Balancing Financial Viability and Public Value: An Economic–‎Accounting Appraisal of Academic Agribusiness Laboratories ‎in The Philippines

  • Authors

    • Gemar G. Perez Batangas State University- The National Engineering University
    • April M. Perez Batangas State University- The National Engineering University
    • Leonna Marrien U. Asi Batangas State University- The National Engineering University
    • Katherine T. Arellano Batangas State University- The National Engineering University
    • Luzviminda A. Abacan Batangas State University- The National Engineering University
    • Joan Camille A. ‎ Verdadero Batangas State University- The National Engineering University
    • Jennifer M. Perez Batangas State University- The National Engineering University
    • Mary Grace T. Mandane Batangas State University- The National Engineering University
    • Amor A. Ilagan Batangas State University- The National Engineering University
    • Albertson D. Amante Batangas State University- The National Engineering University
    • Antonio A. ‎ Gamboa Batangas State University- The National Engineering University
    • Melmar D. Eje Batangas State University- The National Engineering University
    https://doi.org/10.14419/71q1h346

    Received date: September 28, 2025

    Accepted date: November 22, 2025

    Published date: December 7, 2025

  • Academic Laboratories; Cost Recovery; Economic Appraisal; Hybrid Enterprises; Public Value

  • Abstract

    This study evaluates the potential of an academic livestock laboratory to transition into an academic–agribusiness enterprise by examining ‎market conditions, financial sustainability, and economic value creation. Analysis of household consumption patterns and retailer stocking ‎behavior across Lipa City, Batangas City, Taysan, and Lobo reveals consistent demand for processed pork products and persistent supply ‎gaps. The laboratory’s product lines—Filipino-style sausage, sweet cured pork, cured pork, and sweet pork stew—align well with consumer‎er preferences, indicating that local markets can absorb expanded production and that market demand provides a supportive environment for ‎enterprise development.‎

    Financial assessment shows that while the laboratory is capable of generating stable revenues, it faces difficulty achieving full cost recovery ‎using traditional accounting measures. Negative financial net present value, low internal rate of return, and an improving yet inadequate ‎operating self-sufficiency ratio highlight the structural constraints of academic laboratories. These facilities operate with high training costs, ‎intensive supervision, and process limitations that prevent full optimization for profit without compromising instructional and research functions.‎

    Economic evaluation offers a contrasting perspective. When non-market benefits—such as human-capital development, extension services, ‎consumer welfare gains from import substitution, local multiplier effects, and environmental offsets from biogas and fertilizer by-‎products—are incorporated, the project produces positive net benefits beginning in 2026. A positive economic net present value, a benefit–cost ratio above one, and a high economic internal rate of return indicate that societal benefits outweigh economic costs.‎

    To synthesize these findings, the study presents the Academic–Agribusiness Laboratory Leverage Conversion Model, framing such facilities as hybrid institutions. The model illustrates that financial limitations coexist with substantial economic value, supported by market de-‎mand and circular-resource practices. Overall, the laboratory’s sustainability is strengthened not through full commercialization but through ‎development-oriented operations backed by strategic subsidies and institutional support‎.

  • References

    1. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2019). Agribusiness and innovation systems: Linking universities with value chains. FAO.
    2. World Bank. (2022). Agricultural innovation systems for sustainable development. World Bank.
    3. World Bank. (2021). Cost recovery in education and public services: Global practices and lessons. World Bank.
    4. Anthony, R. N., & Govindarajan, V. (2007). Management control systems. McGraw-Hill.
    5. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of public sector accounting. Routledge.
    6. Guthrie, J., Rossi, F. M., & Orelli, R. (2017). Integrated reporting and public sector organizations: Where are we now? Public Money & Manage-ment, 37(3), 177–184.
    7. Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387–389. https://doi.org/10.2307/1925895.
    8. Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The theory of public finance: A study in public economy. McGraw-Hill.
    9. Marginson, S. (2016). The higher education and the common good. Higher Education, 74(3), 407–419.
    10. McMahon, W. W. (2018). Higher education, public good or private good? International trends in higher education finance. Palgrave Macmillan.
    11. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615.
    12. Haigh, N., Walker, J., Bacq, S., & Kickul, J. (2015). Hybrid organizations: Origins, strategies, impacts. California Management Review, 57(3), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.57.3.5.
    13. Bryson, J., Sancino, A., & Benington, J. (2017). Public value and public administration. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 7–14.
    14. Powell, W. W., & Sandholtz, K. W. (2023). The logic of hybrid organizations: Past, present, and future. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 79, 1–23.
    15. Asian Development Bank. (2020). Financing higher education in Asia: Public good and private benefit. ADB.
    16. Aguilar, F. E., & Aquino, D. M. (2014). Agribusiness laboratories in Philippine higher education institutions: Functions, challenges, and opportuni-ties. Philippine Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Studies, 33(2), 45–62.
    17. Navarro, R. A., & Torralba, J. A. (2017). University-based agribusiness initiatives: Prospects for food security and inclusive growth. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, 14(1), 23–38.
    18. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2013). Agricultural innovation systems: A framework for analyzing the role of universities and research insti-tutions. FAO.
    19. OECD/FAO. (2020). OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2020–2029. OECD Publishing.
    20. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. (2019). Philippines: Rising demand for meat and processed foods (GAIN Report). U.S. Department of Agri-culture.
    21. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2017). The future of food and agriculture: Trends and challenges. FAO.
    22. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2009). Food security: Definition and measurement. Food Security, 1(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-008-0002-y.
    23. Garrison, R. H., & Noreen, E. W. (2021). Managerial accounting. McGraw-Hill Education.
    24. Koller, T., Goedhart, M., & Wessels, D. (2020). Valuation: Measuring and managing the value of companies. Wiley.
    25. OECD. (2019). Financing sustainable agriculture: Investment and policy perspectives. OECD Publishing.
    26. White, G. I., Sondhi, A. C., & Fried, D. (2003). The analysis and use of financial statements. Wiley.
    27. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2018). Livestock primary commodity outlook: Feed and market risks. FAO.
    28. World Bank. (2019). Concessional finance in agriculture and rural development: Policy lessons. World Bank.
    29. Trigeorgis, L. (1996). Real options: Managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation. MIT Press.
    30. OECD. (2017). Higher education in regional and city development: The role of universities in local development. OECD Publishing.
    31. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2019). Circular economy for sustainable food and agriculture. FAO.
    32. Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2018). Cost–benefit analysis: Concepts and practice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235594.
    33. Wang, Y., Deng, X., & Xu, D. (2021). Capital investment and efficiency in livestock production: Evidence from developing economies. Agricul-tural Economics, 52(6).
    34. Food and Agriculture Organization & United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). True cost accounting for food: A roadmap for systems transformation. FAO & UNEP.
    35. Marginson, S. (2020). Public/private in higher education: A synthesis of economic and political approaches. Studies in Higher Education, 45(2).
    36. OECD. (2021). Measuring the impacts of agricultural research for development. OECD Publishing.
    37. Alston, J. M., Pardey, P. G., Rao, X., & Chan-Kang, C. (2020). The payoff to investing in CGIAR research. IFPRI.
    38. World Bank. (2022). Innovation for resilient food systems: Policy directions. World Bank.
    39. Kondo, S., Yamaguchi, T., & Aramaki, H. (2023). From conservatism to innovation: The sequential and iterative process of smart livestock technol-ogy adoption in Japanese small-farm systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03338.
    40. 6Wresearch. (2023). Philippines animal feed market (2020–2026) report. 6Wresearch.
    41. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2023). Packaged food trends in the Philippines: Sector trend analysis. Government of Canada.
    42. de Vries, A., & Marcondes, M. I. (2020). Review: Overview of factors affecting the the productive lifespan of dairy cows. Animal, 14(S1), s155–s164. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119003264.
    43. World Bank. (2023). Agricultural productivity growth in Africa: New evidence. World Bank.
    44. Finger, R., Swinton, S. M., El Benni, N., & Walter, A. (2023). Digital innovations for sustainable and resilient agriculture. European Review of Ag-ricultural Economics, 50(4), 1277–1301. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbad021.
    45. Plakantara, S. P., et al. (2025). Transforming agrifood supply chains with digital technology: IoT and efficiency in agriculture. Discover Sustainabil-ity, 6, 59. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbad021.
    46. Masi, M., et al. (2025). Enhancing value creation in short food supply chains through digital platforms. Agricultural and Food Economics, 13, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-025-00377-3.
    47. Anjanappa, J. (2024). The role of concessional finance in promoting sustainable investments (SSRN Working Paper). SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5038484.
    48. Flammer, C. (2024). Blended finance: Structuring deals to crowd in private capital for public value projects (NBER Working Paper No. 32287). National Bureau of Economic Research.
    49. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development / Impact Horizon. (2025). Blended concessional finance: Catalysts for sustainable develop-ment. EBRD / Impact Horizon.
    50. Majoor-Kozlinska, P. (2023). Academic actors in hybrid universities: centrality and legitimacy in hybrid identities. Higher Education Quarterly, 77(4), 913–930.
    51. Albers, C., Meijer, I. C., & Hoekman, J. (2023). Hybrid universities: An organization design perspective on academic–entrepreneurial identity. Higher Education, 85(2), 223–242.
    52. Leitão, J., Baptista, R., & Campos, A. (2023). Hybrid civic universities: Open innovation, governance, and sustainability in higher education. Jour-nal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(2), 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100026.
    53. Guo, B., Zhang, X., & Qiao, F. (2021). International efficiency comparison of agricultural science, technology, and innovation in G20 countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170, 120915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052769.
    54. Gherardi, L., et al. (2021). Accountability and reporting for sustainability and public value: Challenges in the public sector. Sustainability, 13(3), 1097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031097.
    55. Manes-Rossi, F., Nicolò, G., & Argento, D. (2020). Non-financial reporting formats in public sector organizations: A structured literature review. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 32(4), 639–669. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-03-2020-0037.
    56. Alves, R. G., Maia, R. F., & Lima, F. (2023). Development of a digital twin for smart farming: Irrigation management system for water saving. Journal of Cleaner Production, 388, 135920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135920.
    57. Verdouw, C., Tekinerdogan, B., Beulens, A., & Wolfert, S. (2021). Digital twins in smart farming. Agricultural Systems, 189, 103046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103046.
    58. Henrichs, E., et al. (2022). Can a byte improve our bite? An analysis of digital twins in the food industry. Sensors, 22(1), 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22010115.
    59. Rosinger, K., et al. (2022). State higher education funding during COVID-19: Lessons from prior recessions and implications for equity. AERA Open, 8, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221091277.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Perez, G. G. ., Perez, A. M. ., Asi, L. M. U. ., Arellano, K. T. ., Abacan, L. A. ., Verdadero, J. C. A. ‎, Perez, J. M. ., Mandane, M. G. T. ., Ilagan, A. A. ., Amante, A. D. ., Gamboa, A. A. ‎, & Eje, M. D. . (2025). Balancing Financial Viability and Public Value: An Economic–‎Accounting Appraisal of Academic Agribusiness Laboratories ‎in The Philippines. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(8), 156-173. https://doi.org/10.14419/71q1h346