Enterprise Viability and Right Livelihood

Previous Topic
Next Topic

Exploration

Enterprise Viability and Right Livelihood Resilience Exploration

Banner reads Exploration. Resilience. Collage of photos on the right. Background photo shows greenery and simple hammock strung between two trees. Polaroid-style photo layered on top shows hands tending to pepper plants. Smaller photo shows three people in rows of tall plants. Young boy holds pepper up to woman who is smiling at him. Man harvesting in the background. Images of yellow, orange, and red peaches as well as pepper plant layered on top and along left edge of banner.

Why is resilience relevant for agricultural businesses?

Agriculture is challenging. Planning for predictable, consistent, and efficient outcomes is a common approach in business, but in natural farm systems, these might only be elusive goals. Technological advancements of many types have been developed for the very purpose of increasing productivity (yields), consistency (quality), and efficiency (fewer resources), ostensibly with the goal of increasing income. Yet, many of these technological advancements have resulted in unintended consequences. Today, global agricultural activities consume 70% of freshwater, use 40% of the planet’s ice-free land, and emit 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions.  Agriculture both affects and is affected by the global climatological conditions. In a globalized world, social, political and economic pressures in a single country can also disrupt global agriculture. For example, Russia’s war on Ukraine has unfortunately demonstrated how intrinsically woven our global food system is and how disruptions reverberate throughout the world. 

Farmers of all types have production objectives in mind while coping with disturbances (shortage of supplies, extended rains, etc.) and shocks (extreme weather event, pest infestation, etc.). Resilience, according to the Stockholm Resilience Centre, (whom we can thank for leading ideas about planetary boundaries) is the capacity of a system, be it an individual, a forest, a city or an economy, to deal with change and continue to develop. It is about how humans and nature can use shocks and disturbances like a financial crisis or climate change to spur renewal and innovative thinking. Applying a resilience mindset can be described through seven main pillars, illustrated below and outlined in this linked video from the Stockholm Resilience Centre. (You can also find more detail in this report also from the Stockholm Resilience Centre.)

Diagram shows six hexagons extending from grayscale illustration of agroecological farm. Each hexagon depicts and describes one of seven principles of agroecology. Principle 1: Maintain diversity of crops, methods, knowledge etc., for responding to change and dealing with uncertainty. Principle 2: Manage connectivity to markets, habitats of pollinators, and natural enemies of pests. Principle 3: Take into account slow variables, such as soil fertility, and feedbacks, for example between pesticide use, loss of natural enemies, and pest outbreaks. Principle 4: Understand and manage agriculture as a complex adaptive system to deal with uncertainties and avoid abrupt and negative threshold effects. Principle 5: Encourage learning and experimentation in agriculture through adaptive and collaborative management. Principle 6: Encourage participation of all relevant stakeholders to build the trust needed to respond to and induce change. Principle 7: Promote polycentric governance with multiple decision-making bodies that interact to make and enforce rules.

Next, review this phenomenal article about the role of agroecology and innovation  in supporting agricultural resilience. As you read, consider whether any of the perspectives shared are only applicable to subsistence agricultural operations, or whether they also contribute to the resilience of an agricultural business.

Read: 2018: “How are Agroecological Farmers Challenging the Industrial Way of Farming?” from Organic Without Boundaries.

To explore the concept of resilience in the context of agricultural businesses, we will rely on a case study of a sustainable agricultural enterprise. Interestingly, this case study focuses on an enterprise that operates on a non-profit basis. No need to read the entire paper; we’ll only review the following sections:

  • Read section 1 of the study. Considering this reading and the activities completed in the previous modules, is your agricultural enterprise focused on social or environmental sustainability? Or both? Do you believe that this orientation might make it more or less resilient? 
  • Read section 2 of the study. Try to envision what resilience looks like for your agricultural business. In your process, consider the degree to which this enterprise is a social and/or environmentally-focused enterprise. 
  • Now, review Table 3 and consider ways in which you may be able to put to practice the attributes listed for sustainable entrepreneurship.
  • Lastly, do the same with Table 4. You may choose to read the case study details for Biodynamiska Produkter (Biodynamic Products; BP) in sections 4 and 5 of the study, or simply jump into the activity. Here, consider what you know about resilience and your agricultural business and describe how you might be able to implement the organizational resilience strategies listed on Table 4.

Larsson et al (2016): “The Resilience of a Sustainability Entrepreneur in the Swedish Food System” from Sustainability.

What are common threats to resilience of agricultural businesses?

In the previous section, we considered resilience of an agricultural enterprise from an organizational perspective. In this section, we will look at implementing resilience at the farm level. 

Resilience is “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feed-backs”. Therefore, resilience is about being able to respond to change. We hope that it begins to become evident for you that resilience thinking needs to be embraced in order for enterprises to remain viable over time. 

A system that is resilient might be sustainable, but it might also be unsustainable. For example, poverty is a very resilient state in a system that is unsustainable. It is hard to bring a system in poverty out of a state of poverty. On the contrary, a farm business that implements highly-ecological practices but sells very few products might not be resilient to a decrease in customers. Although this business’ practices may be sustainable for the ecosystem, from a business standpoint the business is not resilient and not sustainable. 

In a 2021 study from Roos et al. that aimed at understanding the sustainability and resilience impacts of organic farms on entire food systems, the authors applied a five-step methodology to outline a resilience evaluation approach for the farm. (No need to read the study, unless you want to!) Their methodology is copied below:

2.2.3. Farm-Level Resilience. We used the comprehensive five-step framework developed by Meuwissen et al. 2019 for assessing resilience of farming systems (for details, see SM section S5). The first step addresses the question resilience of what? (Fig. 1), in this case continued food production, maintained economic viability of the farm, and supporting the farmer’s identity as biosphere stewards, through sustainable use of land and agency to inspire others to increase sustainable food production. In step 2, resilience to what? was defined in terms of three different disturbances: a) environmental events, b) changed sales opportunities, and c) risk of loss of identity as biosphere stewards (fig. 1). In step 3, resilience for what purpose, the purpose in this case was maintaining the supply of services to contribute to global food supply (tracked through yield, number of people fed and income from the delivery of services), while step 4, what resilience capacities, we considered robustness, adaptation, and transformation. In step 5 (what enhances resilience?), we based our analysis on Biggs et al. (2015), who developed principles for resilience based on a thorough analysis of the literature. We used three principles from their framework that best applied to the case farm context: diversity (split into three components, see section 2.2.3.1), connectivity (see section 2.2.3.2), and governance (Fig. 1). Diversity and connectivity were assessed quantitatively, while we only reflected qualitatively on the four principles of a governance system for resilience (complex adaptive systems understanding, encouraging learning, broadening participation, and promoting polycentric governance). 2.2.3.1. Diversity. Diversity has been shown to improve food system resilience on national (Renard and Tillman, 2019; Kummu et al., 2020), regional (Sellberg et al., 2020), and farm scale (de Roest et al., 2018). In Biggs et al. (2015), diversity includes three components: a) variety (how many different elements), b) balance (how many of each element), and c) disparity (how different the different elements are from one another). We investigated these three resilience components for two elements: 1) income types (products, services, subsidies), and 2) buyers; chosen based on their relation to the threats identified in step 2) (Table 1). 2.2.3.2. Connectivity. Connectivity is defined by Biggs et al. (2015) as the manner and extent to which resources, species, or social actors disperse, migrate, or interact across ecological and social “landscapes”. Landscapes may consist of components (e.g., patches, habitats, or social groupings), referred to as nodes, and the connections between them, referred to as links. The structure and strength of the links between nodes determines how they contribute to resilience. Here, connectivity aspects related to income types and buyers were captured partly by the diversity analysis, which was based on monetary transactions. To further investigate aspects of connectivity, we added non-monetary nodes and links and considered the strength of the links to sustain the capacity of the farmer as a biosphere steward. To capture this aspect, we listed the major actor groups with which the farmer engaged over the years and asked him to rate these for their contribution to enabling him to act as a biosphere steward.

This particular methodology can help us consider resilience on our own farms. (In the next section, you’ll have the chance to fill out a blank version for yourself.) Rather than speaking about resilience as a vague and simply aspirational goal, this approach helps farmers get specific by considering the following questions:

  1. Resilience of what? (What is to be measured and worked towards? Are we talking about our individual farms, a broader ecosystem, etc.?)
  2. Resilience to what? (What threats are we trying to respond to?)
  3. Resilience for what purpose? (For example, which outcomes do we want to be able to maintain?) 
  4. What resilience capacities or qualities do we need to build or incorporate into our current organization in order to work towards these goals?
  5. What existing qualities do we need to enhance, and how can we measure or assess these qualities to build resilience? Resilience is dynamic and depends on a number of different attributes like robustness (being able to withstand a shock without much change in the system), adaptation (being able to respond to a shock in a way that maintains the system’s function within the current arrangement), and transformation (rearranging the system in order to maintain the system’s function). 

Chart is titled Sample Resilience Assessment, adapted from Meuwesser et al 2019. Five questions on the left side, and corresponding responses in boxes on the right. 1. Resilience of what? Food production & farm income over time (quantitatively). Farmer’s identity as planetary steward (qualitatively. 2. Resilience to what? Environmental events like droughts, floods, pests, etc. Changing sales opportunities (due to consumer preferences, value chain disturbances, etc.) Loss of identity and capacity to act as a planetary steward. 3. Resilience for what purpose? To maintain supply of public and private goods and services. 4. What resilience capacities or qualities do we need to build or incorporate? Robustness / coping, adaptation and transformative capacities. 5. What enhances resilience? Diversity, including a) Variety: number of different types of products and actors, b) Balance: Distribution of income between products and actors, and c) Disparity: Distribution of income between different types of products and actors. Connectivity: Number and quality of monetary and non-monetary nodes and links. Governance: Qualitatively. Note: Slow variables and feedback not assessed.

In order to enhance diversity (step 5 of the resilience assessment), the authors identified a list of vulnerabilities (threats to resilience) that farms might face from different stressors, based on their source of income (type of agricultural product or service sold) and the type of buyer. The information is summarized in Table 1:

Table is labeled Table 1. Vulnerability to three threats (environmental stressors, sales opportunities, and farmer identity creation and maintenance) in terms of sources of income and type of buyers. Column on left is labeled source of income (product, service, subsidies), with crops for human consumption, animal products, cultural services, and European Union support listed underneath, each corresponding to a description in the column on the right labeled vulnerability. Crops for human consumption: Highly vulnerable to environmental events like droughts, pests, etc. Contracts with clients can be canceled, leaving the farmer to find an alternative market at short notice. Animal Products: Animal production is vulnerable to the same risks as crop production (see above), but feed can be bought in to maintain production. For ruminants, roughage feed can be harvested later in the year or from marginal areas (e.g., during the drought in 2018 forage was harvested in autumn when the rain came). Cultural services: Mostly unaffected by the environmental and sales opportunity threats, but highly dependent on the biosphere steward identity/capacity threats. European Union Support: Independent of the three major threats; could be subject to policy changes (CAP reforms) and political changes (as happened in the UK), but these are rather long-term.

Table continues underneath, with source of income replaced with type of buyer, vulnerability still on the right column. Six items listed on left side: Large processing companies, small scale or local companies, direct sales to consumers, restaurants, retailers, and slaughterhouses. Large processing companies: Lower prices but larger volumes, longer-term contracts, have capacity to develop personalized products from the farm. Small-scale or local companies: Higher prices but smaller volumes, higher risk of bankruptcy, build local community and networks, and contribute positively to farmer identity. Direct sales to consumers: Higher prices, gives direct feedback, sensitive to consumer relations, and interest in local and organic foods, time-consuming which might drain farmer energy and time. Restaurants: Higher prices, low volumes, direct feedback builds identity. Retailers: Intermediate prices and volumes, little risk of bankruptcy, meat becomes anonymous, which does not help build farmer identity, relatively time-consuming to deliver. Slaughterhouses: Low prices, high volumes, little time investment, high stability, no identity or capacity building.

What strategies might support resilience among agricultural businesses?

Building on the two studies that we have reviewed in this module, we can identify two main strategies to address resilience among agricultural enterprises: incorporating resilience within the organizational and managerial culture, and specifying resilience strategies based on desired outcomes and types of threats. In this section we discuss two more strategies: aligning your values with your entire supply chain, and tracking the performance of your system. 

There are very few examples of agricultural enterprises that do not rely on upstream suppliers or downstream operators. In order for a business to minimize vulnerabilities,  it is important to align priorities and values with those upstream and downstream partners. Ignoring this might lead to unexpected shocks that affect your own enterprise’s ability to respond to a shock. Addressing supply chain actors for resilience is often discussed under the term of “supply chain resilience” and is a common practice among enterprises that have control over their entire supply chain (this is often described as vertical integration, and often comes with its own set of complications – check out the linked resource for more).

Table 3 Relations and actors of financial and identity importance to the farmer (rated by him on a scale 0-3, where 3 is most important and 1 is least important, 0 is not important. Headings are: Group, Biosphere stweardship, financial importance, development 2015-2019, and coments from the farmer. Row 1: Direct sales. stewardship - 3. financial - 3. development - gradual increase. comments - Many customers with whom strong relations are built and who come back for sales year after year. Row 2: Small scale or local companies. stewardship - 3. financial - 1-3. development - substantial increase from year to year. comments - Really important for a sense of building community with shared values. This category has increased and diversified over time. A few restaurants in Stockholm maintained throughout the period, visitors to on-farm store and pop-up restaurants from 2018, new local processors added since 2017. Row 3: Large scale food industry. stewardship - 3. financial - 3. development - started 2015, a new company added 2018. Comments - An oat processing company has been very important here. It shared the value of biosphere stewardship, and helped spread the word in campaigns. Financially, it has been very important for enabling the transition on the farm. Very strong social and shared values. Row 4: Farmer collaborations. stewardship - 3. financial - 1. development - maintained. comments - Important for the business and its social relations. Row 5: academia and knowledge. stewardship - 3. financial - 1. development - started 2016, maintained. Comments - Gives me new understanding and knowledge, both theoretical and practical, which enables stronger biosphere stewardship and knowing that what I do in practice has impact. Also important to be able to get trustworthy messages out. Row 6: NGOs. Stewardship - 2. financial - 0. Development - maintained. Row 7: EU support. stewardship - 1. financial - 3. Development - gradual increase over years. Comments - Financially important for me to act as a biosphere steward, but not for me to feel meaningful. Can feel shortsighted, as the funding is not dependent on the effort he makes to act sustainably. Uncertain how the future will develop. Row 8: Slaughterhouse. stewardship - 1. financial - 3. Development - Ended after 2015. Comments - Value added is not recognized, produce just bought in bulk. While financially important, has no value for biosphere stewardship. Row 9: Retailers. stewardship - 1. financial - 1. Development - Primarily 2016-2017. Comments - Value added to the produce through how I act on my farm is lost, as my experience is that the vendors are driven by shortsightedness, economic gain, and substitutability. Row 10: Authorities. stewardship - 1. financial - 0. development - maintained. Comments - Not important to feel like a biosphere steward, but for the general business and knowing the regulations I must abide by, checking these are being followed, etc.

As with so many other themes we’ve covered together, the way resilience plays out for each grower will look different. In a moment you’ll have the chance to define what it means for you and your enterprise. For now, consider talking to others in your community about what resilience means for them. 

We’ve concluded the course with a deep dive into resilience because there’s so much you’re going to encounter that no one class can fully prepare you for. While we can certainly guide you through exercises that will help you navigate the road ahead, in an era of so much change – particularly as the climate shifts and brings unprecedented changes to our lives – nothing is truly “certain.” The ability to anticipate and respond to change is just as important as having a solid business plan, as knowing how to tend the land, and any of the more “traditional” skills associated with successful farm enterprises. Some of the best advice we can impart as we wrap up our time together is to design for resilience. If we welcome change and learn to ride whatever it brings our way, we can set not only our farms but our communities and our lives up for success.

DEEPER EXPLORATION

(Optional Content)

Nicole Civita, the director of EcoGather, provides a useful description of why a resilience framework is necessary for agriculture and food systems at large in the following article.

Read: Nicole Civita (2015): “Resilience: The Food Policy Imperative for a Volatile Future” from the Environmental Law Reporter

Previous Topic
Back to Lesson
Next Topic

Sterling College

PO Box 72
16 Sterling Drive
Craftsbury Common, VT 05827
(802) 586-7711

Sterling acknowledges that the land on which we gather, also known as Vermont, is the traditional and unceded territory of the Abenaki people. We also learn in and from a range of landscapes that belong to other indigenous peoples.

As we seek deep and reciprocal relationships with nature, we respect and honor the place-based and cultural wisdom of indigenous ancestors and contemporaries. These words are offered as a reminder that must be matched with acts of respect and repair.

Copyright © 2025 – Sterling College

Get Updates

Subscribe to our newsletter for regular updates.

You have Successfully Subscribed!