1. 1
The Controversy of Social Acceptability: Lessons from the Mining Paradox
and Land Grabbing in Sustainable Development
(Reine Bohbot, University of Montreal)
ABSTRACT
Land and the issues its natural resources present, play a crucial role in the global economy and
therefore in human development. It is undeniable that from food production to the development
of emerging bioproducts and the extractive industry, the use of land poses an enormous
sustainability challenge. As forecasts estimate the world population will achieve nine billion in
2050, the question of how the world is to be fed is thrust into startling focus. Land is thus at the
center of a carrefour of four major areas: food, sustainable environment, economic development
and human rights. To achieve a socially acceptable, economically tenable and enduring
development model requires a more complex model of land use, one that transcends traditional
opposition among capitalistic or profit-based points of view of exploitation, protection of the
environment, and respect for human rights. Accepting the theory that the exploiting model of
land faces a biocapacity (supply) and an ecological footprint (demand) problem, we use lessons
learned from a socially and environmentally controversial industry, that of mining. There has so
far been little discussion about the potentially lessons mining can offer the debate surrounding
sustainable development. Yet, the mining sector shows the need to transcend the concept of
environmental acceptability and to encompass social acceptability. Specifically, we show how
experience-based knowledge transfers from the mining sector to international investments in
agriculture are possible in order to raise the possibility of a conceptual framework for social
acceptability, striking examples being those of transparency principles and the self-regulation
model of environmental governance.
Key words: Mining industry, land grabbing, social acceptability, cross-sector knowledge
transfer, Business-NGOs-International organizations (B2N2I) alliances, sustainable
development, self-regulation, transparency

2. 2
INTRODUCTION
Since the food crisis in 2008, the new wave of international investments in agriculture namely
“land grabbing” have been a stormy topic in international news. The expression “land grabbing”
designates large-scale land acquisitions for the purpose of industrial production of agricultural
products destined for foreign markets. When domestic or transnational companies or indeed
foreign governments, buy or lease large pieces of land in developing countries with or without
the participation of local governments, that land is no longer available to the local population.
Numerous reports and articles by NGOs, international organisations, research institutes and the
media, indicate the magnitude of the phenomenon and the attendant social protest movements
that have arisen. In this context, codes of conduct and international principles for responsible
investment increase exponentially (Cotula & al, 2009; World Bank, 2010; Daniel &Mittal, 2010;
Center for Strategic Analysis1
, 2010).
To many, “land grabbing” recalls all the ills of colonialism and the perennial questions of state
sovereignty over land. In addition, as forecasts estimate world population between eight and
eleven billion in 2050 (UN, 2010), with a higher increasing rate in poor countries, debate on
development and sustainability, global food, nutrition security, and agro-industrial development
assumes primary importance on the international agenda. Food security, water grabbing, poverty
reduction, and human rights are the primary corollaries to the issue of population increase.
When resources dwindle, what is at stake in the future is the overall issue of the ecological
footprint and the question as to whether rational, inclusive, equitable and sustainable natural
resource management is feasible. The battle over land raises even more urgent questions about
the exploiting model of land. Is it possible to blend economics, environmental issues and human
rights into a framework for sustainable development in order to reach social acceptability in this
new wave of international investments in agriculture?
In this paper, we draw lessons from the controversial sector of mining, studies as to which have
attempted to develop tools and initiatives for social acceptability. In particular, we determine
how experience-based knowledge from the mining sector can be transferred to international
investments in agriculture in order to enrich the debate, particularly regarding transparency
principles and the self-regulation model of environmental governance.
1
Center for strategic analysis, Sustainable development Department, French Government

3. 3
BACKGROUND
Knowledge, as defined by Roq, Guindon, and Fortier, is “any idea or organized representation of
reality that is based on the experiential experience, experimentation, experience, science, facts or
beliefs. By extension, products derived from this representation such as practices, techniques,
processes, software, tools, technologies are treated as objects of knowledge that can be
transferred between actors in a social system” (Roq, Guindon & Fortier, 1995).2
In organizational theory, Knowledge Transfer, which includes diffusion, sharing, and adoption of
innovation, is seen essentially as an asset whose function is to augment organisational
performance (Ferliea, Crillyb, Jashaparac, & Peckham 2012). In fact, knowledge transfer is seen
as a catalyst that stimulates innovation (Liyanage, Elhag, & Ballal, 2012).
Knowledge transfer therefore is an organized process which can be broken down into successive
steps of 1) creating knowledge through invention and innovation, 2) processing and adapting
knowledge to diverse audiences or situations, 3) spreading information flows through formal and
informal communication networks (social networks, networks of researchers, academics, etc.), 4)
receiving, 5) adopting, and finally 6) using, in which new knowledge is turned into in practice
and methods (Roq, Guindon & Fortier,1995).
As a process, knowledge transfer has been largely studied in the business area in order to explain
learning dynamics (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998), particularly in a sectoral, business to business
(B2B) perspective, though it is applied as well within a single organization. Knowledge transfer
in a B2B relationship usually aims at creating greater economic value (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998).
The concept of “absorptive capacity” (ACAP) has been developed, among others, to explain why
some firms learn and innovate more than do others. Cohen and Levinthal defined ACAP as the
“ability to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to
commercial ends” (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990: 128).
Cross sectoral knowledge transfer has only recently come into focus, largely in the context of
collaborations between for-profit businesses and non-profit organizations (B2N alliances). The
purpose of those alliances is clearly to stimulate social innovation, (Le Ber & Branzei, 2010),
where the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than to private individuals
(Phills,Deiglmeier, & Miller, 2008).
While B2B knowledge transfer is a profit strategy for individuals or firms, B2N is a social
innovation strategy closer to the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (Jamali and
Keshishian, 2009). However, ACAP cannot be directly applied to the context of B2N alliances
(Murphy, Perrot, & Rivera-Santos, 2012). Therefore, the concept of “Relational Capacity for
Social Innovation” (RCSI) enters the discussion. In this arena, different governance mechanisms
2
Translated by Reine Bohbot

4. 4
are required to ensure a social dimension such as stakeholder involvement (Rivera-Santos &
Rufin, 2010).
Besides, social acceptability, as a construct, depends on the perceived effectiveness of policies
implemented to achieve sustainable development (Groot & Schuitema, 2012), based on the social
norms for environmental behavior (Biel & Thøgersen, 2007). It can these days be defined as a
combination of environmental risk management, the risk itself, and whether the social cost of the
risk is judged acceptable. Ethical and moral values and the capacity to adequately manage the
risk, including at a global scale, is part of the equation for social acceptability, all the more so
since the awareness from the 20th
century on that sustainability is an irreversible and tremendous
global challenge (Mouhot, 2009).
Defining and measuring social acceptability remains problematic as that concept is easily
perceived to be essentially subjective. However, B2N alliances can be seen as a mechanism
which tries to affect the balance of power between different actors. Part of the concept of social
acceptability must lie therefore not only in its perception by the affected population, the NGOs,
international organizations or the private sector, but also in the balance of power between these
different stakeholders and the degree of knowledge transfer between them.
In order to define an approach for social acceptability through the concept of “relational capacity
for social innovation” (RCSI), knowledge transfer can be considered in a broader perspective.
That is to say, we will examine the discussion not only in terms of actors but also of shared
experiences and best practices on a cross-sector basis, between mining and agribusiness. The
comparison is enhanced by the fact that both international investment in agriculture and
investment in mining projects face common challenges of social acceptability in their host and
originating countries. However, the mining sector as well as extractive industries in general have
been exposed to the social acceptability challenge for longer, and have developed multiple
initiatives in response. In view of this, we propose that experience-based knowledge transfer
(B2N2I) from the mining sector to international investments in agriculture will help define social
acceptability for and improve practices in the interventions of transnational corporations in
developing countries.

5. 5
METHODS
To increase the robustness of the results, we have incorporated a methodological and disciplinary
pluralism. Specifically, this article is based on a dual methodological approach which relies on
primary and secondary data. In addition to a systematic literature, the article examines data
resulting from twenty semi-structured interviews with principal actors, including researchers and
professionals with NGOs, international organisations, or private companies involved in mining
or agro industrial development. Sampling was open in order to allow access to a maximum of
categories of stakeholders (Laperrière, 1997). An interview guide approach was used which
explored eight dimensions:
1) The use of norms, standards and principles issued by international organizations
2) Issues in the sector (mining or international agricultural investment)
3) The most promising initiatives for developing countries (drivers and obstacles)
4) The governance mechanisms that would provide planning and proactive management
of natural resources (strengths / weaknesses analysis)
5) Contribution of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)
6) The contribution of the model of self-regulation in the mining sector
7) How experience-based knowledge transfer occurs from one sector to the other?
(Round-table between mining companies and agribusiness companies, etc.)
8) The social dimension: social risk, public participation in the decision-making process,
conflicts, Free prior informed consent
The main limitation in the research process was not only to identify the most relevant actors but
the approval or rejection of the organizations to be interviewed as well. Consequently, while the
sampling cannot be considered fully representative, the resultant data provides a fertile source of
discussion and debate on the topic of knowledge transfer between the mining sector and
international investments in agriculture. The logic behind the methodology of semi structured
interviewing was to generate data interactively (Mason, 2002).
The twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted from August 2012 to February 2013. To
respect the confidentiality of interviews and agreements on diffusion, the organizations’ names
were withheld.
Type of organization
Number of interviews
(Mining sector)
Number of interviews
(Land grabbing)
Researchers 2 0
Private companies 1 0
International organization 2 8
NGO’s 1 2
Sustainable investment group 4

6. 6
THE BOOM IN LAND GRABBING : CHALLENGE FOR SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY
1. Origins of the issue :
First of all, the use of the term "land grabbing" itself points to the controversial aspect of the
current explosion of large scale (trans)national commercial land transactions. Indeed, the
definition of land grabbing rests on the consequences of those investments, recalls directly to the
social acceptability of the projects. The aggressive taking of land without prior consultation of
the affected populations has been a recurring dynamic throughout history, and one that is now
increasing (Bouhey, 2010). Striking examples of the casualties of the issue of social acceptability
are the emblematic cases of Madagascar and Mali. In Madagascar, the Daewoo project, led by a
private South Korean company, aimed to develop 1.3 million hectares with a lease of 99 years, a
project that contributed to the dismissal of president Ravalomanana (Burnod & al, 2011).
Another instance is the Malybia project by the Libyan government, targeting 100,000 hectares of
the best irrigable land in Mali (Burnod & al, 2011).
The phenomenon of land grabbing can be divided into two actor roles: those seeking food
security and those who invest.
For those who are seeking food security, mostly countries, international agricultural investments
are considered as relief valves from fluctuating markets and food insecurity threats. In order to
provide food at reasonable prices for their populations and not have to depend on imports,
countries seek to innovate by outsourcing their domestic food production elsewhere (Bouhey,
2010). However, this quest for fertile agricultural land can lead to aberrations. In Sudan,
occurring alongside the conflict, fighting, and ensuing humanitarian catastrophes in Darfur,
foreign governments invest in farmland in order to produce food for their own citizens (Grain,
2008).
Others see an opportunity to speculate in international agricultural investments. As well as some
activities from the tertiary sector, agriculture is now relocated in Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin
America and even Eastern Europe. Consequently, with the shift to biofuels and the combination
of food and financial crises, farmlands have in the past 5 years begun to be considered as new
strategic assets (Gabas, 2011). Land has evolved from simple soil to a barometer of wealth to a
new product for portfolios of investment funds.
2. Land grabbing in facts
As the contracts are not public (Cotula, 2011), data on large-scale foreign investments in land are
not homogeneous and the veracity of the data is not yet clear (Holden & Pagel, 2013). The NGO
Grain, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the Land Matrix,
and the International Land Coalition (ILC) have made the first steps to create a database of
commercial pressures on land, culled from media reports and domestic research from each

7. 7
country. Holden and Pagel have supplied key findings from the different sources available in
order to identify more precisely the phenomenon.
The findings show that the forms of international agricultural investments vary significantly:
size, land use (monoculture or biofuels), value of the transactions, types of acquisition (lease,
concession, outright purchase), term basis, targeted countries, origins of investors, and the actors
involved in the transaction (corporations, state or public-private partnership) (Holden & Pagel,
2013).
The different sources agree on the recent increase since 2008 in land acquisitions and the larger
size involved, though both may have been overestimated in the media (Holden & Pagel,
2013).The major trends identified worldwide show:
- The total area of land acquired varies between 48,9 and 63,1 million hectares of land
(Cotula, 2012).
- The majority of land deals are for agricultural purposes. Jatropha, oil palm and sugar
cane are the main objects of the deals. Biofuels seem to be more at stake than food in
the transactions (Holden & Pagel, 2013).
- The top seven target countries, gauged by the size of the projects, are Brazil, Sudan,
Madagascar, Philippines, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Indonesia (Land Portal Land
Matrix).
- The value of the transactions is unknown (Holden & Pagel, 2013).
- Food transactions originate from Middle Eastern, Chinese and Indian investors. The
United Kingdom and United States are major players in biofuels transactions.
(Holden & Pagel, 2013).
CHALLENGES SHARED BY THE MINING SECTOR AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT IN
AGRICULTURE
International investments in the agricultural sector are at a crossroads, as are investments in the
extractive industries. Both arenas have common challenges in terms of social acceptability as an
international investment issue. This section does not aspire to an exhaustive treatment of the
relative sectors, but draws attention to main challenges regarding the controversy of social
acceptability.
1. Economic development :
While agriculture is experiencing a gradual withdrawal from Official Development Assistance,
the barometer for international aid coined by the OECD (OECD, 2010), some consider such
financing to be an opportunity for development. Those investments offer new capital for
technical and productive upgrading in the agricultural sector of developing countries (Braun &

8. 8
Meinzen-Dick, 2009; Veron, 2011). The mining industry is seen as a source of direct foreign
investment too.
For both sectors, some argue that host countries can benefit from tax and royalty incomes, which
can lead to multiplier effects such as building infrastructure (including roads, hospitals, and
schools), transferring knowledge and technologies, and a rise in the employment rate.
However, the resource curse (the “paradox of plenty”), first used by Richard Auty in 1993,
shows that countries with abundant natural resources are unable to boost their economies or their
development by exploiting them. In addition, the phenomenon of “Dutch disease”, developed in
1982 by the economists W. Max Corden and J. Peter Neary, can occur. Dutch disease is “the
hypothesis that large windfall revenues from natural resources give rise to real exchange rate
appreciation which, in turn, makes other export sectors less competitive in world markets”
(Canadian chamber of commerce, 2012).
The assumption that exploiting natural resources for economic development automatically
produces a country’s global development is more complicated than it would at first appear
(Bebbington, 2011). In other words, resource riches do not necessarily have positive effects on a
country’s economy.
2. National or international conflicts:
Firstly, scarcities of such vital renewable resources as croplands, fresh water, and forests have
major social consequences, contributing as they do to insurrections, ethnic clashes, urban unrest,
and other forms of civil violence, particularly in the developing world (Homer-Dixon & Percival,
1996). As a result, the use of those renewable resources by the mining sector or international
investments in agriculture has an impact on the international level of violence, for populations
depend directly on those resources for their day-to-day well-being (Homer-Dixon, 1999).
Secondly, power relations in the host countries are often both unbalanced and exacerbated by the
exploitation of natural resources. Natural resource scarcity is not necessarily the origin of the
conflicts and does not necessarily make them worse. However, there are many causal linkages
between the exploitation of natural resources and the conflicts affecting a conflict’s onset,
duration, and intensity (Ross, 2004). The mining sector and international investment in
agriculture are two factors that influence social and economic unrest.
3. Social effects:
Without reaching the stage of war or conflict, acute social protests can exist locally. The mining
projects or the international investments in agriculture can spur land expropriation and
displacement. Consequently, land tenure and respect for human rights can present problems. In
addition, the projects may heighten socio-economic tensions, affecting the local employment
market by offering higher wages than other local businesses. Local people are often shut out

9. 9
from decision-making on development projects, alienating them from the investment source.
However, all those elements need to be evaluated for long-term community sustainability (Veiga,
Scoble and McAllister, 2001).
4. Corruption, bribery, lack of transparency:
In the mining sector, corruption, both private and public, is a significant scourge (Marshall,
2001). At the same time, the mining industry often operates in countries which are in other areas
not shining examples either for transparency or the fight against collusion and corruption
(Marshall, 2001). Regarding international investments in agriculture, land grabbing is by no
means immune to corruption, as is shown by the opacity of contracts and the difficulty of
obtaining information regarding the transactions.
5. Environnemental impacts:
Mining refers to the process of extracting metals and minerals from the earth and generate waste,
which differs from projects in agriculture. Without examining the technical details, both mining
and agriculture face pressing issues as regards environmental impact. Problems include, among
others, deforestation, land pollution by chemicals, loss of biodiversity, water pollution, and the
general availability of water.
LESSONS FROM THE MINING SECTOR : THE BASIS FOR A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL
ACCEPTABILITY ?
As regards the issue of sustainable development and in particular the growing concept of risk, the
mining industry had to begin to respond to the above challenges in addressing environmental and
human rights as key development factors in the host countries.
1. Regulations for environmental acceptability : an accepted but not sufficient process
The mining sector is subject to a specific regulatory framework for achieving environmental
acceptability, one that traverses environmental assessment and social impact studies, (Bouchard,
2013), with each country defining its own regulatory context. International harmonization of
requirements is virtually impossible, given the diversity of socio-economic, historical, financial
and technical contexts (Okaru, 1996). However, large standardized guidelines do exist with, for
example, World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies, or the African
Development Bank’s Environmental and Social Assessment Procedures for operations related to
the public sector. Before initiating any project, the mining industry must adhere to these
regulatory processes guidelines.
Regulations take into account criteria such as health and safety, human rights, social cohesion,
access to resources, and local and regional impacts. However, those social and economic

10. 10
components do not yet guarantee a consent regarding social acceptability (Bouchard, 2013). As a
result, the normative environmental acceptability is defined through a “certificate of
authorization,” whereas social acceptability through a “social license” still requires definition
(Bouchard, 2013).
2. The path to social acceptability : The need for cross-sector collaborations in defining a
conceptual framework
Step 1 : Organisation of social contest or the beginning of the
institutionalization of a B2N knowledge transfer
In general, the environmental movement has been organised worldwide in order to change
corporate behavior and force firms to be greener (Hoffman and Ventresca 2002; Milstein, Hart,
and York 2002).
An initial group of actors was built originally around community groups, local activists,
domestic and international non-governmental organizations practices in what can be viewed as
the origins of environmental lobbyism. The financial lever has been discovered, not unnaturally,
to be particularly powerful. As a result, environmental pressures have targeted primary
stakeholder activism (such as shareholder resolutions) in order to affect a firm’s image. A non-
green image has negative effects on the firm’s financial performance (Vasi and King, 2012).
A second group of intermediate actors with the goal of sustainable development then emerges.
Groups for responsible investments have made their way into the area of extra-financial strategic
advisory services. In consequence, determining the criteria of a “greener image” is a shared
prerogative between NGOs and those private groups, even when the first group remains the
source of information or denunciation.
Mining, an industry under scrutiny for environmental, health, and issues surrounding the human
cost of the projects, is now a primary focus worldwide in terms of social and environmental
activism and is one of the main concerns of the global environment movement. It is interesting to
note that the environmental movement contains a specific sub-branch regarding the mining
sector. For example, in Canada, MiningWatch Canada, opened in 1999, focuses specifically on
public policy and mining practices. The group’s efforts are aimed towards creating a
complementary discourse on mining and simultaneously playing a monitoring role.
Establishing a global system for independent certification is a leading issue, as environmental
advocates try to heighten the commitment of mining companies to sustainable development
(Rae, Rouse & Solomon, 2003). This level of certification does not replace government
regulation, but aims to complement it (Rae, Rouse & Solomon, 2003). One example of the move
towards independent certification is the Mining Certification Evaluation Project (MCEP), a

11. 11
“three year research project to investigate the feasibility of third party certification of
environmental and social performance of mine sites”.3
The organization and institutionalization of the environmental movement have helped the mining
sector to be viewed as an area in which substantive changes are required. The mining industry
can be considered as the starting point for a B2N knowledge transfer, as the work of NGOs
cannot be ignored.
Step 2 : The emergence of the concept of free, prior and informed consent an
example of a B2N knowledge transfer
Stemming from and aligned with the spirit of the Aarhus Convention, the concept of “free, prior
and informed consent” (FPIC) has gradually taken its place in international public policy
debates, particularly regarding the environment and therefore germane to any examination of the
mining sector.
Drawing its origins from the medical field and the relationship between doctor and patient, free,
prior and informed consent is primarily based on the concept of those affected having enough
information to be able to choose among the available treatments (Lebuis, 2009). The concept
took flight in international law, thanks to the recognition of the special relationship between
indigenous peoples and territory (Desmarais, 2006). Though there is no single definition agreed-
upon internationally, the general meaning is as follows: when a State or a private actor proposes
a project which is likely to affect the territory, natural resources, or aboriginal knowledge or
traditions, the State or actor must obtain the free, prior and informed consent of the people
affected before starting the project (UN-redd, 2013). FPIC, applied to its fullest extent, provides
four types of rights: 1) the right of consultation, 2) the right to participate in the use of the
territories, the resources or the knowledge about them, 3) the right to share in the profits, 4) the
right to compensation if the State engages itself or consents to a project that violates these rights
(Desmarais, 2006).
Implementation remains a problem, however. Indeed, the free, prior and informed consent is
fundamentally based on a limitation of the territorial sovereignty of the State and its supremacy.
As a result, although some international consensus is growing, accord is more concerned with
rights of consultation or participation than with real consent (Lebuis, 2009). States are reluctant
to grant a power of veto to a local community, aboriginal or not. However, the idea of shared
responsibility for the implementation of FPIC between the state, private companies, NGOs and
local population is one that is gaining currency.
3
Website accessed on the 17th
May 2013 : http://www.minerals.csiro.au/sd/SD_MCEP.htm

12. 12
Step 3 : Self-regulations for a B2B knowledge transfer
With the Rio Declaration in 1992, there has been a turn to increasingly sustainable business
practices. The pursuit of self-regulation is considered to be a lever for commitment to sustainable
development (Abrahams, 2005). In 2001, the International Council on Mining and Metals
(ICMM) was established to act as a catalyst for performance improvement in the mining and
metals industry. ICMM brings together 22 of the world's leading mining and metals companies
as well as 35 national and regional mining associations and global commodity associations.4
The
principle behind convening the ICCM was that of developing a new governance structure that
would further industry involvement (Prakash Sethi, 2011). An example of the Council’s
achievements is the guidelines it provides for reporting according to the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI).
Step 4 : International initiatives for a B2I2N knowledge transfer
o Tracking and tracing “conflict minerals”
International organizations and social contest have fought for regulation in order to document
chain-of-custody, and avoid financing warfare and human rights violations with the benefits
related to the mining sector. For example, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS)
is a joint mechanism involving government, industry and civil society, aimed at stemming the
trade in conflict diamonds. It is widely recognized as a conflict-prevention instrument.5
Other
initiatives, notably the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) and the Electronic Industry
Citizenship Coalition (EICC), involve not only mining activities but also industries that use
minerals, for example, electronics supply chains, to enable companies to source conflict-free
minerals (Young &Dias, 2011).
o Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)
Exploiting natural resources for economic development is a crucial factor in growth-oriented
economic policies (Sachs and Warner, 1995). In the mining sector, the taxation system also plays
a major role in the company’s decision to invest and therefore for the national economy.
Transparency and inclusiveness appear to be the common denominator, leading to efficient and
equitable allocation and repartition of revenues (Mitchell, 2009). In this context, the EITI
provides an international standard that ensures transparency concerning countries’ oil, gas and
mineral resources. It requires “effective multi-stakeholder oversight including a functioning
multi-stakeholder group that involves the government, companies and the full, independent,
active and effective participation of civil society” (EITI, 2013:12). The multi-stakeholder group
is required to publish annual activity reports, in which government revenues and company
payments are disclosed and independently assessed (EITI, 2013).
4
Website accessed on the 26/05/2013 http://www.icmm.com/members
5
Website accessed on the 26/05/2013 http://www.kimberleyprocess.com/web/kimberley-process/kp-basics

13. 13
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION : HOW KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER CAN BE IMPLEMENTED FOR
SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY
The mining sector, far from perfect as regards social, economic, and politically oligarchic
interests, is still subject to strong skepticism about changes in its practices. Consequently, some
authors argue that the “free mining”, based on values related to economic development and
decision-making autonomy for investors, is still widely dominant. “Free mining” seems in
practice to prevail on environmental and human rights in host countries (Campbell & Laforce,
2010).
In the spotlight for several years, however, the mining sector has experienced a number of
significant battles. While not all have been successful, the foundation has been laid for an
operating framework to guide the concept of social acceptability. Indeed, the debates
surrounding the mining sector show the need to transcend the concept of environmental
acceptability and to encompass social acceptability. Tools such as environmental assessment and
social impact studies are absolutely necessary, but not sufficient. What remains is to build a
“social license”, with regulatory criteria.
Through the knowledge employed within and surrounding the mining sector, the concept of
social acceptability has unfolded in two steps: that which treats the type of actors involved, and
that which concerns the type of initiatives involved.
As regards actors, the private sector cannot be responsible for every practice and policy decision.
Self-regulation is imperative but reached its limits by a practice of double standards (Utting,
2000; Richter, 2001). Furthermore, companies cannot play a regulatory role between the national
government and civil society. To achieve social acceptability, a mix of regulatory forms with
B2B, B2N and B2I2N knowledge transfer seems an essential avenue for future exploration.
Such an effort would bring together a range of actors from civil society and join forces with
industry associations, NGOs and international organizations. Hopefully such an amalgamation
can lead to a point of compliance in self-regulation while promoting social innovation through
different knowledge transfers.
These transfers could be made both in the initiatives themselves and on the plentiful criticism
that exists, to avoid making the same mistakes in the current issue of land grabbing. The question
in this context is whether or not the turning points experienced in the mining sector can be
applied to international agricultural investments.
The institutionalization of a B2N knowledge transfer appears gradually, as shown by the
organisation of social protest since 2008. However, international agricultural investments could
reach shared concerns in the environmental movement as well as the mining sector, to document
more precisely the new wave of investments and make it a criterion for responsible investment.
In addition, experiences to do with the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent in the
mining sector could be studied and shared within the context of international agricultural

14. 14
investments. Additionally, a mechanism of self-regulation of companies in international
agricultural investments is possible, as inspired by ICMM and indeed, criticism of such
regulation.
In the light of tracking and tracing "conflict minerals", several ideas emerge. For example, the
traceability of products of international agricultural investments could become an initiative to
avoid encouraging conflicts and wars. Additionally, given that some countries are facing
recurring and extended food crises, already listed and documented by the FAO, any international
agricultural investments could be examined carefully in those vulnerable countries, in order not
to reproduce Sudan case.
Finally, it is suggested that the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative could be
generalized and agricultural investment included. Or, developing a parallel initiative could be
considered.
To conclude, even it seems unusual to use the mining sector for lessons regarding social
acceptability, this comparison has attempted to resume the numerous battles made in this sector.
This article raises more questions than it answers, in order to open the door to a multi-sectoral
transfer knowledge (from the mining sector to the international agricultural investments) and
multi-actors (B2B B2I, B2N). Further research on mixed forms of regulation with B2B, B2N and
B2I2N knowledge transfer will help to build a general operating framework to guide the concept
of social acceptability, inspired by the framework of environmental acceptability and complete
environmental assessment and social impact studies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank the professionals who agreed to be interviewed, both
anonymously and openly. Their expertise in their field provided the results for the initial draft of
this research. Other subsequent data analyzes will follow. The author would also like to thank
Michel A. Bouchard (University of Montreal, McGill and Polytechnique) for his guidance and
support. This paper has been reviewed for grammar and language usage. Content remains the
sole responsibility of the author and reflects only her views and understandings.

15. 15
REFERENCES
Abrahams, D. (2005), Regulations for Corporations: A historical account of TNC regulation, with the
support of Utting P. of the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).
Auty, R. M. (1993). Sustaining Development in Mineral Economies: The Resource Curse Thesis. London:
Routledge.
Auverlot, D. and Barreau, B. (2011) «The Rush for Agricultural Land: The Case for Responsible
Agricultural Investment in Developing Countries», Futuribles, n° 372, March 2011, p. 25-45
Bebbington, A. (2011) Social Conflict, Economic Development and Extractive Industry, Routledge.
Biel, A., Thøgersen, J., (2007). «Activation of social norms in social dilemmas: a review of the evidence
and reflections on the implications for environmental behavior». Journal of Economic Psychology, vol.
28, p.93–112.
Bouchard, M.A. (2013), Mineral resources of the future: The acceptability of mining projects,
Presentation held in Francophone association for knowledge (ACFAS) (Translated by Reine Bohbot).
Bouhey, A., (2010), « Arable Land, A New Gold Rush? », International and Strategic Review, 2010, vol.
3, n0
79, p. 44-55. (Translated by Reine Bohbot)
Braun, J., and Meinzen-Dick, R., (2009), « “Land Grabbing” by Foreign Investors in Developing
Countries: Risks and Opportunities », International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Policy Brief
13, April 2009, Washington, D.C.
Burnod, P., Papazian, H., Adamczewski, A., Bosc, P.-M., Tonneau, J.-P., Jamin, J.-Y. (2011),
«Regulation of Large-Scale Agricultural Investments. Cases studies :Madagascar and Mali», Afrique
Contemporaine, n0
237, p.111-129. (Translated by Reine Bohbot).
Canadian chamber of commerce, (2012), «Is Canada suffering from Dutch Disease?» Policy Brief,
Economic policy series, June 2012.
Campbell, B. and et Laforce, M., (2010), « The regulatory reform in the mining sector: the Canadian and
African experience put into perspective », Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, Volume 40, n0
3, 2010,
p. 69-84 (Translated by Reine Bohbot)
Cotula, L., Vermeulen, S., Leonard, R. and Keeley, J., (2009), Land Grab or Development Opportunity ?
Agricultural investment and International Land Deals in Africa, IIED/FAO/IFAD, London/Rome.
Cotula, L., (2011), Land Deals in Africa: What is in the Contracts?, IIED, London.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). «Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and
innovation». Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1, Special Issue: Technology, Organizations,
and Innovation, p. 128-152.
Daniel, S. and Mittal A. (2010) Investments in Agriculture: The role of International Finance
Corporation in global land grabs, US: Oakland Institute.

16. 16
De Groot, J.I.M, and Schuitema, G. (2012), How to make the unpopular popular? Policy characteristics,
social norms and the acceptability of environmental policies, Environmental Science and policy, 19-20, p
100-107.
Desmarais, F., (2006) «The free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples in international law in
the light of models of cultural integrity and self-determination: the need to redefine its conceptual
framework » 19.1 Quebec Journal of International Law (RQDI) 161. (Translated by Reine Bohbot).
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), The EITI Standard, EITI International Secretariat, 22
May 2013, http://eiti.org/document/standard
FAO, IFAD, UNCTAD and the World Bank Group (2010) Principles for responsible agricultural
investment that respects rights, livelihoods and resources (PRAI).
http://www.responsibleagroinvestment.org/rai/node/256
Ferliea E., Crillyb,T., Jashaparac A., Peckhamd A.,(2012), «Knowledge mobilisation in healthcare: A
critical review of health sector and generic management literature», Social Science & Medicine,Volume
74, Issue 8, April 2012, p. 1297–1304
Gabas, J.-J., (2011), « Agricultural Investment in Africa», Thematic Introduction, Afrique
Contemporaine, no
237, p.45-55.
Giddens, A. (1999) Risk and Responsibility, Modern Law Review 62(1), p. 1-10.
Grain, (2008), « Seized: The 2008 landgrab for food and financial security »Published in 24th
October
2008 http://www.grain.org/article/entries/93-seized-the-2008-landgrab-for-food-and-financial-security
De Groot, J., Schuitema, G., (2012) « How to make the unpopular popular? Policy characteristics, social
norms and the acceptability of environmental policies», Environmental Science & Policy, Volumes 19–
20, May–June 2012, p.100-107.
Hoffman, A., (1997), From Heresy to Dogma: An Institutional History of Corporate Environmentalism.
San Francisco, CA: The New Lexington Press.
Hoffman, A. and Ventresca M. (2002). Organizations, Policy, and the Natural Environment: Institutional
and Strategic Perspectives, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Homer-Dixon, T. F. & Percival, V.(1996). Environmental Scarcity and Violent Conflict: Briefing Book.
Toronto: University of Toronto & American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1999). Environment, Scarcity and Violence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Holden J., and Pagel M., (2013), Transnational land acquisitions: What are the drivers, levels, and
destinations, of recent transnational land acquisitions? , EPS-PEAKS.
Jamali, D., & Keshishian, T. (2009). «Uneasy alliances: Lessons learned from partnerships between
business and NGOs in the context of CSR». Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2), p 277-295.

17. 17
Marshall, Ian E. (2001), A survey of Corruption issues in the mining and mineral sector, Institute for
Environment and Development, Project Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development.
Milstein, M., Hart, S., and York, A. (2002). « Coercion Breeds Variation: The Differential Impact of
Isomorphic Pressures on Environmental Strategies » p. 151–72 in Organizations, Policy, and the Natural
Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives, edited by A. Hoffman and M. Ventresca.
Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.
Mitchell, P., (2009), Taxation and investment issues in mining in Advancing the EITI in the mining
sector, Chapter 4, p. 27-32.
Mouhot, J.-F., (2009), « New under the sun. An environmental history of the twentieth century», The
International Journal of Books and Ideas, (May-June2009): 4-10 (Translated by Reine Bohbot)
Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). «Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning».
Strategic Management Journal, 19, p. 461–477.
Lapperiere, A. (1997), «Grounded theory: analytical approach and comparison with other related
approaches», in Poupart, J., Deslauriers , J.-P., Groulx, L. , Lapperrière, A. Mayer, R., Pirès A. (Éds.) :
Qualitative research: epistemological and methodological issues (309-340). Boucherville: Gaetan Morin.
(Translated by Reine Bohbot).
Liyanage C., Elhag T., and Ballal T., (2012), «Establishing a Connection between Knowledge Transfer
and Innovation Diffusion», Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2012
Le Ber, M. J., & Branzei, O. (2010), « (Re)forming strategic cross-sector partnerships: Relational
processes of social innovation». Business & Society, 49(1), p. 140-172.
Lebuis, V., (2009), «The free, prior and informed consent: Contribution on a practice in development»,
Research Group on Mining in Africa (GRAMA)
http://www.ieim.uqam.ca/IMG/pdf/Le_libre_consentement_prealable_et_eclaire._Veronique_Lebuis.pdf
(Translated by Reine Bohbot)
Mason, J. (2002), Qualitative researching (2nd Ed.). London: Sage.
Marshall, I. E., (2001), « A Survey of Corruption Issues in the Mining and Mineral Sector », November
2001, no
15, Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development project, International Institute for
Environment and Development (IIED).
Murphy, M., Perrot, F., Rivera-Santos, M. (2012), «New perspectives on learning and innovation in
cross-sector collaborations», Journal of Business Research, Volume 65, Issue 12, December 2012,
p.1700-1709.
OECD, (2010), Measuring Aid to Agriculture, Paris, OECD-DAC, April,
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/44116307.pdf

18. 18
Okaru-Bisant, V., (1996). « Harmonizing World Bank Environmental Assessment Requirements and
Procedures », Jean Roger Mercier, Durban Proceedings on African Environmental Assessments. Ed. Jean
Roger Mercier. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K. and Miller, D. T. 2008. «Rediscovering social innovation». Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 6(4), p. 34–43.
Prakash Sethi, S., (2011) Globalization and Self-Regulation: The Crucial Role that Corporate Codes of
Conduct Play in Global Business, Palgrave Macmillan.
Rae, M., Rouse, A., and Solomon, F. (2003), « Evaluating the Feasibility of Independent Third Party
Certification for the Mining Sector », Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 9, p. 202-204.
Richter, J., (2001). Holding Corporations Accountable: Corporate Conduct, International Codes and
Citizen Action. Zed Books, London, Palgrave Macmillan.
Rivera-Santos, M., & Rufin, C. (2010), «Odd couples: Understanding the governance of firm-NGO
alliances». Journal of Business Ethics, 94, p.55-70.
Roq, M., Guindon, J.-C., Fortier, L. (1995), Transfer of knowledge, literature review and proposal of a
model, Quebec Institute of Health Research and Safety, IRSST publications, Rapport R-099, Montreal.
(Translated by Reine Bohbot)
Ross, M. L., (2004), « How Does Natural Resource Wealth Influence Civil War? Evidence from 13 Cases
», International Organization 58(1): p. 35-67.
Sachs J. D. and Warner, A., M. (1995), « Natural resource abundance and economic growth», National
Bureau of Economic, Center for International Development and Harvard Institute for International
Development, Research working paper series, Paper 5398, 47
Spicer, A. and Böhm, S. (2007) Moving Management: Theorizing Struggles against the Hegemony of
Management. Organization Studies, 28(11), p.1667-1698.
Switzer, J. (2001), Armed Conflict and Natural Resources: The Case of the Minerals Sector, International
Institute for Environment and Development, Minerals, Mining and Sustainable Development Project, No.
12, July.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011), World
Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, Highlights and Advance Tables. ESA/P/WP.220
United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-
REDD Programme), (2013), Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), http://www.un-
redd.org/Launch_of_FPIC_Guidlines/tabid/105976/Default.aspx
Utting, P. (2002) « Regulating business via multistakeholder initiatives: a preliminary assessment », in
NGLS/UNRISD (eds.) Voluntary Approaches to Corporate Responsibility: Readings and Resource
Guide, Geneva: NGLS.

19. 19
Utting, P. (2000) « Business Responsibility for Sustainable Development », Occasional Paper
OPG2,Geneva: UNRISD.
Vasi, I.B., and King B.G. (2012), Social movements, Risk Perceptions, and Economic Outcomes: The
Effect of Primary and Secondary Stakeholder Activism on Firms’ Perceived Environmental Risk and
Financial Performance, American Sociological Review, p. 77-573.
Veiga, M.M, Scoble, M., McAllister, M. L. (2001), Mining with communities, Natural Resources Forum,
25, p. 191-202.
Vermeulen, S. and Cotula, L., (2010), Making The Most of Agricultural Investment: A survey of Business
Models that Provide Opportunities for Smallholders, IIED/FAO/IFAD/SDC, London/Rome/Bern.
Veron, J.-B., (2011), « Editorial », Afrique Contemporaine, n0
237, p.7-9
World Bank (2010) Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable benefits?
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Young, S. B. and Dias, G., (2011), LCM of Metals Supply to Electronics: Tracking and Tracing 'Conflict
Minerals', University of Waterloo - School of Environment, Enterprise and Development. Available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1875976