Investments in this strategy aim to improve market linkages by integrating the value chain, increasing market accessibility, and enabling smallholders to attract and negotiate with larger buyers, access certifications, and grow their businesses. The sections below include an overview of the strategy for achieving desired goals, supporting evidence, core metrics that help measure performance toward goals, and a curated list of resources to support collecting, reporting on, and using data for decision-making.
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:
Smallholder farmers often face many challenges accessing buyers, including high transportation costs, lack of negotiating power, and drops in pricing at common times of harvest. Investments aiming to improve market linkages can improve outcomes in the following ways:
Interested in understanding how gender relates to this strategy? Check out the gender lens summary and metrics created to complement this theme: Increasing Gender Equality in Agriculture.
Studies of several emerging-market countries in Africa and Asia have found that 50–70% of smallholder farmers are not transitioning from subsistence to commercial farming (2). Upwards of 80% to 90% of agricultural goods in most developing countries trade on informal markets, the prices of which are based on arbitrary assessments of supply, demand, and local customer loyalty to certain sellers. An estimated 2% of farmers of 30 or fewer hectares have steady market access (2).
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:
Low-Income, Farm-Dependent Households: Over two billion of the world’s poorest individuals live in households that depend on agriculture for income and nutrition (1). Low-income smallholders—farmers cultivating fewer than two hectares—often choose to sell their yields at sub-optimal prices due to limited market access and time-constrained cash flow needs. Improved access to markets and information about pricing can earn farmers more for their yields.
Rural Communities: Market access is highly correlated with road access and distance to market (2). With limited access to major markets, high transport costs, and limited information about pricing between markets, rural farmers cannot sell for premium prices. Improved access to major markets and comparative pricing information can help rural farmers make more informed decisions about where and when to sell.
Young Farmers: The next generation of smallholders is maturing with knowledge of—and often access to—mobile phones and computers. These young farmers may gain more from this strategy, since they may be more amenable to testing innovative approaches and non-traditional market linkages (2).
Most of the world’s 450 million smallholder farmers live in Asia, with smaller numbers in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East and North Africa; most are in rural locations, though some are also peri-urban or urban (1). Roughly half of farmers holding 30 or fewer acres of farmland qualify as “vulnerable, market-challenged” or ultra-poor farmers, both characterized by infrequent access to commercial markets (3).
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:
The extent to which this strategy can improve market linkages depends on the investee business and the product they are bringing to market. For this strategy, strengthening links between elements of the value chain to increase market efficiency and smallholder crop value would make an investment’s contribution likely better than what would occur without it.
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:
The potential breadth of impact depends on the fraction of the 450 million smallholder farmers worldwide who lack steady access to formal and commercial markets. While there are no robust estimates for the number of farmers who could receive market linkage-focused improvements, 98% of farmers with holdings of 30 or fewer hectares currently lack steady market access and could likely benefit significantly from improved market linkages (2).
The amount of change that beneficiaries derive from this strategy depends on the specific market linkages created and the extent to which these effectively increase and stabilize prices farmers earn. Evaluations of related investments include the following:
MFarm is an agriculture services and technology company–financed in part by Novastar Ventures–that provides an SMS- and web-based commodity exchange for the five million smallholder farmers in Kenya (10). MFarm agents recruit and support smallholder farmers, in part by aggregating and coordinating collection of produce. Transparency, quality control, and disintermediation help smallholder farmers improve their agricultural practices, achieve higher prices for their produce, and pay lower prices for agricultural inputs through MFarm’s “Groupon” buying model, thereby increasing their incomes.
1
Tom Carroll, Andrew Stern, Dan Zook, Rocio Funes, Angela Rastegar, and Yuting Lien. Catalyzing Smallholder Agricultural Finance. Dalberg Global Development Advisors, 2012. http://www.inclusivebusinesshub.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Catalyzing_Smallholder_Ag_Finance.pdf.
2
Shaun Ferris, Peter Robbins, Rupert Best, Don Seville, Abbi Buxton, Jefferson Shriver, and Emily Wei. “Linking Smallholder Farmers to Markets and the Implications for Extension and Advisory Services.” Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services (MEAS) Discussion Paper 4, May 2014. https://agrilinks.org/library/linking-smallholder-farmers-markets-and-implications-extension-and-advisory-services.
3
Nicholas J. Sitko and Thomas S. Jayne. “The Rising Class of Emergent Farmers: An Effective Model for Achieving Agricultural Growth and Poverty Reduction in Africa?” Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Working Paper 69, October 2013. http://fsg.afre.msu.edu/zambia/wp69.pdf.
4
Steve Wiggins and Sharada Keats. Smallholder Agriculture’s Contribution to Better Nutrition. London: Overseas Development Institute, April 2013.
5
Peter Lanjouw and Rinku Murgai. “Poverty Decline, Agricultural Wages, and Nonfarm Employment in Rural India: 1983–2004.” Agricultural Economics 40, no. 2 (March 2009): 243–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2009.00373.x.
6
Elly Kaganzi, Shaun Ferris, James Barham, Annet Abenakyo, Pascal Sanginga, and Jemimah Njuki. “Sustaining Linkages to High Value Markets through Collective Action in Uganda.” Food Policy 34, no. 1 (February 2009): 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.10.004.
7
Vijay Paul Sharma, Bill Vorley, Jikun Huang, Abid Qaiyum Suleri, Larry Digal, and Thomas A. Reardon, eds. Linking Smallholder Producers to Modern Agri-Food Chains: Case Studies from South Asia, Southeast Asia and China. New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 2013.
8
Meike Wollni and Manfred Zeller. “Do Farmers Benefit from Participating in Specialty Markets and Cooperatives? The Case of Coffee Marketing in Costa Rica.” Paper presented at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, August 2016.
9
Marc F. Bellemare and Lindsey Novak. “Smallholder Participation in Contract Farming and Food Security.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economic Association, Minneapolis, MN, July 2014. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/169817.
10
MFarm (blog). http://www.mfarm.co.ke/blog.
This mapped evidence shows what outcomes and impacts this strategy can have, based on academic and field research.
Blein, R., and R. Longo. “Food price volatility-how to help smallholder farmers manage risk and uncertainty.” Round Table organized during the Thirty-second session of IFAD’s Governing Council(2009).
Bellemare, Marc, and Lindsey Novak. “Smallholder Participation in Contract Farming and Food Security.” In 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota, no. 169817. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, 2014.
Carroll, T., A. Stern, D. Zook, R. Funes, A. Rastegar, and Y. Lien. “Catalyzing Smallholder Agricultural Finance (Sept. 2012). Dalberg Global Development Advisors.” (2012).
Charly, Facheux, Amos Gyau, Diane Russell, Divine Foundjem-Tita, Charlie Mbosso, Steven Franzel, and Zac Tchoundjeu. “Comparison of three modes of improving benefits to farmers within agroforestry product market chains in Cameroon.” African Journal of Agricultural Research 7, no. 15 (2012): 2336-2343.
DAI. “PROFIT Zambia Impact Assessment.” 2010.
Nepal Market Development Programme (NMDP). ““Samarth – Nepal Market Development Programme (NMDP) annual results report year 2.”“ 2014.
International Finance Corporation. (2013). Working with Smallholders: A Handbook for Firms Building Sustainable Supply Chains
Poole, N., & de Frece, A. (2010). A Review of Existing Organisational Forms of Smallholder Farmers ’ Associations and their Contractual Relationships with other Market Participants in the East and Southern African ACP Region. All ACP Agricultural Commodities Programme Paper Series – No.11 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), (11).
Svensson, Jakob, and David Yanagizawa Drott. “Tuning in the market signal: the impact of market price information on agricultural outcomes.” Document de Travail (2010).
Wollni, Meike, and Manfred Zeller. “Do farmers benefit from participating in specialty markets and cooperatives? The case of coffee marketing in Costa Rica1.“Agricultural Economics37, no. 2‐3 (2007): 243-248.
Morgan, Beverly and Nicardo Neil. “Building Bridges: Value Initiative Program in Jamaica.” SEEP Network, 2012.
Anand, Shekhar, and Gizachew Sisay. “Engaging Smallholders in Value Chains: Creating new opportunities for beekeepers in Ethiopia.” Oxfam Policy and Practice: Agriculture, Food and Land11, no. 4 (2011): 74-88.
Dunn, E., H. Schiff, and L. Greevey. Linking small-scale vegetable farmers to supermarkets: effectiveness assessment of the GMED India project. No. 166. Micro Report, 2011.
Karlan, D., Kutsoati, E., McMillan, M., & Udry, C. (2010). Crop price indemnified loans for farmers: A pilot experiment in rural Ghana. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 78(1), 37-55.
Joshi, P. K., Laxmi Joshi, and Pratap S. Birthal. “Diversification and its impact on smallholders: Evidence from a study on vegetable production.” Agricultural Economics Research Review 19, no. 2 (2006): 219-236.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). “Value chains, agricultural markets and food security.“The State of the Agricultural Commodity Markets In Depth, 2015-2016.
Burke, Marshall. “Selling low and buying high: An arbitrage puzzle in Kenyan villages.” In Working Paper. 2014.
Scarampi, Adriano. “Commercialising cassava: New opportunities for Universal Industries and Malawian smallholders.” Business Innovation Facility, 2013.
Barrett, Christopher B., Maren E. Bachke, Marc F. Bellemare, Hope C. Michelson, Sudha Narayanan, and Thomas F. Walker. “Smallholder participation in contract farming: comparative evidence from five countries.” World Development40, no. 4 (2012): 715-730.
Suisse. Division de la coopération avec l’Europe de l’Est et la CEI (SDC) and Springfield Centre for Business in Development. “Developing markets for dairy production through service development and public-private partnerships in rural Armenia.” Bern : SDC, 2008.
Sharma, Vijay Paul, Bill Vorley, Jikun Huang, Abid Qaiyum Suleri, Larry Digal, and Thomas A. Reardon, eds.Linking Smallholder Producers to Modern Agri-Food Chains: Case Studies from South Asia, Southeast Asia and China.Vol. 1. Allied Publishers, 2013.
Sunil Sinha, Sunil, Johan Holmberg, Mark Thomas. “What Works for Market Development: A Review of the Evidence.” UTV Working Paper. (2013).
Campbell, R. “Feed the future learning agenda literature review: expanded markets, value chains and increased investment.” prepared for the US Agency for International Development.
Creevey, Lucy, Elizabeth Dunn and Elisabeth Farmer. “Outreach, outcomes, and sustainability.” ACDI/VOCA. USAID Microreports 171. 2011.
Birthal, Pratap S., Awadhesh K. Jha, and Harvinder Singh. “Linking farmers to markets for high-value agricultural commodities.” Agricultural Economics Research Review 20, no. 2007 (2007).
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.
Number of enterprises that were clients of the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used as well as the types of enterprises that were clients using Client Type (PD7993).
This metric is a simple count of number of enterprises that were clients of the organization during the reporting period.
Understanding the number of client organizations reached allows for calculation of impact both on aggregate and on a per-organization basis.
Number of unique smallholder farmer individuals who were clients during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used in the calculation process for this metric, including those for the process of determining the number of client individuals.
This metric captures the number of unique smallholder farmer clients who were recipients of the organization’s products or services during the reporting period. It is not a measure of foot traffic, nor should it capture the number of consumer transactions. For example, a customer who makes two purchases during a reported period should be counted only once. Organizations wishing to report total client transactions should refer to Client Transactions (PI5184). If organizations consider an entire household to be the customer/client, they can report Client Households: Total (PI7954).
Understanding the number of clients reached allows calculation of impact related to risk mitigation on a per-farmer basis. Organizations may also report Client Individuals: Female (PI8330) to understand their impact related to gender empowerment.
Amount of the product/service sold by the organization during the reporting period. This metric should be reported in conjunction with Unit of Measure (PD1602).
N/A
Organizations selling multiple distinct products should report this metric separately for each product, footnoting the sources of their data.
Organizations should collect these data directly from their investee’s sales force. If selling to distributors or making wholesale sales to distributors, organizations should footnote those details.
While understanding the number of clients is also ultimately important to understanding the benefits that product have for the lives of target beneficiaries, the number of products sold is essential to calculating the total environmental and social impact of an investment, both in aggregate and per-product.
Type of crop(s) produced by the organization. Select from the
options in the Excel Reference List tab.
N/A
N/A
Organizations can report this metric at an organizational level (selecting all relevant options) or at the level of specific products or services. The IRIS web page for this metric provides a list of options adapted from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. When possible, organizations should obtain data on client crops produced before sale, which enables pre-product and post-product comparison. If pre-product data are not available, this metric is based on assumptions the organization calculates, which should be footnoted.
Investments targeted toward risk mitigation often aim to create an enabling environment for farmers to adopt high-risk, high-yield crop varietals or livestock. Tracking farmer crop selections—or Livestock/Fish Type (PD4686), if relevant—allows calculation of impact on the aggregate level.
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
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including the source for the benchmark product price or service rate. See usage guidance for further information.
The price premium is the percentage by which a product’s selling price exceeds a benchmark price, which is the average price that may be obtained for a similar good or service in the local area. For example, suppose that, by selling to the organization, farmers get USD 2 per pound for a good (e.g., apples) and only USD 1 per pound for selling the same good in the local market. The reporting organization would report this as (USD 2 − USD 1)/USD 1 = 1 (or 100%), footnoting assumptions on how they derived the benchmark, local market rate.
Investors aiming to increase farmers’ profits for their products may consider including this metric, which provides a measure of farmers’ above-benchmark income from sales of their products.
Value of the revenue from sales of the organization’s products/services during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, as well as Client Type (PD7993). Sales revenue should be revenue resulting from the ordinary operating activities of an organization. This is commonly referred to as earned revenue.
If available, organizations should collect this data directly from agribusinesses. Unless all farmers are being surveyed about their sales revenue before and after the sale of the replacement product, this metric is based on assumptions calculated by the organization. If based on assumptions, this data should be sourced from a survey of a representative sample of clients, and extrapolated to the broader client-base.
Perhaps the clearest indicator of impact on agribusiness is increased revenue. By tracking sales revenue (ideally before and after investment, though that data may not be available), impact in this sense is easily calculated. As this data may be difficult to obtain, the organization can estimate average revenue based on a representative sample.
Number of unique client individuals who were served by the organization and provided access, during the reporting period, to products/services they were unable to access prior to the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote any assumptions made in reporting this metric, as well as the source of their data.
Unless all clients are surveyed about their use of the service or product and sources before and after the sale of the replacement product, this metric is based on assumptions the organization calculates. If so, these data should be sourced from a survey of a representative sample of clients and then extrapolated to the broader client-base.
This metric captures the number of unique individuals who did not previously have access to the service or product who now do as a function of this investment. Essentially, it measures the filled market gap, demonstrating the extent to which this investment has provided new compared to additional access to risk mitigation. Investors may seek to focus on filling market gaps through direct access or by providing a comparable product at a lower price or via an innovative financing mechanism.
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.
Average agricultural yield per hectare, of clients (who were smallholder farmers) of the organization during the reporting period.
YieldClient 1+YieldClient 2+…+YieldClient n/n
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used.
This metric captures the average output per hectare per smallholder farmer among an organization’s clients. Organizations should not calculate this metric using aggregate data across all smallholder farmers, but rather using smallholder farmer–specific data, as noted in the calculation. Organizations should report yield from the most recent harvest and provide details on the unit of measure (e.g., kilograms per hectare). Organizations interested in reporting the yields of farmers who were suppliers should report Average Supplier Agriculture Yield: Smallholder (PI1405).
Investors aiming to increase yields of high-profit crops or livestock might consider including this metric, which can provide a valuable measure of how much improvement farmers gain from the offered products or services. Investors targeting post-harvest storage or sale of crops may find this metric less useful.
Number of unique women who were clients of the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used.
This metric captures the number of unique female clients who were recipients of the organization’s products or services during the reporting period. A customer who makes two purchases during a period should be counted only once. Organizations wishing to report total client transactions should instead refer to Client Transactions (PI5184). Many organizations cannot directly report the number of unique female customers who have purchased their products because of their relationship with their sales force (if, for example, they sell through local network distributors), and so some may need to make assumptions for this metric.
While Client Individuals: Smallholder (PI6372) captures the broader number of individuals reached, organizations interested in benefiting specific demographics may also choose to report Client Individuals: Female (PI8330), Client Individuals: Minorities/Previously Excluded (PI4237), Client Individuals: Disabilities (PI6266), or Client Individuals: Low Income (PI7098), or several of these.
Number of individuals who received training offered by the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote the type and extent of the training provided, as well as to whom the training was provided. See usage guidance for further information.
The metric captures the number of individuals who received training services (of any type) provided by the organization. Training may or may not be restricted to clients of the organization. Examples of training types, which should be footnoted, might include enterprise or business development and use of new technology or service. Training could be fee-based or provided for free. Training of an organization’s own employees is not included in this metric; this is instead captured by Employees Trained (OI4229). The organization may also choose to report Individuals Trained: Group-Based Training (PI7997).
Investors in organizations that include knowledge transfer, training, or follow-up support in addition to their products and services may consider including this metric in their data collection. Trainings and follow-up support can increase an investment’s positive impact. These data are useful both for reporting impact and for improving products and services.
Indicates whether the organization provides support to its clients after the sale of its product or service.
N/A
Organizations should footnote the type of support provided, along with costing information and details regarding how the client can access these services.
After-sale support can include a range of services to help clients use the product they purchased from the organization, including but not limited to: assistance in installation, product use training, trouble-shooting, maintenance, and upgrade or disposal of the product.
Investors in organizations that include knowledge transfer, training, or follow-up support in addition to their products and services may consider including this metric in their data collection.Ffollow-up support can increase an investment’s positive impact. These data are useful both for reporting impact and for improving products and services.
Number of individuals who sold goods or services to the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used.
This metric is meant for organizations who seek to support livelihoods through their supply chains. Organizations wishing to report supplier organizations should instead use Supplier Organizations: Total (PI9566) or its various submetrics.
Investors in organizations that include the purchase of crops or livestock, rather than exclusively providing inputs or insurance policies, may consider measuring their reach through suppliers instead of or in addition to clients. If measuring total suppliers, measuring Supplier Individuals: Female (PI1728) is recommended based on CSAF norms and as a proxy measure for gender empowerment outcomes.
Number of female individuals who sold goods or services to the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used.
This metric is meant for organizations who seek to support female individuals through their supply chains.
Investors in organizations that include the purchase of crops or livestock, rather than exclusively providing inputs or insurance policies, may consider measuring their reach through suppliers instead of or in addition to clients. If measuring total suppliers, measuring Supplier Individuals: Female (PI1728) is recommended based on CSAF norms and as a proxy measure for gender empowerment outcomes.
Indicates whether the organization fully discloses all pricing and cost information for its products and services to its clients.
N/A
Organizations should footnote details on the type of information disclosed and how it is disclosed, if applicable. See usage guidance for further information.
Pricing and cost information to footnote might include installments; terms and conditions of products, including all charges and fees; associated prices; penalties; linked products; third-party fees; and whether any of these can change over time. Financial organizations interested in more detail should reference the Smart Campaign’s Client Protection Principles (www.smartcampaign.org).
This metric may be relevant for investors interested in financial transparency and empowered smallholder decision-making.
Volume of water savings during the reporting period due to the organization’s products sold.
Units/Volume Sold: Total (PI1263)×(Water Consumption of Product Replaced (PD7621)−Water Consumption of Product (PD3931))
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used.
This metric captures the water savings to consumers for organizations that sell water-efficient products over their operating lifetime. When multiplying the savings from each product sold by Units/Volume Sold: Total (PI1263), organizations should use absolute number of units rather than volume. For example, the total water savings from sold products is calculated by multiplying the water savings achieved from each product sold by each unit sold.
Investors particularly targeting environmental sustainability, water conservation, waste reduction, or energy consumption may consider including these metrics in their impact frameworks.
Amount of reduction in waste over the operating lifetime of products sold by the organization during the reporting period.
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used. See usage guidance for further information.
Waste reduction captured through this metric may include efforts to reduce, reuse, or recycle waste or energy through the products sold by the organization. This metric captures waste reductions for organizations that produce and sell products that lead to waste reduction over their operating life. The waste reductions achieved may actually occur after the reporting period, throughout the remainder of the sold products’ operating life. Organizations that wish to report waste reductions achieved through the provision of services can use the metric Waste Reductions from Services Sold (PI5678).
Investors particularly targeting environmental sustainability, water conservation, waste reduction, or energy consumption may consider including these metrics in their impact frameworks.
Amount of energy savings due to the organization’s services that were sold during the reporting period.
Client Individuals: Total (PI4060)×Average energy or fuel savings per client over course of the reporting period
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used.
This metric captures the total consumer energy savings of organizations that provide services to help conserve or reduce clients’ energy use. For example, an organization that helps identify products or methods that conserve energy (e.g., lighting retrofits, boiler system optimization, weatherization) might use this metric to report the total energy savings to its clients based on services provided. Organizations should use the same reporting period in this calculation as is used with the number of clients and the average energy savings per client.
Investors particularly targeting environmental sustainability, water conservation, waste reduction, or energy consumption may consider including these metrics in their impact frameworks.
Number of people employed by the organization as of the end of the reporting period. This is the sum of all paid full-time and part-time employees.
N/A
Organizations should footnote any assumptions made in reporting against this metric, and should footnote the source for their data.
This metric is intended to capture the number of unique individuals employed by the organization in full- or part-time roles at the point in time defined by the reporting end date. This metric excludes Temporary Employees (OI9028).
Investments targeted toward gainful employment may consider including this metric, with the possible addition of Temporary Employees (OI9028).
Amount of pesticides used during the reporting period on land area directly controlled by the organization.
N/A
Organizations should footnote the classification of the pesticides by hazard level as listed under the World Health Organization (WHO) Acute Toxicity Hazard Categories.
Pesticide use refers to insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, disinfectants, and any substance intended for preventing, destroying, attracting, repelling, or controlling any pest, including unwanted species of plants or animals during the production, storage, transport, distribution, and processing of food, agricultural commodities, or animal feeds that may be administered to animals for the control of parasites. Organizations can refer to the IRIS glossary for additional information on the WHO Acute Toxicity Hazard Categories.
Organizations targeting investments toward improved agronomic practices or environmental sustainability may consider including this metric as a means of understanding how their products interact with other related inputs.
Ratio of the price savings obtained by the client from purchasing a product/service from the organization compared to the average price that would be otherwise paid for a similar product/service in the local market. Organizations should report these prices as of the end of the reporting period.
Cost of product or service sold by the organization−Cost of alternative similar product or serviceCost of alternative similar product or service
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including how the similar, local product/service and price were selected.
This metric measures the price discount/savings as a percentage compared to a similar product/service. For example, if the organization’s product costs $5 and the average price for a similar product is $10 in the local market, this would be calculated as: ($5 – $10)/ $10 = -0.5 or 50% savings. Negative numbers can be interpreted as savings to the consumer (client).
Investments aiming to improve access to credit and savings products may consider using this metric to understand their products in relation to others on the market.
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 details about the nature of the indirect control relationship and all assumptions used.
Unless all clients are surveyed regarding their land holdings and agricultural practices before and after the sale of the product or service, this metric is based on assumptions calculated by the organization. If so, these data should be sourced from a survey of a representative sample of clients, then extrapolated to the broader client-base.
This metric captures the land area that is under the organization’s indirect control or land that the organization supports or influences but does not directly cultivate or manage. Examples in which an organization indirectly controls land might include purchase contracts or sourcing from farmer cooperatives. Organizations that exert control of land practices on indirectly controlled land should footnote these details of control (e.g., when an organization specifies that farmers adhere to specific environmental practices).