Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031184 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article
The Importance of Social Value in Agroecological Farms.
Adjusting the Common Good Balance Sheet to Improve Their
Sustainable Management
Vanessa Campos *, Joan R. Sanchis * and Carmen Talavera
Business Administration Department, Faculty of Economics, University of València, Tarongers Av.,
46022 València, Spain; tacar@alumni.uv.es
* Correspondence: vanessa.campos@uv.es (V.C.); joan.r.sanchis@uv.es (J.R.S.)
Abstract: Organic farming offers the producers the possibility of focusing on their business while
obtaining a competitive advantage. Nevertheless, this is centered in specific activities of the pro-
duction process, thus only creating environmental value. Therefore, it is not an approach based on
sustainability. As a consequence of this, it becomes necessary to enlarge this approach toward
people (social value) and profitability (economic value). The objective of this work is to describe a
tool based on the Economy for the Common Good model applied to the agroecological sector. We
propose to adapt the Common Good Matrix to the characteristics of agroecological farms to offer a
useful tool to manage and monitor Mediterranean small farms following a sustainability approach
.
The methodology consists of: (1) A bibliometric analysis of agroecological publications to identify
sustainability indicators; (2) Delphi method application to perform a screening among the identi-
fied indicators; and (3) the establishment of peer groups of producers to carry out jointly their
Common Good Balance Sheets. Eighteen experts participated in the Delphi study, and 15 compa-
nies participated in peer groups, of which seven obtained certification as companies of the common
good. The bibliometric analysis shows that there is a gap of publications on agroecology and sus-
tainability. The results obtained from peer study confirm that those agroecological companies that
apply the adapted Common Good Matrix can implement corporate sustainability more easily.
Keywords: agroecology; sustainability; Economy for the Common Good; Common Good Balance
Sheet
1. Introduction
Organic farming has become an important referent within the European Union. To
encourage it, the European Commission has established since 2015 a European
eco-label—The EU Organic logo—which is regulated by Community legislation. Ac-
cording to Eurostat, in 2017 (ec.europa.eu/eurostat), the percentage of the organic culti-
vated area over the total agricultural area in the EU-28 was 7%. On the one hand, Austria
was at the top of the EU countries, with 23.4% of the organic EU area. On the other hand,
Spain ranked 11th with 8.7% of the organic EU area.
Furthermore, according to a European Parliament report of 2018 developed by the
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Union
(https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0178_ES.html), the demand
for products from organic farming is increasing year after year. As a proof of this, in 2016,
the sales of organic food in Europe reached 30.7 trillion euros, showing an increase of
sales of 47.7%, while the organic cultivated area only increased by 18.7%. Moreover, in
the USA, the sales volume reached 38.9 million. Therefore, we can affirm that there is a
growing market for organic products.
Citation: Campos, V.; Sanchis, J.R.;
Talavera, C. The Importance of
Social Value in Agroecological
Farms: Adjusting the Common
Good Balance Sheet to Improve
Their Sustainable Management.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031184
Received: 21 December 2020
Accepted: 20 January 2021
Published: 23 January 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays
neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses
/by/4.0/).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 2 of 24
On the one hand, agricultural producers face a food chain dominated by large dis-
tribution and marketing organizations, which makes it very difficult to make their busi-
nesses profitable [1,2]. Most of these producers are small farms which suffer a narrow
trade margin structure: their manufacturing costs are high, while their prices are low
because of the big distribution companies bargaining power. As a result, differentiation,
segmentation, or focus are the competitive strategies that small farmers must follow [1].
A differentiation focus competitive strategy [3] is characterized by a high perceived value
(high quality for the customer) with a higher price. In this sense, organic farming offers
agricultural producers an option to focus on their business, thus obtaining a competitive
advantage.
However, organic farming focuses on specific activities of the production process,
thus only creating environmental value. In consequence, this is not an approach based on
sustainability criteria. Therefore, this approach must be enlarged toward people (social
value) and profitability (economic value) to transform agriculture into a sustainable
business. In this way, a business based on the three dimensions of sustainability is
achieved: economic, social, and environmental (co-creation of value).
This new business approach is known as agroecology. Such approach consists of a
vision that includes the agroecological production, the sustainability of agro-ecosystems
[4] and human development through the strengthening of the local economy [5].
However, it should be noted that there is a certain number of academics who ques-
tion the agroecology role in respecting the environment. Such authors affirm that the al-
leged greater benefits of agroecology over conventional agriculture are not proven yet
[6,7]. Ecological consumption is related to high prices. Such cost overrun is due to scarce
production, which produces a higher negative environmental impact. Some studies in-
dicate that there is not enough evidence that proves that agroecology generates higher
benefits than conventional agriculture. If this were the case, there would not be only 40
million hectares of agro-ecological systems in comparison to 180 million hectares of
transgenic crops. Furthermore, the higher resilience of agro-ecological systems is not ex-
pressed in quantitative indicators that demonstrate it. There is also a lack of comparisons
in areas such as the food situation of producers and consumers, the energy valuation of
farming systems, the measurement of externalities, multi-criteria analysis of environ-
mental goods and services generated by different agro-ecosystems, nutrient cycles, car-
bon sequestration or capacities to promote environmental sustainability in rural areas. In
the field of agricultural development, there are also questions worth mentioning: Is it
possible to feed the whole population exclusively with agroecological systems? Will
these alternative models be able to solve the problem of rural unemployment? Does so-
ciety prioritize the production of healthy and high-quality food that allows preserving an
economic system based on agro-food industries? or How this alternative system solve the
future shortage of fossil fuels in territories with large tracts of land suitable for any cul-
tivation?
On the other hand, the Economy for the Common Good (ECG) model represents a
transformative economic model based on human and ethical values. This model focuses
on the creation of social and environmental value through values such as human dignity,
solidarity and social justice, environmental sustainability and transparency, and
co-determination [8]. Therefore, the ECG can boost the commitment of the agricultural
sector in defense of the SDGs. Hence, it may be of interest to integrate the ECG model
into the agroecological sector [9–12]. Such integration can be conducted through a pro-
cess of search, implementation, and exemplification, which values the contribution of this
sector to the common good by including the three dimensions of sustainability [13].
The research question that arises in this paper is if organizations dedicated to
agroecology could increase their levels of competitiveness if they would expand their
social responsibility approach to the social dimension. A holistic approach to sustaina-
bility that includes the three dimensions (economic, social, and environmental) can con-
tribute to improving the competitive capacity of agroecological farms. Besides, among
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 3 of 24
the different corporate sustainability models, the ECG model is an appropriate model for
these types of organizations through the application of the Matrix and the Balance Sheet
for the Common Good. This model considers the environmental and social dimensions
through measures focused on the different stakeholders of the company. The general
purpose of this work is to describe a tool based on the ECG model that can be applied to
the agroecological sector. This general goal can be divided into three specific objectives:
(1) The description of a tool that enables the measurement of environmental and social
contributions; (2) the description of a tool that can improve sustainability results of
agroecological farming; and (3) the description of a tool that can increase competitive
capacity of agroecological farming by adding social value to organic agricultural prod-
ucts and exemplifying its good practices.
The methodology employed consisted of a triple analysis. First, we conducted a
bibliometric analysis of agricultural publications to develop a bibliographic documenta-
tion base in this field. In the second place, we have applied the Delphi method to obtain
more accurate indicators of social and environmental value measurement for agroeco-
logical farms. In the third place, we carried out a peer group analysis between several
organizations in the sector to develop their Common Good Balance Sheets (CGBS) jointly.
The empirical study concerning peer groups has been applied to companies in the Va-
lencian Autonomous Community because this is one of the Spanish territories where
agroecology is most developed. Besides, in the Valencian Community, there is a consol-
idated working group of ECG consultants.
The present work has been structured as follows. After this introduction, we present
a second section with the theoretical framework on agroecology and the model of the
Economy of the Common Good. Subsequently, the third section describes the triple
methodology that has been used. After this segment, in the fourth place, we describe the
results obtained. Finally, the fifth section presents the conclusions of the work.
2. Theoretical Framework: Implementing the Economy for the Common Good to
Agroecology
Agroecology is a scientific discipline that consists in applying the principles of
ecology to agriculture to achieve the sustainability of agro-ecosystems. These
agro-ecosystems are units of work whose objective is to create agro-structures similar to
natural ecosystems where the growing space is treated as a living space [4,14,15]. Nev-
ertheless, some authors state that this is a pluri-epistemological concept [5] since, in ad-
dition to the scientific approach described, the concept is considered as a social move-
ment and as a peasant praxis as well.
The agroecology is part of what is known as sustainable agriculture [16–18]. The
leading agroecological practices consist of [15]: (1) Plant and animal diversification, both
in terms of species and genetics; (2) recycling of nutrients and organic matter, thus opti-
mizing the availability of nutrients; (3) provision of adequate soil conditions for crop
growth by using organic matter and stimulating soil biology; (4) minimization of water
and soil losses, thus controlling erosion and irrigation processes; (5) minimization of
losses of pathogenic insects and weeds through preventive practices; and (6) the exploi-
tation of synergies and interrelations between species of the plant and animal kingdom.
The OECD defines agroecology as “the study of the relationship between crops and
the environment.” Agroecology also includes the study of the territory and the relation-
ship with society and its influence on agriculture [19]. It should be noted that while or-
ganic farming is a production technique subject to specific regulations, mainly from the
European Union; agroecology analyzes the territory and the community as well, thus
combining technical knowledge and observation [20]. Concerning this topic, it must be
pointed out that Olivier De Schutter’s report on the right to food [21] states that “the re-
invention of agriculture is the only way out of the food crisis.” In this sense, the UN
former Special Rapporteur on the right to food [21] also stresses that “a paradigm shift
towards agroecology is needed.”
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 4 of 24
Ultimately, agroecology is included within sustainable agriculture and it offers a
comprehensive and integrated view of agriculture from the point of view of sustainabil-
ity. It is different from organic agriculture, which refers to a formal certification system
focused on organic substitutes for conventional agricultural inputs such as pesticides and
fertilizers. Agroecology, in turn, is a system of food production that includes multiple
aspects of human quality, and that appears as a response to a dominant intensive agri-
cultural production model
Agroecology tackles the main current challenges of climate change, such as the re-
duction of greenhouse gas emissions, the pollution affecting the biodiversity or the tox-
icity of chemical pesticides, among others. Moreover, at the same time, agroecology
works on increasing the productivity of agriculture to achieve its economic viability.
However, it is also essential to address the social and human challenges arising from the
inequalities and injustices. In this sense, the principles of the Economy for the Common
Good (ECG) model reflects the values of environmental or ecological sustainability and
the values of social sustainability.
The Common Good Balance Sheet (CGBS) and the Common Good Matrix (CGM) are
the strategic tools used to implement the Economy for the Common Good (ECG) model
[9–12]. Through these instruments, we can measure the social and environmental value
that an organization creates, as a complement to the economic value (co-creation of val-
ue). Moreover, the model enables the implementation and evaluation of improvement
measures [10]. The CGBS measures the degree of compliance that an entity achieves in
relation to the different dimensions of the model: (1) human dignity, (2) solidarity and
social justice, (3) environmental sustainability, and (4) transparency and
co-determination. These values are analyzed from the perspective of the different
stakeholders: (1) suppliers, (2) owners and financial service providers, (3) employees, (4)
customers and other companies, and (5) social environment. Through the Common Good
Matrix (CGM), the four values are related to the five groups of interest. As a result of this,
the Matrix suggests 20 topics that are measured numerically using different indicators.
The scores that can be obtained for each one of the topics are different. That is, a different
weighting is applied depending on which actors are involved. The indicators and how
such scores are established are set out in the Common Good Balance Sheet manual. This
manual can be found at the following link:
https://www.ecogood.org/apply-ecg/companies/#evaluation-method. The maximum
score that a company can get is 1000 points (50 for each topic) and, according to the score
obtained, the entities will be classified into four different categories: beginner (less than
100 points), advanced (less than 300 points), experienced (less than 600 points), and ex-
emplar (more than 600 points) [9].
The application of the CGBS to agroecological farms allows measuring the current
social and environmental impact while proposing improvement measures in those as-
pects that are less developed. On the one hand, the environmental perspective is guar-
anteed through five indicators: (1) environmental sustainability of the supply chain, (2)
sustainable investments and use of financial resources, (3) promotion of environmental
performance among employees, (4) environmental impact of the management of waste of
the entities’ products, and (5) services and reduction of the environmental impact.
On the other hand, the social perspective focuses on diverse aspects with different
indicators. First, this perspective focuses on human dignity at the workplace and gender
equality. In this sense, we find indicators such as a people-oriented organizational cul-
ture, promotion of health and safety at work, diversity and equal opportunities, the
characteristics of employment contracts and the positive impact of products and services.
Second, the social perspective is based on the dignity in the supply chain value, which is
measured through indicators like the characteristics of the working conditions and their
social impact in the supply chain.
Transparency and co-determination are one of the four values included in the ECG
model. Therefore, this must be measured and improved when analyzing the functioning
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 5 of 24
of agroecological farms. The basis of these values is to provide clear and complete in-
formation to the stakeholders of the organization (transparency) while encouraging their
participation in the decision-making process and activities (democratic participation).
The CGM also includes indicators related to these aspects. Such indicators are transpar-
ency and co-responsibility, the participation of customers and suppliers, co-ownership
between owners and employees, transparency and internal democratic participation
(participation of employees in the decision-making process), customer participation and
democratic participation of the social environment.
Finally, the financial structure of agroecological farms must have an ethical and
sustainable orientation. To this end, organizations must collaborate with sustainable fi-
nancial institutions (ethical banks, cooperative banks and other ethical and solidarity fi-
nancial instruments) and they must carry out socially responsible investments [9].
3. Methodology
The methodology of the present work consists of three different steps. In the first
place, we conducted a bibliometric analysis on agroecology to identify the most relevant
sustainability indicators. In the second place, we applied the Delphi method to screen
the indicators identified in the previous section to measure the social and environmental
value of agroecological farms. After this, in the third place, by taking into account the
indicators identified and evaluated through the two previous aspects, we set up peer
groups of producers to carry out their CGBS jointly. Thus, the ECG model is applied to
several companies in the sector, while cooperation between them is encouraged. The
methodology used in each phase of the process is described in more detail below.
3.1. Bibliometric Analysis
Through a bibliometric analysis consisting of a double study, we selected the indi-
cators to be employed. We analyzed the sustainability indicators using two methods.
One method was to identify the indicators in overview reports such as the Global Re-
porting Initiative (GRI), the Global Compact Report, the B Corporation, and the CGM.
A second method was to conduct a search for bibliographic sources on sustainabil-
ity indicators applied to agroecology. To this end, we developed a scientific publication
database, including this type of indicators for the period 2010 to 2017. Moreover, the lit-
erature review has been carried out following five methodological steps [22–25]: (1)
Identification of keywords and creation of search strings based on the keywords identi-
fied previously; (2) selection of relevant research studies through a database; (3) analysis
of the identified documents according to an inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) data ex-
traction through the database used (in Excel); and (5) data synthesis and final reporting.
It should be noted that the selected search string included the following terms: “index,”
“agriculture,” “agroindustry,” “green,” “sustainable,” “indicators,” “metrics,” “tools,”
“assessment,” “ecological”; together with the different combinations between them.
The databases selected for the research are the Web of Science and Scopus, which
have been supplemented by Google Scholar. The selection of the exclusion and inclusion
criteria is based on the systematic review process collected in other papers. Such criteria
have been used to undergo more effective research through the reduction of a large
amount of literature available. Table 1 depicts the list of the inclusion and exclusion cri-
teria employed. The selected academic articles correspond to those published in English
between 2010 and 2017 on sustainability in agroecological farms.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Criteria Reasons for Inclusion/Exclusion
Inclusion criteria
Articles published during the period 2010–2017.
Articles published in English.
Up-to-date bibliography.
Most articles on the subject are written in English.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 6 of 24
Academic articles.
Articles focused on Sustainability Indicators in agroeco-
logical farms.
The articles provide rigorous arguments and they
are critically evaluated.
Narrow the search to this particular topic.
Exclusion criteria
Papers and communications, working papers, technical
reports
,
and practical manuals.
Peer-reviewed work ensuring the quality and con-
sistency of analysis
Source: Authors’ own creation.
3.2. Delphi Analysis
Through the Delphi Analysis, we determined the most appropriate sustainability
indicators to measure the social and environmental impacts of agroecological farms.
Such indicators are the ones that will be applied to the peer groups later.
The Delphi method is useful to obtain opinions on a given topic for which no prior
information is available [26,27]. Therefore, this method is appropriate for our study be-
cause of the lack of empirical studies and the shortage of academic publications on sus-
tainability indicators in agroecological farms [1].
This method is systematic and interactive (several rounds). It is aimed at collecting
the opinions of a group of experts individually and anonymously. Furthermore, the
method is aimed at collecting a reliable group opinion through consensus [28]. The pro-
cess of the method can be divided into the following sections: (1) experts selection; (2)
developing a questionnaire from a pre-test; (3) submission of the questionnaire and col-
lection of answers, thus considering that experts will answer more than once (at least
twice) to reach the greatest possible consensus; (4) statistical analysis that consists of the
aggregation of individual responses to obtain a measure of central tendency (the medi-
an); and (5) consensus. The second round of the questionnaire must include the indi-
vidual response initially given by the expert. Moreover, it must incorporate the median
and inter-quartile range of the group for each estimate so that the expert can review his
or her initial responses. The process of sending questionnaires (rounds) finishes when it
is perceived that the estimates are stable; that is when the median barely oscillates, and
the inter-quartile range stops narrowing. The final round will consist of the final re-
sponse of the group. According to their responses, the final report will be developed
[27,29–31].
The panel of experts consists of two different categories of professionals: agricul-
tural producers and agricultural technicians. We chose the experts considering the
opinion of the two entities that participated in the study. We have selected those farmers
with a high level of experience in agroecology. On the other hand, we have chosen the
agricultural technicians who have participated in different projects of implementation in
agroecology. We have created a balanced sample within these two groups. To this end,
we sent the questionnaire to 29 specialists: 15 producers and 14 technicians. On the one
hand, 41.4% of them belong to the Valencian Association for the Promotion of the
Economy for the Common Good (AVEBC)—an organization formed by consultants
(technicians) and entrepreneurs (producers) who implement the ECG model. On the
other hand, 48.3% of the sample belongs to The Union—a Valencian organization oper-
ating in the agricultural sector that groups producers, thus creating a team of technical
specialists. Moreover, the remaining 10% of the sample belongs to the Committee of
Ecological Agriculture of the Valencian Community (CAECV)—committee of technical
experts in agroecology that offers certification in organic farming. Table 2 shows the
composition of the group and the percentages of responses obtained.
Table 2. Composition and experts’ responses.
Producers Technicians Total Experts
Composition: Num. % Num. % Num. %
AVEBC 10 66.67 2 14.29 12 4138
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 7 of 24
The Union 5 33.33 9 64.28 14 4828
CAECV 0 0 3 21.43 3 10.34
Total 15 5.72 14 48.28 29 100
Producers Technicians Total Experts
Responses: Num. % Num. % Num. %
AVEBC 7 70 2 22.22 9 47.37
The Union 3 30 6 66.67 9 47.37
CAECV 0 0 1 11.11 1 5.26
Total 10 52.63 9 47.37 19 100
Source: Authors’ own creation.
Initially, 19 professionals participated in the first round and continued to do so in
the second and last round as well. This fact represents a statistically significant num-
ber—thus minimizing the error of the study—since greater participation would not rep-
resent a significant reduction of the error. The total response rate of experts in the first
round was 65.52%. It consisted of 67% of producers and 64% of technicians.
At first, we selected a small group of the experts’ panel to design the questionnaire.
We directed to this group a first draft of the test (pre-test), which was later on trans-
formed into the final questionnaire. This questionnaire involves different topics that are
rated employing a Likert scale ranging from 1 (lowest value) to 5 (highest value). More-
over, experts had the possibility of adding new variables for each topic. Once the ques-
tionnaire was developed, it was sent together with a cover letter, to the selected experts
by e-mail.
This questionnaire includes two specific questions related to the participants, which
will be used to weight and segment the results of the study (control variables): the year
of birth of the experts and their knowledge of the three areas related to the
study—agricultural sector, sustainability, and ECG. The questionnaire has been struc-
tured into two different parts. First, it consists of six questions on the importance that
experts attribute to the following tools: the significance of social value, the need for a
tool that measures social and environmental value, and the need for a measurement tool
and differentiated certification to improve the competitiveness and relevance of the ECG
and the CGBS. Second, the questionnaire includes the experts’ assessment of the differ-
ent sustainability indicators employing a Likert scale from 1 to 5. Moreover, it should be
noted that the different issues have been grouped according to the CGM structure. The
structure of the questionnaire is shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Structure of the questionnaire.
1. Control variables
- Year of birth
- Knowledge in the agricultural sector
- Knowledge in sustainability
- Knowledge in Economy for the Common Good
2. Overall rating
- Importance of social value in agroecological farms
- Need for a tool for measuring social/environmental value
- Need for a differentiated certification
- Have an adapted tool for measuring social/environmental value to improve the
competitive capacity of the company
- Have a differentiated certification to improve the competitive capacity of the company
- Relevance of the EBC and BBC in measuring social/environmental value
3. Sustainability indica-
tors
- Human dignity in the supply chain
- Justice and solidarity in the supply chain
- Environmental sustainability in the supply chain
- Transparency and participation in the supply chain
- Ethical attitude in the management of financial resources
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 8 of 24
- Solidarity attitude in the management of financial resources
- Sustainable financial investments in the use of financial resources
- Democratic ownership and participation
- Human dignity in the workplace
- Formality of employment contracts
- Promotion of workers’ environmental responsibility
- Transparency and internal democratic participation
- Ethical attitude towards clients
- Cooperation and solidarity with other companies
- Environmental impact of products and services
- Customer engagement and product transparency
- Positive impact of products/services on the social environment
- Contribution to the community
- Reduction of the environmental impact on the social environment
- Transparency and democratic participation in the social environment
Source: Authors’ own creation.
Once we had collected the responses for the first round, we designed a second
questionnaire to conduct the second and final rounds. This second questionnaire in-
cludes the statistical response of the group resulting from the first round and the indi-
vidual responses of the experts. In this way, this questionnaire can assess the possibility
of modifying those individual responses that have remained outside the interquartile
range. Therefore, experts can confirm their initial responses (justifying them), or they
can modify them to get closer to the group response. This second questionnaire was sent
to the 19 experts who participated in the first round, thus obtaining a 100% response.
3.3. Peer Groups
Once we obtain the sustainability indicators proposed by the experts, we conduct
the last phase of the study, which consists of applying the CGBS to a group of agroeco-
logical farms through peer group analysis.
Peer group analysis consists of a peer-to-peer evaluation. Organizations conduct
their CGBS jointly so that they can help each other in the interpretation and scoring of
the different aspects of the CGM. Although this type of evaluation cannot be considered
as an audit—since an external agent does not verify the scores, companies evaluate each
other, thus correcting possible deviations in the interpretation and scoring of each CGM
aspect. In this way, the participating companies can obtain the Peer Certification issued
by the Spanish Federal Association of the ECG, provided that a consultant accredited by
the Association has participated in the process as a guide. It is worth noting that the
model used in the empirical study—the Common Good Matrix and The Common Good
Balance Sheet—is a model already designed that we have adapted to the sector of
agroecology from the Delphi analysis. It is a model that weights the relationships be-
tween the four values of the common good and the five stakeholders, following the in-
dicators and weights established in the application manual
(https://www.ecogood.org/apply-ecg/companies/#evaluation-method).
To conduct the analysis, we selected a group of organic farming producers from the
Valencian Community. This selection has been carried out with a specific selection crite-
rion: the groups must consist of producers from different agricultural specialties. Such
specialties are vines, citrus fruits, vegetables, rice, olive, and livestock. After this, three
different peer groups were created according to provinces: Alicante, Castellon, and Va-
lencia. Finally, the total number of groups of producers involved in the analysis was 15:
four in Alicante, four in Castellon, and seven in Valencia. Each group was assigned an
ECG-accredited consultant, who was responsible for guiding the entire process. This
process took place between April 2019 and October 2019, and it consisted of different
working sessions (minimum of seven sessions) of two hours.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 9 of 24
It is worth noting that the selection of agricultural producers who have participated
in peer groups has been random. Such selection is based mainly on geographical prox-
imity and on the relationship maintained with the agricultural associations participating
in the study. This factor could skew the study results, although we want to stress that
the sample finally selected has been very diverse.
At the end of each session, the consultants ask the producers to develop a Report
for the Common Good. Besides, the consultants must carry out a peer report with the
description of the activities carried out during the sessions. After this, they must send
this peer report, the producers’ report, and the CG calculator to the Spanish Federal As-
sociation of the ECG. Finally, this association will decide if the group deserves the Peer
Certification. It should be noted that seven of the 15 participants obtained the Certifica-
tion.
4. Results
4.1. Bibliometric Analysis
On the one hand, the initial research of documents throughout the search strings
employed by the Web of Science resulted in 564 documents. We discarded those docu-
ments not included in the following research domains: Environmental Science, Agron-
omy, Green Sustainable Science Technology, Ecology, and Environmental Studies. From
this first selection, we discarded those publications that were not related to the subject
under study. As a consequence of this, 115 documents remained. After that, the authors
and titles of these 115 publications were downloaded and imported into an Excel. Once
downloaded, each one of the texts was analyzed consciously to exclude those documents
that were not explicitly related to the topic studied. Finally, we found a total of seven
publications. We have dismissed the majority of the publications because they had a
different focus than economics and organizational. Many of these publications had a fo-
cus on engineering, biology, chemistry, etc.
On the other hand, the Scopus database search suggested 865 initial documents. In
this case, the search criteria were applied from the beginning, so that those publications
not directly related to Sustainability Indicators in agroecological farms were discarded.
This initial search resulted in 47 papers for Agricultural & Biological Sciences and Envi-
ronmental Sciences. These 47 documents were downloaded and consciously analyzed,
thus leading to four final publications.
Furthermore, the Google Scholar search resulted in 14,900 publications. Again, the
search criteria were applied from the first moment, thus discarding the articles not di-
rectly related to Sustainability Indicators in agroecological farms. This research resulted
in four documents. Once the documents were checked meticulously, we decided to in-
clude the four papers in the analysis, since they were significantly related to the topic
under study.
Finally, Table 4 shows the 15 documents that have been analyzed in depth.
Table 4. Selected documents.
Databases Items Search in Databases Preliminary Documents for Full Review Articles Included
Web of Science 564 115 7
Scopus 865 47 4
Google Scholar 14,900 4 4
Total 16,329 166 15
Source: Authors’ own creation.
Throughout the previous analysis, we can observe that a small number of publica-
tions have been obtained. This fact proves the existence of an academic gap in this field
of study. Table 5 shows the articles that have been analyzed and the journal in which
they are published: six publications are included in five journals specialized in environ-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 10 of 24
mental sciences (46.7% of the total amount of articles) [17,18,32–35]; three articles are
published in two journals specialized in agronomy (20% of the total) [36–38]; and the
rest of the publications (33.3% of the total) are distributed in six journals specialized in
different areas of study [39–44].
Table 5. Articles on agroecology.
Category Journal Number of
Articles
Sum of
Articles
Sum of
Journals
Environmental
Sciences
The Environmentalist 1
6 5
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1
Sustainability 1
Agricultural Sciences 1
Ecological economics 2
Agronomy Ecological indicators 1 3 2
Agronomy for sustainable development 2
Other Journals
Italian Journal of Agronomy 1
6 6
Ecology and Society 1
Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 1
Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae
Brunensis 1
International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development 1
Ingeniería y Desarrollo 1
Total 15 15 13
Source: Authors’ own creation.
When analyzing the number of publications by year, we can observe that produc-
tivity is constant throughout the whole period studied (between one and three articles
published per year). It should be noted that: (1) In 2012, we can find 26.7% of the total
amount of publications; (2) the year 2010 concentrates the largest production of articles
in the Web of Science (3 of 15); (3) the year 2012 concentrates the largest production of
articles in Scopus (4 of 15); and (4) the years 2015 and 2017 are unproductive concerning
this type of publications.
Therefore, to conduct the questionnaire to develop the Delphi Analysis, we have
incorporated the final list of sustainability indicators concerning agroecological farms
included in the previous publications. This indicators’ list can be found in the final ap-
pendix of the paper.
4.2. Delphi Analysis
First, 19 experts who answered all the questions participated in the first round of
the Delphi Analysis. Nevertheless, in the second round, some of the participants did not
answer all the questions because they did not consider them relevant. To analyze the
data resulting from the questionnaires, we have considered the following statistical cri-
teria:
1. We contemplate as the median (M) the selected group answer for each one of the
questions.
2. We determine the sample dispersion degree from the interquartile range (k), which
is measured as the difference between the third and the first quartile; so that the
higher the range, the greater the dispersion.
3. In the first round, the degree of dispersion corresponds to the degree of consensus
in the responses. Unanimity takes place when k = 0. Besides, when the relative
frequency of response is greater than or equal to 80% (≥80%) or when k is less than
or equal to 1 (k ≤ 1), we consider it as consensus.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 11 of 24
4. In the second round, the degree of dispersion or consensus is replaced by the
stability criterion (the probability that the group’s response may change in the short
term). Such criterion is measured with the variation of the relative interquartile
range (r), which is defined as the difference between the relative interquartile
ranges of two successive rounds (Vr = rj − ri). We consider a satisfactory level of
stability in the group response when this value is between −0.25 and 0.25.
5. We have also used as complementary tools the arithmetic mean (m), the mode (Md),
and the standard deviation (Dt).
6. Finally, the analysis of the results includes the possibility of weighting them and
segmenting them according to the control variables [45].
Table 6 shows the results corresponding to the three control variables. We can ob-
serve that the majority of the experts have remarkable knowledge regarding two of the
three topics (agricultural sector and sustainability). Besides, they have sufficient
knowledge concerning the ECG model; aspect in which we find no consensus (high dis-
persion).
In Table 6, we can also observe the differences according to the diverse participants’
profiles. In the first place, concerning gender, we can see that 74% of the experts are
men, while 26% of them are women. It should be noted that the percentage of women
who are producers (30%) and technicians (22%) is higher than men. In the second place,
concerning the age, we can observe that the median age of the experts is 48 years. More
than two-thirds of the participants (78%) are older than 40 years. Besides, 42% of them
are older than 50 years. We can observe that the median age of producers is slightly
higher than the technicians’ age.
Table 6. Field of expertise, gender, and age of experts.
Producers Technicians Total Experts
Field of Expertise: Median Num. Median Num. Median Num.
Agricultural sector 4 9 4 9 4 18
Sustainability 4 9 4 9 4 18
ECG 3 9 3 9 3 18
Producers Technicians Total Experts
Gender: Num. % Num. % Num. %
Male 7 70 7 77.78 14 73.68
Female 3 30 2 22.22 5 26.32
Total 10 52.63 9 47.37 19 100
Producers Technicians Total Experts
Age: Num. % Num. % Num. %
1960–1970 5 50 3 33.33 8 42.11
1971–1980 4 40 3 33.33 7 36.84
1981–1990 1 10 3 33.33 4 21.05
Total 10 52.63 9 47.37 19 100
Source: Authors’ own creation.
Table 7 shows the results of the overall assessment made by the participants. First of
all, experts (producers and technicians) recognize the importance of social value and the
need for an adapted social measurement tool for agroecological farms (maximum value
and consensus). Second, both types of experts recognize the need for having a differen-
tiated certification by giving this aspect a high value (4 out of 5). Third, both types of
experts also agreed that there is a need for having an adapted tool and differentiated
certification to improve their competitive capacity. Finally, the importance of owning a
tool to apply the ECG model and the CGBS also gets a high value (4 out of 5), although
there is no consensus in the case of producers.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 12 of 24
Table 7. General assessment of agroecological farms.
Producers Technicians Total Experts
Topics: M K M K M K
Importance of social value 5 1 5 1 5 1
Need for social/environmental adapted measurement tools 5 0.75 4 1 5 1
Need for differentiated certification 4 0 4 1 4 0.5
Tailor-made measurement tools to improve competitiveness 4 1 4 1 4 1
Differentiated certification to improve competitiveness 4 1 4 1 4 1
ECG and CGBS relevance in social/environmental measurement 4 1.75 4 1 4 1.5
Source: Authors’ own creation.
Lastly, we analyzed the sustainability indicators according to the structure of the
CGM. To this end, we selected those sustainability indicators that were positively as-
sessed by the experts, thus discarding the ones whose value was lower than 4. Appen-
dixes A–E collects the set of indicators analyzed and selected.
4.3. Peer Groups Analysis
In Table 8, we can see the results corresponding to the median of the valuations ob-
tained from all the agricultural farmers participating in the peer groups. The total median
obtained was 54%, which indicates that although there is room for improvement, the
participants involved in the analysis show social and environmental sensitivity.
On the one hand, when analyzing the median by groups of interests, we find that
suppliers represent the lowest score (30%), which indicates that agroecological farms
have significant deficiencies concerning their supply chains. Such deficiencies can be seen
in the values of human dignity (15%); solidarity and social justice (20%); and transpar-
ency and co-determination (20%). Nevertheless, the highest score was obtained in the
case of owners and financial services providers (55%), especially in terms of solidarity
and social justice (90%). Besides, the rest of the stakeholders—social environment, cus-
tomers, and other organizations and employees—obtained a value of 50%, 49%, and 41%,
respectively.
Table 8. Results of the CGBS analysis of the participating companies (the median).
% Median CGM Score Human
Dignity
Solidarity and
Social Justice
Environmental
Sustainability
Transparency and
Co-Determination
Median by
Interest Groups
Suppliers 15 20 60 20 30
Owners and Financial
Services Providers 50 90 10 10 55
Employees 60 60 40 25 41
Customers and other
companies 60 30 70 60 49
Social Environment 60 30 50 20 50
Median by values 60 30 50 20 54
Source: Authors’ own creation.
On the other hand, when analyzing the median by values of the CGBS model, we
can see that the highest score corresponds to the human dignity value (60%). However,
the lowest score corresponds to the transparency and democratic participation value
(20%), especially in those aspects concerning owners and financial providers (10%). Fi-
nally, the values of ecological sustainability and solidarity and social justice obtained
scores of 50% and 30%, respectively.
Finally, when we analyze the average corresponding to each of the interest groups, it
is observed that the highest values correspond to the owners and financing entities (55%)
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 13 of 24
and the social environment (50%). In contrast, the lowest value corresponds to suppliers
(30%).
5. Conclusions
This study was intended to design a tool—based on the ECG principles—to measure
the social and environmental value that agroecological farms can create.
In the first place, throughout the study, we have obtained more precise and focused
indicators for the agroecological sector. At the same time, we have also developed a more
straightforward and consistent tool. However, a more in-depth analysis would be needed
to adjust some of the indicators better, thus considering the seasonality characterizing
this sector. Furthermore, the CGBS analysis could also be simplified by using fewer tools,
doing more specific questions and by facilitating and simplifying the drafting of the
CGBS report.
In the second place, throughout the study, a significant number of organizations in
the sector have been able to prepare their CGBS to be able to implement improvement
measures concerning their sustainable practices. The implementation of the CGBS allows
the quantification of the social and environmental value created by an agricultural farm.
Moreover, it also helps to establish an improvement plan, which allows the introduction
of new measures aimed at increasing those values in the future. Therefore, with the
CGBS, we are introducing a measurement tool of strategic nature.
From the peer groups analysis, we can discern that these types of agricultural farms
have a significant social and environmental deficiency concerning their relationships
with suppliers, as well as concerning the transparency and co-participation value.
Therefore, improvement measures should be introduced regarding the relationships in
the supply chain and the transparency and co-determination policies.
In the third place, several companies in the sector have been successfully certified
for the first time in this field while developing their CGBS. Seven of the fifteen partici-
pating companies have obtained the Peer Certification accredited by the Spanish Federal
Association of the ECG. This certificate could be the basis for creating an official certifi-
cation or hallmark for agroecological organizations; a Common Good Label for this type
of businesses. Besides, this certificate is acquiring greater recognition in the market, alt-
hough it does not yet have official or public recognition. Employing this Label, the Public
Administration could apply incentives to encourage the application of social and envi-
ronmental criteria in the agricultural sector. Moreover, obtaining such certification could
give access to financial support, tax advantages and preference in public procurement. It
should be noted that nowadays, European agricultural farmers are demanding a certifi-
cation that includes ethical aspects in the management of farms (human dignity, social
justice, cooperation, etc.,), beyond the current ecological certification of the products.
These three conclusions derived from the empirical analysis connect with the theo-
retical framework of the work. The theoretical framework highlighted the importance of
applying an integrated approach to sustainability to improve the competitiveness of
agroecological farms. Companies that derive social and environmental value can signif-
icantly increase their economic value. An agricultural farm dedicated exclusively to cre-
ating environmental value is limiting its ability to generate economic value.
Finally, we can conclude that the results obtained from this study can be a starting
point for proposing different types of ethical and environmental certifications. Such cer-
tifications could help the agricultural sector to move toward a management model based
on the sustainable development of the territory, placing people and the environment at
the center of the plan. Throughout the study, we have defined a set of social and envi-
ronmental indicators adapted to the specific needs and characteristics of agroecological
farms, which can be used to measure their impacts and the creation of social, environ-
mental, and economic value. Furthermore, we have designed a set of practical applica-
tion tools that can help to implement a more efficient management model for agroeco-
logical farms. The Economy for the Common Good model, with its tools, is especially
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 14 of 24
useful to implement this management model. Besides, this certification can be used as an
instrument of differentiation of agroecological farms in the same territory or different
states. Hence, such certification would indicate which businesses in the sector operate
with ecological and social quality products, thus facilitating the entrance in new growing
markets.
Therefore, we have obtained a comprehensive corporate sustainability application
tool which can be used to improve the competitive capacity of agroecological farms. Such
farms can develop a comprehensive management tool that helps to consolidate them in a
growing market, such as the agroecological one. However, this study scope is limited
because it has been tested in a single European territory—the Valencian Communi-
ty—and considering a limited number of companies. In this sense, it could be of interest
to apply the tool obtained to new companies, thus expanding the field of study. This re-
search could be applied to other European Union territories to identify possible contin-
gency factors, mainly the geographical factor
Author Contributions: This article is a joint work of the three authors. V.C., J.R.S., and C.T. con-
tributed to the research framework, literature review, empirical analysis, and conclusions. All au-
thors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Generalitat Valenciana. Ministry of Agriculture, Environment, Climate Change and Ru-
ral Development. Cooperation Aid under the Valencian Community’s Rural Development Pro-
gramme 2014–2020.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Sustainability indicators related to the supply chain:
A1. Human dignity in the supply chain: M K
A1.1. Working conditions and environmental impact in the supply chain:
- List of products/services acquired for suppliers 4 1.5
- Percentage of each product/service refers to total purchase expense 3 1
- Percentage of products/services produced under fair condition 4 0.5
- Average period of payment to suppliers 4 0.5
A1.2. Violation of human dignity in the supplier chain:
- Percentage of products/services purchased with social risks and without risks 4 1
A2. Justice and solidarity in the supply chain: M K
A2.1. Ethical attitude with direct suppliers:
- Average duration of business relationships with suppliers 4 1
- Estimated percentage of the suppliers’ income ratio with respect to the com-
pany 3 1
A2.2. Promotion of justice and solidarity in the supply chain:
- Percentage of products and raw materials with the seal of solidarity and justice 4 1
- Percentage of suppliers selected with criteria of justice and solidarity 4 0
- Percentage of local suppliers 4 1
A2.3. Negative aspect: abuse of market power against suppliers:
- Conditions of abuse (such as payments and delivery) 4 2.5
- Complaints and negative claims by suppliers 4 2
A3. Environmental sustainability in the supply chain: M K
A3.1. Environmental impact in the supply chain:
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 15 of 24
- Percentage of products/services that are more sustainable alternatives (Best in
Class)
4 1
- Percentage of suppliers that contribute to reducing environmental impacts 5 1
- Irrigation water recycling percentage 5 1
- Use of organic, green, and micronutrient fertilizers 4 1
- Use of crop residues as green residues 5 1
- Maximization of natural biological processes 5 1
- Minimization of non-renewable resources 4 1
- Renewal of the seed cycle 4 1.5
- Purchase criteria: fair trade, ecological, social consumption 4 1
A3.2. Negative aspect: disproportionate impact:
- Percentage of products/services with disproportionate negative impacts 3 2
A4. Transparency and co-decision in the supply chain: M K
A4.1. Transparency and democratic participation of suppliers:
- Percentage of information made available to suppliers 4 0.5
- Participation of suppliers in business decisions that affect them 3 1
- Degree of supplier satisfaction with transparency and company participation 4 1
- Resolution of conflicts over the use of water 4 1
A4.2. Promotion of transparency and participation in the supply chain:
- Percentage of products/services acquired with transparency and participation
certificates
4 1
- Percentage of suppliers selected with criteria of transparency and participation 4 0
Appendix B
Sustainability indicators related to financial owners and funders:
B1. Ethical attitude in the management of financial resources: M K
B1.1. Financial independence: self-financing:
- Percentage of company equity 4 1
- Share of equity in the sector 3 1
- Application of company profits (profit sharing) 4 1
B1.2. External financing oriented to the common good:
- Percentage of the company’s foreign capital (external capital) 3 0
- Composition of external financing 3 1
- Percentage of external financing from sustainable banking 4 1
B1.3. Ethical attitude of the company’s financial providers:
- Percentage of the company’s main funders 4 1
- Ethical and sustainable behavior of the company’s funders 4 1
B2. Solidarity attitude in the management of financial resources: M K
B2.1. Management of financial resources in solidarity and aimed at the common
good:
- Structure of the company’s expenses 4 1
- Structure of the company’s income 4 1
- Contribution to the company’s reserves 4 1
- Company dividend policy (profit sharing) 4 1
B2.2. Negative aspect: unfair distribution of financial resources:
- Reduction of jobs despite obtaining benefits 3 2
- Closing parts of the business despite making a profit 3 1
- Distribution of benefits to external persons 3 1.5
- Inequality in income distribution 3 2
B3. Sustainable financial investments and use of financial resources: M K
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 16 of 24
B3.1. Environmental nature of investments:
- Investment plan and asset replacement with environmental criteria 4 0
- Investment decision criteria with environmental impacts 4 0
- Rehabilitation and/or substitutions considering environmental aspects 4 0.5
B3.2. Financial investments oriented to the common good:
- Percentage of projects with social and environmental impact financed 4 1
- Percentage of socially responsible investment funds (social/environmental
projects)
4 1
B3.3. Negative aspect: dependence on resources harmful to the environment:
- Use of financial resources that arm the environment 2 3
B4. Property and participation in the use of financial resources: M K
B4.1. Distribution of property oriented to the common good:
- Distribution of own funds among the different stakeholders 3 0.5
- Percentage of participation of the owners in the company 4 1
- Ability to access property and types of participation in the company 4 1
- Transparency in company decisions 5 1
- Access to resources 4 1
- Land a ccess and control 4 0.5
B4.2. Hostile takeover bid:
- Carrying out capital acquisition operations of other companies 3 1
Appendix C
Sustainability indicators related to people employed:
C1. Human dignity in the workplace: M K
C1.1. People-oriented organizational culture:
- Average length of service in the company 4 1
- Number of job applications 3 1
- Number and periodicity of work environment surveys 4 1
- Offer and hours of training for employees 4 1.5
- Internal learning 5 1
- Skills 4 2
- Knowledge and planning capacity of producers 5 1
- Self-organizing ability 4 1
- Functional and responsive diversity 4 1
C1.2. Promotion of health and safety at work:
- Sick leave rate 4 2
- Number and severity of work accidents 4 2
- Training given in this matter to employed persons 4 1
- Level of stress, noise and odors 4 2
- Human health risk 4 2
C1.3. Diversity and equal opportunities:
- Percentage of people employed with diversity criteria 4 1
- Training given on diversity to employees 4 1
- Social diversity of the environment 4 0.5
- Amount of paternity and maternity leave per months 4 2
- Rotations and new hires by diversity criteria 4 1
- Gender balance of work 4 1
- Diversity of social organization 4 0.5
- Level of studies 3 1
- Producer age 3 1
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 17 of 24
- University graduates in science and technology 4 1
- Number of female workers 4 1
- Number of women in senior management 4 1.5
- Number of women on boards of directors 5 0.5
- Prevention in workplace harassment 4 1
- Use of non-discriminatory language 4 1
C1.4. Negative aspect: unworthy working conditions:
- Official statement organizing committee on unworthy work 4 2
- Legal proceedings on violation of labor law 4 1.5
- Complaints and claims received about unworthy jobs 4 2
C2. Formality of employment contracts: M K
C2.1. Remuneration:
- Highest and lowest remuneration in the company 4 1
- Average remuneration 4 1
- Worthy remuneration according to location 5 1
- Salary scale 4 1
- Part of salary in social currency 3 1.5
- Salary differences by gender 4 4
C2.2. Working hours:
- Number of weekly hours of work 4 2
- Number of overtime hours performed 4 2
- Flexibility in working hours 5 1
C2.3. Work conditions and conciliation:
- Percentage of types of employment contracts used 4 2
- Percentage of temporary contracts and permanent contracts 4 1.5
- Percentage of full-time vs. part-time contracts 4 1
- Internship training contracts 4 1
- Number of people employed with contracts adapted to their needs 4 1
- Conciliation measures 5 0
- Total employment vs. seasonal employment 4 0
- Work-life balance 4 1
- Work times, workload (including health), and manpower 4 0
- Working conditions 4 1
- Degree of absenteeism 3 1.5
- Percentage of employees who voluntarily leave the company 3 2
- Jobs creation 4 1
C2.4. Negative aspect: unfair employment contracts:
- People employed without individual conditions 3 2
- People employed with temporary contracts 2 1
- People employed with unworthy wages 4 3.5
- Irregular employment 3 3.5
- Moonlighting 2 1
C3. Promotion of the environmental responsibility of workers: M K
C3.1. Food during the working day:
- Organic food percentage 4 2
- Existence of dining room service 4 2
- Buy from local suppliers and organic stores 4 1
C3.2. Sustainable mobility to the workplace:
- Percentage of journeys with own vehicle or public transport 4 1
- Percentage of journeys by car, bicycle or on foot 3 1
C3.3. Sustainable organizational culture and awareness with the environment:
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 18 of 24
- Percentage of employees who know the company’s environmental policy 4 1
- Training for employees on environmental issues 4 1
- Use of renewable energy and energy saving 5 0.5
- Reduction of CO2 emissions 5 0.5
- Calculation of the personal ecological footprint 4 2
- Producer’s perception of the importance of the environment 5 0.5
- Use of natural resources 5 1
- Generation of electricity from renewables 4 1
- High degree of self-regulation and ecological awareness 4 1
- Number of environmental education campaigns 4 1
C3.4. Negative aspect: promotion and tolerance in the face of an irresponsible
environmental attitude:
- Company vehicles with high emission factor 3 2
- Waste treatment is neglected 3 3.5
- Use of unsustainable products 2 2
C4. Internal transparency and internal democratic participation: M K
C4.1. Internal transparency:
- Degree of transparency of critical company information 4 1
- Degree of accessibility to critical company information 4 1
- Internal communication channels (notice board, magazine, bulletin, ...) 4 0.5
- Transparency in company wages 4 1
C4.2. Legitimacy of the staff management:
- Percentage of managers legitimized by workers through consulta-
tion/dialogue/participation
4 2
- Independence of the members of the board of directors 4 1.5
- Remuneration of the members of the board of directors 4 1
- Gender diversity in company management 4 1
- Type of organizational structure (hierarchy) 4 1.5
- Composition of the managements board 4 1.5
- Characteristics of the board of directors (number of meetings, participation) 4 1.5
C4.3. Participation of workers in decision-making:
- Percent. of decisions made by consultation/dialogue contribu-
tion/participation
4 1.5
- Types of decisions in which workers participate 4 1
- Co-ownership of working people 3 1
- Distribution of company profits among working people 4 0
C4.4. Negative aspect: impediment of the works council:
- Non-existence of a works council 3 0.5
- Non-existence of union representation 3 1.5
Appendix D
Sustainability indicators related to clients and other organizations:
D1. Ethical attitude towards clients: M K
D1.1. Transparent communication with customers:
- Percentage of budget allocated to marketing, sales, and advertising 4 1
- Payment system for workers for sales (fixed-variable) 4 1
- Existence of sales targets 3 1
- Meetings/customer reviews 4 1
- Customer service and handling of claims 4 1
- Real information and labeling 5 0
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 19 of 24
D1.2. Accessibility:
- Percentage of turnover that comes from vulnerable groups 4 1
- Products/services tailored to customers 4 1
- Ethical selling application 4 1
- Participation of clients in decisions that affect them 4 1
- Valuation and ethics system 4 1
D1.3. Negative aspect: misleading advertising and unethical business actions:
- Unethical sales 4 3
- Money laundering 4 4
D2. Cooperation and solidarity with other companies: M K
D2.1. Cooperation with other organizations:
- Percentage of time and resources dedicated to collaborative product/service
development.
4 1
- Cooperation with other companies in the same sector, market segment, and
place
4 0
- Cooperation with other companies in the same sector but in a different place 4 0
- Long-term cooperation with civil society 4 1
- Cooperation to improve the legal regulations of the sector 4 1
- Work on organizational initiatives to improve environmental/social standards
in the sector
5 1
- Globally autonomous and locally interdependent 4 1
- Care for local traditions and cultures 4 1
- Youth Interest in Innovative Sustainable Agriculture Systems 5 1
- Attempt to protect and enhance biodiversity and natural resources by related
organizations and farmers
5 1
- Agro-ecotourism 4 1
- Types of soil shared by agriculture 4 0.5
D2.2. Solidarity with other organizations:
- Number of employees and short-term hours dedicated to other organizations 3 0.5
- Number of orders assigned to other organizations 3 0
- Financial resources assigned to other organizations 3 1
- Well-being of producers and their families 5 1
D2.3. Negative aspect: abuse of market power against other organizations:
- Issue communications that harm other organizations 4 2.5
- Use the dumping strategy 2 3
- Make secret agreements with other companies to fix prices 3 3.5
- Seeks to capture market share or clients of other companies to maximize eco-
nomic benefits
3 1.5
- Holds patents to block the development of other companies 2 1.5
D3. Environmental impact on the use of waste management of prod-
ucts/services:
M K
D3.1. Environmental cost-benefit ratio of products/services (efficiency and con-
sistency):
- Environmental impact of the products/services of the company 4 2
- Control of polluting emissions 4 1
D3.2. Moderate use of products and services (sufficiency):
- What products/services of the company aim at moderate consumption 4 0
- Measurement of water consumption in m3 or in liters 4 0.5
- Measurement of energy consumption 4 1
- Control of energy consumption (renewable) 4 1
- Measurement of polluting emissions (tons CO2) 5 1
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 20 of 24
- Control of polluting emissions 5 1
- Emission compensation program (CO2) 4 1
- Measurement of waste generated, hazardous and not (tons) 4 1
- Measurement of managed waste/total generated waste 4 1
- Measurement of reused waste 5 1
- Reduction of containers and packaging 5 0.5
- Prevention in waste generation 5 0.5
- Measurement of waste eliminated (tons) 4 1
- Control of hazardous waste 5 0.5
- Product recycling percentage 5 1
D3.3. Negative aspect: tolerance for disproportionate and conscious environ-
mental impact:
- Disproportionate consumption of resources 3 3.5
D4. Customer participation and transparency in products/services: M K
D4.1. Customer participation in decision-making, product development and
market research:
- Percentage of product innovation that has been developed in collaboration
with customers
4 1
- Percentage of product innovation that has been developed in collaboration
with customers to reduce environmental and social impact
4 1
- Customers can participate in company decisions that affect them 4 0.5
- Participation of clients in decision-making bodies of the company 3 1.5
D4.2. Transparency of the product/service:
- Percent. of products that have information on their ingredients and compo-
nents
5 1
- Percentage of products/services with published prices 4 0.5
- Dimension of costs externalities of products/services 3 1
D4.3. Negative aspect: no declaration of dangerous substances:
- The products contain hazardous substances for the customer or the environ-
ment
4 4
- The use of the products has side effects 4 3
- Products containing dangerous substances or side effects are not reported 1 3.5
Appendix E
Sustainability indicators related to the social environment:
E1. Purpose and positive impact of products/services: M K
E1.1. Products/services that cover basic needs and improve quality of life:
- Percentage on billing of products that cover basic needs 4 1
- Percentage on turnover of products that serve the development of people and
planet 4 1.5
- Percentage billing of products that solve social and environmental problems as
SDG 4 2
E1.2. Social impact of products and services:
- Numbers and types of actions that generate social impact 4 0.5
- Number of people who benefit 4 1
E1.3. Negative aspect: products and services that violate human dignity:
- Products/services that generate negative impacts on people and the planet 3 3.5
- Loss of organic matter 3 2
- Isolation risk 3 2.5
- Risk of leaving the field 3 3.5
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 21 of 24
- Loading of hazardous waste for the environment 3 3.5
E2. Contribution to the community: M K
E2.1. Taxes and social benefits:
- Net tax contribution share 3 1
- Aid received by de community company 3 1
- Tax contributions of the company to the community 4 0
- Agri-environmental subsidy areas 4 1.5
E2.2. Voluntary contribution to the community:
- Voluntary monetary contribution to the community 3 1
- Long-term impact of the actions carried out on the community 4 0.5
- Tree and plant biodiversity 4 1
- Tree density 4 1
- Air quality 4 1
- Knowledge of the field’s environment 4 1
- Presence of fauna 4 1
- Effect on nearby ecosystems 4 1
- Landscape quality 5 0.5
- Build human capital 5 1
- Aesthetic/cultural value 4 1
- Semi-natural habitat areas 4 1
- Sloped topography 3 1.5
- Irrigation water quality 4 1
- Specialization 4 1
- Soil fertility 4 1
- Economic independence of agricultural activity 5 1
- Demographic viability 4 0.5
- Prosperity level 4 1
- Charitable giving practices 3 1
- Promotion of volunteering 3 1.5
E2.3. Negative aspect: tax avoidance and evasion:
- Be part of multinational group, an international network or a digital economy 3 2
- Has business partners in tax havens 4 4
- Carry out international financial transactions 4 1.5
- Business opacity 3 4
E2.4. Negative aspect: lack of prevention against corruption:
- Donation to political parties 3 3
- Opaque lobbying activities are carried out 3 4
E3. Reduction of the environmental impact on the social environment: M K
E3.1. Absolute impact and management and strategy:
- Greenhouse gas emissions 4 3.5
- Transport 3 1.5
- Fuel consumption: gasoline, diesel 3 1.5
- Gas, electricity and water consumption 4 1
- Use of chemicals 4 3
- Paper consumption 3 1.5
- Emissions of hazardous substances and other impacts 3 3.5
- Potential contamination of groundwater 4 4
- Pollutant adhesions to the main water sources 4 4
- Use of pesticides and herbicides 4 1.5
- Use of fertilizers 4 1
- CO2 emissions from machinery and transport 3 2
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 22 of 24
- Implement conservation/protection activities for water resources and the en-
vironment 5 1
- Efficiency in water management 4 1
- Garbage and waste management 4 1
- Final energy consumption 4 1
- Technological change for the management of water for irrigation 4 1
E3.2. Relative impact:
- Greenhouse gas emissions 3 2.5
- Transport 3 1
- Fuel consumption: gasoline, diesel 3 1.5
- Gas, electricity and water consumption 3 0.5
- Use of chemicals 3 2
- Paper consumption 3 1
- Emissions of hazardous substances and other impacts 3 2.5
- Potential contamination of groundwater 3 3
- Pollutant adhesions to the main water sources 3 3
- Use of pesticides and herbicides 3 2
- Use of fertilizers 3 2
- CO2 emissions from machinery and transport 3 2
- Implement conservation/protection activities for water resources and the en-
vironment 4 1.5
- Efficiency in water management 4 2
- Garbage and waste management 4 1
- Final energy consumption 4 1
- Technological change for the management of water for irrigation 4 2
E3.3. Negative aspect: violation of environmental regulations and dispropor-
tionate impact:
- Existence of infractions and claims 4 3
- Actual damages 3 3
- Risk of stagnation 3 1.5
- Food risk 3 2
- Potential risk of soil erosion 3 2
- Soil salinity 4 2
- Threat of water resources due to hydro-climatic events 3 1.5
- Vulnerability to climate change 3 2
- Conflicts over the use of water 3 2
- Heavy metals from soil 4 3
E4. Transparency and participation in the social environment: M K
E4.1. Transparency:
- Publication of a report for the common good or similar 4 1
- Report verification/audit 4 1
- Ease of access to the report 4 1
- Which stakeholders have access to the report 4 0.5
- Equal access to resources and support services 4 0
E4.2. Participation of the social environment in decision-making:
- Percentage of relevant decisions made in a participatory manner with stake-
holders 4 0.5
- Mechanisms for dialogue, collaboration, and participation in business deci-
sions 4 0
E4.3. Negative aspect: manipulation of information and lack of transparency:
- The dissemination of false or manipulated information is tolerated 3 3
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 23 of 24
- False or manipulated information is spread 4 4
- Relevant information on risks and negative impacts is omitted 4 4
- Information on holdings or subsidiaries is omitted 4 4
- Information on flows from subsidiaries to lobbies is omitted 4 3.5
References
1. Campos, V.; Apetrei, A.; Chaves, R. Delphi: Method applied to horticultural cooperatives. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 1266–1128.
2. Giagnocavo, C.; Gerez, S.; Campos, V. Paths to cooperative survival: Structure, strategy and regeneration of fruit and vegeta-
bles cooperatives in Almeria and Valencia, Spain. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2014, 85, 617–639.
3. Johnson, G.; Scholes, K.; Whittington, R. Exploring Strategy, 11th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2017.
4. Gliessman, S.R. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
5. Gómez, L.F.; Ríos-Osorio, L.; Eschenhagen, M.L. Las bases epistemológicas de la agroecología. Agrociencia 2015, 49, 679–688.
6. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Soil fertility management and insect pests: Harmonizing soil and plant health in agroecosystems.
Soil Til. Res. 2003, 72, 203–211.
7. Gliessman, S.R. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Ratón, FL, USA, 2007.
8. Felber, C. Change Everything: Creating an Economy for the Common Good, 1st ed.; Zed Books: London, UK, 2015.
9. Campos, V.; Sanchis, J.R.; Ejarque, A. Social entrepreneurship and economy for the common good: Study of their relationship
through a bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. 2020, 21, 156–167.
10. Felber, C.; Campos, V.; Sanchis, J.R. The common good balance sheet, an adequate tool to capture non-financials? Sustainability
2019, 11, 3791.
11. Talavera, C.; Sanchis, J.R. Alliances between for-profit and non-profit organizations as an instrument to implement the econ-
omy for the common good. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9511.
12. Ejarque, A.T.; Campos, V. Assessing the economy for the common good measurement theory ability to integrate the SDGs into
MSMEs. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10305.
13. Foti, V.T.; Scuderi, A.; Timpanaro, G. The economy for the common good: The expression of a new sustainable economic
model. Qual.-Access Success 2017, 18, 206–214.
14. Gliessman, S.R.; Rosado-May, F.J.; Guadarrama-Zugasti, C.; Jedlicka, J.; Cohn, A.; Méndez, V.E.; Jaffe, R. Agroecología: Pro-
moviendo una transición hacia la sostenibilidad. Ecosistemas 2017, 16, 13–23.
15. Altieri, M.A. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Ratón, FL, USA, 2018.
16. Von Wirén-Lehr, S. Sustainability in agriculture—An evaluation of principal goal-oriented concepts to close the gap between
theory and practice. Agric. Ecosyst. 2011, 84, 115–129.
17. Kumaraswamy, S. Sustainability issues in agro-ecology: Socio-ecological perspective. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 3, 153–169.
18. Torres, J.; Valera, D.L.; Belmonte, L.J.; Herrero-Sánchez, C. Economic and social sustainability through organic agriculture:
Study of the restructuring of the citrus sector in the “Bajo Andarax” district (Spain). Sustainability 2016, 8, 918.
19. Casado, G.G.; Hernández, J.M. Agroecología y agricultura ecológica. Aportes y sinergias para incrementar la sustentabilidad
agraria. Agroecología 2012, 6, 55–62.
20. Wezel, A.; Bellon, S.; Doré, T.; Francis, C.; Vallod, D.; David. C. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review.
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 503–515.
21. De Schutter, O. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. The Transformative Potential of the Right to Food; Human Rights
Council, General Assembly of the United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2014. Available online:
http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20140310_finalreport_en.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2020).
22. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence- informed management knowledge by
means of a systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222.
23. Petticrew, M.; Roberts, H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide, 1st ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK,
2006.
24. Johnson, M.P.; Schaltegger, S. Two decades of sustainability management tools for SMEs: How far have we come? J. Small Bus.
Manag. 2016, 54, 481–505.
25. Zapkau, F.B.; Schwens, C.; Kabst, R. The role of prior entrepreneurial exposure in the entrepreneurial process: A review and
future research implications. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2017, 55, 56–86.
26. Okoli, C.; Pawlowski, S.D. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. J. Inf.
Manag. 2004, 42, 15–29.
27. Landeta, J. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2006, 73, 467–482.
28. Rowe, G.; Wright, G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 1999, 15, 353–375.
29. Rowe, G.; Wright, G. Experts opinions in forecasting: The role of the Delphi technique. In Principles of Forecasting–A Handbook
for Researchers and Practitioners, 1st ed.; Armstrong, J., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 2001.
30. Hsu, C.C.; Sandford, B.A. The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. PARE 2007, 12, 10.
31. Steinert, M. A dissensus based online Delphi approach: An explorative research tool. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2009, 76,
291–300.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1184 24 of 24
32. Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Sanchez-Fernandez, G. Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators. Ecol.
Econ. 2010, 69, 1062–1075.
33. Binder, C.R.; Feola, G.; Steinberger, J.K. Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: A review of indicator-based sustainabil-
ity assessments in agriculture. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2010, 30, 71–81.
34. Floridi, M.; Pagni, S.; Falorni, S.; Luzzati, T. An exercise in composite indicators construction: Assessing the sustainability of
Italian regions. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1440–1447.
35. Roy, R.; Chan, N.W. An assessment of agricultural sustainability indicators. Environmentalist 2012, 32, 99–110.
36. Dantsis, T.; Douma, C.; Giourga, C.; Loumou, A.; Polychronaki, E.A. A methodological approach to assess and compare the
sustainability level of agricultural plant production systems. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 256–263.
37. Liu, F.; Zhang, H. Novel methods to assess environmental, economic and social sustainability of main agricultural regions in
China. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 621–633.
38. Yegbemey, R.N.; Yabi, J.A.; Dossa, C.S.G.; Bauer, S. Novel participatory indicators of sustainability reveal weaknesses of maize
cropping in Benin. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 909–920.
39. Pacini, G.C.; Lazzerini, G.; Vazzana, C. AESIS: A support tool for the evaluation of sustainability of agroecosystems. Example
of applications to organic and integrated farming systems in Tuscany, Italy. Ital. J. Agron. 2011, 6, 3.
40. Cabell, J.F.; Oelofse, M. An indicator framework for assessing agroecosystem resilience. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 1–13.
41. Loaiza Cerón, W.; Reyes Trujillo, A.; Carvajal Escobar, Y. Diseños alternativos para un índice de sostenibilidad agrícola: El caso
de la agricultura de regadío del Duero. Ing. Des. 2012, 30, 135–179.
42. Valtýniová, S.; Křen, J. Indicators used for assessment of the ecological dimension of sustainable arable farming-Review. Acta
Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2014, 59, 247–256.
43. Mohammadi Torkashvand, A.; Allahyari, M.S.; Daghighi Masuleh, Z. Identifying Indicators of environmentally sustainable
agriculture in paddy fields of Guilan province. Int. J. Agric. Manag. Dev. 2014, 4, 73–79.
44. Ryan, M.; Hennessy, T.; Buckley, C.; Dillon, E.J.; Donnellan, T.; Hanrahan, K.; Moran, B. Developing farm-level sustainability
indicators for Ireland using the Teagasc National Farm Survey. Irish J. Agr. Food Res. 2016, 55, 112–125.
45. Landeta, J.; Matey, J.; Ruiz, V.; Galter, J. Results of a Delphi survey in drawing up the input–output tables for Catalonia. Tech-
nol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2008, 75, 32–56.
