For more than a decade, Bucyrus, Ohio, farmer Steve Reinhard has been working to improve his production practices.
He’s transitioned from blanket fertilizer applications to a more precise approach, changed his application timings, and moved to a no-till system.
“Sustainability impacts our day-to-day decision making all the time,” Reinhard said. “When we talk about sustainability, we’re always looking at three different forms of sustainability. Not only do we have the environmental impact but also financial sustainability and how we pass the farm on to the next generation.”
As Reinhard independently changed his operation, sustainability discussions hit the mainstream. Critiques around greenhouse gas emissions and resource use drove many corporations to think about their environmental policies.
Agriculture was no exception. Commodity groups across the industry have implemented sustainability commitments, but the path to meeting those goals, and the impact on farmers, remains unclear.
What Commitments Have Been Made?
While commodity group’s commitments vary greatly, many focus on improving efficiency.
“There are over 500 different definitions of sustainability, but many of them boil down to doing more with less in different ways,” said Matt Sutton-Vermeulen, a partner at the Context Network.
Across the industry, commitments to reduce soil erosion, land use impact, and greenhouse gas emissions are common.
Some groups echoed the goals of broader industry organizations. For crop-focused groups, Field to Market, a sustainable agriculture alliance formed in 2006, paved the way, while many livestock-focused groups looked to the Meat Institute.
As goals evolve, groups also work with university researchers and farmer representatives to identify goals that are reasonable and obtainable.
Why Make Commitments?
While sustainable changes come naturally to many farmers, formalized commitments and goals within the industry are fairly new. As sustainability became a household name in the early 2000s, corporate investors took note.
“Those investor groups were looking at the supply chain and identifying risks associated with their investments,” Sutton-Vermeulen said. “That’s when the discipline of thinking about the supply chain’s footprint became much more important.”
As environmental concerns grew, the agriculture industry was often an easy scapegoat. Formalized commitments helped provide industry groups armor against attacks from environmental groups and concerned consumers.
“Overall, agriculture used to be really demonized within this space,” said Jacqui Fatka, a lead analyst for CoBank.
“I think [industry groups] realized this was an opportunity to show what we’re doing. It’s better to be at the table than on it.”
Today, continuous improvements also drive marketability. Consumer demand for sustainable food and a transparent supply chain continues to grow, paving the way for value-added opportunities.
For groups such as the United Soybean Board (USB), dedicated commitments could expand markets for farmers.
“We’re still in the development phase, but it’s really about creating a marketplace where farmers can openly negotiate with corporate organizations that want sustainability metrics,” said Jack Cornell, director of sustainable supply at USB.
Mandatory vs. Voluntary Improvements
The domestic agriculture industry was not the only market grappling with new demands for sustainability. While the U.S. has focused on a voluntary approach to improvements, places such as the European Union have seen governing organizations establish more mandatory requirements.
Although those may be easier to implement and track, they often don’t leave room for the flexibility needed in agriculture.
“Voluntary changes allow farmers to make the right decisions for their operation based on their logistics, environment, geography, and equipment,” said Sean Arians, vice president of sustainable production at the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA). “Being tied to a regulation that isn’t really workable could potentially create more headaches than what the desirable outcome or environmental impact would be.”
How Are Commitments Met?
Although commodity groups are run by farmers, for farmers, they don’t own land or produce crops. It begs the question, how are their commitments and goals met?
In most cases, it comes down to strategic investments in research and projects for farmers. One example is Farmers for Soil Health. This collaboration between the USB, NCGA, and the National Pork Board strives to advance farmer use of soil health practices through education and financial support.
Reinhard said formalized programs, such as Farmers for Soil Health, will reduce barriers to implementing change.
“There’s a learning curve when you make the conversion from a conventional farming mindset to using conservation practices,” Reinhard said. “If you can offset some of that learning curve, either financially or with information, I think it helps to include more people in that adoption phase to make a difference on their farms.”
Programs also reward adaptation of new practices, keeping farmers “interested and enthused” about sustainability, Reinhard said.
Tracking Changes
Evaluating and quantifying improvements across thousands of farms requires vast data collection. To accomplish this, NCGA has utilized industry partners and existing programs.
“We are leveraging the Field to Market metrics to help us evaluate that progress in 2025,” said Arians of NCGA. “We also plan to update our sustainability report with other projects outside of Field to Market and Farmers for Soil Health.”
Improvements So Far
Although increased demands for quantifiable progress may leave farmers feeling behind, a look to the past shows how far the industry has come.
“The U.S. animal agriculture community has been focused on sustainability and environmental stewardship long before it became a major conversation piece for media, policymakers, and global world leaders,” said Emily Ellis, manager of communications and content at Animal Agriculture Alliance.
One example is the beef industry, which produced 66% more beef per animal while reducing emissions per pound of beef by 40% from 1961–2019, according to a white paper produced by several meat industry groups.
Livestock producers are not the only ones doing their part. Conservation efforts have led to a 34% decline in cropland erosion, according to the American Farm Bureau.
Formalized commitments from commodity groups allow agriculture new and existing efforts to be a part of a greater solution to climate concerns.
“These commitments really stem from wanting to show the public that even though [the industry] has already made so much progress up to this point, it’s committed to continuing that progress into the future,” Ellis said. “Sustainability is not a destination point; it’s a continuing thing that farmers and ranchers are working toward.”
What’s Next?
As the first set of deadlines approaches, commodity groups are confident of meeting their goals. If they do not, there’s little risk involved with falling short.
“We know that we are making strides in the right direction,” Arians said. “If the outputs are not quite where we want them but are better than when we made our first commitments, we need to celebrate that win for agriculture and for the consumer.”