Retail Development and Corporate Environmental Disclosure: A Spatial Analysis of Land-Use Change in the Veneto Region (Italy)

Abstract

Corporate environmental claims often neglect the substantial ecological impact of land-use changes. This case study examines the spatial dimension of retail-driven land-use transformation by analyzing supermarket expansion in the Veneto region (northern Italy), with a focus on a large grocery retailer. We evaluated its corporate environmental claims by assessing land consumption patterns from 1983 to 2024 using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The GIS-based methodology involved geocoding 113 Points of Sale (POS—individual retail outlets), performing photo-interpretation of historical aerial imagery, and classifying land-cover types prior to construction. We applied spatial metrics such as total converted surface area, land-cover class frequency across eight categories (e.g., agricultural, herbaceous, arboreal), and the average linear distance between afforestation sites and POS developed on previously rural land. Our findings reveal that 65.97% of the total land converted for Points of Sale development occurred in rural areas, primarily agricultural and herbaceous lands. These landscapes play a critical role in supporting urban biodiversity and providing essential ecosystem services, which are increasingly threatened by unchecked land conversion. While the corporate sustainability reports and marketing strategies emphasize afforestation efforts under their “We Love Nature” initiative, our spatial analysis uncovers no evidence of actual land-use conversion. Additionally, reforestation activities are located an average of 40.75 km from converted sites, undermining their role as effective compensatory measures. These findings raise concerns about selective disclosure and greenwashing, driving the need for more comprehensive and transparent corporate sustainability reporting. The study argues for stronger policy frameworks to incentivize urban regeneration over greenfield development and calls for the integration of land-use data into corporate sustainability disclosures. By combining geospatial methods with content analysis, the research offers new insights into the intersection of land use, business practices, and environmental sustainability in climate-vulnerable regions.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) 2022/2464 has marked a significant step forward in broadening the scope of sustainability reporting, requiring companies to address not only climate-related issues but also a wider array of environmental impacts—such as biodiversity loss, invasive species, biochemical flows, water resources, and land-use changes [1]. However, despite this broader framework, many companies have yet to fully incorporate these aspects into their reporting, remaining focused primarily on carbon emissions and their contribution to climate change [2,3,4,5]. Land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) are major drivers of environmental impacts on ecosystems and climate change [6]. Land system change is listed among the nine planetary boundaries that define a safe space for humanity, with critical thresholds not to be exceeded [7]. LULCC is the leading cause of degradation in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, responsible for over 50% of human-induced impacts (8). Over the past 300 years, human activities have profoundly transformed natural landscapes, with urban areas doubling since 1992 [8,9]. This shift, driven by urbanization and resource exploitation, has led to biodiversity loss and reduced ecosystem services [9,10]. Urbanization especially disrupts ecological functions, causing declines in species richness and altering habitat composition [9]. The conversion of natural areas into artificial surfaces compromises key ecosystem services such as climate and water regulation. Urban soils, with lower carbon densities, limit carbon sequestration and intensify environmental degradation [10]. In response to these growing environmental pressures, businesses are increasingly expected to adopt sustainability strategies that mitigate their territorial impact.

D’Amato et al. [11], in assessing the alignment of business practices with sustainability concepts in five land-use intensive sectors, found four themes in implementing green economy strategies: (1) accounting, avoiding, and offsetting operational impacts; (2) managing land and resources sustainably (e.g., through an ecosystem approach and nature-based solutions); (3) conserving biodiversity and ecosystems both for altruistic reasons and to enhance ecosystem services beneficial to company operations (e.g., pollination for food production); and (4) engaging stakeholders in landscape-level ecosystem management.

Grocery and non-food retail industry, due to the enormous expansion of supermarkets experienced from the last century until nowadays, played a significant role in transforming land use, urban sprawl, and landscapes, therefore having an impact on the environment on a broader scale [12], leading to further ecological pressures. In fact, the construction and expansion of these shopping areas often require the conversion of rural areas into large commercial infrastructures and extensive parking spaces, resulting in the loss of vegetative cover, increased soil sealing, and disruptions to local water cycles [13]. Such land transformations directly undermine ecosystem services, compounding issues like reduced carbon sequestration, impaired water regulation, air conditioning, and the fragmentation of habitats that are crucial for biodiversity. The expansion of supermarkets into urban or peri-urban areas, particularly on previously undeveloped land, can lead to the loss of remaining green spaces. This reduction in vegetation cover contributes to the intensification of the urban heat island effect, exacerbating local temperature increases and climate justice in urban areas [14]. Moreover, the establishment of such commercial developments can elevate nearby housing prices, potentially leading to environmental gentrification and the displacement of lower-income residents [15].

Hence, retailers play a critical role in addressing sustainability challenges, including climate change, resource depletion, biodiversity loss, and income inequality, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Consequently, they are increasingly expected to implement environmental supply chain management practices [16]. In response, many leading retailers have reported integrating sustainability into their strategic frameworks [17,18]. Within the European Union, numerous initiatives have been undertaking ranging from investments in energy-efficient store operations and the adoption of eco-friendly packaging to supply chain optimization and waste reduction measures [19]. Notably, between 2007 and 2021, the 18 largest European grocery retailers implemented 783 innovations aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These innovations had a significant positive impact on financial performance, with environmental innovations yielding the highest profitability [20].

In recent years, many grocery chains have adopted increasingly progressive sustainability narratives, promoting their environmental initiatives through sustainability reports and green marketing campaigns. These efforts often highlight achievements in waste reduction, energy efficiency, and sustainable sourcing, aiming to position firms as leaders in sustainable business practices [21].

However, a growing body of literature highlights a persistent mismatch between sustainability rhetoric and actual environmental performance [22,23,24].

This misalignment in environmental reporting strategies is twofold. Maroun et al. [22] found that South African food and retail firms initially employed strategies of organized hypocrisy and avoidance in biodiversity reporting to maintain legitimacy. By 2016, a shift towards more substantive disclosures was observed, suggesting that institutionalization and stakeholder pressure facilitated incremental learning. Nevertheless, many such claims risk falling into the realm of greenwashing—whether at the firm or product level—where companies selectively report positive environmental actions while omitting or downplaying their negative ecological impacts [25].

The concept of greenwashing, as defined in the proposed EU Directive on Green Claims, refers to the practice of making misleading or unfounded environmental claims about a product, service, or company, thereby creating a deceptive image of sustainability [26]. These claims, often lacking scientific validation or transparency, undermine consumer trust and hinder genuine sustainability efforts. According to the directive, green claims must be specific, verifiable, and based on robust data, encompassing the entire life cycle of products to ensure credibility. In this study, we respond to Kupierz and Smith’s [27] call to develop better diagnostic tools for identifying greenwashing. By juxtaposing the idiosyncrasies of various greenwashing manifestations beyond mere analogies, this approach supports conceptual clarity and facilitates effective knowledge transfer in the assessment of corporate environmental claims [28]. This is achieved by adopting an integrated definition that includes a comprehensive analysis of greenwashing’s determinants [25], and by employing the six-step framework proposed by Spaniol et al. [29] as a methodological tool. This framework enables the systematic identification of greenwashing across firm-level strategies and product-level claims, emphasizing the communicative efforts made to shape public perception [29].

We selected as a case study a large Italian firm operating in the retail grocery sector, which operates a dense network of points of sale in a region with Italy’s second-highest land conversion rate [30]. As such, the case is expected to illustrate the strategic integration of environmental criteria aimed at balancing sustainability and profit growth, with particular emphasis on limiting further land consumption. In such firms, incorporating environmental considerations and robust risk management into core business practices is increasingly recognized as a key driver of competitive advantage and long-term profitability [31,32]. We used Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques and content analysis of corporate sustainability reports and claims to scientifically support the following research questions:

• RQ1: How much land has been converted by the company over time due to the expansion of its stores?;
• RQ2: What types of land have been converted by the company due to the expansion of stores over time?;
• RQ3: Has the company included data on LULCC due to store expansion in its sustainability report?;
• RQ4: Is the company’s corporate environmental disclosure consistent with its declared sustainability strategy?

These research questions move from the measurement of the (negative) environmental impact on land conversion to a comparison between what is measured and what is stated, thus proposing a method of verifying the alignment between practices and company disclosure.

The longitudinal analysis of this case contradicts expectations of consistent environmental performance, revealing that corporate green claims often overlook the significant ecological costs associated with land-use changes [31].

By critically analyzing both land-use changes and the company’s sustainability reports, this paper highlights the need for comprehensive environmental assessments in sustainability reporting and corporate strategy, contributing to a deeper understanding of the balance between business growth and ecological sustainability. We focus on the Veneto region in Northern Italy, one of the country’s most economically dynamic and densely urbanized areas [33,34]. Due to its extensive transportation infrastructure and high industrial and retail density, Veneto consistently records some of the highest rates of land conversion nationwide [34]. This makes it a particularly relevant case study for analyzing the environmental impact of retail expansion on land use.

2. Background

2.1. Land Consumption and Large-Scale Distribution in Veneto Region

Veneto is one of Italy’s most industrialized and economically productive regions, contributing approximately 9.3% to the national GDP [33]. Characterized by a dense network of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the region is particularly active in manufacturing, export-oriented activities, and logistics—sectors that have played a critical role in regional development. This intense economic activity generates significant pressure on land resources, especially in areas surrounding major transportation corridors and urban centers, shaping distinctive patterns of land consumption that reflect the spatial demands of the region’s productive system. Despite regional legislation R.L. 14/2017 and the EU objectives aimed to achieve zero land consumption by 2050, by prioritizing urban regeneration over new construction, the preservation of agricultural land and the persistence of high levels of land consumption suggest potential gaps in enforcement and the existence of loopholes that permit continued development [35]. Despite the Veneto region being the first Italian region that approved a law to contrast soil sealing and consumption, in 2023, the region still recorded the second-highest percentage of land consumed in Italy, at 11.86% of the total surface area of the region, compared to the national average of 7.12%, and the EU average of 4.2% [34]. In absolute terms, in 2022, the Veneto region recorded a consumption of 890.6 hectares of land, while 282.3 hectares were restored, resulting in a net balance of 608.3 hectares of land lost [34]. The significant land consumption rates in this region highlight the intense pressure on land resources driven by rapid urbanization and industrial activities. Despite the efforts to restore some areas, the scale of consumption far outpaced restoration, leading to a continued net loss of rural and semi-natural landscapes. This imbalance highlights the challenges in achieving sustainable land use in driving the strategies for seeking profit growth and the need for more effective restoration initiatives. At the provincial level, Padua registers the highest rate of land consumption, with 18.6% of its total land area used [34]. In this context, logistics and large-scale distribution sectors have emerged as key drivers of land-use changes in Italy. According to Munafò et. al [36], the logistics sector is identified as one of the most impactful in terms of land-use changes at the national level, accounting for 4.2% of the total land converted between 2006 and 2023. During this period, a total of 852 hectares of land in the Veneto region—representing 5.9% of all converted land—was allocated to the development of logistics hubs [36,37]. The expansion of logistics infrastructure, driven by the increasing demand for efficient supply chains, has contributed significantly to the transformation of rural and peri-urban areas. This sector’s substantial impact on land use underscores the urgent need for integrated planning approaches that balance economic development with environmental sustainability [36,37].

2.2. A Case Study

Since 1971, Alì has been a leading company in the grocery retail sector in Italy, with a strong presence in the Veneto region, where it operates 113 points of sale (out of 118), including 51 in the province of Padova alone. As of December 2024, Ali is classified as a large enterprise, with revenues exceeding EUR 1 billion and a workforce of over 4000 employees reported in its annual fiscal report, having exhibited compound annual growth rates (CAGR) of 4.4% and 3.3% in revenue and staff numbers, respectively. (

Table 1. Selected data from Ali’s annual reports (2020–2024). Source: AIDA database by Moody’s Analytics [39].

Data as Reported	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	CAGR 2020/24
Sales (EUR million)	1149.8	1162.3	1234.5	1348.5	1365.2	4.4%
Employees	4249	4497	4609	4689	4832	3.3%

). The company operates under two distinct brands: Alì Supermercati, comprising smaller neighborhood stores of up to 1500 square meters, and Alìper, which includes larger outlets ranging from 2000 to 5000 square meters, often located in shopping centers. This dual-brand model enables the company to serve diverse market segments while maintaining a strong regional focus. The company is a member of the Selex Group, an Italian retail consortium that, since 2001, has joined ESD Italia—a Central Purchase and Marketing group that negotiates on behalf of its Group Members, controlling currently 5991 stores over 5 million m² of retail space, annual supply contracts with industries producing consumer goods. It is a privately owned company governed by a board of directors composed of both family members and external managers. Each business function is overseen by a specific governing body, typically led by a family member, ensuring consistency with the company’s long-term vision. All directors are also shareholders. According to the company, it is pursuing “an ambitious growth plan, with several new store openings scheduled in the coming years. The company aims to further consolidate its position in Veneto and Emilia-Romagna, while exploring new business opportunities, particularly through strategic partnerships with local suppliers” [38].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Territory

The company directly operates in Italy 118 points of sale (POS), of which 113 are located in the Veneto region and 5 in Emilia-Romagna, distributed as follows:

• 51 in the Province of Padova
• 23 in the Province of Venice
• 20 in the Province of Treviso
• 13 in the Province of Vicenza
• 6 in the Province of Rovigo
• 4 in the Province of Ferrara (Emilia-Romagna)
• 1 in the Province of Bologna (Emilia-Romagna)

The network of points of sale (POS) is serviced by a logistics hub situated in Padova, Veneto Region. Since the logistics hub can service the expansion of the POS network irrespective of whether it is constructed on greenfield or brownfield sites, this analysis of the coherence between the sustainability strategy and implemented decisions, which are subject to disclosure, will focus on land consumption related to the expansion of POS, while consumption data related to the hub is reported for contextual understanding. For the purposes of this analysis, POS located in Emilia-Romagna were excluded, as each region has specific regulations regarding land use and land consumption.

3.2. Methods

To address research questions R1 and R2, we first identified and mapped all directly operated POS and the hub established between 1983 and 2024 using QGIS software (3.36.0).

For each POS, we applied the photo-interpretation methodology developed by Peroni et al. [40] to determine whether the store was built on either of the following:

• Rural area: agricultural, tree, and herbaceous cover;
• Urban area: areas already classified as urban or other artificial surfaces ([41]).

Therefore, the methodological steps were as follows:

(i)

All POS addresses were geocoded, and a point layer was created.

(ii)

A vector layer of the probable spatial occupation of each POS was edited by visual photo-interpretation of orthophotos at 20 cm/pixel resolution of 2021 provided by Veneto Region. We tried to include the supermarket building and its surrounding facilities, such as parking.

(iii)

Orthophotos for years 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2021 provided by Veneto Region, high resolution satellite imageries available in software Google Earth Pro 7.3, and historical aerial photographs from the regional aerial photo-catalogue (Aerofoteca Regionale) covering the period 1983–2024 were selected and, when necessary, georeferenced using 2021 orthophotos as a reference base, adopting the same Coordinate Reference System—Gauss-Boaga Monte Mario, Italy Zone 1 (EPSG:3003).

(iv)

The Land-Use Land-Cover (LULC) changes prior to POS conversion were mapped by visual photo-interpretation of the last available image, focusing exclusively on supermarkets that had been developed following land conversion, and eight LULC classes were identified: (1) water bodies; (2) agricultural land; (3) buildings; (4) roads and other impervious surfaces; (5) permeable non-vegetated surfaces; (6) arboreal areas; (7) herbaceous areas; (8) tree crops. The process of photo-interpretation was developed by taking as a reference the work of Peroni et. al [40]. Figure 1 illustrates the photo-interpretation process used to classify land use prior to retail development.

Subsequently, the planimetric surface area of each POS was measured, enabling the calculation of both the total area of land converted from rural to urban use through POS construction between 1983 and 2024, and the total area of land used for POS construction that did not require such conversion. For each POS, a dataset was compiled indicating whether the site involved land conversion (i.e., a rural area was converted) or not (i.e., the area was already urban), the total surface area involved, and the year of construction.

3.3. Green Claims and Corporate Practice

To address research questions R3 and R4, we cross-referenced the GIS-based land-use analysis with publicly available corporate claims and non-financial disclosures, with a particular focus on the “We Love Nature” initiative. According to the 2024 sustainability report, referring to the year 2023, “We Love Nature” is a long-running (since 2010) corporate social responsibility program aimed at promoting environmental awareness and local afforestation projects, primarily through the planting of trees in various locations across the Veneto region. Importantly, “We Love Nature” is only one component of a broader set of corporate sustainability strategies, which also include investments in photovoltaic systems, waste reduction practices, and sustainable packaging initiatives, as outlined in the company’s official reports. However, among these efforts, “We Love Nature” stands out for its direct spatial and ecological implications, making it particularly relevant to our research questions regarding LULCC and compensatory environmental practices.

According to Alì’s 2024 [38] sustainability report, the company has planted 52,729 trees, reportedly converting 23.5 hectares into green areas (

Table 2. Corporate green claims. Source: (Alì, 2024 [38]).

Declarations in the 2024 Sustainability Report
6730 tons of CO2 avoided for the environment
52,729 trees donated to our territory
235,000 m2 of green areas created
7 urban forests
100% of stores send packaging waste for recycling
19,883 m3 of photovoltaic tiles that purify the air like 1383 trees
1,489,018 kWh of clean energy produced by photovoltaic systems

). We therefore undertook a detailed examination of the “We Love Nature” initiative, aiming to verify both the specific locations of tree planting and, critically, whether these interventions effectively transformed 23.5 hectares of land into green spaces—specifically, whether any LULCC occurred (e.g., from urban to rural or from artificial to natural surfaces), as claimed.

In addition, we calculated the average linear distance between the locations of tree planting and the POS identified in our analysis as having been constructed on converted land. This step was intended to assess whether the initiative could be interpreted as a spatially compensatory measure for land take (and its inner ecosystem services degradation) in retail expansion or a basic CO₂ offsetting initiative.

3.4. Limits of the Research

The exact construction date of each individual supermarket could not be determined with certainty, as the available dates are based on the interpretation of satellite imagery and aerial photographs, supplemented—where available—by information retrieved from online sources. Moreover, it remains unclear whether Alì’s corporate strategy explicitly considers the trade-off between land consumption and profit-driven expansion—specifically, whether decisions to convert agricultural land are based on a comparative evaluation of short-term economic gains versus long-term, potentially irreversible, environmental costs.

Moreover, two limitations are related to the photo-interpretation process. First, interpretation based on satellite imagery or aerial photographs may lead to inaccurate results, particularly when distinguishing between similar land-use and land-cover (LULC) types, such as herbaceous vegetation and agricultural land. Second, our estimation aimed to approximate the area occupied by the supermarket building and its surrounding facilities, such as the parking lot, as well as the total green area designated for the “We Love Nature” initiatives. As a result, the outcomes may overestimate or underestimate the actual area or differ from other data sources, such as cadastral records. We estimated the LULCC resulting from the creation of a POS, without considering whether the current POS area includes herbaceous or tree cover, such as in parking lots. Lastly, for 31 POS it was not possible to reliably estimate the year of construction and/or the occupied area. In these cases, satellite imagery and aerial photos did not allow for a clear attribution to this business case study, particularly in instances where the supermarket occupies the ground floor of a mixed-use or residential building, affecting the results of diachronic analysis.

4. Results

The maps in Figure 2 show the spatial distribution of the 113 POS and the logistics hub across the Venetian provinces. According to the methodology described in the previous paragraphs, each POS was categorized based on the nature of the land on which it was built and, where possible, the year of construction. This resulted in the following development types:

• Rural area (POS rural with LULCC, n = 50): POS built on land previously classified as agricultural, forested, or semi-natural.
• Urban area (POS urban no LULCC, n = 32): POS built on pre-existing urban or otherwise artificial land.
• POS with missing data (POS no year, n = 25; POS no polygons, n = 6): POS for which the year of construction or the occupied area could not be determined.

The analysis of 107 POS (i.e., rural, urban, and no-year categories) out of the total 113 reveals a combined land coverage of 95.04 hectares. The 82 POS with defined rural or urban classification cover 87.37 hectares, representing 91.92% of the total investigated area. Among these, 50 POS were developed on rural land (46.72% of 107 and 60.97% of 82 POS), accounting for 62.70 hectares, i.e., 65.97% of the 107 POS and 71.76% of the 82 urban and rural POS. If we include a logistics hub occupying an additional 4.62 hectares of rural land, the total rural land take rises to 67.32 hectares. This adjustment increases the rural share to 70.83% of the 107 POS area and 77.06% of the 82 urban and rural POS area.

Focusing on the 82 POS with a known year of construction, the temporal distribution of the company’s retail expansion is presented in

Table 3. Time distribution of new POS in number (left side) and in area (right side).

	Number of POS		Area in Hectares
Time	Rural	Urban	Rural	Urban
1980–1984	3	0	3.09	0
1985–1989	1	3	2.05	2.29
1990–1994	3	9	4.15	5.14
1995–1999	11	1	10.37	0.37
2000–2004	12	9	11.52	6.93
2005–2009	4	3	8.67	0.89
2010–2014	8	3	7.58	5.86
2015–2019	6	2	7.49	1.75
2020–2024	2	2	7.78	1.45
Total	50	32	62.70	24.67

.

Notably, the data shown in Figure 3 for the 82 POS also reveals a recent trend towards a preference for rural land conversion over urban regeneration, suggesting a strategic shift in management decision-making (Table 2).

Further, the photo-interpretation analysis identified the types of land converted. Specifically, 40.54% of the total converted area corresponded to rural or semi-natural land—namely, Land-Use Land-Cover (LULC) types 6 and 7 (arboreal and herbaceous areas, see

Table 4. Results of the photo-interpretation of the 50 POS where there has been land conversion, divided by 8 different Land-use classes [40].

L-U Class Type	Area in Hectares	Percentage to the Total
1. Water bodies	0	0%
2. Agricultural lands	29.94	47.76%
3. Buildings	2.59	4.13%
4. Streets and impervious surfaces	2.41	3.84%
5. Permeable non-vegetated surfaces	1.96	3.13%
6. Arboreal areas	6.77	10.81%
7. Herbaceous areas	18.64	29.73%

), while the 47.76% were agricultural areas. If the logistics hub is included in the calculation, the share of agricultural land rises to 51.64%. These land types are typically richer in biodiversity and ecosystem services [42,43].

The GIS-based assessment of the company’s “We Love Nature” initiative revealed that tree planting activities took place on land already classified as green space. Consequently, there was no “creation of green area”, contrary to the implication in the company’s sustainability claims (Table 2). Rather, afforestation occurred within pre-existing green zones, suggesting that no substantial change in land use or expansion of green space occurred, as it is possible to assume from the green claim.

Finally, the spatial analysis of proximity between afforestation sites and the 113 POS (

Table 5. Linear distance values (in km) between the afforestation sites and the 113 POS. Mean value; standard deviation value; minimum value; maximum value; median value.

	Distance Values Between Afforestation Sites and 113 POS
ID	1 *	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	Mean
Mean	39.37	38.47	43.26	27.03	33.42	35.17	58.30	27.25	26.19	35.31	54.46	38.02
STDDEV	19.13	19.18	18.35	19.13	20.05	18.74	22.73	19.24	19.28	18.83	22.17	19.71
Min	6.28	6.64	8.46	1.04	3.97	3.23	2.34	1.21	1.89	3.39	0.98	3.59
Max	94.88	93.24	85.06	86.20	96.13	88.67	105.19	84.70	84.60	88.69	100.24	91.60
Median	36.02	34.38	45.50	25.06	25.21	30.11	64.33	28.82	24.87	30.16	59.73	36.74

* The ID number corresponds to the name of the afforestation site. 1 = Parco dell’Amicizia (Vicenza Province); 2 = Bosco Limite (Padova Province); 3 = Bosco Portegrandi (Venezia Province); 4 = Bosco Rossi (Padova Province); 5 = Ciclovia Treviso-Vicenza-Ostiglia (Vicenza Province); 6 = Bosco Fontaniva (Padova Province); 7 = Bosco Nico (Treviso Province); 8 = Voltabarozzo (Padova Province); 9 = Altichiero (Padova Province); 10 = Bosco Della Molina (Padova Province); 11 = Bosco Fiorentina (Venezia Province).

) or POS built on converted land (

Table 6. Linear distance values (in km) between the afforestation sites and the 50 POS with land conversion (Rural to Urban). Mean value; standard deviation value; minimum value; maximum value; median value.

	Distance Values Between Afforestation Sites and 50 POS (Rural to Urban)
ID	1 *	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	Mean
Mean	42.41	41.48	46.52	29.41	35.50	38.33	61.28	28.91	28.53	38.43	57.48	40.75
STDDEV	20.62	20.53	18.40	20.17	20.90	19.94	23.71	20.31	20.16	20.01	22.65	20.67
Min	6.28	7.51	12.36	1.04	10.88	3.70	2.34	1.21	1.98	3.39	0.98	4.70
Max	94.88	93.24	85.06	79.43	90.73	88.67	105.19	75.61	76.91	88.63	100.24	88.96
Median	36.97	35.47	48.34	28.68	27.21	32.19	66.07	32.96	32.24	32.21	62.69	39.55

* The ID number corresponds to the name of the afforestation site. 1 = Parco dell’Amicizia (Vicenza Province); 2 = Bosco Limite (Padova Province); 3 = Bosco Portegrandi (Venezia Province); 4 = Bosco Rossi (Padova Province); 5 = Ciclovia Treviso-Vicenza-Ostiglia (Vicenza Province); 6 = Bosco Fontaniva (Padova Province); 7 = Bosco Nico (Treviso Province); 8 = Voltabarozzo (Padova Province); 9 = Altichiero (Padova Province); 10 = Bosco Della Molina (Padova Province); 11 = Bosco Fiorentina (Venezia Province).

) revealed an average distance of 38.02 or 40.75 km, with a standard deviation of 19.71 or 20.67 km, respectively. One of the eleven mapped sites is located less than 1 km from at least one POS, while three sites are located within a 2 km distance. This spatial disconnect raises further questions about the compensatory logic of the initiative in relation to the environmental impact of land conversion.

5. Discussion

The GIS analysis conducted in this study underscores the critical role of Land-Use Land-Cover Change (LULCC) in driving corporate economic growth, highlighting how this factor is often overlooked or omitted in sustainability reports and, more broadly, in corporate strategic planning, using a case study. The findings reinforce the transformative role of retail infrastructure in shaping land-use patterns and directly address the research objective of exploring the nexus between commercial development and ecological sustainability. One of the most salient outcomes is the extent of rural-to-urban land conversion. Of the 82 POS constructed by the company between 1983 and 2024, 50 led to the conversion of 62.70 hectares of rural land. In total, the 82 POS analyzed cover 87.37 hectares, with rural developments accounting for 71.76% of the total land take. Despite increasing awareness of the environmental costs associated with rural land conversion, this trend has persisted—and even intensified—in recent years. Between 2010 and 2024, Alì opened 23 new POS, 16 of which (69.6%) were built on rural land, accounting for 22.85 hectares out of a total 31.91 hectares (71.6%) of land covered during this period. Importantly, the results shown in Table 3 exclude a logistics hub built in 2015 that converted an additional 4.62 hectares of agricultural land. Furthermore, a new logistics hub currently in planning is expected to convert 15.31 hectares of agricultural land [44], bringing the total land take for logistics infrastructure to 19.93 hectares—equivalent to 31.79% of the total converted land. These findings demonstrate the tangible ecological footprint of the company’s expansion strategy. In line with previous studies, such transformations exacerbate land degradation processes including soil sealing and biodiversity loss [10,13].

Most of the land converted consists of agricultural lands and arboreal and herbaceous areas, which together represent 88.3% of the total converted area. These green spaces are ecologically significant: when properly managed, they play a vital role in conserving urban biodiversity and mitigating the effects of heatwaves [42,43,45].

Conversely, the construction of 32 supermarkets on pre-existing urban land demonstrates a more sustainable approach and reflects a commitment—albeit limited—to urban regeneration. Notably, Alì is currently regenerating a 25.58-hectare brownfield site, which will host a new POS, green areas with bike paths, and mixed-use developments [46]. This initiative avoids further land take and helps limit environmental degradation. The content analysis of the company’s sustainability reports, and non-financial disclosures reveals a notable omission: the change in land use is entirely absent from the company’s environmental narratives. While the reports emphasize energy efficiency, waste reduction, and supply chain improvements, they fail to acknowledge the impacts of new construction on land consumption [11]. This selective reporting aligns with recognized greenwashing strategies, where companies highlight isolated environmental initiatives while omitting more damaging aspects of their operations [25].

Furthermore, while the company claims in its sustainability report to have converted 23.5 hectares of land into green areas through the “We Love Nature” initiative, our GIS analysis does not support this assertion. Tree-planting activities were carried out on land already classified as green space, indicating no real land-use transformation. Although the company reports having planted 23.5 hectares of vegetation, this figure appears barely sufficient to offset the total area converted during the same period. Specifically, land-cover data indicate that approximately 25 hectares of tree and herbaceous vegetation were lost due to development. When agricultural land conversions—amounting to an additional 29 hectares—are also considered, the afforestation effort falls significantly short of fully compensating for the ecological footprint of the expansion. Additionally, the initiative is not driven directly by the company but by customer decisions via a loyalty points system, thereby further diluting the company’s agency and responsibility in the effort.

Finally, the average distance of 40.75 km (SD = 20.67 km) between the planted trees and the POS constructed on rural land further undermines the compensatory potential of the initiative. While these aggregate metrics provide a general overview, examining minimum distance values yields more nuanced insights into the actual spatial relationship between afforestation interventions and urban land conversion. Specifically, 4 out of 11 afforestation sites (ID 4, 8, 9, and 11) are located within 2 km of at least one POS on converted land, suggesting some degree of spatial alignment with urban transformation processes. Conversely, another four sites (ID 1, 2, 3 and 5) exhibit minimum distances greater than 5 km, indicating a pronounced spatial disconnect. In the most extreme cases, the closest POS is more than 10 km away, despite the intent of the afforestation program to function as environmental compensation. Reforestation efforts in non-urban or peri-urban areas do not adequately offset the environmental loss caused by converting ecologically valuable land within urban or semi-urban contexts, particularly given the crucial role of such areas in mitigating urban heat island effects [45].

In addressing research question R4, the content analysis of the company’s sustainability report [39] was conducted to assess Spaniol et al.’s [29] six requirements for identifying greenwashing. Evidence was found regarding ‘Deceptive information Pursuing a Competitive Advantage’. While the company claims to have ‘donated trees to our territory’ (Table 2), this action is merely facilitated by the company, implementing a decision made by clients to utilize credits (capital) accumulated through the loyalty program, with a wide range of alternative uses (goods or services) available. In doing so, the intent of the claim’s progenitor is to mislead consumers into believing something untrue in order to ‘strategically seek social rewards’ [29].

6. Conclusions

This study provides an integrated spatial and content-based assessment of a case study of one retail company expansion strategy and its environmental implications in the Veneto region, one of the most sensitive for soil sealing in Italy.

As a large firm [30] operating in a sector that necessitates the strategic integration of environmental criteria, the longitudinal analysis of this case contradicts the expectation of sound and consistent environmental performance.

Through GIS analysis, we demonstrate that a significant portion of new supermarket developments occurred at the expense of rural land, particularly agricultural and herbaceous areas, resulting in substantial land-use change and associated ecological impacts. While urban regeneration projects are present in the company’s portfolio, they remain the exception rather than the rule, with a growing preference for rural land conversion in recent years. The findings expose a clear mismatch between corporate sustainability narratives and the material reality of land consumption. The absence of land-use change data in Alì’s non-financial reporting, alongside the inconsistencies observed in the “We Love Nature” initiative—raises concerns about selective disclosure and potential greenwashing. Moreover, the considerable spatial distance between afforestation efforts and the locations of land conversion further undermines the credibility of the company’s compensatory claims falling inside the greenwashing approach. These results underscore the urgent need for land-taker businesses [41] to adopt more sustainable development strategies. A key pathway toward this goal lies in prioritizing urban regeneration [47], especially in high soil-sealing regions such as Veneto [34,36]. By redeveloping brownfield sites and optimizing the use of existing urban spaces, companies can significantly reduce their ecological footprint while contributing to urban revitalization. This aligns with broader EU goals of achieving “no net land take” by 2050 [41]. Ultimately, Alì—like its competitors—is free to choose how it balances profit maximization with environmental responsibility. In the current policy landscape, there are neither incentives nor disincentives guiding supermarket chains toward brownfield redevelopment over greenfield expansion [48]; choices are made based solely on economic convenience. In this regard, policymakers play a crucial role: they must intervene to regulate land consumption, discourage the use of greenfield by means of economic instruments [49], and actively promote urban regeneration. Such a policy framework does not obstruct economic growth [50] but rather redefines it within the boundaries of long-term sustainability and social prosperity [51]. In addition to policymakers, local communities and consumers affected by the loss of green areas near their homes can exert pressure and demand greater transparency. Furthermore, boards of directors and corporate leadership have an ethical and strategic responsibility to ensure that sustainability reports reflect material environmental impacts. Misleading or selective disclosures not only compromise public trust but also expose companies to reputational and regulatory risks. Integrating land-use-change data into corporate sustainability strategies via GIS-based analysis enhances transparency, curbs greenwashing, and supports evidence-based decision-making for ecologically responsible development and reporting. This paper contributes to the broader academic debate on retail development and corporate environmental disclosure by demonstrating how spatial analysis can be used to critically assess green claims and detect forms of greenwashing that rely on selective communication. The case reveals how environmental reporting may omit key impacts—such as land take—thus reducing the transparency and reliability of sustainability discourse. By grounding this critique in spatial evidence, our work advances emerging methodologies at the intersection of environmental geography and corporate accountability. Future studies could extend this mixed-method spatial-discursive approach to other large-scale retailers in Italy and beyond, further investigating how competitive dynamics, regulatory frameworks, or stakeholder pressure shape patterns of land consumption and sustainability communication across the sector. Moreover, comparative research between regions with different policy regimes could provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of governance tools in limiting land take and curbing greenwashing practices, thus contributing to a more nuanced understanding of sustainability communication and its real impacts.