Corporate social responsibility has long been an issue for research and practice. More recently, in response to growing public scrutiny, it has also gained importance in the agribusiness sector. Research has highlighted a growing gap between public perceptions of farming and food production processes and the realities of modern agriculture and the food industry. This can threaten the reputation and legitimacy of companies operating in this sector. One proactive means for companies to meet societal expectations is to make an active (...) commitment to society and its needs by implementing a CSR policy. However, there is still no clear definition of CSR, and what important stakeholders actually expect from companies remains largely unknown. This paper focuses on consumers’ perception of CSR. Its objective is to explore a CSR policy design for German agribusiness based on Archie B. Carroll’s famous pyramid model. A consumer survey was conducted to evaluate the CSR demands society places on agribusiness companies. An explorative factor analysis was employed to discover the outline of the construct in the German agribusiness context. The results reveal that Carroll’s model, which was developed from a U.S. point of view, cannot be confirmed for German agribusiness. Instead of Carroll’s four responsibility groups, three areas of responsibility were identified: economic, internal and external. These results have manifold implications for CSR strategies in agribusiness firms and represent an important origin for future investigations on CSR in other countries as well as in specific agribusiness subsectors. (shrink)

Concepts for sustainable bioeconomy systems are gradually replacing the ones on linear product chains. The reason is that continuously expanding linear chain activities are considered to contribute to climate change, reduced biodiversity, over-exploitation of resources, food insecurity, and the double burden of disease. Are sustainable bioeconomy systems a guarantee for a healthy planet? If yes, why, when, and how? In literature, different sustainability indicators have been presented to shed light on this complicated question. Due to high degrees of complexity and (...) interactions of actors in bioeconomy systems, trade-offs and non-linear outcomes became apparent. This fueled the debates about the normative dimensions of the bioeconomy. In particular, the behavior of actors and the utilization of products do not seem to be harmonized according to the environmental, social, and economic pillars of sustainability. Potential conflicts require a new conceptual framework that is here introduced. It consists of a ‘sustainability’ cylinder captured between an inner-cylinder, representing order, and an outer-cylinder for chaos, based on the laws of physics and complex adaptive systems. Such a framework permits (bioeconomy) systems to propagate in the sustainability zone only if they follow helical pathways serving as the new norms. Helices are a combination of two sinusoidal patterns. The first represents here the sustainable behavior of interacting actors and the second the balanced usage of resources and products. The latter counteracts current growth discourses. The applicability of the conceptual cylinder framework is positively verified via 9 cases in Europe, which encompass social-organizational and product-technological innovations. –. (shrink)