Investments aligned with this Strategic Goal aim to address social, racial, and gender equity and justice through sustainable agriculture in developed markets.

The sections below include an overview of the approach 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.

What

Dimensions of Impact: WHAT

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:

What problem does the investment aim to address? For the target stakeholders experiencing the problem, how important is this change?

Sustainable agricultural systems will require improved equity, justice, well-being, and dignity for farm workers, tenant farmers, and farm owners; workers and business owners in the food and agricultural supply value chain; and rural and urban communities (1). Across developed markets, agricultural landowners have benefited by exploiting farm workers, keeping minority and previously excluded groups from accessing land and agricultural financing, excluding low-income and minority communities from healthy food access, and polluting the water and air in rural communities. As these inequities are spread systematically throughout the food system, solutions must be oriented toward a new economy of and for environmental justice, labor rights, immigration rights, food justice, climate justice, and human rights (2). While public policy is required to address many root causes of these inequities, capital channeled to support social equity and justice in sustainable agriculture can demonstrate the possible outcomes of such policy.

Though the context and history of social, racial, and gender discrimination are unique to each country, common shared themes include the treatment of farm and food system workers, access to land and agricultural financing, and land and wealth dispossession. Historically disadvantaged farmers have had less access to land, financial resources, information, political standing, and educational and professional trajectories, limiting their ability to shape the food system (3).

In the United States, structural and institutional racism has excluded Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color from the means of building wealth, through agriculture and beyond, creating wage and wealth gaps that put multiple generations at a disadvantage (3). Further exacerbating their disadvantage are discriminatory practices in legal and financing services for agriculture causing farm business and farmland loss (4). In the United Kingdom, land concentration is one of the greatest injustices underlying the UK’s food system, reflecting a history of land enclosure and unequal power relations extending back more than 1,000 years (5). Besides their limited access to farmland and its cost, new entrants in the UK must also navigate planning policies that restrict farm infrastructure and housing (6).

Many countries do not recognize, the collective rights of Indigenous peoples or have not completed the necessary procedures to recognize their rights, such as resource mapping, demarcation, and titling. Even when Indigenous peoples have obtained legal protection or title deeds to their lands and resources, lacking enforcement of laws—or contradictory laws—frequently de facto deny the rights of Indigenous peoples (7). Migrant farmers, who often travel from poorer countries to industrialized ones, face unsafe working conditions and are vulnerable to exploitation, with little opportunity to advance into farm management or ownership (8).

Investments aligned with this Strategic Goal can:

  • increase the viability of farm enterprises owned and controlled by minority and previously excluded populations, including women and Indigenous people and racial, ethnic, and gender and sexual minority groups;
  • increase land access for women, Indigenous people, and previously excluded racial, ethnic, gender and sexual minority communities;
  • increase sustainable agricultural products purchased from enterprises owned and controlled by women, Indigenous people, and previously excluded racial, ethnic, gender and sexual minority communities;
  • improve healthy food access for low-income individuals, Indigenous people, and previously excluded racial, ethnic, gender and sexual minority communities;
  • dismantle racist institutions, policies, and practices that disadvantage Indigenous, racial, and ethnic minority farmers and communities at both the organizational level and through increased investments in these groups;
  • dismantle gendered, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic institutions, policies, and practices at both the organizational level and through increased investments in these groups; and
  • realize fair and living wages for farm workers and improve workplace safety and work conditions.

For more on gender equity, see the Gender theme in the Navigating Impact Project.

What is the scale of the problem?

Over the past century, global competition has led to enormous consolidation and geographic concentration of agricultural production, which has limited employment opportunities, raised demand for low-wage migrant labor, led workers to be treated unfairly, raised production of processed and unhealthy foods, increased environmental health risks, and decimated rural economies (8,11,12,13). In the United States, fewer than 50,000 farms hire more than 90% of all farm workers, of whom 70% were born outside the United States (8). The European Union’s agricultural sector employs almost 500,000 seasonal workers from outside the EU; in Spain, migrant labor comprises 80% of the agricultural workforce (14). Similar concentrations exist in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (8).

Migrant workers are vulnerable to exploitation by employers, including withheld income and health and safety violations, with limited legal recourse with or without the fear of retaliation (11). Not only do migrant farmworkers suffer high rates of toxic chemical injuries and skin disorders due to unsafe working conditions with inadequate personal protective equipment (15), but their children also face high exposure to pesticides and other chemicals (15). Undocumented women in agriculture are among the most vulnerable workers in society, filling the economy’s lowest-paying jobs and providing the backbreaking labor that brings food to the table in developed markets. They routinely face wage theft and an array of other abuses, including sexual harassment and gender-based violence (15): 80% have reported being victims of sexual violence while working in agriculture (10).

In the United States, racial disparity in food system labor leads to a far greater food insecurity among farm and food workers of color compared to their white counterparts. While white food workers earn on average USD 25,024 annually, about 20% lower than the median income, and workers of color make just USD 19,349. Women of color suffer the most (5).** The effects of these systems harm both workers in food businesses and communities aiming to access the food produced: 21 percent of LGBTQIA people report food insecurity over a one-year period, a higher percentage than their heterosexual and cisgender white counterparts (10). In Canada, nearly one in two households in First Nations are food insecure, compared with one out of nine white Canadian households (16).

Limited access to land is another consequence of farm consolidation and of institutional and structural social, racial, and gender injustice. Land grabs and discriminatory practices have made it challenging for Black and Indigenous, socially disadvantaged farmers to access land. For example, in the United States, legislation has led Native Americans to lose ownership and control of two-thirds of their reservation lands, a total of 90 million acres (17). Land dispossession through discriminatory practices over the past century have led to a 90% loss of Black-owned farmland in the United States. Today, 98% of private rural land is owned by white people; less than 1% is Black owned (18). Social disparities in land ownership also exist in the UK, where 1% of the population owns more than half the land (5). In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been fighting for centuries for land rights and now hold legal rights to approximately 40% of Australia’s land mass (19).

**For more on earnings and job quality, see the Quality Jobs theme in IRIS+.

Who

Dimensions of Impact: WHO

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:

Who (people, planet, or both) is helped through investments aligned with this Strategic Goal?

Investments in social, racial, and gender justice in sustainable agriculture affect farm and food system workers, migrant workers, tenant farmers, farmland owners, and low-income communities, including the following examples.

  • Black farm business owners: Black farmers, especially those renting land, can face discrimination in a system that provides legal and social power to landowners. Farmers who are vulnerable tenants because of their race, ethnicity, legal status, or farming history are particularly at risk for predatory lease arrangements (18). In 1910, one in seven farmers were Black and held titles to approximately 16–19 million acres of farmland. Over the next century, 98% of Black farmers were dispossessed through discriminatory practices at the USDA and various federal farm programs (18). Notwithstanding the general industry trend towards consolidation of farmland, Black farmers have lost their land at estimated rate more than twice that of white-owned farmers (11).
  • Indigenous, racial, gender, and ethnic minority and women farm workers, including migrant farmers: The consolidation of farmland and farm business across the developed world has created new demand for farm labor. At the same time, the number of small farmers, essentially self-reliant ones, is decreasing, with virtually no country talking about land redistribution and/or the important and vital support to peasant agriculture in its government programs. Further, migrant farmers are often faced with inadequate housing, poor and unsafe working conditions, limited legal rights, and reduced wages (21). Farm workers also lack access to professional development and career advancement opportunities that allow them to take on greater work responsibility and managerial roles that in turn offer higher compensation (8).
  • Indigenous farm business owners: Indigenous peoples across the world face dispossession of land and resources, forced removal or relocation, and denial of land rights and accompanying violence. Although Indigenous lands make up around 20 percent of global land, they contain 80 percent of the world’s remaining biodiversity, a clear sign that Indigenous peoples are the most effective stewards of the environment (22). Reclaiming access to these natural resources and formalizing land tenure rights is an essential foundation for vulnerable Indigenous peoples to maintain their livelihoods; exercise their civil, social, cultural, political, and economic rights; and contribute to local, national, and global sustainable development (23).
  • LGBTQIA farm business owners: LGBTQIA farmers face discrimination and isolation in a heteronormative family farming dominant culture. Emerging research on sexually diverse immigrant farmers in California has demonstrated how the very meaning of sexuality-related language may vary across race, ethnicity, and culture. Farmworkers reported that they did not see themselves as part of any definable LGBTQIA community due to factors such as being ignored by mainstream LGBTQIA organizations, the temporal and transitory nature of much of the farm work, the taboo of discussing sexuality and gender identity in some immigrant farmer circles, and some individuals rejecting language used to label sexual identities (10). Those farmers who do identify as LGBTQIA face further challenges — farmers often rely on a spouse to either help in the farm’s operations or support its finances; this gendered and traditional view excludes LGBTQIA farmers who struggle to see themselves or find role models in traditional agricultural communities (9).

A queer lens on agriculture asks how heteronormativity impacts gender dynamics and sexual minorities in agriculture. It also exposes how sexuality organizes food production for all those who farm because everybody – regardless of their gender or sexuality – enacts and is affected by gender and sexual relations. A queer lens is a relational agriculture lens that appreciates the full social relational diversity of agriculture and how agriculture’s inherent social relationality impacts sustainability (10).

  • Low-income, Indigenous, racial, ethnic, and gender and sexual minority farming communities: Food insecurity in developed countries ranges from 8-20%, mostly due to inequality (24). Increasing production by small and mid-sized farms can increase the supply of a variety of healthy, sustainably produced foods near the communities where it may be consumed. Recent studies have suggested that increased availability of these foods can improve community health outcomes (25). Increasing the viability of small and mid-sized farms creates vibrant agricultural economies with more farmers and more local jobs, keeping money spent bridging food gaps circulating in the community’s economy and preserving working farmland for food production (25).
  • Women farm business owners: Women face inequities in agriculture, particularly in industrialized systems. In fact, more female farmers tend to participate in sustainable agriculture than in industrial systems because sustainable agriculture generally uses smaller plots, less machinery, and therefore, less initial capital investment than industrial agriculture. In Canada, for example, 30% of farm operators are women who face challenges around socialization and gender roles, time and work-life balance, stereotypes, sexism and discrimination, credibility and confidence, networking, and access to capital and financing (20). Sustainable agriculture is therefore more accessible to women who face discrimination in accessing land, machinery, and capital (10).

What are the geographic attributes of those who are affected?

Social, racial, and gender inequities exist all over the world. In industrialized agriculture and developed markets, agriculture is highly concentrated. Large firms or those who traditionally have been advantaged often leverage their positions for greater economic gains and political power, while those who are traditionally excluded remain further marginalized (26). In the United States, just 5% of all farms account for 75% of all agricultural production. In Europe, large farms—those with more than 100 hectares—represent just 3% of 12 million farms but control half of all farmland (27).

Regional policies also impact the scale of social, racial, and gender injustice in sustainable agriculture. For example, in Canada, where the Pacific Coast is unceded Indigenous territory, First Nations have been excluded from conversations and agreements that allow corporate interests to control farmland and waterways (28). Centuries of assimilation and colonization policies have further undermined Indigenous farmers in Canada (29). In the United States, since the 1865 abolition of slavery, Black farmers have continued to face a series of discriminatory practices, including exclusion from a variety of federal farm programs, frequent denial of loans and credit, and inability to access legal defense against fraud, besides acts of violence and intimidation. Today, less than 1% of farmland in the United States is Black-owned, one-tenth of the figure a century ago (18).

Contribution

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:

How can investments in line with this Strategic Goal contribute to outcomes, and are these investments’ effects likely better, worse, or neutral than what would happen otherwise

Organizations can consider contribution at two levels—enterprise 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.

Investors can contribute as follows toward addressing larger issues related to social, racial, and gender equity and justice through sustainable agriculture.

  • Grow new or undersupplied capital markets. Infrastructure investments from philanthropy, government, and the private sector—such as targeted grants and incentives—are needed to fund Indigenous-, racial-, and gender and sexual minority-led improvements on farms. These improvements can include washing, packing, storage, and processing facilities and improvements in farming communities, such as internet access, kitchen equipment in school cafeterias (to enable local sourcing from historically disadvantaged farmers), and affordable housing (3). Indeed, public and private grants are vital for food system businesses alongside investment, especially for early-stage enterprises with high fixed costs. Because previously excluded farmers and food system organizations often lack the resources to apply for larger grants and develop relationships with investors, they are perpetually excluded from larger funding opportunities. Re-prioritization of capital will be needed to fully resource minority-led and previously excluded food system businesses.
  • Provide flexible capital. Grants, subsidies, and incentives from government and philanthropy, as well as financial safety nets, like insurance and relief programs, can make it easier for Indigenous, racial, and gender and sexual minority farmers to rent, finance, and own land (3). Flexible capital can also fund minority-led agricultural training programs, technical assistance, technologies, and research to further support the sustainable agricultural ecosystem. Investors must also accept appropriate financial return expectations up to, in some cases, acknowledging that social and environmental returns can outweigh economic returns.
  • Signal that impact matters. Investments in a sustainable food system have attracted increasing interest over the past several years. The 2020 Report on U.S. Sustainable and Impact Investing Trends identified an 81% increase since 2018 in investments in sustainable natural resources and agriculture, totaling USD 2.4 trillion in assets under management (44). To narrow the field even further, Croatan Institute identified 127 U.S.-focused investable strategies, with combined assets under management of USD 321.1 billion, that explicitly integrate sustainable food and agriculture thematically or as criteria in their investment process (45).
  • Engage actively. Investors can address systemic and institutional inequalities by ensuring that their investments in local and sustainable food systems prioritize fair treatment, clean and safe housing, health care, and livable wages for workers across the supply chain—values that are often assumed but not always true (25). Institutions can offer legal aid to help women and Indigenous, racial, ethnic, and gender and sexual minorities access and retain land by, for example, helping them to understanding ownership and business structures (3). Investors can also engage through the proxy process, as well as through dialogue with companies, engagement on related policy issues, and assertive action to support social equity and justice (46).

How Much

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:

How many target stakeholders can experience the outcome through investments aligned with this Strategic Goal?

A combination of policy and investment can attain social, racial, and gender justice.

Globally, Indigenous peoples claim customary rights to more than half of the planet’s lands and forest but have legal rights to just 18% (30). In the United States, historic discrimination within the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in federal farm assistance and lending programs denied thousands of Native American farmers and ranchers low-interest loans, even while similar loans to white farmers and ranchers were approved (31). Discrimination by the USDA similarly caused Black farmers to lose millions of acres of farmland, robbing Black farmers and their families of hundreds of billions of dollars of inter-generational wealth (32,33). Even though Black, Indigenous, and other people of color represent nearly one-quarter of the U.S. population, they operate less than 5% of the nation’s declining number of farms and cultivate less than 1% of its farmland by acreage (3). Further, most of the estimated 2.4 million farmworkers in the United States are people of color who do not own or operate farms of their own (3). American Indian and Alaska Native farms make up only 3% of all farms in the United States, producing USD 3.5 billion in products as of 2017 (34,35).

In North America and Europe, most agricultural workers are migrants—over 70% in North America and over 50% in Europe (36). Investment in previously excluded and minority groups can begin to address some of these inequities experienced in agriculture and redistribute wealth to those who have been excluded or discriminated against, including farm owners and farm workers.

How much change can target stakeholders experience through investments aligned with this Strategic Goal?

Target stakeholders will experience long-term changes through this strategic goal increased minority land tenure and farm business ownership, greater worker equity, improved worker health and safety, and more resilient communities. The following are examples of such changes.

  • Through investments in Indigenous land management activities in Australia, there have been a range of benefits including improved health outcomes (e.g., lowered risk of diabetes and heart attack) that have saved an estimated USD 260,000 annually in one community’s health care costs, reduced welfare payments and increased tax revenue, and environmental benefits such as lower rates of weed infestation and healthier fire regimes (37).
  • Organic and sustainable agriculture, by comparison to conventional agriculture, can lead to a lower county-level poverty rate and higher median household incomes (38). Sustainable agriculture that prioritizes social equity could therefore support improved economic outcomes for historically disadvantaged communities, including women, low-income, rural, Indigenous-, racial-, ethnic-, and gender- and sexual-minority communities.
  • In contexts where machines, agrochemicals, and agribusiness have decimated the peasant system and economy, new entrants that are willing to rebuild a human- and nature-based systems of agriculture can build a more sustainable agricultural system (39). Small farms are proportionally less resource-intensive using far fewer fossil fuels for both production and distribution and producing more food per unit of land than large industrial farms (40).
  • Historically disadvantaged farmers who are new to farming can gain greater access to farmland and low-interest loans through the support of land trusts and easements. Further access to place-based, farmer- and minority-led trainings, mentorship, and technical assistance can support new farm businesses’ long-term success (41).
  • Through farmer health and safety and sexual harassment trainings and policies, historically disadvantaged farm workers can feel empowered to safely report and address violations, creating a culture of open communication in which farm workers are not afraid to speak up (42).
  • In building relationships and trust with food system organizations led by historically disadvantaged communities, investors can implement place-based restorative and regenerative investment practices that give these organizations flexible capital and decision-making power to accelerate their impact on the land and their communities (43).

Risk

Dimensions of Impact: RISK

Key questions in this dimension include:

What impact risks do investments aligned with this Strategic Goal run? How can investments mitigate them?

The following are some impact risk factors for investments in line with this Strategic Goal.

  • Stakeholder Participation Risk. Without taking into consideration the perspectives, knowledge, and lifeways of women and Indigenous peoples, racial, ethnic, and gender and sexual minority groups, investments can fall short of impact. A white perspective—pervasive across the food system, food policies, and food programs—includes tropes of individualism, paternalism, neoliberalism, and universalism inhibiting the participation of minorities and previously excluded groups and constraining those food systems from meaningfully addressing inequalities (47). To mitigate this risk, funding must be channeled to minority-led organizations working to address social equity and justice in sustainable agriculture.
  • Execution Risk. Impact aligned with this Strategic Goal requires adopting a holistic viewpoint. On an investor survey conducted by RSF Social Finance, most funders were focused on food access for underserved communities rather than issues across the supply chain, including fair wages and healthcare for laborers. Education and awareness on issues across the supply chain are needed in order for investing to catalyze reform (25). Investors must also focus on women and Indigenous peoples, racial, ethnic, and gender and sexual minority farmer-owners so that they have access to land, resources, and technical assistance. Food and agriculture operations have unique characteristics, such as high up-front costs, seasonal cash flows, and small margins. To mitigate this risk, investors must layer capital and alternative funding vehicles against these enterprises’ risk, return, and liquidity profiles (25).
  • Alignment Risk. Investments made within traditional capital markets risk perpetuating extractive models of finance. A just transition requires investors to consider social and environmental impact alongside economic return.

What are likely consequences of these impact risk factors?

These risk factors could lead to investments and solutions that are white-led and exclusive of the communities they are trying to serve. This can lead to further discrimination and racism in the food system, limit land access for women and Indigenous peoples, racial, ethnic, and gender and sexual minority farmers, and continue exploitation of farm workers.  

Illustrative Investment

Viva Farms in Skagit County, Washington offers farmer training for organic production before leasing land to starting farmers and connecting them to markets for their produce. Once farmers are financially strong enough to purchase their own land, Viva helps them find funding from local community development financial institutions. Most farmers they serve are immigrants who lack access to this type of training and financing. To support its operations, Viva Farms has been funded with a combination of grants and a program related investment loan from RSF Social Finance (48).

California Harvesters, Inc. (CHI) is an employee-benefit company that contracts agricultural labor to California growers in the Central Valley. They have raised USD 1.8 million from a variety of funding partners including The Working World, Renewable Resources Group, and Heron Foundation. Since their 2018 launch, CHI has recruited 1,200 workers, increased productivity by 52%,, and maintained a 45% retention rate. In their first year, they were able to pay their field workers USD 0.25 per hour higher than minimum wage and offered both a health care plan for employees and a small weekly copay to add dependent coverage (49). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, CHI provided personal protective equipment and safety training for employees; as a result, fewer than 1% of CHI employees tested positive for COVID-19 compared to 10% of field workers at other farm labor contractors. CHI also provides all of its employees with comprehensive paid training, fostering a culture of competence and confidence, while developing an internal ladder and growth opportunities for CHI employees (50).

Draw on Evidence

This mapped evidence shows what outcomes and impacts this strategy can have, based on academic and field research.

NESTA: 2
Migrant Workers in Commercial Agriculture

Martin, Philip L. “Migrant Workers in Commercial Agriculture.” International Labour Office, 2016. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---migrant/documents/publication/wcms_538710.pdf.

NESTA: 2
Injustice on Our Plates

Bauer, Mary, and Mónica Ramírez. “Injustice On Our Plates.” Southern Poverty Law Center, November 8, 2010. https://www.splcenter.org/20101107/injustice-our-plates.

NESTA: 2
Changing Food Systems and Inequality: Implications for Food Security and Public Policy

Guinn, Andrew, and Danny Hamrick. “Changing Food Systems and Inequality: Implications for Food Security and Public Policy.” Duke University Center on Globalization, Governance and Competitiveness, September 2014. https://gvcc.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014-09-Duke.-Guinn-Hamrick-etc-food-systems-inequity.pdf.

NESTA: 2
Migrant Domestic Workers Across the World: global and regional estimates

“Migrant Domestic Workers Across the World: Global and Regional Estimates .” GLOBAL ACTION PROGRAMME ON MIGRANT DOMESTIC WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES. International Labour Organization (ILO), 2016. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---migrant/documents/briefingnote/wcms_490162.pdf.

NESTA: 2
Economic impact of organic agriculture hotspots in the United States

Marasteanu, I. & Jaenicke, Edward. (2018). Economic impact of organic agriculture hotspots in the United States. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 34. 1-22. 10.1017/S1742170518000066.

NESTA: 1
Land concentration, land grabbing and people’s struggles in Europe

European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC), and Hands-Off The Land (HOTL) Alliance. “Land Concentration, Land Grabbing and People’s Struggles in Europe.” Transnational Institute, April 2013. https://www.tni.org/en/publication/land-concentration-land-grabbing-and-peoples-struggles-in-europe-0.

NESTA: 1
Race and Corporate Power in the US Food System: Examining the Farm Bill

Elsheikh, Elsadig. “Race and Corporate Power in the US Food System: Examining the Farm Bill.” FoodFirst, June 2016. https://foodfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/DRnumber2_VF.pdf.

NESTA: 1
The US Farm Bill: Corporate Power and Structural Racialization in the United States Food System

Ayazi, Hossein, and Elsadig Elsheikh. “The U.S. Farm Bill: Corporate Power and Structural Racialization in the United States Food System.” 2015. The U.S. Farm Bill: Corporate Power and Structural Racialization in the United States Food System. Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society. https://www.academia.edu/18941323/The_U_S_Farm_Bill_Corporate_Power_and_Structural_Racialization_in_the_United_States_Food_System_2015_.

NESTA: 1
Today's Food System: How Healthy Is It?

Wallinga D. (2009). Today’s Food System: How Healthy Is It?. Journal of hunger & environmental nutrition, 4(3-4), 251–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320240903336977

NESTA: 1
Community health risks of industrial agriculture

“Community Health Risks of Industrial Agriculture.” Delivering Community Benefit: Healthy Food Playbook, 2018. https://foodcommunitybenefit.noharm.org/resources/community-health-needs-assessment/community-health-risks-industrial-agriculture.

NESTA: 1
Land Access for Beginning and Disadvantaged Farmers

Figueroa, Meleiza, and Leah Penniman. “Land Access for Beginning and Disadvantaged Farmers.” Data For Progress. GREEN NEW DEAL POLICY SERIES: FOOD & AGRICULTURE, March 30, 2020. https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/land-access-for-beginning-disadvantaged-farmers.

NESTA: 1
Bridging the Gaps: Funding and Social Equity across the Food System Supply Chain

Foley, Kyle, Taryn Goodman, and Bridget McElroy. “Bridging the Gaps: Funding and Social Equity Across the Food System Supply Chain.” RSF Social Finance , August 2012. https://community-wealth.org/content/bridging-gaps-funding-and-social-equity-across-food-system-supply-chain.

NESTA: 1
Systematic Inequality: How America's Structural Racism Helped Create the Black-White Wealth Gap

Solomon, Danyelle, Angela Hanks, and Christian E Weller. “Systematic Inequality.” Center for American Progress, February 2018. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2018/02/21/447051/systematic-inequality/.

NESTA: 1
Regaining our Future: An Assessment of Risks and Opportunities for Native Communities in the 2018 Farm Bill

Simms Hipp, Janie, and Colby D Duren. “Regaining Our Future: An Assessment of Risks and Opportunities for Native Communities in the 2018 Farm Bill.” Seeds of Native Health, June 2017. https://seedsofnativehealth.org/regaining-our-future-report/.

NESTA: 1
Identifying and Countering White Supremacy Culture in Food Systems

Conrad, Alison. “Identifying and Countering White Supremacy Culture in Food Systems.” Duke Sanford: World Food Policy Center, September 2020. https://wfpc.sanford.duke.edu/reports/identifying-and-countering-white-supremacy-culture-food-systems.

NESTA: 1
Relational Agriculture: Gender, Sexuality, and Sustainability in U.S. Farming

Isaac Sohn Leslie, Jaclyn Wypler & Michael Mayerfeld Bell (2019) Relational Agriculture: Gender, Sexuality, and Sustainability in U.S. Farming, Society & Natural Resources, 32:8, 853-874, DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2019.1610626

NESTA: 1
Food Insecurity and Hunger in Rich Countries—It Is Time for Action against Inequality

Pollard, Christina M; Booth, Sue. 2019. “Food Insecurity and Hunger in Rich Countries—It Is Time for Action against Inequality” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, no. 10: 1804. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101804

NESTA: 1
Building the Case for Racial Equity in the Food System

Giancatarino, Anthony, and Simran Noor. “Building the Case for Racial Equity in the Food System.” Center for Social Inclusion, 2014. https://community-wealth.org/content/building-case-racial-equity-food-system.

NESTA: 1
Supporting the Next Generation of Farmers

“Supporting the Next Generation of Farmers: Proposals for Support Schemes to Assist the Establishment and Success of New Entrants to Agroecological Farming.” Land Workers’ Alliance, 2019.

Each resource is assigned a rating of rigor according to the NESTA Standards of Evidence.

Define Metrics

Core Metrics

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.

Additional Metrics

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.