School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021 Dec 1;10(12):957-967. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.11.
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.
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.
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.
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 - the ongoing approval and acceptance by society to conduct its activities.
本文通过对澳大利亚糖业外资所有权的案例研究，考察了在日益金融化的食品体系中，公共卫生被排除在社会许可叙述之外的现象。随着资产管理公司、养老基金、私募股权基金、国有企业和主权财富基金等金融行为体参与投机性农田投资、商品期货交易以及将农田转化为金融资产，农业综合企业食品供应链中的权力日益集中。这导致食品价格上涨和更多加工食品的出现，进而导致致肥胖饮食、饥饿以及许多人的健康状况恶化。负面的社会和环境影响的可能性促使人们意识到金融行为体需要在其农田投资中展示可持续性、责任和问责制。
本文使用对定性访谈和关键文件的主题分析，评估了北昆士兰州最近四次甘蔗地收购。我们考虑了公司建立或维持经营社会许可（SLO）的努力如何与他们的资本积累战略相交织。
我们的研究结果表明，“不健康”食品投入（如糖）的商品化与金融化之间的联系仍然不在金融家的关注范围内。相反，农业综合企业公司使用以生物燃料投资和能源/食品安全为中心的叙述来证明其在糖业部门的合法性。我们根据两个“叙述”组织我们的发现：通过道德合规来构建信任和可信度；以及生物燃料扩张是应对气候变化的合法回应。第二个叙述中的社会许可概念要强得多，但健康问题在很大程度上被忽视了。
责任和健康结果之间的“距离”突显了负责任的金融投资原则的局限性，以及金融声称获得社会持续认可和接受以开展其活动的合法性的局限性。
