Finance’s Social License? Sugar, Farmland and Health

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Abstract

Background 
This paper examines the exclusion of public health from social license narratives within an increasingly financialised food system, through a case study of foreign ownership in the Australian sugar industry. As finance actors such as asset management firms, pension funds, private equity funds, state owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds engage in speculative farmland investment, commodity futures trading, and the conversion of farmland into a financial asset, power within agro-industrial food supply chains becomes increasingly concentrated. This has been associated with increased food prices and more processed food, contributing to obesogenic diets, hunger, and poorer health outcomes for many. The potential for negative social and environmental impacts has prompted awareness of the need for financial actors to demonstrate sustainability, responsibility and accountability in their farmland investments.
 
Methods 
This paper uses thematic analysis of qualitative interviews and key documents to assess four recent acquisitions of sugarcane land in North Queensland. We consider how companies’ efforts to establish or maintain a social license to operate (SLO) intersect with their capital accumulation strategies.
 
Results
Our findings demonstrate that the link between the commodification of ‘unhealthy’ food inputs (such as sugar) and financialisation remains outside the purview of financiers. Instead, agribusiness firms use narratives centred on biofuels investment and energy/food security to justify their legitimacy in the sugar sector. We organise our findings according to two ‘narratives:’ constructing trust and credibility through ethical compliance; and, biofuels expansion as a legitimate response to climate change. The concept of social license is much stronger in the second narrative, but health is largely missing.
 
Conclusion 
The ‘distancing’ between responsibility and health outcomes highlights the limits to principles of responsible financial investment, and to the legitimacy of finance to claim an SLO – the ongoing approval and acceptance by society to conduct its activities. 

Keywords

Full Text

 

"Watch the Special Issue Video Summary"

 

  Check the full list of "Political Economy of Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems" special issue here. 

 

References

  1. Borras SM Jr, Franco JC, Isakson SR, Levidow L, Vervest P. The rise of flex crops and commodities: implications for research. J Peasant Stud. 2016;43(1):93-115. doi:10.1080/03066150.2015.1036417
  2. Burch D, Lawrence G. Financialization in agri-food supply chains: private equity and the transformation of the retail sector. Agric Human Values. 2013;30(2):247-258. doi:10.1007/s10460-012-9413-7
  3. Epstein GA. Financialization and the World Economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; 2005.
  4. Lawrence G, Lyons K, Wallington T. Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainability. London: Earthscan; 2010.
  5. Baker P, Lawrence M. Sweet Power: The Politics of Sugar, Sugary Drinks and Poor Nutrition in Australia. The Conversation; 2018.
  6. Clarke T. A History of Failed Reform: Why Australia Needs a Banking Royal Commission. The Conversation; 2016.
  7. Commonwealth of Australia. Enquiry into Foreign Investment Proposals. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2019.
  8. Borras SM Jr, Mills EN, Seufert P, et al. Transnational land investment web: land grabs, TNCs, and the challenge of global governance. Globalizations. 2020;17(4):608-628. doi:10.1080/14747731.2019.1669384
  9. Prno J, Scott Slocombe D. Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the mining sector: perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resour Policy. 2012;37(3):346-357. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.04.002
  10. Wilburn KM, Wilburn R. Achieving social license to operate using stakeholder theory. J Int Bus Ethics. 2011;4(2):3-16.
  11. Bjorkhaug H, Magnan A, Lawrence G. The Financialization of Agri-Food Systems: Contested Transformations. London: Routledge; 2018.
  12. GRAIN. The Global Farmland Grab in 2016: How Big, How Bad? Barcelona, Spain: GRAIN; 2016.
  13. Clapp J, Isakson SR. Speculative Harvests: Financialization, Food, and Agriculture. Warwickshire, Canada: Practical Action Publishing; 2018.
  14. van der Zwan N. Making sense of financialization. Socioecon Rev. 2014;12(1):99-129. doi:10.1093/ser/mwt020
  15. Ducastel A, Anseeuw W. Situating investment funds in agriculture. Farm Policy J. 2013;10(3):35-44.
  16. Visser O. Running out of farmland? investment discourses, unstable land values and the sluggishness of asset making. Agric Human Values. 2017;34(1):185-198. doi:10.1007/s10460-015-9679-7
  17. Ouma S. Opening the black boxes of finance-gone-farming: a global analysis of assetization. In: Bjorkhaug H, Magnan A, Lawrence G, eds. The Financialization of Agri-Food Systems: Contested Transformations. London: Routledge; 2018:85-107.
  18. Baines J. Fuel, feed and the corporate restructuring of the food regime. J Peasant Stud. 2015;42(2):295-321. doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.970534
  19. McMichael P. The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring. J Peasant Stud. 2012;39(3-4):681-701. doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.661369
  20. Gillon S. Flexible for whom? flex crops, crises, fixes and the politics of exchanging use values in US corn production. J Peasant Stud. 2016;43(1):117-139. doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.996555
  21. Clapp J. Financialization, distance and global food politics. J Peasant Stud. 2014;41(5):797-814. doi:10.1080/03066150.2013.875536
  22. Ghosh J. The unnatural coupling: food and global finance. J Agrar Change. 2010;10(1):72-86. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2009.00249.x
  23. Isakson SR. Food and finance: the financial transformation of agro-food supply chains. J Peasant Stud. 2014;41(5):749-775. doi:10.1080/03066150.2013.874340
  24. Oxfam Australia. Still Banking on Land Grabs. Carlton Victoria: Oxfam Australia; 2016.
  25. Daniel S. Situating private equity capital in the land grab debate. J Peasant Stud. 2012;39(3-4):703-729. doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.674941
  26. Murphy S. Land Grabs and Fragile Food Systems: The Role of Globalization. Minnesota, US: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; 2013.
  27. Cotula L, Vermeulen S, Leonard R, Keeley J. Land Grab or Development Opportunity?: Agricultural Investment and International Land Deals in Africa. London: IIED; 2009.
  28. Paoloni L, Onorati A. Regulations of large-scale acquisitions of land: the case of the voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of land, fisheries and forests. Law Dev Rev. 2014;7(2):369-400. doi:10.1515/ldr-2014-0011
  29. Wolf S. Institutional investment in a multi-functional forested landscape: neoliberalism and pragmatism in contemporary land conservation. In: Bjorkhaug H, Magnan A, Lawrence G, eds. The Financialization of Agri-Food Systems: Contested Transformations. London: Routledge; 2018:299-319.
  30. Johnson H. Legitimacy and accountability in the global governance of large-scale agricultural land investments. J Sustain Finance Invest. 2016;6(1):67-83. doi:10.1080/20430795.2016.1176755
  31. Salvini G, Dentoni D, Ligtenberg A, Herold M, Bregt AK. Roles and drivers of agribusiness shaping Climate-Smart Landscapes: a review. Sustain Dev. 2018;26(6):533-543. doi:10.1002/sd.1897
  32. Clapp J. Responsibility to the rescue? governing private financial investment in global agriculture. In: Bjørkhaug H, McMichael P, Muirhead B, eds. Finance or Food: The Role of Cultures, Values, and Ethics in Land Use Negotiations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2020:124-149.
  33. McKeon N. ‘One does not sell the land upon which the people walk’: land grabbing, transnational rural social movements, and global governance. Globalizations. 2013;10(1):105-122. doi:10.1080/14747731.2013.760911
  34. Committee on World Food Security (CFS). Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems. Rome: FAO, CFS; 2014.
  35. Margulis ME, McKeon N, Borras SM. Land grabbing and global governance: critical perspectives. Globalizations. 2013;10(1):1-23. doi:10.1080/14747731.2013.764151
  36. Hawkes C. The role of foreign direct investment in the nutrition transition. Public Health Nutr. 2005;8(4):357-365. doi:10.1079/phn2004706
  37. van Gelder JW, German L, Bailis R. Biofuels investments in tropical forest‐rich countries: implications for responsible finance. Sustain Account Manag Policy J. 2012;3(2):134-160. doi:10.1108/20408021211282296
  38. Almas R. Between cooperative and private equity capital in the Norwegian food sector: how do the corporate, cultural and political environments make a difference? In: Bjorkhaug H, Magnan A, Lawrence G, eds. The Financialization of Agri-Food Systems: Contested Transformations. London: Routledge; 2018:198-220.
  39. Nelsen JL. Social license to operate. Int J Min Reclam Environ. 2006;20(3):161-162. doi:10.1080/17480930600804182
  40. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Australian Dietary Guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC; 2013.
  41. Basu S, McKee M, Galea G, Stuckler D. Relationship of soft drink consumption to global overweight, obesity, and diabetes: a cross-national analysis of 75 countries. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(11):2071-2077. doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.300974
  42. McMichael P. Biofuels and the financialization of the global food system. In: Rosin C, Campbell H, Stock P, eds. Food Systems Failure: The Global Food Crisis and the Future of Agriculture. London: Earthscan; 2012:60-82.
  43. Australian Sugar Milling Council (ASMC). Australian Sugar Milling Statistics. https://asmc.com.au/policy-advocacy/sugar-industry-overview/statistics/.   Accessed January 5, 2020. Published 2019.
  44. International Sugar Journal. The Lure of Australian Sugar Companies to International Investors. International Sugar Journal; 2019. https://internationalsugarjournal.com/the-lure-of-australian-sugar-companies-to-foreign-investors/. Accessed January 5, 2020. Published 2019.
  45. Desmarais AA, Qualman D, Magnan A, Wiebe N. Investor ownership or social investment? changing farmland ownership in Saskatchewan, Canada. Agric Hum Values. 2017;34(1):149-166. doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9704-5
  46. Larder N, Sippel SR, Argent N. The redefined role of finance in Australian agriculture. Aust Geogr. 2018;49(3):397-418. doi:10.1080/00049182.2017.1388555
  47. Marks DL, Yardley L. Content and thematic analysis. In: Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology. London: Sage; 2004:56-68.
  48. USDA. USDA GAIN Report Date: 3/29/2019 GAIN Report Number: AS1903. USDA; 2019.
  49. Australian Sugar Milling Council (ASMC). Sugar Policy Insights: How do the Public Perceive the Sugar Sector? ASMC Policy Brief. ASMC; 2019.
  50. Morley B, Martin J, Niven P, Wakefield M. Public opinion on food-related obesity prevention policy initiatives. Health Promot J Austr. 2012;23(2):86-91. doi:10.1071/he12086
  51. Obesity Policy Coalition. Policy Brief: The Case for a Health Levy on Sugary Drinks. Obesity Policy Coalition; 2019.
  52. World Health Organization (WHO). Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2015.
  53. Commonwealth of Australia. Final Report: Obesity Epidemic in Australia, Chapter 6: Tax on Sugary Drinks. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2018.
  54. Bjorkhaug H, Brobakk J. Profit, aid and ethics in public financialization. In: Bjorkhaug H, Magnan A, Lawrence G, eds. The Financialization of Agri-Food Systems: Contested Transformations. London: Routledge; 2018:42-61.
  55. Wilmar Australia. Tully Sugar. https://www.tullysugar.com/.  Accessed January 5, 2020. Published 2020
  56. Proterra. Sustainability. 2020; https://www.proterrapartners.com/social-responsibility/.  Accessed January 5, 2020. Published 2020.
  57. AgriInvestor/Nuveen. The A to Z of responsible investing. AgriInvestor/Nuveen; 2019.
  58. Wilmar International. Sustainability 2020. https://ir-media.wilmar-international.com/sustainability-updates/.  Accessed January 5, 2020
  59. Friends of the Earth Europe. Continuing to Exploit and Deforest: Wilmar’s Ongoing Abuses. Friends of the Earth Europe; 2014.
  60. Vel JAC, McCarthy JF, Zen Z. The conflicted nature of food security policy: balancing rice, sugar and palm oil in Indonesia. Anthropol Forum. 2016;26(3):233-247. doi:10.1080/00664677.2016.1190919
  61. GRAIN. ADM’s Offshore Links to Wilmar, World’s Worst Environmental Offender. GRAIN; 2016.
  62. Jackson C. Wilmar Discounting Queensland Sugar into Asia. AgAlert website. 2017. http://agalert.com.au/wilmar-discounting-queensland-sugar-asia.  Accessed January 5, 2020. Published 2017.
  63. Canegrowers. Fight for QSL Escalates Overnight, Intensifying as Wilmar Serves Notice of Formal Exit. Brisbane: Canegrowers; 2014.
  64. Canegrowers. Wilmar to Growers ‘You Have no Rights..’ Brisbane: Canegrowers; 2014.
  65. Canegrowers. Media Release: Growers Not Falling for Wilmar Claims That Only Tell Half of the Story. Canegrowers media release 17 June 2014. Brisbane: Canegrowers; 2014.
  66. Mitr Phol. Mitr: For sustainable success. https://www.mitrphol.com/zadmin/ckimage/file/SDReport2017eng.pdf.  Accessed January 5, 2020. Published 2017.
  67. Larder N, Sippel SR, Lawrence G. Finance capital, food security narratives and Australian agricultural land. J Agrar Change. 2015;15(4):592-603. doi:10.1111/joac.12108
  68. Reuters. Cambodians to Appeal Ruling in Mitr Phol Case. Bangkok Post; 2019.
  69. Australian Sugar Milling Council (ASMC). Sugar Facts: Electricity Co-generation. ASMC; 2019.
  70. Queensland Government. Queensland Biofutures 10-Year Roadmap and Action Plan. Brisbane: Queensland Government; 2018.
  71. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). Too Big to Feed: Exploring the Impacts of Mega-Mergers, Consolidation and Concentration of Power in the Agri-Food Sector. IPES-Food;2017.
  72. COFCO. Tully Sugar. https://www.tullysugar.com/products/.  Accessed January 5, 2020.
  73. COFCO International. Feeding the Future: Our Vision for Tomorrow’s Agriculture. Geneva, Switzerland: COFCO International; 2018.
  74. Demuijnck G, Fasterling B. The social license to operate. J Bus Ethics. 2016;136(4):675-685.
  75. Lawrence G, Smith K. Neoliberal globalization and beyond: food, farming and the environment. In: Legun K, Keller J, Bell M, Carolan M, ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020.
  76. Utting P, Marques JC. Corporate Social Responsibility and Regulatory Governance: Towards Inclusive Governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2010.
  77. Mukherjee-Reed A, Reed D, Utting P. Business Regulation and Non-state Actors: Whose Standards? Whose Development? London: Routledge; 2013.
  78. Westoby P, Lyons K. Privatising development and environmental management: undermining social license in the Ugandan plantation forest sector. Environ Sociol. 2016;2(3):265-274. doi:10.1080/23251042.2016.1163963
  79. McKay B, Sauer S, Richardson B, Herre R. The political economy of sugarcane flexing: initial insights from Brazil, Southern Africa and Cambodia. J Peasant Stud. 2016;43(1):195-223. doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.992016
  80. Leguizamón A. Disappearing nature? agribusiness, biotechnology and distance in Argentine soybean production. J Peasant Stud. 2016;43(2):313-330. doi:10.1080/03066150.2016.1140647
  81. Magnan A. Farmland values: media and public discourses around farmland investment in Canada and Australia. In: Bjorkhaug H, Magnan A, Lawrence G, eds. The Financialization of Agri-Food Systems: Contested Transformations. London: Routledge; 2018:108-132.
  82. Sippel SR. Financialising farming as a moral imperative? renegotiating the legitimacy of land investments in Australia. Environ Plan A. 2018;50(3):549-568. doi:10.1177/0308518x17741317
  83. Sippel SR, Larder N, Lawrence G. Grounding the financialization of farmland: perspectives on financial actors as new land owners in rural Australia. Agric Hum Values. 2017;34(2):251-265. doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9707-2
  84. Ouma S, Johnson L, Bigger P. Rethinking the financialization of ‘nature.’ Environ Plan A. 2018;50(3):500-511. doi:10.1177/0308518x18755748
  85. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). Measuring Corporate Sustainability: Towards accounting fit for the SDGs. UNRISD Research and Policy Brief. UNRISD; 2020:28.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 May 2020
  • Revise Date: 12 January 2021
  • Accept Date: 04 February 2021
  • First Publish Date: 31 March 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics