. The Environmental Impacts of Agriculture: A Review. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 18, 165–235 (2024).
79
Bezner, R. et al. Food, Fibre, and Other Ecosystem Products. in Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
80
Mbow, C. et al. Food Security. in Climate Change and Land: IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (ed. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
81
MISSING_REFERENCE_2022
82
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agrifood Systems – Global, Regional and Country Trends, 2000–2022. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd3167en (2024). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
83
Tubiello, F. N. et al. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks: 1990-2011 Analysis. (FAO, 2014).
84
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).
85
Gibbs, H. K. et al. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 16732–16737 (2010).
86
Pendrill, F. et al. Disentangling the numbers behind agriculture-driven tropical deforestation. Science 377, eabm9267 (2022).
87
Hosonuma, N. et al. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 044009 (2012).
88
Maestre, F. T. et al. Bending the curve of land degradation to achieve global environmental goals. Nature 644, 347–355 (2025).
90
Olsson, L. et al. The State of the World’s Arable Land. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 48, 451–475 (2023).
89
Khasanov, S. et al. Impact assessment of soil salinity on crop production in Uzbekistan and its global significance. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 342, 108262 (2023).
91
Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27 (2019).
92
Tilman, D. et al. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546, 73–81 (2017).
93
Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).
94
Galloway, J. N. et al. Transformation of the Nitrogen Cycle: Recent Trends, Questions, and Potential Solutions. Science 320, 889–892 (2008).
95
Liu, J. et al. A high-resolution assessment on global nitrogen flows in cropland. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 8035–8040 (2010).
96
Carpenter, S. R. & Bennett, E. M. Reconsideration of the planetary boundary for phosphorus. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 014009 (2011).
97
Penuelas, J., Coello, F. & Sardans, J. A better use of fertilizers is needed for global food security and environmental sustainability. Agric. Food Secur. 12, 5 (2023).
98
Green, P. A. et al. Pre-industrial and contemporary fluxes of nitrogen through rivers: a global assessment based on typology. Biogeochemistry 68, 71–105 (2004).
99
Richardson, K. et al. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci. Adv. 9, eadh2458 (2023).
100
Ingrao, C., Strippoli, R., Lagioia, G. & Huisingh, D. Water scarcity in agriculture: An overview of causes, impacts and approaches for reducing the risks. Heliyon 9, e18507 (2023).
101
Aivazidou, E., Tsolakis, N., Iakovou, E. & Vlachos, D. The emerging role of water footprint in supply chain management: A critical literature synthesis and a hierarchical decision-making framework. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1018–1037 (2016).
102
Levintal, E. et al. Agricultural managed aquifer recharge (Ag-MAR)—a method for sustainable groundwater management: A review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 291–314 (2023).
103
Fang, K. et al. Water footprint of nations amplified by scarcity in the Belt and Road Initiative. Heliyon 9, e12957 (2023).
104
Rosa, L., Chiarelli, D. D., Rulli, M. C., Dell’Angelo, J. & D’Odorico, P. Global agricultural economic water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz6031 (2020).
105
Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems 15, 401–415 (2012).
106
Campanhola, C. & Pandey, S. Preface. in Sustainable Food and Agriculture xvii–xix (Elsevier, 2019).
118
Jost, C. et al. Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Clim. Dev. 8, 133–144 (2016).
107
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Fund for Agricultural Development, United Nations Children’s Fund, UN World Food Programme & World Health Organization. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2025. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd6008en (2025). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
109
Alpízar, F. et al. Determinants of food insecurity among smallholder farmer households in Central America: recurrent versus extreme weather-driven events. Reg. Environ. Change 20, 22 (2020).
111
Zhang, M. & Kim, R. Occupational health in agriculture: a re-emerging frontier in worker protection. Glob. Health J. 9, 65–71 (2025).
112
Tippett, M. K. Extreme weather and climate. Npj Clim. Atmospheric Sci. 1, 45, s41612-018-0057–1 (2018).
113
Mizik, T., Nagy, J., Molnár, E. M. & Maró, Z. M. Challenges of employment in the agrifood sector of developing countries—a systematic literature review. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 12, 62 (2025).
119
Perez, C. et al. How resilient are farming households and communities to a changing climate in Africa? A gender-based perspective. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 95–107 (2015).
120
UN Women, UNDP, UNEP & World Bank. The Cost of the Gender Gap in Agricultural Productivity in Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/847131467987832287/pdf/100234-WP-PUBLIC-Box393225B-The-Cost-of-the-Gender-Gap-in-Agricultural-Productivity-in-Malawi-Tanzania-and-Uganda.pdf (2015). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
121
Zul Azlan, Z. H., Junaini, S. N., Bolhassan, N. A., Wahi, R. & Arip, M. A. Harvesting a sustainable future: An overview of smart agriculture’s role in social, economic, and environmental sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 434, 140338 (2024).
122
Latruffe, L. et al. Measurement of sustainability in agriculture: a review of indicators. Stud. Agric. Econ. 118, 123–130 (2016).
123
Evans, D. L., Quinton, J. N., Davies, J. A. C., Zhao, J. & Govers, G. Soil lifespans and how they can be extended by land use and management change. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 0940b2 (2020).
124
Michalke, A., Kunz, J. & Gaugler, T. True Cost Accounting: Assessing Environmental and Social Damages of Production. (Routledge, London, 2025).
125
Jang, W. S., Neff, J. C., Im, Y., Doro, L. & Herrick, J. E. The Hidden Costs of Land Degradation in US Maize Agriculture. Earths Future 9, e2020EF001641 (2021).
126
Silvestri, C., Silvestri, L., Piccarozzi, M. & Ruggieri, A. Toward a framework for selecting indicators of measuring sustainability and circular economy in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 29, 1446–1484 (2024).
127
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems: SAFA, Guidelines, Version 3.0. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/72070c29-47d6-47ef-8059-e78168c2fb69/content (2014). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
128
Zarbà, C., Gravagno, R. M., Chinnici, G. & Scuderi, A. A systematic review of the SAFA framework in the literature: An approach to assess sustainability in agri-food systems. Clean. Environ. Syst. 16, 100267 (2025).
129
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Advancing Human Rights Policy and Practice in the Agribusiness Sector: An Implementation Toolkit. https://docs.wbcsd.org/2020/11/GAA-Advancing-human-rights-policy-and-practice-in-the-agribusiness-sector.pdf (2020). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
130
Robling, H., Abu Hatab, A., Säll, S. & Hansson, H. Measuring sustainability at farm level – A critical view on data and indicators. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 18, 100258 (2023).
131
Haile, B. T., Dougill, A. J., Ramoelo, A. & Kidane, T. T. Assessing farm-level sustainability: a comparative analysis of horticultural production systems in Eritrea. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 9, 1532356 (2025).
132
Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform. Sustainable Sourcing of Agricultural Raw Materials a Practitioner’s Guide. https://saiplatform.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/sustainable-sourcing-guide-_word_to-be-converted-to-pdf_june-2015_v06_covers_withoutannexespagestableofcontents.pdf (2015). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
133
Thorlakson, T., Hainmueller, J. & Lambin, E. F. Improving environmental practices in agricultural supply chains: The role of company-led standards. Glob. Environ. Change 48, 32–42 (2018).
134
Unilever. Sustainable Agricultural Principles. https://www.unilever.com/files/unilever-sustainable-agricultural-principles-2025.pdf (2025). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
135
Tony’s Chocolonely. Tony’s Open Chain Impact Report 2023/24. https://www.tonysopenchain.com/reporting/toc-impact-reports (2024). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
136
Hou Jones, X., Macqueen, D., Núñez del Prado Nieto, I., Sorsby, N. & Duffy, J. Business Unusual: How Business and Investment Pioneers Are Transforming Forest and Food Supply Chains. https://www.iied.org/22396iied (2024). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
137
Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform. Regenerating Together A Global Framework for Regenerative Agriculture. https://saiplatform.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/sai-platform_-regenerating-together_september-2023-1.pdf (2023). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
138
Barrios, E. et al. Contribution of trees to the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 14, 1–16 (2018).
139
Mihrete, T. B. & Mihretu, F. B. Crop Diversification for Ensuring Sustainable Agriculture, Risk Management and Food Security. Glob. Chall. 9, 2400267 (2025).
140
Deines, J. M. et al. Recent cover crop adoption is associated with small maize and soybean yield losses in the United States. Glob. Change Biol. 29, 794–807 (2023).
141
He, Q. et al. Optimizing cover cropping application for sustainable crop production. Npj Sustain. Agric. 3, 10 (2025).
142
Maitra, S. et al. Intercropping—A Low Input Agricultural Strategy for Food and Environmental Security. Agronomy 11, 343 (2021).
143
Qiao, X. et al. Intercropping wheat between walnut trees reduced yield and improved quality. Agron. J. 113, 1058–1070 (2021).
144
Toker, P. et al. The advantages of intercropping to improve productivity in food and forage production – a review. Plant Prod. Sci. 27, 155–169 (2024).
145
Mausch, K., Almekinders, C. J. M., Hambloch, C. & McEwan, M. A. Putting diverse farming households’ preferences and needs at the centre of seed system development. Outlook Agric. 50, 356–365 (2021).
146
Tadjiev, A., Djanibekov, N. & Herzfeld, T. Does zero tillage save or increase production costs? Evidence from smallholders in Kyrgyzstan. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 21, 2270191 (2023).
147
Nichols, V., Verhulst, N., Cox, R. & Govaerts, B. Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: A review. Field Crops Res. 183, 56–68 (2015).
148
Lee, N. & Thierfelder, C. Weed control under conservation agriculture in dryland smallholder farming systems of southern Africa. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 48 (2017).
149
Blanchet, G., Gavazov, K., Bragazza, L. & Sinaj, S. Responses of soil properties and crop yields to different inorganic and organic amendments in a Swiss conventional farming system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 230, 116–126 (2016).
150
Wu, W. & Ma, B. Integrated nutrient management (INM) for sustaining crop productivity and reducing environmental impact: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 512–513, 415–427 (2015).
151
Wang, D., Zhang, W., Zhang, D. & Lu, Q. Emerging drivers of IPM technology adoption among farmers: the role of participation in new agricultural operating entities. Pest Manag. Sci. ps.70396 (2025).
152
Pretty, J. & Bharucha, Z. Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects 6, 152–182 (2015).
153
IFAD. Water Harvesting Systems for Smallholder Producers Tips for Selection and Design. https://www.ifad.org/documents/48415603/49788193/water_harvesting_systems_e.pdf/26bf7fd3-6900-0fd0-7403-37f2cbb7f856?t=1726642702565 (2022). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
154
Thompson, A. & Sudduth, K. Terracing and Contour Farming. in Agronomy Monographs (eds Delgado, J. A., Sassenrath, G. F. & Mueller, T.) vol. 59 151–163 (Wiley, 2017).
155
James M. Steichen & G. Morgan Powell. Measuring Farmability of Terrace Systems. Trans. ASAE 28, 1130–1134 (1985).
156
World Resources Institute. GHG Protocol Agricultural Guidance. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/GHG%20Protocol%20Agricultural%20Guidance%20%28April%2026%29_0.pdf (2022). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
157
DeRamus, H. A. Grazing Management of Ruminant Animals in Sustainable Agriculture. Outlook Agric. 33, 93–100 (2004).
158
Baronti, S. et al. Rotational pasture management to increase the sustainability of mountain livestock farms in the Alpine region. Reg. Environ. Change 22, 50 (2022).
159
Favor, K. Windbreaks and hedgerows in vineyards. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/69294 (2025).
160
Gene, S. M. et al. The role of vegetated buffers in agriculture and their regulation across Canada and the United States. J. Environ. Manage. 243, 12–21 (2019).
161
Nair, P. K. R., Kumar, B. M. & Nair, V. D. Classification of Agroforestry Systems. in An Introduction to Agroforestry vol. 3 29–44 (Springer Cham, 2021).
162
Barrios, E. et al. The 10 Elements of Agroecology: enabling transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food systems through visual narratives. Ecosyst. People 16, 230–247 (2020).
163
Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A., Rois-Díaz, M. & Mosquera-Losada, M. R. Integrating Silvopastoralism and Biodiversity Conservation. in Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture (ed. Lichtfouse, E.) vol. 5 359–373 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010).
164
Guevara, J. L. E. & Arancibia, B. F. Innovations to Promote Adoption of Coffee Agroforestry in Bolivia: The Role of ASOCAFÉ. https://www.iied.org/22641g (2025).
165
Omran, E.-S. Remote Estimation of Vegetation Parameters using Narrowband Sensor for Precision Agriculture in Arid Environment. Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 58, 73–92 (2018).
166
Kose, U., Prasath, V. B. S., Mondal, M. R. H., Podder, P. & Bharati, S. Artificial Intelligence and Smart Agriculture Applications. (Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton, 2022).
167
Merchant, M., Paradkar, V., Khanna, M. & Gokhale, S. Mango Leaf Deficiency Detection Using Digital Image Processing and Machine Learning. in 2018 3rd International Conference for Convergence in Technology (I2CT) 1–3 (IEEE, Pune, 2018).
168
Chung, S., Breshears, L. E. & Yoon, J.-Y. Smartphone near infrared monitoring of plant stress. Comput. Electron. Agric. 154, 93–98 (2018).
169
Mekonnen, Y., Namuduri, S., Burton, L., Sarwat, A. & Bhansali, S. Review—Machine Learning Techniques in Wireless Sensor Network Based Precision Agriculture. J. Electrochem. Soc. 167, 037522 (2020).
170
Karunathilake, E. M. B. M., Le, A. T., Heo, S., Chung, Y. S. & Mansoor, S. The Path to Smart Farming: Innovations and Opportunities in Precision Agriculture. Agriculture 13, 1593 (2023).
171
Nasirahmadi, A. & Hensel, O. Toward the Next Generation of Digitalization in Agriculture Based on Digital Twin Paradigm. Sensors 22, 498 (2022).
172
Senapaty, M. K., Ray, A. & Padhy, N. IoT-Enabled Soil Nutrient Analysis and Crop Recommendation Model for Precision Agriculture. Computers 12, 61 (2023).
173
Zerihun, B. M., Olwal, T. O. & Hassen, M. R. Design and Analysis of IoT-Based Modern Agriculture Monitoring System for Real-Time Data Collection. in Computer Vision and Machine Learning in Agriculture, Volume 2 (eds Uddin, M. S. & Bansal, J. C.) 73–82 (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2022).
174
Rai, A. K. et al. Unlocking Productivity Potential: The Promising Role of Agricultural Robots in Enhancing Farming Efficiency. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 35, 624–633 (2023).
175
Witt, N., Thorsøe, M. H. & Graversgaard, M. ESG reporting meets farmer – implications of the European corporate sustainability reporting directive for the agrifood sector. Br. Food J. 127, 264–283 (2025).
176
Cuadros‐Casanova, I. et al. Opportunities and challenges for Common Agricultural Policy reform to support the European Green Deal. Conserv. Biol. 37, e14052 (2023).
177
European Commission. Farm to Fork Strategy. https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/472acca8-7f7b-4171-98b0-ed76720d68d3_en?filename=f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf (2020). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
178
Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I., Henao, A. & Lana, M. A. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 869–890 (2015).
179
W.J, T. et al. Can sustainability certification enhance the climate resilience of smallholder farmers? The case of Ghanaian cocoa. J. Land Use Sci. 17, 407–428 (2022).
180
Nemecek, T. et al. Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: II. Extensive and intensive production. Agric. Syst. 104, 233–245 (2011).
181
Agreena. AgreenaCarbon Programme: Standard Terms and Conditions. https://agreena.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Standard-terms-and-conditions.pdf (2023). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
182
Swinnen, J. Economics and politics of food standards, trade, and development#. Agric. Econ. 47, 7–19 (2016).
183
Van Noordwijk, M. et al. Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives for Multifunctional Landscapes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 389–420 (2012).
184
European Commission. Organic Farming in the EU. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-04/agri-market-brief-20-organic-farming-eu_en.pdf (2023). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
185
Bissadu, K. D., Sonko, S. & Hossain, G. Society 5.0 enabled agriculture: Drivers, enabling technologies, architectures, opportunities, and challenges. Inf. Process. Agric. 12, 112–124 (2025).
186
Burns, E. A. Regenerative Agriculture: farmer motivation, environment and climate improvement. Policy Q. 17, (2021).
187
Rasche, A., Cojoianu, T., Hoepner, A. G. F. & Schneider, F. Scenarios for CSRD Scope Amendments – Advancing Reporting Scope while Reducing further Burden. Preprint at https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=5350977 (2025). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
188
Eurosif et al. Omnibus Initiative: Sustainability Rules Are Essential for European Competitiveness. https://www.eurosif.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Joint-statement-Omnibus.pdf?utm_source=Eurosif&utm_campaign=696802fc51-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_03_14_01_51_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-5edaf14fa4-593211111 (2025). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
189
Mills, E. et al. Agrifood Atlas. https://www.bund.net/fileadmin/user_upload_bund/publikationen/landwirtschaft/landwirtschaft_agrifood_atlas.pdf (2017). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
190
Madejon, E., Moreno, F., Murillo, J. & Pelegrin, F. Soil biochemical response to long-term conservation tillage under semi-arid Mediterranean conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 94, 346–352 (2007).
191
Davies, B. et al. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. (Royal Society, London, 2009).
192
Antwi-Agyei, P., Stringer, L. C. & Dougill, A. J. Livelihood adaptations to climate variability: insights from farming households in Ghana. Reg. Environ. Change 14, 1615–1626 (2014).
193
Di Bene, C. et al. Barriers and Opportunities for Sustainable Farming Practices and Crop Diversification Strategies in Mediterranean Cereal-Based Systems. Front. Environ. Sci. 10, 861225 (2022).
194
Rosa-Schleich, J., Loos, J., Mußhoff, O. & Tscharntke, T. Ecological-economic trade-offs of Diversified Farming Systems – A review. Ecol. Econ. 160, 251–263 (2019).
195
Lotter, D. Facing food insecurity in Africa: Why, after 30 years of work in organic agriculture, I am promoting the use of synthetic fertilizers and herbicides in small-scale staple crop production. Agric. Hum. Values 32, 111–118 (2015).
196
Mubarik, M. S., Kontoleon, A. & Shahbaz, M. Beyond the hurdles: Exploring policy obstacles in the path to circular economy adoption. J. Environ. Manage. 370, 122667 (2024).
197
Hanson, J., Dismukes, R., Chambers, W., Greene, C. & Kremen, A. Risk and risk management in organic agriculture: Views of organic farmers. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 19, 218–227 (2004).
198
Moret-Bailly, S. & Muro, M. The Costs and Benefits of Transitioning to Sustainable Agriculture in the EU. https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/The-costs-and-benefits-of-transitioning-to-sustainable-agriculture-IEEP-2024.pdf (2024). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
199
PricewaterhouseCoopers GmbH Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft. Voice of the Consumer Survey 2025. https://www.pwc.de/de/handel-und-konsumguter/voice-of-the-consumer-survey-2025.pdf (2025). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
200
Pedersen, S. M. & Lind, K. M. Precision Agriculture – From Mapping to Site-Specific Application. in Precision Agriculture: Technology and Economic Perspectives (eds Pedersen, S. M. & Lind, K. M.) 1–20 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017).

1
Reganold, J. P., Papendick, R. I. & Parr, J. F. Sustainable Agriculture. Sci. Am. 262, 112–120 (1990).
2
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 20260–20264 (2011).
3
Tubiello, F. N. et al. Pre- and post-production processes increasingly dominate greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14, 1795–1809 (2022).
4
Sakai, Y., Estudillo, J. P., Fuwa, N., Higuchi, Y. & Sawada, Y. Do Natural Disasters Affect the Poor Disproportionately? Price Change and Welfare Impact in the Aftermath of Typhoon Milenyo in the Rural Philippines. World Dev. 94, 16–26 (2017).
5
Ewert, F., Baatz, R. & Finger, R. Agroecology for a Sustainable Agriculture and Food System: From Local Solutions to Large-Scale Adoption. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 15, 351–381 (2023).
6
Maja, M. M. & Ayano, S. F. The Impact of Population Growth on Natural Resources and Farmers’ Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change in Low-Income Countries. Earth Syst. Environ. 5, 271–283 (2021).
7
Koohafkan, P., Altieri, M. A. & Gimenez, E. H. Green Agriculture: foundations for biodiverse, resilient and productive agricultural systems. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 10, 61–75 (2012).
8
Rojas-Reyes, J. J., Rivera-Cadavid, L. & Peña-Orozco, D. L. Disruptions in the food supply chain: A literature review. Heliyon 10, e34730 (2024).
9
Workie, E., Mackolil, J., Nyika, J. & Ramadas, S. Deciphering the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on food security, agriculture, and livelihoods: A review of the evidence from developing countries. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2, 100014 (2020).
10
Zhang, H. et al. Global environmental impacts of food system from regional shock: Russia-Ukraine war as an example. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11, 191 (2024).
11
Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. & Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677 (2002).
12
Pretty, J. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 447–465 (2008).
13
Lowder, S. K., Sánchez, M. V. & Bertini, R. Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated? World Dev. 142, 105455 (2021).
14
Lowder, S. K., Bhalla, G. & Davis, B. Decreasing farm sizes and the viability of smallholder farmers: Implications for resilient and inclusive rural transformation. Glob. Food Secur. 45, 100854 (2025).
15
Rockström, J. et al. Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio 46, 4–17 (2017).
108
Orou Sannou, R., Kirschke, S. & Günther, E. Integrating the social perspective into the sustainability assessment of agri-food systems: A review of indicators. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 39, 175–190 (2023).
110
Toussaint, M., Cabanelas, P. & Muñoz-Dueñas, P. Social sustainability in the food value chain: what is and how to adopt an integrative approach? Qual. Quant. 56, 2477–2500 (2022).
114
Kissi, E. A. & Herzig, C. Labour relations and working conditions of workers on smallholder cocoa farms in Ghana. Agric. Hum. Values 41, 109–120 (2024).
16
DeLonge, M. S., Miles, A. & Carlisle, L. Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture. Environ. Sci. Policy 55, 266–273 (2016).
17
Tait, J. & Morris, D. Sustainable development of agricultural systems: competing objectives and critical limits. Futures 32, 247–260 (2000).
18
Velten, S., Leventon, J., Jager, N. & Newig, J. What Is Sustainable Agriculture? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 7, 7833–7865 (2015).
19
Newton, P., Civita, N., Frankel-Goldwater, L., Bartel, K. & Johns, C. What Is Regenerative Agriculture? A Review of Scholar and Practitioner Definitions Based on Processes and Outcomes. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 577723 (2020).
20
Caron, P. et al. Food systems for sustainable development: proposals for a profound four-part transformation. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 38, 41 (2018).
21
Teixeira, H. M. et al. Understanding Farm Diversity to Promote Agroecological Transitions. Sustainability 10, 4337 (2018).
22
Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).
23
Pretty, J. N. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev. 23, 1247–1263 (1995).
24
Brodt, S. Sustainable Agriculture. Nat. Educ. Knowl. 3, (2011).
25
Altieri, M. A. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 74, 19–31 (1999).
26
Zhen, L. & Routray, J. K. Operational Indicators for Measuring Agricultural Sustainability in Developing Countries. Environ. Manage. 32, 34–46 (2003).
27
Philip Robertson, G. & Harwood, R. R. Agriculture, Sustainable. in Encyclopedia of Biodiversity 111–118 (Elsevier, 2013).
28
Karami, E. & Keshavarz, M. Sociology of Sustainable Agriculture. in Sociology, Organic Farming, Climate Change and Soil Science (ed. Lichtfouse, E.) vol. 3 19–40 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010).
29
Yunlong, C. & Smit, B. Sustainability in agriculture: a general review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 49, 299–307 (1994).
30
Spicka, J., Hlavsa, T., Soukupova, K. & Stolbova, M. Approaches to estimation the farm-level economic viability and sustainability in agriculture: A literature review. Agric. Econ. Zemědělská Ekon. 65, 289–297 (2019).
31
Crews, T. E., Carton, W. & Olsson, L. Is the future of agriculture perennial? Imperatives and opportunities to reinvent agriculture by shifting from annual monocultures to perennial polycultures. Glob. Sustain. 1, e11 (2018).
32
Harwood, R. R. A History of Sustainable Agriculture. in Sustainable agricultural systems 3–19 (Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa, 1990).
115
International Labour Office. Accelerating Action Against Child Labour: Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work – 2010. https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/Global_Report_on_Child_Labour_2010_En.pdf (2010). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
33
Evenson, R. E. & Gollin, D. Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 300, 758–762 (2003).
34
Van Zyl, J. Alternative agriculture, by the Committee on the Role of Alternative Farming Methods in Modern Production Agriculture, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1989. Dev. South. Afr. 7, 289–295 (1990).
35
Robertson, G. P. A Sustainable Agriculture? Daedalus 144, 76–89 (2015).
36
Altieri, M. A., Letourneau, D. K. & Davis, J. R. Developing Sustainable Agroecosystems. BioScience 33, 45–49 (1983).
37
Migliorini, P. & Wezel, A. Converging and diverging principles and practices of organic agriculture regulations and agroecology. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 63 (2017).
38
Wezel, A. et al. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29, 503–515 (2009).
39
Pretty, J. N. The sustainable intensification of agriculture. Nat. Resour. Forum 21, 247–256 (1997).
40
Pretty, J. & Bharucha, Z. P. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Ann. Bot. 114, 1571–1596 (2014).
41
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. SDG INDICATOR 2.4.1. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/3e3a18b0-ff0d-4dbc-bdbf-ebb854419fd3/content (2019). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
50
Lipper, L. et al. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 1068–1072 (2014).
52
Jaenicke, H. & Virchow, D. Entry points into a nutrition-sensitive agriculture. Food Secur. 5, 679–692 (2013).
53
Sharma, I. K., Di Prima, S., Essink, D. & Broerse, J. E. W. Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture: A Systematic Review of Impact Pathways to Nutrition Outcomes. Adv. Nutr. 12, 251–275 (2021).
42
Mgendi, G. Unlocking the potential of precision agriculture for sustainable farming. Discov. Agric. 2, 87 (2024).
43
Hayati, D., Ranjbar, Z. & Karami, E. Measuring Agricultural Sustainability. in Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture (ed. Lichtfouse, E.) vol. 5 73–100 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010).
44
Caporali, F. Agroecology as a Transdisciplinary Science for a Sustainable Agriculture. in Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture (ed. Lichtfouse, E.) vol. 5 1–71 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010).
45
Caporali, F. Agroecology as a Science of Integration for Sustainability in Agriculture. Ital. J. Agron. 2, 73–82 (2007).
46
Loos, J. et al. Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification”. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 356–361 (2014).
47
Garnett, T. et al. Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies. Science 341, 33–34 (2013).
48
Santoni, M., Ferretti, L., Migliorini, P., Vazzana, C. & Pacini, G. C. A review of scientific research on biodynamic agriculture. Org. Agric. 12, 373–396 (2022).
49
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook Executive Summary. https://www.fao.org/climatechange/37491-0c425f2caa2f5e6f3b9162d39c8507fa3.pdf (2013). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
51
Gonzalez-Sanchez, E. J., Veroz-Gonzalez, O., Blanco-Roldan, G. L., Marquez-Garcia, F. & Carbonell-Bojollo, R. A renewed view of conservation agriculture and its evolution over the last decade in Spain. Soil Tillage Res. 146, 204–212 (2015).
54
National Research Council. Alternative Agriculture. (1989).
55
Sher, A. et al. Importance of regenerative agriculture: climate, soil health, biodiversity and its socioecological impact. Discov. Sustain. 5, 462 (2024).
56
Rhodes, C. J. The Imperative for Regenerative Agriculture. Sci. Prog. 100, 80–129 (2017).
57
Schreefel, L., Schulte, R. P. O., De Boer, I. J. M., Schrijver, A. P. & Van Zanten, H. H. E. Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the base. Glob. Food Secur. 26, 100404 (2020).
58
Beacham, J. D., Jackson, P., Jaworski, C. C., Krzywoszynska, A. & Dicks, L. V. Contextualising farmer perspectives on regenerative agriculture: A post-productivist future? J. Rural Stud. 102, 103100 (2023).
59
Pierce, F. J. & Nowak, P. Aspects of Precision Agriculture. in Advances in Agronomy vol. 67 1–85 (Elsevier, 1999).
60
Lewandowski, I. et al. Primary Production. in Bioeconomy (ed. Lewandowski, I.) 97–178 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018).
61
Baker, E. et al. Mixed farming systems: potentials and barriers for climate change adaptation in food systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 62, 101270 (2023).
116
Huyer, S. Closing the Gender Gap in Agriculture. Gend. Technol. Dev. 20, 105–116 (2016).
62
United Nations. International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC), Rev.4. (United Nations, s.l, 2008).
63
European Commission. Statistical Office of the European Union. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics: 2020 Edition. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2785/143455 (2020). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
64
MISSING_REFERENCE_2023
65
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Agricultural Production Statistics 2010–2023. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd3755en (2024). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
66
Yadav, V. S., Singh, A. R., Gunasekaran, A., Raut, R. D. & Narkhede, B. E. A systematic literature review of the agro-food supply chain: Challenges, network design, and performance measurement perspectives. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 29, 685–704 (2022).
67
Lowder, S. K., Skoet, J. & Raney, T. The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide. World Dev. 87, 16–29 (2016).
68
Ruml, A., Ragasa, C. & Qaim, M. Contract farming, contract design and smallholder livelihoods*. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 66, 24–43 (2022).
69
Barrett, C. B. et al. Smallholder Participation in Contract Farming: Comparative Evidence from Five Countries. World Dev. 40, 715–730 (2012).
70
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. World Food and Agriculture – Statistical Yearbook 2025. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd4313en (2025). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
117
Contzen, S. & Forney, J. Family farming and gendered division of labour on the move: a typology of farming-family configurations. Agric. Hum. Values 34, 27–40 (2017).
71
Headey, D., Bezemer, D. & Hazell, P. B. Agricultural Employment Trends in Asia and Africa: Too Fast or Too Slow? World Bank Res. Obs. 25, 57–89 (2010).
72
Amanor, K. S. Global Value Chains and Agribusiness in Africa: Upgrading or Capturing Smallholder Production? Agrar. South J. Polit. Econ. Triannual J. Agrar. South Netw. CARES 8, 30–63 (2019).
73
Cucagna, M. E. & Goldsmith, P. D. Value adding in the agri-food value chain. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 21, 293–316 (2018).
74
Clapp, J. The rise of big food and agriculture: corporate influence in the food system. in A research agenda for food systems (ed. Sage, C.) 45–66 (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA, USA, 2022).
75
Lim, S. & Kim, S. W. Global agricultural value chains and employment growth. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. Assoc. 1, 402–418 (2022).
76
Witt, N., Graversgaard, M. & Thorsøe, M. Undisclosed transgressions? Lacking acknowledgements of large agrifood firms on their impacts on the planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 30, art8 (2025).
77
Te Wierik, S. et al. Identifying the safe operating space for food systems. Nat. Food (2025).
78
Gallardo, R. K. The Environmental Impacts of Agriculture: A Review. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 18, 165–235 (2024).
79
Bezner, R. et al. Food, Fibre, and Other Ecosystem Products. in Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
80
Mbow, C. et al. Food Security. in Climate Change and Land: IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (ed. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
81
MISSING_REFERENCE_2022
82
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agrifood Systems – Global, Regional and Country Trends, 2000–2022. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd3167en (2024). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
83
Tubiello, F. N. et al. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks: 1990-2011 Analysis. (FAO, 2014).
84
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).
85
Gibbs, H. K. et al. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 16732–16737 (2010).
86
Pendrill, F. et al. Disentangling the numbers behind agriculture-driven tropical deforestation. Science 377, eabm9267 (2022).
87
Hosonuma, N. et al. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 044009 (2012).
88
Maestre, F. T. et al. Bending the curve of land degradation to achieve global environmental goals. Nature 644, 347–355 (2025).
90
Olsson, L. et al. The State of the World’s Arable Land. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 48, 451–475 (2023).
89
Khasanov, S. et al. Impact assessment of soil salinity on crop production in Uzbekistan and its global significance. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 342, 108262 (2023).
91
Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27 (2019).
92
Tilman, D. et al. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546, 73–81 (2017).
93
Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).
94
Galloway, J. N. et al. Transformation of the Nitrogen Cycle: Recent Trends, Questions, and Potential Solutions. Science 320, 889–892 (2008).
95
Liu, J. et al. A high-resolution assessment on global nitrogen flows in cropland. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 8035–8040 (2010).
96
Carpenter, S. R. & Bennett, E. M. Reconsideration of the planetary boundary for phosphorus. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 014009 (2011).
97
Penuelas, J., Coello, F. & Sardans, J. A better use of fertilizers is needed for global food security and environmental sustainability. Agric. Food Secur. 12, 5 (2023).
98
Green, P. A. et al. Pre-industrial and contemporary fluxes of nitrogen through rivers: a global assessment based on typology. Biogeochemistry 68, 71–105 (2004).
99
Richardson, K. et al. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci. Adv. 9, eadh2458 (2023).
100
Ingrao, C., Strippoli, R., Lagioia, G. & Huisingh, D. Water scarcity in agriculture: An overview of causes, impacts and approaches for reducing the risks. Heliyon 9, e18507 (2023).
101
Aivazidou, E., Tsolakis, N., Iakovou, E. & Vlachos, D. The emerging role of water footprint in supply chain management: A critical literature synthesis and a hierarchical decision-making framework. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1018–1037 (2016).
102
Levintal, E. et al. Agricultural managed aquifer recharge (Ag-MAR)—a method for sustainable groundwater management: A review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 291–314 (2023).
103
Fang, K. et al. Water footprint of nations amplified by scarcity in the Belt and Road Initiative. Heliyon 9, e12957 (2023).
104
Rosa, L., Chiarelli, D. D., Rulli, M. C., Dell’Angelo, J. & D’Odorico, P. Global agricultural economic water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz6031 (2020).
105
Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems 15, 401–415 (2012).
106
Campanhola, C. & Pandey, S. Preface. in Sustainable Food and Agriculture xvii–xix (Elsevier, 2019).
118
Jost, C. et al. Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Clim. Dev. 8, 133–144 (2016).
107
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Fund for Agricultural Development, United Nations Children’s Fund, UN World Food Programme & World Health Organization. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2025. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd6008en (2025). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
109
Alpízar, F. et al. Determinants of food insecurity among smallholder farmer households in Central America: recurrent versus extreme weather-driven events. Reg. Environ. Change 20, 22 (2020).
111
Zhang, M. & Kim, R. Occupational health in agriculture: a re-emerging frontier in worker protection. Glob. Health J. 9, 65–71 (2025).
112
Tippett, M. K. Extreme weather and climate. Npj Clim. Atmospheric Sci. 1, 45, s41612-018-0057–1 (2018).
113
Mizik, T., Nagy, J., Molnár, E. M. & Maró, Z. M. Challenges of employment in the agrifood sector of developing countries—a systematic literature review. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 12, 62 (2025).
119
Perez, C. et al. How resilient are farming households and communities to a changing climate in Africa? A gender-based perspective. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 95–107 (2015).
120
UN Women, UNDP, UNEP & World Bank. The Cost of the Gender Gap in Agricultural Productivity in Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/847131467987832287/pdf/100234-WP-PUBLIC-Box393225B-The-Cost-of-the-Gender-Gap-in-Agricultural-Productivity-in-Malawi-Tanzania-and-Uganda.pdf (2015). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
121
Zul Azlan, Z. H., Junaini, S. N., Bolhassan, N. A., Wahi, R. & Arip, M. A. Harvesting a sustainable future: An overview of smart agriculture’s role in social, economic, and environmental sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 434, 140338 (2024).
122
Latruffe, L. et al. Measurement of sustainability in agriculture: a review of indicators. Stud. Agric. Econ. 118, 123–130 (2016).
123
Evans, D. L., Quinton, J. N., Davies, J. A. C., Zhao, J. & Govers, G. Soil lifespans and how they can be extended by land use and management change. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 0940b2 (2020).
124
Michalke, A., Kunz, J. & Gaugler, T. True Cost Accounting: Assessing Environmental and Social Damages of Production. (Routledge, London, 2025).
125
Jang, W. S., Neff, J. C., Im, Y., Doro, L. & Herrick, J. E. The Hidden Costs of Land Degradation in US Maize Agriculture. Earths Future 9, e2020EF001641 (2021).
126
Silvestri, C., Silvestri, L., Piccarozzi, M. & Ruggieri, A. Toward a framework for selecting indicators of measuring sustainability and circular economy in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 29, 1446–1484 (2024).
127
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems: SAFA, Guidelines, Version 3.0. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/72070c29-47d6-47ef-8059-e78168c2fb69/content (2014). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
128
Zarbà, C., Gravagno, R. M., Chinnici, G. & Scuderi, A. A systematic review of the SAFA framework in the literature: An approach to assess sustainability in agri-food systems. Clean. Environ. Syst. 16, 100267 (2025).
129
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Advancing Human Rights Policy and Practice in the Agribusiness Sector: An Implementation Toolkit. https://docs.wbcsd.org/2020/11/GAA-Advancing-human-rights-policy-and-practice-in-the-agribusiness-sector.pdf (2020). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
130
Robling, H., Abu Hatab, A., Säll, S. & Hansson, H. Measuring sustainability at farm level – A critical view on data and indicators. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 18, 100258 (2023).
131
Haile, B. T., Dougill, A. J., Ramoelo, A. & Kidane, T. T. Assessing farm-level sustainability: a comparative analysis of horticultural production systems in Eritrea. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 9, 1532356 (2025).
132
Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform. Sustainable Sourcing of Agricultural Raw Materials a Practitioner’s Guide. https://saiplatform.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/sustainable-sourcing-guide-_word_to-be-converted-to-pdf_june-2015_v06_covers_withoutannexespagestableofcontents.pdf (2015). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
133
Thorlakson, T., Hainmueller, J. & Lambin, E. F. Improving environmental practices in agricultural supply chains: The role of company-led standards. Glob. Environ. Change 48, 32–42 (2018).
134
Unilever. Sustainable Agricultural Principles. https://www.unilever.com/files/unilever-sustainable-agricultural-principles-2025.pdf (2025). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
135
Tony’s Chocolonely. Tony’s Open Chain Impact Report 2023/24. https://www.tonysopenchain.com/reporting/toc-impact-reports (2024). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
136
Hou Jones, X., Macqueen, D., Núñez del Prado Nieto, I., Sorsby, N. & Duffy, J. Business Unusual: How Business and Investment Pioneers Are Transforming Forest and Food Supply Chains. https://www.iied.org/22396iied (2024). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
137
Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform. Regenerating Together A Global Framework for Regenerative Agriculture. https://saiplatform.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/sai-platform_-regenerating-together_september-2023-1.pdf (2023). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
138
Barrios, E. et al. Contribution of trees to the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 14, 1–16 (2018).
139
Mihrete, T. B. & Mihretu, F. B. Crop Diversification for Ensuring Sustainable Agriculture, Risk Management and Food Security. Glob. Chall. 9, 2400267 (2025).
140
Deines, J. M. et al. Recent cover crop adoption is associated with small maize and soybean yield losses in the United States. Glob. Change Biol. 29, 794–807 (2023).
141
He, Q. et al. Optimizing cover cropping application for sustainable crop production. Npj Sustain. Agric. 3, 10 (2025).
142
Maitra, S. et al. Intercropping—A Low Input Agricultural Strategy for Food and Environmental Security. Agronomy 11, 343 (2021).
143
Qiao, X. et al. Intercropping wheat between walnut trees reduced yield and improved quality. Agron. J. 113, 1058–1070 (2021).
144
Toker, P. et al. The advantages of intercropping to improve productivity in food and forage production – a review. Plant Prod. Sci. 27, 155–169 (2024).
145
Mausch, K., Almekinders, C. J. M., Hambloch, C. & McEwan, M. A. Putting diverse farming households’ preferences and needs at the centre of seed system development. Outlook Agric. 50, 356–365 (2021).
146
Tadjiev, A., Djanibekov, N. & Herzfeld, T. Does zero tillage save or increase production costs? Evidence from smallholders in Kyrgyzstan. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 21, 2270191 (2023).
147
Nichols, V., Verhulst, N., Cox, R. & Govaerts, B. Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: A review. Field Crops Res. 183, 56–68 (2015).
148
Lee, N. & Thierfelder, C. Weed control under conservation agriculture in dryland smallholder farming systems of southern Africa. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 48 (2017).
149
Blanchet, G., Gavazov, K., Bragazza, L. & Sinaj, S. Responses of soil properties and crop yields to different inorganic and organic amendments in a Swiss conventional farming system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 230, 116–126 (2016).
150
Wu, W. & Ma, B. Integrated nutrient management (INM) for sustaining crop productivity and reducing environmental impact: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 512–513, 415–427 (2015).
151
Wang, D., Zhang, W., Zhang, D. & Lu, Q. Emerging drivers of IPM technology adoption among farmers: the role of participation in new agricultural operating entities. Pest Manag. Sci. ps.70396 (2025).
152
Pretty, J. & Bharucha, Z. Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects 6, 152–182 (2015).
153
IFAD. Water Harvesting Systems for Smallholder Producers Tips for Selection and Design. https://www.ifad.org/documents/48415603/49788193/water_harvesting_systems_e.pdf/26bf7fd3-6900-0fd0-7403-37f2cbb7f856?t=1726642702565 (2022). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
154
Thompson, A. & Sudduth, K. Terracing and Contour Farming. in Agronomy Monographs (eds Delgado, J. A., Sassenrath, G. F. & Mueller, T.) vol. 59 151–163 (Wiley, 2017).
155
James M. Steichen & G. Morgan Powell. Measuring Farmability of Terrace Systems. Trans. ASAE 28, 1130–1134 (1985).
156
World Resources Institute. GHG Protocol Agricultural Guidance. https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/GHG%20Protocol%20Agricultural%20Guidance%20%28April%2026%29_0.pdf (2022). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
157
DeRamus, H. A. Grazing Management of Ruminant Animals in Sustainable Agriculture. Outlook Agric. 33, 93–100 (2004).
158
Baronti, S. et al. Rotational pasture management to increase the sustainability of mountain livestock farms in the Alpine region. Reg. Environ. Change 22, 50 (2022).
159
Favor, K. Windbreaks and hedgerows in vineyards. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/69294 (2025).
160
Gene, S. M. et al. The role of vegetated buffers in agriculture and their regulation across Canada and the United States. J. Environ. Manage. 243, 12–21 (2019).
161
Nair, P. K. R., Kumar, B. M. & Nair, V. D. Classification of Agroforestry Systems. in An Introduction to Agroforestry vol. 3 29–44 (Springer Cham, 2021).
162
Barrios, E. et al. The 10 Elements of Agroecology: enabling transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food systems through visual narratives. Ecosyst. People 16, 230–247 (2020).
163
Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A., Rois-Díaz, M. & Mosquera-Losada, M. R. Integrating Silvopastoralism and Biodiversity Conservation. in Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture (ed. Lichtfouse, E.) vol. 5 359–373 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010).
164
Guevara, J. L. E. & Arancibia, B. F. Innovations to Promote Adoption of Coffee Agroforestry in Bolivia: The Role of ASOCAFÉ. https://www.iied.org/22641g (2025).
165
Omran, E.-S. Remote Estimation of Vegetation Parameters using Narrowband Sensor for Precision Agriculture in Arid Environment. Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 58, 73–92 (2018).
166
Kose, U., Prasath, V. B. S., Mondal, M. R. H., Podder, P. & Bharati, S. Artificial Intelligence and Smart Agriculture Applications. (Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton, 2022).
167
Merchant, M., Paradkar, V., Khanna, M. & Gokhale, S. Mango Leaf Deficiency Detection Using Digital Image Processing and Machine Learning. in 2018 3rd International Conference for Convergence in Technology (I2CT) 1–3 (IEEE, Pune, 2018).
168
Chung, S., Breshears, L. E. & Yoon, J.-Y. Smartphone near infrared monitoring of plant stress. Comput. Electron. Agric. 154, 93–98 (2018).
169
Mekonnen, Y., Namuduri, S., Burton, L., Sarwat, A. & Bhansali, S. Review—Machine Learning Techniques in Wireless Sensor Network Based Precision Agriculture. J. Electrochem. Soc. 167, 037522 (2020).
170
Karunathilake, E. M. B. M., Le, A. T., Heo, S., Chung, Y. S. & Mansoor, S. The Path to Smart Farming: Innovations and Opportunities in Precision Agriculture. Agriculture 13, 1593 (2023).
171
Nasirahmadi, A. & Hensel, O. Toward the Next Generation of Digitalization in Agriculture Based on Digital Twin Paradigm. Sensors 22, 498 (2022).
172
Senapaty, M. K., Ray, A. & Padhy, N. IoT-Enabled Soil Nutrient Analysis and Crop Recommendation Model for Precision Agriculture. Computers 12, 61 (2023).
173
Zerihun, B. M., Olwal, T. O. & Hassen, M. R. Design and Analysis of IoT-Based Modern Agriculture Monitoring System for Real-Time Data Collection. in Computer Vision and Machine Learning in Agriculture, Volume 2 (eds Uddin, M. S. & Bansal, J. C.) 73–82 (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2022).
174
Rai, A. K. et al. Unlocking Productivity Potential: The Promising Role of Agricultural Robots in Enhancing Farming Efficiency. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 35, 624–633 (2023).
175
Witt, N., Thorsøe, M. H. & Graversgaard, M. ESG reporting meets farmer – implications of the European corporate sustainability reporting directive for the agrifood sector. Br. Food J. 127, 264–283 (2025).
176
Cuadros‐Casanova, I. et al. Opportunities and challenges for Common Agricultural Policy reform to support the European Green Deal. Conserv. Biol. 37, e14052 (2023).
177
European Commission. Farm to Fork Strategy. https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/472acca8-7f7b-4171-98b0-ed76720d68d3_en?filename=f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf (2020). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
178
Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I., Henao, A. & Lana, M. A. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 869–890 (2015).
179
W.J, T. et al. Can sustainability certification enhance the climate resilience of smallholder farmers? The case of Ghanaian cocoa. J. Land Use Sci. 17, 407–428 (2022).
180
Nemecek, T. et al. Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: II. Extensive and intensive production. Agric. Syst. 104, 233–245 (2011).
181
Agreena. AgreenaCarbon Programme: Standard Terms and Conditions. https://agreena.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Standard-terms-and-conditions.pdf (2023). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
182
Swinnen, J. Economics and politics of food standards, trade, and development#. Agric. Econ. 47, 7–19 (2016).
183
Van Noordwijk, M. et al. Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives for Multifunctional Landscapes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 389–420 (2012).
184
European Commission. Organic Farming in the EU. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-04/agri-market-brief-20-organic-farming-eu_en.pdf (2023). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
185
Bissadu, K. D., Sonko, S. & Hossain, G. Society 5.0 enabled agriculture: Drivers, enabling technologies, architectures, opportunities, and challenges. Inf. Process. Agric. 12, 112–124 (2025).
186
Burns, E. A. Regenerative Agriculture: farmer motivation, environment and climate improvement. Policy Q. 17, (2021).
187
Rasche, A., Cojoianu, T., Hoepner, A. G. F. & Schneider, F. Scenarios for CSRD Scope Amendments – Advancing Reporting Scope while Reducing further Burden. Preprint at https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=5350977 (2025). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
188
Eurosif et al. Omnibus Initiative: Sustainability Rules Are Essential for European Competitiveness. https://www.eurosif.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Joint-statement-Omnibus.pdf?utm_source=Eurosif&utm_campaign=696802fc51-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_03_14_01_51_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-5edaf14fa4-593211111 (2025). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
189
Mills, E. et al. Agrifood Atlas. https://www.bund.net/fileadmin/user_upload_bund/publikationen/landwirtschaft/landwirtschaft_agrifood_atlas.pdf (2017). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
190
Madejon, E., Moreno, F., Murillo, J. & Pelegrin, F. Soil biochemical response to long-term conservation tillage under semi-arid Mediterranean conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 94, 346–352 (2007).
191
Davies, B. et al. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. (Royal Society, London, 2009).
192
Antwi-Agyei, P., Stringer, L. C. & Dougill, A. J. Livelihood adaptations to climate variability: insights from farming households in Ghana. Reg. Environ. Change 14, 1615–1626 (2014).
193
Di Bene, C. et al. Barriers and Opportunities for Sustainable Farming Practices and Crop Diversification Strategies in Mediterranean Cereal-Based Systems. Front. Environ. Sci. 10, 861225 (2022).
194
Rosa-Schleich, J., Loos, J., Mußhoff, O. & Tscharntke, T. Ecological-economic trade-offs of Diversified Farming Systems – A review. Ecol. Econ. 160, 251–263 (2019).
195
Lotter, D. Facing food insecurity in Africa: Why, after 30 years of work in organic agriculture, I am promoting the use of synthetic fertilizers and herbicides in small-scale staple crop production. Agric. Hum. Values 32, 111–118 (2015).
196
Mubarik, M. S., Kontoleon, A. & Shahbaz, M. Beyond the hurdles: Exploring policy obstacles in the path to circular economy adoption. J. Environ. Manage. 370, 122667 (2024).
197
Hanson, J., Dismukes, R., Chambers, W., Greene, C. & Kremen, A. Risk and risk management in organic agriculture: Views of organic farmers. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 19, 218–227 (2004).
198
Moret-Bailly, S. & Muro, M. The Costs and Benefits of Transitioning to Sustainable Agriculture in the EU. https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/The-costs-and-benefits-of-transitioning-to-sustainable-agriculture-IEEP-2024.pdf (2024). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
199
PricewaterhouseCoopers GmbH Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft. Voice of the Consumer Survey 2025. https://www.pwc.de/de/handel-und-konsumguter/voice-of-the-consumer-survey-2025.pdf (2025). (retrieved November 11, 2025).
200
Pedersen, S. M. & Lind, K. M. Precision Agriculture – From Mapping to Site-Specific Application. in Precision Agriculture: Technology and Economic Perspectives (eds Pedersen, S. M. & Lind, K. M.) 1–20 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017).