Next Article in Journal
Does an Environmental Protection Tax Promote or Inhibit the Market Value of Companies? Evidence from Chinese Polluting Companies
Previous Article in Journal
ESG Scores and Corporate Performance in Emerging Markets: Evidence from E7 Countries
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Drought Risk on Maize Crop in Romania
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Conceptual Framework for an Agroecological Business Model Canvas

by
Sarah Stempfle
*,
Domenico Carlucci
,
Luigi Roselli
and
Bernardo Corrado de Gennaro
Department of Soil, Plant and Food Sciences (Di.S.S.P.A.), University of Bari Aldo Moro, Via G. Amendola 165/A, 70126 Bari, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(19), 8937; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198937
Submission received: 8 August 2025 / Revised: 25 September 2025 / Accepted: 2 October 2025 / Published: 9 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agricultural Economics, Advisory Systems and Sustainability)

Abstract

Agroecological transition toward stronger sustainability demands systemic changes in various domains across farms, agroecosystem landscapes, and broader food systems. Business model innovation plays a critical enabling role, by aligning farming systems with agroecology. However, designing or transforming farming business models presents significant challenges, as it involves a radical rethinking of the foundational architecture of value creation, delivery, and capture. This study offers a structured and actionable approach to support this process, by developing a conceptual framework that systematically integrates the FAO’s 10 Elements of Agroecology into the Business Model Canvas, drawing on an exploratory literature review and following a five-stage process. The outcome is a prototype of an Agroecological Business Model Canvas (ABMC) that serves as both an analytical and strategic tool to support the design, evaluation, and improvement of agroecological business models. The proposed ABMC redefines conventional components and introduces additional ones to fully reflect agroecological principles and incorporate evaluation elements for assessing both the transition degree and multidimensional sustainability performance. By facilitating iterative reflection and co-design, the ABMC represents a practical device for advancing Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems and supporting farmers in developing context-specific sustainable, resilient, and socially grounded agroecological business models.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Transitioning to agroecology is increasingly recognized as a valuable transformative pathway to address agri-food system sustainability in the long-term, meeting a wide range of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1,2]. Shaping agroecological agri-food systems would contribute to tackling impelling global challenges, such as environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change, while staying deeply grounded in, and relevant to, local contexts [3]. Driving the agroecological transition requires systemic and integrated transformations across multiple levels, from individual farms to the broader agri-environmental landscape and the food system as a whole [4]. Among the key means to enact these systemic transformations, business model innovation stands out as a vital enabler of agroecological transition at the micro-level, most notably within the context of individual farms.
Business model innovation has been widely acknowledged as a fundamental lever for steering sustainability by embedding it directly into the firms’ core mission and strategy, as well as extending impact beyond organizational boundaries [5,6,7,8,9]. Empirical studies showed that new-generation farmers can play a significant role in advancing sustainability by effectively balancing economic, social, and environmental goals through innovative business models [10]. By reconfiguring existing Business Models (BMs) or developing new ones, farms can be reshaped in particular to better align with agroecology, shifting the focus from input-intensive, yield-maximization paradigms toward multifunctional systems that embed ecological and social principles [11]. By minimizing external input use and fostering diversified, locally adapted production systems that work in synergy with Nature, agroecological farms enhance resource efficiency and nutrient cycling, support biodiversity, ensure ecosystem services provision, and strengthen climate resilience, contributing meaningfully to environmental sustainability. At the same time, they foster social equity by empowering farmers’ autonomy, offering just and safe working conditions, reinforcing food sovereignty, and strengthening rural livelihood. In addition, they address economic viability by reducing dependence on costly inputs, diversifying income streams, and generating higher added value, ultimately enabling farmers to secure increased and more stable net incomes. Accordingly, agroecological entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as a key driver in the sustainable transformation of agri-food systems [12]. Despite the pivotal role of BM innovation in translating the agroecological approach into viable business operations, this area remains strikingly underexplored in academic research [13], underscoring the need for greater scholarly attention and systematic investigation.
Over the years, a variety of comprehensive frameworks, consisting in sets of principles, elements, and guidelines have been developed to address the practical implementation of agroecology at different scales [14]. These frameworks include the seminal works of Altieri [15], Altieri and Nicholls [16], and Dumont et al. [17] and the valuable contributions of international organizations such as CIDSE [18], FAO [19], and HLPE [2]. However, despite the growing interest in agroecology, a significant gap remains in integrating these frameworks with a design thinking perspective, which could offer a more structured and actionable approach for agroecological transition of farming systems [20,21]. In particular, no comprehensive framework has been systematically anchored to BM design tools, such as the Business Model Canvas (BMC), which could guide the development of Agroecological Business Models (ABMs), namely sustainable BMs that are agroecologically sound and consistent.
Creating or innovating ABMs involves a level of complexity that goes beyond the merely incorporation of agroecological practices into existing BMs. It necessitates a radical change in the underlying architecture that sustains them [14], reimagining a wide array of interconnected aspects, including the labor organization, the allocation and management of natural resources, the diversification of agricultural and other gainful activities, the planning of farming operations, the establishment of synergies with the surrounding landscape, the interactions with other supply chain actors and, more generally, the renewal of the socio-economic relations of food production and consumption. Thus, shifting to ABMs could be particularly challenging for farmers, as it requires them to enact multiple strategies that rely on enhanced knowledge, continuous innovation, and multi-level action across various scales, ranging from individual plot to the agri-food system [22].
In recent years, several scholars have developed modified or extended versions of the BMC, originally introduced by Osterwalder and Pigneur [23], proposing friendly tools that can facilitate the analysis or design of BMs in accordance with sustainability. Notable examples are the Circular Business Model Canvas [24], the Triple Layered Business Model Canvas [25], the Dynamic Business Modeling for Sustainability [26], the Ecocanvas [27], and the Triple Bottom Line Cocreation Canvas [28]. These variants are conceived to incorporate sustainability concerns into BMs—e.g., accounting for environmental and social impacts based on a lifecycle perspective [25]—to embody circular value propositions supported by multi-dimensional foresights [27] or to operationalize specific circular economy principles—e.g., focusing on take-back systems intended to close material loops [24]. However, despite their advancements in integrating economic, environmental, and social goals, these tools fall short in systematically capturing the distinctive aspects and needs of the agroecological approach to sustainable farming. To the best of our knowledge, no dedicated tool has yet been specifically envisioned to analyze and design ABMs, aiming to assist farmers in navigating the multifaceted transition toward agroecological farming systems [10].
This study seeks to address the current disconnection between comprehensive agroecology frameworks and design thinking approaches in the context of BM innovation for sustainability. The guiding research question is: How can agroecology be operationalized within the overall structure and individual components of farming BMs? To address this question, the study develops a conceptual framework that integrates the 10 Elements of Agroecology (EAs) as defined by FAO [19,29] into the widely used BMC. The final aim is to propose a prototype of an Agroecological Business Model Canvas (ABMC), contributing to both the theoretical understanding and practical implementation of agroecological entrepreneurship. Offering an agile tool to guide farmers through the process of redesigning or innovating their BMs may be crucial to empower them with the knowledge and structure they need to make transformative changes, ultimately accelerating agroecological transition at the farm level. The proposed ABMC can represent a practical tool to be implemented by Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKISs) for co-designing and disseminating viable and context-specific ABMs, based on effective interactions between farmers, supply chain actors, advisors, consultants, Universities and Research Institutions, Environmental Groups and citizens. Indeed, one of the key functions of AKISs is to provide institutional support for developing new farm business models, encouraging interactions with other actors, and fostering farmers to learn new ideas and critically reflect on their current business models [30,31].
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 sets out the theoretical background to frame ABMs within the existing literature. Section 3 describes the methodology of the study, outlining the followed stepwise process. Section 4 presents the results of the study consisting of the conceptual framework for an ABMC. Section 5 provides a critical discussion of the proposed ABMC. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper by summarizing the key insights, while also addressing the main limitations of the study and directions for future research.

2. Background: The Concepts of Business Models, Business Model Innovation, and Sustainable Business Models

The notion of the BM was first developed in management theory as a unit of analysis to describe the operational architecture and the logic through which an organization creates, delivers, and captures value by converting its resources and mobilizing its capabilities [23,32,33,34,35]. The BM construct helps to identify the essential assets and activities for business operations, based on the firm’s position within the supply chain [35], as well as to understand the interconnections between the individual firm and the broader system in which it operates [36]. Therefore, a BM must be actively crafted by the focal organization itself, but its success also relies on the involvement of various stakeholders in its development and fine-tuning [37,38,39]. In the agricultural context, this means that farmers could design more effectively their BMs by engaging in collaborative efforts with potential customers (e.g., food processors, retailers, traders, final consumers) to better tailor the value offered, identify optimal distribution channels, and refine marketing strategies. In addition, collaborations with other players from the supply chains and the whole agri-food system (e.g., suppliers of goods and services, producers’ organizations, institutions) may help to create a supportive business environment, establishing long-term and mutually beneficial relationships with the key partners.
The concept of BM has evolved beyond its traditional applications in commercial settings and has been increasingly utilized across a range of interdisciplinary fields, most notably within the domains of sustainability and circular economy. This broader application has given rise to new frameworks such as sustainable BMs—which holistically integrate environmental, social, and economic considerations into the core logic of how organizations operate—[40] and circular BMs—which prioritize resource efficiency by reducing waste and maintaining the value of products, materials, and resources throughout their lifecycle [41]. Despite this growing interest, the explicit integration of BM thinking within the field of agroecology remains relatively marginal and underexplored. While agroecology embodies principles of sustainability, resilience, circularity, and systemic thinking, the application of BM frameworks to support the design, scaling, and economic viability of agroecological practices is still in its early stages and warrants further investigation. The lack of identification and establishment of new BMs that are clearly recognized by international or local markets has been highlighted as a main barrier to a wider uptake of agroecology in Europe [13].
Innovation is a leading topic in BM literature, seen as crucial for addressing organizational renewal, improving performance, driving long-term value, and gaining competitive advantage in response to changing environments or new customer needs [42,43,44]. BM innovation means changing how a firm does business and refers to the ideation and implementation of a BM which is novel to the firm [45] and perceived as such by customers [46]. BM innovation may result in the design of a brand-new BM, or in the reconfiguration of an existing BM, by introducing adaptative changes in one or more of its key components and their interrelations, shifting from one BM to another, or expanding into additional BM(s) [40]. Innovating a BM is significantly more complex than innovating a product or process, as a BM is a multifaceted system that integrates interdependent factors both within and outside the firm [47]. Research on BM innovation in the agri-food sector highlights a range of external and internal obstacles, including limited support from key public and private stakeholders, constraining macro-environmental conditions, insufficient competencies, and inadequate resources, with cognitive barriers—particularly resistance to change—emerging as the most critical [48]. Thus, BM innovation requires fundamental capabilities from the organizations [42] and can also be supported by a structured design process consisting of applying knowledge to change existing situations into preferred ones [49]. In particular, design thinking empowers organizations to evaluate their existing BMs and systematically explore ways to adjust, redesign, or replace them.
Sustainable BMs and sustainability-oriented BMs innovation represent increasing research domains [50,51,52]. BM innovation for sustainability focuses on transforming the ways organizations create, deliver, and capture value across economic, environmental, and social dimensions [53]. A BM is sustainable if it significantly minimizes negative effects or even generates positive impacts on the natural capital and society [54], integrating economic value with environmental and social value [55]. Organizations can develop BMs for sustainability by enhancing their strategic decision-making and mobilizing their dynamic capabilities to prioritize sustainability outcomes [37]. Although the nexus between dynamic capabilities and sustainable BM innovation has been primarily explored in high-tech sectors, emerging evidence suggests its relevance also extends to agriculture, including family farming [56]. BM innovation oriented towards sustainability has itself been recognized as a fundamental capability for companies [57]. Indeed, for sustainable BM innovation, it is crucial to identify the negative forms of uncaptured value—namely what is referred to as the value destroy—thus acknowledging the undesirable outcomes of the existing BM and then opening novel perspectives on potential new value opportunities [58]. This process may often entail creating added value through eco-innovation and eco-design [59].
Although the high impact of food systems on human health and the environment increasingly compels agri-food businesses to adopt sustainability as a strategic priority [60], research on BMs, BM innovation, and sustainability-oriented BM innovation in the agri-food sector domain—especially in primary agricultural production—remains relatively underdeveloped [61]. Compared to other sectors, farming businesses present distinctive traits that warrant carefully consideration, including their predominantly small-sized and family-based structure, the biological and seasonal nature of agricultural production, high market concentration downstream in the supply chain, and the intrinsic link between production processes, food quality and safety, and environmental externalities [62]. In examining sustainable BM innovation within farming systems, growing scholarly attention has focused on circular waste-to-value strategies to convert agricultural residues and agro-industrial by-products into biogas, compost, or high-value products, which improve on-farm resource efficiency and create additional revenue streams [63,64]. Another stream of literature delves into digital transformation and innovative e-business models as mechanisms to support transparency, traceability, and sustainability claims, reduce waste, improve smallholders’ access to formal market, and facilitate supply-demand matching [65,66]. More recent studies highlight how shifting from product-oriented to service-driven BMs such as harvest-to-order systems or multifunctional farms can help advancing sufficiency in food production and consumption, curbing natural resources overuse, generating off-farm revenue, and enhancing farming’s attractiveness by improving rural livelihoods [10,67]. Emerging BM types for sustainable food systems also include alternative, place-based, and social food networks that reconnect producers and consumers through direct sales, along with more disruptive models such as community-supported agriculture (CSA), which are increasingly recognized as relevant innovation niches [68].
In the realm of agroecological farming, BM innovation can be meant as the process of re-designing BMs in accordance with agroecological principles. In particular, an ABM can be assumed as a specific subcategory of sustainable BMs that aligns with agroecology. To better define how an ABM can be shaped, it is essential to gain a clearer understanding of how agroecological principles can be related to and integrated within the BM components. In this regard, visual representations such as the BMC can serve as valuable tools to support farms in reconfiguring their models from an agroecological perspective.

3. Materials and Methods

The prototype for an ABMC was drafted through qualitative desk research based on conceptual framework development. Unlike theoretical frameworks, which introduce new theories at the construct level, conceptual frameworks aim to connect and integrate various concepts and constructs from different existing theories in innovative ways [69].
Specifically, this study develops a conceptual framework for an ABMC building on the construct of the BMC, widely regarded as the most established and extensively utilized tool for visualizing, designing, and analyzing BMs. To prevent confusion and complexity arising from the proliferation of multiple canvases, careful attention was given to preserve as much as possible the original structure of the BMC, making changes only when necessary to capture all relevant aspects of agroecological farming. The second conceptual reference is represented by the 10 EAs as defined by FAO [19,29], which offer a comprehensive framework for identifying the key entry points to align farming practices with agroecology, and for implementing systemic change in agricultural and food systems [22]. In other words, these elements are a valuable guide for identifying actionable steps that support the modeling of agroecological farming systems. Thus, the development of a new conceptual framework consisted in the systematic integration of the BMC with the EAs, chosen as conceptual ingredients—serving, respectively, as method theory and domain theory—due to their fit to the focal area of inquiry and their complementary value in elaborating a novel construct [70].
Following Garmann-Johnsen et al. [71], the conceptual modeling of the ABMC ensured analytical rigor by adhering to guidelines that address logical consistency, rhetorical strategy, and meaningful contribution [72]. The research design and methodology drew on the elements recommended by Jaakkola [70] for typology and model papers. Indeed, this study combines both approaches. On one side, it classifies ABMs as a distinct typology of BMs, specifically positioning them as a variant within the broader category of sustainable BMs. On the other side, it delineates a new conceptual entity—i.e., the ABMC—which extends the existing construct of the BMC to better describe the specific features of agroecological farming, identifies its relationships with the EAs, and then summarizes arguments through a visual representation. To uncover connections between the original concepts and bridging them into a novel framework, an inductive analytical approach was mainly adopted. Whereas the analysis was primarily grounded in the foundational studies on BMC and the 10 EAs, supplementary literature was drawn upon to enrich the explanation of how these concepts are interconnected. For this purpose, an exploratory review was conducted adopting an integrative literature approach. Relevant studies were selected via searches in scientific databases—namely Scopus and Google Scholar, with the latter also enabling the inclusion of grey literature—using simple keyword combinations (e.g., agroecol* OR agro-ecol* AND business model*), as well as exploring adjacent research domains to address specific focal topics (e.g., studies on economic performance or viability of agroecology were used to inform the conceptualization of how agroecological farms can capture value). After having collected an initial set of papers, additional pertinent literature was identified through a snowball method, consisting in tracing references cited in the original sources. The literature was then analyzed by inductively connecting theoretical and empirical insights into agroecological farming to both the overall structure and the individual components of the BMC.
The research design involved a five-stage process. First, a reference framework for agroecology was selected among existing ones. Specifically, the FAO’s 10 EAs were chosen due to their widespread recognition and use within the field of agroecology, for being scientifically robust and participatorily validated, and for serving as the foundation of an assessment tool such as the TAPE [73,74]. Second, the 10 EAs were systematically dissected, mapped, and integrated into the components of the original BMC, in order to uncover the core practices and strategies that farmers should consider when designing or innovating their ABMs. By doing so, the components of the BMC were adjusted accordingly to better reflect the agroecological rationale. Third, gaps were identified in covering all EAs within the original structure of the BMC, and new components were introduced to ensure a comprehensive representation of agroecological dimensions. Fourth, additional optional components were included to specifically incorporate evaluative aspects based on TAPE that would enable us to assess how much agroecological are, and which multidimensional sustainability performance achieve the farms adopting ABMs. Fifth, a final synthesis was conducted to condense all insights into a coherent prototype of the ABMC, by providing a visual representation.

3.1. The Conventional Business Model Design Tool: The Business Model Canvas

A canvas refers to a blank document structured with labeled fields, allowing users to input responses to relevant questions, which help to capture both explicit knowledge, such as operational data and metrics, while also mapping organizations’ tacit resources. Osterwalder and Pigneur [23] developed a BMC formed by nine components, or building blocks: value proposition, customer segments, customer relationships, channels, key partners, key activities, key resources, cost structure and revenue streams.
The BMC is fundamentally problem-solving and user-centered in nature. At its core, it guides businesses in clearly formulating a compelling value proposition, namely the value offered through their products and services to improve the customer’s situation, whether it is solving a practical problem, enhancing convenience, or fulfilling a specific need, that could also be of emotional or ethical nature. The right side of the canvas addresses the dimension of value delivery. It is designed to place customers at the heart of business strategy, helping to understand the target groups of people or organizations the businesses aim to serve, by outlining distinct customer segments. The BMC also emphasizes the importance of defining effective channels through which the firms can engage with their customers. Moreover, the focus on customer relationships urges businesses to think about how to build, maintain, and strengthen their connections with customers. By considering the various ways to nurture these relationships, they can significantly improve the overall customer experience, fostering trust and long-term satisfaction.
Instead, the left side of the BMC comprises the foundational elements that support value creation. Specifically, the key partners refer to the system of external actors, such as suppliers, collaborators, or strategic allies, who contribute to the business’s operations and value proposition. The key activities encompass the core tasks and processes that the firm must perform to function effectively and fulfil its strategic objectives. The block about key resources includes the essential assets, whether physical, intellectual, human, or financial, that are required to carry out the key activities and sustain the BM operation.
Finally, the bottom part of the canvas is meant to clarify the dimension of value capture, through the two components of cost structure and revenue streams. The former identifies the most significant costs associated with operating the BM, including fixed and variable expenses, resource allocation, and key investments. The latter details the sources through which businesses generate income, and the types of revenue mechanisms. Together, these components provide insight into the economic and financial viability of businesses.

3.2. The Conceptual Framework of Reference: The 10 Elements of Agroecology

The 10 Elements of Agroecology, developed for broad adaptive applicability as a foundational pillar of the FAO’s Scaling Up Agroecology Initiative, provide a comprehensive framework to guide the transformation of agricultural and food systems toward greater sustainability. Co-developed through a multi-stakeholder process started in 2015, the framework was first presented at the Second International Agroecology Symposium held in 2018 [19], then refined, and officially endorsed by FAO’s Governing Bodies and Member Countries in 2019 [29].
Drawing on existing principle-based approaches for agroecology and aligned with FAO’s Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture, the framework includes the heterogeneous but interconnected constitutive elements of: Diversity, Co-creation and sharing of knowledge, Synergies, Efficiency, Recycling, Resilience, Human and social values, Culture and food traditions, Responsible governance, and Circular and solidarity economy. They address both normative and operational aspects that support the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of agroecology [1], articulating essential components, key interactions, emergent properties, and enabling conditions to implement agroecological transitions [3,22]. Together, they emphasize the enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services, participatory and context-specific innovation, the optimal use of natural resources, and the empowerment of local communities.
This framework has been widely adopted as a reference for research and practice, playing a pivotal role for operationalizing agroecology at multiple scales and fostering its uptake. It also underpins an assessment tool like TAPE, which is another cornerstone of FAO’s work on advancing agroecology.

4. Results: Developing an Agroecological Business Model Canvas

This section illustrates the proposed framework for an ABMC across three key areas. The first subsection reports the outcome of the initial mapping of the EAs into the conventional BMC, showing how its traditional components can be addressed and re(de)fined to embed these elements as much as possible. The second subsection reveals the gaps found from this mapping, suggesting the need to introduce additional components to fully encompass all multidimensional aspects of agroecology. In addition, it outlines how evaluation-related aspects can be integrated into the BMC, drawing from TAPE. Lastly, the third subsection offers a final synthesis, presenting the proposed ABMC in its visual form.

4.1. Adaptation of the Business Model Canvas Standard Components

4.1.1. Agroecological Value Proposition

The value proposition is the core component of any BM, referring not only to the bundle of products and services offered but also to the value they embody and convey to customers. The value proposition underscores the idea that the relationship between a firm and its customers is grounded on the exchange of value, rather than the mere provision of goods [36]. In the context of agroecological farms, the formulation of the value proposition must reflect a holistic commitment to ecological sustainability, social equity, and economic viability. It thus transcends the traditional market-centric focus on economic gain and customer satisfaction [75], to integrate multiple dimensions of value creation that also include broader environmental and social objectives, aligning with the transformative goals of sustainable food systems. The fundamental aspects of the value proposition should focus on providing high-quality, healthy, and fairly produced food through ecologically sound farming practices, while contributing to improve the livelihood of local communities.
Agroecological supply inherently promotes environmental, animal, and human wellness, typically pursued within a One Health approach. Thus, a fundamental value added to agroecological products and services lay in their contribution to preserving ecosystems health, ensuring animal welfare, and promoting wholesome, diversified, and culturally appropriate diets. In particular, the agroecological value proposition should incorporate the EA of Culture and food traditions, that recognizes agriculture and food as core components of human heritage, emphasizing the importance of meeting food and nutrition safety, while preserving the cultural identity and traditional knowledge—e.g., by using autochthonous or locally adapted genetic resources and valorising culinary traditions [19,22,29].
Moreover, agroecological products and services are deeply tied to a social dimension of value creation. Agroecological farms are expected to contribute to strengthen the local economy by generating fairly waged and inclusive employment opportunities, able to foster workers’ professional growth and well-being. This reflects a broader dedication of agroecological farms to social responsibility, aiming to empower rural communities through stable jobs and skill development, to preserve local livelihoods through better working conditions and quality of life, and to build place-based economies. In this perspective, the agroecological value proposition explicitly integrates the EA of Human and social values which puts strong emphasis on personal dignity, gender and intergenerational equity, and social justice [19,22,29].
The overarching value proposition of an ABM could synthetically refer to the “production of agroecologically made” products and services. However, its specific formulation should be tailored to the kind of products and services, the production scale, the type of farming, and the characteristics of the individual farm. In addition, it should suit emphases on the farm’s main focus and mission(s), that may range, inter alia, from (i) restoring soil health, ecosystem functions, and biodiversity to (ii) prioritizing consumer well-being through the provision of affordable high-quality, nutritious, and safe food or to (iii) advancing food sovereignty and community empowerment by delivering products from farm-to-table, connecting consumers with producers, strengthening local knowledge systems, and fostering trust and transparency in the food chain.

4.1.2. Customer Segments

The ideal customer segment for an ABM consists of environmentally and socially conscious consumers, i.e., individuals who critically assess the broader impacts of their purchasing decisions and actively seek products and services that align with their ethical values. These so-called critical consumers are increasingly attentive to the ecological footprint, production methods, and social implications associated with food systems. As awareness of environmental degradation, climate change, and social inequities in agriculture grows, agroecological products are gaining traction among consumers who prioritize sustainability, transparency, and fairness.
Environmentally and socially conscious consumers are often willing to pay a premium price for products that not only avoid environmental harm but also actively contribute to ecosystem regeneration, animal welfare, and social justice [76,77]. Their purchasing behavior reflects a broader demand for food that supports both planetary and human health, which are core tenets of the agroecological approach. By aligning with these values, agroecological farms can cultivate a strong relational bond with their customer base, fostering loyalty, trust, and shared responsibility.
Furthermore, these consumers often serve as change agents, influencing market trends and encouraging peers and communities to adopt more sustainable consumption patterns. As such, targeting this customer segment is not only economically strategic but also consistent with the transformative mission of agroecology, reinforcing the role of consumers as active participants in systemic change rather than passive end-users [78,79].
Besides final consumers, agroecological farms may target their products to local processors, retailers (such as cooperatives and organic stores), contractors, specialized trades, or farm-to-fork restaurants that share similar environmental, ethical, and social values. These intermediaries can play a key role in scaling up the impact of agroecology by integrating sustainably produced goods into local supply chains, promoting shorter distribution circuits, enhancing traceability, and reinforcing local food sovereignty [80]. Addressing these kinds of intermediaries can also ensure fair pricing, reduce distribution costs, and help maintain product integrity. In this way, agroecological farms can diversify their customer base while contributing to the development of localized, resilient markets that support both producers and communities.

4.1.3. Channels

The choice of distribution channels is crucial for the success of ABMs. Typically, ABMs should prioritize short distribution channels, which involve few or no intermediaries, so as to strengthen transparency, traceability, and producer-consumer relationships. There are several kinds of short distribution channels including farm shops, collective points of sale, farmers’ markets, box schemes, solidarity purchase groups, and so on. In particular, CSA, which is a long-term institutional arrangement between local consumers and small-scale farmers, has proven to be well-suited for the distribution of agroecological products. As discussed in the literature, short distribution channels, usually called Alternative Food Networks (AFNs), offer several advantages, such as fostering local economies and consumer trust, although they may also pose logistical, organizational, or scaling challenges [81]. The prioritization of local markets, the existence of well-established and operational producer-consumer networks, and the high degree of community self-sufficiency in food production, along with the trade or exchange of products and services among producers, contribute to operationalizing the EA of the Circular and solidarity economy [73]. This approach supports farm incomes, promotes fair pricing for consumers, and helps minimize food waste by fostering localized, equitable, and resource-efficient food systems [19,22,29].
The choice of distribution channels also largely depends on the type of products that should be marketed. Specifically, for highly perishable food products such as fruits and vegetables, dairy and fresh meat, the use of short circuits is the most appropriate choice. Conversely, conventional distribution channels may also be considered for non-perishable food products, such as grains, dried legumes, flour, vegetable oils, canned foods, etc. Conventional channels may involve different intermediaries such as wholesale traders, exporters, large retailers, and e-commerce platforms that are necessary for the distribution of large quantities of products on wider markets. In general, diversifying distribution channels—e.g., by combining short circuits and high-scale trade—may be a strategic approach for enhancing economic resilience and mitigating risks associated with market fluctuations [82].

4.1.4. Customer Relationships

Agroecological farms should prioritize stronger and long-term relationships with customers, often developed through direct interactions and communication that reinforce the shared values behind the products and mutual support. In particular, if the customers are represented by final consumers, personal-based relationships should extend beyond simple transactions but rather encourage their engagement over time through educational activities, farm visits, hosting events, even to enacting collaboration schemes such as CSA, or participatory mechanisms such as Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS). Such close, trustworthy and transparent relationships foster not only consumer loyalty but also a deeper understanding of food production, thereby encouraging responsible consumption, as well as the strengthening of inclusive, localized food systems, ultimately representing not only a strategic asset but a key component of transformative change [4,27]. It is important to note, however, that different types of relationships could imply different levels of transaction costs which, for example, would be higher in the case of CSA or PGS implementation.
In addition, when the customer target is represented by intermediaries (such as retailers, processors, contractors, or wholesale traders) instead of final consumers, relationships can be based on contracts that ensure stability, predictability, and mutual accountability. Such agreements, whether formalized through long-term contracts, supply arrangements, or partnership frameworks, can help agroecological producers to secure consistent demand and fair pricing, while enabling intermediaries to plan reliably and differentiate their offerings through sustainably sourced products. These relationships are particularly valuable in supporting conventional market access for farms and in fostering shared commitments to environmental and social standards across the supply chain.

4.1.5. Key Activities

The key activities refer to the essential tasks and processes that farmers must undertake to create and deliver the agroecological value propositions. These activities span the full spectrum of agricultural operations and business functions and must be implemented in ways that are ecologically sound, socially just, and economically viable. The key activities can reflect the EAs in various ways, both directly—through farming practices—and indirectly, through system design and farm management.
At their core, these activities lie in fundamental agricultural operations, such as soil management, planting, crop cultivation and harvesting, and livestock husbandry. All these processes must be carried out through agroecological practices. According to Wezel et al. [83], a wide array of agroecological practices can be applied across different scales, from individual plots to broader landscape, encompassing tillage management (e.g., minimum tillage, direct seeding into cover crops or mulch), fertilization (e.g., organic fertilization, biofertilizers), irrigation (e.g., drip irrigation, deficit irrigation), spatial and temporal diversification of crops (e.g., choosing locally adapted cultivars and breeds, crop rotation, intercropping, agroforestry), weed and pest management (e.g., biological pest control, natural pesticides, allelopathic plants), and finally strategic management of natural elements and ecological infrastructures.
Agroecological practices are grounded in four core EAs which are closely interconnected: increasing Diversity, enhancing Recycling, optimizing Efficiency, and activating Synergies. Accordingly, farming activities should aim to increase diversity at multiple levels, including species and varietal diversity (e.g., polycultures, agroforestry systems), genetic diversity (e.g., traditional breeds and landraces), and functional diversity (e.g., integration of crops and livestock, inclusion of pollinators and natural enemies). In addition, farmers must engage in recycling-oriented activities that promote closed-loop systems where nutrients, organic matter, and water are reused and cycled efficiently. This may involve composting, the use of green manures, intercropping with nitrogen-fixing species such as legumes, and the strategic integration of livestock to utilize crop residues and produce manure for soil fertilization. Such practices reduce dependency on external inputs and foster ecological self-regulation. Moreover, efforts to maximize the efficient use of natural resources such as water, sunlight, and soil nutrients are vital. These include adopting techniques such as mulching, drip or sub-irrigation, integrated pest and nutrient management, and spatial-temporal planning of crops. Efficiency also extends to labor and energy use, ensuring that farming practices are productive while minimizing ecological footprints. Designing synergistic systems entails on the one hand adopting integrated production models (e.g., mixed farms based on crop-tree-livestock combinations) that stimulate interactions across different plants, species, and ecological functions, also as part of holistic strategy to build long-term soil fertility and healthy ecosystems [84]. On the other hand, it also involves integrating production systems with semi-natural elements to strengthen the connectivity between agroecosystems and the landscape. Overall, these approaches result in increased ecological Resilience, making farms more capable of recovering from biological or climate disturbances [19,22,29].
Beyond primary production, other key activities may regard post-harvest operations, including processing, packing, and selling farm products, as well as other gainful activities like agritourism, leisure activities, provision of health, social, or educational services, contractual work, or production of renewable energy. Importantly, such economic diversification is a key part of the EA of Diversity.
Finally, routine operational tasks, such as maintenance of equipment, infrastructure, and facilities, are typically run to ensure the smooth and sustainable functioning of the farm.

4.1.6. Key Resources

Many essential resources, both material and immaterial, are required to implement the key activities and sustain the value proposition of an ABM. These resources span natural, physical, human, and financial assets.
In agroecological systems farmland plays a central role, not only as a production space but also as a multifunctional capital asset. Beyond its productive function, it is viewed in its broader sense as natural capital, encompassing genetic resources, water, soil, and ecosystem services. Unlike conventional farming models, ecosystems, natural elements, and the surrounding landscape are integral and valuable components of the farming system itself, providing essential services such as pollination, pest regulation, nutrient cycling, and climate regulation. In addition, agroecological farming often relies on more extensive land use compared to conventional agriculture, especially when integrating trees, hedgerows, buffer zones, or semi-natural habitats to support biodiversity and ecological functions [85]. The status of land tenure is also critical: ownership tends to facilitate long-term investments in soil fertility, agroecological infrastructure, and sustainable practices, whereas land rental may discourage innovation due to the economic vulnerability and planning uncertainty faced by tenant farmers [86]. In this context, innovative land access models, such as land banks, stewardship agreements, or collaborative farming arrangements, can play an important role in expanding access and supporting agroecological transitions, especially among new entrants or small-scale farmers.
Although agroecology typically relies less on capital-intensive technologies and methods (e.g., advanced machineries, patented seeds, and agrochemicals), it still requires certain essential physical resources. These include appropriate machinery for low-impact farming operations, as well as equipment for producing on-farm inputs such as compost, biofertilizers, or natural pesticides. Infrastructure for water collection, renewable energy, or small-scale processing may also be key resources depending on the BM.
Labor is arguably a central resource in agroecological farming, which prioritizes knowledge-intensive and labor-driven practices over capital-intensive processes. Unlike conventional models that rely heavily on mechanization and synthetic inputs, agroecological systems mainly depend on human knowledge and work to manage complex, diversified systems and to support ecological functions, e.g., for implementing agroecological practices such as crop diversification, soil regeneration, composting, biological pest management, or sustainable livestock husbandry. Agroecological farming systems, especially those based on integration between crops, livestock, and/or trees, require more intense and skilled labor compared to conventional systems [87]. Furthermore, when the farm engages in non-agricultural activities, such as food transformation, direct selling, agritourism, or educational outreach, additional labor is needed to manage logistics, customer relationships, and communication [88]. In this context, labor is not only a production input but also a strategic asset that supports the ecological, social, and economic dimensions of the ABM.
Among intangible assets, knowledge stands out as a distinctive core resource. Agroecological systems rely on both scientific and traditional forms of knowledge to design and manage site-specific, adaptive strategies. In this context, knowledge diversity (from traditional and experiential to scientific), farmer-to-farmer exchange, and participatory innovation are fundamental to success.
Finally, financial resources are required to cover initial costs, working capital, and investments in agroecological infrastructure, training, or diversification strategies. While agroecology aims to reduce dependence on costly external inputs, financial capital remains necessary, particularly during transition phases or when implementing innovative practices that require upfront investment.

4.1.7. Key Partnerships

Key partners are the external actors and organizations that support, enable, or complement the core activities of farms. Partnerships are not peripheral but rather foundational to ABMs. They may be essential for enhancing resource efficiency, expanding market access, facilitating innovation, and contributing to the wider agroecological transition. While the composition of key partners varies depending on local contexts, production systems, and farm objectives, ABMs typically rely on a diverse and dynamic network of collaborations that extend both upstream and downstream along the agri-food supply chain. Upstream partnerships may include suppliers of agroecological inputs and equipment (such as seeds, organic fertilizers, composting units, or small-scale machinery adapted for diversified and low-impact farming practices) especially where on-farm production of such inputs is not feasible. Technical advisors, agronomic consultants, and extension services are also critical partners, helping farmers access knowledge and build capacity in agroecological methods, system design, and business development.
Downstream, local processors, retailers, restaurants, processing cooperatives, or consumer networks (e.g., CSA or solidarity purchasing groups) serve as strategic partners in value-adding and market distribution. These relationships are not purely transactional: they are often grounded in shared values around sustainability, equity, and transparency, helping to create alternative, more resilient food networks that bypass conventional supply chains and strengthen local food systems.
Importantly, ABMs should prioritize collaborative and inclusive partnerships that go beyond commercial relationships, contributing indirectly to the EA of Responsible Governance [22], that however cannot be fully represented in this BM component, including multi-stakeholder engagement that bring together different perspectives and expertise to drive change effectively not only at farm level but also at the food system level. Nevertheless, key partnership can be instrumental to empower farmers and shaping more enabling environments.
Producers’ organizations and farmer associations also serve as essential partners. These collective structures can strengthen farmers’ bargaining power, facilitate access to land, markets, knowledge, and resources, and provide platforms for peer learning and innovation. In some contexts, they also serve as intermediaries between farmers and policymakers, amplifying the voices and needs of agroecological producers in governance processes.
Public actors of different nature can be key partners in ABMs both directly and indirectly. On one side, they can support agroecological production through public food procurement schemes (e.g., sourcing from local agroecological farms to schools, hospitals, or public canteens), which help create stable demand and fair pricing. On the other side, they can offer broader institutional support by providing supporting policies, legal recognition, financial incentives, and shared platforms for dialogue and coordination.

4.1.8. Cost Structure

The cost structure mainly reflects the need to acquire the key resources and run the key activities identified to implement the ABM, including both usual agricultural expenditures and specific costs associated with the management of agroecological systems. While costs vary based on farm size, location, and crop type, an agricultural business typically incurs distinctive cost categories: land access and use; agricultural inputs; labor; infrastructure and equipment; distribution and logistics; marketing; administration and certification.
The economic strategy of agroecology is meant to reduce costs as a complementary means to improve farmers’ net income and economic resilience. Accordingly, the cost structure of an ABM should focus on pursuing economies of scope by developing cost complementarities between different production processes [89], as well as on minimizing both variable costs, such as the acquisition of ex-farm inputs, and fixed costs, such as loans or high-capital investments that may lead to indebtedness. However, it is important to recognize that transitioning to agroecology often involves upfront investments and higher costs at the beginning, including those related to infrastructure adaptation, staff training, and temporary yield declines during farming system redesign. As Lüdeke-Freund et al. [90] emphasize, long-term sustainability requires investment strategies that prioritize systemic impact over short-term returns, therefore agricultural policy interventions, innovative financing tools such as green bonds, crowdfunding, and public–private partnerships may be critical in providing the financial resources needed for funding transformative projects.
A key strategy to cut production costs in AMBs lies in reducing dependence on purchased inputs. This can be achieved explicitly, by replacing them with internal inputs (sourced or self-generated on-farm) and, more implicitly, by adopting production practices that work together with nature, optimizing the advantage of ecosystem services (e.g., improving soil health by increasing organic matter and biological activity decreases the need for synthetic fertilizers; increasing functional biodiversity supports natural pest management reducing the need for phytosanitary products; improving water retention and nutrient cycling minimize losses of water, nutrients, genetic resources, and energy). Adopting integrated strategies related to Diversity, Efficiency, Recycling, and Synergies allows to shift the cost structure of an ABM away from input-intensive models towards knowledge-intensive, ecosystem-supported systems.
Labor may represent a significant component of the cost structure in an ABM, largely due to the labor-intensive nature of agroecological practices. When the farm relies on salaried or hired labor, this translates into a substantial and explicit cost stream. Skilled workers are particularly important for implementing agroecological practices effectively, which may further elevate labor costs. However, many agroecological farms offset these costs by leveraging family labor, which remains a cornerstone of agroecological farming. Family labor can reduce direct wage expenses while maintaining the flexibility and commitment required for managing dynamic, ecologically integrated systems. In some cases, labor-sharing arrangements or cooperative models can also help distribute workload and lower individual labor costs. Thus, while labor is a major cost driver in ABMs, its impact on the overall budget can vary significantly depending on the farm’s organizational structure and the extent to which family or community-based labor is involved.
Possible strategies to reduce costs may also include the pooling of other resources (e.g., specific machinery to implement agroecological practices) with other farmers, as suggested by Isgren [91].

4.1.9. Revenue Streams

Agroecology aims to enhance long-term profitability and income stability for farmers through a model of value capture that transcends the conventional focus on maximizing profit through specialization, intensification, and economies of scale.
An ABM aims to maximize farm net income and achieve economies of scope. It is a multiproduct business (diversification strategy) aimed at selling high-value-added products and services that can command premium prices in the market [89]. In the context of sustainable agriculture, value addition extends beyond product quality enhancement or physical transformation and valorization. It also includes the ecological benefits embedded in environmentally friendly farming processes (e.g., reduced use of agrichemicals, improved soil health, enhanced biodiversity, contribution to carbon sequestration, etc.), as well as the social attributes of responsible and equitable practices (e.g., ensuring fair wages to workers, promoting gender equity, empowering rural communities, and preserving local knowledge and traditions). Together, these ecological and social values-added serve as a key differentiator of agroecological products and services in the marketplace, allowing farmers to capture monetary value not only from the output itself but also from its broader positive impact on nature and society.
Additionally, agroecology emphasizes the importance of diversifying income sources, which plays a threefold role: increasing income opportunities, spreading financial risk, and remunerating family labor. The diversification of income sources can result from expanding the variety of agricultural activities (e.g., within integrated crop-trees-livestock systems) and thus the range of products or services offered, as well as from the integration of complementary, non-agricultural activities (e.g., agritourism, educational programs, on-farm food processing, direct selling, renewable energy production, etc.). Production and economic diversification strategies not only open new revenue streams but also help minimize exposure to price volatility or external shocks, as well as stabilize cash flow, by distributing earnings more evenly across the year, while smoothing out income peaks and troughs that often accompany conventional, monocultural farming systems. This approach helps create a more resilient and financially secure farm business.
Besides market-based income, ABMs may benefit of subsidies, such as those awarded to farmers in the European Union under the current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2023–2027 (e.g., direct payments for the ‘Climate and the environment—Eco-schemes’ or the payments for ‘Environmental, Climate and Other Management Commitments’—AECCs), as well as other subsidies such as incentives for renewable energy production. These supports complement market earnings and reflect growing societal recognition of the public goods provided by agroecological farming.
In this way, the revenue structure of agroecological farms embodies the EA of Resilience, particularly in its socio-economic dimension [19,22,29]. By embracing diversified, context-specific revenue strategies, ABMs reduce farmers’ vulnerability to economic shocks and build more stable, self-reliant, and future-proof farming systems.

4.2. Additional Components to Be Included in the ABMC

While adapting the standard BMC components allows for the integration of many aspects from the conceptual framework of reference, it does not explicitly capture two key EAs that serve as cross-cutting enablers of agroecological transitions: Responsible Governance and Co-creation and Sharing of Knowledge. While transcending the boundaries of individual business, these elements may constrain the design of an ABM, operating across multiple dimensions and influencing the overall food system transformation. To address this gap, the ABMC should incorporate two dedicated components to reflect these enabling factors.
Moreover, for both internal strategic management and external communication, it would be beneficial to assess how much agroecological is a BM under analysis or development and what multidimensional sustainability outcomes it generates. Such evaluation aspects can be effectively addressed through TAPE, which provides a standardized, yet flexible methodology grounded in the 10 EAs to measure the degree of agroecological transition and the sustainability performance of farms, which can be applied across diverse farming systems and contexts [85]. Therefore, the ABMC integrates two additional components to show, respectively, the farm’s stage along an agroecological transition continuum, and its performance in terms of environmental, social, and economic sustainability. These aspects can be assessed through TAPE’s two main analytical phases: Step 1 and 2. The conceptual foundations, methodology, and operational protocols of TAPE are thoroughly detailed in FAO [73] and further elaborated in Mottet et al. [74].
Importantly, while the BMC offers a structured framework to capture the configuration of an ABM at a given point in time, its representation remains inherently static. However, BMs are increasingly viewed not as fixed structures but as dynamic and evolving constructs, capable of adapting to changing external and internal conditions, integrating innovations, and reflecting continuous learning. In this light, the design and implementation of an ABM should be understood as an iterative and adaptive process, rather than a one-time exercise. TAPE can support this process by providing evidence-based insights that can guide farmers and their advisors to identify areas for improvement, reinforce strengths, and strategically adjust BMs over time.

4.2.1. Enabling Factors: Responsible Governance and Co-Creation and Sharing of Knowledge

Effective agroecological transitions depend on the establishment of governance frameworks that facilitate agri-food system transformation. Such governance must be rooted in principles of inclusivity, transparency, and accountability, and should operate effectively across diverse scales, from local communities to national institutions. Key instruments include institutional and policy innovations, such as school feeding and public procurement programs favoring local and agroecological production, regulatory mechanisms that enable the certification and branding of differentiated agroecological products, and specific agricultural policy interventions aimed to support agroecological farming.
A cornerstone of responsible governance is equitable access to land and natural resources, which not only addresses issues of social justice but also serves as a critical precondition for long-term investments in soil health, biodiversity conservation, and ecosystem restoration. In parallel, enabling governance structures should support the emergence of territorial food systems, niche markets, and context-specific value chains, while also recognizing and compensating the public goods generated by regenerative agricultural practices (i.e., ecosystem services).
According to TAPE [73], responsible governance can be verified across three key dimensions: (i) the empowerment of producers, referring to the extent to which their rights are recognized and respected, thereby enabling them to enhance their livelihoods and capabilities; (ii) the presence and effectiveness of cooperatives and producer associations, which provide essential services and support structures; and (iii) the existence of participatory mechanisms that ensure producers have a meaningful voice in the governance of land, natural resources, and food systems. Importantly, these dimensions must be addressed through a gender-sensitive lens, ensuring that both women and men enjoy equal rights, opportunities, and access to resources and decision-making processes.
In addition, current research, education, and extension systems often fall short of supporting agroecology’s transformative potential. Agroecological systems rely on managing complex, context-specific interactions among diverse components, such as soil, water, crops, livestock, and ecosystems, requiring locally adapted knowledge. Rather than offering one-size-fits-all solutions, agroecology relies on locally tailored practices developed through the co-creation and sharing of knowledge [19,22,29]. However, mainstream approaches remain focused on disciplinary silos and top-down technology transfer. Scaling up agroecology calls for reorienting rural education and extension toward participatory models of knowledge co-creation that integrate transdisciplinary scientific insights with farmers’ experiential and traditional knowledge. Farmers’ deep understanding of agricultural biodiversity, local ecosystems, markets, and institutional dynamics is essential in designing and adapting agroecological innovations, particularly in the face of complex challenges like climate change. To measure the extent of knowledge co-creation and exchange, TAPE [73] employs three quali-quantitative variables: (i) the number and operational effectiveness of dedicated platforms, whether formal or informal; (ii) the degree of producers’ interest, awareness, and access with respect to agroecological knowledge; and (iii) the intensity of producers’ participation in local community networks and grassroots organizations, ranging from negligible or sporadic involvement to high levels of interconnectivity and sustained engagement.
The exchange of knowledge occurs through both formal and informal education systems, with participatory approaches—such as facilitated horizontal knowledge sharing or peer-to-peer learning and grassroots innovation—proving far more effective than top-down models. Against this backdrop, AKISs can play a key role in enhancing agroecological knowledge and practices, in developing user-centered and locally adapted innovations, and in strengthening links between research and practice by implementing Living Lab approaches.

4.2.2. Evaluation Dashboard: Degree of Agroecological Transition and Sustainability Performance

TAPE’s STEP 1, known as the Characterization of the Agroecological Transition (CAET), provides a structured method for assessing how much agroecological a given farming system is. The CAET framework disaggregates the 10 EAs into 36 specific evaluation criteria. Each criterion is assessed using a descriptive Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 to 4, reflecting five progressive levels of agroecological transition. The individual scores are then converted into percentages for each corresponding EA, which are subsequently averaged to calculate an overall transition index, namely the aggregated CAET value. This index situates the farm along a gradient of agroecological transition (on a 0–100% scale), showing how closely the BM under analysis or development aligns with agroecology. Beyond providing a diagnostic function, the CAET may also strategically serve as a design tool: the same evaluation criteria can guide the formulation or refinement of ABMs. By highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement across the EAs, CAET enables a more targeted and strategic approach to ABM design and implementation.
TAPE’s STEP 2 aims to quantify the multiple outcomes and co-benefits of agroecological practices in a holistic manner. It employs a set of selected indicators to measure the sustainability performance of a farm, framed within 5 key dimensions: environment and climate change, health and nutrition, society and culture, economy, governance. It includes a bare minimum, non-exhaustive list of 10 core criteria of performance, closely linked with SDGs indicators: secure land tenure, income, productivity, added value, exposure to pesticides, dietary diversity, women’s empowerment, youth employment opportunity, agricultural biodiversity, and soil health. Additional advanced criteria can be integrated to answer specific local priorities, needs, or challenges. Each criterion is measured through qualitative and quantitative sub-indicators, based on existing methodologies. To evaluate performance, TAPE applies a threshold-based “traffic light” approach, which classifies outcomes into three levels of sustainability: desirable (green), acceptable (yellow), and unsustainable (red). This approach facilitates a rapid yet robust understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of a given farming system, supporting evidence-based decision-making. Step 2 is complementary to Step 1, since it allows us to link the levels of performance with the stage of agroecological transition, thereby helping to identify priority areas for improvement and targeted interventions.

4.3. Final Synthesis: The Agroecological Business Model Canvas

As shown in Figure 1, the ABMC is made of thirteen building blocks. It retains the nine core components of the conventional BMC, while refining their content focus and reorganizing some of them through the introduction of subsections to better align with the EAs. In particular, the key activities are detailed to better reflect the four EAs that characterize agroecological practices, ensuring that the unique operational dimensions of agroecology are explicitly captured. In addition, the ABMC incorporates four new components. Two of them address the EAs related to Responsible Governance and Co-creation and sharing of knowledge, which extend beyond the immediate boundaries of a BM and pertain to the broader socio-institutional environment. The remaining two additional components are intended to account for the degree of agroecological transition and the sustainability performance achieved (or potentially achievable) through the implementation of the ABM, thus enabling a more holistic evaluation of outcomes. As filling these components requires the application of Steps 1 and 2 of the TAPE—i.e., a process that lies outside the scope of core BM design—they are considered optional, albeit strongly recommended to enhance the model’s diagnostic and strategic utility.
A distinctive feature of the ABMC is its explicit integration of the temporal dimension, which is often overlooked in traditional BM frameworks. Both the cost structure and revenue streams are framed to reflect not only short-term but also long-term results, emphasizing that while the initial adoption of agroecology may incur upfront cost of transition, improved economic returns can be achieved over time. In doing so, the ABMC helps situate farmers within a forward-looking perspective, encouraging strategic thinking oriented toward the long-term sustainability, resilience, and viability of ABMs.

5. Discussion

While the traditional BMC offers significant advantages, providing guidance, clarity and coherence in the strategic formulation and operationalization of BMs, it also presents notable limitations: most prominently, its inherent focus on private economic value, a tendency toward oversimplification, and the lack of dynamic components [26,52,92]. To address such shortcomings, sustainability-oriented BMC variants were developed to expand the notion of value and capture the interconnections between economic, environmental, and social dimensions of BMs. For example, the Triple Layered Business Model Canvas renames the original BMC as an economic layer and introduces two additional layers: an environmental one, built on life cycle assessment (LCA), and a social one, grounded in a stakeholder approach. Despite its valuable contribution to enhance understanding of the relationships between economic, environmental, and social aspects, this tool strongly relies on the LCA approach, which has been criticized as unsuitable for evaluating agroecological farming systems, as it narrowly focus on the inputs and outputs of single agricultural products and struggles to capture wider aspects such as biodiversity and agri-environmental synergies, which require instead a more holistic, multi-criteria sustainability assessment at farm-level [93]. Other BMC adaptations have emerged to reflect alternative sustainability paradigms, such as the Ecocanvas that draws explicitly on the circular economy.
Building on these developments, the ABMC was conceived to overcome the aforementioned limitations by tailoring the tool to the specific needs of farms involved in agroecological transition. In this context, the analysis, design, and innovation of BMs must meaningfully incorporate environmental and social values, engage with the intrinsic complexity of agroecological systems, and capture the dynamic nature of sustainable farming, allowing for holistic assessment-based and performance-oriented iterative refinement of BMs towards more advanced agroecological states. The ABMC is proposed as a strategic tool to support farmers in developing innovative ABMs, as well as in changing or refining existing ones to better align with agroecology. Building upon the foundational structure of the conventional BMC, the ABMC introduces agroecology-specific content to illustrate how agroecology can be translated into business practice and systematically related to the architecture and functioning of a farm enterprise. The ABMC results in a modified and extended version of the BMC, in which some of the traditional core components are redefined and additional ones are introduced, yielding a total of thirteen building blocks. The ABMC was specifically designed to closely align with the 10 EAs, providing a consistent framework for breaking down farming businesses into components that thoroughly capture all relevant aspects of agroecology, both in normative (i.e., what should be) and causative terms (i.e., how desired outcomes are shaped).
In particular, the agroecological value proposition is expected to incorporate contents related to both the EAs of Human and social values and Culture and food traditions, which are considered context features of agroecological systems [19]. Their inclusion emphasizes the deep rooting of agroecological farming in local realities, ensuring that the bundle of products and services offered is not only environmentally sustainable but also socially relevant and culturally appropriate. This orientation enables farms to deliver solutions that are tailored to local needs, values, and traditions. While many arguments can be advanced to highlight the multiple benefits of agroecological production, communicating accurately its value and distinctive qualities remains a critical challenge, which however may be addressed through direct relationships between producers and consumers, or the use of labels and certification systems, also including PGS [80].
Although the Circular and solidarity economy is identified by FAO [19] as an EA that supports the creation of an enabling environment for agroecology, it is also strictly tied to the BM components related to value delivery: within the ABMC, it aligns particularly with how products and services are distributed, marketed, and embedded in local socio-economic networks. Indeed, TAPE assesses this EA by considering the extent to which agricultural products and services are marketed locally, the existence of strong and stable relationships with consumers—possibly sustained by intermediary-free networks of producers—and the contribution to community self-sufficiency for agricultural and food production [19]. As such, this EA functions not only as a structural enabler of agroecology but also as a defining feature of both customer relationships and distribution channels for ABMs. The literature already highlighted the importance of developing specific channels—such as AFNs—as key mechanism for transitioning toward agroecological food systems [81], especially to progress into what Gliessman [4] classifies as the fourth level of food system change. In addition, the ability to activate multiple distribution channels is crucial for reaching diverse consumer groups and enhancing resilience, although this differentiation may pose coordination challenges, particularly for small-scale farmers who may face difficulties in managing multiple market strategies and adapting their organizational structures accordingly [94]. In this sense, the mobilization of dynamic capabilities to innovate the relations of production and consumption is essential for the effective operationalization of ABMs.
Four EAs are central to articulate the value creation of ABMs: Diversity, Recycling, Efficiency, and Synergies. These EAs are considered common characteristics and foundational practices of agroecology, primarily addressing causative aspects, namely how agroecological outcomes are generated through on-farm practices [19]. They serve as a practical entry point for farmers, informing concrete actions to shape agroecological farming systems and thus enacting the first three levels of transition as outlined by Gliessman [4]. Therefore, these four EAs were used to structure the component of the key activities within the ABMC. They are intrinsically interrelated: e.g., diversification and enhanced crop-livestock integration are key strategies for optimizing resource use through improved efficiency and internal recycling. This approach enables a significant reduction in reliance on external inputs—such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and commercial feed—while also potentially contributing to moderate increase in overall agricultural production [95,96].
The components related to value capture, namely the cost structure and revenue streams, determine the economic viability of ABMs, and its ability to incorporate the EA of Resilience. Recent literature showed that agroecological farming can have a positive impact on financial capital [97], can be more rewarding and resilient in terms of long-term profitability compared to conventional agriculture [98], and tends to produce favorable outcomes on income and revenues, while higher labor costs may be offset by greater returns on labor [99]. Both the cost structure and revenue streams should be strategically designed not only to increase farm net income but also to enhance its economic resilience. To achieve a sustained increase in income, it is essential to focus on maximizing the gap between total revenues and total costs through a combination of approaches. On the cost side, implementing cost-cutting measures can improve overall efficiency and reduce expenditures by optimizing internal resource use. On the revenue side, it is crucial to explore diverse and innovative revenue streams that move beyond the productivist approach of highly specialized, large-scale, and technology-driven systems, which typically focus on increasing the gross value of production (GVP) by boosting total output. The goal should be to raise the value added from GVP, enhancing the profitability of each unit produced rather than just increasing production volume [98]. This approach may include engaging in value-added products and diversifying both farming and economic activities. Diversification could be particularly relevant to outweigh the lower factor productivity in marginal areas with natural or socio-economic constraints [100]. A balanced approach of cost reduction and revenue enhancement, tailored to the specific context of the farm, would help not only increase the farm net income but also strengthening its ability to withstand economic fluctuations and other external challenges.
Although engaging in collaborative arrangements with both key partners and customers is vital to the success of an ABM, it is not sufficient on its own to fully address the EAs related to Responsible governance and Co-creation and sharing of knowledge, identified by FAO [19] as critical drivers for creating supporting environments and fostering innovation for agroecological transition. Their implementation requires broader, systemic engagement of a wider range of actors and governance structures. It involves reconfigurations of the socio-technical regimes at institutional, social, and cultural levels, extending beyond farm-scale and farmer-led changes. Thus, two additional components were introduced on the left side of the ABMC to capture the enabling conditions represented by these two EAs that are pivotal to support the full transformative potential and the wider uptake of ABMs.
Both the 10 EAs and the components of a BM are inherently interconnected, characterized by mutual influences and interdependencies [19,26]. Recognizing and understanding these interrelations is essential for enhancing the transparency, coherence, and systemic manageability of ABMs design and innovation. For instance, the design and implementation of diversified and synergistic systems enhance resilience to environmental and market fluctuations while providing multiple streams of income. The decreased dependence on external inputs not only contributes to a more sustainable production system but also has important implications for the farm’s cost structure, lowering expenses and potentially contributing positively to income increase. Thus, the EAs of Diversity, Efficiency, and Recycling are closely interconnected with that of Resilience. Accordingly, changes in key activities and key resources may have a direct impact on value capture components of an ABM. Importantly, the interplay between ecological performance and economic viability becomes central to the adaptive capacity and long-term sustainability of farming systems. By tapping into new market opportunities and enhancing the farm’s products, revenue can be significantly boosted, contributing to both short-term profitability and long-term financial stability. Thus, changes in channels can determine impacts of revenues streams.
For future research, a thorough analysis of the causal links and nonlinear interplays between individual components, whether within the BM itself or in relation to the EAs, would enable more informed decision-making. This systems-based perspective would support the development of integrated strategies that account for synergies and trade-offs, while also identifying leverage points for effective intervention. As such, it may contribute to more cohesive, adaptive, and strategically aligned BMs that are better equipped to support agroecological transitions.
Finally, integrating evaluation elements offers a more comprehensive and dynamic representation of ABMs, aligning with both operational needs and the broader systemic goals of sustainability. Two optional components were included into the ABMC to reflect assessment aspects derived from TAPE, enabling users to understand the extent to which a given BM can be considered agroecological, and to integrate performance-based insights into decision-making. Indeed, the ABMC can serve as a diagnostic and planning tool to support farms at various stages of the agroecological transition. As farms progress toward deeper integration of agroecological principles, their BMs may shift to incorporate new practices, partnerships, markets, or governance arrangements. Thus, the ABMC not only captures the current configuration of an agroecological farm but also facilitates its evolution by guiding iterative cycles of assessment, reflection, and redesign.
Continuous evaluation is central to re-design agricultural systems for agroecological and, more in general, sustainability transition [22]. Accordingly, ABM design can be conceptualized as an iterative, performance-oriented process, in which the adaptation or development of new BMs aims to improve farms’ outcomes with respect to the 10 EAs and key performance criteria. ABM revisions and refinements should be informed by assessments of the sustainability performance and the degree of agroecological transition achieved. In this perspective, integrating the ABMC with an evaluation dashboard makes it easier to track how the implementation of ABMs impacts farms across different dimensions of sustainability. This approach helps to identify strengths, gaps, and areas for further improvement, providing an actionable and measurable pathway to transition towards more sustainable and resilient agroecological farming systems.
Moreover, ABM design should place at the center farmers as reflexive, self-determining, and proactive agents of change. However, the involvement of other relevant stakeholders across the agri-food system—such as consumers, extension services providers, suppliers, contractors, organizations, and institutions—can be crucial to enrich the design process with diverse perspectives, competences and context-specific information. This inclusive and collaborative approach not only fosters mutual learning and potentially leads to strengthen synergetic relationships or establishing new alliances but also helps to mitigate risks associated with misaligned interests or fragmented resources and knowledge, ultimately steering BMs innovation toward more coherent and collectively supported directions [26]. In this context, researchers can play a relevant dual role: as providers of specific expertise and scientific knowledge, and as facilitators who support bottom-up approaches to problem assessment and solution development. In sum, ABM design should also be meant as an intentional process of co-creation, in which a plurality of actors and knowledge are mobilized to generate innovations in the ways farming BMs are shaped.

6. Conclusions

This study aims to advance the agroecological transition of farming systems by introducing the ABMC as a conceptually grounded and actionable tool to support farmers in designing or adapting their BMs in alignment with agroecology. By integrating the FAO’s 10 Elements of Agroecology into the traditional BMC, the ABMC offers a comprehensive framework that guides the understanding, crafting, and innovation of ABMs while ensuring that all relevant dimensions of agroecology are systematically considered. Optional evaluation components further enhance its strategic potential by allowing users to assess the transition progress and sustainability outcomes, thus promoting iterative learning and continuous improvement, a dimension that is rarely addressed in sustainability-focused BMC adaptations.
Practically, the ABMC offers value not only to farmers willing to rethink their BMs more sustainably but also to advisers, supply chain actors, and territorial stakeholders seeking to strengthen agroecological food systems and promote more equitable socio-economic relations within local contexts. In particular, the tool is well suited for application in settings such as Living Labs or other collaborative platforms within the broader AKIS, which are meant to co-develop and test solutions for farmers and agricultural challenges.
Theoretically, this study contributes to the literature on BMs by framing ABMs as a specific variant of sustainable BMs and advancing the understanding of how agroecology can be operationalized within BM analysis and design. Furthermore, it positions BM innovation as a recursive, adaptive process, reflecting the dynamic and evolving nature of agroecological systems.
A key limitation of this study lies in its reliance on a desk-based research approach, which means that the proposed ABMC is primarily informed by expert-driven conceptual development, drawing on exploratory literature review. To further strengthen the robustness and applicability of the tool, future work could include external validation and refinement through participatory consultations with both academic experts and field practitioners, including farmers and technicians. Such engagement would help ensure the ABMC’s conceptual coherence, practical accessibility, and overall usability. Additionally, empirical testing across diverse contexts is needed to ascertain the tool’s effectiveness in guiding ABMs’ design and implementation, as well as to define the boundaries of its external validity.
Overall, the ABMC represents a unique contribution by providing a structured pathway to operationalize agroecology within BM, offering both researchers and practitioners a theoretically informed and actionable instrument to advance sustainable and resilient agri-food systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S. and L.R.; Methodology, S.S. and L.R.; Validation, S.S., D.C., B.C.d.G. and L.R.; Formal analysis, S.S.; Investigation, S.S.; Resources, L.R.; data curation, S.S.; Writing—original draft preparation, S.S.; Writing—review and editing, S.S., D.C., B.C.d.G. and L.R.; Visualization, S.S., D.C., B.C.d.G. and L.R.; Supervision, B.C.d.G. and L.R.; Project administration, L.R.; Funding acquisition, L.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has been supported by the Project “AgrEcoMed—New AGRoecological approach for soil fertility and biodiversity restoration to improve ECOnomic and social resilience of MEDiterranean farming systems”, project funded by the Italian Ministry of University—Call PRIMA Section 2—Multi-topic 2021 (CUP H93C21000130005), under the PRIMA programme supported by the European Union.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The Authors would like to acknowledge the financial support given by University of Bari Aldo Moro for this publication through the Grant: “Fondo per la Qualità e l’Internazionalizzazione della Ricerca”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
SDGsSustainability Development Goals
BM(s)Business Model(s)
BMCBusiness Model Canvas
ABM(s)Agroecological Business Model(s)
EA(s)Element(s) of Agroecology
ABMCAgroecological Business Model Canvas

References

  1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Transforming Food and Agriculture to Achieve the SDGs—20 Interconnected Actions to Guide Decision-Makers; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE). Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches A Report by The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition; High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Mouhamed, R.S.; Bicksler, A.J.; Mottet, A.; Lucantoni, D.; Barrios, E. The 10 Elements of Agroecology Interconnected: Making Them Operational in FAO’s Work on Agroecology. Elementa 2023, 11, 00041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gliessman, S. Transforming Food Systems with Agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2016, 40, 187–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Holgado, M.; Van Fossen, K.; Yang, M.; Silva, E.A.; Barlow, C.Y. Business Model Innovation for Sustainability: Towards a Unified Perspective for Creation of Sustainable Business Models. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Köhler, J.; Geels, F.W.; Kern, F.; Markard, J.; Onsongo, E.; Wieczorek, A.; Alkemade, F.; Avelino, F.; Bergek, A.; Boons, F.; et al. An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of the Art and Future Directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 31, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Beers, P.J.; Baeten, M.; Bouwmans, E.; van Helvoirt, B.; Wesselink, J.; Zanders, R. Transformative Business and Sustainability Transitions: A Framework and an Empirical Illustration. In Business Models for Sustainability Transitions How Organisations Contribute to Societal Transformation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  8. Schaltegger, S.; Loorbach, D.; Hörisch, J. Managing Entrepreneurial and Corporate Contributions to Sustainability Transitions. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 891–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Johnson, E. Rationalizing the Importance of Business Models for Sustainability Transitions: A Conceptual Exploration of Incumbents and Business Model Innovation. In Proceedings of the New Business Models Conference Proceedings 2023, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 21–23 June 2023; Maastricht University Press: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  10. Vidickienė, D.; Lankauskienė, R. Sustainability through the Prism of Innovative Service-Oriented Business Model in Farming. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gliessman, S. Defining Agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 42, 599–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Garrido-Garza, F.; Loconto, A.; Robinson, D.K.R. Agroecological Entrepreneurship: A Driving Force in the Sustainable Transformation of Agri-Food Systems. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2025, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lianu, C.; Simion, V.-E.; Urdes, L.; Bucea-Manea-Țoniș, R.; Radulescu, I.G.; Lianu, C. Agroecological Approaches in the Context of Innovation Hubs. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wezel, A.; Herren, B.G.; Kerr, R.B.; Barrios, E.; Gonçalves, A.L.R.; Sinclair, F. Agroecological Principles and Elements and Their Implications for Transitioning to Sustainable Food Systems. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 40, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Altieri, M.A. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  16. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Agroecology and the Search for a Truly Sustainable Agriculture; United Nations Environmental Programme, Environmental Training Network for Latin America and the Caribbean: Nairobi, Kenya, 2005; ISBN 9687913355. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dumont, A.M.; Vanloqueren, G.; Stassart, P.M.; Baret, P.V. Clarifying the Socioeconomic Dimensions of Agroecology: Between Principles and Practices. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2016, 40, 24–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. International Cooperation for Development and Solidarity (CIDSE). The Principles of Agroecology Towards Just, Resilient and Sustainable Food Systems; International Cooperation for Development and Solidarity: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  19. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The 10 Elements of Agroecology: Guiding the Transition to Sustainable Food and Agricultural Systems; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Geissdoerfer, M.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. Design Thinking to Enhance the Sustainable Business Modelling Process—A Workshop Based on a Value Mapping Process. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 1218–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mejri, R.; Dhraief, M.Z.; Souissi, A.; Dhehibi, B.; Oueslati, M.; Charry, A.C.; Frija, A.; Ouerghemmi, H.; Oumer, A.M.; Fendri, M.; et al. Empowering Smallholder Olive Growers in Northwest Tunisia through an Agroecological Business Model. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2025, 9, 1587318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Barrios, E.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; Bicksler, A.; Siliprandi, E.; Brathwaite, R.; Moller, S.; Batello, C.; Tittonell, P. The 10 Elements of Agroecology: Enabling Transitions towards Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems through Visual Narratives. Ecosyst. People 2020, 16, 230–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0470-87641-1. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lewandowski, M. Designing the Business Models for Circular Economy-towards the Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 2016, 8, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Joyce, A.; Paquin, R.L. The Triple Layered Business Model Canvas: A Tool to Design More Sustainable Business Models. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 1474–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cosenz, F.; Rodrigues, V.P.; Rosati, F. Dynamic Business Modeling for Sustainability: Exploring a System Dynamics Perspective to Develop Sustainable Business Models. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 651–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Daou, A.; Mallat, C.; Chammas, G.; Cerantola, N.; Kayed, S.; Saliba, N.A. The Ecocanvas as a Business Model Canvas for a Circular Economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Garmann-Johnsen, N.F.; Eikebrokk, T.R.; Olsen, D.H. The Triple Bottom Line Co-Creation Canvas. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2024, 239, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The Ten Elements of Agroecology; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  30. Slijper, T.; Urquhart, J.; Poortvliet, P.M.; Soriano, B.; Meuwissen, M.P.M. Exploring How Social Capital and Learning Are Related to the Resilience of Dutch Arable Farmers. Agric. Syst. 2022, 198, 103385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mignani, C.; Ferrara, A.; Tomasi, S.; Moretti, M.; Cavicchi, A. The Role of EIP-AGRI Operational Groups as a Driver towards Innovation in Viticulture. Econ. Agro Aliment. 2024, 26, 215–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Richardson, J. The Business Model: An Integrative Framework for Strategy Execution. Strategy Change 2008, 17, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chesbrough, H. Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Teece, D.J. Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zott, C.; Amit, R.; Massa, L. The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1019–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. 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]
  37. Iles, A.; Martin, A.N. Expanding Bioplastics Production: Sustainable Business Innovation in the Chemical Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bocken, N.M.P.; Schuit, C.S.C.; Kraaijenhagen, C. Experimenting with a Circular Business Model: Lessons from Eight Cases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 28, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sijtsema, S.J.; Fogliano, V.; Hageman, M. Tool to Support Citizen Participation and Multidisciplinarity in Food Innovation: Circular Food Design. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 582193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable Business Model Innovation: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Geissdoerfer, M.; Pieroni, M.P.P.; Pigosso, D.C.A.; Soufani, K. Circular Business Models: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 123741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Teece, D.J. Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Microfoundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise Performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 1319–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Boons, F.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business Models for Sustainable Innovation: State-of-the-Art and Steps towards a Research Agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Creating Shared Value: How to Reinvent Capitalism-And Unleash a Wave of Innovation and Growth; Havard Business Review: Boston, MA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  45. Björkdahl, J.; Holmén, M. Editorial: Business Model Innovation-the Challenges Ahead. Int. J. Product. Dev. 2013, 18, 213–225. [Google Scholar]
  46. Planing, P. Towards a Circular Economy—How Business Model Innovation Will Help to Make the Shift. Int. J. Bus. Glob. 2018, 20, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Frankenberger, K.; Weiblen, T.; Csik, M.; Gassmann, O. The 4I-Framework of Business Model Innovation: A Structured View on Process Phases and Challenges. Int. J. Product. Dev. 2013, 18, 249–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ulvenblad, P.; Barth, H.; Björklund, J.C.; Hoveskog, M.; Ulvenblad, P.-O.; Ståhl, J. Barriers to Business Model Innovation in the Agri-Food Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. Outlook Agric. 2018, 47, 308–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zott, C.; Amit, R. Business Model Innovation. In The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship; Shalley, C.E., Hitt, M.A., Zhou, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  50. Schaltegger, S.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Hansen, E.G. Business Models for Sustainability: A Co-Evolutionary Analysis of Sustainable Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Transformation. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 264–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Dembek, K. Sustainable Business Model Research and Practice: Emerging Field or Passing Fancy? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 1668–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dentchev, N.; Rauter, R.; Jóhannsdóttir, L.; Snihur, Y.; Rosano, M.; Baumgartner, R.; Nyberg, T.; Tang, X.; van Hoof, B.; Jonker, J. Embracing the Variety of Sustainable Business Models: A Prolific Field of Research and a Future Research Agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 695–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bocken, N.M.P.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A Literature and Practice Review to Develop Sustainable Business Model Archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Carroux, S.; Joyce, A.; Massa, L.; Breuer, H. The Sustainable Business Model Pattern Taxonomy—45 Patterns to Support Sustainability-Oriented Business Model Innovation. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 15, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ringvold, K.; Saebi, T.; Foss, N. Developing Sustainable Business Models: A Microfoundational Perspective. Organ. Environ. 2023, 36, 315–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schiavon, O.P.; May, M.R.; Mendonça, A.T.B.B. Dynamic Capabilities and Business Model Innovation in Sustainable Family Farming. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2022, 19, 252–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pieroni, M.P.P.; McAloone, T.C.; Pigosso, D.C.A. Business Model Innovation for Circular Economy and Sustainability: A Review of Approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 198–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yang, M.; Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Rana, P. Value Uncaptured Perspective for Sustainable Business Model Innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1794–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Topleva, S.A.; Prokopov, T.V. Integrated Business Model for Sustainability of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Food Industry: Creating Value Added through Ecodesign. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 1463–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Corallo, A.; De Lorenzi, M.C.; Latino, M.E.; Menegoli, M. Sustainability-Driven Legitimacy Through Industry 4.0: Insights from European Agri-Food Giants. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2025, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bourgeois, L.; Van Meensel, J.; Marchand, F.; Van Passel, S. Which Factors Influence a Business Model Change Due to a Change in Feed Composition and How Can They Be Studied?—A Case Study on the Applicability of a Theoretical Guide to Study Business Model Change in Agriculture. J. Agric. Food Res. 2025, 19, 101572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Barth, H.; Ulvenblad, P.-O.; Ulvenblad, P. Towards a Conceptual Framework of Sustainable Business Model Innovation in the Agri-Food Sector: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Stempfle, S.; Roselli, L.; Carlucci, D.; Leone, A.; de Gennaro, B.C.; Giannoccaro, G. Toward the Circular Economy into the Olive Oil Supply Chain: A Case Study Analysis of a Vertically Integrated Firm. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 1005604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Donner, M.; Radić, I.; Erraach, Y.; El Hadad-Gauthier, F. Implementation of Circular Business Models for Olive Oil Waste and By-Product Valorization. Resources 2022, 11, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wolfert, S.; Verdouw, C.; van Wassenaer, L.; Dolfsma, W.; Klerkx, L. Digital Innovation Ecosystems in Agri-Food: Design Principles and Organizational Framework. Agric. Syst. 2023, 204, 103558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vlachopoulou, M.; Ziakis, C.; Vergidis, K.; Madas, M. Analyzing AgriFood-Tech e-Business Models. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lankauskienė, R.; Gedminaitė-Raudonė, Ž.; Micka, R. Business Model Innovation for Sustainable Multifunctional Land Management in Abandoned Rural Areas: A Case Study. Land 2024, 13, 791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Donner, M.; de Vries, H. Business Models for Sustainable Food Systems: A Typology Based on a Literature Review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1160097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gilson, L.L.; Goldberg, C.B. Editors’ Comment: So, What Is a Conceptual Paper? Group Organ. Manag. 2015, 40, 127–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Jaakkola, E. Designing Conceptual Articles: Four Approaches. AMS Rev. 2020, 10, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Garmann-Johnsen, N.F.; Olsen, D.H.; Eikebrokk, T.R. The Co-Creation Canvas. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021, 181, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hirschheim, R. Some Guidelines for the Critical Reviewing of Conceptual Papers. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2008, 9, 432–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE)—Process of Development and Guidelines for Application. Test Version; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  74. Mottet, A.; Bicksler, A.; Lucantoni, D.; De Rosa, F.; Scherf, B.; Scopel, E.; López-Ridaura, S.; Gemmil-Herren, B.; Bezner Kerr, R.; Sourisseau, J.-M.; et al. Assessing Transitions to Sustainable Agricultural and Food Systems: A Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE). Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 579154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Izquierdo-Montfort, J.O.; De Rongé, Y. Circular Business Model Innovation: Uncovering Practices and Patterns to Retain the Value of Resources. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2025, 58, 188–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Revollo-Fernández, D. Is There Willingness to Buy and Pay a Surcharge for Agro-Ecological Products? Case Study of the Production of Vegetables in Xochimilco, Mexico. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 2265–2268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. de Araújo, H.M.; Marjotta-Maistro, M.C. Profiling the Consumer of Agroecological Products Using Cluster Analysis [O Perfil Do Consumidor de Produtos Agroecológicos Sob a Ótica Da Análise de Cluster]. Rev. Econ. Sociol. Rural 2023, 61, e243394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Castilla Carrascal, I.T. Intercultural Economic Solidarity Circuits: The Case of Utopia Basket and Participative Consumer Profile in Ecuador’s Outskirts. J. Rural. Stud. 2021, 85, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mehrabi, S.; Perez-Mesa, J.C.; Giagnocavo, C. The Role of Consumer-Citizens and Connectedness to Nature in the Sustainable Transition to Agroecological Food Systems: The Mediation of Innovative Business Models and a Multi-Level Perspective. Agriculture 2022, 12, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Loconto, A.; Jimenez, A.; Vandecandelaere, E. Constructing Markets for Agroecology—An Analysis of Diverse Options for Marketing Products from Agroecology; Loconto, A., Jimenez, A., Vandecandelaere, E., Eds.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA): Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  81. Fiore, V.; Borrello, M.; Carlucci, D.; Giannoccaro, G.; Russo, S.; Stempfle, S.; Roselli, L. The Socio-Economic Issues of Agroecology: A Scoping Review. Agric. Food Econ. 2024, 12, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Peeters, A.; Škorjanc, K.; Wezel, A.; Migliorini, P. OASIS, the Original Agroecological Survey Indicator System. A Simple and Comprehensive System for Agroecological Transition Assessment; Agroecology Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wezel, A.; Casagrande, M.; Celette, F.; Vian, J.-F.; Ferrer, A.; Peigné, J. Agroecological Practices for Sustainable Agriculture. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. IPES. Food from Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Systems; International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems: Brussels, Belgium, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  85. Stempfle, S.; Russo, S.; Fiore, V.; Sardaro, R.; La Sala, P.; Roselli, L. Characterizing the Agroecological Transition of Italian Farming Systems Using FADN Database. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2025, 26, 100616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Parodi, G. Agroecological Transition and Reconfiguration of Horticultural Work among Family Farmers in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Cah. Agric. 2018, 27, 35003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fanchone, A.; Alexandre, G.; Hostiou, N. Work Organization as a Barrier to Crop–Livestock Integration Practices: A Case Study in Guadeloupe. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ahearn, M.C.; Liang, K.; Goetz, S. Farm Business Financial Performance in Local Foods Value Chains. Agric. Financ. Rev. 2018, 78, 470–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. de Roest, K.; Ferrari, P.; Knickel, K. Specialisation and Economies of Scale or Diversification and Economies of Scope? Assessing Different Agricultural Development Pathways. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 59, 222–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Wells, P.; Aagaard, A. The Catalytic Role of Sustainability Transitions for Business Models; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  91. Isgren, E. No Quick Fixes: Four Interacting Constraints to Advancing Agroecology in Uganda. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2016, 14, 428–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bachmann, N.; Thienemann, A.-K.; Tüzün, A.; Brunner, M.; Tripathi, S.; Pöchtrager, S.; Jodlbauer, H. The Evolution of the Business Model Canvas for Digital Sustainability. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2025, 253, 1012–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Westaway, S.; Żyłowski, T.; Hardiman, S.; Smith, L.G. Integrating Sustainability Assessment Tools with Life Cycle Analysis for Agroecological Systems: A UK Case Study. Agric. Syst. 2024, 219, 104045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Muñoz, E.F.P.; Niederle, P.A.; de Gennaro, B.C.; Roselli, L. Agri-food Markets towards Agroecology: Tensions and Compromises Faced by Small-scale Farmers in Brazil and Chile. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bonaudo, T.; Bendahan, A.B.; Sabatier, R.; Ryschawy, J.; Bellon, S.; Leger, F.; Magda, D.; Tichit, M. Agroecological Principles for the Redesign of Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 57, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Alexandre, G.; Cheval, A.; Perrette, J.; Apatout, M.; Diman, J.L.; Larade, A.; Vinglassalon, A. Livestock Activities in Agroforestry Systems in Guadeloupe: Systems of Production and Functions. Agrofor. Syst. 2021, 95, 1445–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. D’Annolfo, R.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; Graeub, B.; Garibaldi, L.A. A Review of Social and Economic Performance of Agroecology. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2017, 15, 632–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. van der Ploeg, J.D.; Barjolle, D.; Bruil, J.; Brunori, G.; Costa Madureira, L.M.; Dessein, J.; Drąg, Z.; Fink-Kessler, A.; Gasselin, P.; de Molina, M.; et al. The Economic Potential of Agroecology: Empirical Evidence from Europe. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 71, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Mouratiadou, I.; Wezel, A.; Kamilia, K.; Marchetti, A.; Paracchini, M.L.; Bàrberi, P. The Socio-Economic Performance of Agroecology. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 44, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Arru, B.; Furesi, R.; Madau, F.A.; Pulina, P. Economic Performance of Agritourism: An Analysis of Farms Located in a Less Favoured Area in Italy. Agric. Food Econ. 2021, 9, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The prototype of an Agroecological Business Model Canvas. The original BMC blocks, adapted in content and focus, are shown in black and outlined by continuous lines. Newly introduced components are distinguished by colors and dotted outlines. In detail, two additional components related to enabling factors are positioned on the left side of the canvas, shown in salmon pink color. An evaluation dashboard has also been incorporated at the bottom of the canvas, with two further components based on TAPE’s assessment steps colored in sage green.
Figure 1. The prototype of an Agroecological Business Model Canvas. The original BMC blocks, adapted in content and focus, are shown in black and outlined by continuous lines. Newly introduced components are distinguished by colors and dotted outlines. In detail, two additional components related to enabling factors are positioned on the left side of the canvas, shown in salmon pink color. An evaluation dashboard has also been incorporated at the bottom of the canvas, with two further components based on TAPE’s assessment steps colored in sage green.
Sustainability 17 08937 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stempfle, S.; Carlucci, D.; Roselli, L.; de Gennaro, B.C. A Conceptual Framework for an Agroecological Business Model Canvas. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8937. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198937

AMA Style

Stempfle S, Carlucci D, Roselli L, de Gennaro BC. A Conceptual Framework for an Agroecological Business Model Canvas. Sustainability. 2025; 17(19):8937. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198937

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stempfle, Sarah, Domenico Carlucci, Luigi Roselli, and Bernardo Corrado de Gennaro. 2025. "A Conceptual Framework for an Agroecological Business Model Canvas" Sustainability 17, no. 19: 8937. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198937

APA Style

Stempfle, S., Carlucci, D., Roselli, L., & de Gennaro, B. C. (2025). A Conceptual Framework for an Agroecological Business Model Canvas. Sustainability, 17(19), 8937. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198937

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop