#rspo-greenwashing — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #rspo-greenwashing, aggregated by home.social.
-
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
Share to BlueSky Share to Twitter#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
Share to BlueSky Share to TwitterWritten 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.2023.1188069As 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!
Read moreOreo 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!
Read moreJaguars 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
Read moreParrot 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!
Read moreWorld’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!
Read more Load more postsSomething 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.
Enter your email address
Sign Up
Join 3,178 other subscribers2. 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.
Read moreMel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings
Read moreAnthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao
Read moreHealth Physician Dr Evan Allen
Read moreThe World’s Most Loved Cup: A Social, Ethical & Environmental History of Coffee by Aviary Doert
Read moreHow do we stop the world’s ecosystems from going into a death spiral? A #SteadyState Economy
Read more3. 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
Pledge your support #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #brandCertification #Brands #consumers #corporates #corruption #deforestation #ecocide #ecolabels #FMCG #FSC #greenwashing #HumanRights #OrangutanLandTrust #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing -
UK Pressuring Forests For Palm Oil and Beef
Short version
Urgent call to action! 🌍 #UK’s heavy use of #palmoil #soy & #beef fuels global #deforestation. Demand stricter regulations & transparency. Make every purchase count and #Boycottmeat #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4Wildlife, learn more: https://wp.me/pcFhgU-78V
Share to TwitterThe Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) in the UK has raised serious concerns about the country’s consumption of soy, cocoa, palm oil, beef, and leather and its importation of global deforestation from these commodities.
Despite the UK government’s announcement that it would certify these commodities as “sustainable” for UK markets, the EAC criticises the lack of a clear timeline and weak loopholes that could enable deforestation to continue.
The report highlighted that the UK has a higher consumption footprint per tonne compared to China. The EAC urges the government to close these gaps, enhance legislative frameworks, and develop a global footprint indicator to illustrate the UK’s deforestation impact and set reduction targets. Additionally, the report emphasises the need for more transparency in funding and meaningful inclusion of indigenous peoples in all deforestation negotiations.
Campaign groups like Global Witness and Friends of the Earth underscored the dire consequences of deforestation, including the alarming statistic of one environmental defender being killed every other day.
The UK’s role in global deforestation is fuelled in part by British banks. As the world experiences the intensifying effects of climate change and deforestation – comprehensive action is essential to truly safeguard forests and combat climate change.
Take action against deforestation by using your wallet as a weapon in the supermarket, be #vegan for the animals and #BoycottPalmOil and #Boycott4Wildlife. Learn more
Media release originally published in the Guardian as ‘Deforestation effect of UK consumption unsustainable, say MPs’ on 4th January, 2024. Read original
EAC chair Philip Dunne said this “should serve as a wake-up call to the Government”.
It comes after the Government announced that four commodities – cattle products (excluding dairy), cocoa, palm oil and soy – will have to be certified as “sustainable” if they are to be sold into UK markets.
The Government, which plans to gradually incorporate more products into the regime over time, has yet to provide a date for when the legislation will be introduced.
The committee said it is concerned this lack of timeline and its phased approach does not reflect the necessity of tackling deforestation urgently.
The report said: “The failure to include commodities such as maize, rubber and coffee within this scope does not demonstrate the level of urgency required to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030.”
The EAC, which outlined a series of recommendations in the report, urged the Government to address these gaps and strengthen the existing legislative framework to ban businesses from trading or using commodities linked to deforestation.
It also called on ministers to develop a global footprint indicator to demonstrate the UK’s deforestation impact to the public and set a target to reduce it.
The committee said it heard concerns there is a lack of transparency over how planned investments into nature and climate programmes – including £1.5 billion earmarked for deforestation – will be spent and called for more clarity from ministers.
The MPs said they were also alarmed to hear from campaign group Global Witness that one person is killed every other day defending land and the environment.
They said support for indigenous peoples to participate fully in negotiations on deforestation activity is critical.
To fulfil its commitment to put environmental sustainability measures at the heart of global production and trade, the EAC repeated its calls for sustainability impact assessments to be conducted for all future trade agreements.
Mr Dunne said: “UK consumption is having an unsustainable impact on the planet at the current rate.
“UK markets must not be flooded with products that threaten the world’s forests, the people whose livelihoods rely on them and the precious ecosystems that call them home.”
Chair of the committee, Philip Dunne MP
“There is little sense of urgency about getting a rapid grip on the problem of deforestation, which needs to match the rhetoric.
“Countries all around the world contribute to deforestation and the international community of course needs to do much more to tackle deforestation.”
He added: “To demonstrate genuine global leadership in this critical area, the UK must demonstrate domestic policy progress and embed environmental and biodiversity protections in future trade deals.”
“The findings are clear, the UK will not reach net zero while British banks continue to fuel, and profit from, rampant deforestation of our climate-critical forests overseas. The Government will miss the global deadline to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030 unless it acts now.”
Alexandria Reid, senior global policy adviser at Global Witness, who gave evidence to the inquiry.
Kate Norgrove, executive director of advocacy and campaigns at WWF, said: “Despite some progress, this report shows that the UK Government needs to do much more to save our forests, which are one of our strongest allies in the fight against climate change.
“Every hectare of forest we lose takes us closer to runaway climate change which will be devastating for us all.”
“The committee is right to highlight the many flaws in the Government’s plans to curb deforestation. Not least, the failure to include all high-risk commodities as part of its proposed new deforestation law, as well as the fact that it will only apply to illegal logging, which is notoriously difficult to determine. We’re already seeing the very real impacts of climate and ecological breakdown both here in the UK and globally, through extremes such as searing heat, storms and floods, and this is only set to intensify.”
Clare Oxborrow, forests campaigner at Friends of the Earth.
A Government spokesperson said: “The UK is leading the way globally with new legislation to tackle illegal deforestation to make sure we rid UK supply chains of products contributing to the destruction of these vital habitats.
“This legislation has already been introduced through the Environment Act and is just one of many measures to halt and reverse global forest loss.
“We are also investing in significant international programmes to restore forests, which have avoided over 410,000 hectares of deforestation to date alongside supporting new green finance streams.”
Media release originally published in the Guardian as ‘Deforestation effect of UK consumption unsustainable, say MPs’ on 4th January, 2024. Read original
ENDS
Read more about deforestation, greenwashing and the palm oil industry
Around 25% of Africa’s Land is Damaged: This is How We Fix It!
Almost 25% of all land in Africa has been damaged driven by climate change and deforestation for mining palm oil and cocoa. Take action and protect forests!
The Indigenous Malaysian concept of ‘Badi’: respecting the land and wildlife
The Indigenous Semai #indigenous people of #Malaysia can teach us a lot about how to protect people, planet and biodiversity. The Indigenous concept of #badi is not superstition or taboo, it’s about respecting…
Family Ties Expose Deforestation and Rights Violations in Indonesian Palm Oil
An explosive report by the Environment Investigation Agency (EIA) details how Indonesia’s Fangiono family, through a wide corporate web, is linked to ongoing #deforestation, #corruption, and #indigenousrights abuses for #palmoil. Calls mount for…
Deforestation Devastates Tesso Nilo National Park’s Endangered Creatures
Act now to save Tesso Nilo Park. This vital Indonesian park has lost 78% of its primary forest, threatening the habitat of Sumatran tigers and elephants
Deforestation Shifts Tree Species in Brazilian Forests
Deforestation in Brazilian forests causes shift towards fast-growing, small-seeded trees, threatening biodiversity, carbon storage. Take action!
Load more posts
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.
Enter your email address
Sign Up
Join 3,172 other subscribers2. 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.
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
Pledge your support#beef #boycott4wildlife #boycottmeat #boycottpalmoil #deforestation #greenwashing #palmOil #palmOilDeforestation #palmoil #rspoGreenwashing #soy #uk #vegan
-
Research: Certifying Palm Oil as “Sustainable” Is No Panacea
Newly published research led by the University of Michigan reveals that despite the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification system being influential, its effectiveness in reducing deforestation has so far for decades, been an illusion. The study used remote sensing to analyse deforestation caused by oil palm plantations in Guatemala, a major palm oil supplier to global markets.
The results of the paper show that these plantations were responsible for 28% of the region’s deforestation, and RSPO-certified plantations did not significantly reduce deforestation. The study links this deforestation to the supply chains of major brands: Pepsico, Mondelēz International, and Grupo Bimbo, who rely on RSPO-certified palm oil supplies.
As a consumer you can make a difference every time you shop, use your wallet as a weapon and #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife
@UMich #research finds “sustainable” #RSPO #palmoil sourced in #Guatemala 🇬🇹 NOT sustainable, yet it’s sold this way to consumers, despite links to #humanrights abuses 🧺🩸 #deforestation. Fight back! #Boycottpalmoil 🌴⛔️ #Boycottpalmoil @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/07/26/palm-oil-deforestation-in-guatemala-certifying-products-as-sustainable-is-no-panacea-university-of-michigan/
Share to BlueSky Share to TwitterSo-called “sustainable” #palmoil certified by #RSPO originating in #Guatemala 🇬🇹 is strongly connected to #deforestation and #ecocide finds @UMich study. Help #rainforests and fight #extinction #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife 🌴🪔🔥☠️🚫 @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/07/26/palm-oil-deforestation-in-guatemala-certifying-products-as-sustainable-is-no-panacea-university-of-michigan/
Share to BlueSky Share to TwitterThis media release entitled “Palm oil plantations and deforestation in Guatemala: Certifying products as ‘sustainable’ is no panacea” was issued by The University of Michigan on July 20, 2023. The study on which it is based is available to read here
Cheap, versatile and easy to grow, palm oil is the world’s most consumed vegetable oil and is found in roughly half of all packaged supermarket products, from bread and margarine to shampoo and toothpaste.
But producing palm oil has caused deforestation and biodiversity loss across Southeast Asia and elsewhere, including Central America. Efforts to curtail the damage have largely focused on voluntary environmental certification programs that label qualifying palm-oil sources as “sustainable.”
However, those certification programs have been criticised by environmental groups as greenwashing tools that enable multinational corporations to claim fully “sustainable” palm oil, while continuing to sell products that fall far short of the deforestation-free goal.
Findings from a new University of Michigan-led study, published online in the Journal of Environmental Management, support some of the critics’ claims—and go much further.
“Environmental certification does not effectively mitigate deforestation risk, and firms cannot rely on—or be allowed to rely on—certification to achieve deforestation-free supply chains,”
Study senior author Joshua Newell, a geographer and a professor at the School for Environment and Sustainability.
Key findings
- RSPO-certified plantations, comprising 63% of the total cultivated area assessed, did not produce a statistically significant reduction in deforestation and appear to be ineffective at reducing encroachment into ecologically sensitive areas in Guatemala.
- Despite their RSPO membership and pledges to source palm oil from certified plantations, several multinational corporations predominantly sourced palm oil from noncertified mills in Guatemala.
- Even RSPO-certified palm oil plantations and mills are contributing to deforestation in Guatemala.
The U-M case study focuses on Guatemala, which is projected to become the world’s third-largest palm-oil producer by 2030 after Indonesia and Malaysia, and an influential environmental certification system called the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, or RSPO.
“Our results indicate the supply chains of transnational conglomerates drove deforestation and ecological encroachment in Guatemala to support U.S. palm oil consumption,” said study lead author Calli VanderWilde, a doctoral student at the U-M School for Environment and Sustainability who did the work for her dissertation.
“In addition, we found no evidence to suggest that RSPO certification effectively protects against deforestation or ecological encroachment. Given that oil palm expansion is predicted to increase significantly in the coming years, this pattern is likely to continue without changes to governance, both institutionally and to supply chains.”
The U-M-led research team tracked palm oil sourced from former forestland, and other ecologically critical areas in Guatemala, by several large transnational conglomerates that sell food products made from the oil in the United States. The corporations are members of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and have RSPO commitments and sourcing policies in place to ensure the sustainability of their palm oil supplies.
The study used satellite imagery and machine learning to quantify deforestation attributable to palm oil plantation expansion in Guatemala over a decade, 2009-2019. In addition, the researchers used shipment records and other data sources to reconstruct corporate supply chains and to link transnational conglomerates to palm oil-driven deforestation.
The study found that:
- Guatemalan palm oil plantations expanded an estimated 215,785 acres during the study period, with 28% of the new cropland replacing forests.
- As of 2019, more than 60% of the palm oil plantations in the study area were in Key Biodiversity Areas. KBAs are sites that contribute significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems.
- RSPO-certified plantations, comprising 63% of the total cultivated area assessed, did not produce a statistically significant reduction in deforestation and appear to be ineffective at reducing encroachment into ecologically sensitive areas in Guatemala.
- Despite their RSPO membership and pledges to source palm oil from certified plantations, several multinational corporations predominantly sourced palm oil from noncertified mills in Guatemala.
- Even RSPO-certified palm oil plantations and mills are contributing to deforestation in Guatemala.
Guatemala is divided into 22 administrative districts called departamentos. The study focused on a 20,850-square-mile region in the three departamentos (Alta Verapaz, Izabal and the lower half of Petén) responsible for 75% of Guatemala’s palm oil production.
The researchers used high-resolution satellite imagery to assess land-use change between 2009 and 2019, and a machine learning algorithm enabled them to distinguish between forests and monoculture plantations.
They found that oil palm expansion is encroaching on, and causing deforestation in, seven Key Biodiversity Areas and 23 protected areas.
Among the areas impacted, the Key Biodiversity Areas with the largest palm extent include the Río La Pasión, Caribe de Guatemala and Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve. The Río La Pasión is an especially rich area for endemic fish species, making it an important area for conservation.
Oil palm encroachment on the Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve threatens animals such as the quetzal, Guatemala’s national bird. Known as the jewel of Guatemala, the reserve is an irreplaceable gene bank for tropical reforestation and agroforestry and supports the livelihoods of more than 400,000 people.
The researchers identified 119 RSPO-certified plantations and 82 non-RSPO plantations. During the study period, 9% of the RSPO-certified plantation expansion resulted in, or contributed to, forest loss, compared to 25% of the noncertified plantation expansion.
“Environmental certification does not effectively mitigate deforestation risk, and firms cannot rely on—or be allowed to rely on—certification to achieve deforestation-free supply chains,”
Study senior author Joshua Newell, a geographer and a professor at the School for Environment and Sustainability.
By reconstructing the supply chains of the three conglomerates, the researchers revealed connections to palm oil-driven deforestation. Of the 60,810 acres of palm oil-driven deforestation across the study period, more than 99% was traced to plantations supplying palm and palm-kernel oil to mills used by two multinational conglomerates. Seventy-two percent of the palm and palm-kernel oil was linked to the subset of plantations supplying a third corporation’s mills.
- Greenwashing ecocide – Agropalma & Orangutan Land Trust
- 8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.
- 100 NGOS sign a public statement denouncing the RSPO and “sustainable” palm oil as a fake solution that does not stop deforestation
- Spoiled Fruit: landgrabbing, violence and slavery for “sustainable” palm oil
- 10 Tactics of Sustainable Palm Oil Greenwashing – Summary
“Palm oil has attracted attention for its ties to widespread forest and biodiversity loss across Southeast Asia. However, the literature has paid minimal attention to newer spaces of production and issues of corporate supply-chain traceability,” VanderWilde said.
“As it stands, environmental certification makes unjustified claims of ‘sustainability’ and fails to serve as a reliable tool for fulfilling emerging zero-deforestation requirements.”
The authors recommend reforms to RSPO policies and practices, robust corporate tracking of supply chains, and the strengthening of forest governance in Guatemala.
In addition to VanderWilde and Newell, authors of the study are Dimitrios Gounaridis of the U-M School for Environment and Sustainability and Benjamin Goldstein of McGill University. Funding for the study was provided by U-M’s Rackham Predoctoral Fellowship Program.
Calli P. VanderWilde, Joshua P. Newell, Dimitrios Gounaridis, Benjamin P. Goldstein,
Deforestation, certification, and transnational palm oil supply chains: Linking Guatemala to global consumer markets, Journal of Environmental Management,
Volume 344, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118505Deforestation, certification, and transnational palm oil supply chains: Linking Guatemala to global consumer markets
Abstract
Although causal links between tropical deforestation and palm oil are well established, linking this land use change to where the palm oil is actually consumed remains a distinct challenge and research gap. Supply chains are notoriously difficult to track back to their origin (i.e., the ‘first-mile’). This poses a conundrum for corporations and governments alike as they commit to deforestation-free sourcing and turn to instruments like certification to increase supply chain transparency and sustainability. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) offers the most influential certification system in the sector, but whether it actually reduces deforestation is still unclear. This study used remote sensing and spatial analysis to assess the deforestation (2009–2019) caused by oil palm plantation expansion in Guatemala, a major palm oil source for international consumer markets. Our results reveal that plantations are responsible for 28% of deforestation in the region and that more than 60% of these plantations encroach on Key Biodiversity Areas. RSPO-certified plantations, comprising 63% of the total cultivated area assessed, did not produce a statistically significant reduction in deforestation. Using trade statistics, the study linked this deforestation to the palm oil supply chains of three transnational conglomerates – Pepsico, Mondelēz International, and Grupo Bimbo – all of whom rely on RSPO-certified supplies. Addressing this deforestation and supply chain sustainability challenge hinges on three measures: 1) reform of RSPO policies and practices; 2) robust corporate tracking of supply chains; and 3) strengthening forest governance in Guatemala. This study offers a replicable methodology for a wide-range of investigations that seek to understand the transnational linkages between environmental change (e.g. deforestation) and consumption.
This media release entitled “Palm oil plantations and deforestation in Guatemala: Certifying products as ‘sustainable’ is no panacea” was issued by The University of Michigan on July 20, 2023. The study on which it is based is available to read here
ENDS
Read more about deforestation and greenwashing associated with “sustainable” palm oil
Family Ties Expose Deforestation and Rights Violations in Indonesian Palm Oil
An explosive report by the Environment Investigation Agency (EIA) details how Indonesia’s Fangiono family, through a wide corporate web, is linked to ongoing #deforestation, #corruption, and #indigenousrights abuses for #palmoil. Calls mount for…
Corporate Control of Food Harms Us All
Around 800 million people in our world go hungry each day. Yet around the globe we have enough food to go around. So why the discrepancy? Market concentration and corporate monopoly of our…
MSC and RSPO Absolutely Untrustworthy, Greenpeace Report
Greenpeace report reveals severe failures of ecolabel RSPO certifying palm oil and FSC certifying seafood. Consumers are being greenwashed. Boycott palm oil!
Guaranteeing Ecocide: The Green Lie of Palm Oil Certification
For decades, the palm oil industry, backed by the RSPO, has misled consumers with the false promise of “sustainable” palm oil. Behind this green façade lies a brutal reality of deforestation, human rights…
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.
August 19th is #WorldOrangutanDay
Although #WorldOrangutanDay falls on the 19th of August, every day deserves to be World Orangutan Day! So here is an infographic that you can download, print and share however you please. All three…
Palm Oil Greenwashing Poised to Destroy Protected Biosphere in Chiapas, Mexico
Situated on Mexico’s lush and biodiverse Pacific coast is La Encrucijada Biosphere Reserve – One of Mexico’s most spectacular natural treasures. Now the government and palm oil businesses are trying to sieze vast…
PalmWatch: A Tool to Hold Palm Oil Greenwashers to Account
A groundbreaking open-source tool by the University of Chicago called PalmWatch, shines a light on the darkest parts of the palm oil industry.
PalmWatch is a free web-based tool that reveals links between…
Air Pollution from Palm Oil: A Human Rights Issue
Forest-fire haze from Indonesian palm oil deforestation is a crisis! Learn how toxic air pollution is a human rights issue affecting all of Southeast Asia
UK Pressuring Forests For Palm Oil and Beef
Urgent call to action! 🌍 #UK’s heavy use of #palmoil #soy & #beef fuels global #deforestation. Demand stricter regulations & transparency. Make every purchase count and #Boycottmeat #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4Wildlife, learn more: https://wp.me/pcFhgU-78V
Load more posts
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.
Enter your email address
Sign Up
Join 3,526 other subscribers2. 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.
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
Pledge your support#BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #deforestation #ecocide #Environmental #EnvironmentalJustice #extinction #greenwashing #Guatamala #Guatemala #HumanRights #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #palmoil #rainforests #research #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing
-
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/
Share to BlueSky Share to TwitterWorld 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/
Share to BlueSky Share to TwitterThis 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.
Greenwashing ecocide – Agropalma & Orangutan Land TrustRead more: Greenwashing Ecocide: Agropalma and Orangutan Land Trust
100 NGOS signed a public statement denouncing the RSPO in late 2022
Read more
These “sustainable” initiatives have various aspects in common1. 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
A still from the documentary: by Mama Malind su Hilang (Our Land Has Gone) Nanang Sujana Watch on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqYoRh1aApgCertification 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.
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…
Read moreGreenwashing 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.
Read moreGreenwashing 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…
Read moreGreenwashing 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…
Read moreGreenwashing 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.
Read moreGreenwashing 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…
Read moreGreenwashing lies are falsifying support from authorities to back up claims or using spurious research data to back up the greenwashing, boycott palm oil!
Read moreGreenwashing Tactic 8: Design & Words
Greenwashing Tactic 8. Companies use design principles and subliminal language to signal ‘greenness’ and trigger unconscious emotional responses in consumers
Read moreGreenwashing 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.
Read moreGreenwashing 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!
Read moreTen 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!
Read moreNew 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.
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.
Read moreRSPO: 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.
Read more“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.
Read moreColombia: 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.
Read moreGreenwashing 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.
Read moreAfrica: 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.
Read morehttps://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.
Read moreRSPO 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.
Read moreAre 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.
Read moreWater is life – stop planting palms! reads a sign in Guatemala
“Water is life. Stop planting oil palms”. Photo: Movimiento Social Intercultural del Pueblo de Ixcán, GuatemalaThis 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!
Read moreOreo 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!
Read moreParrot 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!
Read moreSeeing 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!
Read moreFinance 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!
Read more Load more postsSomething 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.
Enter your email address
Sign Up
Join 3,179 other subscribers2. 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.
Read moreMel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings
Read moreAnthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao
Read moreHealth Physician Dr Evan Allen
Read moreThe World’s Most Loved Cup: A Social, Ethical & Environmental History of Coffee by Aviary Doert
Read moreHow do we stop the world’s ecosystems from going into a death spiral? A #SteadyState Economy
Read more3. 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
Pledge your support #auditFraud #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #corruption #deforestation #ecocide #ecolabels #fraud #FSC #greenwashing #humanRights #indigenousRights #landRights #landgrabbing #OrangutanLandTrust #palm #palmOilDeforestation #palmoil #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing -
Is It The Dawn of The Greenwashing Era in Asia?
Curtailed press freedom in Asia makes the job of calling out greenwashing increasingly difficult – at a time when corporate accountability is critical in the fight against climate change. Experts think greenwashing is only just beginning as PR firms try to mislead regulators, investors and consumers writes Robin Hicks for Eco Business News.
#Greenwashing is rife within the palm oil industry. Claims that the efficiency of the crop make it “sustainable” are greenwashing.
Tweet
Fight back with your wallet and and #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4WildlifeStrict press freedoms in #Indonesia make it difficult to cast a critical eye on #greenwashing and #humanrights abuses and spurious claims of “sustainability” of @rspotweets and #palmoil industry #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife
TweetMedia story written by Robin Hicks and originally published in Eco-Business News, August 26, 2021. Read original.
The palm oil industry has succeeded in greenwashing the argument that palm oil is an environmentally sustainable crop because it is high-yielding
Stories in publications such as The Guardian and The Economist report that palm oil produces more oil per hectare than other vegetable oil crops, so is inherently sustainable.
“Productivity shouldn’t ever be a proxy for sustainability,” Geall said. “Just because you can get a higher yield from palm oil in Indonesia than sunflower oil in Belarus, this doesn’t mean the land has the same ecological importance.”
Palm oil is often grown on biodiverse, carbon-rich peatlands home to critically endangered species such as orangutans, he pointed out.
~ Sam Geall, London-based chief executive of China Dialogue,
The post-pandemic surge in misleading green claims could be the beginning of a new era of greenwashing in Asia, as corporations race to fulfill sustainability commitments and cash in on the rise of conscious consumerism.
“Sadly, I think it [greenwashing] is only just getting started,” said Sam Geall, London-based chief executive of China Dialogue, an independent online publication that reports on the environment in China and Asia-Pacific.
The push from governments to meet decarbonisation targets, investors to find sustainable options for their capital and consumers to seek greener products has created the right conditions for greenwash, he said. “Enter public relations companies and increasingly sophisticated strategies to try to mislead regulators, investors and consumers.”
Geall was speaking to Eco-Business after the Sustainability Media Academy (SMA), a new training initiative for journalists in Asia, organised by EB Impact, Eco-Business’s philanthropic arm. He was part of a panel discussion on how to navigate greenwashing, the practice of making sustainability claims of dubious credibility.
Greenwashing is a problem for journalists across Asia, particularly in countries where press freedom is low and authoritarian governments lean on newsrooms, making it harder for journalists to hold powerful elites to account, said Kavita Chandran, a Singapore-based journalism trainer for Thomson Reuters.
In recent years, laws designed to curb fake news and disinformation have resulted in arrests and convictions for journalists in Southeast Asia, which is home to some of the world’s most heavily censored media. Governments have used the Covid-19 pandemic as a pretext to impose tighter controls on the press and reinforce obstacles to the free flow of information, according to Reporters without borders, a media watchdog.
A journalist working for a Singapore government-run publication told Eco-Business that state media have less opportunity to challenge greenwash than independent media. Last October, Singapore introduced an anti-foreign interference law which makes it easier for the authorities to clamp down on news outlets.
Enter PR companies and increasingly sophisticated strategies to try to mislead regulators, investors and consumers.
Sam Geall, CEO, China DialogueBut it is still possible for journalists to call out greenwash, even in countries like China where press freedom is lower than almost anywhere in the world. Probing top-down sustainability commitments, such as China’s net-zero emissions target, is one opportunity for doing so, said Geall.
“The space for watchdog journalism has shrunk considerably in China in the last few years. But in contrast to other issues, environmental sustainability is a space where journalists can still hold actors to account,” he said.
“China’s net-zero commitment is a big political narrative. It sends a signal to the whole system to get in line and that opens up an opportunity to do reporting that scrutinises local governments and companies to ensure they stick to these commitments.”
Where journalism is most vulnerable to greenwashing
Solutions journalism – which a July study of international media revealed is growing in popularity as newsrooms shift editorial focus from the problems caused by climate change to potential fixes – is particularly greenwash-prone, Geall noted.
“Too often, it is easy for companies to claim they have achieved sustainable innovation, when it either doesn’t work, or is an early stage discovery far from commercialisation, a solution to one problem that causes another problem, or there is a trade-off they’d rather not talk about,” Geall told Eco-Business.
“In other words, there is too much hype and not enough serious reporting about the technologies that will likely shape the future of energy, food, mobility and more, and the economic models that will sustain them,” he said.
Phil Jacobson, an Indonesia-based journalist for independent conservation news website Mongabay, highlighted palm oil as one sector that has managed to greenwash its role as a provider of livelihood benefits for local communities and smallholder farmers in the media, until recently.
An investigation by Mongabay, non-profit journalism outfit The Gecko Project and the BBC in May revealed that big palm oil companies in Indonesia have been depriving smallholders of millions owed to them. Legally, palm oil companies have had to ensure that rural communities benefit from the large palm oil plantations near them.
Geall said that the palm oil trade has also succeeded in greenwashing the argument that palm oil is an environmentally sustainable crop because it is high-yielding. Stories in publications such as The Guardian and The Economist report that palm oil produces more oil per hectare than other vegetable oil crops, so is inherently sustainable.
“Productivity shouldn’t ever be a proxy for sustainability,” Geall said. “Just because you can get a higher yield from palm oil in Indonesia than sunflower oil in Belarus, this doesn’t mean the land has the same ecological importance.”
Sam Geall, CEO, China DialoguePalm oil is often grown on biodiverse, carbon-rich peatlands home to critically endangered species such as orangutans, he pointed out.
Media story written by Robin Hicks and originally published in Eco-Business News, August 26, 2021. Read original.
ENDS
Read more about RSPO greenwashing
Lying Fake labels Indigenous Land-grabbing Human rights abuses Deforestation Human health hazardsBig brands using “sustainable” RSPO palm oil yet still causing deforestation (there are many others)
Nestlé is destroying rainforests, releasing mega-tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, and killing hundreds of endangered species. Once these animals are gone – they are gone for good. See Nestlé’s full list of…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Despite global retail giant Colgate-Palmolive forming a coalition with other brands in 2020, virtue-signalling that they will stop all deforestation, they continue to do this – destroying rainforest and releasing mega-tonnes of carbon…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Mondelez destroys rainforests, sending animals extinct and release mega-tonnes of carbon into air for so-called “sustainable” palm oil. Boycott them!
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021February 28, 2026In 2020, global retail giant Unilever unveiled a deforestation-free supply chain promise. By 2023 they would be deforestation free. This has been and gone and they are still causing deforestation. This brand has…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Savvy consumers have been pressuring French Dairy multinational Danone for decades to cease using deforestation palm oil. Yet they actually haven’t stopped this. From their website: ‘Danone is committed to eliminating deforestation from…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesMarch 6, 2021March 2, 2025Despite decades of promises to end deforestation for palm oil PepsiCo (owner of crisp brands Frito-Lay, Cheetos and Doritos along with hundreds of other snack food brands) have continued sourcing palm oil that…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesJune 9, 2022March 2, 2025Despite decades of promises to end deforestation for palm oil Procter & Gamble or (P&G as they are also known) have continued sourcing palm oil that causes ecocide, indigenous landgrabbing, and the habitat…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesJune 3, 2022March 2, 2025In late 2023, Kelloggs became Kellanova for their US arm. Savvy consumers have been pressuring Kelloggs for decades to cease using deforestation palm oil. Yet they actually haven’t stopped this. From their website:…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Global mega-brand Johnson & Johnson have issued a position statement on palm oil in 2020. ‘At Johnson & Johnson, we are committed to doing our part to address the unsustainable rate of global…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021July 13, 2025PZ Cussons is a British-owned global retail giant. They own well-known supermarket brands in personal care, cleaning, household goods and toiletries categories, such as Imperial Leather, Morning Fresh, Carex, Radiant laundry powder and…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesMarch 10, 2021March 2, 2025Here are some other ways you can help by using your wallet as a weapon and joining the #Boycott4Wildlife
Read moreWhy join the #Boycott4Wildlife?
Read moreGreenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels
Read moreThe Counterpunch: Consumer Solutions To Fight Extinction
Read moreDid 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.
Say thanks on Ko-Fi #BoycottPalmOil #corporateSocialResponsiblity #corruption #deforestation #greenwashing #indigenousRights #landRights #landgrabbing #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing -
Oligarchs weaken Indonesia’s fight against corruption
The system is failing. #Indonesia’s own parliament, backed by big business interests, has succeeded in weakening the very system set up to fight corruption. Resist the corruption! #FightGreenwashing #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🩸⛔️ #Boycott4Wildlife
#Indonesia’s 🇮🇩 efforts to fight government #corruption 🤑👿are being thwarted by big #palmoil #timber and #mining businesses. Story: @360info_global Resist the corruption! #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🩸⛔️ #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/03/15/oligarchs-weaken-indonesias-fight-against-corruption/
Share to BlueSky Share to Twitter‘Oligarchs weaken Indonesia’s fight against corruption’, written by Charles Simabura and Haykal, Universitas Andalas. Originally published on December 1, 2022 by 360info and republished here under Creative Commons licence. Read original article.
Indonesia’s efforts to fight government corruption are being corrupted from within parliament and backed by big business.
At the beginning of the 2000s, Indonesian voters said enough to corruption in politics. The Reform Order (1999) was designed to fight corruption. Then, in 2004, Indonesians elected President Yudhoyono largely on his promises to fight graft and corruption.
People demanded reform. Tools were put in place to attack the corruption endemic in public life that was holding back development.
But the system is failing. Indonesia’s own parliament, backed by big business interests, has succeeded in weakening the very system set up to fight corruption.
The tentacles of the oligarchs have wrapped themselves around the executive arm of government, where several cabinet members have considerable business interests. Indeed, 55 percent of Indonesia’s parliament members have significant business holdings.
“People demanded reform. Tools were put in place to attack the corruption that had become endemic in public life and was holding back development. But the system is failing. Indonesia’s own parliament, backed by big business interests, has succeeded in weakening the very system set up to fight corruption.” ~ Charles Simabura and Haykal, Andalas University, Indonesia.
[Image] Wilmar responsible for palm oil deforestation despite supposedly using “sustainable” palm oil.
The marriage between penguasa (the ruler) and pengusaha (business people) is getting stronger in Indonesia’s politics
The Reform Order resulted in the creation of institutions that were expected to be able to free Indonesia from corruption. The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) had powers to investigate corruption. The Constitutional Court acted as the guardian of the constitution. The Judicial Commission was intended to ensure proper behaviour from judges. And the Ombudsman served as the ‘policeman’ of state officials.
But these institutions have failed to meet expectations. The fervour to fight graft that was there 20 years ago has faded. There has even been a revenge attack by corruptors backed by the oligarchs. A 2020 survey by Transparency International Indonesia showed he Indonesian Corruption Perception Index fell from 40 to 37.
In addition, the People’s Representative body was considered the most corrupt institution in Indonesia. The numbers show why. Between 2004 and 2020, 274 members of local and national parliament were arrested. Many MPs consider corruption eradication as a threat.
Sumatran elephants: Surrounded by palm oil and nobody knows how many are left alive! #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife Find out moreThe efforts to undo Indonesia’s anti-corruption framework began with efforts to review the Corruption Eradication Commission Law to the Constitutional Court, where, according to data, more than 20 requests for review have been submitted. At the end of President Yudhoyono’s first term, the parliament succeeded in pushing for a revision of the law. As a result, the Corruption Eradication Commission was weakened and was listed as an institution that the public no longer trusted.
It has since become a toothless tiger. The weakening of the anti-corruption body began with its leadership. There are also questions about the recruitment of commissioners whose commitment to eradicating corruption is problematic.
Other commissioners have repeatedly violated the code of ethics, One chose to resign to avoid being fired. Legislation suspected of being corrupt was successfully passed because it did not receive supervision from the Corruption Eradication Commission.
“The way to stop the erosion of Indonesia’s anti-corruption efforts must come from the top. But president Joko Widodo doesn’t seem to be taking any serious steps. People will remember his legacy as ignoring the Reform Order, unless he takes radical moves before leaving office in 2024.”
There is a pattern of laws being drafted in secret and hastily passed which do not serve the interests of the public. The Anti-corruption body Law, the Mining Law, the Omnibus Law, and the Constitutional Court Law are all examples. The result is demonstrations. Any judicial review is usually rejected by the same people who passed the laws in the first place.
Parliament’s efforts to gain control over anti-corruption institutions have become increasingly evident, especially in the process of recruiting the members of those institutions. MPs replaced one constitutional judge because he was seen to be in conflict with the parliament’s agenda after he helped cancel the promulgation of the Omnibus Law.
The way to stop the erosion of Indonesia’s anti-corruption efforts must come from the top. But president Joko Widodo doesn’t seem to be taking any serious steps. People will remember his legacy as ignoring the Reform Order, unless he takes radical moves before leaving office in 2024.
‘Oligarchs weaken Indonesia’s fight against corruption’, written by Charles Simabura and Haykal, Universitas Andalas. Originally published on December 1, 2022 by 360info and republished here under Creative Commons licence. Read original article.
ENDS
Read more about RSPO greenwashing
Lying Fake labels Indigenous Land-grabbing Human rights abuses Deforestation Human health hazardsBig brands using “sustainable” RSPO palm oil yet still causing deforestation (there are many others)
Nestlé is destroying rainforests, releasing mega-tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, and killing hundreds of endangered species. Once these animals are gone – they are gone for good. See Nestlé’s full list of…
by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Despite global retail giant Colgate-Palmolive forming a coalition with other brands in 2020, virtue-signalling that they will stop all deforestation, they continue to do this – destroying rainforest and releasing mega-tonnes of carbon…
by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Despite the virtue-signalling of the palm oil certification body the RSPO, Mondelez’s so-called “sustainable” palm oil is linked to 37.000ha of palm oil deforestation since 2016 (Source: Chain Reaction Research). Mondelez destroys rainforests,…
by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025In 2020, global retail giant Unilever unveiled a deforestation-free supply chain promise. By 2023 they would be deforestation free. This has been and gone and they are still causing deforestation. This brand has…
by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Savvy consumers have been pressuring French Dairy multinational Danone for decades to cease using deforestation palm oil. Yet they actually haven’t stopped this. From their website: ‘Danone is committed to eliminating deforestation from…
by Palm Oil DetectivesMarch 6, 2021March 2, 2025Despite decades of promises to end deforestation for palm oil PepsiCo (owner of crisp brands Frito-Lay, Cheetos and Doritos along with hundreds of other snack food brands) have continued sourcing palm oil that…
by Palm Oil DetectivesJune 9, 2022March 2, 2025Despite decades of promises to end deforestation for palm oil Procter & Gamble or (P&G as they are also known) have continued sourcing palm oil that causes ecocide, indigenous landgrabbing, and the habitat…
by Palm Oil DetectivesJune 3, 2022March 2, 2025In late 2023, Kelloggs became Kellanova for their US arm. Savvy consumers have been pressuring Kelloggs for decades to cease using deforestation palm oil. Yet they actually haven’t stopped this. From their website:…
by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Global mega-brand Johnson & Johnson have issued a position statement on palm oil in 2020. ‘At Johnson & Johnson, we are committed to doing our part to address the unsustainable rate of global…
by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025PZ Cussons is a British-owned global retail giant. They own well-known supermarket brands in personal care, cleaning, household goods and toiletries categories, such as Imperial Leather, Morning Fresh, Carex, Radiant laundry powder and…
by Palm Oil DetectivesMarch 10, 2021March 2, 2025Take 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.
Enter your email address
Sign Up
Join 1,392 other subscribers2. 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.
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
Pledge your support#360infoOrg #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #corruption #deforestation #Fightgreenwashing #greenwashing #HumanRights #indigenousRights #Indonesia #landRights #landgrabbing #mining #misinformation #palmOilDeforestation #palmoil #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #timber
-
RSPO member SIAT leaves Nigerian farmers without food. Leases their illegally taken land for €1.23 Euros per hectare, per year
#RSPO member #SIAT of #Nigeria 🇳🇬 leaves Nigerian farmers without food 🧺🚫 The company leases their illegally taken land for €1.23 Euros per hectare, per year. In solidarity, please #BoycottPalmOil 🌴🪔🩸🤮🙊⛔️ @palmoildetect #landgrabbing #humanrights https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/03/12/rspo-member-siat-leaves-nigerian-farmers-without-food-sells-their-land-back-to-them/
Share to BlueSky Share to TwitterLand illegally taken from farmers in #Nigeria 🇳🇬 by #RSPO member #SIAT is leased back to the farmers for €1.23 Euros per hectare, per year. In solidarity, please #BoycottPalmOil 🌴🪔🩸🤮🙊⛔️ @palmoildetect #landgrabbing #humanrights https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/03/12/rspo-member-siat-leaves-nigerian-farmers-without-food-sells-their-land-back-to-them/
Share to BlueSky Share to TwitterA 5-month investigation by Elfredah Kevin-Alerechi and Kevin Woke of Sahara Reporters reveals how RSPO member SIAT Nigeria Limited is involved in human rights abuses and land-grabbing on host communities’ lands. Journalists Elfredah Kevin-Alerechi and Kevin Woke also discovered that palm oil company SIAT who illegally took their land are leasing it for a mere 600 Naira (N600) per hectare annually – the equivalent of €1.23 Euros per year to lease it.
River pollution by pesticides and restriction by the company to land, where locals can grow food has meant that their food and water supply is contaminated – starvation is now an urgent problem.
All of this occurs under the guise of “sustainable” palm oil pushed by the RSPO to consumers. SIAT’s palm oil is used in consumer products by PZ Cussons (source), Nestle (source) and Danone (source). This is wh you should #Boycottpalmoil
Story via Sahara Reporters. Additional info: Chain Reaction Research
This article is written by Investigative Journalists Elfredah Kevin-Alerechi and Kevin Woke for Sahara Reporters and originally published March 3, 2023 as ‘SIAT Nigeria Land Grabbing, Pollution, Causing Hardship In Host Communities‘. Read original story.
In October 2019, Emmanuel Emeka, a fisherman in Mgbu-Anyim village had gone to fish at the mini- Onua, mini-Igwe and mini-Igbu riversin Elele Alimini of Rivers State, only to see dead fishes floating on the surface of the river. SIAT Nigeria Limited, a Belgian company, has polluted the river with its fertilisers and chemicals used for weed and pest control, he alleged.
Emeka claimed he stopped fishing in the river because, after spending hours exploring it, he would always come up empty-handed. “While SIAT controls pests, they destroy our own,” he added.
To provide for himself, his wife, and their sole child, who is now 5 years old, he mostly relies on his daily catch from the river. However, because of the pollution created by SIAT, he is currently jobless and looking for work. “I sell some (fish) and eat some,” he says, recalling the good times before SIAT’s pollution, which he discovered began around 2017.
The majority of inhabitants in Elele Alimini primarily drank water from the mini-Igwe and mini-Igbu rivers. While farmers soak and wash their cassava in the river, fishermen catch fish from the river for consumption and to make profit. The reporters’ visit to the community proved that some of the company’s palm plantation is located directly behind the rivers, close by.
Emmanuel Emeka, Fisherman behind mini- Onua Ngbuanyim river. A river linking community farmlands grab by SIAT palm plantation/ Elfredah Kevin-AlerechiEmeka said: “Between 2012 to 2013 when the company(SIAT) came, everything was okay. We were still fishing in the river. But from 2017 to 2020, everywhere was polluted.
The decline in fish populations in the river prompted some elderly people in the community to look into and identify the source. According to Emeka, they discovered that the chemical SIAT sprayed on their palm trees and the ground to control weeds, pests, and increase yields is the main culprit.
Sa SIAT nv, a Belgian agro-industrial business that specialises in the production of palm oil, is the sole owner of SIAT Nigeria Ltd. (SNL). A total of 16,000 hectares of land were gathered in the communities of Elele and Ubima for oil palm plantations when the business acquired Risonpalm in 2011 from the Rivers State Government. According to the company’s profile on its website, 5,718 hectares were harvested from Elele and 9,513 hectares were harvested from Ubima in Rivers State. Since its establishment in Nigeria and other African nations, the corporation has made several billions of euros while occupying about 66,331 ha for the production of palm oil and rubber. For instance, SIAT group reported a revenue of 173 million euros in 2021. Unfortunately, despite acquiring the land of host communities and harming the environment in Africa, the firm has not adhered to its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) commitments.
Community leader, chief Sampson Eleonu/Kevin WokeFast facts about African Palm Oil
- Only five international companies dominate industrial oil palm production in Africa: Socfin, Wilmar, Olam, Siat, and Straight KKM (formerly Feronia). They control an estimated 67% of the industrial oil palm planted area with foreign investment and may drive continuous expansion.
- Risks are most pronounced in Nigeria, where expansion may come at the cost of state natural forest reserves and critical habitat for endangered primates like chimpanzees, gorillas and many other rare species.
- Socfin and Wilmar, the two largest African operators, are linked to numerous social and environmental impacts on their African concessions. These impacts vary from land-grabbing to loss of social and environmental high conservation values to violence and intimidation.
- Palm oil buyers and FMCGs aew linked to escalated cases of land-grabbing and violence against local communities include Wilmar, Olam, Danone, PZ Cussons, FrieslandCampina, Nestlé, and Kellogg’s.
- Financiers and companies face reputation and regulation risk. FMCGs and financiers with NDPE violations linked to African palm oil supply face reputation risk. Moreover, they will need to comply with upcoming EU supply chain regulation.
Information via Chain Reaction Research
Farm owners are now farmland renters
Sampson Eleonu, 81, was only in primary school when Rivers State of Nigeria Palm (Risonpalm), a state-owned enterprise that later became SIAT, arrived to ask his father, Miniekom, an uneducated man, to surrender his family’s land in Elele Alimini under the pretence that he (Miniekom) would profit. He had no idea that this was the start of the misery endured by the residents of Mgbu-Anyim in Elele Alimini in Emohua Local Government Area, Rivers State.
Eleonu said: “They (Risonpalm) came in 1959 and collected all our farmland with false promises, until now, we didn’t see anything.
“My father gave a letter to them (Risonpalm) telling them what to do and they signed and agreed but none was done,” he added, stating that the discussion took place before the Nigerian civil war, and documents regarding the agreement could no longer be found. Eleonu is now the leader of the Mgbu-Anyim family,one of SIAT host communities.
SIAT claimed on its website that it acquired 5,718 hectares of land from Elele, but Elenwo and other youth leaders in the Mgbo-Ivu family claimed that the company actually took over 6,000 hectares, which is now causing a food shortage and forcing some traders to struggle for a long time to get food to sell and eat. Mgbo-Anyim is made up of three families, and their lands were also collected, but “our own family (Mgbo-Ivu) lands is the highest that was taken. All was collected, nothing is remaining,” said Elenwo Joseph, former community youth leader, who interrupted during the interview with Elenwo.
“We are regretting now. It is my father that thought the company will do something(help) but nothing,” Eleonu interruptedJoseph Elenwo who was also complaining about the SIAT land grab.
The company took more than what was apportion to them and today, “we are buying land from neighbouring communities to farm,” Eleonu, lamented while sitting at the back of his house in Elele Alimini.
Local leaders protested in 2020 and 2021 over the company’s land grab and disregard for the host communities after SIAT asked for their bank account information and failed to give them the money they had verbally promised. Joseph said: “During the protest, we requested they sign a fresh agreement because we don’t have any agreement with SIAT. Even the rent they claim they have paid, we don’t have any document to support that claim.
“I asked my father, he said they gave them money but they didn’t sign anything. They asked them to thumb print on a paper and a copy was not given to them. They (my fathers) can’t even read.”
Elenwo Joseph in his community, Elele. Photo by Elfredah Kevin-AlerechiHe claimed that SIAT attempted to bribe each executive member of the 22-member SIAT Landlord Association (made up of youth and parent body) with N5 million in order to end their agitation, but “we refused.” After numerous struggles, the corporation and the community finally came to an agreement that is now documented, Elenwo said.
Despite the fact that the MOU cited by the reporters did not specify the annual sum to be paid by SIAT to land owners on a per-hectare basis outside of the company’s Corporate Social Responsibility, which includes employment and scholarships, several host communities in Ubima and Elele claimed that the company paid an annual rent of N600 per hectare, which sparked further agitation between the community and SIAT. The N600, along with the accumulated rent that SIAT owes to other families like the Mgbo-Ivu, has not yet been paid. The amount paid by SIAT for per hectare of land is three times less than what community residents typically pay to neighbouring villages to buy farmlands per farming season..
Joseph word: “The company is paying N600 ($1) per hectare of land, annually. “This is what was negotiated in 1959 and they haven’t been paying for it.”
“They told us that since there is no document for such payment, we should accept the N600 per hectare. We are yet to receive the money from them.’
Like the Elele community, Ubima—-another host community of SIAT faced the same issue of neglect, land grabbing and pollution that has greatly affected farmers. According to Okechuwku Amadi, youth president of SIAT Ubima estate landlord association, it took a decade to pay their land fees after resuming activities on their farmlands.
Amadi said: “After the meeting, they agreed to pay 5 years rent, only for us to receive an alert of N600($1)for annual payment per hectare of land for 5 years.
According to Amadi, SIAT transferred the land fee into various community bank accounts and “my community was paid two hundred and ninety seven thousand naira(N297,000).”
“This caused a lot of arguments and issues because we never agreed with them(SIAT) to pay N600 as annual rent per hectare.”
He also accused the company of using their trucks to destroy the road leading to their farmland, consequently, making it difficult for Ubima farmers to access their farm.
Many locals in Elele and Ubima said that despite damaging the source of drinking water, SIAT has failed to uphold its CSR commitments despite promising to provide water, electricity, scholarships, and road building in its memorandum of understanding with host communities. Amadi emphasised that the N100,000 per student in each host community that the company pledged to provide for each session has not been distributed consistently. “They started around 2014 but since then, this is the second batch.”
He added, “The Omademe market in Ikwere is unfinished. Two communities from Etche were electrified, but the power only lasted for two months and there was no maintenance for two years.
SIAT MOU with host communities obtained by Kevin Woke.Styvn Obodoekwe, programme director for the Center for Environmental, Human Rights, and Development criticised the company’s attitude towards the annual payment of N600 ($1) per hectare, calling it “an act of wickedness” in a state where land is expensive.
“Who does that in this part of the world? Steve asked? “It is too bad! Possibly between 30 and 50 years ago, when land was less expensive, and perhaps at that time they (the community) agreed under that arrangement. At that time, a plot of land was available for lease for N5,000.
Obodoekwe criticised the government for improperly using the Land Use Act to seize peoples’ land by force, despite the fact that the Act states that the government is allowed to take any portion of land for the “public interest” and not to seize the land and give it to a private company to profit from. He calls for the amendment of the Land Use Act.
The Nigerian Land Use Act, gives the government the opportunity to exploit people and the process of acquiring the land is lopsided, said human right lawyer, Courage Nsirimovu. According to him, the government uses the Act to favour companies that they (government) have a good relationship with to acquire people’s lands under the disguise of the Act.
Nsirimovu said: “The foundation of the land use Act is terribly exploitative that is built against the people,” noting that the Act was based on the federal government appropriating all the crude oil and petroleum products in Nigeria to itself and for the government to have access to the petroleum products; the government has to get the land.
“In Nigeria, land is now owned by the government. You can wake up one day and the government will tell you to pack from your house because they want to acquire the land so the government can acquire any land,’’ he added.
More grievances
Since SIAT acquired the asset from the State government more than ten years ago, the suffering of the populace has gotten worse as a result of the company’s decision to grow their palm plantation at the expense of not only grabbing community land but also contaminating a river that provides drinking water to locals. In contrast to the pH range of 6.5 to 8.5 that the WHO recommends for drinking water, a sample of water collected from a community stream used by residents and sent to a laboratory for testing had a pH of 5.80.
Grace Amadi waiting for the labourer hired to bring the cassava from the neighbouring market. Photo by Elfredah Kevin-AlerechiGrace Amadi, a widow, relies on the crops from her farmland to provide for her seven children. When SIAT took all of their acreage and left them with nothing, her husband was still alive. However, as they both travelled to purchase farm goods from nearby settlements, she and her husband shared the struggle for survival. Her pain grew worse after her husband passed away in 2012.
When SIAT took Amadi’s land, neither she nor her husband received any notice from the company. She claims that they learned the terrible information after going to their farmland to farm but learnt the land is now owned by SIAT. She folded her hand, still seeming surprised. “I joined other people to protest at the company’s office in Ubima, crying for days but nothing was done,” she lamented.
Amadi said: “Before SIAT took my farmland, I had plenty of food to eat. I farm yam, cassava but now, I have nothing to eat again.” She recalls that the company took their ten hectares of land.
Amadi now travels to the neighbouring state—Bayelsa, to buy farm produce such as cassava to process and make the local food called “garri”. She spent N4,000 for transportation, which she said isn’t a fixed price and it depends on the quantity of goods bought.
She said: “If I don’t go to Bayelsa to buy cassava, I won’t eat,” she narrated in her local language. She travelled to Bayelsa twice weekly to buy a few things her money could afford.
“I spent N1,000 to travel to Bayelsa, and paid N3,000 while returning with the cassava. I borrowed all the money used for travelling.” According to her, she spent N3,000 to buy a cassava that is in a 50kg cement bag. “Before, it was sold for N2,000 but now I bought it N3,000,” she said while waiting for the labourer hired to bring the cassava.
SIAT is known for its notorious activities and lackadaisical attitude towards its host communities. The company cut down its unwanted trees and threw them into rivers leading to the farmlands, Emeka accuse this company, lamenting that “we can’t even access our farms, and when they cut down their palm trees, they use it to cover the river where we used to pass to get access to the river, We can’t even get fish again,” he stresses.
Justina Welegbe. Photo by Elfredah Kevin-AlerechiSince SIAT grabbed their farmland, according to Justina Welegbe, a farmer from the Welegba family, they have ceased farming and the firm has not given them any compensation. She plants yams, cassava, cocoyams, corn, and melons, and she sells these crops to buy food—like rice—that their land is unable to produce.
“Buyers come from neighbouring villages and I take them to my farm to show them the cassava and they buy it in “ridge” as we call it. I use the money to pay my children fees. “But now, if we don’t go to buy a farm from neighbouring communities like Rumuekpe and others that are not affected by SIAT, we will not eat”
Justina Welegbe, farmer.
She said that the loan she obtained from the private community lenders, known as “meeting Aleto,” made the entire acquisition of the farmlands possible.
“Before, we bought a ridge of farmland for N500 and we buy 20 ridge but now it’s sold for N2,500 to plant my crops, and we buy only 5 ridge,” she lamented stating that she travelled on motorbike through the highway to a Mbiama, a neighbouring community market to buy cassava for processing,” she lamented.
According to her, she borrowed fifty thousand naira this week and will be paying an interest of thirty thousand naira latest by the end of December before she would be qualified to take another loan in 2023.
A canal dug by SIAT prevents local farmers from accessing water for their own food
Canal dug by SIAT to restrict community farmers from accessing their farmlands/Kevin WokeOne of the company’s well-known practices is building a canal around their palm plantation, preventing farmers from using the local stream to access their farms. The Community members used the river to access farms before SIAT came into existence.
The river is the quickest way to get to the river, but according to Welegbe, “SIAT use Mopol (police officers) to chase farmers who use it to access their farms. We have work, we don’t have a farm. Before we will use leg (walk) it would take between five to six hours to walk to get to the farm.
“The well water we dug in our compound is not good for drinking, so we have to buy a bag of pure water for N150 against the previous amount of N100. I buy 10 bags weekly (N1,500).”
Justina Welegbe, farmer.
She pointed out that the company had polluted the mini-Onua, mini-Igwe, and mini-Igbu rivers, from which the community’s members get their water, leading to a shortage of water. According to her, she now purchases a bag of sachet water, also known as ‘pure water’.
Due to the constant complaint by all the residents in Elele the reporters spoke with who pointed to SIAT as the polluter of the community stream—-the only source of drinking water, and the reason for depletion of fish in their river, compelled the reporters to take two samples of water to ascertain the component in the river. Two water samples were taken, one from the community stream (which is described PB on the test result), and the other was PB, the area where SIAT dug their canal to restrict residents from accessing their farmlands.The reporters took the decision to take both sample because residents said both water at some point meets especially when the rivers flows or during the high tide. However, both water samples show the pH is below the WHO recommended standard of 6.5-8.5pH.
Test results
Analysing the test result, Kingsley Nwogbidi, chairman of the Nigerian Environmental Society said that the pH is very acidic and “it’s not good for either drinking or any use.” He said that because the levels of chloride ions (CL), nitrate nitrogen (NO3), and sulphate sulphur (SO4) are so high, they can negatively impact humans, animals, and marine life.
“The quality of the water is not suitable for drinking or any use,” Nwogbidi, added.
He further noted that if the fertiliser used on the farmland are washed into the community rivers as claimed by community members, “there will be so much pathogenic compound which is not good for aquatic life,’’ urging the community to reach out to the environmental society for proper professional advice. Research has shown that fish cannot survive in water below pH 4 .
The Missouri department of natural resources says Chloride (CL) can get into the environment through fertiliser use, livestock waste, dust suppressants, industries and other inputs and low and high levels can be toxic to fish, and capable of killing trees and plants.
According to the Glenn Research Center, turbidity is a condition caused by suspended solids in the water, such as silt, clay, and industrial wastes. Research has shown that “fish in turbid water lose weight, and that this weight loss increases with nephelometric turbidity units, proving that long-term turbidity exposure is harmful to growth productivity.”
The test result from Elele contains 7.0 TDS, although the normal range for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is 0 to 5. According to experts, one of the common reasons for excessive TDS, which can be harmful to the ecosystem, is agricultural/pesticide runoff. Studies have shown that too much TDS in a body of water is hazardous to aquatic creatures like fish, amphibians, and macro-invertebrates.
According to various research, the optimum level of Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is above 6.5-8 mg/L and between 80 and 120 percent; however, the laboratory results show that river water (PB) has a DO level of 4.0. According to Wales Natural Resources, “fish and other animals may suffocate and die if oxygen levels in water drop quickly or are too low.
SIAT worker confirms pollution and meagre pay
An employee of SIAT, who asked to remain anonymous to protect themselves from further retaliation from the company, told the reporters that the company utilises chemical fertiliser to maintain the palm plantation, which aids in the growth of the palm fruits and protects them from pests.
Elenwo the executive youth member, accused the company of failing to hire the few indigenous people to work for SIAT, and their employees, including graduates, are paid meagerly despite putting in long hours. A SIAT employee who wished to remain anonymous supported Joseph’s accusations.
Our source explained that professional slashers are paid N2,300 per day while the chemical department are paid N2,500 daily, and harvesters are paid based on their work, N30 per bunch that is harvested.
Our source said: “The money is paid monthly. Each day, the company takes records on our work and pays at the end of the month.
“My challenge is that the salary is too poor because of the stress, compared to the increase of food prices in Nigeria. Daily payment is N2,500 but I spent up to N3,000 daily as a family person with kids,” our source lamented.
NESREA, a government agency, whose responsibilities include protection and development of the environment, biodiversity conservation, enforcement and ensuring companies comply with environmental laws denied knowledge of environmental pollution in the communities. Zonal Director, Nosa Aigbedion demanded the community to write a formal letter to the agency.
Aigbedion said: “We receive a lot of spurious and unconfirmed claims of pollution frequently only to see that even the complainant sometimes is not even a member of the community. Following that, we sometimes require to get full details of the complaint itself and the complainant.
“Tell the community that if their claims are genuine, they should formally forward a letter to us stating their observations,’’ he said in a WhatsApp message.
All efforts made to reach the company for comment were abortive. Neither did the Public Relations Manager, Lucky Ezihuo respond to our Whatsapp message despite reading it nor was the email sent to the company responded.
Video documentary here
This investigation was supported by Journalismfund.eu.
Story by Investigative Journalists Elfredah Kevin-Alerechi and Kevin Woke for Sahara Reporters and originally published March 3, 2023 as ‘SIAT Nigeria Land Grabbing, Pollution, Causing Hardship In Host Communities‘. Read original story.
ENDS
Read more about RSPO greenwashing
Lying Fake labels Indigenous Land-grabbing Human rights abuses Deforestation Human health hazardsBig brands using “sustainable” RSPO palm oil yet still causing deforestation (there are many others)
Nestlé is destroying rainforests, releasing mega-tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, and killing hundreds of endangered species. Once these animals are gone – they are gone for good. See Nestlé’s full list of…
by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Despite global retail giant Colgate-Palmolive forming a coalition with other brands in 2020, virtue-signalling that they will stop all deforestation, they continue to do this – destroying rainforest and releasing mega-tonnes of carbon…
by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Despite the virtue-signalling of the palm oil certification body the RSPO, Mondelez’s so-called “sustainable” palm oil is linked to 37.000ha of palm oil deforestation since 2016 (Source: Chain Reaction Research). Mondelez destroys rainforests,…
by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025In 2020, global retail giant Unilever unveiled a deforestation-free supply chain promise. By 2023 they would be deforestation free. This has been and gone and they are still causing deforestation. This brand has…
by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Savvy consumers have been pressuring French Dairy multinational Danone for decades to cease using deforestation palm oil. Yet they actually haven’t stopped this. From their website: ‘Danone is committed to eliminating deforestation from…
by Palm Oil DetectivesMarch 6, 2021March 2, 2025Despite decades of promises to end deforestation for palm oil PepsiCo (owner of crisp brands Frito-Lay, Cheetos and Doritos along with hundreds of other snack food brands) have continued sourcing palm oil that…
by Palm Oil DetectivesJune 9, 2022March 2, 2025Despite decades of promises to end deforestation for palm oil Procter & Gamble or (P&G as they are also known) have continued sourcing palm oil that causes ecocide, indigenous landgrabbing, and the habitat…
by Palm Oil DetectivesJune 3, 2022March 2, 2025In late 2023, Kelloggs became Kellanova for their US arm. Savvy consumers have been pressuring Kelloggs for decades to cease using deforestation palm oil. Yet they actually haven’t stopped this. From their website:…
by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Global mega-brand Johnson & Johnson have issued a position statement on palm oil in 2020. ‘At Johnson & Johnson, we are committed to doing our part to address the unsustainable rate of global…
by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021July 13, 2025PZ Cussons is a British-owned global retail giant. They own well-known supermarket brands in personal care, cleaning, household goods and toiletries categories, such as Imperial Leather, Morning Fresh, Carex, Radiant laundry powder and…
by Palm Oil DetectivesMarch 10, 2021March 2, 2025Here are some other ways you can help by using your wallet as a weapon and joining the #Boycott4Wildlife
Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?
Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels
The Counterpunch: Consumer Solutions To Fight Extinction
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.
Say thanks on Ko-Fi#Africa #AfricanNews #BoycottPalmOil #BoycottPalmOil #corruption #deforestation #greenwashing #human #humanRights #HumanRights #hunger #indigenousRights #landRights #landgrabbing #Nestle #Nigeria #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #palmoil #poverty #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #SIAT #slavery #workersRights #WorkersRights
-
Will palm oil watchdog RSPO rid itself of deforestation or continue to pretend its products are sustainable? – EIA
Palm oil produced through the destruction of forestland is still being sold around the world with the blessing of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).
Media release: Environmental Investigation Agency, published 30th November, 2022.‘#Palmoil being produced through #deforestation is still being sold globally with the blessing of the @RSPOtweets as being “sustainable”. ~ @EIA_news. Fight back with your wallet and #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife
Tweet@RSPOtweets lets #palmoil co’s that clear #rainforest to be certified “sustainable”. Their #ecocide cannot replace rare animals, plants and #indigenous peoples now gone. – @EIA_news. #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife
TweetMedia release via Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). Published November 30, 2022. Read the original.
The watchdog’s routine practices mean that palm oil bearing its stamp of approval to assure consumers it is sustainably produced cannot be considered deforestation-free, as a new EU law will require.
On November 30, 2022 EIA and along with 99 other organisations issued a joint statement calling time on the RSPO and its habitual greenwashing – the act of giving the public or investors misleading or false information about the environmental impacts of a company’s products and activities.
Download thisThe RSPO – the world’s leading voluntary certification scheme for supposedly sustainable palm oil – is holding its annual meeting in Kuala Lumpur this week and it is anticipated there will a significant focus on the upcoming EU deforestation regulation.
The EU is in the process of bringing in a new law that will mean palm oil and other commodities placed on the EU market must be deforestation-free and legal.
Europe is the biggest market for RSPO-certified palm oil, with 93 per cent of imports bearing the organisation’s stamp of approval, so what happens in the EU is of significance to the RSPO and its future.
The RSPO is currently revising its standards, called its Principles and Criteria (P&C), a process it undertakes every five years. In its last P&C revision in 2018, the RSPO adopted a new ‘no deforestation’ standard.
However, this standard falls far short of ensuring supply chains do not result in forest clearance, as the new EU regulation will require.
Key problems with the RSPO’s current ‘no deforestation’ standard
The certified destruction of forests
The RSPO currently allows companies which clear forests to become certified. Companies that do so must simply “compensate” for the loss – either by conserving an equivalent or larger area elsewhere or paying to do so.
This so-called compensation cannot replace the forests that were lost; the animals and plants that lived in that forest are gone, as are the people who might have depended on that forest for their homes and livelihoods.
There was much controversy recently when the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) – the main voluntary certification scheme for timber – changed its cut-off date rules to allow logging companies that have cleared forests after 1994, but not before 2020, to be certified, when they were not allowed to before.
Yet it seems to have gone unnoticed that the RSPO has always allowed this, including for forests cleared beyond 2020. While the RSPO does not allow deforestation after November 2018 on paper, if a company “mistakenly” clears forests or joins the RSPO at a later date, it can simply “compensate” for any forest lost instead.
One of the worst examples of this is PT Bio Inti Agrindo, a palm oil company in Papua, Indonesia, which was RSPO-certified in September 2021. Prior to joining the RSPO, it had been strongly criticised for years for clearing more than 20,000 hectares of pristine rainforest.
Shockingly, the compensation decided on by the RSPO is mainly for the company to support existing neighbouring protected forests, which hardly compensates for the rampant deforestation the company caused.
Image: Forests are still being bulldozed to make way for agricultural land for palm oil and beef production. Richard Whitcombe/Shutterstock
The new EU deforestation will require companies supplying the EU market to have not cleared forests after a specific cut-off date – proposed to be 31 December 2020 by the European Commission.
Given the RSPO currently allows companies which have cleared forests to continue to be certified, meeting RSPO requirements will not guarantee meeting the upcoming EU rules.
The price of unsustainable palm oil – deforestation and the end of tradition livelihoods
Mixing of uncertified palm oil from deforestation
Another big problem with the RSPO is that it allows uncertified palm oil that comes from deforestation to be mixed with certified palm oil.
This is known as the Mass Balance model and the practice means that RSPO supply chains are tainted and allows companies sourcing from concessions that are responsible for deforestation to promote themselves as “sustainable” or RSPO-certified. This includes RSPO-certified mills being allowed to source uncertified palm oil produced from deforestation.
Last year, companies which are the members of the RSPO adopted a resolution calling for the organisation to strengthen and revise the Mass Balance system in recognition of the problems it is causing the RSPO’s credibility.
Given that the new EU deforestation regulation will require all sources of palm oil in the supply chain to be deforestation-free, RSPO certification cannot guarantee this either, given its wide use of the Mass Balance model.
“It remains to be seen whether the RSPO will act for a change and address the deforestation and other problems in its system or continue to paper over the cracks and pretend its palm oil is sustainable.”
~ EIA Forests Campaigner Siobhan Pearce
Will the RSPO act or is its time up?
However, given the US ban and significant press coverage of human rights abuse on Sime Darby palm plantations, these imports demonstrate a willful disregard for the protection of human life.
The new EU deforestation regulation and the revision of the P&C is a critical time for the RSPO. It has, and continues to face, a multitude of problems that to date it has been slow to act on.
These range from poor assurance that its standards are actually adhered to, as we have exposed, and failing to uphold complaints to its members being mired in accusations of forced labour.
Given the RSPO’s track record of inadequately dealing with serious issues in its system, there is significant doubt it will do so now.
EIA Forests Campaigner Siobhan Pearce said: “It remains to be seen whether the RSPO will act for a change and address the deforestation and other problems in its system or continue to paper over the cracks and pretend its palm oil is sustainable.”
Media release via Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). Published November 30, 2022. Read the original.
ENDS
Read more about RSPO greenwashing
Lying Fake labels Indigenous Land-grabbing Human rights abuses Deforestation Human health hazardsBig brands using “sustainable” RSPO palm oil yet still causing deforestation (there are many others)
Nestlé is destroying rainforests, releasing mega-tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, and killing hundreds of endangered species. Once these animals are gone – they are gone for good. See Nestlé’s full list of…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Despite global retail giant Colgate-Palmolive forming a coalition with other brands in 2020, virtue-signalling that they will stop all deforestation, they continue to do this – destroying rainforest and releasing mega-tonnes of carbon…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Mondelez destroys rainforests, sending animals extinct and release mega-tonnes of carbon into air for so-called “sustainable” palm oil. Boycott them!
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021February 28, 2026In 2020, global retail giant Unilever unveiled a deforestation-free supply chain promise. By 2023 they would be deforestation free. This has been and gone and they are still causing deforestation. This brand has…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Savvy consumers have been pressuring French Dairy multinational Danone for decades to cease using deforestation palm oil. Yet they actually haven’t stopped this. From their website: ‘Danone is committed to eliminating deforestation from…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesMarch 6, 2021March 2, 2025Despite decades of promises to end deforestation for palm oil PepsiCo (owner of crisp brands Frito-Lay, Cheetos and Doritos along with hundreds of other snack food brands) have continued sourcing palm oil that…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesJune 9, 2022March 2, 2025Despite decades of promises to end deforestation for palm oil Procter & Gamble or (P&G as they are also known) have continued sourcing palm oil that causes ecocide, indigenous landgrabbing, and the habitat…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesJune 3, 2022March 2, 2025In late 2023, Kelloggs became Kellanova for their US arm. Savvy consumers have been pressuring Kelloggs for decades to cease using deforestation palm oil. Yet they actually haven’t stopped this. From their website:…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021March 2, 2025Global mega-brand Johnson & Johnson have issued a position statement on palm oil in 2020. ‘At Johnson & Johnson, we are committed to doing our part to address the unsustainable rate of global…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesFebruary 9, 2021July 13, 2025PZ Cussons is a British-owned global retail giant. They own well-known supermarket brands in personal care, cleaning, household goods and toiletries categories, such as Imperial Leather, Morning Fresh, Carex, Radiant laundry powder and…
Read more by Palm Oil DetectivesMarch 10, 2021March 2, 2025Here are some other ways you can help by using your wallet as a weapon and joining the #Boycott4Wildlife
Read moreWhy join the #Boycott4Wildlife?
Read moreGreenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels
Read moreThe Counterpunch: Consumer Solutions To Fight Extinction
Read moreDid 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.
Say thanks on Ko-Fi #BoycottPalmOil #C4ADS #Cargill #deforestation #greenwashing #Guatamala #indigenousRights #landRights #landgrabbing #NaturAceitesSA #Nestle #PalmOil #palmOilDeforestation #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #SimeDarby #slavery -
Treespiracy: Forests are being destroyed against a background of corruption, illegality and apathy
The world’s forests are being destroyed against a background of corruption, illegality and apathy. This article was originally published in The Ecologist magazine, 28th March, 2022
#Deforestation occurs against a background of #crime and #corruption as exposed in the #PanamaPapers @ICIJorg. Brands @CP_news @Danone @thisisreckitt @Nestle and others buy tainted #palmoil while lying to consumers it is “sustainable”
A complex web of financial instruments allowing crime, corruption and wrong-doing, hidden behind shell corporations and offshore companies was exposed with the release of the Panama Papers.
This shadow network is being used by individuals and companies behind the destruction of our planet’s forests
Indonesia has lost vast amounts of primary rainforest, behind only Brazil in scale for these losses. Some of the largest palm oil and timber companies operating in the country have disguised the extent of their operations through “shadow companies”. This means that who truly benefits from their activities is deliberately made harder or impossible to trace.
RSPO member Wilmar is responsible for palm oil deforestation despite supposedly using “sustainable” palm oil
Wilmar responsible for palm oil deforestation despite supposedly using “sustainable” palm oil.Indigenous rights violations
The Indonesian part of the island of Papua is a “new frontier” of palm oil deforestation in the country. This is against the express wishes of local Indigenous peoples. Previous deforestation went ahead despite Indonesian government officials claiming that the permits to do so in the region were falsified.
Companies were then given permission to continue clearing the forest as long as they “fix their permits”. In other words, as long as they retrospectively got the permits they needed from the start.
However, the forests of Papua may have been handed a lifeline: the Indonesian government has just cancelled 192 deforestation permits. For the sake of people, wildlife and the climate, they need to stay cancelled.
Forests will keep being cleared with impunity without financial transparency, accountability and enforcement.
The “clear forests first, apply for permits later” approach is not limited to Indonesia. In Paraguay, a government whistleblower provided evidence that the same problem was happening there. In that case, the deforestation included the lands of the Ayoreo Totobiegosode Indigenous peoples.
The Amazon rainforest over timeGlobal Witness October 2021 Report: Violence and death for palm oil connected to household supermarket brands (RSPO members)
“One palm oil firm, Rimbunan Hijau, [Papua New Guinea] negligently ignored repeated and avoidable worker deaths and injuries on palm oil plantations, with at least 11 workers and the child of one worker losing their lives over an eight-year period.
“Tainted palm oil from Papua New Guinea plantations was sold to household name brands, all of them RSPO members including Kellogg’s, Nestlé, Colgate, Danone, Hershey’s and PZ Cussons and Reckitt Benckiser”
Read reportDeforestation
Where voluntary pledges have led to environmental successes they have been partial. The Amazon soy moratorium was designed to stop companies clearing Amazonia for the crop, and it has had some impact.
The rate of soy-related deforestation in Amazonia fell by 84 percent between 2004 and 2012, as a result of the moratorium and connected policy efforts.
However, this is arguably because companies have simply been able to shift to another, less protected biome; the neighbouring Cerrado, a precious ecosystem in its own right, which is now the frontier of deforestation in South America.
Data on corporate deforestation from the supply chain mapping initiative Trase show that companies who have pledged not to cause deforestation for soy cause as much as those who have made no such commitment.
Felled
The New York Declaration on Forests from 2014 pledged to halve deforestation by 2020 and end it by 2030, yet rates of forest loss have been 41 percent higher in the years since the agreement was signed.
The impact of pledges made at COP26 to reverse and end deforestation in a decade is yet to be seen, but it is noteworthy that the Brazilian Amazon started 2022 with the fastest rate of deforestation in 14 years.
Certification schemes purporting to ensure wood and timber products also have weaknesses. The assessment bodies responsible for conferring prized sustainability certification like the Forest Stewardship Council ecolabel are paid for by the companies they audit, competing with one another for this income. This creates a “race to the bottom” as it incentivises weak auditing in order to win more business.
These certification schemes have also been found to accredit illegally felled wood, including trees from protected forests in Siberia, some of which ended up in childrens’ furniture from IKEA.
Time-bound
No wonder, then, that many timber firms are lobbying to be exempt from upcoming EU laws to keep the products of environmental destruction and human rights abuses out of European supply chains. They claim that certified status – demonstrated to be flawed – should be enough to allow them this exemption.
While a great deal of forestry is not connected to crime, corruption, human rights abuses and the destruction of irreplaceable nature, far too much is. All our most basic human rights depend on a sustainable environment. We cannot let it be destroyed for a handful of people to profit.
Without financial transparency, accountability, and enforcement of strong laws to protect forests, they will keep being cleared with impunity.
States must step in and pass legislation which requires robust, transparent and time-bound reductions in deforestation for companies wishing to be part of their supply chains. The future of people and the planet depends on it.
The Author
Steve Trent is the founder and CEO of the Environmental Justice Foundation.
#deforestation #ecocide #extinction #greenwashing #News #palmOilDeforestation #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing
-
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
#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/
Share to BlueSky Share to Twitter@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/
Share to BlueSky Share to TwitterJump 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.
1. Certification is not designed to achieve the main objective of the regulation – preventing deforestation and other harmsNumerous 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.
2. Certification does not provide the information needed to comply with the EU regulationAs 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
3. Certification does not provide guarantees for the legality of the product
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.
5. Certification bodies and their auditors are not independent from the company they certifyPrevious 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.
6. Prevention of environmental and social harm cannot be outsourced, particularly because certification bodies are not liable for harms in the plantations they certifyFor 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.
7. Certification cannot guarantee Free, Prior and Informed Consent or prevent land grabbing of indigenous landIn 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.
10 Tactics of Sustainable Palm Oil GreenwashingAdditionally, 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…
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
8. Certification provides opportunities for greenwashing and increases vested interests in and corporate power over natural resources.
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.
9. Certification promotes the expansion of industrial agriculture and thereby prevents the transition needed to halt deforestationCorporations, 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.
10. Certification directs resources towards a million-dollar certification industryTo 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
Signatories: 71 environmental and human rights NGOsInternational
Global Witness
ClientEarth
Environmental Paper Network
International
GRAIN
Global Forest Coalition
Forest Peoples ProgrammeIndonesia
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 IndonesiaCameroon
Synaparcam
Centre pour l’Environnement
et le Développment Chile
Colectivo VientosurDemocratic Republic of the Congo
RIAO-RDC
Confédération Paysanne du
Congo-Principal Regroupement Paysan
Gabon
Muyissi EnvironnementChina
Snow Alliance
Blue Dalian
Green Longjiang
Scholar Tree Alliance
Wuhu Ecology CentreMalaysia
SAVE Rivers
KERUAN
Sahabat Alam MalaysiaLiberia
Sustainable Development Institute
Nigeria
ERA; Friends of the Earth Nigeria
Mexico
Reentramados para la vida, defendiendo territorio
Otros Mundos ChiapasPhilippines
Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura- UMA
Sierra Leone
United States
Friends of the Earth United States
The Oakland Institute
The Borneo ProjectEurope
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 EUGYBN Europe
HEKS – Swiss Church Aid
Milieudefensie
NOAH – Friends of the Earth Denmark
Pro REGENWALD
Rainforest Foundation NorwayReAct 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 SustentávelBack to top ↑
Here are some other ways you can help by using your wallet as a weapon and joining the #Boycott4Wildlife
Why join the #Boycott4Wildlife?
Greenwashing Tactic #4: Fake Labels
The Counterpunch: Consumer Solutions To Fight Extinction
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.
Say thanks on Ko-FiPalm 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.
Say 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
-
Promise, Divide, Intimidate and Coerce: 12 tactics used by palm oil companies intent on land-grabbing
The booklet “Promise, Divide, Intimidate and Coerce: 12 tactics palm oil companies use to grab community land” was created by World Rainforest Movement, GRAIN and an Alliance of community and local organisations united against industrial oil palm plantations in West and Central Africa, including RADD, SEFE, Synaparcam of Cameroon, Muyissi Environnement of Gabon and ERA/Community Forest Watch of Nigeria. Resist every time you shop in solidarity of #Indigenous peoples and #BoycottPalmOil
Guide by @Grain_org and @WorldRainforest about #palmoil #landgrabbing to assist communities to combat the #violence and coercion in the name of so-called “sustainable” #palmoil Resist for them! #Boycottpalmoil 🌴🩸☠️⛔️ #Boycott4Wildlife @palmoildetect https://palmoildetectives.com/2022/01/10/promise-divide-intimidate-and-coerce-12-tactics-used-by-palm-oil-companies-intent-on-land-grabbing/
Share to BlueSky Share to TwitterThe guide describes the main tactics used by these corporations to take over community land. The aim is to support communities who want to strengthen their resistance and better prepare themselves to stop corporations from establishing industrial oil palm plantations on their lands.
Oil palm plantation companies use very similar tactics wherever they operate to try and take over the land of communities. Knowing that they can count on high-level politicians and state authorities for support, the companies routinely make promises they do not intend to keep, try to silence and marginalise opposition to their plans and divide communities.
Where necessary, they coerce, intimidate, harass and even have opponents to their activities killed. Villagers, especially in remote places, often think such violence, intimidation and land grabbing is only happening to them.
Community representatives may initially believe the plantation company’s promises because they are unaware of community experiences elsewhere.
Questions to ask
1 Who is behind the company?
2 Who is funding the company and its expansion plans?
3 Who will the company sell its palm oil to?
4 Palm oil companies are not charities.
https://twitter.com/CaseWatkinsGeog/status/1114172772954050561?s=20
12 tactics used by palm oil companies with land grabbingDownload DownloadThe reality, however, is that violence – and in particular sexual violence against women– is an inseparable part of the industrial plantation model and that the tactics companies use to take community land have been fine-tuned through decades of experience around the world.
Global Witness October 2021 Report: Violence and death for palm oil connected to household supermarket brands (RSPO members)
“One palm oil firm, Rimbunan Hijau, [Papua New Guinea] negligently ignored repeated and avoidable worker deaths and injuries on palm oil plantations, with at least 11 workers and the child of one worker losing their lives over an eight-year period.
“Tainted palm oil from Papua New Guinea plantations was sold to household name brands, all of them RSPO members including Kellogg’s, Nestlé, Colgate, Danone, Hershey’s and PZ Cussons and Reckitt Benckiser”
Read reportThis booklet describes the main tactics companies use to get their hands on community land. It considers questions such as:
- How do companies trick communities into agreeing to give them control over their land?
- Why are empty promises made by the company about generating local employment or health and education facilities so effective in convincing communities to allow them onto their land?
- What can communities do to stop the theft of their land, and the destruction of the local water springs, creeks, rivers, forests and other places that are affected by the plantations?
- What can communities do in situations where the company has already taken their land?
- And, why do projects promoted by some companies and governments in which peasant farmers grow oil palm under contract for the company result in debt and poverty for participating farmers?
Strengthen community resistance to landgrabbing
This booklet is not a step-by-step manual that, if followed, will stop a company from setting up a plantation on community land. The objective of this booklet is to support communities who want to strengthen their resistance and better prepare themselves to stop corporations from setting up industrial oil palm plantations on their land. If a community is aware of community experiences elsewhere, it can more easily recognise company tactics. A community can then discuss different responses early on, so that when one way of resisting the company’s plans fails, the community can persevere and try a different way, while being prepared for new tactics that the company might use.
We hope these descriptions of company tactics will inspire others to plan, prepare, and keep their communities united and to build alliances with neighbouring communities and regional or international networks. The booklet is a work in progress. We welcome feedback and suggestions for change.
Download PDF
GRAIN and WRMCompanies come prepared to take over the land: communities must prepare to resist
The importance of a community speaking with one voice.Tactics that companies use to obtain access to community land
Tactic 1 Secure approval and support from high-level government officials
Tactic 2 Secure support from local elites and people trusted by the community
Tactic 3 Co-opt or pressure chiefs into making community land available for the company’s plantations
Tactic 4 Promise employment, improved roads, schools, health facilities
Tactic 5 Organise community meetings to create the appearance of community consent
Tactic 6 Silence local opponents of the plantation project
Tactic 7 Exclude and marginalise women |The violence against women that companies never talk about
Tactic 8 Forge signatures, falsify documents and withhold copies from villagers
Tactic 9 Use fraudulent land certificates and land surveys to take control of community land
Tactic 10 Promise improved food security but create food insecurity
Tactic 11 Promote smallholder contracts as an opportunity to ‘get rich planting industrial oil palms’
Tactic 12 Use partnerships with conservation NGOs and ‘Sustainable Palm Oil’ labelsto create a ‘green’ image | RSPO-certified conflict palm oil
#Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #corruption #deforestation #ecocide #greenwashing #humanRights #indigenous #IndigenousActivism #indigenousRights #indigenousrights #IndigenousSovereignty #landRights #landgrabbing #military #PalmOil #palmoil #Papua #PapuaNewGuinea #politics #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #violence #WestPapua
-
What is greenwashing?
Over the course of the 20th century, capitalism preserved its momentum by moulding the ordinary person into a consumer. Using advertising to encourage in people the ravenous hunger for purchasing more stuff and the accompanying feeling of hollowness and a need for more and more.
At the end of the 20th century, environmental problems began to arise from unchecked capitalist growth
Ever-expanding growth and the over-exploitation of land, water and animals continued at pace. Even despite its immense cost to animals, ecosystems and people in the developing world.
Even despite predictions by scientists that the world would be destroyed.
Out of-control global corporates needed strong storytelling and PR to support their continued exponential growth.
This insane need for economic/corporate growth gave rise to the ‘Green Growth’ and ‘Sustainability’ movements. The marketing and PR tactics employed to justify the continued growth of these brands and products despite their destruction, is known as:
Greenwashing
https://twitter.com/esm_magazine/status/1448197400879943680?s=20
https://twitter.com/Context_Group/status/1126528027402203138?s=20
Original Tweet
https://twitter.com/FoodNavigator/status/872467048009486336?s=20
https://twitter.com/RubenBrunsveld/status/1448552977665507330?s=20
https://twitter.com/Morgante_Fra/status/1191550867561836544?s=20
https://twitter.com/Context_Group/status/1271130962089381888?s=20
The origins of greenwashing can be found in the origins of consumerism, advertising and marketing itself
This is most powerfully illustrated by one of the original source about marketing from between the world wars by Edward Bernays, a landmark book called Propaganda published in 1928. This book would be instrumental for setting in train the agenda for economic growth in the West in the 20th Century.
Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1928)
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.… It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world”
Mass production is profitable only if its rhythm can be maintained—that is if it can continue to sell its product in steady or increasing quantity.… Today supply must actively seek to create its corresponding demand … [and] cannot afford to wait until the public asks for its product; it must maintain constant touch, through advertising and propaganda … to assure itself the continuous demand which alone will make its costly plant profitable.
WHO considers marketing by the palm oil industry to be akin to tobacco and alcohol marketing
Marketing of palm oil does not occur in the traditional sense. Responding to a backlash against accusations of poor environmental and labour practices, the industry has sought to portray its products as sustainable, while highlighting the contribution to poverty alleviation.
There is also a mutual benefit for the palm oil and processed food industry, with the latter targeting advertisements for ultra-processed foods towards children (similar to efforts by the tobacco and alcohol industries in targeting children and adolescents) and the palm oil refining industry benefiting from the corresponding increase in sales of foods containing palm oil.The palm oil industry and noncommunicable diseases, (2019),
Sowmya Kadandale, a Robert Martenb & Richard Smith.
World Health Organisation Bulletin.A 2019 World Health Organisation (WHO) report into the palm oil industry and RSPO finds extensive greenwashing of palm oil deforestation and the murder of endangered animals (i.e. biodiversity loss)
Read moreWorld Organisation of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) Guide for promoting sustainable palm oil
https://twitter.com/FoodNavigator/status/872467048009486336?s=20
Sustainability is meaningless, it’s time for a new enlightenment
Effectively, sustainability became the main ingredient of a “having your cake and eating it” ideology. The environment, and its ecological systems, were deemed to be sustained while equally economic development could continue apace.
But if sustainable development had delivered on its promise, humanity would now not be facing the crisis we call climate change.
Greenwashing solves nothing.
What was, and is, actually needed is the opposite of what has been promoted in order to try to maintain the economic status quo.
Dr Toni Fry, Griffith University ‘Sustainability is meaningless, it’s time for a new enlightenment, The Conversation.
Research into how to influence voluntary standards using expert knowledge
“The ability of developing countries, especially small-scale actors within them, to shape standard setting and management to their advantage depends not only on overcoming important structural differences…but also on more subtle games. These include promoting the enrolment of one expert group or kind of expert knowledge over another, using specific formats of negotiation, and legitimating particular modes of engagement over others.”
Voluntary standards, expert knowledge and the governance of sustainability networks. (2013), Ponte, S. & Cheyns, E. Glob. Netw. 13, 459–477
The Vice President of the European Parliament Heidi Hautala does not trust the RSPO’s false and weak promise of “sustainable” palm oil
She replies to my conversation on Twitter to advise of this…
Heidi Hautala, Vice-President of the European Parliament and part of the the Human Rights and Democracy panel and Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS)“No voluntary standards or industry schemes have done the job fully [of eliminating deforestation or human rights abuses]. That is why the game-changing EU CSDDD [Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive] is mandatory. Certification is a useful tool but will not liberate the company from its duty of due diligence”
~ Heidi Hautala, Vice-President of the European Parliament and part of the the Human Rights and Democracy panel and Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS)
https://twitter.com/HeidiHautala/status/1671422744683225088?s=20
Is it possible to design an eco-label without greenwashing?
In his book ‘Beyond Greenwash’ Hamish Van Der Ven somewhat naively sets out to answer that question.
Naive because embedded within capitalism is the drive towards exponential growth and the ecosystems and resources of our planet are finite – which makes it naive to think that we can continue to labour under the same system, yet expect a different result.
Still Van Der Ven has some valid insights to share here about how a eco-label could theoretically be designed to be free from greenwashing.
An eco-label without greenwashing has yet to materialise. This is because our current economic system does not consider ‘value’ to include: human rights, animal rights, the beauty of unspoiled nature and forests left intact – the only way the current system quantifies ‘value’ is financial growth. The virtue-signalling about doing the right thing and improving human rights, animal rights, environmental sustainability is greenwashing. If businesses DID care, these issues would have been sorted. Instead, they provide consumers with empty words and promises.
Is it transparent?
Dubious eco-labels keep everything offline or hidden behind pay walls; credible eco-labels make their information freely available online, including information around breaches of rules and regulations and their resolutions, governance and funding.
Is it independent?
- Consumers and procurement professionals should be wary of self-awarded ecolabels. Instead seek out ecolabels from a credible third-party organisation.
- There should also be independence between the organisation that sets the standard and the organization that audits compliance against its criteria. This is important for preventing a conflict of interest.
- Standard-setters generally receive revenues based on how widely their eco-labels are used. An eco-labeling organization that checks compliance against its own standard has an incentive to overlook non-compliances and set a lower bar for achievement.
Is it inclusive?
Do all stakeholders get a say in decision-making? If an eco-label promotes sustainable coffee production, then it should involve coffee farmers, scientists, processers, NGOs, and community members (amongst others) in standard-setting.
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
Claiming a brand or commodity is green without any supporting evidence The RSPO promises to deliver this with their certification: 1. Improves the livelihoods of small holder farmers 2. Stops illegal indigenous land-grabbing and human rights abuses 3. Stops deforestation…
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
Claiming a brand, commodity or industry is green based on irrelevant information Jump to section Greenwashing: Irrelevant Topics Greenwashing: Colonial Racism Research: Palm oil greenwashing and its link to climate denialism Reality: RSPO Certification Doesn’t Stop Deforestation, Human Rights Abuses…
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…
Telling outright lies over and over again to consumers until they are believed as truth Jump to section Greenwashing: Endangered species Reality: Endangered species Greenwashing: Human rights, land-grabbing and livelihoods for workers Reality: Human rights, land-grabbing and livelihoods for workers…
Greenwashing Tactic #8: Design & Words
Using design principles and greenwashing language in order to trigger emotional and unconscious responses in consumers Jump to section Greenwashing: Design Principles Greenwashing Design Example: Palm Done Right Greenwashing Design Example: WWF Palm Oil Scorecard 2021 Greenwashing with Words: Vegan…
Greenwashing Tactic #9: Partnerships, Sponsorships and Research Funding
Jump to section Orangutan Land Trust funded by rainforest destroying palm oil co. Kulim Malaysia Berhad Orangutan Land Trust funded by Agropalma: during decades-long destruction of the Amazon for palm oil Orangutan Land Trust and New Britain Palm Oil (NBPOL):…
Greenwashing Tactic #10: Gaslighting, Harassment, Stalking and Attempting to Discredit Critics
Attempting to humiliate, gaslight, discredit, harass and stalk any vocal critics of a brand, commodity or industry certification in order to scare individuals into silence and stop them from revealing corruption Greenwashing’s most insidious and darkest form is the attempt…
Ten Tactics of ‘Sustainable’ Palm Oil Greenwashing
There has never been a more urgent time for consumers to wake up to the devastation wrought by global supermarket brands for palm oil Jump to section 1. Greenwashing with Hidden Trade-Off 2. Greenwashing with No Proof 3. Greenwashing with…
Explore the series
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Join the #Boycott4Wildlife and fight greenwashing and deforestation by using your wallet as a weapon!
Find out moreFurther reading on palm oil ecocide, greenwashing and deceptive marketing
- A Brief History of Consumer Culture, Dr. Kerryn Higgs, The MIT Press Reader. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/a-brief-history-of-consumer-culture/
- A Deluge of Double-Speak (2017), Jason Bagley. Truth in Advertising. https://truthinadvertising.org/blog/a-deluge-of-doublespeak/
- Aggarwal, P. (2011). Greenwashing: The darker side of CSR. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 4(3), 61-66. https://www.worldwidejournals.com/indian-journal-of-applied-research-(IJAR)/article/greenwashing-the-darker-side-of-csr/MzMxMQ==/?is=1
- Anti-Corporate Activism and Collusion: The Contentious Politics of Palm Oil Expansion in Indonesia, (2022). Ward Berenschot, et. al., Geoforum, Volume 131, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.03.002
- Armour, C. (2021). Green Clean. Company Director Magazine. https://www.aicd.com.au/regulatory-compliance/regulations/investigation/green-clean.html
- Balanced Growth (2020), In: Leal Filho W., Azul A.M., Brandli L., özuyar P.G., Wall T. (eds) Responsible Consumption and Production. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham
- Berenschot, W., Hospes, O., & Afrizal, A. (2023). Unequal access to justice: An evaluation of RSPO’s capacity to resolve palm oil conflicts in Indonesia. Agriculture and Human Values, 40, 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10360-z
- Carlson, K. M., Heilmayr, R., Gibbs, H. K., Noojipady, P., et al. (2018). Effect of oil palm sustainability certification on deforestation and fire in Indonesia. PNAS, 115(1), 121-126. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704728114
- Cazzolla Gatti, R., Liang, J., Velichevskaya, A., & Zhou, M. (2018). Sustainable palm oil may not be so sustainable. Science of The Total Environment, 652, 48-51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30359800/
- Changing Times Media. (2019). Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil is ‘greenwashing’ labelled products, environmental investigation agency says. Changing Times Media. https://changingtimes.media/2019/11/03/roundtable-on-sustainable-palm-oil-is-greenwashing-labelled-products-environmental-protection-agency-says/
- Client Earth: The Greenwashing Files. https://www.clientearth.org/projects/the-greenwashing-files/
- Commodifying sustainability: Development, nature and politics in the palm oil industry (2019). World Development, Volume 121, September 2019, Pages 218-228. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v121y2019icp218-228.html
- Contrasting communications of sustainability science in the media coverage of palm oil agriculture on tropical peatlands in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore (2020). Liu, F. H. M., Ganesan, V., Smith, T. E. L. Environmental Science & Policy, 114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343772443_Contrasting_communications_of_sustainability_science_in_the_media_coverage_of_palm_oil_agriculture_on_tropical_peatlands_in_Indonesia_Malaysia_and_Singapore
- Cosimo, L. H. E., Masiero, M., Mammadova, A., & Pettenella, D. (2024). Voluntary sustainability standards to cope with the new European Union regulation on deforestation-free products: A gap analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 164, 103235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103235
- Dalton, J. (2018). No such thing as sustainable palm oil – ‘certified’ can destroy even more wildlife, say scientists. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/palm-oil-sustainable-certified-plantations-orangutans-indonesia-southeast-asia-greenwashing-purdue-a8674681.html
- Davis, S. J., Alexander, K., Moreno-Cruz, J., et al. (2023). Food without agriculture. Nature Sustainability. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01241-2
- EIA International. (2022). Will palm oil watchdog rid itself of deforestation or continue to pretend its products are sustainable? EIA International. https://eia-international.org/news/will-palm-oil-watchdog-rid-itself-of-deforestation-or-continue-to-pretend-its-products-are-sustainable/
- Environmental Investigation Agency. (2019). Palm oil watchdog’s sustainability guarantee is still a destructive con. EIA International. https://eia-international.org/news/palm-oil-watchdogs-sustainability-guarantee-is-still-a-destructive-con/
- Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.). Green Guides. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising/green-guides
- Fifteen environmental NGOs demand that sustainable palm oil watchdog does its job (2019). Rainforest Action Network. https://www.ran.org/press-releases/fifteen-environmental-ngos-demand-that-sustainable-palm-oil-watchdog-does-its-job/
- Friends of the Earth International. (2018). RSPO: 14 years of failure to eliminate violence and destruction from the industrial palm oil sector. Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/rspo-14-years-of-failure-to-eliminate-violence-and-destruction-from-the-industrial-palm-oil-sector/
- Lang, Chris and REDD Monitor. Sustainable palm oil? RSPO’s greenwashing and fraudulent audits exposed. The Ecologist. https://theecologist.org/2015/nov/19/sustainable-palm-oil-rspos-greenwashing-and-fraudulent-audits-exposed
- Gatti, L., Pizzetti, M., & Seele, P. (2021). Green lies and their effect on intention to invest. Journal of Business Research, 127, 376-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.028
- Global Witness. (2023). Amazon palm: Ecocide and human rights abuses. Global Witness. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/amazon-palm/
- Global Witness. (2021). The True Price of Palm Oil. Global Witness. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/forests/true-price-palm-oil/
- Grain. (2021). Ten reasons why certification should not be promoted in the EU anti-deforestation regulation. Grain. https://grain.org/en/article/6856-ten-reasons-why-certification-should-not-be-promoted-in-the-eu-anti-deforestation-regulation
- Green Clean (2021). Armour, C. Company Director Magazine.
- Green marketing and the Australian Consumer Law (2011). Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Green%20marketing%20and%20the%20ACL.pdf
- Greenwash and spin: palm oil lobby targets its critics (2011). Helan, A. Ecologist: Informed by Nature. https://theecologist.org/2011/jul/08/greenwash-and-spin-palm-oil-lobby-targets-its-critics
- Greenwashing: definition and examples. Selectra https://climate.selectra.com/en/environment/greenwashing#:~:text=Greenwashing%20is%20the%20practice%20of,its%20activities%20pollute%20the%20environment.
- Greenwashing of the Palm Oil Industry (2007). Mongabay. https://news.mongabay.com/2007/11/greenwashing-the-palm-oil-industry/
- Group Challenges Rainforest Alliance Earth-Friendly Seal of Approval (2015). Truth in Advertising. https://www.truthinadvertising.org/group-challenges-rainforest-alliance-earth-friendly-seal-of-approval
- Helan, A. (2011). Greenwash and spin: palm oil lobby targets its critics. Ecologist: Informed by Nature. https://theecologist.org/2011/feb/15/greenwash-and-spin-palm-oil-lobby-targets-its-critics
- Hewlett Packard. (2021). What is Greenwashing and How to Tell Which Companies are Truly Environmentally Responsible. Hewlett Packard. https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/tech-takes/what-is-greenwashing-environmentally-responsible-companies
- Holzner, A., Rameli, N. I. A. M., Ruppert, N., & Widdig, A. (2024). Agricultural habitat use affects infant survivorship in an endangered macaque species. Current Biology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38194972/
- How Cause-washing Deceives Consumers (2021). Truth in Advertising. https://truthinadvertising.org/resource/how-causewashing-deceives-consumers/
- International Labour Organization. (2020). Forced labor in the palm oil industry. ILO. https://www.ilo.org/topics/forced-labour-modern-slavery-and-human-trafficking
- Jauernig, J., Uhl, M., & Valentinov, V. (2021). The ethics of corporate hypocrisy: An experimental approach. Futures, 129, 102757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102757
- Kirby, D. (2015). Sustainable Palm Oil? Who Knows, Thanks to Derelict Auditors. Take Part. https://www.yahoo.com/news/sustainable-palm-oil-knows-thanks-derelict-auditors-200643980.html
- Li, T. M., & Semedi, P. (2021). Plantation life: Corporate occupation in Indonesia’s oil palm zone. Duke University Press. https://www.dukeupress.edu/plantation-life
- Liu, F. H. M., Ganesan, V., & Smith, T. E. L. (2020). Contrasting communications of sustainability science in the media coverage of palm oil agriculture on tropical peatlands in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. Environmental Science & Policy, 114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343772443_Contrasting_communications_of_sustainability_science_in_the_media_coverage_of_palm_oil_agriculture_on_tropical_peatlands_in_Indonesia_Malaysia_and_Singapore
- Meemken, E. M., Barrett, C. B., Michelson, H. C., et al. (2021). Sustainability standards in global agrifood supply chains. Nature Food. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00299-2
- Miles, T. (2019). Study in WHO journal likens palm oil lobbying to tobacco and alcohol industries. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1P21ZR/
- 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
- Oppong-Tawiah D, Webster J. Corporate Sustainability Communication as ‘Fake News’: Firms’ Greenwashing on Twitter. Sustainability. 2023; 15(8):6683. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6683
- Pabon, J. (2024). The great greenwashing: How brands, governments, and influencers are lying to you. Anansi International. https://www.vitalsource.com/products/the-great-greenwashing-john-pabon-v9781487012878
- Podnar, K., & Golob, U. (2024). Brands and activism: Ecosystem and paradoxes. Journal of Brand Management, 31, 95–107. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41262-024-00355-y
- Rainforest Action Network. (2019). Fifteen environmental NGOs demand that sustainable palm oil watchdog does its job. RAN. https://www.ran.org/press-releases/fifteen-environmental-ngos-demand-that-sustainable-palm-oil-watchdog-does-its-job/
- Renner, A., Zellweger, C., & Skinner, B. (2021). ‘Is there such a thing as sustainable palm oil? Satellite images show protected rainforest on fire’. Neue Zürcher Zeitung. https://www.nzz.ch/english/palm-oil-boom-threatens-protected-rainforest-in-indonesia-ld.1625490
- Saager, E. S., Iwamura, T., Jucker, T., & Murray, K. A. (2023). Deforestation for oil palm increases microclimate suitability for the development of the disease vector Aedes albopictus. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 9514. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35452-6
- Southey, F. (2021). What do Millennials think of palm oil? Nestlé investigates. Food Navigator. https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2021/08/12/What-do-Millennials-think-of-palm-oil-Nestle-investigates
- Transparency International. (2023). Transparency international report: Corruption and corporate capture in Indonesia’s top 50 palm oil companies. Transparency International. https://palmoildetectives.com/2023/05/14/transparency-international-report-corruption-and-corporate-capture-in-indonesias-top-50-palm-oil-companies/
- Truth in Advertising. (2022). Companies accused of greenwashing. https://truthinadvertising.org/articles/companies-accused-greenwashing/
- Truth in Advertising. (n.d.). How causewashing deceives consumers. https://truthinadvertising.org/resource/how-causewashing-deceives-consumers/
- Tybout, A. M., & Calkins, T. (Eds.). (2019). Kellogg on Branding in a Hyper-Connected World. Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University. https://www.wiley.com/en-au/Kellogg+on+Branding+in+a+Hyper-Connected+World-p-9781119533184
- Wicke, J. (2019). Sustainable palm oil or certified dispossession? NGOs within scalar struggles over the RSPO private governance standard. Bioeconomy & Inequalities: Working Paper No. 8. https://www.bioinequalities.uni-jena.de/sozbemedia/WorkingPaper8.pdf
- World Health Organisation. (2019). The palm oil industry and noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organisation Bulletin, 97, 118-128. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30728618/
- World Rainforest Movement. (2021, November 22). Why the RSPO facilitates land grabs for palm oil. https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/section1/why-the-rspo-facilitates-land-grabs-for-palm-oil/
- Zuckerman, J. (2021). The Time Has Come to Rein In the Global Scourge of Palm Oil. Yale Environment 360, Yale School of Environment. https://e360.yale.edu/features/the-time-has-come-to-rein-in-the-global-scourge-of-palm-oil
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.
Say thanks on Ko-Fi#advertising #BoycottPalmOil #Boycott4wildlife #BoycottPalmOil #brandBoycotts #branding #ClimateEmergency #consumerRights #corporate #greed #greenwashing #history #OrangutanLandTrust #Resist #RSPO #RSPOGreenwashing #Together4Forests