Just Accepted Manuscripts
Original Research Article

Do Sustainability Strategies Affect Technical Efficiency? Evidence from Italian GI Wine Farms: Special Issue "Transforming wine value chains – Adapting to a changing world"

(Just Accepted)
  • Alberto Ceccacci,
  • Andrea Mattia Pacifico,
  • Luca Camanzi,
  • Giulio Malorgio
Alberto Ceccacci
University of Bologna
Andrea Mattia Pacifico
University of Bologna
Luca Camanzi
University of Bologna
Giulio Malorgio
University of Bologna
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-19801

Published 2026-06-19

Keywords

  • Stochastic Frontier Analysis,
  • Sustainability,
  • technical efficiency,
  • wine economics

How to Cite

Ceccacci, A., Pacifico, A. M., Camanzi, L., & Malorgio, G. (2026). Do Sustainability Strategies Affect Technical Efficiency? Evidence from Italian GI Wine Farms: Special Issue "Transforming wine value chains – Adapting to a changing world". Wine Economics and Policy. https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-19801

Copyright (c) 2024 Alberto Ceccacci, Andrea Mattia Pacifico, Luca Camanzi, Giulio Malorgio

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Sustainability has become a central objective of agricultural policies and business strategies as resource constraints and societal expectations increasingly affect production systems. The global wine industry is undergoing a structural transformation in which sustainability is no longer voluntary but increasingly required for market access. In this context, upstream strategies adopted by wine farms, such as agri-environmental measures, certification schemes, and labor-related practices, may influence not only environmental and social outcomes but also their productive performance. In Italy, the world’s leading wine producer by volume, these dynamics are particularly evident among Geographical Indication (GI) producers, for whom sustainability is a strategic lever to preserve the terroir underpinning product value. This study investigates whether sustainability-oriented strategies are associated with differences in technical efficiency among Italian GI winegrape producers. The analysis adopts a one-step Stochastic Frontier Analysis framework in which technical inefficiency is modelled as a function of farm characteristics and sustainability-related determinants, using a balanced panel of 2,044 observations from the Italian Farm Accountancy Data Network for the period 2021–2023. The results reveal significant heterogeneity in technical efficiency. Participation in agri-environmental schemes is associated with higher efficiency, while organic certification, diversification, and on-farm processing are linked to higher inefficiency in the short run. Overall, the findings highlight the presence of short-term trade-offs and potential long-term complementarities between sustainability strategies and efficiency, with implications for agricultural policy and the transition of the Italian GI wine value chain.

(Just Accepted)

References

  1. S. Morandi, I. Zinno, Sustainable practices in the wine sector: firm perspectives and actions, Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 37(4) (2025) 640–676. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-01-2025-0005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-01-2025-0005
  2. B. Rugani, L. Lamastra, A common framework for sustainability indicators in the wine sector: Dream or reality?, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health. 31 (2023) 100408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2022.100408 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2022.100408
  3. European Union, Farm to Fork Strategy. For a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system, Brussels, 2020. https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en (accessed 27 January 2026)
  4. European Union, Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021, Off. J. Eur. Union L435 (2021). http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj (accessed 27 January 2026).
  5. European Commission, The European Green Deal, Brussels, 2019. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019DC0640 (accessed 27 January 2026)
  6. M. Guerra, F. Ferreira, A.A. Oliveira, T. Pinto, C.A. Teixeira, Drivers of environmental sustainability in the wine industry: A life cycle assessment approach, Sustainability 16(13) (2024) 5613. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135613 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135613
  7. OIV, OIV guidelines for sustainable viticulture adapted to table grapes and raisins: production, storage, drying, processing and packaging of products, 2011.
  8. V. Di Chiara, L. Cei, E. Pomarici, Is there any economic penalty for sustainability? A difference-in-differences analysis of Italian wineries, Sustainability 17(22) (2025) 10162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210162 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210162
  9. D. Cristallo, Geographical indications and biodiversity: An overview of regulatory challenges and critical perspectives, New Medit 3 (2025) 47–58. https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2503e DOI: https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2503e
  10. R. Nirosha, J.P. Mansingh, Mapping the sustainability of geographical indication products: A systematic literature review, Discov. Sustain. 6 (1) (2025) 549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01332-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01332-4
  11. R. Sardone, S. De Leo, D. Longhitano, R. Henke, The new CAP and the challenge of sustainability: A synthetic indicator for the Italian wine sector, Wine Econ. Policy. 12(1) (2023) 63–80. https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-13468 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-13468
  12. K.E. Gannon, D. Conway, M. Hardman, A. Nesbitt, S. Dorling, J. Borchert, Adaptation to climate change in the UK wine sector, Clim. Risk Manag. 42 (2023) 100572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2023.100572 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2023.100572
  13. C. Bernini, F. Galli, Economic and environmental efficiency, subsidies and spatio-temporal effects in agriculture, Ecol. Econ. 218 (2024) 108120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108120 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108120
  14. M.J. Farrell, The measurement of productive efficiency, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A. 120 (3) (1957) 253–290. https://doi.org/10.2307/2343100 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2343100
  15. R.U. Ayres, A.V. Kneese, Production, consumption & externalities, Am. Econ. Rev. 59 (1969) 282–296.
  16. H.E. Daly, Elements of environmental macroeconomics, in: R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability, Columbia University Press, New York, 1991, pp. 32–46.
  17. M.E. Porter, C. Van der Linde, Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate, Harv. Bus. Rev. 73(5) (1995) 120–134.
  18. M.E. Porter, M.R. Kramer, Creating shared value, Harv. Bus. Rev. (2011). https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value (accessed 26 January 2026).
  19. R. Gray, D. Collison, Can’t see the wood for the trees, can’t see the trees for the numbers? Accounting education, sustainability and the public interest, Crit. Perspect. Account. 13(5) (2002) 797–836. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2002.0554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2002.0554
  20. J. Elkington, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, Capstone, Oxford, 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106
  21. L. Hein, Economics and Ecosystems: Efficiency, Sustainability and Equity in Ecosystem Management, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849806770
  22. B. Glaser, Efficiency versus Sustainability in Dynamic Decision Making: Advances in Intertemporal Compromising, Springer, Berlin, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56100-9
  23. Y.H. Chung, R. Färe, S. Grosskopf, Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach, J. Environ. Manag. 51 (3) (1997) 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1997.0146 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1997.0146
  24. R. Färe, S. Grosskopf, C.A.K. Lovell, C. Pasurka, Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: A nonparametric approach, Rev. Econ. Stat. 71 (1) (1989) 90–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/1928055 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1928055
  25. M.T. Zaki, L.S. Rowles, J. Hallowell, K.D. Orner, A data-driven framework to inform sustainable management of animal manure in rural agricultural regions using emerging resource recovery technologies, Clean. Environ. Syst. 13 (2024) 100188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2024.100188 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2024.100188
  26. H.-P. Weikard, L. Hein, Efficient versus sustainable livestock grazing in the Sahel, J. Agric. Econ. 62 (1) (2011) 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00275.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00275.x
  27. A.A. Martins, A.R. Araújo, A. Graça, N.S. Caetano, T.M. Mata, Towards sustainable wine: Comparison of two Portuguese wines, J. Clean. Prod. 183 (2018) 662–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.057 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.057
  28. G. Arcese, M.C. Lucchetti, I. Massa, Modeling social life cycle assessment framework for the Italian wine sector, J. Clean. Prod. 140 (2017) 1027–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.137 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.137
  29. L. Aramyan, J. van Iwaarden, End-to-end performance measurement systems for agri-food supply chains, in: Frontiers in Agri-food Supply Chains: Frameworks and Case Studies, Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, 2024. https://doi.org/10.19103/AS.2023.0122.09 DOI: https://doi.org/10.19103/AS.2023.0122.09
  30. G.E. Battese, T.J. Coelli, A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data, Empir. Econ. 20(2) (1995) 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01205442 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01205442
  31. W. Huang, G. Manevska-Tasevska, H. Hansson, Does ecologization matter for technical efficiency in crop production? A case of Swedish agriculture, Land Use Policy. 138 (2024) 107068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107068 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107068
  32. E. Muñoz-Nuñez, O. Romero-Arenas, S.E.S. Gómez, R.R. Luna, R.M. Pérez, M. Huerta-Lara, Stochastic frontier model for the evaluation of the sustainability of urban gardens in Puebla, Mexico, Urban Sci. 9 (5) (2025) 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9050164 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9050164
  33. A.A. Sidhoum, K.H. Dakpo, L. Latruffe, Trade-offs between economic, environmental and social sustainability on farms using a latent class frontier efficiency model: Evidence for Spanish crop farms, PLoS One. 17 (1) (2022) e0261190. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261190
  34. C. Cardillo, A. Di Fonzo, C. Liberati, The farm’s orientation towards sustainability: An assessment using FADN data in Italy, Land 12 (2) (2023) 301. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020301 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020301
  35. M. Santos, X.A. Rodríguez, A. Marta-Costa, Productive efficiency of wine grape producers in the North of Portugal, Wine Econ. Pol. 10 (2) (2021) 3–14. https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-8977 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-8977
  36. D. Sarri, et al., Smart farming introduction in wine farms: A systematic review and a new proposal, Sustainability 12 (17) (2020) 7191. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177191 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177191
  37. D. Grazia, C. Mazzocchi, G. Ruggeri, S. Corsi, Grapes, wines, and changing times: A bibliometric analysis of climate change influence, Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. (2023) 9937930. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9937930 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9937930
  38. E. Annunziata, T. Pucci, M. Frey, L. Zanni, The role of organizational capabilities in attaining corporate sustainability practices and economic performance: Evidence from Italian wine industry, J. Clean. Prod. 171 (2018) 1300–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.035 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.035
  39. A. Urso, G. Timpanaro, F. Caracciolo, L. Cembalo, Efficiency analysis of Italian wine producers, Wine Econ. Pol. 7 (1) (2018) 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2017.11.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2017.11.003
  40. M.C. García-Cortijo, et al., Sustainability determinants in the Iberian wine industry, New Medit (2023) 3–22. https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2304a DOI: https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2304a
  41. E. Merloni, L. Camanzi, L. Mulazzani, G. Malorgio, Adaptive capacity to climate change in the wine industry: A Bayesian network approach, Wine Econ. Pol. 7(2) (2018) 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2018.11.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2018.11.002
  42. R. Henke, T. Pomponi, M. Vassallo, G. Mazzocchi, A. Monteleone, A. Sorrentino, The new CAP and the participative method in decision-making: A textual analysis of the Italian case, J. Common Mark. Stud. 63(6) (2025) 1822–1844. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13703 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13703
  43. E. Pomarici, R. Sardone, EU wine policy in the framework of the CAP: Post-2020 challenges, Agric. Econ. 8 (1) (2020) 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00159-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00159-z
  44. R. Mura, F. Vicentini, L.M. Botti, M.V. Chiriacò, Achieving the circular economy through environmental policies: Packaging strategies for more sustainable business models in the wine industry, Bus. Strategy Environ. 33 (2) (2024) 1497–1514. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3556 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3556
  45. V. Chkareuli, G. Darguashvili, D. Atstaja, R. Susniene, Assessing the financial viability and sustainability of circular business models in the wine industry: A comparative analysis to traditional linear business model—Case of Georgia, Sustainability 16(7) (2024) 2877. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072877 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072877
  46. G.P. Agnusdei, P.P. Miglietta, A.M. Pacifico, G. Malorgio, Rurality as a driver of tourist demand in the Salento area: A systemic approach, Rural Soc. 33(2) (2024) 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2024.2371190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2024.2371190
  47. E. Pomarici, A. Corsi, S. Mazzarino, R. Sardone, The Italian wine sector: Evolution, structure, competitiveness and future challenges of an enduring leader, Ital. Econ. J. 7(2) (2021) 259–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-021-00144-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-021-00144-5
  48. B. García-Cornejo, J.A. Pérez-Méndez, D. Roibás, A. Wall, Efficiency and sustainability in farm diversification initiatives in Northern Spain, Sustainability 12 (10) (2020) 3983. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12103983 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12103983
  49. A. Amatucci, V. Ventura, D. Frisio, Performance and efficiency of national innovation systems: Lessons from the wine industry, Wine Econ. Pol. 13 (1) (2024). https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-14637 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-14637
  50. G. Gastaldello, M. Bošnjak, I. Schäufele-Elbers, G. Schamel, Are consumers willing to pay more for sustainable wine? A pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis, Food Qual. Prefer. 134 (2025) 105655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105655 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105655
  51. C. Santini, A. Cavicchi, L. Casini, Sustainability in the wine industry: Key questions and research trends, Agric. Econ. 1 (1) (2013) 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-7532-1-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-7532-1-9

Most read articles by the same author(s)