Organic certification is not the same as sustainable practice
– and gender reveals why that matters
Imre Fertő
Organic certification is often treated as a straightforward indicator of environmental commitment. Yet our study of Hungarian wineries shows that producers reporting similar green practices can have different certification outcomes. Female-managed wineries were substantially more likely to be certified than male-managed wineries, while the characteristics observed in our survey explained little of this difference.
The finding suggests that researchers, policymakers and consumers should be cautious about treating certification as a direct measure of how sustainably a business operates.
The hidden step between acting sustainably and being certified
Discussions of sustainability frequently collapse two separate decisions into one. The first is whether a producer adopts environmentally friendly practices. The second is whether those practices are translated into a formally recognised status through documentation, inspection and third-party verification.
These decisions are connected, but not identical. A winery may reduce chemical inputs, reuse production materials, invest in renewable energy or introduce water-saving measures without seeking organic certification. Conversely, certification involves more than environmental action. It requires administrative capacity, record-keeping, compliance routines and a judgement that the benefits of an official label justify its costs.
This distinction is particularly important in wine markets. Some wineries sell through direct relationships, tourism, restaurants or local reputation. In these settings, producers may communicate quality and environmental responsibility without formal certification. Other wineries may depend on distant buyers, retailers or export markets, where an official label provides an easily understood signal.
Certification therefore captures both production practices and the strategic value of formal recognition.
Similar practices, different certification outcomes
We examined data from a 2022 survey of 233 Hungarian wineries, including 41 managed by women. Around 46% of female-managed wineries held organic certification, compared with approximately 29% of male-managed wineries—a difference of about 17 percentage points.
The most striking result was not simply the size of the gap, but what did not explain it. Female- and male-managed wineries reported broadly similar levels of environmental practice adoption. They were also similar in managerial orientation, absorptive capacity, relational governance, education and firm age.
Nor did female-managed wineries appear disadvantaged in land resources. Their median cultivated area was larger than that of male-managed wineries. This matters because the wider agricultural literature often links women’s lower participation in certification schemes to weaker access to land, finance, training and organisational resources. Female winery managers in our sample appear to be a selected group of decision-makers, often operating established or commercially oriented businesses.
To examine the gap, we used a decomposition method that separates the difference associated with observable characteristics from the difference left after accounting for them. In plain terms, we asked: are women-managed wineries more frequently certified because they look different on the variables we measured, or do similar observed profiles still correspond to different certification probabilities?
The measured characteristics explained almost none of the gap. The remaining difference was concentrated in the residual component. The same conclusion held when we changed the statistical model, transformed the land variable, reconstructed the indices and used alternative decomposition methods.
Similar reported sustainability profiles do not automatically translate into similar certification outcomes.
An unexplained gap is not proof of discrimination
Residual differences are tempting to interpret. They are sometimes described as evidence of discrimination, institutional barriers or unequal treatment. Our findings do not support such a conclusion.
The study is cross-sectional, and the female-managed subsample is small. The survey measured the breadth of reported environmental practices rather than their intensity, duration or independently verified effects. Most importantly, we could not observe several factors that may influence certification: advisory support, certification histories, inspection experiences, documentation skills, family-business organisation, buyer requirements, export orientation or expectations about the commercial value of the label.
The residual component therefore tells us where the explanation is not: it is not found in the observable characteristics included in our survey. It does not tell us which unmeasured mechanism produced the difference.
This is a limitation, but also a useful result. Research often advances by showing that an apparently obvious explanation is insufficient. Here, similar reported sustainability profiles do not translate automatically into similar certification outcomes.
Why this matters for sustainability policy
Certification schemes play a prominent role in environmental policy and food markets. They help consumers identify products, allow firms to communicate difficult-to-observe attributes and give policymakers a visible indicator of participation in formal sustainability systems.
But the visibility of certification can create a measurement problem. If certified status is used as a proxy for environmental commitment, uncertified producers who adopt meaningful green practices may be overlooked. Certification should not automatically be interpreted as a complete measure of environmental performance. It confirms compliance with a defined standard, not every dimension of sustainability.
Policy should therefore pay attention to the transition between sustainable practice and formal recognition. Producers may need help not only with adopting greener technologies, but also with understanding standards, maintaining records, preparing for inspections and assessing whether certification fits their market strategy.
This does not imply that every sustainably oriented winery should be certified. For producers relying on trusted local relationships, the private benefits may not outweigh the costs. The objective should instead be to ensure that producers who could benefit are not prevented by avoidable informational or administrative barriers.
Certification is an outcome that needs explaining
Our findings shift the question from whether women are more environmentally oriented to how environmental engagement becomes formally recognised. Female-managed wineries were more frequently certified, but not because they reported more green practices or clearly stronger observable capabilities.
Future studies should follow wineries over time and document the certification process: when producers begin conversion, what advice they receive, how much administration is required, which market channels they use and why they continue, abandon or avoid certification. Linking survey responses to verified environmental and certification data would also help distinguish formal status from environmental performance.
The broader lesson is straightforward. Sustainable action and certified sustainability are not interchangeable. Between them lies a process involving institutions, information, strategy and organisational capacity. Understanding that process is essential if certification is to function as an inclusive policy instrument and a credible market signal.
This post draws on the author’s co-authored article,
Same Practices, Different Outcomes: Gender Gaps in Organic Certification
published in Sustainable Development.
