The Problem of Poorly Defined Sustainable Agricultural Systems and Their Impact on Certification, Policy, and Adoption
Sustainable Agriculture Needs Clearer Standards: The Impact on Policy, Certification & Farmers
Sustainable agriculture is pivotal in addressing global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and food insecurity. Two of the most prominent approaches—agroecology and regenerative agriculture—have gained significant traction in scientific, political, and farming communities. However, the lack of clear and universally accepted definitions for these systems creates substantial barriers to their adoption, policy development, certification standards, and consumer trust. This article explores how the absence of precise definitions for sustainable agricultural systems hinders the creation of reliable certifications and policies, making it difficult for farmers to adopt these practices, ensure food security, and gain consumer acceptance.
The Confusion Around Sustainable Agriculture
Both agroecology and regenerative agriculture promise healthier soils, improved biodiversity, and a more sustainable future. But what exactly do these terms mean?
- Agroecology: A system that integrates ecological principles into farming, focusing on biodiversity, soil health, and social equity. Sounds great, right? The problem is that some see it as a scientific discipline, others as a set of farming techniques, and some as a social movement.
- Regenerative Agriculture: A method aimed at restoring soil health, capturing carbon, and revitalizing ecosystems. However, its definition often overlaps with organic farming, conservation agriculture, and agroecology itself.
Without universally accepted definitions, confusion runs rampant, making it difficult to establish standards, certifications, and trust in sustainable food labels.
Why This Matters for Farmers, Consumers and Policymakers
Did you know that over 230 different environmental labels are used in the EU alone (456 eco-labels exist globally), based on the European Commission report? Whether you are a farmer or a consumer, it is clear the chaos this is causing. Some companies use vague green labels without real sustainability efforts (a practice called greenwashing), leaving consumers uncertain about which products to choose and trust. At the same time, farmers struggle with complex and costly certification programs. Worse, those already using sustainable methods may not qualify for certification, missing out on premium pricing.
At the same time, governments are scrambling to regulate sustainable agriculture, but without clear definitions, policies become inconsistent and difficult to enforce. Fragmented regulations and lack of standardization and universal criteria are usually leaving farmers without proper financial support and with over expectations to become greener fast. Additionally, when countries adopt different standards for sustainable certification, it complicates international trade. Some products may qualify as sustainable in one country but fail to meet the criteria elsewhere, creating trade barriers and limiting market access.
All these, slow down the adoption of sustainable practices by farmers and and mathematically lead to the failure of programmes such as the green deal and the new CAP.
Governments and agricultural institutions must invest in standardized training programs to help farmers transition smoothly. Wageningen University & Research (WUR) conducted a literature review of 279 studies to identify common objectives in regenerative agriculture. They found significant variation in definitions, emphasizing the need for a scientifically accepted framework.
What Is Greenwashing in the food industry?
Greenwashing in food products with eco-friendly labels refers to companies making vague or unsubstantiated environmental claims—such as labeling products as "eco-friendly" or "climate neutral" without scientific backing—to mislead consumers into believing their products are more sustainable than they truly are.
Companies engage in greenwashing to appear environmentally friendly without making significant sustainability efforts. Key reasons include meeting consumer demand for green products, gaining a competitive advantage, and avoiding the high costs of genuine sustainability. The lack of standardized metrics and weak regulatory frameworks make it easier for businesses to make misleading claims without consequences. Additionally, greenwashing improves public relations by enhancing a company's image and attracting positive media attention. Strengthening regulations and increasing consumer awareness are essential to prevent deceptive environmental claims.
Of course, greenwashing can also have an extend on food packaging. Greenwashing in plastic packaging occurs when companies use misleading recycling labels or symbols (e.g., the chasing arrows symbol) to imply recyclability, even when the material is not widely accepted by recycling facilities. This deceives consumers into believing they are making an environmentally friendly choice while much of the plastic still ends up in landfills or incineration.
EU's Crackdown on Greenwashing
Recognizing the pervasive issue of greenwashing, the European Commission unveiled new rules in March 2023, to ensure environmental claims are credible and verifiable (characterized as the Green Claims Directive). Companies wishing to use environmental labels must now undergo independent verification processes (from 3rd parties and back their claim with scientific evidence) before their products reach the market.
Moreover, according to the EU parliament's announcement, the EU will ban generic claims that a product has a neutral or positive impact on the environment because the producer is offsetting emissions, as well as sustainability labels that are not based on approved certification schemes or established by public authorities.
This initiative aims to harmonize certification requirements across the EU, enhancing transparency and consumer trust. However, this new policy does not aim to ban existing labels neither to creat a new unified EU-wide label.
What are the next steps to set the new Green Claims Directive into action? Well, based on the report released by the European commission on late February 2025 , we have a clear timeline:
- 2025: Proposal and amendments by the European Commission.
- 2026: Member States must transpose the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) by July 26.
- 2027: First wave applies to the largest companies (5,000+ employees, €1.5B+ turnover).
- 2028: Second wave covers companies with 3,000+ employees, €900M+ turnover.
- 2029: Final wave applies to all remaining companies under the directive.
- 2030: Implementation report assessing its effectiveness
Solutions for Defining and Strengthening Sustainable Systems
To overcome these challenges, stakeholders must work towards creating universally recognized definitions and standards for agroecology and regenerative agriculture. Some key solutions include:
- Global Standardization of Definitions: International organizations such as the FAO, UN, and WUR should work together to develop clear, standardized definitions of sustainable agricultural systems.
- Development of Universal Certification Systems: A globally recognized certification framework would eliminate inconsistencies, ensuring that consumers receive trustworthy information and farmers receive fair compensation for sustainable practices.
- Stronger Policy Coordination: Policymakers must collaborate across borders to harmonize agricultural sustainability policies, ensuring that financial incentives and trade regulations support farmers adopting these systems.
- Education and Outreach Programs: Governments and agricultural institutions must invest in farmer training programs, extension services, and consumer education initiatives to build awareness and encourage adoption.
Conclusion
Establishing clear definitions, standardized certification systems, and coherent policies is crucial to accelerating the transition to truly sustainable agricultural practices. Only through collaborative efforts can we ensure a more resilient food system, stronger farmer incentives, and greater consumer confidence in sustainable agriculture.
References and further reading
Wezel, A. & Bellon, Stéphane & Doré, T. & Francis, Charles & Vallod, Dominique & David, Christophe. (2009). Agroecology as a Science, a Movement and a Practice. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009004. 29. 503-515. 10.1007/978-94-007-0394-0_3.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2023)753958
https://earth.org/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-eus-new-greenwashing-directive/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666784324000603
