Tackling Gender Inequality in Community- Based Organizations: The Contribution of Cacao Cooperatives to Environmental Justice for Women in Peru

Abstract

Persistent gender inequalities challenge theory and praxis of community-based collective action. Here we adopt an innovative approach which integrates environmental justice, value chain inclusion and collective action theory to diagnose inequalities in community-based organizations (CBOs) and identify strategies to address them. Drawing on the findings of case studies conducted at six CBOs in Peru's cacao sector, this article aims to make three contributions. Empirically, we analyze the current situation of, barriers to and strategies for environmental justice for women in the six selected CBOs. Theoretically, we contribute to theory on community-based collective action through an analysis of environmental justice and value chain inclusion. Methodologically, we propose a framework that analysts may use to assess environmental justice for women in community-based collective action. Results show that overall, women participate less and benefit less from cacao CBOs. Furthermore, recognition of women's contributions and capabilities for cacao value creation tend to remain limited. We discuss 18 strategies and recommendations through which CBOs can address gender inequality for their female stakeholders on a cooperative, community, household and individual level. Most salient recommendations include workshops, generating income opportunities for women, increasing the rights of partners of official cooperative members, and introducing quotas for women in leadership positions. If such efforts are reinforced and better theorized, and gender strategies continuously implemented, CBOs such as cacao cooperatives have the potential to improve the environmental justice outcomes for women within their organizations, families, and communities at large.

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Tackling Gender
Inequality in Community-
Based Organizations:
The Contribution of
Cacao Cooperatives to
Environmental Justice for
Women in Peru
MIRIAM MAEDER
EVERT THOMAS
GESABEL VILLAR
MARLENI RAMIREZ
HARTMUT FÜNFGELD
CHRISTOPH OBERLACK
ABSTRACT
Persistent gender inequalities challenge theory and praxis of community-based collective
action. Here we adopt an innovative approach which integrates environmental justice,
value chain inclusion and collective action theory to diagnose inequalities in community-
based organizations (CBOs) and identify strategies to address them. Drawing on the
findings of case studies conducted at six CBOs in Peru’s cacao sector, this article aims to
make three contributions. Empirically, we analyze the current situation of, barriers to and
strategies for environmental justice for women in the six selected CBOs. Theoretically,
we contribute to theory on community-based collective action through an analysis
of environmental justice and value chain inclusion. Methodologically, we propose
a framework that analysts may use to assess environmental justice for women in
community-based collective action. Results show that overall, women participate less
and benefit less from cacao CBOs. Furthermore, recognition of women’s contributions and
capabilities for cacao value creation tend to remain limited. We discuss 18 strategies and
recommendations through which CBOs can address gender inequality for their female
stakeholders on a cooperative, community, household and individual level. Most salient
recommendations include workshops, generating income opportunities for women,
increasing the rights of partners of official cooperative members, and introducing quotas
for women in leadership positions. If such efforts are reinforced and better theorized,
and gender strategies continuously implemented, CBOs such as cacao cooperatives have
the potential to improve the environmental justice outcomes for women within their
organizations, families, and communities at large.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Miriam Maeder
University of Freiburg, Germany
miriam.e.maeder@gmail.com
KEYWORDS:
Cacao; Cocoa; Cooperative;
Collective Action; Environmental
Justice; Gender; Gender
Equality; Inclusive Value Chain;
Peru
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Maeder, M., Thomas, E., Villar, G.,
Ramirez, M., Fünfgeld, H.,
& Oberlack, C. (2024).
Tackling Gender Inequality
in Community-Based
Organizations: The Contribution
of Cacao Cooperatives to
Environmental Justice for
Women in Peru. International
Journal of the Commons, 18(1),
pp. 112–130. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.5334/ijc.1276
*Author affiliations can be found in the back matter of this article

113
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
1. INTRODUCTION
The design principles for governing the commons lay
out conditions under which long-lasting community-
based collective action is likely to occur (Ostrom 1990,
Cox et al. 2010). However, such collective action can
involve significant social inequality, even if all design
principles are met (Klain et al. 2014, Oberlack et al.
2015). Notably, commons institutions have been found
to disproportionately exclude women (Zwarteveen and
Meinzen-Dick 2001). Gender inequality is often deeply
rooted in community-based organizations (CBOs) that
may be resilient in institutional and ecological terms but at
the same time male-dominated and repressive (Agarwal
2007). This is problematic not only because justice and
fairness constitute moral values by themselves, but also
because CBOs characterized by inequality can gradually
erode internal cooperation (ibid.). Approaches in commons
research to account for inequalities are currently in full
development (Barnett et al. 2020, Kashwan et al. 2021).
One research direction explores how different forms of
power play out in community-based collective action
(Clement 2010, Haller 2019, Kashwan et al. 2019, Morrison
et al. 2019, Partelow and Manlosa 2023). A second
discourse frames the problem in terms of environmental
justice. It has explored how social movements interact
with CBOs in environmental justice conflicts (Villamayor-
Tomas and Garcia-Lopez 2018, 2021). However, studying
the relations between CBOs and environmental justice is
still in its infancy. Most studies have focused on settings
where conflicts had already escalated to open, often
violent confrontations. Less is known, however, on how
CBOs can be adapted to overcome structural inequalities.
This study aims to contribute to these research directions
in three ways. First, empirically, we analyze the current
situation of, barriers to and strategies for environmental
justice for women through six case studies in Peru.
Second, at a theoretical level, we contribute to theory on
community-based collective action through an analysis
of environmental justice and value chain inclusion. Third,
methodologically, we propose an assessment framework
for environmental justice for women in community-based
collective action settings. We focus on women in cacao
cooperatives because cooperatives constitute widespread
institutions for community-based collective action, and the
cacao sector faces significant gender inequalities (Kuhn et
al. 2023). Three research questions guide our analysis: 1)
How is environmental justice for female stakeholders of
cooperatives perceived within cacao producing regions? (“EJ
assessment”); 2) What factors hinder better environmental
justice for their female stakeholders? (“EJ barriers”);
3) What strategies do cooperatives employ to improve
environmental justice for their female stakeholders?
(“EJ strategies”). We present results from case studies
conducted at six selected cooperatives and associations in
two Peruvian cacao growing regions.
Section 2 of the article explores relations between
gender inequality, cooperatives and environmental justice
in the cocoa sector, Section 3 describes our methods,
and Section 4 introduces the context and cases in Peru
followed by Section 5 presenting the results of the case
studies. Section 6 derives an assessment framework with
key indicators to evaluate environmental justice for women
in cooperatives as well as a discussion of implications for
collective action research.
2. COOPERATIVES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOR WOMEN
2.1. COOPERATIVES, INCLUSIVE VALUE CHAINS
AND GENDER
A cooperative is “an autonomous association of persons
united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social
and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned
and democratically-controlled enterprise” (Saarelainen
and Sievers 2011:6). Cacao cooperatives facilitate collective
action among producers for increased participation in value
chains. They do so by promoting collective activities such
as post-harvest processing, logistics, trade or marketing
(Blare et al. 2017). The collective bargaining power of
cooperatives can strengthen producers’ market position
vis-à-vis buyers (Oberlack et al. 2023). They also facilitate
natural resource management of smallholders through
training, access to inputs, credit, market information,
technical assistance, and cooperatives often implement
standards for certifications (Bijman et al. 2016). However,
land for cacao cultivation is predominantly held privately
by smallholders (Voora et al. 2019). Asymmetries of
control, benefit and access can persist, and cooperatives
are embedded in larger systems of production, such as
value chains (Oberlack et al. 2020). Therefore, cooperatives
may deviate from a view of commoning among fully equal
(land) users.
Specifically, women have been found to participate less
in agricultural value chains and cooperatives (Kuhn et al.
2023). Even where value chains and cooperatives provide
opportunities for women, their activities, remuneration,
positions and working conditions are often inferior to
those of men (Bamber and Staritz 2016; Wijers 2019).
Often, women’s participation in value chains remains
invisible as their activities are more likely to be unpaid,
home-based or informal (Bacon et al. 2023). Cooperative’s
internal institutions influence how benefits of value chain

114
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
participation are captured and distributed (Stoian et al.
2018). Therefore, effectively including women continues
to be a major challenge for many cooperatives (Anan
2018).
Multiple barriers limit women’s inclusion in (cacao)
cooperatives and value chains. Most of them arise from
gendered social norms that manifest at the individual,
household and community level as well as within the
wider political context (Brislane and Crawford 2014).
Main barriers can be clustered into the categories lack of
access to resources, time constraints, lack of decision-
making power, and lack of network (group participation),
as summarized in Table 1. Stoian et al. (2018) note that
often, value chain participation is erroneously conceived as
an individual choice made by women, failing to recognize
that such decisions are mostly taken at the household
level based on trade-offs between different income
generating and domestic activities. Sometimes, greater
value chain participation simply leads to higher workloads
for women while additional income is still controlled by
male family members (Coles and Mitchell 2011). Thus,
cooperatives may contribute to women’s empowerment
by implementing measures addressing underlying formal
and informal social norms that lead to discrimination
as well as strategies addressing the barriers cited above
more specifically (World Cacao Foundation 2019).
2.2. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND GENDER IN
THE CACAO SECTOR
Dominant interpretations in the environmental justice
literature offer a three-dimensional perspective for
assessing justice claims in accessing, using or protecting the
natural environment. These dimensions are distributional,
procedural, and recognition justice (Fraser 2000, Schlosberg
2009). In our study, the environmental resource of main
interest is land used for cacao production and associated
post-harvest processes and value chains.
Fraser (2000: 116) defines the distributional dimension
of justice as the “allocation of disposable resources to
social actors” resulting from a specific economic system.
Martin et al. (2016: 1) describe distributional justice as
the “differences between stakeholders in terms of who
enjoys rights to material benefits and who bears costs and
responsibilities”. The procedural dimension assesses “how
decisions are made, who is participating and on what terms”
(Martin et al. 2016: 1). For Fraser (2000), procedural justice
means parity of participation in social life among relevant
social groups as superordinate result of distributional and
recognition justice. There are different forms of participation
that determine the degree of procedural justice.
Participation can mean having appointed representatives
in decision-making bodies without any real interaction or
decision-making power of the people affected. At the other
end of the spectrum, participation can mean a real transfer
of authority and responsibility to the people concerned
(Martin et al. 2016). Questions of recognition justice have
been relatively neglected in environmental justice studies
(Schlosberg 2009). Misrecognition is a ‘status injury’ (Fraser
2000) that constitutes not only a cultural depreciation but
can make parts of society “comparatively unworthy of
respect or esteem” (Fraser 2000: 114).
Across these three inextricably linked dimensions of
environmental justice, most research has focused on the
two factors race and/or class, paying less attention to the
role of gender (Gaard 2017, Lecoutere 2017). In the cacao
sector, gender inequalities relate to “limited access to
training, inputs, credit and land” and “routinely unpaid and
undervalued” work of women (World Cacao Foundation
2019: 3). Even though women in cacao producing families
are normally responsible for all domestic and care work,
they often also contribute considerably to cacao production
(Blare et al. 2017). Nonetheless, women are typically less
informed about farming practices and markets and their
decision-making power can be limited (Blare et al. 2019).
BARRIER DESCRIPTION SOURCES
Lack of access to resources Reduced access to: a) land, markets, income, credits, livestock, agricultural equipment, b)
education, skills, information, c) infrastructure, services
1, 2, 3, 4
Time constraints Responsible for domestic and care work, less or no time for paid labor, women have an overall
higher workload
1, 3, 4, 5
Lack of decision-making power Lower negotiation and decision-making power on all levels, e.g. household expenditures, labor
activities, production decisions
2, 4, 6
Group participation Lack of networks because of limited participation in economic or social groups or the
community, especially in leadership roles
1, 4
Table 1 Barriers to women’s inclusion in value chains and their participation in cooperatives.
Sources: 1) Bamber and Staritz 2016; 2) Coles and Mitchell 2011; 3) Stoian et al. 2012; 4) Anan 2018; 5) Brislane and Crawford 2014; 6)
Stoian et al. 2018.

115
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
Figure 1 summarizes the analytical framework
developed for this study based on the above review. We
conceptualize environmental justice for women related
to the environmental good of cacao as gender equality
on three non-hierarchical dimensions: the distribution of
benefits and burdens, participation in decision-making,
and recognition. Environmental justice situations are
constrained by barriers to women’s inclusion, whereas
strategies can improve such situations by influencing the
three interacting dimensions of distributional, procedural
and recognition justice at the individual, household,
cooperative and community levels.
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
We employed a multiple case study research design to
obtain results that represent a variety of local contexts
(Yin 2013). We address the research questions based on
qualitative data as this allows us to gain an understanding
of subjective experiences and social processes (ibid.). The
gendered environmental justice assessment of cooperatives
as well as the analysis of strategies for, and barriers to,
gender equality require an in-depth understanding of the
context and insights from various perspectives. Therefore,
we included a range of female actors including official
cooperative members, partners of associated farmers,
and cooperative employees, but also male stakeholders.
We purposely selected organizations using the following
criteria: (a) different sizes and age of the cooperatives, (b)
different proportions of female members, (c) accessibility
and interest to participate in the research. This led us to
select six producer organizations – five that are legally
registered as cooperatives and one as association.1
The first author collected data through 41 semi-structured
interviews in Spanish during seven weeks of fieldwork in
2021 (Table 2). The number of interviews per cooperative
varied between four and fourteen. The questionnaire was
based on the analytical framework and covered (on all
four levels) the current situation in terms of distribution,
participation and recognition in accessing and using land for
cacao production; the barriers for participation of women in
cacao value chains; the strategies of the organization for
women inclusion; as well as background information about
the producer organization. We identified interviewees by
consulting cooperative representatives. Interviews lasted
between 30 and 90 minutes and were recorded with
the consent of the interviewees. We complemented this
primary interview data with field observations, reports,
websites and scientific literature.
We transcribed the interviews and analyzed them
through qualitative content analysis using MaxQDA 2022
software (for the codebook, see Appendix A). In addition
to predefined categories derived from the conceptual
framework (Figure 1), additional categories were created
using an open coding approach based on the data. The
analytical results were shared with and validated by the
research participants.
The following limitations need to be taken into
account when interpreting our results: Our positionality
Figure 1 “Analytical framework. Source: Authors.”

116
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
as researchers and our analytical framework (Figure 1)
influenced how this research was conducted, the questions
asked and how the responses were interpreted. The author
group included female and male researchers from Peru and
Europe. Having equal rights and opportunities for all genders
was an important value that underpinned this research.
This implies that individuals can make their own life choices,
get the chance to develop themselves as human beings,
are valorized by the people around them and are given the
opportunity to gain an understanding of the context they
live in. This conceptualization of gender equality means
that we may have interpreted situations differently than
our interviewees. Second, our sampling approach may have
affected the representativeness of the interviewees. For
instance, the interviewees may have been chosen because
they were especially aware of gender topics or especially
collaborative with the cocoa cooperative. We may also not
have been directed to particularly marginalized people.
Third, social desirability biases as well (perceived) power
imbalances may have affected interviewee responses.
Finally, questions about self-perception, roles and habits
inside a family are personal; therefore, and in line with
informed consent, interviewees may have retained certain
personal information that would have been relevant for the
aims of study. Despite those limitations, we argue that this
study holds relevant insights about the current situation,
barriers and strategies for environmental justice for women
in cacao cooperatives.
4. CONTEXT AND CASES: CACAO
COOPERATIVES AND GENDER IN PERU
4.1. CONTEXT
Peru is the eighth largest cacao producing country globally
(Fountain and Hütz-Adams 2020). The country is known to
produce some of the finest cacao varieties (Thomas et al.
2023). More than 89’000 farmers rely on the cacao sector
(MIDAGRI 2023). Over 90% of Peru’s cocoa is produced by
small-holder farmers with an average farm size of two
hectares (ibid.). About 35% of Peruvian cacao producers are
organized in cooperatives (Wiegel et al. 2020). Cooperatives
typically adopt a dual structure with a social and a business
part (Figure 2). The general assembly is the highest decision-
making power, it also elects the members of committees
and boards. The general management reports to the
general assembly. The price at which cooperatives buy the
cacao from their members is based on the market value
and varies according to qualities, varieties, certifications
and buyer-specific components. In addition, producers
typically receive a volume-dependent premium at the
end of the year. Producers generally deliver their cacao in
pulp to collection points and the cooperative takes care of
the fermentation, transport and commercialization of the
beans.
The Peruvian Cooperative Law regulates the nature,
governance structure, rights and obligations of cooperatives.
In 2021, an amendment of this law introduced two changes
for women’s inclusion. Article 8 stipulates the possibility for
couples to be considered as one member of the cooperative.
Article 10 states that: “Agricultural user cooperatives
promote the active participation of women on equal terms
with men. […] The users’ agricultural cooperatives try
to include in their governing bodies a number of women
that will make it possible to reach, within five years from
the entry into force of this law, a presence of women and
men proportional to the number of members that make
up their membership” (Ley de Perfeccionamiento de La
Asociatividad de Los Productores Agrarios En Cooperativas
Agrarias 2021, own translation).
The development of cooperatives in Peru has proven
difficult, especially owing to issues of weak business
management, corruption, mistrust with buyers and
members, or lack of working capital (Blare et al. 2017).
Many cooperatives still rely on subsidies from projects,
governments or sometimes buyers to cover the costs for
service provision (Blaire et al. 2017). Even though women
actively participate in cacao production, they have little
influence in decisions on the marketing of cacao as well as
purchases or sales of land and farm equipment (Blare et
al. 2019). Ramirez et al. (2021) found that the production
steps holding the highest potential for women’s inclusion
Table 2 Interview groups and number of people interviewed.
INTERVIEW GROUP DESCRIPTION NUMBER
Manager Person with a management or other leadership position within the cooperative, normally the general manager. 7
Female employee Women working for the cooperative in any function, including in stockpiling. 8
Male employee Men working for the cooperative in any function, including in stockpiling. 5
Female producer Women who are either an official member of the cooperative or the partner of a male official member. 12
Male producer Men who are either an official member of the cooperative or the partner of a female official member. 9

117
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
are grafting and nursery, drying and fermentation of cacao
beans as well as the production of cacao derivatives.
4.2. CASES
Table 3 characterizes the six organizations that we selected
for the present study. They are located in the tropical region
San Martin and in the region of Piura with a seasonally
dry climate. The cooperatives vary in size and age. They
all offer technical assistance, trainings and workshops
to their members as well as different additional services.
Most of the cooperative members are native Spanish-
speakers, while especially one cooperative has a significant
part (53%) of members speaking Quechua as their first
language. The share of female cooperative members and
employees ranges between 12 and 37%, and between
12 and 100%, respectively, while the share of women in
leadership positions was generally low but varied.
5. RESULTS
Overall, we find that women benefit less than men from
cacao value chain integration through cooperatives.
Furthermore, misrecognition of women’s contributions and
capabilities prevails. Such inequalities are mainly due to
social norms preventing women from actively participating
in cooperatives. However, our results also demonstrate
that cooperatives are effectively developing strategies to
increase women’s inclusion in community-based collective
action.
5.1. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ASSESSMENT
The CBOs in our sample influence and are influenced by
distributional, procedural and recognition justice at four
levels: cooperative, household, individual and community.
5.1.1. Cooperative level: female cooperative
members
Participation of women within the cooperatives and
attention given to women’s inclusion in cacao value
chains has generally increased over the past years. While
all cooperatives make efforts to enhance gender equality,
they are currently at different stages, as the following
indicators show.
First, the percentage of official female members varies
considerably among the cooperatives, ranging from 12 to
37%. A significant part of the female members is single
or widowed. Some of the local producer committees do
not have a single female member. This is important since
normally only official members of the cooperative are
eligible for mandates and credits, have the right to vote,
and are invited to meetings and training.
Figure 2 “Typical dual structure of cacao cooperatives in Peru with a social and a corporate part. Source: own work based on organigrams
shared by the cooperatives under study.”

118
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
COOPERATIVE 1 COOPERATIVE 2 COOPERATIVE 3 COOPERATIVE 4 COOPERATIVE 5 ASSOCIATION 6
Founding
year
2015 1997 2013 (started in 1995 as
association)
2003 2016 (as cooperative) 2009
Products Cacao Cacao (main product) and
timber
To a lesser extent hot peppers,
Tahiti lime and ginger
Coffee (75%), panela
(since 2003),2 cacao since
2006, carbon credits from
reforestation (since 2010)
Cacao
Cacao derivatives:
chocolates, liquor
Cacao
Cacao derivatives: chocolates,
Theobroma bicolor, cacao pulp
derivatives
Chocolate, roasted
majambo (Theobroma
bicolor), chocolate from
majambo, majambo
and cacao liquor
Cacao
production
25 t3, min. farm size: 3ha 4 000 t, min. farm size: 2ha 1 000 t4, min. farm size:
0.5ha
50 t, min. farm size: 0.5ha 860 t, min. farm size: 1ha N/A
N° of
members
40 1850 (average 2 000) Overall: 6 500, cacao: 900 152 460 N/A
N° of
employees
8 60 138 Fix contracts: 7
Per hour basis: 3-5
21 15
% female
members
37% (15 out of 40) 20% (320 out of 1 850) 20% 20% (30 out of 152) 12% N/A (association with
employees)
% female
employees
12.5% (1 out of 8) 33% (15 out of 45) 30% 40% (fix contracts), 50%
(overall)
33% 100%
Women in
leadership
positions
Social structure:
–2 women in the board of
directors
–Female vice president
Corporate structure:
–Female general
manager
Social structure:
–3 women in the board of
directors (out of 15)
–6 delegates (out of 40)
Corporate structure:
–Female area managers for
credits and treasury
Social structure:
–N/A
Corporate structure:
–2 woman in the
executive (out of 5)
–The majority of the
area managers are
women
Social structure:
–5 women in the board
of directors (out of 15)
Corporate structure:
–Female area manager
for processing
Social structure:
–1 woman in board of
directors
Corporate structure:
–Female area manager
accounting and finance
department
All-women association
Services
provided to
members
–Technical assistance
–Trainings and workshops
–Credits
–Credits in case of health
issues
–Bonus at the end of the
year
–Technical assistance
–Trainings and workshops
–Speeches
–Different credits
–Social programs
–Health programs
–Assistance in case of
health issues
–Death benefits
–Contribution at the end of
the year
–Technical assistance
–Workshops and
trainings
–Fertilizer
–Provision of equipment
–Death benefits
–Support local
businesses producing
cacao derivatives
–Technical assistance
–Workshops and
trainings
–Organic fertilizers half
price
–Provision of equipment
–Assistance in plant
maintenance
–Credits (upcoming)
–Assistance to set up
enterprise for cacao
derivatives
–Technical assistance
–Workshops and trainings
(mainly technical)
–Facilitation to access credits
for investments in the farms
–Contribution at the end of
the year
–Trainings
Table 3 Description of the selected cooperatives and producer association.

119
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
Second, gendered differences in attending cooperative
events prevail. While our respondents reported that
women are less involved, they claimed that generally,
their participation tends to increase. Most respondents
stated that “in general it is the man and if he cannot, it
is the woman5” who attends meetings and trainings. In
cooperative 1, women account for 40-50% of participants,
but other cooperatives reported difficulties in increasing
women’s attendance. However, female respondents
often stated that they would like to be more involved.
Likewise, cooperatives encourage the participation of both
heads of households. Nonetheless, most interviewees,
men and women, did not see it as a goal for both to be
equally knowledgeable about the cooperative and cacao
production. Furthermore, the forms of participation matter.
Few women participate in technical training, while their
attendance is higher for general meetings. Interviewees also
said that sometimes women are sent to meetings by their
partners but are not supposed to take decisions or accept
mandates. Some respondents stated that women speak
up less often than men and are more afraid of exposing
themselves through active participation. It was also said
that often, women do not “feel capable of assuming a
mandate.6” Other respondents stated that women are
as active during meetings as men and sometimes even
more than them. Attendance in meetings and training is
relevant for procedural as well as distributional justice as
this is where decisions are taken, producers are informed
about current issues within the cooperative and the sector,
and where women can develop their skills. It also has an
indirect effect on recognition, as being informed and skilled
increases an individual’s self-esteem and how the person is
perceived by others.
Third, women are underrepresented in leadership
positions within the cooperatives’ social structures. None
of the cooperatives in our sample has ever had a female
president and only one has a female vice-president. The
cooperatives, through the national cooperative association
of APPCACAO, have promoted the national network of
women cacao producers. On the initiative of the members’
wives, the network has worked to make the participation of
women visible and promote the generation of added value
from the production of cacao and other crops through
micro-enterprises that support the family economy.
5.1.2. Cooperative level: female employees of
cooperatives
First, the share of female employees in the cooperatives
varies between 12 and 50%, if the women producing
derivatives paid on a per-day basis are counted.7 As a
special case, Association 6 is an all-women enterprise.
Women employment contributes to the cooperatives’
effects on individual income, skills, recognition and self-
esteem.
Second, a clear pattern emerges regarding the areas in
which male and female cooperative employees were active.
Most technical assistants working in the field are men,
while women are mostly found in the areas of accounting,
finance, secretariat, assistant positions and producing
cacao derivatives such as chocolate. Some cooperatives
also employ female members as stockpilers.
Third, women are underrepresented in corporate
leadership positions, especially at senior levels. Women
are often occupying important lower management
positions, mainly as heads of areas of credits and treasury,
or accounting and finance. For one cooperative, even
most of the area managers are female. Even though
female employees generally feel equally valued as
their male counterparts by superiors and colleagues,
the overall underrepresentation of women in corporate
leadership positions, especially at the top level, is a sign
of misrecognition of women’s capabilities. Talking about
the topic, one woman stated that “the most important
positions are held by men, so I believe they think that
women can’t do them.8”
Fourth, except for one interviewee, employees and
managers claimed that there is no difference in salaries
between women and men working in the same position.
However, the fact that men are more likely to occupy high-
level positions also means that on average they get paid
more. Additionally, for production of derivatives where the
share of women is highest, the contract conditions are
most precarious. The salary corresponds generally to the
minimum wage paid on a per-day basis and the working
hours depend on demand.
5.1.3. Household level
First, tasks and activities related to cacao production and
the cooperative are mainly carried out by men while women
are mostly involved in the production of cacao derivatives.
Nevertheless, many interviewees also highlighted the
importance of women for the cacao production, but their
role was generally framed as a supporting “pillar” and not
an equal contributor. Women are mainly responsible for
bringing lunch to their partners working in the field but
some are also very involved in the field work and conduct all
tasks, also thanks to the training provided by cooperatives.
Second, most income is used in ways that benefit the
entire family, in particular for basic needs such as food,
health or education. In some reported instances, the man
delivered the cacao, received the money and spent it for
himself while the woman had to make ends meet with
what she received from her partner. However, this does not
seem to occur often, and several women producers said

120
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
that they deliver the cacao together and they know the
income.
Third, cooperatives support their members through
training and extension services. Since it is mostly the
men working in the field, extensionists engage more
with them than with women. Most cooperatives offer
special programs targeting women, such as training and
support for planting vegetable gardens for self-supply
and sales since in most households, women are allocated
a small plot of land for vegetable farming. Lower female
participation in training does not automatically imply
that women were not informed. Several respondents said
that the person participating in training informs the other
afterwards. Nevertheless, women overall have less access
to information about the cacao sector and functioning of
the cooperative due to their limited participation. While
many cooperatives provide access to credit for members, it
is only destined for investments in cacao production. Credit
cannot be taken out to start or improve the production of
cacao derivatives, thereby making the credits less beneficial
for women. Additionally, only the official member of the
cooperative is generally eligible for credit. Another service
offered by cooperatives is support programs in case of
health issues or death. These benefit the entire family and
make no distinction between official member and partner.
Fourth, decision-making power within the household is
an indicator for procedural justice. Most producers stated
that in general, decisions are taken jointly within their
households while cooperative managers and employees
claimed that decision-making power in the household
mainly lies with the men, especially in producers’
households. Regarding land use and cacao production,
decision-making is generally up to the man but none of
the female producers stated that they would prefer other
land uses when asked about it. In most households, the
land belongs to the man, but independent of the land
ownership, the main responsible for the cacao production
is the male producer. Several interviewees suggested that
if women earn their own income, they also have more
decision-making power within the family. One stated that
“the woman who brings bread to the house also has a
greater role to play.9” In many families, it is the women
who administers the money. Several male interviewees
mentioned that their partner was better with money and
that they therefore prefer leaving it to them to decide how
to spend the household income. In other cases, the women
receive specific amounts from their partners for household
expenditures.
Finally, cooperatives can affect recognition among
household members. While women are typically less valued
than men according to our interviews and observations,
several respondents claimed that there is less machismo
and gender-based violence in the member families than
in average households in the community because of the
awareness-raising efforts done by the cooperative. They
observed that men participated more in housework and
women’s opinions were more respected. While some
respondents claimed that women’s involvement in the
cooperative has no effect on the interactions within the
household, several interviewees stated that women’s
increased self-esteem from active participation in the
cooperative improves their recognition within the family.
Additionally, the fact that more women take over mandates
within the cooperatives indicates changes in how women’s
roles and capabilities are perceived.
5.1.4. Individual level
Our interviews suggest that self-esteem is a critical
dimension for recognition and procedural justice. Women
who generate their own income demonstrate generally
more self-confidence in the way they talk but also
regarding their position within the family and the respect
they demand from other family members. However,
it is uncertain whether income opportunities lead to
higher self-confidence or if women who are already self-
confident are more likely to start their own business or
income-generating activity. For instance, all women
starting Association 6 were already leaders in another
local organization. Similarly, one of the women working in
the production of derivatives stated that she had joined a
local women’s group before where she had learnt to value
herself more and demand more respect from her partner.
Better self-esteem and generating income are therefore
most likely two mutually reinforcing factors.
Involvement in cooperatives and associations enable
some of the women to travel to the capital and even to
other countries – places they would normally not be able to
visit. Some won important prizes for their chocolate and are
sought-after interview partners. All this makes a big impact
on how the women involved perceive themselves and
how they are perceived by others, including their families.
Employees with university degrees also reported that
working for the cooperative increases their self-confidence
and helps them in their personal development, experiencing
new gender roles working with the cooperative.
5.1.5. Effects at community level
Cooperatives influence the larger communities in several
ways. First, by involving women within the organization,
having them in leadership positions, and enabling them
to travel, cooperatives break with traditional gender roles,
send a signal to the community that women’s inclusion is
important, and show what women are capable of. Women
who are empowered through the cooperative are more

121
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
likely to be involved in other community activities and make
other women aware about their rights and capabilities.
Second, some cooperatives implement programs about
gender equality and other social issues that target the
community at large. Third, cooperatives can provide job
opportunities for women which are otherwise hard to find
in rural areas.
5.2. BARRIERS TO GREATER ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE FOR WOMEN
The environmental justice situation described in the
previous section reflects gendered social norms. These
norms manifest themselves in intertwined barriers that
underpin the persistence of inequalities (Figure 3). The
social norms are clearly expressed in the roles of women
and men within families and society. Typically, men are the
heads of the family and responsible for the work outside the
house and women are responsible for care and domestic
work. Since women are thus generally less involved in the
cacao production, it also makes less sense for them to
participate in cooperatives’ activities. The fact that women
participate less further aggravates the unequal distribution
of knowledge, making them even less likely to join further
meetings. Several female producers said that they do not
feel comfortable actively participating because they do not
feel knowledgeable enough or because a large majority
of male participants in meetings discourages them to
speak up. This creates a self-reinforcing lock-in effect in a
sense that as long as only few women participate, it is not
attractive for more women to join.
Several female interviewees stated that other than to go
to the field, they rarely leave the house, limiting their social
participation and opportunities to gain knowledge about the
“outside world”. Given the traditionally domestic centered
role of women, it is socially ill-regarded if they spend time
or work outside. However, many female producers stated
that they are content with their situation but want it to
be different for their daughters. Women’s participation in
social life and cooperative activities is further hampered by
a lack of access to transport, as the use of motorbikes is
mainly reserved for men. As women’s role in the family is
the domestic work, it was for a long time not seen necessary
to send them to school. The generally lower education level
of middle-aged and older women as compared to men of
their age is another factor limiting their participation in the
cooperative. Several cooperative representatives said that
Figure 3 “Barriers to environmental justice for women in cacao growing regions. Source: Authors.”

122
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
it is at times difficult for female producers with little school
education to learn new things in training, especially if they
are illiterate. The difference in education is likely to affect
self-esteem and access to resources.
One of the main barriers to environmental justice in
the study context is the lack of recognition of women’s
value and capabilities by themselves and others. Female
professionals generally are recognized within the Peruvian
society, the cooperative and within their households. This
is different for female producers, not only in terms of roles
and recognition within the family but also with regards
to their self-esteem. Sometimes, both partners believed
that women´s intellectual capability is inferior to men´s,
only men are considered competent to take decisions,
and women do not need to be involved in social life. This
affects women’s aspirations at the household, cooperative
and community level and even leads them to judge other
women that seek to break out of traditional gender roles.
Several respondents reported that women have higher
overall workloads especially if they are single mothers.
Nonetheless, the contribution of women to the family is
not always acknowledged by their partners or themselves.
However, some male producers clearly stated that they
see their partner, and women in general, as equal and
even superior in certain aspects and it showed in the
way they interacted. The woman had the space to speak,
make propositions and take decisions. However, in other
instances interviews suggested that gender inequalities
are present. In such cases, the man answered questions
asked to his partner during introductory conversations and
she stayed in the background.
It is also a wide-spread conception within the Peruvian
society that men are more suitable for leadership positions,
even though this is changing slowly. This is reflected in the
underrepresentation of women in leadership positions
within the cooperatives’ social and business structures.
Female respondents in leadership positions reported that
it was hard at the beginning because people were skeptical
if a woman is capable of filling “typically male” functions.
Those barriers adversely affect all three dimensions of
environmental justice with relation to cacao production.
The gendered social norms and roles prevent women
from participating (procedural justice) in cooperatives
and thus from benefiting from skill-building and access
to information (distributional justice). They are perceived
by themselves and others as less entitled and capable of
taking decisions, especially regarding cacao production
and the cooperative (recognition and procedural justice).
Cooperatives’ regulations that give more rights to the
generally male official member (procedural justice) reflect
and reinforce those social norms.
5.3. STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOR WOMEN
All cooperatives in our sample promote gender equality.
While the cooperatives seem to be intrinsically motivated
to promote the inclusion and the role of women for social
and economic reasons, many had started their efforts
because of external pressure from certification standards
or buyers.
We identified 18 strategies and practices that they adopt
to improve the situation for their female stakeholders in
terms of distributive, procedural and recognition justice of
cacao land uses and value chains. The overview in Table 4
shows that no organization adopts all the strategies. Some
strategies address clearly the distributive, participatory or
recognition dimension of environmental justice and one
specific level of impact, whereas others address multiple
dimensions and levels. We summarize the strategies and
practices in the following.
5.3.1. Training and awareness raising
All cooperatives conduct workshops to increase gender
awareness among their members, and some also do
speeches about the topic. Most workshops involve both
men and women together, even though men were less
interested to attend. Some cooperatives organized events
for women only, often aimed at increasing women’s
self-esteem. Most gender workshops are organized in
collaboration with NGOs or certification organizations.
The main topics addressed are the valorization of women,
their capabilities and contribution to the family and
cooperative, domestic violence, women’s rights, gender
roles within the family especially regarding house and
care work, and the importance of having women in
leadership positions. Exchanges about the participants’
personal experiences is a key element. The workshops
often aim to raise participants’ awareness of patterns
within their partnerships that discriminate against women
and exemplify traditional machismo gender norms. Many
cooperative representatives as well as producers stated
that such workshops can lead to changes, in particular if
they provoke emotional reactions and engagement.
Considering that women’s formal education was often
lower than men’s, several cooperatives also offer sessions
on general topics such as the functioning of the cacao
sector, financial planning for families, accounting, health
or the importance of school education for all children.
Cooperative 2 also introduced mandatory training for its
female employees to increase their skills and enhance
their careers. Changing gender norms needs continuous
efforts. Several cooperatives therefore integrate gender
equality as a transversal topic in their activities. However,

123
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
even producers who said that their cooperative constantly
mentions that both should attend the meetings stated
that normally just one of them participates.
5.3.2. Economic opportunities
Several respondents claimed that by having an income,
women have more voice in the household and increase
their self-esteem. Additionally, increased family income can
reduce tensions arising from a lack of money and therefore
prevent domestic violence. Some cooperatives include the
production of cacao derivatives as a business field, aiming
explicitly to offer income opportunities for women. Others
support independent local women’s groups with training,
credits or equipment for derivative production. Cooperative
3 also has a segmented program, in which they collect
beans only from associations of female producers, which
is met with interest by buyers willing to pay extra. Some
cooperatives implement programs helping women to
STRATEGY EJ* LEVELS
**
COOP.
1
COOP.
2
COOP.
3
COOP.
4
COOP.
5
ASSOC.
6
Training and awareness raising
1Workshops and other inputs about gender equality D, P, R 1, 2, 3
2 Specific trainings/internships/projects specifically for women D, P 1, 2 N/A
3 Highlight the importance of gender equality and women’s
participation during regular cooperative events
R 1, 2, 3 N/A
4 Trainings that increase women’s understanding of general
issues
D, P, R 1, 2
5Special trainings for female employees of cooperatives D 1 N/A
6 Gender workshops/speeches for externals D, P, R 3
Economic opportunities
7 Create income opportunities for women in cacao value chain D, P, R 1, 2 (3)
8Create income opportunities for women in other value chains/
activities for self-consumption
D, P, R (1) 2
Communication
9 Showcase women’s contribution in communications R 1
10 Awareness raising during externally organized events D, P, R 3
Participation
11 Facilitate attendance and encourage the active participation
of women in cooperative events
P, R 1, 2 N/A
12 Send female representatives to external events D, P, R 1, 2
Cooperative rules
13 Transparent salary grid D, P 1 N/A
14 Institutionalized measures against sexual harassment within
the cooperative
R, P 1
15 Gender equality as organizational culture (voice, treatment,
invitation to events, leadership positions)
R (D, P) 1 N/A
16 Health and death insurance D 2
17 Establish quota for women in leadership positions D, P, R 1 N/A
18 Increase the rights for partners of official members P 2 N/A
Table 4 Strategies to improve environmental justice outcome for female stakeholders by cooperative/association.
Colors: White = strategy not implemented, Dark grey = strategy implemented, Bright grey = contradictory information.
*Environmental justice dimensions: D = Distributional justice, P = Procedural justice, R = Recognition.
**1 = Cooperative, 2 = Household/individual, 3 = Community.

124
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
generate their own income beyond cacao or to produce
goods for self-consumption. For instance, they actively
involve female producers in their reforestation programs
or support women to start breeding poultry or create
vegetable gardens.
5.3.3. Communication and marketing
Several cooperatives explicitly recognize the contribution
of their female producers in corporate communication or
marketing. For instance, one cooperative dedicated each
type of chocolate in a series to one of their female members.
Another one produced a video showcasing female leaders
and producers and asked a female producer association
to present their success story in international fairs. By
presenting their stories at public events and parades,
Association 6 raises awareness about gender equality and
shows the community what a group of dedicated women
can achieve. To do so, they even created songs about
women’s rights and empowerment. Such efforts are not
only beneficial to the valuation of women but are also a
successful marketing strategy with buyers and consumers.
5.3.4. Participation
Several cooperatives explicitly invite both women and men
to events and motivate their members regularly to attend
together. To promote active participation of women during
cooperative events, two managers mentioned that they
directly ask them questions during events, make them
present group results and reward them for participation.
Another cooperative visits member families regularly;
during such visits they motivate female producers to join
cooperative activities. They also encourage participation by
providing food for 4–5 people per family during events, so
women do not have to stay home to cook. Recognizing that
oftentimes, women do not attend meetings because they
need to take care of the children, Cooperative 1 has put
childcare service in place during assemblies. Additionally,
the cooperative tries to facilitate the participation of
illiterate female producers by relying more on graphs
and illustrations rather than text during events, as well
as by generally tailoring the communication to make it
understandable for them.
In general, cacao farmers often do not have the
resources to travel much and many women rarely even visit
the nearest town. By sending female producers to external
events, cooperatives offer them possibilities they would
otherwise never have. Getting out of the familiar context,
meeting new people, and seeing different life realities of
women enable them to gain new perspectives and increase
their self-esteem. Therefore, many cooperatives made
it a rule to also send women to expositions or external
workshops taking place at the regional, national, and even
international level.
5.3.5. Cooperative norms
Cooperative regulations can perpetuate gender inequalities
when rights are reserved to male official members (Nippierd
and Holmgren 2002). Lately, several cooperatives changed
their regulations to strengthen the voting and access
rights of the partners of official members. Cooperative
3 requires the signature of both heads of the family for
credit applications, making sure both know and approve
it. To address the underrepresentation of women with
mandates, all cooperatives have introduced a quota or
a target for the share of female producers in leadership
positions. For instance, cooperatives 1 and 4 aim at having
50% women in the management board. In cooperative 3,
local committees with more than one delegate must have
at least one female delegate. As they are both Fairtrade
certified, cooperative 2 and 5 are required to have female
members in their management boards.
Several cooperatives have started adopting a reflective
organizational culture to self-assess whether the
cooperative actually “lives” gender equality for their female
stakeholders. Making gender equality an organizational
culture means that the opinions and capabilities of women
are respected, top-management practices these values,
and women are perceived as equally suitable for leadership
positions as their male colleagues. In terms of salaries, one
cooperative makes its salary grid transparent to assure
that employees earn the same according to their position
regardless of gender. Another strategy is to avoid salary
gaps between typically female and typically male positions.
Cooperative 3 has a committee for the prevention
of sexual harassment in the workplace. In some cases,
women supported each other through difficult times,
including partners prohibiting them from participating
in the cooperative or cases of domestic violence. When
learning about such incidents, they went as a group to bring
the partner to reason. This is a recognition of women’s right
to physical and psychological integrity and also contributes
to procedural justice.
6. DISCUSSION
6.1. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOR WOMEN,
VALUE CHAIN INCLUSION AND COMMUNITY-
BASED COLLECTIVE ACTION
Here, we propose an innovative approach of connecting
environmental justice, value chain inclusion and collective
action theory in order to diagnose inequalities in CBOs and

125
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
identify strategies used to address these dimensions. One
current frontier in collective action theory is to account for
inequalities in resource use and governance (Kashwan et
al. 2021). To this end, environmental justice offers analysts
a three-dimensional conceptualization of justice related
to environmental resources (Schlosberg 2009). However,
environmental justice research has mostly focused on
situations of movements of resistance to oppression, on
displacement and on resource conflicts (Villamayor-Tomas
and Garcia-Lopez 2018). By studying inclusion of women
in value chains through cooperatives, we have extended
this focus beyond resistance movements. We argue that
this framing of environmental justice (rather than injustice)
is relevant to broaden the lens of environmental justice
research to solutions that prevent rather than remedy
environmental conflicts. The focus on the terms of value
creation and inclusion in value chains can support this shift
in perspectives of environmental justice. Specifically, our
analysis provides several insights for community-based
collective action.
First, our results demonstrate that cooperatives can be
spaces of collective action to tackle some of the structural
barriers to gender equality. The strategies employed and
their effects are not limited to institutions within CBOs only,
but they address (in)justices at multiple levels: cooperatives,
household, individual and wider communities. Cooperatives
can contribute to women’s empowerment by providing
access to resources and group participation. Cooperatives
can create labor and leadership opportunities for women,
provide information and training as well as production
inputs or infrastructure. These strategies can also heighten
women’s agency at the household and community level
(Stoian et al. 2018). However, the same barriers that
limit women’s participation in value chains in general can
also prevent them from accessing and benefiting from
cooperatives since becoming a member – and especially
taking over leadership roles – often requires a certain
level of education or resource endowment (Anan 2018,
Kuhn et al. 2023). To provide tangible benefits from value
chains to women, cooperatives thus have to address those
underlying issues of inequality.
Second, inequality can persist in CBOs even if they fulfill
all eight design principles for governing the commons,
which are a key element of the established theory of
community-based collective action (Ostrom 1990, Cox et
al. 2010). Thus, the design principles are suited to explain
robustness, but not inequality (Oberlack et al. 2015). Some
design principles can even reproduce inequality, if designed
in the wrong manner. For example, if collective choice
arrangements (principle 3) institutionalize gender inequality
in leadership positions in CBOs over the long term, or if
rules for the proportionality of costs and benefits (principle
2) imply that distribution of benefits is gender-biased due
to gendered roles that imply greater engagement of men
in cooperatives. Therefore, if research was to extend the
design principles in ways that are not only robust but also
just, then socially disaggregated assessments of the design
principles are needed. Our results show that cooperatives’
strategies to enhance inclusion of women go clearly
beyond the design principles, specifically communication,
training and awareness raising as well as economic
opportunities. Therefore, efforts to identify design principles
for environmentally just community-based governance
should not only socially disaggregate the existing eight
design principles, but unpack the interconnected dynamics
at multiple levels, such as cooperatives, household,
individual and wider communities.
Third, the value chain perspective questions the
traditional focus of commons research on natural resource
management because environmental justice does not
only depend on resource management – i.e. the upstream
stage of a value chain (Villamayor-Tomas et al. 2015). Our
results show how cooperatives influence (in-)equalities
in distribution, participation and recognition by assuming
roles in downstream activities of value chains such as
processing, logistics, trade and marketing. However, the
(institutionalized) terms of inclusion in value creation
crucially influence inequalities from local to global scales
(Ros-Tonen et al. 2019). Therefore, future research should
critically reflect under which conditions value chain inclusion
represent continued practices and legacies of colonialism
(Quijano 2000), and under which conditions inclusive value
chains may represent options of decolonized practices in
line with environmental justice.
6.2. INDICATORS TO ASSESS ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE FOR WOMEN IN COMMUNITY-BASED
COLLECTIVE ACTION
Conducting empirical environmental justice assessments
is challenging, because its meaning differs according to
persons, social-ecological contexts and places (Walker
2012). Consequently, there is no standard set of indicators
of environmental justice (Boillat et al. 2018). Our mixed
inductive-deductive methodological approach to assess
environmental justice allowed us to identify frequent
and significant themes that are relevant according to the
diverse perspectives of our respondents (Yin 2013). Table 5
condenses these perspectives into a set of indicators. We
hope this may be useful for analysts interested in conducting
environmental justice assessment in similar contexts of
community-based collective action and value chains.
In addition, future research may further advance these
indicators into a traffic light system that helps diagnose or
benchmark levels of environmental justice in CBOs.

126
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
We recommend that an indicator-based assessment
of environmental justice should be linked with a process-
oriented understanding of power dynamics within and
beyond CBOs. Commons scholarship has recently proposed
several conceptual approaches that can be useful in
this regard. For example, Partelow and Manlosa (2023)
recommend distinguishing between power over, with, to
and within; Morrison et al. (2019) distinguish between power
by design, pragmatic power and framing power. Haller
(2019) proposes an approach to disentangle bargaining
power, and Kashwan et al. (2019) propose an “power-in-
institutions-matrix”. Each of these approaches highlights
certain aspects of how power unfolds in community-based
collective action. From an ethical position, power is always
present, but morally neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ per se. A
moral point of view of justice provides an ethically relevant
compass for studies of power in CBOs.
7. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
This study has shown that cacao cooperatives, as a
type of CBO, can tackle gender inequalities and improve
environmental justice through more inclusive value chains.
However, greater efforts are needed in future practice and
science. At a practical level, accelerated learning and scaling
INDICATOR DEFINITION MEASUREMENT SCALE
Cooperative level: female cooperative members
Female cooperative members Share of women among official cooperative members Share
Women in leadership positions
(social)
Share of women in leadership positions in social structure
of cooperative
Share
Meeting and training attendance Attendance of women in cooperative meetings and
trainings
Frequency and quality of attendance,
gender-disaggregated share of attendants
Quality of participation Active participation and ability to influence collective choices Degree
Cooperative level: female employees
Female employees Share of women among cooperative employees Share
Areas of work Gender-disaggregated activities Types of activities
Women in leadership positions
(corporate)
Share of women in leadership positions in corporate
structure of cooperative
Share
Salary Gender-disaggregated salary schemes Numerical
Household level
Allocation of tasks within household Gender-disaggregated allocation of household tasks Types of activities
Distribution of income and benefits
from cooperative
Degree of (in)equality in income and in benefits from
cooperative services
Degree
Decision-making power Degree of (in)equality in decision-making power in household Degree
Recognition within household Recognition of persons, roles, and activities Qualitative
Individual level
Self-esteem Belief in one’s capabilities and worth Qualitative
Mobility, exposure and recognition
beyond community
Ability to travel, face exposure to different contexts and
gain external recognition
Qualitative
Wider community level
Gendered roles Degree of consistency of gendered roles in cooperative vis-
à-vis wider community
Degree
Communal programs Degree of cooperative programs open or for the wider
community
Degree
Economic opportunities Extent of jobs or other economic opportunities offered by a
cooperative within its (rural) context
Numerical, types
Table 5 Indicators to assess environmental justice for women in community-based collective action.

127
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
up of successful experiences across CBOs is required, which
depends on effective networks and resources for exchange,
social learning and formalized training. In science, presently
largely disparate scholarly communities can develop new
insights by joining forces, enabling integrative perspectives
on the complex origins of gender inequality in value
chains. On the one hand, collective action research needs
to move beyond its focus on robustness to pay greater
attention to environmental justice issues (Barnett et al.
2020). The conceptualization of distributional, procedural
and recognition justice as interdependent dimensions
that are conditional on each other has been supported
by the results of this research and proved to be a useful
analytical lens for studying (in-)justices within CBOs.
Environmental justice research, on the other hand, needs
to expand its established focus on resistance movements
and environmental distribution conflicts to incorporate
successful collective action around environmental goods
that prevents the emergence of oppression and conflict in
the first place. Moreover, future research should advance
design principles for community-based collective action by
socially disaggregating them to account for environmental
justice and power asymmetries; and ongoing efforts to
understand interconnected dynamics at multiple levels,
such as cooperatives, household, individual and wider
communities, should be strengthened.
NOTES
1 For simplicity, we use cooperatives and associations as synonyms
in this article.
2 Unrefined whole cane sugar.
3 Blare et al. 2020.
4 Blare et al. 2020.
5 Translated from Spanish. Original statement: “De manera general
es el hombre y si él no puede, es la mujer.”
6 Translated from Spanish. Original statement: “No se siente capaz
de asumir un cargo.”
7 The numbers are, however, not entirely comparable since not all
cooperatives produce cacao derivatives, an activity typically only
conducted by women. Additionally, not all of the cooperatives that
do produce derivatives included the women working there in their
count of regular employees.
8 Translated from Spanish. Original statement: Los cargos más
fuertes están con varones, entonces creo que piensan que las
mujeres no los pueden hacer.
9 Translated from Spanish. Original Statement: “La mujer que lleva el
pan a la casa también tiene mayor protagonismo.”
ADDITIONAL FILE
The additional file for this article can be found as follows:
• Appendix A. Codebook With First- And Second-Tier
Concepts. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1276.s1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge fruitful discussions
and support by Abel Pezo Valles, Freddy Yovera, Miguel
Angel Dita Rodriguez, and Rachel Atkinson as well as the 41
persons who participated as interviewees in the empirical
part of this research. We also appreciate the helpful
anonymous reviews.
FUNDING INFORMATION
Funding from the European Research Council (ERC, grant
no. 949 852) and a travel grant from the Freunde der
Universität Freiburg made this research possible.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS
Miriam Maeder orcid.org/0009-0006-8137-6959
University of Freiburg, Germany
Evert Thomas orcid.org/0000-0002-7838-6228
Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT, Lima Office, Peru
Gesabel Villar orcid.org/0000-0003-4150-5809
Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of
Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Geography, University of Bern,
Switzerland
Marleni Ramirez orcid.org/0009-0009-8602-8939
Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT, Lima Office, Peru
Hartmut Fünfgeld orcid.org/0000-0003-0359-8207
Institute of Environmental Social Sciences and Geography,
University of Freiburg, Germany
Christoph Oberlack orcid.org/0000-0003-2813-7327
Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of
Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Geography, University of Bern,
Switzerland
REFERENCES
Agarwal, B. (2007). Gender inequality, cooperation and
environmental sustainability. Inequality, cooperation, and
environmental sustainability, 274–313. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1515/9780691187389-012
Anan, K. (2018). Gender Inclusive Value Chains: Improving
Women’s Participation in Solomon Islands (English). World
Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/353911538724168885/Gender-Inclusive-Value-Chains-
Improving-Women-s-Participation-in-Solomon-Islands

128
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
Bacon, C. M., Flores Gomez, M. E., Shin, V., Ballardo, G., Kriese,
S., McCurry, E., Martinez, E., & Rivas, M. (2023). Beyond the
bean: Analyzing diversified farming, food security, dietary
diversity, and gender in Nicaragua’s smallholders coffee
cooperatives. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems,
47(4), 579–620. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.202
3.2171172
Bamber, P., & Staritz, C. (2016). The Gender Dimensions of Global
Value Chains. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable
Development (ICTSD).
Barnett, A. J., Partelow, S., Frey, U., García-Lozano, A., del
Mar Mancha-Cisneros, M., Oberlack, C., Ratajczyk, E.,
Smith, H., Villamayor-Tomás, S., & Whitney, C. K. (2020).
Defining Success in the Commons: Addressing Problem
Orientations, Multidimensionality, Norms, and Tradeoffs.
International Journal of the Commons, 14(1). DOI: https://doi.
org/10.4337/9781784719388
Bijman, J., Muradian, R., & Schuurman, J. (2016). Cooperatives,
Economic Democratization and Rural Development. Edward
Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.201
7.1286831
Blare, T., Corrales, I., & Zambrino, L. (2020). Can Niche Markets
for Local Cacao Varieties Benefit Smallholders in Peru and
Mexico?. Choices, 35(4), 1–7.
Blare, T., Donovan, J., & Poole, N. (2017). Stuck in a rut: Emerging
cocoa cooperatives in Peru and the factors that influence
their performance. International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability, 15(2), 169–184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1
4735903.2017.1286831
Blare, T., Paez Valencia, A. M., & Ramos, C. (2019).
Perspectivas de género sobre la producción de cacao en
Ecuador y Perú: Ideas para una intensificación inclusiva
y sostenible (Policy Brief No. 46; Policy Brief). World
Agroforestry (ICRAF). https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/336591263_Perspectivas_de_genero_sobre_la_
produccion_de_cacao_en_Ecuador_y_Peru_Ideas_para_una_
intensificacion_inclusiva_y_sostenible
Boillat, S., Gerber, J.-D., Oberlack, C., Zaehringer, J., Ifejika
Speranza, C., & Rist, S. (2018). Distant Interactions, Power,
and Environmental Justice in Protected Area Governance: A
Telecoupling Perspective. Sustainability, 10(11), 3954. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113954
Brislane, J., & Crawford, J. (2014). Gender equality is smart
economics—But it takes more than money and markets (No.
5; Gender Matters). International Women’s Development
Agency Inc. (IWDA). https://iwda.org.au/assets/files/Gender-
Matters-5.pdf
Clement, F. (2010). Analysing decentralised natural resource
governance: proposition for a “politicised” institutional
analysis and development framework. Policy Sciences, 43(2),
129–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9100-8
Coles, C., & Mitchell, J. (2011). Gender and agricultural value
chains: A review of current knowledge and practice and
their policy implications (ESA Working Paper No. 11–05).
Agricultural Development Economics Division; The Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Tomás, S. V. (2010). A review of design
principles for community-based natural resource
management. Ecology and Society, 15(4). DOI: https://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-03704-150438
Fountain, A. C., & Hütz-Adams, F. (2020). 2020 Cocoa
Barometer. Cocoa Barometer Consortium. https://
voicenetwork.cc/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020-Cocoa-
Barometer.pdf
Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking Recognition. The New Left, 3, 107–
120.
Gaard, G. (2017). Feminism and environmental justice. In The
Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice (1st ed.). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678986-7
Haller, T. (2019). Towards a new institutional political ecology:
How to marry external effects, institutional change and
the role of power and ideology in commons studies. In The
Commons in a glocal world (pp. 90–120). Routledge. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351050982-7
Kashwan, P., MacLean, L. M., & García-López, G. A. (2019).
Rethinking power and institutions in the shadows of
neoliberalism. World Development, 120, 133–146. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.026
Kashwan, P., Mudaliar, P., Foster, S. R., & Clement, F. (2021).
Reimagining and governing the commons in an unequal
world: A critical engagement. Current Research in
Environmental Sustainability, 3, 100102. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100102
Klain, S. C., Beveridge, R., & Bennett, N. J. (2014). Ecologically
sustainable but unjust? Negotiating equity and authority
in common-pool marine resource management. Ecology
and Society, 19(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07123-
190452
Kuhn, M., Tennhardt, L., & Lazzarini, G. A. (2023). Gender
Inequality in the cacao Supply Chain: Evidence from
Smallholder Production in Ecuador and Uganda. World
Development Sustainability, 2, 100034. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wds.2022.100034
Lecoutere, E. (2017). The impact of agricultural co-operatives on
women’s empowerment: Evidence from Uganda. Journal of
Co-Operative Organization and Management, 5(1), 14–27.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2017.03.001
Martin, A., Coolsaet, B., Corbera, E., Dawson, N. M., Fraser,
J. A., Lehmann, I., & Rodriguez, I. (2016). Justice and
conservation: The need to incorporate recognition. Biological
Conservation, 197, 254–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2016.03.021

129
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
MIDAGRI. (2023). Perfil productivo y competitivo de los
principales cultivos del sector. Ministrio de Desarollo
Agrario y Regio (MIDAGRI). URL. https://app.powerbi.com/
view?r=eyJrIjoiNzEzNTU2MmUtY2EzZC00YjQ2LTg5Yz
UtYzJjODRhZjg5NGY5IiwidCI6IjdmMDg0NjI3LTdmNDAtN
Dg3OS04OTE3LTk0Yjg2ZmQzNWYzZiJ9 [03.04.2023]
Morrison, T. H., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Lemos, M. C., Huitema,
D., Phelps, J., Evans, L., Cohen, P., Song, A. M., Turner, R.,
Quinn, T., & Hughes, T. P. (2019). The black box of power in
polycentric environmental governance. Global Environmental
Change, 57, 101934. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2019.101934
Nieppierd, A. B., & Holmgren, C. (eds.) (2002). Legal constraints
to women participation in cooperatives. International Labour
Office (ILO), Geneva. URL. http://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/
ilo/2002/102B09_376_E_F.pdf [24.11.23]
Oberlack, C., Walter, P. L., Schmerbeck, J., & Tiwari, B. (2015).
Institutions for sustainable forest governance: Robustness,
equity, and cross-level interactions in Mawlyngbna,
Meghalaya, India. International Journal of the Commons,
9(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.538
Oberlack, C., Zambrino, L. A., Truong, Q. C., Dang, B. T., Vu, X. V.,
& Blare, T. (2020). Building inclusive food chains: Pathways
beyond land inequality through collective action. International
Land Coalition, Rome. URL: https://www.landcoalition.org/
documents/859/2020_9_land_inequality_paper_food_chains_
en_web_spread_Xpr7cyo.pdf [14.08.2023].
Oberlack, C., Blare, T., Zambrino, L., Bruelisauer, S., Solar, J.,
Villar, G., Tomas, E., & Ramírez, M. (2023). With and beyond
sustainability certification: Exploring inclusive business and
solidarity economy strategies in Peru and Switzerland. World
Development, 165, 106187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2023.106187
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of
institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
Partelow, S., & Manlosa, A. O. (2023). Commoning the
governance: a review of literature and the integration of
power. Sustainability Science, 18(1), 265–283. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01191-2
Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power and Eurocentrism in
Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), 215–232. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005
Ramirez, M., Villar, G., Zavaleta, D. P., Rosaura, L., & Evert, T.
(2021). Report on Workshops on Gender and Youth and a
Conversation with Youth. Alliance Bioversity International and
CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture.
Ros-Tonen, M. A., Bitzer, V., Laven, A., Ollivier de Leth, D., Van
Leynseele, Y., & Vos, A. (2019). Conceptualizing inclusiveness
of smallholder value chain integration. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 41, 10–17. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.08.006
Saarelainen, E., & Sievers, M. (2011). ILO Value Chain
Development Briefing paper 2: The role of Cooperatives
and Business Associations in Value Chain Development.
International Labour Organization (ILO). https://www.ilo.org/
wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/---ifp_seed/
documents/publication/wcms_182602.pdf
Schlosberg, D. (2009). Defining environmental justice: Theories,
movements, and nature. Oxford University Press.
Stoian, D., Donovan, J., Fisk, J., & Muldoon, M. (2012).
Value chain development for rural poverty reduction:
A reality check and a warning. Enterprise Development
and Microfinance, 23(1), 54–60. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.3362/1755-1986.2012.006
Stoian, D., Donovan, J., Elias, M., & Blare, T. (2018). Fit for
purpose? A review of guides for gender-equitable value
chain development. Development in Practice, 28(4), 494–
509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.14475
50
Thomas, E., Lastra, S., & Zavaleta, D. (2023). Catálogo de cacaos
de Perú. Lima Peru: Bioversity International & MOCCA.
Villamayor-Tomas, S., & García-López, G. (2018). Social
movements as key actors in governing the commons:
Evidence from community-based resource management
cases across the world. Global Environmental
Change, 53, 114–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2018.09.005
Villamayor-Tomas, S., & García-López, G. A. (2021). Commons
movements: Old and new trends in rural and urban
contexts. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,
46, 511–543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
environ-012220-102307
Villamayor-Tomas, S., Grundmann, P., Epstein, G., Evans, T., &
Kimmich, C. (2015). The water-energy-food security nexus
through the lenses of the value chain and the institutional
analysis and development frameworks. Water Alternatives,
8(1), 735–755.
Voora, V., Bermúdez, S., & Larrea, C. (2019). Global market report:
Cocoa. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: International Institute for
Sustainable Development.
Walker, G. (2012). Environmental justice: Concepts, evidence and
politics. Routledge.
Wiegel, J., Del Río, M., Gutiérrez, J. F., Claros, L., Sánchez, D.,
Gómez, L., González, C., & Reyes, B. (2020). Coffee and
cacao market systems in the Americas: Opportunities for
supporting renovation and rehabilitation. Cali, Colombia:
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).

130
Maeder et al. International Journal of the Commons DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1276
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Maeder, M., Thomas, E., Villar, G., Ramirez, M., Fünfgeld, H., & Oberlack, C. (2024). Tackling Gender Inequality in Community-Based
Organizations: The Contribution of Cacao Cooperatives to Environmental Justice for Women in Peru. International Journal of the Commons,
18(1), pp. 112–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1276
Submitted: 09 April 2023 Accepted: 20 December 2023 Published: 19 February 2024
COPYRIGHT:
© 2024 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source
are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
International Journal of the Commons is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press.
Wijers, G. D. M. (2019). Inequality regimes in Indonesian
dairy cooperatives: understanding institutional
barriers to gender equality. Agricultural and Human
Values 36, 167–181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-
018-09908-9
World Cocoa Foundation. (2019). Gender Integration
Guidance Note. World Cocoa Foundation. https://
www.worldcocoafoundation.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/04/WCF-Gender-Integration-Guidance-
Note-Final_pub.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (fifth
ed.). Sage.
Zwarteveen, M., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2001). Gender and property
rights in the commons: Examples of water rights in South
Asia. Agriculture and human values, 18(1), 11–25. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007677317899