Sustainable Certification in the Malaysian Palm Oil Industry
Sean Andrew Labansing1, Rini Suryati Sulong2*, Sidah Idris1
1 Faculty of Business, Economics & Accountancy, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
2 Labuan Faculty of International Finance, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Labuan, Malaysia
* Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Accepted: 15 June 2021 | Published: 1 July 2021
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: One of the recurring issues with managing sustainable development initiatives in developing countries lies in balancing the economic development needs of a country whilst striving to avoid environmental degradation. Although economic growth is a priority for most countries, uncurbed development can lead to environmental degradation which can have a long lasting negative impact on society as a whole. Hence, the need to balance development and environmental protection for the common good has fueled the call for greater commitment towards sustainable development initiatives for countries with heavy reliance on the agriculture sector. One of the most debated issues of sustainable development relates to the palm oil industry. In this paper, we will look at how the concept of sustainable development has been translated in sustaining the palm oil industry. Given the pivotal role that sustainable certification plays in the palm oil market, it is crucial to establish whether or not the sustainable certification of the palm oil industry is warranted. Through this paper, we argue that a clear understanding of the palm oil industry’s business ecosystem is needed, because for sustainability initiatives to succeed, all parties in the ecosystem must have a clear understanding of sustainability.
Keywords: Palm oil industry, Sustainable development, Sustainable certification
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Globalization has brought about a fundamental shift in trade and the global economy. With declining barriers towards cross-border trade, businesses have the ability to access markets and resources across wider geographical areas. Increased cross-border trade activities have also led to greater interdependence among national markets, where nations can be affected by changes outside of their borders. Although economic growth is a priority for most governments of the world, taking care of the environment is also a priority and a shared common interest.
This is because any harm to the environment can have long-term negative effects, of which can easily spread across borders. As such, taking care of the natural environment can be argued to be a collective good and the responsibility of managing it rests on the individual as well as on governments.
The importance of a coordinated management of the environment came to the global forefront with the publication of “Our Common Future”, also known as the Brundtland Report, in 1987.
The United Nation sponsored World Commission on Environment and Development (UNWCED), led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, issued a bold call to recalibrate institutional mechanisms at global, national and local levels to promote economic development than would guarantee “the security, well-being, and very survival of the planet” (UNWCED, 1987: 23).
The Brundtland Report played a remarkable role in educating the public about the urgency of
environmental problems, shifting the focus of much of the global debate towards energy profligacy (Blewitt, 2018; Choy, 2015; Redclift, 1991)
One significant contribution of the Brundtland Report was the conception of ‘sustainable development’. Sustainable development is described by the UNWCED as the ability to conduct activities “to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (UNWCED, 1987: 43). Interest in the environment has grown steadily since, especially among leaders of the members of the United Nations (UN), revolving around the idea of sustainable development. Initiatives to turn this idea into operable actions began to materialize on both the global and national level. On the international level, the Commission on Sustainable Development was established in the 1992 Earth Summit, to allow governments and non-governmental organizations to discuss issues and initiatives related to sustainable development. In essence, the 1987 Brundtland report highlights the importance of balancing the economy, the environment and society for sustainable development, as well as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Sanneh, 2018), which developed the word
‘sustainable development’ in global political discourse.
The Quandary of Economic Growth and Sustainable Development
One of the recurring issues with managing sustainable development initiatives in developing countries lies in balancing economic development needs of a country whilst striving to avoid environmental degradation. Decisions made by policymakers must take into consideration that what is decided today will not have irreversible and negative impact for the future generation.
This is a very difficult task for most developing countries because, for the most part, the power held by governments of developing countries lies on its ability to meet the needs of its populace in the present. In essence, developing countries are faced with balancing caring for the environment with the much-needed development projects geared towards economic growth, which allows for infrastructure development and creating job opportunities for its people.
For countries with a heavy reliance on the agricultural industry, managing sustainable development initiatives is a challenge. This is because dependence on agriculture, in particular expansion of new areas for commercial plantation farming, will most likely involve deforestation. It has been argued that uncurbed agricultural development and the intensive use or excavation of natural resources by firms can be prone to mismanagement that may lead to environmental degradation (Reijnders & Huijbregts, 2008; Jopke & Shconeveld, 2018;
Heilmayr, Carlson & Benedict, 2020). Uncurbed development and land clearing over the years have also fueled the call for greater commitment towards sustainable development initiatives for countries with heavy reliance on the agriculture sector.
In Malaysia, as in most developing countries, there is still a high dependence on the agriculture sector to spur economic development. To date, the palm oil industry has been one of the biggest support for the country’s food security pillar. The palm oil industry plays a crucial role in supplying three food sources: palm oil, palm kernel, and palm kernel cake (FAO, 2006). It is the most productive crop for agriculture as it produces an average of 3.7 tons of palm oil, 0.4 tons of palm kernel and 0.6 tons of palm kernel cake from one hectare of land compared to other vegetable oils. It is the most versatile vegetable oil that is almost impossible not to be found in our home for everyday use (MPOB, 2019). Hence, palm oil is arguably one of the most important agricultural commodities for the country.
Despite being an effective agricultural crop with vast potential to address food security issues in the future, there are still obstacles to be overcome by the palm oil industry. Over the years,
there have been much chatter focused on the adverse effects of palm oil cultivation on the environment, health, and livelihood of the communities in the palm oil-producing regions (Oosterveer, 2015; RSPO, 2020c; Siregar & Tan, 2019; Capecchi, Amato, Sodano, & Verneau, 2019; Pye, 2019). In regards to the environment, oil palm plantations have been associated with deforestation, damage to biodiversity (PMO, 2019; Reijnders & Huijbregts, 2008;
Konecna, 2017), and linked to violations of property rights, child labor and other human rights abuses (D’Antone & Spencer, 2014, 2015). In regards to the health controversy, high consumption of palm oil containing saturated fats has been associated with obesity and cardiovascular diseases, and possibly cancer (Chong & Ng, 1991; McNamara, 2010).
Sustainable development initiatives in the palm oil industry has also come under greater scrutiny with the ever increasing ‘anti-palm oil’ campaigns launched by environmental NGOs geared towards halting oil palm cultivation (MPOC, 2010; Nesadurai, 2013). Unfortunately, these anti-palm oil campaigns may directly harm those living in poverty in developing nations, such as Malaysia, who may be losing employment and economic means associated with the expansion of the palm oil industry. There is also doubt that other forms of agricultural ventures would not have adverse effects on the environment. Case in point, it has been argued that halting palm oil will also result in massive deforestation, as 10 times more arable land would be required to plant competing crops such as soybean to meet future shortages compared to oil palm cultivation (MPOB, 2019).
Looking at the issues highlighted, there is arguably a need to assess the efforts towards sustainability of the palm oil industry. This is particularly important for all palm oil producing countries because of the high economic dependence of most countries to this industry. As stated earlier, the palm oil industry has played a significant role in Malaysia’s economic development, and thus ensuring its sustainability is equally important. Nevertheless, the conceptualization of sustainable development embraced by the various firms in the supply chain of the palm oil industry can be exceptionally complicated (Litrico & Lee, 2018). The palm oil sector has varying degrees of ownership that includes private ownership and smallholders’ ownerships. Among the key players in the palm oil industry include plantation owners, oil extraction and refining manufacturers, suppliers and distributers, and final product manufacturers. Various companies in the supply chain are responsible for handling, storage, transport, refining, packaging, and marketing palm oil goods (RSPO, 2020b). Hence, to be truly sustainable, all stakeholders should ideally understand and carry out their role in upholding sustainable development in the industry.
In this paper, we argue that the focus on sustainable development for the palm oil industry creates a quandary between the trade-off of economic development and environment protection. Therefore, this paper will look at how the concept of sustainable development has been translated in sustaining the palm oil industry. From there, we shall look at both governance and role of the players in the industry, as well as the seeming impediments that may affect the industry’s future.
2. Sustainable Development and Certification in the Palm Oil Industry
Embracing sustainable development is not just important for national development, but also for firms and industries to survive and remain competitive. It stands to reason that sustainable development has become a noteworthy part of strategic planning for most players in the palm oil industry. Being recognized and validated for sustainability efforts would help firms increase credibility and be more competitive. Assembling sustainable development policies is
important for firms to continue to thrive in the competitive market of agriculture commodities and specially due to its dependence on an increasingly erratic pattern of changes in the natural environment. Therefore, with the current spotlight on sustainability efforts, it is increasingly important for firms understand the needs, as well as satisfy the demands, of the market in order to ensure success in the palm oil industry.
Referring back to the Brundtland Report, the main idea behind sustainable development is the interdependence of environment and economy, a call for mutual action and global cooperation.
Although the Brundtland Report introduced the need for sustainability, it failed short of establishing any detailed blueprint for policy development. For example, some researchers argued that sustainability is not something to be defined but to be declared, since it is an ethical guiding principle (Blewitt, 2018; Choy, 2015; Hui, 2019). Therefore, it became the responsibility of individual countries and institutions to construct an approach to sustainable development that would match its economic development needs.
Nevertheless, economic development and sustainable efforts is not seen as moving in tandem within the palm oil industry. In the last half-century, the rapid expansion of palm oil growth has caused multiple environmental problems with oil palm cultivation (Corley & Tinker, 2016).
In this regard, Heilmayr, Carlson, & Benedict, (2020) have described issues such as the degradation of forests and the effects of contamination to be associated with the production of palm oil. Others, such as Fleiss et al., (2020), pointed out that the clearing of forests had contributed to a loss of biodiversity and highlighted the need for sustainable practices in the palm oil industry. It was also stated that the conversion of land to oil palm plantation was also held responsible for 40% of the depletion of natural forest cover worldwide (Konecna, 2017).
The expansion of the palm oil industry can be said to have adversely affected forest coverage and caused reductions in biodiversity, leading to social conflict in some countries (Corley &
Tinker, 2016).
Recognizing the possible risks on the environment associated with the growth of the palm oil industry, as well as pressured by increased global scrutiny, a group of stakeholders created the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) to lay the groundwork for the development of certification for sustainable practices in the palm oil industry (ISPOil, 2015). The Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil – known as the RSPO, is a multi-stakeholder joint initiative involving the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), Unilever, Migros, Aarhus United Ltd., Karlshamns and Malaysia Palm Oil Organization (MPOA) (Johnson, 2019; Pye, 2019) and was formally established in the year 2004. The key goals of the RSPO are to promote sustainable palm oil production and application in the palm oil supply chain (Kohne, 2014; RSPO, 2015), as well as to enhance the environmental and social awareness of the palm oil industry through independent certification.
Sustainable Certification
Sustainable certification plays a vital role in the palm oil industry. Sustainable certification refers to the verification of compliance with a predefined standard relating to a business, product, service or management system in which a combination of the public law standard and the private standard is applied (Schepel, 2005). The conception of sustainable certification was in response to the demand to crystalize sustainable development initiatives, which was in part due to increasing global concern about the adverse social and environmental effects of the palm oil industry (Ramirez-Contreras & Faaij, 2018). Having a standardized form of sustainable certification can benefit stakeholders in the palm oil industry, as transaction costs can be reduced by sustainable certification.
The sustainable certification was based on collaborated stakeholders agreement from seven sectors of the palm oil industry (RSPO, 2020b) on its Standard Principles and Criteria (Grassroots, 2019). In addition to RSPO certification, RSPO's supply chain certification standard mandated the integrity of trade in sustainable palm oil at any point of the supply chain (RSPO, 2020b). These are achieved by controlling handling, storage, transport, refining process, packaging, and even labelling sustainable palm oil goods.
Various sustainable certification exists in the supply chain of the palm oil industry, made up of mandatory enforcement and voluntary compliance. For instance, private standards (which were different than but supportive of state regulations) were established to regulate the palm oil market, which has become a prominent constituent of the palm oil regime complex since the early 2000s (Noordwijk, Pacheco, Slingerland, & Dewi, 2017; Pacheco, Gnych, Dermawan, Komarudin, & Okarda, 2017; Rival, 2018).
The RSPO Secretariat made significant efforts to ensure the uptake of sustainable certification by firms in the palm oil supply chain. For these firms, obtaining a sustainable certification was seen as necessary to engage in international business and address environmental concerns of domestic and foreign stakeholders, as well as enhancing competitiveness with industry peers in the field of environmental management. The sustainability criteria of the sustainable certification included multi-scale, international and sub-national legislation and initiatives.
Other than the RSPO certification, a mandatory sustainable certification for Indonesia Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) and Malaysia Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) were also introduced as part of a broader sustainable certification initiative for firms in the palm oil supply chain.
One of the key reasons for its creation was that firms and stakeholders considered RSPO requirements to be too burdensome and difficult to sustain. Firms criticized RSPO as a burden on the development of Malaysia and Indonesia' and placed the interests of consumer countries above those of producing countries (Junior, Best & Cotter, 2014).
Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil
The Malaysia Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) standard, launched in 2013, is a national certification standard developed by the Malaysian government and produced with input from palm oil stakeholders. The MSPO standard is divided into four parts: universal: smallholders;
palm plantations and organized (supported) smallholders; palm oil mills. The metrics for each user group differ, but overall concepts are the same. These are organized around seven principles covering: MSPO engagement, accountability, law enforcement, social responsibility, environmental conservation, best management practices and new plantings (MPOCC, 2017). It aligns managing palm oil production with many existing national laws and regulations to help small and medium-sized farmers who have historically been unable to afford RSPO certification, operating sustainably (ISPOil, 2015).
The Malaysian Standard (MS2530:2013 series) was introduced in 2013 and the MSPO Qualification Scheme has been volunteered since January 2015. The scheme was scheduled to be introduced in a staggered approach towards compulsory implementation by December 2019.
The phased approach towards December 2019, was developed through a multi-stakeholder consultative approach taking into consideration the various stakeholder needs (time and resources) and the scale of operation, in achieving MSPO certification (MPOCC, 2017;
Kumaran, 2018). Ultimately, the MSPO Certification Scheme enables both oil palm management certification and supply chain certification.
Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil
The Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) is and Indonesian legal commodity that was launched by its Ministry of Agriculture in 2011. ISPO is an official sustainability condition based on current Indonesian legislation for sustainable oil palm plantations in Indonesia (ISPOil, 2015). It regulates a mandatory norm that includes 7 values, 52 requirements and 141 indicators (Siregar & Tan, 2019) to verify the sustainability of Indonesia's oil palm plantations.
It went through field trials involving Indonesia Palm Oil Association (GAPKI) representatives of large oil palm growers, certification bodies, pilot regional state, local, and district authorities (Winarni, Jiwan, & Sutrisno, 2014).
The ISPO is based on prevailing laws and regulations, thus making it mandatory and enforced on all plantation business operators in Indonesia. ISPO has a robust legal system and is proof of the compliance of plantation business operators to conduct business following the relevant laws and regulations in Indonesia. By taking this step, Indonesia showed its commitment towards implementing sustainable oil palm production requirements.The ISPO system intended to regulate ISPO certification management to ensure that oil palm plantation companies and oil palm growers have correctly and consistently implemented ISPO principles and criteria in producing sustainable palm oil.
3. Ideals vs Practice: Issues with Sustainable Certification Efforts
Certified Sustainable Certification (CSC) refers to the verification of compliance with a predefined standard relating to a business, product, service or management system in which a combination of the public law standard and the private standard is applied (Schepel, 2005).
Rott, (2019) added that the standardization of CSC primarily benefits related stakeholders in the palm oil industry, whose transaction costs are reduced by CSC. At the same time, it has been argued that CSC schemes can benefit such functions as consumer protection as well as other third parties (Schepel, 2005).
Of all the CSC in the palm oil industry, three distinctive sustainable certifications are being practiced by the palm oil industry supply chain. First, is the RSPO, second is the MSPO, and third is the ISPO. All certifications have merit, with RSPO being a voluntary certification, and both MSPO and ISPO being a mandatory certification by the respective governments. Table 1 demonstrates the comparison of the three standards primarily in Malaysia and Indonesia that regulate the palm oil industry. Accordingly, Efeca (2017) notes that different sustainable certification has different characteristic that yields different economic, social and environmental results.
Table 1: Sustainable Certification in the Palm Oil Industry
Source: Adapted from Efeca, (2017); Hidayat, Offermans and Glasbergen, (2018); Mansor, Wan Abdullah, Asniati, and Hassan Syukri, (2016)
However, there are doubts that the current sustainable certification efforts are adequate to address the issues highlighted with sustainability in the palm oil industry. For instance, Schouten and Glasbergen (2011) argue that becoming a member of the RSPO does not inevitably lead to a dedication to sustainable palm oil. It would also seem that rather than alleviating the health and environmental concerns associated with palm oil, the CSC has been criticized as resulting in 'greenwashing' either by accident or design (Barry et al., 2012;
Gallemore & Jespersen, 2019; Junior et al., 2014). Allegations extended to the idea that sustainable certification has been used by firms as a ‘greenwashing’ technique in an attempt to expand their plantations into the forest area (Dauvergne, 2018). Bartkus and Glassman (2008) added that being certified sustainable merely leads to symbolic declarations which are not related to action. Jopke & Shconeveld, (2018) also argued that some stakeholders, despite being pressured to be sustainable, ignored the pressures and remained in status quo.
There may be credit to the ineffectiveness of certification efforts thus far, because based on current figures, it would seem that most firms are far from meeting their 2020 targets of being certified. In Malaysia, as of October 2020 only 87.9 percent certified under MSPO (Mahadi, 2020). Where else in Indonesia, as of September 2019, ISPO has accredited just 35.6 percent (Siregar & Tan 2019) of the total 14.3 million hectares. Added to this, despite the robust support and activities of RSPO over the last 16 years, currently, less than 20% of the world's crude palm oil products have been certified (Naliaka, 2019). In Malaysia and Indonesia, which account for 80 per cent of global palm oil production, the RSPO certified oil palm plantation area is just 1.5 per cent of the total of 20 million hectares (RSPO, 2020e, 2020d; Tan & Ho, 2019). As a consequence, the low numbers of certification have raised doubts of the effectiveness of sustainable development efforts in the palm oil industry.
Critiques on sustainable certification in the palm oil industry argued that the required standard was too broad and too costly for some firms to be certified with sustainable certification (Chin,
2019). The broadness of requirements highlighted also relates closely to the issue of understanding. It should be noted that although general definitions of sustainable development command wide acceptance, they are not fully operational (Nikoloyuk, Burns, & de Man, 2010;
Weisser, 2017). However, when attempts at operationalization are made, alternative assumptions and differences in interpretation create a plurality of seemingly incompatible definitions (Kumaran, 2018). Weisser (2017) added that "ambiguity remains in the meaning and interpretation of the term sustainability among scholars, practitioners and policymakers"
(p.1017). If the meanings of such an important concept like that of sustainability in the palm oil industry are vague, it may lead to more questions than answers.
An Alternate Perspective
Based on our review of policies and literature relating to sustainability in the palm oil industry, the complexity of the supply chain and the factors affecting it were found to be interrelated issues. Despite the assurance that sustainable development has enabled the sustainable certification to be maintained in the palm oil industry, there is limited and fragmented understanding from the stakeholders' perspective on the impact of sustainable development.
There are also disparities in viewing the importance of political, economic, technological and social impacts of sustainable certification, thus affecting the approach and strategy in implementing sustainable certification.
The ecosystem of the palm oil industry is a very complex system various players along the supply chain (Peltoniemi & Vuori, 2004), which contains many relatively independent parts which are highly interconnected and interactive (Cowan, Pines, & Meltzer, 1994). Moore, (1993) described the business ecosystem as an economic environment supported by a base of interacting organizations and individuals (the organisms of the business world). Pesqueux, (2013) added that Moore's view offers a new paradigm for research, including the concept of business collaborations. This interaction provides value-added products and services to consumers, who are themselves, ecosystem members.
In the case of the palm oil industry, stakeholders function in a dynamic business ecosystem where business processes change frequently, in particular to meet market demands for CSC.
The business ecosystem that encompasses the palm oil industry may include distributors, advertisers, financial providers, universities and research institutions, regulators and standard- setting bodies, the judiciary, and clients (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Li, 2009). Ultimately, each member of an ecosystem shares the fate of the entire network.
While it has been found that sustainable certification may have overall positive impacts on stakeholders, there is still a lukewarm uptake of sustainable certification by firms in the palm oil supply chain and this seems to be an obstacle to stakeholder involvement (Basiron & Yew, 2016; Tallontire, Nelson, Dixon, & Benton, 2012; Waarts, Judge, Brons, & de Wildt, 2013).
Hence, if parts of the ecosystem are not fully engaged in sustainability efforts, it has the potential to hurt the entire industry. Nevertheless, given the pivotal role that sustainable certification plays in the palm oil industry, it is crucial to establish whether or not sustainable certification is understood as much as it is warranted.
The complexity of sustainable development and economic system in sustainable certification has generated an overflow of information, which has led to more confusion rather than cooperation. This may produce a barrier for the stakeholder to support the CSC efforts of the firms in the supply chain. These barriers may be due to different interests and perception of sustainable development among the stakeholders. For strategies to be successful, sustainable
development efforts taken by firms in the palm oil industry should to be aligned to the stakeholders’ values and expected benefits.
4. Conclusion
Through this paper, we argue that a clear understanding of the palm oil industry’s business ecosystem is needed, because for sustainability initiatives such as the CSC to succeed, all parties in the ecosystem must have a clear understanding of sustainability. Giving its importance, sustainability should be viewed as the goal for all stakeholders in establishing sustainable certification the palm oil industry. Therefore, business, governments and environmental groups may all be in favor of sustainability in the palm oil industry, but if these parties cannot agree on its operational definition, efforts taken intended towards sustainable development may not have the desired impact.
The effect of sustainable certification on stakeholders was relatively neglected until recently, as the literature focuses primarily on the implementation, recognition, engagement, and efficiency of sustainable certification by firms in the industry (Blackestam, Olofsson, &
Hamde, 2013; Ruysschaert & Salles, 2014). In addition, Wood (2010) argued that the literature generally focuses not on stakeholders but on firms directly in the supply chain and calls upon researchers to re-focus on the stakeholders' impact of sustainable development. Therefore, there is a need for further research on the role of stakeholders in the practice of sustainable certification.
We conclude by emphasizing that there is potential for sustainable certification to drive sustainable development in the palm oil industry. But it has been highlighted that different drivers and expectations of sustainable certification by the firms their stakeholders do exists.
Taking into account the complexity of the palm oil industry, it is important to investigate the concerns of stakeholders in the sustainable certification process. As such, in the case of sustainable development, the emphasis of what firms in the supply chain should or should not do, particularly in relation to their stakeholders, seems to be at the heart of sustainable development.
References
ACOP. (2018). RSPO ACOP Digest & Narrative 2018. RSPO.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems: How the Structure of Technological Interdependence Affects Firm Performance in New Technology Generations. Business, (32), 306–333.
Barrow, C. J. (1995). Sustainable Development: Concept, Value and Practice. Liverpool University Press, 17(4), 369–386.
Barry, M., Cashore, B., Clay, J., Fernandez, M., Lebel, L., Lyon, T., … Kennedy, T. (2012).
Toward sustainability: The Roles and Limitations of Certification. In Washington:
Resolve Inc.
Bartkus, B. R., & Glassman, M. (2008). Do Firms Practice What They Preach? The Relationship between Mission Statements and Stakeholder Management. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 207–216.
Basiron, Y., & Yew, F.-K. (2016). The Burden of RSPO Certification Costs on Malaysian Palm Oil Industry and National Economy. Journal of Oil Palm, Environment & Health, 7, 19–
27.
Blackestam, A., Olofsson, A., & Hamde, K. (2013). Environmental Certification - Why Do
Companies Seek it? Case Study, School of Business and Economic. Umea: Umea University.
Blewitt, J. (2018). Understanding Sustainable Development. In Earthscan (Vol. 26).
Capecchi, S., Amato, M., Sodano, V., & Verneau, F. (2019). Understanding Beliefs and Concerns Towards Palm Oil: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications. Food Policy.
Chin, S. C. (2019). Adding Value Through MSPO to Benefit Smallholders in the Long Term.
Retrieved from Https://Www.Malaysiakini.Com/Knowmypalmoil/494783. Printed 10 November 2019.
Chong, Y. H., & Ng, T. K. W. (1991). Effects of Palm Oil on Cardiovascular Risk. Medical Journal of Malaysia, 46(1), 41–50.
Choy, Y. K. (2015). 28 years Into “Our Common Future”: Sustainable Development in the Post-Brundtland World. Sustainable Development, 1197–1211.
Corley, R. H. ., & Tinker, P. (2016). The Oil Palm. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cowan, G. A., Pines, D., & Meltzer, D. (1994). Complexity: Metaphors, Models, and Reality.
Westview Press, A Member of the Perseus Books Group.
D’Antone, S., & Spencer, R. (2014). Concerns and Marketization: The Case of Sustainable Palm Oil. Concerned Markets: Economic Ordering for Multiple Values, 72–101.
D’Antone, S., & Spencer, R. (2015). Organising for Sustainable Palm Oil Consumption: A Market-based Approach. Consumption Markets and Culture, 18(1), 55–71.
Dauvergne, P. (2018). The Global Politics of the Business of “Sustainable” Palm Oil. Global Environmental Politics.
Efeca, E. (2017). Comparison of the ISPO, MSPO and RSPO Standards. Efeca, (November).
FAO. (2006). Food Security. Encyclopedia of Applied Plant Sciences, 2(2), 19–22.
Fleiss, S., Waddel, E. H., Ola, B. B., Banin, L. F., Benedick, S., Sailim, A., and Hill, J. K.
(2020). Conservation Set-asides Improve Carbon Storage and Support Associated Plant Diversity in Certified Sustainable Oil Palm Plantation. Biological Conservation, 248(May).
Gallemore, C., & Jespersen, K. (2019). Offsetting, Insetting, or Both? Current Trends in Sustainable Palm Oil Certification. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(19), 1–15.
Grassroots. (2019). Who Watches the Watchmen? The Continuiting Incompetence of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil’s (RSPO) Assurance Systems. Forest Stewardship Council Paper.
Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K. M., & Benedict, J. J. (2020). Deforestation Spillovers from Oil Palm Sustainability Certification. Environmental Research Letters, 15.
Hidayat, N. K., Offermans, A., & Glasbergen, P. (2018). Sustainable Palm Oil as a Public Responsibility? On the Governance Capacity of Indonesian Standard for Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO). Agriculture and Human Values, 35(1), 223–242.
Hui, T. T. (2019). Rethinking Sustainability Assessment: Incorporating the Ethical Dimension into Decision-Making. Technologies and Eco-Innovation towards Sustainability II, 17–
24.
ISPOil. (2015). Comparison of the ISPO, MSPO and RSPO Standards. Efeca.
Johnson, A. (2019). The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil’s National Interpretation Process in Ecuador: ‘Fitting’ Global Standards into Local Contexts. Journal of Rural Studies, 71(February), 125–133.
Jopke, P., & Shconeveld, G. (2018). Corporate Commitments to Zero Deforestation. Center for International Forestry Research.
Junior, R. M., Best, P. J., & Cotter, J. (2014). Sustainability Reporting and Assurance: A Historical Analysis on a World-Wide Phenomenon. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 1–11.
Kohne, M. (2014). Multi-stakeholder Initiative Governance as Assemblage: Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil as a Political Resource in Land Conflicts Related to Oil Palm Plantations. Agriculture and Human Values, 31(3), 469–480.
Konecna, K. (2017). Report on Palm Oil and Deforestation of Rainforest. European Parliament.
Kumaran, S. (2018). The Dynamics of Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) and its Implementation. Bern: Malaysia Palm Oil Roundtable Dialogue 2018.
Li, Y. R. (2009). The Technological Roadmap of CISCO’s Business Ecosystem. Technovation, 29(5), 379–386.
Litrico, J. B., & Lee, M. D. (2018). Naturalizing Sustainability: How industry Actors Make Sense of a Threatening Concept. Advances in Strategic Management, 38, 259–288.
Mahadi, N. (2020). Oil Palm Smallholders in Sarawak Encouraged to Apply for MSPO. Borneo Post Online, 2020.
Mansor, N., Wan Abdullah, W. A., Asniati, B., & Hassan Syukri, A. F. (2016). Palm Oil Sustainability Certification and Firm Performance: Is There a Conflict Between RSPO and MSPO? Iafor, 7, 2–15.
McNamara, D. J. (2010). Palm Oil and Health: A Case of Manipulated Perception and Misuse of Dcience. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 29(3), 240S-244S.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and Prey: a New Ecology of Competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.
MPOB. (2019). Palm Oil Driving Economic Sustenance. Putrajaya: Palm Oil Economic Review & Outlook (R&O) Seminar 2019.
MPOC. (2010). Critical Role of Palm Oil in Enhancing Food Security. Palm Oil Today, Http://Palmoiltoday.Net/Critical-Role-of-Palm-Oil-in-Enhancing-Food-Security.
Printed 18 July 2020.
MPOCC. (2017). Part 3: General Principles for Oil Palm Plantations and Organised Smallholders. Malaysian Palm Oil Certification Council, Https://www.Mpocc.Org.My/Part-3-Plantations-Organised-Smallh. Printed 17 January 2020.
Naliaka, T. . (2019). Tell Us More on Palm Oil Sources, Say Buyers. Eco-Business, Https://Physicsworld.Com/a/Tell-Us-More-on-Palm-Oil-Sources-Say-Buyers. Printed 26 October 2019.
Nesadurai, H. E. S. (2013). Food Security, The Palm Oil-land Conflict Nexus, and Sustainability: A Governance Role for a Private Multi-stakeholder Regime like the RSPO? Pacific Review, 26(5), 505–529.
Nikoloyuk, J., Burns, T. R., & de Man, R. (2010). The Promise and Limitations of Partnered Governance: The Case of Sustainable Palm Oil. Corporate Governance, 10(1), 59–72.
Noordwijk, M. Van, Pacheco, P., Slingerland, M., & Dewi, S. (2017). Palm Oil Expansion in Tropical Forest Margins or Sustainability of Production? Focal Issues of Regulations and Private Standards. ICRAF Working Paper, 274.
Oosterveer, P. (2015). Promoting Sustainable Palm Oil: Viewed from a Global Networks and Flows Perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 146–153.
Pacheco, P., Gnych, S., Dermawan, A., Komarudin, H., & Okarda, B. (2017). The Palm Oil Global Value Chain: Implications for Economic Growth and Social and Environmental Sustainability. The Palm Oil Global Value Chain: Implications for Economic Growth and Social and Environmental Sustainability.
Peltoniemi, M., & Vuori, E. (2004). Business Ecosystem as the New Approach to Complex Adaptive Business Environments. Proceeding of Ebusiness Research Forum.
Pesqueux, Y. (2013). Understanding Business Ecosystem. In Methodes and Recherches Management (pp. 1689–1699).
PMO. (2019). Keynote Address by Prime Minister of Malaysia at PIPOC 2019. Putrajaya:
Malaysia Prime Minister Office.
Pye, O. (2019). Commodifying Sustainability: Development, Nature and Politics in the Palm Oil Industry. World Development, 121, 218–228.
Ramirez-Contreras, N. E., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2018). A Review of Key International Biomass and Bioenergy Sustainability Frameworks and Certification Systems and Their Application and Implications in Colombia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 96(August), 460–478.
Redclift, M. (1991). Our Common Future Revisited. Kent: Futures, Book Review.
Reijnders, L., & Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2008). Palm Oil and the Emission of Carbon-based Greenhouse Gases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(4), 477–482.
Rival, A. (2018). Achieving Sustainable Cultivation of Oil Palm Volume 1. Achieving Sustainable Cultivation of Oil Palm Volume 1, 1.
Rott, P. (2019). Certification – Trust , Accountability , Liability. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
RSPO. (2020a). RSPO Certification Benefits of Certification. RSPO, Https://Rspo.Org/Certification Printed 29 October 2020.
RSPO. (2020b). RSPO Introduction. RSPO, Https://Rspo.Org/about Printed 21 November 2020.
RSPO. (2020c). Termination of RSPO Membership of Darrell Lea Confectionery Co Pty Ltd.
RSPO, (27 October 2020).
RSPO, K. L. (2020d). RSPO Indonesia Certified Growers. RSPO, Https://Rspo.Org/Certification/Search-for-Certified-Growers. Printed 29 May 2020.
RSPO, K. L. (2020e). RSPO Malaysia Certified Growers. RSPO, Https://Rspo.Org/Certification/Search-for-Certified-Growers Page. Printed 29 May 2020.
RSPO, K. L. (2015). The Statutes of the Roundtable On Sustainable Palm Oil. RSPO.
Ruysschaert, D., & Salles, D. (2014). Towards Global Voluntary Standards: Questioning the Effectiveness in Attaining Conservation goals. The case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). Ecological Economics, 107, 438–446.
Sanneh, E. S. (2018). Systems Thinking for Sustainable Development. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Schepel, K. (2005). The Constitution of Private Governance. Product Standards in the Regulation of Integrating Markets. Hart Publishing.
Schouten, G., & Glasbergen, P. (2011). Creating Legitimacy in Global Private Governance:
The Case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1891–1899.
Siregar, K., & Tan, V. (2019). Southeast Asia’s Palm Oil Industry Touts Sustainability Narrative but Activists Cast Doubts. Channel News Asia, Https://Www.Channelnewsasia.Com/News/ Asia/Indonesia-Malaysia-Palm-Oil- Sustainable-Practices-Activists-12166550.
Tallontire, A., Nelson, V., Dixon, J., & Benton, T. G. (2012). NRI Working Paper Series on Sustainability Standards September, 2012 A Review of the Literature and Knowledge of Standards and Certification Systems in Agricultural Production and Farming Systems. In University of Greenwich Working Paper Series.
UNWCED. (1987). Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.
Waarts, Y., Judge, L., Brons, J., & de Wildt, M. d R. (2013). Upscaling the Impact of Sustainability Certification Initiatives. In Lei Wageningenur.
Weisser, C. R. (2017). Defining Sustainability in Higher Education: A Rhetorical Analysis.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(7), 1076–1089.
Winarni, R., Jiwan, N., & Sutrisno, E. (2014). Beyond EU, RSPO and ISPO Sustainability Requirements. Ecosystem Alliance Agro-Commodity Workshop, (October), 27–31.
Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50–84.
