robin food coalition
impact transparantie

Position Paper: Impact Voordelen Bio Landbouw

wo 25 feb 2026
Image
Together with Impact Institute, Triodos Bank, and our coalition members, Robin Food Coalition recently published a position paper highlighting the social impact benefits of organic agriculture. The paper outlines key advantages – from healthier ecosystems to a healthier society – and provides recommendations for accurate ESG reporting that truly reflects these benefits.

In summary:

Part 1: Evidence of Organic Agriculture’s Better Impact on People and the Planet

  • Carbon & Greenhouse Gases (GHG):

    • Organic farming reduces GHG emissions by 43% per unit of land and 12% per unit of product compared to conventional farming (Chiriacò et al., 2022).

    • Global conversion to organic farming could cut farming emissions by 20%, mainly due to lower energy use and reduced nitrous oxide emissions (Scialabba et al., 2010).

    • In temperate climates, organically managed soils sequester 256 kg of carbon per hectare annually(Sanders & Heß, 2019).

  • Biodiversity:

    • Organic farming increases species richness by 34%, as shown in a global meta-analysis of 94 studies (Tuck et al., 2014).

    • Recent research highlights 95% more species on organic arable land, including 61% higher diversity in seed banks, 23-26% more flower-visiting insects, and 35% more farmland bird species (Sanders et al., 2022).

  • Soil Health:

    • Organic farming improves soil structure and fertility, reducing soil erosion by 22% (IFOAM, 2022).

    • Organic soils store up to 3.5 t/ha more soil organic carbon than conventionally managed soils, enhancing long-term fertility and carbon storage (IFOAM, 2022).

  • Water:

    • Organic soils demonstrate 15-20% greater water movement to groundwater levels, improving groundwater recharge (Müller et al., 2016).

    • They retain up to 100% more water than conventionally managed soils, supporting resilience to drought (Müller et al., 2016).

    • Organic practices reduce nitrate leaching by 20-39%, protecting water bodies from contamination (IFOAM, 2022).

  • Health Benefits:

    • Organic diets lower the risk of type 2 diabetes by 35% and cancer by 25%, with notable reductions in postmenopausal breast cancer (-33%), lymphoma (-76%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (-86%) (Kesse et al., 2020; Baudry et al., 2018).

    • Organic food contains higher levels of essential nutrients (e.g., 21% more iron, 29% more magnesium) and significantly fewer pesticide residues (94-100% pesticide-free) (Rembialkowska, 2007; Lairon, 2010).

Part 2: Why Major Positive Impacts of Organic Systems Are Underplayed Today

Misleading Metrics: Product-Level Analysis Favors Conventional Agriculture

  • Carbon and Land Footprint Bias:

    • Studies comparing GHG emissions often show varying results, depending on whether the analysis is per unit of product or per unit of land.

    • These inconsistencies arise because product-level metrics fail to account for broader ecosystem benefits, skewing comparisons against organic farming.

  • Broader Impacts Overlooked:

    • Product-level analyses ignore benefits at the hectare, farm, or landscape level, such as:

      • Biodiversity gains, ecosystem services, and reduced contamination of soil, water, and air.

Limitations of Product-Level Metrics

  • Diet and Consumption Patterns:

    • Evaluating sustainability solely at the product level does not reflect the impact of shifting diets (e.g., plant-based vs. meat-heavy diets).

  • Local Ecosystem and Community Impact:

    • Metrics fail to show the real influence of organic farming on local nature, ecosystems, and human health.

  • Natural Capital Protection:

    • Links between organic agriculture and the preservation of soil health, water quality, and biodiversity are poorly captured.

  • Recommendation:

    • Assess impacts beyond product-level indicators:

      • Use hectare-based or landscape-level metrics.

      • Measure impacts at the farm level or within entire food systems.

      • Integrate ecosystem quality and local biodiversity into sustainability assessments.

Unmeasured or Misrepresented Impacts

  • Soil and Land Degradation:

    • Soil health, a critical factor in sustainable farming, is rarely considered.

  • Pesticides and Nitrogen Fluxes:

    • Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) poorly models the impacts of pesticides and nitrogen fluxes, underestimating their harm.

  • Provision of Ecosystem Services:

    • Benefits like carbon sequestration, pollination, and habitat creation are rarely quantified in comparisons.

  • Recommendations:

    • Move beyond common metrics like GHG emissions and land use.

    • Incorporate soil quality, biodiversity, and pesticide effects in sustainability assessments.

    • Apply precautionary principles when current models fail to fully account for organic farming’s benefits.

Part 3: What needs to change in major reporting frameworks to impartially reflect the environmental benefits of organic agriculture

  • Relevance of Organic Farming for CSRD

    • Organic practices reduce negative environmental impacts (e.g., water retention, biodiversity gains) and align with CSRD’s sustainability focus.

    • Area-based metrics provide a holistic view of environmental impacts, but the lack of sector-specific standards complicates comparisons.

    • Increased land use by organic farming raises concerns about deforestation, emphasizing the need to frame organic as a proactive solution to risks.

  • Scope 1, 2, and 3 Emissions Reporting:

    • Comprehensive emissions reporting allows organic systems to highlight reduced emissions from lower synthetic input reliance and nutrient recycling.

  • Challenges:

    • Insufficient data on biodiversity, nitrogen emissions, and animal welfare limits the ability to validate organic farming’s broader impacts.

  • Recommendations:

    • Fund research to standardize metrics for biodiversity, nitrogen, and soil health.

    • Promote organic farming as a risk mitigation and sustainability strategy within CSRD disclosures.