ON THE DIFFUSION OF SUSTAINABLE ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES:

LESSONS FROM IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE

ON SMALL-SCALE FARMS IN NICARAGUA

Bruno DyckI.H. Asper School of Business

University of ManitobaWinnipeg., Manitoba

Canada R3T 5V4

Tel.: 204-474-8184Fax: 204-474-7545

E-mail: bdyck@ms.umanitoba.ca

Acknowledgements: This paper has benefitted from comments by Miriam Harder, Tom Lawrence, Theresa Rempel Mulaire and Dan Wiens.

1

Abstract

This study examines the diffusion of a specific set of sustainable agronomic practices (known as

“Conservation Agriculture”) among small-scale farmers in low-income countries. The study

presents a triple-loop paradigmatic framework and uses it to contrast and compare three

different approaches that have been used to address problems facing small-scale farmers in low-

income countries over the past fifty years. The analysis suggests that sustainable innovations

(like Conservation Agriculture) are more likely to diffuse within and among organizations

characterized by a specific configuration of worldview, structures and systems, and behaviors.

This specific favorable configuration—in this case called the “sustainable Conservation

Agriculture paradigm”—is contrasted with the “Green Revolution paradigm” and with a

“conventional Conservation Agriculture paradigm.” Implications for promoting the diffusion of

sustainable innovations are discussed, with particular emphasis on meta-theoretical reflection,

the study of best practices, and the effects on the marginalized.

Keywords: diffusion of innovation, sustainability, small-scale farms, configuration, Green

Revolution, Conservation Agriculture, low-income countries

Thanks to its focus on addressing social and ecological problems, there is growing interest

in and need for more sustainable organizations (e.g., Weidinger, Fischler, & Schmidpeter, 2014).

Among social problems that need resolution, perhaps the most important is the increasing gap

between rich and poor, which US President Obama has called “the defining challenge of our

time” (Hiltzik, 2013). Most of the world is experiencing increasing income inequality, and

globally the poorest 3.5 billion people own as much wealth as its richest 85 people (Fuentas-

Nieva & Galasso, 2014). In terms of ecological problems, perhaps the most important is climate

2

change due to increased greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere, caused by carbon emissions

from burning fossil fuels, methane emissions associated with cattle rearing (which contributes

equivalent amounts to GHG as transportation), and agricultural practices that release carbon from

the soil into the atmosphere (e.g., tilling one hectare of land releases about one tonne of carbon

annually, Joshi, 2011; Schwartz, 2014).

Sustainable entrepreneurs have a laudable history and track record in addressing concerns

like these (e.g., Alvord, Brown & Letts, 2004), including starting new enterprises that promote

fair trade and organic products and practices (e.g., Ten Thousand Villages), and engaging in

sustainable intrapreneurship in existing corporations by seeking to become ecologically-neutral

while treating people with dignity (e.g., Interface). Organizations like Ten Thousand Villages and

Interface are often eager to share their sustainable practices with others, so that more

organizations can act more sustainably (e.g., Neubert & Dyck, 2014). However, the diffusion of

sustainable organizational practices is often much slower than desired (e.g., McGrath & Zell,

2001). Sometimes this may be because the sustainable practices are perceived to be too costly.

Other times the practices seem entirely rational, but diffusion is still slow. This study will

examine situations where innovations do not diffuse as rapidly as expected, despite appearing to

have economic, social and ecological advantages over the status quo.

The research setting for this study is the diffusion of Conservation Agriculture practices

among the world’s 500 million small-scale farms (Meyer, 2010). This is the most frequently

occurring and the neediest type of organizations in the world – an estimated 70 percent of the

world’s chronically-malnourished people are small-scale farmers (Braul, Doell, Galloway,

Rumney, Wiens, & Woodring, 2011). Fortunately, agronomists and international development

experts have developed a set of farming practices—called Conservation Agriculture (CA)—that

can help farmers to double their productivity while reducing their financial costs and improving

3

the quality of their soil. CA refers to the holistic adoption of three simple agricultural practices:

1) minimal mechanical disturbance of the soil (e.g., zero tillage), 2) placement of mulch or crop

residue on top of soil in seasons when crops are not being grown, and 3) crop rotation (e.g., after

a season of growing corn, which takes nitrogen from the soil, follow up by having two growing

seasons with a nitrogen-fixing leguminous crops, such as beans).

Because CA has been shown to double productivity while reducing farmers’ financial

costs we would expect it to diffuse rapidly, especially if we regard small-scale farms “as

businesses whose main aim of production is to allocate resources in order to maximize profit”

(Umar, 2014, p. 280, who cites Schultz, 1964, Lipton, 1968, and Stiglitz, 1989). And yet

diffusion of CA practices has been slow, even among farmers who have firsthand experience with

doubling productivity on trial plots on their own farms (e.g., Umar, 2014; abandonment rates of

40 to 60 percent are described in Penot, Fabre & Domas, 2011; see also Giller, Witter, Corbeels,

& Tittonell, 2009). Observations like these have promoted a growing number of experts in the

field to suggest that the diffusion of CA is not an agronomic problem, but rather a challenge for

management scholars to weigh in on (e.g., Degrande, Franzel, Yeptiep, Asaah, Tsobeng, &

Tchoundjeu, 2012; de Schutter, 2010; Joshi, 2009, 2011; Lele & Trigo, 2010; Meyer, 2010;

Pretty, Toulmin, & William, 2011; Silici, Ndabe, Friedrich, & Kassam, 2011).

We posit that a central challenge in this regard is to develop organizational structures and

systems that nurture CA diffusion. In particular, our findings will suggest that the existing

structures and systems used by non-government organizations (NGOs) and other international

development agencies who promote CA in low-income countries tend to based on too narrow an

approach—specifically, focusing too much on economic well-being and/or on ecological well-

being—and that what is needed is a more holistic approach that takes into account social,

ecological and economic well-being, in that order (i.e., sustainable organizations). In other words,

4

it is not enough that NGOs get small-scale farmers in low-income countries to implement

innovations like CA on their farms, it is also important how the NGOs accomplish this (e.g.,

Heugens & Scherer, 2010; Shivarajan & Srinivasan, 2013).

The paper will proceed in four parts. First we will describe what we mean by sustainable

organizations, provide a brief review of diffusion of innovation theory, and draw from the

sustainability and triple-loop learning literatures to introduce a three-dimensional framework

(behavior, worldview, and structures and systems) that will guide our subsequent analysis.

Second, we will describe our research site and methods. Our empirical example of sustainable

organizing comes from a pilot project introducing CA in Nicaragua, a country in Central America

with a population of 6 million people with a per capita GDP of about $3000US where 80 percent

of the population live on less than $2US per day. Third, we will use the three-dimensional

framework to describe three paradigmatic “ideal types” associated with efforts to improve life on

small-scale farms in low-income countries: the Green Revolution paradigm, the Conventional CA

paradigm, and the Sustainable CA paradigm. Finally, we will discuss implications for sustainable

organizations, meta-theoretic ethics, and ennobling the marginalized.

Literature Review

This paper examines diffusion of sustainable practices among small-scale farmers in low-

income countries. The term diffusion refers to the rate at which an innovation spreads and is put

into practice within an organization, and/or within an industry or population of organizations,

and/or across communities of organizations (sometimes such diffusion is referred to as “scaling

up” a sustainable innovation; e.g., Alvord, Brown & Letts, 2004). And we use the term

“sustainable practices” to refer to organizational practices that enhance both social and an

environmental well-being, and which place greater emphasis on holistic “value creation” than an

financial “value capture” (e.g., Santos, 2012). For sustainable organizations it is important to be

5

economically viable, but the idea of profit-maximization is secondary to the primary agenda of

“value creation.”

Taken together, this paper examines an instance of sustainable practices evident in the

proliferation and diffusion of sustainable farming practices among by small-scale farmers in low-

income countries. More specifically, the paper will examine small-scale farms that have

experienced firsthand the benefits of sustainable practices, but then abandon them or fail to scale

them up. Why do organizations fail to adopt proven sustainable practices throughout their

organizational activities? And why don’t these proven practices diffuse throughout a population

of organizations? Failing to incorporate such sustainable seems unrational (McGrath & Zell,

2001).1

Diffusion and sustainable organizational practices

A recent literature review of the diffusion of eco-innovations found over 1,000 related

publications from 1990-2012. Interest in the field is growing rapidly, as evident in observing that

there were: a) fewer then ten publications per year throughout the 1990s, b) an average of about

30 publications per year from 2000-08, and c) an average of over 120 publications per year from

2008-12 (Karakaya, Hidalgo, & Nuur, 2014). The review concluded with a call for more research

that links eco-innovations to Rogers (1995) theory of diffusion, and in particular examines factors

that help to explain the diffusion of innovations after they have benefited from the establishment

of supportive policies.

Rogers (1995) diffusion of innovations theory suggests that an innovation is more likely

to be adopted if it has five qualities: 1) relative advantage compared to the idea it replaces; 2)

compatability with potential adopters’ values, needs and past practices; 3) understandability and

usability (opposite to complexity); 4) trialability (it is easy to try out on an experimental basis),

and 5) results are easy to observe (Rogers, 1995; subsequent research has provided strong support

6

especially for the first three of these, Kapoor, Dwivedi & Williams, 2014). As we shall see, a

strong argument can be made that CA has at least four of these qualities (where it may be lacking

is in the compatability with potential adopters’ values, needs and past practices).

Of particular relevance for our study is Rogers’ description of the five-stage process

decision-makers go through when they adopt an innovation: 1) become aware of the existence of

an innovation and how it works (knowledge); 2) form a favorable attitude about the innovation

(persuasion); 3) engage in activities that result in choosing to adopt the innovation (decision), 4)

put the decision into practice (implementation), and 5) seek information to reinforce the adoption

(confirmation). The present study focuses on the fifth stage, confirmation (i.e., it focuses on what

happens after the first four stages have been successfully completed – does the innovation diffuse

within organizations and across neighboring organizations?). When it comes to CA, it turns out

that it is not unusual for NGOs and community-based development organizations successfully

navigate the first four stages, but fail to achieve the confirmatory adoption of the innovation they

are hoping to diffuse. This begs the question: Once a farmer has implemented CA on part of their

farm, and has developed a firsthand understanding of CA’s relative advantages and usability, why

does that experience not lead to full-scale diffusion and use in the confirmation state (McGrath &

Zell, 2001, p. 390)? In other words, once a farmer has successfully passed through the first four

of Roger’s five stages, why does the innovation not get “scaled up” by the farmer and others in

the community? Rogers (1995) points to three potential reasons for a lack of diffusion of a

"proven” innovation: 1) “compromised” initial implementation, 2) discovery of a “better idea,”

and 3) lack of compatibility.

First, in situations where there was a compromised initial implementation, some adopters

may thereby “re-invent” an innovation in a way that diminishes its desirable qualities. For

example, farmers who implement only two of the three CA pillars may thereby lower potential

7

performance. This danger helps to explain why NGOs and other development organizations who

promote the diffusion of CA often perceive themselves as knowing the “best” way to put CA into

practice, and thus seek to minimize any compromising “re-invention” problems by providing

clear instructions and stringent guidelines for adopters (Rogers, 1995, pp. 174, 177).

Second, Rogers (1995, p. 182) describes how the acquisition of new knowledge or better

ideas after an innovation has been implemented may result in the subsequent abandonment of the

initial innovation. Within the community of NGO and other development organizations seeking

to help small-scale farmers in low-income countries, this idea of a new “better idea” may be

implied when they continually roll out new “programs” and “projects” for farmers to participate

in (e.g., promoting high-input agriculture, and promoting use of off-farm chemical fertilizers,

pesticides, genetically-modified seeds, etc). There is considerable agreement that such high-input

innovations are not “better ideas” than CA, which remains highly-regarded in both the scholarly

and developmental community (e.g., Stokstad, 2008).

Taken together, although there may be occasions where CA fails to diffuse because of one

of these two reasons (i.e., because it has been “compromised,” or because there may be a “better

idea” for a particular farmer), these are not considered to be the dominant reasons for the failure

for CA to scale-up. Thus, our examination will focus on Rogers’ third potential explanation of

why innovations may be abandoned, namely for lack-of-compatibility reasons that combine

factors associated with what we call: 1) “worldview” (comprised of the beliefs and values, and

way of life, especially consistent with past experiences) and 2) social “structures and systems”

(especially those at the intersection of potential adopters and diffusion champions).

Importance of worldview: “The discontinuance of an innovation is one indication that the new idea may not have been fully institutionalized and routinized into the ongoing practice and way of life of the adopter at the implementation stage of the innovation process. Such routinization is less likely (and discontinuance more frequent) when the

8

innovation is less compatible with the individual’s beliefs and past experience [i.e., worldview].” (Rogers, 1995, p.183; emphases added here)

Importance of structures and systems: “The structure of a social system can facilitate or impede the diffusion of innovations in a system. … ‘It is as unthinkable to study diffusion without some knowledge of the social structures in which potential adopters are located as it is to study blood circulation without adequate knowledge of the veins and arteries.’ … Compared with other aspects of diffusion research, however, there have been relatively few studies of how the social or communication structure affects the diffusion and adoption of innovations in a system” (Rogers, 1995, p. 25; emphasis added here).

Thus, our study will examine whether and how worldviews and social structures and

systems might help us to understand why a sustainable innovation like CA does not diffuse

among small-scale farms in situations where Rogers’ first two factors (compromised

implementation, finding a better idea) are not issues. Consider the following example:

“There is an implicit assumption by CA experts and promoters that once the smallholders are shown the agronomic and economic benefits of CA, their profit maximizing calculus would automatically lead them to adopt it. … The superiority of yields from CA fields compared with conventionally farmed fields was reported by all 129 households that participated in the semi-structured interviews and from the 2-year field assessments during this study; and other studies on CA (Table 2 [which cites four studies where on average CA productivity was more than twice that of conventional agriculture]). This view was also put forward in the focus groups and by most key informant interviewees. Yet all but one of the CA households continued to practice CA on only a portion of their cultivated areas and allocated between 30 and 50% of their cultivated activities to CA.” (Umar, 2014, p. 2, 7; see also Giller et al., 2009; Penot et al., 2011)

Conservation Agriculture on Small-Scale Farms in Low-Income Countries

The literature around small-scale farms in low-income countries generally, and on the

promotion of CA specifically, is far-ranging and multi-disciplinary. However, it turns out there is

virtually no research on this topic in traditional management outlets, which may help to explain

the call for management scholars to engage. Perhaps the most relevant and helpful single study

was the $12 million 2500-page “International Assessment for Agricultural Science and

Technology for Development” (IAASTD) report prepared by 400 authors over a period of six

years commissioned by the World Bank and by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture

9

Organization, which addressed the question:

“How can we reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development through the generation, access to, and use of agricultural knowledge, science and technology” (Stokstad, 2008, p. 1474).

In simple terms, the IAASTD report sought to determine whether small-scale farms

would benefit more from the diffusion of agricultural innovations associated with a) conventional

“industrial agriculture” or b) “multifunctional agriculture” (Stokstad, 2008, p. 1474). “Industrial

agriculture”—which is includes the so-called Green Revolution—emphasizes high input

technologies such as plant breeding, genetically-modified food, pesticides, fertilizers, and is often

linked to large-scale mechanization. In contrast, “multifunctional agriculture” emphasizes

sustainable farming practices like CA2 and innovations that foster biodiversity, community

development, stewardship of the land; it recognizes that farming is much more than producing

food because farmers also play an important role in the stewardship of ecological resources and

in cultural heritage (Stokstad, 2008, p. 1475). The IAASTD report essentially concludes that

“multifunctional agriculture” is preferable to “industrial agriculture” (Wood & Lenne, 2011, p.

172; Stokstad, 2008). Moreover, the report exhorts researchers “to move away from processes

that have profited primarily large-scale enterprises [and instead focus on] to processes that

address the most basic needs of the world’s 900 million small farmers” (Kiers et al, 2008, p. 320;

McIntyre et al., 2009, p. viii, 4, 5, 10; Rural Poverty Report 2011).

CA meets at least four of Roger’s (1995) five qualities of an innovation that facilitate

adoption and diffusion:

1) CA has a clear relative advantage compared to farmers’ existing practices (e.g., it is associated with doubling productivity: Pretty et al., 2011; Umar, 2014; see also Silici et al., 2011);

2) CA is fairly easy to understand and use; it does not require costly inputs like fertilizer, special seeds and pesticides: “Everybody can do it” (Silici et al., 2011, p. 143);

10

3) CA is easy to try out on an trial basis (e.g., in the first phase of the Nicaragua project described below, it was introduced on manageably-sized plots of land measuring 25 meters by 25 meters), and;

4) the results are easy to observe (e.g., farmers can visually see that their trial plot has fewer weeds, more crops, and lower financial input costs).

The one quality where CA is not an ideal candidate for diffusion may be in its compatability with

potential adopters’ values, needs and past practices. This will be discussed further in our

conceptual framework under the heading of “worldview,” but for now note that

“A strong belief in the relative advantage of the new idea often leads technocrats [operating from an ‘industrial agriculture’ worldview] to assume that existing practices [and pre-industrial-agriculture worldviews] are so inferior that they need not be considered at all” (Rogers, 1995; p. 241).

Conceptual Framework

A useful framework to develop a richer understanding of Rogers’ third reason for the lack

of diffusion can be found in the sustainable organizations literature which suggests that such

innovations require a paradigm shift. Drawing from triple-loop learning, scholars have identified

three key paradigmatic components that may be of particular importance: behavior, worldviews,

and structures and systems (the framework developed here will draw from and build on Argyris,

1990; Dyck, 2013; Foldy & Creed, 1999; Kurucz, Colbert & Wheeler, 2013; Nielsen, 2001). As

suggested in Figure 1, each of these three components can be seen as influencing, and being

influenced by, the other two. This framework seems particularly appropriate for thinking about

and managing issues related to sustainable innovations because: 1) it can be applied at different

levels of analysis (e.g., global, national, organizational, personal); 2) it is inherently a process-

based model, meaning it facilitates learning over time (rather than requiring a change to occur in

all three dimensions simultaneously); and 3) each of its basic components are of considerable

practical and theoretical relevance to the questions of sustainable management and organizations.

--- insert Figure 1 about here ---

11

The first step in the triple-loop framework occurs when a problem prompts the need for a

change in an existing paradigm. In the current study, the problem is the poverty and malnutrition

facing hundred of millions of small-scale farms. The study examines the merit in addressing this

problem via adopting new behavior that involves implementing CA practices on farms. Positive

results from this new behavior is expected to be associated with corresponding changes in

worldviews (e.g., challenging existing ideas about the meaning of agriculture, including values,

beliefs, ethics) and structures and systems (e.g., the ways that NGOs and others promote CA

practices among farmers, and also the structures and systems on the farms and within farm

communities). Structures and systems subsequently influence worldviews and behaviors (cf.

Altieri & Toledo, 2011; Foldy & Creed, 1999).

This study will use this three-dimensional paradigmatic framework to examine important

differences between three distinct paradigmatic approaches to the problems facing small-scale

farms—the Green Revolution paradigm, a Conventional CA paradigm, and a Sustainable CA

paradigm—and the diffusion (or lack of diffusion) of sustainable innovations associated with

each paradigm.

Research Design and Methods

This study examines organizational efforts to resolve social, ecological and economic

problems facing small-scale farmers in low-income countries. In particular, the threefold

behavior/worldview/structures and systems paradigmatic framework will provide the basis to

develop an “ideal type” understanding of: 1) a conventional “Green Revolution” paradigm, 2) a

“Conventional CA” paradigm (where there is little diffusion of CA), and 3) a “Sustainable CA”

paradigm (diffusive). Of course, as is the case for the development of any typologies, the three

“ideal types” developed here are a simplification of reality, but are nevertheless useful for theory

development, reflection and practice. In addition to drawing on the existing literatures,

12

developing these three paradigmatic descriptions involved both general and specific fieldwork.

Fieldwork

The fieldwork had two components: general and specific. The general component

involved several trips to visit various projects around the world where CA practices were being

promoted among small-scale farmers. This included on-farm visits to Bolivia, Brazil, China,

North Korea and Paraguay. These site visits included about 45 (informal) interviews with

international and local development workers and farmers from these countries. Some of these

interviews were recorded, and written notes were kept of field visits generally. Related fieldwork

also included participating for over a decade in various roles (researcher, consumer) on a small-

scale farm in North America that implements CA practices (cite lead author’s research here). This

fieldwork, coupled with reviews of the literature, provided much of the first-hand understanding

required to develop the “Green Revolution paradigm” and “Conventional CA paradigm” ideal-

types described below.

The second component of the fieldwork involved a week-long on-site visit and

examination of one particular CA project in Nicaragua whose paradigmatic design and

(emerging) success provided opportunity for a study of hallmarks of what may characterize a

diffusive “Sustainable CA paradigm.” This Nicaraguan project was officially begun in May,

2012, and is run under the auspices of Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), with support from

the Canadian Foodgrainsbank (CFBG). This is a pilot project that includes 15 small-scale farms,

one local project coordinator, and three local (volunteer) “technicians” who visit the farms and

provide support to the participating farmers.

The two sponsoring NGOs (MCC and CFGB) have extensive experience working with

CA projects in Africa, and in early 2011 had commissioned an analysis of CA on small-scale

farms in Central America and South America which found that, although many of the agronomic

13

practices associated with CA are prevalent in various forms, when defined rigidly there was

virtually no CA being practiced on small-scale farms in Central and South American countries

(Woodring, 2011, p. 6; thus, one might say that the Nicaraguan project described here has “put

the CA in Central America”). They followed this up with a second study in late 2011 which

examined NGOs promoting practices associated with CA in Honduras, which involved a North

American delegation visiting each of five NGOs that had been short-listed as exemplary in this

regard.

In addition to reading these background reports, as well as various subsequent reports

associated with this project (mostly prepared by Miriam Harder, the MCC international project

coordinator who visits the project at least twice a year; Harder, 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c,

2014), the lead author also spent a week as part of a small delegation visiting the project in

Nicaragua in November, 2013. The delegation was hosted by Miriam Harder (a regional MCC

worker who coordinates the project from her office in Mexico), and included Dan Wiens (MCC’s

Food Security & Livelihoods Coordinator, who oversees this project) and Theresa Rempel

Mulaire (senior program officer at CFGB, the funding agency for the project).

The weeklong visit to Nicaragua involved visiting with and collecting observational and

(informal) interview data from technicians and farmers participating in the pilot project (video-

taped, with translation into English). It also included observing various meetings of farmers and

NGO workers. Detailed notes, including a record of who made each utterance, were taken at: 1) a

regional farmer-to-farmer exchange meeting (21 participants, 120 utterances); 2) a meeting

between that included the visiting delegation, the local project leader, his local technicians, and

other partnering local NGOs (134 utterances) and; 3) a meeting involving the visiting delegation

and two lead staff persons working for MCC in Nicaragua (261 utterances: not that this meeting

was in English, whereas the other two meetings were translated by the local MCC project

14

coordinator). Finally, the lead author took advantage of numerous opportunities (evening, travel

time to farms) to ask questions and discuss emerging understandings and ideas with the expat

NGO workers involved in this project, and in related CA projects around the world (Miriam

Harder, Dan Wiens and Theresa Rempel Mulaire). Both Wiens and Rempel Mulaire have

extensive experience with CA projects around the world, and along with Harder, have been

invited to comment on an earlier version of this paper.

Analysis

Data analysis was an iterative and reflective process. The lead author did not go into the

field having in mind the three “ideal type” approaches described in Figure 2. Nor did the lead

author develop structured interviews to ask specific questions about behaviors, worldviews, and

structure and systems. Rather, the findings presented here emerged from the fieldwork, from long

informal conversations with international development workers, from reflecting on what was

being said (and not said) in interviews and the literature, from reading project reports, from

repeating interviews, and from analysing observational notes and “minutes” taken during

meetings (which included identifying patterns of who was talking—e.g NGO staff or farmers—

and what was being said, and the bottom-up versus top-down knowledge flows). Perhaps most

importantly, the ideas in this paper have been refined as a result of being tested with leaders in

the field.3

In particular, the three paradigmatic “ideal-types” described in the findings emerged from

examining what the data were saying about the Nicaragua project, and how this contrasted and

compared with the literature and observations in other countries. For example, as we shall see,

unique features of the Nicaragua project included refusing to provide incentives to farmers and

explicitly encouraging farmers who received CA training to experiment with it. These sorts of

features went against “common sense” (e.g., poor people should receive small incentives to

15

accept the risks associated with trying new agricultural practices, encouraging farmers to

experiment with CA might result in “compromising” the best practices that had been established

elsewhere, and so on). And yet these very same features seemed important for understanding why

the diffusion of CA was poised to explode in this setting.

Findings

Figure 2 provides an overview of three “paradigms” for addressing problems facing

small-scale farmers in low-income countries. Consistent with the triple-loop learning framework,

for each paradigm the process can be seen to start by becoming aware of a problem that needs to

be resolved. The initial problem depicted in Figure 2 is the plight of impoverished and

malnourished small-scale farmers in low-income countries. The first paradigmatic response to

this is depicted as the interplay between the behavior, worldview, and structures and systems

associated with the “Green Revolution Paradigm.” While the Green Revolution helps resolved

the initial problem (e.g., it results in more food and new income sources for impoverished small-

scale farms), it unfortunately also unintentionally gives rise to a host of new social and ecological

problems. Attempts to address these unintended problems gives rise to the development of the

“Conventional CA Paradigm,” which in turn successfully addresses the problems that prompted

it. However, its lack of diffusion of CA practices has triggered the need for a new paradigm, here

called the “Sustainable CA Paradigm,” which holds promise for enhancing the diffusion of

sustainable technologies like CA.

--- insert Figure 2 about here ---

Of course the three paradigms depicted in Figure 2 encompass a wide swath of

considerations and thus provide a somewhat under-nuanced and highly-simplified overview of

the issues being discussed here. Many articles and books can and have been written related to

these matters, and more are needed. The purpose here is to see if the three-dimensional

16

behavior/worldview/structure and systems framework is helpful for understanding key

characteristics of the different paradigms, and in particular to see if it points to valuable lessons

and implications for the diffusion of CA among small-scale farmers in low-income countries

specifically, and perhaps for the diffusion of new sustainable practices more generally.

Initial Problem

As has been described earlier in the paper, small-scale farms are the most frequent and

among the neediest organizations in the world. Seventy percent of chronically-malnourished

people in the world are small-scale farmers. One common proposed solution to this problem—

consistent with industrial agriculture—is to promote the so-called Green Revolution paradigm.

Green Revolution Paradigm

Based on the original Green Revolution that took root especially in India starting in the

1960s, and subsequently spread throughout much of Asia, we know that the application of Green

Revolution technologies can double productivity for small-scale farmers. However, its diffusion

has not been without some (telling) hiccups. For example:

“One of the most important agricultural innovations of all time was the so-called miracle varieties of rice bred at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines in the mid-1960s. These rice varieties, when grown with heavy applications of chemical fertilizers, the use of pesticides, thicker planting, and other management practices, often tripled a farmer’s rice yields. The IRRI miracle rice varieties spread very rapidly throughout Asia, causing a ‘green revolution.’ But the agronomists and plant breeders at IRRI only bred the miracle rice varieties for high yields and resistance to pests. No attention was given to the taste of the new rice. The present author was involved in the mid-1960s in the first diffusion studies of miracle rice in South India. He found that the new varieties did not taste ‘right’ to the farm people who were planting the innovative seed. … The author informed the rice-breeders of IRRI about the taste incompatibility problem, but in the 1960s they scoffed at this recommendation: ‘We triple rice yields. Farm people will soon learn to like the taste of IRRI rice!’ Thirty years later, South Indian farmers, like their counterparts in many other Asian nations, are still planting small amounts of traditional rice varieties for their own consumption.” (Rogers, 1995, p. 224-25; emphasis in original)

Worldview. Industrial agriculture is based on a worldview that sees humankind as being

17

able to use science and technology to manage agricultural practices in a way that also promotes

economic well-being. A key has been to break down complex processes into their constituent

parts: for example, if more nitrogen is needed on a farmers’ field, add it; if more water is

required, introduce new irrigation equipment; if there are too many pests, use chemicals to kill

them. This approach gives primacy to science and technology, and thus the knowledge flows

from experts down to farmers in the field.

Structures and systems. The Green Revolution uses technology to maximize production,

and in particular the number of calories of food energy grown in each field (and less concern for

aesthetic concerns like “taste”). It is also associated with: the commodification of food and seeing

fields as “factories” to grow profits; the distancing of food (the average forkful of food in the

USA travels over 1500 kilometers); and the centralization of the markets (six multinational

corporations sell most of the farm inputs, and six multinationals purchase most of the farm

outputs) (e.g., Carolan, 2014; Dyck, 1994).

Behavior. Farm practices associated with the Green Revolution have been (disparagingly)

referred to as “farming out of a can.” Farmers simply need to follow the instructions provided by

science—use the proper kinds of seeds, apply the specified levels and kinds of fertilizers and

pesticides at the appropriate times, water as required, and so on—and they too can enjoy

bountiful crops. Technologies like monoculture further enable increased mechanization and

increase in farm size (e.g., because of a lack of diversity in seeds, plants grow at the same rate,

and can be harvested using large-scale technology). Green Revolution technologies appear to be

very efficient; for example, one hundred years ago more than 70 percent of the population

worked on farms, and today it is less than 5 percent in high-income countries.

Unintended Problems Associated with Green Revolution

18

Unfortunately, the Green Revolution has been associated with plentiful negative

ecological and social outcomes (e.g., Dreyfus, Plencovich & Petit, 2009, p. 64; Hurni & Osman-

Elasha, 2009, p. 20-21). In terms of ecological problems, repeated use of chemical inputs like

fertilizers and pesticides serves to decrease the quality of the soil. Past practices, like tilling the

soil, have also caused ecological problems (e.g., loss of carbon, organic matter, ability to retain

water), some of which are now being addressed world-wide with an emphasis on zero-tillage.

Although Green Revolution practices appear to be very efficient (e.g., fewer people farming

larger fields), these practices are actually very energy inefficient (see review of literature in

Gomiero, Paoletti & Pimental, 2008, p. 244). For example, with conventional agriculture it can

take more than ten calories of energy subsidy to grow one calorie of food energy, whereas

agriculture remains a net energy producer in non-industrial societies (Dyck, 1994, p. 54). There

are many externalities (e.g., aquifer depletion and water pollution that future generations will

need to pay to clean up) that are not reflected in what people in high-income countries pay for

their food (Carolan, 2014).

In terms of problematic social outcomes, 80 percent of 324 studies show that applying the

Green Revolution paradigm in low-income countries serves to widen the gap between rich and

poor (Bientema & Koc, 2009, p. 525; this finding is not entirely surprising, given the relative

power disadvantage that individual farmers have vis a vis large multinational suppliers of farm

inputs and purchasers of farm output). Increasing farm size also places increasing pressure for

young people to move to large cities where they often live in slums. The Green Revolution has

also been associated with a decrease in food security because farmers are encouraged to grow

their crops for export (and import their food from elsewhere), thus making them very vulnerable

to changes in global food prices that they have no control over. Taken together, ecological and

social problems like these have prompted the development of the Conventional CA Paradigm.

19

Conventional CA Paradigm

Worldview. Compared to the techno-economic view that characterizes the Green

Revolution, the Conventional CA paradigm has more of a bio-systems perspective. This more

ecological-centric view seeks to work with nature, rather than seeking to manage or manipulate

nature. For example, rather than add inputs like fertilizers, the CA paradigm uses “natural”

methods to enhance the fertility of the soil. Similar to the Green Revolution, often the training

provided to small-scale farmers in the Conventional CA paradigm has a “West knows best” bias,

though it is also true that international development agencies that promote CA recognize the

importance of being sensitive to local soil and environmental conditions, which may differ from

one farm to the next.

Structures and systems. Like their Green Revolution cousins, the NGOs who promote

Conventional CA among small-scale farmers in low-income countries tend to focus on

maximizing productivity and the number of calories grown on the farm fields, which is quite

understandable given the fact that many small-scale farmers are chronically malnourished. Also

like their Green Revolution cousins, these Conventional CA-promoting NGOs tend to provide

clear instructions and training about CA practices, thus avoiding possible problems associated

with compromised re-inventions (Rogers, 1995). The trainers and fieldworkers provide their

expertise to local farmers, and thus enable them to grow more food. Finally, farmers are often

provided with “incentives” to participate in adopting CA practices on their farms (e.g., free seed,

hoes or wheelbarrows, perhaps fencing material to keep animals out of the fields; such incentives

are also be used to reinforce following the prescribed instructions for implementing CA).

Providing incentives makes sense because the farmers are very poor and are being asked to “risk”

a new way of farming when their traditional “proven” practices can barely sustain their families.

Behavior. As has been described earlier in the paper, CA has three practices to be

20

adopted on farms: 1) minimum tillage (which reduces carbon loss, promotes growth of welcome

bio-organisms in the soil, enhances water retention in soil); 2) using mulch or cover cropping

during non-growing season (which reduces carbon loss and adds nutrients/organic matter to the

soil); and 3) crop rotation (which helps to use and replenish the nutrients in the soil).

Unexpected Problems Associated with the Conventional CA Paradigm

CA has become a darling of the international development community thanks to research

that shows that it doubles productivity while reducing financial inputs costs, improves soil

quality, and often enhances the health of the larger community (e.g., Pretty et al., 2011; for

arguments that these merits of CA may be over-stated and require further research, see Giller et

al., 2009). Perhaps the most serious, and puzzling, shortcoming of CA is its lack of diffusion

among farms even after its effectiveness has been demonstrated—and in many cases experienced

first-hand—by farmers (Giller et al., 2009; Penot et al., 2011; Umar, 2014). Factors that may

hamper the diffusion of CA include land-ownership (e.g., “There is much less incentive to invest

in the long term improvement of the land if the person does not own the land,” Harder, 2014),

regions with high rainfall (where improved soils that retain water may exacerbate the negative

effect of flooding), communities where legumes and/or grains are not part of the cultural diet, and

regions where farmers “have other sources of income than just agriculture and their land

produced sufficiently that they do not feel the economic pressure to seriously change their

production method” (Harder, 2014; see reviews in Pannell, Llewellyn, & Corbeels, 2014, and

Giller et al., 2009).

“It is clear from the above discussion that it cannot be automatically assumed that CA will bring benefits to the farming system and rural livelihood as a whole simply because benefits are shown at the plot level. A farming system consists of many interacting components and is subject to a range of bio-physical, socio-economic as well as cultural constraints.”(Giller et al., 2009, p. 30)

Sustainable CA Paradigm

21

Worldview. The Sustainable CA paradigm is consistent with, but goes beyond, the

Conventional CA paradigm because Sustainable CA has a “whole systems” worldview that

includes the “whole ecological environment” (akin to Conventional CA) as well as “whole

people” (which distinguishes Sustainable CA from both the Conventional CA and Green

Revolution paradigms). This whole systems worldview is evident in the worldview of Miriam

Harder, the international project coordinator of the Nicaragua CA project: “I am completely

convinced that in order to understand the 'success' or 'challenges' of a project, it is just as, if not

more, important to understand the social/cultural dynamics as the agronomic” (Harder, 2013b).

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs framework provides a helpful way to describe this distinctive

difference of the Sustainable CA worldview. Whereas both Conventional CA and Green

Revolution paradigms focus on (instrumental) “existence” needs of small-scale farmers (i.e.,

farmers need help to grow more food, preferably in an ecologically-sustainable way), the

Sustainable CA paradigm in addition recognizes that farmers have (expressive) relatedness and

“self-actualization” needs (i.e., that farmers are whole persons). This is manifest in the

Sustainable CA orientation that, for example, in addition to having something to teach to farmers,

there is also much to learn from farmers. Inviting small-scale farmers in low-income countries to

participate in global knowledge networks as both receivers and providers of knowledge increases

their “social inclusion” and may help meet existence needs “not only through economic benefits,

but also through the poor’s improved well-being as the result of their increased self-esteem and

dignity” (Shivarajan & Srinivasan, 2013, p. 381). Whereas a one-way flow of knowledge is often

assumed when organizations from high-income countries send employees to work in low-income

countries, an emphasis on the dynamics of two-way knowledge flows may help to enhance the

experience of both parties and improve overall learning/diffusion (Chen et al., 2012).

Structures and systems. There are at least three key differences in how the NGOs deliver

22

Sustainable CA programming compared to a conventional approach. Dan Wiens (MCC’s Food

Security & Livelihoods Coordinator, who oversees the Nicaragua project) succinctly described

these as being “non-productionist, non-instructionist, and non-incentivist.”

First, sustainable CA has a more holistic focus on overall farm livelihood (versus

narrower productionism). Whereas conventional measures of success include an emphasis on

growing more calories as efficiently as possible, Sustainable CA counter-balances this with an

emphasis also on the importance of nutrition and other livelihood issues. This more holistic

approach was already evident in the preparatory studies leading to the Nicaragua project, which

recommended incorporating ideas about diversified family gardens (nutritional vegetables) and

planting some cash crops (income generation) into its food security programming in the region,

including:

“perennial plants such as cassava, papaya, pineapple, plantain, bananas, citrus, mango, and avocado … Annual vegetables and root crops such as sweet potato, cabbage, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, and carrots can also be grown to diversify the diets, and also provide some income to families allowing them to purchase other foods.” (Braul et al., 2011)

Second, Sustainable CA has an emphasis on accompaniment and local innovation (versus

instructionism). Whereas conventional programming may be very rigid in specifying rules

associated with the best farm practices (to avoid “compromised” re-inventions, Rogers, 1995),

the farmers in Nicaragua project were explicitly encouraged to experiment and innovate (and to

document and share the results from their experiments). As one farmer told the NGO

representatives during their site visit: “You told us to improvise.” Indeed, “interest in innovation”

and “Willingness to participate in farmer exchanges and give feedback and recommendations

based on their experience” were among the criteria for choosing participating farmers in the

Nicaragua project (Project agreement, 2012). This is consistent with recommendations in the

23

preliminary report, which found that exemplary NGOs in the region consistently introduced new

agronomic practices via farmer-led trials that:

“promoted on-farm experimentation and the development of local capacities. By putting farmers first in the development process, the probability of reaching intended outcomes is improved and there is increased project ownership by the farmers.” (Braul et al., 2011)

Thus, for example, annual “farmer to farmer exchanges” were an important part of the structures

and systems designed into the Nicaragua project to facilitate local innovation and complement

accompaniment.4 Another striking feature of the Nicaragua project is that each of its volunteer

“technicians” visit each of the participating farmers at least once a week during the growing

seasons (considerably more frequent than typical conventional CA projects around the world).

This not only facilitates the diffusion of the “formal” CA information, but just as importantly

facilitates the diffusion of innovations across farms and communities. The regional project

coordinator in Nicaragua visits each farm once a month.

Third, Sustainable CA minimizes the provision of inputs by NGOs (vs incentivism).

Although NGOs commonly use incentives for this kind of work, past research and experience

predisposed the NGOs spearheading this project (MCC and CFGB) to minimize input incentives

for farmers, as was consistent with their findings among exemplary NGOs working in the region

where each:

“worked at minimizing or removing external material inputs in order to enhance the sustainability and community ownership of the project. … [The reason why these NGOs] minimized external inputs was related to their overall emphasis on helping smallholder farmers become aware of and rely on their [that is, the farmers’ own] knowledge, attitudes, abilities and local resources as they engage in the development process. … ‘If the mind of the smallholder farmer is a desert, so too will be his or her field’. A positive livelihood change for a smallholder farmer was not possible if the emphasis was on external input incentives. [These exemplary NGOs] recognized that the greatest need was engaging the farmers in an ‘awakening’ process to empower them to become leaders of their own and their community’s development process that largely depended on the stewardship of local resources.” (Braul et al., 2011; emphasis added here)

24

This “awakening process” and appreciation for their own knowledge and abilities is enhanced

when farmers participate and succeed in a project thanks to their own commitment and effort, and

not because of external material inputs. Consistent with this, the Nicaragua project targeted

farmers who were prepared to themselves provide all the necessary inputs (Project Agreement,

2012). That said, MCC did provide one input to farmers, not as an incentive to participate, but

after the project had begun:

“At the end of Year 1 the decision was made to provide fencing materials to the farmers in Nicaragua who were having problems with animals entering the trials and destroying the crop. … Beyond this input, we have no intention to provide any more inputs to the farmers/organizations during the time period of this project. (Harder, 2013a; total cost = about $1,300 US)5

Behavior. First, during the site visit it became clear to the first author (and other

participants) that this project had a holistic orientation and was not simply about maximizing

calories. For example, during one of the rides between farms, one of the technicians talked about

poverty in the region, and about how CA brings hope (not just food). Similar sentiments were

expressed during the farmer-to-farmer exchange meeting, where farmers talked about being

thankful for healthier food and families, about adapting to climate change, and about enhancing

food security. One older gentlemen spoke with some eloquence about how Sustainable CA was

better for families, for production, for people, for the environment, and for overall health and

well-being (a livelihood vision). This holistic emphasis on growing food rather than maximizing

calories was also evident in the variety of crops grown on the farmers’ fields, unusual for a

typical CA project:

“At least a third of the farmers are growing other plants (beans, watermelon, squash, etc.) around the trials (within in the fenced-in area) … It is interesting to see how by their own initiative they are diversifying these small areas [Harder, 2013b, emphasis added here] … This is great in the sense that people are thinking of the potential and bigger picture rather than just how this project was introduced.” (Harder, 2013c, emphasis added here)

25

Finally, all this is not to downplay the importance of improving productivity -- in the second year

of the project CA production was already an average of about 160 percent of conventional

production (Harder, 2014).

Second, a high level of innovation was also readily apparent during the site visit. Dan

Wiens, who has overseen many different CA projects around the world, marvelled at the level of

innovation evident in the Nicaragua project, as is evident in comments he made during his visit to

the project:

“They [the farmers] have not just implemented CA as they learned it [from instructors], but improved it and made it their own. … Already [there is] a high level of innovation in the project in the first 2 years: sesame mulch, organic, using different crops. This is strongly correlated with the level of interaction between producers and promoters. … As we continue to grow the project, we need to continue to strongly encourage a culture of learning and experimentation. The process of up-scaling itself is an experiment and social science. … The attitude of the project leadership is promoting a culture of learning and adapting. Not presented in a way that we have all the answers, we are leaning together and this is not a hierarchy. …

The soil of this project is fertile for something to grow. The ideas will come from you [the farmers], not from us [the international NGOs], but we are encouraged to be part of this. The farmers have an attitude and motivation that comes from the desire to experiment, innovate, try different things for the betterment of their fields and communities. And this is where development happens – in their heads and hearts.” (taken from Harder, 2013c)

Perhaps the most notable example of an important innovation that came from the farmers

was to use sesame stalks as their mulch. This is not something that they would have been taught

during their formal instruction on CA. The farmer who had told the NGO representatives “You

told us to improvise” went on to add:

“You didn't teach us about sesame for mulch – we figured that out ourselves. Maybe sesame stalks aren’t as good in nitrogen fixing as what you suggested, but they have other benefits [e.g., sesame stalks are relatively available, and fortunately they don’t break down very quickly even in the harsh weather during the non-growing season].”

During a site visit one of the technicians described how this innovation had initially been

suggested to him by a (female) neighbor. Although the local regional co-ordinator was a bit

26

skeptical at first because he feared the sesame stalks would decompose too quickly in the harsh

elements, he nevertheless supported the experiment. This innovation has become a great success

—some farmers even speculated that the sesame stalks may help to reduce the weeds in the fields

—and has diffused rapidly.

“The community where the four participating farmers are women (and showed the weakest results in Year 1) showed the most significant improvement. After seeing how effective the sesame mulch was in another community they intentionally planted sesame themselves or sought out other people growing sesame to use as mulch in their trials this year. Some needed to hire a person to help them carry all the stalks to their trials if their husbands were not able to help them, but they were very pleased with the results.” (Harder, 2013b)

Because of the success of using sesame stalks for mulch, demand for them has grown in the

region. Where a few years ago local farmers did not know what to do with sesame stalks (they

used to burn them as “waste”), now there is talk of selling them for mulch.6

And third, the excitement to expand the project (diffusion) was palpable during the site

visits. At the start of the project participants had been requested not to expand it in the first two

years, in order to provide opportunity to make some base-line observations about its efficacy and

best practices. By the time of the site visit (during year 2 of the project) it was clear that farmers

were eager for the project to expand, as evident in observations from the Theresa Rempel Mulaire

(CFGB representative) who was “Impressed by the level of energy and excitement at the 2 year

mark. They [members of the local community] are engaged and entrepreneurial” (taken from

Harder, 2013c). This eagerness-for-diffusion was also noted by Miriam Harder, the international

project coordinator, who reported that the farmers and local NGOs involved:

“are very enthusiastic about expanding the project and are developing their longer term vision. Quite a number of organizations have come to visit to see the trials … and are interested in trying it out as well. … At this point the most significant challenge I see in Nicaragua is figuring out how to work with organizations that are very optimistic and enthusiastic” (Harder, 2013b; emphasis added here)

27

At a meeting with local NGOs during the site visit it became clear that the local

technicians, other NGOs and the regional project coordinator were keen to increase tenfold the

number of farmers involved in the project. Here it was the role of the international NGOs to

temper this enthusiasm, and suggest it may be more prudent to slow down the diffusion project so

that it is more manageable and does not exceed the on-the-ground capacity to facilitate (e.g.,

accompaniment takes time). In short, rather than wonder why diffusion is not happening, in this

pilot project the worry of the NGOs is that diffusion may proceed too rapidly! Recently it was

agreed to increase the number of participating farmers almost five-fold (Harder, 2014).

Discussion

The study has demonstrated the merit in the “triple-loop learning” three-dimensional

paradigmatic framework for understanding the diffusion of sustainable CA practices among

small-scale farmers in low-income countries. Recall that CA is a sustainable practice as

characterized by its emphasis on social and ecological well-being where economic viability is

important but value capture does not out-trump value creation.

By way of a brief summary, in terms of the three criteria of successful sustainability (i.e.,

social, ecological, economic), the results depicted in Figure 2 suggests although the Green

Revolution paradigm appears to have some short-term success in terms of financial well-being, in

the long-term it exhibits significant short-comings along the social (widening gap between rich

and poor) and the ecological dimension (degrading soil, high energy inefficiency). Taken

together, our analysis suggests that the sorts of worldview, structure and systems, and behaviors

associated with the Green Revolution paradigm are inconsistent with sustainable practices like

CA. In contrast, the Conventional CA paradigm seems much more sustainable, but it also has its

shortcomings. In particular, a key shortcoming of this paradigm is that it focuses on farmers’

existence needs but fails to give adequate attention their relatedness/growth needs (social

28

dimension). Interestingly, another short-coming may be its focus on very short-term “value

capture” (in the form of providing incentives to farmers) rather than on farmers developing

“value creation” (e.g., improved soil) to enable long-term “value capture.” Finally, the

Sustainable CA paradigm seems to represent a balance between the social, ecological and

financial dimensions in a way that will facilitate future diffusion within and across farms. To be

clear, we recognize that the particular CA pilot project in Nicaragua described here does not

“prove” anything, but it does point to an alternative “ideal type” to place alongside the Green

Revolution and Conventional CA paradigms.

The remaining discussion will reflect on implications of our study for each of the three

components of our conceptual framework: worldview, structures and systems, and behavior.

Worldview: Importance of Meta-Theoretical Reflection

This study points to the importance of reflecting on meta-theoretical issues for

understanding differences between sustainable versus conventional paradigms (e.g., Jack et al.,

2013), and in particular for critiquing the dominant paradigm in regards to its shortcomings in

terms of sustainability. From a meta-theoretic perspective, the three paradigms described in the

paper (Green Revolution, Conventional CA, and Sustainable CA) are based on three differing

worldviews or moral-points-of-view (Frankena, 1973; cf. Dyck & Schroeder, 2005). For

example, behavior that is considered effective and ethical within the Sustainable CA worldview

(e.g., encouraging innovation and the “re-invention” of CA principles in the local context) might

be considered ineffective and even unethical from a Green Revolution or Conventional CA

paradigm (e.g., which might perceive “re-invention” to introduce sub-optimal practices or

represent an inefficient/wasteful use of resources).

An illustration of the merits of such a meta-theoretic perspective is evident in Rogers’

(1995, pp. 185-86) description of how someone’s worldview influences how they judge different

29

innovations and practitioners. Doing diffusion research in 1954, Rogers found a farmer who was

unwilling to use the latest agricultural innovations of the day (e.g., “4-D weed spray, antibiotic

swine feeding supplements, chemical fertilizer”) because, according to the farmer, these

innovations “killed the earthworms and songbirds in his field.” At the time Rogers categorized

the farmer as a “laggard.” However, in light of the subsequent environmental movement and the

ban of such chemicals and the rise of organic farming, Rogers now recognizes that same farmer

as a virtuous “superinnovator.” It begs the question, who are today’s so-called laggards who will

tomorrow be known as superinnovators? In terms of meta-theory, which worldview(s) do we use

choose to judge others (and to classify the organizational practices that we study in our own

research)? Is our worldview based on “Eurocentric meta-theory and scientific rationality” that

presumes the emic knowledge of the West is universal etic knowledge (Jack et al., 2013, p. 161)?

In terms of ethical theories, is our worldview informed by maximizing productivity outcomes

(consequential utilitariansm), or by holistically seeking happiness in community (virtue theory)

(e.g., Bell & Dyck, 2012)?

Structures and Systems: Best Sustainable Practices

In many ways, the Green Revolution paradigm is most akin to the structures and systems

that dominate high-income countries. The Green Revolution excels in short-term measurable

results, emphasizes financial well-being and is efficient in terms of financial costs (if one does

not include externalities), depends on the larger marketplace to set the price and distribute farm

inputs and outputs, and encourages small-scale farmers at the Base of the Pyramid to become

consumers within the larger global formal financial economy (e.g., Prahalad, 2010, p. 44-45).

However, as evident in reports like the IASSTD and in the analysis offered in this paper, from a

holistic perspective the Green Revolution is inferior to Sustainable CA.

30

This begs the question: If a holistically-sustainably paradigm is preferable for the most

common and neediest organizations in the world, might it also be preferable for the rest of us?

What if organizations in high-income countries developed structures and systems designed to

optimize ecological and social well-being, where financial viability was important but value

capture did not out-trump value creation? Surely this would lead to reduced financial profits and

financial economic growth (if we do not consider externalities). But it would also help to address

some of the most pressing issues facing humankind (e.g., income inequity, climate change).

Perhaps that is why a new generation of business (and other) students is embracing the

idea of sustainability (e.g., the social enterprise club at Harvard Business School is now among

its largest extracurricular groups, Martin, 2014). Perhaps this is why legislation permitting

innovations like Benefit corporations—which promote sustainable practices—is diffusing rapidly

across many jurisdictions. Society needs and is seeking more sustainable organizations that place

greater focus on social and ecological value creation, and less on their own value capture.

Bbusiness schools have an obligation to further develop sustainable theory and practices, such as

already happening in fields like the study of BCorps, corporate social responsibility,

environmental performance, humanistic management, and so on.

Behavior: How to Treat the Marginalized

Just as self-fulfilling prophecies cause economics and business scholars and students to

become more materialistic and individualistic when they study theories and organizations steeped

in conventional understandings of business (e.g., Ferraro, Pfeffer & Sutton, 2005), so also

studying sustainable practices that enhance the well-being of especially marginalized groups may

result in adopting views and behaviors that balance multiple forms of well-being for multiple

stakeholders. For the present study, speaking at a personal level, perhaps the most difficult aspect

for the first author to accept about the Sustainable CA paradigm was the deliberate decision NOT

31

to provide material support for participating farmers. These farmers are poor: surely providing a

hoe or a sack of seeds would be welcome and appropriate.

What we often fail to consider is the effect that such incentives can have on the self-

esteem and self-understanding of recipients. As described in an excellent analysis on this matter

by Dees (2012), it can reduce their sense of dignity and self-worth, having been rendered a

charity case to be pitied. Or, along the same lines, it may result in recipients acquiring a sense of

entitlement where they expect “hand-outs” and incentives, and no longer feel accountable to take

the lessons that they have learned on trial plots and apply them elsewhere on their own and

others’ farms (e.g., see description of what happens to soup kitchen patrons in Neubert & Dyck,

2014, p. 312-13). Indeed, exactly this has been suggested as one of the reasons for the slow

diffusion of CA: farmers who receive incentives to implement CA on their farms (and experience

firsthand how well it works) nevertheless abandon CA when those incentives are removed and

replaced by the next in a line of new incentives from another NGO promoting some other new set

of practices (e.g.. Penot et al., 2011; Peredo, 2003).

For the first author the merit of the non-incentivist aspect of the Sustainable CA paradigm

became obvious during a visit to a Nicaraguan farmer named Rita (pseudonym) who was truly

outstanding in her field:

“When we arrived in her small village I noted how hers was the field that must have been part of the study [even for a non-farmer like myself it is pretty easy to tell which plots of land use CA]. We met with her in the middle of her field. I will never forget the sense of pride and deep satisfaction on her face and in her voice as she described the work she had done, how her neighbours would comment on her impressive crop when they walked by, and even how proud her parents were. And then she asked her husband, who had been off to the side contently enjoying what was transpiring before him, to join her. And then she asked their daughter to join them. And we asked her questions, took some photos, and delighted in the moment. The profound fulfillment that she had gained from her hard work was unmistakable. The transformation of the field represented an instance of self-actualization and deepened relationships with her husband and daughter. And I recognized how all this would have been compromised had she relied on NGO

32

incentives/hand-outs. This field was the fruit of her (and her family’s) labour, and I would not want to take any of that away from her or them.”

Of course, there are occasions where “hand-outs” are entirely appropriate (e.g., aid to

victims of a flood or earthquake). But more generally, people like Rita who have been

marginalized in our global economy simply want the opportunity to work and enjoy structures

and systems that allow them to feed their families and improve their livelihoods. This is

consistent with research which shows that the world’s poorest people don’t see “poverty” as

primarily about a lack of money, but rather as about a lack of power, food and security. For

example, the findings of a ‘Consultations with the poor’ study by the World Bank—based on

open-ended interviews with 20,000 poor people from over 40 countries—concludes with a four-

part “change strategy” that reflects the basic elements of triple-loop learning and that points to the

need for develop management theory and practice consistent with sustainable entrepreneurship

(Narayan, 1999; Narayan, Chambers, Shah, & Petesch, 1999):

1) Start with a diagnosis of the problem by the poor: “Poor people don’t talk much about income … While [conventional] poverty measures that focus primarily on consumption and expenditures, education and health are important, they miss important dimensions of poverty, particularly voice and power” (Narayan, 1999, p. 223);

2) Change social structures and systems: Organizations should be decentralized and community-driven: “Much remains to be done to support organizations of the poor at the local level” (Narayan, 1999, p. 225);

3) Develop a worldview that supports building appropriate capacity for the poor: When the elite uphold conventional norms “then poverty policies are unlikely to be formulated or implemented in ways that serve poor people” (Narayan, 1999, p. 227);

4) Support the behavior associated with sustainable practices: “Within the system, development entrepreneurs are needed to initiate change in behavior and actions” (Narayan, 1999, p. 229).

In short, the time is ripe for more study, deeper understanding, and more expression of the

worldview, structures and systems, and behaviors associated with sustainable organizational

practices. We have long known that technical or agronomic skills are important but not enough; it

33

is organization-building skills related to such efforts that are key to project and community

success (e.g., Morse et al., 1976; Peredo, 2003; Tandon & Brown, 1981). In short, we need to

learn more about organizations that create value for everyone, and especially the marginalized,

rather than focus on increased value capture for the relatively financially well-to-do.

34

Notes

1. Of course, a lot of what happens in organizations seems unrational, just as is true for life

outside of organizations. For example, just because educated and financially able people

understand the merits of a healthy diet and physical exercise, and may indeed have firsthand

experience with the benefits of such a lifestyle, this does not mean that they will not choose it. If

individuals act unrationally in regard to their personal life and well-being, why should we expect

more from the organizations they inhabit?

2. The IAASTD Report describes CA as “one of the most important technological innovations

in developing countries” that is associated with “with positive economic, environmental and

social impacts” (Hurni & Osman-Elasha, 2009, p. 23; see also Grabowski, 2011; Milder,

Majanen & Scherr, 2011).

3. Perhaps it should also be noted that the lead author has had decades of experience in

developing theory based on qualitative data, which has been published in leading management

journals (add cites here). This is to say that, this background/training of the lead author is also

part of the “method” used in the study.

4. “Farmer to Farmer exchanges are widely accepted as a very effective way of promoting the

adoption of innovative practices and should be built into the trials from the very beginning”

(Woodring, 2011). The lead author was able to observe one such meeting, and kept detailed

notes. Of the 22 participants, 4 were part of the delegation of international visitors (including lead

author), 5 were local leaders of the project (including 1 NGO expat, the local regional projector

coordinator, and 3 volunteer technicians who provided assistance for participating farmers), and

35

14 were participating farmers. Consistent with the non-instructionist nature of the project, during

the core of the meeting (utterances #34 through to #101) the majority of comments came from

farmers (52%) and farmer technicians (30)%, with some comments from the local projector

leader (14%) and NGO expat (9%). This was clearly a time of local farmers learning from one

another, rather than having external knowledge passed down to them. The only “instructionist”

interactions observed occurred after the main meeting, when local farmers asked Dan Wiens

(himself a small-scale farmer) about “green manure” practices.

4. In addition to this external input of fencing, farmers also received seed from other local

organizations on a “pay it forward” basis (i.e., once the crop had been harvested, seeds from the

harvest were deposited back into the “community seed bank” that had provided the seed). An

important reason for using seeds from the local seed bank was to improve uniformity across

fields to permit growth comparison (Harder, 2013a). In the future, the NGOs may also support

the one-time purchase of mucuna seeds, on a “pay it forward” basis, because these are not locally

available and some farmers expressed interest in experimenting with it (Harder, 2013c). Mucuna

represents a possible partial solution to the problem of finding enough mulch – it is grown on the

fields during the dry season and creates a lot of biomass.

6. Another innovation proposed by farmers is to use mango leaves as mulch, but rather than

have farmers run this experiment, the plan is to use mango leaves on a trial plot if a local NGO:

“Mango leaves do not break down quickly and are available in abundance, but there is some concern that the toxic properties that limit the amount of plant growth under a man-go tree might negatively affect the crops as well. Because of this, they want to try on a CODESO [local NGO] trial instead of taking the risk on a farmer’s field.” (Harder, 2012)

36

References

Altieri, M. A., & Toledo, V. M. (2011). The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(3): 587-612.

Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: An exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3): 260-282.

Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bientema, N., & Koc, A.A. (coordinating lead authors) (2009). Agricultural knowledge, science and technology: Investment and economic returns. In B.D. McIntyre, H.R. Herren, J. Wakhungu, & R.T. Watson (Eds.), Agriculture at the crossroads: 495-550. Washington DC: IAASTD.

Braul, A., Doell, C., Galloway, W., Rumney, G., Wiens, D., & Woodring, C. (2011). CFGB Inter-Member Food Security Delegation Report (September 24 to October 2, 2011 in Honduras). Winnipeg, MB: Canadian Foodgrains Bank.

Bell, G.G., & Dyck, B. (2012). Conventional Resource-Based Theory and its Radical alternative: A less materialist-individualist approach to strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1): 121-130.

Carolan, M. (2014). Cheoponomics: The high cost of low prices. London: Routledge.

Chen, F., Bapuji, H., Dyck, B. & Wang, X. (2012). I learned more than I taught: The hidden dimension of learning in knowledge transfer. The Learning Organization, 19(2): 109-120.

Dees, J.G. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Charity, problem solving, and the future of social entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Ethics, 111: 321-334.

Degrande A., Franzel, S., Yeptiep, Y.S., Asaah, E., Tsobeng, A., Tchoundjeu, Z. (2012). Effectiveness of grassroots organisations in the dissemination of agroforestry innovations. In M. Kaonga (Ed.) Agroforestry for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—Science and Practice: 141-164. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.

De Schutter, O. (2010). Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. United Nations, General Assembly, Human Rights Council Sixteenth session, Agenda item 3 A/HRC/16/49.

Dreyfus, F., Plencovich, C. & Petit, M. (coordinating lead authors) (2009). Historical analysis of the effectiveness of AKST systems in promoting innovation. In B.D. McIntyre, H.R. Herren, J. Wakhungu, & R.T. Watson (Eds.), Agriculture at the crossroads: 57-144. Washington DC: IAASTD.

Dyck, B. (1994). Build in sustainable development, and they will come: A vegetable field of dreams. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(4): 47-63.

Dyck, B. (2013). Management and the Gospel: Luke’s radical message for the first and twenty-first centuries. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

37

Dyck, B. & Schroeder, D. (2005). Management, theology and moral points of view: Towards an alternative to the conventional materialist-individualist ideal-type of management. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (4): 705-735.

Edwards, M. G., & Kirkham, N. (2014). Situating ‘Giving voice to values’: A metatheoretical evaluation of a new approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3): 477-495.

Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economic language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30: 8-24.

Foldy, E. G., & Creed, W. D. (1999). Action learning, fragmentation, and the interaction of single-, double-, and triple-loop change: A case of gay and lesbian workplace advocacy. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(2): 207-227.

Frankena, W.K. (1973). Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Fuentas-Nieva, R., & Galasso, N. (2014). Working for the few: Political capture and economic inequality. Oxfam International. Found at http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/working-for-the-few-economic-inequality , posted January 20, 2014.

Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., & Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation Agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. Field Crops Research, 114(1): 23-34.

Gomiero, T., Paoletti, M.G., & Pimental, D. (2008). Energy and environmental issues in organic and conventional agriculture. Critical Review in Plant Sciences, 27(4): 239-254.

Grabowski, P.P. (2011). Constraints to adoption of Conservation Agriculture in the Angonia Highlands of Mozambique: Perspectives from smallholder hand-hoe farmers. M. Sc. Thesis (Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies), Michigan State University.

Harder, M. (2012). SSCA trip report (November). Mennonite Central Committee, Winnipeg, Canada.

Harder, M. (2013a). Annual report: Adaptation of small scale Conservation Agriculture to semi-arid regions of Mesoamerica (May). Mennonite Central Committee, Winnipeg, Canada.

Harder, M. (2013b). SSCA trip report to Nicaragua and Honduras (June). Mennonite Central Committee, Winnipeg, Canada.

Harder, M. (2013c). SSCA trip report to Nicaragua and Honduras (November). Mennonite Central Committee, Winnipeg, Canada.

Harder, M. (2014). Small scale Conservation Agriculture to semi-arid regions of Mesoamerica: Project update: Year 2 (2013). Mennonite Central Committee, Winnipeg, Canada.

Heugens, P. P., & Scherer, A. G. (2010). When organization theory met business ethics: Toward further symbioses. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4): 643-672.

Hiltzik, M. (2013). Obama is right to put spotlight on economic inequality. Los Angeles Times, Found on-line at: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20131222,0,1294414.column#ixzz2oneEpXEr, posted December 22, 2013.

Hurni, H. & Osman-Elasha, B. (coordinating lead authors) (2009). Context, conceptual framework, and sustainability indicators. In B.D. McIntyre, H.R. Herren, J. Wakhungu, & R.T. Watson (Eds.) Agriculture at the crossroads: 1-56. Washington DC: IAASTD.

38

Jack, G., Zhu, Y., Barney, J., Brannen, M. Y., Prichard, C., Singh, K., & Whetten, D. (2013). Refining, reinforcing and reimagining universal and indigenous theory development in international management. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(2): 148-164.

Joshi, P.K. (2009). Conservation Agriculture: A brief report. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(2): 293-297.

Joshi, P.K. (2011). Conservation Agriculture: An overview. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(1): 53-63.

Kapoor, K. K., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Williams, M. D. (2014). Rogers' innovation adoption attributes: A systematic review and synthesis of existing research. Information Systems Management, 31(1): 74-91.

Karakaya, E., Hidalgo, A., & Nuur, C. (2014). Diffusion of eco-innovations: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33: 392-399.

Kiers, E.T., Leakey, R.R.B., Izac, A.-M., Heinemann, J.A., & Rosenthal, E. (2008). Agriculture at the crossroads. Science, 320 (April 18): 320-21.

Kurucz, E., Colbert, B., & Wheeler, D. (2013). Reconstructing Value: Leadership Skills for a Sustainable World. University of Toronto Press.

Lele, U., & Trigo, E. (2010). Global agriculture has to change. Appropriate Technology, 37(20): 38-39.

Lipton, M. (1968). The theory of the optimising peasant. Journal of Development Studies 4:327–351.

Martin, C. (2014). Planting for profit, and greater good. New York Times. Found on-line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/business/planting-for-profit-and-greater-good.html?emc=edit_th_20140608&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=50700384&_r=0, posted June 7, 2014.

McIntyre, B.D., Herren, H.R., Wakhungu, J., & Watson, R.T. (Eds.) (2009). Agriculture at the crossroads: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Executive summary of the synthesis report. Washington DC: IAASTD.

McGrath, C., & Zell, D. (2001). The future of innovation diffusion research and its implications for management a conversation with Everett Rogers. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(4), 386-391.

Meyer, R. (2010). Setting the Frame: Challenges for small-scale farming in developing countries. In Meyer, R. & D. Burger (Eds.) Low-Input intensification of developing countries’ agri-culture—opportunities and barriers: Proceedings of the KIT-Workshop: 7-37. Karlsruhe.

Milder, J.C., Majanen, T., & Scherr, S.J. (2011). Performance and potential of conservation agriculture for climate change adaptation and mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper no. 6. Washington, DC: Ecoagriculture Partners.

Morse, E. R., Hatch, J. K., Mickelwait, D. R., & Sweet, C. F. (1976). Strategies for small farmer development. An empirical study of rural development projects in the Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Nigeria, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru. Vol. 1. Vol. 2. Case studies. Westview Press.

39

Narayan, D. (with R. Patel, K. Schafft, A. Rademacher, & S. Koch-Schulter) (1999). Can Anyone Hear Us?: Voices From 47 Countries. Poverty Group, World Bank.

Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Shah, M. & Petesch, P. (1999). Global synthesis: Consultations with the Poor. Poverty Group, World Bank.

Neubert, M., & Dyck, B. (2014). Organizational Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Nielsen, R.P. (2001). Can ethical character be stimulated and enabled? An action-learning approach to teaching and learning organization ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8 (3): 581–604.

Pannell, D. J., Llewellyn, R. S., & Corbeels, M. (2014). The farm-level economics of conservation agriculture for resource-poor farmers. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 187:52-64.

Peredo, A. M. (2003). Emerging strategies against poverty the road less traveled. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(2), 155-166.

Penot, E., Fabre, J., & Domas, R. (2011). The real adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) in the lake Alaotra area after 10 years of diffusion. 5th World Congress of Conservation Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems for a Changing World: 10-12. Brisbane, Australia.

Prahalad, C.K. (2010). The fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits (revised and updated 5th anniversary edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., & William, S. (2011). Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1): 5-24.

Project Agreement, (2012). Adaptation of Small Scale Conservation Agriculture to Semi-Arid Regions of Mesoamerica. Between Canadian Foodgrains Bank and Mennonite Central Committee Canada.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed). New York: The Free Press.

Rural Poverty Report 2011: New realities, new challenges, new opportunities for tomorrow’s generation. Rome, Italy: International Fund for Agricultural Development.

Santos, F.M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111: 355-351.

Schultz, T.W. (1964). Transforming traditional agriculture. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA.

Shivarajan, S., & Srinivasan, A. (2013). The poor as suppliers of intellectual property: A social network approach to sustainable poverty alleviation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3): 381-406.

Silici, L., Ndabe, P., Friedrich, T. & Kassam, A. (2011). Harnessing sustainability, resilience and productivity through conservation agriculture: the case of likoti in Lesotha. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1): 137-144.

Stiglitz, J.E. (1989). Rational peasants, efficient institutions, and a theory of rural organization: Methodological remarks for development economics. In P. Bardhan (Ed.). The Economic Theory of Agrarian Institutions. Oxford University Press, New York.

40

Stokstad, E. (2008). Dueling visions for a hungry world. Science, 319 (March 14): 1474-1476.

Tandon, R., & Brown, L. D. (1981). Organization-building for rural development: An experiment in India. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17(2): 172-189.

Umar, B. B. (2014). A critical review and re-assessment of theories of smallholder decision-making: a case of conservation agriculture households, Zambia. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 29(3): 277-290.

Wood, D. & Lenne, J.M. (2011). Can the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) Approach ensure future food security? In J.M. Lenne & D. Wood (ed.) Agrobiodiversity Management and Food Security: A Critical Review: 170-188. London, UK: CAB International.

Woodring, C. (2011). MCC LACA: Research and training on Manual Conservation Agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean: Regional Report. Winnipeg, Mennonite Central Committee Canada/Canadian Foodgrains Bank.

Weidinger, C., Fischler, F., & Schmidpeter, R. (Eds.), (2014). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Business success through sustainability. Heidelberg, Springer.

41

Figure 1: Three-dimensional paradigmatic framework to study the diffusion of sustainable

organizational practices

WorldviewRefers to the orientations,

perspectives, values, beliefs and ethics that are evident

in an organization.

BehaviorRefers to the everyday actionsand practices that occur in an organization, with a special interest on new actions that

are designed to address specific problems.

Structures and Systems

Refers to an organization’spolicies, standard operating

procedures, emphasis on centralization versus

decentralization, departmentalization,

and so on.

42

43