Redesigning Field-Crop Business Models through Agroecology: Applying a Co-design approach in Southern Italy

Introduction: state of the art and research question Agroecology is increasingly recognized as a transformative pathway for advancing the long-term sustainability of agri-food systems while addressing the multiple environmental, economic, and social challenges of the Anthropocene (Altieri & Nicholls, 2020). Although agroecological transition is understood as a multi-level, multi-dimensional, and systemic process, business model (BM) innovation plays a crucial role at farm level, as it shapes how value is created, delivered, and captured in ways that can either hinder or support alignment with agroecology (Garrido-Garza et al. 2025). In this respect, the limited development and diffusion of agroecological business models (ABMs) have been identified as a key barrier to the wider uptake of agroecology in Europe (Lianu et al., 2023). More broadly, sustainable BMs and sustainability-oriented BM innovation have emerged as increasing research domains, although their application to agricultural production remains relatively underdeveloped (Schaltegger et al., 2016, 2023; Bourgeois et al., 2025). This gap is even more evident in agroecology, where the explicit integration of BM thinking is still marginal and requires further investigation. To address the persisting gap between comprehensive agroecological frameworks and design-oriented BM approaches, an Agroecological Business Model Canvas (ABMC) has been recently developed (Stempfle et al., 2025) by integrating the FAO’s 10 elements of agroecology (FAO, 2018) into the conventional Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). The ABMC was conceived as a strategic tool to support the co-design and dissemination of viable and context-specific ABMs, especially within Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems. Against this background and within the PRIMA project AgrEcoMed, this study investigates how current farm BMs can be redesigned into innovative ABMs in the study area of the Agroecological District of Murge and Bradano (Southern Italy), which offers an emblematic empirical setting. The study aims at advancing the understanding of how agroecology can be operationalized within the overall structure and individual components of farm BMs, using a place-based, user-centered, and co-creation approach to BM innovation. Data and Methods This study applies the ABMC for co-designing innovative ABMs for field-crop systems in the pilot area. The application is part of a broader multi-method research design articulated into sequential steps. First, a baseline assessment was conducted by analyzing the BMs of the main farming systems in the study area, also evaluating their agroecological transition level and multidimensional sustainability performance using the Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE) provided by FAO (2019). Second, the baseline evidence was participatorily validated with farmers and other stakeholders, also identifying the main strengths and weaknesses of the existing BMs, priority areas for improvement, and best practices already in place. Third, the baseline BMs were reconfigured through the ABMC to shape improved architectures that better integrate agroecological practices, sustainability objectives, economic viability, and context-specific transition opportunities, i.e., innovative ABMs. The innovative ABMs are currently being co-designed during workshop sessions involving farmers and other relevant stakeholders from the local agri-food system. Drawing on the baseline assessment and its participatory validation, the process focuses on field-crop systems, which, besides being the most widespread farming type in the study area, showed the lowest agroecological transition level and the weakest sustainability performance, thus requiring stronger support for transformation. To simplify the design process and enhance external validity, data from the baseline BMs were aggregated into two prototype configurations: one representing organic field-crop systems and the other conventional field-crop systems. During the workshops, participants are asked to identify the changes needed in each relevant BM component to transform their overall configuration. Discussion starts from sets of agroecological practices proposed by the researcher-facilitators, identified through literature analysis and other project activities (e.g., agronomic experimentation and Life Cycle Assessment) and transferred to participants as a knowledge base. These practices are not treated as fixed solutions, but as options to be selected, adapted, or expanded according to participants’ experiential knowledge, as well as their relevance within the local context, including pedo-climatic conditions, available technologies, ease of implementation, and regulatory constraints. Discussion also aims to uncover the possible effects that the changes in one BM component may generate in the others, thereby clarifying functional links or trade-offs within the ABMs. Participants are further encouraged to identify opportunities that may facilitate implementation, or key barriers to be overcome, such as alliances with key agri-food actors, governance arrangements, funding opportunities, and other enabling or disabling factors. Finally, the co-designed ABMs will be evaluated in terms of expected sustainability performance through a set of indicators derived from TAPE, with the overall goal of increasing the agroecological transition of farming system through a performance-driven approach. Preliminary results The baseline field-crop BMs are structurally fragile from an agroecological and sustainability perspective, which justifies their redesign into improved ABMs. They are mainly family-run, highly specialized cereal-legume systems that depend largely on indirect marketing channels. Their cost structure is heavily burdened by external inputs, fuel, fertilizers and, in the conventional prototype, herbicides. The conventional field-crop BM shows the most critical weaknesses, including poor diversification, weak synergies and recycling, low added value and family net income, and very low biodiversity. The organic prototype performs better but still presents important constraints. Among the farm-related elements of agroecology, the main priorities for improvement are Recycling and Synergies, followed by Diversity and Efficiency. Within the ABMC, these elements are core normative and operational components of the Key activities through which the Agroecological value proposition is created and delivered. The practices identified as most relevant for redesign include crop diversification, pluriannual rotations, low-input wheat-legume intercropping, minimum tillage, soil cover with crop residues, microbial biostimulants, organic fertilization, integrated pest management, biomass and nutrient cycling, and renewable energy production. Together, these practices are expected to strengthen Resilience by reducing dependence on purchased inputs and improving the internal use of farm resources. Beyond cost reduction, the value capture can be increased through greater farming and income diversification and better access to agri-environmental support schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy, thereby opening new Revenue streams. Among Key resources, agroecological knowledge emerges as a key intangible asset for making the ABM work. Although direct Customer relationships remain difficult to implement in field-crop systems unless transformation is introduced, Channels can be rethought through long-term contractual agreements with highly recognized organic cooperatives, as well as diversification strategies that mitigate exposure to market volatility. Overall, the introduction of agroecological practices is expected to improve nutrient-use efficiency and average yields, increase income and income stability, and enhance environmental and energy performance. Conclusion This study provides a first empirical application of the ABMC as a strategic tool to support the redesign of farm BMs in line with agroecology, demonstrating its relevance in a real-world setting. Overall, it generated both a co-design process, through which multiple actors and forms of knowledge were mobilized to shape BM innovation, and concrete design outputs, represented by improved ABMs. Although the findings are context-specific, due to the territorial focus and the farming system considered, they offer broader methodological insights. In particular, the study shows how farm BMs can be systematically reconfigured from an agroecological perspective, by identifying critical weaknesses and integrating specific challenges, opportunities, and transition readiness into a participatory redesign process. In this sense, the contribution goes beyond the case itself, advancing a structured approach to farming system innovation and agroecological transition. References Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for farming in the Anthropocene. International Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 47, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.7764/ijanr.v47i3.2281 Bourgeois, L., Van Meensel, J., Marchand, F., & Van Passel, S. (2025). Which factors influence a business model change due to a change in feed composition and how can they be studied? A case study on the applicability of a theoretical guide to study business model change in agriculture. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 19, 101572. 10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101572 FAO (2018). The 10 elements of agroecology: Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy. FAO. (2019). Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE): Process of development and guidelines for application. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy. Garrido-Garza, F., Loconto, A., & Robinson, D. K. R. (2025). Agroecological entrepreneurship: A driving force in the sustainable transformation of agri-food systems. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2025.2530563 Lianu, C., Simion, V.-E., Urdes, L., Bucea-Manea-Țoniș, R., Radulescu, I. G., & Lianu, C. (2023). Agroecological Approaches in the Context of Innovation Hubs. Sustainability, 15(5), 4335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054335 Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. John Wiley & Sons. Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. G. (2016). Business models for sustainability: A co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and transformation. Organization & Environment, 29, 264–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026616633272 Schaltegger, S., Loorbach, D., & Hörisch, J. (2023). Managing entrepreneurial and corporate contributions to sustainability transitions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32, 891–902. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3080 Stempfle, S., Carlucci, D., Roselli, L., & de Gennaro, B. C. (2025). A conceptual framework for an agroecological business model canvas. Sustainability, 17(19), 8937. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198937