Farm Sustainability Indicators—Exploring FADN Database

Abstract

The concept of sustainable development has been widely analyzed in scientific literature and is understood as a process aimed at balancing human activities with the environment. Sustainable agricultural systems generate economic value, manage natural resources responsibly, and support rural development. Modern agricultural production, however, faces challenges across these dimensions, making their assessment essential for the long-term viability of farms. This paper introduces indicators of economic, ecological, and social sustainability for agricultural holdings, using the FADN (Farm Accountancy Data Network) database as a foundation. The structured nature of FADN allows for consistent analysis of sustainability, while additional indicators assess the impact of agricultural policy on farm performance. Together, these provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and improving farm sustainability. The main contribution of the study is the establishment of a set of feasible indicators that can be derived from the FADN database to support comprehensive sustainability assessments.

1. Introduction

The concept of sustainable development has been discussed in scientific and professional literature for decades. However, the term continues to be interpreted in different ways, with no single universally accepted definition. The most widely used definition in the literature comes from the Brundtland Commission [1], which describes sustainable development as: “a set of activities that enable meeting the needs of today without diminishing the opportunities for future generations to meet their own needs.” One of the earliest definitions was provided by Repetto, who noted that sustainability rests on the belief that current decisions should not endanger future prospects for maintaining or improving living standards [2]. Harris [3] further clarifies that “the path of sustainable development can be understood as one in which the stock of total fixed assets remains the same or increases over time.”

Building on these perspectives, sustainable development can be understood as a process aiming to balance various forms of human activity with environmental needs. Contemporary scientific and professional literature agrees that sustainable development—essentially, system sustainability—emerges from the interaction of ecological, economic, and social spheres of influence [1,4].

Sustainability is often measured through specific indicators. These indicators serve as a link to reality, reducing complex information to manageable sets that support decision-making and guide actions. Indicators for a particular system must meet two criteria [4]:

• They should provide essential information about the current state of the (sub)system.
• They should offer insight into how the observed (sub)system contributes to the performance of other (sub)systems.

According to Bossel [5], indicators should be accessible and straightforward. Their meanings must be clear to all stakeholders, irrespective of education level, and data collection should avoid complex, costly, and time-consuming processes. Ideally, information could be gathered simply by observing and analyzing daily life.

From the perspective of agricultural holdings, sustainable agricultural systems can be defined as those that engage in goods and services production (economic function), responsibly manage natural resources (ecological function), and support rural area development (social function) [6]. Family farms often dominate the agricultural landscape in terms of capacity and production value, comprising a significant proportion of agricultural entities and occupying the majority of utilized agricultural land [7].

Sustainable agricultural holdings contribute to raising living standards through employment and integration of rural populations, which positively impacts the development of rural areas where agriculture is prominent. While environmental and social sustainability have gained recent focus due to issues like resource overuse and rural-urban migration, the agricultural householding must primarily achieve economic sustainability to ensure long-term viability [8]. This is especially relevant for farms in developing countries, where economic sustainability may still be developing, and only later can focus shift toward the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability.

Existing research, however, often treats these three dimensions separately, resulting in fragmented approaches. Economic sustainability studies have frequently emphasized accounting-based measures, overlooking the opportunity costs of self-owned resources and long-term viability. Ecological sustainability research has generated a wide range of agro-environmental indicators, yet these are often applied inconsistently and lack harmonized methodologies. The social dimension of sustainability remains the least developed, with indicators related to demographics, training, and quality of life still limited and inconsistently applied. These shortcomings reduce comparability across studies and countries, and diminish the policy relevance of existing research.

Accordingly, there is a clear research gap: most studies either focus on individual sustainability dimensions or rely on aggregated national or regional statistics, whereas farm-level data that can simultaneously capture economic, ecological, and social aspects remain underutilized. This paper addresses that gap by identifying a set of feasible indicators across all three dimensions, using the harmonized, microeconomic data of the FADN (Farm Accountancy Data Network) as a foundation.

Assessing all sustainability dimensions for agricultural holdings is crucial for their further development. Potential indicators can be broadly grouped into three categories: (i) economic indicators, including profitability, liquidity, stability, and productivity measures; (ii) ecological indicators, such as livestock density, greenhouse gas emissions, fertilizer and pesticide use, energy and water consumption, and biodiversity-related measures; and (iii) social indicators, including age, experience, education, and training of farm managers. Current assessments remain fragmented: economic measures often emphasize accounting data, ecological indicators lack harmonization, and social aspects are still underrepresented. These limitations reduce comparability and weaken policy relevance.

Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to present potential indicators for assessing the sustainability of agricultural holdings. The FADN database is particularly suited for this purpose, as it meets the two core principles of indicator selection mentioned above. In contrast to databases such as FAOSTAT or the World Bank, which provide aggregated national or regional statistics, the uniqueness of FADN lies in its standardized, microeconomic, farm-level data that allow detailed and policy-relevant sustainability assessments across countries and sectors. The paper presents indicators of economic, ecological, and social sustainability for agricultural farms, as well as indicators for assessing the impact of agricultural policy on various dimensions of sustainability. This study contributes to the literature by proposing a set of feasible sustainability indicators derived from the FADN database, offering a comprehensive framework for farm-level assessment and policy evaluation. Thus, the main contribution of this study is the proposal of a comprehensive framework for farm-level assessment and policy evaluation based on feasible sustainability indicators derived from FADN.

2. Materials and Methods

The selection of sustainability indicators for agricultural holdings was based on peer-reviewed scientific publications from both international and domestic journals. Scientific publication databases such as SCOPUS, Google Scholar, SCI Direct, and SCI Index were searched using relevant keywords. Examples of keywords and their combinations include “sustainability indicators,” “farm sustainability indices,” “economic indicators FADN,” “ecological indicators FADN,” and “social indicators FADN.” These were chosen to capture each aspect of sustainability—economic, environmental, and social—while ensuring that references to the FADN database were included. Since the aim of this paper is to present the most commonly applied sustainability indicators for agricultural holdings that are derived from the FADN database, the search included general terms related to indicators (synonyms: indicators, indices) as well as references to the FADN database. Specific terms (economic, ecological/agro-ecological, social) were then added to refine the search. The FADN (Farm Accountancy Data Network) is an EU-wide system for collecting harmonized microeconomic data at the farm level. It provides detailed information on farm structures, production, costs, income, and subsidies, making it a unique resource for assessing farm performance and the impact of agricultural policies. Due to the limited number of studies on the sustainability of agricultural farms in the region of Western Balkan and Serbia based on the FADN database, most of the reviewed literature was in English, and keywords were selected accordingly.

3. Results with Discussion

3.1. Economic Indicators of Sustainability of Agricultural Holdings

The economic sustainability of agricultural holdings lacks a universally agreed definition. However, Savickiene et al. [9] provide a helpful definition: “Economic sustainability is the ability of a farm to survive, live, and develop using available resources,” which captures the core idea well. For a farm to endure and grow in an ever-changing economic environment, it must make effective use of its production resources. If not, adverse factors like significant price fluctuations in agricultural input and output markets and shifts in agricultural support policies can severely impact its economic outcomes. Family farms, which make up the majority of farms in many European Union (EU) countries, are particularly vulnerable in this regard.

In recent years, measuring the economic viability of agricultural holdings has garnered growing interest among researchers in Europe. This trend reflects the increasing focus on sustainable agricultural development, with economic sustainability recognized as a crucial pillar of sustainable production. Indicators used to assess economic sustainability primarily rely on the FADN system, originally established to monitor production and economic outcomes on farms. According to Latruffe et al. [10], the most commonly used economic indicators can be grouped into four categories: profitability, liquidity, stability, and productivity (

Table 1. Indicators for assessment of economic viability of agricultural holdings using FADN data.

Indicator Group		Indicators
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY	Profitability	Return on Assets (ROA)
		Return on Equity (ROE)
		Return on Invested Capital (ROIC)
		Return on Sales (ROS)
	Liquidity	Working Capital to Short-Term Liabilities Ratio
		Total Liabilities to Net Cash Flow Ratio
	Stability	Debt to Equity Ratio
		Share of Fixed Assets in Total Assets
		Equity to Fixed Assets Ratio
PRODUCTIVITY	Partial Productivity	Value of Production per Annual Work Unit
		Value of Production per Agricultural Land Used
		Gross Profit per Annual Work Unit
		Gross Profit per Agricultural Land Used
		Net Added Value per Annual Work Unit
		Net Added Value per Agricultural Land Used
		Net Profit per Annual Work Unit
		Net Profit per Agricultural Land Used
		Net Profit per Family Member
	Total Productivity	Technical Efficiency (TE)
		Total Factor Productivity (TFP)
		Opportunity Cost Approach

Source: Authors’ research.

).

The first three groups of indicators rely on data from financial statements (Balance Sheet, Income Statement, and Cash Flow Statement) and are therefore often referred to in the literature as indicators of financial sustainability. Full financial reporting is typical of agricultural companies (legal entities), while agricultural holdings (individuals—entrepreneurs) generally produce simplified versions of these reports. The FADN database provides the necessary data for calculating these financial sustainability indicators, which have thus been widely applied in studies analyzing the economic sustainability of agricultural holdings [11,12,13,14]. However, their limitations must be acknowledged. These indicators are based exclusively on accounting data, meaning they capture accounting profit rather than economic profit [15]. As a result, they include only explicit costs and exclude implicit ones, such as unpaid family labor, the opportunity cost of self-owned land, and capital invested in production. This can lead to an overestimation of farm viability, particularly for family farms that rely heavily on their own resources [16]. Moreover, financial ratios are often sensitive to short-term market fluctuations and policy changes, which may not accurately reflect the long-term sustainability of agricultural operations. For these reasons, productivity-based indicators are frequently emphasized as more appropriate for assessing the economic viability of farms.

Productivity essentially reflects the capacity of production factors to create a specific output value [10]. In the literature, productivity is categorized into partial and total productivity. The partial productivity indicator considers only one production factor on the input side (for example, the ratio of production value to labor used). Partial productivity indicators are frequently applied in analyses of the economic sustainability of agricultural farms [17,18,19,20]; however, their main limitation is that they account for the productivity of only a single factor. This limitation is addressed by the total productivity indicator, which aggregates all production factors in agriculture (labor, capital, and land) into one input. Total productivity indicators are typically classified as technical efficiency, total factor productivity, and opportunity costs of production factors.

It is important to note that different types of indicators are more applicable in different contexts. Financial ratios (profitability, liquidity, stability) are often better suited for larger agricultural enterprises and corporate farms, where full financial statements are available and accounting data provide a consistent basis for analysis. By contrast, productivity indicators—especially those incorporating opportunity costs—are more appropriate for small and medium-sized family farms, where reliance on self-owned resources is high and accounting-based measures may underestimate economic realities. Total productivity indicators, such as technical efficiency and total factor productivity, are particularly useful for cross-country comparisons and long-term trend analysis, while partial productivity measures remain practical for specific factor-focused assessments (e.g., labor or land use efficiency).

Evaluating technical efficiency, or the performance of agricultural farms, is one approach to determining farms’ total productivity. In this evaluation, the total value of production typically represents the output side, while the input side comprises an aggregated indicator that includes labor, agricultural land, invested capital, and production costs [13,21,22,23,24].

Total factor productivity reflects changes in productivity over time. For this measure, the output side aggregates values from plant and livestock production, as well as other products and services. On the input side, primary production factors—such as agricultural land, labor, and capital—are typically included [25,26,27,28,29,30].

A key indicator in total productivity measurement is the opportunity cost of self-owned production factors, which assesses farms’ economic viability by comparing actual profit from agricultural production with a reference income. Reference income is the sum of the opportunity costs of self-owned labor, capital, and land. Opportunity labor costs represent alternative earnings that unpaid labor could earn in other employment (e.g., industry, public service). The opportunity cost of capital is the return achievable if self-owned capital were invested in savings or another activity. Similarly, the opportunity cost of land is the annual income obtainable from renting out the land. Since standard productivity indicators often overlook self-owned production factors and potential alternative benefits, this measure is particularly valuable. Indicators based on opportunity costs of self-owned factors offer a highly effective means of assessing the economic viability of family farms. Consequently, these indicators have been widely used in European research, with the FADN database serving as a primary data source [16,31,32,33,34,35,36].

Similar indicators of profitability, liquidity, stability, and productivity have also been applied outside Europe. Studies from the United States confirmed the relevance of productivity and efficiency measures in the dairy sector [37], while Canadian research highlighted limits to long-term productivity growth using similar farm-level indicators [38].

3.2. Ecological Indicators of the Sustainability of Agricultural Holdings

The environmental impacts of agricultural production cannot always be directly measured [39]. Consequently, numerous agro-ecological indicators have been developed over the past 35 years to evaluate the negative effects of agricultural systems on water, air, and soil pollution, soil fertility decline, biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, and other environmental issues caused by agricultural activities. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was among the first to propose agro-ecological indicators [40]. According to the OECD, agro-ecological indicators are “a summary indicator created by combining raw data, which describes the state of the environment, the environmental risks, changes within it, and the pressures leading to these changes, which can be fully or partially attributed to agricultural activities.” These OECD indicators follow the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) model, where pressures exerted by agriculture impact environmental conditions, which then prompt responses from various stakeholders. These stakeholders include farmers (through behavior changes), governments (via policy measures), the agri-food chain (by adopting technologies and standards), and consumers (by adjusting consumption patterns) [41].

Based on the PSR framework, this paper provides an overview of the most frequently applied indicators of environmental sustainability for agricultural holdings, using the FADN database as a data source. Although the FADN database primarily focuses on the economic aspects of agriculture, it also contains broader structural and production data, allowing indirect insights into environmental pressures, conditions, and societal responses. Despite some criticism regarding FADN’s limitations in assessing sustainability [14], numerous studies have supported its use for this purpose [42,43,44]. Furthermore, several studies have focused exclusively on ecological sustainability using FADN data [45,46,47,48].

In this chapter, the focus is on ecological indicators of agricultural sustainability, identified through a literature review as the most frequently applied indicators with a foundation in the FADN database.

Table 2. Environmental indicators from FADN database.

PSR Concept	Indicators
Pressure	Livestock density
Pressure	Greenhouse gas emissions
Pressure	Use of mineral fertilizers
Pressure	Use of pesticides
Pressure	Water usage
Pressure	Energy usage
Response	Environmentally friendly practices (e.g., organic farming, subsidies for agro-environmental measures)
Pressure-State	Biodiversity
State-Response	Area of legumes
Pressure-State	Area of pastures and meadows

Source: Authors’ research.

presents an overview of the most used ecological indicators of agricultural sustainability within the PSR framework.

The indicator for livestock presence on a farm is commonly measured as the number of livestock units per hectare of utilized agricultural area [46] or by the area under fodder crops [48]. The livestock count serves as a critical factor in calculating other complex indicators, such as methane and nitrous oxide emissions (greenhouse gases). Considering that 80% of global agricultural land is dedicated to livestock production [49], livestock presence is a justified ecological indicator for assessing the sustainability of agricultural holdings.

Calculating greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural activities is complex and results in composite indicator(s) [47,50,51]. This complexity arises from various gas sources, mainly livestock gastrointestinal fermentation (the primary source of methane emissions), livestock manure (solid and liquid, producing methane and nitrous oxide), nitrous oxide emissions from mineral fertilizers, nitrogen oxide from land management practices, and carbon dioxide from fuel combustion [47,52]. Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions indicators are often calculated based on various guides, such as the IPCC 2006 guidelines [53].

Excessive or improper use of organic and mineral fertilizers contributes to eutrophication, or algal blooms in aquatic ecosystems, which in turn reduce biodiversity and pollute water. Approximately 78% of eutrophication in global marine and freshwater systems is attributed to agricultural activity [54]. The main cause of eutrophication is nitrogen leaching; since over half of applied nitrogen is lost into the environment [55], there is clear potential to reduce environmental pressures through proper fertilizer use. Therefore, fertilizer application serves as an essential indicator of ecological sustainability [45,56].

The application of chemical protection methods is often poorly targeted, meaning it is rarely neutral to other organisms in the environment. As a result, inadequate and widespread application has led to reduced biodiversity both in soil (such as soil microorganisms, nematodes, fungi, arthropods) and above soil (such as insects, birds, mammals). Additionally, pesticides intended for pests end up in food and water, negatively impacting all organisms, including humans who consume these resources. Consequently, pesticide costs are frequently used as an indicator of environmental sustainability.

Approximately 70% of the world’s freshwater is used in agriculture, making water use a significant indicator of agriculture’s environmental impact [57,58]. Although agriculture, by sector, is not the largest consumer of energy, fuel and electricity consumption in agriculture are notable, thus making energy consumption indicators valuable and obtainable from the FADN database.

The sole indicator (or group of indicators) from the FADN database that reflects society’s response to environmental pressures and conditions includes agri-environmental measures, such as payments for participation in these measures and organic farming practices. Given that agri-environmental measures have not been implemented universally, with exceptions for countries within the EU, this indicator is absent in some places, like the Republic of Serbia.

Biodiversity acts as an indicator of the agro-ecosystem’s condition and as a measure of pressure if a limited number of species exist on agricultural land. Numerous indicators assess biodiversity on plots. For instance, Bonfiglio [58] measured biodiversity by counting cultivated crops, while other researchers employed established indices like Simpson’s diversity index [42] or the Shannon Evenness Index [48,57].

For environmental benefits, greater inclusion of legumes in crop rotations is desirable. Therefore, their representation can indicate both pressure (if their share is insufficient) and society’s response, as farmers address the dominance of intensive crops that deplete resources by increasing legume cultivation.

Conversely, a significant share of natural forage areas (pastures and meadows) reflects livestock production levels, which, as previously noted, have numerous negative environmental effects. This indicator therefore captures both the pressures and conditions of utilized agricultural land.

In addition to these, there are specific indicators used for environmental sustainability assessments, such as the share of grains in crop rotations [59], soil organic matter balance [60], the proportion of uncultivated land (fallow or set-aside) [57], the cost of purchased forage crops [59,61], organic fertilizer usage [61], farm altitude [42], and forest area share [46,48,57].

Many of these indicators are not directly extracted from the FADN database; instead, FADN data is often used for calculation. For instance, Westbury et al. [57] combined FADN data from the UK with the Agri-environmental Footprint Index methodology to generate environmental performance indicators. Buckley et al. [62] calculated nutrient balance using Ireland’s FADN data and standard international coefficients. In other studies, sustainability indicators were formed using FADN data along with expert input [63,64] or supplemented with farmer interviews to fill FADN data gaps [65].

It is noteworthy that additional indicators from the FADN database, which are specific and optional rather than mandatory for the EU, have been applied in certain calculations by various authors (e.g., [51,62]), and these indicators were not uniformly collected across all countries within the FADN system [43].

As seen in Table 2, few indicators exist to capture responses to environmental conditions. This is a major limitation of the FADN database for measuring ecological sustainability [43], prompting the Farm to Fork Strategy to propose the transformation of FADN into the FSDN (Farm Sustainable Data Network) at the EU level [66]. This ongoing process aims to extend existing data to include a broader range of environmental metrics (e.g., conservation tillage data, cover crops, crop rotation, biological controls, stand production, pesticide active substances, landscape elements, and more). Moreover, the FSDN aims to more thoroughly address the social dimension of sustainability (e.g., employee education, gender balance, work conditions, social inclusion, safety, infrastructure access, farm generational characteristics, heirs) as well as complementary economic dimensions (market integration, machinery ownership, risk management, innovation, digitization, and others). Given that this conversion is a long-term and costly undertaking [67], the delay in establishing the FSDN should not prevent ongoing measurement of farm sustainability, further justifying the continued use of FADN data for agro-ecological indicator development.

Comparable approaches to measuring environmental pressures and responses at farm level have been reported in other developed regions. In the United States, farm-level data are widely used to evaluate fertilizer, pesticide, and conservation practices [68]. Canadian studies have focused on the economic and environmental impacts of greenhouse gas mitigation options [69] while Australian research applied carbon, water, and biodiversity footprint accounts to agricultural commodities [70].

3.3. Social Indicators of the Sustainability of Agricultural Farms

In examining the social dimension of agricultural farm sustainability, Janker and Mann [71] note that clear indicators or tools for measuring it have yet to be established. Various authors [72,73,74] highlight that the social aspect of sustainability has been largely overlooked in scientific literature and trails behind the economic and ecological dimensions. While different social science frameworks have been proposed to make the political idea of sustainability more actionable, there remains no consensus on what the social dimension of sustainability should encompass [71]. Questions still needing answers include what politicians, scientists, and other stakeholders define as the social aspect of sustainability and how this definition can be translated into specific measures and indicators.

As previously noted, the FADN database has certain limitations in addressing specific aspects of sustainability, and this also applies to the indicators available for assessing the social sustainability of agricultural farms. Potential indicators are presented in

Table 3. Indicators for assessment of social sustainability of agricultural holdings using FADN data.

Indicator Group	Indicators
Field	Age of the farm holder
	Age of the farm manager
Work Experience	Experience of the farm holder
	Experience of the farm manager
Agricultural Training	Practical experience
	Basic training
	Full training

Source: Authors’ research.

.

Coppola et al. [34] highlight in their research that the work experience of farmers is crucial, as it is assumed that more experienced producers tend to make more effective decisions, which can positively impact the economic sustainability of their farms. Some authors [75] link this experience to the age of farm decision-makers. Additionally, the level of education and training can influence producers’ innovativeness and, indirectly, the productivity of their operations. Furthermore, certain studies suggest that productivity may vary depending on the gender of the farm owner and manager [76,77].

Beyond Europe, social sustainability of farms has also been explored in developed regions. In the United States, USDA typology studies emphasize farm demographics, operator age, and education [78]. Canadian work has stressed family farm persistence and generational transfer as central social sustainability issues [79].

3.4. Sustainability of Agricultural Holdings and Agrarian Policy

In addition to the economic, ecological, and social indicators of the sustainability of agricultural holdings, the role of agrarian policy factors is also emphasized. Agrarian policy measures can generally be divided into land policy measures, economic measures, and organizational and development measures. Each of these categories can be analyzed separately in relation to farm sustainability, with most scientific studies focusing on the economic aspects of agricultural policy. This focus is due to the relative ease of identifying and evaluating the impact of economic policy measures, making them comparable internationally. Given that much of the research concentrates on the economic measures of agrarian policy, it is logical to consider these measures as part of the economic indicators of sustainability [32].

Scientific studies analyzing farms within the EU mainly rely on data from the FADN sample [34]. Among the most used variables to assess the impact of agrarian policy on farm sustainability are the subsidies that farms receive annually. According to FADN methodology, economic policy measures are reflected in variables related to direct subsidies for agricultural activities and investment subsidies received during the accounting year for purposes like purchasing machinery, building facilities, or buying livestock.

When the goal of a study is to quantify the direct impact of economic agrarian policy measures on farm sustainability, the model used to represent farm operations includes variables that show the proportion of subsidies in certain economic indicators of the farm. In such studies, the impact of subsidies on farm sustainability is evaluated using econometric models. In other studies, received subsidies are included as part of the sustainability indicators. In this case, the significance of economic agrarian policy measures is assessed by calculating indicators both with and without subsidies, followed by a comparative analysis to identify potential differences in sustainability.

The effect of economic agrarian policy measures on farm sustainability largely depends on the context of the agricultural activity in the country where sustainability is being assessed. Some studies have concluded that economic agrarian policy measures do not influence farm sustainability. In other words, they found that farms would be just as sustainable even without state economic support [14,34,80].

Conversely, some research highlights the critical impact of state economic support on farms sustainability, particularly in countries with lower income per unit of capacity [81,82,83].

Table 4. Subsidies as an indicator of viability.

References	Subsidies as an Indicator of Sustainability or a Variable in the Sustainability Assessment Model
Coppola A., Scardera A., Amato M., Verneau F. (2020) [34]	Share of subsidies in total farm income (in %) as an individual variable in the regression model
Alexandri C., Saman C., Pauna B. (2021) [83]	The ratio of total subsidies to total achieved production value as an indicator of sustainability
Besuspariene E., Miceikiene A. (2020) [84]	The ratio of total subsidies to total achieved production value as an indicator of sustainability
Vassalos M., Karanikolas P., Li Y. (2015) [82]	Subsidies achieved per unit of capacity as an individual variable in the regression model
Slavickiene A., Savickiene J. (2014) [11]	The ratio of achieved subsidies to total income (in %) as an individual variable in the regression model
Miceikiene A., Savickiene J., Binkiene D. (2015) [80]	Subsidies excluding investment subsidies as an individual variable in the regression model

Source: Authors’ research.

provides a brief overview of studies where the influence of agrarian policy on farm sustainability was examined, with a focus on those that used only FADN data. The second column outlines how economic agrarian policy measures are incorporated into the evaluation of AH sustainability.

Considering the results of the literature review on assessing the sustainability of farms in the context of agrarian policy, economic measures of agrarian policy are overwhelmingly dominant. In other words, in almost all studies, subsidies that agricultural producers receive annually are used as the key variable to examine the impact of agricultural policy on farm sustainability. Thus, it can be concluded that when analyzing the effect of economic measures of agrarian policy on farm sustainability, and in line with the available data from the FADN sample, it is appropriate to use a variable related to the amount of subsidies received (with or without investment subsidies). These subsidies can be incorporated as an integral part of a sustainability indicator, or they can be treated as an individual variable, presented per unit of capacity or as a percentage of one of the economic performance indicators, within econometric models used to assess the impact of various factors on farm sustainability.

4. Conclusions

The aim of the research was to identify specific sustainability indicators for agricultural holdings that could be derived from the FADN database. The findings of the research are as follows:

In terms of economic sustainability, productivity indicators are clearly advantageous because they assess the outcomes (achieved results) based on the use of available production factors in agriculture. Land, labor, and capital are the three key resources for agricultural production, and the goal is to utilize them effectively to achieve the best possible economic results. Moreover, it is evident that using total productivity indicators provides a better evaluation of the economic viability of agricultural farms compared to partial indicators. This is mainly because productivity indicators account for the input-output relationship, where all the critical production factors in agriculture are combined into one indicator on the input side, and the results are measured on the output side based on their use. This approach allows for a more complete and comprehensive assessment of the economic viability of agricultural farms, which cannot be achieved with partial productivity and financial viability indicators.

Although the FADN database was not specifically designed to measure ecological sustainability indicators for agricultural holdings, its widespread use for this purpose by various researchers over the years highlights its potential. Existing studies suggest that the database provides extensive data that can help draw conclusions about the environmental pressures caused by agricultural activities, the resulting environmental conditions, and the societal and individual responses to these pressures. As such, the FADN database serves as a valuable starting point for developing agro-ecological indicators in countries that have implemented the FADN system.

Similar to ecological sustainability, measuring social sustainability using the FADN database has certain limitations. However, studies indicate that specific indicators, either directly or indirectly, can be used to assess the social dimension of sustainability.

When analyzing the impact of economic agricultural policy measures on the sustainability of agricultural farms using the FADN database, a variable related to subsidy amounts can be utilized. Subsidies, in this context, can either be integrated into one of the sustainability indicators or treated as an independent variable.

Based on the above, it can be concluded that the sustainability of farms can be measured using the FADN database, and future research will be focused on this direction, evaluating each dimension separately.

A key limitation of this study is that it relies exclusively on indicators that can be derived from the existing FADN framework, which restricts the scope of ecological and social dimensions and may omit important aspects of sustainability. Future research should therefore focus on extending the set of indicators beyond the current FADN dataset, integrating additional data sources, and applying the forthcoming Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN) to provide a more comprehensive and balanced evaluation of farm sustainability.

From a practical perspective, the indicators proposed in this study can support evidence-based decision-making by policymakers, offering tools to design more targeted agricultural policies and subsidy schemes. For farm managers, these indicators provide a structured framework for evaluating resource use efficiency, identifying weaknesses, and improving long-term viability. The integration of such indicators into policy formulation and farm-level management thus enhances both the comparability of sustainability assessments across countries and their direct applicability to real-world agricultural practice.