IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i12p4998-d1413054.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy Instruments to Improve Foreign Workforce’s Position and Social Sustainability of the Agriculture in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Carmela Macrì

    (Crea—Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00184 Rome, Italy)

  • Stefano Orsini

    (IFOAM Organics Europe, 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium)

Abstract

Agricultural employment in advanced economies has been suggestively described as a “short and step” pyramid with only limited opportunities for workers to climb to higher positions, especially when they belong to the most vulnerable categories, such as migrants. The presence of poor jobs and living conditions for temporary agricultural workers reported by mass media, trade unions, NGOs, and international observers contrasts dramatically with the idea of a modern and thriving sector, as the Italian agricultural sector should be, and it represents a challenge for the social concerns that have been alongside environmental ones in the definition of sustainability since the Brundtland Report released in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Even mechanisation does not necessarily facilitate better working conditions. In fact, where the workforce is largely replaced by machineries, the remaining opportunities for paid workers are mainly for unskilled, physically demanding, and seasonal jobs. This has brought about the so-called “paradox of prosperity”, where the gap between farm and nonfarm workers in economically advanced countries has widened in terms of wages, benefits, and prospects for upward mobility. This in turn triggers a vicious circle with a structural lack of available workforce for the sector, which has been increasingly provided by migrants with very little bargaining power. On the other hand, the adoption of new technologies and digitalisation in agriculture is leading to an increasing demand for skilled workers, which often remains uncovered because of the low conditions offered. Against this background, the aim of our work is twofold. First, we characterise the role of the foreign workforce in relation to the structural changes in Italian agriculture and considering territorial differences. Second, we examine the main policy instruments to facilitate recruitment and tackle undeclared work and more specifically the Quality Agricultural Work Network (Rete del lavoro agricolo di qualità) launched in Italy in 2016 to tackle undeclared work and exploitative labour. We do so by conducting a literature review and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 16 farmers in Italy carried out in 2022 within the project Rural Social ACT funded by the Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund (2021–2027). The results show that even though foreign workers are a key resource for agriculture in Italy, there remain severe recruitment issues and segregation in low-skilled and precarious jobs. Overall, it is necessary to improve the awareness of the key role of work in agriculture and to strengthen the effectiveness of tools to enhance the visibility of compliant farms. So far (January 2024), only 6600 farms have joined the Quality Agricultural Work Network, with an overall modest enthusiasm from the farmers interviewed about its current effectiveness. Other instruments are explored such as employee sharing contracts, and there clearly emerges a need for public support of professional training through the Common Agricultural Policy to improve both the bargaining power of foreign workers and the productivity of the sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Carmela Macrì & Stefano Orsini, 2024. "Policy Instruments to Improve Foreign Workforce’s Position and Social Sustainability of the Agriculture in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-14, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:12:p:4998-:d:1413054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/12/4998/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/12/4998/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tocco,Barbara & Bailey, Alastair & Davidova, Sophia, 2013. "Determinants to Leave Agriculture and Change Occupational Sector: Evidence from an Enlarged EU," Factor Markets Working Papers 158, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    2. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    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. Silvia Avasilcăi & Mihaela Brîndușa Tudose & George Victor Gall & Andreea-Gabriela Grădinaru & Bogdan Rusu & Elena Avram, 2025. "Digital Technologies to Support Sustainable Consumption: An Overview of the Automotive Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-29, August.
    2. Stefano Bigiotti & Mariangela Ludovica Santarsiero & Carlo Costantino & Alvaro Marucci, 2025. "Photovoltaic Technology and Rural Landscapes: A Systematic Literature Review on Challenges and Sustainable Integration," Energies, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-54, April.

    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. CHEN, Helen S.Y., 2020. "Designing Sustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains," OSF Preprints m82ar, Center for Open Science.
    2. Denise Ravet, 2011. "Lean production: the link between supply chain and sustainable development in an international environment," Post-Print hal-00691666, HAL.
    3. Mara Del Baldo, 2012. "Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: the experience of some “spirited businesses”," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(1), pages 1-36, February.
    4. Michael Howes & Liana Wortley & Ruth Potts & Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes & Silvia Serrao-Neumann & Julie Davidson & Timothy Smith & Patrick Nunn, 2017. "Environmental Sustainability: A Case of Policy Implementation Failure?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    6. Chin-Shan Lu & Kuo-Chung Shang & Chi-Chang Lin, 2016. "Examining sustainability performance at ports: port managers’ perspectives on developing sustainable supply chains," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(8), pages 909-927, November.
    7. Kebede, Yohannes, 1993. "The Limits to Common Resource Management: The Bypassed Commons or Commons without Tragedy," MPRA Paper 662, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 May 1993.
    8. John Stanley & Janet Stanley, 2023. "Improving Appraisal Methodology for Land Use Transport Measures to Reduce Risk of Social Exclusion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-18, August.
    9. Nora Mzavanadze, 2009. "Building A Framework For National Sustainable Development Assessment And Application For Lithuania: Sustainability In Transition," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(01), pages 97-130.
    10. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    11. Isin Ceti̇n, 2017. "Accounting Requirements And Records On Bank Subscribed Capital Compliance With European Directives," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1, pages 52-68, February.
    12. Jean-Michel Sahuta & Sandrine Boulerne & Medhi Mili & Frédéric Teulon, 2014. "What Relation Exists Between Corporate Social Responsibility (Csr) And Longevity Of Firms?," Working Papers 2014-248, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    13. Alba Rocio Gutierrez Garzon & Pete Bettinger & Jacek Siry & Bin Mei & Jesse Abrams, 2019. "The Terms Foresters and Planners in the United States Use to Infer Sustainability in Forest Management Plans: A Survey Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Shehu Folaranmi Gbolahan Yusuf & Oluwabunmi Oluwaseun Popoola & Lindokhule Gwala & Thinandavha Nesengani, 2021. "Promoting University–Community Alliances in the Experiential Learning Activities of Agricultural Extension Postgraduate Students at the University of Fort Hare, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-18, September.
    15. Filipa Correia & Philipp Erfruth & Julie Bryhn, 2018. "The 2030 Agenda: The roadmap to GlobALLizaton," Working Papers 156, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    16. Choy Yee Keong, 2005. "Sustainable Development—An Institutional Enclave (with Special Reference to the Bakun Dam–Induced Development Strategy in Malaysia)," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 951-971, December.
    17. Anthony Bennett, 1998. "Sustainable public/private partnerships for public service delivery," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 22(3), pages 193-199, August.
    18. Smith, Joyotee & Scherr, Sara J., 2003. "Capturing the Value of Forest Carbon for Local Livelihoods," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 2143-2160, December.
    19. Buys, Piet & Chomitz, Ken & Dasgupta, Susmita & Deichmann, Uwe & Larsen, Bjorn & Meisner, Craig & Nygard, Jostein & Pandey, Kiran & Pinnoi, Nat & Wheeler, David, 2006. "The economics of decentralized poverty-environment programs: An application for Lao PDR," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 28(7), pages 811-824, October.
    20. Lisa Knoche, 2014. "Nachhaltigkeit in Unternehmen und Organisationen - Umweltmanagementsysteme als Instrument zur ökologischen Prägung der Organisationskultur," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 67(17), pages 29-37, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:12:p:4998-:d:1413054. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.