By multiplying the change in the real GDP of each scenario in Table 6 with the 2017 real GDP of 10,248 billion THB, the values of the change in the real GDP of scenarios S1–S3 of approximately 9, 9, and 12 billion THB, respectively, were derived. Accordingly, the values of conventional real GDP that could be used for Green GDP calculation (following Equation (1)) of scenarios S1–S3 were 10,257, 10,257, and 10,260 billion THB, respectively.

Table 7 shows the sectoral impacts of simulation scenarios in terms of percent change from BAU. The results demonstrated that biofuel promotion could reduce the production capability of several industries such as petroleum and natural gas, textile, rubber and plastic, iron and steel, engine, and electrical machinery and parts as shown in their lower output and employment in all biofuel promoting scenarios. The reason is to serve higher productions of biofuels. Simultaneously, labor mobility occured between these sectors to palm oil production, tapioca milling, and sugar milling.

**Table 7.** Sectoral impacts of biofuel crop expansion (% change from BAU).

Note: The impact on employment depends on the elasticity of substitution between production factors (Table A2 of Appendix A).

The expansion of biofuel crops led to a positive change in the production of all agricultural subsectors except for rice cultivation in scenarios S1 and S2. The enhancement of household income due to biofuel promoting policies drives the demand for agricultural products higher. Thus, the production of livestock, fishery, and other agricultural products increase. Based on scenario S1, the expansion of biofuel crops had a negative impact on the production capacity of rice cultivation and milling when the agricultural land was constant. A small negative effect on the production capacity of rice cultivation and rice milling was still found in scenario S2, where approximately 3270 ha of forest was transformed to agricultural land. More land would be required for agriculture to eliminate the negative change in output and employment in scenario S2. Utilizing abandoned rice fields (scenario S3) for agriculture could enhance the economic production of all agricultural subsectors, especially rice cultivation. Nevertheless, it brought about higher adverse impacts on the production capability and employment of iron and steel production and electrical machinery and parts industries than in scenarios S1 and S2. The reason is because workers of these sectors move to palm oil production, tapioca milling, and sugar milling to serve the increased productions of biofuels.

These obtained results are in accordance with those reported in previous publications using CGE models for examining the economy-wide impacts of biofuel policies in the case of Thailand [9,10]. Specifically, this study's simulation outcomes similarly showed that the expansion of biofuels could induce substitution effects on sectoral productions, leading to the manufacturing contraction of petroleum and natural gas. On the other hand, all participants in the biofuel supply chain (e.g., tapioca, sugarcane, and oil palm plantations) could benefit from this structural shift. Likewise, the macroeconomic indicators obtained from this study's simulations align with those shown in Phomsoda et al. [9] and Phomsoda et al. [10], indicating the same range of variation in real GDP and the essential role of productivity improvement on inflation (i.e., the percentage change of CPI).

#### *3.2. Environmental Impacts*

The change in environmental impacts (compared with the BAU) from the CGE model are exhibited in Table 8. The increase in global warming was highest in scenario S3, as greater the economic activity (real GDP in Table 6 and production output in Table 7), greater the consumption of energy and chemical fertilizers. The values of change in global warming outside the blanket in Table 8 was calculated only on the basis of the amount of GHG emissions from energy consumption and chemical fertilizer use. They were not combined with GHG emissions from land transformation. After combining with GHG emissions from land transformation, the increasing rate of global warming in scenarios S2 and S3 compared with the BAU changed to 0.241 percent and 0.004 percent, respectively, as shown in the parentheses. The high increasing rate of global warming in scenario S2 was contributed by GHG emissions from forest land clearing and the loss of carbon stock in biomass and soil (aboveground and belowground carbon stocks). By contrast, the low increasing rate of global warming in S3 was due to a small amount of GHG emissions from the abandoned land clearing and a slight loss of biomass carbon stocks. In addition, transforming the abandoned rice field to the agricultural land helped increase soil organic carbon (belowground carbon stock). Therefore, the reduction in GHG from increasing soil organic carbon was greater than the GHG emissions from land clearing and biomass carbon stock loss under the land transformation in scenario S3.

**Table 8.** Environmental impacts due to biofuel crop expansion (% change from BAU).

Notes: Global warming of the BAU is 254 million tonnes CO2 eq. (the amount of CO2 emissions from energy use in 2015 was used as it is the most updated amount) [27]; the BAU values in 2017 for other environmental impacts are as follows: forest area = 16.35 million ha [23], irrigation water use = 14,676 million m3 (i.e., the sum of the numbers in the column [c] of Table 3), coal and lignite consumption = 13,850 ktoe [37], and petroleum and natural gas consumption = 85,370 ktoe [37].

The effect of land transformation on ecosystem health was considered in the impact category of land transformation. In this case, only the transformation of forest to agricultural land was considered to have an effect on ecosystems. Therefore, only the transformation of forest to agricultural land was considered in Table 8, and thus, a 0.02 percent increase in land transformation was presented under scenario S2. Water depletion showed the volume of irrigation water demand in each scenario. More irrigation water was required in all scenarios, especially in scenario S3, implying that more biofuel crop cultivation could lead to increased demand for water and that the volume of water required is positively correlated to the area of agricultural land. As the dimension of agricultural area in scenario S3 was larger than that in the other scenarios after accounting for land transformation, scenario S3 required more water than scenarios S1 and S2. As for fossil depletion, a reduction in petroleum and natural gas use could be observed, while the consumption of coal and lignite was higher in all scenarios. The consumption of petroleum and natural gas was reduced as a result of the substitution of conventional fuels, i.e., gasoline and diesel, by biofuels. However, the increase in the production of electricity and chemical products led to more consumption of coal and lignite. Such increase in the production of electricity and chemical products was driven by more economic activities (as shown in Tables 6 and 7).

The value of environmental impacts after adjusting for the change in Table 8 could be obtained from combining the BAU of the impacts with the product of the BAU and the percent change of environmental impacts in Table 8. The obtained values were expressed in Table A4 of Appendix A. Then, the impacts in Table A4 were transformed into endpoint damages by using the characterization factors in Table 4. The endpoint damages of each scenario are shown in Table A5 of Appendix A.

#### *3.3. Environmental Costs*

The environmental costs are presented in Table 9. The costs were obtained by multiplying the environmental impacts in Table A5 with the monetary conversion factors in Table 5. In Table 9, the total environmental cost of each scenario was computed on the basis of Equation (2). The total environmental cost of scenario S2 was the highest among all scenarios due to the effects of forest transformation that induces CO2 emissions higher and causes a loss of biodiversity on land. This finding also showed that converting a small piece of forest land (in this case, approximately 3300 ha) could lead to more environmental impacts than the transformation of large abandoned land (in this case, 164,800 ha). The lowest total environmental cost of BAU scenario implied that biofuel crop expansion could bring about adverse environmental impacts. However, the impacts could be alleviated by utilizing abandoned rice fields as the total environmental cost of scenario S3 was lower than that of the other biofuel crop expansion scenarios (scenarios S1 and S2).

**Table 9.** Environmental costs incurred by biofuel crop expansion.

#### *3.4. Green GDP*

The total environmental cost of each scenario in Table 9 was subtracted from its conventional GDP following Equation (1) to derive the Green GDP of each scenario. The Green GDP of each scenario is illustrated in Table 10. The highest Green GDP of all scenarios could be found in scenario S3, where biofuel crops were expanded along with the utilization of abandoned rice fields. Despite having higher environmental cost than the BAU, the Green GDP of all biofuel expansion scenarios were still higher than that of the BAU scenario. The increase in conventional GDP of all biofuel expansion scenarios could compensate for their higher environmental cost compared with the BAU scenario. Thus, considering Green GDP as an index for sustainable economic growth, biofuel crop expansion could be a policy leading towards sustainable development. However, as the Green GDP in scenario S2 was smaller than those of scenarios S1 and S3, expanding biofuel crops with forest transformation was considered to be less desirable. Policymakers should issue a law to prevent the transformation of forest to agricultural land, especially in remote areas.

**Table 10.** Conventional GDP, Green GDP, and GDP and environmental cost of the country.

The GDP per unit of environmental cost in all scenarios showed that the value of economic production accounted for 29–30 times of the value of environmental damage. Furthermore, the GDP per unit of environmental cost was found to be the greatest in the BAU scenario, followed by scenarios S3, S1, and S2. As the GDP per unit of environmental cost implies how much value of economic production is contributed by one unit of environmental cost, an occurrence of environmental damage (derived from resource depletion and environmental degradation) in the BAU scenario was the most worthwhile. Therefore, where the efficiency of resource use and environmental degradation is considered, scenario S3, whose Green GDP is highest, may not be the best option. The policy under scenario S3 could maximize net social welfare, but it was not the most efficient scenario in terms of resource use and environmental degradation. Reduction in resource use, especially for water, and GHG emissions should be considered to achieve efficiency and welfare maximization. As biofuel crops expansion brings about larger water consumption and more GHG emissions (as a result of the enhancement of economic production), production technologies that can increase the productivity of sugarcane and oil palm cultivation and decrease GHG emissions should be applied. For example, green-cane cutting and mechanization should be utilized for sugarcane harvesting instead of burnt-cane cutting. Following Silalertruksa et al. [38] and Pongpat et al. [39], green-cane cutting and mechanization could provide more productivity for sugarcane cultivation than burnt-cane cutting while they generate less GHG emissions. Moreover, more serious regulations on industrial pollution control may help reduce GHG emissions.

Considering the pros and cons, as the efficiency of resource use and environmental degradation could be improved, the decision on biofuel crop expansion should be initially made based on economic welfare (in this case, Green GDP). Then, the policy to achieve increased efficiency can be improved. Therefore, this study showed that biofuel crop expansion could help enhance national economic welfare, and the most viable option for biofuel crop expansion is utilizing abandoned rice fields for agriculture. However, along with this policy, an improvement of production technologies and environmental mitigation measures to encourage more efficiency should be implemented.

#### **4. Conclusions**

In this study, the effects of biofuel crop expansion on Green GDP, the conventional GDP that is adjusted for environmental cost, were estimated. Three scenarios related to biofuel crop expansion policies were set to provide some policy implications towards sustainable biofuel development in Thailand. CGE modeling was used to estimate Green GDP of each scenario. Calculations based on LCIA were conducted, along with monetary conversion factors, to convert them into monetary units (environmental cost) to incorporate the environmental impacts (environmental degradation and resource depletion caused by GHG emissions, water resource use, land use, and fossil consumption) into the estimation. The results of the study could be concluded as follows:

The results of this study can support policymakers in making decisions on biofuel crop expansion. The provided information on environmental impacts can serve as a guideline for resource management and planning as well as environmental impact mitigating policies. The method to derive the effect of policy to Green GDP presented in this study is novel and can also be used for assessing the annual Green GDP of a country. Moreover, it can be

applied to estimate the sustainability of public policies for which Green GDP is taken as an indicator.

For future policy formulations, the use of a dynamic CGE model would be preferable, especially for examining the dynamic adjustment and the long-term impact. Additionally, in this study, the rental rates of a few land use types were assumed. The actual rental rate of those land use types, if available, can instead be applied in future research.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, P.H. and S.H.G.; data curation, P.H. and T.B.; formal analysis, P.H. and T.B.; funding acquisition, P.H.; investigation, P.H. and T.B.; methodology, P.H., T.B., N.P. and S.H.G.; project administration, P.H. and S.H.G.; resource, P.H. and S.H.G.; software, T.B. and N.P.; supervision, P.H. and S.H.G.; validation, T.B., N.P. and S.H.G.; visualization, P.H. and T.B.; writing—original draft preparation, P.H.; writing—review and editing, N.P. and S.H.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) and King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT). The article processing charge was supported by Thammasat University.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** This study was jointly carried out under the project "Network for Research and Innovation for Trade and Production of Sustainable Food and Bioenergy" supported by NSTDA and the post-doctoral fellowship program of KMUTT.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

#### **Abbreviations**

#### **Appendix A**

**Table A1.** List of sectors and commodities in CGE model.

Note: [a] is based on NESDC [19].

**Table A2.** Parameters of elasticity of substitution.

Notes: Values in [a] were calculated following OECD/ILO [20]; values in [b] were determined based on the assumption that the elasticity of substitution between capital and land of agricultural subsectors are lower than that of other sectors because the agricultural subsectors are land intensive and the substitution of capital for land is rigid; the elasticity of substitution between capital and land of sector 3 (tapioca cultivation) is assumed to be higher than that of other agricultural subsectors, allowing more flexibility for the substitution of capital for land. Thus, this sector requires a lower marginal land for producing marginal output; for other types of elasticity, the standard elasticity parameters in Decaluwé et al. [17] were employed; the elasticity of transformation of sector *j* was set to 2.0; the elasticity of transformation between exports and domestic sales of product *i* of sector *j* was set to 2.0; the elasticity of substitution between imported and domestically produced commodity of product *i* was set to 2.0.

**Table A3.** Values of the parameters in Equations (8)−(10).

Notes: All values were derived based on the method of calculation introduced in Silalertruksa and Gheewala [32] and information from JGSEE [40] and IPCC [41].

**Table A5.** Endpoint damages to the safeguard subjects, human health, ecosystem, and resources in each scenario.

#### **References**

## *Article* **Sustainability-Focused Excellence: A Novel Model Integrating the Water–Energy–Food Nexus for Agro-Industrial Companies**

**Fernando Caixeta 1,2,\* , André M. Carvalho 3 , Pedro Saraiva 4,5 and Fausto Freire 6**

**Abstract:** The water–energy–food (WEF) nexus approach is gaining attention due to the challenge of better managing natural elements. Agro-industrial companies, given their environmental impacts, need to take sustainability into proper account. However, this sector lacks the novel tools needed to integrate current methodologies with additional quality frameworks, such as business excellence models (BEMs). Therefore, the present research aims to propose a sustainability-focused excellence model by integrating the principles and objectives of the WEF nexus with existing BEM and proposing its application to agro-industrial companies. For that purpose, a new conceptual model to integrate sustainability and excellence was built. The proposed novel model can become a decision-support tool in helping agro-industrial companies transition toward improved sustainability while managing existing tradeoffs and synergies.

**Keywords:** Water-Energy-Food nexus; excellence models; agro-industrial companies; decisionsupport tool

#### **1. Introduction**

Sustainability actions are urgent in the face of the quick depletion of natural resources that are essential for humankind. There is a lack of adequate access to water, energy, and food resources for a substantial percentage of the global population: Despite efforts within the past 15 years, 800 million people are still considered food insecure, an equal number has no access to safe drinking water, and 1.2 billion people lack access to electricity [1]. In the face of this reality, new practices are needed transversally, and all industrial sectors benefit from focusing on impacts on environmental, social, and economic results. Many industries and sectors recognize the importance of better managing the aforementioned natural resources [2–4]. Nevertheless, the agro-industrial sector deserves to be highlighted, as it requires a huge contribution of those natural resources [5,6] and has high pollution emissions rates [7].

Given that, the good practices of natural resource management should be stimulated to overcome unsustainable practices in the agro-industrial area. In this sense, quality management (QM) could be used since it presents a framework that organizations are already familiar with and has proved to be valuable when adapted to new technologies [8]. Among them, one particular scope is business excellence models (BEMs), a framework that oversees all activities and tasks needed to maintain the desired level of performance in an organization and relate it to its external environment [9]. Given that, this approach provides the methods (tools, processes, metrics, and indicators) to do so [10]. Accordingly, and in

**Citation:** Caixeta, F.; Carvalho, A.M.; Saraiva, P.; Freire, F. Sustainability-Focused Excellence: A Novel Model Integrating the Water–Energy–Food Nexus for Agro-Industrial Companies. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 9678. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su14159678

Academic Editor: Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar

Received: 22 February 2022 Accepted: 2 August 2022 Published: 5 August 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

principle, BEMs offer a useful toolset to also oversee the pursuit of organization-wide sustainability [8,11].

In this context, one important sustainability management concept used nowadays is the so-called water–energy–food (WEF) nexus. It means that the aforementioned elements are intrinsically managed together, and one action in one direction can affect both of the others [12,13]. As a result, these three issues should be considered in an integrated manner because they are connected, and their utilization may expose important tradeoffs [14]. Identifying and evaluating tradeoffs and synergies is essential for integrating other perspectives. Nevertheless, there is no clear framework to measure and assess the quality of processes and operations related to the deployment of the principles behind the WEF nexus [15]. The incorporation of the WEF nexus into an enterprise-level model is essential for integrating sustainability into efficient planning, development, and monitoring, but also for policymaking in key WEF-productive sectors of the economy [15,16].

In order to close this gap, our work highlights the use of BEMs as a possible solution for the integration of productivity and sustainability in such industries. BEMs best express the summary of different efforts and frameworks to promote the mentality of quality and continuous improvement in an organization, doing so by highlighting strategic opportunities and industry best practices [8,17]. Therefore, the objective of this work is to propose a sustainability-focused business excellence model, integrating the WEF nexus with BEM, exploring a bridge between sustainability and performance excellence, and allowing for a more complete management perspective to be made by agro-industrial companies operating according to WEF nexus principles.

#### **2. Literature Review**

#### *2.1. Water, Food, and Energy Systems and the WEF Nexus*

Concerns about water, food, and energy systems are rapidly growing due to differing regional availabilities and their impact on the interdependences amongst themselves [15,18]. WEF elements are essential for human life, sustainable development, and social equality [19]. In this sense, ensuring their security is a crucial activity concerning every individual worldwide.

Given that, the need for the integrated analysis of natural elements is not a novelty in the scientific literature. In this sense, some authors affirmed that WEF elements should be evaluated in an integrated manner. This concept is considered the first attempt at this new approach [20–23]. However, the WEF nexus concept was only launched in 2011, when it was incorporated into an international discussion on sustainable development by the Stockholm Environment Institute [12] and the World Economic Forum [13]. According to Hoff [12], the WEF nexus implies that water availability, energy production/consumption, and food security are inextricably linked. Consequently, actions in any one area have impacts on the others [19]. In addition, the World Economic Forum [13] affirms that focusing on the joint promotion of food security, in addition to water and energy accessibility, is the meaning of nexus thinking. These interlinkages, and the criticality of the scarcity of any of the three resources and its impact on the others, emphasize the need to manage them jointly and more efficiently [24].

Such a nexus approach can support the transition to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—Agenda 2030 [25]. In this sense, scientific literature has plenty of studies linking WEF nexus implementation with the SDGs, performing better in regional sustainability [26], for legal challenges [27], and for rural communities [28], among other uses. Furthermore, this addition should reduce environmental impacts and generate additional benefits that outweigh the integration across sectors, enhancing, for instance, circular economy implementation [29]. Such gains should appeal to national interest and encourage governments, private sectors, and civil society to engage [30]. In practical terms, this approach can represent the action required in bioeconomy to implement real solutions in sustainability actions [31].

Many scientific articles have tried to express some practical examples of how to implement this methodology. Saladini et al. [26] selected 12 indicators to monitor the Mediterranean area called the Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area, based on the Sustainable Development Goals, which can be directly related to boosting sustainable business innovation [32]. Hussien et al. [33] assessed the impact of WEF elements using a risk-based method. Bijl et al. [34] showed differences in physical trade production, distance, and volume using indicators. Karan et al. [35] created indices based on the UN-Habitat's City Prosperity Index that specifically integrate the nexus-relevant indices into a weighted equity index. El-Gafy [36] proposed six indicators in order to quantify the nexus as a strategic tool applied to crop production. AbdelHady et al. [37] proposed three output indicators, agriculture, aquaculture, and net energy production, to assess the value of different ecosystem health conditions under three water management scenarios.

Additionally, managing water, energy, and food without efficient and synergistic actions may increase the risk of shortages. Consequently, one opportunity to improve the sustainable use of these sources is investigating the integration of the water–energy–food nexus with quality and business excellence initiatives.

#### *2.2. Quality, Excellence, and Sustainability*

Given the mentioned scientific gap in integrating the WEF nexus with the principles of quality and excellence, the use of BEMs has been considered. This decision is based on the understanding that these frameworks offer a clear opportunity for the development of a quality and continuous improvement mindset that can be aligned with needs and the best sustainability practices [8,38,39]. Regarding the agro-industrial sector, they are aligned with a major impact [40], and their actions can be responsible for proper natural resource management [41]. In this sense, excellence initiatives center on meeting stakeholders' needs and expectations, widening previous scopes of quality-oriented initiatives [42] and focusing on creating sustainable value for all "interested" parties. They have been used by organizations worldwide to improve their performance and achieve improved business results.

Excellence models are most widely used by organizations for self-assessment and improvement, including targeting sustainability [39], with companies opting to adapt and customize them in search of competitive advantages [17]. They promote a longitudinal management philosophy, highlighting a set of principles that orient managers' and associates' behaviors in the long-term, fostering continuous improvement [43]. BEMs focus on offering insights for organizations to manage processes, tools, or techniques, both old or new, with the goal of building value from new opportunities and achieving superior organizational results [44].

However, and regardless of their extensive use, there is still limited integration of the topic of environmental sustainability in excellence frameworks, in this particular case tackling the use of the WEF nexus approach. Despite other scientific authors cited in this research showing a growing pressure for the development of new models, the truth is that economic, social, and environmental sustainability are still often left outside of the scope of some major excellence models [45], although this situation is also changing. Thus, research on business and operational excellence does not usually include a clear focus on environmental sustainability.

Accordingly, there is a clear aim for promoting specific models for the deployment of sustainability-focused excellence in different industrial sectors. In the specific scope of this work—focusing on water, energy, and food as critical issues and looking specifically at the agro-industrial sector—this model proposes to integrate excellence and sustainability because of the WEF nexus.

Thus, in summary, the contributions of the present article are:

• Exploring possibilities and criteria for the use and selection of BEMs concerning WEF nexus elements.

#### **3. Research Methods**

In the face of the interdisciplinary challenge to build a sustainability-focused excellence model, this article adopted the conceptual analysis methodology described by Jabareen [46]. This approach was extensively applied in the scientific literature, providing a comprehensive understanding of the researched phenomenon [47–51]. To this end, the criteria relationship interactions were highlighted throughout the following adapted steps: Selection and description of business excellence (BE) models (reading and categorizing of data); highlighting of the criteria used to evaluate them (identifying concepts); integration of the previous items, performed based on similarities that were found (deconstructivity, categorizing, synthesizing, and integrating concepts); and constructing a new conceptual model to integrate sustainability and excellence (presenting and validating the final framework) [46]. For that purpose, the researched keywords included synonyms dealing with combinations of the terms "water–energy–food nexus" or "water energy food nexus" ("WEF nexus"; "FEW nexus"), "WEF nexus analysis" ("WEF nexus", "WEF nexus model", "WEF nexus tools", "WEF nexus approaches"), "Agroindustrial WEF nexus", and "Agrifood industries WEF nexus", resulting in a database with 241 articles (with duplicates).

Therefore, we begin by describing and selecting the major BEMs, justifying their selection and relevance to provide context and reliability to the research process, as mentioned by Silverman [52], and Yin [53]. We also looked into criteria that may be used to evaluate the aforementioned BEMs. Finally, based on the former results, the integrated models were built and presented considering their applications in the agro-industrial area. For that purpose, indicators were grouped by using the similarity analysis method to form indices [54]. In the end, similar criteria were disposed into a conceptual model. A detailed explanation will be provided assessing sustainability standards that can be applied to WEF nexus approaches targeting agro-industrial production companies [55]. Additionally, we will highlight the differences between the proposed model and the existing ones found in the scientific literature.

#### **4. Sustainability-Focused Model Development**

#### *4.1. Benchmarked Excellence Models*

Our development of a sustainability-oriented excellence model followed the logic of aligning the different needs and concerns related to sustainability (in particular, those in the agro-industrial sector and pertaining to the WEF nexus) with the different enablers of excellence. Four different BEMs were considered for this purpose. The selection of these BEMs was based on their use, reach, and proximity to areas where agro-industrial companies have important production or sales volume. Additionally, the scientific literature connects them with sustainability [8,56–58].

Accordingly, the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence model was selected due to its widespread adoption by European companies, as well as for its results in improving organizational performance [44]. Similarly, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) excellence model was selected due to the fact that it is the most used in the USA and its proven advantages in promoting productivity in a large number of companies [59].

The Brazilian National Quality Award Model (BNQA) not only represents one of the largest and most important economies for the agro-industrial sector in the world but has also proven to be helpful in improving companies' performances by identifying their strengths and driving their improvement actions [60]. Likewise, the ZED Model—Zero Defect, Zero Effect scheme—from India [61] was selected. Not only is it promoted by the government, but it is also focused on the specific reality of micro, small, and medium enterprises in one of the most populated and largest economies of the world.

To better understand the contributions of each of the selected BEMs, further details are provided next.

#### 4.1.1. EFQM—European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model

The European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence model has been widely adopted in Europe and elsewhere. Efforts have been made to highlight the connection between the EFQM model and its impact from a management perspective [62]. Later in this article, we will focus on the importance of integration in the implementation of the EFQM model. Evidence shows that the more integrated this model is, the more effective and innovative it can be. However, we still lack mechanisms to achieve this integration [63]. One of the main impacts that is expected to demonstrate an innovation path for the purposes of its implementation.

There are eight fundamental enablers of excellence considered by the EFQM Model, which are the following: (1) achieving balanced results; (2) adding value for customers; (3) leading with vision, (4) inspiration and integrity; (5) managing by processes; (6) succeeding through people; (7) nurturing creativity and innovation; (8) building partnerships; and (9) taking responsibility for a sustainable future [44].

#### 4.1.2. ZED—Zero Defect, Zero Effect scheme (Indian Program for MSMEs)

The "Zero Defect, Zero Effect" program was launched in 2014, as the Council of India established that companies should strive to manufacture their products with both zero defects and with zero effects on the environment. In this sense, a plan contemplating 50 parameters was designed to help micro, small, and medium enterprises pursue these objectives [61].

Its implementation includes process assessment and certification considering the corresponding maturity levels achieved. For that purpose, it includes a maturity model designed for different organizational areas. Among its specific parameters, the following can be found [61]: (1) manufacturing capabilities; (2) design capabilities; (3) quality/environment/safety assurance systems; (4) people development and engagement systems for quality and environment; (5) learning and improvement Systems; and (6) legal compliances (hygiene factors).

#### 4.1.3. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) Excellence Model

The MBNQA and its associated excellence model were launched in 1987 in the United States of America. It is aimed at increasing the productivity of national and international companies through the implementation of quality criteria. Indeed, many companies have improved their quality performance after applying the MBNQA [64]. A significant difference in terms of quality performance is evident when comparing organizations using the excellence model and winning the MBNQA with those that do not [65].

Therefore, the excellence model of the MBNQA is built on the following set of interrelated enablers: (1) visionary leadership; (2) customer-driven excellence; (3) organizational and personal learning; (4) valuing workforce members and partners; (5) agility; (6) focus on the future; (7) managing for innovation; (8) managing by the fact; (9) societal responsibility; (10) focus on results and creating value; and (11) a systems perspective [59].

#### 4.1.4. Brazilian National Quality Award (BNQA)

Similar to its worldwide counterparts, the Brazilian National Quality Award is aimed at enhancing the national quality performance of industrial companies [66]. It was launched by the Brazilian National Quality Foundation (FNQ) around 1992. For the present research, we considered the following enablers of the BNQA criteria: (1) leadership; (2) strategies and plans; (3) clients; (4) society; (5) information and knowledge; (6) people; (7) processes; and, finally, (8) results [60].

#### *4.2. Sustainability-Focused Model Presentation and Discussion*

To build a sustainability-focused excellence model, several evaluation-related items have been considered. Thus, isolated efforts are no longer effective given the complexity of such an interdisciplinary research effort. In this sense, quality management systems have proved to provide a multiscale and holistic view, ranging from product production to societal challenges defined on a global level [67]. Based on this perspective, and on the previous excellence model principles explicated in Table 1, the following dimensions were considered: drivers, agents, process, and outcomes. Based on the previous discussion, our sustainability-focused model targeting agro-industrial companies is proposed based on the WEF nexus approach, as illustrated in Figure 1.

**Table 1.** Enablers used by the EFQM [44], ZED [61], MBNQA [59], and BNQA [60] models with their similar correspondents on the proposed sustainability-focused model.

Source: Own elaboration.

**Figure 1.** A novel model for sustainability-focused excellence based on the WEF nexus approach for agro-industrial companies. Source: Own elaboration.

A comprehensive description of these dimensions is presented in the following topics, and the similarities between the models can be seen in Table 1.

For the fulfillment of the proposed objective, this article presents this overall conceptual model at the level of its main dimensions and criteria, but in future publications, additional details about its indicators and guidelines on how it can be used will be provided.

#### 4.2.1. DRIVERS

Drivers guide the actions of organizations. They are the reason behind the need to change and encourage companies to transition to a more sustainable perspective. Based on the reality of the agro-industrial sector, the present research proposes a discussion that includes the following constituents: (1) legislation; (2) requirements; (3) operational drivers; (4) environmental, social, and governance drivers; (5) optimization; and (6) financial drivers.

#### Legislation

When it comes to environmental protection, legislation is required in order to control and limit the use and exploration of resources. In this sense, governments and national institutions play a significant role in the stimulation of better operational practices. In fact, legislation has been responsible for a positive impact on organizations regarding sustainability changes, innovation processes, and even safety and consumer protection [68]. From another perspective, inefficient legislation can cause damage to sustainable operations, for instance, when low policy measures permit non-circularity actions [69]. In this sense, many initiatives must be proposed to overcome these problems.

The previous concepts are consonant with what the WEF nexus approach targets when it calls attention to the need to reduce inequalities in natural resource uses and generate additional cost–benefit outputs. To illustrate this item, previous examples of legislative drivers being considered in excellence models can be found in the ZED model under the "*Legal Compliance*" criterion.

#### Requirements

In an agro-industrial activity, requirements rely on many factors, such as finality, food specificity, and consumer needs, among others. In this sense, for inclusion in our model, requirements are considered from two perspectives: manufacturing vision and customer behavior. Regarding the selected BE models, the following were chosen to represent this

perspective: manufacturing capabilities from the ZED program, *managing by the fact*, and *society* from the MBNQA excellence model

The first consideration is directly connected to the production site, and the second one is related to the customer relationship management department. Therefore, considering the aim of the present research, those actions relate to the WEF nexus approach. When specifying the connection between quality and the management of requirements, quality management systems (QMS) and the ISO 9001 standard can be useful. ISO 9001 is a valuable tool to determine, validate, and implement the quality policy, which includes the management of information and knowledge, thus supporting the management and development of production capabilities [70].

Regarding customer behavior, it is important to highlight that this may require a transformation in the organization's policy. In this sense, companies need to be concerned with multiple issues, not only from the environmental perspective but also economic and social ones [71]. Thus, as mentioned before, this article aims to fulfill the knowledge gap to transform the WEF nexus approach—generally used for macroanalysis—into a micro-evaluation for, in this specific case, agro-industrial companies.

#### Operational Drivers

Operational performance is also important when reflected in the company's competitiveness [72]. It can be measured by many indicators, such as cost and quality, among others. This research highlights operational drivers as a result of the following excellence criteria: *managing by process* from the EFQM model and *process* from the BNQA model. Therefore, a major focus on processing activity is highlighted, as well as concerning the overall quality that will be delivered to the consumers.

We look at operational performance in this model from the point of view of external processes and operations related to supply chain management (SCM). SCM deals with all the processes, including how to go from raw material acquisition all the way to packaging disposal after consumer usage [73]. In this sense, throughout the various food processing stages, SCM-controlling tools become critical. Therefore, water, energy, and food should be included in the mentioned tools but, as stated in this research, in an integrated way. On this subject, it is important to innovate and find new indicators that can quantify the relationship between these elements [12].

#### Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)

Over the last few decades, environmental, social, and governance aspects have received increasing interest from a company perspective. Elements such as consumer behavior, policy, and emerging technologies are driving these concerns worldwide. In this scope, and in our proposition, this reflects a novel sustainability-focused excellence model; many ESG perspectives must be considered. To that end, the following excellence criteria are emphasized: *taking responsibility* for a sustainable future from the EFQM excellence model; *quality*/*environment*/*safety assurance*, *people development*, and *engagement systems* for quality and environment from the ZED program; *focus on the future* and *societal responsibility* from the MBNQA excellence model; and *society* from the BNQA model.

Most excellence models already have a perspective that considers environmental, social, and governance concerns. This is a consequence of the increasing interest in corporate social responsibility [74]. Agro-industrial companies are increasingly exposed to social responsibility concerns, as their operations contribute to natural resource depletion and face huge challenges to avoid and reduce waste [75]. This exposure is reinforced by changes in consumer behavior, with growing expectations for companies to adopt alternatives with less environmental damage, as well as to create the possibility for social inclusion along the production chain [76].

In the scope of the agro-industrial sector, the role of the environmental, social, and governance concerns promoted in driving the transition to a greener and more sustainable state can be easily connected to the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), whose use presents great potential. The SDGs adopted by the United Nations, and propelled by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solution Network [25], offer a suitable framework for concerns about ESGs.

It is strongly recommended that agro-industrial companies relate all of this evidence to daily production, building, for instance, indicators that are consolidated and included in their quality management systems.

#### Optimization

The scientific literature has a wide variety of articles tackling optimization in the agro-industrial chain. They concern important challenges, such as aiming to monitor food production [77] or the development of new products [78,79]. Nevertheless, optimization efforts are mostly concerned with a productivity perspective. In this sense, implementing integrated quality systems helps to better standardize the operational activities, with recognized positive effects on financial gains and product quality [80,81].

In our sustainability-focused excellence model, the inclusion of the optimization perspective follows criteria from the ZED program—learning and improvement systems and the MBNQA excellence model—agility.

#### Financial Drivers

Financial performance is, obviously, a driver beyond any agro-industrial company. For that reason, in the present research, the inclusion of financial drivers is supported by the following criteria: *Achieving balanced results* from the EFQM model; *focus on results and creating value* and the *systems perspective* from the MBNQA excellence model; and, finally, *results* from the BNQA model. Under this scope, for the present research, two concepts will be highlighted: the production chain cost analysis and the green finance perspective.

Financial analysis is a well-known challenge in the agro-industrial production chain due to the need for a proper definition of the cost method, investments, and other economic indicators [82]. In this sense, the WEF nexus approach aims to quantify the relationship among natural elements, and one of those numbers can be expressed using cost analysis [83]. Thus, this point is a driver of sustainable change because it can stimulate more agro-industrial companies to make their own investments, considering the mentioned costs. Consequently, this action needs to be considered in the definition of a company's subsequent steps, guiding the best ecofriendly decision and balancing it with financial imperatives.

#### 4.2.2. AGENTS

Agents are change promoters that significantly impact the transition to sustainability. In the scope of this work, they are the stakeholders of agro-industrial companies. Agents will be divided here into the following categories: leaders, the workforce, and partners.

#### Leaders

Undoubtedly, sustainability driving change is a challenge typically faced by leaders, especially targeting social aspects [84]. Hence, they are responsible for promoting good conditions from which the whole organization can advance. In the present research, support for the attention given to leaders is based on the criteria *leading with vision, inspiration, and integrity* from the EFQM excellence model; *visionary leadership* from the MBNQA excellence model; and *leadership* from the model of the BNQA.

Organizations rely on the responsibility and impact that the leader's vision has on the transition path. For the proposed model, this research highlights the importance of leadership in two different perspectives: climate governance leadership and leadership under the quality management systems approach.

According to Carvalho et al. [85], leaders need to make decisions based on climate governance. This means that the sustainability implications of each decision should be considered. To that end, leaders need to use diverse information and knowledge to decide what is best in the context of transitioning to sustainability. Recent studies on the WEF nexus indicate that internal policies should include, among other issues, how to deal with wastage in the production chain, as well as guidance to implement a circular economy perspective in agro-industrial companies [86].

#### Workforce

As in the previous agent, the workforce is also an important driver to change behavior. Efforts should be made to include more productivity by enhancing people's knowledge. For that purpose, in the present research, this topic will be represented by the following concerns: *succeeding through People* (EFQM excellence model); *people development* and *engagement systems for quality and environment* (ZED program); *valuing workforce members and partners* (MBNQA excellence model); and *people* (BNQA). In practice, the proposed model will focus on evaluating the promotion of increased workforce skills, tools, and capabilities that can support the pursuit of both increased productivity and sustainability. According to Ingram [87], these skills, tools, and capabilities are aimed at improving workforce knowledge of the food processing chain's impact on topics such as food security and safety, sustainability, and health. WEF nexus approaches should be presented from a comprehensive and educational perspective. Workforce knowledge proved to be beneficial, with evidence that it impacts the collaborators' environmental mindset, as well as consumer behavior [88]. In this sense, continued training constitutes a critical action to help agro-industrial companies become more sustainable.

#### Partners

Building partnerships is required to control the agro-industrial production chain. One of the main reasons for that is the need for traceability, which is essential to ensure final product quality. Thus, it needs to be constructed with records from all processes, including origin and production processes, but also from product characteristics such as temperature, size, and color, among others. These can have a positive impact on standards audits, and, finally, they can also potentially avoid sanitary barriers [89]. According to Tomich et al. [90], partnerships are more effective when they have multiple stakeholders. In the case of the agro-industrial sector, this means that the production chain should be built upon partnerships. Specific to the present research, in order to lead to a successful implementation, all food transformation paths should be aware of the WEF nexus approach information. Quality control should become the responsibility of every actor, and all partners can become agents of sustainable change by using audits, requirements, and other requests in agro-industrial companies.

The inclusion of partners in this model is inspired by the EFQM excellence criterion *building partnerships* and the MBNQA excellence criterion *valuing workforce members and partners*.

#### PROCESS

In the context of sustainable excellence, continuous improvement should be a highlighted aim of any process. Agro-industrial companies should look for process improvements that can be translated into more agility, fewer costs, and, finally, more sustainability. Under this scope, the process improvement presented is based on three main objectives in the present research: learning, innovation, and valorization.

#### Learning

Organizational learning is required to transform the process, both in terms of productivity and sustainability. It can be defined as the recognition that society changes and that organizations should change accordingly [91]. It can also lead to more sustainable practices. The development of learning process classes is critical. In the case of the proposed model, continuous organizational learning regarding both the WEF nexus and quality and excellence are required. According to Moore et al. [92] learning those issues can

avoid biased decisions, and pieces of evidence indicate that the results positively impact organizational improvement.

The focus on organizational learning is helpful for the following uses: *Design capabilities* in the ZED program and *organizational and personal learning* in the MBNQA model.

#### Innovation

Innovation has a strong link to excellent performance and can also support the pursuit of greener, more sustainable solutions. According to Kafetzopoulos and Gotzamani [93] enablers from some excellence models are intrinsically linked to innovation. In this sense, it is essential to provide conditions to develop such activities. In the specific case of agro-industrial companies, all actors are expected to be able to contribute to innovation, regardless of their jobs. For that purpose, it is important to highlight that there is a huge challenge in transforming the WEF nexus perspective into a feasible methodology that can be used by a company since this concept has mainly been applied at the macro level, for instance, to cities, regions, and countries, among other similar analyses [94]. Therefore, to address this concern, it is strongly recommended that the companies should include in their innovative actions the three nexus elements combined together.

In this present research, the innovation issue mainly has to do with joining the following criteria: *nurturing creativity and innovation* (from the excellence model of the EFQM); *managing for innovation* (MBNQA excellence model); and *strategies and plans* (from the model of the BNQA).

#### Valorization

Increasing the valorization of resources, as a social aspect, is a growing concern for organizations. Customers are willing to pay for differentiation in some products and then valorize them. In the specific case of agro-industrial companies, sustainability valorization is highlighted [95]. Changing customer behavior is responsible for several companies promoting a transition to greener products. Likewise, the perception that the quality of a product depends on how it is produced is changing.

In the present research, this topic is supported by covering the following topics: *adding value for customers* (EFQM excellence model); *customer-driven excellence* (MBNQA); and *clients* (BNQA).

#### 4.2.3. OUTCOMES

In the context of sustainable excellence, continuous improvement should be highlighted as a major aim for any process. In particular, agro-industrial companies should look for process improvements that can be translated into more agility, fewer costs, and, finally, more sustainability. In this scope, process improvement in our present research can be related to the following main objectives: quality assurance diagnosis and sustainability recommendations.

#### Quality Assurance Diagnosis

One of the outcomes that is expected from the proposed model is a quality assurance diagnosis (QAD). In practical terms, companies using the model should be able to describe actual conformities and nonconformities according to an evaluation made according to an integrated vision analysis. As stated by Thrän et al. [96], environmentally integrated analysis can positively impact final products. In this case, the result will be translated into a more cost-competitive final product. Therefore, the mentioned QAD can be used as a control tool to establish indicators that should be followed. In the specific case of agro-industrial companies, it should help in the identification of impacts that deal directly with WEF nexus elements.

Sustainability Recommendations

Based on the previous QAD, recommendations should guide an action plan regarding the definition and implementation of proper corrective actions. According to Sharma et al. [73] an action plan is one of the required tools to implement sustainable performance in agro-industrial companies. The mentioned action plan should capture the experienced model results and transform the suggestions into practical terms.

Additionally, those recommendations should reflect the WEF nexus concept, which is to manage the elements in a joint manner. Likewise, those actions should enhance efforts to overcome the tradeoff in order to take the concept from a macro-perspective to a microperspective applied, in this case, to agro-industrial companies. These recommendations are expected to result in actions such as increases in productivity, decreases in costs, and, most critically, greener, more effective, and more sustainable production.

#### *4.3. How Agro-Industrial Companies and WEF Nexus Aspects Can Be Targeted in the Proposed Model*

The agro-industrial sector plays a significant role in feeding mankind in relation to the WEF nexus approach. However, this sector is very energy intensive, with important negative environmental impacts. In this sense, for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, alternative energy sources (solar and wind energy for instance) and water resources (sustainable water production) should be employed [97].

Additionally, water pollution owing to agro-industrial activities is a crucial problem to human beings and the ecosystem [98]. Approximately 85% of global water consumption is used for irrigation, and the demand is still increasing [99]. In order to avoid wastage, adequate water treatment and reuse through non-pollutant methodologies are suggested [100].

The food scenario is no different. One out of nine people in the world go hungry every day according to the "State of Food Insecurity" section in the World Report [101]. Annually, one-third of food produced for human consumption is wasted in the food production chain [102]. Thus, it is a major challenge for all agro-industrial chains to produce food while avoiding food wastage.

Therefore, to implement the WEF nexus in the agro-industrial sector, these aspects should be evaluated during the model's implementation. It means, that during its implementation, these aspects should be evaluated in each of the following aspects: drivers, agents, processes, and outcomes. In this sense, problems such as the implementation of renewable energy sources [29], the treatment of water sources [103], and actions to avoid food wastage [104] should be ranked in an evaluation model. Regarding the particular aspects of this sector, it is good to integrate with quality global standards such as the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) [105], ISO 22.000 [106], and good manufacturing practices [107], among others.

#### **5. Model Verification and Validation**

To verify and validate the model, the proposed results were validated by experts. Thus, based on the citation of Carvalho et al. [108], the presented model was discussed by researchers and agro-industrial producers from Portugal, the United States of America, Italy, Brazil, and Kenya. Following that, to clarify possible uncertainties, this article highlights how to use the proposed model and a benchmark study on the diversity of evaluation models.

#### *5.1. How to Use the Proposed Sustainability-Focused Model*

Integrated management approaches have proved that organizations can become more effective, more efficient, more responsive, and enjoy better performance outcomes [109]. In this scope, the integration of productivity and sustainability also manages the perceived tradeoff that is felt by organizations regarding the need to have a superior level of business performance and the need to promote social, economic, and environmental sustainability [110]. Additionally, the proposed model has synergies spawning from this integration, and it shows that a proper balance is essential to achieve the mentioned goals. Thus, the practical deployment of this integrative vision's model represents a well-structured approach, promoting two main visions: a framework promoting performance assessment and improvement while also ensuring an increased focus on the sustainability demanded by multiple stakeholders.

To practically apply the proposed model, it is important to highlight its constituents and interdependencies. Beginning with the drivers, these elements should be discussed after the evaluation with respect to the reasons that connections between the WEF elements are not occurring. After that, based on the previous results, agents must show how committed they are to leading these organizational changes. Following this path, the process must be evaluated from a sustainability perspective; in this sense, it could bring some ideas on how to promote innovation in agro-industrial companies by solving problems with the underscored evaluation. Finally, summarizing all the insights, the outcomes should bring, firstly, a diagnosis of the real situation; after that, it should find suggestions on how to perform better, with indications for an action plan (ideally with changing actions, employee responsibility, and dates to implement these suggestions). Accordingly, it is possible to see the interdependence between the elements completing the proposed analysis made by this model.

Following the previous discussion, with respect to many quality management models (ISO standards, Food Safety System Certification (FSSC), and national legislations, among others), the presented novel model can be integrated within the sequence of the Plan, Do, Check, and Act (PDCA) cycle program. The first part is represented by the driver and agent dimensions so that every analyzed item should be included in the planning stage. The application part of the program—relative to the "do part"—focuses on the process. In this case, every issue discussed before should be implemented. The check components will be credited to the quality assurance diagnosis from the outcome, highlighting the non-conformities that should be targeted. Finally, the Act part should try to overcome the previous diagnosis, thus finishing the quality cycle and restarting the evaluation. Therefore, the proposed model should be responsible for the sustainability transition that was discussed in this article. An illustrated overview can be seen in Figure 2.

#### *5.2. Benchmarking with other Evaluation Models*

The scientific literature covers plenty of articles relying on the connection between quality management systems and sustainability concerns [111–117]. Additionally, according to Zink [113], the concept of quality management implicitly brings a sustainability

perspective, especially when considering total quality management principles. In this sense, some studies rely on the efficiency of indicators, expressing items relative to these concerns [112,115]. However, a major novelty in our proposed sustainability-focused model is the fact that it aims to unite the WEF nexus approach with quality management systems models, specifically BE models. Thus, BE models can be integrated with an increasing variety of other subsystems implemented according to other standards and subsystems raised from specific standards designed for specific activity sectors [70,118]. Finally, it is important to consider that, in 2020, the EFQM model adopted a new version that reinforces sustainability indicators [92], although it is not customized to agro-industrial companies, as is the case of our suggested model.

Following the previous discussion, agro-industrial companies have been implementing many greener actions, not just because of environmental concerns, but also because of the benefits deriving from sustainable initiatives [119–123]. In this case, it is important to highlight that the mentioned actions are independent of company size and are trying to overcome situations such as the provision of natural resources [119]. Thus, demands for WEF nexus resources, in this sector, are increasing rapidly [124]. In this context, it is a major challenge for the overall agro-industrial chain to produce food while avoiding the excessive use of energy and water and preventing food waste. For that purpose, Table 2 lists five articles that involve WEF nexus approaches for agro-industrial companies, highlighting their objectives and evaluation methods, as well as the major differences and advantages connected with our suggested conceptual model.

**Reference Objective Evaluation Method Sustainability-Focused Excellence (SFE) Model** [124] This article aims to mitigate climate change in the agri-food sector. Construction of a method to evaluate the WEF nexus and energy use through the agri-food production chain. SFE model aims to build a model based on BE model approaches and, additionally, focuses on a specific company, not in a sector. [125] Analyzes the WEF nexus approach in rice production on a watershed scale. Material flow analysis using a Sankey diagram. SFE model applies QMS approaches and is focused on process operational phases. [126] Improving water governance in a farm operation in South Africa. Use of the WEF nexus approach integrated to financial indicators, enhancing the farm's profitability. SFE model uses the WEF nexus approach for food supply chain transformation, not only in the farm component. Additionally, the impact can be viewed in three aspects, not just with respect to water concerns. [127] Improving the offer of WEF resources in beef cattle production. Model development based on the WEF nexus that focuses on water reuse, greener energy resources, and improving food production. SFE model focuses on a food transformation process and is based on the QMS models, specifically benchmarked with BE models. [128] Improving biorefinery processes according to the WEF nexus approach. Integration between the WEF nexus approach and sustainable biorefinery processes. SFE model focuses on agro-industrial processes, also dealing with productivity indicators using BE models as benchmarks.

**Table 2.** Articles discussing the implementation of the WEF nexus approach in the agro-industrial production chain, highlighting their objectives and evaluation methods, as well as their main contributions to our sustainability-focused excellence model.

Source: Own elaboration.

Table 2 shows the important contribution of the sustainability-focused excellence (SFE) model to the present discussion. Thus, existent WEF nexus models focus on a macroperspective, and, in this case, we propose to focus on a microanalysis, namely, with respect to agro-industrial companies. The contents of Table 2 underscore that the use of BE models should bring other evident novelties to the system. We believe that the use of this model

will be an important tool for leaders, academics, decisionmakers, and lawmakers, as well as for guiding new policies.

#### **6. Conclusions and Future Work**

This article presents a sustainability-focused excellence model by integrating the principles and objectives of the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus with existing excellence models and proposing its application for agro-industrial companies. The development of this model was based on the conceptual links between productivity and sustainability and the need to transition from one perspective together with the other. Accordingly, the novel model is presented with a focus on change, being constituted by the following dimensions (and respective evaluation criteria): drivers (legislation, requirements, operational drivers, ESG drivers, optimization, and financial drivers); agents (leaders, workforce, and partners); process (learning, innovation, and valorization); and outcome (quality assurance diagnosis, and recommendations).

We believe that this novel model can become a decision-support tool to help agroindustrial companies make the transition toward improved sustainability while managing existing tradeoffs and synergies. From this perspective, the sustainability-excellence model can be used in a dynamic and integrated way with the WEF nexus.

In terms of limitations and future research work, it is important to note that this model has not yet been tested in practice, an essential step toward complete validation. However, our aim with this publication is to perform a broader validation. Model validation can be performed in several ways. Although practical validation is often used, the theoretical validation of models through publication is notably prevalent as a first step in the validation process, with reviewers' inputs and insights serving as a basis for improvement and scientific validation. Some authors, such as Maqsood Ahmad Sandhu and Ahm Shamsuzzoha [129], and Carvalho et. al. [108], have published their conceptual models before advancing to empirical validation. Accordingly, our aim is to use this publication to make the model available to the scientific community, which should be considered the first step in this validation process, gaining broader acceptance from academics and practitioners before advancing the model's applicability validation in practice. Furthermore, during this time, the model can serve as a basis for the development of other models in this context of action.

As such, once the evaluation criteria and methods are defined, the next step will be to consider additional model validation with actual agro-industrial company case studies. From this perspective, the use of companies in different countries is desired since every country has different legislation and may provide different perspectives.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, F.C., A.M.C. and P.S.; writing—original draft preparation, F.C., A.M.C. and P.S.; writing—review and editing, F.C., A.M.C., P.S. and F.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development—CNPq, Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations, and Communications, Brazil— 201490/2018-8.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** We acknowledge the Energy for Sustainability Initiative from the University of Coimbra for academic support.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

### *Article* **Searching for Novel Sustainability Initiatives in Amazonia**

**Gabriel Medina 1,\*, Cassio Pereira 2, Joice Ferreira 3, Erika Berenguer 4 and Jos Barlow 5**

**Abstract:** Amazonia is facing growing environmental pressures and deep social injustices that prompt questions about how sustainable development may emerge. This study sought novel sustainability initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon based on interviews conducted with diverse practitioners in 2021 using a horizon-scanning approach and snowball sampling for selecting interviewees, who then described the initiative most familiar to them. The interviews resulted in 50 described initiatives and 101 similar initiatives that were listed but not described. The results reveal the emergence of a range of sustainability initiatives, which we classify into seven types of new seeds of change ranging from eco-business opportunities, territorial protection by grassroots movements, and novel coalitions promoting sustainability. However, most of these new seeds are still being established and have a limited or uncertain potential for replication, and most offer only incremental rather than transformative development. Therefore, although these initiatives provide weak yet real signals for alternative futures, they also suggest that much more needs to be done to support the needed transformation toward sustainable and equitable development.

**Keywords:** sustainable development; innovative solutions; bioeconomy; new business; horizon scanning

#### **1. Introduction**

The question of what constitutes "sustainable development" in Amazonia is of planetary significance, yet it remains uncertain and contested. This is because fostering sustainable development has often focused on balancing the often-competing interests of industrial agriculture and infrastructure expansion with the needs and rights of forest peoples and the conservation of forests and other Amazonian ecosystems. The present challenge could not be greater, as a period of reduced deforestation (2005–2012) has been reversed, with a return to the rapid advance of the agricultural frontier and growing pressures on forest peoples in the Brazilian Amazon [1], with increased rates of deforestation [2], conflicts with local communities, and inequality and poverty [3]. These social and environmental processes are set within a political context where the consolidation of a strong lobby in favor of large-scale agricultural operations [4] has weakened environmental governance [5,6].

Despite the alarming recent trends, many of these social and environmental problems have been occurring in the Amazon for decades. Nonetheless, some of the potential strategies for ameliorating these threats are well-known. The Amazon has been a laboratory of development initiatives for over 50 years [7], and the many established approaches used to address long-standing social and environmental issues include the demarcation of indigenous territories and extractive reserves as a means of protecting forest communities and maintaining traditional, relatively sustainable uses of forest resources [8–10]; market-based initiatives such as the soy moratorium for preventing agribusiness-related deforestation [11–13]; sustainable development projects based on payments for environmental services (PES), community forestry, etc. [14–16]; and government-promoted environmental

**Citation:** Medina, G.; Pereira, C.; Ferreira, J.; Berenguer, E.; Barlow, J. Searching for Novel Sustainability Initiatives in Amazonia. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 10299. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su141610299

Academic Editors: Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar, Md Ariful Haque and Sarif Patwary

Received: 23 June 2022 Accepted: 15 August 2022 Published: 18 August 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

law-enforcement and development initiatives such as public procurements from family farmers [2]. The successes and failures of many of these approaches are well-known [15], and recent syntheses suggest that many of them will continue to play a prominent role in the coming decades [17].

While established initiatives are increasingly well documented [7], there are two reasons why novel initiatives, distinct from the established set, may be emerging. First, recent societal changes and environmental challenges in the Amazon may have created a fertile space for innovation, driven by rapid changes in social conditions, technologies, and awareness of climate crises in recent years [17,18]. Second, the breadth of approaches to sustainability itself have broadened, with recent evaluations including climate and advocacy coalitions [19,20], forest restoration [21], public–private partnerships [22], and the bioeconomy [23]. Given this context, it is imperative to evaluate whether a new generation of sustainable development initiatives is emerging, as these could potentially be some of the seeds of change promoting promising future scenarios [24].

We addressed this challenge by conducting a cross-sectoral search for recently implemented initiatives broadly (and some contentiously) relevant to sustainable development in the Brazilian Amazon, with the aim of revealing a practitioner's perspective of whether there are new seeds of change. Hence, our focus is on seeds that have been put into practice, rather than just being ideas, and forms a first step in scanning for novel initiatives that could be signals of a more sustainable future for Amazonia. Specifically, this study investigates: (1) What are the emerging sustainability initiatives identified by development practitioners, who is promoting them, and what are their main novel characteristics? and (2) What are the key features of these new initiatives in terms of their level of maturity, potential for scaling up, complementarity with existing initiatives, and transformative capacity? We use these results to discuss how these novel initiatives may complement—or clash with—moreestablished development initiatives, and we outline the capacities of our identified seeds to either transform Amazonia through radical change or maintain the status quo, seeking a sustainable future within the existing social, political, and economic structures.

#### **2. Theoretical Framework**

The seeds concept can help us to understand the different components of a better future that people want and to recognize the processes that may foster the emergence and growth of solutions that fundamentally change human–environment relationships. Bennett et al. (2016) define these seeds as existing initiatives (social, technological, economic, or social–ecological ways of thinking or doing) that represent a diversity of worldviews, values, and regions but are not currently dominant or prominent in the world [24].

Our premise is that scanning for next-generation seeds is insightful because it can provide signals for pathways towards a more sustainable future, even if those signals are currently weak [25]. Identifying seeds of change can be a valuable first step in the decision-making process by creating a comprehensive and transparent basis for subsequent assessments of evidence and effectiveness and contextualised considerations for the practical implementation of different development options [26]. Sustainable development broadly relates to combining concerns for environmental and socioeconomic issues, but there are diverse understandings of what sustainable development looks like in practice. These differences are rooted in contrasting attitudes towards change and means of change, which vary across particular areas of thought [27]. Hopwood et al.'s seminal paper proposed that pluralistic understandings of sustainable development become clearer when 'mapping' initiatives along two axes: a gradient of environmental concern (from virtually none to eco-centred) and a gradient of concern for human well-being and equality.

Concern for well-being and equality among sustainable development initiatives in Amazonia is, we expect, highly variable. Hopwood's first grouping is the status quo, the view that sustainable development can be achieved within present structures. This approach emphasizes top-down management and incremental change through existing decision-making structures and hence would conceive that sustainable development in

Amazonia does not require changes in the distribution of political power, economic resources, or land. Such incremental initiatives, even if not addressing (or attempting) transformations, may still have a positive role by engaging with more downstream points of intervention [28]. To reiterate, transformative development is associated with a change in paradigm that is preceded by significant shifts in the locus of authority over policy and experimentation with new forms of development [29].

Transformative initiatives can benefit from 'leverage points' in complex systems, where relatively small changes can lead to potentially transformative systemic changes that transform the system's rules, values, and paradigms [30]. In this sense, any transformative seeds of change are a source of social innovations that rely on alternative views of nature and social relations [31]. Scholars emphasize the role of civil society in ways in which it can 'unsettle established practices and challenge the state' or how a political culture favourable to sustainability might be nurtured [32]. Speaking to the notion that seeds require nourishment, promising social and technical innovations with the potential to change unsustainable trajectories need to be nurtured and connected to broad institutional resources and responses [33]. Transformations also imply the need to create 'change agents' who can help accelerate change even in difficult circumstances [34]. Transformational change is defined as 'shifts in power relations, discursive practices, and incentive structures that lead away from unsustainable and unjust exploitation' [35].

Following this theoretical framework, we defined an initiative as the project, practice or process mentioned by the interviewed expert and seeds as categories used by the research team to group similar initiatives. New seeds were defined as emerging initiatives that exist and that represent a diversity of worldviews, values, and regions but are not currently dominant or prominent in the world [24]. Finally, we defined 'seeds of transformational change' as initiatives that are associated with a change in the development paradigm [29].

#### **3. Materials and Methods**

We used a solution-scanning (or horizon-scanning) approach to make a first evaluation of the new initiatives. Solution scanning involves listing all the known options for addressing a particular problem [36], and it is the first stage of the subject-wide synthesis of evidence [25]. While a complete review of the evidence base for all available initiatives would be preferable, the scale and duration of such reviews are often impractical [26], especially where the solutions are not yet fully developed [37]. Such complete reviews are impractical for something new, as there is, almost by definition, scant or no literature on 'new seeds'.

For scanning the new initiatives in the Amazon, we used a classical snowballing approach as a means for selecting new initiatives. Specifically, interviewees were asked to describe the initiative they were more familiar with and also to mention other cases and experts who could be further contacted by the research team. Every interviewed person was asked to list the new initiatives they had heard about and then describe the one he/she knew best. The research team followed the received suggestions until the moment when new mentioned initiatives (or seeds that were equivalent to them) were already described in our database.

We used two complementary approaches for selecting practitioners and initiatives: (1) a list of key experts, in which we began with people we had personal contact with and asked about contact of other people they knew, and (2) a list of initiatives, in which we also began with people connected to the initiatives we knew and followed the received suggestions. This study is based on 52 interviews with diverse experts including forest peoples, rural smallholders, and their representatives (such as farmers' unions); NGO managers; government agents; and scholars. Interviews were conducted between July and December 2021, resulting in 50 initiatives fully described and 101 different initiatives listed but not described. All but two respondents described one initiative he/she considered to be novel.

A definition of new initiatives was provided upfront to the interviewees, who then listed the initiatives that they considered to fall under these criteria. Interviewees then selected one case to be described in detail. New initiatives were defined as novel ongoing efforts towards sustainable development that were different from long-standing initiatives. We invited the interviewees to use their own definition/understanding of sustainable development.

All interviews were conducted with adults (>18 years) from across a range of sectors and geographic sub-regions in Brazilian Amazonia (Table 1). The sampling bias towards adult male respondents who work for NGOs and are based outside the Amazon or in the states of Pará and Amazonas was an outcome of the snowball approach adopted. To protect the identity of the interviewees, we de-identified participants by creating different alphanumerical codes for each initiative and respondent. Given that the COVID-19 pandemic severely restricted travel and opportunities for in-person contact in Amazonia, interviews were conducted remotely using unrecorded video calls on computers.

**Table 1.** Profile of the 50 interviewed sustainable development practitioners who described the initiatives reported in this study.

In order to characterize the initiatives, the research team followed an interview protocol structured around four main topics: (1) the initiative's main features and then the authors' evaluations of an initiative's (2) relative power/capacity to address existing threats (i.e., varying degrees of environmental and social concerns as identified by the institution(s) leading the initiative); (3) realistic opportunities for complementing other sustainable development solutions (i.e., those not identified as novel seeds and instead likely to be dominant or prominent for attempts to resolve particular social or environmental problems); and (4) potential for scaling up in terms of area covered and people potentially benefiting from it. Key features of the initiatives included who is promoting the initiative, its aim, and what made it novel from the interviewee's perspective (i.e., unconventional and innovative rather than replicating existing ideas in Amazonia in a new location). The initiative's opportunities for complementing existing solutions was assessed based on its area of influence and whether it spatially overlaps with protected areas, rural settlements, etc. Finally, each initiative's potential for scaling up was assessed with questions regarding its launch date and its growth since then (i.e., assuming that past growth is a reliable indicator of future growth potential). For each topic, a group of questions was asked following a standardized research protocol.

We grouped these initiatives after the interviews into categories based on the problems initiatives are setting out to solve, the solutions they are attempting to achieve, and the main sector involved. Single-sector grouping proved infeasible since some sectors such as NGOS are involved in so many of these activities. Since some initiatives would fit in different seeds, we acknowledge other forms of categorization. Given the specificities of the initiatives, some categories were given subcategories.

#### **4. Results**

#### *4.1. The New Initiatives*

This section presents the new initiatives identified by interviewees as well as their main promoters and claimed novelties. Figure 1 presents the spatial distribution of the described initiatives based on the location of the headquarters of their main institutional promoter.

**Figure 1.** Locations of the described new sustainable development initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon.

4.1.1. What Kinds of New Initiatives Did the Interviewees Identify?

The interviews resulted in 50 described and 101 similar initiatives that were listed but not described. The start dates of these initiatives were from 2007 to 2021, with 44% starting just three years before the interviews, and 88% were within the last six years. The identified new initiatives were summarized into seven groups:

#### 4.1.2. Which Institutions Were Promoting the New Initiatives?

The described new initiatives were promoted by different place-based stakeholders such as governments (n = 10); NGOs (n = 21); rural communities, individuals, and social movements (n = 10); and private companies (n = 9). Some of the initiatives' costs were covered with people's own out-of-pocket money (n = 12), but a considerable number of them relied on external support (n = 38).

Key external sponsors include international cooperative organisations (n = 16) such as USAID and the Norwegian NORAD; private companies (n = 11) such as the banks Bradesco, Itaú, and Santander, and the cosmetics company Natura; Brazilian state and federal governments (n = 5) such as the states of Amazonas and Pará and the Ministry of Agriculture, or other sources (n = 6).

#### 4.1.3. What Did the Interviewees Claim as Novelty?

We used our groupings to examine novelty based on the assessments of the interviewees. Based on the initiatives' main perceived innovations (Figure 2), we summarized seven types of novelty presented in the described initiatives:

Second, our interviews revealed an emergence of the influencer/activist on social media, especially by indigenous women.

**Figure 2.** An overview of the new sustainable development initiatives identified in the Brazilian Amazon.

Note 1: Even though some initiatives would fit different solutions, we mentioned each initiative only once in a specific category.

Note 2: Similar mentioned but not described initiatives are (101 in total): **(1) Ecobusiness opportunities (22 initiatives):** 1.1 Bioeconomy business-incubators: Sitawi; Amazônia UP; Ecocentro; Rainforest Social Business School; Certi Amazônia. 1.2 Processing of highvalue products for niche markets: Cacau orgânico—CEPOTX; Guaraná—Sateré-Mawé; Mahá Biocosméticos; Chocolates De Mendes; Mel—Peabiru; Amazônia 4.0; Café Apui; AmazonMel; Projeto Castanha da RESEX do Rio Unini; Inatú Amazônia. 1.3 Innovative marketing hubs: Flor de Jambu; Jirau da Amazônia; Polo BioAmazonas; Observatório da Castanha da Amazônia (OCA); Amazônia 100%; Design & Madeira Sustentável; Manioca. **(2) Environmental and social accountability in agribusiness supply chains (13 initiatives):** 2.1 Transparency: Soja na Linha; Conecta; Plataforma Nice planet—SMGeo; Plataforma da JBS—rastreabilidade do gado; Sirflor (Pará)—regularização de propriedades; Plataforma de adequação ambiental do Imac (MT); Fornecedores Indiretos na Pecuária (Amigos da Terra); PrevisIA; Trase; Lucida. 2.2 Field practices: Pecuária Verde; JBS Net Zero; Pecuariando. **(3) Private investment in sustainable development (12 initiatives):** 3.1 Environmental/business conditions: Programa Prioritário de Bioeconomia; Waimiri Atroari e Parakanã—Eletronorte; Borracha—Michelin. 3.2 Funds and investments: Centro de Orquestração de Inovações (COI)—WTT; The Good Food Institute; KPTL—Fundo de Floresta e Clima; Emerge Amazônia; Impact Hub; Fundo para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável e a Bioeconomia da Amazônia; Althelia biodiversity fund; Mov investimentos; Parcerias corporativas—Café Suruí com contrato com a Três Corações. **(4) Territorial protection by grassroots movements (18 initiatives):** 4.1 Territorial protection: Campanha Não Abra Mão da Sua Terra; Protocolos de consulta sobre Asfaltamento da BR 319; Levante popular; Observatório de Segurança e Soberania Alimentar; Terra sem Males (RO). 4.2 Development: Fundo Dema; ACOSPER/UNICAFES; Projeto CAR Participativo/STTR Santarém; Programa Jurisdicional de REDD+; Finapop—MST; Flores do Campo (Grupo de mulheres de Mojuí dos Campos); Grupo de Jovens do CNS; Casa Familiar Rual de Boa Vista dos Ramos; Associações de mulheres em defesa da agricultura familiar do Rio Canaticu (Marajó); Banco Comunitário do Rio Canaticu (Moeda Social Yaça); Canindé (RO)—mobilização indígena; Comitê Chico Mendes; Surara—Coletivo de mulheres indígenas do Tapajós. **(5) Subnational government initiatives (7 initiatives):** 5.1 Socioeconomic development; Fundo de Apoio a Cacauicultura do Estado do Pará—FUNCACAU; GTI Saúde Indígena. 5.2 Technological development: Instituto Mamirauá; Rações alternativas para piscicultura—IFAM; Manejo florestal—IFT junto à Verde para Sempre; 5.3 Environmental protection: Força Tarefa Amazônia—MPF; Amazônia Protege—MPF. **(6) Coalitions that promote rights and environment (5 initiatives):** 6.1 International: The Lowering Emissions by Accelerating

Forest finance (LEAF) Coalition. 6.2 National: Consórcio de Governadores da Amazônia Legal; Amazônia 2030; Grupo Carta de Belém; Fórum Nacional Permanente em Defesa da Amazônia. **(7) Civil society activism (24 initiatives):** 7.1 Digital activism: Portal Proteja;Rede de Podcasts do Xingu; SOS Amazônia; Engajamento de influenciadores—Alok; Uma gota no oceano; Motosserra de Ouro para Arthur Lira; Floresta sem cortes; Negritar— Coletivo de audiovisual; Coletivo Jovem de Meio Ambiente Pará; 342 Amazônia; Amazônia Alerta; 7.2 Forest restoration and payments for environmental services: Aliança para Restauração da Amazônia; Projeto Bacia do Rio Putumayo-Içá; Acelerador de Agroflorestas e Restauração. 7.3 Alliances for governance: Rede Maniva de Agroecologia; Coletivo do Pirarucu; Legado Integrado da Região Amazônica—LIRA; Projeto Paisagens Sustentáveis da Amazônia. 7.4 Other: Ciência Cidadã para Amazônia; App Castanhadora; Brigada de Incêndio; Instituto Mapinguari (AP); AmIT—Amazon Institute of Technology.

#### *4.2. Features of the New Initiatives*

The new initiatives varied in terms of their level of maturity, possibility of complementing existing solutions, potential for scaling up and for transformation. Considering the initiatives' *maturity level*, out of the 50 described, 25 initiatives were reported by the interviewees as still embryonic, 21 as mature, and 4 as ended. Embryonic initiatives still in process of being implemented have not yet had the chance to address existing environmental and/or social challenges and cannot yet be considered viable or long-lasting.

Considering their capacity to *complement* existing development initiatives, 44 initiatives were deemed as building on and complementing existing environmental conservation efforts, while 6 did not include conservation measures and focused only on socioeconomic development, in the sense of concern for improving well-being but not necessarily reducing social inequities. Out of the 44 initiatives we considered to be complementary, 23 were complementary to various environmental conservation efforts, while 21 complemented specific sustainable development initiatives such as the protection of indigenous territories. Out of the 50 described initiatives, 43 claimed to support socioeconomic development by promoting better farming practices (with the perceived 'improvement' reflecting the logic of a particular initiative), sources of income, or organizational skills, while 7 did not include support for socioeconomic development and focused only on conservation. To a large extent, the identified initiatives complemented previous efforts and helped their maintenance/consolidation, such as by supporting the preservation of indigenous lands and conservation units and the development of rural settlements.

Regarding their potential to *replicate and scale up*, 28 initiatives were reported as having a replication potential limited to specific contexts, while 22 were deemed to be replicable across the whole of Amazonia. Lower-cost initiatives based on local efforts showed greater potential for replication in practice. However, initiatives such as accelerators (with greater investments) can also be promoted through public policies.

Regarding the initiative's *transformative capacity* as a whole (i.e., our analysis of whether an initiative sought radical change or instead, reform or incremental change and maintenance of the status quo), the interviewed practitioners considered that 17 presented small contributions (incremental tweaks), 29 would deliver significant contributions but without structural change (reformist adaptations), and 4 promoted structural change (radical transformations). Despite this variation, all were considered by interviewees to have some potential value for sustainable development in the Amazon. Interviewees were not asked to assess the capacity of their initiatives to deliver so-called win-wins (fulfilling socioeconomic and environmental objectives); these are hard to achieve in practice, and it is plausible that a new initiative could, for example, be effective in reducing forest degradation but simultaneously ignore or worsen social inequities.

#### **5. Discussion**

The large number of initiatives reported as potential new seeds of change reveal the emergence of diverse, often contradictory, pathways towards sustainable development

in the Amazon. Indeed, these initiatives are moving towards different development endgoals with respect to the weight of concern for the environment and improving human well-being and equity. Our study assessed some of these promising efforts to conceive and promote eco-business models, accountability in agribusiness supply chains, private sustainable development, grassroots rights, governmental policies, coalitions, and civil society projects. Taken together, these seeds of change connect very powerful stakeholders such as multinational companies, state governors, and large NGOs that often can count on important investments made by both domestic and international sponsors.

A key positive aspect of these new initiatives is that they often complement or build upon well-described solutions such as extractive reserves [8]. Some of these new solutions were already mentioned in other studies such as climate and advocacy coalitions [20], forest restoration [21], private investments [22], and the bioeconomy [23]. This study has attempted to systematically map out stakeholders' own perspectives on these new potential solutions, adding to previous efforts listing established initiatives in the Amazon [7].

#### *5.1. Seeds' Capacity to Address Existing Environmental and Social Challenges*

The new seeds are developing at a time in which the Brazilian Amazon is again experiencing growing rates of deforestation [2], growing number of conflicts with local communities [1], and increased inequality and poverty. Both classical and new sustainable development initiatives are overwhelmed by the current context.

Our assessment of the new initiatives' features reveals some key limitations regarding their ability to address existing challenges. Most initiatives are not yet completely established and have limited potential for scaling up. In this sense, we agree with previous studies' assessment that promising initiatives by themselves, despite their success in transforming local spaces, are often insufficient for advancing sustainable development at broader societal scales because the required political and environmental changes are often beyond their reach [7].

Most of these new initiatives were perceived as delivering incremental change, without upsetting the status quo of the distribution of resources and decision-making powers and falling short of offering a realistic prospect for transformative, radical change. Such incremental changes reflects literature stating that most initiatives do not address (or attempt) transformations but instead go for more downstream points of intervention [38]. In contrast, transformative initiatives tend to be context-specific and depend on 'leverage points' where relatively small changes can lead to potentially transformative systemic changes [30]. Brockhaus makes a strong case that achieving sustainable development in Amazonia and elsewhere requires confronting entrenched patterns of inequality and power relations [35]. Development success therefore requires addressing the power imbalances between different kinds of state and non-state actors. Ignoring these kinds of insights from political ecology [39] creates the conditions whereby certain kinds of seeds of sustainable development may actually reinforce and reproduce inequalities. These outcomes are difficult to predict, and incremental new initiatives could still have a positive role in supporting established initiatives.

#### *5.2. Weak but Real Signals for Promising Future Scenarios*

Scanning next-generation seeds is a first step towards decision-making processes that create a comprehensive and transparent basis for subsequent assessments of evidence [26]. Some of the new initiatives we have described can be seen as seeds of change that provide some weak yet rea, signals for promising future scenarios that potentially change human– environment relationships [24]. The history of the Amazon is rich in place-based solutions such as extractive reserves [9,10] that were tried out in a specific region and under specific circumstances and then expanded. The diverse approaches create an 'ecosystem' of new initiatives, increasing the chances that one or more will mature into longer-lasting and far-reaching sustainable development initiatives.

The fact that some seed types are dominant now does not necessarily reflect their capacity to bring about sustainable development but may be for circumstantial reasons. This may be the case for the growing number of efforts for forest restoration given to the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration as well as the 'fever' for eco-business solutions promoted by powerful stakeholders such as USAID and private companies. In the 2000s, Amazonia experienced great donor-driven support for forest management, while in the 2010s, the focus was on payments for environmental services [14]. Our assessment suggests that the bioeconomy and forest restoration driven by carbon capture could become the new donor-driven conceptual solutions for the Amazon, while bottom-up civilian science initiatives were also prevalent (Figure 2).

#### *5.3. Implications for Practitioners and Policy Makers*

This study reveals that most of the initiatives deemed promising and innovative by the interviewed practitioners are exogenous development concepts such as the bioeconomy that are promoted by external stakeholders such as NGOs and governmental agencies and are often sponsored by external donors. At the same time, the list of identified seeds includes grassroots initiatives mainly focused on territorial protection. Other studies highlight that endogenous, locally developed farming and governance systems should also form the basis for sustainable development in the Amazon [10]. These findings highlight the importance of considering top-down vs. bottom-up management approaches and bringing scholarly and policy attention back to local populations and their resource-use systems.

These lessons are fundamental for practitioners, policy makers, and donor agencies that should reconsider their focus on externally driven top-down concepts to provide increased support for helping communities to improve their existing systems, which are still being developed and can benefit from external support for improvements in technological, economic, environmental, and social aspects [40]. Endogenous approaches to development grounded in local practices and needs can become a viable option for sustainable development in the Amazon. For such approaches, attention should be given to farmer-led technological innovation, local governance, and the recognition of marginalized local knowledge.

#### *5.4. Limitations and Further Research*

The methodology used (the snowball sampling approach and the interview method) focused on the practitioners' perspectives in a qualitative evaluation of initiatives related to sustainability development and was neither comprehensive nor representative, meaning numbers should not be evaluated quantitatively. Although we did include quantitative questions on the area covered by the initiatives as well as on the number of beneficiaries, the high diversity of approaches towards sustainable development meant it was not possible to use the data collected to assess the capacity of the different initiatives to address existing threats. Some initiatives focus on raising awareness on specific issues and target different stakeholders in different areas, making it hard to identify their actual impact on the ground. Even initiatives focusing on specific areas and targeting specific communities found it difficult to measure their impacts since their actions are often part of other initiatives and dynamics.

#### **6. Conclusions**

The results of this study reveal the existence of new initiatives showing proof of the concept of seeds of changes that, in many cases, are complementary to existing well-known initiatives such as conservation areas, environmental law enforcement, and governments efforts to promote local development. Although these initiatives were new, their capacity to address existing threats is likely to be highly variable; most of the initiatives are difficult to evaluate as they were, by their nascent nature, not yet mature. Yet the range of seeds suggests there is a growing ecosystem of alternatives for sustainable development in the Amazon that could contribute to future solutions. However, the new initiatives are only one part of the long-term continued efforts for sustainable development in the Amazon, and they must occur alongside other actions such as ensuring the recognition of forest peoples' access to land and resources, maintaining all of Amazonia's biodiversity, avoiding dangerous tipping points that could alter the nature of the system itself, and providing more attention to and support for endogenous, locally based development initiatives led by Amazonian rural communities and family farmers.

**Author Contributions:** G.M.—Methodology, investigation—interviews, data curation, formal analysis, writing—original draft. C.P.—Methodology, investigation—interviews, section on the origin of the initiatives, conclusion. J.F.—Conceptualization, methodology—scanning the new initiatives. E.B.—Conceptualization, methodology—scanning the new initiatives. J.B.—Conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, project administration, writing—original draft, writing—review & editing, classification of the initiatives. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by UKRI's Global Challenges Research Fund.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** We would like to thank all the development practitioners who collaborated on this study.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

## *Article* **Techno-Economic Analysis of Integrated Solar Photovoltaic Winnower-Cum Dryer for Drying Date Palm Fruit**

**Surendra Poonia 1 , Anil Kumar Singh 1, Dilip Jain 1, Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar 2,3,\* and Digvijay Singh 4**

**Abstract:** Date palm (*Phoenix dactylifera* L.) fruits are widely grown in rural areas of arid Rajasthan of India. The grown date palm fruits are generally dried in forced convection mode. However, given the socio-economic status of farmers, dryer facility affordability has become crucial. Additionally, there is a critical need for a simple winnower, especially with its operation. To address the highlighted issues with the dryer and winnower and given a location already receiving abundant solar radiation, a solar photovoltaic (PV) winnower cum-dryer was designed and developed. The developed winnower cum-dryer was tested in actual conditions to realize the performance. First, the drying experiment for dehydrating date palm fruits and, second, the winnower experiment for separating grains from straw were carried out. The date palm fruits used for experimentation have a moisture content of 65% on a wet basis. During the drying trial, the dryer reduced this moisture content by 39% in 6 days. In contrast, in the open sun drying, it took 8 days. The drying chamber's temperature gradient was reduced to 2–3 ◦C from 6–8 ◦C in the system provided with a preheater, resulting in uniform drying. The observed effective moisture diffusivity and the dryer's efficiency are 4.34 × 10−9 m2·s−1 and 16.1%, respectively. A high IRR of 57.4% and a shorter payback period of 2.10 years were found in the economic analysis, indicating that the dryer is cost-effective. The winnower operation results suggest that about 200–300 kg grains could be separated daily when used as a winnower without natural wind. Overall, the developed winnower cum-dryer produced better-quality dried date palms in a shorter time than open drying by efficiently using solar energy and separating the grains from straw to enhance the utility throughout the year.

**Keywords:** *Phoenix dactylifera* L.; date palm drying; solar dryer; PV winnower; economic evaluation; hybrid solar dryer

#### **1. Introduction**

Date palm (*Phoenix dactylifera* L.) is one of the first fruit trees in the world to be grown and the only crop capable of withstanding high temperatures and low humidity levels throughout the bearing stage. This fruit crop is significantly grown in most arid regions of the planet. Regarding nutritional value, due to its high sugar content, the date palm fruit is considered a high-energy food (300 calories/100 g), is low in fat, and is an excellent source of iodine, iron, calcium, and potassium [1–3]. In Indian conditions, among the date palm cultivars, Khadrawy is one of the critical cultivars grown commercially, mainly in the country's northwestern region. Once this fruit is transformed into chuhara (dry) form, it is excellent for ingestion. The primary issue with the dates grown in this area is that their maturation period falls in June, just before the monsoon season begins. Date fruits that have been exposed to rain develop fruit rot and deterioration, rendering them unfit for

**Citation:** Poonia, S.; Singh, A.K.; Jain, D.; Kumar, N.M.; Singh, D. Techno-Economic Analysis of Integrated Solar Photovoltaic Winnower-Cum Dryer for Drying Date Palm Fruit. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 13686. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su142013686

Academic Editor: Muhammad Ikram

Received: 30 September 2022 Accepted: 20 October 2022 Published: 21 October 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

consumption as fresh dates. According to statistics, heavy rains cause up to 60% of the dates to rot. To avoid spoiling, dates are therefore picked early and sold before the rainy season. Given the aforementioned information, it is imperative to close the gap using some effective, realistic, and useful methods. Therefore, turning these immature dates into goods with the extra value could increase marketability [4,5]. Drying is the option mostly used by farmers to remove the moisture present in date palms, which is conventional. It is recommended to avoid traditional drying, as it has several detrimental consequences on plant materials, including shrinkage, discoloration, and vitamin oxidation. Given these conditions, it is imperative to come up with a drying technology that avoids all the issues. However, in general, when it comes to the agriculture in rural areas of developing nations, especially in India, drying and winnowing are the two essential tasks that farmers follow when aiming at a marketable product—drying reduces the moisture content, and winnowing removes the straw from grains. However, these two do not come in one system, and a farmer needs to have two separate systems—one for drying and the other for winnowing.

Drying enhances the storability of the date palm product by reducing the loss, and doing this at the farm level would be more productive [6,7]. However, most farmers rely on farming only and cannot afford costly devices; instead, they rely on open drying under the sun. This is commonly seen in India, and the central problems are product defiling and nonuniform drying. Mechanical or electric drying in the forced convection mode is suggested as an alternative to open sun drying to avoid defiling and non-uniform drying. However, the mechanical or electric drying was quite prominent only for industrial purposes, and it is a bit expensive. The small and marginal farmers cannot afford this hi-tech facility, especially people living in the Thar desert of India, where date palm farming is common. Regarding the solar energy potential, India is in a stronger position. The desert area is fortunate to have access to alternative energy sources including biogas, wind, and solar electricity. In India's dry region, solar energy ranges from 5.8 to 6.3 kWh m−2 day−1, on average [8].

Open sun-drying can be replaced with solar dryers because of their low operating costs [6,7,9,10]. The solar dryer is very profitable, cheap, and eco-friendly, and it is costeffective for rural people. It can be used in sun-drying to ensure the quality product [11]. Numerous studies demonstrate that the solar-based drying technology is preferable to open drying for the generated dried foods [12–15]. The thermal and PV equipment can support current energy sources. In comparison to solar thermal collectors and side-by-side PV modules, PV/T collectors produce more energy per unit of surface area [16]. The dryer is utilized in the forced convection mode, and the PV powers the fan. No traditional source is necessary. The integrated photovoltaic thermal hybrid system has a respectable return on investment [17]. According to Tonui and Tripanagnostopoulos, various inexpensive modifications could enhance the efficiency of air-cooled PV/T solar collectors [18]. Slices of tomato were dried, reducing their moisture content from 95% to 9% (wet basis) after 10 h of solar drying in an indirect-type hybrid solar dryer, and the overall drying efficiency of the system was estimated as 41% [19]. For drying grapes, Barnwal and Tiwari employed a photovoltaic/thermal greenhouse dryer [20]. In order to dry Indian jujube, a hybrid PV/T-forced solar convection dryer was constructed [6,7]. They reported that the forced convection mode's average thermal efficiency was higher (16.7%) than the mode's average thermal efficiency (15.6%). The greenhouse solar dryer is very effective in elevating the temperature by 10–14 ◦C over the surrounding temperature, and the dryer also has a quick payback period of 1.5–2.1 years [21]. Cerci and Hurdogan investigated a hybrid drying system for the low-temperature drying of peanuts [22]. Tuncer et al. revealed that the payback period of the PVT hybrid solar dryer varied between 2.98 and 3.51 years [23]. The optimal conditions for the drying of basil leaves in a hybrid solar dryer were a 63.8 ◦C air temperature and a bed thickness of 2 cm, and the exergy efficiency varied in the range of 31.78–86.55% [24].

CAZRI, Jodhpur, India, has developed a unique solar dryer that is used for both drying and winnowing simultaneously [25]. In this mixed mode dryer, the fan was used

to circulate air inside the drying bin, and provisions were made to let the dehydration process continue at night through natural circulation. Although it was found to provide satisfactory results in drying different vegetables and fruits, retaining the color and aroma of the product, there had been a thermal gradient of 5–6 ◦C or more across the height inside the drying bin, leading to non-uniform drying, and, therefore, different trays needed to be reshuffled [25,26]. Moreover, the villagers find it difficult to clean the threshed material if there is a lull in natural winds. Sometimes, electrical or manual-driven fans are employed for winnowing. The intermittence of electricity makes the farmer handicapped in using the electrical device at the time of requirement. In contrast, the manual system is not only less efficient but adds to human drudgery. However, it was observed to have limited use only after the harvest, particularly in arid regions. Therefore, the utility of the PV dryer was extended by using it as a PV winnower [27]. As per the literature review, significantly less research exists on date palm solar drying; many studies reported on green transition and the use of renewables as a means for sustainable development, both at the centralized and decentralized levels [28–31].

Therefore, in this paper, a study was undertaken to develop a preheater to overcome the problem of the thermal gradient, assess the drying attributes of date palm and the thin-layer drying process for the solar drying of date palm fruit, and compare it with open sun-dried date palm fruits. There existed a temperature gradient of 5–6 ◦C inside the drying chamber, and drying trays had to be reshuffled. An economic analysis of a PV winnower cum hybrid solar dryer has been carried out.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Description of the Photovoltaic Winnower Cum Dryer*

The components of the PV winnower cum dryer unit include a PV module-mirror booster assembly, a suitable winnower, a heating tunnel that is used to pre-heat air, and a solar drying cabinet that is specifically developed to utilize solar energy effectively. The interfacing arrangements made in the design will allow the product to be dried more quickly by using the winnower's fan. As shown in Figure 1, the winnower is simply a trapezoidal chamber with a PV-driven blower, a hopper, and a guide for feeding the material that is to be dried and for boosting the airspeed.

**Figure 1.** A design of the photovoltaic (PV) winnower.

The system comprises a three-sided aluminum sheet covering an iron-angle frame. A direct-current (DC) motor (35 W)-run fan is fixed at one of the vertical openings on the frame and is operated with an output of a PV module. A specifically made tray with a slope and a slit covers the top, having arrangements to reduce or increase the opening

size. This tray serves as a hopper while also facilitating airflow toward the product that is descending from the slit. A dryer of the size 2006 mm × 1400 mm was made using 22 gauge galvanised sheet metal. It consists of twelve trays, each being 870 mm × 620 mm in size, made of angle frames and wire meshes made with stainless steel. The chamber is provided with a door facility. As shown in Figure 2, the dryer comprises two clear glass windows (980 mm × 680 mm) that are 4 mm thick—one was provided on the front side, and another glass window (450 mm × 700 mm) is fixed on the east side of the cabinet.

**Figure 2.** Schematic sketch with neat dimensions showing the design of the photovoltaic (PV) hybrid solar dryer.

The dryer is about 45 cm above the floor. Four holes are provided for ventilation at the base with detachable caps. The dryer functions in both natural and forced circulation modes in east and north directions. The dryer is provided with GI wire mesh to ensure ventilation. Proper provisions have been made to use the fan as a dryer and winnower. Initially, the 35 Wp PV panel confirmed the dryer's operation for more than six hours daily. Later, a booster was provided to capture more solar radiation (22.6% and 35.4% from 9:00 to 11:00 h). The booster had 1.5 and 2 times more length than the length of the PV panel. An additional 2–3% cost of the booster can ensure 20% more power [25]. The device is installed as shown in Figure 3. The device worked on the principle of the greenhouse effect, where the solar radiation was converted into long-wave radiation and was trapped inside, giving rise to the inside temperature. The PV panel and fan were provided to use the system in the forced convection mode to ensure the faster drying of date palm fruits.

#### *2.2. Experimental Procedure*

The on-field trials were conducted from 13 to 18 June 2020 under clear skies at the CAZRI in Jodhpur, India (26◦18 N and 73◦04 E). In total, 20 kg of date palm fruit was purchased for the drying experiment from CAZRI's horticultural block in Jodhpur. Twenty kilograms of date palm were separated and evenly dispersed on the left- and right-side trays, and the experiments were conducted between the hours of 8:00 and 18:00. In these studies, a thermopile pyranometer was used to record the total solar radiation intensity (Gs) on a horizontal surface hourly. Using a DTM-100 thermometer with point-contact thermocouples with an accuracy of 0.1 ◦C, the temperatures inside the dryer chamber are measured. The temperature of the surrounding air was measured using a mercury thermometer with a 0.1 ◦C precision. Every 60 min, the moisture content of the drying product was determined using an electronic digital balance (Testing Instrument Pvt. Ltd Faridabad, India) with a 0.001 g precision. The sample trays were used to collect 100 g of the sample.

**Figure 3.** Picture depicting the installation of the PV/T hybrid solar dryer with a winnower at the CAZRI solar yard in India.

#### *2.3. Moisture Content and Moisture Ratio*

The moisture, which is typically referred to as the initial moisture (*Mi*) content of the collected fruits, can be estimated using Equation (1).

$$\dot{M}i = \left(\frac{\dot{W}i - Wf}{\dot{W}i}\right) \times 100\tag{1}$$

Equation (2) was used to estimate the drying rate [6,7]

$$DR = \frac{\Delta M}{\Delta t} \tag{2}$$

Equation (3) was used to estimate the moisture ratio.

$$MR = \frac{M - Me}{Mo - Me} \tag{3}$$

#### *2.4. Effective Moisture Diffusivity*

Using Equation (4), the effective moisture diffusivity (*Deff*) is estimated, and it is defined by Fick's second law [6]:

$$MR = \frac{M - M\_\varepsilon}{M\_o - M\_\varepsilon} = \frac{8}{\pi^2} \quad \sum\_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^2} \exp\left(-\frac{n^2 \pi^2 D\_{eff}^2 t}{4r^2}\right) \tag{4}$$

Equation (4) is further simplified and can be expressed in a logarithmic form (see Equation (5)), and its slope is given in Equation (6).

$$\ln(MR) = \ln\left(\frac{8}{\pi^2}\right) - \left(\frac{\pi^2 D\_{eff} t}{4r^2}\right) \tag{5}$$

$$Slope = \left(\frac{\pi^2 D\_{eff}}{4r^2}\right) \tag{6}$$

#### *2.5. Thermal Efficiency (η)*

The thermal efficiency is the ratio of the moisture removal to the heat gained. Equation (7) is used to estimate the thermal efficiency [6,10,32]:

$$\eta = \frac{ML}{A \int\_0^{\theta} H\_T d\theta} \times 100\tag{7}$$

#### *2.6. Economic Analysis of the PV Hybrid Solar Dryer*

The dryer's economic viability was examined using five economic factors: net present value (NPV), payback period (PBP), benefit–cost ratio (BCR), annuity (A), and internal rate of return (IRR).

#### 2.6.1. Net Present Value (NPV)

Comparing the worth of future benefits to the cost of the initial investment while accounting for the appropriate interest rate is the goal of calculating the net present value. The capital cost of a company, or the net present value (NPV), was determined using a 12% interest rate to calculate the present value of anticipated future cash flow. The aforementioned rate was applied to all cash inflows and outflows. The NPV of solar devices was worked out using Equation (8) [33]. Here, the initial cost (IC) = INR 33,089/-, a = (0.12), and n = 10 years. The gross benefits from the sale of products (E) = INR 19,800/-, and the maintenance cost of the dryer (M) = INR 1166/-

$$NPV = \frac{(E - M)}{a} \left[ 1 - \left(\frac{1}{1 + a}\right)^n \right] - IC \tag{8}$$

#### 2.6.2. The Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR)

The benefit–cost ratio was calculated as the original cost divided by the net present value, as shown in Equation (9).

$$BCR = \frac{IC + NPV}{IC} \text{ and } BCR = 1 + \frac{NPV}{IC} \tag{9}$$

#### 2.6.3. Annuity (A)

The project's annuity (A) shows the average net annual returns, determined using Equation (10).

$$A = \frac{NPV}{\sum\_{t=1 \text{ton}} \left(\frac{1}{1+a}\right)^n} \tag{10}$$

#### 2.6.4. Payback Period (PBP)

The amount of time needed to recover the initial investment made in a project or investment was calculated using the payback period formula; see Equation (11).

$$PBP = \frac{\log\frac{(E-M)}{a} - \left(\log\frac{(E-M)}{a} - IC\right)}{\log(1+a)}\tag{11}$$

#### 2.6.5. Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

The IRR is determined using Equation (12). For this, the lower and upper discount rates are considered as 40% and 60%, respectively

$$IRR = lower\text{discount} + \frac{Differenceof\text{discount} \times \text{NPV at lower\text{discount}}}{(\text{NPV at lower\text{discount}} - \text{NPV at higher\text{discount}})} \tag{12}$$

#### **3. Results and Discussion**

#### *3.1. Performance Evaluation of the PV Hybrid Solar Dryer*

The performance of the system with the different number of fins inside the tunnel revealed that as the number of fins increased, the air temperature rise was greater, but the reduction in airspeed was substantial. The average airspeed at the tunnel's exit varied from 3.5 m/s to 5.5 m/s during different hours of the day without fins. In contrast, it ranged from 1.2 to 2.8 m/s with fins. Under loaded conditions of date palm fruits, the average temperature of the air at different points viz. the upper, middle, and lower trays of the drying chamber is given in Figure 4. The average drying chamber temperature on the left and right sides of the upper trays varied from 48 to 70 ◦C; in the middle trays, it varied from 45 to 67 ◦C; and in the lower trays, it varied from 42 to 64 ◦C. In June 2020, the average solar insolation ranged from 430 W.m−2 to 940 W.m−2, and the average air temperature was 39.5 ◦C. A compromise was made to allow the temperature to rise to about 2.5–3 ◦C using a pre-heating tunnel, which matched the calculated values. The estimated values were for the mass flow rate of 0.02 kg s−1, when the average ambient temperature was 30.5 ◦C and the solar insolation was 910 W.m−2, respectively. When the dryer first started, the temperature was lower; but, as time went on, the temperature increased between 12:00 and 15:00. The dryer's inside was found to be cooler after 15:00 h. For the six days of drying time during the trial period, the temperature inside the dryer was essentially constant. The temperature has a great impact on the drying time of Indian Jujube (*Zizyphus mauritiana*) [6,7], date palm [5], and deglet-nour date fruits [34]. In general, the reduction in drying time was caused by stronger driving forces for mass transfer and heat transfer (owing to greater temperature differences due to more significant differences in the relative humidity).

**Figure 4.** Observed and calculated average temperature in the drying chamber at different points of the PV dryer with the tunnel while dehydrating date palm fruits.