Sustainability in Smart Farms: Its Impact on Performance
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. The Theoretical Framework
2.1. Economic Sustainability
2.2. The Measure of Economic Sustainability
2.3. Technological Sustainability
2.4. The Measure for Technological Sustainability
2.5. Organizational Sustainability
2.6. The Measure of Organizational Sustainability
2.7. Training Sustainability
2.8. The Measure of Training Sustainability
2.9. Financial Indicators
2.10. Return on Assets (ROA)
2.11. Return on Investments (RF)
3. Materials & Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion and Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Schader, C.; Baumgart, L.; Landert, J.; Muller, A.; Ssebunya, B.; Blockeel, J.; Weisshaidinger, R.; Petrasek, R.; Mészáros, D.; Padel, S.; et al. Using the Sustainability Monitoring and Assessment Routine (SMART) for the Systematic Analysis of Trade-Offs and Synergies between Sustainability Dimensions and Themes at Farm Level. Sustainability 2016, 8, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikerd, J.E. The Essentials of Economic Sustainability; Kumarian Press: Bloomfield, CT, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Rangel, J.; Espinosa, J.; de Pablos-Heredero, C.; Barba, C.; Vélez, A.; Rivas, J.; García, A. Adoption of innovations and organizational practices in management, animal feeding and reproduction in dual-purpose bovine of small farms in Mexico. Rev. Científ. FCV-LUZ 2017, 27, 44–55. [Google Scholar]
- Boons, F.; Montalvo, C.; Quist, J.; Wagner, M. Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: An overview. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Höjer, M.; Wangel, J. Smart sustainable cities: Definition and challenges. In ICT Innovations for Sustainability; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 333–349. [Google Scholar]
- Tussyadiah, I.P.; Pesonen, J. Drivers and barriers of peer-to-peer accommodation stay—An exploratory study with American and Finnish travellers. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 703–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laszlo, C.; Zhexembayeva, N. Embedded Sustainability: The Next Big Competitive Advantage; Stanford University Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Satish, J.; Yue, L. What is corporate sustainability and how do firms practice it? A management accounting research perspective. J. Manag. Account. Res. 2016, 28, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Spangenberg, J.H. Economic sustainability of the economy: Concepts and indicators. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 8, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weaver, P.; Jansen, L.; Grootveld, G.V.; Spiegel, E.V. Sustainable Technology Development; Greenleaf Publishing Book: Austin, TX, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Baumgartner, R.J.; Rauter, R. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lozano, R. Creativity and organizational learning as means to foster sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 22, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society; Routledge: Abington-on-Thames, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Aquilani, B.; Silvestri, C.; Ioppolo, G.; Ruggieri, A. The challenging transition to bio-economies: Towards a new framework integrating corporate sustainability and value co-creation. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 4001–4009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trondsen, T. Value chains, business conventions, and market adaptation: A comparative analysis of Norwegian and Icelandic fish exports. Can. Geogr./Le Géographe Canadien 2012, 56, 459–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomczak, T.; Reinecke, S.; Kuss, A. Introduction. In Strategic Marketing; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Ramdhani, M.A.; Aulawi, H.; Ikhwana, A.; Mauluddin, Y. Model of Green Technology Adaptation in Small and Medium-Sized Tannery Industry. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2017, 12, 954–962. [Google Scholar]
- Van’t Hooft, K.; Wollen, T. Sustainable Livestock Management for Poverty Alleviation and Food Security; Cab International: London, UK, 2012; pp. 120–130. [Google Scholar]
- Angón, E.; Perea, J.; Toro-Mújica, P.; Rivas, J.; De-Pablos, C.; García, A. Pathways towards to improve the feasibility of dairy pastoral system in La Pampa (Argentine). Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 14, 643–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, S.; Chen, J.C. Six Sigma-Based Optimization of Shrinkage Accuracy in Injection Molding Processes. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. Int. J. Ind. Manuf. Eng. 2018, 5, 3. [Google Scholar]
- Henningsen, A.; Czekaj, T.G.; Forkman, B.; Lund, M.; Nielsen, A.S. The relationship between animal welfare and economic performance at farm level: A quantitative study of Danish pig producers. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 69, 142–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhatt, G.D.; Grover, V. Types of information technology capabilities and their role in competitive advantage: An empirical study. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2005, 22, 253–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nieves, J. Relaciones sociales, capacidades dinámicas e innovación: Un análisis empírico en la industria hotelera. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa 2014, 23, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, C.; Clark, K. Strategic Human Resource Practices, Top Management Team Social Networks, and Firm Performance: The Role of Human Resource Practices in Creating Organizational Competitive Advantage. Acad. Manag. J. 2003, 46, 740–751. [Google Scholar]
- Mao, H.; Liu, S.; Zhang, J.; Deng, Z. Information technology resource, knowledge management capability, and competitive advantage: The moderating role of resource commitment. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 1062–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morantes, M.; Dios-Palomares, R.; Peña, M.E.; Rivas, J.; Perea, J.; García, A. Management and productivity of dairy sheep production systems in Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. Small Rumin. Res. 2017, 149, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dao, V.; Langella, I.; Carbo, J. From green to sustainability: Information Technology and an integrated sustainability framework. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2011, 20, 63–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altieri, M.A. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Fernández-Renedo, C.; Medina-Merodio, J.A. Technical efficiency and organ transplant performance: A mixed-method approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 4869–4888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pearlson, K.E.; Saunders, C.S.; Galletta, D.F. Managing and Using Information Systems, Binder Ready Version: A Strategic Approach; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bravo Ibarra, E.R.; Herrera, L. Capacidad de innovación y configuración de recursos organizativos. Intang. Cap. 2009, 5, 301–320. [Google Scholar]
- Petter, S.; Delone, W.; McLean, E.R. The Past, Present, and Future of “IS Success”. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012, 13, 341–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beath, C.; Becerra-Fernandez, I.; Ross, J.; Short, J. Finding Value in the Information Explosion. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2012, 53, 18–20. [Google Scholar]
- Shahbazi, R.; Haghshenas, M.; Nassiriyar, M.; Sadeghzadeh, A. Methodology Presentation for the Integration of Knowledge Management and Business Intelligence. Int. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. Eng. 2016, 3, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
- Daneels, E. Trying to become a different type of Company: Dynamic capability at Smith Corona. Strateg. Manag. Rev. 2010, 32, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallace, J.C.; Butts, M.M.; Johnson, P.D.; Stevens, F.G.; Smith, M.B. A multilevel model of employee innovation: Understanding the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and employee involvement climate. J. Manag. 2016, 42, 982–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, E.; Klein, G.; Jiang, J.J. IT support in manufacturing firms for a knowledge management, dynamic capability link to performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007, 45, 2419–2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toro-Mújica, P.; García, A.; Aguilar, C.; Vera, R.; Perea, J.; Angón, E. Economic sustainability of organic dairy sheep systems in Central Spain. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 14, 3625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Martínez, A.; Rivas, J.; Rangel, J.; Espinosa, J.A.; Barba, C.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C. A methodological approach to evaluating the technological innovation in small-scale farming. Future Internet 2016, 8, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivas, J.; Perea, J.; Angón, E.; Barba, C.; Morantes, M.; Dios-Palomares, R.; García, A. Diversity in the dry land mixed system and viability of dairy sheep farming. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 14, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Fernández-Valero, G.; Blanco-Callejo, M. Supplier Qualification Sub-Process from a Sustained Perspective: Generation of Dynamic Capabilities. Sustainability 2017, 9, 730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murovec, N.; Prodan, I. Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation 2009, 29, 859–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laaksonen, O.; Peltoniemi, M. The essence of dynamic capabilities and their measurement. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 184–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kock, N. Warp PLS 6.0; ScriptWarp Systems: Laredo, TX, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Indicator | Authors |
---|---|
MERCH—direct selling from consumer to wholesaler | [12] |
CHVAR—kind of cheese sold | [14] |
SLAMBS—selling of lambs | [12] |
SRAMS—selling of milk per ewe | [1] |
FSL—female sale | [27] |
MSL—male sale | [12] |
CHSO—cheese sold | [23] |
WOSO—wool sold | [2] |
MASO—manure sold | [12] |
UNFE—use of unified as integral food system | [13] |
SUBP—use of by-products as animal food | [13] |
PRON—use of pastures | [13] |
LANDA—use of agriculture for food production | [4,24] |
REPRO—reproduction planning | [14] |
KREC—availability of registers | [13] |
Indicator | Authors |
---|---|
REGB—system of registers (births, deaths, sales, etc.) | [12] |
UINF—use of information to make decisions | [35] |
MILK—milk control as a managing strategy | [16] |
PLAN—planning of operational processes (reproduction, health, breed, etc.) | [9,15] |
INTP—Integral planning of different areas | [37] |
GENP—genetic improvement | [1] |
DIET—degree of agreement between animal diet and level of production | [36] |
MINE—use of minerals | [34] |
SUPL—use of supplements | [33] |
HEALP—use of health plans | [15] |
HYGP—use of Hygienic plan | [30] |
PREV—use of prevention plans | [35] |
CONSE—conservation of extra materials | [4] |
STRHE—Strategies for managing animals | [35] |
TECH—technologies in the milking parlour | [27] |
ECOG—use of echographia | [1] |
ANDRO—andrological evaluations | [4] |
ANSE—animal selection |
Indicator | Authors |
---|---|
IDENT—individual identification of animals | [27,41] |
CTPAR—control of internal and external parasites | [41] |
HECON—health control in the udder and in milk quality | [39] |
NIDIS—disinfection of the nipple after milking | |
DRTR—application of drying treatment | [41] |
STREF—putting into practice any strategy to improve the efficiency in the use of water and conservation of land | [40] |
DISTR—the organization of different areas according to a logic sequences in terms of flowing of animals, machines and workers | [41] |
DIMEN—availability of milking place according to the flock dimension and easy access to animals and workers | [39] |
ATANK—availability of milking place a proper refrigeration (in terms of volume and capacity) | [40] |
CLMI—availability of automatic cleaning equipment and use of protocols in the milking place | |
ROEQ—availability of place and equipment for the artificial breed of lambs | |
RPTE—the use of reproductive techniques (flushing, matting, hormonal treatments, etc.) | |
INDR—reproduction index (birth/sheep/year) | |
ARTI—the use of artificial insemination as a tool to improve genetics |
Indicator | Authors |
---|---|
TRAIN—training actions | [43] |
STARE—staff’s recruitment | [25] |
SOING—sources of information | [13] |
USEAD—use of advisors | [43] |
TYAD—kind of advisors | [13] |
CONA—conditions for advisors | [20] |
GRASC—be part of a cooperative | [34] |
KINDA—kind of cooperative | [16] |
Indicator | Authors |
---|---|
ROA—return on assets RF (ROI)—return on investments | [3,17] [3,8,10] [6] |
Index | Value | Value Interpretation |
---|---|---|
Average path coefficient (APC) | (APC) = 0.112, p = 0.038 | Significant if p < 0.05 |
Average R-squared (ARS) | (ARS) = 0.040, p = 0.154 | Significant if p < 0.05 |
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) | (AARS) = 0.014, p = 0.214 | Significant if p < 0.05 |
Average block VIF (AVIF) | VIF (AVIF) = 1.874 | Acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3.3 |
Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF) | (AFVIF) = 3.320, | Acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3.3 |
Tenenhaus GoF (GoF) | (GoF) = 0.146 | Small ≥ 0.1, medium ≥ 0.25; large ≥ 0.36 |
Sympson’s paradox ratio (SPR) | (SPR) = 0.750 | acceptable if ≥ 0.7, ideally = 1 |
R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR) | (RSCR) = 0.711 | Acceptable if ≥ 0.9, ideally = 1 |
Statistical suppression ratio (SSR) | (SSR) = 1.000 | Acceptable if ≥ 0.7 |
Non-linear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR) | (NLBCDR) = 0.750 | Acceptable if ≥ 0.7 |
Types of Sustainability | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SECO | STEC | SORG | SFOR | ||
Financial Indicators | ROA | 0.236 (0.001) | −0.047 (0.276) | 0.048 (0.272) | 0.096 (0.110) |
RF | −0.210 (0.003) | 0.095 (0.112) | 0.150 (0.027) | −0.015 (0.424) |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Montes-Botella, J.L.; García-Martínez, A. Sustainability in Smart Farms: Its Impact on Performance. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061713
De-Pablos-Heredero C, Montes-Botella JL, García-Martínez A. Sustainability in Smart Farms: Its Impact on Performance. Sustainability. 2018; 10(6):1713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061713
Chicago/Turabian StyleDe-Pablos-Heredero, Carmen, Jose Luis Montes-Botella, and Antón García-Martínez. 2018. "Sustainability in Smart Farms: Its Impact on Performance" Sustainability 10, no. 6: 1713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061713
APA StyleDe-Pablos-Heredero, C., Montes-Botella, J. L., & García-Martínez, A. (2018). Sustainability in Smart Farms: Its Impact on Performance. Sustainability, 10(6), 1713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061713