Table of contentsIntroductionWho are the stakeholders and what are their issues?Assessment of Wilmar's responses to FOEI's allegationsRecommendation to Wilmar to respond to FOEI allegationsWhat can Wilmar do to address the environmental challenges of its business operations? IntroductionThis case study aims to highlight the issue of the accusation made by Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) against Wilmar International Limited (WIL), for not being environmentally and socially responsible in their palm plantation oil plant located in Sambas, Indonesia. The main allegations made by FOEI include clearing by burning, illegal exploitation of tropical forests, disregard for the rights and consent of the local community with customary rights as well as non-compliance with the Table's forest conversion standards. round on sustainable palm oil (RSPO). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay. WIL, on the other hand, strongly opposes the accusation and maintains its position insisting that the findings of the FOEI were unsubstantiated since no official statement was produced. by the company spokesperson. The company's obligation and determination towards the sustainable development and production of oil palm was misinterpreted and therefore resulted in a misunderstanding of WIL. First, regarding the issue of land clearing following burning, FOEI highlighted that evidence of illegal burning practices has been provided. to pave the way for the plantation of oil palms. With this, WIL responded by claiming that the sabotage of their plantation as well as the allegations that 2,300 hectares of land were burned were not true. Additionally, the company and local authorities provided documentation indicating that the total area of ​​forest affected by the fire was significantly less than previously reported by FOEI. Secondly, the issue of illegal land clearing without prior notice given to both the local community was another accusation that WIL faced. WIL responded to the accusation by highlighting the fact that it contacted several government agencies and experts in the field. In doing so, WIL managed to obtain the obligatory legal and professional documents before their development began. Third, environmental impact assessments (EIA) of soil properties in the WIL plantation would not have been carried out properly and this would contribute to the spread of fire which increases carbon emissions. WIL concluded that they had hired professional consultants to conduct the EIA and that with their cutting-edge R&D department, they found no evidence linking soil properties to the spread of fires that cause deforestation and increase carbon emissions. Fourth, WIL denies having developed its plantation in areas with high conservation values ​​(HCV). In areas of riparian reserves that serve as habitat for river organisms and filtration points of the river, development is strictly prohibited to preserve their ecological function, making it an HCV area. WIL disputed this comment and insisted that there was no encroachment on the larger Sambas River and that they were only constructing a drainage system in the smaller streams which are widely practiced in the agriculture. WIL strongly opposes all of the above accusations, stating that it has contacted several government agencies andexperts to require the necessary legal and professional documents before starting their development. WIL emphasized that an incident at Sambas alone cannot standardize the social and environmental responsibility of the company as a whole. . There appear to be many areas in the comment exchanges between WIL and FOEI that could have been addressed differently and in more depth, particularly where the activity involves government participation. Who are the stakeholders and what are their issues? are some stakeholders in the case study, and by Using the stakeholder typology in the analysis of this case study, we can identify four major stakeholders. The typology focuses on three main attributes which are legitimacy, power and urgency. However, when these attributes are layered, seven stakeholders can be identified. First, the typology identified the OFEI as the dependent stakeholder since it is the largest grassroots environmental network in the world. Globally, FOEI has over two million loyal supporters campaigning on today's environmental and social issue. Additionally, FOEI benefits from the support of international groups that can provide ombudsman services such as the RSPO as well as the 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. by gaining the necessary power and movement that could potentially influence business in plantation areas in Southeast Asia and Europe. Second, European countries and companies like Unilever and Nestlé are definitive stakeholders. European countries are one of the world's largest importers of palm oil. Fueled by the growing demand for palm oil-related products, the number of oil palm plantations has seen a significant increase, ultimately making European countries one of the causes of increasing environmental and social destruction. The environmental and social impact of the oil palm plantation by FOEI Netherlands has led to an increase in knowledge on environmental issues. Thus, a large majority of business leaders from different professions could choose not to import WIL's palm oil. European citizens may also choose alternatives, sometimes more expensive, due to increased awareness of the impact of their consumer behavior. Changing consumer preferences and consciousness are having a significant economic impact on AIT, ultimately affecting their businesses and tarnishing their reputation. Third, the Indonesian authorities are also a definitive stakeholder. Their role as law enforcement enforces regulations on forest clearing and provides EIA approval for companies to deforest sustainably. If the allegations against WIL prove true, Indonesian authorities have the right to reject WIL's operations on certain lands. A new company offering a harmonious relationship with nature and local society can easily replace WIL in the affected plantation development area. The Indonesian government may also prevent WIL from entering and expanding in the Indonesian market or conduct further scrutiny of 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 directlyaffected by oil palm plantation activity and, if not managed properly, could gain power through media and activist groups to investigate poor business practices in the region. Even though they lack power because the population around the project area may not be well educated, the sound of a united community tackling a common problem will lead to a change in their stakeholder status, making them very powerful in the decision-making process. Assessment of Wilmar's Responses to FOEI's AllegationsWIL is very defensive in its stance on the issue highlighted in FOEI's draft findings. They claimed that most of the allegations were unfounded and defamatory in nature. Overall, their response has not been entirely transparent, with much of the legal procedures and evidence exempted. For example, WIL claimed that they would not intentionally set fire in their plantation and that most fires are accidental due to the drought which made the field more burned. -subject. Their claims were not supported by any official documentation of such an incident, particularly from the fire service or the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, making their response unable to quell the outcry created by FOEI. In the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report case, WIL could have disclosed the profile of the professional consultant they employed and provided scientific data to support their response. WIL is proud of its R&D department's achievements in soil management, but it has not addressed FOEI's concerns about carbon emissions due to fire-prone soil properties, making the justification superficial and uninformative . Poor management of communication towards FOEI requests can give rise to more doubts. on WIL's transparency on their control of information. WIL's responses also show that they are taking a confrontational approach to involving the FOEI, as they repeatedly challenge the FOEI's findings. Furthermore, the processing of the questions was done twice, which led to many contradictions in the two answers. In a nutshell, gaps in feedback as well as the adoption of legal documents by the local government prevented WIL from resolving the issue. more difficult problem. The company should seek to compile most of the information necessary to write a better, complete and comprehensive report before responding to FOEI.Recommendation to Wilmar in response to FOEI's allegationsIn response to FOEI's allegations, WIL should engage with FOEI and local government and society collectively, carry out constructive dialogue, mediation and discussion to find common ground and solutions in a more constructive and communicative manner. This cooperative approach will provide a platform for the exchange of ideas and values, and ultimately a memorandum of understanding can be concluded. WIL should solve the problem by speaking to each relevant stakeholder, understanding their needs and motivations to address the problem at the macro level. Furthermore, the inclusion of government agencies will help streamline the process of acquiring permits, EIA and will also help identify HCV areas prohibited for development. Most of the legal and policy problems that WIL faces arise from the shortcomings of government agencies, as WIL has to report to different government agencies for different permits or licenses. A more centralized government body can be created with the help of WIL to increase the efficiency of compliance and enforcement of the law...