A few centuries ago, the phrase “every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost” was common. I first heard it as part of the title of a very fun book about financial speculation by Edward Chancellor. 

No matter what your take is on markets or the devil, I think it might be an even more apt description of our current world economy than it ever was in the 17th century. 

Despite opening with the devil, I want to be clear that evil plans for agrifood domination is not something we’re advocating for (and this is not investment advice!). But plans– evil or not– for domination in any and every market are a-brewing all the time, and the more complex the agrifood sector becomes, the more potential obstacles there are on the path that could lead a given farm, company, or sector to fall behind into devil-taking territory. 

As we’ve thought about the future of the food system, and what lies ahead at the various intersections of familiar trends (like labor shortages or volatile weather) and unfamiliar ones (like geoengineering and climate refugees), we’ve found it helpful to narrow in on specific scenarios that might arise from the collision of these forces. 

One collision that we’ve been thinking about lately, after we investigated it in our latest report, Navigating a Future of Cross-Sectoral Forces, commissioned by AgriFutures Australia, is between increasing cybersecurity threats, mandatory climate disclosures, and radically accessible remote production data. 

The evil plan in action: a scenario of adversarial investors

In the report, we wrote this scenario from the perspective of Ava, the Chief Risk and Information Officer, at what you might call the ‘victim’ company. The company, FarmCorp, is a fictional listed agribusiness. Though it’s stayed on the cutting-edge of agtech, production techniques, and climate disclosures, it’s scale and visibility has exposed it to significant vulnerabilities 

At the heart of the scenario: 

“Ava learns FarmCorp’s stock has been heavily shorted by a hedge fund. The fund publicly cites greater exposure to climate risks than FarmCorp had reported in its recent disclosures, causing the share price to rapidly plummet. This aggressive financial move catches FarmCorp off-guard, and repercussions are immediate and severe.”

The repercussions mentioned include a withdrawal of funding and support from key backers who become wary of FarmCorp’s underestimation of climate risks. Financial disruptions extend into the physical world, causing operational paralysis in FarmCorp’s supply chain. Regulators come to call, and contracts are put on hold while the situation is being sorted out, leaving employees feeling doubtful about the firm’s future. 

In our scenario, Ava has tools to respond to this kind of adversarial investor action. Her ability to quickly deploy a strategy to help put the organization on a path to recovery is enviable– the type of response that we can only hope leaders across the ag industry and around the world will have when faced with the same. 

Is this evil plan science- or nonfiction? 

As our own Matthew Pryor says of this scenario, “I don’t know why someone hasn’t done this yet.” 

Because the thing is, for well-resourced hedge funds with a hankering for agrifood investments, let alone one that might have a particular desire to prove they’re investing with the climate in mind, this kind of strategy is not beyond the scope of what’s possible. In our scenario, we suggested that a phishing attack may have been used to obtain the sensitive information, but when it comes to evaluating climate risk, that might not even be necessary. 

Radically accessible remote production data combined with mandatory (and voluntary!) climate disclosures could give an eagle-eyed analyst a lot of information about how carefully an ag production organization is (or isn’t) managing its environmental resources, where weaknesses might be, and whether or not the company is aware of, or managing for, those risks. And investors don’t need to launch their own constellation of satellites to get that information, either. Today, affordable satellite imagery at a resolution as fine as 30 cm per pixel is available, meaning that even when it comes to agriculture, the factory has no roof. 

An evil plan… so what?

But however likely, the most interesting thing about this kind of scenario is not deciding whether or not it will happen. It’s determining what we might do today to be better prepared for even a remotely similar situation in the future. 

We’ve had some fun (and panic) thinking about what it would mean if one of our clients, or a customer of one of our portfolio companies, was to experience this kind of adversarial investment situation. And we’ve certainly paid increasing attention to our cybersecurity. 

No matter where you sit in the industry, it’s worth thinking about how an increase in this kind of activity might impact you, your business, and your career. 

To read more (less evil) scenarios at the intersection of key agrifood forces, check out Navigating a Future of Cross-Sectoral Forces, commissioned by AgriFutures Australia.

‍