Sustainable practices in the wine sector: firm perspectives and actions Open Access

In recent years, the agricultural sector has increasingly embraced sustainability practices, driven by factors such as climate change, water scarcity and the depletion of ecosystems and biodiversity. Moreover, the growing global population and the subsequent rise in demand for food, water and agricultural goods are exerting further pressures (D’Odorico et al., 2018). Among the various segments of the agri-food industry, the wine sector holds significant importance (Pinto da Silva and Esteves da Silva, 2022).

In the wine industry, there has been a consistent increase in the adoption of sustainability practices over the past decades, and, in recent years, the concept of preserving nature throughout the entire production process, from vineyard to cellar, has become an important aspect for producers (Forbes et al., 2009). This shift is driven by a heightened awareness of the environmental, social and economic impacts that can influence the well-being of the surrounding ecosystem (Pomarici et al., 2016).

However, according to the literature (De Steur et al., 2020; Pullman et al., 2010; Trigo et al., 2023) efforts primarily focused on environmental sustainability and economic survival, with scant attention paid to social aspects. The relatively lower emphasis on social sustainability may reflect the perception that environmental concerns are more immediate and visible, particularly in the production of an agricultural product like wine (Golicic, 2022), while economic considerations are secondary and social impacts are often deemed least important. This gap may also be linked to the limits of certain sustainability assessment tools, which are not tailored to fully address the multidimensional complexities inherent in viticulture and enology. Additionally, the knowledge, beliefs and personal commitment of the wineries’ decision-makers may shape the approach and the adoption of sustainability practices.

This paper investigates Italian wineries’ opinions on sustainability, their perception of consumer attention to winery sustainability responsibility and their actions. Specifically, the study focuses on the multidimensional nature of sustainability across different areas of analysis, particularly on the relationship between wineries’ opinions and the practices adopted. Additionally, the research examines the barriers to the adoption of sustainability practices.

The concept of sustainability was formally introduced in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development in the Brundtland Report (UN, 1987), which defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This document emphasizes the interdependence of three core dimensions (economic, social and environmental) and the necessity of balancing these to achieve global progress. Furthermore, it advocates addressing critical global challenges such as poverty, environmental degradation and inequality while preserving resources for future generations. In alignment with this global framework, the European Union has adopted sustainability as a key goal, encompassing various sectors under the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (2030 Agenda, 2015).

In the wine sector, the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV) has further refined the concept of sustainability. The OIV defines sustainability in viticulture as a “global strategy on the scale of the grape production and processing systems,” aiming to incorporate economic sustainability while ensuring environmental safety, product quality, consumer health and the preservation of cultural, historical and ecological values (OIV, 2011). The wine sector represents a significant part of the agri-food sector (Eurostat, 2020; Pinto da Silva and Esteves da Silva, 2022).

The sustainability of the wine industry has drawn increasing attention because of its environmental, economic and social impacts (Dumitriu et al., 2021; Guerra et al., 2024) and adopting sustainability practices in the wine business is essential to ensuring long-term profitability and securing benefits for future generations (Gilinsky et al., 2016).

Therefore, the wine sector, like much of the agri-food sector, faces the challenge of achieving sustainability (De Steur et al., 2020; Santini et al., 2013) involving the three dimensions of sustainability (Guerra et al., 2024):

1. Environmental sustainability: protecting natural resources such as soil, water, air, reducing negative impacts such as pollution and habitat loss, greenhouse gas emissions and promoting biodiversity.

2. Economic sustainability: promoting sustainability and ensuring the financial viability and profitability of wine firms through efficient practices, cost management and market development.

3. Social sustainability: supporting local communities, preserving cultural heritage, promoting equitable labor practices and ensuring worker safety and well-being of workers and local communities.

In recent decades, there has been a consistent increase in the adoption of sustainability practices among wineries (Bandinelli et al., 2020; Golicic, 2022; Pizzol et al., 2021; Szolnoki, 2013). The choice to adopt sustainability practices generally begins with a focus on environmental practices, followed by financial sustainability and, more recently, social sustainability (Golicic, 2022; Guerra et al., 2024; Pullman et al., 2010; Szolnoki, 2013).

Adoption of sustainability practices seems to be affected by wine firm characteristics, such as size (Annunziata et al., 2018; Darnall et al., 2010; Hofmann et al., 2012; Santini et al., 2013; Spielmann, 2017) and age (Badulescu et al., 2018; Balasubramanian et al., 2021; Broccardo et al., 2023). Larger wineries are more likely to exhibit positive environmental sustainability attitudes, which in turn drive the adoption of more extensive sustainability practices (Santini et al., 2013; Spielmann, 2017). The organizational capacity of larger wine firms allows for better resource allocation, enabling investments in innovative technologies and compliance with sustainability standards (Spielmann, 2017). Additionally, larger wine firms face higher levels of external pressure from regulatory bodies, stakeholders and market expectations, further incentivizing sustainability practices. Nevertheless, smaller ones may exhibit greater responsiveness to stakeholder pressures (Spielmann, 2017), as their organizational flexibility allows them to adapt to specific demands more readily (Annunziata et al., 2018; Darnall et al., 2010). With regard to the wine firms’ age, several trends emerge: emerging businesses tend to demonstrate greater sensitivity to sustainability compared to their more established counterparts; nevertheless, younger companies often experience fewer immediate financial benefits from sustainability initiatives, primarily because of the substantial initial investments required during their early development stages (Badulescu et al., 2018; Balasubramanian et al., 2021; Broccardo et al., 2023).

Often, sustainability practices adoption is driven by trade associations or governmental bodies aiming to enhance the reputation of local and national brands while minimizing environmental and social impacts (Pizzol et al., 2021). Such initiatives encompass programs aimed at certifying the winegrowing process, including organic and integrated production, along with programs that certify sustainability at the product or winery level (Corbo et al., 2014).

On the other hand, wine firms perceive barriers and obstacles to implementing sustainability practices, such as insufficient time and skills to carry out these practices, the additional costs, particularly capital expenditures, and a lack of information from public institutions (De Steur et al., 2020; Dodds et al., 2013; Nagy et al., 2022; Pizzol et al., 2021).

The sustainability practices adopted by wine firms are primarily focused on reducing environmental impacts, confirming the tendency to view sustainability predominantly as an environmental issue (Golicic, 2022; Guerra et al., 2024; Pullman et al., 2010; Szolnoki, 2013). The most commonly adopted practices pertain to efficiency in waste management and recycling, protection of the natural environment (such as reducing the use of fertilizers and pesticides) and pollution prevention (including the reduction of polluting emissions and wastewater treatment) (Bandinelli et al., 2020; De Steur et al., 2020; Pizzol et al., 2021).

Despite the recognition of the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, social and economic), academic literature mainly examines one dimension at a time (primarily environmental) or two dimensions (mostly environmental and economic), often neglecting the social dimension or the multidimensional nature of sustainability (Golicic, 2022; Guerra et al., 2024; Montalvo-Falcón et al., 2023).

Forbes et al. (2020) summarize and explore social sustainability in practice across the global wine industry and highlight that there is considerably less literature on the social dimension with respect to the wine industry and that several studies are dedicated to specific areas, initiatives or from the point of view of consumer interest. The study reports that wineries primarily associated the term “sustainability” with the environmental dimension, in particular small wineries, while larger ones also included the economic and social dimensions (Forbes et al., 2020; Szolnoki, 2013).

However, in some specific situations, significant social actions have been implemented, such as the one highlighted by Forbes et al. (2020) and Forbes and De Silva (2015) in the case study of the Hawke’s Bay Wine Auction (New Zealand). The study shows that, despite the value of the initiative, most of the wineries did not have a planned communication strategy for their participation in the auction, thereby losing part of the potential benefit (Forbes et al., 2020; Forbes and De Silva, 2015). Furthermore, the word “social” is the least common reporting category in sustainability reports (i.e. “environmental” is the most common reporting category) (De Silva et al., 2020). From the consumer’s point of view, Forbes et al. (2020) show that they are less aware of and less sensitive to the social dimension than to the environmental dimension (Capitello and Sirieix, 2019).

Shove (2010) highlights the importance of understanding how practices are formed, maintained and changed over time. She argues that sustainability should be understood within a broader network of social practices and identifies elements that explain how practices are reproduced and why change is often difficult. Actions are the results of individual choice, but they are also shaped by social relationships and cultural traditions that influence what people consider normal or acceptable. In addition, they depend on economic structures and infrastructures that enable or constrain how practices are carried out. Therefore, the adoption of more sustainable social practices can contribute to broader systemic transformations, with potential effects on climate change mitigation. Such an approach emphasizes the need for integrative strategies that move beyond the attitude–behavior–choice paradigm and instead foster collective shifts in practices and contexts.

In this context, the paper aims to address this critical gap by adopting a multidimensional approach that considers the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic and social) while focusing on the relationship between wineries’ opinions and their actual practices.

Although previous studies have analyzed different dimensions of sustainability or wineries’ perceptions, the link between what wineries believe and the actions they actually take has so far received minor attention. The originality of this paper lies in examining wineries’ perceptions not only in terms of what they think about sustainability but also in relation to what they actually do and what they believe consumers are attentive to. This broader perspective enables a deeper understanding of the relationship (i.e. the alignment or misalignment) between practices, wineries’ own views and their perception of consumer opinion.

Specifically, this research analyzes a substantial set of concrete practices and maps their distribution across the three pillars of sustainability. It investigates the alignment between what wineries believe about sustainability, what they believe about consumer attention on winery responsibility on sustainability issues and what they actually do. This approach aims to reduce fragmentation and enhance the understanding of sustainability. Indeed, a larger set of practices enables a more precise analysis of their distribution across environmental, economic and social dimensions, allowing for the evidence of potential differences. It also provides a more realistic picture of sustainability in the wine sector and allows for a clearer assessment of the alignment between wineries’ perceptions and their actual actions, highlighting potential gaps between declared and implemented practices.

In more detail, the study investigates aspects of wineries’ sustainability involvement, including their opinions on sustainability, their perception of consumer opinion, the barriers to adopting sustainability practices and the actions they actually implement, with the aim of investigating the following research questions (RQ):

An ad hoc questionnaire was developed to specifically investigate the opinions and perceptions of wineries, the level of adoption of sustainability practices and barriers to such adoption, as well as to compare engagement across different dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic and social) ( Appendix).

Based on the review of the literature, the survey was designed to gather data on the practices adopted by wineries and the factors that may influence decision-making processes regarding the implementation of sustainability practices. The survey also included the collection of control variables, such as the number of employees, the type of wine produced, the geographical region and information reported on the wine label.

A section of the survey collected data on wineries’ opinions on sustainability and the importance they attribute to sustainability. This section was designed to investigate RQ2 and, therefore, to assess the wineries’ awareness and perception of sustainability in relation to its three pillars: environmental, social and economic sustainability.

Additionally, the survey collected data on the wineries’ perceptions of consumer attention on winery responsibility on sustainability issues. This section aimed to investigate how their sustainability practices align with what they perceive as consumer priorities (RQ2).

The questionnaire then focused on the identification of sustainability practices currently adopted by wineries. This section was designed to investigate the practices considered by wineries and the level of their adoption (RQ1 and RQ2). The section plays a central role in the survey, as it allows, in connection with the other sections, an investigation of the alignment between wineries’ stated opinions and the practices they actually implement.

Finally, an additional section was dedicated to gathering data on the barriers that wineries encounter in adopting sustainability practices (RQ3).

Most questions were closed-ended questions, frequently quantified using a Likert scale, where wineries indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with the proposed statements, ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”).

The open questions were presented to the wineries before the closed questions to collect their opinions and perceptions before potentially influencing them with the proposed items to evaluate. This approach allowed for the collection of initial thoughts and perceptions, minimizing response bias and preserving the validity and authenticity of the initial responses.

Concerning the sustainability practices adopted, wineries were asked to indicate which practices they have predominantly adopted, they have started to adopt, they have considered but not yet implemented or decided not to implement and they have never considered implementing (RQ1–RQ2). The sustainability practices proposed in the questionnaire were informed by insights from the literature (Bandinelli et al., 2020; Corbo et al., 2014; De Steur et al., 2020; Flores, 2018; Lekics, 2021; Luzzani et al., 2021; Pizzol et al., 2021).

An overview of the sustainability practices is presented in Table 1. The practices were categorized according to the sustainability dimensions (environmental, economic and social), based on insights from the literature (Bandinelli et al., 2020; Corbo et al., 2014; De Steur et al., 2020; Flores, 2018; Lekics, 2021; Luzzani et al., 2021; Pizzol et al., 2021). The classification of practices within the three dimensions of sustainability is based on the primary sustainability aspect identified in the literature or framed from the perspective of the wineries. However, most of the proposed practices could have impacts that extend across multiple pillars of sustainability.

To gain deeper insight into the motivations driving companies’ choices toward sustainability practices, the study also explored wineries’ perceptions of consumers, specifically regarding the level of attention consumers may have in winery sustainability responsibility (RQ2). In detail, respondents were asked to indicate, from the wineries’ perspective, “How attentive do you think consumers are to winery responsibility on these issues?” Responses were collected using a Likert scale (from 1, “Not at all attentive,” to 5, “Very attentive”) for the proposed items. Items are listed in Table 2 and classified according to the three dimensions of sustainability.

The survey was administered to a convenience sample of Italian wineries invited through e-mail, and data were collected through a self-reported questionnaire.

The survey collected 130 responses from Italian wineries. Among the surveyed regions, Veneto (22%), Toscana (17%) and Piemonte (15%) are the most represented, reflecting the prominence of these areas in the Italian wine industry (Table 3).

The sample comprises companies of different sizes, reflecting the diverse structure of the wineries. Small wineries (0–5 employees) represent the largest group, accounting for 36% of the sample. These are likely to be family-run businesses or artisanal producers with limited staff. The remainder of the sample is made up of larger wineries, with 21% having 6–10 employees, 15% employing 11–20 workers, 15% with 21–50 employees and 13% having more than 50 employees (Table 3). This distribution suggests a heterogeneous sample, with both smaller, more traditional enterprises and larger, potentially more structured firms being represented.

The data were analyzed using statistical software STATA and R (R Core Team, 2023).

The responses to the open-ended questions were analyzed to identify representative keywords, enabling subsequent frequency analysis (RQ1–RQ3).

The opinions of the winery on sustainability, on consumer attention to winery sustainability responsibility, and on adopted practices were categorized according to the three sustainability dimensions (environmental, social and economic) (Tables 1 and 2) (RQ1–RQ2). In the analyses, practices were considered adopted when respondents reported them as “predominantly adopted.” For each dimension, a composite variable was developed based on the mean score of the items. The categorization of the items allows for the assessment of the relevance of each sustainability dimension across the different aspects investigated.

A descriptive analysis was initially conducted to have a preliminary understanding of the sample’s characteristics. This step involved summarizing key demographic and organizational variables (such as wineries’ size and location) and the relevance attributed to the sustainability dimensions by the firms and the perceived consumer attention to winery sustainability responsibility (RQ2). The goal was to create an overview of the sample composition, which would provide context for the subsequent analyses and offer insights into the general trends and patterns within the data.

A series of tests was conducted to explore inferential analysis and properly compare variables of interest to tackle RQ1 and RQ2. In particular, non-parametric methods were used for hypothesis testing, performed using R software on RStudio. The choice of the methods was dictated by the nature of the data, which often did not meet the normality assumption required for the use of many traditional parametric tests, as well as the inherent noncontinuity of some variables, ordinal by construction.

Inferential analysis was first adopted to test whether there was a significant difference in the relevance given by the respondents to the different sustainability dimensions (RQ2). As a first step, the normality of the differences between the variables was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Because the assumption was not met, and the observations are paired, a non-parametric test for repeated measures was applied to assess global differences among the three dimensions; in particular, the Friedman test was used (Friedman, 1937). If the test was significant, one-sided pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (Usman, 2015) between the three variables were performed to infer inequalities, adjusting p-values for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction (Gibbons and Chakraborti, 2010; Holm, 1979).

The comparative analysis based on the sustainability practices adopted by the respondents and their relative sustainability dimension, crucial to address RQ1, was conducted considering two main composite variables: the implementation rate (IR) and the contribution to the total (CTot) for each dimension.

The IR for each dimension was obtained by computing, for each respondent, the proportion of adopted practices for that dimension (i.e. the number of adopted practices divided by the total number of proposed practices in that dimension). Given these three new paired variables, as before, the Friedman test was performed to assess the presence of a global difference between the variables (although the differences met the normality assumption in this case, the non-parametric approach is kept for consistency across analyses), and, in case it was significant, one-sided pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests between the three variables were run, with Holm-Bonferroni correction to adjust the p-values.

The CTot is a variable of particular interest, as it tells how much a particular dimension is relevant in the sustainability practices a winery has adopted. For each sustainability dimension, the CTot is computed as the contribution of that dimension to the total number of implemented practices (i.e. the number of adopted practices in that dimension divided by the total number of sustainability practices adopted). It is important to notice how this quantity is directly influenced by the number of practices for each dimension proposed in the survey, inducing an important bias in the direct comparison. To address this issue, a Monte Carlo resampling approach was implemented: for each respondent, the same number of practices (items) are randomly sampled from each sustainability dimension (equal to the numerosity of the smallest category); the CTot of each dimension is computed and saved; the sampling and computation procedure is repeated for B = 500 iterations; and the three dimensions’ CTot for that respondent are computed by averaging the saved CTot of each dimension across the B iterations. This procedure resulted in stabilized estimates of contributions for each respondent not dependent on the numerosity of the category. Some observations are needed to give a complete overview of the procedure: the respondents with no practices adopted are excluded from the analysis, because the proportions would be undefined; for each respondent, in the iterations in which only “not adopted” practices are sampled, the CTot computed are considered not available and are not considered in the final computation of the averages; and the three final CTot (averages across iterations) for each respondent may not add up to exactly 1, which is expected in Monte Carlo procedures and is not considered a problem in the scope of the analysis. Once again, the three paired variables obtained were tested using the Friedman test to check for global differences (once the normality assumption of the differences was not met), and if the test resulted as significant, one-sided pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were run between the variables, using Holm-Bonferroni correction, to infer which dimension can be considered as the most present in the firms’ practices adoption.

Other than comparative analysis, regression analysis was used to explore the relationships between different variables, aiming at the identification of potential predictors and the evaluation of how different dimensions of sustainability and adopted practices are interrelated.

Regression analysis was conducted using STATA software, using beta regression modeling (RQ2). This statistical method is particularly well-suited for modeling dependent variables constrained within the (0,1) interval, allowing for the analysis of proportions or rates. Beta regression assumes an approximately beta-distributed dependent variable and incorporates a link function, such as the logit or probit, to model the relationship between independent and dependent variables.

Because of possible collinearity issues among the independent variables, simple models were developed to maintain the reliability and interpretability of the results. In the first set of analyses, the dependent variable was the total number of adopted sustainability practices divided by the number of practices proposed, while in the second set of analyses, the dependent variable was the IR of a given dimension. In both sets of analyses, the distinct regression models included, as independent variables: winery size, the importance of sustainability given by the wineries to the three sustainability dimensions, and the perceived consumer attention to winery sustainability responsibility evaluated from the winery’s perspective (three dimensions of sustainability) (RQ2). These factors were analyzed separately to avoid multicollinearity and to isolate their individual contributions to the adoption of sustainability practices.

Finally, to support and justify the use of regression analysis and to further look for dependencies between variables, such as the role of the wineries’ size in the adoption of sustainability practices (categorizing the respondents based on the number of employees), a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) has been used (RQ1–RQ2). Also in this case, the nature of the data and the results of specific tests run to check the normality of the data (Shapiro–Wilk’s test) led to the use of a non-parametric version of the MANOVA, the Permutational MANOVA (Anderson, 2017). A chosen test statistic’s value is computed from the MANOVA results on the original data, and then S = 10,000 permutations of the data are performed. For each permutation, the MANOVA test is applied, and the new test statistic value is saved. The original test statistic’s value is then compared to the distribution of those obtained through the permutations. A sufficiently extreme value of the original test statistic with respect to the obtained distribution leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis of the MANOVA at some level of statistical significance, allowing for the inference of a multivariate dependence of the selected covariates on the chosen factors.

Together, regression analysis and non-parametric tests provided a framework for investigating the interactions between sustainability practices and the firms’ opinions on sustainability factors that influence them.

Table 4 and Figure 1 summarize the research design of the study, showing the relationship between each research question and the corresponding variables and analysis.

The analysis of the open-ended question, in which respondents were asked to provide the first three words that came to mind when thinking about sustainability, was conducted by examining the frequency of the words mentioned and their association with the three dimensions of sustainability: environmental, social and economic (RQ2).

The results highlight a predominance of terms associated with the environmental dimension of sustainability. Words such as “organic,” “reduction,” “biodiversity,” “reduction of pesticides” and “resource-saving” (primarily water and energy) suggest a focus on practices and concepts related to environmental protection and resource efficiency. The economic dimension may appear underrepresented; however, from the perspective of the respondents, certain terms associated with the environmental dimension can also be linked to the economic dimension, such as energy efficiency or the saving of resources. Finally, the social dimension, on the other hand, appears underrepresented. The only related term is “social,” with no additional words referring to aspects or social practices (RQ2).

The results show that while wineries may initially associate sustainability primarily with environmental aspects, as evidenced by the open-ended question where the first words that come to mind are predominantly related to the environment, their responses to a closed-ended question indicate a broader recognition of the importance of all three pillars of sustainability. Specifically, when asked to evaluate the importance of the environmental, social and economic dimensions, more than 80% of respondents consider all three dimensions to be important or very important. In more detail, Figure 2 presents respondents’ evaluations of the importance they assign to the three sustainability dimensions: environmental, social and economic (RQ2).

When exploring the items within each pillar, the findings highlight notable trends. Figure 3 presents the results regarding the perceived relevance of various aspects for evaluating the sustainability of respondents (RQ2). Regarding environmental sustainability, more than 85% of respondents perceive environmental and energy-related aspects as important (score 4) or very important (score 5) when evaluating a winery’s sustainability. In terms of social aspects, health (understood as the well-being of consumers, employees, local communities, etc.) is considered important/very important by 85% of respondents. Additionally, the impact on society (such as effects on workers, local communities, etc.) and culture (including the promotion of wine-related culture, technology, sustainability, tradition, etc.) are viewed as important/very important factors in sustainability assessments by 80% of respondents (Figure 3) (RQ2).

As explained in subsection 3.3, proper hypothesis tests were run to compare the importance given to the three different sustainability dimensions and to infer the presence of a possible imbalance in the importance given by the wineries to each of them (RQ2). The scores assigned to each dimension (from one to five) by every respondent are treated as coupled measures, analyzing, respectively, the three possible couplings (environmental vs social, social vs economic and environmental vs economic). As a first step, the normality of the three pairwise differences was checked using Shapiro-Wilk tests, resulting in quasi-zero p-values in every case (the normality assumption was not met). The Friedman test was then used to assess overall differences between the categories, resulting in a Friedman χ²(2, 130) = 62.92 and a quasi-zero p-value (<0.001), leading to the conclusion of the presence of significant differences between the three dimensions. One-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank pairwise tests were then performed to compare the dimensions and to infer the direction of the inequalities. The results obtained led to the refutation in every case of the hypothesis that the observed differences are because of random variability, indicating a systematic imbalance in the companies’ perception. The test statistics, p-values and effect size of the tests are reported in Table 5, while the boxplots of the three variables are presented in Figure 4. In particular, the importance given by wine companies to the environmental dimension can be considered higher than the other two, with quasi-zero p-values (adjusted) in both tests. There is also an imbalance in the importance given to the social and economic dimensions, indicating how the social dimension is considered more important by the wineries, with a p-value (adjusted) resulting to be slightly larger than the other two tests while still statistically significant for commonly used levels of α.

To examine the drivers influencing wineries’ decision-making processes, considering the significant role consumers play in shaping these decisions, wineries were asked to indicate which factors they perceive consumers focus on regarding winery sustainability responsibility (RQ2). Responses were collected using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Not at all attentive”) to 5 (“Very attentive”). Figure 5 presents respondents’ perceptions of consumer attention on winery responsibility on sustainability issues. The results identify four groups of factors, showing the aspects that wineries perceive as relevant to consumers.

The first group could be associated with product-related aspects, which respondents perceive as more relevant to consumers. Respondents believe that consumers are highly (very – score 4 to extremely – score 5) attentive to a winery’s responsibility, particularly regarding product-related issues, placing great attention on product origin, brand, price and raw material origins. A second group of factors regards environmental issues such as environmental impacts, presence of certifications, energy choices and sustainable packaging. A third group of factors is related to social sustainability issues such as workplace discrimination, attention to workplace safety, initiatives supporting the local community, legal compliance, societal impacts, worker well-being and initiatives and investments for cultural dissemination. The theme of technological choices and organization appears to be considered less relevant to consumers by respondents.

To evaluate these items within the framework of sustainability dimensions, they were grouped according to their respective sustainability dimensions, as outlined in Table 2, and subsequently, the mean value for each group was calculated.

The results of the analysis indicate that 52% of respondents perceive consumers to be mostly attentive to environmental aspects in terms of winery responsibility on sustainability issues. Following closely, respondents identify economic factors, primarily those related to the product, such as price and brand, as significant to consumer priorities. In contrast, only 45% of respondents regard social factors, such as workplace safety and employee welfare, as relevant to consumers.

The challenges that wineries encounter or perceive in implementing sustainability practices were examined using a two-step approach (RQ3). First, an open-ended question was asked: What are the main barriers in carrying out sustainability practices? to allow respondents to freely communicate their views without being influenced by predefined options. The open-ended question was analyzed by assigning a keyword to each concept reported by respondents, enabling the identification of recurring themes. To further explore these barriers, a follow-up closed-ended question was proposed, asking respondents to indicate their level of agreement with several items. Responses to the closed-ended question were described using a Likert scale (score 1–5).

The analysis of the open-ended responses showed that economic barriers were identified as the main obstacles to implementing sustainability practices, followed by bureaucratic and cultural barriers. A more detailed examination of the responses indicated that the term “cultural” refers to two distinct aspects as perceived by respondents: the lack of a culture of sustainability and insufficient knowledge on the topic.

Institutional factors also emerged as a relevant theme, particularly concerning issues of trust, suggesting that for the respondents, the institutions play a role in the implementation of sustainability practices. The analysis also suggests that certifications are perceived as excessive, leading to confusion and hindering wineries from adopting sustainability practices.

Figure 6 presents respondents’ perceptions of the barriers to implementing sustainability practices. Insights from the analysis further confirm the findings, underlining that economic and bureaucratic barriers are considered the most significant by respondents. Specifically, respondents pointed to costly certification systems, the expensive cost of adopting sustainability practices, and the need for dedicated personnel to implement such practices, underlining, as shown by open-ended questions, both the financial burden and the skills gap associated with sustainability initiatives. Additionally, around half of respondents perceived a lack of public support for implementing sustainability practices, further complicating their efforts.

The analysis identified which of the 54 proposed sustainability practices are adopted by the responding wineries and highlights the practices most adopted within each of the three sustainability dimensions. Each practice was assigned to a dimension, as reported in Table 1 (RQ1–RQ2).

The results indicate that the most adopted practices by respondents relate to the product sphere, namely, obtaining DOC/DOCG quality certifications (RQ1).

As regards to the social sphere, the most adopted practices (i.e. those that have been adopted by at least 50% of the respondents) are additional courses on worker safety and attention to legality (e.g. regular billing, contract regularity, activities in areas confiscated from the mafia), attention to working conditions (e.g. workplace safety, flexibility in scheduling), attention to contractual stability, integration of young workers, initiatives to reduce workplace discrimination and prioritizing the recruitment of staff from the local community.

As regards the practices in the environmental dimension, the most adopted ones are related to cultivation and production practices that reduce the use of chemicals, waste reduction/promotion of recycling, landscape preservation initiatives, and improvement of energy efficiency.

Finally, in the economic dimension, the most frequently adopted practices include monitoring resource consumption (water, electricity and fuel), adhering to internationally recognized certification programs and using specific distribution channels (e.g. organic shops and specialty stores).

To properly test for differences in the adoption of practices across the three sustainability dimensions and to determine which of them receives the greatest consideration in the implementation of practices by Italian wineries, non-parametric inferential tests were conducted, as outlined in subsection 3.3 (RQ1).

Starting with the analysis of the IR for the three dimensions of sustainability, as explained in subsection 3.3, the three variables $IRenv$⁠, $IRsoc$ and $IReco$ were computed. The Friedman test was used to test for general differences between the dimensions, resulting in a Friedman χ²(2, 130) = 36.18 and a quasi-zero p-value (<0.001). One-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were then performed to assess the pairwise differences, with results reported in Table 6 (the median values for $IRenv$⁠, $IRsoc$ and $IReco$ are reported in Table 7; the respective boxplots are in Figure 7). Practices relative to the social dimension of sustainability appear to have a higher rate of implementation with respect to the other two, while the practices in the economic dimension are less likely to be adopted.

The second variables to be tested are the CTot of the three dimensions, as detailed in Section 3.3. The Monte Carlo resampling approach is performed to deal with the issue of different numerosity in the categories; in Figure 8, the boxplots of the new stabilized estimated $CTotenv$⁠, $CTotsoc$ and $CToteco$ are reported and compared to the ones of the variables before the resampling procedure to show the impact of numerosity; the median values after resampling are reported in Table 8. Shapiro-Wilk tests were run on the differences of the three new variables, resulting in p-values <0.001. The Friedman test was implemented to check for global differences, obtaining a Friedman χ²(2, 125) = 36.32 and a quasi-zero p-value (<0.001). As for previous analysis, pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were run to properly explore the differences verified through the Friedman test, and the results of the one-sided tests are reported in Table 9. In this case, the comparison between the social and the environmental dimension is not statistically significant at conventional α level (p-value = 0.176), while it is possible to infer that both the social and environmental dimensions contribute more to the totality of sustainability practices adopted by the wineries than the economic dimension.

The outcomes of the analysis differ from the expected behaviour, as previous analyses of respondents’ opinions on sustainability, and respondents’ perceptions of consumer opinions, highlighted environmental sustainability as the most prominent dimension. The apparent discrepancy suggests a potential misalignment between the prioritization of sustainability dimensions in strategic discussions and their actual implementation within wineries (RQ1–RQ2).

Regression analysis was then used to analyze the possible dependence of variables of interest on the characteristics of wineries. This was done using STATA software conducting Beta and linear regression models. In particular, the aim was to investigate a possible correlation between the adoption of sustainability practices and characteristics such as winery size (RQ1) and the importance attributed to the dimensions of sustainability by wineries and their perception of consumers’ attention to the same dimension (RQ2). The primary goal was to explore whether there were any noteworthy patterns or associations that could inform subsequent analyses or allow conclusions to be drawn. Table 10 presents the statistical associations (*p-value < 0.05, **p-value < 0.01 and ***p-value < 0.001).

The first models analyzed (Models I–III) were constructed considering the total number of sustainability practices adopted as the dependent variable, representing the overall engagement of wineries in sustainability efforts and winery size and the relevance attributed by wineries to environmental (Model I), social (Model II) and economic (Model III) sustainability dimensions as covariates, separately, to avoid collinearity issues (RQ2).

Results reveal statistically significant associations. Wineries’ size appears to be positively associated with the adoption of sustainability practices, as indicated by a p-value below the chosen 0.05 threshold (*). Moreover, the importance that wineries attribute to the three sustainability dimensions (environmental, social and economic) is also associated with the adoption of sustainability practices, with significant p-values below 0.001 (***).

Three additional regression models (IV–VI) were then explored, with winery size and the winery’s perceived consumer attention to sustainability as independent variables. The results show once again a statistical association between winery size and the adoption of sustainability practices for all three models, further suggesting that organizational scale could influence sustainability efforts.

In terms of wineries’ perception of consumers’ attention, the analysis indicates a statistical association (p-value < 0.05, *) between the perceived attention to social sustainability (by consumers) and the adoption of sustainability practices. However, a similar conclusion cannot be drawn for the other two models (considering environmental and economic dimensions).

Finally, other regression models were constructed, considering separately the total number of practices adopted for each sustainability dimension as dependent variables while maintaining the same independent variables (and numbering) of the previously introduced models. This approach allows for a specific analysis of the different dimensions, expanding on the interpretations expressed earlier and providing additional perspectives to the analyses conducted.

The results revealed statistically significant associations between the adoption of environmental sustainability practices and the independent variables. The importance of environmental and social sustainability for wineries was associated with the adoption of practices (p-value < 0.001***). A similar positive association was also found for the other dimension of the practices adopted. With regard to the wineries’ perception of consumer attention to winery sustainability responsibility, it seems a statistical association emerges between consumer attention to social aspects and adopted social sustainability practices.

The dependency of the number of sustainability practices adopted on the size of the wineries, which clearly emerges from the regression analysis, is also supported by a conducted MANOVA, considering the total practices adopted for each of the three sustainability dimensions as dependent variables and the size categories as factors (RQ1). Each respondent, in fact, has been assigned to one of the following categories based on the number of employees declared: small (0–5 employees), medium-small (6–10), medium (11–20), medium-large (21–50) and large (over 50 employees). First, the normality of the dependent variables was tested but not verified (via the Shapiro-Wilk test). A non-parametric test, the permutational MANOVA, was therefore used, choosing the value of the Wilks’ lambda statistic as the test statistic. The p-value of the test, obtained from B = 10,000 permutations, resulted in p = 0.08, which allows us to infer that there is a significant multivariate effect played by the number of employees on the number of practices adopted, with a level of significance of α = 0.1. Regarding respondents’ perception of consumer attention to winery sustainability responsibility, the results suggest that the adoption of sustainability practices is associated with the relevance that they attribute to the social dimensions of sustainability, while the association is not confirmed for the environmental and economic dimensions (RQ2).

The present study provides a comprehensive analysis of the adoption of sustainability practices by Italian wineries, emphasizing their multidimensional nature: environmental, social and economic dimensions.

The findings highlight the predominance of environmental concern among wineries, which aligns with existing literature (Bandinelli et al., 2020; De Steur et al., 2020; Golicic, 2022; Pizzol et al., 2021; Szolnoki, 2013) that underscores the recognition of the environment as the primary aspect of sustainability by wineries.

The results confirm Szolnoki’s (2013) findings, which, through interviews with companies, emphasize that the environmental dimension is the most frequently mentioned and prioritized aspect of sustainability by wineries. While economic and social components are also referenced, they are discussed in far less detail than the environmental dimension (Szolnoki, 2013). This may reflect the belief that environmental sustainability is perceived as more crucial than economic sustainability, with the social dimension considered as even less important. Furthermore, as noted by Golicic (2022), wine is an agricultural product, and therefore the impacts on and of the environment are visible and more prominently highlighted (Golicic, 2022).

However, when comparing respondents’ stated relevance of sustainability dimensions with their actual implementation of sustainability practices, it emerges that most wineries acknowledge the importance of all three dimensions, while the practices primarily focus on social aspects. This finding contrasts with the literature, where the most commonly adopted practices are dedicated to environmental protection, such as reducing the use of fertilizers and pesticides, minimizing polluting emissions and improving waste management and recycling (Bandinelli et al., 2020; De Steur et al., 2020; Pizzol et al., 2021).

Moreover, some literature reviews highlight that most studies on these topics primarily address environmental aspects, often neglecting the social dimension or the multidimensional nature of sustainability. This approach may explain the pattern whereby environmental practices are more prevalent (Bandinelli et al., 2020; Guerra et al., 2024).

In line with the study, Golicic (2022) noted that there is a recent focus on social sustainability within the wine industry, given the exposure of employees to harsh working conditions and the impact of vineyards on surrounding communities (Golicic, 2022).

The mismatch between respondents’ stated importance of specific sustainability dimensions and their actual adoption of related practices can be traced back to a lack of awareness among wineries. On the one hand, there is a general lack of awareness regarding sustainability, and on the other hand, social practices are not explicitly recognized as part of sustainability (Corbo et al., 2014; Guerra et al., 2024; Pizzol et al., 2021; Szolnoki, 2013).

As reported by Pizzol et al. (2021), in the case study of Veneto and Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italian regions), despite a low level of knowledge about CSR, wineries reported many initiatives related to CSR, mainly environmental and, in some cases, economic and social practices.

The findings of the present study confirm that limited theoretical awareness does not necessarily translate into a lack of adoption. Indeed, while the most frequently adopted practices overall are environmental, as also observed by Pizzol et al. (2021), and product-related (e.g. quality certifications), the analysis of a broader set of practices provides a more comprehensive picture.

The present study, considering a larger number of practices, makes it possible to examine more accurately their distribution across the environmental, economic and social dimensions, thereby highlighting imbalances and underdeveloped areas and resulting in a more realistic representation of sustainability in the wine sector. The analysis shows, in contrast with Pizzol et al. (2021), that, contrary to the emphasis usually placed on environmental sustainability, most practices identified fall within the social sustainability dimension.

This divergence may lead wineries to undervalue or undercommunicate their sustainability efforts, as noted by Szolnoki (2013). Nevertheless, limited awareness does not imply that wineries ignore sustainability, and they may still introduce practices to make their operation more sustainable (Forbes et al., 2024), but the lack of awareness could prevent wineries from linking environmental or social sustainability practices to improved performance (Pullman et al., 2010) or result in a failure to communicate adopted sustainability practices to stakeholders (Guerra et al., 2024).

Regarding the first research question (RQ1), the findings show that actions are not equally distributed across the three dimensions of sustainability. In particular, social sustainability practices are widely implemented, yet they are often underrecognized as part of a formal sustainability strategy.

However, although wineries acknowledge all three dimensions of sustainability, a misalignment emerges between their stated commitment to sustainability and the actual adoption of practices. This indicates that wineries may implicitly integrate the social dimension without explicitly framing it as sustainability.

Therefore, in response to the second research question (RQ2), the analysis suggests that wineries’ opinions and their operational practices are only partially aligned: wineries state that they attribute importance to environmental, economic and social dimensions, but their actual practices are oriented toward the social sphere, which is the least emphasized in their definitions. This gap suggests that wineries could not fully understand the multidimensional nature of sustainability, which keeps them from taking full advantage of their efforts, either strategically or with consumers.

In response to the third research question (RQ3), the study identified economic cost, lack of institutional support and complex certification processes as the most relevant obstacles, consistent with the literature (De Steur et al., 2020; Dodds et al., 2013; Nagy et al., 2022; Pizzol et al., 2021; Santini et al., 2013). The economic effort is seen from different perspectives, both in terms of the cost of certifications and the cost of personnel dedicated to specific sustainability aspects, but it is also related to the need for staff with specific skills, resulting in a complex system that discourages broader adoption (Shove, 2010). These findings suggest that institutions and regulators play a key role in enhancing wineries’ interest in sustainability by offering financial support, simplifying certification schemes and promoting and implementing education programs (Santini et al., 2013).

The study provides insights into the perspectives of wineries regarding the consideration of the multidimensional nature of sustainability, consumer perceptions and sustainability practices.

The findings highlight the relevance that wineries assign to the different dimensions of sustainability and how they integrate their own definition of sustainability with the actual practices they implement. The analysis suggests that wineries predominantly associate sustainability with environmental issues. However, their actions in the social dimension are considerable, despite these practices often not being explicitly associated with sustainability by the wineries.

These findings point to the potential benefits of enhancing companies’ understanding of the multifaceted nature of sustainability. Providing more comprehensive information on the interconnected environmental, economic and social pillars of sustainability could raise awareness among wineries regarding the choices they are currently making and the strategic direction that their business is taking in the framework of sustainability.

The barriers to the adoption of sustainability practices are primarily economic (high costs of certification, financial burden of dedicating personnel and lack of personnel with specific skills) and could be associated with the difficulty for the wineries to identify, structure and manage sustainability practices. Such limitations often result in a partial or fragmented perception of sustainability, whereby many of the practices already implemented are not recognized as sustainable actions, thus discouraging further development or communication of these efforts. Furthermore, these perceived barriers suggest the difficulties wineries face in accessing the support and information needed for a fully integrated approach to sustainability.

This highlights the need for institutions, industry associations and certification bodies to support companies by providing clear, simple and affordable tools to make sustainability easier to implement. Certification systems could represent an important instrument in this regard; however, wineries often perceive them as excessively costly, fragmented and numerous, which generates confusion and can even lead to immobilization in the adoption of sustainability practices. A process of simplification and harmonization of certification schemes, combined with institutional support and capacity-building initiatives, could help wineries to engage more effectively with sustainability, resulting in greater awareness and encouraging further adoption of sustainability practices.

At the same time, the findings suggest that when wineries do not recognize the sustainability value of their practices, they could miss opportunities to use them strategically, including in communication with consumers about their efforts. Indeed, better communication could give added value for the product, enhance competitiveness and increase market opportunities by engaging diverse consumer segments with different attention on sustainability issues. Furthermore, greater awareness and recognition of existing sustainability practices can enhance wineries’ resilience. It could help wineries to use resources better, anticipate challenges and improve performance and their capacity to respond to market or regulatory changes and adapt to external pressures.

Furthermore, it could also influence how wineries communicate these practices to consumers. Specifically, a better understanding could encourage wineries to more actively communicate their sustainability efforts, not only through product labels, such as certifications, but also via their websites, during consumer visits to the winery, and in sustainability reports.

Overall, the study indicates that greater institutional support and simplified certification pathways could play a role in overcoming current barriers and stimulating wineries to integrate sustainability more comprehensively while also fostering an alignment between how companies interpret sustainability and the practices they implement. At the same time, affordable and easy-to-obtain certification labels could help wineries improve their communication practices and address the interests of different consumer segments.

In conclusion, this study underlines the importance of further educating wineries on the full scope of sustainability, which could lead not only to greater integration of environmental, social and economic dimensions into their business practices but also to more effective communication with consumers and stakeholders. In doing so, wineries can better align theory and practice, turning sustainability into both a driver of innovation and a differentiating factor in the marketplace.

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the sample size was limited and geographically specific, which does not allow for the generalization of the findings. The results reflect the perspectives and practices of a particular group of wineries within a defined context and cannot be extrapolated to represent the broader Italian wine sector. Second, while the study examines a broad set of practices across the three sustainability dimensions, the categorization inevitably involves a degree of subjectivity, and some initiatives may overlap with multiple pillars.

Second, the study examines a broad set of practices across the three sustainability dimensions, with the analysis relying on a categorization of practices based on the primary sustainability aspect identified in the literature or on how the practice is framed from the perspective of the wineries. However, many of the practices considered may generate impacts that extend beyond a single dimension, influencing multiple pillars of sustainability simultaneously.

Furthermore, data were collected through self-declaration. This approach carries the risk of social desirability bias, where respondents may overstate their efforts or achievements in adopting sustainability practices to align with perceived social norms. Despite this limitation, the variability observed in the responses suggests that wineries have diverse views and approaches to sustainability. Moreover, while sustainability is indeed a topic influenced by social desirability bias and even if wineries could overstate their sustainability efforts, the preferences expressed within specific choices are less likely to be heavily influenced by this bias. The aim of the analysis is to investigate and compare the interest among the different pillars of sustainability rather than the precise level of implementation of specific strategies by wineries. Therefore, even if wineries are likely to emphasize aspects of sustainability that they consider important, there is no established moral norm that prioritizes one pillar of sustainability (environmental, economic or social) over another that could influence their statement.

Future research could be addressed by examining a larger and more representative sample of Italian wineries to provide a more comprehensive understanding of sustainability practices within the sector. Expanding sample size could enhance the generalizability of findings and help capture the perspectives on sustainability in the industry.

Additionally, future studies should investigate whether wineries recognize their adopted practices as being aligned with sustainability principles and how they communicate these practices to consumers. It could shed light on the role of communication in sustainability, offering insights into the strategies used to involve consumers with the wineries’ sustainability efforts. Finally, future research could explore sustainability practices in wineries according to the geographical origin of wine producers, as regional differences may shape both perceptions and implementation of sustainability across different countries, to make a comparative study.

Can you indicate the name of your winery?

[OPEN]

How many employees does your company have?

[OPEN]

If you think about sustainability in the wine sector, what are the first three things that come to mind?

[OPEN]

What are the characteristics that make a wine business sustainable?

[OPEN]

How important does your company consider the following dimensions of sustainability?

[1 – Not at all important, 2, 3, 4, 5 – Very important]

• [environmental]

• [social]

• [economic]

How relevant do you think these aspects are for evaluating the sustainability of winery?

[1 – Not at all important, 2, 3, 4, 5 – Very important]

• [environment (emissions into the soil, air, water, greenhouse gases, etc.)]

• [energy (quantity and type of energy used)]

• [technology (support for innovative technologies/support for traditional methods/support for sustainable methods, etc.)]

• [economy (costs, margins, price of the product sold, etc.)]

• [organization (effects on the type of supply chain partners (large/small, known/new, local/not), impact on the business organization, etc.)]

• [society (impacts on workers, local community, etc.)]

• [culture (dissemination of wine-themed culture, technology, sustainability, tradition, etc.)]

• [health (of consumers, workers, local communities, etc.)]

• [geopolitics (impacts of its choices on international trade, on the reputation of Italian wine, on the present balances, etc.)]

When the company makes strategic choices (new investments, production choices, organizational choices, etc.), how much does it take into account the impacts of these choices on:

[1 – Not at all important, 2, 3, 4, 5 – Very important]

• [environment (emissions into the soil, air, water, greenhouse gases, etc.)]

• [energy (quantity and type of energy used)]

• [technology (support for innovative technologies/support for traditional methods/support for sustainable methods, etc.)]

• [economy (costs, margins, price of the product sold, etc.)]

• [organization (effects on the type of supply chain partners (large/small, known/new, local/not), impact on the business organization, etc.)]

• [society (impacts on workers, local community, etc.)]

• [culture (dissemination of wine-themed culture, technology, sustainability, tradition, etc.)]

• [health (of consumers, workers, local communities, etc.)]

• [geopolitics (impacts of its choices on international trade, on the reputation of Italian wine, on the present balances, etc.)]

How much do you think consumers are attentive to corporate responsibility on these issues:

[1 – Not at all attentive, 2, 3, 4, 5 – Very attentive]

• [environmental impacts]

• [energy choices]

• [technological choices]

• [product price]

• [brand]

• [supply chain organization]

• [social impacts]

• [attention to the well-being of workers (wages, hours, etc.)]

• [attention to safety at work]

• [workplace discrimination]

• [initiatives and investments for the dissemination of culture]

• [health impacts]

• [product origin]

• [origin of raw materials]

• [presence of certifications]

• [attention to legality]

• [initiatives to support the local community]

• [nutritional aspects]

• [sustainable packaging]

Has your winery implemented practices of this type?

[1 – Never considered, 2 – Considered, but decided to not go on, 3 – Considered, but not started, 4 – Started to adopt, 5 – Predominantly adopted]

• Reduction of water emissions

• Reduction of air emissions

• Reduction of ground emissions

• Cultivation and production practices that reduce the use of synthetic chemicals

• Waste reduction and recycling promotion

• Improvement of energy efficiency and/or use of renewable sources

• Conservation initiatives for local nature resources

• Sourcing strategies from sustainable suppliers (e.g. choose the suppliers on the basis of their sustainability performance)

• Use of sustainable packaging (type of materials, lower weight, etc.)

• Sustainable design and construction (vineyard, cellar, buildings, etc.)

• Choice of autochthonous and/or historical varieties

• Minimal intervention in wine making (e.g. endogenous yeasts, additives)

• Practices for the enhancement of biodiversity

• Participation in sustainability projects

• Landscape preservation initiatives

• Fair salary of employees

• Attention to the contractual stability of workers

• Attention to working conditions (e.g. job security, flexibility in time management)

• Measures and/or extra-courses to improve worker safety

• Initiatives to reduce discrimination in the workplace

• Integration of young workers (e.g. paid internships, hiring)

• Company climate monitoring (employee happiness, engagement, etc.)

• Prioritize the recruitment of staff from the local community

• Courses on sustainability practices for employees

• Attention to legality (for example, regular billing, regular contracts, measures against counterfeit, activities on property confiscated from criminal organizations)

• Adoption of a code of ethics

• Collaboration with local authorities or other members of society for sustainability promotion

• Support for local community initiatives

• Initiatives and investments for the dissemination of culture

• Practices to promote consumer health

• Practices to promote the health of workers and the local community

• Initiatives that engage with less privileged members of society

• Choice of non-risky practices for the territory and the communities (e.g. changing chemical spraying times to reduce impact on locals)

• Donations to social or environmental development projects

• Cultural and artistic initiatives that promote the link between wine and art

• Engagement in initiatives involving sustainability awards

• Adherence to quality label DOC/DOCG

• Using specific distribution channels (e.g. organic shops, specialty stores)

• Adherence to local certifications

• Adherence to internationally recognized certification programs

• Participation in projects for the enhancement of the territory/denomination at an international level

• Participation in collaborative networks in the area (business networks, partnerships with companies in other sectors or with public bodies, purchasing groups, etc.)

• Sharing of sustainability objectives with key players in the supply chain

• Involvement of stakeholders to evaluate the external perception of the company

• Preparation for a sustainability report

• Organization of moments of exchange of information/knowledge between winery departments

• Investments in research and development

• Investments in benefit corporations or social enterprises

• Coordination between the actors of the production chain

• Adoption of innovative technologies

• Increased degree of automation

• Adoption of traditional/artisanal technologies

• Reuse of waste materials in a circular economy perspective

• Monitoring water, electricity, fuel consumption, etc.

What are the main barriers in pursuing sustainability practices?

[OPEN]

From 1 to 5, how much do you agree with the following statements?

[1 – Strongly disagree, 2, 3, 4, 5 – Strongly agree]

• [Adopting sustainability practices costs too much]

• [Adopting sustainability practices is too difficult]

• [It is difficult to carry out sustainability practices over time]

• [I don’t believe in certification systems]

• [Adhering to a certification system is too complicated]

• [Joining a certification system is too expensive]

• [Dedicated staff needed to implement sustainability practices]

• [Wine quality comes first and sustainability second]

• [My company is not interested in the topic of sustainability]

• [My clients don’t care about sustainability]

• [There is not enough public support for those who implement sustainability practices]

• [It is difficult to acquire the skills to promote sustainability practices]

• [The consortium takes care of sustainability, it is not the business of individual companies]

Source(s): By the authors