Two jatropha business models are compared on seven key sustainability areas of concern,
which are operationalized into various quantitative and qualitative indicators. The assessment
is based on two Tanzanian real-life cases, a wide range of primary and secondary sources
are used. Results indicate that both the decentralized smallholder model and the centralized
plantation model can lead to positive socio-economic and environmental impacts, but substantial
differences are also apparent. The smallholder model scores better on land rights,
GHG balance and biodiversity and it reaches more people, whereas the plantation model
creates more employment and higher (local prosperity) benefits for smaller numbers of people,
and could lead to higher yields. Negative impacts of the smallholder model are minimal,
whereas the plantation model could lead to decreased food security, loss of land rights and
biodiversity. This could permanently affect the livelihood situation of the local population, but
this is not inevitable as there is considerable scope for implementing mitigating policies. The
way in which a particular model is implemented in practice, its management and company
values, can have a major influence. However, the biggest hurdle towards achieving sustained
positive societal impacts in both models is their marginal profitability at current yields, costs
and prices. Still, these results are highly sensitive to uncertain yields and oil prices. Better
outcomes in the future are therefore not foreclosed. A reliable sustainability assessment requires
many location-specific and operational company data. More quantitative indicators
are ideally required to improve assessment of social impacts and effects on environment.