Workplace Sexual Harassment in Waged Agricultural Employment: A Literature Review

ABSTRACT

Workplace sexual harassment (WSH) is a systemic problem in agricultural employment. In the United States, where most research on the topic has been conducted, studies have suggested the rate of WSH against women farmworkers may be as high as 95%. Women who are immigrants, younger, have precarious immigration status, and come from indigenous communities are particularly vulnerable to WSH. The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the factors that contribute to such high rates of WSH in waged employment in the agricultural sector. To achieve this, we completed a systematic review of the empirical literature on sexual harassment in agricultural workplaces. Our review includes 29 empirical studies on WSH in agriculture, including 13 studies conducted in countries within the Global North and 16 from the Global South. The paper presents a typology of WSH in agriculture, categorizing its emotional and physical forms and describing what the literature reveals about its impacts on those who experience it. We then present our analysis of the structural and cultural factors contributing to high WSH rates in waged agricultural employment. We found that migration policies, the organizational and physical characteristics of agricultural work, the informality of employment relationships, traditional masculinity norms, and weak enforcement of workplace regulations were the principal factors facilitating high rates of WSH in agriculture. However, the study has limitations: it primarily focuses on literature in English and Spanish, risking geographical bias towards the Americas and potentially overlooking significant research in other languages or published in less accessible databases, including grey literature and regional reports. These limitations highlight the need for broader research to fill these empirical gaps, particularly from the Global South.

KEYWORDS:

• Farmworkers
• workplace sexual harassment;
• commercial agriculture

Introduction

Workplace sexual harassment (WSH) is a pervasive issue faced by women in the labor force. However, the experiences of low-income women employed in low-wage and socially marginalized occupations such as farmwork, janitorial services, and the restaurant industry remain relatively under-researched and overlooked.¹ WSH in agriculture is pervasive and closely associated with the division of labor within agribusinesses.^1–3 There are marked gender disparities in the incidence of WSH in the agricultural sector, underscoring its systemic nature.^4–7 Studies on WSH in agricultural industries in the United States (U.S.) show it is widespread, disproportionately affects women workers, and usually perpetrated by men.^3,8–10 Moreover, certain demographic groups, including single, young, economically disadvantaged, less educated women, as well as women from ethnic minorities, those on temporary or seasonal contracts, and those lacking legal status, face an elevated risk of encountering WSH in agricultural workplaces.^3,7,11,12

By conducting a systematic literature review of studies on WSH in waged agricultural employment conducted in the Global North and the Global South (by which we mean emerging or developing economies), the study aims to illustrate how WSH manifests within the context of commercial agriculture. In doing so, it seeks to identify and characterize the contextual features of commercial agriculture and the sociodemographic and physical characteristics of agricultural workplaces that contribute to the sector’s high incidence of WSH.

Previous literature reviews on the topic have largely overlooked literature from the Global South, favoring studies in U.S. agriculture.^3,7,8 There are several reasons to conduct this literature review including studies from both the Global North and Global South. Female farmworkers in the U.S. often originate from Latin America, and their workplace experiences are thus shaped by gendered inequalities and dynamics stemming from those countries.¹⁰ Moreover, the expansion of industrial agriculture in the Global South generates similar conditions for waged work and associated power differentials as those seen in the U.S. Research focusing solely on North American contexts may not capture nuanced insights regarding how industrial agricultural production intersects with cultural, social, and economic conditions to produce the risk of WSH. More specifically, empirical investigations carried out in the Global South can provide valuable insights into how the informality of employment relations, forms of labor precarity, and gendered cultural dynamics pertaining to machismo and marianismo shape WSH experiences and responses within the context of commercial agriculture. The inclusion of such research in the literature review contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities inherent in this issue.

Conceptual framework for studying workplace sexual harassment on farms

WSH is a form of violence against women rooted in discriminatory norms and practices.¹³ Violence against women is defined as “any act of gender-based violence (GBV) that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life”.¹⁴ Through GBV, perpetrators maintain an unequal status quo, assert social control, and reinforce victim subjugation by denying them access to their rights and resources In addition, GVB refers to the act of perpetrators using violence to hold a state of inequality, assert their control, and deny victims their fundamental human rights and the resources they need to thrive.¹⁵ Thus, WSH is one manifestation of GBV, perpetuating inequalities from generation to generation if left unattended.¹⁶

WSH in the United States has been documented to date at least to the Industrial Revolution.⁶ Most research on the types and factors driving WSH has concentrated on urban areas, while studies examining women in agriculture and low-wage occupations have been lacking.⁷ Catherine MacKinnon’s influential work focused on sexual harassment among working women, providing the foundational concept that defines sexual harassment as unwanted sexual demands in unequal power dynamics.⁸ MacKinnon’s ideas led to the development of tools to assess sexual harassment at work, including the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ) by Fitzgerald et al.,⁹ initially used in academic settings. Cortina¹⁷ adapted the SEQ to explore sexual harassment experiences among Latinas with limited education, categorizing harassment into three main types¹⁸p.240]:

1. Gender harassment: This category encompasses generalized sexist comments and behaviors displaying degrading, insulting, and sexist attitudes.

2. Unwanted sexual attention: Unwanted, inappropriate, and offensive physical or verbal sexual advances may be categorized as part of this category, including gross sexual imposition, assault, or rape.

3. Sexual coercion: This category is most known as “Quid pro quo” and includes the solicitation or coercion of sexual activity by promise of reward or threat of punishment.

In the world of work, definitions of sexual harassment contain two key elements: “quid pro quo” and “hostile working environment”.¹⁹ “quid pro quo” refers to situations where job benefits, such as promotions or continued employment, are contingent upon the employee submitting to sexual advances or conduct.²⁰ Quid pro quo occurs when submission to sexual conduct is made a condition of employment benefits, distinguishing it from hostile environment harassment which affects the broader work atmosphere.²¹ A hostile working environment refers to behaviors that create an intimidating, hostile, or humiliating working environment for the recipient.²² Factors contributing to a hostile working environment and quid pro quo incidence include power differentials, personal identity factors that position some women in a relatively powerless position relative to men, gendered norms that render men likely to see acts of sexual harassment as a means of displaying male dominance, and women’s concentration in precarious forms of work.²³ In addition, organizational factors catalyzing WSH can include workplace cultures (including tolerance of harassment), gender-segregated groups and power differentials within organizations.²³ Thus, WSH is influenced by socially validated power differentials and gendered power structures, which lead to under-reporting of the problem.^22,24,25

Sociocultural, material, and policy deficiencies are also factors leading to sexual harassment.² Sociocultural deficiencies can include cultures of silence, shame, and denial, local norms urging women to be quiet and uncomplaining, low female literacy levels, and blaming the victim.^2,10,26 Material deficiencies contributing to WSH include low wages and long working hours, housing policy (often linked to waged farm employment), and job insecurity. Policy deficiencies involve discriminatory employment practices or policies, recruitment and promotion mechanisms that facilitate sexual harassment, lack of privacy in reporting, and length of such reporting.⁴

Intersectionality

Intersectionality theory highlights the interconnectedness of multiple social categories, such as race, gender, class, age and more, in shaping individuals’ experiences and identities.²⁷ An intersectional understanding of social systems involves recognizing that oppression might take many forms and can be present and active at the same time in an individual’s life.²⁸ Additionally, the intersection of multiple layers of discrimination compounds and intensifies the effects of the individual’s experiences of oppression.²⁹ By adopting an intersectional lens, we aim to explain how different systems of power and oppression perpetuate harassment and how certain female groups face specific vulnerabilities in agriculture.

Methods

Literature search criteria

We conducted a systematic literature review³⁰ that encompassed a wide range of sources, including peer-reviewed academic literature, organizational reports, and working papers. Since WSH is a sensitive issue and researchers may find it difficult to obtain willing study participants, empirical data has often been produced and published by non-profit organizations that are better able to build trust over time before collecting empirical data.^4,31–33 Given the significance of these publications within the relatively small number of studies available on the topic, we have included them here.

We conducted an extensive literature search by combining key terms related to sexual harassment, workplace sexual harassment, agriculture, and farmworkers. We searched multiple databases, including AGRICOLA, PubMed, Web of Science, and WorldCat (web). Additionally, for Spanish-language academic literature, we used Google Scholar with search terms such as acoso sexual, acoso sexual laboral, agricultura, and trabajadoras agrícolas. The lead author, a native Spanish speaker, conducted this search, allowing us to include literature from Latin America. However, there may be additional literature from the Global South in languages other than English or Spanish that we did not identify in our search.

To find organizational reports and working papers, we used similar search terms in both English and Spanish in Google Scholar. We also employed a snowball approach,³⁴ identifying additional empirical studies through the reference lists of the initially found articles and reports.

Screening and inclusion criteria

To identify relevant studies on sexual harassment in agricultural workplaces, we applied specific inclusion criteria. Firstly, the documents had to explicitly discuss sexual harassment within the context of commercial agricultural work. Secondly, we limited the scope of publications to the period from 1990 to 2023, aiming to include recent and pertinent research. Thirdly, our review focused exclusively on empirical studies that conducted primary data collection. Importantly, we did not apply any geographical exclusions, enabling a broad examination of studies from diverse regions globally.

Our database search initially yielded 466 results. After removing duplicates and performing abstract reviews and manual searches, we closely evaluated 44 papers for their eligibility. Ultimately, 29 documents met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 13 studies were conducted in the United States and Canada, while the remaining 16 were carried out in various other countries, such as Colombia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda. Table 1 presents the distribution of these 29 documents, highlighting an equal number of peer-reviewed articles from both the Global North and South. Notably, the Global South contributed a greater number of reports and a unique working paper, whereas the Global North provided a single policy brief.

Table 1. Number of included documents by classification and study location.

Document Type	Global North	Global South
Peer Reviewed Article	9	9
Report	2	5
Policy Brief	1
Thesis	1	1
Working Paper		1
Total	13	16

Analysis of documents

Our analysis proceeded in three steps. First, we created a table summarizing pertinent information from selected articles, including study location, methodology, research tools, sample size, and studied crops. Second, we employed a deductive coding approach, developing our codes from pre-established themes derived from existing literature.³⁵

Our coding covered five main themes: immigration policy, sociocultural norms, personal identity markers, workplace organization and structure, and workplace policies. Under immigration policy, we coded for visa restrictions, limited legal protections for migrant workers, and the fear of deportation or retaliation when reporting harassment. The sociocultural norms’ theme encompassed gender stereotypes, cultures of silence, tolerance of harassment, stigma around reporting, victim blaming, and the influence of patriarchal cultures. Personal identity markers included considerations of gender identity, sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status, and age. For workplace organization and structure, we focused on hierarchical dynamics, power imbalances, lack of accountability in harassment cases, informal work arrangements, labor precarity, and male-dominated environments. Lastly, under workplace policies we coded for absence of clear anti-harassment policies, inadequate harassment prevention and response training, and insufficient reporting and investigating procedures (see Table 2). In the final step, we organized the findings from the reviewed studies according to the predefined themes. This coding and analysis were performed using Lumivero NVivo software.

Table 2. Summary of articles by region and themes covered.

			Themes
Authors	Year	Region	A	B	C	D	E	Reference Number
Prado et al.	2023	GN & GS		*	*			[36]
Hobbs, Klachky & Cooper	2021	GN		*		*		[11]
Prado et al.	2021	GN & GS	*	*		*		[10]
Prado et al.	2021	GN & GS		*		*		[37]
CDM	2020	GN	*					[38]
CDM and Penn Law	2018	GN	*					[32]
Kim et al.	2016	GN		*	*	*		[9]
Kim	2014	GN			*	*	*	[39]
Murphy et al.	2014	GN		*	*	*	*	[40]
Meng & HRW	2012	GN	*			*	*	[4]
Areguin & Stewart	2022	GN		*		*		[41]
Waugh	2010	GN		*	*	*		[18]
Preibisch and Encalada Grez	2010	GN	*			*		[42]
Serna Mosquera	2023	GS				*	*	[43]
Martinez Alba et al.	2022	GS			*	*		[44]
Farah et al.	2022	GS		*	*		*	[45]
Sultan	2022	GS		*	*	*		[26]
Oosterom et al.	2022	GS		*	*	*	*	[46]
ActionAid	2020	GS		*				[47]
Lowthers	2018	GS		*	*	*		[48]
Andrade-Rubio	2016	GS		*	*	*		[49]
Jacobs et al.	2015	GS		*	*	*	*	[2]
Cooper	2015	GS			*	*	*	[50]
Arellano Gálvez	2014	GS		*	*	*		[51]
Ahmmed & Hossain	2016	GS				*		[52]
Mena & Proaño	2005	GS		*	*	*		[53]
Dolan et al.	2002	GS				*	*	[54]
Karega	2002	GS						[55]
Wijayatilake and Zackariya	2001	GS			*	*		[56]

Note: The letters in the table correspond to the following themes:

A: Immigration Policy     D: Workplace Organization and Structure

B: Personal Identity Markers  E: Workplace Policies

C: Sociocultural Norms

Results

There is a significant difference in sample sizes and the reported incidence of WSH in the documents included in this study. Sample sizes ranged from three individuals to 891 study participants. The incidence of WSH reported in the studies also ranged widely; anywhere from 30% to 90% of respondents reporting having experienced harassment or having witnessed it. Qualitative research was used most often to study WSH, followed by mixed methods and then quantitative studies. Interviews and in-depth interviews were the most used research tools, followed by focus groups (see Table 3).

Table 3. Summary of articles by year, sample size, reported WHS incidence, methods, and tools.

Authors	Year	Sample Size	% of WSH Incidence	Methods	Tools	Reference Number
Prado et al.	2023	197		Quantitative	Survey	[36]
Hobbs, Klachky & Cooper	2021	295	30	Quantitative	Survey	[11]
Prado et al.	2021	33	40	Qualitative	Focus groups	[10]
Prado et al.	2021	197	*	Quantitative	Survey	[37]
CDM	2020	100	12	Qualitative	In-depth Interview	[38]
CDM and Penn Law	2018	34	70	Quantitative	Survey	[32]
Kim et al.	2016	20	75	Qualitative	Focus groups	[9]
Kim	2014	20	75	Qualitative	Focus groups	[39]
Murphy et al.	2014	59		Qualitative	Focus groups	[40]
Meng & HRW	2012	160		Qualitative	Interviews	[4]
Areguin & Stewart	2022	14		Qualitative	Interviews	[41]
Waugh	2010	150	80	Qualitative	In-depth interviews/focus groups/ethnographic	[18]
Preibisch and Encalada Grez	2010	16		Qualitative	Observation	[42]
Serna Mosquera	2023	3		Qualitative	Ethnography	[43]
Martinez Alba et al.	2022	75	25.33	Qualitative	Interviews	[44]
Farah et al.	2022	250	52.8	Mixed	Survey/Interviews	[45]
Sultan	2022	21		Qualitative	In-depth interviews	[26]
Oosterom et al.	2022	20		Qualitative	In-depth interviews	[46]
ActionAid	2020			Qualitative	Interviews/focus groups	[47]
Lowthers	2018	25		Qualitative	Feminist ethnography	[48]
Andrade-Rubio	2016	20		Qualitative	In-depth interviews	[49]
Jacobs et al.	2015	286	89/90	Mixed	Surveys/interviews/focus groups	[2]
Cooper	2015	75		Mixed	Interviews/workshops/surveys	[50]
Arellano Gálvez	2014	250		Qualitative	Interviews/focus groups	[51]
Ahmmed & Hossain	2016	297	90	Qualitative	In-depth interviews/focus groups/observation	[52]
Mena & Proaño	2005	20	55.45	Qualitative	Interviews	[53]
Dolan et al.	2002	100	**	Mixed	Semi-structured interviews/focus group/role play	[54]
Karega	2002	400	90	Mixed	Interviews and focus groups	[55]
Wijayatilake and Zackariya	2001	25		Qualitative	Focus groups/interviews	[56]

*This study reported the WSH incidence among female and male farmworkers in U.S. and Mexico, documenting WSH among women (49%) and men (21%) in California and among women (7%) and men (13%) in Michoacán.

**This study was carried out in seven farms, all farms reported incidents of WSH.

Note: The studies that did not report percentages of WSH incidence did not include this aspect in their research objectives; instead, they focused on exploring other factors associate with WSH in agriculture.

The high variation in the incidence of WSH reported in the studies may stem from various factors, including sample size and the methodologies employed for data collection. Nonetheless, WSH is often underreported.^3,4 There are several sociocultural explanations for the underreporting of WSH, such as the perception by the employer that WSH is culturally tolerated and thus that they have no obligation to address it.⁵⁶ There is also an assumption that WSH solely pertains to instances of rape, neglecting its other forms.^53,54,56 Moreover, limited awareness and education may lead individuals not to recognize or employ the term “sexual harassment”.² Finally, underreporting can be attributed to fear of the repercussions of reporting and the sentiment that women should endure such experiences due to their socio-economic and legal circumstances.⁹

Most of the research has been conducted in the United States, followed by Mexico and Kenya (see Figure 1). Among the 13 studies carried out in the Global North, seven of them omitted specification of the crop type in which WSH was investigated. Furthermore, most studies focused on fruit and horticultural crops (cut flowers, vegetables, and high-value crops) (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. Number of documents by country.

Figure 2. Number of studies by crop category.

Additionally, among the 29 studies reviewed, 8 explicitly mentioned using an intersectional framework in their analysis. One study specifically included individuals from the LGBT+ community as participants, and two others briefly highlighted the importance of incorporating the LGBT+ perspective into discussions on WSH in agriculture.

As some documents covered more than one country, the sum of papers included does not match the totals presented in this graph. As some documents covered more than one crop category, the sum of papers included does not match the totals presented in this graph.

Factors increasing the risk of WSH in commercial agriculture

Guestworker program structure and hiring practices

Guestworker visa programs in North America, specifically the U.S. H-2A and Canadian SAWP, have been identified as structural factors that significantly increase the risk of sexual harassment for female farmworkers.^6,42,57 These programs allow growers to hire immigrant workers on temporary agricultural visas, and require workers to return to their home countries at the end of the growing season or upon visa expiration.^6,58 Workers are often recruited and hired in their home countries through a Farm Labor Contractor (FLC), who arranges employment contracts with growers. Previous research has highlighted the prevalence of sex-based discrimination within the practices of employers utilizing the H-2A program for recruitment.³⁸ The study found that 67% of workers reported their employers or recruiters explicitly prohibited the hiring of women, and that job advertisements often specified gender and age limits for applicants. Additionally, 86% said that women were either not hired or were offered less favorable pay or less desirable jobs than men.

Women are significantly underrepresented in these programs, with only 3.3% of H-2A guestworkers admitted in 2021 being women, a figure that aligns with historical trends.^6,38,59 The underrepresentation of women in predominantly male workplaces has been linked to higher levels of gender discrimination and harassment.⁶⁰ Consequently, the predominance of men in the H-2A program exacerbates the vulnerabilities of participating female farmworkers.⁸

The structure of guestworker programs can further entrench existing forms of labor segregation in farmwork.⁴² For instance, the hiring practices and the division of labor in guestworker programs demonstrate gendered patterns. In the U.S., many foreign labor recruiters have explicitly stated that they are seeking male candidates in their advertisements for H-2A workers, suggesting that a gendered recruitment process might be at play, even though these practices are illegal.³⁸ Additionally, the U.S. government may encounter challenges in fully investigating issues related to foreign labor recruitment abuses,³⁸ suggesting that issues like gender-based violence may be left unaddressed.

Also, farm employers might potentially utilize guestworker visa programs to assemble what they perceive as an optimal workforce in accordance with their requirements and preferences based on socially constructed gender roles and gender stereotypes, allocating men to better remunerated and more skilled positions.⁵ Moreover, women’s more limited numbers may reduce their collective power relative to men in positions of power. These factors increase the risk of workplace sexual harassment and discrimination for women guestworkers.³²

Gendered norms, machismo and marianismo

Sociocultural factors can enable sexual harassment² as women hesitate to report due to fear of being objectified and humiliated by scrutinizing gossip.^45,61 Sociocultural factors include shame, denial, local norms urging women to be quiet and uncomplaining, and victim blaming.

Among Latin American farmworkers, it has been suggested that machismo and marianismo are conducive to WSH.³⁹ Machismo encompasses both positive and negative characteristics of masculinity, such as attitudinal beliefs that maintain women’s traditional roles, thereby fostering the belief in male dominance over women. In the agricultural context, WSH has been presented as a tool to exert male dominance.^2,39 By contrast, marianismo emphasizes the role of women as family- and home-centered; it promotes passiveness, self-sacrifice, and chastity of women.⁶² Marianismo has been used in agricultural settings to explain the lack of cohesion and support among women who are victims of WSH.³⁹ Investigations conducted in the Global South have revealed that WSH prevalence is heavily influenced by local gender norms.⁶¹ Furthermore, individuals who have experienced WSH often face social isolation and are subjected to victim-blaming dynamics because they are perceived as having failed to assert their self-esteem.^9,10,39,41

Shame, fear and stigmatization by coworkers and community members are important deterrents to reporting WSH.⁴⁵ Farmworkers’ migration patterns within the United States show an increasing tendency to settle down, migrate fewer miles from home to work, and follow the crops less frequently.^63,64 As they have settled in the communities, their work and private networks become intertwined. Female farmworkers typically work with their partners, parents, neighbors, and other community members, including perpetrators.^9,18,37 As families, friends, and neighbors live and work together, the lines between work and home become blurred, putting women at risk of sexual violence committed by people in their social networks and discouraging them from reporting it.^18,31 Women must consider the repercussions within their homes and communities before taking action to stop and report WSH. The consequences of reporting may be severe if the perpetrator has ties to the family or holds a position of power at the farm.¹⁸

Work organization and structure

Agricultural workers have historically been excluded from the federal labor protections afforded to other workers in most industries.⁴ In the U.S. agricultural workers are excluded from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and many state protections.⁷ Under federal law, agricultural workers are not entitled to overtime pay, rest periods, or meal breaks during the workday.⁴ Furthermore, small farms are exempt from paying minimum wages to piece-rate workers and harvesters under 16 who work on the same farm as their parents.⁶⁵ The prevailing conditions in agricultural work foster an environment wherein both documented and undocumented farmworkers may experience vulnerability and precariousness. The exclusion of agricultural workers from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) contributes to a hostile workplace environment where sexual harassment can occur more frequently and with fewer repercussions for perpetrators.¹¹ This exclusion can create a power dynamic that disadvantages immigrant farmworkers, particularly women, making it more challenging to report and address sexual harassment.

Commercial agriculture tends to be structured along a segregated continuum where race, class, and citizenship dictate farm hierarchy and occupational injury exposure.⁶⁶ Positions of authority, including executives and managers, are predominantly occupied by individuals with full citizenship, higher level of education and class. By contrast, a substantial segment of the entry-level labor force, such as field workers, is constituted by Hispanics/Latinos, indigenous, and undocumented workers.^40,42,66 This labor hierarchy is associated with a concomitant escalation in health risks, particularly for the latter group of labourers.⁶⁷ Gender shapes this hierarchy as men tend to occupy positions of power, increasing women’s likelihood of being harassed.⁶⁸ In this sense, the power dynamic between supervisors and low-wage migrant women farmworkers drastically increases the likelihood of abuse.^49,51,54,69 Furthermore, intersectional research shows that racialized sexual harassment is a central factor in the harassment of women of color and women without full citizenship rights.⁷⁰ Hence undocumented female farmworkers face a heightened vulnerability to sexual violence due to their fear of detention and deportation, which provides powerful individuals with a means to exert control over their labor.⁹

Studies consistently reveal that men in positions of authority and coworkers often emerge as the primary perpetrators of WSH.^46,52,55 These findings underscore a troubling dynamic wherein individuals with power or influence within the work environment, such as foremen or supervisors, wield their authority to exploit and harass their subordinates.^10,36,41 Moreover, coworkers, who share daily interactions and proximity with their peers, also contribute significantly to instances of sexual harassment in agricultural settings.^3,12,18 This pattern suggests that the abuse of power and the normalization of inappropriate behavior within workplace hierarchies play crucial roles in perpetuating WSH in commercial agriculture.

Studies conducted in the Global South also highlight the extensive impacts of commercial agriculture development on nearby communities, reaching beyond the boundaries of the farms. Notably, individuals in positions of power leverage their authority beyond the workplace, acting as gatekeepers and resorting to quid pro quo arrangements with women to secure formal positions within agricultural companies.^2,53 In addition, a study revealed that a new commercial palm oil farm, though not explicitly linked to workplace sexual harassment (WSH), has led to notable community shifts, including a rise in sexual harassment incidents against women, driven by the influx of outside laborers recruited to meet the farm’s workforce needs.⁴⁷

Additionally, the physical environment of the agricultural industry increases the risk of women of facing workplace sexual harassment. For instance, working alone or in relative isolation in remote locations increases women vulnerability to WSH.⁷¹ Farms are usually located in remote areas where the characteristics of the crop can allow perpetrators to isolate their victim and conceal their behavior.³¹ That is, women are targeted because of the physically exposed and often suggestive positions, like bending over and crouching, which is required to properly do their jobs.^8,31 As another example, a study on WSH in the floriculture industry in Quito, Ecuador found that women usually work alone in the greenhouses, creating an opportunity for co-workers and supervisors to harass them.⁵³

Informality, permissive work environment, and employment relations

Informality of work creates power differentials that can lead to WSH.⁷² In commercial agriculture, cultural norms tolerant of sexual harassment and structural environments shield perpetrators from accountability, enabling WSH. Gendered power differentials in agricultural workplaces enable perpetrators to enact several strategies to silence victims, such as (1) offer, deny or discontinue work; (2) lower the income that workers receive; (3) make the workers’ conditions very difficult; (4) undermine the workers’ social standing; and/or (5) offer advantages to the workers.⁷² Evidence from the Global South indicates that unchecked power within agricultural companies, coupled with the absence of labor law protections, preventive policies, and inadequate inspection services, amplifies the vulnerability of agricultural workers to.^{2,52–54,56,73} Particularly in South Africa, United Kingdom and Colombia, the use of third-party labor contractors is becoming a common practice.^43,74 The agricultural industry relies on third-party contractors to manage casual and contract labor in response to seasonal production risks and market demands, but this often increases the risk of exploitation and WSH.^43,75,76 Using third party labor contractors can heighten WSH risks due to diminished attention to worker welfare, power imbalances that hinder reporting of labor concerns, and limited enforcement of anti-harassment policies.^43,75,76

Work policies and measures to prevent workplace sexual harassment in agriculture

Predisposing factors alone do not result in workplace sexual harassment. WSH can only occur within an enabling institutional environment, policy, and culture.³⁹ Our literature demonstrated that sexual harassment policies, education on the topic of gender segregation, effective reporting systems, and dress codes are effective tools to protect women from WSH in agricultural settings.^10,18

WSH is further enabled in fields and warehouses when organizations fail to commit to worker safety, and when foremen have unhealthy relationships with their employees. For instance, female farmworkers have reported that responsive foremen pay an essential role in preventing the incidence of WSH.¹⁸ Thus, the perception of trust and security among farmworkers can be improved when the organization works to promote worker safety through managers and foremen.⁷⁷ Conversely, WSH was more likely to occur in companies that lacked sexual harassment related policies, trainings, and dress codes.¹⁸ The use of denigrating remarks about women, including jokes or teasing, while not prohibited by law, can constitute harassment due its recurrency and severity and contribute to work environments that are hostile and offensive.⁷⁸ Similarly, a study focused on Mexican women farmworkers’ perceptions of WSH found that WSH is more likely to occur due to three sets of risk factors: power differentials (gender, race/ethnicity/socioeconomic status/legal status), uninviting work environments, and disconnected interpersonal relationships.⁹

The foremen’s role is critical in either championing prevention measures or, if neglected, exacerbating WSH.^{4,9,10,18,39–41,54} Key strategies linked to the foremen include comprehensive training on WSH definitions, consequences, and respectful workplace practices. Establishing clear no-tolerance policies for harassment with outlined repercussions is essential. Creating confidential reporting mechanisms, offering bystander intervention training, and promoting an inclusive culture are also recommended.^{2,11,36,54,56} Regular assessments and feedback from workers can help improve workplace conditions, while accountability and transparency in addressing WSH incidents are vital.

Responding to WHS

We found that limited research has explored women’s efforts to address WSH in agriculture. Yet, feminist perspectives acknowledge women workers as agents capable of strategizing responses to hostile work environments, safeguarding themselves, and renegotiating contracts.⁴⁸ Despite limited social power, individuals navigate oppression, warranting further exploration.⁷⁹ An intersectional lens is essential to uncover women’s agency within these constraints.¹⁸

Few studies document micro-scale resistance by female farmworkers to enhance their work conditions. For example, female farmworkers adopt protective clothing and disguise their identities to deter harassment.^31,39 Strategies that have been documented include sharing rights information, confronting perpetrators, ignoring or avoiding them, reporting to authorities, confiding in coworkers and family, or resigning.^9,18 In the absence of WSH policies, women seek to avoid perpetrators and request transfers.²

Conclusions and limitations

Our literature review uncovers distinct focal points in how studies from the Global North and Global South address WSH in agriculture. Literature from the Global North predominantly concentrates on WSH within the confines of the agricultural setting. In contrast, literature from the Global South expands the scope to illustrate how WSH is deeply intertwined with broader sociocultural norms, effectively bridging the explanatory gap between occurrences on the farms and the surrounding communities. It further underscores the impact of informal work arrangements and labor precarization in agriculture, pointing out how these conditions increase the risk of WSH for women. Additionally, this literature highlights a notable gap in the implementation of anti-WSH policies within the region’s commercial agriculture sector. Conversely, literature from the Global North has shifted its focus towards evaluating the implementation of WSH policies on farms, demonstrating that the introduction of such policies is an effective strategy to mitigate WSH.

In the Global North and South alike, women in the agriculture industry are faced with precarious work, including WSH. Their experiences of WSH are heightened as men take advantage of their positions of power to harass them and demand sexual favors in exchange for more favorable working conditions. Co-workers and supervisors often take advantage of the physical characteristics of agricultural work settings, such as open fields or solitary greenhouses, where perpetrators can approach women with impunity. However, these challenges are not uniform across regions. In the Global South, where a significant proportion of the agricultural workforce resides or originates, the interplay of cultural norms, economic dependencies, and social structures can further intensify the impact of WSH on female farmworkers. Furthermore, female farmworkers’ economic well-being, family relationships, and health are also impacted by WSH. As farmworkers live, work, and travel with their families, any decision to report WSH must consider immediate ramifications that can create a backlash against the informant and the other members of her family.

Our literature review has revealed several factors increasing the risk of WSH in agriculture: (a) migration policies that channel women into specific, gendered jobs and tasks while also failing to protect them from exploitative working conditions; (b) the organizational and physical characteristics of farm work that expose women to sexual harassment; (c) the informality of employment relations that allows power to accrue in the hands of supervisors and employers; (d) intersectional characteristics of people who are victims of WSH of and (e) the inadequate presence of preventive policIes for creating a safe and trusting workplace environment.

Based on our findings, addressing workplace sexual harassment (WSH) in agriculture requires a multifaceted approach. Firstly, agricultural employers must invest in comprehensive training programs that educate both employees and supervisors about the prevalence, impact, and methods for preventing WSH. These programs should highlight the importance of respectful workplace behavior, bystander intervention strategies, and accessible reporting mechanisms. Alongside educational efforts, there should be a concerted effort to strengthen the enforcement of existing workplace policies to ensure that perpetrators are held accountable and that victims receive support through fair and thorough investigation procedures. Creating an environment where zero-tolerance policies towards WSH are both promoted and upheld by farm leadership is essential, which includes tackling systemic issues such as gender-based discrimination and disparities in wages and resources within the agricultural workforce. Furthermore, there is a need for agricultural employers to push for policy changes that better reflect the realities of agricultural work environments and promote higher labor standards for their often precarious labor forces. Particularly for countries in the Global South looking to expand their export agricultural industries, prioritizing the mitigation of factors that contribute to the increased risk of WSH is vital. This entails investing in education, reporting, and response systems to harassment incidents, as well as ensuring the implementation of preventive measures to foster safe and trusting workplace environments.

Regarding future research, we encourage the shift in the literature that has moved to better address the experiences of men with WSH in agriculture. The limited research on this topic so far have tended to cover presumed heterosexual individuals. Notably, only one study investigating workplace sexual harassment included gay men in commercial agriculture,¹⁰ while two studies briefly mentioned this issue.^2,4 This highlights a lack of comprehensive exploration of LGBTQ+ experiences in this context, which merit greater attention.

Our study has several limitations. First, our review primarily focused on literature in English and Spanish, potentially excluding relevant research published in other languages and thereby introducing a geographical bias towards studies conducted in the Americas. Despite our efforts to encompass literature from both the Global North and Global South, we acknowledge the possibility of geographic bias. Second, our search criteria, while designed to be comprehensive, might not have captured all relevant publications. This is particularly true for studies indexed in less widely used databases or those not indexed at all, leading to potential omissions of some studies, such as grey literature or reports from smaller, regional organizations with limited online visibility.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture and Multistate Research Project W5001: Rural Population Change and Adaptation in the Context of Health, Economic, and Environmental Shocks and Stressors (#PEN04796, Accession #7003407).