155
Figure 10.5a, b highlights the average scores for each of the 14 impact categories
by stakeholder group. The different stakeholder groups can be roughly divided into
two categories: those groups that are directly involved in the palm oil production/
consumption value chain (Fig. 10.5a) and those that are not directly involved but
have a vested interest in the sector (Fig. 10.5b). Generally speaking the stakeholders
that are directly involved in the palm oil value chain have provided lower scores (on
average), which seems to imply optimism about the potential to tackle the negative
impacts of palm oil production on ecosystem services, biodiversity, and human
well-being.
However there are two very interesting exceptions. Certifiers are not directly
involved in the palm oil value chain but have reported the most optimistic responses.
In particular they provided the lowest average scores in 12 of the 14 impact categories and the second lowest in 1 impact category. This optimism might stem from the
certifiers’ specific role in the sector, which is essentially to assess whether palm oil
producers meet the RSPO standards and as such whether they merit to be awarded
an RSPO certification. As it has been discussed in Sect. 10.4.1, meeting the RSPO
criteria is not necessarily difficult and should be seen as a first step toward sustainable palm oil production. It could be argued that the optimistic perception of certifiers reflects their role in the RSPO certification process which is precisely to make
it accountable and thus have faith that specific interventions can indeed reduce the
negative impacts of palm oil production. The second most optimistic group was the
“large producers,” which reported the second lowest score in 9 of the 14 impact
categories.
Another interesting exception is “final consumers.”
11
Even though “final consumers” are directly integrated in the palm oil value chain, they have provided the
highest average scores in four of the five human well-being impacts and the second
highest for the remaining impact. More interestingly their scores for ecosystem services and biodiversity impacts are much lower and more in line with the responses
provided by the other stakeholder groups directly involved in the palm oil value
chain. This trend might reflect the escalating social concerns among consumers
(especially in countries of North America and Europe) regarding the social practices
of commodities production in the global South. “NGOs” are also highly skeptical of
the progress that can be achieved by the sector. They provided the highest score in
seven impact categories and the second highest in three. “Academics” are also
highly skeptical, albeit more moderate than “NGOs,” providing the highest average
scores in three impact categories and the second highest score in seven.
Among stakeholder responses that are statistically significant (at the 10th percentile), “NGOs” consistently perceive greater challenges to achieve sustainability
than “large producers” do. This confirms to some extent the stereotype that “NGOs”
11 This category includes companies that use palm oil as a raw material and are active in diverse
industries such as food processing, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics. “Final consumer” concerns
over palm oil sustainability have been identified as a major driving force behind the development
and increasing adoption of the RSPO certification scheme.
10 Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being Impacts…
Figure 10.5a, b highlights the average scores for each of the 14 impact categories
by stakeholder group. The different stakeholder groups can be roughly divided into
two categories: those groups that are directly involved in the palm oil production/
consumption value chain (Fig. 10.5a) and those that are not directly involved but
have a vested interest in the sector (Fig. 10.5b). Generally speaking the stakeholders
that are directly involved in the palm oil value chain have provided lower scores (on
average), which seems to imply optimism about the potential to tackle the negative
impacts of palm oil production on ecosystem services, biodiversity, and human
well-being.
However there are two very interesting exceptions. Certifiers are not directly
involved in the palm oil value chain but have reported the most optimistic responses.
In particular they provided the lowest average scores in 12 of the 14 impact categories and the second lowest in 1 impact category. This optimism might stem from the
certifiers’ specific role in the sector, which is essentially to assess whether palm oil
producers meet the RSPO standards and as such whether they merit to be awarded
an RSPO certification. As it has been discussed in Sect. 10.4.1, meeting the RSPO
criteria is not necessarily difficult and should be seen as a first step toward sustainable palm oil production. It could be argued that the optimistic perception of certifiers reflects their role in the RSPO certification process which is precisely to make
it accountable and thus have faith that specific interventions can indeed reduce the
negative impacts of palm oil production. The second most optimistic group was the
“large producers,” which reported the second lowest score in 9 of the 14 impact
categories.
Another interesting exception is “final consumers.”
11
Even though “final consumers” are directly integrated in the palm oil value chain, they have provided the
highest average scores in four of the five human well-being impacts and the second
highest for the remaining impact. More interestingly their scores for ecosystem services and biodiversity impacts are much lower and more in line with the responses
provided by the other stakeholder groups directly involved in the palm oil value
chain. This trend might reflect the escalating social concerns among consumers
(especially in countries of North America and Europe) regarding the social practices
of commodities production in the global South. “NGOs” are also highly skeptical of
the progress that can be achieved by the sector. They provided the highest score in
seven impact categories and the second highest in three. “Academics” are also
highly skeptical, albeit more moderate than “NGOs,” providing the highest average
scores in three impact categories and the second highest score in seven.
Among stakeholder responses that are statistically significant (at the 10th percentile), “NGOs” consistently perceive greater challenges to achieve sustainability
than “large producers” do. This confirms to some extent the stereotype that “NGOs”
11 This category includes companies that use palm oil as a raw material and are active in diverse
industries such as food processing, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics. “Final consumer” concerns
over palm oil sustainability have been identified as a major driving force behind the development
and increasing adoption of the RSPO certification scheme.
10 Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being Impacts…