Investments aligned with this Strategic Goal help to reduce or mitigate greenhouse gas emissions generated by agricultural activities and support the global transition to sustainable agriculture and sustainable food systems.
Investors interested in deploying this strategy should consider the scale of the addressable problem, what positive outcomes might be, and how important the change would be to the people (or planet) experiencing it.
Key questions in this dimension include:
Investments in this strategic goal aim to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from global agriculture and food systems.*
Agricultural Production
The current percentage of GHG emissions from agriculture are estimated to be roughly 26% (inclusive of forestry and land-use charge) (32). Emissions from crops and livestock are expected to increase by 30–40% between 2019 and 2050, and growing global demand for meat and dairy products continues to place unsustainable burdens on our planet’s limited resources (1). The World Resources Institute has found that if current dietary patterns continue, an additional 593 million hectares of agricultural land, an area almost twice the size of India, will be needed to feed the projected population of 9.8 billion in 2050 (2). Animal proteins have a significant environmental footprint in terms of GHG emissions and water and land use. The amount of land it takes to grow food to feed livestock makes meat production a leading cause of deforestation. In conventional industrial agricultural production, producing feed for livestock uses approximately one-third of total annual global water withdrawals and emits significant GHG (9). Pasture expansion is another key and related driver of GHG emissions. To keep global temperature rise to well below two degrees Celsius, humans must drastically alter their food production and consumption habits. We must transition to less carbon-intensive food production; decrease consumption of high-emissions foods; decrease food waste; and adopt climate-smart agricultural practices that maintain soil carbon, improve productive efficiency, and reduce emissions from livestock and fertilizers.
Human activities generate GHG emissions throughout all stages of the food system. Pre-production emissions result from the manufacturing and distribution of agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, animal feed, and maintenance of animal breeding stock. Production emissions come from the production of foods, such as the energy used in the growth of fruits or vegetables in heated greenhouses. The composition of GHGs emitted through agricultural production comprises gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, that drive significantly more warming per unit emitted as compared to CO2; this further emphasizes the sector’s role in exacerbating climate change (3). Soil degradation, likewise, is a critical issue. Degradation of soil impacts its ability to hold water and its capacity to produce food.
Climate-related disruptions can also drastically impact distribution patterns and quality of food, as well as access to it. Agricultural stability is central to sustaining livelihoods and supporting economic development. As just one example, agriculture employs 70% of the population in East Africa (4).
Note: Organizations focusing on smallholder agriculture (particularly in emerging markets) may find the IRIS+ Smallholder Agriculture theme most helpful. See the theme on IRIS+.
Food Waste, Consumer Behavior, and Access to Affordable, Nutritious Foods
Post-production emissions result from activities such as food processing, storage, packaging, transportation, and retail processes. For example, considerable GHG emissions are generated from waste: almost one-third of all food produced in the world is wasted (5). If food waste were a country, it would rank behind only the United States and China in total GHG emissions (6). Food waste occurs throughout the agricultural supply chain, including at the production, retail, and consumption stages. A multitude of factors lead to food waste. For example, factors at the retail and consumption stages include aesthetic preferences, over-purchasing, and poor portion control. If the global population decreased food waste, GHG emissions generated by the food system could potentially decrease by 11% (7).
Decreasing GHG emissions from agriculture will also require a decrease in global meat consumption, primarily in developed markets. Current average global consumption of ruminant animal protein (mostly beef and lamb) stands at three times the recommended level (8). Decreasing the amount of meat consumed will require educating consumers on the dangerously adverse effects of meat production, as well as providing consumers with nutritious options for a balanced diet.
Beyond the GHG emissions potentially mitigated by expanding sustainable agriculture and sustainable food systems—the main focus of this Strategic Goal—accessibility and affordability are important aspects related to obtaining nutritious, sustainably-produced food for all. Investors can support greater access to nutritious food through investment in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) focused on these aspects.
Investments aligned with this Strategic Goal can:
Note: See more about the GIIN’s resources on Climate Finance.
Agriculture generates an estimated 26% of annual global GHG emissions (inclusive of forestry and land-use change), making the sector a key driver of climate change. Climate change and agriculture are also inextricably linked, as abrupt and rapid changes in climatic conditions can threaten food security on a global scale. Given the reality that a stable and robust agricultural sector is critical to life on Earth, emissions from agriculture are a critical global issue.
Investors interested in deploying this strategy should consider whom they want to target, as almost every strategy has a host of potential beneficiaries. While some investors may target women of color living in a particular rural area, others may set targets more broadly, e.g., women. Investors interested in targeting particular populations should focus on strategies that have been shown to benefit those populations.
Key questions in this dimension include:
Since food consumption is a universal human need, and since the production of food requires significant energy and resources, leading to massive GHG emissions, both people and planet are the ultimate target stakeholders of investments aligned with this Strategic Goal. More specifically, the following target stakeholders are especially helped through aligned investments.
Planet: Through investments that help to mitigate or avoid land degradation and emissions in agriculture and instead enable and expand sustainable agriculture practices, the planet as a whole can experience improved soil health, climate resilience, and ecosystem preservation, as well as decreased losses in biodiversity.
Agricultural Workers: The transition to sustainable agriculture has profound implications not only for reducing GHG emissions but also for the livelihoods of the roughly 2 billion people worldwide—or 25%—who are currently employed in agricultural work. Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture supports both the long-term livelihoods of agricultural workers worldwide and long-term success of farms (10). For example, studies have shown that complex crop rotation systems, a more sustainable and land-friendly farming practice, can outperform traditional monoculture farming in terms of both crop yield and profitability (11).
Consumers: The degradation of farmland through industrial agriculture makes that land even more vulnerable to the extreme weather events—such as floods or droughts—that climate change is already exacerbating (12). Extreme weather combined with insufficiently resilient farmland can lead to disruptions in food availability and domestic or global supply chains. As sustainable agriculture also reduces the need for pesticides, sustainable practices can increase the long-term resilience of farmland and improve human health. The food waste think tank, ReFED, has demonstrated through extensive study and analysis that reducing food waste by 20% could result in significant consumer cost savings of USD 5.6 billion annually (13).
Indigenous Peoples and Rural Communities: Though they inhabit more than half of the world’s land, Indigenous peoples and other rural communities are legally recognized as owning just 10% of that land (14). Investments aligned with this Strategic Goal can support sustainable agricultural practices by Indigenous peoples and rural communities, which are often informed by centuries of deep knowledge of local land characteristics. Such investments play an especially important role as the physical impacts of climate change adversely impact crop health and yields.
Women: Women are a critical cohort in agricultural production, constituting almost half of the agricultural workforce in developing countries, as well as roughly 36% of farmers in the United States (16,17). As in many other sectors, women face inherent gender bias that limits opportunity and prosperity. For example, they face disparities compared to their male peers in accessing opportunities for land ownership and agricultural credit. As sustainable agriculture increases soil health and crop yield over time, investments in this Strategic Goal can positively impact women’s prosperity, helping to tackle gender inequity. For consumers, women likewise are key target beneficiaries, since women are responsible for 70–80% of all U.S. consumer purchasing decisions (18).
The geographic attributes of the impact target are ultimately universal, but this Strategic Goal particularly emphasizes heavily agrarian regions where agricultural workers are a particularly high percentage of the overall workforce.
Dimensions of Impact: CONTRIBUTION
Investors considering investing in a company or portfolio aligned with this strategy should consider whether the effect they want to have compares to what is likely to happen anyway. Is the investment's contribution ‘likely better’ or ‘likely worse’ than what is likely to occur anyway across What, How much and Who?
Key questions in this dimension include:
Organizations can consider contribution at two levels—enterprise (investee) and investor. At the enterprise level, contribution is “the extent to which the enterprise contributed to an outcome by considering what would have otherwise happened in absence of their activities (i.e. a counterfactual scenario).” To learn more about methods for assessing counterfactuals, see the Impact Management Project.
Investments aligned with this Strategic Goal can support the transition towards climate-smart agriculture as follows:
Signal that Impact Matters: By investing in technologies, products, services, and solutions that support the transition towards sustainable agriculture, investors send a clear message that global food production and consumption systems must be transformed if the world is to mitigate the impacts of climate change. A signal can also be sent by moving away from companies whose revenues and profits are primarily dependent on food production or consumption with outsized emissions.
Engage Actively: Investors can proactively engage management teams in the food and agriculture sector to improve their environmental and social performance. They can influence companies to adopt Science-Based Targets to reduce GHG emissions, not only at the company level but also across the agricultural value chain. Beyond the food and agriculture sector, importantly, investors can also engage with retailers and companies in the household and personal care industries. Given the prevalence of emissions-intensive agricultural inputs—such as palm oil—in both food and personal care products, investor awareness and advocacy for responsible sourcing can deeply impact overall mitigation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Grow New or Undersupplied Markets: The food and agriculture industry is on the cusp of a revolution transforming how we produce and consume food, powered by technology and innovative trends such as vertical farming, aquaculture, biotech, seed treatment, and online food delivery. Investors with higher risk appetites can provide the necessary patient capital to propel such innovation and minimize the impact of emissions from the food and agriculture industry. Further, lack of access to finance for such SMEs has traditionally been a barrier to growth. Through such mechanisms as blended finance, investors could fill this critical funding gap (21).
Provide Flexible Capital: Small-scale local food and agriculture companies that are in the informal sector or in the early stages of developing their products or technology are often higher risk. For example, agribusinesses tend to require longer-term capital to invest in new technologies. Investments in agriculture may also need adjusted repayment schedules; external factors, such as weather, tend to make agriculture a riskier sector, ultimately reducing the overall capital available. Addressing these factors may require some flexibility from investors, either by providing concessional capital or lowering their risk-adjusted return expectations. The many disruptions and dislocations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have compounded this need for targeted assistance and for flexible and patient capital.
Dimensions of Impact: HOW MUCH
Investors deploying capital into investments aligned with this strategy should think about how significant the investment's effect might be. What is likely to be the change's breadth, depth, and duration?
Key questions in this dimension include:
Given the universal human needs for food and for a planet that sustains both agriculture and human life, there is no limit to how many can receive the outcome through investments aligned with this Strategic Goal. Investments in sustainable agriculture and sustainable food systems can create positive outcomes with respect to both needs, and outcomes for both apply to the entire global population.
Change achieved through investments aligned with this Strategic Goal is ultimately multi-generational. Investments today in converting to sustainable agriculture and sustainable food systems will lay the groundwork—literally—for the resilient farmlands of the future, necessary to feed the growing human population and to do so in a way that cuts emissions through food productions to the level that creates a sustainable future for people and the planet. By cutting GHG emissions from food production as well, they create a sustainable future for both people and planet. The duration of the change depends on how broadly and quickly a large-scale transition can be made to sustainable agriculture and food systems. The scale of the change is potentially profound. As just one example from the ag-tech space, substitution of plant-based meats for meats could reduce emissions by 90% (19). Once plant-based meats reach just 10% in overall market share, they will reduce CO2 emissions by roughly 500 million metric tons annually, roughly the equivalent of 100 million passenger vehicles being driven for a year (20,23).
Key questions in this dimension include:
The following are impact risk factors for investments aligned with this Strategic Goal.
In cases where these risk factors materialize without appropriate risk-mitigation measures in place, investors may fail to reduce GHG emissions from the agriculture sector. Beyond the above examples of how investors can mitigate each of the four types of risk, investors can also, where applicable, track the percentage of crop value that is re/insured. At a high level, investors can additionally mitigate risk through the use of existing public and private tools and frameworks (for further detail, please see “Aligned Resources”), as well as through the use of publicly available data from leading global and national entities, such as NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in the United States, ABARES (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences), or FAO (The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).
Tyson Ventures, the investment arm of the meat company Tyson Foods, invested a total of USD 23 million in Beyond Meat, an alternative protein company, making its first investment in 2016 in exchange for 5% of the vegan company and increasing its holdings to 6.5% the following year. Beyond Meat is the company behind the “Beyond Burger,” a plant-based, vegan, meat-alternative burger. In 2017, Beyond Meat closed another round of funding topping out at USD 55 million and led by Cleveland Avenue, a venture capital firm founded by former McDonald’s CEO Don Thompson. Beyond Meat used this funding to triple its production footprint, support research and development, and expand sales and distribution (23). In 2019, Beyond Meat completed a successful IPO and expanded their operations and sales abroad in the EU and Asia. These investments have led to a decrease in GHG emissions. From cradle to distribution, the Beyond Burger generates 90% fewer GHG emissions and requires 46% less energy, 99% less water, and 93% less land compared to a quarter-pound of U.S. beef (24).
In 2018, Viking Global Investors, one of the world’s largest hedge funds, led a USD 70 million round of funding alongside Andreessen Horowitz, Upfront Ventures, and S2G Ventures in Apeel, a California-based food waste company (25). Apeel, which got its start in 2012 with a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, develops plant-derived shelf life extension technology for fresh produce that improves quality and reduces food waste at almost every step of the supply chain, from packers to retailers to consumers at home (26). The new funding will enable Apeel to continue its international expansion, especially in places like sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, and South America where there are higher rates of both food waste and food insecurity (27). Apeel’s latest sustainability report shows that, taking the Apeel product footprint into consideration, introducing Apeel into the produce supply chain reduced potential impacts across all categories in the IMPACT 2002+ methodology by 16–22% in most produce types (28).
In 2020, One Acre Fund secured USD 20 million to catalyze institutional capital for African farmers. The non-profit, founded and led by social entrepreneur Andrew Youn, has been a leader and innovator in investing in smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa with the dual goals of tackling poverty and hunger—recognizing that, perversely, too many farmers worldwide face the problem of hunger (29). In the 2020 investment, a coalition of philanthropists (including the MacArthur Foundation, which deployed a USD 10 million program-related investment) lent USD 20 million in subordinated debt to One Acre Fund. This catalytic capital is meant to help One Acre Fund then secure additional financing from development and commercial banks and other institutional lenders (30). The social impact will be substantial; in 2019 One Acre Fund reached the milestone of serving 1 million farmers per year, and estimates that its services could benefit another 50 million farmers across Africa. Through its track record of success and 97% credit repayment rate from farmers, One Acre Fund has also gained the confidence of impact investors that its strategy works while ensuring the integrity of its mission to focus on the poorest farmers worldwide.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ibid.
21
22
23
24
25
26
ibid.
27
28
29
30
31
32
This mapped evidence shows what outcomes and impacts this strategy can have, based on academic and field research.
IPCC. “Climate Change and Land.” (2019)
Vlek PLG; Khamzina A; Tamene L. “Land degradation and the Sustainable Development Goals: Threats and potential remedies.” CIAT Publication No. 440. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Nairobi, Kenya. (2017) 67 p.
Ceres. “Feeding Ourselves Thirsty: Tracking Food Companies’ Progress Toward a Water-Smart Future.” (2017)
Ceres. “Strengthening Corporate Sustainable Sourcing Commitments for Water Quality in U.S. Row Crops.” (2020)
McKinsey and Company. “Agriculture and Climate Change.” (2020)
WWF. “Fight climate change by preventing food waste.”
ReFED. “A Roadmap to Reduce Food Waste by 20 Percent.” (2016).
Bochtis, Dionysus, Maria G. Lampridi, and Claus G. Sorenson. “Agricultural Sustainability: A Review of Concepts and Methods.” (2019).
Each resource is assigned a rating of rigor according to the NESTA Standards of Evidence.
This starter set of core metrics — chosen from the IRIS catalog with the input of impact investors who work in this area — indicate performance toward objectives within this strategy. They can help with setting targets, tracking performance, and managing toward success.
Amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigated by the organization during the reporting period. This should include GHG emissions reductions from direct and indirect sources.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sequestered (PI9878) + Greenhouse Gas Emissions Avoided (PI2764) + Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduced (OI4862)
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including detailed information on calculation methodology. See usage guidance for further information.
This measure should include greenhouse gas emissions reductions from direct and indirect sources (Scopes 1-3). Organizations may find The GHG Protocol for Project Accounting helpful in calculating this metric.
To understand the key indicator that will be used to measure the outcome (reduced GHG emissions), which is a critical step in measuring progress toward the Strategic Goal.
Amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted through the organization’s operations during the reporting period.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Direct (OI4112) + Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Indirect (OI9604)
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used including detailed information on their calculation methodology. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to capture the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted during the reporting period. To disaggregate types of greenhouse gas emissions, organizations are encouraged to report Greenhouse Gas Emissions Types (OI5732).
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) is the most widely used international accounting tool to understand, quantify, and manage greenhouse gas emissions. The GHG Protocol defines direct (Scope 1) emissions as emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the reporting entity. The GHG Protocol defines indirect (Scopes 2-3) emissions as emissions that are a consequence of the activities of the reporting entity, but occur at sources owned or controlled by another entity.
To see the standard and guidance on calculating this measure, reference The GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. Further resources are available at the GHG Protocol Calculation Tools page.
To understand the total emissions produced by the organization’s activities, which is key in understanding the organization’s contributions toward creating and mitigating climate change.
Area of land directly controlled by the organization and under sustainable cultivation or sustainable stewardship. Report directly controlled land area sustainably managed during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote details about the nature of the direct control relationship and all assumptions used. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to capture the land area that is under the organization’s direct control that is sustainably managed.
Direct control refers to land for which the organization controls land use through direct operation or management. This includes situations where the organization’s employees cultivate the land directly. Note that land ownership is not always equivalent to control. For example, in situations where land is leased to another entity or individual to cultivate (e.g., a third party manager), land is only directly controlled if the lease is accompanied by exhaustive land use criteria.
For land that is not directly controlled, use Land Indirectly Controlled: Sustainably Managed (PI6796).
To understand the land managed sustainably over which the organization has direct control, which is useful in assessing the reach of the organization’s sustainability practices.
Area of land indirectly controlled by the organization and under sustainable cultivation or sustainable stewardship. Report indirectly controlled land area sustainably managed during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including detailed information on calculation methodology. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to capture the land area that is under the organization’s indirect control that is sustainably managed.
Indirect control refers to land that the organization supports or influences but does not directly cultivate or manage. Examples in which the organization indirectly controls land may include purchase contracts or sourcing from farmer cooperatives.
For land that is directly controlled, use Land Directly Controlled: Sustainably Managed (OI6912).
To understand the land managed sustainably over which the organization has indirect control, which is useful in assessing the reach of the organization’s sustainability practices.
Type of crop(s) produced by the organization during the reporting period. Select from the options in the Reference List tab of the IRIS catalog.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used.
This metric is intended to capture crop type produced by the organization during the reporting period.
Organizations can report this metric at the level of an organization (selecting all relevant answer options) or for a specific product or service (selecting only one crop type for the product or service for which the organization is reporting). To count the number of units produced, use this metric with Units/Volume Produced (PI1290). To count the number of units sold, use this metric with Units/Volume Sold: Total (PI1263).
To understand the types of crops being produced by the organization, a key part of understanding the emissions produced and sequestered as a result of the organization’s projects.
Type of livestock product(s) produced by the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used.
This metric is intended to capture types of livestock and fish produced.
Organizations can report this metric at the level of an organization (selecting all relevant answer options) or for a specific product or service (selecting only one crop type for the product or service for which the organization is reporting). To count the number of units produced, use this metric with Units/Volume Produced (PI1290). To count the number of units sold, use this metric with Units/Volume Sold: Total (PI1263).
To understand the types of livestock and fish being produced by the organization, a key part of understanding the emissions produced as a result of the organization’s work.
Amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduced by the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including detailed information on calculation methodology. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to capture the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that were reduced by the organization during the reporting period.
This metric should be used in combination with Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Types (OI9839) in order to disaggregate the types of greenhouse gas emissions reductions relevant to the organization’s activities.
This measure should include greenhouse gas emissions reductions from direct and indirect sources (Scopes 1-3). Organizations may find The GHG Protocol for Project Accounting helpful in calculating this metric.
To understand the reductions in GHG emissions that the organization has accomplished, which is key in assessing whether the organization is actively working toward mitigating climate change.
Amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided by the organization during the reporting period
Reporting Period
The reporting period is the time from the Report Start Date (OD6951) to the Report End Date (OD7111).
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including detailed information on calculation methodology. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to capture the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that were avoided by the organization during the reporting period.
This metric should be used in combination with Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Types (OI9839) in order to disaggregate the types of greenhouse gas emissions avoidance relevant to the organization’s activities.
Organizations may find The GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard helpful in calculating this metric.
To understand the GHG emissions that the organization has avoided creating, a helpful metric in assessing whether the organization is actively working toward mitigating climate change.
While the above core metrics provide a starter set of measurements that can show outcomes of a portfolio targeted toward this goal, the additional metrics below — or others from the IRIS catalog — can provide more nuance and depth to understanding your impact.
Amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted through the organization’s operations from direct emissions sources during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used including detailed information on their calculation methodology. See usage guidance for further information.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) is the most widely used international accounting tool to understand, quantify, and manage greenhouse gas emissions. The GHG Protocol defines direct (Scope 1) emissions as emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the reporting entity. To see the standard and guidance on calculating this measure, reference The GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. Further resources are available at the GHG Protocol Calculation Tools page. For this strategic goal, the GHG Protocol Agricultural Guidance is also likely helpful.
To understand the amount of emissions produced directly by the organization, a key data point in assessing the organization’s contribution toward mitigating climate change.
Amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted through the organization’s operations from indirect emissions sources during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used including detailed information on their calculation methodology. See usage guidance for further information.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) is the most widely used international accounting tool to understand, quantify, and manage greenhouse gas emissions. The GHG Protocol defines indirect (Scopes 2-3) emissions as emissions that are a consequence of the activities of the reporting entity, but occur at sources owned or controlled by another entity.
To see the standard and guidance on calculating this measure, reference The GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. Further resources are available at the GHG Protocol Calculation Tools page. For this strategic goal, the GHG Protocol Agricultural Guidance is also likely helpful.
To understand the amount of emissions produced indirectly by the organization, a key data point in assessing the organization’s contribution toward mitigating climate change.
Indicates whether the organization implements a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
N/A
Organizations should footnote the details of the strategy, the type/scope of emissions focused on, how the strategy is being implemented, and specific reduction targets. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to provide detailed information on the greenhouse gas emissions strategy in place but does not provide an evaluation of the success with which the strategy is implemented. For this strategic goal, the GHG Protocol Agricultural Guidance is likely helpful.
To understand whether or not the organization has a dedicated strategy to reduce emissions that contribute to climate change.
Describes the quantifiable social and environmental targets set by the organization.
N/A
Organizations should footnote details on specific targets, timeframes for accomplishing these targets, and how results will be measured for these targets. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to capture what targets the organization sets for their social and environmental goals. In this Climate Change Mitigation theme, this metric can be used to capture Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions targets and emissions mitigation targets. For more information on setting targets, reference the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTI) Step by Step Guide.
Social and/or environmental targets are typically consistent with the organization’s mission, and are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound. Metrics can be used to measure progress towards these goals.
To understand what goals the organization has set for its social and environmental impact, including its GHG emissions.
Amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduced by the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including detailed information on calculation methodology. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to capture the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that were reduced by the organization during the reporting period.
This metric should be used in combination with Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Types (OI9839) in order to disaggregate the types of greenhouse gas emissions reductions relevant to the organization’s activities.
This measure should include greenhouse gas emissions reductions from direct and indirect sources (Scopes 1-3). Organizations may find The GHG Protocol for Project Accounting helpful in calculating this metric. For this strategic goal, the GHG Protocol Agricultural Guidance may also be useful.
To understand the reductions in GHG emissions that the organization has accomplished, which is key in assessing whether the organization is actively working toward mitigating climate change.
Indicates greenhouse gas emissions mitigation types applied by the organization during the reporting period. Choose all that apply:
Greenhouse emission reductions from fuel combustion
Greenhouse gas emission reductions from industrial processes (non-combustion, chemical reaction, fugitive, other)
Greenhouse gas emission reductions from land use, land use change, and forestry
Greenhouse gas emissions reductions from livestock
Greenhouse gas emissions reductions due to products sold
Greenhouse gas emissions reductions due to services sold
Greenhouse gas emissions reductions from waste handling and disposal
Greenhouse gas emissions avoided from product replacements
Greenhouse gas emissions avoided due to carbon offsets sold
Greenhouse gas emissions avoided due to carbon offsets purchased
Greenhouse gas emissions sequestered from land use, land use change, and forestry
Greenhouse gas emissions sequestered from Carbon Capture and Storage
Other (describe)
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including source(s) of data.
This metric is intended to capture the different types of greenhouse gas emissions mitigation types.
This metric should be used in conjunction with Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions: Total (OI5951), Greenhouse Gas Emissions Avoided: Total (PI2764), Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions: Total (OI4862), and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigated: Total (OI5951).
This data originates is drawn from the company itself, which indicates how they are mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
To understand how the organization is mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
Ratio of the organization’s emissions normalized by revenue.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Total (OI479) / Total Revenue (FP6510)
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including sources of data.
This metric normalizes Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by total revenue as a means to compare emissions between companies. For further information on how to collect this data, see usage guidance in the metric records for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Total (OI479) and Total Revenue (FP6510).
This metric is sourced from GRI Disclosure 305-4.
To understand the amount of GHG emissions produced as a result of the organization’s activities as a function of its total revenue, which is helpful in comparing GHG emissions between companies of different sizes.
Average agricultural yield per hectare of clients (who were farmers) of the organization during the reporting period.
(Yield of Client 1 + Yield of Client 2 + … + Yield of Client n) / n
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used.
This metric is intended to capture the average output per hectare per farmer among an organization’s clients.
Organizations should not calculate this metric using aggregate data across all farmers. Rather, organizations should use farmer-specific data as noted in the calculation. Organizations should report yield from the most recent harvest and footnote details on the unit of measure reporting against (e.g., kilograms, bushels, etc. per hectare).
Organizations interested in reporting the yields of famers that were suppliers should report against Average Supplier Agriculture Yield: Total (PI2046).
To understand whether products and services provided to farmers have increased crop production.
Area of land directly controlled by the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote details about the nature of the direct control relationship and all assumptions used. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to capture total land controlled. Organizations may use this metric to calculate the percent of directly controlled land that is: – cultivated, using Land Directly Controlled: Cultivated (OI1674), – sustainably managed, using Land Directly Controlled: Sustainably Managed (OI6912), or – on which pesticides were used, using Land Directly Controlled: Treated with Pesticides (OI2569).
Organizations may also use Land Indirectly Controlled: Total (PI3789) and its submetrics for similar calculations for indirectly controlled land.
To understand the area of land directly controlled by the organization, which is useful in understanding the reach of any sustainability practices.
Price premium percentage that the producer (supplier) selling to the organization obtains from the organization for its goods or services during the reporting period.
(Price obtained by the producer or supplier from the organization for a good or service − Benchmark price of the good or service) / Benchmark price of the good or service
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used.
This metric is intended to capture the percentage by which a product’s selling price exceeds a benchmark price. The benchmark price is the average price that can be obtained for a similar good or service in the local area.
An example of how this metric might be calculated: By selling to the organization, farmers get $2/pound for a good (e.g., apples) and only $1 for selling the same good in the local market. The reporting organization would report this as ($2-$1)/$1 = 1 (or 100%) and would footnote assumptions on how they derived the local market (i.e., benchmark) rate.
To understand whether farmers supplying the organization with crops, livestock, and fish receive a better price for their goods than from other local purchasers.
Units/volume purchased from supplier individuals and organizations that sold to the organization that have received a price premium during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used.
This metric is intended to capture the amount of goods purchased by the reporting organization at a price premium.
Organizations are encouraged to report this metric in conjunction with Producer Price Premium (PI1568), which measures the premium percentage price received by selling to the organization, when possible.
To understand how many units were purchased from farmers paid above local average price for their products, which can be helpful in assessing whether
Units/volume purchased from individuals who sold to the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used.
This metric is intended to capture total units/volumes purchased during the reporting period.
Organizations may also use associated metrics to calculate units and volume purchased at other levels and with certain specifications. For example, organizations may use Units/Volume Purchased from Supplier Individuals: Certified (PI3825) to calculate percent of their product purchased that was from certified organic farmers. Organizations might also use Units/Volume Purchased from Supplier Organizations: Total (PI2019) and its associated metrics if the organization is purchasing from a co-op or other organization of multiple farmers.
To understand how many units were purchased from farmers in total.
Describes third-party certifications for products/services sold by the organization that are valid as of the end of the reporting period.
N/A
Organization should footnote the certification name, certifying body, and date since the product/service has been continuously certified for all product/service level certifications obtained by the organization.
This metric captures third-party certifications for products and services sold by the organization during the reporting period.
A certification must be from a third party, be standards-based, have those standards be transparent, and have an assurance process. The process of certification is carried out by a recognized body, independent from interested parties, which demonstrates that a product or organization complies with the requirements defined in the standards or technical specifications.
This metric may be reported in conjunction with Operational Certifications (OI1120) held by the organization.
To understand whether products and services sold by the organization comply with social or environmental certification standards, which can be a proxy for positive effects.
Describes the third-party certifications held by the organization that are related to its business processes and practices and that are valid as of the end of the reporting period.
N/A
Organization should footnote the details on the certifications including the certification name, certifying body, and date of certification.
This metric is intended to describe third-party certifications that the organization holds during the reporting period.
This metric describes business process- and practice-related certifications. For example, organizations providing healthcare delivery services, this might include SafeCare certification, ISO 900 certification, and government accreditation. Organizations wishing to report product-level certifications should use the metric Product/Service Certifications (PD2756).
Since certifications vary by sector (for example, construction, textiles or manufacturing, agribusiness, supply chain development), organizations should disclose the type of certification held, as well as whether the certification is issued by an internationally recognized certifying authority.
To understand whether the organization’s operations comply with social or environmental certification standards, which can be a proxy for positive effects or impact risk management.
Number of contracts/purchase agreements that the organization holds for purchase of its products/services. Report contracts fulfilled and outstanding as of the end of the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote relevant details about the purchase contracts.
This metric is intended to capture the number of buyers or clients with whom the organization has a written agreement, contract, or ongoing business relationship as of the end of the reporting period.
To understand whether the organization has purchaser contracts in place with the farmers who are clients or suppliers, which can be helpful in assessing whether the organization is providing stable income to the farmers.
Volume of water used from regions with high or extremely high baseline water stress during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote the details of how these regions are identified, how water usage is measured in these regions, and any strategies in place to reduce water usage in these regions. See usage guidance for additional information.
This metric is intended to capture the volume of water from high-water-stress regions used within the organization for any purpose, including but not limited to: productive processes (for example, packaging and manufacturing), human consumption, and agricultural purposes. Organizations are also encouraged to footnote the percentage of total water use that represents water use in regions with high or extremely high baseline water stress.
Water sources include surface water (including water from wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans), groundwater, rainwater collected directly and stored by the registrant, wastewater obtained from other entities, municipal water supply, or supply from other water utilities.
Baseline water stress is a ratio of total water withdrawal to freshwater availability in a specific water source. High water stress is defined as a ratio of 40–80%, and extremely high is defined as a ratio greater than 80%. Organizations can refer to the glossary for further guidance on identifying high or extremely high baseline water stress regions. Organizations may also consult resources such as the World Resources Institute (WRI) Water Risk Atlas Tool and the WWF-DEG Water Risk Filter.
To understand whether the organization is overtaxing already taxed water systems through its agricultural projects.
Volume of all water drawn from surface water, groundwater, seawater, or a third party for any use by the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including source(s) of data.
This metric is intended to capture the amount of water withdrawn by the organization from any source and for any purpose during the reporting period.
This metric is sourced from GRI’s Disclosure 303. It may be used in combination with Water Type (OD7536) to describe where water was withdrawn from in greater detail.
To understand how much water was withdrawn by the organization, which can be helpful in assessing the environmental impacts of agriculture-related projects.
Level of baseline water stress on land directly or indirectly managed by the organization as of the end of the reporting period
Reporting Period
The reporting period is the time from the Report Start Date (OD6951) to the Report End Date (OD7111).
Choose all that apply:
Low (<10%)
Low-medium (10-19.9%)
Medium-high (20-39.9%)
High (40-80%)
Extremely high (>80%)
Arid and low water use
No data
Select all that apply from list in metric record.
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including which tools or methodologies were used to assess level of water stress.
This metric is intended to describe the level of baseline water stress on land managed by the organization.
Organizations may use tools such as WRI’s Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas or WWF-DEG’s Water Risk Filter to find data on and describe water stress on directly or indirectly managed land.
To understand the water stress levels of land controlled by the organization, which can be helpful in assessing the environmental impacts of agriculture-related projects.
Describes the ecosystem services provided by land directly or indirectly controlled by the organization, during the reporting period
Reporting Period
The reporting period is the time from the Report Start Date (OD6951) to the Report End Date (OD7111).
Select all that apply:
Provisioning Values/Services
Food
Biological raw materials
Biomass fuel
Freshwater
Genetic resources
Biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals
Regulating Values/Services
Maintenance of air quality
Regulation of climate
Regulation of water timing and flows
Erosion control
Water purification and waste treatment
Disease mitigation
Maintenance of soil quality
Pest mitigation
Pollination
Natural hazard mitigation
Supporting Values/Services
Habitat
Nutrient cycling
Primary production
Water cycling
Cultural Values/Services
Recreation and ecotourism
Ethical and spiritual values
Educational and inspirational values
Organizations should footnote specific details around the selections.
Select all that apply from list in metric record.
Organizations should footnote details about their selections. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to describe services provided by the organization to promote health and regeneration of the ecosystems affected.
Examples of details to footnote include: an explanation of how land provides the selected ecosystem services, as well as any external validation or verification that has been conducted to demonstrate the provision of the ecosystem services, including which services were covered, the date, and the entity providing verification/validation (e.g., university researcher, consultant, ecosystem service bank).
Organizations are encouraged to report this metric in conjunction with: Protected Land Area: Total (PI4716), Protected Land Area: Permanent (PI3924), Land Directly Controlled: Sustainably Managed (OI6912), Land Indirectly Controlled: Sustainably Managed (PI6796), Land Directly Controlled: Total (OI5408), and Land Indirectly Controlled: Total (PI3789).
The detailed options for this metric were sourced from the World Resources Institute (WRI).
To understand the services provided by the organization that aim to address ecosystem needs.
Indicates whether the organization has undertaken biodiversity-related assessments to evaluate the biological diversity present on the land that is directly or indirectly controlled by the organization.
Yes/No
Organizations should footnote details about what the assessments evaluate. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to capture whether or not the organization completes biodiversity-related assessments to understand their projects’ potential effects on flora and fauna in affected ecosystems.
Examples of information that the assessments may cover, to footnote, include: the species present in a given area, wildlife habitat conditions, availability and quality of water resources, potential effect of production on adjacent crops, historical/archaeological importance of the land, or existence of regulations related to the site (e.g., catchments area, protected area, etc.).
Organizations are also encouraged to footnote details about the frequency and system with which it conducts its biodiversity assessments.
To understand whether the organization is providing services that aim to address ecosystem needs.
Indicate whether the organization has undertaken a protected area connectedness assessment to evaluate the continuity of natural habitats as of the end of the reporting period.
Yes/No
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including source(s) of data.
This metric is intended to capture the connectedness of protected land areas, which is an important measure of habitat available to flora and fauna in the area.
To assess the protected area connectedness of a land area, organizations can implement the use of a geographic information system, or use an existing resource, such as the Protected Area Connectedness Index.
Protected area connectedness is used by the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, which examines biodiversity factors including safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity.
To understand whether the organization is conducting assessments on the connectedness of ecosystems (or lack thereof) on its controlled land; which is a critical measure in understanding effects on biodiversity.
Indicates whether the organization implements policies to protect the threatened species that reside in habitats affected by the organization’s operations.
Yes/No
Organizations should footnote the details of their policies, how the threatened species are being affected and what is being done to protect them, and how organizations determine which habitats are affected by the organization’s operations. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric is intended to provide detailed information on the threatened species policy in place but does not provide an evaluation of the success with which the policy is implemented. Further information on this metric , including key definitions, may be found in the usage guidance in the metric record.
Organizations are encouraged to report this metric in conjunction with Conservation Priority Characteristics (PD9009) and Biodiversity Assessment (OI5929).
To understand whether the organization has a policy in place to protect threatened species on its controlled land, which is a critical measure in understanding effects on biodiversity.