FFTC Agricultural Policy Platform (FFTC-AP)

ABSTRACT

In recent years, with the problems of environmental damage, climate change, food security, and so on caused by population growth, people have begun to apply the concept of corporate social responsibility to sustainable agricultural development, calling it "Agricultural Social Responsibility." Taiwan Farmers’ Associations are committed to protecting farmers’ rights, providing support and services, and promoting farmers’ development and well-being. Their duty is to fulfill agricultural social responsibility. This study refers to the indicators proposed by the EU's agricultural social responsibility approach to construct an attitude scale suitable for Taiwan's agricultural development, which will serve as a foundation for promoting and learning agricultural social responsibility concepts in the future.

Keywords: attitude towards agricultural social responsibility, sustainable agriculture, EU Common Agricultural Policy

Introduction

As the global population continues to rise, there is an urgent need to accelerate food production to ensure sustainable development. The United Nations projects that the world population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050, and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that food production must double by then to meet the anticipated demand (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2009). However, it remains uncertain whether existing resources and technologies can support the increasing demand for food and other agricultural products (Popović & Kovljenić, 2017; Stevanović & Đurđević, 2018).

Climate change exacerbates this challenge, as droughts and declining rainfall reduce agricultural yields. Furthermore, modern agricultural industrialization relies heavily on fossil fuels, contributing to increased carbon emissions and exacerbating climate extremes. The rise in greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide, not only accelerates global warming but also poses significant risks to human health (Li Heqing & Tan Weien, 2012). Additionally, poor agricultural management practices—such as inefficient water usage and improper pesticide application—have led to severe environmental consequences, including biodiversity loss and soil degradation.

As population growth and consumption rates continue to escalate, nations worldwide must explore innovative strategies to drive a transformative agricultural revolution. One promising approach is fostering sustainable development through Agriculture Social Responsibility (ASR), which encourages responsible agricultural practices to balance productivity with environmental and social well-being (Mijatović, Marijana, Uzelac & Stoiljković, 2022).

To foster the development of ASR and address the social challenges facing agriculture, efforts must be extended beyond government policy formulation and guidance. Local farmers' organizations play a crucial role in meeting the needs of farmers by providing direct and practical support. In Taiwan, Farmers' Associations are key actors in the environmental, social, and economic development of rural communities. According to the Farmers' Association Law, these organizations are responsible for tasks encompassing agricultural production, rural livelihoods, and promoting agricultural development and rural economy. The tasks undertaken by Farmers' Associations also include the improvement of agricultural land and irrigation systems, the conservation of soil and water, and the cultivation of forests, all of which indirectly contribute to ecological sustainability. Consequently, the actions of Farmers' Association members have a direct or indirect impact on overall agricultural development.

However, research indicates that while members of Farmers' Associations integrate social responsibility into their daily operations, they often lack a comprehensive and clear understanding of the concept of ASR. Additionally, their contributions in this area are not always effectively communicated or promoted (Ding Wenyu, 2018). This gap may hinder their ability to implement effective approaches that align with modern sustainability requirements when advising farmers. To enhance their impact, Farmers' Associations should explicitly define and communicate their commitments and contributions to Agricultural Social Responsibility.

Furthermore, Taiwan has implemented diverse strategies to support young farmers. Under the policy framework of "Golden Decade – Happy Agriculture: Strengthening the Training of a New Generation of Agricultural Entrepreneurs," the Ministry of Agriculture (reshuffled from the Council of Agriculture on August 1, 2023) of Taiwan provides various programs and initiatives to cultivate young farmers (Council of Agriculture, 2011). These include mentorship and support projects, innovative value-added initiatives, and specialized training through Farmers' Colleges. The objective of these programs is to equip young farmers with the necessary skills and resources to engage more effectively in agricultural enterprises.

The "Top 100 Young Farmers Demonstrate Guidance" seeks to recognize talented young farmers and offer customized assistance to facilitate the establishment of sustainable operations, the growth of their enterprises, and their transition into professional agricultural suppliers (Young Farmers Guidance Platform, 2016). Furthermore, the program promotes innovative value-added initiatives, including the marketing and processing of agricultural products. For instance, the "Top 100 Young Farmers Demonstration Guidance" aims to identify promising young farmers and provide tailored support to help them establish stable operations, expand their businesses, and transition into professional agricultural suppliers (Young Farmers Guidance Platform, 2016). Additionally, this program encourages innovative value-added ventures, such as agricultural product marketing and processing. Given the critical role of both young farmers and Farmers' Associations in shaping the future of sustainable agriculture, strengthening their training and guidance is essential for effectively promoting and implementing ASR. The study seeks to enhance the understanding of ASR among agricultural practitioners by clearly defining its key issues and establishing relevant measurement indicators. By developing a framework that aligns with contemporary ASR principles, this research aims to foster greater awareness and practical implementations among agricultural professionals, ultimately contributing to the sustainable development of the agricultural sector.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AGRICULTURAL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

While pursuing profits, companies must also consider the three major dimensions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): economy, environment, and society. Agricultural enterprises also need to assume social responsibilities and improve the economic benefits, environmental protection, and social impact of agriculture from various perspectives to advance agricultural value and ensure sustainable development. Under the influence of globalization and the knowledge economy, technological innovation has become the key to maintaining international competitiveness. The application of agricultural technology can not only improve the quality of agricultural products and stabilize farmers' income but also contribute to the development of agricultural added-value. In recent years, some agricultural enterprises have taken a further step in assuming social responsibility and committed themselves to solving agricultural industry problems (Liu Yizhen and Li Pan, 2016).

Mazur-Wierzbicka (2015) pointed out that the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility should be incorporated into the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to meet the challenges of agricultural development. The study believes that future agricultural policies should focus specifically on the following goals: (1) Improve agricultural productivity and market competitiveness to ensure a stable food supply; (2) Maintain food diversity in rural areas and ensure consumers’ right to be informed; (3) Ensure that agricultural production complies with environmental protection, biodiversity, and animal welfare standards; (4) Increase agriculture's contribution to the EU economy and employment; (5) Encourage agricultural land management to protect biodiversity and natural resources; (6) Ensure a fair standard of living for farmers and attract youth to agriculture. These goals show that agricultural development must move towards sustainable development, and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) can play a key role in this.

The development and challenges of ASR

Traditionally, agriculture has been conceptualized around individual farmers, their associations, or the institutional frameworks of farmers' organizations. However, with the entry of entities operating under alternative business models—particularly agri-tech firms and agribusinesses—existing policies often pose barriers due to their corporate nature, hindering integration into established agricultural support systems. Moving forward, comprehensive policy and regulatory reforms will be essential to accommodate diverse actors and approaches within the agricultural sector, thereby facilitating innovation and transformative progress in agricultural development. According to the concept of the social enterprise ecosystem, there is both competition and cooperation among different organizations, and they should develop their own positioning to maximize economic, environmental, and social benefits (Liu Yizhen and Li Pan, 2016). In line with the social enterprise ecosystem concept, various organizations experience both competitive and collaborative dynamics, prompting them to establish distinct positions that enhance economic, environmental, and social advantages.

Dees (1998) proposed that there are five organizational types along the spectrum of enterprise models. Ideologically, they range from left to right as follows: non-profit organizations, non-profits with commercial activities, social enterprises or public-benefit corporations, corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, and traditional for-profit enterprises. Social enterprises pursue social goals through financial autonomy and use business models to become self-sufficient, and they have also formed a specific development model in the agricultural sector. Agricultural social enterprises in Taiwan are still in the initial stage of development, but the private sector has demonstrated abundant energy and has become the mainstream of social enterprise entrepreneurship. Sun Zhili (2016) pointed out that agricultural social enterprises should be between companies and cooperatives, and they should invest part of their surpluses in agricultural development to solve rural and farmers' problems.

According to the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) standards, CSR covers three major aspects: economy, environment and society. CSR emphasizes that companies should integrate sustainable development principles into their decision-making and business models to achieve social well-being (Hohnen, 2007; International Organization for Standardization, 2010). Agricultural enterprises can also explore their own social responsibility strategies based on these three aspects. Climate change and population growth pose numerous challenges to agricultural policies, further highlighting the need for sustainable agricultural development. Mazur-Wierzbicka’s (2015) research shows that corporate social responsibility can be used as a tool for sustainable agricultural development and occupies an important position in the EU Common Agricultural Policy. The study analyzes EU citizens' expectations of agriculture and points out that "socially responsible agriculture" is closely related to "sustainable agriculture." Socially responsible farmers not only pursue profit maximization but also pay attention to public welfare and strive to practice sustainable agricultural development (Mazur-Wierzbicka, 2015).

ASR emphasizes that agriculture must not only improve economic efficiency but also consider environmental and social development. The development direction of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy shows that CSR has become an important consideration in agricultural policy. Although Taiwan's agricultural social enterprises are in their early stages, they have already demonstrated strong growth momentum. In the future, we should promote the development of social responsibility of agricultural enterprises through the improvement of laws and regulations and adjustments to policies to ensure the sustainable operation and development of the agricultural industry.

APPLICATION OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN AGRICULTURE

Specific goals and prospects of agricultural social responsibility

This study examines the agricultural social responsibility goals and prospects of the EU CAP, Japan's Agricultural Corporation Association, and Taiwan's Farmers' Associations. It further explores how agriculture can integrate and implement social responsibility.

EU Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP 2023–2027 marks a shift toward performance-based agricultural governance, emphasizing equity, sustainability, and local adaptability. As a key tool of the European Green Deal, it advances environmental and social goals through eco-schemes, greening incentives, and rural development support. It also promotes small farm viability, youth participation, and sustainable food systems, while investing in rural resilience through infrastructure and inclusive development (European Commission, 2025). Mazur-Wierzbicka (2015) emphasizes that the EU CAP should incorporate CSR and outlines the following key objectives: (1) enhancing productivity and competitiveness while ensuring a stable food supply; (2) preserving food diversity in rural areas and increasing consumer awareness; (3) ensuring agricultural production adheres to environmental protection, animal welfare, and biodiversity standards; (4) promoting agriculture as a driver of economic growth and employment; (5) encouraging sustainable land management to safeguard ecosystems; and (6) improving farmers' livelihoods and attracting younger generations to the agricultural sector.

Japan Agricultural Corporation Association. In 2009, Japan’s Agricultural Corporation Association introduced five core CSR principles for agricultural corporations: (1) maintaining transparent operations and upholding social responsibility; (2) ensuring a stable supply of agricultural products while safeguarding consumer rights; (3) minimizing environmental impact and preserving ecological diversity; (4) enhancing workplace conditions, fostering talent, and driving agricultural innovation; and (5) strengthening the integration of agriculture and local communities to promote active participation.

Taiwan Farmers’ Associations. In Taiwan, farmers’ associations have not yet established explicit implementation guidelines for Agricultural Social Responsibility (ASR). Nevertheless, in recent years, there has been a notable shift toward greater institutional and policy-level recognition of ASR-related issues. Gao Yulong (2021) analyzed the integration of CSR into the management of Taiwan’s farmers' associations. Drawing upon the GRI Standards, Taiwan’s financial sector CSR reports, and the "World Sustainable Citizen Award" evaluation criteria, several key CSR policy dimensions were identified: (1) financial technology; (2) supporting farmers and improving rural welfare; (3) talent cultivation and retention; (4) sustainable management and member services; (5) extension education and agricultural promotion; and (6) rural social services.

Despite differences in structure and approach, agricultural organizations in the EU, Japan, and Taiwan share a common emphasis on sustainable development, environmental stewardship, and community engagement. To improve agricultural sustainability globally, more research is necessary to understand their individual CSR implementation strategies and effects fully. Their respective CSR implementation strategies and impacts warrant further examination to enhance agricultural sustainability on a global scale. The following table compares EU, Japan, and Taiwan grassroots Farmers' Associations in terms of ASR approaches (Table 1). From the environmental perspective, the EU's policies are the most comprehensive and regulatory driven, encompassing environmental protection laws, biodiversity management, and animal welfare while actively promoting land management initiatives. In contrast, Japan prioritizes minimizing agriculture's environmental impact, focusing on ecological balance but rarely addressing specific regulatory frameworks. Taiwan emphasizes sustainable agriculture and resource management yet lacks the EU's explicit strategies for biodiversity conservation. From the social perspective, the EU places the greatest emphasis on rural employment and economic development, providing financial support and ensuring fair living conditions for farmers. On the other hand, Japan focuses on enhancing agriculture’s career appeal, aiming to attract young talent through corporate transparency and workplace innovation. Taiwan prioritizes farmer services and rural community development, with a strong emphasis on agricultural education and consumer awareness. From the economic perspective, the EU underscores market competitiveness and productivity growth, ensuring a stable food supply and efficient market operations. Japan, in contrast, concentrates on agricultural supply chains and corporate transparency, aiming to refine production models through social responsibility initiatives. Taiwan, meanwhile, prioritizes farmers’ welfare and financial technology, leveraging fintech to enhance the transparency and sustainability of farmers' associations.

Table 1. The EU, Japan and Taiwan grassroots farmers' associations in terms of ASR

Source: The study compiled.

Agricultural Social Responsibility Assessment Scale

In summary, the EU’s agricultural policies are the most holistic, integrating environmental protection, social development, and market competitiveness. Japan emphasizes agricultural attractiveness and corporate social responsibility yet focuses less on rural development and market competition. Taiwan’s Farmers' Associations primarily concentrate on farmer services, rural development, and financial technology, with less emphasis on market competitiveness. The policy distinctions reflect the developmental trajectories of regional agricultural systems: the EU is market-driven, Japan prioritizes agricultural innovation and social responsibility, and Taiwan focuses on rural welfare and sustainability. These differences will continue to shape the implementation and evolution of future agricultural policies. The study will use the environmental, social, and economic dimensions as the basis for indicator construction and use the above-detailed indicators as the basis for scale construction to develop questions.

This study develops a grading index for ASR based on the environmental, social, and economic (ESE) dimensions. The evaluation framework is constructed through a systematic process, beginning with the ESE indicators proposed by Lebacq et al. (2013) and Diazabakana et al. (2014), which are adopted as the initial benchmark. These indicators are then revised and integrated with key elements from the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, resulting in a localized ESE index tailored to the agricultural context of Taiwan. Grounded in the philosophy of agricultural extension, this study seeks to clearly define evaluable dimensions and measurable indicators of ASR, in alignment with the core principles of modern sustainable development. The proposed framework aims to serve as a practical guideline for assessing ASR-related attitudes and behaviors, ultimately supporting farmers, agricultural professionals, and organizations in strengthening their awareness and implementation of socially responsible agricultural practices.

To refine the index, the Delphi method is employed, engaging experienced agricultural extension researchers specializing in agricultural improvement. The ASR evaluation framework is structured around three key dimensions—environmental, social, and economic—and comprises 16 indicators and 51 corresponding assessment items. To enhance the validity of responses and ensure a robust ASR evaluation model, a six-point Likert scale is employed. This structured assessment framework provides a stable and comprehensive tool for measuring agricultural social responsibility. The evaluation criteria are as follows:

Environmental dimension. It includes rational fertilization, pesticide use, resource consumption (e.g., water and non-renewable energy), land management, greenhouse gas emissions, acidifying substance emissions (e.g., from livestock or fertilizer application), ecological diversity (e.g., crop rotation, multi-species cultivation), and soil quality (physical, chemical, and biological properties).

Social dimension. It encompasses education, working conditions, employment contribution (in agriculture and community industries), quality of life (social welfare, gender equality, physical and mental health), local cohesion (social participation), product and service quality (safety and quality management), and animal welfare.

Economic dimension. It includes profitability, productivity, solvency, income diversification, and dependence on subsidies.

CONCLUSION

Agricultural social responsibility assessment scale can develop different measurement methods

Currently, interviews have been conducted with producers, agricultural extension practitioners, and pesticide practitioners. Moving forward, it would be beneficial to develop scales or behavioral assessment criteria tailored for larger enterprises or farmers’ groups. These assessments could focus more on action-oriented measurements or the degree to which behaviors are implemented. Given the organizational and local support provided by farmers’ organizations (such as Farmers' Associations and Cooperatives), there is a greater opportunity for these groups to demonstrate the extent of their social responsibility initiatives, similar to other business organizations. Over time, these organizations can begin to publish social responsibility reports, documenting their ASR actions in formal reports or white papers. This would help communicate to the public the social responsibility principles and actions that agricultural enterprises and farmers’ organizations uphold.

Additionally, the respondent pool can be expanded to include participants from various agriculture-related organizations such as local government agricultural units and consumers. Respondents can be categorized by different levels within their organizations—such as supervisory and general staff—or by departmental affiliation. The indicators can be further refined to assess the extent of behavioral implementation more accurately. Indicators can be refined to better assess the degree of behavioral implementation. While the current scale mainly evaluates education and awareness, it is hoped that by measuring these aspects, farmers will gain a better understanding not only of agricultural management but also of the core principles of ASR. This awareness can help foster a responsible attitude toward social responsibility, ultimately leading to agricultural behaviors that benefit the environment, society, and the economy, guiding the sector toward sustainable development. This heightened awareness is expected to encourage a responsible approach to social responsibility, leading to agricultural practices that positively impact the environment, society, and the economy, ultimately steering the sector toward sustainable development.

Promotion before and after the implementation of the Agricultural Social Responsibility Assessment Scale

The research conducted with agricultural extension researchers reveals that some respondents in specific occupations exhibit negative reactions and resistance when completing the Agricultural Social Responsibility Self-Assessment Scale. To better understand these rejection factors, it is recommended to conduct qualitative interviews after analyzing the scale. This will help uncover respondents' true understanding and attitudes toward ASR. Since the concept of the Agricultural Social Responsibility Assessment Scale is relatively new to some agricultural practitioners in Taiwan, and its advocated principles may even seem contrary to the nature of their work, it is crucial for agricultural extension researchers to engage in thorough communication before administering the assessment. Researchers should clearly explain the purpose of the test to the respondents. This highlights the importance of promoting ASR courses, which can help agricultural practitioners better understand the objectives and significance of engaging in social responsibility. Such efforts can support the transformation and sustainable operation of related industries.

Establish a long-term and stable agricultural social responsibility assessment scale and indicators

Establishing indicators is a particularly challenging aspect of the research process. It is recommended to implement a continuous review and revision approach to refine the wording of each item, ensuring they are concise and easy to understand. The ease of data collection and the appropriateness of the measurable data should guide the questionnaire design. The stage of establishing indicators is one of the more challenging aspects of the research. It is recommended that a rolling review and revision process be implemented moving forward, with the aim of refining the expression of each item to make them more concise and understandable. The ease of data collection and the adequacy of the data that can be measured should guide the design of the questionnaire. Since ASR is still in its early stages of development in Taiwan, it lacks the decades-long research history that CSR has. It will take an additional 2-3 years to develop a robust scale model, during which time the details and definitions of the indicators can be further refined. This will help establish a solid foundation for current ASR research, enabling deeper study and broader application of ASR in the future with increased credibility. This process will lay a strong foundation for current ASR research, facilitating deeper exploration and broader application of ASR in the future and enhancing its credibility.

REFERENCES

Council of Agriculture. (2011). A Golden Decade of Agricultural Vision: Highlighting the Multifaceted Value of Agriculture and Shaping a Vibrant and Joyful Agricultural Sector.
https://www.moa.gov.tw/theme_data.php?theme=news&sub_theme=agri&id=4164

Dees, J.G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Stanford University: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
https://web.stanford.edu/class/e145/2007_fall/materials/dees_SE.pdf

Diazabakana, A., Latruffe, L., Bockstaller, C., Desjeux, Y., Finn, J., Kelly, E., Ryan, M., & Uthes, S. (2014). A Review of Farm Level Indicators of Sustainability with a Focus on CAP and FADN. Deliverable 1.2 of the EU FP7 Project FLINT. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282569421_A_review_of_farm_level_indicators_of_sustainability_with_a_focus_on_CAP_and_FADN

Ding, W.-Y. (2018). Facing up to the corporate social responsibility of agriculture and fisheries. Agricultural Training Magazine. Retrieved January 25, 2023, from http://ntifotd.blogspot.com/2018/03/338_48.html

European Commission. (2025). Common agricultural policy in my country.
https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-my-country/cap-my-country_en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Report of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Third Session of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/3/a-be112e.pdf

Gao, Y.-L. (2021). A preliminary study on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and Taiwan's farmers' associations [Master's thesis, National Taiwan University]. https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202102537

Hohnen, P. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility: An Implementation Guide for Business. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files?file=publications/csr_guide.pdf

International Organization for Standardization (2010). ISO 26000:2010 (en) – Guidance on Social Responsibility. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:26000:ed-1:v1:en:en,%20(15.1.2021)

Lebacq, T., Baret, P. V., & Stilmant, D. (2013). Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agronomy for sustainable development, 33(2), 311-327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0121-x

Li, H.-C., & Tan, W.-Y. (2012). Climate change and human rights: Reflections starting from agriculture and food security. Taiwan Human Rights Journal, 1(2), 59-75.

Liu, Y.-C., & Li, P. (2016). Assisting agricultural technology enterprises or agribusinesses in developing social responsibility. Agricultural Biotechnology Industry Quarterly, (45), 75-79.

Mazur-Wierzbicka, E. (2015). The Application of Corporate Social Responsibility in European Agriculture. Miscellanea Geographica – Regional Studies on Development, 19(1), 19-23.

Mijatović, M., Uzelac, O., & Stoiljković, A. (2022). Agricultural Sustainability and Social Responsibility. Ekonomika Poljoprivrede, 68(4), 1109-1119.

Popović, R., & Kovljenić, M. (2017). Efficiency of wheat production in Republic of Serbia. Економика пољопривреде, 64(4), 1499-1511.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/ekoPolj1704499P

Stevanović, M. D., & Đurđević, D. Ž. (2018). Dostupnost i pristup slatkoj vodi sa aspekta nacionalne bezbednosti. Megatrend Review, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.5937/MegRev1802073S

Sun, Z.-L. (2016). A case analysis and current situation survey of agricultural social enterprises in Taiwan. Agricultural Biotechnology Industry Quarterly, 46, 62-66.

Young Farmers Guidance Platform. (2016). "A Timely Start in Farming, Chasing Dreams in Youth" – Top 100 Young Farmers Demonstrate Guidance. https://academy.moa.gov.tw/YF/yf_100.php