Baier, A.: 1990, ‘For the Sake of Future Generations’, in Tom Regan (ed.), Earthbound: Introductory Essays in Environmental Ethics (Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Ill.).Google Scholar
Berlin, I.: 1969, ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford University Press, New York), Reprinted in Sandel, M. J. (ed.): 1984, Liberalism and Its Critics (New York University Press, New York), pp. 15–,36.Google Scholar
Berry, W.: 1993, Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community (Pantheon Books, New York).Google Scholar
Boatright, J. R.: 1994, ‘What's So Special About Shareholders’, Business Ethics Quarterly4(4), 393–408.Google Scholar
The Body Shop: 1996, Annual Report.Google Scholar
Brenner, S. N. and P. Cochran: 1991, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: Implications for Business and Society Research’, Presented at the annual meeting of the International Association of Business and Society, Sundance, UT.Google Scholar
Burton, B. K. and C. P. Dunn: 1996, ‘Feminist Ethics as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly6(2), 133–148.Google Scholar
Carroll, A. B.: 1993, Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 2nd ed. (South-Western Publishing Co., Cincinnati, OH).Google Scholar
Chappell, T.: 1994, The Soul of a Business (Bantam Books, New York).Google Scholar
Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1995, ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review20(1), 92–117.Google Scholar
Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1994, ‘A Risk-Based Model of Stakeholder Theory’ (University of Toronto Working Paper), p. 9.Google Scholar
Clarkson, M. B. E.: 1991, ‘Defining, Evaluating, and Managing Corporate Social Performance: A Stakeholder Management Model’, in J. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), pp. 331–358.Google Scholar
Colburn, T., D. Dumanoski and J. P. Myers: 1996, Our Stolen Future (Dutton, New York).Google Scholar
Donaldson, T.: 1989, The Ethics of International Business (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’, Academy of Management Review20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
Eckersley, R.: 1992, Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach (State University of New York Press, Albany).Google Scholar
Evan, W. M. and R. E. Freeman: 1988, ‘A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism’, in T. Beauchamp and N. Bowie (eds.), Ethical Theory and Business, 3rd ed. (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ), pp. 97, 101–,105.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J.: 1980, Rights, Justice and the Bounds of Liberty (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E.: 1994, ‘The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions’, The Journal of Behavioral Economics19(4), 337–359.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Boston: Pitman Publishing Inc.).Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. and W. Evan: 1990, ‘Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Interpretation’, The Journal of Behavioral Economics19(4), 337–359.Google Scholar
Goodpaster, K. E.: 1978, ‘On Being Morally Considerable’, The Journal of Philosophy75, 308–325.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A.: 1955, ‘Are There Any Natural Rights?’, Philosophical Review64 (April).Google Scholar
Hill, C. W. L. and T. M. Jones: 1992, ‘Stakeholderagency Theory’, Journal of Management Studies29, 131–154.Google Scholar
Jones, T. M.: 1995, ‘Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics’, Academy of Management Review20(2), 404–437.Google Scholar
King, R. J. H.: 1991, ‘Caring about Nature: Feminist Ethics and the Environment’, Hypatia6(1), 75–89.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K, B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood: 1997, ‘Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts’, Academy of Management Review22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
Norton, B. G.: 1994, ‘Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism’, Environmental Ethics6(2), 131–148.Google Scholar
Nozick, R.: 1974, Anarchy State, and Utopia (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
Phillips, R. A.: 1997, ‘Stakeholder Theory and a Principle of Fairness’, Business Ethics Quarterly7(1), 51–66.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. A. and M. P. Bezold: 1996, ‘Organizations as the Object of Stakeholder Activism’, in J. Logsdon and K. Rehbein (eds.), Proceedings of the International Association of Business and Society, pp. 596–601.Google Scholar
Real Goods: 1997, http://www.realgoods.com/whoweare/mission.html.Google Scholar
Regan, T.: 1983, The Case for Animal Rights (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).Google Scholar
Rolston, H., III: 1994, Conserving Natural Value (Columbia University Press, New York).Google Scholar
Rowley, T. J.: 1997, ‘Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences’, Academy of Management Review22(4), 887–910.Google Scholar
Sepänmaa, Y.: 1993, The Beauty of Environment, 2nd ed. (Environmental Ethics Books, Denton, TX).Google Scholar
Simmons, A. J.: 1979, Moral Principles and Political Obligations (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Singer, P.: 1975, Animal Liberation (Review Books, New York).Google Scholar
Singer, P. (ed.): 1985, In Defense of Animals (Basil Blackwell, Oxford).Google Scholar
Starik, M.: 1995, ‘Should Trees Have Managerial Standing? Toward Stakeholder Status for Non-Human Nature’, Journal of Business Ethics14, 207–217.Google Scholar
Stone, C. D.: 1974, Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects (Tioga Publishing Company, Portola Valley, CA).Google Scholar
Taylor, P. W.: 1986, Respect for Nature (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Warren, K. J.: 1990, ‘The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism’, Environmental Ethics12, 125–146.Google Scholar
Westra, L.: 1994, An Environmental Proposal for Ethics: The Principle of Integrity (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD).Google Scholar
Wicks, A. C., D. R. Gilbert, Jr. and R. E. Freeman: 1994, ‘A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Stakeholder Concept’, Business Ethics Quarterly4(4), 475–498.Google Scholar
Wood, D. J.: 1990, Business and Society (Scott, Foresman & Co., Glenview, IL).Google Scholar
World Commission on Environment and Development: 1987, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
The palm oil sector is on the verge of important structural change, but it’s still a long way from true sustainability
Thick clouds of smoke, a suffocating heat. Forests, lush and green, bustling with all types of life, reduced to burned land and ashes. In Indonesia, in the 1997/1998 fires, approximately 10 million hectares of rainforest, an area the size of Switzerland, were affected. The regional economic costs of the fires were estimated at $9bn.
These fires were set deliberately, by palm oil estates to clear land for rapid and cheap expansion of their plantations, and to hide timber poaching and land theft. Significant air pollution, loss of biodiversity (especially threatening to the habitat of the orangutan), land grabbing, emission of greenhouse gases, degradation of peat lands and the poor position of smallholders are connected to this massive process of deforestation.
In a way, the palm oil estates cannot be blamed. They are players in a game in which the rules favour this highly unsustainable behaviour. Until 1994, the method of “controlled burning” was legal and commonly practiced in Indonesia to clear land for agriculture. The market demands a low price, which is achieved through externalizing the costs as much as possible. And the demand for sustainably sourced palm oil is low. But these fires demanded a response, and change was needed.
At the end of 1997, the WWF issued the milestone report ‘The Year The World Caught Fire’, calling for political leaders, industrialists, and other stakeholders to work together and find solutions. This finally happened in 2002, when the WWF held a multi-stakeholder meeting in London. The initiative was formalised in 2004 into the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).
The RSPO focused on standards and certification as a tool to reach sector sustainability. Interventions on a farm level and in the rest of the value chain were implemented, to change local conditions and assure traceability of sustainably sourced palm oil. RSPO has at present delivered nearly everything it has promised, and 14% of world production has been certified. But the massive forest fires have not disappeared. In March 2014, satellites revealed more than 1,400 significant fire sites, and nearly 50,000 Indonesians were reported to have suffered severe respiratory ailments due to air pollution.
We see this in other agri-sectors as well. A highly undesirable issue threatens the sector, actions are taken, certification is used as the main tool to reach sustainability in the sector, but at the end of the day the problem is not resolved. For example, in the coffee sector, a coffee crisis took place in the early 2000s. Uncontrolled production led to oversupply, which brought prices to an ultimate low and pushed farmers into bankruptcy. The need for sustainably sourced coffee became clear, and in 2004 Sara Lee and Douwe Egberts (nowadays called D.E Master Blenders 1753) were the first to enter into a partnership with a certifying organisation, in this case Utz Kapeh (later UTZ Certified).
The company committed to sourcing an increasing amount of certified coffee, starting with 2,500 tonnes in 2004. In only a few years, Douwe Egberts’s initial volume of 2,500 tonnes of certified coffee per year grew to more than 25,000 tonnes per year. Other roasters made similar commitments, even publicly claiming they would ultimately reach 100% certified volume.
But the ‘’tick-the-box’’ mentality that is ingrained in the standards and certification system does not bring true sector sustainability. Adjusting elements within the system cannot fundamentally change its outcome. A complete revision of the system is needed: a focus on continuous improvement instead of ticking off a sustainability to-do list.
Trying to change the rules of the game singlehandedly is like killing your own business. Key stakeholders from industry, civil society and governments need to join forces for pre-competitive interests, define and agree upon a sustainability strategy for the sector, create the roadmaps towards change and implement it. Simply put in one sentence, but a process that takes years and a lot of hard work.
A sustainable market transformation can be divided into four phases. The first phase is the awareness phase. An alarming issue emerges that is not likely to just go away. Individual projects are set up, mainly by NGOs, but they are not able to combat the problem.
Then the sector realises that the problem will not go away by itself and collective action is required. First movers start working together and round tables are initiated. Commitments are made and competition is fierce. The palm oil sector and the coffee sector are at the end of this second phase. It is clear that standards and certification, the primary tool to aim for sustainability in the sector, are not fulfilling its promise, and another approach is due.
The third phase is focused on structural change, on changing the rules of the game. Stakeholders work together to tackle pre-competitive obstacles for true sustainability. At the end of this critical mass phase, the institutionalization of sustainability is well on its way. In the final ‘’level playing field’’ phase, sustainability becomes mainstream and institutionalized.
The cocoa sector is at present a frontrunner when it comes to sustainable market transformations in agriculture. Eleven of the biggest companies in cocoa formulated a game-changing strategy called CocoaAction and are currently reaching out to governments, NGOs and standards and certification organizations to align efforts towards a sustainable cocoa sector. My predictions are that the palm oil sector will soon move to this third phase where the importance of standards will be less critical.
More important will be to develop a holistic sector-wide vision on what true sustainability means for the sector and how to get there; to identify the roles, responsibilities and measures of success. The sector should focus more on continuous improvement and make sure there is accountability about moving towards that objective. When that happens, I see sustainability shimmering through the clouds of smoke in the palm oil sector.
This is an extract from Lucas Simons' Changing the Food Game: Market Transformation Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture
November 2014, Greenleaf Publishing; www.greenleaf-publishing.com/foodgamebook extract cocoa coffee deforestation Indonesia Palm Oil