The following article was published in the November 2025 issue of the International Review of Contemporary Law, the journal of the IADL, focusing on climate and social justice.
Climate Resilience and Social Justice in Agri-Food Value Chains: The Role of Female Actors and Regulation for Transformation
Christine Altenbuchner and Robert Diendorfer
Abstract
The resilience of agri-food supply chains is a critical factor in ensuring food security and sustainability in the face of climate change and socio-economic challenges. However, these systems are increasingly vulnerable to environmental degradation, unequal power dynamics, and social disparities. This article explores the intersection of climate resilience and social justice in agri-food value chains, with a particular focus on the role of female actors and the regulatory frameworks that enable transformation. Drawing on existing research and theoretical frameworks, the article highlights the importance of gender-transformative approaches, participatory methods, and innovative scaling strategies in fostering resilience and equity in agri-food systems. By integrating concepts such as the Proximity Framework and resilience thinking, this study provides insights into how agri-food value chains can adapt to climate-related shocks while addressing systemic inequalities.
Introduction
Agri-food supply chains are essential components of the global food system, connecting producers, processors, distributors, and consumers. These systems are increasingly exposed to climate-related shocks, such as extreme weather events, and gradual stressors, such as changing precipitation patterns and rising temperatures.1 The impacts of these disruptions are not evenly distributed; they disproportionately affect marginalized groups, including smallholder farmers and women, who often lack the resources and institutional support needed to adapt.2
Resilience in agri-food supply chains is defined as the ability of these systems to withstand, adapt to, and recover from disruptions while maintaining their essential functions.3 However, resilience alone is insufficient if it perpetuates existing inequalities or unsustainable practices. Instead, resilience must be linked to transformative change that addresses the root causes of vulnerability and promotes equity and sustainability.4 This article examines how the integration of resilience thinking, gender-transformative approaches, and regulatory frameworks can foster climate resilience and social justice in agri-food value chains.
Resilience in Agri-Food Value Chains
Resilience in agri-food supply chains builds on the concept of social-ecological systems, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of human and natural systems.5 Resilience encompasses three key features: buffer capacity, self-organization, and the capacity for learning and adaptation.6 These features enable systems to absorb shocks, reorganize, and continue functioning in the face of disruptions. However, resilience is not inherently positive; it can also reinforce undesirable systems, such as those characterized by environmental degradation or social inequality.7 In the context of agri-food value chains, resilience must be closely tied to transformation, enabling systems to effectively respond to changing conditions. Transformation involves fundamental changes in the structures, processes, and relationships that underpin a system, enabling it to adapt to new conditions and challenges.8 For example, shifting from long, globalized value chains to shorter, localized ones can enhance resilience by reducing transportation times and vulnerabilities to external shocks.9 Similarly, fostering collaborative relationships among value chain actors can improve information sharing, joint problem-solving, and collective decision-making, all of which contribute to resilience.10
Proximity and Resilience: How Do Value Chain Actors Interact?
The Proximity Framework, developed by Edelmann et al. (2022),11 provides a nuanced perspective on resilience by emphasizing the importance of spatial and relational proximity. Spatial proximity refers to the physical closeness of actors within a value chain, while relational proximity focuses on the strength of social and organizational ties. Both forms of proximity play a critical role in shaping the resilience of agri-food value chains. For instance, local sourcing and distribution networks can enhance adaptability by reducing dependencies on global markets and minimizing exposure to external shocks. Relational proximity, on the other hand, fosters trust, collaboration, and mutual support among value chain actors, enabling them to respond more effectively to disruptions.
The Proximity Framework also highlights the importance of governance structures and institutional arrangements in building resilience. Adaptive governance, which emphasizes flexibility, inclusivity, and collaboration, is particularly important for managing complex systems such as agri-food value chains.12 By fostering spatial and relational proximity, adaptive governance can create the conditions for transformative change in agri-food systems.
Vulnerabilities in Agri-Food Value Chains and The Role of Female Actors for Resilience
Agri-food value chains are highly vulnerable to climate-related shocks and socio-economic disruptions. Studies have shown that long, globalized value chains are particularly susceptible to external shocks, such as extreme weather events, trade disruptions, and pandemics.13 These vulnerabilities are exacerbated by unequal power dynamics within value chains, which often marginalize smallholder farmers and other vulnerable groups.14 For example, power asymmetries between producers and buyers can lead to exploitative practices, such as low prices and unfair contract terms, which undermine the resilience of farming communities.15
Women play a pivotal role in agri-food value chains, particularly in smallholder farming systems. However, their contributions are often undervalued and overlooked, leading to systemic inequalities that limit their participation and decision-making power.16 Research has shown that empowering women can have transformative effects on agri-food systems, enhancing resilience, productivity, and sustainability.17 For instance, women-led cooperatives in the cocoa sector have demonstrated the potential for collective action to improve market access, reduce vulnerabilities, and increase value retention for producers.18
Gender-Transformative Approaches
Gender-transformative approaches aim to address the root causes of gender inequality by challenging entrenched norms, power dynamics, and institutional barriers.19 These approaches go beyond surface-level changes to promote lasting shifts in gender relations, making them essential for achieving social justice in agri-food systems. Women play critical roles in agricultural production, processing, and marketing, yet they often face systemic barriers to participation and decision-making, such as limited access to land, credit, and education.20
By integrating gender-transformative approaches into resilience thinking, agri-food value chains can become more inclusive and equitable. For example, empowering women through capacity-building programs, access to resources, and leadership opportunities can enhance their adaptive capacity and resilience. Moreover, addressing gender-based vulnerabilities can lead to broader social and economic benefits, such as improved household food security and community well-being.21
Social Justice and Resilience through Regulation
Sustainability regulation such as the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act or the European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) aim to protect vulnerable groups against a wide range of human rights violations such as child labor, forced labor, discrimination or land grabbing. They can act as an important pillar in scaling up social justice within (agri-food) supply chains by enforcing businesses to implement grievance mechanisms, execute risk management practices, and by holding them accountable under civil law. In addition, mandatory regulation provides increased visibility of marginalized individuals in global supply chains, as the obligatory risk analysis requires businesses to consider the effects of their economic activities on vulnerable groups and the environment. Lastly, due diligence regulation requires companies to take preventative and remedial actions, which consequently lead to a stronger integration of rightsholders’ perspectives in core business activities. By compelling economic actors to acknowledge and respect the rights of marginalized people at risk of human rights violations or exploitation, regulatory policies can contribute towards breaking up structural inequalities and global North-South imbalances.
The agricultural sector is especially prone to poor working conditions, unequal payment and a lack of social security systems. Women are particularly vulnerable for exploitative practices. They are disproportionately affected by gender discrimination such as inadequate access to financial services, lack of effective remedies, gender-based violence, or limited ownership and control of land. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has recognized the risk of gender-specific discrimination, and called upon companies to include gender as a fundamental component in their due diligence considerations.22 Given both the elevated risk of discrimination against women and depriving them of their equal share in the global workforce (e.g. in the textile or agriculture sector), currently existing mandatory due diligence legislation appears insufficient in addressing these specific vulnerabilities faced by women. While mandatory due diligence regulation urges businesses to adhere to human rights in general, dedicated mechanisms to address gender-specific discrimination and violence are still lacking.
Which actions to take? – Pathways for Transformation
Transformative change in agri-food value chains requires a combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches, as well as different scaling strategies. Bottom-up approaches, such as participatory action research and community-based initiatives, empower local actors to co-create solutions that address their specific needs and challenges.23 Top-down approaches, such as policy reforms and institutional support, create the enabling conditions for systemic change by addressing structural barriers and power asymmetries.24
Scaling strategies are also critical for amplifying the impact of transformative practices. This can happen in three ways: Scaling out involves replicating successful practices across different contexts, while scaling up focuses on influencing policy and institutional frameworks to support systemic change. Scaling deep, on the other hand, emphasizes embedding new values and cultural practices within communities to ensure lasting transformation.25 These strategies play a pivotal role in transforming agri-food supply chains to ensure long-lasting resilience and social justice. Transformation processes can only be initiated when all three strategies are addressed together.
Transformation to climate resilience and social justice in agri-food-value chains (strongly adapted from Moore et al., 201526 and System Change Lab Report et al 202127)
Scaling Deep. Pioneers, often isolated in their actions but driven by an innovative mindset, are the initial drivers of scaling deep strategies. By reorganizing their supply chains, these pioneers and best-practice value chains can transform their operations and foster resilience. Scaling deep is rooted in fundamental values such as mutual trust, shared sustainability goals, and heightened awareness. Both policymakers and businesses can support scaling deep strategies by providing a seat at the table for farmer groups and associations, investing in their entrepreneurial knowledge, and triggering co-learning processes. These efforts are motivated by a shared vision of building a resilient system.
Scaling Out. Farmers, once they recognize their pivotal role in resilient agri-food value chains, can form farmer or innovator groups and establish networks with businesses, organizations, and scientists. Together, they can work toward a common vision to address future challenges, particularly those posed by climate change. Businesses can contribute to the resilience of supply chains by supporting these actions or co-creating transformative steps. In the short term, businesses can provide farmers with a living income, enabling them to invest in more resilient measures, which are often constrained by current market prices. Over the long term, businesses can assist farming communities in their transformation processes by facilitating actions such as building innovator and female farmer groups, providing crop insurance for smallholder farmers, supporting the implementation of agro-ecological measures like agroforestry, offering technology to measure biomass increases, and investing in water management systems. By building networks, businesses can expand their actions, inspire other companies to adopt similar strategies, and advocate for shared interests and a level playing field.
Scaling Up. Scaling up involves supporting policies and providing financial resources to businesses during the transformation process. The aim is to encourage investments in farmers and promote changes in sourcing strategies. Regulatory policies can enhance structural change by establishing a mandatory framework that market actors have to follow and adjust to. They complement guidelines that are based on voluntariness, thereby offering potential for widespread scale-up of social justice in agri-food supply chains. Public supporting mechanisms and additional funding accompanying policy implementation are crucial to avoid uneven burden sharing at the expense of smallholder farmers or other vulnerable groups who must adjust to the new regulation.
Mandatory Sustainability Regulation as a Tool for Transformation – The Case of Germanys’ Supply Chain Act
Since the publication of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in 2011, the public and political debate about corporate responsibility in global supply chains has gained momentum. International frameworks such as the UN Guiding Principles or the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are decisive foundations for corporate due diligence. They offer guidance for businesses but have a non-binding character to them, as they are purely voluntary. However, in recent years a shift from voluntary due diligence frameworks to legally binding sustainability regulation can be observed.
A prominent example illustrating this shift is the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act. In 2016, the German government adopted the German National Plan on Business and Human Rights (NAP) to work towards just globalization. The NAP aims to promote corporate responsibility and adherence to human rights and sees businesses as a key factor in doing so. The implementation of the NAP was accompanied by a multi-annual study to analyze if voluntary due diligence standards (such as the UNGP or OECD Guidelines for MNE) are sufficient in ensuring adherence to human rights in global supply chains. According to the study, only 17 to 19 percent of businesses were able to fulfill their due diligence requirements.28 The results were interpreted as clear evidence that there is a necessity for mandatory policies on corporate accountability to ensure effective due diligence and to reach the targets set out in the NAP. The question was no longer if there should be mandatory due diligence or not, but how it should be set up.29 Consequently, the legally binding German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act was adopted in 2023. Its’ implementation was accompanied by a wide range of supporting mechanisms, helping businesses in navigating and implementing successful due diligence.
While voluntary sustainability standards can act as a guideline for companies and as important international frameworks for policymakers to work from, they show – due to their non-binding nature – only limited effectiveness for triggering transformation and for securing social justice and climate resilience in global value chains. Nonetheless, the slow but steady move from voluntary to mandatory due diligence is by many seen as a paradigm shift in corporate accountability.30 With global agri-food supply chains being especially prone to negative effects of climate change, mandatory regulation can help in protecting the rights of those individuals who are particularly affected by its’ adverse impacts e.g. by providing grievance mechanisms or access to remedy. Especially in countries with low environmental or social standards and/or weak governance, mandatory due diligence policies offer the potential to close a governance gap that has emerged during economic globalization, and which has led to devastating human rights violations and a disregard for environmental protection.31
Regulation as Preparation for Climate Change Impacts
Considering the unprecedented challenges associated with the climate crisis, harmonized sustainability- and due diligence regulation can help in building up more resilient supply chains. As an example, new environmental regulation such as the European Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) requires businesses to ensure that the production of certain commodities is not linked to deforestation. Businesses need to increase transparency, analyze supply chains and improve risk management, allowing for quicker identification of potential disruptions. Besides, reputational risk can be reduced while also improving supplier relationship and -diversification. By investing in relationships within their value chains, businesses enhance their resilience, trigger co-learning processes, and thereby transform their value chains to achieve climate resilience. This can be seen as a strategic advantage and a future-focused investment, especially in the context of climate change.
Regulatory Backlash
Despite the potentials that mandatory due diligence policies offer to scale up social justice, European and national due diligence legislation currently faces substantial political backlash. In February 2025 the European Commission announced the so-called “Omnibus-proposal” including amendments to several core pillars of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and other sustainability regulation. Among others, the proposal suggests diluting civil liability of businesses, weakening the risk-based approach, excluding the necessity to execute climate transition plans and rejecting EU wide and harmonized penalties in case of violations against the law.32 Similar ambitions can be seen on a national level in Germany. The new coalition has agreed to maintain the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act until the transposition of the (weakened) CSDDD is completed. However, it agreed on drastically reducing reporting obligations and sanctions in case of violations. According to the coalition agreement, companies should only be fined in case of “massive human rights violations”, which drastically reduces the protection of vulnerable groups.
With new political and economic realities, mandatory due diligence regulation is seen as a bureaucratic scapegoat that is dampening competitiveness and restricting economic growth. This is especially irritating considering the broad support from business-, scientific- and civil society communities, which highlight the importance of harmonized and effective due diligence regulation to protect vulnerable individuals and to create a level-playing field for businesses. Similarly, a wide range of companies have invested extensively to be aligned with existing or upcoming due diligence legislation. Other studies report a drop in sourcing from countries with weak environmental and human rights governance as a direct effect of mandatory national and European due diligence laws, suggesting positive effects on human rights and environmental protection.33
Nevertheless, an evaluation of the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act after two years does show room for improvement. Grievance mechanisms have shown to be difficult to access, as written complaints are required but most affected individuals are unable to read or write. Other aspects hindering accessibility and efficiency include language barriers, fear or retaliation or dismissal, denial of supplier relationships by businesses or an insufficient integration of complainants. Lastly, the Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control, who has the mandate for the enforcement of the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, provides only vague and general information of ongoing complaints procedures.34
When studying transformation processes, we observe that backlashes are an integral part of the journey. However, to make supply chains resilient in the face of climate change, regulatory changes are not merely a ‘nice to have’ but a necessity. Such policies are essential to prepare businesses, food systems, and the economy for the challenges posed by a changing climate.
Conclusion
The resilience of agri-food supply chains is not only a technical challenge but also a social and political one. Addressing the vulnerabilities and inequalities within these systems requires a holistic approach that integrates resilience thinking, gender-transformative approaches, and the Proximity Framework. By fostering spatial and relational proximity, empowering female actors, and promoting adaptive governance, agri-food supply chains can become more resilient, equitable, and sustainable. Existing research provides valuable insights into the pathways for transformation, highlighting the importance of participatory methods, innovative scaling strategies, and inclusive policies. As the global food system continues to face unprecedented challenges, these insights offer a roadmap for building resilience and advancing social justice in agri-food value chains. If you are interested in learning more about our project, ClimChain funded by the Austrian Climate Research Programme (ACRP), where we explore best-practice examples for increasing climate resilience in agri-food supply chains, please feel free to reach out or visit our website.
1 Wheeler, T. & von Braun, J. (2013). Climate change impacts on global food security, Science 341(6145), 508–513.
2 Barros, V., M. Mastrandrea, M. Abdrabo, W. Adger, Y. Federation, O. Anisimov, D. Arent, S. Cohen, P. Dasgupta, D. Davidson, F. Denton, P. Doell & G. Yohe (2014). Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability – IPCC WGII AR5 summary for policymakers, 1-32.
3 Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M. & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability, and transformability, Ecology and Society 15.
4 Boillat, S. & Bottazzi, P. (2020). Agroecology as a pathway to resilience justice: Peasant movements and collective action in the Niayes coastal region of Senegal, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 27, 662–677.
5 Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M. & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability, and transformability, Ecology and Society 15.
6 Ifejika Speranza, C., U. Wiesmann & S. Rist (2014). An indicator framework for assessing livelihood resilience in the context of social–ecological dynamics, Global Environmental Change, 28, 109–119.
7 Darnhofer, I. (2021). Resilience or how do we enable agricultural systems to ride the waves of unexpected change? Agricultural Systems 187, 102997.
8 Pelling, M., K. O’Brien & D. Matyas (2014). Adaptation and transformation, Climatic Change 133.
9 Edelmann, H., X. Quiñones-Ruiz & M. Penker (2022). How close do you like your coffee? – Examining proximity and its effects in relationship coffee models Journal of Rural Studies 91, 24-33.
10 Stone, J. & S. Rahimifard (2018). Resilience in agri-food supply chains: a critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of a novel framework, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 23, 207-238.
11 Edelmann, H., X. Quiñones-Ruiz & M. Penker (2022) How close do you like your coffee? – Examining proximity and its effects in relationship coffee models, Journal of Rural Studies 91, 24-33.
12 Pelling, M. & C. High (2005). Understanding adaptation: What can social capital offer assessments of adaptive capacity? Global Environmental Change 15, 308-319.
13 Ivanov, D. (2020). Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case, Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev. 136, 101922.
14 Darnhofer, I. (2010). Strategies of family farms to strengthen their resilience, Environmental policy and governance 20, 212-222.
15 Edelmann, H., X. Quiñones-Ruiz & M. Penker (2022) How close do you like your coffee? – Examining proximity and its effects in relationship coffee models, Journal of Rural Studies 91, 24-33.
16 Altenbuchner, C., Vogel, S. & Larcher, M. (2017). Effects of organic farming on the empowerment of women: A case study from Western Odisha, India, Women’s Studies International Forum 64, 28–33.
17 Jacobi, J., S. Mukhovi, A. Zonta, H. Augstburger, F. Käser, C. Pozo, M. Ngutu, F. Delgado, B. Kiteme & S. Rist (2018) Operationalizing food system resilience: An indicator-based assessment in agroindustrial, smallholder farming, and agroecological contexts in Bolivia and Kenya, Land Use Polic, 79, 433-446.
18 Boillat, S. & P. Bottazzi (2020). Agroecology as a pathway to resilience justice: peasant movements and collective action in the Niayes coastal region of Senegal, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 27, 662-677.
19 Khanna, R., R. K. Murthy & S. Zaveri (2016), Gender transformative Evaluations: Principles and Frameworks 16-37.
20 Altenbuchner, C., Vogel, S. & Larcher, M. (2017). Effects of organic farming on the empowerment of women: A case study from Western Odisha, India, Women’s Studies International Forum 64, 28–33.
21 Boesten, J., & Wilding, P. (2014). Transformative gender justice: Setting an agenda, Women’s Studies International Forum 51.
22 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2021). Integrating a gender perspective into supply chain due diligence.
23 Wakeford, T. & J. Rodriguez. 2019. Participatory action research: towards a more fruitful knowledge.
24 Pelling, M., K. O’Brien & D. Matyas (2014). Adaptation and transformation, Climatic Change 133.
25 Moore, M.-L., D. Riddell & D. Vocisano (2015). Scaling Out, Scaling Up, Scaling Deep Strategies of Non-profits in Advancing Systemic Social Innovation, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 67-84.
26 Moore, M.-L., D. Riddell & D. Vocisano (2015) Scaling Out, Scaling Up, Scaling Deep Strategies of Non-profits in Advancing Systemic Social Innovation, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 67-84.
27 System Change Lab et al. (2021). The state of climate action, in <https://systemschangelab.org/publications> [Accessed 20 May 2022].
28 Adelphi et al. (2019). Zwischenbericht – Erhebungsphase 2019, in <https://www.csr-in-deutschland.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Dateien/zwischenbericht-erhebungsphase-2019.pdf?__blob=publicationFile> [Accessed 22 May 2025].
29 Krajewksi, M., Tonstad, K. & Wohltmann, F. (2021). Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence in Germany and Norway: Stepping, or Striding, in the Same Direction? Business and Human Rights Journal 6.
30 Wilhelm, M. (2024). Mandatory due diligence legislation: a paradigm shift for the governance of sustainability in global value chains? Journal of International Business Policy 7.
31 German Environment Agency (2020). Umweltbezogene und menschenrechtliche Sorgfaltspflichten als Ansatz zur Stärkung einer nachhaltigen Unternehmensführung. Final Report.
32 European Commission (2025). Press release, in <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_614> [Accessed 20 May 2025].
33 Kolev-Schaefer, G., Neligan, A. (2024). Due Diligence – Effect of Supply Chain Regulation, IW-Report 8.
34 European Court for Constitutional and Human Rights (2025). Zwei Jahre Lieferkettengesetz – Ein Erfahrungsbericht.
Christine Altenbuchner
Senior Scientist at the BOKU University in Vienna, Austria. Christine Altenbuchner research focuses on climate change adaptation strategies, particularly within the agricultural sector, with a strong emphasis on integrating gender perspectives into resilience-building efforts. With extensive experience in addressing the challenges posed by climate change, she has worked on developing innovative approaches to enhance the resilience of agricultural systems, rural communities, and the individuals within them, paying particular attention to the role of gender dynamics in shaping adaptive capacity. Currently, Christine is leading the collaborative project ClimChain with renowned institutions such as ETH Zurich, UC Berkeley, and Lincoln University. This project aims to strengthen resilience in national and international agri-food supply chains, addressing vulnerabilities and fostering sustainable practices across the sector. Her work integrates interdisciplinary perspectives, combining insights from environmental science, agriculture, socio-economic systems, and gender studies to develop practical solutions for climate adaptation and food security.
Robert Diendorfer
Policy advisor for business and human rights at Forum Fairer Handel Germany. Robert Diendorfer is involved in informational-, political- and educational work focused on human rights and environmental due diligence, fair trade, as well as EU regulation. Robert has gathered international academic- and work experience in Japan, Nepal, Canada, Germany and Austria. Prior to his current function, he has been working in international development with a focus on private sector engagement, including a cooperation project with the Austrian Ministry of Labour and Economy on the promotion of the OECD Guidelines for MNEs.
All articles published in the International Review of Contemporary Law reflect only the position of their author and not the position of the journal, nor of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.