While much has been written on the legal, normative, and development arguments for ensuring that host communities have the opportunity to provide their free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) to a project, relatively little attention has been paid to the “business case” for FPIC. The argument is rarely made that it is in the financial interest of project sponsors and their financial backers to ensure that local communities have certain rights to provide or withhold their consent. Most project sponsors and financiers tend to perceive the business case for community interaction in terms of “community engagement” or “consultation.” Operationlizing FPIC is an evolving practice. As a result, when FPIC is considered, it is often regarded as being too difficult or ill defined to implement effectively, or as inconsistent with host country preferences or policies. In some situations, governments may conclude that the “national interests” in a project should override local concerns, or they may simply not be interested in ensuring the concerns of all stakeholders are addressed. As a result, while many sponsors and financiers of high-risk projects require community consultations as part of their assessment or development procedures, they rarely require that consent be achieved as a key element for project development.