Fragmented Movements, Connected Opponents: Analyzing the Interconnectivity of Firms and Environmental Justice Organizations in Global Socio-Environmental Conflicts

Abstract

This study investigates the interconnectivity of firms and Environmental Justice Organizations (EJOs) involved in socio-environmental conflicts worldwide, using data from the Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas). By constructing a multilayer network that links firms, conflicts, and EJOs, the research applies social network analysis to evaluate the simultaneous involvement of these actors across multiple disputes. Both projected networks of firms and EJOs have been analysed by aggregating nodes by categories and countries to reveal structural differences. Findings reveal a stark contrast between the interconnectedness of firms and EJOs. Multinational corporations form a cohesive global network, enabling them to coordinate strategies and exert influence across regions. Conversely, EJOs are fragmented, often operating in isolated clusters with limited interconnection but forming a robust, decentralized and self-organized global network. Firms network present a strong dependence on pertaining conflict category while EJOs network does not depend on conflict category. This structural difference suggests a risk of systemic and structural coordination for firms towards exploitative expansion while EJOs dynamics seems to be led by a white blood cells defense-like mechanism. While fragmentation may represents a critical challenge for social movements, decentralization and self-organization show a more diffuse global networks supported by a limited number of central hub able to build stronger global alliances to effectively counter the power dynamics of transnational corporations. By providing robust evidence of these networks, this research contributes to discuss how structural differences in global coordination for companies and EJOs directly derives as emergent properties depending on the purpose of the network itself, sectorial expansion for firms while ecosystem preservation for EJOs.

Figures (9)

• Figure 1: Flowchart representing the three-step methodology. Starting from the bipartite (actor-conflict) networks, these have been projected (via conflict or via actor) and finally aggregated at country or regional level.
• Figure 2: Visual explanation for the three-step methodology: (A) working dataset and bipartite network, (B) projected networks, and (C) aggregated networks.
• Figure 3: Graphical representation of the EJAtlas database and its composition. Box (A) shows the geographical distributions of the socio-environmental conflicts per category and summarizes the total number of countries, conflicts, companies and EJOs. Box (B) represents the time evolution of conflicts and its distribution worldwide (emphasizing the # of conflcit per country). Finally, box (C) shows the heatmap of the #conflicts per category and per geographical area.
• Figure 4: Bipartite Conflict-Actor networks. Box (A) shows the conflict-company while Box (B) the conflict-EJO bipartite networks. For each network the Largest Connected Component is shown together with the degree distribution. Box (C) summarizes the main results for both networks highlighting the composition of the LCC.
• Figure 5: actor--actor projected networks. In the projected network, edges represent co-occurrence in a conflict for two actors and the weight the $\#$ of shared conflicts among two actors. Box (A) represents the company--company network, while Box (B) shows the EJO-EJO network.