Women-led Farmer-Producer Companies in Rural India: Key Drivers of Agricultural Transformation and Market Linkages

Abstract

The study examines how women farmer-producer companies support the social and economic circumstances of women farmers in rural Maharashtra. Women in the rural areas work together and make collective decisions with the help of farmer-producer companies. For several decades, women’s contributions to the workforce have often gone unrecognised, leaving them with fewer resources and limited decision-making power in society. Through collective action in farmer-producer companies, rural women are empowered to access markets, obtain resources and participate in decision-making in their daily lives. The study employs a descriptive research design that combines quantitative and qualitative methods. The data were gathered from 210 women farmers across six farmer-producer companies. The results demonstrate that farmer-producer companies support women in gaining better market access, financial support, leadership skills, confidence and respect in society. However, there remain challenges related to low agricultural incomes and difficulty in managing household work and farm activities. The findings show that farmer-producer companies have benefited women to some extent and play a major role in empowering rural women.

Keywords

Farmer-producer companies empowerment productivity sustainability

Introduction

Agriculture is the primary source of income for the rural population. This sector is highly significant not only because it contributes approximately 15% to the gross domestic product (GDP), but also because it employs nearly 60% of the population (Kumar 2020). Women play a crucial role in every sector and in shaping the family’s economic status by supporting financial activities (International Labour Organization 2019). Farmer-producer companies (FPCs) act as intermediaries between smallholder farmers and markets, providing forward and backward linkages (Bikkina et al. 2018). In 2013, the Government of India formulated a policy guideline for FPCs. It outlines the roles of central and state governments in promoting and supporting these institutions through capacity building and financial assistance to strengthen small and marginal farmers’ collective participation in the agriculture markets (Kumari et al. 2021). The Small Farmer Agri-Business Consortium (SFAC) was established as a nodal agency to promote FPCs (Kakati and Roy 2021). Later, the National Bank for Rural Development (NABARD) began promoting FPCs through its Producer Companies Development and Upliftment Corpus Fund (NABARD 2015).

The Indian government, under the Union Budget 2019–20, has declared to establish 10,000 more FPCs to ensure an upscaling of the socio-economic condition of the farmers. In the rural areas, women’s empowerment means providing resources and authority to gain power. This is the process through which women gain self-confidence and take part in the decision-making process. It also involves improving their abilities and skills through participation in the public forum (Sharma 2013). However, women from rural areas face certain challenges, such as limited access to education and restrictions due to sociocultural customs within their families. Some women in rural areas do not own land and have less freedom to engage in agricultural activities. These barriers restrict women’s participation, growth and development (Singh 2022). A collective decision makes women collaboratively work together and share resources and experiences to solve their own problems (Harrington et al. 2024; Mourya and Mehta 2021). FPC is one of the best cases where women take part in the agriculture and marketing sector (Baruah et al. 2022; Trebbin and Hassler 2012). Group activity gives women better access to the resources and market, through which they can build their skills and enhance their leadership and entrepreneurship knowledge. Thereby, it supports inclusive and sustainable agriculture development (Lalitha et al. 2022). With this literature background, FPCs play a major role in promoting women’s empowerment and gender equality. The study mainly focuses on rural areas of Maharashtra, aiming to understand the role of the FPC in women’s group activities and how it promotes women’s well-being and development.

Emergence of Farmer-Producer Companies: The Transformative Role of Indian Agriculture

Agriculture contributes a significant share to India’s economy, especially to GDP growth. In recent years, farming has become advanced because of new technologies and economic progress (Deka et al. 2020). There are approximately 570 million farmers worldwide, of whom 500 million are small and marginal farmers. Close to 74% of the small and marginal farmers are from Asia, and India accounts for a marginal proportion of about 68%, and small farmers account for about 17% of the total operational holdings, and China accounts for 35% of the farmers’ population (Eastwood et al. 2010; Lowder et al. 2016; Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare 2022). The higher population countries play a significant role in providing job opportunities and reducing poverty in the countryside (Ganesh 2017).

According to the 2011 census, 68.84% of India’s population lives in rural areas, where livelihood primarily depends on agriculture, small businesses and cottage industries. However, about 42.5% reflects a decline in rural dependence on agriculture, according to the Periodical Labour Force Survey (2018–19) (Chakraborty 2020; Kaygusuz 2011). This change resulted in the decline of the agriculture sector’s contribution to GDP from 36% in 1983–84 to 16%–18% in recent years. Remarkably, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the agricultural sector accounted for 20% of GDP in 2020–21, with over 65% of the population engaged in agriculture and related sectors. The Government of India implemented policy reforms to support agribusiness (Baliyan 2018). In the year 2000, the Companies Act 1956 was amended to include the Farmer-Producer Companies Act. This Act has helped small and marginal farmers solve problems such as market challenges, credit and technological changes (Kumar and Verma 2019). The concept of FPCs was introduced in 2003, but registrations increased after 2013 with support from NABARD and the SFAC. In 2019, more than 7,000 FPCs were registered (Singh 2021). According to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs estimates in India, almost 44,460 farmer-producer organisations (FPOs) were registered between 2003 and 2024 (Tata-Cornell Institute for Agriculture and Nutrition 2024). The estimates for the year 2025 FPO registrations have reached 10,000, and 9,268 FPOs have officially been registered. The other 732 FPOs are in the process of registration, according to the report by the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare. Altogether, 3.3 million farmers have been represented through FPOs, and approximately 10 lakh farmers have received financial support from each FPO (Das 2025; Press Information Bureau 2025).

Maharashtra alone constitutes 26% of FPCs in India. These organisations support farmers in increasing their income through collective initiatives (Mourya and Mehta 2021; Neti and Govil 2022). This also supports farmers in improving their savings, opportunities for investing in agribusinesses and reducing household poverty (Chintamani et al. 2024). FPOs also help small and marginal farmers obtain farm equipment at subsidised rates and sell their products more effectively. Even with the support of FPCs, women are actively engaging in and promoting sustainable farming practices (Pallavi et al. 2024).

Collective Action Theoretical Framework

Collective action can be observed when a group of people shares a common interest; for example, cooperatives can form and work towards common goals of marginal and small farmers (Olson 1965). The researcher pointed out that poverty can be reduced only when people gain access to the resources and also the ‘capacity to aspire’. Cooperatives provide a strong sense of community and share experiences that help create a better future. In the agricultural activities, collective initiative is shaped when farmers come together and avoid market exploitation (Mojo et al. 2016). This also helps farmers gain social and economic benefits. By forming cooperatives, farmers protect themselves through the profits that they receive from the companies (Cook 1993). This theoretical understanding is based on the collective action theories in the social sciences. This theory conceptualised how and why farmers decide to work together in a group. Collective action theories also explain the reasons and approaches for establishing FPCs. This theory suggests that collaboration, rather than working alone, increases the likelihood of success for people or organisations with similar objectives. Investigation shows that group action is important for authorising farmers (Kumari et al. 2021). A study from Peru also found that group work can bring big improvements and make farmers feel more empowered (Sirdey and Lallau 2020). Working collectively in agriculture is important to strengthen farmers’ position in the supply chain and increase their bargaining power. Cooperatives help decrease the information gap between buyers and sellers and give farmers better negotiation power (Hall and Matos 2010). FPCs are a new growth in this area. So these organisations allow farmer groups to work like companies. They derive the benefits of a business structure with teamwork. The main purpose of an FPC is to maintain the production, harvesting, buying, grading, processing and marketing of farm products. FPCs play a major role in improving agricultural value chains by creating direct marketing channels for farm products (Bitzer and Marazzi 2020; Kumari et al. 2021).

Moreover, the gender and development approach-based Women’s Empowerment Framework offers a valuable perspective for assessing the impact of collaborative efforts on rural women. Women are more prepared to make decisions, engage in the workforce and resist poverty when they have greater influence. Accordingly, the rise in women’s income benefits both their families and the overall economy of the nation (Khursheed 2022). This includes all levels of empowerment, such as social, political and economic aspects. It helps to understand power distribution and differences within the social system.

Figure 1.

Theoretical Framework on Women’s Collective Action in Farmer-Producer Companies (FPCs).

Figure 1 highlights the collective initiatives, which result in women’s empowerment through participation in FPC. When individual women farmers join those organisations, the process begins. Such groups provide forums for group action, enabling women to engage in a range of organisational and agricultural endeavours. Through collective activities, women farmer-producer companies (WFPCs) members receive support to share their profits, access services, and participate in production, procurement, marketing, purchasing and selling. FPCs provide direct support, such as credit, technology and market access, which help advance the agricultural value chain. However, this opportunity enables women to enhance their quality of life. They increase their economic authority by earning more and achieving financial stability. They gain social power by receiving recognition, participating in the community, and taking the initiative in leadership and advocacy. It demonstrates how the FPC helps women farmers work together and assists poor women in accessing resources, developing strong skills, and feeling highly confident and empowered in agricultural and development contexts.

Rationale and Objectives of the Study

The groups of women-led FPCs are primarily organised to support and empower women farmers. The primary objective of this initiative is to enhance their decision-making skills, expand access to markets and financial services, and ensure the availability of essential farming inputs. This women’s group provides a way to improve the lives of rural women farmers, specifically in rural Maharashtra. However, in this region, notably Swayam Shikshan Prayog (SSP) has played a significant role in improving the standard of living of women farmers and has always helped to make and manage women-led FPCs in the agricultural market system. Especially in India, women are facing challenges of selling their products in the market through the Agricultural Produce Market Committees because men mostly control the market (Jadhav et al. 2024). Hence, this research understands how women-led FPCs contribute to the social and economic well-being of rural women. With this, the study is trying to investigate and fill the gap between women-led FPCs and the importance of gender roles in rural areas. This also tries to identify the challenges faced by women-led FPCs in governance, market access and sustainability. This study will propose solutions to problems faced by WFPCs, focusing on the social and economic well-being of women in rural areas.

Methods and Design

The study examines WFPCs and their impact on women’s well-being in Maharashtra. It employs a mixed-methods design that integrates qualitative and quantitative research methods (Creswell and Clark 2007). This method helps to understand the complex ideas on empowerment and views on productivity, income, decision-making power, and social and economic factors. With this research, methods can cross-check the evidence and gain a deeper understanding of women’s lives in rural areas (Schoonenboom and Johnson 2017). Data were collected using an interview schedule with a five-point Likert scale. This study has used a descriptive research design. This design helps to understand the social and economic conditions of women farmers. It also recognises real-life experiences of women in the FPCs. With the support and management of SSP organisation, WFPCs have been formed. To identify women farmers in rural areas, this study employed purposive sampling. A total of six WFPCs were selected. These methods have been used to ensure the research adapts to working rural women in the agriculture value chain. From the six FPCs, a total of 35 women members were selected from each company, resulting in a sample of 210 women. This confirms that selected WFPCs had equal representation.

Data Collection Methods

Both quantitative and qualitative data were comprehensively gathered for this study. Standardised responses and open-ended insights were obtained using a semi-structured interview schedule to collect primary data. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to enter the quantitative data from 210 respondents, the majority of whom were women farmers, after the data were coded systematically. To assess demographic and farming-related factors, descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, were used. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Binomial Test were two inferential procedures used to further assess relationships in the data. The qualitative data were obtained from one focus group discussion (FGD), an in-depth case study and an open-ended interview. To investigate these thematically, manual coding was used, and emerging themes were orderly categorised and mapped. The case study gave significant insights into the life experiences and life-changing journeys of women related to a particular FPC. The inferences were also placed within larger agricultural and policy settings by merging primary data with secondary data evaluated from the agriculture department and other relevant institutions.

Farmer-Producer Company Details and Study Sample

SSP helped in the establishment of six WFPCs, as shown in Table 1. They were selected to reflect various geographic regions, product categories and organisational experiences.

Table 1.

Profile of Women-led Farmer-Producer Companies.

Company Name	Date of Formation	Total Members	Members Chosen to Study	Location	Products
Vijayalaxmi Sakhi Producer Company Limited	17 March 2017	470	35	Tuljapur, Maharashtra	Soybean, pulses
Manjiri Sakhi Producer Company Limited	06 April 2017	1500	35	Osmanabad, Maharashtra	Oilseeds, pulses
Swayam Sakhi Shetmal Producer Company Limited	13 July 2021	800	35	Latur, Maharashtra	Soybean, pulses
Bharari Sakhi Producer Company Limited	29 July 2021	640	35	Solapur, Maharashtra	Millets, pulses
Prema Gopalan Producer Company Limited	22 June 2022	690	35	Osmanabad, Maharashtra	Vermicompost, pulses
Prema Sakhi Farmer Producer Company Limited	03 October 2022	386	35	Nanded, Maharashtra	Turmeric

Source: Authors’ survey (2023).

The women-led FPCs listed in Table 1 were encouraged with the support of the SSP organisation and different community-based business organisations (CBBOs), which played a critical role in their formation and development. The FPCs get contributions paid up, investment, and they adopted business models that are connected to suitable crops which farmers grow around the rural areas. The major crops include soybean, pulses, millets, vegetables and fruits. Women collectively work together and develop bargaining power. In addition, they also made connections with different market partners. With this connection, members are able to access quality inputs and better market opportunities.

Figure 2.

Facilitating Interaction Across Stakeholder Groups.

Figure 2 shows the conceptual framework of the interconnection of networks among different stakeholders in the agriculture value chain. It comprises banks, marketplaces, women farmers and FPCs. All these aspects are connected to each other and cooperate. They share resources, help with availability to credit and create market relations. FPCs are crucial in coordinating these interactions. Banks and markets help by providing financial assistance and procurement opportunities. Together, these relationships improve cooperation and support the empowerment of women farmers.

Table 2.

Binomial Test: An Overview of the Socio-economic Profile of Women Members in Farmer-Producer Companies (FPCs).

Components	Level	Respondents	Percentages	Proportion	p Value
Farmers type	Marginal women farmers	70	33.3	0.333	<.001
	Small women farmers	70	33.3	0.333	<.001
	Medium women farmers	70	33.3	0.333	<.001
Women’s household income (INR)	40,000–55,000	65	31.0	0.310	<.001
	55,001–70,000	68	32.4	0.324	<.001
	70,001–85,000	38	18.1	0.181	<.001
	85,001–100,000	39	18.6	0.186	<.001
Year of association with FPCs	1–2	50	23.8	0.238	<.001
	2.1–4	99	47.2	0.471	.448
	4.1–6	61	29.0	0.290	<.001
Agricultural landholding at the household level (in acres)	1–2.50	70	33.3	0.333	<.001
	2.51–5.00	70	33.3	0.333	<.001
	5.01–7.50	70	33.3	0.333	<.001
Age group	25–35 years	102	48.6	0.486	.730
	36–45 years	80	38.1	0.381	<.001
	46–55 years	28	13.3	0.133	<.001
Social category	General	32	15.2	0.152	<.001
	OBC	113	53.8	0.538	.301
	SC	58	27.6	0.276	<.001
	ST	7	3.3	0.033	<.001
Type of the family	Joint	32	15.2	0.152	<.001
Type of the family	Nuclear	178	84.8	0.848	<.001

Source: Authors’ survey (2023).

Notes: Hₐ is proportion ≠ 0.5. OBC: Other Backward Classes; SC: Scheduled Castes; ST: Scheduled Tribes.

Table 2 shows the inference of a binomial test on the socio-economic and demographic traits of women members in FPOs. Women members are evenly distributed across three categories in terms of farmer type. The three types are marginal, small and medium women farmers, with each group comprising 33.3% of the respondents. The p values for all these groups are less than .001, suggesting that the proportions for each farmer type are significantly different from 50%. This implies that no single category controls the group, and all three are equally represented. In terms of income, the majority of the women’s households fall within the income ranges of ₹40,000–₹55,000 (31%) and ₹55,001–₹70,000 (32.4%). Only a small percentage is seen in the ₹70,001–₹85,000 (18.1%) and ₹85,001–₹100,000 (18.6%) of total respondents. Again, p values for all income groups are less than .001, showing a statistically significant departure from the 50% threshold and a skewed distribution towards lower to middle income levels. Regarding the span of association with FPCs, 47.2% of women have been involved for 2.1–4 years, 29% for 4.1–6 years and 23.8% for 1–2 years. The p value for the 2.1–4 years group (.448) indicates that this proportion is not significantly different from 50%, while the other two categories show statistically significant differences.

The respondents’ household-level landholdings are evenly distributed among three land size categories, showing 1–2.5 acres, 2.51–5 acres and 5.01–7.5 acres each, constituting 33.3%. The 25–35 age group accounts for approximately 48.6%, and the 35–45 age group accounts for approximately 38.81%. The smallest group is 46–55 years, which is almost 13.3%. The p value for the 25–35 age group is .730, indicating it is not significantly different from 50%. The p values for the 36–45 age group are less than .001. In the social category, Other Backward Classes (OBC) constitute almost 53.8%, Scheduled Castes (SC) 27.6%, the General category 15.2%, and Scheduled Tribes (ST) 3.3%. The p value of all the categories is .301, which means it is not much different from 50%. However, in the family structure, about 84.8% are from nuclear families and only 15.2% are from extended families. The p value is less than .001, indicating a substantial difference from the expected proportion.

Table 3.

Comparison of Landholdings, Farmer-Producer Company (FPC) Association, and Income Levels Before and After Joining FPCs of the Women Farmers.

Classification Based on Farm Size		Mean	Std Deviation	Minimum	Maximum	F	Sig.
Before joining the FPCs, members’ agricultural income (INR)	Marginal women farmers	29,314.28	4,467.411	20,000	40,000	623.04	0.000
	Small women farmers	44,542.85	4,692.53	35,000	55,000
	Medium women farmers	61,771.42	6,848.61	40,000	70,000
	Total	45,209.52	14,352.16	20,000	70,000
After joining the FPCs, members’ agriculture income(INR)	Marginal women farmers	49,400.00	7,100.52	40,000	70,000	616.74	0.000
	Small women farmers	66,057.14	5,372.73	50,000	85,000
	Medium women farmers	89,085.71	7,478.94	70,000	100,000
	Total	68,180.95	17,625.43	40,000	100,000
Landholding in acres	Marginal women farmers	1.7714	0.48668	1.00	2.50	851.97	0.000
	Small women farmers	4.2243	0.72899	2.70	5.00
	Medium women farmers	6.2000	0.66703	5.50	7.50
	Total	4.0652	1.92291	1.00	7.50
Years of farming experience	Marginal women farmers	11.9714	3.18043	7.00	16.00	0.521	0.595
	Small women farmers	11.7571	3.13205	7.00	16.00
	Medium women farmers	12.2714	2.64258	7.00	16.00
	Total	12.0000	2.98801	7.00	16.00
Number of years of association with the FPC	Marginal women farmers	3.5429	1.45149	1.00	7.00	2.459	0.088
	Small women farmers	4.0143	1.42943	1.00	7.00
	Medium women farmers	3.5000	1.67462	1.00	7.00
	Total	3.6857	1.53314	1.00	7.00

Source: Authors’ survey (2023).

Table 3 shows the comparison of landholdings, FPC association and income levels before and after joining FPCs of the women farmers. Before joining FPCs, marginal women farmers earn an average income of about ₹29,314.28 (SD = ₹4,467.41). The minimum and maximum incomes range from ₹20,000 to ₹40,000. Similarly, small women farmers earn an average income of about ₹44,542.85 (SD = ₹4,692.53), with incomes ranging from ₹35,000 to ₹55,000. However, among the medium group of women farmers, the average income is about ₹61,771.42 (SD = ₹6,848.61), and the minimum and maximum incomes range from ₹40,000 to ₹70,000. The average income for the women’s group is approximately ₹45,209.52 before joining FPCs. After joining FPCs, the income of the women farmers has increased in all the groups. The data show that the average income of marginal farmers is approximately ₹49,400.00 (SD = ₹7,100.52), with a range of ₹40,000–₹70,000. Similarly, the marginal women farmers’ mean income is about ₹66,057.14 (SD = ₹5,372.73), with a range between ₹50,000 and ₹85,000. Among medium farmers, women farmers’ groups have an average income of about ₹89,085.71 (SD = ₹7,478.94), with incomes ranging from ₹70,000 to ₹1,00,000. Hence, the total average income is about ₹68,180.95. The F-statistics (F = 623.04 before and F = 616.74 after joining) and p values (p < .001) show that it is statistically significant after joining FPCs. In the land held by a marginal farmer, the average is 1.77 acres, and the land ranges from 1 to 2.5 acres. Small women farmers hold an average total land size of 4.22 acres. Their land area ranges from 2.7 to 5 acres. Medium-sized women farmers owned the most land, with an average of 6.2 acres, and their land sizes ranged from 5.5 to 7.5 acres. The total average landholding across all the women’s groups is about 4.7 acres. The F-statistics (F = 851.97, p < .001) shows that it is statistically significant across all groups. Marginal women farmers have 11.97 years of farming experience, and small women farmers have a mean of 11.76 years of farming experience. The median women farmers have 12.27 years of experience. The mean total experience is approximately 12 years. The F = 0.521, p = .595 shows that there are no significant differences in farming experiences. Regarding association with FPCs, the data indicate a total of 3.54 years of association. Small women farmers have 4.01 years of association, and medium women farmers have 3.5 years of association with FPCs. The overall average association is 3.69 years, and the F-statistics (F = 2.459, p = .088) indicates no significant difference in FPC association between the groups.

Table 4.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Test on Women Farmer-Producer Companies (FPCs) and Their Functioning.

Variables	Marginal Women Farmers		Small Women Farmers		Medium Women Farmers
Variables	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	Sig.
FPCs provide equal opportunity and confidence	16.0857	2.28887	15.2286	2.80874	16.2714	2.34008	3.493	0.032
FPCs provide economic support	15.8619	2.51977	15.1429	2.45709	15.5857	2.61264	2.204	0.113
FPCs provide training and support	12.1857	1.95821	11.4143	1.78149	11.2000	2.17095	4.815	0.009
FPCs provide infrastructure and logistics	11.7571	2.81526	10.5286	2.21144	10.9429	2.03510	4.838	0.009

Source: Authors’ survey (2023).

Table 4 shows the ANOVA results on FPCs and their functions. The data show differences between the three women’s farmer groups. It shows how these three farmer groups receive equal opportunities and confidence in farming activities. The marginal women farmers highlighted that the mean score is 16.09, and SD = 2.29, followed by the medium women farmers, whose mean score is 16.27 and SD = 2.34, and the small farmers’ mean score is 15.23 and SD = 2.81. This result indicates that women-led FPCs provide better opportunities and foster greater confidence in their work. However, for economic support, the results show that there is no significant difference between the variables; the F-statistics show 2.204 and p = .113, with a mean score between 15.14 and 15.86. However, there is variation in the mean scores with different groups, so these differences are not statistically significant among these three groups of women farmers.

Notable differences are observed in training and assistance obtained through the FPCs, with an F-value of 4.815 and a significance level of 0.009. Compared to small (M = 11.41, SD = 1.78) and medium women farmers (M = 11.20, SD = 2.17), the marginal women farmers reported the highest mean scores (M = 12.19, SD = 1.96). This suggests that marginal women farmers benefit from training and supporting programmes offered by women-led FPCs. Similarly, infrastructure and logistics support also show statistically significant differences (F = 4.838, p = .009). In comparison to small (M = 10.53, SD = 2.21) and medium women farmers (M = 10.94, SD = 2.04), marginal women farmers again reported higher mean scores (M = 11.76, SD = 2.82), suggesting that women-led FPCs are thought to offer stronger infrastructure and logistics support to marginal women farmers relative to other groups.

Table 5.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Test on Impact of Women-Led Farmer-Producer Companies (FPCs) on Quality of Life.

Variables	Marginal Women Farmers		Small Women Farmers		Medium Women Farmers
Variables	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	Sig.
Social and community recognition	7.5714	4.69218	11.7571	2.41634	23.1571	3.23762	356.409	0.000
Financial security and planning	5.1429	3.05641	6.8857	2.24282	13.8143	2.24120	227.807	0.000
Leadership and skill development	3.0000	2.34057	4.6143	1.80412	9.2000	1.58434	193.237	0.000
Family well-being	6.0857	3.09156	9.1286	2.12590	11.2143	5.92350	387.932	0.000

Source: Authors’ survey (2023).

Table 5 gives a comparative analysis of the impact of women-led FPCs on many facets of the quality of life for three categories of marginal, small and medium-sized women farmers. With a mean score of 23.16 (SD = 3.24), medium-sized women farmers report the highest level of social and community identification. The marginal women farmers exhibit the lowest score at 7.57 (SD = 4.69), while small women farmers show the lowest score at 7.57 (SD = 4.69). There is a highly notable difference among the groups, as indicated by the F-value of 356.41 and the significance level (p < .01). This implies that medium-scale women farmers experience greater identification in their communities due to their membership in FPCs. In financial security and planning, the medium women farmers again exhibit the highest score, with a mean of 13.81 (SD = 2.24), followed by small women farmers with a mean of 6.89 (SD = 2.24) and marginal women farmers with a mean of 5.14 (SD = 3.06). The F-value is 227.81, with a significant p value (p < .001), highlighting a significant improvement in financial security as farm size increases, particularly for medium-sized women farmers.

Similarly, the outcomes of leadership and skill development indicate that women farmers moderately benefited from membership in FPCs, with a mean score of 9.20 (SD = 1.58). Small women farmers have a mean of 4.61 (SD = 1.80), and marginal women farmers reported the least at 3.00 (SD = 2.34). The F-value is 193.24, with a significant range of p < .001, specifying that medium women farmers obtain significantly more leadership skills than small and marginal women farmers. Likewise, family well-being exhibits a similar pattern, where medium women farmers have the highest mean score of 11.21 (SD = 5.92), followed by small women farmers with a mean of 9.13 (SD = 2.13) and marginal women farmers with a mean of 6.09 (SD = 3.09). The F-value is 387.93, and the p value is highly significant (p < .001), indicating that FPCs contribute significantly to the complete family well-being of medium women farmers.

Case Study: Transformative Power of Women-led Farmer-Producer Companies: The Story of Neelama (Name Changed)

Neelama (name changed) is from Osmanabad district in Maharashtra. Her story illustrates how FPCs can improve livelihoods and living conditions. She works with a group, receives services from the company and helps herself solve financial difficulties by using sustainable farming techniques. Until 2021, Neelama’s household faced ongoing economic difficulties. Most of the time, Neelama’s family’s income was derived from selling the milk of one buffalo and her husband’s unpredictable income as a truck driver, as he was often away from home. With only two acres and almost no income from the agricultural land, it had limited expansion opportunities. In the year 2022, Neelama joined an FPC in Osmanabad and became a member of the group. Through this group, she gained access to market links, loans and training. With an ICICI Bank loan and the FPC’s assistance, she bought four more buffaloes. This led to a higher yield of milk, enabling her to transition from survival to running a small business.

After being inspired by the FPC, Neelama too began climate-resilient farming on one acre. She also received hands-on training in organic farming techniques, including preparing fertilisers and pesticides using Azolla and vermicompost. Switching from chemical to organic farming resulted in higher crop yields, and the soil became healthier. She initiated the cultivation of sorghum, green gram, wheat, mustard, onions and vegetables using eco-friendly practices for Rabi crop cultivation. Her earnings from the dairy had increased to ₹7,000 per month, and her agricultural income has helped her manage her expenses. The whole family worked together in farming and dairy activities, which not only improved the family’s financial security but also strengthened the family bond.

Focus Group Discussions’ Takeaways: Farmer-Producer Company Assistance and the Difficulties Women Farmers Face

The participants in the FGDs were women members of FPCs in rural Maharashtra. The discussions have highlighted the issues and benefits that women have gained from their participation. These assemblies focused on the persistent issues faced by women farmers and the societal changes brought about by the establishment of FPCs.

Empowerment and Evolving Gender Dynamics

Women from the group mentioned that one of the major benefits of being in an FPC is the rise in their self-confidence and the development of their individuality. One member shares, ‘My husband no longer questions me as to why I participate in and work in the women’s groups, and I feel more confident. I feel that I am now able to make my own decisions’. This confidence confirms that group activity leads to a gradual shift in gender norms, increasing their self-confidence and freedom to move towards decision-making power. ‘As a company, we got the opportunities to receive several benefits from the government’s schemes… we don’t have to fear a particular office or officer in approaching and discussing how we can use the schemes to help us’, says a member, mentioning the FPC’s role in uniting the members to feel a collective strength. Women are more confident and present at the institutions they engage with, as this change in approach shows, and FPCs are places where this happens.

Balancing Domestic Responsibilities and Collective Work

It remains challenging for women to balance their work and family responsibilities, despite the progress that has been made. Similarly, one woman mentioned, ‘I was scolded at home because I was working and participating in the FPC, and I was not able to manage the household work’. ‘I like my job, but I don’t want to keep doing it if there is no profit’. This culminates in the dual strain that many women experience when the time and energy needed for cooperative farming activities are compromised by unpaid household work. Another participant remarked that group discussions now centre on useful topics, ‘Now, when we sit in a group, we talk about positive things… However, I can only accomplish this with my neighbours, two or three women farmers’. Although this shows that peer interaction has improved, it also highlights how limited such fruitful discussions can be in larger networks.

Barriers in Market Linkages and Infrastructure

Problems with market access and infrastructure still limit the full benefits of FPC membership. As a farmer stated, ‘We still struggle to get market rates because we also have logistical issues with the transportation and storage of our produce’. Even with certain developments in collective marketing, women farmers are unable to gain fair pricing for their products due to rural remoteness and a lack of facilities. One woman shared that ‘the FPC promised us a better price for corn, but later got a lower price’. It has been 1 year, yet the payment has still not been received. Incidents like these require accountability; otherwise, trust may break down.

Discussion

This research comprises the quantitative analysis, FGD and case studies. This has given a comprehensive analysis of how WFPCs impact the lives and livelihoods of women farmers. This analysis draws from women’s collective action theories (Cook 1993; Olson 1965), which lead to women’s empowerment, interaction between companies’ difficulties, institutional support, and economic well-being (Khursheed 2022; Srinivasan 2022). The results of the study indicate that women have increased their power in decision-making in the family as well as in the producer companies. This is because of collective initiatives and working together at their work. The quantitative data show that agricultural income has increased after joining FPCs. The literature shows that collective initiatives help improve bargaining power and enhance understanding of the market for their products. Women are more financially independent and can make decisions for themselves (Bitzer and Marazzi 2020; Kumari et al. 2021). The ANOVA results indicated that marginal women farmers receive training and infrastructure support from the FPCs, and medium women farmers benefited from leadership opportunities and financial stability. However, FPCs have supported all the women farmers, but there are some women who get better opportunities because of a larger number of assets and land holdings. Both the qualitative and quantitative results mentioned that some marginal and small women farmers still face challenges in terms of the market, infrastructure facilities and transportation for their products. FPCs try to help the entire group of women, but poor rural infrastructure, overdue payments and fluctuations in prices make women farmers face challenges in rural areas. The result also mentioned that the agricultural value chain, including banks, markets and stakeholder linkages, connects within the larger system for women farmers. The interlinkages show that collaboration is very strong and that FPCs work as mediators. Companies not only collect and sell the product, but also help improve the skills, financial literacy and digital literacy of women. Cooperation among different stakeholders can benefit many gaps in value conception. The collective action theory benefits women farmers, producer companies and their work. However, it helps to decrease the challenge of economic and social marginalisation of women and assists in working together. The group functions are influenced by institutional rules, group behaviour and individual choices, as theorised by Cook (1993) and later by Sirdey and Lallau (2020). The empowerment framework analyses how FPCs improve women’s lives and livelihoods in the rural areas. In terms of the economic aspect, there is more financial stability, and the social aspect shows a change in mobility in real life and increased confidence. It also helps political mobility as a leadership role and higher recognition in society. Though the findings demonstrate that empowerment not only influences social and economic factors but also connects with caste, land size and family structure (Khursheed 2022).

Conclusion

The study aims to provide the functions of FPCs and their impact on rural women farmers. It emphasises small, marginal and medium farmers’ groups, especially women-led FPCs. The result indicates that women who are part of the FPCs have amplified their agricultural income and quality of life. However, the results show that FPCs increase the income of all the women farmers in the rural areas. Even the marginal women farmers with fewer acres of farmland were able to gain several benefits with their access to infrastructure, training and logistical support. The companies that are formed by women farmers have proven that they are an effective instrument for rural development. They play a central entrepreneurial role in promoting equal access and confidence in farm operations. Limited access to loans, inadequate training and insufficient infrastructure remain major challenges. Although marginal women farmers have stated that significant progress is required in these areas, additional targeted support is needed for small and medium-sized farms to ensure equitable access.

Although there appears to be equivalence in financial returns across the different types of women farmers, adding and diversifying the services provided are likely to enhance member satisfaction and support the sustainable future of the FPCs. It can adapt from successful cooperative models that capture scale economies and collective production to increase impact and ensure sustainability. Enhancing financial availability, expanding the scope of inclusive participation in FPCs and increasing support for training marginalised women leaders should be among the most urgent goals for rural policy. FPCs led by women have the unique ability to drive transformational change in rural farming systems due to their ability to mobilise and initiate community support. FPCs, more than any other institutions, have the ability to increase rural incomes and strengthen the value chain from agriculture to rural-based socio-economic uplift, especially for women farmers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflict of Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Praveen Naik Bellampalli

Ashwini Pandhare

References

Baliyan

2018. ‘Use of Female Family and Hired Labour in Agriculture: An Empirical Study in Western Uttar Pradesh, India’. Gender and Women’s 2, no. 1: 1.

Baruah

, Mohanty

, and Rola.

A. C.

2022. ‘Empowering Women Farmers Through Collective Action: A Case Study of Khanizpur Hamlet, Odisha’. Gender, Technology and Development 26, no. 1: 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2022.2040218

Bikkina

, Turaga

M. R.

, and Bhamoriya.

2018. ‘Farmer-Producer Organizations as Farmer Collectives: A Case Study from India’. Development Policy Review 36, no. 6: 669–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12274

Bitzer

, and Marazzi

2020. ‘Southern Sustainability Initiatives in Agricultural Value Chains: A Question of Enhanced Inclusiveness? The case of Trustea in India’. Agriculture and Human Values 39: 381–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10151-4

Chakraborty

2020. ‘COVID-19 and Women Informal Sector Workers in India’. Economic & Political Weekly 55, no. 35: 17. https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/35/commentary/covid-19-and-women-informal-sector-workers-india.html

Chintamani

B. G.

, Yadav

, and Kumari.

2024. ‘Stylized Facts of Performance Measures for Sustaining the Farmer-Producer Companies in India’. Business Strategy & Development 7, no. 1: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.312

Cook

M. L.

1993. ‘Cooperatives and Group Action’. In Food and Agricultural Marketing Issues for the 21st Century , edited by Padberg

, 154–69. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Creswell

, & Clark

P. V.

2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Das

2025, January 20. ‘Govt Set to Meet Target of 10,000 New FPOs in FY25’. Financial Express . https://www.financialexpress.com/policy/economy-govt-set-to-meet-target-of-10000-new-fpos-in-fy25-3719706/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

10.

Deka

, Goswami

, Thakur

A. S.

, & Bhadoria.

P. S.

2020. ‘Are Farmer-Producer Companies Ready to Behave as Business Entities? Insights from the Vegetable-based Farmer Companies in West Bengal, India’. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 18, no. 6: 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2020.1794213

11.

Eastwood

, Lipton

, & Newell.

2010. ‘Farm Size’. In Handbook of Agricultural Economics , edited by Pingali

, & Evenson

, 3323–97. Burlington: Academic Press https://michaellipton.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/farmsize2009.pdf

12.

Ganesh

2017. ‘Farmer-Producer Companies’. Economic & Political Weekly 52, no. 40: 73–74. https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2017_52/40/DI_LII_40_071017_Venkataraman_Ganesh.pdf

13.

Hall

, and Matos.

2010. ‘Incorporating Impoverished Communities in Sustainable Supply Chains’. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 48, no. 1/2: 124–47.

14.

Harrington

, Nivedita

, Nitya

, Rengalakshmi

, Reetu

, Shuvajit

, & Astha.

2024. ‘A Needs-based Approach to Promoting Gender Equity and Inclusivity: Insights from Participatory Research with Farmer-Producer Organisations (FPOs)’. Journal of Social and Economic Development 26, no. 2: 409–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-023-00280-x

15.

International Labour Organization. 2019. Empowering Women in the Rural Economy . International Labour Office. https://webapps.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_dialogue/—sector/documents/publication/wcms_601071.pdf

16.

Jadhav

, Mukhopadhyay

, Chadha

, Shaikh

, Goel

, Patil

, and Puskur

2024. Socio-technical Innovation Bundles for Enhancing Women’s Resilience and Empowerment: A Case Study of Swayam Shikshan Prayog’s Women-led Climate Resilient Farming . New Delhi: CGIAR Initiative on Gender Equality, CGIAR Gender Impact Platform, and International Rice Research Institute. https://swayamshikshanprayog.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/SSP_Case-study-on-WCRF-by-IRRI-March-2024_Final_dp.pdf

17.

Kakati

, & Roy.

2021. ‘Financial Performance of Farmer-Producer Companies of India: A Study from 2013–2014 to 2018–2019’. International Journal of Rural Management 18, no. 3: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/09730052211034700

18.

Kaygusuz

2011. ‘Energy Services and Energy Poverty for Sustainable Rural Development’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, no. 2: 936–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.003

19.

Khursheed

2022. ‘Exploring the Role of Microfinance in Women’s Empowerment and Entrepreneurial Development: A Qualitative Study’. Future Business Journal 57, no. 8: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-022-00172-2

20.

Kumar

2020. ‘Overview of Indian Agriculture’. In Overview of Indian Agriculture (First Edition) , 17–56. Mathura Road, New Delhi: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9789353885953.n2

21.

Kumar

, and Verma.

2019. ‘Empowering Farmers of Madhya Pradesh: An Initiative of Madhya Bharat Consortium of Farmers Producer Company Limited’. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases 9, no. 1: 148–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/2277977919881416

22.

Kumari

, Bharti

, and Tripathy.

K. K.

2021. ‘Strengthening Agriculture Value Chain Through Collectives: Comparative Case Analysis’. International Journal of Rural Management 17, no. 1S: 40S–68S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973005221991438

23.

Lalitha

, Viswanathan

P. K.

, and Vinayan.

2022. ‘Institutional Strengthening of Farmer-Producer Organizations and Empowerment of Small Farmers in India: Evidence from a Case Study in Maharashtra’. Millennial Asia . https://doi.org/10.1177/09763996221098216

24.

Lowder

S. K.

, Skoet

, and Raney.

2016. ‘The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide’. World Development 87: 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.041

25.

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare. 2022. Operational Guidelines for Implementing Agriculture Census 2021–22 . Government of India. https://www.agcensus.gov.in/AgriCensus/media/Operational%20Guideline%202021-22.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

26.

Mojo

, Fischer

, and Degefa.

2016. Collective Action and Aspirations: The Impact of Cooperatives on Ethiopian Coffee Farmers’ Aspirations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 82, no. 2: 217–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12103

27.

Mourya

, and Mehta.

2021. ‘Farmer Producer Company: India’s Magic Bullet to Realise Select SDGs?’ International Journal of Rural Management 17, no. 1: 115–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973005221991660

28.

NABARD. 2015. Farmers’ Producer Organizations. Frequently Asked Questions . Mumbai: National Bank for Rural Development (NABARD). https://www.nabard.org/demo/auth/writereaddata/File/FARMER%20PRODUCER%20ORGANISATIONS.pdf

29.

Neti

, & Govil

. 2022. Farmer Producer Companies Report II: Inclusion, Capitalisation and Incubation . Bengaluru: Azim Premji University.

30.

Olson

1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

31.

Pallavi

G. L.

, Saxena

, Pastakia

, & Oza.

2024. ‘Farmer-Producer Organisations (FPOs) as Sustainable Transition Intermediaries: Insights from India’. International Journal of Rural Management 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/09730052241292979

32.

Press Information Bureau. 2025, August 2. Progress Under the Formation and Promotion of 10,000 FPOs . Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2040845

33.

Schoonenboom

, & Johnson.

R. B.

2017. ‘How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design’. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie , 69: no. Suppl. 2, 107–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1

34.

Sharma

2013. ‚Leveraging Farmer-Producer Organizations to Boost Production, Mitigate Risk, and Strengthen Food Security: Lessons and Challenges’. Journal of Land and Rural Studies 1, no. 1: 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/2321024913487270

35.

Singh

2021. ‘Institutional Innovations in India: An Assessment of Producer Companies as New-Generation Co-operative Companies’. Journal of Asian Development Research 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2633190X211033510

36.

Singh

2022. ‘(Small) Farmer Livelihoods under Liberalised Agricultural Market Environment in India: Can Farmer-Producer Companies be an Alternative?’ Sociological Bulletin 72, no. 1: 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380229221116993

37.

Sirdey

, & Lallau.

2020. ‘How Do Producer Organisations Enhance Farmers’ Empowerment in the Context of Fair Trade Certification?’ Oxford Development Studies 48, no. 2: 1–15.

38.

Srinivasan

2022. ‘Engendering Farmer Collectives: Time to Include Women Farmers’. In State of India’s Livelihoods (SOIL) Report 2022, 76–85. https://livelihoods-india.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/SOIL-Report-final_web-version.pdf

39.

Tata-Cornell Institute for Agriculture and Nutrition. 2024. How many FPOs are there in India? How we counted the number of Farmer-Producer Organizations . https://tci.cornell.edu/?blog=how-many-fpos-are-there-in-india-how-we-counted-the-number-of-farmer-producer-organizations&utm_source=chatgpt.com

40.

Trebbin

, and Hassler.

2012. Farmers’ Producer Companies in India: A New Concept for Collective Action? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 44, no. 2: 411–27. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44143