As is often the case, the debate over palm oil was begun by determined campaigners concerned about the ill-effects of a seemingly innocuous industry. Without these well-intentioned crusaders, many pressing social issues would have simply lain dormant. But the downside to letting activists ring the alarm bell is that they can be quick to highlight facts that support their argument and quietly ignore the ones that do not fit their narrative. Such is the case with the environmental and sustainability controversies that are raging over palm oil and the companies that manufacture it.
Neither supporters nor opponents of palm oil are entirely truthful in their messaging. Palm oil should not be broadly characterised as either a miracle panacea or a misery inducing pollutant. It is, at its most basic, an abundant natural by-product of the fruit of the oil palm tree, whose properties are in high demand for use in food, cosmetics, consumer goods, industrial products and biofuel.It is the most widely used vegetable oil in the world, and the livelihood for millions of people, and calls to find alternatives are both misguided and doomed to fail. 

Giant multinational corporations, the ones that are answerable to executive boards and shareholders, will seldom be responsive to the stark proposition that some of their most profitable products are the cause of massive human rights violations and they should immediately find another revenue stream.

There are too many moving parts to an international supply chain to make such a prospect a reality in the near future. But it is the supply chain where supporters of palm oil reform need to focus their attention, and where the best prospects for improvement exist.

It is undeniable that irresponsible palm oil production is the cause of much human and environmental distress. Displaced communities, loss of wildlife habitat pollution, and forced labour are pervasive on the plantations where oil palms grow. These abuses have been meticulously documented.

Investors beware

The companies whose bottom lines are much enhanced by selling products made with palm oil should not be allowed to hide behind toothless supplier codes of conduct. The banks, hedge funds and pension trusts that invest in them should not be permitted to plead ignorance of exploitative practices that they help engender by choosing not to care.

However, what these corporations need now is a road map for the future. Activists have thus far played an indispensable role investigating the industry and using their megaphones to draw attention to the widespread problems. Vague allusions to international treaties are not useful, since corporations are not the duty bearers of such instruments. Rather, specific, concrete suggestions based on the ideals contained within these treaties are the best way forward.

For example, companies can pledge to only buy from suppliers that can prove their palm oil plantations are on land that was fairly purchased and does not encroach on indigenous tribal land. Furthermore, these companies should back up such promises by publishing the contracts on their websites.

Palm oil suppliers can guarantee their workers employment permits, a living wage and humane working conditions. They can also give force to such assurances by having an open door policy to unannounced visits by labour inspectors at any time. All players can sign up to initiatives such as the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and introduce increased transparency at all stages of their operations.

To some extent, the hardest part is over. The problem is well known. What is needed now is the will to make a difference.

Hilary Stauffer is an international lawyer who has worked on human rights and humanitarian law projects in the US, Europe, Asia and Africa.

This was first published on www.betterpalmoildebate.org.