Women’s leadership in climate-resilient agrifood systems: defining a future research agenda

Women’s leadership is increasingly considered critical for achieving climate-resilient agrifood systems. Numerous initiatives and policies highlight the business case for women’s leadership to deliver a range of positive social, economic and environmental outcomes. In this Perspective, we examine the business case, finding uneven evidence linking women’s leadership to increased resilience to climate change. We problematize the ways women’s leadership is typically understood in this area and argue that, despite the value and utility of understanding the pathways through which women’s leadership can strengthen climate-resilient agrifood systems, support for increasing women’s leadership should not be contingent on proving the business case or its instrumental value. Rather, increasing the leadership of women in all their diversity in climate action is a moral imperative and non-negotiable due to women’s human right to have meaningful influence in the decisions that affect their lives. Finally, we propose ways to reframe the debate on women’s leadership in climate and agrifood systems and suggest priorities for future research in this area.


Introduction
Numerous global and national gender and climate policy and programme initiatives point to the business case or rationale for increasing the proportion of women in leadership positions to generate a range of positive social, economic and environmental outcomes (e.g.2X Global 2023, Balke and Östros 2023, Climate Investment Funds 2023, Piovesan 2023).In agriculture specifically, Huyer et al (2015, p 6) recommend increasing women's voices at all levels of agricultural policy and decision-making processes as it is 'likely to lead to more equitable distribution of the benefits and costs of climate change policies and programmes, while improving their efficiency, efficacy and sustainability.'Women's leadership is increasingly considered critical for achieving equitable and climate-resilient agrifood systems.
However, thus far, there is limited rigorous evidence on if and how women's leadership contributes to increasing resilience to climate change, specifically in agrifood systems.In this Perspective, we examine the business case for women's leadership in climate action more broadly, given the limited evidence linking women's leadership to climate-resilient agrifood systems specifically.The aim is not to conduct a systematic review of the literature but to problematize the ways leadership is typically understood in this area.We argue that, despite the value and utility of understanding the pathways through which women's leadership can support climate-resilient agrifood systems, the support for increasing women's leadership should not be premised on its instrumental value.We propose ways to reframe the debate on women's leadership in climate-resilient agrifood systems, and priorities for future research in this area.

Evidence for the business case?
Agrifood systems comprise the full range of actors and their interlinked activities that add value in food and non-food agricultural production and related off-farm activities (FAO 2023).These systems consist of primary producers, service providers, food distributors and retailers, as well as households and men and women in households who participate as production units, workers and as end consumers.Women are key actors, participating in all parts of agrifood systems: on and off farm, at different scales and across the public sector, private sector and civil society (Njuki et al 2022, Bryan et al 2023).They also occupy leadership roles across agrifood systems, in agricultural cooperatives and producers' organizations, large agribusinesses, and agrifood-related governmental and non-governmental institutions and decision-making processes (Gerli 2015, Global Health 50/50, The International Food Policy Research Institute and UN Women 2022, Ragasa et al 2022).However, there is a 'dramatic imbalance' between rural women's leadership and decision-making power and their enormous and essential contributions to agrifood systems (Gerli 2015, p 12).
In light of widespread, rapid and intensifying climatic changes, existing agrifood systems are transforming to 'climate-resilient' agrifood systems in order to improve and sustain well-being outcomes in the face of current and future shocks and stressors (Béné et al 2015, Bryan et al 2024).But not all agrifood system actors are effectively engaged or adequately represented in the ongoing decision-making processes that are determining the shape of their climate-resilient futures.Despite women's outsized roles and contributions to agrifood systems, they have largely been framed as victims of climate change rather than agents, with women's voices and leadership underrepresented in climate-related policy processes (Bryan et al 2024).There is, however, new interest in promoting women's leadership and representation in climate-resilient agrifood systems, whether as a strategy to redress gender and other intersecting social inequalities in agrifood systems laid increasing bare by the climate crisis and/or as an essential part of a 'transformative pathway' that supports representation of the most impacted to reduce future vulnerabilities, avoid 'maladaptation' , and thus achieve resilience for all (Prakash et al 2022, Schipper et al 2022, FAO 2023, Wray et al 2023).
Given this relatively new focus, there is unfortunately a lack of dedicated research on women's leadership in agrifood systems.This presents a challenge to analyzing the possible links such leadership may have with other outcomes, such as increased resilience to climate change.In light of this, we look for insights in the broader literature on the contribution of women's leadership to environmental and resilience outcomes (related but not specific to agrifood systems) to guide future discussions and research on this topic.
This broader literature substantiates that women have been notable leaders on environmental issues, whether as political leaders, civil society activists or scholars (Turquet et al 2023).But in general, they remain grossly underrepresented in all forms of leadership at every level (Huyer et al 2020, Bryan et al 2024).Deep-seated and structural barriers, such as discriminatory legal and policy frameworks, social and cultural norms, perceptions of women's leadership, as well as unequal access to resources and capitals, constrain (and sometimes reverse progress on) women's leadership in governance, including in climate governance (Gerli 2015, Prakash et al 2022, Climate Investment Funds 2023, Turquet et al 2023, Wray et al 2023, Lopez et al 2024).Moreover, even when women take on leadership positions, the extent to which they may fully, equally and effectively influence decisions may vary significantly given these differences in enabling conditions.
In this broader literature, there is some evidence that women's leadership can lead to stronger environmental action.For example, Mavisakalyan and Tarverdi (2019) find that women's parliamentary representation is associated with more stringent national climate change policies, resulting in lower carbon dioxide emissions.Likewise, Salamon (2023) finds that women's parliamentary representation is associated with greater consumption of renewable energy in high-and middle-income countries.Similar relationships are found in the private sector.Studies show that when women comprise a higher share of managerial and leadership positions, companies have lower CO 2 emissions (Altunbas et al 2022) and increase their environmental, social and governance standards and performance (Di Miceli and Donaggio 2018, Ginglinger and Raskopf 2023, Yahya 2023).Women's participation on boards of directors, as well as CEOs and in operational management, have been shown to positively influence carbon disclosure and its quality (Caby et al 2024).
Women's leadership in local governance has been associated with better environmental outcomes, as well as more equitable governance and women's empowerment.For example, the use of gender quotas in forest user groups in Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania led to greater conservation of trees and more equitable sharing of payments for ecosystem services among group members (Cook et al 2019).In India, a study found that women's greater participation in district assemblies reduces the negative effects of climate change on various outcomes related to women's voice and agency beyond the household, such as mobility, decision-making, and intimate partner violence (Takeshima et al 2022).There is evidence from South Asia that women's participation in natural resource management groups (although not specifically in leadership positions) can lead to improved resource governance and conservation outcomes (Leisher et al 2016).
That said, women's leadership in decision-making does not always lead to positive environmental or welfare outcomes, especially when other gender-related constraints remain, such as limited access to information, education gaps, and restrictive gender norms.A case study of Ethiopia's climate resilient strategy suggests that simply including women representatives in policy discourses is not enough to craft gender-responsive climate policies if these representatives do not have gender expertise and bring a gender agenda to bear (Mersha and van Laerhoven 2019).
Aside from these constraints, there is no guarantee of a positive association between women's leadership and environmental outcomes.This is because women leaders are not automatically or innately 'virtuous' in terms of climate decision-making (Arora-Jonsson 2011).Rather, the identities, agendas and influence of women leaders are shaped by the specificities of their context and the complex and intersecting power relations in which they are embedded (ibid).Women leaders are diverse and women's leadership on climate change is likely to represent a diversity of identities and experiences.Different lived experiences shape differences in needs, preferences and actions on climate change among women, across and even within similar contexts.
While previous studies offer some evidence that women's leadership may contribute to enhancing environmental outcomes and resilience to climate change, we must be cautious to not perpetuate the myth that women will always be better stewards of the environment (Doss et al 2018) nor that women leaders will be, now or in future.Evidence shows that attitudes and preferences of men and women regarding sustainability are nuanced, varied, and depend on enabling factors, such as property rights (Meinzen-Dick et al 2014).Women adopt climate-smart agricultural practices when they align with their current roles and interests (Bryan et al 2021).Other factors influencing rural women's pro-environmental behaviors include perceived severity of the environmental challenge, self-efficacy and environmental awareness (Bijani et al 2022).
In short, there can be no assurances that supporting women's leadership will lead to certain social and environmental outcomes.But limited evidence of the business case for women's leadership in climate-resilient agrifood systems should not hinder efforts to enhance women's leadership in key decision-making processes that impact their lives.That is, efforts to increase women's leadership should not be contingent on demonstrating its instrumental value (the business case), but because of its intrinsic value, as a standalone imperative (Deininger et al 2023).Women in all their diversity have the right to voice and representation to shape the future of the agrifood systems in which they are embedded, particularly as those futures are being so fundamentally reshaped in response to the intensifying climate crisis.

Challenging measurements of women's leadership
Whether the goal is to prove the business case or otherwise, current assessments of women's leadership in climate-related decision-making offer only a partial view, limiting the accuracy and meaning of the types of evidence we currently have on the topic.Establishing the links between women's leadership and climate and agrifood systems outcomes is obscured by the complexity of, and lack of consistency in, understanding and defining women's leadership for measurement purposes.
The concept of 'leadership' is itself slippery, complex and multifaceted.In her seminal piece on feminist leadership, Batliwala (2010) proposes the following composite definition of 'leadership': "…a set of actions and processes, performed by individuals of character, knowledge, and integrity, who have the capacity to create a vision for change, inspire and motivate others to share that vision, develop ideas, and strategies that direct and enable others to work towards that change, and make critical decisions that ensure the achievement of the goal" (p 12).Definitions of 'leadership' focus on process and practice, whereas definitions of 'leader/s' largely focus on attributes and practices (ibid).Grappling with 'women's leadership' , then, requires an understanding of the ways in which women are involved in the process and practice of leadership and concerns women leaders' attributes and practices.'Women's leadership' does not prescribe any additional politics or purpose of leadership nor any essentialized quality to women's leadership (and so is distinct from 'feminist leadership' and 'feminine leadership' , respectively) (ibid).This Perspectives piece focuses primarily on women's leadership though we acknowledge there is overlap with other types of leadership.
Despite the multifaceted nature of the concept, women's leadership is commonly measured only through descriptive statistics, by counting and tracking the number or proportion of individual women leaders, especially those in formal leadership or decision-making roles.For example, Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDG5)-'Achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls'-tracks progress on 2 main statistical indicators related to women's leadership (target 5.5): 'Proportion of seats held by women in (a) national parliaments and (b) local governments' (5.5.1); and 'Proportion of women in managerial positions' (5.5.2).
In a similar vein, women's leadership in climate change or environmental decision-making is typically tracked by counting the number of women in positions.For instance, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat reports annually on the gender composition of national delegations, with one measure focusing on the number of female delegates elected to the position of Chair or Co/Vice-Chair of a constituted body.The 'Gender Climate Tracker' highlights the number of women serving as Heads of Delegation in the UNFCCC process, among other participation-related statistics (Women's Environment and Development Organization 2023).Studies have focused on the number of countries with women serving as environment ministers (Strumskyte et al 2022) or in high-level positions in agrifood related ministries (Ragasa and Kyle 2023).
Targets on women's leadership often include qualifiers to describe the specific types of leadership sought.For example, the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (2020) specifies the need for 'full, meaningful and equal' leadership of women in all aspects and levels of climate-related decision-making processes.This is similar to the wording of SDG5.5 which seeks to ensure 'women's full and effective participation and equal [emphasis added] opportunities for leadership' .However, the descriptive statistics that are commonly used rarely go 'beyond simple headcounts' to capture these dimensions and to contribute understandings of how women exercise influence to shape environmental policies (Strumskyte et al 2022, p 15).
These shortcomings have important implications for the ways women's leadership is understood and addressed in existing climate-related decision-making.First, existing measures provide limited insight into the quality of women's leadership, including whether those occupying leadership roles are accessing positions on equal terms with men or able to equally participate in decision-making processes while in office.More nuanced measures are required to capture 'women's full, equal and effective' leadership (Berevoescu and Ballington 2021).
Second, the existing measures tend to obscure the variety of women's leadership, especially the less visible, recognized and quantifiable avenues through which women may exert influence in their communities.For example, women's activism and leadership in organizing in the many different places that lie outside of visible, formal political processes (Brown 2021).
Third, the focus on leadership as an individual practice or role fails to grapple with the meaning and impact of collective, collaborative or co-leadership (Ghizzo et al 2020, Brown 2021, Johnson and O'Malley 2022).
Fourth, inadequate measures of women's leadership are problematic for monitoring changes in ways that can effectively inform future policies and programme design.Identifying an increase in the share of women leaders, for example, does not show how or in which spaces women are able to influence decision-making most effectively, nor which groups of women benefit most from leadership roles or because of related interventions.
Fifth, existing measures largely overlook the impact, whether positive or negative, of leadership on the leader's own well-being and the possible trade-offs that can accompany increases in women's leadership (for example, on women's workload/time use, household relations or exposure to harassment and violence).
Finally, for the most part, overly simplistic measures make it more difficult to assess or explain the relationship between women's leadership and other climate and agrifood systems outcomes.Studies that link women's leadership with environmental and social outcomes are not able to explore the pathways through which outcomes are achieved or explain why women's leadership would be associated with different outcomes.

Reframing the debate
The gaps in evidence shape the contours of a renewed research agenda on women's leadership in climate-resilient agrifood systems.Amid the current climate crisis and the slow progress (and concurrent reversals) in gender equality, we argue that increasing the leadership of women in all their diversity is a moral imperative and non-negotiable due to women's human right to have meaningful voices and influence in decision-making processes that fundamentally affect their lives.
As such, we call for reframing the debate: moving beyond the business case for women's leadership to instead ask how women's full, equal and effective leadership, and its synergies with building climate resilient agrifood systems, can be strengthened.
Specifically, research is needed to: • Deepen understanding of the quality of women's leadership in climate action in agrifood systems, and of approaches, strategies, and interventions to support women's full, meaningful and effective leadership in all spheres.• Identify various forms of women's leadership in climate action and agrifood systems, especially hidden, informal, and collective forms.
• Examine whether and under which conditions women's leadership and other climate and agrifood systems outcomes are mutually reinforcing and complementary, and how to mitigate potential trade-offs that may exist among them.• Evidence the pathways through which women's leadership and influence contribute to more climateresilient agrifood systems, and the conditions under which these outcomes have been sustained.This calls for understanding the conditions and specificities of women's leadership (e.g.what types of processes, contexts and decision-making spaces and what types of women leaders, leadership capacities or practice of leadership) that interact with climate action in agrifood systems.
There are some emerging initiatives that provide improved ways to understand and measure women's leadership vis-à-vis climate-resilient agrifood systems.The Women's Empowerment in Agrifood Governance (WEAGoV) assessment framework is one example (Ragasa et al 2022).It triangulates multiple sources to understand if and how women actors exert influence in decision-making on national agrifood and climate change policies, in addition to tracking the number of women holding leadership roles in relevant ministries.Further efforts are required to develop effective measures of women's leadership in all dimensions of climate-resilient agrifood systems in order to move the research agenda forward.

Conclusion
We have presented research situated at different points of the impact pathway linking women's leadership to climate-resilient agrifood systems.Yet, we have noted that research focused explicitly on this topic is limited and that women's leadership is often problematically measured in the climate and agrifood systems spheres, which creates challenges for understanding women's leadership and evidencing the instrumental value of women's leadership to outcomes in this area.Better measurement of women's leadership is required to move the research agenda forward.Finally, we have argued that regardless of whether the business case can be proven or not, women have a right to voice, representation and leadership in climate action.As such, efforts should focus on how to better enable the leadership of women for more just and resilient agrifood systems.When it comes to addressing the biggest crisis of our time, women-just like men-in all their diversity must have a voice and influence in addressing it.