ABSTRACT
Palm oil has become a controversial commodity. While it is a renewable (bio) fuel and is used as raw material for thousands of products, in the past decades it has also been identified as a major cause of deforestation and loss of biodiversity in Southeast Asia. The island of Borneo is a particular example. Until the 1970s, it was almost entirely covered by tropical forests but in the past decades logging, agriculture and mining have resulted in massive deforestation in part to
provide land for palm oil plantations. Deforestation has significantly reduced the only habitat of the orang-utan and other species, such as the pygmy elephant, clouded leopard, Sumatran rhino and other lesser known animals, as well as thousands of species of plants, which may disappear altogether within the next 20 years. The remaining forests are under extreme threat. Until 1997, the environmental degradation of Borneo had not become an
issue in either public opinion or politics. In that year, however, fires that had been set to clear land for palm oil plantations engulfed the whole region of Malaysia and Indonesia with dense smoke, causing respiratory problems and creating an international public outcry. The smoke drifted far, polluting distant cities such as Singapore. The link between deforestation and palm oil was established in the media. Eco-activist and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that had been campaigning against deforestation and logging in the region exploited the momentum by intensifying campaigns against large organizations involved in the value chain of palm oil. The industry rapidly responded to the attacks and public outcry by organizing a multi-stakeholder coalition led by the largest players in the sector and launched the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). The RSPO is exemplary of thousands of similar initiatives that have emerged in
the past three decades, which scholars (for instance: Prakash & Potoski, 2006) term as green clubs. While environmentalists tend to view such coalitions with scepticism, green clubs have been praised for promoting proactive sustainability management. While such opposing views divide opinion, studies of the formation of such clubs are relatively scarce (for a review of the literature in the field, see Orsato, 2009; Vogel, 2006). In their review, Prakash and Potoski (2012) stated that it is still unclear if the extent of the public benefits claimed for green clubs are largely a function of industry self-interest in positive representations rather than something that makes a substantial difference. King and Lenox (2000) and King, Lenox, and Terlaack (2005), in particular, question whether mass participation of firms in green clubs leads to higher aggregate effects of pollution prevention. The paper analyses the main actors and the disputes between those seeking to
preserve the forests of Borneo and those expanding palm oil production. It does so using a theoretical framework initially proposed by Orsato and Clegg (1999). We apply the political ecology framework to analysis of the case of eco-activism in the palm oil value chain. The research represents a direct response to the need for neo-institutional theory to incorporate a ‘balanced attention to both the influence of the institutional environment and the role of organizational self-interest and active agency within that environment’ (Hoffman, 2001, p. 134). By uncovering the political disputes that occur in the formation stage of an important green club, we provide grounds for a proper evaluation. The use of the political ecology framework enables us to explain the institutional wars (White, 1992) fought by stakeholders in the field (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) defining what constitutes ‘sustainable palm oil’. The research is based on a longitudinal case study of agricultural and industrial
activities around the palm oil value chain. The data were collected over the period 2008-2010 and in fieldwork during 2009, involving participant observant of
