Published: January 12, 2026
MONROVIA, Liberia — Communities impacted by the operations of Salala Rubber Corporation and Liberia Agriculture Company have flatly rejected Socfin Group’s 2024–2025 progress reports on the Socfin–Earthworm Action Plan, calling them misleading accounts that fail to reflect persistent environmental and human rights abuses on the ground.
Representatives of more than 22 affected indigenous communities say the June 2024 and 2025 updates present a narrative of reform that does not exist in reality, particularly in SRC concession areas where ownership of investments has reportedly changed hands without resolving long-standing grievances. Community leaders say unresolved legacy harms have left residents without redress, despite repeated assurances of remediation.
Findings vs. Reality on the Ground
In 2023, the Earthworm Foundation, a nonprofit contracted by Socfin, conducted an independent investigation into allegations against SRC and LAC. The probe confirmed serious violations, including forced relocations, inadequate crop compensation, sexual harassment and gender-based violence, intimidation of activists, and abusive practices by intermediaries dealing with smallholders. Other claims, such as restrictions on movement, destruction of sacred sites and graveyards, and lack of access to safe drinking water, were found to be partially substantiated.
Earthworm’s recommendations were later adopted by Socfin as a corrective action plan, with the company reporting ongoing implementation. Communities, however, insist that the measures taken have been superficial and have failed to deliver meaningful remedies.
“There is no participatory way for us to see whether these actions are actually working,” one community representative said. “Everything is reported from the company’s side.”
Civil Society Raises Red Flags
In August, the Alliance for Rural Democracy visited SRC- and LAC-affected communities and reported stark discrepancies between Socfin’s published updates and conditions on the ground. ARD documented continued labor malpractices, intimidation and reprisals, unresolved crop compensation claims, limited access to safe drinking water, and minimal awareness of updated sexual and gender-based violence policies, especially in SRC areas.
While Socfin has said it revised its SGBV policies, community feedback suggests the information has not reached those most at risk. In some LAC communities, residents acknowledged limited awareness efforts such as hotlines and signboards within plantations. In SRC areas, workers said they had received no information at all.
“SGBV is still a serious issue here, but we don’t know of any new policy or protection,” said a worker from an SRC-affected community.
Wages, Security and Movement Restrictions
Socfin has also reported improvements in recruitment practices, including written contracts for casual and short-term workers. Yet workers told ARD their wages fluctuate from month to month without explanation, leaving families financially insecure.
Communities further reported continued intimidation, including the presence of armed police officers in SRC areas, and restrictions on movement after 10 p.m. in both SRC and LAC concessions.
“There are still many restrictions on movement in the plantation,” said Moses Peter of LAC’s Quehya Town. “They do not allow us to enter during late hours.”
Water, Gravesites and Unresolved Harms
Access to safe drinking water remains a major concern. In SRC’s Monkey-tail Town, residents said a hand pump cited in Socfin’s report exists but produces muddy, brown water unfit for drinking or bathing.
“The company claimed they built us a hand pump, but the water is not good for drinking and bathing,” said Peace Sando, a community member.
On cultural heritage, residents of Gbarfein Town said LAC fenced a gravesite only after a worker fell into an open pit nearby, not as part of a structured reparations process.
Confusion Over Multiple Action Plans
For SRC communities, the Socfin–Earthworm Action Plan is not the only framework in play. In 2025, the International Finance Corporation released a Management Action Plan following an investigation by its Compliance Advisor Ombudsman. Community members say they have not been adequately informed about how the IFC plan is being implemented or how it differs from Socfin’s commitments.
Calls for Urgent Action
Affected communities are now urging the IFC, Socfin, SRC and LAC to take immediate corrective steps, including full implementation of all Earthworm recommendations, meaningful participation of communities in monitoring and verification, regular and transparent updates shared directly with residents, and clear explanations of how the Socfin–Earthworm Action Plan aligns with or differs from the IFC Management Action Plan.
Until those demands are met, community leaders say Socfin’s claims of progress amount to little more than words on paper, while the harms they endure continue unabated.
Discussion about this post