Inclusiveness revisited: Assessing inclusive businesses in South African agriculture

Figures & data

Table 1. Scoring mechanism per category.

		Score (high = most inclusive)
Dimension	Categories	5	4	3	2	1
Ownership	Land + fixed assets	Individual land and collectively-owned assets	Individual land, no collectively owned assets	Collectively owned land and assets	Land and assets shared between collective and commercial partner	Commercial partner OR Rent
	Moveable assets	Individual beneficiary all assets	Some individually owned, some collectively owned	Collective OR Some individual, some other	Shared between collective and commercial partner	Commercial partner
	Produce	Individual all	Some individual, some off-taker	Collective	Shared between collective and commercial partner	Commercial partner/off-taker
Voice	Pre-implementation	Impact on governance structure, partner, and opt-in/out decision 1 point each; 2 points if voice belongs to individual, 1 for collective engagement in negotiations, with individual feedback loop.
	Day-to-day and IB operation	Part individual + commercial partner, part independent individual with additional involvement in collective	Part individual + commercial partner, part independent individual	Individual + commercial partner OR Collective	Collective + commercial partner	Commercial partner
	Medium to long-term	Impact on strategy, structure 2 points each for individual voice, 1 point for collective voice; opt-in/out option for individual beneficiary, 1 point
Risk	Financial	Individual funds (incl. loan financing)	Individual funds plus grant/ commercial partner support	Collective funds (incl. loan financing)	Collective funds plus grant/ commercial partner support	No financial commitment for beneficiaries
	Operational	All for individual	Individual shared with beneficiary collective	Individual shared with collective and commercial partner OR all for collective	Shared between collective and commercial partner	No operational risk for beneficiaries
	Community	1 point each for membership, individual behaviour, collective leadership challenges and external frictions				No community / collective risks
Reward	Market access	Input, output and credit: 1 point each if collectively, 2 points each for individual access. Maximum score of 5 points. Total 1 point if market access is as IB.
	Financial	Rent, produce and dividends/assets: 2 points each for individual income, 1 point each for collective income; 1 point for income for IB as whole.
	Employment & skills	Jobs exclusively for beneficiaries: 2 points; shared with wider community: 1 point; operational training: 1 point; external training: 1 point; bursaries: 1 point. Experience through IB participation default 1 point.

Source: Authors

Table 2. Case study description.

Case study	Characteristics	Description
Mphiwe Siyalima	Beneficiaries: 1 Area: 672 ha	Individual farmer on leased government land with multiple partnerships driven by mentor, allowing for diversification of crops and marketing channels. Centred on supply contract for fresh vegetables.
WUFA	Beneficiaries: 74 Area: ±200 ha	Collective organisation of individual farmers with collectively owned anchor farm. Non-binding supply contract for citrus with off-taker, in exchange for equity in processor. Smallholders produce on contract through the collective, and other crops, as individuals, for other channels.
TechnoServe-Nwanedi	Beneficiaries: 57 Area: ±200 ha	Individual farmers supported by mentor who arranges supply contract for butternut and external financing by separate stakeholders. Technical support only for production of other vegetables.
TechnoServe-Massmart	Beneficiaries: 87 Area: ±185 ha	Loose collective of smallholders mentored by NGO in production of vegetables on supply contract. Off-taker is financial sponsor. Smallholder collective, NGO, and off-taker share equity in new pack house.
Blue Mountain Berries (BMB)	Beneficiaries: 70 Area: 257 ha	Farm workers of newly established blueberry farm organised in collective with equity in farm, shared with commercial farmer and DFI who warehouses loan financing of employees. Part funded by government grant. Farmer with equity working on management contract.
Katmakoep Boerdery	Beneficiaries: 5 Area: 103 ha	Selected employees of farm management company are individual shareholders of investment company (collective) with equity in new raisin farm shared with employer. Employee ownership funded by commercial off-taker, in exchange for supply contract.
Bosman Vineyards	Beneficiaries: 260 Area: 430 ha	Workers of long-established wine and vine farm, organised in collective, initially obtained full ownership in two of seven farms. In the second phase, all farms were brought under one company with shared equity between the commercial farm owner and the workers.
Tongaat Hulett Sugar (THS)- Vuselela	Beneficiaries: 2,555 Area: 3,700 ha	Small landholders lease land to cooperative with supply contract with sugar off-taker. Cooperative owns cane roots, funded by government grant. Operational management by off-taker.
Tongaat Hulett Sugar (THS) - Simamisa	Beneficiaries: 6,600 Area: ±6,700 ha	Small landholders give power of attorney to a cooperative that leases their land to sugar producer who owns cane roots. Operational management by external management company.
Mondi Paper	Beneficiaries: 1,660 Area: 4,000 ha	Existing forestry plantation sold by paper producer to land claimant collective and leased back with trees still owned by paper producer. Claimant community business contracted for plantation work, mentored by commercial paper producer.
New Dawn	Beneficiaries: 1,615 Area: 1,050 ha	Tropical fruit farming on land leased from land claimant community by joint venture with shared equity of commercial operator and land claimant collective. Operational control through management contract and marketing activities owned by commercial equity partner.
Richmond	Beneficiaries: 1,615 Area: 2,434 ha	Land claimant collective leases land to commercial operator for tropical fruit production. Lease based on fixed amount and profit share.
Seven Stars Trust (SST)	Beneficiaries: 36 Area: 731 ha	Individual landowners organised in two-tier cooperative structure contribute land to sharemilk agreement governed by Trust. Cattle and moveable assets contributed by commercial partner, fixed assets funded from government grant. Management contract with commercial partner. Profits shared between landowners and commercial partner, instead of lease rental. Trust has equity in downstream dairy processor.
Gxulu Berries	Beneficiaries: 217 Area: 9 ha	Community-owned blueberry farm with minority equity for DFI funder. Land leased from community cooperative. Informal supply contract with commercial farm for produce off-take and mentorship.

Source: Chamberlain & Anseeuw, 2018.

Figure 1. Inclusiveness score for ownership dimension per case.

Figure 2. Inclusiveness score for voice dimension per case.

Figure 3. Inclusiveness score for risk dimension per case.

Figure 4. Inclusiveness score for reward dimension per case.

Chamberlain, WO & Anseeuw, W, 2018. Inclusive businesses and land reform: Corporatization or transformation? Land 7(1), 18 doi:10.3390/land7010018.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar