We talk a lot about “women in farming”. It shows up in every sustainability report, every donor brief, every corporate environmental, social and governance deck, usually as a percentage, sometimes as a photograph.
But here is the question: what does it actually mean on the ground? Who controls what? Who signs what? Whose name is on the bank account?
The distinction matters economically. Most of the value in agriculture is not captured in the field; it is captured further along in processing, aggregation and sale where prices are negotiated and payments are authorized. The woman who grows the crop has no say in who sells it, at what price or whose account the money lands in. Being part of the supply chain is not just about the harvest; it is what turns labour into income and income into decision-making.
This year, results from Solidaridad’s Pathways to Prosperity (P2P) programme across Indonesia, India and Bangladesh give us a clearer picture. And it is more specific and more interesting than what usually gets written on this subject.
Start in Bangladesh
In a small tea-growing community in the village of Nitaldoba in north Bangladesh, Furti Rani spent years organizing her neighbours, pushing against what women in her community were expected to do. She formally registered a women-led tea cooperative consisting of 100 members.
She is the secretary. And the bank signatory. It means that the money the cooperative earns flows through her authorization—not a husband’s, not a middleman’s. In a situation where women routinely grow the crop and men often collect the payment, this is not a small thing.
The cooperative, Alo-Chaya, now sells directly to a major tea factory in the region, without the involvement of any intermediary. Members now earn 18,000 BDT (around 125 euros) more per year than before.
When asked about what she wants, Furti says: “I want the members of our cooperative, most of whom are still vulnerable, to earn more.”
She is not talking about herself anymore. She is thinking about scale.
Go to Indonesia
More than 400 women moved from being trained on business development to having access to markets. Women-led cooperatives—not a male head of the household or a village broker who works on a commission—are facilitating improved buying and selling opportunities for women. Here’s what matters the most: connections to better markets, not just access to training.
At the same time, we worked on women’s cooperative governance because entering the supply chain is only half the job. The cooperative should be in a position to negotiate with the supply chain actors and ensure its members are not getting an unfair deal. These two things must exist in parallel.
The impact, in this case, goes beyond assured market access. Women are gaining confidence, taking on leadership roles and creating new opportunities for themselves and others.
Reni, a farmer, entrepreneur and trainer supported through the programme, explains: “I truly hope this programme can continue and reach more women, so that many others can experience the same growth, opportunities and benefits that I have received.”
Her experience reflects a broader shift taking place across the region: women are not only participating in value chains; they are also increasingly shaping decisions within producer groups, cooperatives and their own communities.
In India, Brewing a Change That Rarely Makes Headlines
In the tea sector, the P2P programme prioritized the collectivization of producers through self-help groups and farmer producer organizations. At the same time, it supported service providers to redesign their delivery models to better reach remote producers and respond to the needs of women and smallholders. The programme also trained local youth and women in business management and created the SoliTea-branded network of roadside tea stalls and mobile tea carts, giving rural entrepreneurs a direct-to-consumer market instead of relying on intermediaries.
Women are increasingly managing enterprises, household finances, procurement and customer relationships. In Rudraprayag, Uttarakhand, after the sudden death of her husband, Rekha Devi took over the Shiv-Shakti Tea Stall, assuming responsibility for procurement, accounts, staffing and day-to-day operations. With support from the SoliTea initiative, which included improved visibility, hygiene training, food safety practices and clear signboards, she rebuilt the business into a thriving enterprise. Today, the stall generates daily tea sales of around INR 1,400 (around 13 euros) during the off-season and INR 1,500–2,000 (around 14–18 euros) during peak season. This demonstrates that women are not only participating in supply chains but also leading businesses, creating value and strengthening local economies.
Back to Indonesia—A Different Kind of Story
In Java, the distribution network for a smallholder-owned tea brand Teh nDeso, now on supermarket shelves, was built around women and youth micro-entrepreneurs. They are not a footnote to the channel. They are the channel.
That design choice matters. There is a big difference between adding women to a supply chain that was built without them, and building the supply chain so that women are central to how it functions. The former is inclusion. The latter is architecture.
So, What is the Difference Between Including Women and Feminizing a Supply Chain?
Including women is relatively easy. Count them. Report the percentage. Add them to an existing structure. There is no fundamental shift in who captures value or who makes decisions.
Feminizing a supply chain is harder, because it is about building the agency of women and is not just limited to ensuring access to resources. It means that women hold leadership positions in the cooperatives that negotiate prices with companies. That women are the bank signatories. That distribution networks are designed around them from the start. That bylaws, not just attitudes, change.
Solidaridad’s work under the P2P programme in Indonesia, India and Bangladesh covers six value chains—tea, palm oil, cotton, oilseeds, textiles, leather. Three countries, but one consistent logic underneath all of it.
None of it is quick. It needs longer timelines and a willingness to work on institutional change that won’t always show up as a clean number in a quarterly report.
But it is the kind of change that really sticks.