Cited by 61Sustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact

Voluntary sustainability standards could significantly reduce detrimental impacts of global agriculture

Open access
Smith, W. K., Nelson, E., Johnson, J. A., Polasky, S., Milder, J. C., Gerber, J. S., West, P. C., Siebert, S. +5 more·2019·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) may be an effective way to reduce the negative impacts of agriculture at regional to global scales. Here, we present an approach that highlights the potential of VSS to reduce some of the negative externalities associated with agriculture production. To illustrate this potential, we show that VSS could reduce the global environmental impacts from growing sugarcane. Further, most of this environmental benefit comes from targeting just 10% of production area. To realize these environmental gains, incentives for VSS adoption need to be sufficient to cover the costs of criteria compliance. Determining these costs and public and private-sector mechanisms for efficiently transferring VSS-adoption subsidies to farmers and millers are key future research needs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1707812116

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Inadequate monitoring and inspection systems contribute to the challenge of ensuring compliance with sustainability criteria.

    “Inadequate monitoring and inspection systems contribute to the challenge of ensuring compliance with sustainability criteria (Smith et al., 2019).”

    From Green public procurement as an effective way for sustainable development: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Smith et al., 2019

    The paper says poor enforcement makes noncompliance with Brazil’s Forest Code less costly, and it proposes a land registry for monitoring and verifying sustainability standards (passages labeled Abstract; page unavailable). These points support the importance of oversight, but the paper does not specifically identify inadequate monitoring and inspection systems as a cause of difficulty ensuring compliance with sustainability criteria. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [13]Potts J 2014 The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2014 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, MB; International Institute for Environment and Development London
  2. [28]Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) 2012 Malawi Assessment of the Energy Sector Report. Millennium Challenge Account (Malawi Chapter) (Malawi Government, Lilongwe, Malawi)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, W. K., Nelson, E., Johnson, J. A., Polasky, S., Milder, J. C., Gerber, J. S., West, P. C., Siebert, S., Brauman, K. A., Carlson, K. M., Arbuthnot, M., Rozza, J. P., & Pennington, D. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Bowdoin College (US)
  • Rainforest Alliance (US)
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
  • World Wildlife Fund (US)
  • Coca Cola (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Polasky, S.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2019-01-22
Volume
116
Issue
6
Pages
2130-2137
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2914509016
Cited by
61
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bowdoin - Digital Commons (Bowdoin College) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1540195)
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (HAW01136-H)
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (NE/M021327/1)
  • World Wildlife Fund
  • Coca-Cola Foundation
  • University of Minnesota
  • Belmont Forum
  • Luc Hoffmann Institute
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture (HAW01136-H)
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/M021327/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Keywords
voluntary sustainability standards, sugarcane, environmental impact of agriculture, irrigation water use, nutrient loading, greenhouse gas emissions, indirect land use change, sustainable consumption and production, ecosystem services, scenario analysis, carbon stocks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review