IndexIntroductionWho are the stakeholders and what are their interests?Evaluation of Wilmar's responses to FOEI's allegationsRecommendation to Wilmar in responding to the FOEI allegationsWhat can Wilmar do to address the environmental challenges of its business operations? IntroductionThis case study aims to highlight the issue of accusations leveled by Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) against Wilmar International Limited (WIL), for not being environmentally and socially responsible in their oil palm plantation located in Sambas , Indonesia. The main allegations made by FOEI include fire and illegal logging of rainforests, failure to respect the rights and consent of the local community with customary rights, and failure to comply with the Forest Conversion Standards of the Roundtable on Oil sustainable palm (RSPO). We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original EssayWIL, on the other hand, strongly opposes the allegation and maintains its position insisting that FOEI's findings were unsupported as no official statement was produced by the company's spokesperson. The company's obligation and determination towards sustainable oil palm development and production were misinterpreted and thus led to WIL's misunderstanding. Firstly, regarding the issue of land clearing following fires, FOEI highlighted that there was evidence of illegal burning practices. to pave the way for oil palm plantation. With this, WIL responded by stating that the sabotage of their plantation along with the allegations of 2,300 hectares of land burned were not true. Additionally, both the company and the local authority provided documentation that the total area of ​​forest affected by the fire was significantly smaller than previously reported by FOEI. Secondly, the problem of illegal logging without prior notice given to both the local community was another accusation that WIL had to face. WIL addressed the accusation by highlighting the fact that it consulted various government bodies and industry experts. In doing so, WIL was able to obtain mandatory legal and professional documents before their development began. Third, environmental impact assessments (EIAs) of soil properties in the WIL plantation were not carried out properly and contribute to fire spread which increases carbon emissions. WIL concluded that they had hired professional consultants to conduct the EIA and, with their state-of-the-art research and development department, they found no evidence linking soil properties to the spread of fire causing deforestation and increasing carbon emissions. carbon. Fourth, WIL denies that it has developed its plantations in areas of High Conservation Value (HCV). In areas of riparian reserves that serve as habitat for riverine organisms and river seep points, development is strictly prohibited to preserve their ecological function, making them an HCV area. WIL disputed the comment and insisted that there is no encroachment on the larger Sambas River and that only a drainage system is being constructed in the smaller waterways widely practiced in agriculture. WIL strongly opposes all of the above allegations, stating that it has contacted several government bodies and experts requesting the necessary legal and professional documents before starting their development. WIL hasinsisted that just one accident at Sambas cannot standardize the social and environmental responsibility of the company as a whole. . There appear to be many areas in the exchange of comments between WIL and FOEI that could have been addressed differently and more thoroughly, especially when the activity involves government involvement. Who are the stakeholders and what are their interests? are some stakeholders in the case study, and by Using the stakeholder typology in the analysis of this case study, we can identify four main stakeholders. The typology focuses on three main attributes which are legitimacy, power and urgency. However, when these attributes are overlaid, seven stakeholders can be identified. First, the typology identified FOEI as a dependent stakeholder since it is the largest grassroots environmental network in the world. Globally, FOEI has over two million loyal supporters fighting the current environmental and social issue. Not only that, FOEI gets support from international groups that can provide ombudsman services such as RSPO and International Finance Corporation (the private arm of the World Bank). As such, FOEI can easily outnumber WIL when it comes to campaigning for a cause. gaining the necessary power and movement that could potentially influence business in plantation areas in both Southeast Asia and Europe. Secondly, European countries and companies like Unilever and Nestlé are definitive stakeholders. European countries are one of the largest importers of palm oil in the world. Fueled by the growing demand for palm oil-related products, the number of oil palm plantations has seen a significant increase, making European countries one of the reasons for the increase in environmental and social destruction. The environmental and social impact of palm oil plantation by FOEI Netherlands has led to an increase in knowledge towards environmental issues. Therefore, the vast majority of business leaders from different industries may choose not to purchase palm oil from WIL. European citizens may also choose an alternative, sometimes more expensive, following a greater awareness of the impact of their consumption behaviour. Shifting consumer preferences and awareness translates into significant economic impacts on WIL that ultimately impact their businesses and tarnish their reputation. Third, the Indonesian authorities are also one of the definitive stakeholders. Their law enforcement role supports regulation on logging and establishes EIA approval for companies to deforest sustainably. If the allegations against WIL prove true, Indonesian authorities have the right to reject WIL's operation on certain lands. A new society that offers a harmonious relationship with nature and local society can easily replace WIL in the affected plantation development area. The Indonesian government can also block WIL from penetrating and growing in the Indonesian market or conduct a more thorough check on the company's environmental and social reputation, before allowing it to set foot in the local market. Finally, local communities living in the affected area are also important dependent stakeholders. They are the ones who are directly affected by palm oil plantation activity and, if not managed properly, could gain power, through the media and activist groups, to investigate unfair trading practices in the area. Even though they have no power as the population around the project area may not be well educated, the sound of aunited community addressing a common issue will bring a change in their stakeholder status, making them very powerful in the decision-making process. Evaluation of Wilmar's Responses to FOEI AllegationsWIL is very defensive in its position on the issue highlighted in FOEI's draft findings. They said most of the allegations were unsupported and are defamatory in nature. Overall their response was not entirely transparent and much of the legal process and evidence was exempted. For example, WIL stated that they would not intentionally set fire to their plantation and that most of the fires are accidental due to the drought which made the field burn more. -prone. Their claims were not supported by any official documentation of this incident, particularly from the fire brigade or the Department of Environment and Forestry, who responded incapable of calming the uproar created by FOEI. In the matter of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report, WIL could have revealed the profile of the professional consultant employed and provided scientific data to support their response. WIL is proud of its R&D department's achievements in soil management, but did not address FOEI's concern about carbon emissions due to fire-prone soil properties, making the justification superficial and uninformative. Poor communication management of FOEI queries could raise further doubts about WIL's transparency on monitoring information. WIL's responses also show that they are taking a confrontational approach to engaging FOEI as they repeatedly dispute FOEI's findings. Furthermore, the handling of the issue occurred on two different occasions, leading to many contradictions in both responses. Simply put, the gaps in comments and even in the submission of legal documents by the local government have made WIL's attempt to resolve the issue more difficult. The company should try to gather as much information as necessary to prepare a better, complete and comprehensive report before responding to the FOEI. Recommendation to Wilmar in responding to FOEI's allegations In response to FOEI's allegations, WIL should collectively engage with FOEI, local government and society, conduct constructive dialogue, mediation and discussion to find common ground and solutions in a manner more constructive and communicative. This cooperative approach will provide a platform for the exchange of ideas and values ​​and ultimately a memorandum of understanding can be reached. WIL should solve the problem by talking to each affected stakeholder, understanding their needs and motivations for addressing the problem at a macro level. Apart from this, the inclusion of government agencies will help streamline the process of obtaining permits, EIA and will also help identify HCV areas prohibited from development. Most of the legal and policy issues faced by WIL arise from the shortcomings of government bodies as WIL is accountable to different government agencies for different permits or licenses. A more centralized government agency can be established with the help of WIL to increase the efficiency of law enforcement and enforcement. This implementation can also benefit both the government and WIL as data documentation will be more accurate and procedures will be more standardized, reducing conflicting laws and public confusion. In the context of FOEI, they seek justice for the Sambas community and reduce the effect of global warming resulting from carbon emissions from open fires.