organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis

Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis: A case study

from West Germany

Henning BestInstitute for Applied Social Research, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Accepted in revised form December 29, 2006

Abstract. The recent growth in organic farming has given rise to the so-called ‘‘conventionalization hypothesis,’’ theidea that organic farming is becoming a slightly modified model of conventional agriculture. Using survey datacollected from 973 organic farmers in three German regions during the spring of 2004, some implications of theconventionalization hypothesis are tested. Early and late adopters of organic farming are compared concerning farmstructure, environmental concern, attitudes to organic farming, and membership in organic-movement organizations.The results indicate that organic farming in the study regions indeed exhibits signs of incipient conventionalization.On average, newer farms are more specialized and slightly larger than established ones and there is a growingproportion of farmers who do not share pro-environmental attitudes. Additionally, a number, albeit small, of verylarge, highly specialized farms have adopted organic agriculture in the last years. However, the vast majority oforganic farmers, new and old ones included, still show a strong pro-environmental orientation.

Key words: Attitudes, Conventionalization, Environmental concern, Organic agriculture, Organic farming, Organicmovement, Values

Henning Best holds a MA in Sociology, History, and Ethnology from the University of Cologne, Germany in 2002. Heacquired a PhD in Economics and Social Sciences from the University of Cologne in 2006. From 2002 to 2004 he wasresearch associate at the Research Institute for Sociology, University of Cologne. Since 2004 he is researcher andlecturer at the Institute for Applied Social Research, University of Cologne. His research interests includeenvironmental sociology, social inequality, and quantitative methods of social research.

Introduction

At first glance, the recent development of organic agri-culture seems to be a success story. Organic farmingoffers a more sustainable alternative to conventionalagricultural production (see Mader et al., 2002) and hasexperienced considerable growth since the 1980s inmany regions of the world. In the European Union (EU),almost 4% of all utilized agricultural area was cultivatedorganically by 2003 (see European Commission, 2005)and several European countries like Switzerland, Lich-tenstein or Austria had even reached a share of about10% (see Schneeberger et al., 2002; Willer and Yussefi,2005). The growth of organic production has hadnumerous positive consequences. First of all, a substi-tution of conventional agricultural production by organicproduction benefits the environment, for example, due tothe avoidance of artificial fertilizers and chemical pesti-cides. Additionally, the growth of organic production is

accompanied by an opening of the market to new cus-tomers (e.g., by the sale of organic products in conven-tional supermarkets or the rise of organic supermarketchains). Moreover, the growth out of the niche may helpto reduce barriers to the adoption of organic farming byconventional farmers, as its image becomes less arcaneand as interpersonal information on organic farmingbecomes more easily available to farmers (see e.g.,Rogers, 1995 for the effect of interpersonal communi-cation on the adoption of an innovation).

In the late the 1990s, however, some researchers beganto argue that the growth in organic farming may lead tosome undesirable consequences as well (see e.g., Bucket al., 1997; Tovey, 1997). Organic farming, they posit, isincorporating more and more elements of industrialagriculture and thereby lessening its sustainability, aprocess commonly termed ‘‘conventionalization.’’

In their notion of conventionalization, Buck et al.(1997) concentrate on changes in the political economy

Agriculture and Human Values (2008) 25:95–106 � Springer 2007DOI 10.1007/s10460-007-9073-1

of organic farming in California. With regard to pro-duction, they expect organic agriculture to be restruc-tured following the economic imperatives of commodityproduction. Agribusiness is entering the field and‘‘finding ways to industrialize organic production’’ (Bucket al., 1997: 4), thereby introducing methods of produc-tion which Guthman (2004) describes as ‘‘organic lite.’’Smaller organic producers may be unable to competewith the higher efficiency of those relatively large andspecialized growers. In order to survive economically,the smaller ones have to adjust their farming practices.As a consequence, a dynamic in the organic sector is setin motion. This dynamic may consist of two analyticallydistinct yet not mutually exclusive phenomena: assimi-lation and bifurcation. In the bifurcation scenario, smallerproducers have to switch to alternative (presumablyrelatively low-profit) products and/or strengthen theirconnection to the local market. Sometimes, as in theUnited States, some of these farmers strictly choose di-rect marketing and even forgo certification as organic.Although Buck et al. (1997) note such tendencies to-wards bifurcation among organic farmers, their centralargument implies assimilation of organic farming toconventional practices. Besides growth in farm size,specialization and input substitution, assimilation (andthus conventionalization in a strict sense) leads to ahigher mechanization of agriculture, the rise of contractgrowing, a decrease in direct marketing and numerousother changes in distribution and marketing. In the longrun, Buck et al. even fear a relaxation of organic stan-dards.

The work of Buck et al. has sparked an ongoing debateabout the empirical and theoretical validity of the con-ventionalization hypothesis. Two arguments are centralto the debate. The first argument deals with validity andnormative aspects of the conventionalization hypothesis.Whereas Buck et al. and Guthman imply that thedescribed structural changes (growth, mechanization,etc.) are bad and ‘‘more conventional,’’ these changescan also be interpreted as the modernization or profes-sionalization of organic farming (see Darnhofer, 2006).As all certified organic farms, be they ‘‘deep organic’’ or‘‘organic lite,’’ have to operate according to organicstandards, the structural changes may, contrary to theconventionalization argument, lead to desirable conse-quences. Professionalization could result in more effi-cient and sustainable production, lower prices for thecustomers, and concurrent growth in the market, thusresulting in an aggregate increase in animal welfare andenvironmental protection. The normative aspect of theargument by Buck et al. and Guthman expresses theexpectation that the socioeconomic consequences oforganic market growth include the replacement of smallfarms with larger farms, family farming with capitalistentrepreneurship, and direct relations between farmers

and customers with alienated market relationships. Thus,as one reviewer noted, the social and cultural benefits oforganic production would be lost in a conventionalizedsetting.

The second argument centers around the question ofwhether conclusions derived from the California casestudy can be applied to other regions as well (seeMichelsen, 2001a). Based on a study of the developmentof organic farming in New Zealand (NZ), Coombes andCampbell (1998) question this applicability. They positthat the recent penetration of organic farming by corpo-rate actors (in NZ) has not led to a dilution of organicstandards, but has caused organic agriculture to evolveinto two separate directions: agribusiness relying on ex-port-oriented production and a domestic market suppliedby small-scale growers. Hall and Mogyorody (2001)reject the hypothesis of agribusiness entering the organicsector for Ontario, Canada. They do, however, find atendency among field-crop farmers towards increasedfarm size, higher mechanization and specialization onexport-oriented produce. Using a wider notion ofconventionalization, their findings can be interpreted astendencies towards conventionalization. With thisbroader definition of the conventionalization scenario,organic farming is becoming a slightly modified versionof modern conventional agriculture (Hall and Mogyorody,2001; see also Milestad and Darnhofer, 2003) without thepresumption of active involvement of agribusiness cor-porations.

Following this strand of research, conventionalizationtendencies could also be the result of the adoption of organicfarming by formerly conventional (family) farmers,who arenot deeply convinced of organic principles. Factors leadingto this development may be price premiums, governmentsubsidies for organic farming, and the persistent crisis ofconventional agriculture. However, one should be awarethat there are alternative theoretical explanations for dif-ferences between early and recent adopters of organicfarming. Padel (2001) interprets these differences in thecontext of the adoption/diffusionmodel (see Rogers, 1995).She concludes that one needs ‘‘to recognize that a shift inmotives, farm, and social characteristics among those con-verting to organic farming is a typical feature of any diffu-sion process, and not an inherent shortcoming of thosecurrently converting’’ (Padel, 2001: 57).

While the criticism on the conventionalizationhypothesis, as outlined above, mainly points to theoret-ical shortcomings, the discussion is hindered by a lack ofempirical data on the topic. Therefore, this paper seeks tocontribute to the discussion by presenting an empiricalstudy of the development of organic farming in threeWest German regions (North Rhine-Westphalia, Hesse,and Lower Saxony).

If the conventionalization hypothesis holds, differ-ences between organic pioneers and farmers who

96 Henning Best

recently converted to organic farming can be expected.On the one hand, the structure of newly converted farmswould be expected to resemble conventional farms morethan traditional organic farms. These newly convertedfarms should exhibit higher specialization in crop andlivestock production, a bigger farm size, and avoidanceof traditional channels of distribution like direct mar-keting. On the other hand, one would expect the neworganic farmers to adhere to the productivist paradigm:they would be relatively indifferent towards the organicmovement as well as less concerned about the environ-ment and the environmental impacts of farming (seeLund et al., 2002 for congruent data, but Michelsen,2001b for conflicting evidence). The aim of the paper isto assess whether the differences in farm structure andideological orientation (as implied by the conventional-ization hypothesis) can be found in German organicfarming.

The paper will first provide some background infor-mation on the development of organic farming inGermanyand the regions studied. Then some aspects of the meth-odology of the study will be described and discussed. Thepresentation of empirical results starts with an analysis ofdifferences in farm structure, followed by an examinationof changes in farmers� ideological and organizationalcommitment to organic agriculture. The paper ends with adiscussion of the empirical results.

Development of organic farming in the regionsstudied

The beginning of modern organic farming in Germanycan be traced to the end of the 1920s. Culturally, itsemergence is to be seen in the context of the life-reformmovement and Rudolf Steiner�s anthroposophy.1 Eco-nomically, the emergence can either be interpreted as areaction to problems of decreasing soil fertility and thecorresponding reduction in yields or it can be understoodas an activity against the first stages of structural crisis inthe agricultural sector (see Vogt, 2000). Throughout mostof the 20th century, however, organic farming remainedin a very small cultural and economic niche. A more thanmarginal position, and a corresponding perception by thegeneral population, was only reached by the end of the1980s. Significant milestones of the development includethe introduction of government subsidies in 1989 and thecommencement of EU regulation of organic agriculturein 1993.

In 1988, there were about 2000 organic farms inGermany. According to public statistics (see SOEL,2004), their number had doubled by 1992, yieldingannual growth rates of about 20%. Since then, there hasbeen considerable growth of the organic sector. On thenational level, the number of certified organic farms has

almost tripled in the last 10 years. Certified organic farmsnumbered more than 16,000 by the end of 2003 andcorresponded to 4% of all existing farms. The develop-ment of organic farming in Germany and the studiedregions is presented in Figure 1.

As the conventionalization hypothesis was first for-mulated with the California case in mind, some remarkson differences and commonalities between Californiaand West Germany seem worthwhile.2 A major com-monality between German and US organic agriculture isits rapid growth since the 1980s (for the US developmentsee Klonsky and Tourte, 1998; Haumann, 2005). InCalifornia as well as in Germany, organic farming hasboomed with growth rates around 20%, and had reacheda remarkable market share by the year 2000. Althoughcertified organic farming accounts for only 1% of Cali-fornia farms, the organic market is larger than this figureimplies because only slightly more than 60% of Cali-fornia�s organic farms are certified (Klonsky and Tourte,1998). Bearing that in mind, the percentage of organicfarms is roughly comparable between California andWest Germany. The major dissimilarity, however, is thepolitical economic structure of agriculture. Whereas ‘‘it iswidely recognized that industrial-capitalist agriculturehas taken root earliest and most thoroughly in Californiaand other areas of the sunbelt’’ (Buttel et al., 1990: 95),the operation of paid labor, one characteristic feature of acapitalist economy, is relatively unusual in West Germanfarming. The 360,000 farms in West Germany hiredabout 350,000 paid workers in 2003, including 250,000seasonal workers (see DBV, 2002; BMVEL, 2004);Martin (2001) reports 550,000 laborers employed by36,000 California farms in 1997. Therefore, Californiaagriculture is far more dependant on paid labor thanGerman agriculture.3 Additionally, California farms are,on average, bigger than German farms: conventionalfarms in California operated on an average of 140 ha of

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

smraf

cina

grof

oo

N

HesseNorth Rhine-WestphaliaLower SaxonyGermany(divided by 10)

Figure 1. Development of organic farming (Source: SOEL,2004).

Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis 97

land as compared to 29 ha in West Germany and organicfarms averaged about 41 ha in California as compared to34 ha in West Germany.

Nonetheless, the overall development of Germanorganic farming was similar to the California case. Inboth areas, there has been strong growth and concurrentchanges in both the marketing and the distribution oforganic products. The advent of organic supermarketchains and increasing sales of organic products inconventional supermarkets as well as in discount marketsillustrate these trends. Therefore, it may well be that theorganic production sector has not only grown in num-bers, but considerably changed. Before turning to anempirical assessment of eventual changes, some aspectsof the empirical data used for this investigation should bediscussed.

Methods

Data collection

The following analysis is based on a mail-in survey of 973organic farmers (310 of them full time) in three WestGerman regions (North Rhine-Westphalia, Hesse, andLower Saxony) conducted in winter/spring 2004.4 A list of1500 certified organic farms was compiled using addressdata supplied by the government authorities concernedwith organic certification. The primary operators of thesefarms were contacted by mail and sent a fully structuredquestionnaire. The questionnaire focused on farm struc-ture, perceived consequences of the conversion, farmers�attitudes, their social network, and socio-demography.The survey was designed following Dillman�s ‘‘TailoredDesign Method’’ (see Dillman, 2000). Four hundred andfifty-nine farmers actively or passively refused to take partin the survey. Another 27 farmers could not be contactedunder their registered address and 45 were no longerfarming or did not do farming as a business (e.g., socio-therapeutic institutions, gardeners, and the like). Conse-quently, the survey yielded an adjusted response rate ofabout 68%. The gender distribution of the sample is un-equal, but representative for the reference population:88% of the primary farm operators in the sample are male,12% female.

The data used for the purposes of this paper wereoriginally gathered as part of a larger research projectwith a different focus (the adoption of organic farming,see Best, 2006). As a consequence of that focus, thesample was limited to farms that registered with thegovernment inspection agency in 2000, 2001 and 2002.Registration with the inspection agency can be necessaryfor two reasons: either the farm is being converted toorganic farming and thus must be newly certified or theregistration entry for the farm has to be modified due to

changes in certain aspects of the farm. When the latteroccurs, a new registration (Anderungsmeldung) willsuffice. In general, there are two reasons for the necessityof such a registration modification. The most frequentreason is that, due to operational changes on the farm, itfalls into a different category and different inspectionrules have to be applied (as stated in Annex III of the EURegulation on organic farming, see European Commis-sion, 1991).5 The second, less frequent reason for a newregistration is a change-over to another private inspectionbody.

The resulting sample consisted of roughly 55% farmsthat had converted to organic agriculture in the periodbetween 2000 and 2002 and 45% farms that had con-verted earlier. Although, due to the sampling frame de-scribed, the sample of farmers that converted prior to2000 cannot be regarded as randomly drawn, no severebias in the results is expected for two reasons.

The first of these reasons concerns the farm structure.One could assume that those farmers who underwent anorganizational or operational change after some years oforganic farming are generally more economically activethan the average early adopter. They may put more efforton developing their farm economically and thus be morelikely to adapt to changes in the market. In this case, theresults may be biased, but the bias would only serve toreduce the differences between early and late adopters.This is because early adopters who quickly react tomarket changes should have a higher probability of being‘‘conventionalized’’ than other early adopters.

The second reason that no severe bias is expectedconcerns environmental attitudes. There is no compellingreason to believe that the farmers� ideological orientationvaries systematically with the necessity of registrationchanges. If it does vary, one would expect the affectedfarmers to be more economically oriented and thus lessconcerned with the environment than the average organicfarmer.

In summary, a severe bias in the data should not beexpected. If there were any bias, however, it should be inthe direction of lower environmental concern and a moreconventional farm structure. This leads to the conclusionthat, if the differences stated by the conventionalizationhypothesis are found in the sample, they should exist inthe population as well and might even be morepronounced.

Measurement of important variables

The most important independent variable in this study isthe year of conversion to organic farming (collected inthe survey using an open question). The farms weregrouped into four classes by the year of conversion: pre1993, 1993–1997, 1998–2000 and 2001 onwards.Unfortunately, the class intervals could not be held

98 Henning Best

constant and had to be increased in the groups of earlieradopters to ensure acceptable cell frequencies. In thesample, non-representative in this regard, 12.7% of allfarmers adopted organic agriculture prior to 1993.Between 1993 and 1997, 14.4% converted to organicfarming while 34.6% did so between 1998 and 2000. Ofthe farmers surveyed, 38.3% converted only recently.

The dependent variables or indicators for a conven-tionalization of organic farming refer to farm structure,organizational aspects, and ideology. All indicators weremeasured to reflect the situation at the time of the survey(2004).6

The questionnaire included several inquiries as todifferent aspects of farm structure, including full-time vs.part-time farming, the size of agricultural land (differ-entiated in cropland, grassland, and fallow land), the self-assessed type of farm (mixed, fodder crop, cash crop,livestock, vegetable, fruit growing or wine growing), andthe number of livestock on the farm (fattening bulls,suckler cows, dairy cows, finishing pigs, farrowing sows,poultry, and laying hens).

Organizational attachment to the organic movementwas defined as membership in an organic farming asso-ciation.

To measure their environmental attitudes, the respon-dents were asked to rate several items dealing withgeneral and farming-specific environmental topics on afive point Likert-type scale (a complete list of the items isgiven in the appendix). Nine items were used to constructa scale of general environmental concern (see Diekmannand Preisendorfer, 2000). The scale of agriculturalenvironmental concern was comprised of seven items(see Vogel, 1999a; Best, 2006). The general itemsaddressed topics such as limits to growth, the environ-mental conditions of the next generations, and willing-ness to accept a reduced standard of living in favor of theenvironment. The farming specific items referred toenvironmental impacts of conventional farming, the useof chemical fertilizers and pesticides and similar topics.Both scales are internally consistent (Cronbach�salpha > 0.8) and range from 1 to 5. High values indicatehigh environmental concern.

Results: Structural and ideological changesin German organic farming

Farm structure

This section will present an overview of some changes inthe structure of organic farms found in the regions sur-veyed. According to Hall and Mogyorody (2001: 404),one of the key questions with regard to conventionali-zation is whether organic farms increase in size and be-come more specialized as the organic sector grows. To be

able to account for disparities between old and newadopters, structural and operational characteristics offarms are compared based on the categorized year ofconversion.

Since the structural development of full-time farms canbe regarded as crucial to a possible conventionalizationof organic farming, the following analyses were calcu-lated separately for part-time and full-time farmers. Dueto the fact that part-time farmers have a second source ofincome, they are not as affected by market pressures asfull-time farmers. Additionally, one would expect part-time farmers to be less likely to invest large amounts ofcapital in the economic development of their farms.Therefore, it can be expected that market driven changesin the organic sector, such as conventionalization, canfirst and foremost be observed among full time-farmers.

The average farm size remained more or less constantat about 70 ha among full-time operated farms thatconverted to organic farming prior to 2001 (seeFigure 2). In the period since 2001, the average size hasincreased to 96 ha. Looking at the 90th percentile insteadof the mean value shows that this increase is largely dueto the conversion of some very large farms, which werecultivating more than 200 ha of land. A categorization ofthe land into cropland and grassland reveals that the in-crease cannot be contributed to a specific type of land.Instead, a tendency is observed in which operators ofbigger farms of either type are more likely to adopt or-ganic agriculture. No such growth in farm size can beobserved with regard to part-time farms. Over the years,the average farm size has remained largely constant ataround 23 ha, with the 90th percentile at around 50 ha.

For full-time farms, the recent increase in size coin-cides with some tendencies towards specialization (seeTable 1). When asked about what kind of farm theyoperate, roughly 27% of the full-time farmers in thegroup with the longest experience in organic farming

0

50

100

150

200

250

until 1992

year of conversion

ah

niezis

mraf

mean

90th percentile

1993-1997 1998-2000 2001 and later

Figure 2. Development of the size of full-time operatedfarms.


reported operating a mixed farm. The share of mixedfarms, following the self-assessment of the farmers, hasconsiderably decreased over time. Only about 18–19%of the farms operated on a full-time basis that convertedbetween 1993 and 2000 were of a mixed type, and thatshare dropped to 15% for farms converting to organicagriculture after 2000. Additionally, the rate of farmspracticing direct marketing has considerably dropped,from 39% to 22%.

Corresponding tendencies towards specialization canbe found using other indicators. With the exception ofthose farms that converted between 1998 and 2000, therate of full-time farms that do not raise livestock hascontinuously increased. Reaching almost 14% in thelatest period measured, the number of full-time farms notraising livestock has risen by 12% in comparison to theoldest organic farms measured. This result is in line withan increase in farmers specializing in the cultivation ofcropland (and, therefore, not owning any grassland). Onthe other hand, there is no general tendency of newerfarms to specialize in grassland or in raising a single kindof livestock.

With the exception of a higher specialization ongrassland, none of the previously described tendenciescan be found among part-time farmers.

It must be noted that the percentages presented inTable 1 are not sensitive to small numbers of highlyspecialized farms converting to organic agriculture. If afew very big corporate farms converted to organicfarming, Table 1 would prove unable to provide thatinformation. However, a closer inspection of the datareveals that a small number of farmers, specializing inmass-production of livestock, have indeed adoptedorganic farming since 2000. Four farms producing morethan 10,000 chickens per year converted to organic

methods, with three of them producing between 30,000and 50,000 and one claiming to produce 150,000. Onefarm produces 250 fattening-bulls annually and anothertwo farms report 160 bulls. There are three newly con-verted farms producing more than 1000 hogs and similardevelopments can be observed with regard to layinghens. Clearly, organic farms raising livestock and poultryon such scales are far from the ideal-typical mixed or-ganic agriculture and closely mirror the conventionallarge-scale production of agricultural commodities.

In summary, a number of structural changes impliedby the conventionalization hypothesis were found in theregions studied. First, new organic full-time farms are, onaverage, slightly bigger and more specialized than olderones. A decline in mixed farms and a higher rate of farmsconcentrating on the cultivation of cropland or farms notraising any livestock is seen. Second, the full-timefarmers who recently adopted organic agricultureincreasingly refrain from direct marketing. Third, a smallnumber (less than a dozen) of farms specialized in thelarge-scale production of livestock and other animalproduce entered the organic market since 2000. Althoughall farms comply with the codified organic standards, thestructure of the latter group closely resembles conven-tional agriculture. Furthermore, these large farms aremore likely to combine organic and conventional agri-culture (about 30%), a practice very untypical of organicfarms in Germany (94% of all farms in the sample arefully organic).

Environmental concern and attachment to the organicmovement

Having shown that there are differences in the structureof old and new organic farms, the question of whether or

Table 1. Selected farm characteristics (proportion in %).

Pre 1993 1993–1997 1998–2000 2001 and later

Full-time farming 40.0 33.9 40.9 33.4Part-time farming 60.0 66.1 59.1 66.6Of full-time farmsMixed farm (self-assessed) 26.8 18.0 19.3 15.0No livestock 2.4 12.2 10.1 13.9Livestock specialization (1 kind of livestock) 23.8 29.3 19.3 23.2

No grassland 0.0 12.2 8.4 17.6No cropland 35.7 34.1 41.2 29.6Direct marketing 39.0 41.5 27.6 21.7

Of part-time farmsMixed farm (self-assessed) 13.3 14.1 17.4 12.4No livestock 3.1 5.0 5.8 7.9Livestock specialization (1 kind of livestock) 30.2 20.0 30.2 27.0

No grassland 6.3 2.5 5.2 7.0No cropland 58.7 63.8 64.5 62.3Direct marketing 29.0 40.5 34.3 23.9

N 108 122 293 325

100 Henning Best

not corresponding differences with regard to membershipin organic movement organizations and environmentalattitudes can be observed as well. Although there is nodirect, one to one relationship between attitudes andaction, the importance of attitudes for the prediction ofbehavior is well established in the literature (see Ajzen,1991 for a general treatise, for farming practices see e.g.,Vogel, 1996b or Willock et al., 1999).

The development of membership in organic farmingassociations is shown in Figure 3. There is no consistenttrend over time. About 69% of the early organic full-time farmers are members of such an organization. Theproportion of organized farmers slightly decreases in thefollowing years and rises again to 70% among the lateadopters. This same trend can be observed among part-time farmers, the sole difference being a lower overallmembership rate of around 40–50%.

It should be noted that there may be some bias in thesenumbers. Pioneering organic farmers, who switched to adifferent inspection body, are overrepresented in thesample, with the result that their organizational level maybe underestimated (that is, the farmer switched inspectionbodies and left the organization). Nonetheless, with morethan 70% of the new full-time organic farmers beingmembers of organic associations, the attachment to theorganic movement remains strong.

Figure 4 summarizes the development of environ-mental concern among organic farmers. There has been aslight decline of environmental concern over time. Full-time farmers who adopted organic farming before 1997show average scale values of about 3.8, those convertingbetween 1998 and 2000 show values of roughly 3.7, andthe most recent organic farmers scored show values of3.6 on the scale. However, the differences between thegroups are relatively small and not statistically significant(P = 0.14).7 Furthermore, even the newest organicfarmers� environmental concern is slightly higher thanthe concern of the average population (about 3.5, seeBMUNR, 2004) and remarkably higher than amongconventional farmers (3.1).

Similar tendencies exist with regard to agriculturalenvironmental concern. The longest organic farmersshow the highest concern (full-time: 3.9; part-time: 3.7),and, among full-time farmers, a constant decline to ascale value of 3.5 is observed. The difference betweenmost recent and most experienced full-time organicfarmers is statistically significant (P = 0.05), albeit rela-tively small. It is reassuring to note, that in spite of thereduction of farming-specific environmental orientation,the average new organic farmer is still extraordinarilymore concerned about the environmental impacts offarming than the average conventional farmer (2.4).

Despite only minor reductions in average values, thereare differences in the distribution of environmental con-cern between groups. As organic agriculture increases itsmarket share, there is a steadily growing share of full-time farmers who adopt organic farming and who showan environmental concern lower than that of the averageconventional farmer (see Table 2). This share has grownfrom about 12% of the early adopters to 19% of the newfarmers and has more than doubled with regard to agri-cultural environmental concern (4.8% compared to10.2%).

Although failing to reach statistical significance, thisdevelopment is quite troubling, especially if one bears

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

until 1992

year of conversion

%s

noitazi

nagr

oci

nagr

oni

pihsre

bme

m

full-time farmers

part-time farmers

1993-1997 1998-2000 2001 and later

Figure 3. Membership in organic organizations.

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

until 1992

year of conversion

nrecnoclatnemnorivne lareneg

)hgih=5,wol=1(

full-time farmers part-time farmers conventional farmers

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

until 1992

year of conversion

nrecnoclatn emn oriv ne larutlu cirga

)hg ih=5,wo l=1 (

1993-1997 1998-2000 2001 and later

1993-1997 1998-2000 2001 and later

Figure 4. Development of environmental concern.


the remarkably low level of environmental concern ofconventional farmers in mind. Obviously, there is agrowing number of full-time farmers moving to organicagriculture who neither care about the environment ingeneral nor about the environmental impact of theirprofession.

No such development is apparent for part-time farm-ers. While there is a relatively large percentage of farmerswith a low general environmental concern (ranging from16% to 21%), the rate of part-time farmers with a lowagricultural environmental concern is small in all cate-gories. Although there is some variation over time, noconsistent decline in the environmental concern of part-time farmers is observed.

The fact that a growing number of (full-time) farmerswith weak environmental concern have adopted organicfarming raises the question of that group�s reasons foradoption. To answer this question, the farmers were di-vided into two groups based on their general environ-mental concern. A farmer was classified as having a‘‘low’’ environmental concern if he or she had a scalevalue lower than that of an average conventional farmer(2.4) and was classified as having a ‘‘high’’ environ-mental concern otherwise. Figure 5 shows the catego-rized answers to an open question for the reasons forconversion and compares this with high versus lowenvironmental concern.

As could be expected, the unconcerned group is, firstand foremost, motivated by economic considerations.These farmers adopted organic farming because theyexpected economic improvement (35.4%) or highersubsidies (25%), because they had operated the farmextensively before (and therefore could optimize subsi-dies by converting to organic farming, 18.8%) orbecause of economic problems with conventional agri-culture (16.7%). Less than 15% mentioned environ-mental or animal welfare related reasons for the adoptionof organic agriculture. For all other farmers, the mainreason for adopting organic farming was to improveenvironmental impact or heighten animal welfare(43.6%). While economic considerations are certainlyimportant for those farmers as well, they do not take adominant position.

Summary and discussion

To evaluate recent developments of organic agriculture inthree German regions, survey data of 973 certified or-ganic farmers (310 full-time farmers) was analyzed.Using the so-called conventionalization hypothesis as abasis, the study investigated whether there were changesin the structure of newly converted organic farms, whe-ther there was a penetration of the organic sector bybusiness-oriented corporate actors, and whether a declinein pro-environmental attitudes was present.

Three results suggest that the current situation ischaracterized by tendencies towards the conventionali-zation of organic production.

First, since 2000 a number of large and highlyspecialized livestock and poultry farms have entered theorganic market, paralleling trends outlined by Buck et al.(1997) for the California vegetable production.

Second, there is a general trend among the recentadopters towards larger and more specialized farmstructures as well as an alienation from the traditionalmarketing channels of organic farming. Over the years,there has been a decrease of mixed farming and anincrease in farms not raising livestock and without anygrassland.

Table 2. Percentage of organic farmers with lower environmental concern than average conventional farmers.

Until 1992 1993–1997 1998–2000 2001 and later

Of full-time farmersGeneral environmental concern 11.9 9.8 17.6 19.4Agricultural environmental concern 4.8 7.3 5.0 10.2

Of part-time farmersGeneral environmental concern 17.5 21.3 18.0 16.3Agricultural environmental concern 6.4 5.0 2.3 4.7

N (full-time/part-time) 42/63 41/80 119/172 108/215

19.8

13.3

9.7

11.7

43.6

6.1

6.5

2.8

35.4

25

18.8

16.7

14.6

8.3

4.1

2.1

0

economic improvement(organic)

subsidies

extensive before

economic problems(conventional)

environment / animalwelfare

food scandals

secure future of the farm

family health

proportion in %

low env. concern

high env. concern

10 20 30 40 50

Figure 5. Motivations for adopting organic agriculture.

102 Henning Best

Third, an increasing share of full-time organic farmers(up to 19% of the recent adopters) exhibits low envi-ronmental concern. That is, their pro-environmentalattitudes are less pronounced than that of the averageconventional farmer. The same tendency, though to alesser extent, is apparent with regard to attitudes towardsthe environmental impact of farming. This group offarmers, albeit contrasting from the above mentionedgroup of industrial farmers, takes a clearly business-ori-ented viewpoint towards organic farming.

These trends, however, are only valid for a fraction ofnew organic farmers. First of all, the trends outlinedabove only apply to full-time farmers. Among part-timeorganic farmers, as expected, no shift towards a more‘‘conventional’’ ideology or farm structure was observed.Additionally, the majority of all farmers, even of recentadopters, does share the values of the organic movement.The decline in average environmental concern canpresumably be attributed to the increasing share ofbusiness-oriented farmers. This, in turn, implies that thepro-environmental attitude among the majority remainsstrong. Nonetheless, the shift towards less multifunc-tional, larger farms converting to organic agricultureshould be interpreted as an indicator of changes inorganic production.

If the development were characterized as the conven-tionalization of organic farming, this would lead to anumber of important questions. How does the WestGerman case compare to studies of conventionalizationin other regions which exhibit a different structure ofconventional agriculture? Is it really conventionalizationwe are observing? How can the data be interpreted withreference to the available causal theories of convention-alization?

The logic of the conventionalization hypothesis, asformulated by Buck et al. (1997) and Guthman (2004),draws mainly on internal dynamics of the organic sector.Buck et al. begin with the observation that Californiaorganic farming is penetrated by agribusiness corpora-tions. They argue that these capitalist enterprises use theirmarket power to change the whole sector. For two rea-sons, however, the data presented in this paper should notbe interpreted as supporting Buck et al.�s argument. Ifthis exact process is to be termed conventionalization, thedata lend only moderate support for the conventionali-zation hypothesis at the present state of affairs.

In the first place, the agricultural structure in WestGermany as in most other regions is completely differentfrom the California case. As Wells (1996: 2) notes, ‘‘[itis] the state of California, where capitalist agriculture hasreached a developmental apex. (...) In many ways, itsdominant agricultural pattern approximates the condi-tions of industrial capitalism.’’ Yet, large parts of WestGerman agriculture are still characterized by simplecommodity production, with 94% of all farms being sole

proprietorships, most of which are family based (seeBMVEL, 2004: 21). Accordingly, only a handful ofcapitalist farms, most of them large livestock producers,could be identified in the sample. These farms, consti-tuting a very small minority, should not be expected tofundamentally change the whole organic sector at pres-ent. It should, however, be kept in mind that if a largernumber of industrial producers choose to adopt organicagriculture in the next years, the �invisible hand of themarket� and economies of scale may well force otherorganic farmers to implement changes that enforcecommercial efficiency. In that case, the causal relation-ship posited by Buck et al. would be valid for the Ger-man case as well.

Secondly, the data presented reflect a dynamic betweenconventional agriculture and organic agriculture. Al-most all new organic farmers are former conventionalfarmers. Thus, even if the tendencies described on thelast pages are observed, they cannot be interpreted tomean that organic farming as a whole has changed. Allone can say is that the characteristics of the adopters havechanged. That is, while the longer organic farmers con-tinue to farm as they used to, new entrants to the organicmarket show characteristics other than those embodiedby previous adopters, such as larger farms, less directmarketing, and more specialization among others.Although these changing characteristics of new adoptersmight lead to an internal dynamic in the future, asdescribed above, the data do not show that this processhas started. On the contrary, the results show that earlyadopters have been, for instance, operating more mixedfarm operations than recent adopters. Future researchwould ideally utilize time series or panel data to answerthe question of whether the early adopters have to adaptto a new, more conventional way of organic productionor not. This research could more adequately account forthe process character and the internal dynamic as for-mulated by the conventionalization hypothesis in itsstrictest form.

When comparing the results to recent developments inNew Zealand (see Coombes and Campbell, 1998), theGerman case is different as well. There is no bifurcationinto ‘‘deep organic’’ farmers producing for the domesticmarket and ‘‘organic lite’’ farmers supplying the globalmarket as there is in New Zealand. While there are dif-ferences between early and late adopters with respect totheir marketing channels (like direct marketing), a con-centration on export-oriented production is unusual forWest German organic farmers.

A comparison with the development in Ontario, Can-ada (see Hall and Mogyorody, 2001) is more complex. Inboth regions, a small number of industrial producers whomade the transition to organic farming could be identi-fied. In both regions, their number has not yet reached thelevel at which their competition may become a problem


for smaller farmers. Whereas Hall and Mogyorody couldfind only little support for new converters being largerand more specialized, these tendencies clearly exist in theWest German study region.8

In summary, in all regions discussed (California, NewZealand, Ontario, and West Germany) there were ten-dencies that could be named conventionalization in avery broad sense. Yet the tendencies are quite different ineach region. All in all, the common ground seems to bethat organic agriculture is becoming a more interestingoption for conventional farmers. But should this verybasic process really be termed conventionalization? Ibelieve it should not. If this process were to be calledconventionalization, then conventionalization is indeedubiquitous. Growth of the organic sector would almostautomatically lead to conventionalization, rendering thewhole concept useless. A meaningful definition should,as noted by Darnhofer (2006), at least require a under-mining of the principles of organic farming whenspeaking of conventionalization. Progress in farmingtechniques and change in farming structures within theorganic paradigm could then be separated from conven-tionalization. At the same time, the definition should bebroad enough to allow regional variation. In this notion,growth and change of the organic sector may lead toconventionalization, but they do not necessarily have to.

The further development of organic farming can beexpected to vary between countries and regions, depen-dent on factors like state intervention and the overallstructure of conventional agriculture. In settings with adeveloped capitalist agriculture like California, neo-Marxist theories (like those used by Guthman and Bucket al.) may prove useful. If conventional farming ishighly industrialized, there is a good chance that indus-trial farms will start to produce organic food just as theywould produce any other agricultural commodity. If acritical mass is reached, the resulting economic pressureon the earlier organic farms may be strong enough tochange the whole organic sector and to undermine theprinciples of organic agriculture. In a setting with con-ventional farms that are typically relatively small, pri-vately owned and low in capital expenditure, as in theWest German case, it is more likely that the differencebetween the old and the new organic farmers will not begreat enough to start the conventionalization dynamic. Ofcourse, there will be change as a larger share of formerlyconventional farms adopt organic agriculture, and thesefarms will surely differ from the organic pioneers. Evenif the new entrants are ‘‘more conventional,’’ the devel-opment trajectory of organic agriculture may be differentfrom the conventionalization scenario.

In the end, it seems that the current state of conven-tionalization theory can be characterized by Fisher andFreundenburg�s view of ecological modernization theory:‘‘[the concept] is ultimately likely to prove neither

completely correct nor completely incorrect; instead, theultimate verdict is likely to be, �it depends.� If that isindeed the case, then it would be highly beneficial todevote a significantly larger fraction of our effort tostudying the more specific factors upon which it de-pends’’ (Fisher and Freudenburg, 2001: 706). To analyzethese factors, comparative studies on the development oforganic farming in different regional, political, and eco-nomic settings seem particularly useful. The first step inthat direction, however, should be a more precise con-ceptualization of ‘‘conventionalization’’ and a thoroughtheoretical assessment of the driving forces.

Acknowledgements

Henning Best wishes to express his gratitude to the FritzThyssen Foundation that supported the empirical studyunderlying this paper. Earlier drafts have benefited fromcomments by Alexandra Nonnenmacher and threeanonymous reviewers. Farhad Ferdowsian and Sarah A.Mekjian were of great help in improving the languageand writing style of the paper.

Notes

1. Anthroposophy is a ‘‘philosophy based on the view that thehuman intellect has the ability to contact spiritual worlds’’(Britannica, 2006). Steiner�s quasi-religious philosophical workincludes, among other things, guidelines for a form of organicfarming called biodynamic agriculture (see Steiner, 1993).

2. As there are large differences in farming structure betweenWest Germany and East Germany, all of the following isvalid for West Germany only. Agriculture in East Germanyhas historically been, and still is, organized in larger units,be it under feudal, socialist or capitalist economic regimes.

3. It must be noted, however, that this difference is in part dueto the concentration of fresh fruit and vegetable productionin California.

4. The study of organic farmers was accompanied by a study of826 conventional farmers (471 of them full-time) using aslightly modified questionnaire. In this paper, the data onconventional farmers is used only as background informa-tion for comparison of the level of environmental concernbetween organic and conventional farmers.

5. An example will serve to clarify the matter. If a certifiedorganic vintner bottled his own wine, his/her vineyard usedto fall into category ‘‘AB.’’ If this vintner later decides tooutsource the bottling, the category changes to ‘‘A’’ and thevineyard has to be newly registered with the inspectionagency.

6. As it cannot be assessed whether earlier organic farms or theattitudes of the farmers have changed since the adoption oforganic farming, this should be kept in mind as a possiblesource of bias.

104 Henning Best

7. The failure to reach statistical significance is most likely dueto the low sample size of full-time farmers. If an ANOVA isestimated for the pooled sample of full and part-time farm-ers, the more recent farmers� general environmental concernis significantly lower than that of the earlier farmers.

8. It should be noted, however, that in West Germany, anaverage organic farm is larger than a conventional farm(34.4 ha vs. 29.4 ha, see Statistisches Bundesamt, 2004),whereas the reverse is true in Ontario, Canada. In thatrespect, an increase in farm size is not necessarily anindicator of conventionalization. As such, West Germanorganic farms would have to shrink in order to becomemore conventional.

Appendix: Items used for the scale of environmentalconcern (translated from German)

General environmental concern

‘‘When I think about the environmental conditionsunder which our children and grandchildren will haveto live, I am worried.’’ ‘‘If we continue to behave theway we used to do, we are heading towards an eco-logical disaster.’’ ‘‘When reading newspaper articles onenvironmental problems, or when watching corre-sponding telecasts, I often become indignant andangry.’’ ‘‘There are limits to growth which our indus-trialized world already has exceeded or soon will ap-proach.’’ ‘‘Up to now, the greatest part of thepopulation does not behave very environmentallyfriendly.’’ ‘‘In my opinion, the dimension of ecologicalproblems is exaggerated by the environmentalists.’’‘‘Politicians are still doing by far to less to protect theenvironment.’’ ‘‘In favor of the environment, all of usshould be willing to cut down on our standard ofliving.’’ ‘‘Environmental measures should be enforcedeven if there is a loss of jobs.’’

Agricultural environmental concern

‘‘Modern agriculture damages biotopes and contributesto the loss of wild animals and plants.’’ ‘‘Synthetic fer-tilizers and pesticides derogate the natural fertility of thesoil and decrease product quality.’’ ‘‘If you use chemicalsubstances in agriculture, you work against nature.’’‘‘The contamination of the ground water by fertilizers isworse than many people are willing to realize.’’ ‘‘Even iferrors are made once in a while, farmers are the bestconservationists.’’ ‘‘Synthetic fertilizers and pesticidesdo not have harmful effects. They facilitate quality pro-duction.’’ ‘‘The use of chemical substances in farmingmakes sense if it yields more than it costs.’’

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). ‘‘The theory of planned behaviour.’’ Organi-zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2):179–211.

Best, H. (2006). Die Umstellung auf okologische Landwirts-chaft als Entscheidungsprozess. Wiesbaden, Germany:VS-Verlag.

BMUNR (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Con-servation and Nuclear Safety). (2004). Umweltbewußtsein inDeutschland 2004: Ergebnisse einer reprasentativenBevolkerungsumfrage. Government report, Bonn, Germany:Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsi-cherheit.

BMVEL (Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food andAgriculture). (2004). Ernahrungs- und agrarpolitischer Be-richt der Bundesregierung. Government report, Berlin,Germany: Bundesministerium fur Verbraucherschutz, Ern-ahrung und Landwirtschaft.

Britannica (2006). ‘‘Anthroposophy.’’ Encyclopædia BritannicaOnline. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/eb/article–9007798 on October 23, 2006.

Buck, D., C. Getz, and J. Guthman (1997). ‘‘From farm totable: The organic vegetable commodity chain of NorthernCalifornia.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 37(1): 3–20.

Buttel, F. H., O. F. Larson, and G. W. Gillespie (1990). TheSociology of Agriculture. New York, New York: GreenwoodPress.

Coombes, B. and H. Campbell (1998). ‘‘Dependent reproduc-tion of alternative modes of agriculture: Organic farming inNew Zealand.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 38(2): 127–145.

Darnhofer, I. (2006). ‘‘Organic farming between professionali-sation and conventionalisation. The need for a more discerningview on farmer practices.’’ In: C. B. Andersen, L. Elsgaard,L. S. Soerensen, and G. Hansen (eds.), Organic Farming andRural Development. Proceedings of the European JointOrganic Congress, May 30–31, 2006 (pp. 156–157). Odense,Denmark: European Joint Organic Congress. Retrieved fromhttp://orgprints.org/7390/ on December 1, 2006.

DBV (German Farmer�s Association) (2002). Situationsbericht2003: Trends und Fakten zur Landwirtschaft. Bonn, Ger-many: Deutscher Bauernverband.

Diekmann, A. and P. Preisendorfer (2000). Umweltsoziologie.Eine Einfuhrung. Reinbek, Germany: Rowohlt.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The TailoredDesign Method. New York, New York: Wiley.

EuropeanCommission. (1991). Council regulation (EEC)No 2092/91. Retrieved from http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/main/1991/en_1991R2092_index.html on January 9, 2006.

European Commission. (2005). Organic farming in the Euro-pean Union. Facts and figures. Retrieved from http://euro-pa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/qual/organic/facts_en.pdf onJanuary 9, 2006.

Fisher, D. R. and W. R. Freudenburg (2001). ‘‘Ecologicalmodernization and its critics: Assessing the past and lookingtoward the future.’’ Society and Natural Resources 14(8):701–709.


Guthman, J. (2004). ‘‘The trouble with �Organic Lite� inCalifornia: A rejoinder to the �conventionalization� debate.’’Sociologia Ruralis 44(3): 301–316.

Hall, A. and V. Mogyorody (2001). ‘‘Organic farmers inOntario: An examination of the conventionalizationargument.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 41(4): 399–422.

Haumann, B. (2005). ‘‘North America.’’ In H. Willer and M.Yussefi (eds.), The World of Organic Agriculture Statisticsand Emerging Trends 2005, (pp. 159–172). Bonn, Germany:International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements(IFOAM).

Klonsky, K., and L. Tourte (1998). ‘‘Organic agricultural pro-duction in the United States: Debates and directions.’’American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(5): 1119–1124.

Lund, V., S. Hemlin, and W. Lockeretz (2002). ‘‘Organiclivestock production as viewed by Swedish farmers andorganic initiators.’’ Agriculture and Human Values 19(3):255–268.

Mader, P., A. Fließbach, D. DuBois, L. Gunst, P. FriedU. Niggli (2002). ‘‘Soil fertility and biodiversity in organicfarming.’’ Science 296: 1694–1697.

Martin, P. (2001). ‘‘Labor Relations in California Agriculture.’’University of California Institute for Labor and Employment.The State of California Labor, 2001. Retrieved from http://repositories.cdlib.org/ile/scl2001/Section7 on November 18,2006.

Michelsen, J. (2001a). ‘‘Recent development and politicalacceptance of organic farming in Europe.’’ Sociologia Ru-ralis 41(1): 3–20.

Michelsen, J. (2001b). ‘‘Organic farming in a regulatory per-spective: The Danish case.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 41(1): 62–84.

Milestad, R. and I. Darnhofer (2003). ‘‘Building farm resil-ience: The prospects and challenges of organic farming.’’Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22(3): 81–97.

Padel, S. (2001). ‘‘Conversion to organic farming: A typicalexample of the diffusion of an innovation?’’ Sociologia Ru-ralis 41(1): 40–61.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York,New York: The Free Press.

Schneeberger, W., I. Darnhofer, and M. Eder (2002). ‘‘Barriersto the adoption of organic farming by cash-crop producers inAustria.’’ American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 17(1):24–31.

SOEL (Stiftung Okologie & Landbau). (2004). OkologischerLandbau in Deutschland: Ubersicht. Retrieved from http://www.soel.de/oekolandbau/deutschland.html on July 30,2005.

Statistisches Bundesamt (2004). Landwirtschaft in Zahlen2003. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt.

Steiner, R. (1993). Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal ofAgriculture. Junction City, Oregon: Biodynamic Farming andGardening Association.

Tovey, H. (1997). ‘‘Food, environmentalism and rural sociol-ogy: On the organic farming movement in Ireland.’’ Socio-logia Ruralis 37: 21–37.

Vogel, S. (1999a). Umweltbewußtsein und Landwirtschaft.Theoretische Uberlegungen und empirische Befunde. Wei-kersheim, Germany: Markgraf Verlag.

Vogel, S. (1999b). ‘‘Farmers� environmental attitudes andbehavior. A case study for Austria.’’ Environment andBehavior 28(5): 591–613.

Vogt, G. (2000). Entstehung und Entwicklung des okologischenLandbaus im deutschsprachigen Raum. Bad Durkheim,Germany: SOL.

Wells, M. J. (1996). Strawberry Fields: Politics, Class, andWork in California Agriculture. Ithaca, New York: CornellUniversity Press.

Willer, H. and M. Yussefi (eds.). (2005). The World of OrganicAgriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2005. Bonn,Germany: International Federation of Organic AgricultureMovements (IFOAM).

Willock, J., I. J. Deary, G. Edwards-Jones, G. Gibson, M. J.McGregor, A. Sutherland, J. B. Dent, O. MorganR. Grieve (1999). ‘‘The role of attitudes and objectives infarmer decision making: Business and environmentallyoriented behaviour in Scotland.’’ Journal of AgriculturalEconomics 50(3): 286–303.

Address for correspondence: Henning Best, Institute forApplied Social Research, University of Cologne, Greinstr. 2,D-50939, Cologne, GermanyPhone: +49-221-4704398; Fax: +49-221-4705169E-mail: [email protected]

106 Henning Best

organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis

Documents