sustainability

Review
The 3Ps (Profit, Planet, and People) of Sustainability amidst
Climate Change: A South African Grape and Wine Perspective
Omamuyovwi Gbejewoh 1 , Saskia Keesstra 2,3 and Erna Blancquaert 1, *

1 Department of Viticulture and Oenology, South African Grape and Wine Research Institute,
Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa; [email protected]
2 Soil, Water and Land Use Team, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 17,
6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands; [email protected]
3 Department of Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering, The University of Newcastle,
Callaghan 2308, Australia
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Conventional agriculture has made the search for sustainability urgent, more so with
regards to climate change. This has extended to the grape and wine industry, an important industry
in South Africa in terms of labor employment and foreign exchange. This paper aims to review the
current state of knowledge with regards to the three pillars of sustainability and with regards to
climate change. In order to understand sustainability in South Africa, a historical context is needed,
because the welfare of farm workers still retains vestiges of past Apartheid. Ecological responsibility
and higher profits are the main reasons for sustainable practices. Additionally, water use, chemical
use, and soil erosion are important environmental sustainability concerns. With regards to climate
change, in terms of economic sustainability, there will be winners and losers and social sustainability





 issues will intensify as changes occur in farms. Table grape producers are relatively more profitable
than wine grape producers. Furthermore, pest, disease, irrigation pressure will worsen as the climate
Citation: Gbejewoh, O.; Keesstra, S.;
Blancquaert, E. The 3Ps (Profit, Planet,
warms. However, there are long- and short-term adaptation strategies such as changes in viticulture
and People) of Sustainability amidst practices and grape cultivars, respectively, to stem the effects of climate change, but this may be
Climate Change: A South African stymied by cost and farmers’ perceptions of climate change.
Grape and Wine Perspective.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910. https:// Keywords: sustainability; dimensions; global change; South Africa; table grape; wine grape
doi.org/10.3390/su13052910

Academic Editor: Riccardo Accorsi

1. Introduction
Received: 23 January 2021
There has been an increased contemporary awareness about the environmental im-
Accepted: 22 February 2021
pacts of agricultural production and consumption; since the 1960s, agriculture has relied
Published: 8 March 2021
largely on synthetic chemicals (fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides) and mechanization to
achieve increased levels of production at the least possible cost [1,2]. This period, known
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
as the “green revolution”, while it increased food production, brought detrimental conse-
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
quences to the world’s natural resources [3]. Consequently, sustainability and sustainable
iations.
development from the Brundtland Report “Our Common Future” [4] and the 1992 Rio
Conference on sustainable development was placed at the center of international, national,
and regional agendas [5]. Presently, there are many policies, agendas, and strategies that
aim to transition to sustainable development at different levels for general or specific levels
of activities, from the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [6], to the Euro-
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
pean Union Green Deal [7], to African Union’s “Agenda 2063—The Africa we want” [8],
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
to various national and regional policy agendas.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
Sustainability has become a very important word in the world today. However, a single
conditions of the Creative Commons
universal definition has so far been out of reach [9]. One of the first definitions was provided
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
by the United Nations as it formed the World Commission for Environment and Development
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ (WCED). Their definition was: “sustainable development is the development that meets
4.0/). the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052910 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 2 of 23

their own needs” [4]. However, since then different definitions have emerged, but it has
since been a multidimensional concept built upon economic, environmental, and social
principles [10,11] or the “triple bottom line” approach [12]. In the vision of the Sustainable
Development Goals of the United Nations, true sustainability needs to address sustainability
in the bio-physical environment, but also in the socio-economic environment. Solutions must
be found in combining the needs for all three domains: biosphere, society, and economy [13].
The calls for sustainability have never been greater in the agro-food industry to address
the environmental impacts and resource inefficiencies of the current system [14]. This call
has extended to all sub-sectors of the industry, even the grape and wine industry that
traditionally has not been viewed as a particularly environmentally inefficient industry [15].
Regardless, sustainability has been of great concern for the grape and wine industry
particularly because of the risks associated with climate change. Numerous authors have
reported on the importance of climate in grapevine physiology, growth (phenology), yield,
and the subsequent fruit and wine quality [16–23].
In South Africa, sustainability and climate change are especially important concepts
to the grape and wine industries because they are major contributors to the South African
economy. South Africa is the seventh largest table grape exporter, commanding 6.2% of the
export market share and employing almost 80,000 permanent and seasonal workers [24].
In terms of wine production, South Africa is the ninth largest wine producer (3.3% of world
production), and sixth largest exporter of wine (4.9% of world exports) [25].
Considerable research has been conducted on the three individual pillars of sus-
tainability and in the context of climate change in the South African grape and wine
industry [25–30]. However, a major gap in these studies is the provision of a holistic
overview of the three pillars in tandem. Consequently, this paper aims to review the state
of current knowledge concerning the three pillars of sustainability in the grape and wine
industry in South Africa in the context of climate change. In this review, the objective is to:
(i) analyze why sustainability is important to grape and wine farmers;
(ii) analyze current trends in the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of
grape and wine production and how climate change is affecting these trends.
The framework for the analysis for the current trends in sustainability will be to
discuss each pillar (economic, environmental, and social) of sustainability separately at first
as a standalone concept. Thereafter, climate change will be introduced into these pillars;
thus, the effects of climate change in each pillar (economic, environmental, and social) of
sustainability will be further discussed separately. The outline of the paper is as follows:
first, a description of the systematic review process; next is an explanation of the results of
the selected papers from the review process. Thereafter, a discussion of why sustainability is
important to grape and wine farmers and a historical context of grape and wine production
in South Africa is provided to better understand sustainability trends in the country.
Afterwards, a description of the economic, environmental, and social trends of grape and
wine production in South Africa in the context of climate change. Finally, climate change
adaptation strategies are discussed and areas where research is lacking and in need of
further development is given.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review paper of its kind that focuses on
all three sustainability pillars simultaneously in the context of climate change in the South
African grape and wine industries.

2. Methodology
This review followed the guidelines set by PRISMA [31] for a structured review as
shown in Figure 1. The review used a mixed-method approach which included quantitative
and qualitative research. Web of Science and Scopus was used between April 2020 and
June 2020 to obtain journal papers and conference proceedings. The search string words
in Web of Science and Scopus Database were: TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“sustainability*” OR
“sustainability pillar*” OR “climate change*”) AND (“viticulture*” OR “vineyards*” OR
“wine*” OR “grape*”)) There were no temporal limitations for this study. The papers
y 2021, 13, Sustainability
x 2021, 13, 2910 3 of 22 3 of 23

OR “sustainability pillar*” OR “climate change*”) AND (“viticulture*” OR “vineyards*”

OR “wine*” OR “grape*”)) There were no temporal limitations for this study. The papers
were downloaded wereand exported to
downloaded Mendeley
and exported toDesktop
Mendeley where duplicates
Desktop were immedi-
where duplicates were immediately
ately removed. Theremoved. Thecriteria
inclusion inclusion
werecriteria were theoretical
theoretical papers,
papers, and and qualitative
qualitative and quantitative
and quanti-
tative studies. Book chapters, papers not in English, and conference proceedings were not were not
studies. Book chapters, papers not in English, and conference proceedings
considered
considered for this for this
review. The review.
article titlesThe article
and titles were
abstracts and abstracts
screened,were
andscreened, and papers not
papers not
related to agriculture and parts of viticulture and winemaking deemed not relevant (e.g.,relevant (e.g.,
related to agriculture and parts of viticulture and winemaking deemed not
wine chemistry, wine
flavorchemistry,
chemistry,flavor chemistry,
wine aroma,wine aroma,
sensory sensory evaluation,
evaluation, grapevine grapevine
biology,biology, wine
microbiology, etc.) were removed. Furthermore, whole texts were analyzed and papers that
wine microbiology, etc.) were removed. Furthermore, whole texts were analyzed and pa-
dealt with other aspects of agriculture (e.g., crop and animal production) were removed
pers that dealt with other aspects of agriculture (e.g., crop and animal production) were
except if they dealt explicitly in sustainability and climate change.
removed except if they dealt explicitly in sustainability and climate change.

Papers identified through

database Scopus: n = 4101 Web
of Science: n = 1305

Records excluded with reasons

Outside the scope (not pertaining
to agriculture, parts of viticulture
and winemaking not relevant) n =
Papers after duplicates from both 1765
sources was removed: n = 3204

Entire papers excluded with reasons

Entire articles assessed for Dealt exclusively in sustainability
eligibility: n = 1439 and climate change in other aspects
of agriculture not relevant n = 1221

Final articles included in the

systematic review: n = 218

Figure 1. A PRISMA flowchart of the PRISMA systematic review process.

Figure 1. A PRISMA flowchart of the PRISMA systematic review process.

3. Results 3. Results
An initial search of Scopus and Web of Science database yielded 4101 and 1305
An initial search of Scopus and Web of Science database yielded 4101 and 1305 pa-
papers, respectively. After duplicates were removed, this was reduced to 3204. Thereafter,
pers, respectively. After duplicates were removed, this was reduced to 3204. Thereafter,
after article titles and abstracts were examined, 1765 articles were excluded according to
after article titlesthe
andaforementioned
abstracts werereasons,
examined, 1765 articles were excluded according to
which reduced the number of articles to 1439. After that,
the aforementioned reasons, which reduced the number of articles to 1439. After that, the
entire papers were examined and whole papers were removed according to the reasons
given above. This gave a final paper count of 218. According to Figure 2, the majority of
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 4 of 23

the entire papers were examined and whole papers were removed according to the reasons
Sustainability 2021, 13, x given above. This gave a final paper count of 218. According to Figure 2, the majority 4 of 22

of the selected papers were focused on the pillar of environmental sustainability (47.3%).
the selected papers were focused on the pillar of environmental sustainability (47.3%).
This was followed by the pillar of economic sustainability (20.5%) and the pillar of social
This was followed by the pillar of economic sustainability (20.5%) and the pillar of social
sustainability (13.2%). The number of research papers that dealt with all three pillars
sustainability (13.2%). The number of research papers that dealt with all three pillars sim-
simultaneously was low (3.9%).
ultaneously was low (3.9%).

TITLE-ABS-KEY((sustainability* OR sustainability pillars* OR climate

change)* AND (viticulture* OR vineyard* OR wine* OR grape*))
40

35

30
Number of Papers

25
Italy

20 AUS/NZ
U.S.
15
Spain

10 France
Portugal
5
South Africa

Figure 2. Bar graph showing the number of papers that dealt with the pillars of sustainability.
Figure 2. Bar graph showing the number of papers that dealt with the pillars of sustainability.

An
An overwhelming
overwhelming majority
majority of
of the
the studies
studies were
were conducted
conducted in in Europe
Europe (Italy,
(Italy, France,
France,
Portugal,
Portugal, and Spain) followed by the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Research
and Spain) followed by the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Research
in
in South
South America,
America, Asia
Asiaand
andAfrica
Africawere
wereabysmally
abysmallylow.
low.The Thestudies
studieswere
werepublished
publishedinina
diverse
a diverserange
rangeofofjournals,
journals,ranging
rangingfrom
fromthe
theJournal
Journal ofof Cleaner
Cleaner Production,
Production, Sustainability,
Sustainability,
Journal of Wine Research, Journal of Wine Economics, etc.

Discussion
4. Discussion
4.1. Why Do
4.1. Why Do Grape
Grape Farmers
Farmers Become
Become Sustainable?
Sustainable?
Motivations for
Motivations for sustainability
sustainabilityusually
usuallyfall
fallunder
underethical/personal/ecological
ethical/personal/ecologicalresponsi-
respon-
bility, operation efficiency, marketing positioning/competitiveness,
sibility, operation efficiency, marketing positioning/competitiveness, legitimacy/regulatory
legitimacy/regula-
compliance,
tory product
compliance, quality/differentiation,
product higher
quality/differentiation, profits,
higher stakeholder
profits, pressure,
stakeholder and con-
pressure, and
sumer demand [32–38]. Furthermore, business age, size, and ownership
consumer demand [32–38]. Furthermore, business age, size, and ownership are factors are factors that
also also
that playplay
a role
a in the
role inadoption of sustainable
the adoption practices
of sustainable [39–41].
practices Hamman
[39–41]. Hammanet al.et[36]
al. and
[36]
and other authors [42,43] found that in South Africa environmental responsibility major
other authors [42,43] found that in South Africa environmental responsibility is the is the
driver for sustainable practices and that legitimacy and competitiveness play a minor role.
major driver for sustainable practices and that legitimacy and competitiveness play a mi-
However, they emphasized that most sustainably proactive farms are characterized by
nor role. However, they emphasized that most sustainably proactive farms are character-
environmental responsibility and a possible competitive edge. It was also reported that
ized by environmental responsibility and a possible competitive edge. It was also reported
small- and medium-scale enterprises and family-owned businesses are more environmen-
that small- and medium-scale enterprises and family-owned businesses are more envi-
ronmentally proactive, because managers can translate their personal environmental be-
liefs to organizational practices due to the high degree of control on operations [44,45]
Finally, potential barriers to sustainability practices may include cost, time intensity, lack
of information, abuse of the sustainability concept (“greenwashing”) or a perception of
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 5 of 23

tally proactive, because managers can translate their personal environmental beliefs to
organizational practices due to the high degree of control on operations [44,45] Finally,
potential barriers to sustainability practices may include cost, time intensity, lack of infor-
mation, abuse of the sustainability concept (“greenwashing”) or a perception of how a
good, well-maintained farm should look (clean and without weeds) [9,32,38,46]. Regard-
less, the adoption of sustainability practices usually depends on whether the perceived
benefits outweigh the cost [47,48].

4.2. The Historical Context of Grape and Wine Production in South Africa
For a better understanding about sustainability in the grape and wine industry in
South Africa, the historical and political context is important. Between 1917 and the mid-
1990s, the regulatory system in the South Africa wine industry was presided over by the
Koöperatieve Wijnbouwers Vereniging van Suid-Afrika (KWV), who instituted planting
quotas, minimum prices, and methods of surplus removal, and were the sole exporter of
wine. Wine production was dominated by co-operative cellars who pooled resources to sell
grapes in bulk and farmers were paid according to tonnage delivered. These co-operatives
were closely linked to the network of white power in the Western Cape, because rural
civil society in the province was dominated by the white landed settler elites [49]. These
co-operatives encouraged mass production and rewarded growers who could deliver high
volumes of low-quality grapes (high sugar levels, unbalanced acids, pH, and low phenolic
content—key determinants of wine quality). This orientation coupled with the imposition
of international trade sanctions because of Apartheid policies in the country brought the
industry to a halt, although it consequently survived through domestic consumption and
exports of low-quality wine to Eastern Europe [50,51]. This mass production of grapes
was dependent on cheap black labor which, until the 1980s, was characterized by racial
hierarchy and authoritarian paternalism adapted from the earlier Cape slave society [52].
White settler elites controlled most of the commercial farming in the Western Cape and
beyond, with values of white patriarchal mastery that shaped the relationship between
farm owners and farm workers. Even with attempts in the 1980s to “modernize” labor
relations (as a result of pressure on Apartheid policies) with workers’ education and skill
development, and even, ironically, research into fetal alcohol syndrome (which was largely
caused by the “dop” or “tot” system), this notion of white mastery did not change but
instead created a kind of “neo-paternalism” [53–55].
With the political transition of the early 1990s and a change in the economic and political
power that had previously benefited the white elites, a slew of labor and employment
legislation ranging from basic labor laws to minimum wage was passed to limit the control by
farmers of workers’ lives. Even though labor laws have significantly weakened the paternalist
labor, it has not decisively transformed it; the state is most often too far away to enforce their
laws, and farmworkers are reticent to fight for their rights because maintaining close and
cordial relationships with farm owners are just as important [56].
With the lifting of trade sanctions and opening of the export markets following the
political transitions of the 1990s, South African wine was thrust into an international market
that was going through a lot of changes. Firstly, the global economic downturn was putting
pressure on the global beverage industry, and global wine consumption was decreasing.
Secondly, supermarkets were growing in importance as wine retailers which changed how
wine was consumed and marketed, and lastly, was the increasing prominence of premium
and super-premium branded wines and the falling prospects and consumption rates of low
price, blended, and bulk wines which hitherto the country was focused on. All these had
contradictory implications for producers. Although new markets meant new opportunities,
these supermarkets had stringent purchasing requirements through strict phytosanitary,
technical, and ethical requirements. Furthermore, deregulation and globalization meant
an oversupply of wine coupled with competition within the country but also with other
wine-producing countries for much sought-after supermarket contracts, placing producers
at a disadvantage when bargaining with wine retailers [56]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 6 of 23

For table grape producers, just like wine, supermarkets were becoming the dominant
retailers of fresh produce. These supermarkets no longer purchased fruits in the open
market but through integrated global value chains (GVCs). Supermarkets usually work
with a close group of agents in the value chain to plan and preprogram their requirements
annually to meet changing consumer needs. Their dominant position in the value chain
allowed them to influence their agents and suppliers and exert increasing pressures on fruit
growers to meet tight—albeit flexible—production schedules, and comply with quality,
environmental and social standards. However, these supermarkets rarely have written
contracts with suppliers that provide a guarantee of purchase, except for a verbal agreement.
Furthermore, their purchase of fresh produce is mainly on a “consignment” basis, where
prices are not agreed until very close to the point of final delivery. Additionally, even
though they demand and dictate standards, the prices they pay are subject to the forces
of demand and supply on the open market. Like wine, globalization and deregulation
following the transition to a democratic government led to the dismantling of Unifruco,
the single export channel of fruits. This resulted in increased competition within South
Africa and between other exporting countries such as Chile, which exports fruits within
the same “export window” as South Africa, leading to an oversupply and a subsequent
decrease in prices [57].
Grape and wine producers consequently responded in ways that were still in their con-
trol, through the contraction, casualization, and externalization of labor [58,59]. However,
it is important to note that this trend towards flexible employment is not unique to South
Africa; research of the literature has emphasized the same trend worldwide, especially in
the agricultural sectors of developing countries [60]. This is essential to understand the
world that South African grape and wine producers entered in the early 1990s, and it is
important to view any of the sustainability pillars through this lens.

4.3. Climate Change in Grape and Wine Production

Climate change is expected to impact viticulture through an increase in air temper-
ature and a shift of the ripening period towards earlier and usually warmer parts of the
season [61]. Mean temperatures for traditional viticultural zones have increased by 1.7 ◦ C
between 1950 and 2004 [62], and changes in grapevine growth and development have
already been found [63–66], influencing grape yield and berry and wine quality [62,67]
through a decrease in berry acidity [68,69] and increase in sugar content [63]. Furthermore,
changes in temperature and rainfall patterns [70] may significantly modify viticultural
zones in Europe [71,72] through severe dryness [73], organoleptic and organic acid degrada-
tion [20,64], and high potential alcohol content [74], although less modification is expected
for South Africa [26,62]. Increased temperatures may also open new viticultural zones that
previously were unsuitable for grape production in Northern and Central Europe [75,76],
Western North America [77], and cooler and higher altitude regions in the Western Cape of
South Africa [29,78].

4.4. Economic Sustainability of Grape and Wine Production

Economic sustainability in its simplest term means how farms in business stay in
business. Economic sustainability is intricately linked to environmental and social pillars.
Consequently, while only good economic performance might be beneficial in the short
term, it is not necessarily so in the long term because neglecting the environmental and
social dimensions may be a barrier to long term survival. Thus, effectively managing the
environmental and social dimensions of businesses can also make farms economically
sustainable [79]. Economic sustainability is usually viewed as economic viability, which
means whether the farm can survive in the long term in changing economic contexts. These
changes in economic contexts may be driven by changes in inputs and output prices, yields,
governmental regulation, while the long term implies the entire working life of the farmer
or even the working life of subsequent generations of successors of the farm. Economic
viability is usually measured through profitability, stability, liquidity, and productivity [80].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 7 of 23

However, economic sustainability sometimes extends beyond these indicators to others

such as autonomy in various forms, examples are financial autonomy (less pressure from
debts), diversification of income, and autonomy from subsidies [81].
Following the lifting of trade sanctions, South Africa’s grape and wine exports in-
creased four-fold between 1994 and 2004 but it has since plateaued. Additionally, tourism-
Sustainability 2021, 13, x 7 of 22
related activities (tours, restaurants) have been an important source of income for South
Africa’s vineyards
vineyardsand andcellars.
cellars.However,
However, South
SouthAfrica’s grape
Africa’s and and
grape winewinefarmers have fared
farmers have
betterbetter
fared than than
otherother
sectors in the
sectors agricultural
in the agriculturaleconomy
economy [82].
[82].For
Forthethelast
last10
10years,
years, South
African wine
African wine farms
farmshave haveaveraged
averageda net farm
a net farmincome (NFI)
income thatthat
(NFI) is less
is than whatwhat
less than is required
is re-
for sustainable grape production, but the situation is gradually improving.
quired for sustainable grape production, but the situation is gradually improving. For ex- For example,
in the 2018
ample, in thevintage year, vineyards
2018 vintage averaged
year, vineyards an NFI an
averaged of ZAR
NFI of 14,957/ha
ZAR 14,957/hacompared to the
compared
ZAR 30,000/ha required for sustainable grape production. Moreover,
to the ZAR 30,000/ha required for sustainable grape production. Moreover, for the 2019 for the 2019 vintage
year, vineyards
vintage averagedaveraged
year, vineyards ZAR 20,617/ha compared
ZAR 20,617/ha to the ZAR
compared 34,000/ha
to the required
ZAR 34,000/ha for sus-
required
tainable
for production.
sustainable However,
production. these increases
However, have been
these increases driven
have beenlargely
drivenbylargely
yield increases,
by yield
and over the
increases, andpast
overtwo theyears, this years,
past two has beenthiscoupled
has been with risingwith
coupled graperising
prices. While
grape this
prices.
is remarkable, it is also unsettling, given that future yield decreases
While this is remarkable, it is also unsettling, given that future yield decreases are ex- are expected given
the increasing
pected given the percentage
increasingof aging andofolder
percentage agingvineyards. In fact, according
and older vineyards. to Figure to
In fact, according 3,
for the first time in 16 years, vineyards that were younger than three
Figure 3, for the first time in 16 years, vineyards that were younger than three years old years old made up
less than
made up 10%
less of
than total
10%hectares,
of totaland vineyards
hectares, and older than 20
vineyards years
older constituted
than 20 years over 20% of
constituted
total hectares, which is contrary to the general knowledge that these figures
over 20% of total hectares, which is contrary to the general knowledge that these figures should be 15%
or more for vineyards aged three years or younger, and less than 15% for vineyards aged
should be 15% or more for vineyards aged three years or younger, and less than 15% for
20 years or older.
vineyards aged 20 years or older.

50%
45% 43%

40%
35% 32%
30% 26%
25% 22% 21%
19%
20%
15% 13% 13%

10% 7%
5%
5%
0%
< 4 years 4 – 10 years 10 – 15 years 16 – 20 years > 20 years
Red wine grape White wine grape

Figure 3. Age distribution of vineyards in South Africa [83].

Figure 3. Age distribution of vineyards in South Africa [83].

Consequently,
Consequently, future
future increases
increases in in gross
gross income,
income, NFI,
NFI, and
and profitability
profitability will
will largely
largely
need
need to
tocome
comefrom
fromaafurther
furtherincrease
increaseinin grape
grape prices. However,
prices. However, it should be noted
it should thatthat
be noted the
percentage of profitable vineyards (NFI > ZAR 34,000/ha) increased from
the percentage of profitable vineyards (NFI > ZAR 34,000/ha) increased from 15% to 28% 15% to 28% be-
tween 2015 and 2019, while the percentage of unprofitable vineyards decreased
between 2015 and 2019, while the percentage of unprofitable vineyards decreased from from 40%
to
40%30%
to between 2016 and
30% between 20162019
and after
2019 an increase
after from from
an increase 30% to 40%
30% tobetween 2015 and
40% between 20152016;
and
however, the majority
2016; however, of wine
the majority farmsfarms
of wine (40% (40%
in 2019) are still
in 2019) arebarely profitable,
still barely withwith
profitable, an NFI
an
between ZARZAR
NFI between 20,000–34,000/ha [83]. Figures
20,000–34,000/ha 4 and45and
[83]. Figures show the increasing
5 show production
the increasing costs
production
of vineyards and the relatively modest profitability of vineyards in South Africa over the
years.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 8 of 23

costs of vineyards and the relatively modest profitability of vineyards in South Africa over
the years.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x 8 of 22
Sustainability 2021, 13, x 8 of 22
16,000
16,000
14,000
14,000
12,000
12,000
10,000
10,000
ZAR/ha

8000
ZAR/ha

8,000
6000
6,000
4000
4,000
2000
2,000

Fertilizer Crop Labour Mechanization Non-captial

Fertilizer protection
Crop Labour Mechanization expenditure
Non-captial
protection expenditure
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Figure 4. Production costs of vineyards [83].
Figure 4. Production costs of vineyards [83].
Figure 4. Production costs of vineyards [83].
80,000
80,000
70,000
70,000
60,000
60,000
50,000
50,000
ZAR/ha

40,000
ZAR/ha

40,000
30,000
30,000
20,000
20,000
10,000
10,000

Gross income Gross margin Net farm income

Gross income Gross margin Net farm income
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Figure 5. Profitability of vineyards on average [83].
Figure 5. Profitability
Figure of vineyards
5. Profitability on average
of vineyards [83]. [83].
on average
For table grapes, the NFI income projection is roughly ZAR 46,000/ha. However, even
though For
Foratable
table grapes,
projected
grapes, the
theNFI
increase inincome
NFI NFI is projection
income expected is roughly
for
projection table
is ZARZAR
grapes,
roughly 46,000/ha.
according However,
46,000/ha.to Table 1,even
the
However,
though
export a projected
outlook
even though increase
is worrying
a projected in NFI
because
increase inis
of expected
NFI for table
itsisdependence
expected grapes,
forontable
the E.U. according
U.K.to
andaccording
grapes, Table
markets. 1,This
to Tablethe
1,
export
is
the outlook
because
export even
outlookis worrying
though because
production
is worrying becauseisofexpected
itsits
of dependence
to increase
dependence ononthe
in
theE.U.
E.U.and
South U.K.
Africa,
and U.K. markets.
the This
population
markets.
is
is because
growth
because even
of the E.U.
even though
and the
though production is expected
U.K. is worryingly
production to increase
expectedslow and, in in
increase South
some Africa, the
countries, even population
negative,
growth of
growth ofthat
meaning the E.U.
the consumerand
E.U. and the the U.K. is
U.K. iswill
demand worryingly
worryingly slow
probablyslowremainand, in some
and,atincurrent countries,
some countries, even
even negative,
negative,
levels. Consequently, if
meaning
market that consumer
access demand
is not expanded, will probably
further oversupply remain at current
will be levels.
detrimental Consequently,
to the if
price of table
market in
grapes access is notterm.
the long expanded,
Canada further oversupply
is an emerging will be
export detrimental
market to which to the
tableprice of table
grape pro-
grapes are
ducers in the long term.
looking Canada
to export, is an emerging
but there export market
is also competition to which
from other table table grape
grape pro-
produc-
ducers
ing are looking
countries looking to export, but there is
to export alsoChina
[84]. competition
is also from other
another table market
export grape produc-
where
ing countries
South African looking
table grape to export
producers there are[84]. China
looking is also another
to increase export market
their footprint, becausewhere
it has
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 9 of 23

meaning that consumer demand will probably remain at current levels. Consequently,
if market access is not expanded, further oversupply will be detrimental to the price
of table grapes in the long term. Canada is an emerging export market to which table
grape producers are looking to export, but there is also competition from other table grape
producing countries looking to export there [84]. China is also another export market where
South African table grape producers are looking to increase their footprint, because it has a
growing economy and population with strong cultural importance for fruit consumption,
complementary growing seasons, and both governments have pledged to increase bilateral
trade [85].

Table 1. Regional table grape export market split 2019/2020 (4.5 kg Equivalent Cartons) [84].

Region Export Market

European Union 31,400,602
United Kingdom 15,793,685
Canada 4,221,802
Far East 2,951, 997
Middle East 2,902,807
South East Asia 2,877,238
Russian Federation 1,193,984
Africa 877,039
United States 488,003
Indian Ocean Islands 275,262
Other 190,457

4.5. Economic Sustainability in Climate Change of Grape and Wine Production

The economic consequence of climate change on grape and wine as shown in Table 2
is generally hard to predict because variability is large, and the climate change process is
non-linear [86]. Nemani et al. [87] showed that the increased temperature associated with
climate change was an advantage to the wine industry in California, because frost occur-
rence reduced by 20 days and the frost-free period increased by 65 days. Adams et al. [88]
corroborated these results, with a 90% and 65% increase in yield with and without CO2
fertilization, respectively. However, a decreased yield for table grapes and relatively stable
yields for wine grapes with increased temperature have also been shown [89]. Regardless,
continued global warming may turn any possible gains into definite losses [90].
Higher yields are usually correlated with reduced wine quality [91]. However, even
though this negative relationship between yield and quality is true most of the time [91], it
is not always the case [92,93]. Furthermore, wine quality is also related to alcohol content,
because higher temperature produces sweeter and stronger wines [91]. Even though many
viticultural regions have been trending towards higher alcohol content, climate change is
not fully responsible for this trend; consumer preferences and viticultural practices also
play significant roles [93,94]. Wine quality has also been associated with higher prices.
Alston et al. [95] showed a 61.6% increase in wine prices with a corresponding 1 ◦ C increase
in growing season temperature in Bordeaux. Similar results were found by Jones and
Storchmann [96] and Chevet et al. [97]. These results may hold for cooler regions [91]
but for warmer regions, there is a maximum peak in prices with regards to increased
temperature, above which further increases in temperature reduces prices [98,99]. Based on
current literature, evidence shows that there will be both winners and losers from climate
change [91].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 10 of 23

Table 2. Interaction of key economic sustainability indicators with temperature.

Economic Indicator Temperature

90% and 65% increase in vine yield with and without CO2 fertilization,
Yield
respectively, corresponded with 3 ◦ C increase in temperature [88]
Wine quality 0.23% increase in Brix levels per year between 1980 and 2005 [91]
Revenue 150–180% increase in revenue with a 3 ◦ C increase in temperature [91]
Price 61.6% increase in price with 1 ◦ C increase in temperature [95]

4.6. Environmental Sustainability of Grape and Wine Production

Grape and wine production have been subject to less regulation compared to other
industries such as the manufacturing, chemical, and mining industries [33,100]. This is
probably due to the preconception of grape and wine production as environmentally
safe [101]. The most important issues related to environmental sustainability as shown in
Table 3 are water use efficiency, use of chemical crop protection, and soil erosion.

Table 3. Environmental sustainability concerns of grape and wine production [15].

Environmental Indicators Environmental Concerns

Inordinate water use coupled with inaccurate and/or absent data
Water use
on water use
Lack of data on waste generated coupled with limited and/or
Organic and inorganic waste
absent recycling programs
Excessive use of synthetic chemicals with absent data on
Synthetic chemicals use
chemical use
Energy use and greenhouse Energy use in addition to CO2 generated is an often-ignored
gas emissions environmental concern.
Soil erosion, destruction of local habitats, loss of biodiversity
associated with vineyard monocultures, local pollution and
Ecosystem impacts
contamination, and competition for water resources with other
aspects of agricultural production

4.6.1. Water Use Efficiency

Water is a very important resource for grape and wine production, for which usage in
viticulture and winemaking can vary according to the location and size of the farm [37].
For example, water footprint can provide important information on the water use of a
specific portion of the farm, and strategies can be developed from this information to
improve the water use efficiency. Water use is broadly categorized as blue, green, and grey
water for agricultural use [102]. Generally, water use can be categorized as direct or indirect.
Direct application of water refers to the application of irrigation, fertilizers, and herbicides,
while indirect water use includes water use for agrochemical dilution [102]. In wine
production, direct use of water in the cellar includes the washing of equipment (before
and after crushing), winemaking, cold stabilization, and sanitation, while indirect water
use in the cellar includes water for chemical dilution and water for waste removal [102].
Jarmain [102] reported that table grape and wine production in South Africa showed that
on average, table grapes used 619 L of water for every 4.5 kg carton (industry standard)
of table grapes produced; on average, 647 L of water was used for every 750 mL of wine
produced [102]. Water use can consequently have important effects on the quantity and
quality of water resources. Evidence suggests that vineyard and winery managers do not
know or keep data on the quantity of water used and/or wastewater generated in their
organization [15]. In a South African study, 80% of wine farmers could not accurately
give their water use and even underreported the exact value by as much as 60% [103].
An Australian study showed that about 5% wine farmers still used over 8 L of water to
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 11 of 23

produce a bottle of wine, regardless of the fact that research on the best management
practices has reported the use of 0.4 L of water [104]. Concerns with the excessive use of
water in viticulture and winemaking include the contamination of surface and groundwater
sources, and the inappropriate disposal of wastewater [105,106]. Practices such as the use
of drip line irrigation and partial root drying have been championed [19,107], and even
reduced water use has been shown to be of benefit to wineries; a Canadian study showed a
6% increase in grape yield with a 30% reduction in water use [108], while a South African
study stressed the importance of remote sensing and earth observations technology for
quantifying water use over large areas [102].

4.6.2. Organic and Inorganic Waste

Organic and inorganic solid waste are unavoidable consequences of grape and wine
production [15] and is one of the most important environmental concerns facing the indus-
try [105,109]. Furthermore, just like water, there are a lack of data collected by farms [106].
Organic waste includes winery effluents such as grape marc, lees, and pomace stalk, some
of which have the potential for reuse while others are of practically no value [110,111].
Inorganic waste, on the other hand, includes packaging materials and used chemical con-
tainers [37]. Landfills and incinerators are popular options for organic and inorganic waste
disposal, and even though there is a growing market for organic waste and success with
recycling programs, there is still room for further improvement [112,113].

4.6.3. Chemical Use

Similarly to other agricultural sectors, chemical use in vineyards includes fertilizers,
pesticides, and herbicides, and in some countries chemically-treated timber is used for
vineyard trellising [114,115]. Chemical use in wineries includes chemicals for cleaning
operations, sanitation, and wine preservation [106,113]. The chemical use in vineyards is
especially disconcerting; it has been shown that although European vineyards occupy only
3% of cropland, they use 15% of all synthetic pesticide applications [116]. Furthermore, just
like other agricultural sectors, chemical use in vineyards is associated with contaminated
run-off, spray drift, reduced soil fertility, reduced bee populations, damage of vineyards’
natural defense networks, while chemical use in wineries affects the quality of wastewater
making effective treatment before disposal cumbersome [117].

4.6.4. (Un)Sustainable Agronomic Management and Resulting Soil Loss

Soil erosion is an environmental risk that is particularly severe in vineyards because
of soil tillage, poor organic matter content, and climatic conditions [118,119]. Consequently,
this leads to a loss of soil fertility, soil quality, and loss of ecosystem services [120]. It should
be noted, however, that extensive soil loss is not limited to vineyards; different authors
have reported similar problems in various other crops [121–124]. Research has suggested
that soil loss in vineyards is above the level that amounts to tolerable soil loss, less so for
older vineyards with more organic matter content and higher bulk density in relation to
younger vineyards [125] Moreover, accurately measuring soil loss in vineyards is fraught
with difficulties, because different methodologies available tend to give different results.
Thus, there is a need to improve the accuracy of measurements [126]. However, research
has shown that there are various practices to mitigate the effects of soil erosion such as
terracing, sediment fences, check dams, grass margins, contour farming, and the use of
cover crops [127,128].

4.7. Environmental Sustainability in Climate Change of Grape and Wine Production

In the context of climate change, there is concern that increased temperature associated
with climate change will cause increased pest and disease pressure on crops [129–131],
and these changes are already taking place [132,133]. Increased temperature may cause the
increased survival of pests and diseases during warmer winters and may cause the range
of pests and diseases in a region to change because pests may move to cooler regions that
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 12 of 23

were previously unsuitable for their development, as evidenced by the invasive spotted
wing Drosophilia fruit fly, native to Southeast Asia, but has increasingly been spreading
to Europe and the United States. [134,135]. Although pest movement to cooler regions is
more likely due to globalization than climate change [136], their increased survival in these
cooler regions is probably due to milder winters [135]. On the other hand, even though
the increased temperature is likely to allow more pest generations in a growing season,
as evidenced by the rice strip virus transmitted by the small brown planthopper [137,138],
this may be offset by the early maturity and earlier harvest dates causing asynchrony and
limiting pest damage [139]. However, results like this should be viewed with caution; pests
may be able to maintain their synchrony with the target host [140] or adapt, and very likely
restore, this synchrony [141].
The increased threat due to climate change is the increased erratic nature of the climate.
Rainfall becomes more unpredictable and more intense when the climate warms. This
causes higher soil erosion rates due to increased runoff in high intensity storms and higher
soil detachment rates due to increased splash erosion [127]. Increased warming with
associated increased evapotranspiration and increased frequency and intensity of extreme
events such as droughts, wildfires floods, and heatwaves [142] will bring increased pressure
for irrigation and less reliance on precipitation, more so for old world producers than new
world producers [92]. For South Africa, this situation is especially dire because the country
is one of the most water-scarce countries in the world, with large areas classified as arid or
semi-arid [27].
Consequently, the expected increase in irrigation and water use in vineyards and
wineries is likely to bring associated risks of erosion and silting of water bodies, especially
as vineyards move uphill to areas of lower temperatures [30,42,106,143], salt build-up in
soils which is detrimental to vines [93], and increased competition for water and land
resources from other sectors of agriculture arguably deemed more important in terms
of food production [15,144], and consequently pushing grape and wine production from
traditional areas to more marginal areas with fewer resources [68]. Furthermore, the fynbos
region of the Western Cape of South Africa where a significant portion of grapes are grown is
fire-prone, and adaptation to frequent fires is a natural feature of the fynbos vegetation [145].
Even though studies are scarce, increased frequency of wildfires is expected with climate
change [26,146] with effects of increased soil erosion after a fire [147].
Finally, the prospects of vineyard relocation with further warming are expected to
bring biodiversity conservation concerns [77,148] especially in the Cape Floristic region of
South Africa [78], one of the biodiversity hotspots in the world [149] and a major grape and
wine producing region. Even though there are programs such as the Biodiversity and Wine
Initiative (BWI) in South Africa to mitigate against the impacts of vineyard expansions and
possible relocation through botanical audits, plans to preserve endangered and significant
species, and setting aside land for biodiversity conservation [150,151] a large number of
grape and wine farms are small- and medium-scale enterprises [152] without particularly
large tracts of land; therefore, a majority of the reserved areas are likely to be small scattered
fragments, making a formal reserve system particularly difficult [153,154].

4.8. Social Sustainability in Grape and Wine Production

The South African grape and wine production industries were infamous for some
of the worst working conditions in Apartheid South Africa, and even though conditions
improved following the political transition and the passing of legislation to improve
workers welfare, transformation in the grape and wine industry still lags behind other
sectors [150,155]. The casualization and externalization of labor especially after the tran-
sition to a democratic government was detrimental to farm workers. Research shows
that almost three million farm workers were evicted from farms between 1950 and 2004
and then rehired as seasonal and casual workers, sometimes under worse conditions than
before [156]. This change in labor structure has both pros and cons in terms of workers rela-
tionships with farm owners. On the one hand, while the “firm but generous” relationship,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 13 of 23

accommodation and discounted goods and services afforded to workers were gone, these
farm workers were also free to unionize more easily and fight for their rights [157].
The neoliberal economic policies of the government have made them reticent to
interfere in the relationship between farm owners and farm workers, so much so that
apart from the lack of manpower, the government are reluctant to enforce their own labor
laws. For example, it is possible for farm owners to apply for exemption from minimum
wage labor laws [158]. In cases where farm owners have had to comply with labor laws,
researchers argue that this has accelerated the rate of casualization and externalization
of labor [159]. For example, one study found that when minimum wage was introduced
in 2003, farm workers’ wages increased by 17% but agricultural employment decreased
by 13% [160]. It has also been found that agricultural employment reduced by 8.3% as
minimum wage was increased by 52% [161]. However, this research and arguments
for less intervention in farm owners and farm worker relationships by the government
belies the fact that since the opening of the export markets following the transition to
democratic government, exports and the income in commercial farms have increased
exponentially [158]. Farm workers has always been viewed as expendable, regardless of
the economic situation of the farm owner, and that is not going to change anytime soon.
Although their research was limited to female farm workers in Western and North-
ern Cape, because women are more likely to be casualized and paid less, as shown in
Table 4, Devereux [158] found that more than half (55%) were not aware of the sectoral
determination that deductions from wages should be limited to 10% of wages; 40% had
not signed an employment contract; for those that signed, more 80% of seasonal workers
did not receive a copy of their contracts; 41% were paid below minimum wage, more so
for those paid fortnightly and monthly and less so for those paid daily and weekly; and
almost 80% of workers had had deductions from their wages (some legitimately, others
less so). In addition, 63% of farm workers did not have access to bathroom facilities, 62%
were compensated for injuries incurred on farms and about half (51%) of these injuries
were reported to the Department of Employment and Labour, 66% of farm workers were
not provided with protective clothing from pesticides when spraying, membership in
unions was abysmally low at 12%, 73% of farm workers claimed that farm owners do not
allow union reps on farms, and 28% claimed the farms had never been visited by labor
inspectors. It should be noted that violations of workers’ rights are not limited to Western
and Northern Cape; similar patterns of violations have been recorded in Eastern Cape [162],
Limpopo [163], North West [164], and Free State [165].

Table 4. Violations of workers’ rights in vineyards and wineries [158].

Social Indicator Province Workers

Western Cape Northern Cape Permanent Seasonal
Did not sign a contract 29.4% 54.2% 23.9% 52.4%
Received a copy of their contract 16.2% 60% 37.2% 17.5%
Paid minimum wage 62.4% 59.6% 73.2% 51.6%
No access to facilities 57.2% 71.1% 52.2% 72%
Compensation for injury incurred at work 61.5% 60% 64.4% 61.2%
Injury incurred at work reported to the labor department 55.2% 37.1% 64.4% 36.7%
No protective clothing at work 52.7% 74.3% 54.5 73.3%
Exposed to pesticides 45.3% 95.8% 63.5% 69%
Trade union membership 13.6% 9.9% 13.8% 9.5%
Farm owner does not allow union reps on farms 64.7% 86.6% 68.6% 76.8%
Farm owner prohibits attending union meetings 49.3% 63.4% 47.8% 60.7%

4.9. Social Sustainability in Climate Change of Grape and Wine Production

Social sustainability research has been few and far between, and research on social sus-
tainability in climate change has been even more so. Grape and wine production has strong
cultural, social, and historical ties to a viticultural zone, and the concept of terroir embodies
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 14 of 23

this [166]. Consequently, climate change will have different social consequences according
to different contexts. In many old world viticultural zones, where terroir holds very strong
meanings, changes in grapevine varieties, viticultural practices, and even possible vineyard
relocation will affect regional, cultural, and social identities [166]. Furthermore, viticulture
and winemaking are significant employers of labor in many viticultural zones and may
be severely affected by changes in viticultural practices and vineyard relocation [167,168].
Additionally, the capacities of grape and wine farmers to adapt to climate change are
influenced by social, economic, and political circumstances [169].

4.10. Climate Change Adaptation Strategies

Regardless of the various ongoing and expected effects of climate change in viticul-
ture and winemaking, there are various short-term and long-term adaption strategies to
reduce the effect of climate change in viticulture. Short-term adaptation strategies include
viticultural practices to delay ripening [170], the use of sunscreen and shade nets to protect
from sunburn and extreme heat [171,172], deficit irrigation practices as a water-saving mea-
sure and to take advantage of the relationship between vine–water status and yield [173],
integrated pest management practices to adapt to the possibility of increased pest pres-
sure, and soil management practices (conservation tillage, use of compost, mulches, cover
crops) for soil and plant protection, carbon storage, and reducing greenhouse gases emis-
sions [174]. Long term adaptation strategies include changes in training systems for higher
water use efficiency, lower sugar accumulation, delay of the maturation period, selection
of grape varieties and rootstock to those better adapted to the expected effects of climate
change, genetic breeding for the development of climate change-tolerant varieties, and fi-
nally, usually as a last resort, vineyard relocation to cooler, higher altitude, higher elevation,
coastal areas, and areas with lower solar radiation [174]. However, it should be noted that
adaptation strategies that do not consider the economic, social, political, and cultural con-
straints at the farm, regional and national level are likely to be unsuccessful [168,175,176].
Furthermore, the decision to adopt an adaptation strategy will depend upon a farm or
organization’s capacity to change, the perception of their vulnerability to climate change
relative to other risks, and the risks and opportunities associated with adaptation [177].

4.11. Knowledge Gaps and Future Research

This review has implicitly shown that an overwhelming majority of research in sus-
tainability and sustainability in climate change has been conducted in Western countries.
However, the historical context of the country presents a unique opportunity in sustain-
ability research. Research in sustainability has essentially tackled one pillar at a time,
and research in all three pillars is abysmally low. This needs to be remedied because grape
and wine farmers battle all three pillars at the same time. Revenue from grape and wine
production in South Africa has plateaued ever since the initial boon; therefore, farmers are
constantly making decisions between increasing profits, investing in more environmentally
friendly farming practices, or improving the welfare of farm workers, and any decision
pits one pillar against the other. Research in sustainability should endeavor to ensure that
it should not be an either/or situation between the three pillars of sustainability, and that
even though it may appear as such, one pillar does not have to be sacrificed for the other.
As shown in Figure 6, research should endeavor to make sure that the aim of sustainability
is less to achieve all three pillars, but more to optimally balance and reconcile all three
pillars relative to the resources of the farm and in the prevailing context of the country.
The South African case study has shown that any effort at any time to place one pillar
ahead of another, for any reason, belies the overall sustainability of the farm, and research
in sustainability should make this clear.
 ensure that it should not be an either/or situation between the three pillars of sustainabil-
ity, and that even though it may appear as such, one pillar does not have to be sacrificed
for the other. As shown in Figure 6, research should endeavor to make sure that the aim
of sustainability is less to achieve all three pillars, but more to optimally balance and rec-
oncile all three pillars relative to the resources of the farm and in the prevailing context of
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 15 of 23
the country. The South African case study has shown that any effort at any time to place
one pillar ahead of another, for any reason, belies the overall sustainability of the farm,
and research in sustainability should make this clear.

ECONOMIC
Yield
Net farm income
Input costs

ENVIRONMENTAL
SOCIAL
Biodiversity
Labor legislation
Water footprint
Labor productivity
Chemical use
Communuty welfare
Soil health

Sustainability

Figure 6. Graph showing the indicators of sustainability required to achieve overall sustainable
grape and wine production.

Furthermore, even though there are a variety of assessment methods for the three pillars
of sustainability, a comprehensive sustainability assessment of all three pillars simultaneously
for the partial or entire value chain of grapes and wine are absent and sorely needed. Part
of the reason for this lack of research is due to the paucity of the amount of data needed,
especially for off-farm activities. Additionally, data for on-farm activities, especially for the
non-productive stage of the grapevine, are not always available. This is disconcerting because
it has been argued that a lack of quantitative data makes it difficult and even impossible to
see and assess opportunities for improving performance and monitoring progress towards
the end goal of sustainability [15]. Another reason is the lack of measurable context-specific
indicators for economic, environmental, and social indicators for the South African grape
and wine industry that would usually precede any sort of sustainability assessment.
In terms of the three pillars, considerable research gaps still exist. Firstly, in terms of
economic sustainability for grape and wine production in the context of climate change,
even though there theoretically exists a point where further increases in temperature will
depress grape and wine prices, in practice, this point is not known [178]. Future research
should aim to link increases in temperature with grape prices to understand where climate
change starts being detrimental to grape and wine production, especially for warm category
regions such as South Africa.
Regarding environmental sustainability amidst grape and wine production, only a
handful of “noble” grape varieties are planted worldwide, relegating the other considerable
numbers of varieties to very little limited hectares. This needs to be remedied, because many
of these local or indigenous varieties may very well play a significant role in the future
in the context of a warming climate; these “neglected” varieties could well be adapted
to extreme and harsh climate due to years of “neglect”. However, consumer acceptance
of these varieties needs to be investigated simultaneously [179]. Furthermore, there is
limited research on environmental problems that are very important and informative to
farm managers. For example, because as detrimental as soil erosion is in all forms of crop
production, research on it is still limited [180–182].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 16 of 23

In the context of social sustainability in climate change, there is a need to assess the
effectiveness of schemes such as the Wine and Agricultural Ethical Trade Association
(WIETA), Fair Trade South Africa, and Sustainability Initiative of South Africa (SIZA)
exclusively from workers’ perspectives, because the effectiveness of these schemes are
unconfirmed and largely up for debate; with the increased dominance of these schemes by
retailers, the farm workers who they are supposed to support are ironically being left out
of the conversation [109,112,113,183].

5. Conclusions
Sustainability has become a catch-all phrase for practically all efforts to remedy the
detrimental impacts of conventional agriculture, even in the grape and wine industry that
traditionally has not been viewed as a particularly environmentally impactful industry.
The historical context of South Africa shows that sustainability amidst climate change is
very important to the grape and wine industry, especially for reasons of environmental
stewardship, higher profits, and stakeholders’ pressure. Research has shown that table
grape farms are more economically sustainable than wine farms, but the climate change
effects on profitability is unpredictable. In addition to the inefficient use of water and
chemicals, soil erosion, pest, diseases, and irrigation pressure are bound to intensify as the
climate warms. Regardless of the various efforts to improve the welfare of farm workers,
social sustainability at the level of the farm leaves a lot to be desired and this has no sign
of changing anytime soon. However, there are various short-term (changes in viticultural
practices, soil management practices and integrated pest management) and long-term
(changes in training systems, changes in grape and rootstock varieties and vineyard reloca-
tion) adaptation measures to mitigate against the current and potential impacts of climate
change in viticulture and winemaking, but these face barriers in adoption.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.G. and E.B.; methodology, O.G.; formal analysis, O.G.;
resources, O.G., S.K. and E.B.; investigation, O.G.; writing—original draft preparation, O.G.; writing—
review and editing, O.G., S.K., and E.B.; visualization, S.K. and E.B.; supervision, S.K. and E.B. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Elsje Dippenaar from the Sustainable Agri-
culture Masters programme, Stellenbosch University, for her professional networking that laid the
groundwork and that was instrumental in making this paper come to fruition.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Altieri, M.A. Agroecological foundations of alternative agriculture in California. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1992, 39, 23–53. [CrossRef]
2. Keesstra, S.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Novara, A.; Giménez-Morera, A.; Pulido, M.; Di Prima, S.; Cerdà, A. Straw mulch as a sustainable
solution to decrease runoff and erosion in glyphosate-treated clementine plantations in Eastern Spain. An assessment using
rainfall simulation experiments. Catena 2019, 174, 95–103. [CrossRef]
3. Woodhouse, P. Beyond Industrial Agriculture? Some Questions about Farm Size, Productivity and Sustainability. J. Agrar. Chang.
2010, 10, 437–453. [CrossRef]
4. United Nations. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. General Assembly Resolution 42/187. 11
December 1987. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
(accessed on 26 February 2021).
5. Martins, A.A.; Araújo, A.R.; Graça, A.; Caetano, N.S.; Mata, T.M. Towards sustainable wine: Comparison of two Portuguese
wines. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 662–676. [CrossRef]
6. United Nations. UN Sustainable Development Goals 17 Goals to Transform Our World. 2015. United Nations. Available online:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 26 February 2021).
7. A European Green Deal. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
(accessed on 21 September 2020).
8. Goals and Priority Areas of Agenda 2063. Available online: https://au.int/en/agenda2063/goals (accessed on 15 August 2020).
9. Szolnoki, G. A cross-national comparison of sustainability in the wine industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 53, 243–251. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 17 of 23

10. Griggs, D.; Stafford-Smith, M.; Gaffney, O.; Rockström, J.; Öhman, M.C.; Shyamsundar, P.; Steffen, W.; Glaser, G.; Kanie, N.;
Noble, I. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nat. Cell Biol. 2013, 495, 305–307. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Robert, K.W.; Parris, T.M.; Leiserowitz, A.A. What is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values, and Practice. Environ.
Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2005, 47, 8–21. [CrossRef]
12. Elkington, J. Partnerships fromcannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environ. Qual. Manag. 1998,
8, 37–51. [CrossRef]
13. Keesstra, S.; Mol, G.; De Leeuw, J.; Okx, J.; Molenaar, C.; De Cleen, M.; Visser, S. Soil-Related Sustainable Development Goals:
Four Concepts to Make Land Degradation Neutrality and Restoration Work. Land 2018, 7, 133. [CrossRef]
14. Galanakis, C.M. Sustainable Food Systems from Agriculture to Industry: Improving Production and Processing, 1st ed.; Academic Press:
London, UK, 2018.
15. Christ, K.L.; Burritt, R.L. Critical environmental concerns in wine production: An integrative review. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 53,
232–242. [CrossRef]
16. Jones, G.V.; Davis, R.E. Using a synoptic climatological approach to understand climate-viticulture relationships. Int. J. Clim.
2000, 20, 813–837. [CrossRef]
17. van Leeuwen, C.; Friant, P.; Choné, X.; Tregoat, O.; Koundouras, S.; Dubordieu, D. Influence of climate, soil, and cultivar on
ter-roir. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2004, 55, 207–217.
18. Tonietto, J. Les Macroclimats Viticoles Mondiaux et l’Influence du Mésoclimat sur la Typicité de la Syrah et du Muscat de
Hambourg dans le sud de la France: Méthodologie de Caractérisation. Ph.D. Thesis, Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique,
Montpellier, France, 1999; 233p.
19. Keller, M. The Science of Grapevines: Anatomy and Physiology, 1st ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Neatherlands, 2010.
20. De Orduña, R.M. Climate change associated effects on grape and wine quality and production. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 1844–1855.
[CrossRef]
21. Santos, J.A.; Malheiro, A.C.; Karremann, M.K.; Pinto, J.G. Statistical modelling of grapevine yield in the Port Wine region under
present and future climate conditions. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2010, 55, 119–131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Bock, A.; Sparks, T.H.; Estrella, N.; Menzel, A. Climate-Induced Changes in Grapevine Yield and Must Sugar Content in Franconia
(Germany) between 1805 and 2010. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e69015. [CrossRef]
23. Fraga, H.; Malheiro, A.C.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Cardoso, R.M.; Soares, P.M.M.; Cancela, J.J.; Pinto, J.G.; Santos, J.A. Integrated
Analysis of Climate, Soil, Topography and Vegetative Growth in Iberian Viticultural Regions. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e108078.
[CrossRef]
24. South African Table Grape Industry. Statistics of Table Grapes in South Africa. Available online: https://user-hpa96tt.cld.bz/
SATI-STATISTICS-OF-TABLE-GRAPES-IN-SOUTH-AFRICA-2020/6/ (accessed on 15 July 2020).
25. International Organization of Vine and Wine. Statistical Report on World Vitiviniculture. Available online: http://www.oiv.int/
public/medias/6782/oiv-2019-statistical-report-on-world-vitiviniculture.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2020).
26. Midgley, G.F.; Chapman, R.A.; Hewitson, B.; Johnston, P.; de Wit, M.; Ziervogel, G.; Mukheibir, P.; van Niekerk, L.; Tadross, M.;
van Wilgen, B.W.; et al. A Status Quo, Vulnerability and Adapta-tion Assessment of the Physical and Socio-economic Effects of
Climate Change in the Western Cape. Report to the Western Cape Government, Cape Town, South Africa. 2005, CSIR Report No.
ENV-S-C 2005-073, Stellenbosch. Available online: https://www.westerncape.gov.za/other/2006/9/wcape_climate_change_
impacts_sep06.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2021).
27. Naude, R. Impact of Climate Change and Extreme Weather Conditions on wine growing within the Stellenbosch region.
J. Contemp. Manag. 2019, 16, 111–134. [CrossRef]
28. Carter, S. The Projected Influence of Climate Change on the South African Wine Industry. 2006, IIASA Interim Report. Available
online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33899523.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2021).
29. Bonnardot, V.; Carey, V.A. Observed climatic trends in South African wine regions and potential implications for viticulture. In
Proceedings of the VIIth International Viticultural Terroir Congress, Nyon, Switzerland, 19–23 May 2008; pp. 216–221.
30. Aslund, I. Opportunities for Improved Environmental Sustainability of a Wine Producer in South Africa–Natural Resource
Man-Agement and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation. Masters’ Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Uppsala, Sweden, 2013.
31. PRISMA Flow Diagram. Available online: http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram (accessed on
17 May 2020).
32. Pomarici, E.; Vecchio, R.; Mariani, A. Wineries’ Perception of Sustainability Costs and Benefits: An Exploratory Study in California.
Sustainanility 2015, 7, 16164–16174. [CrossRef]
33. Marshall, R.S.; Akoorie, M.E.; Hamann, R.; Sinha, P.N. Environmental practices in the wine industry: An empirical application
of the theory of reasoned action and stakeholder theory in the United States and New Zealand. J. World Bus. 2010, 45, 405–414.
[CrossRef]
34. Flores, S.S. What is sustainability in the wine world? A cross-country analysis of wine sustainability frameworks. J. Clean. Prod.
2018, 172, 2301–2312. [CrossRef]
35. Bansal, P.; Roth, K. Why Companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 717–736. [CrossRef]
36. Hamann, R.; Smith, J.; Tashman, P.; Marshall, R.S. Why Do SMEs Go Green? An Analysis of Wine Firms in South Africa. Bus. Soc.
2016, 56, 23–56. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 18 of 23

37. Gabzdylova, B.; Raffensperger, J.F.; Castka, P. Sustainability in the New Zealand wine industry: Drivers, stakeholders and
practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 992–998. [CrossRef]
38. Dodds, R.; Graci, S.; Ko, S.; Walker, L. What drives environmental sustainability in the New Zealand wine industry? Int. J. Wine
Bus. Res. 2013, 25, 164–184. [CrossRef]
39. Elsayed, K. Reexamining the Expected Effect of Available Resources and Firm Size on Firm Environmental Orientation: An
Empirical Study of UK Firms. J. Bus. Ethic 2006, 65, 297–308. [CrossRef]
40. Melnyk, S.; Sroufe, R.P.; Calantone, R. Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environ-
mental performance. J. Oper. Manag. 2002, 21, 329–351. [CrossRef]
41. York, J.G.; Venkataraman, S. The entrepreneur–environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation, and allocation. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010,
25, 449–463. [CrossRef]
42. Marshall, R.S.; Cordano, M.; Silverman, M. Exploring individual and institutional drivers of proactive environmentalism in the
US Wine industry. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2005, 14, 92–109. [CrossRef]
43. Williams, S.; Schaefer, A. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and Sustainability: Managers’ Values and Engagement with
Environmental and Climate Change Issues. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2013, 22, 173–186. [CrossRef]
44. Baumann-Pauly, D.; Wickert, C.; Spence, L.J.; Scherer, A.G. Organizing Corporate Social Responsibility in Small and Large Firms:
Size Matters. J. Bus. Ethic 2013, 115, 693–705. [CrossRef]
45. Berrone, P.; Cruz, C.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R.; Larraza-Kintana, M. Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate Responses to Institutional
Pressures: Do Family-Controlled Firms Pollute Less? Adm. Sci. Q. 2010, 55, 82–113. [CrossRef]
46. Cerdà, A.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Giménez-Morera, A.; Keesstra, S.D. Hydrological and erosional impact and farmer’s perception
on catch crops and weeds in citrus organic farming in Canyoles river watershed, Eastern Spain. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 258,
49–58. [CrossRef]
47. Cambra-Fierro, J.; Ruiz-Benítez, R. Sustainable business practices in Spain: A two-case study. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2011, 23, 401–412.
[CrossRef]
48. Tee, E.; Boland, A.-M.; Medhurst, A. Voluntary adoption of Environmental Management Systems in the Australian wine and
grape industry depends on understanding stakeholder objectives and drivers. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2007, 47, 273–283. [CrossRef]
49. du Toit, A. ‘Hunger in the Valley of Fruitfulness: Globalization, “Social Exclusion” and Chronic Poverty in Ceres, South Africa’.
In Proceedings of the ‘Staying Poor: Chronic Poverty and Development Policy’, Manchester, UK, 7–9 April 2003; pp. 1–45.
50. Williams, G. Black Economic Empowerment in the South African Wine Industry. J. Agrar. Chang. 2005, 5, 476–504. [CrossRef]
51. Vink, N.; Williams, G.; Kirsten, J. South Africa. In The World’s Wine Markets: Globalization at Work, 1st ed.; Anderson, K., Ed.;
Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, U.K, 2004.
52. Crais, C. White Supremacy and Black Resistance in Pre-industrial South Africa: The Making of the Colonial Order in the Eastern Cape,
1707–1875, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1992.
53. Ewert, J.; Du Toit, A. A Deepening Divide in the Countryside: Restructuring and Rural Livelihoods in the South African Wine
Industry. J. South. Afr. Stud. 2005, 31, 315–332. [CrossRef]
54. Mayson, D. The Rural Foundation–Management and Change on Fruit Farms: A Case Study of Selected Farms in the Elgin Area.
Master’s Thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, 1990.
55. Du Toit, A. The micro-politics of paternalism: The discourses of management and resistance on South African fruit and wine
farms. J. South. Afr. Stud. 1993, 19, 314–336. [CrossRef]
56. Ewert, J.; Hamman, J. Labour organisation in Western cape agriculture: An ethnic corporatism? J. Peasant. Stud. 1996, 23, 146–165.
[CrossRef]
57. Kritzinger, A.; Barrientos, S.; Rossouw, H. Global Production and Flexible Employment in South African Horticulture: Experiences
of Contract Workers in Fruit Exports. Sociol. Rural. 2004, 44, 17–39. [CrossRef]
58. Barrientos, S.; Kritzinger, A. Squaring the circle: Global production and the informalization of work in South African fruit exports.
J. Int. Dev. 2003, 16, 81–92. [CrossRef]
59. Ponte, S.; Gibbon, P. Quality standards, conventions and the governance of global value chains. Econ. Soc. 2005, 34, 1–31. [CrossRef]
60. Barrientos, S. Gender, Flexibility and Global Value Chains. IDS Bull. 2001, 32, 83–93. [CrossRef]
61. Molitor, D.; Junk, J. Climate change is implicating a two-fold impact on air temperature increase in the ripening period under the
conditions of the Luxembourgish grapegrowing region. OENO One 2019, 53, 409–422. [CrossRef]
62. Jones, G.V.; White, M.A.; Cooper, O.R.; Storchmann, K. Climate Change and Global Wine Quality. Clim. Chang. 2005, 73, 319–343.
[CrossRef]
63. Jones, G.V.; Davis, R.E. Climate influences on grapevine phenology, grape composition, and wine production and quality for
Bordeaux, France. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2000, 51, 249–261.
64. Schneider, C. Grapevine and climatic changes: A glance at the situation in Alsace. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 25, 93–99. [CrossRef]
65. Petrie, P.; Sadras, V. Advancement of grapevine maturity in Australia between 1993 and 2006: Putative causes, magnitude of
trends and viticultural consequences. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2008, 14, 33–45. [CrossRef]
66. Duchêne, E.; Huard, F.; Dumas, V.; Schneider, C.; Merdinoglu, D. The challenge of adapting grapevine varieties to climate change.
Clim. Res. 2010, 41, 193–204. [CrossRef]
67. Kenny, G.J.; Harrison, P.A. The effects of climate variability and change on grape suitability in Europe. J. Wine Res. 1992, 3,
163–183. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 19 of 23

68. Schultz, H.R.; Jones, G.V. Climate Induced Historic and Future Changes in Viticulture. J. Wine Res. 2010, 21, 137–145. [CrossRef]
69. Leolini, L.; Moriondo, M.; Romboli, Y.; Gardiman, M.; Costafreda-Aumedes, S.; Bindi, M.; Granchi, L.; Brilli, L. Modelling sugar
and acid content in Sangiovese grapes under future climates: An Italian case study. Clim. Res. 2019, 78, 211–224. [CrossRef]
70. Meehl, G.A.; Stocker, T.F.; Collins, W.D.; Friedlingstein, P.; Gaye, A.T.; Gregory, J.M.; Kitoh, A.; Knutti, R.; Murphy, J.M.; Noda, A.;
et al. Global Climate Projections. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M.,
Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 747–845.
71. Fraga, H.; Malheiro, A.C.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Santos, J.A. An overview of climate change impacts on European viticulture. Food
Energy Secur. 2013, 1, 94–110. [CrossRef]
72. Fraga, H.; Malheiro, A.C.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Santos, J.A. Future scenarios for viticultural zoning in Europe: Ensemble
projections and uncertainties. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2013, 57, 909–925. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73. Fraga, H.; Atauri, I.G.D.C.; Santos, J. Viticultural irrigation demands under climate change scenarios in Portugal. Agric. Water
Manag. 2018, 196, 66–74. [CrossRef]
74. Jackson, D.I.; Lombard, P.B. Environmental and management practices affecting grape composition and wine quality—A review.
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1993, 44, 409–430.
75. Fraga, H.; A Santos, J.; Malheiro, A.C.; A Oliveira, A.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Jones, G.V. Climatic suitability of Portuguese
grapevine varieties and climate change adaptation. Int. J. Clim. 2016, 36, 1–12. [CrossRef]
76. Moriondo, M.; Jones, G.V.; Bois, B.; DiBari, C.; Ferrise, R.; Trombi, G.; Bindi, M. Projected shifts of wine regions in response to
climate change. Clim. Chang. 2013, 119, 825–839. [CrossRef]
77. Hannah, L.; Roehrdanz, P.R.; Ikegami, M.; Shepard, A.V.; Shaw, M.R.; Tabor, G.; Zhi, L.; Marquet, P.A.; Hijmans, R.J. Climate
change, wine, and conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 6907–6912. [CrossRef]
78. Fairbanks, D.H.K.; Hughes, C.J.; Turpie, J.K. Potential impact of viticulture expansion on habitat types in the Cape Floristic
Re-gion, South Africa. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13, 1075–1100. [CrossRef]
79. Doane, D.; MacGillivray, A. Economic Sustainability: The Business of Staying in Business. R and D Report. The Sigma Project.
New Economics Foundation. 2001. Available online: https://www.dphu.org/uploads/attachements/books/books_5735_0.pdf
(accessed on 24 February 2021).
80. Latruffe, L.; Diazabakana, A.; Bockstaller, C.; Desjeux, Y.; Finn, J.; Kelly, E.; Ryan, M.; Uthes, S. Measurement of sustainability in
agriculture: A review of indicators. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2016, 118, 123–130. [CrossRef]
81. Bossel, H. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications. International Institute of Sustainable
Development. 1999. Available online: https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/balatonreport.pdf?q=sites/default/
files/publications/balatonreport.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2021).
82. Moseley, W.G. Fair Trade Wine: South Africa’s Post-Apartheid Vineyards and the Global Economy. Globalizations 2008, 5, 291–304.
[CrossRef]
83. Vinpro. VinPro Production Plan Survery 2020. Available online: https://www.wineland.co.za/vinpro-production-plan-survey-the-
2019-vintage-the-wheels-have-started-turning-for-producers-in-the-south-african-wine-industry/ (accessed on 24 February 2021).
84. Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy. The South African Agricultural Baseline. Available online: https://www.bfap.co.za/
wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Final-Baseline-2019.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2020).
85. Produce Report. South Africa’s Table Grape Industry. Available online: https://www.producereport.com/article/south-africas-
table-grape-industry (accessed on 28 November 2020).
86. Schultz, H.R. Global Climate Change, Sustainability, and Some Challenges for Grape and Wine Production. J. Wine Econ. 2016, 11,
181–200. [CrossRef]
87. Nemani, R.R.; White, M.A.; Cayan, D.R.; Jones, G.V.; Running, S.W.; Coughlan, J.C.; Peterson, D.L. Asymmetric warming over
coastal California and its impact on the premium wine industry. Clim. Res. 2001, 19, 25–34. [CrossRef]
88. Adams, R.M.; Wu, J.; Houston, L.L. The effects of climate change on yields and water use of major California crops. In Climate
Change and California. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research (PIER). Appendix IX, 2003.
Available online: http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/500-03-058/2003-10-31_500-03-058CF_ (accessed on 24 February 2021).
89. Lobell, D.; Field, C.; Cahill, K.; Bonfils, C. California Perennial Crop Yields: Model Projections with Climate and Crop Uncer-tainties;
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, CA, USA, 2006.
90. White, M.A.; Diffenbaugh, N.S.; Jones, G.V.; Pal, J.S.; Giorgi, F. Extreme heat reduces and shifts United States premium wine
production in the 21st century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 11217–11222. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
91. Ashenfelter, O.; Storchmann, K. Climate Change and Wine: A Review of the Economic Implications. J. Wine Econ. 2016, 11,
105–138. [CrossRef]
92. Robinson, J. The Oxford Companion to Wine; Oxford University Press (OUP): Oxford, UK, 2006.
93. Van Leeuwen, C.; Darriet, P. The Impact of Climate Change on Viticulture and Wine Quality. J. Wine Econ. 2016, 11, 150–167.
[CrossRef]
94. Alston, J.M.; Fuller, K.B.; Lapsley, J.T.; Soleas, G.J. Too Much of a Good Thing? Causes and Consequences of Increases in Sugar
Content of California Wine Grapes. J. Wine Econ. 2011, 6, 135–159. [CrossRef]
95. Ashenfelter, O.; Ashmore, D.; LaLonde, R. Bordeaux Wine Vintage Quality and the Weather. Chance 1995, 8, 7–14. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 20 of 23

96. Jones, G.V.; Storchmann, K.-H. Wine market prices and investment under uncertainty: An econometric model for Bordeaux Crus
Classes. Agric. Econ. 2001, 26, 115–133. [CrossRef]
97. Chevet, J.-M.; Lecocq, S.; Visser, M. Climate, Grapevine Phenology, Wine Production, and Prices: Pauillac (1800–2009). Am. Econ.
Rev. 2011, 101, 142–146. [CrossRef]
98. Wood, D.; Anderson, K. What Determines the Future Value of an Icon Wine? New Evidence from Australia. J. Wine Econ. 2006, 1,
141–161. [CrossRef]
99. Haeger, J.W.; Storchmann, K. Prices of American Pinot Noir wines: Climate, craftsmanship, critics. Agric. Econ. 2006, 35, 67–78.
[CrossRef]
100. Ene, S.A.; Teodosiu, C.; Robu, B.; Volf, I. Water footprint assessment in the winemaking industry: A case study for a Romanian
medium size production plant. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 43, 122–135. [CrossRef]
101. Russell, A.; Battaglene, T. Trends in Environmental Assurance in Key Australian Wine Export Markets. Winemakers’ Federation
of Australia Report, March 2007. Available online: https://www.wineaustralia.com/getmedia/f049fce6-cb33-4c56-bffd-2285c2
3e1977/WFA-0901 (accessed on 24 February 2021).
102. Jarmain, C. Water footprint as an indicator of sustainable table and wine grape production. Report to the Water Research
Com-mission (WRC), 2020. Western Cape, South Africa. Available online: http://wrc.org.za/?mdocs-file=60514 (accessed on
24 February 2021).
103. Sheridan, C.; Bauer, F.; Burton, S.; Lorenzen, L. A critical process analysis of wine production to improve cost, quality and
environmental performance. Water Sci. Technol. 2005, 51, 39–46. [CrossRef]
104. Mosse, K.P.M.; Patti, A.F.; Christen, E.W.; Cavagnaro, T.R. Review: Winery wastewater quality and treatment options in Australia.
Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2011, 17, 111–122. [CrossRef]
105. Barber, N.; Taylor, D.C.; Deale, C.S. Wine Tourism, Environmental Concerns, and Purchase Intention. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2010, 27,
146–165. [CrossRef]
106. Musee, N.; Lorenzen, L.; Aldrich, C. Cellar waste minimization in the wine industry: A systems approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15,
417–431. [CrossRef]
107. Chaves, M.; Santos, T.; Souza, C.; Ortuño, M.; Rodrigues, M.; Lopes, C.; Maroco, J.; Pereira, J. Deficit irrigation in grapevine
improves water-use efficiency while controlling vigour and production quality. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2007, 150, 237–252. [CrossRef]
108. Taylor, B. Encouraging industry to assess and implement cleaner production measures. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 601–609. [CrossRef]
109. Hughey, K.F.; Tait, S.V.; O’Connell, M.J. Qualitative evaluation of three ‘environmental management systems’ in the New Zealand
wine industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 1175–1187. [CrossRef]
110. Devesa-Rey, R.; Vecino, X.; Varela-Alende, J.; Barral, M.; Cruz, J.; Moldes, A. Valorization of winery waste vs. the costs of not
recycling. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 2327–2335. [CrossRef]
111. Ruggieri, L.; Cadena, E.; Martínez-Blanco, J.; Gasol, C.M.; Rieradevall, J.; Gabarrell, X.; Gea, T.; Sort, X.; Sánchez, A. Recovery of
organic wastes in the Spanish wine industry. Technical, economic and environmental analyses of the composting process. J. Clean.
Prod. 2009, 17, 830–838. [CrossRef]
112. Knowles, L.; Hill, R. Environmental initiatives in South African wineries: A comparison between small and large wineries.
Eco-Manag. Audit. 2001, 8, 210–228. [CrossRef]
113. Silverman, M.; Marshall, R.S.; Cordano, M. The greening of the California wine industry: Implications for regulators and industry
associations. J. Wine Res. 2005, 16, 151–169. [CrossRef]
114. Forbes, S.L.; Cohen, D.A.; Cullen, R.; Wratten, S.D.; Fountain, J. Consumer attitudes regarding environmentally sustainable wine:
An exploratory study of the New Zealand marketplace. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1195–1199. [CrossRef]
115. Costley, D. CCA timber posts a ‘toxic’ issue for industry. The Aust. New Zealand Grapegrower. Aust. N. Zealand Grapegrow.
Winemak. 2011, 564, 33–36.
116. Forbes, S.L.; Cullen, R.; Cohen, D.A.; Wratten, S.D.; Fountain, J. Food and Wine Production Practices: An Analysis of Consumer
Views. J. Wine Res. 2011, 22, 79–86. [CrossRef]
117. Broome, J.C.; Warner, K.D. Agro-environmental partnerships facilitate sus-tainable wine-grape production and assessment. Calif.
Agr. 2008, 62, 133–141. [CrossRef]
118. Novara, A.; Gristina, L.; Saladino, S.; Santoro, A.; Cerdà, A. Soil erosion assessment on tillage and alternative soil managements
in a Sicilian vineyard. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 117, 140–147. [CrossRef]
119. Kirchhoff, M.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Seeger, M.; Ries, J. Soil erosion in sloping vineyards under conventional and organic land use
managements (Saar-Mosel Valley, Germany). Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica 2017, 43, 119–140. [CrossRef]
120. Vaudour, E.; Leclercq, L.; Gilliot, J.; Chaignon, B. Retrospective 70 y-spatial analysis of repeated vine mortality patterns using
ancient aerial time series, Pléiades images and multi-source spatial and field data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinform. 2017, 58,
234–248. [CrossRef]
121. López-Vicente, M.; Calvo-Seas, E.; Álvarez, S.; Cerdà, A. Effectiveness of Cover Crops to Reduce Loss of Soil Organic Matter in a
Rainfed Vineyard. Land 2020, 9, 230. [CrossRef]
122. Guadie, M.; Molla, E.; Mekonnen, M.; Cerdà, A. Effects of Soil Bund and Stone-Faced Soil Bund on Soil Physicochemical Properties
and Crop Yield Under Rain-Fed Conditions of Northwest Ethiopia. Land 2020, 9, 13. [CrossRef]
123. Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Terol, E.; Mora, G.; Giménez-Morera, A.; Cerdà, A. Vicia sativa Roth. Can Reduce Soil and Water Losses in
Recently Planted Vineyards (Vitis vinifera L.). Earth Syst. Environ. 2020, 4, 827–842. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 21 of 23

124. Novara, A.; Cerda, A.; Barone, E.; Gristina, L. Cover crop management and water conservation in vineyard and olive orchards.
Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 208, 104896. [CrossRef]
125. Verheijen, F.; Jones, R.; Rickson, R.; Smith, C. Tolerable versus actual soil erosion rates in Europe. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2009, 94, 23–38.
[CrossRef]
126. Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Barrena-González, J.; Pulido-Fernández, M.; Cerdá, A. Estimating Non-Sustainable Soil Erosion Rates in the
Tierra de Barros Vineyards (Extremadura, Spain) Using an ISUM Update. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3317. [CrossRef]
127. Cerdà, A.; Keesstra, S.D.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Novara, A.; Pereira, P.; Brevik, E.; Giménez-Morera, A.; Fernández-Raga, M.;
Pulido, M.; Di Prima, S.; et al. Runoff initiation, soil detachment and connectivity are enhanced as a consequence of vineyards
plantations. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 202, 268–275. [CrossRef]
128. Mol, G.; Keesstra, S. Soil science in a changing world. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 473–477. [CrossRef]
129. Porter, J.; Parry, M.; Carter, T. The potential effects of climatic change on agricultural insect pests. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1991, 57,
221–240. [CrossRef]
130. Estay, S.A.; Lima, M.; Labra, F.A. Predicting insect pest status under climate change scenarios: Combining experimental data and
population dynamics modelling. J. Appl. Èntomol. 2009, 133, 491–499. [CrossRef]
131. Olesen, J.; Trnka, M.; Kersebaum, K.; Skjelvåg, A.; Seguin, B.; Peltonensainio, P.; Rossi, F.; Kozyra, J.; Micale, F. Impacts and
adaptation of European crop production systems to climate change. Eur. J. Agron. 2011, 34, 96–112. [CrossRef]
132. Pavan, F.; Zandigiacomo, P.; Dalla Montà, L. Influence of the grape-growing area on the phenology of Lobesia botrana second
generation. Bull. Insectol. 2006, 59, 105–109.
133. Martín-Vertedor, M.; Ferrero-García, J.J.; Torres-Vila, L.M. Global warming affects phenology and voltinism ofLobesia botranain
Spain. Agric. For. Èntomol. 2010, 12, 169–176. [CrossRef]
134. Langille, A.B.; Arteca, E.M.; Newman, J.A. The impacts of climate change on the abundance and distribution of the Spotted Wing
Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) in the United States and Canada. PeerJ 2017, 5, e3192. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
135. Reineke, A.; Thiéry, D. Grapevine insect pests and their natural enemies in the age of global warming. J. Pest Sci. 2016, 89, 313–328.
[CrossRef]
136. Monceau, K.; Bonnard, O.; Thiéry, D. Vespa velutina: A new invasive predator of honeybees in Europe. J. Pest Sci. 2014, 87, 1–16.
[CrossRef]
137. Yamamura, K.; Yokozawa, M. Prediction of a geographical shift in the prevalence of rice stripe virus disease transmitted by the
small brown planthopper, Laodelphax striatellus(Fallen)(Hemiptera: Delphacidae), under global warming. Appl. Èntomol. Zoöl.
2002, 37, 181–190. [CrossRef]
138. Laštůvka, Z. Climate change and its possible influence on the occurrence and importance of insect pests. Plant Prot. Sci. 2010, 45,
S53–S62. [CrossRef]
139. Caffarra, A.; Rinaldi, M.; Eccel, E.; Rossi, V.; Pertot, I. Modelling the impact of climate change on the interaction between
grapevine and its pests and pathogens: European grapevine moth and powdery mildew. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 148,
89–101. [CrossRef]
140. Garrett, K.; Nita, M.; De Wolf, E.; Esker, P.; Gomez-Montano, L.; Sparks, A. Plant Pathogens as Indicators of Climate Change. In
Climate Change; Elsevier BV: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 325–338.
141. Robinet, C.; Roques, A. Direct impacts of recent climate warming on insect populations. Integr. Zoöl. 2010, 5, 132–142. [CrossRef]
142. Fadeyi, O.; Maresova, P. Stakeholders’ Perception of Climate Actions in Some Developing Economies. Climate 2020, 8, 66.
[CrossRef]
143. Barber, N.N.; Taylor, C.; Strick, S. Wine consumers’ environmental knowledge and attitudes: Influence on willingness to purchase.
Int. J. Wine Res. 2009, 1, 59. [CrossRef]
144. Ollat, N.; Touzard, J.-M.; Van Leeuwen, C. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations: New Challenges for the Wine Industry.
J. Wine Econ. 2016, 11, 139–149. [CrossRef]
145. Cowling, R.M. Fire and its role in coexistence and speciation in Gondwana shrublands. S. Afr. J. Sci. 1987, 83, 106–112.
146. Van Wilgen, B.W.; Scott, D.F. Managing fires on the Cape Peninsula: Dealing with the inevitable. J. Mediterr. Ecol. 2001, 2, 197–208.
147. Scott, D.F.; Versfeld, D.B.; Lesch, W. Erosion and sediment yield in relation to afforestation and fire in the mountains of the
Western Cape, province, South Africa. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 1998, 80, 52–59. [CrossRef]
148. Roehrdanz, P.R.; Hannah, L. Climate Change, California Wine, and Wildlife Habitat. J. Wine Econ. 2014, 11, 69–87. [CrossRef]
149. Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.; Da Fonseca, G.A.B.; Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.
Nature 2000, 403, 853–858. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
150. Ponte, S.; Ewert, J. South African Wine–An Industry in Ferment. Tralac Working Paper No. 8. 2007. Available online: www.tralac.org
(accessed on 21 August 2020).
151. McEwan, C.; Bek, D. Placing Ethical Trade in Context: Wieta and the South African wine industry. Third World Q. 2009, 30,
723–742. [CrossRef]
152. Hussain, M.; Cholette, S.; Castaldi, R.M. An Analysis of Globalization Forces in the Wine Industry. J. Glob. Mark. 2008, 21, 33–47.
[CrossRef]
153. Kemper, J.; Cowling, R.M.; Richardson, D.M. Fragmentation of South African renosterveld shrublands: Effects on plant community
structure and conservation implications. Biol. Conserv. 1999, 90, 103–111. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 22 of 23

154. Reyers, B.; Fairbanks, D.H.K.; Van Jaarsveld, A.S.; Thompson, M. Priority areas for the conservation of South African vegetation:
A coarse-filter approach. Divers. Distrib. 2001, 7, 79–95. [CrossRef]
155. Kruger, S.; du Toit, A.; Ponte, S. De-Racialising Exploitation: ‘Black Economic Empowerment’ in the South African Wine Sector. J.
Agra. Chang. 2008, 8, 6–32.
156. Wegerif, M.; Russell, B.; Grundling, I. Still searching for security: The reality of farm dweller evictions in South Africa. Nkuzi
Development Association and Social Surveys, Polokwane. J. Agra Chang. 2007, 7, 124–128.
157. Eriksson, Å. Farm worker identities contested and reimagined: Gender, race/ethnicity and nationality in the post-strike moment.
Anthr. South. Afr. 2017, 40, 248–260. [CrossRef]
158. Devereux, S. Violations of farm workers’ labour rights in post-apartheid South Africa. Dev. S. Afr. 2019, 37, 382–404. [CrossRef]
159. Sparrow, G.N.; Ortmann, G.F.; Lyne, M.C.; Darroch, M.A. Determinants of the demand for regular farm labour in South Africa,
1960–2002. Agrekon 2008, 47, 52–75. [CrossRef]
160. Bhorat, H.; Kanbur, R.; Stanwix, B. Estimating the Impact of Minimum Wages on Employment, Wages and Non-Wage Benefits:
The Case of Agriculture in South Africa. SSRN Electron. J. 2012. [CrossRef]
161. Ranchhod, V.; Bassier, I. Estimating the Wage and Employment Effects of a Large Increase in South Africa’s Agricultural Minimum Wage;
REDI3x3 Working Paper; University of Cape Town: Cape Town, Sounth Africa, 2017.
162. Brandt, F.; Ncapayi, F. The meaning of compliance with land and labour legislation: Understanding justice through farm workers’
experiences in the Eastern Cape. Anthr. South. Afr. 2016, 39, 215–231. [CrossRef]
163. Addison, L. Delegated Despotism: Frontiers of Agrarian Labour on a South African Border Farm. J. Agrar. Chang. 2014, 14,
286–304. [CrossRef]
164. Lemke, S.; Jansen van Rensburg, F. Remaining at the margins: Case study of farmworkers in the North West Province, South
Africa. Dev. South. Afr. 2014, 31, 843–858. [CrossRef]
165. Visser, M.; Ferrer, S. Farm Workers’ Living and Working Conditions in South Africa: Key Trends, Emergent Issues, and Underlying and
Structural Problems; International Labour Organisation: Pretoria, South Africa, 2015.
166. Pomarici, E.; Seccia, A. Economic and Social Impacts of Climate Change on Wine Production. Ref. Modul. Food Sci. 2016, 1, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
167. Lereboullet, A.-L.; Bardsley, D.K.; Beltrando, G. Assessing vulnerability and framing adaptive options of two Mediterranean wine
growing regions facing climate change: Roussillon (France) and McLaren Vale (Australia). EchoGéo 2013, 23, 1–16. [CrossRef]
168. Lereboullet, A.-L.; Beltrando, G.; Bardsley, D.K.; Rouvellac, E. The viticultural system and climate change: Coping with long-term
trends in temperature and rainfall in Roussillon, France. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2013, 14, 1951–1966. [CrossRef]
169. Hadarits, M.; Smit, B.; Diaz, H. Adaptation in Viticulture: A Case Study of Producers in the Maule Region of Chile. J. Wine Res.
2010, 21, 167–178. [CrossRef]
170. Stoll, M.; Bischoff-Schaefer, M.; Lafontaine, M.; Tittmann, S.; Henschke, J. Impact of various leaf area modifications on berry
maturation in Vitis vinifera L. ’Riesling’. Acta Hortic. 2013, 978, 293–299. [CrossRef]
171. Bedrech, S.A.; Farag, S.G. Usage of some sunscreens to protect the Thompson Seedless and Crimson Seedless grapevines growing
in hot. Nat. Sci. 2015, 13, 35–41. [CrossRef]
172. Basile, B.; Caccavello, G.; Giaccone, M.; Forlani, M. Effects of Early Shading and Defoliation on Bunch Compactness, Yield
Components, and Berry Composition of Aglianico Grapevines under Warm Climate Conditions. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2015, 66,
234–243. [CrossRef]
173. Ferreira, M.I.; Silvestre, J.; Conceição, N.; Malheiro, A.C. Crop and stress coefficients in rainfed and deficit irrigation vineyards
using sap flow techniques. Irrig. Sci. 2012, 30, 433–447. [CrossRef]
174. Santos, J.A.; Fraga, H.; Malheiro, A.C.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Dinis, L.-T.; Correia, C.; Moriondo, M.; Leolini, L.; DiBari, C.;
Costafreda-Aumedes, S.; et al. A Review of the Potential Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Options for European Viticulture.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3092. [CrossRef]
175. Petheram, L.; Zander, K.; Campbell, B.; High, C.; Stacey, N. ‘Strange changes’: Indigenous perspectives of climate change and
adaptation in NE Arnhem Land (Australia). Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 681–692. [CrossRef]
176. Eakin, H.C.; Patt, A. Are adaptation studies effective, and what can enhance their practical impact? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim.
Chang. 2011, 2, 141–153. [CrossRef]
177. Mosedale, J.R.; Abernethy, K.E.; Smart, R.E.; Wilson, R.J.; MacLean, I.M.D. Climate change impacts and adaptive strategies:
Lessons from the grapevine. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 3814–3828. [CrossRef]
178. Van Leeuwen, C.; Schultz, H.R.; De Cortazar-Atauri, I.G.; Duchêne, E.; Ollat, N.; Pieri, P.; Bois, B.; Goutouly, J.-P.; Quénol, H.;
Touzard, J.-M.; et al. Why climate change will not dramatically decrease viticultural suitability in main wine-producing areas by
2050. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, E3051–E3052. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
179. Gransden, M. Alternative Varieties for the Australian Wine Industry Varieties to Help Australian Wine Grape Producers in a
Changing Environment and Market. Varieties to Help Australian Wine Grape Producers in a Changing Environment and Market.
Nuffield Australian Farming Scholars Report. 2019, Project No.1822. Available online: https://www.nuffieldscholar.org/sites/
default/files/reports/2018_AU_Martin-Gransden_Alternative-Varieties-For-The-Australian-Wine-Industry.pdf (accessed on
24 February 2021).
180. Rodrigo-Comino, J. Five decades of soil erosion research in “terroir”. The State-of-the-Art. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2018, 179, 436–447.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2910 23 of 23

181. Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Keesstra, S.; Cerdà, A. Soil Erosion as an Environmental Concern in Vineyards. The Case Study of Celler del
Roure, Eastern Spain, by Means of Rainfall Simulation Experiments. Beverages 2018, 4, 31. [CrossRef]
182. Barrena-González, J.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.R.; Gyasi-Agyei, Y.; FernánPulidezo, M.P.; Cerdà, A. Applying the RUSLE and ISUM in
the Tierra de Barros Vineyards (Extremadura, Spain) to Estimate Soil Mobilisation Rates. Land 2020, 9, 93. [CrossRef]
183. McEwan, C.; David, B. The political economy of alternative trade: Social and environmental certification in the South African
wine industry. J. Rural. Stud. 2009, 25, 255–266. [CrossRef]