FFTC Agricultural Policy Platform (FFTC-AP)

ABSTRACT

In the 21st century, global agricultural systems face unprecedented challenges from climate change, resource depletion, and the need to feed a growing population. This study explores the theoretical paradigm shift from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to Agriculture Social Responsibility (ASR), highlighting agriculture's unique multifunctional roles in food security and ecosystem conservation. By employing the Delphi Method, the research constructs a scientific self-assessment indicator system based on the Environmental, Social, and Economic (ESE) framework, tailored for grassroots farmers’ associations. The Meinong Farmers' Association (MFA) in Taiwan is presented as a primary case study to validate this framework. The analysis demonstrates how MFA integrates ASR into its core operations—such as the "Resident Plant Doctor" system for pesticide reduction, biodiversity initiatives for the Pheasant-tailed Jacana, and inclusive financial services for young farmers—all of which align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To further enhance agricultural governance, the study proposes integrating Social Return on Investment (SROI) to measure intangible social value and leveraging peer influence, as outlined in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), to facilitate the green transition. These findings provide a robust reference for policy formulation and rural sustainable development in the Asia-Pacific region, supporting the shift toward climate-resilient and inclusive agricultural models.

Keywords: Attitude towards agricultural social responsibility, Sustainable Development Goals, Environmental-Social-Economic (ESE) Framework

INTRODUCTION

In the twenty-first century, the global agricultural system confronts unprecedented and multifaceted challenges. With the global population projected by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, a substantial expansion in food production capacity is imperative to satisfy future demand (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2009). However, extreme weather events induced by climate change, shifting precipitation patterns, and the overexploitation and gradual depletion of natural resources pose severe challenges to existing agricultural technologies, resource allocation, and overall production potential (Popović & Kovljenić, 2017; Stevanović & Đurđević, 2018). These pressures are particularly acute in the Asia-Pacific region, where agriculture is foundational to both regional food security and the livelihoods of over 450 million smallholder farmers. Although these farmers produce more than 80% of the region’s food, they remain disproportionately represented among the impoverished (International Finance Corporation, 2022). Consequently, agricultural advancement must transcend the traditional focus on yield and economic growth to incorporate environmental sustainability, climate resilience, and social equity. Within this shifting paradigm, "Agricultural Social Responsibility" (ASR) has emerged as a critical focal point in contemporary policy discourse and practical application (Mijatović, Uzelac, & Stoiljković, 2022).

Historically, agricultural policies have predominantly prioritized improvements in production technologies, infrastructure development, and the planning of price subsidy systems. However, amid the trend of globalization driving greater integration of agricultural supply chains, agricultural operating entities—including farms, agribusinesses, and grassroots farmers’ associations—have been subject to higher social expectations and governance requirements (Japan Agricultural Corporations Association, 2009). In Taiwan and the broader Asia-Pacific region, grassroots farmers’ associations, such as farmers' associations and agricultural cooperatives, remain pivotal in advancing agricultural modernization and rural sustainable development (Kao, 2021). These entities serve as critical nodes for implementing government agricultural policies and as essential networks for financial resources, marketing channels, technology extension, and social welfare support. Consequently, incentivizing these associations to adopt and practice ASR through standardized self-assessment checklists and sustainability reports incorporating both quantitative and qualitative content is imperative. Such practices not only enhance governance transparency and operational efficiency but also provide a robust, data-driven foundation for governmental agencies to monitor progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Fang et al., 2021).

This study analyzes the theoretical evolution from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to Agricultural Social Responsibility (ASR), employing the Delphi Method to develop a self-assessment indicator system across the environmental, social, and economic (ESE) dimensions, specifically for farmers’ associations. Using the Meinong Farmers' Association in Taiwan as a representative case study, this research inventories the operational linkages between internal departmental functions, ASR indicators, and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Building upon this empirical foundation, the study proposes strategic frameworks for integrating Social Return on Investment (SROI) and leveraging peer influence. Ultimately, this research provides both academic insights and practical references for agricultural policy formulation and rural sustainable development within the Asia-Pacific region.

THEORETICAL EVOLUTION AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FROM CSR TO ASR

The development context and core concepts of CSR

The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) originated with Oliver Sheldon (1923), who posited that business operators must incorporate ethical considerations and the satisfaction of human needs into their responsibilities to address labor exploitation and social imbalances (Sheldon, 1923; Zhu, 2006). In 1953, Howard R. Bowen, the "Father of CSR," published Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, marking the beginning of modern academic research on the subject (Bowen, 1953; Zhu, 2006).

While Milton Friedman’s "Shareholder Primacy Theory" challenged CSR by arguing that a business's sole responsibility is profit maximization (Friedman, 1970; Sun, 2016), global shifts—including climate change, environmental degradation, and human rights issues—have fundamentally altered societal expectations. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) defines CSR as a continuing commitment to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life for the workforce, local communities, and society (Yang, 2015; Corporate Governance Center, Taiwan Stock Exchange Corporation, 2026).

International disclosure standards: GRI and SASB

To transform ethical commitments into quantifiable data, two predominant international standards have emerged (Competitiveness Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd., 2021):

GRI (Global Reporting Initiative): Established in 1997, it emphasizes the disclosure of an organization’s material impacts on the economy, environment, and society. The framework comprises universal standards (GRI 101, 102, 103) and alongside thirty-three topic-specific standards for comprehensive sustainability performance reporting. (Yang, 2015; Competitiveness Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd., 2021).

SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board): These standard underscores the nexus between sustainability and financial performance. Its 2018 "Materiality Map" covers 77 industries across five dimensions, enabling investors to identify ESG issues that significantly influence long-term corporate value (Taiwan Stock Exchange Corporation, 2026).

Table 1. SASB Five Dimensions and Their Meanings

SASB Five Major Dimensions	Core Concept and Covered Topics
Environment	Focuses on the environmental impacts caused by an enterprise's use of non-renewable natural resources or emission of harmful substances. Topics include greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, energy management, water and wastewater management, waste management, and ecological impacts.
Social Capital	Expects enterprises to foster relationships with key external groups (such as customers and local communities) in exchange for a social license to operate. Topics include human rights and community relations, customer privacy, data security, product quality and safety.
Human Capital	Regards human resources as key assets for achieving long-term value. Topics include: labor practices, employee health and safety, employee engagement (loyalty), and diversity and inclusion.
Business Model & Innovation	Sustainability issues involved in creating innovative value. Topics include product design and lifecycle management, business model resilience (agility), supply chain management, and the physical impacts of climate change.
Leadership & Governance	Management capabilities concerning existing industry, business models or processes. Topics include business ethics, competitive behavior, regulatory compliance, and critical incident risk management.

Source: The study compiled. Based on Shen (2021) and Taiwan Stock Exchange Coporation (2026).

Agriculture specificity and the GRI 13 standard

The agricultural sector exhibits unique characteristics that universal CSR indicators often fail to capture, as production is intrinsically dependent on natural resources and profoundly affects food security and rural social structures (Mazur-Wierzbicka, 2015). Beyond economic functions, agriculture entails critical externalities, including food safety and ecosystem conservation (Sun, 2018). Surveys indicate that 55% of people view providing healthy food as farmers' primary social responsibility (European Commission, 2018).

Given that agriculture employs over 2.5 billion people and consumes 70% of global freshwater, the GRI released GRI 13: Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fishing Sectors 2022. This dedicated standard identifies 26 material topics, including soil health, pesticide use, and land rights, driving the industry toward green and inclusive growth (Global Reporting Initiative, 2022).

Defining agriculture social responsibility (ASR)

Agriculture Social Responsibility (ASR) has emerged as an independent issue distinct from general CSR. Grasping ASR requires a holistic perspective of the food supply chain and an acknowledgment of the interplay between voluntary actions and policy regulations (Mazur-Wierzbicka, 2015). Specific goal-setting for ASR is reflected in international frameworks:

EU common agricultural policy (CAP): Objectives include stable food supplies, animal welfare, biodiversity protection, and ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers (Mazur-Wierzbicka, 2015).

Japan agricultural corporations association: Focuses on five dimensions: management transparency, product safety, environmental sustainability, workplace health/safety, and community revitalization (Japan Agricultural Corporations Association, 2009).

In contexts like Taiwan, ASR represents a transformative shift for farmers' associations, which are evolving from traditional credit providers into catalysts for regional revitalization, youth empowerment, and the circular economy. Reinvesting operational surpluses into rural development embodies the core ethos of localized ASR practice (Kao, 2021; Liu & Li, 2016).

APPLYING THE DELPHI METHOD TO CONSTRUCT ASR SELF-ASSESSMENT INDICATORS

To operationalize the macroscopic concept of Agriculture Social Responsibility (ASR), this study constructs a scientific, objective, and highly operational self-assessment indicator system. This system responds to international standards while accounting for local agricultural ecologies and the operational dynamics of farmers’ associations.

Construction of indicators via the delphi method

This study employed the Delphi Method, a structured decision-making approach designed to cultivate expert consensus through anonymous, multi-stage surveys and controlled feedback (Fang et al., 2021). This methodology is particularly suitable for complex, transdisciplinary research where empirical historical data is insufficient. The expert panel comprised technical researchers, extension specialists, and agricultural economists (Fang et al., 2021).

The research process commenced with an extensive literature review of sustainable agriculture and CSR. Integrating the Environmental, Social, and Economic (ESE) indicators proposed by Lebacq et al. (2013) and Diazabakana et al. (2014), the framework also incorporated the European Economic Community’s (EEC) principles of economic viability, environmental protection, and territorial cohesion. Through iterative revision cycles, experts appraised indicators based on importance and feasibility. This procedure effectively mitigates authority bias and the bandwagon effect, ensuring the resulting indicator system aligns with the operational realities of grassroots farmers' associations in Taiwan (Fang et al., 2021).

The three-dimensional ASR indicator system (ESE Framework)

The Agriculture Social Responsibility (ASR) self-assessment indicator system, developed via the Delphi Method, employs the environmental, social, and economic (ESE) tripartite framework as its conceptual core. This system translates these pillars into specific, quantifiable sub-indicators and operational questionnaire items (Fang et al., 2021). The primary components are structured as follows:

Environmental Dimension: Covers aspects such as rational fertilizer application, pesticide use management, the use of consumable resources, land management, greenhouse gas and acidifying substance emissions, waste management, and ecological conservation, biodiversity maintenance, and soil quality management.

Social Dimension: Includes issues such as education and training, working conditions and occupational safety, employment contributions, quality of life and gender equality, local social cohesion (social participation), product and service quality (e.g., food safety), and animal welfare.

Economic Dimension: Focuses on operational performance and financial robustness, encompassing indicators such as profitability, production efficiency, solvency, diversification of income sources, and reliance on subsidies.

The distinctive value of this ASR tool resides in its "action-oriented" design philosophy. Unlike traditional Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting, which often prioritizes public relations and image disclosure, this indicator system focuses on operationalizing abstract sustainability concepts into concrete management items suitable for grassroots farmers’ associations. Through this translation mechanism, farmers' associations and agricultural authorities can conduct quantitative tracking to evaluate policy coverage and efficacy. Consequently, this data-driven approach enhances decision-making precision and elevates overall agricultural governance efficiency (Fang et al., 2021).

ANALYZING ASR PRACTICES: A CASE STUDY OF THE MEINONG FARMERS' ASSOCIATION

To validate the utility of the Agricultural Social Responsibility (ASR) self-assessment, this study examines the Meinong Farmers’ Association (MFA) in Taiwan. Faced with structural pressures stemming from WTO accession and regional livestock bans, the MFA successfully pivoted its operations to harmonize public missions with commercial management, thereby spearheading a localized rural transformation (Lin, 2016). MFA’s multifaceted departmental functions demonstrate a profound alignment with the core dimensions of ASR. While some departmental behaviors correspond to two ASR dimensions, they vary in their level of importance. The following format displays the primary dimension first.

Extension department (Environmental & Social)

MFA integrated farmland into six specialized agricultural zones and implemented crop rotation to restore soil fertility and reduce pest risks. Furthermore, it supports biodiversity through ecological payment programs that encourage farmers to protect the Pheasant-tailed Jacana in wild lotus habitats, proving that agricultural production and conservation can coexist (Liao, 2022).

Marketing and supply department (Environmental & Economic)

Driving green agriculture, MFA established the "Future Supermarket" and "Green Agricultural Material Center." A pioneering "Resident Plant Doctor" system helps farmers improve precision in pest management and reduce chemical pesticide use (Yang, 2021). To increase economic value, MFA promotes the "Made in Meinong" (M.I.M) brand and ensures food safety through certification standards (Chang, 2022). Additionally, it actively recycles agricultural plastics to advance circular agriculture and reduce pollution (Wang, 2022).

Credit and insurance departments (Economic & Social)

These departments are vital for rural resilience. The Credit Department supports financial inclusion by offering startup loans for young farmers with a 95% guarantee, easing the financial barriers to entering agriculture. The Insurance Department builds a comprehensive safety net by promoting occupational insurance, pensions, and crop income insurance to mitigate the financial impacts of extreme climate anomalies (Tseng, 2022).

Other departments (Social & Economic)

Since 2011, Meinong’s " Meinong White Jade Radish and Good Bean Shareholder Program " has promoted food education through family farming. For NT$800, subscribe to White Jade Radish or Edamame shares (yielding 20–30 catties). This expert-led initiative supports local agriculture and fosters community prosperity. (Meinong Farmers' Association, 2025). Internally, MFA demonstrates strong gender equality, with women comprising 75% of senior management in core departments and actively benefiting from capacity-building initiatives (Fan, 2019).

Alignment with UN SDGs

By systematically aligning its practices with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), MFA proves that grassroots farmers’ associations are vital drivers of regional sustainable development. Quantifying these practical results within the ASR reporting framework provides crucial evidence-based data for shaping and evaluating national agricultural policies.

Table 2. Correspondence Between ASR Indicator Practices of the Meinong Farmers’ Association and SDGs Target Areas

SDGs Target Areas	ASR Indicator Correspondence	Specific Practices and Implementation Details of MFA
SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 2 (Zero Hunger & Sustainable Agriculture)	Local Cohesion, Rational Fertilizer Application, Pesticide Reduction, Product and Service Quality	The association allocates 5% of its surplus to a public welfare fund, donating thousands of kilograms of high-quality Meinong rice to disadvantaged households and elderly people living alone annually (Implementing SDG 1.5 and 2.1). Through the Resident Plant Doctor's guidance on precision pesticide use and the promotion of eco-friendly farming via the "Green Agricultural Material Center," the association ensures the establishment of sustainable food production systems, enhancing smallholder productivity and incomes (Implementing SDG 2.3 and 2.4).
SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) & SDG 4 (Quality Education)	Working Conditions, Education and Training	Provides comprehensive health check-ups and occupational safety training for employees and comprehensively promotes Farmer Occupational Injury Insurance (Implementing SDG 3 and 8.8). Regularly conducts agricultural extension programs, food safety seminars, and young farmer cultivation training, ensuring the realization of lifelong learning and cultivating modernized farming talents (Implementing SDG 4.4 and 4.7).
SDG 5 (Gender Equality)	Quality of Life and Gender Equality	Women account for 75% of senior management positions. The association actively encourages women to participate in elections for agricultural group leaders and board directors/supervisors, breaking the glass ceiling in rural decision-making (Implementing SDG 5.5). Partners with the Kaohsiung Awakening Association to organize rural gender equality lectures and provide free legal counseling services.
SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) & SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)	Profitability and Productivity, Employment Contribution, Consumable Resource Management, Waste Management	The operation of the Future Supermarket and the M.I.M brand drives the local green economy and adds high value to agricultural products, providing stable rural employment opportunities (Implementing SDG 8.5). Regarding waste management, the association acts as a coordinating bridge, cooperating with the Environmental Protection Bureau to promote the centralized removal, recycling, and reprocessing of discarded agricultural films, significantly reducing waste generation and practicing circular agriculture (Implementing SDG 12.5).
SDG 13 (Climate Action) & SDG 15 (Life on Land)	Greenhouse Gas and Acidifying Substance Emissions, Ecology and Biodiversity	Promotes the "local production for local consumption" of agricultural products to reduce food miles and carbon footprints and introduces agricultural insurance to strengthen resilience against extreme weather (Implementing SDG 13). Executes ecological payment actions for the Pheasant-tailed Jacana (Wild Lotus Bird) in wild lotus fields and prevents land degradation through a robust crop rotation system, actively halting biodiversity loss (Implementing SDG 15.4 and 15.5).

Source: The study compiled.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND PRACTICAL CHALLENGES

Although the Environmental, Social, and Economic (ESE) framework provides a coherent structure for evaluating Agricultural Social Responsibility (ASR), its practical implementation is hindered by technical measurement constraints, varying farmer perceptions, and insufficient policy support. To enhance the regional utility and policy relevance of ASR in the Asia-Pacific, this study offers the following strategic recommendations to bridge the gap between theoretical frameworks and field applications.

Introducing social return on investment (SROI) to measure intangible social value

Traditional financial statements and operational performance indicators, such as revenue growth rates or total loan amounts, often fail to fully reflect the social value created by farmers’ associations in areas such as extension education, ecological conservation, and support for vulnerable groups (Social Value International Taiwan, 2026). For instance, the benefits of rural revitalization driven by farmers' associations that assist young people in returning to farming, or the ecological externalities generated by conserving wildlife habitats, usually cannot be fully represented by existing market price mechanisms.

Accordingly, future optimizations of ASR assessment tools should integrate the Social Return on Investment (SROI) framework. SROI employs a systematic monetization process to quantify the positive impacts generated for diverse stakeholder groups—including farmers, community residents, and the environment—thereby enabling rigorous estimation of social value (Social Value International Taiwan, 2026). Incorporating SROI into ASR evaluations enables agricultural authorities and sustainable finance investors to tangibly grasp social impacts, providing a robust, evidence-based reference for the strategic allocation of agricultural extension resources and the auditing of green finance initiatives (Social Value International Taiwan, 2026).

Leveraging peer influence and the technology acceptance model (TAM) to reduce resistance to transition

During the promotion of Agricultural Social Responsibility (ASR) indicators, empirical evidence indicates that certain traditional farmers and pesticide practitioners remain resistant to emerging measures, including greenhouse gas inventories, ecological transitions, and digital bookkeeping (Fang et al., 2021). Grounded in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and behavioral science perspectives, research suggests that in rural environments characterized by dense social capital and interpersonal networks, the efficacy of top-down, unidirectional policy promotion is inherently limited. Conversely, peer influence represents a more potent mechanism for catalyzing behavioral shifts (Bramantyo & Utami, 2022; Khare & Pandey, 2017).

Consequently, future ASR strategies should leverage the cluster diffusion effect. Agricultural authorities should prioritize cultivating influential young farmers or production group leaders to serve as pivotal demonstration nodes. Through experiential knowledge sharing and tangible result demonstrations among peers, the cognitive thresholds and psychological resistance associated with ASR standards can be significantly mitigated (Khare & Pandey, 2017). When sustainable agricultural practices eventually coalesce into common norms within local communities, responsibility-based actions—initially driven by individual volition—are more likely to become institutionalized as collective practices (Khare & Pandey, 2017).

Expanding ASR report disclosure to align with Asia-Pacific climate-resilient agricultural policies

Currently, ASR assessment remains largely focused on the perceptions of extension personnel and individual farmers. To amplify its impact on industrial governance, agricultural authorities should deliberate on incentive-based institutional designs. For instance, incorporating ASR disclosure levels into project subsidy criteria or evaluation mechanisms could incentivize agribusinesses and farmers’ associations to regularly publish sustainability reports based on the GRI 13 standard and the ESE framework developed herein (Kao, 2021). Such institutional integration is essential for transitioning from individual attitudes to a standardized, industry-wide culture of transparency.

The establishment of a comprehensive information disclosure system fundamentally protects consumers' and other stakeholders' right to know while enhancing the transparency of farmers’ associations' governance. This systematic transparency effectively mitigates the operational risks associated with financial opacity and fortifies societal trust throughout the agricultural supply chain (Fang et al., 2021). Furthermore, the strategic promotion of ASR must align with agricultural policy trends across the Asia-Pacific region. Within a policy landscape where 2050 Net-Zero emissions targets and climate adaptation mandates are increasingly prioritized, ASR reports generated by farmers’ associations must explicitly strengthen the disclosure and rigorous evaluation of critical issues, including climate-resilient agriculture, water resource recycling, and the digital transformation of smart agriculture (Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region, 2025). Ultimately, this alignment will bolster domestic agricultural governance and industrial adaptive capabilities, while distinctly highlighting Taiwan's practical expertise in harmonizing agricultural production, social responsibility, and environmental sustainability during regional policy exchanges.

CONCLUSION

Amidst the dual challenges of intensifying climate change and the fundamental restructuring of global agri-food supply chains, the agricultural sector can no longer remain isolated from global Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) imperatives or broader sustainable development paradigms. By critically reviewing the theoretical transition from conventional Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to the specialized concept of Agriculture Social Responsibility (ASR), this study posits that the agricultural sector necessitates a tailored approach. Because agriculture is inextricably linked to intensive natural resource utilization, the maintenance of national food security, and rural societal stability, it exhibits specific characteristics distinct from those of general industries. Consequently, constructing a contextualized self-assessment framework for social responsibility is of paramount importance. Employing a three-dimensional indicator system encompassing environmental, social, and economic (ESE) dimensions—rigorously constructed via the Delphi Method—this research translates abstract sustainable development concepts and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into concrete, operational indicators that grassroots farmers’ associations can implement in practice and evaluate scientifically.

The empirical analysis derived from an in-depth case study of the Meinong Farmers’ Association (MFA) in Kaohsiung City demonstrates that grassroots farmers’associations possess substantial potential to integrate ASR principles into their core operational frameworks and governance structures. This integration is actively manifested through multiple synergistic avenues: promoting pesticide reduction and stringent source management via the Green Agricultural Material Center and the Resident Plant Doctor system; actualizing crucial farmland biodiversity preservation through targeted Extension Department initiatives; and leveraging the combined functionalities of the Marketing and Supply, Insurance, and Tourism departments to proactively champion green consumption, immersive rural experiences, and robust social security networks. Consequently, it is evident that modern farmers' associations transcend their traditional role as mere providers of product marketing and financial services, progressively becoming indispensable organizational catalysts driving comprehensive regional sustainable development.

Looking ahead, promoting sustainable agricultural transformation relies on the collaborative efforts of government, academia, and practitioners. Furthermore, if the Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology is introduced to quantify the social value created by farmers’ associations, and if peer influence, alongside appropriate extension mechanisms, can strategically mitigate intrinsic resistance to digital and green transitions, the sector will advance significantly. Concurrently, establishing institutionalized ASR information disclosure and standardized reporting mechanisms will facilitate an advanced agricultural governance model harmonizing economic development, social inclusion, and environmental resilience. Ultimately, this analytical framework and its empirical observations serve as strategic references for Taiwan's ASR promotion and provide substantial research insights for agricultural policy planning and sustainable rural development across the broader Asia-Pacific region.

REFERENCES

Bramantyo, P. D., & Utami, C. W. (2022). Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Factors and Social Factors Analysis through Attitude towards to Use on Intention to Purchase of Kisah Kita Ngopi Online Café. Review of Management and Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 73-96.

Chang, Y.-P. (2022). Meinong Farmers' Association supermarket transforms into a "Future Supermarket": Realizing a food and agriculture small trip from farm to table. FoodNext.

Competitiveness Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (2021). GRI, SASB standards, and TCFD climate-related financial disclosure: Key takeaways summary.

Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan. (2022). Search portal for 3 certifications and 1 QR code of agricultural products.

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.

European Commission. (2018). Special Eurobarometer 473: Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP.

Fang, C.-L., Lan, L.-C., Yen, W.-J., Wu, Y.-R., Teng, C.-I., & Ho, C.-H. (2021). 2022 Rural Regeneration Project of the Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan: Agricultural social responsibility report. Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]. (2009). Report of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.

Global Reporting Initiative. (2022). GRI 13: Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fishing Sectors 2022.

International Finance Corporation. (2022). Resilient, Equitable, and Sustainable Food Systems in Asia.

Japan Agricultural Corporations Association. (2009). CSR guidelines for agricultural corporations.

Japan Agricultural Corporations Association. (2022). About our association.

Kao, Y.-L. (2021). A preliminary study on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and Taiwan’s farmers' associations [Master's thesis, National Taiwan University].

Khare, A., & Pandey, S. (2017). Role of Green Self-Identity and Peer Influence in Fostering Trust Towards Organic Food Retailers. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 45(9), 969-990.

Lebacq, T., Baret, P. V., & Stilmant, D. (2013). Sustainability Indicators for Livestock Farming. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33(2), 311-327.

Liao, J.-H. (2022). Ecological payments reclaim farmland landscapes: Farmers can also contribute to the "national treasury" of biodiversity. Environmental Information Center.

Lin, H.-J. (2016). A study on corporate social responsibility of the Longjing District Farmers' Association in Taichung City [Master's thesis, Feng Chia University].

Lin, H.-M. (2016). A study on the transformation of agriculture in Taiwan’s rural areas: A case study of Meinong, Kaohsiung. Journal of Cross-Strait Grassroots Elections and Local Governance, 3(2), 32–58.

Lin, P.-C. (2022). Meinong’s star agricultural products welcome harvest: White Radish and Good Bean Season officially kicks off. United Daily News.

Liu, I.-C., & Li, P. (2016). Assisting agricultural technology enterprises or agribusinesses in developing social responsibility. Emerging Biotechnology, 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.

Meinong Farmers' Association. (2025). Meinong White Jade Radish and Good Bean Shareholder Program. https://www.meinong.org.tw/Home/About/%E7%BE%8E%E6%BF%83%E7%99%BD%E7%8E%89%E8%98%BF%E8%94%94%E8%82%A1%E6%9D%B1%E6%9C%83

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. Economics of Agriculture, 64(4), 1499–1511.

Social Impact Institute of Taiwan. (2026). Understanding social impact. https://socialvaluetw.easy.co/pages/social-value-social-return-on-invest...

Stevanović, M., & Đurđević, D. (2018). Water Safety from the National Security Aspect. Megatrend Review, 15(2), 73-94.

Sun, C.-L. (2016). Case analysis and current status survey of agricultural social enterprises in Taiwan. Agricultural Biotechnology Industry Quarterly, 46, 62–66.

Sun, C.-L. (2018). Impact and value creation of the development of agricultural social enterprises in Taiwan. Agricultural Biotechnology Industry Quarterly, 21–29.

Taiwan Stock Exchange Corporation. (2026). Introduction to corporate sustainable development. https://cgc.twse.com.tw/front/responsibility

Tseng, H.-C. (2022). Insurance coverage provides security: Meinong’s first-crop rice insurance claims deposited on August 30. Hakka News.

Wang, Y.-P. (2022). Improvement in agricultural environment does not guarantee wealth; Chu Hsin-chiang: Meinong needs more resources. Taiwan Ho Pao.

Yang, C.-H. (2021). The five-year evolutionary history of plant doctors in Meinong. Harvest Magazine.

Yang, Y.-C. (2015). A brief discussion on international development trends and current domestic implementation of corporate social responsibility. Securities and Futures Monthly, 33(1), 5–15.

Zhu, Z.-Y. (2006). Impact and opportunities of international corporate social responsibility development on Taiwan's multinational enterprises: A case study of the mobile phone original equipment manufacturing industry [Master's thesis, National Chengchi University].