#ecolabels — Public Fediverse posts

Around 400 #ecolabels 🏆 claim to provide #consumers with choice ⁉️ Yet they’re unreliable in holding #corporates to account for widespread #deforestation and #humanrights abuses and #greenwashing #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🪔🔥 ⛔️#Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetectives
https://wp.me/pcFhgU-8Y6?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=Palm+Oil+Detectives&utm_campaign=publer

Around 400 #ecolabels 🏆 claim to provide #consumers with choice ⁉️ Yet they’re unreliable in holding #corporates to account for widespread #deforestation and #humanrights abuses and #greenwashing #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🪔🔥 ⛔️#Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect.bsky.social
https://wp.me/pcFhgU-8Y6?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=Palm+Oil+Detectives&utm_campaign=publer

How Brands Exploit “Green” Certification

Brands and businesses may be tempted to exploit “green” certifications to garner a larger market share at the expense of integrity.

Around 400 #ecolabels 🏆 claim to provide #consumers with choice ⁉️ Yet they’re unreliable in holding #corporates to account for widespread #deforestation and #humanrights abuses and #greenwashing #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🪔🔥 ⛔️#Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://wp.me/pcFhgU-8Y6

#Brands and giants of #FMCG may be tempted to exploit “green” certifications like #FSC, MSC and #RSPO to reassure consumers. Yet ecolabels have deep flaws in enforcement of standards. #ecocide #greenwashing #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://wp.me/pcFhgU-8Y6

Written by Dr Arne Nygaard, professor at the School of Communication, Leadership and Marketing at Kristiania University College, Norway. His primary research interests include sustainable supply chains, greenwashing, geopolitical risk and strategic uncertainty, economic contracts and incentives, sustainability and green marketing, technology, and entrepreneurship. Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™, read the original.

Analyses conducted in the study indicate that while certifications can help prevent greenwashing, they can also contribute to eco-opportunism […] the theory of eco-opportunism warns that this can lead to free riding and greenwashing, where products are falsely advertised as sustainable but fail to meet certified standards.

Nygaard, A. (2023). Is sustainable certification’s ability to combat greenwashing trustworthy? Frontiers in Sustainability, 4, Article 1188069. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1188069

As the global fight against climate change intensifies, certifications have become crucial tools for industries to address environmental, business and social challenges. Sustainability certifications promote eco-friendly practices, protect human rights and boost the credibility of environmentally responsible brands.

But although certifications often enhance the perceived value of sustainable products and services, challenges remain.

There are concerns about greenwashing and free riding plus the inability of certification systems to adapt to changes and failing to incentivise the adoption of newer, more sustainable technologies.

At the supermarket, a shopper carefully studies a label, thinking, “This product has a certification. Must be environmentally friendly. I’ll buy it.” And like that shopper, millions around the world make that same decision every day.

Greenwashing, where companies falsely claim eco-friendly credentials without meeting required standards, is a significant issue. Similarly, free riding allows businesses to benefit from the positive image of certifications without genuinely implementing sustainable practices.

The number of sustainability certifications has surged globally in recent years. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) reports that more than 400 certifications now cover sectors such as food, agriculture, energy, environment, health and social responsibility.

Consumer awareness

This growth reflects increasing consumer awareness of sustainability and the desire of companies to showcase their commitment to eco-friendly practices.

Certifications serve as essential market signals, enabling businesses to distinguish themselves by adhering to recognised environmental and social standards.

Some of the internationally recognised certifications include the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for green buildings, the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable forestry and the Fair Trade certification, which ensures that products meet strict social, environmental and labour criteria.

Another key example is the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil certification, which promotes the production of palm oil in a way that minimises environmental harm, protects biodiversity and ensures fair treatment of workers and local communities.

Certifications typically involve third-party evaluations to assess compliance with criteria such as environmental and economic impact or fair labour practices.

Despite widespread adoption, certifications face growing scrutiny.

For instance, consumer demand for eco-friendly products has led to companies charging higher prices for green products. While many consumers are willing to pay this premium, it can create perverse incentives for companies to engage in greenwashing.

Certifications, intended to assure consumers of a product’s environmental and social standards, can paradoxically encourage companies to exploit these authentications for profit.

When businesses realise they can charge a premium for eco-labelled goods, the temptation to stretch the truth or manipulate the certification increases.

Erosion of trust

Greenwashing erodes consumer trust and devalues the certifications of genuinely sustainable products.

As more companies exploit these eco-friendly claims without verification, it becomes harder for consumers to differentiate between authentic and deceptive environmental practices, potentially undermining the credibility of certification systems.

This highlights the urgent need for stronger mechanisms to mitigate these risks, ensuring that certification systems are not only effective but also resilient against exploitation.

Certification bodies can tighten standards, increase transparency and implement stronger verification processes to reflect evolving sustainability standards and prevent misuse. Additionally, independent audits and greater rigour throughout the supply chain would hold companies accountable for their claims.

Investigation into the root causes of greenwashing is necessary to understand how and why companies manipulate sustainable claims.

One key issue is that certification processes often focus on specific criteria and may not capture the broader environmental or social impacts of a product.

Selective compliance

A company may meet the minimum requirements for certification in one area, such as reducing carbon emissions, while ignoring other important sustainability factors such as labour conditions or biodiversity conservation.

This selective compliance allows companies to appear more sustainable than they truly are, feeding into the cycle of greenwashing.

Consumers can be educated on how to critically evaluate certification labels to avoid falling prey to greenwashing tactics.

By reinforcing certification systems with robust monitoring and compliance mechanisms, the credibility of sustainable products can be preserved, and the integrity of genuine sustainability efforts can be upheld.

Non-governmental organisations and activist groups play a critical role in developing and implementing certification systems. These organisations provide valuable input during the creation of sustainability standards and help monitor compliance, ensuring that certification systems remain credible.

For example, the Forest Stewardship Council certification system for responsible forestry was developed in 1993 with input from environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.

NGOs advocate for higher sustainability standards, while certifications give them leverage to hold businesses accountable. By working together, NGOs and certification bodies can drive meaningful change toward a more sustainable future.

The interaction between state institutions, laws, and certification systems is also vital to ensuring the credibility and effectiveness of sustainability efforts.

Governments often set baseline sustainability requirements, while certification systems provide an additional layer of accountability. A clear example is the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil certification now used in 21 countries.

Resistance to change

One challenge facing certification bodies is internal structural inertia. This refers to resistance to change, preventing the adoption of innovative green technologies.

This occurs when certification bodies become too rigid in their processes, policies, or standards, making it difficult for them to quickly adapt to new environmental paradigms.

For example, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design initially focused on energy efficiency in buildings but was slow to incorporate newer technologies like green roofs or biophilic design which enhance sustainability.

Similarly, in the agricultural sector, government certification systems such as the United States Department of Agriculture Organic can be slow to recognise advancements in vertical farming or aeroponics, even though these methods significantly reduce land use, water consumption, and pesticide reliance.

This type of institutional resistance can delay the transition to more sustainable practices, as certification bodies may cling to outdated standards that fail to incentivise the latest green technologies.

To stay relevant and support ongoing environmental progress, certification organisations can work to overcome structural inertia and actively seek ways to update their standards in response to new innovations.

By updating their standards to reflect these disruptive technologies, certification systems can stay relevant and effective, driving sustainability across industries and supporting innovation while addressing evolving environmental challenges.

However, certifications, while essential tools for promoting sustainable practices, face limitations. Greenwashing, free-riding, and institutional inertia can undermine their value, posing challenges for businesses and consumers alike.

As markets evolve, certifications risk becoming obsolete unless they adapt to new environmental and technological challenges.

Nygaard, A. (2023). Is sustainable certification’s ability to combat greenwashing trustworthy? Frontiers in Sustainability, 4, Article 1188069. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1188069

Dr Arne Nygaard is a professor at the School of Communication, Leadership and Marketing at Kristiania University College, Norway. His primary research interests include sustainable supply chains, greenwashing, geopolitical risk and strategic uncertainty, economic contracts and incentives, sustainability and green marketing, technology, and entrepreneurship. Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™, read the original.

ENDS

Read more about greenwashing associated with certified “sustainable” palm oil and other commodities

So-called ‘Net Zero’ Flights Flush Rainforest Carbon Into the Sky

Virgin Atlantic airlines now uses ‘sustainable aviation fuel’ however experts call it greenwashing and industry spin causing climate change. Boycott palm oil!

Oreo Maker Linked to Ongoing Deforestation and Human Rights Abuses

Mondelēz International who make Oreos keep sourcing palm oil from suppliers linked to violence and deforestation. Their RSPO certification is pure greenwash!

Jaguars vs Cows: JBS Fuelling Biodiversity Collapse in Brazil’s Forests

Global Witness report finds JBS, the world’s largest meat company, is directly linked to deforestation in the Amazon and Pantanal putting jaguars at risk

Parrot Deaths Highlight Urgent Need to Reform CITES

The legal trade is largely to blame for African grey parrots becoming endangered. Regulator CITES is broken allowing exploitation, massive reform needed now!

World’s Wealthiest Drive Two Thirds of Global Warming Since 1990

Wealthiest people in USA and China responsible for 2/3 of global warming since 1990. Climate policies needed to target the richest people on the planet now!

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Take Action in Five Ways

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife on social media and subscribe to stay in the loop: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Mastadon, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• YouTube
• Mail
• Mastodon

Enter your email address

Sign Up

2. Contribute stories: Academics, conservationists, scientists, indigenous rights advocates and animal rights advocates working to expose the corruption of the palm oil industry or to save animals can contribute stories to the website.

Wildlife Artist Juanchi Pérez

Mel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings

Anthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao

Health Physician Dr Evan Allen

The World’s Most Loved Cup: A Social, Ethical & Environmental History of Coffee by Aviary Doert

How do we stop the world’s ecosystems from going into a death spiral? A #SteadyState Economy

3. Supermarket sleuthing: Next time you’re in the supermarket, take photos of products containing palm oil. Share these to social media along with the hashtags to call out the greenwashing and ecocide of the brands who use palm oil. You can also take photos of palm oil free products and congratulate brands when they go palm oil free.

https://twitter.com/CuriousApe4/status/1526136783557529600?s=20

https://twitter.com/PhillDixon1/status/1749010345555788144?s=20

https://twitter.com/mugabe139/status/1678027567977078784?s=20

4. Take to the streets: Get in touch with Palm Oil Detectives to find out more.

5. Donate: Make a one-off or monthly donation to Palm Oil Detectives as a way of saying thank you and to help pay for ongoing running costs of the website and social media campaigns. Donate here

RSPO’s Dubious “Sustainability”: 30 Years of Deceit

Ecolabels like RSPO and FSC are involved in networks of extensive greenwashing. They exist to conceal corporations’ environmental damage rather than fighting it. With three decades dubious promises from environmental certifications, World Rainforest Movement calls for a swift end to this disgraceful palm oil, soy and timber industry greenwashing. You can help resist palm oil colonialism and ecocide #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife every time you shop!

#Ecolabels like #RSPO and #FSC are accused of greenwashing, hiding corporations’ environmental #ecocide from consumers 💩🛒 rather than fighting #corruption. Fight back with your wallet and #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🪔🩸🧐🙊⛔️ #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/06/18/certification-ecolabels-dubious-sustainability-30-years-of-deceit-and-violence/

World Rainforest Movement and Palm Oil Detectives call for an end to #palmoil #greenwashing from #RSPO “sustainable” palm oil 🙊🧐⛔️ Resist the greenwash and #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife in the supermarket! 🌴💀🩸🚫 @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/06/18/certification-ecolabels-dubious-sustainability-30-years-of-deceit-and-violence/

This article was originally published by World Rainforest Movement as “Certification schemes on “sustainability”: 30 years of deceit and violence” on 25 March, 2023 and was republished with permission here alongside other reports from World Health Organisation, Global Witness and others. Read original.

The shelves in supermarkets and stores are full of certified products. The packaging displays different labels indicating products were made with “sustainable” paper or wood, food or cosmetic products made with “sustainable” palm oil, “responsible” soybeans and so on and so forth.

Even when it comes to buying an airplane ticket, consumers can pay a little more
to ensure that their carbon emissions are (supposedly) “neutralised”, so as to guarantee that much touted “sustainability”.

Read more: WHO Bulletin Report: Palm Oil and Human Health Impacts

So why is there this need for so many labels and forms of certification? What is actually being certified? And who is benefiting from this?

After 30 years of certification schemes with environmental and social bias, what is clear is that the only “sustainability” that they guarantee is that of corporations’ lucrative business.

The first environmental certification mechanism for a specific product (wood) and its production chain emerged in the early 1990s, with the creation of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Although its origin is connected with civil society pressure on corporations, FSC has been fully incorporated into the production logic of logging companies operating in forests, of giant paper and pulp corporations using tree monoculture plantations, as well as of producers and distributors of consumer goods.

Over time, having shown that it did not constitute any threat – on the contrary: an opportunity – to the accumulation strategy of the corporations involved, other sectors started creating similar mechanisms. Hence, starting in the 2000s, initiatives and so-called roundtables for “sustainable” or “responsible” production of palm oil, soybeans, cocoa, sugarcane, among others, proliferated.

Read more: Greenwashing Ecocide: Agropalma and Orangutan Land Trust

100 NGOS signed a public statement denouncing the RSPO in late 2022

These “sustainable” initiatives have various aspects in common

1. They are dominated, compromised and funded by corporate interests

They are schemes that present themselves as non-profit associations including many apparently diverse actors and interests (companies, NGOs, governments etc.) However, in practice, the business sector participants andtheir allies, like the big conservationist NGOs, dominate these initiatives and impose their interests in a highly unequal power relation between the members.

2. They promote toothless and unenforceable guidelines

They are mechanisms that establish operational guidelines and directives for companies to adhere to on a voluntary bases, leaving no possibility of legal consequences when rules are broken – rules formulated and judged by the companies themselves, it should be noted.

3. They promote an endless growth model of capitalism in spite of our limited and finite natural world

They are initiatives submitted to the logic of the market and its expansion, that is to say, certification labels have become important both to obtain funding for companies’ expansion projects and to win over consumers, mainly urban consumers and those from the global North. Read more about the limits of the Endless growth model.

4. The mechanism for conflict resolution is set and decided upon by the certification label itself – amplifying racial and gender inequities

They are mechanisms headquartered in countries of the North, and with management boards mainly composed of men and white people, leaving the rural communities of the South that have to face the certified plantations, to play the role of mere receivers of determinations imposed from outside about the use of the space where they live. And if they want to question the actions of any of the certified companies, they must submit to the protocol created by the certification system itself on how to proceed.

5. They use greenwashing language and false promises even though this does not reflect reality

Certification schemes are used by companies as defence mechanisms whenever they are faced with criticism over the impacts of their activities:

“Our products are certified…”, “The project has certification…”, as if this has guaranteed that there is no cause for concern.

One way or another, such certification mechanisms have not stopped the destructive expansion of industrial tree plantations, oil palms, soy, etc. Read more about using Design and Words as a greenwashing tool.

6. The predatory nature of corporate land-grabbing and expansionism cannot ever work in favour of indigenous peoples

Certification labels have not been able to resolve the conflicts generated with traditional communities and Indigenous Peoples. Nor do they have the potential to do so, since they are designed to allow the continuity and expansion of corporate accumulation patterns that are intrinsically dependent on a predatory dynamic.

In fact, the main common denominator of such certification schemes is that they guarantee a green label to the companies involved, thus contributing to their primary objective, i.e., the maximisation of profit.

7. Certification labels like FSC and RSPO are vital to for companies gain consumer buy-in and greenwash away harms

Certifiers have hence become a key element through which companies seek to legitimize their territorial and economic expansion in the global South, deceiving consumers with the “sustainability” discourse.

In other words, these destructive corporations need certification labels to obtain some legitimacy in the eyes of consumers and investors, bearing in mind the vast number of reports, news and studies showing their harmful effects, such as:

• Violent corporate land-grabbing aided by private enforcement or military/police intervention
• Problematic, deceptive or non-existent community consultation processes
• Contamination by agro-chemicals and its human health and environmental impacts
• Soil degradation
• Dangerous and humiliating jobs
• Sexual abuse and other forms of violence against women
• Child slavery and indentured slavery

among many other impacts related to extensive monoculture plantations.

This permits one to affirm without reservation that certification itself has become an underlying cause of deforestation.

https://vimeo.com/735353691

10 Tactics of Sustainable Palm Oil Greenwashing

Greenwashing Tactic #1: Hidden Trade Off

When a brand makes token changes while continuing with deforestation, ecocide or human rights abuses in another part of their business – this is ‘Hidden Trade Off’

For example, Nestle talks up satellite monitoring to stop palm oil deforestation. Yet…

Greenwashing Tactic #2: No Proof

Greenwashing Tactic 5. Palm oil companies make environmental claims without providing proof or evidence of these claims or using spurious evidence.

Greenwashing Tactic #3: Vagueness

Claiming a brand or commodity is ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ based on broad generalisations, unclear language or vague statements Jump to section Greenwashing: Vagueness in Language Greenwashing: Vagueness in certification standards Reality: Auditing of RSPO a failure Quote: EIA: Who Watches…

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Claiming a brand or commodity is green based on unreliable, ineffective endorsements or eco-labels such as the RSPO, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or FairTrade coffee and cocoa. Greenwashing: Fake Labels and fake certifications Ecolabels are designed to reassure consumers that…

Greenwashing Tactic #5: Irrelevance and Deflection

Learn how lobbyists use irrelevant information and deflection to shift the conversation away from their environmental harms, e.g. “sustainable” palm oil.

Greenwashing Tactic #6: The Lesser of Two Evils

Claiming that a brand, commodity or industry is greener than others in the same category, in order to excuse ecocide, deforestation, human rights and animal rights abuses. Jump to section Greenwashing: Lesser of Two Evils: Palm Oil Uses Less Land…

Greenwashing Tactic #7: Lying

Greenwashing lies are falsifying support from authorities to back up claims or using spurious research data to back up the greenwashing, boycott palm oil!

Greenwashing Tactic 8: Design & Words

Greenwashing Tactic 8. Companies use design principles and subliminal language to signal ‘greenness’ and trigger unconscious emotional responses in consumers

Greenwashing Tactic 9: Partnerships, Sponsorships and Research Funding

Greenwashing Tactic 9. Corporations use NGOs, Zoo partnerships, sponsorships, and research funding to give an industry or brand a ‘green image.

Greenwashing Tactic 10: Gaslighting, Harassment, Stalking and Threats

Gaslighting, harassing or stalking vocal critics of a brand, commodity or industry certification in order to silence these critics – this is greenwashing!

Ten Tactics of ‘Sustainable’ Palm Oil Greenwashing

Learn ten marketing and PR tactics used for “sustainble” palm oil greenwashing to justify endless growth by the palm oil industry. Boycott palm oil now!

New forms of greenwashing: Carbon Credits and Biodiversity Credits

Furthermore, it is important to mention that the idea of certification has been taking on new shapes. With the creation of offset mechanisms for carbon emissions and biodiversity loss, new commodities have emerged already linked to certification mechanisms. In this new market, carbon credits and biodiversity credits – issued by certification schemes – represent a supposed guarantee that greenhouse gas emissions or the destruction of biodiversity are being duly offset elsewhere.

Differently from wood, paper, palm oil or soybeans, where the certification is “added” to the product by means of a label, in the carbon or biodiversity markets it is the
certification itself that makes it feasible for the product to be consumed.

In other words, the commodity in itself is supposedly a guarantee – though a virtual guarantee, obtained through dubious methodologies and permeated by openly suspect interests.

https://youtu.be/X7x4TWazWJg

This compilation of articles from the WRM Bulletin aims to underscore the damaging role played by companies and organisations involved in certification schemes. WRM considers it important to highlight that after three decades with ever more environmental certification labels on the market, it is urgent to put an end to this greenwashing.

Ultimately, instead of combating environmental devastation and the social ills linked
to corporations’ and other players’ operations, these labels cover up and
sustain their destructive logic.

Sexual Exploitation and Violence against Women at the Root of the Industrial Plantation Model

The industrial plantation model is intrinsically linked with patriarchal oppression, serving as a cornerstone for corporate profitability. Companies often exploit women, recognizing their integral role within community dynamics, as a means to augment their bottom line. The intersection of gender and economic exploitation exemplifies the profound social implications of this oppressive system.

RSPO: outsourcing environmental regulation to oil palm businesses and industry

The RSPO certification, cleverly turning the palm oil industry’s legitimacy crisis to its favor, uses it as a stepping stone to further strengthen the industry’s position. It provides certificates claiming to meet sustainability standards—a clear advantage to the industry. However, it’s important to note that these standards are largely controlled by and designed to benefit companies operating within the palm oil sector itself.

“Gender” in the palm oil industry and its RSPO label

Implementing gender policies in oil palm companies and the RSPO certification scheme is a start. But do they truly tackle the violence, patriarchy, and racism in the plantation model, or merely mask them? It’s crucial to examine how these policies are enacted and if they genuinely drive substantial change, or just scratch the surface of these systemic issues.

https://youtu.be/0n4LSP9RCfA

Colombia: Palm-Producing Company Poligrow Plans to Grab more Land under the “Small Producers” Scheme

The harsh realities of violence, mass killings, and forced relocations amid the armed conflict in Colombia have disturbingly paved the way for the expansion of industrial oil palm cultivation. The palm oil company and RSPO member Poligrow, has been significantly implicated in these issues, with credible allegations of land seizure and intimidation tactics within the region of Mapiripán.

Greenwashing Words: Language that kills forests

Language never operates in a vacuum. Historically, specific terms have been leveraged as tools for exercising control over populations and territories. This article throws light on certain terms which, while seemingly positive, often shield economic interests detrimental to forests, forest animals and forest peoples.

Africa: The RSPO certification for palm oil plantations is greenwash!

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is a widely used certification system promising environmental, safety, and human rights standards in the palm oil industry. However, Friends of the Earth Africa groups contest its effectiveness, citing ongoing environmental degradation, human rights breaches, biodiversity loss, and increased poverty in Africa linked to the activities of palm oil companies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnXISnURIBA

Communities resisting the impunity and impacts of oil palm growers in Ecuador: Cases from Esmeraldas

The palm industry in Ecuador, encompassing 270,000 hectares of plantations, has been using the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification to project an image of sustainability, setting itself apart from Asian palm oil. However, critics argue that this certification merely muffles community objections. Resistance from communities such as La Chiquita, Guadualito, and Barranquilla de San Javier in the Esmeraldas region continues to fuel discontent and foster international solidarity.

RSPO Certification despite land conflicts, violence and criminalisation

Nearly 1,500 members of MALOA in Sierra Leone are challenging RSPO’s certification of a SOCFIN subsidiary. They cite a string of conflicts and grievances tied to land use. This move follows controversial certifications of SOCFIN group’s operations in Nigeria, Cameroon, and Ivory Coast. Critics question if RSPO, perceived as industry-biased, can truly guarantee sustainability and human rights in the palm oil sector.

Are FSC and RSPO accomplices in crime? Agropalma’s Unresolved Land Question in the Brazilian Amazon

The Palmas del Ixcán company in Guatemala is accused of implementing systematic dispossession of land from indigenous communities for oil palm cultivation, using tactics such as deceptive RSPO certification and independent producers. The company’s strategic approach replaced the traditional collective land management by indigenous people in the Municipality of Ixcán, which had been disrupted by development plans since the 1960s. Despite filing a complaint to the RSPO and participating in consultations, the communities found their concerns disregarded, leading them to criticize the RSPO and label it a sham, asserting that its true intention is to facilitate palm planting at any cost.

Water is life – stop planting palms! reads a sign in Guatemala

This article was originally published by World Rainforest Movement as “Certification schemes on “sustainability”: 30 years of deceit and violence” on 25 March, 2023 and was republished with permission alongside other reports from World Health Organisation, Global Witness and others. Read original.

ENDS

Read more about human rights abuses and greenwashing associated with “sustainable” palm oil

So-called ‘Net Zero’ Flights Flush Rainforest Carbon Into the Sky

Virgin Atlantic airlines now uses ‘sustainable aviation fuel’ however experts call it greenwashing and industry spin causing climate change. Boycott palm oil!

Oreo Maker Linked to Ongoing Deforestation and Human Rights Abuses

Mondelēz International who make Oreos keep sourcing palm oil from suppliers linked to violence and deforestation. Their RSPO certification is pure greenwash!

Parrot Deaths Highlight Urgent Need to Reform CITES

The legal trade is largely to blame for African grey parrots becoming endangered. Regulator CITES is broken allowing exploitation, massive reform needed now!

Seeing Forest As Merely A Carbon “Commodity”: Dangerous Greenwashing

Commodifying forests as merely an investment for ‘carbon credits’ has many dangerous loopholes that human rights to indigenous peoples, take action!

Finance giants fuel $8.9 trillion deforestation economy

Forest 500 report shows 150 of the world’s largest financial institutions invested nearly $9 trillion in deforestation-linked industries. Support EUDR!

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Take Action in Five Ways

1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife on social media and subscribe to stay in the loop: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Mastadon, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Instagram
• WordPress
• YouTube
• Mail
• Mastodon

Enter your email address

Sign Up

2. Contribute stories: Academics, conservationists, scientists, indigenous rights advocates and animal rights advocates working to expose the corruption of the palm oil industry or to save animals can contribute stories to the website.

Wildlife Artist Juanchi Pérez

Mel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings

Anthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao

Health Physician Dr Evan Allen

The World’s Most Loved Cup: A Social, Ethical & Environmental History of Coffee by Aviary Doert

How do we stop the world’s ecosystems from going into a death spiral? A #SteadyState Economy

3. Supermarket sleuthing: Next time you’re in the supermarket, take photos of products containing palm oil. Share these to social media along with the hashtags to call out the greenwashing and ecocide of the brands who use palm oil. You can also take photos of palm oil free products and congratulate brands when they go palm oil free.

https://twitter.com/CuriousApe4/status/1526136783557529600?s=20

https://twitter.com/PhillDixon1/status/1749010345555788144?s=20

https://twitter.com/mugabe139/status/1678027567977078784?s=20

4. Take to the streets: Get in touch with Palm Oil Detectives to find out more.

5. Donate: Make a one-off or monthly donation to Palm Oil Detectives as a way of saying thank you and to help pay for ongoing running costs of the website and social media campaigns. Donate here

10 reasons why ecolabels & commodity certification will never be a solution for importing tropical deforestation

In 2022, 71 environmental and #humanrights groups from around the world wrote to the EU Commission to warn that certification schemes and ecolabels were not sufficient to prevent human rights abuses and deforestation from entering the European Union. Although fast forward to 2025 and lobbyists have again watered down the #EUDR and #CSDDD, what the future holds is anybody’s guess!

In the UK, industry lobbyists including Ferrero and serial greenwashing outfit Orangutan Land Trust watered down the UK’s commitment to not importing deforestation into the UK. The new trade deal with #Malaysia paves the way for mass importation of palm oil ecocide.

#RSPO and #FSC have been shown for decades to be ineffective and corrupt. They have failed in preventing #corruption, human rights abuses, illegal #landgrabbing, #violence, #deforestation, #ecocide and species #extinction.

So here are 10 reasons why the world should not rely on weak and ineffective certification schemes like MSC, RSPO and FSC to enforce their own zero deforestation mandate. Originally published by GRAIN

https://vimeo.com/724165395

#Ecolabels eg. #RSPO #FSC do not prevent #deforestation. They have failed for decades and instead are only weak #greenwashing tools! Help rainforests, rainforest animals and rainforest peoples. #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🩸🚜🤮🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

@EU_Commission should not trust #ecolabels: e.g. @RSPOtweets @FSC_IC to prevent #deforestation. Decades of failure to stop #humanrights abuses #deforestation shows their deep systemic weaknesses #Boycottpalmoil 🌴☠️🧐🚫 #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/06/18/10-reasons-why-ecolabels-commodity-certification-are-not-a-solution-to-stop-the-eu-importing-tropical-deforestation/

Jump to section

• 1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms
• 2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation
• 3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product
• 4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise
• 5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify
• 6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced.
• 7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land
• 8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.
• 9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation
• 10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry
• Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

Considering the shortcomings of certification schemes that the European Commission itself has documented, we are deeply troubled by the current arguments coming from industry players advocating for a stronger role for certification in the regulation, including a way for companies to use these systems as proof of compliance with binding EU rules. Below are ten reasons why this should not happen.

1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harms

Back to top ↑

The EC’s own Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment (hereafter EC Impact Assessment) concludes that “the consensus is that [voluntary certification] schemes on their own have not been able to provide the changes needed to prevent deforestation”. This is the position defended by the European Parliament and by most NGOs. Certification schemes do not have a deforestation standard, or the standard does not meet the deforestation definition as proposed in the anti-deforestation regulation. For example, because companies are allowed to clear forests to establish plantations and remediate or compensate with conservation elsewhere.

Numerous studies conducted by WWF, FSCWatch, and Greenpeace and academic studies on Indonesia, have additionally concluded that certification on its own has not helped companies meet their commitments to exclude deforestation from their supply chains.

This led some actors such as WWF to lose faith in certification scheme Roundtable of Responsible Soy (RTRS), not only due to limited uptake, but more specifically, because in biomes where soy is produced, zero-deforestation commitments have so far failed to reduce deforestation. In support of this finding, the Dutch supermarket industry representative (CBL) stated that RTRS “has not appeared to be sufficient to halt [deforestation and conversion] developments and accelerate the transition to a sustainable soy chain”.

“Certification (or verification) schemes may, in some cases, contribute to achieving compliance with the due diligence requirement, however the use of certification does not automatically imply compliance with due diligence obligations. There is abundant literature on certification schemes shortcomings in terms of governance, transparency, clarity of standards, and reliability of monitoring systems”.

2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulation

Back to top ↑

It does not create transparency of the supply chain or provide information on the geographical origin

As indicated in Article 8 of the Proposal, “because deforestation is linked to land-use change, monitoring requires a precise link between the commodity or product placed on or exported from the EU market and the plot of land where it was grown or raised.” Most certification schemes, however, require only a minimal level of traceability and transparency.

As indicated in the EC’s Study On Certification And Verification Schemes In The Forest Sector, schemes make use of Chain of Custody (CoC) models, but very few apply a traceability system, making it difficult to track the claims of certification, from the forest to the end buyer. One of the most common CoC models used is Mass Balance. This model allows uncertified and untraceable supplies to be physically mixed with certified supplies and end up in EU supply chains. For the most part, certification schemes do not include the systematic ability to verify transactions of volumes, species, and qualities between entities, thus leaving the systems vulnerable to manipulation and fraud.

3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product

Back to top ↑

Certification schemes do not have the authority to confirm or enforce compliance with national laws precisely because they are voluntary.

Article 3 in the proposed anti-deforestation regulation states that products
are prohibited on the European market if they are not “produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of production”.

However, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), for example, has explicitly stated its standards are voluntary and “do not extend to enforcing or confirming the legal standing of a company’s use of land (which is a mandate only held by the national authority)”.

4. Certification does not identify or prevent harms. Audit teams lack time and expertise

Back to top ↑

According to the EC “labour, environmental and human rights laws will need to be taken into account when assessing compliance” and identifying harms. However, multiple reports by Friends of the Earth Netherlands, the Environmental Investigation Agency, and ECCHR, reveal that auditing firms responsible for checking compliance are fundamentally failing to identify and mitigate unsustainable practices within certification schemes due to lack of time and lack of expertise. Proper audits on social and human rights issues require extensive consultation to gain full community perspectives on land use, conflicts, or environmental harm. Certification Body (CB) procedures do not allow for this (due to financial resources).

RSPO’s own analysis reads that “the credibility of the RSPO certification scheme has been consistently undermined by documentation of poor practice, and concerns of the extent to which the Assurance System is being implemented”.

Oppressed and stretched NGO groups and communities in the global South spend time and resources on these consultation processes. They face backlash for speaking out during consultations without any guarantee that their input is included in the certification assessment. The EU should not become complicit in exploitation of rightsholders and stakeholders in their monitoring role.

5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certify

Back to top ↑

The lack of independent audits, considered to be key in ensuring the robustness of certification, was highlighted in the EC Impact Assessment as a key weakness of private certification schemes.

If clients (businesses) hire, supervise, and pay audit firms, they are exposed to a structural risk of conflict of interest, which may lead to a lower level of control.

Previous studies by Friends of the Earth, IUCN, RAN, and Environmental Investigation Agency have shown that, for example in the palm oil industry, when auditors and certification companies are directly hired by an audited company, independence is inhibited and the risk of violations increases.

Also, auditor dependence on company services such as transport and accommodation is problematic. The EC adds to this that these systems are sensitive to fraud given that certified companies may easily mislead their auditors even if the audit is conducted with the greatest care and according to all procedures.

“For example, a company may be selling products containing a volume of “certified” timber material that exceeds the volume of certified raw material that they are buying.”

6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced, particularly because certification bodies are not liable for harms in the plantations they certify

Back to top ↑

The EU anti-deforestation regulation requires that operators shall exercise due diligence prior to placing relevant commodities on the Union market. Private certification may, in some cases, facilitate compliance with this requirement.

However, as reiterated by German human rights law firm ECCHR the control of compliance is outsourced to private certification bodies, in an unregulated audit and certification market, where CBs are not liable for potential harm.

This leads to inability to distinguish unreliable audits from reliable ones and to competition without rules, setting in motion a ‘race to the bottom’. Certification initiatives have increasingly received complaints for lack of proper due diligence.

For instance, the UK OECD National Contact Point has recently found that Bonsucro breached the Guidelines in relation to due diligence and leverage when reaccepting MPG-T as a member, and the Netherlands NCP handled a complaint about ING’s due diligence policies and practices regarding palm oil.

The OECD guidelines confirm that certification is not a proxy for due diligence, as well as various governments. As echoed by the EC Impact Assessment, “maintaining operators’ responsibility for correctly implementing due diligence obligations when they use certification, aims at ensuring that authorities remain empowered to monitor and sanction incompliant behaviour, as the reliability of those [certification] systems has repeatedly been challenged by evidence on the ground.”

7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous land

Back to top ↑

Indigenous Peoples and local communities have a recognised role in preserving the lands they own and manage, but insecure land tenure is a major driver of deforestation and forest degradation.

Certification bodies commit to investigating whether lands are subject to customary rights of indigenous peoples and whether land transfers have been developed with Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

However, assessing whether land user rights and consultation rights were respected needs to consider the historical context, a multi-actor perspective and deep understanding of local conflicts. Considering the apparent low level of knowledge of auditors on human rights and legal issues, assessing prior land use and conflicts is an impossible task for a team of international auditors with limited time.

In Malaysia communities are often not consulted before the issuance of the logging licences. MTCS certified concessions encroach on indigenous territories while the judiciary recognised indigenous customary land rights are a form of property rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

Additionally, certification schemes failed on numerous occasions to address complaints by communities whose land was taken by palm oil companies, including the case of oil palm giant Sime Darby in Indonesia and Socfin in Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Certification will not lead to redress or resolution of problems linked to EU operators.

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Claiming a brand or commodity is green based on unreliable, ineffective endorsements or eco-labels such as the RSPO, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or FairTrade coffee and cocoa. Greenwashing: Fake Labels and fake certifications Ecolabels are…

Keep reading

8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.

Back to top ↑

Critics have argued that improving the image of forest and ecosystem risk commodities stimulates demand. Certification risks enabling destructive businesses to continue operating as usual and expand their practices, thereby increasing the harm.

“If certification on its own is unable to guarantee that commodity production
is entirely free of deforestation or human rights abuses, there is little to suggest that using certification as a tool for proving compliance with legal requirements could solve the issues in supply chains and fulfil the legislation’s objectives.

In this context, recognising a particular certification scheme as a proof of compliance removes any incentive to improve the scheme or to replace it with a more reliable alternative, effectively contributing to the institutionalisation of greenwashing.”

For example, a number of recent logging industry scandals suggest that the Forest Stewardship Council label has at times served merely to “greenwash” or “launder” trafficking in illegal timber, compelling NGOs to demand systemic change. The difference between certified and non-certified plantations in South East Asia was not significant.

9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestation

Back to top ↑

This prevents the transition towards community-based forest management and agro-ecology, with food sovereignty as a leading principle

There are multiple drivers of deforestation, but the evidence is clear in pointing to industrial agricultural expansion as one of the most important. Ultimately, certification initiatives fail to challenge the ideology underpinning the continuation of industrial commodity crop production, and can instead serve to greenwash
further agro-commodity expansion.

Corporations, along with their certifications, continue to seek legitimacy through a ‘feed the world’ narrative.

The “expansion is the only way”argument has long since been discredited by international institutions such as FAO; we produce enough to feed the projected world populations, much of this coming from small-scale peasant producers using a fraction of the resources. Moreover, as smallholders are directly impacted by deforestation and often depend on large operators and are hereby
forced to expand agricultural land and degrading their direct environment, they are therefore an essential part of the solution.

10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industry

Back to top ↑

While community and smallholder forest and agriculture management are extremely underfunded.

As explained by the EC Impact Assessment, private certification can be a costly process and resources spent to certify operations and to support the various schemes’ managerial structures could be used for other ends. Considering that smallholders represent a large share of producers in the relevant sectors, they also represent a crucial part of the solution to deforestation.

The EU should stop financing and promoting improvements in a certification system, benefiting industrial forest and plantation companies, that has been proven to fail.

It would be a more effective use of public and private resources to pay smallholders adequately for their products and adhere to their calls if they seek technical or financial support.

To conclude, building on these arguments, we foresee that if decision makers give in to the lobby from industry and certification’s role is reconsidered or promoted in the current proposal, the EU anti-deforestation regulation will not deliver, as it will not only lose its potential to provide information needed to comply with the regulation but lose its ability to curb deforestation and forest degradation all together.

Back to top ↑

Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOs

International

Global Witness
ClientEarth
Environmental Paper Network
International
GRAIN
Global Forest Coalition
Forest Peoples Programme

Indonesia

Friends of the Earth Indonesia; WALHI
Yayasan Pusaka Bentala Rakyat
Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan
Hukum Indonesia
Pantau Gambut
WALHI Papua
Teraju Foundation
Lingkar Hijau
KRuHA
Lepemawil, Mimika, Papua
PADI Indonesia

Cameroon

Synaparcam
Centre pour l’Environnement
et le Développment Chile
Colectivo Vientosur

Democratic Republic of the Congo

RIAO-RDC
Confédération Paysanne du
Congo-Principal Regroupement Paysan
Gabon
Muyissi Environnement

China

Snow Alliance
Blue Dalian
Green Longjiang
Scholar Tree Alliance
Wuhu Ecology Centre

Malaysia

SAVE Rivers
KERUAN
Sahabat Alam Malaysia

Liberia

Sustainable Development Institute

Nigeria

ERA; Friends of the Earth Nigeria

Mexico

Reentramados para la vida, defendiendo territorio
Otros Mundos Chiapas

Philippines

Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura- UMA

Sierra Leone

Green Scenery

United States

Friends of the Earth United States
The Oakland Institute
The Borneo Project

Europe

Bruno Manser Fonds
Canopée
Denkhausbremen
Dublin Friends of the Earth
Earthsight
Ecologistas en Acción
Environmental Investigation
Agency (EIA)
Fern
FIAN Belgium
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation
Forum Ökologie & Papier
Friends of Fertő lake Association
Friends of the Earth England,
Wales and Northern Ireland
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth Finland
Greenpeace EU

GYBN Europe
HEKS – Swiss Church Aid
Milieudefensie
NOAH – Friends of the Earth Denmark
Pro REGENWALD
Rainforest Foundation Norway

ReAct Transnational
Rettet den Regenwald
ROBIN WOOD
Salva la Selva
Save Estonias Forests (Päästame Eesti Metsad)
Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group
Water Justice and Gender
Working group Food Justice
ZERO – Associação Sistema
Terrestre Sustentável

Back to top ↑

Here are some other ways you can help by using your wallet as a weapon and joining the #Boycott4Wildlife

What is greenwashing?

Read more

Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?

Read more

Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels

Read more

The Counterpunch: Consumer Solutions To Fight Extinction

Read more

Contribute to my Ko-Fi

Did you enjoy visiting this website?

Palm Oil Detectives is 100% self-funded

Palm Oil Detectives is completely self-funded by its creator. All hosting and website fees and investigations into brands are self-funded by the creator of this online movement. If you like what I am doing, you and would like me to help meet costs, please send Palm Oil Detectives a thanks on Ko-Fi.

Palm Oil Detectives is 100% self-funded

Palm Oil Detectives is completely self-funded by its creator. All hosting and website fees and investigations into brands are self-funded by the creator of this online movement. If you like what I am doing, you and would like me to help meet costs, please send Palm Oil Detectives a thanks on Ko-Fi.

#animalExtinction #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #consumerBoycott #corruption #CSDDD #deforestation #ecocide #ecolabels #ethicalConsumerism #EUDR #extinction #FSC #greenwashing #humanRights #HumanRights #landgrabbing #Malaysia #MSC #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #violence