IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v55y2015icp22-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benchmarking the sustainability performance of the Brazilian non-GM and GM soybean meal chains: An indicator-based approach

Author

Listed:
  • Gaitán-Cremaschi, Daniel
  • Kamali, Farahnaz Pashaei
  • van Evert, Frits K.
  • Meuwissen, Miranda P.M.
  • Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M.

Abstract

A commonly accepted approach for measuring the sustainability of agricultural products is the first step toward treating traded products differentially according to their sustainability. If we were able to measure sustainability, business stakeholders could optimize food production chains, consumers could demand products based on reduced environmental and social impacts, and policy makers could intervene to meet the growing demand for food in a context of environmental conservation, population growth, and globalization. We proposed to measure profit adjusted for the negative externalities of production as a promising single metric for benchmarking products in terms of their relative sustainability. The adjusted profit differences between different products are then assessed by means of the Bennet Total Factor Productivity (TFP) indicator and the Total Price Recovery (TPR) indicator to highlight areas for potential sustainability improvement. To illustrate the usefulness of the indicator-based approach, we assessed the relative sustainability of two Brazilian conventional soybean meal chains, non-genetically modified (non-GM) and genetically modified (GM) chains. Based on the results, we indicated potential areas for sustainability improvement. Sustainability issues included in the assessment were profitability, global warming potential, eutrophication potential, environmental toxicity, farmworker toxicity, consumer toxicity, deforestation, and loss of employment. Results showed that the non-GM soybean meal chain is more sustainable than the GM chain (higher adjusted profit due to higher TFP and favorable prices especially for outputs). However, both chains require joint efforts to address their economic, environmental, and social deficiencies. These efforts should focus on providing technical and high quality assistance to reduce biocide use, and improving transportation. The analysis in this study could be extended by undertaking a comparative assessment of the sustainability performance of major soybean meal producers, i.e. United States, Argentina, China, and Brazil.

Suggested Citation

  • Gaitán-Cremaschi, Daniel & Kamali, Farahnaz Pashaei & van Evert, Frits K. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2015. "Benchmarking the sustainability performance of the Brazilian non-GM and GM soybean meal chains: An indicator-based approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 22-32.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:55:y:2015:i:c:p:22-32
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.05.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919215000597
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.05.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ehui, Simeon K. & Spencer, Dunstan S.C., 1992. "A General Approach for Evaluating the Economic Viability of Sustainability of Tropical Cropping Systems," 1992 Occasional Paper Series No. 6 197740, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Tol, Richard S. J., 2005. "The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(16), pages 2064-2074, November.
    3. Lynam, John K. & Herdt, Robert W., 1989. "Sense and sustainability: Sustainability as an objective in international agricultural research," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 3(4), pages 381-398, December.
    4. Tol, Richard S. J., 2008. "The Social Cost of Carbon: Trends, Outliers and Catastrophes," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 2, pages 1-22.
    5. Glendining, M.J. & Dailey, A.G. & Williams, A.G. & Evert, F.K. van & Goulding, K.W.T. & Whitmore, A.P., 2009. "Is it possible to increase the sustainability of arable and ruminant agriculture by reducing inputs?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 117-125, February.
    6. Pretty, J. N. & Brett, C. & Gee, D. & Hine, R. E. & Mason, C. F. & Morison, J. I. L. & Raven, H. & Rayment, M. D. & van der Bijl, G., 2000. "An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 113-136, August.
    7. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    8. Barnes, Andrew P., 2002. "Publicly-funded UK agricultural R&D and 'social' total factor productivity," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 65-74, May.
    9. Flaskerud, George K., 2003. "Brazil'S Soybean Production And Impact," Extension Bulletins 23092, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    10. Sundkvist, Asa & Milestad, Rebecka & Jansson, AnnMari, 2005. "On the importance of tightening feedback loops for sustainable development of food systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 224-239, April.
    11. Robert U. Ayres & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & John M. Gowdy, 1998. "Viewpoint: Weak versus Strong Sustainability," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 98-103/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. John K. Lynam & Robert W. Herdt, 1989. "Sense and Sustainability: Sustainability as an Objective in International Agricultural Research," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 3(4), pages 381-398, December.
    13. Jules Pretty & Craig Brett & David Gee & Rachel Hine & Chris Mason & James Morison & Matthew Rayment & Gert Van Der Bijl & Thomas Dobbs, 2001. "Policy Challenges and Priorities for Internalizing the Externalities of Modern Agriculture," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 263-283.
    14. Sylvie Bonny, 2011. "Herbicide-tolerant Transgenic Soybean over 15 Years of Cultivation: Pesticide Use, Weed Resistance, and Some Economic Issues. The Case of the USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-21, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Frits K. Van Evert & Daniel Gaitán-Cremaschi & Spyros Fountas & Corné Kempenaar, 2017. "Can Precision Agriculture Increase the Profitability and Sustainability of the Production of Potatoes and Olives?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, October.
    2. Pashaei Kamali, Farahnaz & Borges, João A.R. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & de Boer, Imke J.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2017. "Sustainability assessment of agricultural systems: The validity of expert opinion and robustness of a multi-criteria analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 118-128.
    3. Low, Guy & Dalhaus, Tobias & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M., 2022. "Reviewing the costs, benefits, and resilience impacts of mixed farming and agroforestry systems on value chains," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322300, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Kamble, Sachin S. & Gunasekaran, Angappa & Gawankar, Shradha A., 2020. "Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain: A review for research and applications," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 179-194.
    5. Low, Guy & Dalhaus, Tobias & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M., 2023. "Mixed farming and agroforestry systems: A systematic review on value chain implications," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    6. Daniel Gaitán-Cremaschi & Frits K. Van Evert & Don M. Jansen & Miranda P. M. Meuwissen & Alfons G. J. M. Oude Lansink, 2018. "Assessing the Sustainability Performance of Coffee Farms in Vietnam: A Social Profit Inefficiency Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-23, November.
    7. Brinkman, Marnix L.J. & Wicke, Birka & Faaij, André P.C. & van der Hilst, Floor, 2019. "Projecting socio-economic impacts of bioenergy: Current status and limitations of ex-ante quantification methods," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Glendining, M.J. & Dailey, A.G. & Williams, A.G. & Evert, F.K. van & Goulding, K.W.T. & Whitmore, A.P., 2009. "Is it possible to increase the sustainability of arable and ruminant agriculture by reducing inputs?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 117-125, February.
    2. Kusiima, Jamil M. & Powers, Susan E., 2010. "Monetary value of the environmental and health externalities associated with production of ethanol from biomass feedstocks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2785-2796, June.
    3. Paolo Cupo & Rinalda Alberta Di Cerbo, 2016. "The determinants of ranking in sustainable efficiency of Italian farms," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(2), pages 141-159.
    4. Patrizia Schwegler, 2015. "Economic valuation of environmental costs of soil erosion and the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services caused by food wastage," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 8(2).
    5. Mercedes Beltrán-Esteve & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo & Ernest Reig-Martínez, 2012. "What makes a citrus farmer go organic? Empirical evidence from Spanish citrus farming," Working Papers 1205, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    6. Christof Gubler, 2014. "Potential des Anbaus und Absatzmo glichkeiten der Walnuss in der Schweiz," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 7(1).
    7. IFEGWU, Kalu Ukpai, 2016. "Assessing Agricultural Production Systems From A Sustainability Perspective: Some Findings From Agro-Ecological Zones Of Africa," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 19(2), pages 1-7, October.
    8. Hansen, J. W., 1996. "Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 117-143.
    9. Pycroft, Jonathan & Vergano, Lucia & Hope, Chris & Paci, Daniele & Ciscar, Juan Carlos, 2011. "A tale of tails: Uncertainty and the social cost of carbon dioxide," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 5, pages 1-29.
    10. Steve Newbold & Charles Griffiths & Christopher C. Moore & Ann Wolverton & Elizabeth Kopits, 2010. "The "Social Cost of Carbon" Made Simple," NCEE Working Paper Series 201007, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2010.
    11. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    12. Thomas Vendryes, 2014. "Peasants Against Private Property Rights: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 971-995, December.
    13. Tol, Richard S.J., 2012. "A cost–benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 288-295.
    14. Nordhaus, William, 2013. "Integrated Economic and Climate Modeling," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 1069-1131, Elsevier.
    15. Kazushi Hatase & Shunsuke Managi, 2015. "Increase in carbon prices: analysis of energy-economy modeling," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(2), pages 241-262, April.
    16. Ramani, Shyama V. & Thutupalli, Ajay, 2015. "Emergence of controversy in technology transitions: Green Revolution and Bt cotton in India," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 198-212.
    17. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2009. "Managing environmental risk in agriculture: a systematic perspective on the potential of quantitative policy-oriented risk valuation," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1/2/3), pages 27-46.
    18. Zhang, Hong & Jin, Gui & Zhang, Zhengyu, 2021. "Coupling system of carbon emission and social economy: A review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    19. Kumar, Praduman & Mittal, Surabhi, 2006. "Agricultural Productivity Trends in India: Sustainability Issues," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 19(Conferenc).
    20. Jianxu Liu & Mengjiao Wang & Li Yang & Sanzidur Rahman & Songsak Sriboonchitta, 2020. "Agricultural Productivity Growth and Its Determinants in South and Southeast Asian Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-21, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:55:y:2015:i:c:p:22-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.