Mpehle, ZwelibanziNdebele, Mbongiseni Cleopas2022-10-042022-10-042021-03https://hdl.handle.net/10321/4331A thesis submitted for the degree Master of Management Sciences (Business Law), Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2021.Land reform or agrarian reform has been a bone of contention in many countries in a quest to deal with skewed ownership of land through a market-led approach or a stateled approach, while in most instances, it had only been able to address the restoration of land to the dispossessed groups, but failed to improve agricultural productivity. It is important to restore agricultural productivity and be able to meet the world’s energy requirements and to feed the population estimated will be over 9 billion people by 2050. Historically, native (black) South Africans were forcefully removed from productive agricultural land under the Natives Land Act of 1913. Post 1994, the South African government launched three pillars of the land reform programme, (land tenure reform, land restitution and land redistribution) and injected funds to equitably restore land back to the rightful owners, and to sustain agricultural productivity, which have become a paradox, as most of the redistributed agricultural land became unproductive and abandoned immediately after being restored to the previously disadvantaged groups. The target population for this mixed-methods research study were the 51 active land reform sugarcane farmers in King Cetshwayo District. A purposive sample of six farmers was selected for semi-structured face-to-face interviews and 41 participated in a survey, while the remainder was excluded from the main study as they took part in a pilot study. Qualitative and quantitative data was collected concurrently with both research instruments given equal attention. Despite the salient effects of climate change on agricultural productivity, the study found that there are some institutional, social and technical aspects that lead to the diminishing sugarcane productivity. Equally so, non-conformance with pieces of legislation such as the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) No.75 of 1997 and Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) No.85 of 1993 was found to have contributed immensely to the volatility of sugarcane productivity. The study concluded that compliance with OHSA and the acquiescence with sustainable farming practices outlined in the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) No. 107 of 1998, which was lacking in most of the farms that took part in the study, could improve sugarcane productivity on land reform farms in King Cetshwayo District.168 penVolatilitySugarcane productivityLand (agrarian) reformRenewable energyMonocultureEfficienciesComplianceBest Management Practice (s)NonconformancePersonnel managementLand reform--South AfricaLand subdivision--South AfricaLand use, Rural--South AfricaFarm ownership--South AfricaAgriculture and state--South AfricaThesishttps://doi.org/10.51415/10321/4331