Facing criticism: an analysis of (land-based) corporate responses to the large-scale land acquisition countermovement

ABSTRACT

This contribution analyses how corporations involved in large-scale land acquisition respond to a countermovement of critics such as non-governmental organisations, local communities, peasant movements, scholars and journalists. Though the countermovement rightly receives much attention, its impact on corporations/investors is less discussed. International guidelines and corporate pledges to ban ‘land grabbing’ in their operations, however, may be signs that critics have some influence. Yet by no means has this proven to be sufficient. Starting from a study of a European agribusiness operating in Zambia, this paper aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the extent to which corporations are susceptible to a countermovement.

KEYWORDS:

• Large-scale land acquisition
• corporations
• countermovement
• Polanyi
• Zambia

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Clemens Greiner, Rosanne Rutten, Wiemer Salverda, Nina Schneider and Oliver Tappe for their useful comments on earlier versions of this paper. I am also particularly grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their time and their insightful and constructive comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Tijo Salverda is a senior researcher at the University of Cologne's Global South Studies Center. His publications include The Franco-Mauritian elite: power and anxiety in the face of change (Berghahn Books, 2015), The anthropology of elites (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), ‘Who does the state work for? Geopolitical considerations in the organization of (global) finance’ (Real-World Economics Review, 2015), and ‘In defence: elite power’ (Journal of Political Power, 2010). Email: [email protected]

ORCID

Tijo Salverda http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4668-9838

Notes

1 Though I define the critics opposing LSLA as a single countermovement, I follow colleagues who have applied a plural version of Polanyi's countermovement before (e.g. Sandbrook 2011; the call for papers of the 4th International Conference of BRICS Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies (BICAS), 28–30 November 2016 in Beijing, explicitly included the plural version counter-movements). I believe that the use of the notion of countermovements allows for a more nuanced understanding of historical varieties and developments. A plural version, moreover, may help to better explain what works and what does not in the case of opposing various aspects of market society. That I define the critics here as a singular countermovement is more related to the critics’ collective, singular focus of attention. In the case of LSLA, as well as in the case of many other issues, critics constituting a singular countermovement tend to target one particular excess of market society; notwithstanding, as the paper will demonstrate, there remain many relevant varieties and differences within the LSLA countermovement regarding the interpretation of, and opposition to, the respective excess. Together, however, the critics are part of a wider range of countermovements that oppose many aspects of market society, both in agriculture and in other domains, and hence a plural version of the term may be better suited.

2 Civil society organisations accused of quick-and-dirty work are not necessarily deaf to the need for more sound empirical evidence. For them it is often as much a learning process as for others. For example, the Land Matrix has been open to concerns about flaws in its methodology and has adapted it accordingly (Nolte, Chamberlain, and Giger 2016; personal communication with one of the founding members of the Land Matrix).

3 In similar vein, the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle were important because with the world's mainstream media giving the protestors extensive coverage, the issues raised became known around the world. Bendell (2004, 14) refers to this as ‘forcing change’ tactics: civil society provokes responses from companies, in particular out of concern for their reputation.

4 As such, I beg to differ with the head of the NGO Save the Children UK, who argued in a Guardian article on 28 July 2015 that when NGOs remain politically correct, i.e. refrain from engagement with the private sector, they will not have an impact.