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.
Download the full Position Paper: RFC Position Paper – Organic Agriculture
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.
- Product-level analyses ignore benefits at the hectare, farm, or landscape level, such as:
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.
- Assess impacts beyond product-level indicators:
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.