Sustainable development — the harmonization of economic, social and environmental aspects of development, benefitting current generations without compromising the capabilities and opportunities of future ones — is a key organizing principle of governance [1]. Despite having certain intrinsic logical contradictions, it projects an outline for a globally shared trajectory and vision for society; in 2015 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the resolution: ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ (UN, 2015). The Agenda represents a plan ‘of action for people, planet and prosperity’ organized through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets [2]. All countries and stakeholders are encouraged to work toward ending poverty and hunger, protecting the planet from environmental degradation and promoting prosperity and peace through international partnerships. Asides from this, a group of social movements, grassroots organizations, civil society organizations and NGOs formed the Global Convergence of Land and Water Struggles to address major social and environmental concerns about land and water grabbing. They called on international governmental organizations, States and local authorities to safeguard and to act in the interest of local communities, to take action against land and water grabbing and to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Global Convergence promoted its declaration against water and land grabbing during the climate justice initiative organized during the COP21 in Paris in 2015, with the motto ‘Water and Land: same plight same fight!’ [۳]. There is concern over the fact that the number of transnational land investments and large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) has increased to unprecedented levels [4]. The phenomenon has attracted the attention of international development organizations, U.N. agencies and civil society while simultaneously triggering scholarly debates [5–۱۲]. It is argued that there are different potentially positive impacts that could result from LSLAs. Development opportunities, rather than land fees and other types of financial transfers associated with the acquisitions, are often described as the primary benefits. It has been pointed out that land concessions are generally granted by host governments in exchange for infrastructure development, employment opportunities and know-how transfer commitments [6]. Potential benefits for the rural poor include: construction of rural infrastructure, schools and health posts, new jobs and employment opportunities, farm and off-farm activities, the spread of new technologies and increased food production resulting in greater availability in local markets [13,14]. However, there is little evidence of the positive impacts of LSLAs and the literature has generally focused on their negative aspects. The lion’s share of peer-reviewed publications on the topic often explicitly speak of land grabbing’s negative connotations, highlighting the social, economic and environmental impacts of LSLAs that negatively affect rural development.