Empirical Comparison of Sustainability Evaluation Frameworks Applied to Agri-Food Systems

This study aims to provide an empirical, decision-oriented comparison of four widely used sustainability assessment frameworks applied to agri-food systems (LCA, MESMIS, SAFA, and RISE). Using a Scopus-based search (2000–2025), we compiled a purposively balanced corpus of 89 empirical applications and coded each study with a standard rubric spanning normative, systemic, and procedural dimensions. Dimension indices were constructed using polychoric PCA (first component) and rescaled to 0–1, and a global index was computed as the mean of the three dimensions. Within the constructed corpus, MESMIS shows the highest mean global index (0.54), followed by LCA (0.46), SAFA (0.45), and RISE (0.32). LCA leads the normative dimension (0.56), while MESMIS leads the systemic (0.64) and procedural (0.53) dimensions; SAFA presents a balanced profile and explicitly incorporates governance considerations. Findings are interpreted as descriptive patterns within the constructed corpus rather than population-level estimates of inherent method superiority. We conclude that framework choice should be driven by evaluation purpose and information conditions and that hybrid approaches can combine complementary strengths across methods.