We’d like to think that all participants in a food supply chain are equally committed to sustainable and environmentally responsible production; never mind the cost. If only that were true.

The reality is that, for many smaller farmers, “going green” comes at a price, with no guarantee of higher yields. They’re not going to fall in line with buyers’ sustainability goals unless it makes economic sense. 

“There’s no incentive,” says Ofir Ardon, chief executive officer of Agritask, a seller of agronomic intelligence and analytics software. “Food and beverage companies are asking their suppliers, some of whom sit just above the poverty line, to change practices that have worked for generations.”

Ardon says food and beverage companies don’t fully grasp the plight that smaller farmers are in, despite those producers accounting for 90% of all U.S. growers. Their mentality, he says: “’We’re busy people. If we don’t see returns, we probably won’t do anything.’”

For many family operations, traditional farming techniques have worked for generations. They possess intimate knowledge of soil, weather patterns and other factors that result in successful crop yields year after year. Along comes a buyer who professes to know better, making airy promises about the benefits of sustainability without tangible returns, and it’s no surprise that these smaller farmers would push back.

Much has been written about the growing awareness of consumer about the need for greener food supply chains. Buyers are increasingly making choices based on a product’s impact on the environment. But farmers, existing far up a multi-tier supply chain, aren’t generally exposed to consumer sentiment, and consequently don’t feel the pressure to adapt.

Farmers’ direct buyers, who are more affected by their own customers’ purchasing choices, could in turn apply pressure to growers to fall into line. But there’s a limit to that strategy, Ardon says. “You can’t in one year decide to stop buying from a huge amount of growers. Who are you going to punish? You literally have no supply.”

An obvious solution is to reimburse producers up front for adopting more sustainable practices, in effect “taking over the risk of the farmer from Day One,” Ardon says. “If you really want to do something radical and immediate, increase your investment significantly.”

Such a move, of course, is likely to have an impact on the ultimate price of goods. Which raises the question: Are consumers willing to back up their professed commitment to the environment by paying more for their food?

Households with comfortable incomes are in a position to do so (whether or not they actually will), while many others subsist on tight budgets that allow little room for the level of price increases that would be needed to fund green initiatives back at the farm. Some degree of higher prices would likely be necessary, but there’s a limit to how much of the additional expense food and beverage sellers could pass on.

Ardon says the answer lies in striking a balance between higher expense and more efficient operations. The latter can be achieved, for starters, but doing a better job of monitoring operations at the farm. That includes measuring the amount of carbon emissions generated by a particular operation, so that the grower can track its progress toward increased sustainability, and clearly see the “before and after” results.

“From the moment you start measuring, you get the ball rolling,” Ardon says.

Then the information needs to be clearly conveyed to the source. “If you want some level of control over growers and what they do,” Ardon says, “first you have to communicate with them.”

Most food and beverage companies today don’t even know where all of their farmers are. But the time is fast approaching when they’ll have to. Government actions such as the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) are pushing food supply chains to document their activities at every stage. In the years ahead, visibility all the way to the farm will be more than a good idea — it will be a mandate.

With hard numbers in hand, food and beverage companies stand a better chance of convincing farmers to adopt greener methods. At the same time, they should be making the same case to neighboring farms, adding a competitive dynamic to the selling effort.

Armed with the necessary information about supplier locations, practices and carbon emissions, buyers can then determine what kind of incentives are most likely to spur change. Farmers could be promised a premium if they adopt sustainability guidelines that result in smaller yields, or even losses, in the immediate future.

In the end, a combination of modern technology, financial incentives and new regulatory mandates is what it will take to push farmers into greener pastures. That could well mean that food prices rise in the short term. “If you want to do something different, it will cost you money at the beginning,” says Ardon. “Somebody has to pay.” Longer term, though, sustainable farming will lead to more stable yields and reduce the costs that are associated with non-compliance.

Such an approach doesn’t rely on the unpredictable behavior of buyers at the store. “You can leave the consumers aside if you have the regulatory environment and the technology to back it,” Ardon says. “That’s enough.”