Social Responsibility of Agribusiness: The Challenges of Diversity

Abstract

This paper refers to the discussion on how to implement socially responsible measures in agribusiness, a complex and often heterogeneous system. It indicates the similarities between Corporate Social Responsibility and Agribusiness Social Responsibility as well as the unique characteristics that distinguish agribusiness. The focus was on the analysis of the processes taking place in the supply chain of the pig market operating in Poland, due to the author’s detailed knowledge of the phenomena taking place there. As part of these considerations, the following three key questions were asked: (1) What are the differences between the definitions of CSR and ASR, and is there any reason to define the two concepts separately? (2) Which links in the food supply chain require particular attention when implementing social responsibility? (3) To what extent should social responsibility principles be adhered to on a voluntary basis? The analyses were based on a critical review of the literature on the subject, inspired by Denyer and Tranfield’s literature review structure. The following two repositories were used: Google Scholar, which is publicly available, and Web of Science, which is a licensed network. The study found that, despite significant similarities between ASR and CSR, fundamental differences exist. Understanding the specific nature of agribusiness social responsibility requires not only accepting its differences but, above all, taking a holistic view of the processes accompanying food production, processing, and distribution. Furthermore, it requires considering the economic, organizational, and social diversity of entities comprising the food supply chain.

1. Introduction

Given the prevalence of discussions about necessary changes to improve the environment and the welfare of humans and animals in agriculture, agri-food processing, and related sectors, it is worth revisiting the origins of the concept of social responsibility. Nowadays, it is often equated with the concept of sustainable development. This is all the more important, because the requirements of the EGD’s flagship program for implementing sustainability demands are mandatory. They are not only assigned a series of incentives but also coercive tools [1]. As the two ideas are often equated with one another [2,3,4,5], it is worth referring to the former, which arose from the need to participate in improving the social well-being of entrepreneurs and was voluntary in nature. Although its initial measures were adopted on a case-by-case basis, it rapidly contributed to a reformatting of the business world’s perspective on values, including those derived from stakeholder satisfaction. It also made entrepreneurs realize that they operate in a social and natural environment and, therefore, must recognize the necessity of considering its needs and interests in their activities [6]. Consequently, the evaluation of business operations has undergone a re-evaluation, with the achievement of economic objectives and social and environmental expectations being given due consideration.

In the contemporary business landscape, social responsibility has emerged as a pivotal strategy for enhancing enterprise competitiveness [7,8,9,10,11]. In doing so, it seeks to standardize the evaluation of these measures by imposing a legal framework for their implementation and making their application mandatory. However, it should be noted that the mandatory approach may not be effective in certain sectors of the economy, particularly those characterized by a notable diversity in business structure. This diversity is manifested, among other factors, by the variation in the size and economic strength of the entities involved. An illustrative example of such a sector is agribusiness, the links of which are distinct in each of these contexts but cannot function separately. Consequently, they cannot act as standalone providers of food and guarantors of countries’ food security. The above led to the definition of agricultural social responsibility (ASR) as a specific type of CSR dedicated to the agri-food sector. In light of the inherent diversity within this sector, this paper seeks to address the following research inquiries:

• How is ASR different from CSR, and should it be separately defined?
• What agribusiness links and to what extent require special attention in implementing social responsibility, especially in the context of its voluntary nature?
• Which agribusiness links implement ASR driven by genuine choice? Which ones do so under coercion or pressure?

In order to identify solutions to the aforementioned issues, an analysis was conducted of the fundamental assumptions of the concept and the disparities within the agribusiness sector based on the processes and phenomena occurring on the pig market in Poland. This analysis used the example of farms that have adopted animal welfare practices, which are inherently characterized by voluntariness. However, the attainment of the intended standards in this regard is contingent upon mandatory and financial incentives (animal welfare ecoscheme).

This paper constitutes a theoretical contribution to the ongoing discussion. It employs a descriptive method, with the objective of elucidating the phenomenon of social responsibility within the intricate structure of agribusiness.

The following research procedure was carried out: the importance of social responsibility was defined in relation to agribusiness while pointing out its differences; the mechanism of diffusion of ideas from stronger to weaker economic actors was analyzed; the role of voluntariness and obligativeness was pointed out as factors that might accelerate/slow down this process; examples of challenges in implementing the ideas were presented using the example of the pork livestock and meat supply chain in Poland, taking into account the specific role farmers play in it. While the considerations outlined in the paper are of a universal nature, the analysis is primarily focused on Polish literature, with references to foreign publications in the area under study.

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic literature review method was used to identify the research gap in the area under study. This was inspired by the literature review structure developed by [12]. It posits that research is conducted in three fundamental stages, enabling both an exhaustive analysis of the subject matter and the identification of emergent trends and research lacunae. The first stage entails a meticulous search and selection of papers, the second involves a thorough analysis and classification of the identified items, and the third stage means the identification of the predominant topics that emerge in the research of the area under study. A structured review of the extant literature offers a means to organize existing knowledge, while also providing a foundation for further research and discussion [13].

The preliminary review of the extant literature on the subject was conducted using an open database, i.e., Google Scholar. It revealed that, in most of the available publications in Polish and English, social responsibility of agribusiness was most often associated with enterprises of various sizes [14,15,16,17]. The term is typically associated with the ecological and environmental domain of sustainable development [18,19,20]. On occasion, it is also linked to economic efficiency [18] or social concerns [21]. A comprehensive analysis of the extant publications (a total of 890 were identified) yielded a preliminary outline of the research gap concerning the relationship between social responsibility as an idea and agribusiness as a system in which food supply chains operate. However, the publications neglect to address the diversity of agribusiness actors and the variances in their perceptions of social responsibility, particularly with respect to the fundamental link in the food supply chain, namely farms. Consequently, the review of national literature was expanded to encompass papers and books devoted to social responsibility in relation to agriculture as a separate component of agribusiness (resulting in the identification of over 11,000 records). Usually, these publications addressed the use of financial resources from the European Union in supporting the transformation of agriculture as a sector [22,23], its structural transformation [24], or the pursuit of sustainable development [19,25]. It is worth noting that publications from both areas under consideration often duplicated each other, and the group of authors tackling these problems was more or less the same.

A review of the extant English language literature reveals that the issue of social responsibility of agribusiness is addressed much more frequently, not only in the context of enterprises but also in that of regional and social development, as well as the management of agri-food processing businesses [26,27,28,29] (a total of over 190,000 records were identified). Also, this group of publications revealed a gap related to the perception of social responsibility of agribusiness viewed as a whole structure composed of individual links of the food supply chain.

Subsequently, the literature review was expanded through a comprehensive search of a licensed database. WoS was selected on the assumption that it is a reliable provider of literature for scientific research [30,31]. The search of the WoS database began by determining the number of publications addressing corporate social responsibility, agribusiness, agriculture, and food supply chains. From 1990 to 2024, a mere 16 items were identified that encompassed the aforementioned areas, with the majority falling within the WoS Agricultural Economics Policy category (12), followed by Economics, Environmental Sciences, and Food Science Technology (9 publications in total). Others fell within the following categories: Environmental Studies (2), Green Sustainable Science Technology, Agriculture Multidisciplinary, Area Studies, Ethics, History, and Philosophy of Science. The period from 2017 to the present has seen a marked increase in interest in the analyzed area, a development that can be attributed, at least in part, to the intensity of the discourse surrounding the implementation of the European Green Deal Strategy, a matter with particular relevance to agribusiness operators. The identified publications addressed the complex and diverse structure of agribusiness. However, they brought only a small contribution, as they often focused on regional experiences, including those in Germany and the United States.

The basic criterion for selecting the research material were keywords, and their full list is presented in

Table 1. Criteria for selecting research material.

Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria	Justification
The article focuses on the concepts of corporate social responsibility and/or social responsibility in agribusiness in the title, abstract, and/or keywords, and “food supply chain” anywhere in the article.	The article does not contain the terms “corporate social responsibility” and/or “social responsibility in agribusiness” in the title, abstract, and/or keywords, or “food supply chain” anywhere in the article.	Inside/outside the scope of the study.
Peer-reviewed, full-text articles publisher in indexed journals.	Non-peer-reviewed research (opinion articles, editorials, book chapters, books) and other peer-reviewed works (e.g., theses, doctoral dissertations) that were not journal articles. Research notes and conference proceedings were excluded.	Expert reviews confirm the reliability of the research and ensure its credibility.
Publication language: English or Polish.	Article not written in English or Polish.	English has become the main language for disseminating scientific articles.
Only articles containing the words corporate social responsibility, social responsibility in agribusiness.	Articles not containing the words corporate social responsibility, social responsibility in agribusiness.	Scope refinement.
Only articles that connect social responsibility with agribusiness and the food supply chain.	Articles that do not contain social responsibility connections with agribusiness and the food supply chain.	Scope refinement.

.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. How Is ASR Different from CSR, and Should It Be Separately Defined?

Although ASR has not been given a distinct and unambiguous definition, as a theoretical construct, it does not differ from the general perception of CSR in its assumptions. Many authors in the economic and agricultural literature emphasize its differences, which are due to the peculiarities of the agribusiness research area [14,32,33,34]. In fact, it is a complex, multidimensional branch of the economy that is responsible for meeting food needs and ensuring the country’s food security and self-sufficiency [35,36]. It encompasses a variety of participants engaged in diverse agricultural production, agri-food processing, input supply, and distribution of products and services from these sectors [37]. In the contemporary era, entities comprising the intricate logistics system that interconnects the multifarious components of agribusiness have also been incorporated into this compendium [38]. To sum up, the term “agribusiness” includes all activities that utilize agricultural raw materials, encompassing both food and non-food sectors. These raw materials undergo significant value addition during the processes of peeling, processing, and handling. Furthermore, the scope of agribusiness extends to the activities of farms, presuming that they aspire to maximize the utilization of their productive inputs (note, however, that it does not always entail direct agricultural activities) [35]. This holistic approach, first articulated nearly three decades ago, is currently experiencing a resurgence in popularity. This resurgence coincides with a period of significant socioeconomic and environmental transformation in which sustainable economies have emerged as the prevailing development paradigm [39,40]. A fundamental component of this approach consists of making citizens and organizations responsible for the undertakings executed within the areas referred to above [5,41].

The concept of agribusiness social responsibility instead can be defined as agribusiness operators making voluntary commitments to society and the environment and establishing ethical relations with stakeholders (farmers, employees, consumers, local communities, public institutions, etc.). The ASR concept is predicated on voluntariness as an expression of self-regulation, a distinguishing factor that sets it apart from the increasingly prevalent ESG concept. The latter assumes increasing mandatory and measurable reporting by companies of activities in the areas of environmental and social responsibility and corporate governance. From this perspective, the author posits that to define CSR, it would be more appropriate for the agribusiness sector to revert to one of the antecedent attempts to delineate the concept of social responsibility—the statement that SRB constitutes a voluntary initiative that, supported by established legal norms, furnishes companies with the means to disseminate their values within the society {[42] after [41] (p. 93)}. Furthermore, the above approach encompasses the notion of judiciously providing assistance to those in need, that is to say, individuals who will duly acknowledge this support and use it for its intended purpose {[43] after [41] (p. 93)}. This approach is predicated on the recognition of economic and organizational disparities, in addition to the legal diversity of entities operating, in this case, within the complex agribusiness system. Furthermore, it mirrors the nature of the diffusion of socially responsible impacts within the sector. This process is defined as the spreading and interpenetration of elements in relation to each other, which leads to the manifestation of similarities between them [44]. Accordingly, the process entails the rational transfer and adaptation of proven methods and techniques from one area or operator to another [45]. In the context of agribusiness, the concept may be expressed in a pragmatic manner as the movement of resources from prominent agri-food corporations to the agricultural sector and, subsequently, to consumers [5,14,46]. The author’s many years of experience confirm the effectiveness of this influence and, in particular, the substantial impact of large agri-food processors on the operational dynamics of the raw material supply chain, particularly on the level of producers.

A separate issue that distinguishes ASR from CSR is its (ASR) scope of extensive impacts. Also, it is regarded as a mechanism for sustainable development, particularly within the context of the EU Common Agricultural Policy’s promotion of agriculture. It has been posited that the incorporation of ASR into the realm of farm management has the potential to enhance the perception of farmers among stakeholders, particularly consumers. This integration can yield substantial economic, social, and environmental advantages [32]. However, the voluntariness of farmers’ participation in its implementation remains a separate issue.

It should also be added that, to an increasing extent, ASR is no longer a voluntary activity and is becoming an order based on penalties (for non-compliance with its rules) and financial incentives (for compliance with its rules), the best example of which is EGD.

3.2. What Agribusiness Links and to What Extent Require Special Attention in Implementing Social Responsibility, Especially in the Context of Its Voluntary Nature?

The basis for defining guidelines for agribusiness entities regarding the implementation of social responsibility is the understanding of the directions of knowledge flow in this area. The direction of innovations in the field of agribusiness social responsibility is determined by two drivers. The first, viewed as a traditional factor in the food supply chain, is the privileged position (especially the economic power) of corporations [47]. The second is tied to the origin of capital, including primarily intellectual capital, knowledge, skills, and experience in implementing social responsibility. Frequently, entities operating in this market have capital ties with foreign companies, which is considered a factor that promotes the diffusion of socially responsible activities [48,49]. This assertion is further substantiated by research conducted among food industry companies [50].

A graphical illustration of knowledge transfer is shown in Figure 1 (the width of the arrows represents the estimated strength of the interaction).

The dissemination of information regarding areas of social responsibility and their practical dimensions occurs in two distinct directions. Firstly, it functions as an educational tool, providing guidelines and pathways for the implementation of these responsibilities, in addition to showcasing exemplary practices related to their execution. Secondly, it serves as a practical resource, ensuring that farmers remain apprised of the expectations that producers of raw meat must adhere to during the processes of production, storage, and delivery. This approach has been shown to enhance transparency within the supply chain of food products, spanning from the producer to the consumer. This is a critical component of the social interactions of actors in the agribusiness sector. The contemporary consumer anticipates straightforward and exhaustive information regarding the origin (i.e., production method) of foodstuffs [52], a factor that often supersedes economic principles in determining food purchases [53]. Concurrently, informed choice, as an attitude, has been shown to contribute to the enhancement and maintenance of elevated production standards among manufacturers, who are no longer “anonymous” or concealed under a common trade name.

In view of the above, it can be stated that initiatives related to the implementation (diffusion) of social responsibility can be either internal and focused on employees (and through them affect the local social environment) or be targeted at the external world (the market) and affect directly or/and indirectly the players in it. The author considers the latter form to be more important due to the greater influence of sales volume on the management decisions compared to other factors. Such initiatives encompass a range of activities, including those designed to enhance product quality and safety, the provision of volunteer services to customers, fair pricing policies, the execution of advertising campaigns, the establishment of local partnerships, the promotion of standards throughout the supply chain, and the facilitation of local business agreements [48]. For the agribusiness sector—in which farms form the largest group—the comprehensive suite of market-oriented initiatives holds particular significance. This is primarily due to the diversity of farm offerings, in both qualitative and quantitative terms. Concurrently, farms appear to be the entities with the most significant knowledge deficit, including on social responsibility issues, which further strengthens the importance of diffusing ASR in that direction [54,55]. In this context, they encounter heightened pressure resulting from the assessment of their clients and society, expecting specific actions in this area (independent of the required effectiveness of their actions), and their decisions are influenced not solely by the criterion of economic efficiency but also by the apprehension of disapproval from the environment, including from primary stakeholders, namely consumers. The actions of those in charge are determined by their knowledge and experience, which in turn determine whether their actions will be symbolic (declarative), real, or incidental (Figure 2). An additional reinforcing factor is the perception of these actions by the environment. The author’s experience shows that the stronger the perception of actions by the environment, make greater the inclination to take real actions, with awareness, that they will bring tangible economic benefits in the future.

It should be added that the ongoing discourse in various domains regarding the necessity of transferring principles of social responsibility to the agribusiness sector, particularly in the context of agriculture, is predominantly focused on the adverse externalities associated with food production, animal welfare concerns, the utilization of GMOs, and pesticide residue levels [57]. These areas are of particular concern to the agribusiness system, particularly in terms of the disparities in power (and interest) among the various actors in the food supply chain. The dynamic market, characterized by its ever-changing nature, exerts influence on these entities through factors that, in numerous instances, are extrinsic (some of them having a macroeconomic dimension). These include food security and globalization, declining productivity growth, price volatility (both in the sale and purchase of inputs), cost-cutting pressures, and the deteriorating position of primary farmers in the food supply chain. Other factors exhibit an environmental dimension, including resource efficiency, soil and water quality, and threats to habitat and biodiversity. In addition, a series of territorial factors have been identified, encompassing rural areas where demographic, economic, and social problems are intensifying, including depopulation and relocation of businesses [32].

3.3. Which Agribusiness Links Implement ASR Driven by Genuine Choice? Which Ones Do So Under Coercion or Pressure?

In the further part of the article, the author adopted the definition of voluntariness and coercion in accordance with

Table 2. Definition of voluntariness and coercion.

Criterion	Voluntary	Coercion
The basis of action.	Own initiative, social pressure.	Law, regulations, contracts.
Examples of activities.	Fair Trade certifications, supporting local farmers.	Sanitary compliance, ESG reporting
Motivation.	Reputation, ethics, competitive advantage.	Avoiding sanctions, formal requirements.

.

An illustration of agribusiness activity in which the diffusion of the concept of social responsibility is observable from processing companies to farmers (and vice versa to consumers) is the production of pork livestock and meat. In this case, the diffusion is predicated not solely on the voluntariness of companies’ actions but also on the informed implementation of the assumptions behind the strategy of building a sustainable supply chain referred to as “from field to table” [52,58] or “from farm to fork” [59]. It necessitates the initiation and implementation of adaptation processes involving substantial investments by both farms and businesses. These include the implementation of closed-loop economy principles, renewable energy, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, extensification of agricultural production, including by reducing the use of chemical crop inputs, and organic food production and processing [60,61].

The transfer of social responsibility from companies to farmers in such a sensitive supply chain as pork livestock and meat also has a specific environmental dimension due to the fact that pig production places a significant burden on the natural environment [62,63,64]. Consequently, the objective of this transfer is to identify areas of particular concern and facilitate the search and implementation of beneficial solutions that address these concerns. Each link in the meat and pork livestock supply chain is associated with specific areas of social challenges that should (or must) be gradually addressed (Figure 3). Nevertheless, despite the voluntary and coercive nature of their implementation, the socially desirable outcome is the integration of social responsibility principles into practical, real-world actions.

However, the practice of agribusiness is complex. It comprises entities of varying economic strength, as well as operators with equally varying degrees of interest in assuming the financial burden of implementing social responsibility. In the pork meat and livestock supply chain, industrial slaughtering and meat processing companies have historically emerged as the most economically robust entities. In practice, the implementation of social responsibility measures has been shown to enhance their competitive position in the market [65,66]. Farmers, i.e., producers of pork livestock, are the weakest actors in this chain. Consequently, in accordance with the concept of social responsibility, they too are expected to address the concerns of their stakeholders, from consumers (regardless of their geographic location within the supply chain), through to the processing sector, the natural and social environment, and public institutions, including those responsible for overseeing the implementation of common agricultural policy instruments.

Farms are subject to multiple pressures from key stakeholders, i.e., consumers, who in the author’s opinion, have expressed limited confidence in agriculture as a reliable supplier of nutritious and safe food products, manufactured in accordance with animal welfare and environmental sustainability principles. In this context, the study can distinguish sensitive areas requiring increased knowledge and implementation of measures to improve applied standards (Figure 4).

Addressing the need to implement social responsibility in these areas involves not only the necessary investments but above all the assimilation of knowledge transferred from other agribusiness links. This requires the restructuring and even creation of new jobs and the continuous development of employees. This is yet another challenge confronting the agribusiness sector, namely the quest for a resolution to the question of who should shoulder the financial burden of the transition to social responsibility in the agribusiness sector as a whole. While entrepreneurs generally categorize the expenses associated with these activities as investments in enhancing their competitiveness, the transfer of these costs to the most vulnerable link in the agribusiness chain, namely farmers, may give rise to doubts. Furthermore, the sheer number of farmers results in the majority of consumers remaining unaware of the specific individuals behind the production process. From an economic perspective, the individual efforts of farmers to add value through the implementation of socially responsible actions are not adequately compensated and, in some cases, are compensated much less than the same actions of companies within the same supply chain [32]. This provides a compelling rationale for supporting socially responsible farmers through the instruments of the CAP [68]. Examples of such measures include programs for supporting animal welfare.

4. Conclusions

Understanding the social responsibility of agribusiness requires accepting its particularities and, first of all, adopting a holistic approach to the processes that accompany food production, processing, and distribution. These phenomena are inherently multifaceted, encompassing both natural and technological dimensions, as well as social aspects. Consequently, the social responsibility of agribusiness is a multidimensional concept, encompassing both voluntary and mandatory actions for the benefit of the food supply chain and all its stakeholders.

Based on the analysis carried out, the following can be concluded:

(1) This paper sought an answer to the question of whether it is well-founded to explicitly define the concept of “social responsibility of agribusiness.” However, it has been noted that, despite the absence of a universally accepted and unambiguous definition of the phenomenon, its underlying assumptions align closely with the prevailing understanding of corporate social responsibility, thereby providing a clear framework for its evaluation. Hence, the author posits that this approach merits application to the analysis of the food supply chain, taking into account its socioeconomic and organizational diversity. This is confirmed by the differences shown in the table below (

Table 3. Differences between CSR and ASR.

Criterion	Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)	Agribusiness Social Responsibility (ASR)
Scope of operation	All sectors of the economy.	Agribusiness.
Sustainability	One of the main goals.	Main goal.
Beneficiaries	Employees, customers, local community, suppliers, and investors.	Employees, customers, local community, suppliers, investors, farmers, consumers, producer organizations, and ecosystem.
Character	Improved reputation, customer loyalty, better access to capital, increased company value, increased competitiveness, and support for local development.	Improved reputation, customer loyalty, better access to capital, increased company value, increased competitiveness, support for local development, increased consumer trust, better relations with the local community, stable supply, and support for rural development.
Environmental benefits	One of many areas.	Main area.
Implementation costs	The company bears the cost.	The company bears the cost with the possibility of compensation.
Scale of activities	Local, regional, and global.	Local, regional, and finally, global.

).

(2) Additionally, the links in the food supply chain that require special attention in the area of implementing the principles of social responsibility, especially in the context of its voluntary nature, were also considered. It was determined that in view of the huge economic disparities between actors and the natural direction of knowledge diffusion from strong to weaker actors, this attention should focus on farms. They are the economically weakest and most fragmented link in the food supply chain and, at the same time, a link subject to particular pressure from the ultimate recipients of food, i.e., consumers. Referring to the scope of this transfer, the author believes that it must cover all activities, due to the lack of reliable data specifying which areas of (lack of) knowledge are dominant here.

(3) It should be noted that there is no clear indication for which agribusiness entities the implementation of the ASR idea is voluntary and for which it is compulsory; in particular, this process of the principles of social responsibility may constitute an additional cost for them, not always compensated by the market (in the form of sales margins). It is, therefore, difficult to expect full voluntariness in its implementation in this link. This justifies the introduction of tools to compensate for the costs incurred on farms, since according to the very idea of social responsibility, spreading the economic costs of implementing ASR to economically weaker units is considered to be inherently incompatible with the concept itself, and even a denial of it.