Business models and strategies for the internalization of externalities in agri-food value chains
Abstract
Current food systems have significant negative environmental, social, and economic impacts. Externalized costs and benefits create false market incentives favoring less healthy and unsustainable options. Transitioning to sustainable agri-food systems requires that businesses internalize these externalities. Internalization of externalities (IOE) is often addressed through policy measures and regulatory initiatives. However, IOE can also be carried out through business models (BMs) and strategies which involve creating positive externalities, mitigating/preventing negative ones, as well as ensuring fair distribution of risks, costs, and benefits. Accordingly, sustainable and innovative BMs and strategies offer pathways to achieving IOE. This paper identifies existing sustainable and innovative BMs and strategies and explains how they can achieve IOE. Using an integrative literature review methodology, we reconcile both economics and business literature approaches. We subsequently carry out two levels of analysis including abductive coding and interrelationship evaluation. The paper explores the characteristics of BMs and strategies that address IOE, using the well-known concept of value and introduces a conceptual framework for categorizing business models and strategies for the internalization of externalities (BM4IOE). The article initiates a discourse on the role of BMs in the IOE within agri-food value chains and provides insights into how businesses can develop and implement models that effectively internalize externalities, thereby enhancing sustainability and driving innovation in the transition of agri-food systems.
Full text
Open Access © The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. RESEARCH Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-024-00338-2 Agricultural and Food Economics Business models andstrategies fortheinternalization ofexternalities inagri-food value chains Sepide Mehrabi1 and Cynthia Giagnocavo1,2,3* Abstract Current food systems have significant negative environmental, social, and economic impacts. Externalized costs and benefits create false market incentives favoring less healthy and unsustainable options. Transitioning to sustainable agri-food systems requires that businesses internalize these externalities. Internalization of externalities (IOE) is often addressed through policy measures and regulatory initiatives. However, IOE can also be carried out through business models (BMs) and strategies which involve creating positive externalities, mitigating/preventing negative ones, as well as ensuring fair distribution of risks, costs, and benefits. Accordingly, sustainable and innovative BMs and strategies offer pathways to achieving IOE. This paper identifies existing sustainable and innovative BMs and strategies and explains how they can achieve IOE. Using an integrative literature review methodology, we reconcile both economics and business literature approaches. We subsequently carry out two levels of analysis including abductive coding and interrelationship evaluation. The paper explores the characteristics of BMs and strategies that address IOE, using the well-known concept of value and introduces a conceptual framework for categorizing business models and strategies for the internalization of externalities (BM4IOE). The article initiates a discourse on the role of BMs in the IOE within agri-food value chains and provides insights into how businesses can develop and implement models that effectively internalize externalities, thereby enhancing sustainability and driving innovation in the transition of agri-food systems. Keywords: Sustainable business model, Internalization of externalities, Value creation and delivery, Value capture, Value measure, True cost, True price, Agri-food, Business strategy, Innovation Introduction This paper analyzes existing sustainable and innovative business models (BMs) and strategies in the agri-food sector through the lens of externalities and proposes an integrative framework for the categorization of business models and strategies for the internalization of externalities (BM4IOE). Considering that current agri-food systems are responsible for creating significant negative environmental, social, and economic externalities, both globally and locally (IPBES 2022; IPCC 2022), the need to *Correspondence: cgiagnocav[email protected] 1 Department of Economics and Business, University of Almería, La Cañada, 04120 Almería, Spain 2 Department of Economics and Business, Cátedra COEXPHAL-UAL Horticulture, Cooperative Studies and Sustainable Development, University of Almería, La Cañada, 04120 Almería, Spain 3 Centro de Investigación en Agrosistemas Intensivos Mediterráneos y Biotecnología Agroalimentaria (CIAMIBITAL), University of Almería, Edificio de Servicios Técnicos 2.13.0, La Cañada, 04120 Almería, Spain
Page 2 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 internalize these externalities has become increasingly important. The costs and risks of harmful food production, as well as the costs and benefits of healthful and sustainably produced food, are externalized (Mirzabaev and von Braun 2022), meaning they are not included in market prices and thus do not affect the decision-making processes of actors in food value chains (Rastoin 2022). Research estimates that if agrifood externalities are internalized globally, society could gain €4.9 trillion annually by 2030 and €9.1 trillion annually by 2050 (Gemmill-Herren etal. 2021). Externalizing costs of harmful production and unhealthy food allows cheaper production of socially and environmentally unsustainable and unhealthy food, leaving little place for sustainable agri-food businesses to survive in highly competitive markets (Hendriks etal. 2021; Sipkens etal. 2014; Wbcsd 2021). For example, nitrate overuse, chemical pesticides, added sugar and sodium, refined grains, harmful fats, and unnecessary plastic packaging reduce production costs and/or increase production, sales, and profits for certain agri-food businesses, while generating negative environmental, social and health externalities for society (Stuckler and Nestle 2012). In addition, while some environmental externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions are very well-known, many environmental, social, and, health-related externalities are more complex and less apparent, such as the loss of ecosystem services due to the lack of biodiversity, illnesses, and loss of land use. It should be noted that externalities are not always negative. Sustainable agri-business models may create positive externalities and mitigate or prevent negative ones. For example, in eco-innovative business models, agroforestry practices lead to biodiversity promotion, soil conservation, and carbon sequestration, as well as creating aesthetic visual appeal. In light of this, the cost of the creation of positive externalities should also be internalized rather than being solely borne by such farm or agribusinesses, since these positive externalities can benefit multiple actors in the value chain and society at large. However, the farmer or agri-business may not be rewarded with direct incentives for these contributions since the market does not fully account for these positive externalities and thus, arguably, the cost of externalities is not fairly distributed throughout the different stages of the value chain (Lord 2020; Sadovska etal. 2020; Sipkens etal. 2014; Wbcsd 2021; Zott and Amit 2007). Therefore, for there to be a transition to a sustainable agri-food system, both positive and negative externalities should be internalized. Internalization of externalities (IOE) is “a process that, either through business models and strategies or regulatory policies, takes into account more complete costs and/or benefits in the composition of goods and services prices. This process may involve the reduction or prevention of negative externalities, or the creation of positive externalities, involving various actors of the value chain” (Abolhassani etal. 2024). Based on this definition, IOE requires that various actors—including the financial sector, policymakers, and businesses, understand externalities and design appropriate measures for internalization. Given the challenges associated with quantifying externalities and precise calculation of the true cost of food (KPMG International 2014) as well as the limitations of formal policies in achieving sustainable agri-food systems (Long etal. 2019), the role of BMs and strategies has become an essential area of research and practice. While we recognize that BMs and strategies need to be supported by policy for promoting sustainable
Page 3 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 transformation in the food system (Lord 2020), this paper focuses on the less explored role of BMs and strategies for IOE. The BM perspective is particularly relevant in the context of IOE since it provides a holistic approach toward explaining how organizations within their value chain, create, deliver, and capture value (Zott and Amit 2007). As Evans etal. (2017) state, “sustainable value incorporates economic, social and environmental benefits conceptualized as value forms”. Likewise, the IOE approach aims to create social, economic, and environmental value for diverse stakeholders and in addition, to ensure the fair distribution of costs, risks, and benefits by incorporating the costs and benefits of externalities into the decision-making process (Folkens etal. 2020). As a result, we can observe a certain potential for shared goals between BM for sustainability innovation and BM4IOE. In light of this, BMs for sustainability innovation are expected to be areas rich with examples and case studies in which IOE may be found. While BMs and value chain interrelations have been considered in reducing negative externalities and creating social and environmental value, the role of BMs in IOE in agri-food value chains has not yet been explored. To tackle this gap, this paper initiates a discourse on the role of BMs and strategies in the IOE in agri-food value chains, and introduces the concept of “BM4IOE”. The main research question posed is: Which BMs and strategies allow the internalization of both negative and positive externalities (BM4IOE), and how? Considering that the role of BMs and strategies for IOE is an unexplored area of research, to answer the research question, a semi-systematic (integrative) literature review was conducted on the existing qualitative research of innovative and sustainable BMs and strategies. Through the first levels of data analysis and coding, this paper proposes an integrative framework of BM4IOE comprising five main themes of: IOE by product and process innovation, IOE by rearranging the value chain, IOE by measurement and accreditation tools, IOE by consumer/market recognition, and IOE by innovative financing. Associated categorizations of these five main themes are explained thereafter. In the second level of our analysis, the relationship between different themes and categories illustrates the necessity of a combination of BMs and strategies for a more comprehensive IOE. Key concepts ofBM4IOE To position our research within the field of BM4IOE, we focus on the main interacting key concepts explored in this paper: business models and strategies, sustainability innovations, and their relevance to the internalization of externalities (IOE). The term “business model” has been conceptualized in various ways. However, there is a consensus in the literature that BMs can be seen as a rationale for how a company creates, delivers, and captures value for its customers and itself (Teece 2010). Similarly, IOE, defined in Sect. “Introduction” above, can create economic, environmental and social value, including a more fair distribution of value (positive externalities), or reduce and prevent negative externalities. In this context, BMs for sustainability innovation act as drivers and enablers of sustainable values for multiple stakeholders, including society and the environment, while also capturing value for the organization (Bagheri etal. 2020). Unlike traditional BMs, sustainable BMs emphasize the importance of social and environmental value, beyond
Page 4 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 financial metrics (Bocken etal. 2014). Moreover, a sustainable BM also “contemplates value destroyed to realize the negative effect on society and environment” (e.g., depletion of resources or social dislocation), and “value uncaptured” (e.g., food waste/ loss) (de Pádua Pieroni etal. 2018; Goni etal. 2021). Sustainability is an evolving process that originates from experimental innovations, during which gradual organizational transformation happens (Adams etal. 2016). This process often extends beyond the boundaries of a single actor or entity as interaction between value chain actors plays a crucial role in reducing negative externalities and creating social and environmental values (Pajewski 2020). As Evans etal. (2017, p.5) state, “Internalizing externalities through product-service systems enables innovation towards sustainable business models”. Business strategy, meanwhile, refers to the dynamic of the firm’s relationship with its environment and the actions taken to achieve its goals and improve performance through the rational use of resources (López and Martín 2013). BM and business strategies are closely intertwined. “BMs combine all the core components of business strategies and operations that create and deliver value to the customers as well as to the firm” (Machiba etal. 2012). Importantly, organizations often employ a suite of business models rather than a single BM, as these models coexist and evolve together to address different strategic needs (Aspara etal. 2013; Ramon Casadesus-Masanell and Jorge Tarziján 2012). Changes in strategy may lead to adjustments in the BM, and vice versa, as they evolve together. Therefore, considering BMs and business strategy together provides a holistic view of how organizations create, deliver, and capture value and ultimately internalize externalities. Methodology The manner in which externalities are conceptualized varies across disciplines. Initially, the recognition of externalities and the more precise quantification of the true cost of food were addressed by economists (Barrett 2021) through numerous studies, measurement tools, databases, standards, and calculation methodologies for assessing, quantifying, and monetizing externalities (Sipkens etal. 2014). For calculating externalities, terms like “true cost”, “true price”, “external cost”, "real cost”, “true value of food”, “true cost accounting”, and “monetization” (Wbcsd 2021) are used in economic literature. However, IOE through BMs and strategies is a relatively unexplored and unconsolidated area. In the business field, externalities are often described with different terminologies. For example, positive externalities may be characterized as the “provision of ecosystem services” in environmental studies (Toro-Mujica etal. 2019) or “value for society” in business studies (Battisti etal. 2022). Given this fragmented landscape, an integrative semi-systemic literature review methodology has been selected, which aims to assess, critique, and synthesize the literature on diverse streams of research (in this paper, economics, with BM-related streams of research). This methodology can enable new theoretical frameworks and perspectives to emerge (Mahrool 2020). Data extracted from selected references were coded and categorized in the first level of analysis to identify the five main themes of the BM4IOE. In the second level of analysis, the interrelationships between categories and themes were examined for a more in-depth understanding.
Page 5 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 Locating relevant research Relevant research on agri-food businesses highlights a growing trend toward BMs that integrate social and environmental values alongside financial goals (Lynde 2020). Driven by stakeholders’ interest in sustainability and non-financial metrics (Bryson and Lombardi 2009), these sustainable innovations in BMs and strategies reduce and prevent negative externalities and respond to consumer demand for sustainable practices (Dhar etal. 2022; Vermunt etal. 2020). Consequently, studying the sustainability innovations of agri-food businesses provides insights into new pathways for more comprehensive IOE, benefiting both industry and society. For locating relevant research, both global databases of Scopus and Web of Science were consulted, from 2000 (when the concept of sustainable business models began to gain academic attention), up to December 2023. These databases were chosen because they include indexed journals in the fields of business, management, accounting, economics, and social sciences in general. Two research queries were implemented as below: In the research query 1, BMs-related were combined with internalization and other monetization terms, regardless of the agri-food sector (see Table 1). As expected, Table 1 Keywords and research query implemented in Scopus and Web of Science To enhance readability, we have used bold formatting for keywords to clearly differentiate between commands and keywords, making it easier for readers to understand their distinct roles Database Scopus Web of Science (core collection) Research query 1 (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Business model*” OR “business strateg*”) AND TITLEABS-KEY (internaliz* OR interna‑ lis*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (monetis* OR monetariz* OR monetaris* OR externali* OR “external cost*” OR “real cost*” OR “hidden cost” OR “true price” OR “true cost” OR “true value”)) “Business model*” OR “business strateg*” (Topic) and internaliz* OR internalis* (Topic) and monetis* OR monetariz* OR monetaris* OR externali* OR “external cost*” OR “real cost*” OR “hidden cost” OR “true price” OR “true cost” OR “true value” (Topic) Results 24 29 Total without duplications 33 Filtered after title, keyword, and abstract screen 10 Number of selected references after full screening 10 Research query 2(Case study) (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Business model*” OR “business strateg*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainab*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( innovat*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“case study”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (agr* OR food)) “Business model*” OR “business strateg*” (Topic) and sustainab* (Topic) and innovat* (Topic) and “case study” (Topic) and agr* OR food (All Fields) **Topic in WOS = TITLE-ABS-KEY** Results 127 115 Total without duplications 170 Filtered after title, keyword, and abstract screen 78 Number of selected references after full screening 51 Number of selected references from snowballing and grey literature 40 Total = 101 selected references
Page 6 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 because the role of BMs in IOE has not been widely studied, fewer research items were found at this stage. In the research query 2, the aim was to identify qualitative research examples and case studies of BMs for sustainability innovation that could provide insights into how IOE occurs. To achieve this, a new set of keywords (see Table1) was used specifically focused on the agri-food sector. This search sought to find case study examples of BMs and strategies for sustainability innovations that enable IOE within agri-food value chains. Additionally, the forward and backward “snowball” method was implemented (Jalali and Wohlin 2012) together with reputable grey literature (e.g., reports from previous H2020 projects on the CORDIS database, FAO, OECD, reputable business press and consultancy reports, among others), related to the field. As a result of keyword searches and the use of backward and forward snowball methods, after review and refinements, 101 references were selected for data extraction and subsequent data analysis. Inclusion/exclusion criteria As mentioned above, the selected references include journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers found in Scopus and WOS from research queries 1 and 2. After removing duplicates, we conducted title, abstract, and keyword screening on all references. In the subsequent snowballing step, relevant reports and reputable grey literature were also included. We noticed that references acquired from the research query 1 were predominantly focused on the monetization and assessment of externalities, including tools, formulas, and datasets, with fewer addressing BMs and strategies directly. At this stage, we selected references that analyze, explore, or present innovative business models with IOE potential, as well as those introducing technologies and policies that impact the business environment toward IOE. Although fewer references were directly relevant, the first query led to the identification of initial examples of business models and strategies with IOE potential, such as circular economy, short food supply chains, multi-stakeholder collaborations, impact financing, and social enterprises (see Fig.1). The initial list of BMs and strategies provided clear inclusion and exclusion criteria for evaluating references acquired from research query 2, as well as snowballing and grey literature, establishing a foundation for developing and refining the BM4IOE conceptual framework. References were excluded if they did not analyze, explore, or present an innovative BM that creates positive externalities and/or mitigates or prevents negative externalities, or if they were irrelevant to the monetization and assessment of externalities, or unrelated to technologies and policies affecting sustainable BMs strategies. Additionally, references were excluded if they focused solely on sustainability innovations in one stage of the value chain, or incremental changes, without collaboration among multiple actors in the process of IOE. In the full-text screening, references that did not contribute meaningfully to the abovementioned criteria were excluded. The flowcharts in Fig.1 illustrate inclusion criteria in each steps of research query and number of included, excluded references in each decision point.
Page 7 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 We ensured the divergence of references during the snowballing stage, in terms of: (i) the type of BMs (preliminary categories of BMs and strategies, found from Table1 Research query 1), (ii) type of agri-food sector (SmartAgriHubs 2022), (iii) different value chain stage (TMG-Think Tank for Sustainability and WWF 2021), (iv) type of innovation (Adams etal. 2016; Bocken etal. 2014), (v) policy instruments affecting BMs (González-Eguino 2011; Mazaheri etal. 2022; Ren etal. 2018), (vi) collaboration partners and activities (Cholez etal. 2023), (vii) type of externalities (Baltussen etal. 2023, p.8), and (viii) different IOE approaches (FOODCoST 2023). Annex 1 shows the diversity of selected references for this paper. Extracting data andcoding To facilitate data extraction from references, qualitative questions aligned with the research questions were designed as guidelines, ensuring a thorough and consistent review process that assessed all references on an equivalent basis: Fig. 1 Criteria of reference inclusion/exclusion
Page 8 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 • General description of the unique value proposition/solution offered by this specific reference. Describe how this specific case study or example of BM creates and delivers value for its customers, value chain members, or natural environment, and captures value for itself. • Which actors/entities in the value chain of this specific BM are bearing the risk/cost and who receives the benefit? (if the reference is about a specific case study or example of BM) • Describe the relevant contribution of the reference to IOE (if the reference is NOT a specific case study or example of BM). • Is IOE somehow measured in this reference? If so, how? Since the review criteria were defined broadly enough to cover diverse types of references, it was not expected that a single reference would completely cover or discuss all questions. Considering that IOE through BMs and strategies has not been adequately studied in either business literature or economic literature, the selected references, especially those that focused on specific types of BMs, did not explicitly use the term ‘IOE’. Therefore, the coding phase highly relied on the interpretive answers to the above qualitative questions, along with comments, explanations, observations, and direct quotations from the selected references. Two‑level data analysis In the first level of data analysis, a multi-grounded theory was employed, which is an extended approach for data analysis and theory development, using multiple sources of data (e.g., empirical data from case studies, reports, projects, articles and theoretical references) (Goldkuhl and Cronholm 2010). This approach provides a dialectical synthesis between preexisting frameworks (e.g., existing categorization of sustainable business model innovation) while remaining open to emerging patterns during the analysis. By incorporating an abductive approach and using the MAXQDA tool for qualitative analysis, coding, categorization, and analysis were conducted. Using the definition of IOE introduced above [in Sect. "Introduction"], first-order codes and subcodes were identified to capture instances of BMs or strategies. These BMs and strategies create positive externalities or mitigate negative ones while incentivizing the value creator and facilitating more comprehensive value capture for the immediate actor. The second order was a pattern (axial) coding which included “back-and-forth between data and theory iteratively”, leading to classification and categorization based on similarities between different BM examples (Gibbs 2012; Williams and Moser 2019). The five main themes of BM4IOE were proposed in this stage. Finally, using theory match, the relationship between these themes was explained by the known concept of “value”, which is often used within business literature in relation to BMs. The three perspectives of “value creation and delivery”, “value measure”, and “value capture” clarify the themes and categories, leading to the creation of a novel concept and integrative framework for BM4IOE (Table2). Considering that the research question aims not only to identify the BMs and strategies, but also to understand “how” these BMS and strategies enable IOE, while capturing
Page 9 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 Table 2 Result of open coding, axial coding, categorization, theme finding, and theory match Theory match Theme Categorization Examples and explanations (Codes, subcodes) Value creation and delivery IOE by product and process innovation within the value chain Circular economy business models Bioeconomy Establishing biorefineries (e.g., integral use of processing power and efficiency) Optimizing resource efficiency Bio renewable resources (e.g., biogaspowered artificial lighting) Waste to value Alternative revenue using waste Closed-loop strategy, optimizing resources Ugly food redistribution Controlled atmosphere packaging to increase product shelf life Cradle-to-cradle strategy Recycling, upcycling, and zero waste Packaging upcycling Resource exchange Waste of a VC as input of another VC and vice versa and income of one loop funding another loop Green/Eco-innovation business models Conservation agriculture Optimization and controlling system Increasing efficiency in the process Health-adjusted product and service Healthy menu Complementary products and service Multifunctional product/service, diversification Agrotourism, nutraceuticals IOE by rearranging the value chain Sharing economy business models Sharing resources and capabilities Logistics and transport Sharing excessive food Food sharing Short food supply chains and local markets Reducing intermediaries Farmer–consumer direct connection, online platforms Local markets Regional food hubs, local brands representing the local area, cultural heritage, revitalizing community, and environment Online platforms Communitysupported agriculture Consumer–farmer reciprocal relationship Collaborative farming, sharing risks and benefits of production
Page 16 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 create further positive or negative externalities. Some businesses emerge from value chain rearrangement, meaning they are born out of new opportunities, while established businesses must react to these changes by making structural adjustments to fit into the new narrative of the value chain and seize opportunities. Examples in Theme 2 include BMs and strategies that rearrange the value chain to provide opportunities for IOE, regardless of whether the rearrangement was the prerequisite for the sustainability innovation or the innovation which resulted from the rearrangement. Sharing economy business models The sharing economy was established as a new BM based on offering multiple users (i.e., individuals or companies) temporary access to underutilized resources, often through digital platforms (Li etal. 2019). Since its inception, the sharing economy phenomenon has revolutionized many sectors; for example, Airbnb and Uber are famous for introducing disruptive innovations in the hospitality and transportation industries. In agri-food systems, the sharing economy includes sharing transportation logistics between agrifood companies, which can reduce externalities throughout the chain and generate other positive externalities. Li etal. (2019) explained a new BM based on logistics operations that reduce externalities throughout the value chain. Collaborating with "flexible" logistics companies can turn logistics costs into opportunities, diminishing environmental impacts and generating business value, such as serving new markets. Some other examples of the sharing economy in agri-food are online marketplaces and logistics platforms. Gaziulusoy and Twomey (2015) studied a peer-to-peer innovation “Open Food Foundation” that developed free and open software to support fair and sustainable food systems, functioning as an online marketplace and logistics platform. The platform’s core defining feature is transparency, allowing end consumers to see who grew their food, how it was grown, and how much the producers were paid. Some studies highlight the potential of the sharing economy for creating further sustainable values. Litvinova etal. (2020) highlighted that digital platforms, in a narrow sense, are digital enterprises providing services to other agricultural producers. In a broad sense, they are ecosystems ensuring interaction between stakeholders. Information technology and software solutions embedded in the digital platforms determine the benefits for the participants, which are enhanced by network and synergistic effects. The introduction of digital platforms in the agro-industrial complex aims to solve government issues of ensuring transparency and efficiency in the management of industries, food, and environmental safety, as well as increasing the efficiency of production and sales activities for individual manufacturers (Sehnem etal. 2020). On the other hand, authors like Verboven and Vanherck (2016) raise the sustainability paradox of the sharing economy. They studied a food-sharing online platform where home cooks share leftover meals. This study critiqued the food-sharing platform for potentially increasing consumption and negative externalities, showing that not all sharing economy innovations are inherently sustainable. Lagrasta etal. (2021), also noted that such innovations can increase social inequalities.
Page 17 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 Short food supply chains andlocal markets By reducing intermediaries and geographical proximity, short food supply chains and local markets provide the potential for IOE. These chains can be digital platforms that connect producers directly to consumers, reducing food waste (Amaral and Orsato 2023), or they can be physical local markets in regional, rural, or urban areas. Positive externalities provided by these BMs have been emphasized by many authors. Some examples include reduced transportation costs and associated negative impacts (Bocken etal. 2020), positive impacts on cultural heritage, revitalization of community and environment (Elbardisy etal. 2021), personal well-being (Wiśniewska-Paluszak etal. 2023), and a sense of place and environmental responsibility (Mehrabi etal. 2022). The efficient use of unique local resources, such as landscapes, has been raised as a positive impact of local production (Macewen etal. 2008). It has also been suggested that product origin and associated labeling not only provide awareness about the local area but also benefit the business brand (Fernqvist etal. 2022). Drejerska etal. (2019) compared the benefits of local markets and indirect retail markets, highlighting that local markets provide greater flexibility for consumers, while large retail supply chains offer more convenient options and greater market penetration for producers. In this regard, some studies proposed the concept of hybrid BMs, which aim to promote environmental and/or social values without decreasing economic capacity (Díaz-Correa and López-Navarro 2018). Local food hubs are an example of a hybrid BM. Mejía etal. (2021) showed that well-coordinated local food hubs decrease transportation and GHG emissions, reduce food waste, and give direct market access to producers. Located in existing public facilities, these hubs help small farmers reach larger markets and underserved areas, with the hub concessionaire bearing transportation costs. Community‑supported agriculture Community-supported agriculture (CSA) can be considered a rearrangement of the value chain where society actively participates in food production, as opposed to being relegated to the role of the final consumer. CSA has been recommended as an alternative to mitigate the environmental burdens related to agricultural production through the appropriate design of ecological systems and management of biological processes based on minimizing external inputs (Migliorini and Wezel 2017). In CSA, consumers and farmers engage in a reciprocally supportive relationship by sharing the risks and benefits of food production. Consumers provide financial capital, and in some cases, social capital (network of relationships, trust, knowledge exchange and resources) necessary for running the farm. They also participate in farm decisionmaking by participating in board meetings where shareholders (consumers) have input into what they would like to see from the farm (Macewen etal. 2008). Thus, the coexistence of social capital is directly relevant to increasing social-ecological resilience and improving the economic viability of businesses by overcoming a lack of cooperation and scarcity of financial resources (Prosperi etal. 2022). CSA fosters a sense of commitment to the social community engaged in it. Drejerska etal. (2019) emphasize CSA’s role in local economic development and fostering close relationships between producers and consumers, which imbues food with value beyond its physical form (de-commodification). Similarly, Elbardisy etal. (2021) highlight how
Page 18 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 CSA, in the form of shared urban farms, reconnects communities and enhances local economic resilience, fostering a sense of environmental responsibility and community loyalty. A study by Zhen et al. (2021) carried out a monetized comparison between the negative externalities of CSA, organic farming, and conventional farming and demonstrated that CSA farms exhibit the highest positive and the lowest negative externalities, while conventional farms showed the lowest positive and the highest total negative externalities. Collaboration, integration andnetworks Considering that IOE is characterized by interaction between different stakeholders and the pivotal role of collaboration between members in the implementation of sustainability innovations (Dagilienė etal. 2021; Spicka 2022), this subsection discusses collaborations, integration and networks for the implementation of innovations and their IOE effects. Collaborations are explained in the form of vertical integration, horizontal integration, and a combination of both strategies. IOE through collaboration is motivated by temporary or permanent resource ownership (Karlsson etal. 2017). For instance, Papoutsis etal. (2018) illustrate how multistakeholder collaboration, in the form of urban consolidation centers, reduces external costs of urban freight systems, targeting externalities such as pollution and infrastructure strain. This logistics innovation, known as “tethering”, leverages large supermarkets on city outskirts as fulfillment centers for retailers in less accessible urban areas, using public transport for freight delivery. Similarly, Karlsson etal. (2017) showed that single actors, such as family farms and SMEs, rarely have sufficient resources alone to innovate in areas requiring substantial investment in infrastructure, expertise, and knowledge. In this study, a network of farm biogas producers in Sweden collaborated to produce and transport raw biogas via a pipeline to an upgrading plant for conversion into vehicle fuel. Taron etal. (2023) and Hong etal. (2022) also highlighted the role of networks involving public and private actors, particularly in the biogas industry. Vertical integration involves partnerships between actors at the same stage of the value chain, such as competitors, and is crucial for implementing sustainability innovations. For example, in waste valorization schemes (mentioned in Sect. "Circular economy business models:"), achieving economies of scale requires significant infrastructure investment. For instance, Jamieson etal. (2020), highlighted the vertical integration of rice farmers in a bioenergy system, where community collaboration led to new business activities like mushroom production and local retailing of mushroom burgers. Vertical integration was also mentioned by Klein etal. (2022), in the valorization of byproducts. In the same vein, Núñez-Cacho etal. (2018) also discussed a system of relationships between suppliers and retail companies to facilitate the circular economy. In this case study, the supermarket Mercadona as a hub leader invited collaboration from its 2000 suppliers so that the waste generated in one activity served as an input for another. Shared values and common goals among like-minded partners are vital in vertical integration, as emphasized by many authors (Genovese etal. 2017; Pohlmann etal. 2020; Sebastiani etal. 2013; Zucchella 2019). Bowe and der Horst (2015) suggested that the positive externalities generated, and the negative externalities reduced through
Page 19 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 knowledge exchange between a corporation (brewery) and its suppliers (farmers) encouraged the best agronomic practices, resulting in increased income and reduced water extraction and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Horizontal integration includes collaboration between different but complementary actors in the value chain or intersectors. This form of integration, including consolidation, mergers, and acquisitions, is essential for implementing sustainability innovations, particularly circular economy BMs (mentioned in Sect. "Circular economy business models:") (Pajewski 2020; Scare etal. 2018). Close intersectoral collaboration is crucial for the circular economy’s success. According to Kowalski and Makara (2021), the implementation of a circular BM in the meat value chain required a consortium of companies. This horizontal integration covers the full lifecycle of products, from cereal cultivation through the production of industrial feed to poultry and pig breeding for the production of meat products. It also includes the use of meat waste, waste from consumed food, the production of meat and bone meal, and waste from pig and poultry farming for fertilizing purposes. Other examples of horizontal integration include collaboration between tourism companies and farmers in small communities, creating positive externalities (Baum and Kozera-Kowalska 2019; Macewen etal. 2008). Internalizing governance and management externalities also requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders such as communities, businesses, governments, and intergovernmental institutions. Novkovic (2019) suggested that multi-stakeholder cooperatives internalize these externalities by incorporating diverse stakeholders into decision-making processes. Positive externalities from such cooperatives can outweigh the increased governance costs, as members collaborate in solidarity for common goals rather than short-term cost savings. However, worker ownership, which includes labor’s participation in governance and promotes self-management, can lead to IOE but often reduces profit margins. Borzaga etal. (2014, p.6), argue that “giving precedence to people and labour over capital might preserve employment and quality of service to members and customers but at the expense of profit margins”. Collaborative networks can also combine elements of both vertical and horizontal integration, where actors at the same stage of the value chain cooperate rather than compete, forming, cooperatives (Galdeano-Gómez etal. 2015). This enhances their ability to capture value by increasing bargaining power, influencing legal changes, securing financial support, and sharing marketing and distribution channels while generating positive social and environmental externalities through shared knowledge and capabilities. Cooperatives are mostly formed by small-sized organizations aiming to reach economies of scale and gain access to the market (Valentinov 2007). Out of this collaboration, new IOE opportunities can emerge due to their structural (legal) obligations to share benefits equally among their members. Cooperatives empower members so they can gain collective bargaining power, reducing unit transaction costs in production, marketing, and distribution, and mitigating risks like low farm prices (Cantino etal. 2019; Nganwa etal. 2010). Cooperatives facilitate business expansion by obtaining loans and providing necessary training and consultations. Individual farmers, by adopting a cooperative form of BM, might be able to access funds, donations, and other benefits from the government, as well as pool their land to gain size economies, and hence resolve the issue of land acquisition and start-up capital (Nganwa etal. 2010).
Page 20 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 Associations, consortiums, and working groups also combine vertical and horizontal integration strategies, providing IOE opportunities. (Folkens etal. 2020) introduced an Agriculture Working Group (AGLW) case study advocating for financial support from the municipalities in its region. In this model, all agri-businesses and farmers in the municipalities receive year-round agrotechnical consulting services. The working group has led to a reduction in external water costs resulting in the harmonization of private and social costs which can therefore be considered IOE. The study concluded that collaboration among interest groups is essential to achieving sustainable agriculture and can promote more sustainable practices and help ensure the long-term health and viability of both the environment and the agricultural industry. Similarly, a study about an association of producers called “The Santa Catarina Association of Fine Wine Producers of Height” showed that, by promoting the production and consumption of fine wines, they subsequently create a market demand for high-quality products, which benefits the local wine industry. They also help to foster a sense of community. Social enterprise The legal structure of an organization and its obligations to its shareholders for prioritization of profitability may pose a significant barrier to IOE. In certain jurisdictions such as the United States, courts have even found that enterprises which prioritize certain sustainability actions have not carried out their duties to their shareholders under corporate law (Giagnocavo 2023). Social enterprises and other similar stakeholder interest companies, such as community interest/contribution companies, and cooperatives, lay the groundwork for a broader consideration of stakeholder interests and benefits. Social enterprise BMs can therefore be an efficient and effective way of creating social value by internalizing externalities (Gertner 2023). For instance, consumer-led initiatives [e.g., solidarity purchasing enterprises, and associations for the maintenance of peasant farmers (Díaz-Correa and López-Navarro 2018)] are sustainably born BMs where their value proposition is formed by aiming to prevent and mitigate negative social and environmental impact and create positive externalities (Gaziulusoy and Twomey 2015). The same may be true for the legal structure of cooperatives, which are member owned, and certain B-Corp initiatives. On the one hand, cooperatives may be oriented toward maximizing value for their members, while also pursuing social and environmental goals. On the other hand, B-Corps may be profit-maximizing enterprises, while still having obligations under their bylaws for social responsibility (Gertner 2023; Stubbs 2019). Theme 3 IOE bymeasurements andaccreditation tools Actors involved in the food system lack sufficient information and knowledge on how to internalize externalities and the consequences of doing so (Riemer etal. 2022), which can lead to a failure in achieving sustainable food systems. Theme 3 encompasses diverse sustainability assessment and monetization tools designed for the precise calculation of the true cost of food by considering both positive and negative externalities. These tools not only assist businesses in their cost–benefit analysis, decision-making, control, and strategic planning to optimize and design the best value creation and delivery strategies, but also, most relevant to this paper, provide businesses with a reliable and transparent evaluation of real food costs (monetized value, which is the most understandable
Page 21 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 language of business). Real cost calculation reports provide the required information for an organization to communicate its sustainability performance, get recognition, and receive accreditation and innovative financing, which are discussed in Themes 4 and 5. Sustainability assessment tools anddatabases Life cycle analysis (LCA) is the most widely adopted approach for assessing and reducing the negative environmental impacts per unit of product (Barbieri and Santos 2020; Celli etal. 2022). There are also various complementary approaches, methods and tools for sustainability assessments including social life cycle analyses (sLCA), environmentally extended input–output analysis, environmental economics (Sipkens etal. 2014), environmental priorities strategies (ESP) (Zhen etal. 2021), travel cost method (TCM) (Baum and Kozera-Kowalska 2019), integrated profit and loss statement (IP&L)(Holcim 2020), and environmental profit and loss (EP&L) (Kering n.d.). The results of these assessments and methodologies also shape indicator databases such as the Tru-cost, the social hotspots, KANTAR, CIQUAL, and AGRIBALYSE databases which are widely used by researchers (Sipkens etal. 2014). The advancements in science and technology, along with the emergence of the aforementioned tools and methodologies, have not just made monetization calculations, such as TCA and true pricing, possible, but also more accurate. Monetization andreporting tools TCA has been introduced as a solution to measure the total true costs of companies’ activities, considering natural, social, human, and produced capital (TMG-Think Tank for Sustainability and WWF 2021). TCA aligns with the megatrend of sustainability, encouraging modern economic principles like the ‘economy for the common good’ or the ‘doughnut economy,’ and serving as one of many necessary tools to counteract the multidimensional crises global society faces today (Gemmill-Herren etal. 2021). Capital coalition case studies and the “True Value of Food” project by Wbcsd are leading multinational practices for assessing the true value of food (Hendriks etal. 2021; Wbcsd 2021). There is a consensus on the need for an integrated evaluation of externalities (Phelan and Jacobs 2016) and the need for the incorporation of TCA within a collaborative framework, where different stakeholder initiatives progress in harmony (El-Hage Scialabba etal. 2021; Gemmill-Herren etal. 2021). Although different actors have varying scopes for TCA assessments, agreement on the TCA baseline is crucial. “Networks are forming but they need to link up with other networks and scale up their efforts” (El-Hage Scialabba etal. 2021). Another consensus highlights the importance of considering positive externalities in TCA quantification. Without incorporating positive externalities into pricing, healthy and sustainable producers would not be incentivized (Santagata etal. 2020). Agri-food businesses use these assessments not only to minimize negative impacts, enhance positive benefits across value chains, and manage their externalities (Hendriks etal. 2021; Serafeim etal. 2019; Wbcsd 2021), but also to increase awareness about food externalities (Fitzpatrick 2019) and that the impact they create reaches far beyond the boundaries of their operations, impacting diverse stakeholders and the environment both positively and negatively (Gemmill-Herren etal. 2021).
Page 22 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 These companies differentiate themselves as being responsible and pioneering in TCA reporting, thus improving their brand image. A report by Harvard Business School in 2019 found that at least 56 companies disclosed monetized information about their impact, four of which were in the food industry including, Algix, which offers full lifecycle impacts for two types of plastic; Arla Foods, which implements a full cradle-to-grave company assessment; Nestlé, which limited TCA to a subset of employment pathways; and Coca-Cola, which offered eight replenishment projects. Additionally, the Wbcsd (2021) reported international food companies such as OatWell®, Olam, and Danone, all of which included TCA as part of their value proposition. Theme 4 IOE byconsumer/market recognition IOE by consumer and market recognition encompasses a range of strategies and tools that enable businesses to capture value for themselves and receive incentives from their sustainability innovations. Such efforts require companies to establish themselves as sustainable entities and effectively communicate this positioning. This may contribute to the development of a distinctive brand image, thereby increasing the willingness to pay premium prices and mitigating reputational risks associated with social and environmental degradation. Certifications and third-party accreditation tools serve as a means of communication with diverse stakeholders, whether for communication with consumers, or proof of compliance with environmental and social requirements issued by internal or external audits. Considering that regulation and policy affect the BM environment, compliance with regulatory requirements can be a value capturing strategy, by internalizing their positive externalities. Communication andtransparency withstakeholders Many studies emphasize the crucial role of transparent communication with stakeholders as a core value proposition of the BM, particularly those focused on sustainability and ethical practices. For example, Mercuri etal. (2021) highlighted the role of blockchainbased BMs in enhancing communication and trust with stakeholders through traceability, security, and non-manipulability of information. The study showed that the absence of intermediaries not only reduces transaction costs but also speeds up the process of establishing relationships between a business and its stakeholders. In the agri-food sector, this transparency and safety are particularly valuable, ensuring that stakeholders can trust the origins and handling of their food products. Närvänen etal. (2021) discussed how communication with stakeholders is essential for creating, sharing, and sustaining beliefs and ideas, particularly in small-sized organizations like startups. These organizations use marketing communication and workshops to promote positive, creative, and ethical messages about their sustainable practices, such as food waste reduction. Unlike more common guilt-inducing strategies, these approaches focus on inspiring stakeholders and consumers to participate in sustainable practices, thus fostering a more supportive and proactive community around the business. Similarly, studies by Sebastiani etal. (2013) and Sedlmeier etal. (2019) focused on BMs and strategies with proactive engagement of stakeholders, not just disseminating information but co-creating the BM with
Page 23 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 stakeholders. In these studies, social supermarkets and slow food stores adopt proactive communication strategies that not only inform, but also engage the community, building a shared sense of responsibility and facilitating the formation of a strong network of likeminded individuals, which in turn supports the BM’s aims. Transparency and communication with stakeholders are being increasingly supported by the adoption of reporting and disclosure regulations, coupled with certification standards, which indirectly foster IOE. For example, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting serves as a medium of communication and transparency to stakeholders, particularly investors. It involves businesses disclosing their ESG practices and performance to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable and ethical operations. Moreover, there is a growing awareness of business externalities, prompting stakeholders such as NGOs, civil society groups, communities, and workers to actively protect their interests. Additionally, businesses, industry organizations, and NGOs have introduced voluntary certification schemes as a means of self-regulation (KPMG International 2014). This presents an opportunity to integrate the true value of food into food and agri-business reporting and investor communication, leveraging capital markets to promote sustainable food businesses and systems (Wbcsd 2021). Many organizations, including EOSTA (Eosta etal. 2017), OATWELL (True Price 2015), OLAM (OFI 2024), Kering (Kering 2024), and Holcim (Holcim 2020), have already incorporated TCA and other social and environmental impact measurements into their formal reporting systems to communicate their social and environmental externalities to stakeholders. The process of IOE through voluntarily implemented certification schemes includes financial gains, consumers’ willingness to pay a premium price, entering new markets, e.g., exporting to foreign countries, gaining competitive advantage, differentiating the brand, and the ability to collaborate, hire, and work with the ‘right’ networks (da Rocha Oliveira Teixeira etal. 2023; Dagilienė etal. 2021; Fernqvist etal. 2022; Zilia etal. 2023). Certification schemes allow organizations to capture value for themselves and communicate effectively with their stakeholders. For example, Isada and Isada (2014) conducted an empirical analysis supported by a case study, demonstrating how certifications provide benefits and differentiation for both producers and the industry. Certified companies that address social issues, while creating positive externalities, receive high social praise and achieve sustainable competitive advantages. Similarly, Hong et al. (2022) highlighted the role of certification in increasing the export volume of farm products for domestic and international markets through statewide implementation of organic farming. Stubbs (2019) also discussed the motivation behind adopting the B-Corp certification scheme: “Certification is a means to codify practices and signals to internal and external stakeholders, enhancing the organization’s credibility in economic and social motivations”, which helps businesses attract the “right” employees who align with B-Corp values. Although certifications are essential, particularly for small companies to compete and sell to large retailers, there are significant criticisms reflecting concerns about the alignment of certification practices with genuine sustainability objectives, as well as issues related to the accuracy and transparency of reported compliance costs. For instance, Jones etal. (2011) argued that major food retailers primarily promote sustainable consumption to further their commercial interests. Their strategies prioritized efficiency
Page 24 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 gains across economic, social, and environmental aspects rather than focusing on preserving ecosystems and reducing resource consumption. Additionally, a study by (Ragasa etal. 2011) on the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) certification revealed that reported firm-level expenditures do not accurately reflect the actual costs, and findings indicate a substantial underestimation of reported costs. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is another communication measure companies use to increase transparency (Oginni and Omojowo 2016). CSR practices enhance the quality of agri-food products, leverage competitiveness for entering international markets, and build customer loyalty (De Chiara 2021). The importance of CSR communication in shaping consumers’ positive attitudes and behavioral intentions is welldocumented (De Chiara 2021). Compliance withregulatory requirements The ways in which BMs internalize externalities and capture value for themselves and stakeholders are affected by regulatory environments and state actions. They influence the BM ecosystem through policies and regulations in the market, for example, those that aim to restore, preserve, and enhance ecosystems upon which agriculture is dependent [e.g., Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) support] (Baum and Kozera-Kowalska 2019; Bocken etal. 2020). As such, optimal government intervention might involve the establishment of institutional frameworks that enable proper incentivization and bargaining among parties involved in IOE (Helbling 2022). According to Buttel (2003), regulation mainly refers to state (national or subnational government) practices aimed at supervising and controlling private economic activities to accomplish social goals such as ensuring competition, reducing externalities, promoting fairness, and ensuring health and welfare. Regulatory prohibitions, such as fines, taxes, company closures, or remediation, affect BMs’ value capturing. For instance, in a study by (Dagilienė etal. 2021), plastic bag prohibitions, waste sorting obligations, packaging regulations, and limited use of sugar were enforced by the German government, compelling retailers to provide sustainable products to consumers. In another study, non-compliance with specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin resulted in company fines and closures (Drejerska etal. 2019). On the other hand, market incentives, stemming from regulatory initiatives rather than the direct dictating of specific behavior, significantly modify price signals, thereby indirectly affecting the BM environment. Market incentives encourage producers to engage in appropriate behavior, directly affecting how organizations capture value through subsidies, tax exemptions, access to investments, and contracts [e.g., (Baum and Kozera-Kowalska 2019; Klein etal. 2022; Macewen etal. 2008)]. Theme 5 IOE byinnovative financing IOE by innovative financing refers to value capturing strategies to receive funds, investments, and other types of financial resources or support for sustainability innovations that create positive externalities and prevent or mitigate negative ones. Currently, both the public and private sectors provide venture capital which plays a crucial role in addressing externalities and promoting sustainability innovations in the agri-food sector. However, successfully capturing value from innovative financing necessitates rigorous
Page 25 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 measurement and third-party evaluation to obtain the required accreditations. Given the nature of funding sources and investments, agri-businesses must adopt specific value creation and measurement strategies to meet the criteria for securing these funds, investments and support. Bank financing andprivate investing Investors and financial institutions are increasingly looking to support businesses that demonstrate a commitment to sustainable practices (KPMG International 2014). Particularly for banks disclosing their ESG information, the sustainability profile of their investee is of great importance to determine the sustainability risk of their investment (Krantz and Jonker 2024). The United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) requires its participants within the financial service sector to integrate environmental risks into their credit risk management procedures (Sipkens etal. 2014). A wide range of financing initiatives are available at European, national and regional levels [e.g., see the list of initiatives offered by Cunha etal. (2021, p.3822)]. Applicants need to meet conditions and demonstrate their sustainability impacts such as through socially responsible investing, environmental, social and governance investing, eco-investing, green investing, and ESG investing which are central for financial institutions nowadays. Private bank investors also require accreditation in order to reduce their risk of investment. In this regard, the measurement tools for calculating externalities introduced in Theme 3 (IOE by value measurement) provide the necessary information for investors. However, the point has been raised that most of these investing funds actually seek riskreturn profiles that are equivalent to those of conventional venture funds (Gertner 2023). Considering that agri-food businesses are mostly small-sized organizations with insufficient financial structure (Paoloni etal. 2023), and the fact that investing in sustainability innovations are “substantive risky investments” (Scrase etal. 2009), the necessity to access alternative investment sources and finances has become even more relevant for capturing value from innovative BMs. To improve access to financing for sustainability innovation, the European Investment Bank’s Advisory Service recommended three types of innovative financing models suitable for small-sized agri-food businesses (Gaziulusoy and Twomey 2015; Verbeek etal. 2019). First, crowdfunding is becoming increasingly popular as a source of capital and investment (Gaziulusoy and Twomey 2015). It allows individuals to support sustainable practices in the agri-food sector by funding specific projects. Entrepreneurs benefit by accessing funds from like-minded supporters rather than traditional financial institutions (Bruton etal. 2015). This direct financial support aligns with IOE because it encourages businesses to account for and mitigate their environmental impacts, thus incorporating these considerations into their financial planning and operations (Ciccullo etal. 2022). For instance, Bettervest, a German platform, funds energy efficiency projects through small investments from many individuals, who receive returns based on project energy savings. This approach not only benefits investors and businesses financially, but also contributes to environmental preservation by reducing harm. Second, minibonds encourage collective responsibility and collaboration in managing environmental and social impacts. This collaborative approach supports IOE by fostering financial structures that reward sustainable practices and accountability. For example, in 2016,
Page 32 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 Received: 17 July 2024 Revised: 20 November 2024 Accepted: 4 December 2024 References Abolhassani L, Lord S, Michalke A, Baltussen W, Giagnocavo C, Hunter E, Kornher L, Mehrabi S, Oebel B, Petruzzelli M, Vangalen M, Vittuari M (2024) Tackling TrueCost calculation in food systems: FOODCoST project. Manuscript Submitted for Publication, University of Oxford, Environmental Change Institute Adams R, Jeanrenaud S, Bessant J, Denyer D, Overy P (2016) Sustainability-oriented innovation: a systematic review. Int J Manag Rev 18:180–205. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ijmr. 12068 Amaral DG, Orsato RJ (2023) Digital platforms for food waste reduction: the value for business users. Bus Strategy Environ 32:1373–1387. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 3193 Aspara J, Lamberg J-A, Laukia A, Tikkanen H (2013) Corporate business model transformation and inter-organizational cognition: the case of Nokia. Long Range Plann 46:459–474. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lrp. 2011. 06. 001 Bagheri SK, Raoufi P, Samandar Ali Eshtehardi M, Shaverdy S, Ramezani Akbarabad B, Moghaddam B, Mardani A (2020) Using the crowd for business model innovation: the case of Digikala. R D Manag 50:3–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ radm. 12353 Baltussen W, Meeusen M, van Meijl H (2023) FOODCoST Project Presentation. Towards sustainable food systems via internalisation of externalities in policies and business based on harmonized methodology and data in cocreation with stakeholders. https:// www. foodc ostproje ct. eu/ digit alrepos itory/. Accessed 27 June 2024 Barbieri R, Santos DFL (2020) Sustainable business models and eco-innovation: a life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 266:121954. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2020. 121954 Barrett CB (2021) True cost of food, measuring what matters to transform the U.S. food system. In: Washington DC: The Rockefeller Foundation. https:// www. rocke felle rfoun dation. org/ wpconte nt/ uploa ds/ 2021/ 07/ TrueCostofFoodFullReportFinal. pdf. Accessed 16 July 2024 Battisti S, Agarwal N, Brem A (2022) Creating new tech entrepreneurs with digital platforms: meta-organizations for shared value in data-driven retail ecosystems. Technol Forecast Soc Change 175:121392. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2021. 121392 Baum R, Kozera-Kowalska M (2019) Value of agricultural externalities on the example of an agritourism farm. Ann Polish Assoc Agric Agribus Econ XXI:11–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5604/ 01. 3001. 0013. 2165z Baungaard C, Kok KPW, den Boer ACL et al (2021) FIT4FOOD2030: future-proofing Europe’s food systems with tools for transformation and a sustainable food systems network. Nutr Bull 46:172–184. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ nbu. 12502 Beitzen-Heineke EF, Balta-Ozkan N, Reefke H (2017) The prospects of zero-packaging grocery stores to improve the social and environmental impacts of the food supply chain. J Clean Prod 140:1528–1541. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2016. 09. 227 Bocken NMP, Short SW, Rana P, Evans S (2014) A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J Clean Prod 65:42–56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2013. 11. 039 Bocken N, Morales LS, Lehner M (2020) Suffciency business strategies in the food industry-the case of oatly. Sustainability (Switzerland). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su120 30824 Borzaga C, Bodini R, Carini C, Depedri S, Galera G, Salvatori G (2014) Europe in transition: the role of social cooperatives and social enterprises. SSRN Electron J. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 24364 56 Bowe C, van der Horst D (2015) Positive externalities, knowledge exchange and corporate farm extension services; a case study on creating shared value in a water scarce area. Ecosyst Serv 15:1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecoser. 2015. 05. 009 Briguglio M, Llorente-González LJ, Meilak C, Pereira Á, Spiteri J, Vence X (2021) Born or grown: enablers and barriers to circular business in europe. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13:1–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su132 413670 Bruton G, Khavul S, Siegel D, Wright M (2015) New financial alternatives in seeding entrepreneurship: microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer–to–peer innovations. Entrep Theory Pract 39:9–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ etap. 12143 Bryson JR, Lombardi R (2009) Balancing product and process sustainability against business profitability: sustainability as a competitive strategy in the property development process. Bus Strategy Environ 18:97–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 640 Buttel FH (2003) Internalizing the societal costs of agricultural production. Plant Physiol 133:1656–1665. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1104/ pp. 103. 030312 Cantino V, Giacosa E, Cortese D (2019) A sustainable perspective in wine production for common-good management: the case of Fontanafredda biological “reserve.” Br Food J 121:259–274. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BFJ0620180351 Capozzi V, Fragasso M, Bimbo F (2021) Microbial resources, fermentation and reduction of negative externalities in food systems: patterns toward sustainability and resilience. Fermentation 7:54. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ferme ntati on702 0054 Casadesus-Masanell R, Tarziján J (2012) When One Business Model Isn’t Enough. Harvard Business Review 90. https:// hbr. org/ 2012/ 01/ whenonebusin essmodelisntenough. Accessed 27 Jun 2024 Cavicchi C, Vagnoni E (2022) The role of performance measurement in assessing the contribution of circular economy to the sustainability of a wine value chain. Br Food J 124:1551–1568. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BFJ0820210920 Cavicchi C, Oppi C, Vagnoni E (2022) Energy management to foster circular economy business model for sustainable development in an agricultural SME. J Clean Prod 368:133188. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2022. 133188 Celli I, Brunori E, Eugeni M, Cristinariu CA, Zampilli M, Massoli S, Bartocci P, Caldarelli V, Saetta S, Bidini G, Fantozzi F (2022) Development of a tool to optimize economic and environmental feasibility of food waste chains. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1339902102107-3
Page 33 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 Cholez C, Pauly O, Mahdad M, Mehrabi S, Giagnocavo C, Bijman J (2023) Heterogeneity of inter-organizational collaborations in agrifood chain sustainability-oriented innovations. Agric Syst 212:103774. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2023. 103774 Ciccullo F, Fabbri M, Abdelkafi N, Pero M (2022) Exploring the potential of business models for sustainability and big data for food waste reduction. J Clean Prod 340:130673. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2022. 130673 Cunha FAFDS, Meira E, Orsato RJ (2021) Sustainable finance and investment: review and research agenda. Bus Strategy Environ 30:3821–3838. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 2842 da Rocha Oliveira Teixeira R, Arcuri S, Cavicchi A, Galli F, Brunori G, Vergamini D (2023) Can alternative wine networks foster sustainable business model innovation and value creation? The case of organic and biodynamic wine in Tuscany. Front Sustain Food Syst. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2023. 12410 62 Dagilienė L, Varaniūtė V, Pütter JM (2021) Exploring institutional competing logic for sustainability implementation of retail chains. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 50:17–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJRDM0920200379 De Chiara A (2021) Sustainable business model innovation vs. “made in” for international performance of italian food companies. Agriculture (Switzerland) 11:1–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agric ultur e1101 0017 de Pádua Pieroni M, Pigosso DCA, McAloone TC (2018) Sustainable qualifying criteria for designing circular business models. Proc CIRP 69:799–804. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. procir. 2017. 11. 014 Dhar BK, Sarkar SM, Ayittey FK (2022) Impact of social responsibility disclosure between implementation of green accounting and sustainable development: a study on heavily polluting companies in Bangladesh. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 29:71–78. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 2174 Díaz-Correa JE, López-Navarro MA (2018) Managing sustainable hybrid organisations: a case study in the agricultural sector. Sustainability (Switzerland). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su100 93010 Donner M, Erraach Y, López-i-Gelats F, Manuel-i-Martin J, Yatribi T, Radić I, El Hadad-Gauthier F (2022) Circular bioeconomy for olive oil waste and by-product valorisation: actors’ strategies and conditions in the Mediterranean area. J Environ Manag 321:115836. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvm an. 2022. 115836 Drejerska N, Bareja-Wawryszuk O, Gołębiewski J (2019) Marginal, localized and restricted activity: Business models for creation a value of local food products: a case from Poland. Br Food J 121:1368–1381. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BFJ0520180337 Dyck B, Silvestre BS (2018) Enhancing socio-ecological value creation through sustainable innovation 2.0: moving away from maximizing financial value capture. J Clean Prod 171:1593–1604. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2017. 09. 209 Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strategy Environ 11:130–141. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 323 Elbardisy A, William Y, Sherif M, Aboulnaga M, Guedes M (2021) Sustainable refurbishment of abandoned urban areas: the case study of former SIAPA area, Galliera–Bologna, Italy. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 863:012014. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1088/ 17551315/ 863/1/ 012014 El-Hage Scialabba N, Obst C, Merrigan KA, Müller A (2021) Mobilizing the power and potential of true cost accounting. In: Gemmill-Herren B, Baker LE, Daniels PA (eds) True cost accounting for food: balancing the scale. Routledge, London, pp 263–273 Eosta, Soil, More EY, et al. (2017) True cost accounting for food, farming & finance (TCA-FFF). https:// www. natur eandm ore. com/ en/ truecostoffood/ youstatethatorgan icapplessave27sickdaysperhecta reperyearhowisthat. Accessed 16 July 2024 Evans S, Vladimirova D, Holgado M, Van Fossen K, Yang M, Silva EA, Barlow CY (2017) Business model innovation for sustainability: towards a unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models. Bus Strategy Environ 26:597–608. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 1939 Fernqvist F, Sadovska V, Langendahl PA (2022) Sustainable value creation—a farm case on business model innovation. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 25:543–554. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22434/ IFAMR 2021. 0114 Fitzpatrick I (2019) The hidden cost of UK food. Bristol: Sustainable Food Trust, 49 Folkens L, Wiedemer V, Schneider P (2020) Monetary valuation and internalization of externalities in German agriculture using the example of nitrate pollution: a case-study. Sustainability (Switzerland). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su121 66681 FOODCoST (2023) Tackling true cost calculation in food systems: FOODCoST Project 1. Unpublished FORA (2010) Green business models in the Nordic Region: a key to promote sustainable growth, Green paper for the Nordic Council of Ministers. http:// www. motiva. fi/ files/ 4878/ Green paper_ Green_ Busin ess_ Models_ in_ the_ Nordic_ Region_ A_ Key_ to_ Promo te_ Susta inable_ Growth. pdf Franceschelli MV, Santoro G, Candelo E (2018) Business model innovation for sustainability: a food start-up case study. Br Food J 120:2483–2494. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BFJ0120180049 Galdeano-Gómez E, Pérez-Mesa JC, Giagnocavo CL (2015) Food exporters and co-opetition relationships: an analysis on the vegetable supply chain. Br Food J 117:1596–1609. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BFJ0720140255 García-Granero EM, Piedra-Muñoz L, Galdeano-Gómez E (2018) Eco-innovation measurement: a review of firm performance indicators. J Clean Prod 191:304–317. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2018. 04. 215 Gaziulusoy AI, Twomey P (2015) Emerging approaches in business model innovation relevant to sustainability and lowcarbon transitions. In: State of Australian Cities Conference 23 Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Evans S (2017) The Cambridge business model innovation process. Proc Manuf 8:262–269. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. promfg. 2017. 02. 033 Gemmill-Herren B, Baker LE, Daniels PA (2021) True cost accounting for food. Routledge, London Genovese D, Culasso F, Giacosa E, Battaglini LM (2017) Can livestock farming and tourism coexist in mountain regions? a new business model for sustainability. Sustainability (Switzerland) 9:1–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su911 2021 Gertner RH (2023) The organization of social enterprises. Annu Rev Econom 15:41–62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evecono mics082222075249 Giagnocavo C (2023) B corps, benefit corporations and socially oriented enterprises in Canada. In: The International Handbook of Social Enterprise Law. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 455–469
Page 34 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 Gibbs G (2012) Thematic coding and categorizing. Analyzing Qualitative Data, pp 38–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4135/ 97818 49208 574. n4 Goldkuhl G, Cronholm S (2010) Adding theoretical grounding to grounded theory: toward multi-grounded theory. Int J Qual Methods 9:187–205. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 16094 06910 00900 205 Gołębiewska B, Pajewski T (2018) Positive and negative externalities of management illustrated by the case of agricultural production. J Agribus Rural Dev 48:113–120. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17306/J. JARD. 2018. 00395 Gomes JGC, Okano MT, Ursini EL, Santos HDCLD (2023) Insect production for animal feed: a multiple case study in Brazil. Sustainability 15:11419. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su151 411419 Goni FA, Gholamzadeh Chofreh A, Estaki Orakani Z, Klemeš JJ, Davoudi M, Mardani A (2021) Sustainable business model: a review and framework development. Clean Technol Environ Policy 23:889–897. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1009802001886-z González-Eguino M (2011) The importance of the design of market-based instruments for CO2 mitigation: an AGE analysis for Spain. Ecol Econ 70:2292–2302. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2011. 05. 023 Gromis di Trana M, Bava F, Pisoni P (2020) A sustainable value generator in the Italian wine industry: Casa E. di Mirafiore e Fontanafredda winery. Br Food J 122:1321–1340. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BFJ0320190209 Gupta GS (2016) The paradox of sustainable development: a critical overview of the term and the institutionalization process. Period Polytech Soc Manag Sci. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3311/ PPso. 8919 Helbling T (2022) Externalities: prices do not capture all costs there are differences between private returns or costs and the costs or returns to society as a whole. In: International Monetary Fund. https:// www. imf. org/ exter nal/ pubs/ ft/ fandd/ basics/ 38exter nalit ies. htm Hendriks S, Ruiz ADG, Acosta MH, Baumers H, Galgani P, Mason-D’Croz D, Godde C, Waha K, Kanidou D, von Braun J, Mauricio Benitez JB, Patrick Caron JF, Friederike G, Lawrence H, Anna H, Danie Jordaan WM, Claudia S, Jean-François Soussana MCT, Maximo Torero MW (2021) The true cost and true price of food. United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021 Holcim (2020) Sustainability-linked bond. https:// www. holcim. com/ inves tors/ debtinves tors/ susta inablefinan cing/ susta inabi litylinkedbonds. Accessed 16 July 2024 Hong P, Balasudarsun NL, Vivek N, Sathish M (2022) Sustainable agricultural business model: case studies of innovative Indian farmers. Sustainability 14:10242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su141 610242 IPBES (2022) Summary of the Ninth Session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: 3–9 July 2022. In: Earth Negotiations Bulletin. A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations IPCC (2022) Climate change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, and New York. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ 97810 09325 844 Isada F, Isada Y (2014) Internalisation of an externality and profitability: based on an empirical study of in the food industry. Int J Bus Econ Dev 2:1–13 Jalali S, Wohlin C (2012) Systematic literature studies. In: Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 29–38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 23722 51. 23722 57 Jamieson C, Thornley P, Hub SB, Hub SB, Open L, Hub I, Common W, Triangle A, Kingdom U, Road O, Kingdom U (2020) (Stop) burning for biogas. Enabl Posit Sustain Trade-Offs Bus Models Biogas Rice Straw. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biomb ioe. 2020. 105598 Jones P, Hillier D, Comfort D (2011) Shopping for tomorrow: promoting sustainable consumption within food stores. Br Food J 113:935–948. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 00070 70111 11484 41 Karlsson NPE, Halila F, Mattsson M, Hoveskog M (2017) Success factors for agricultural biogas production in Sweden: a case study of business model innovation. J Clean Prod 142:2925–2934. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2016. 10. 178 Kering (2024) Measuring impact, EP&L, Reporting and indicators. https:// www. kering. com/ en/ susta inabi lity/ measu ringourimpact/ repor tingandindic ators/. Accessed 16 July 2024 Klein O, Nier S, Tamásy C (2022) Circular agri-food economies: business models and practices in the potato industry. Sustain Sci. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1162502201106-1 Kowalski Z, Makara A (2021) The circular economy model used in the polish agro-food consortium: a case study. J Clean Prod 284:124751. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2020. 124751 KPMG International (2014) A new vision of value 1–116. https:// assets. kpmg. com/ conte nt/ dam/ kpmg/ pdf/ 2014/ 11/ANewVisionofValue. pdf. Accessed 16 July 2024 Krantz T, Jonker A (2024) What is ESG reporting? IBM. https:// www. ibm. com/ topics/ esgrepor ting . Accessed 16 July 2024 Lagrasta FP, Pontrandolfo P, Scozzi B (2021) Circular economy business models for the Tanzanian coffee sector: a teaching case study. Sustainability (Switzerland). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su132 413931 Li D, Liu G, Jia F, Sun H (2019) Sharing economy–based service triads: towards an integrated framework and a research agenda. J Clean Prod 218:1031–1044. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2019. 02. 019 Li Y, Zheng K, Wang Y (2021) Analysis on innovation strategy of agricultural sustainable business model–taking agricultural maker space “maker spark” in Sichuan province as an example. E3S Web Conf 228:02008. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1051/ e3sco nf/ 20212 28020 08 Litvinova OV, Abrosimova MS, Vasilyeva OG, Filippova SP, Gordeeva LG, Nesterova NV (2020) Digital platform as a liaison mechanism and a business model in agribusiness. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1088/ 17551315/ 604/1/ 012033 Long TB, Blok V, Coninx I (2019) The diffusion of climate-smart agricultural innovations: systems level factors that inhibit sustainable entrepreneurial action. J Clean Prod 232:993–1004. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2019. 05. 212 López JEN, Martín LÁG (2013) FUNDAMENTALS OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT. Civitas. Lord S (2020) Valuing the impact of food: towards practical and comparable monetary valuation of food system impacts. A report of the Food System Impact Valuation Initiative (FoodSIVI) May 2020, FoodSIVI. Oxford
Page 35 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 Luo BN, Tang Y, Chen EW, Li S, Luo D (2020) Corporate sustainability paradox management: a systematic review and future agenda. Front Psychol. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2020. 579272 Lynde R (2020) Innovation & entrepreneurship driving food system transformation. Physiol Behav 220:112866. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. physb eh. 2020. 112866 Macewen A, Devanney M, Economist A (2008) Internalizing non-market benefits and costs into agricultural producer decisions Machiba T, Asel D, Liina J, Lorena RL, Michal M, van der Geert V (2012) The future of eco-innovation: the role of business models in green transformation. In: OECD background paper, in Proceedings of the OECD/European Commission/ Nordic Innovation Joint Workshop, pp 1–27 Mahrool F (2020) Research Methodology. A Guide for a Literature Review. A short Description. National University of Malaysia (Accounting & Finance) Mazaheri M, Bonnin Roca J, Markus A, Walrave B (2022) Market-based instruments and sustainable innovation: a systematic literature review and critique. J Clean Prod 373:133947. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2022. 133947 McGrail BP, Freeman CJ, Brown CF, Sullivan EC, White SK, Reddy S, Garber RD, Tobin D, Gilmartin JJ, Steffensen EJ (2012) Overcoming business model uncertainty in a carbon dioxide capture and sequestration project: case study at the Boise White Paper Mill. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 9:91–102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijggc. 2012. 03. 009 Mehrabi S, Perez-Mesa JC, Giagnocavo C (2022) The role of consumer-citizens and connectedness to nature in the sustainable transition to agroecological food systems: the mediation of innovative business models and a multi-level perspective. Agriculture 12:203. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agric ultur e1202 0203 Mejía G, Granados-Rivera D, Jarrín JA, Castellanos A, Mayorquín N, Molano E (2021) Strategic supply chain planning for food hubs in central colombia: an approach for sustainable food supply and distribution. Appl Sci (Switzerland) 11:1–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ app11 041792 Mercuri F, della Corte G, Ricci F (2021) Blockchain technology and sustainable business models: a case study of devoleum. Sustainability (Switzerland). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su131 05619 Migliorini P, Wezel A (2017) Converging and diverging principles and practices of organic agriculture regulations and agroecology. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 37:63. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s135930170472-4 Mirzabaev A, von Braun J (2022) True cost of food and land degradation. Russian J Econ 8:7–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 32609/j. ruje.8. 78376 Närvänen E, Mattila M, Mesiranta N (2021) Institutional work in food waste reduction: start-ups’ role in moving towards a circular economy. Ind Mark Manag 93:605–616. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. indma rman. 2020. 08. 009 Nganwa P, Lyne M, Ferrer S (2010) What will South Africa’s new Cooperatives Act do for small producers? An analysis of three case studies in KwaZulu-Natal. Agrekon 49:39–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03031 85100 37985 61 Novkovic S (2019) Multi-stakeholder cooperatives as a means for jobs creation and social transformation. Cooper World Work. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97804 29285 93614 Núñez-Cacho P, Molina-Moreno V, Corpas-Iglesias FA, Cortés-García FJ (2018) Family businesses transitioning to a circular economy model: The case of “Mercadona”. Sustainability 10(2):538 OECD (2010) Eco-innovation in industry: enabling green growth. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1787/ 97892 64077 225en OFI (2024) Finance for sustainability, Olam food ingredients (ofi). https:// www. ofi. com/ susta inabi lity/ f4s. html. Accessed 16 July 2024 Oghazi P, Mostaghel R (2018) Circular business model challenges and lessons learned—an industrial perspective. Sustainability. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su100 30739 Oginni OS, Omojowo AD (2016) Sustainable development and corporate social responsibility in sub-saharan africa: evidence from industries in Cameroon. Economies 4:1–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ econo mies4 020010 Pajewski T (2020) Farm consolidation as an example of internalizing externalities in agriculture. Ann Polish Assoc Agric Agribus Econ XXII:151–160. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5604/ 01. 3001. 0014. 5821 Paoloni M, Tutino M, Paoloni N, Santolamazza V (2023) Financing innovation in agri-food industries: an analysis of the Italian micro, small and medium enterprises. Br Food J 125:183–204. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ BFJ0420220342 Papoutsis K, Dewulf W, Vanelslander T, Nathanail E (2018) Sustainability assessment of retail logistics solutions using external costs analysis: a case-study for the city of Antwerp. Eur Transp Res Rev. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s125440180297-5 Phelan A, Jacobs S (2016) Facing the true cost of fracking; social externalities and the role of integrated valuation. Ecosyst Serv 22:348–358. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecoser. 2016. 11. 006 Pieper M, Michalke A, Gaugler T (2020) Calculation of external climate costs for food highlights inadequate pricing of animal products. Nat Commun 11:6117. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s4146702019474-6 Pohlmann CR, Scavarda AJ, Alves MB, Korzenowski AL (2020) The role of the focal company in sustainable development goals: a Brazilian food poultry supply chain case study. J Clean Prod. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2019. 118798 Prosperi P, Kirwan J, Maye D, Tsakalou E, Vlahos G, Bartolini F, Vergamini D, Brunori G (2022) Adaptive business arrangements and the creation of social capital: towards small-scale fisheries resilience in different European geographical areas. Sociol Ruralis 62:44–67. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ soru. 12362 Ragasa C, Thornsbury S, Joshi S (2011) Are food certification costs misestimated? Exporter-perspective on the european standard. J Agric Econ 62:669–689. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 14779552. 2011. 00307.x Rastoin JL (2022) Hidden costs and the fair price of our food: between the market, the State and the commons. POLICY BRIEF No 19. https:// www. chair eunes coadm. com/ IMG/ pdf/ 01sowhat19_ 2022en_ 15sept. pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2023 Ren S, Li X, Yuan B, Li D, Chen X (2018) The effects of three types of environmental regulation on eco-efficiency: a crossregion analysis in China. J Clean Prod 173:245–255. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2016. 08. 113 Riemer O, van Leerzem S, von Wolfersdorff J, Wollesen G (2022) TRUE COST ACCOUNTING AGRIFOOD HANDBOOK. Practical guidelines for the food and farming sector on impact measurement, valuation and reporting [WWW Document]. TRUE COST, TMG, & SMI. http:// tca2f. org/ wpconte nt/ uploa ds/ 2022/ 03/ TCA_ Agrif ood_ Handb ook. pdf Roos G (2014) Business model innovation to create and capture resource value in future circular material chains. Resources 3:248–274. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ resou rces3 010248
Page 36 of 36 Mehrabiand Giagnocavo Agricultural and Food Economics (2024) 12:46 Sadovska V, Ekelund Axelson L, Mark-Herbert C (2020) Reviewing value creation in agriculture—a conceptual analysis and a new framework. Sustainability 12:5021. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su121 25021 Santagata R, Zucaro A, Viglia S, Ripa M, Tian X, Ulgiati S (2020) Assessing the sustainability of urban eco-systems through emergy-based circular economy indicators. Ecol Indic 109:105859. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecoli nd. 2019. 105859 Scare RF, Gray AW, Farinha RL, Fullerton EC, Neves MF (2018) Growth strategies for a commercial farm: the AgroPastoril Campanelli case study. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 21:161–178. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22434/ IFAMR 2017. 0053 Scrase JI, Andy S, Geels FW, Smith A, van Zwanenberg P (2009) Transformative innovation: a research report for the department for environment, food and rural affairs. Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU), University of Sussex, Brighton Sebastiani R, Montagnini F, Dalli D (2013) Ethical consumption and new business models in the food industry. Evidence from the Eataly case. J Bus Ethics 114:473–488. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510121343-1 Sedlmeier R, Rombach M, Bitsch V (2019) Making food rescue your business: case studies in Germany. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11:1–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su111 85101 Sehnem S, Ndubisi NO, Preschlak D, Bernardy RJ, Santos Junior S (2020) Circular economy in the wine chain production: maturity, challenges, and lessons from an emerging economy perspective. Prod Plann Control 31:1014–1034. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09537 287. 2019. 16959 14 Serafeim G, Zochowski TR, Downing J (2019) IMPACT-WEIGHTED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS :the missing piece for an impact economy. Harward business school, Cambridge, MA 02138, pp 1–36 Sipkens A, de Groot B, Drost R, Aerts MC, van der Laan R, Midgley L, Beeren D, de Groot Ruiz A, Grosscurt C (2014) The business case for true pricing why you will benefit from measuring, monetizing and improving your impact. Second edition. https:// truep rice. org/ wpconte nt/ uploa ds/ 2022/ 07/ TruePriceReportTheBusin essCaseforTruePrici ng. pdf. Accessed 16 July 2024 SmartAgriHubs (2022) PROJECT SmartAgriHubs Connecting the dots to unleash the innovation potential for digital transformation of the European agri-food sector. https:// www. smart agrih ubs. eu/ proje ct/ secto rs. Accessed 16 July 2024 Spicka J (2022) Cooperation in a minimum-waste innovation ecosystem: a case study of the Czech Hemp Cluster. Int J Emerg Mark. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJOEM0820211189 Stubbs W (2019) Strategies, practices, and tensions in managing business model innovation for sustainability: the case of an Australian BCorp. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26:1063–1072. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1786 Stuckler D, Nestle M (2012) Big food, food systems, and global health. PLoS Med 9:e1001242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pmed. 10012 42 Taron A, Majumder A, Bodach S, Agbefu D (2023) Public-private partnerships for the circular bioeconomy in the Global South: lessons learned. Res Agric Appl Econ. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5337/ 2023. 205 Teece DJ (2010) Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plann 43:172–194. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lrp. 2009. 07. 003 TMG-Think Tank for Sustainability and WWF (2021) True cost accounting and dietary patterns: the opportunity for coherent food system policy, TMG-Think Tank for Sustainability & WWF, Berlin Toro-Mujica P, Vera R, Vargas-Bello-pérez E, Pinedo P, Bas F (2019) Trends and drivers of change of pastoral beef production systems in a mediterranean-temperate climate zone of chile. Animals. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ani91 21135 True Price (2015) OATWELL®: DSM True Price. https:// truep rice. org/ oatwe lldsm/. Accessed 16 July 2024 Valentinov V (2007) Why are cooperatives important in agriculture? An organizational economics perspective. J Inst Econ 3:55–69. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1744 13740 60005 55 Verbeek A, Fackelmann S, McDonagh B, Dustdar S (2019) Feeding future generations: How finance can boost innovation in agri-food. https:// www. eib. org/ attac hments/ thema tic/ feedi ng_ future_ gener ation_ en. pdf. Accessed 16 July 2024 Verboven H, Vanherck L (2016) The sustainability paradox of the sharing economy. Umwelt Wirtschafts Forum 24:303– 314. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s005500160410-y Vermunt DA, Negro SO, Van Laerhoven FSJ, Verweij PA, Hekkert MP (2020) Sustainability transitions in the agri-food sector: how ecology affects transition dynamics. Environ Innov Soc Transit 36:236–249. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eist. 2020. 06. 003 Wbcsd (2021) The true value of food. A powerful aid to business decision-making. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021 (UNFSS) Williams M, Moser T (2019) The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. Int Manag Rev 15:45–55 Wiśniewska-Paluszak J, Paluszak G, Fiore M, Coticchio A, Galati A, Lira J (2023) Urban agriculture business models and value propositions: mixed methods approach based on evidence from Polish and Italian case studies. Land Use Policy 127:106562. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu sepol. 2023. 106562 Zhen H, Gao W, Yuan K, Ju X, Qiao Y (2021) Internalizing externalities through net ecosystem service analysis–a case study of greenhouse vegetable farms in Beijing. Ecosyst Serv 50:101323. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecoser. 2021. 101323 Zilia F, Orsi L, Costantini M, Tedesco DEA, Sugni M (2023) Case study of life cycle assessment and sustainable business model for sea urchin waste. Clean Environ Syst 8:100108. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cesys. 2023. 100108 Zott C, Amit R (2007) Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organ Sci 18:181–199. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 1060. 0232 Zucchella A, Previtali P (2019) Circular business models for sustainable development A “waste is food” restorative ecosystem. Bus Strategy Environ 2:274–285. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 2216 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.