The role of transnational companies in the formation of a European
Biofuels Policy
DRAFT
Jacob Nordangård, PhD. Candidate, Department of Thematic Studies - Technology and Social Change,
Linköping University, Sweden
[email protected]
Abstract
This paper deals with the role that the big transnational company Unilever had in the
formation of the European Union biofuels policy. This takes in consideration the cooperation
that this actor had with philanthropic foundations (like the European Climate Foundation),
parliamentarians (the GLOBE EU network) and some of the most influential EnvironmentalNGO: s working at the European level (Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Europe). The paper
shows how the transnational player has managed to advance legislation (the definition of
“Sustainable Biofuels”) that has been profoundly beneficiary for them in the end. By the ability
to influence important key actors the transnational company has gained the success that has
been sought. Unilever is for example one of the biggest importers of Palm Oil in the world and
the legislation deeply affects them. This also follows the pattern from the Policy Life Cycle (PLC)
model for environmental issues that was developed by Pieter Winsemius (also an adviser to
Unilever) from the influential consultancy firm McKinsey and Company in the late 80’s and used
by some of the key players involved. The paper has its main focus on the period from 2007 to
2010, which is when the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) was prepared, passed as a legal act
and implemented.
Introduction
On 21 April 2008 Greenpeace starts an international campaign that is aimed against Unilever’s use of
palm oil from the forests of Malaysia and Indonesia. They are reacting against Unilever’s choice of
buying palm oil from companies that “are destroying valuable rainforest and peatland areas”.
Greenpeace uses an advertisement, Dove Onslaught(er) – a film about palm oil, which is screened on
television and at the same time a couple of their activists dress up as orangutans stopping Unilever
employees from entering their workplaces.1 One of their forest campaigners claims that Unilever are
contributing to one of the worst environmental crimes ever committed and that this is a threat to the
orangutans. Despite “initial opposition” against the demands Unilever very sudden starts discussions
with the Greenpeace and on the 1 of May 2008, at the Prince of Wales May Day Summit on Climate
Change, they suddenly support a moratorium against rainforest destruction in Indonesia. Gavin
Neath from Unilever states that the positions of Unilever and Greenpeace “are very similar indeed”.
Unilever now declares that they want to achieve a sustainability standard for palm oil.2
1
Greenpeace (2008), Unilever's 'Monkey Business' - Greenpeace swings into action, Feature story - April 21,
2008
2
Unilever (2008), May 2008: Unilever palm oil video
1
Two years earlier the European Parliament started to discuss the future role of biofuels in the
European Union energy mix. Some of the parliamentarians supported a ban against palm oil used for
biodiesel because of the claimed environmental harm. This demand later became a part of the
parliament’s resolution about renewable energy from October 2006 as well as a wish for the
commission to develop a certification scheme for biofuels production. The certification was said to
be needed in order to secure a sustainable production. These events hook up to each other and this
paper aims to examine the connections between the parliamentarians, Unilever and the NGOs that
raised the issue. This paper shows how Unilever through aligning themselves with strategic players
influenced a biofuels legislation that benefited their corporate interests in the end. The
environmental NGOs that recognize themselves as exposing the influence of corporate power in the
shaping of European policy3 can in the other hand be considered as willing servants to the same
powers they so harshly criticize.
The Unilever and Greenpeace alliance
Unilever was at the time for the campaign the leading member of the RSPO, Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil. This was an organization that they had founded together with WWF, Migros,
Karlshamn, Cargill among others in 2004.4 Unilever had also made a big own critically acclaimed
campaign with advertisements selling Dove. Greenpeace launched their campaign with a parody of
those ads and also in April 2008 released a report, How Unilever Palm Oil suppliers are burning up
Borneo, that highlighted the destruction of Indonesian forests allegedly because of Unilevers big
interest in palm oil. Unilever was at the time the single biggest buyer of palm oil in the world (3 %).5
Through analyzing maps, satellite data and investigations at Borneo Greenpeace had mapped out
how the expansion of oil plantations had fuelled “climate change and helping driving the orang-utans
to the brink of extinction”. This was considered as a major concern for Greenpeace. The companies
involved were all members of the RSPO and main suppliers to Unilever. According to Greenpeace
Unilever had failed to lead the palm oil sector towards sustainability.6 They pretended to be an
environmentally friendly company when their actions proved the opposite. Greenpeace didn’t call for
a boycott but instead called for corporate responsibility.7
On May 1 2008 less than two weeks after Greenpeace campaign started, Unilever and their CEO
Patrick Cescau8 changed their view and started to support the moratorium that Greenpeace had
demanded. Cescau delivered a speech there he said that all palm oil that Unilever was using would
be sustainable by 2015.9 The hard rhetoric stopped immediately with Greenpeace and Unilever
instead started to work together in order to convince other actors like Kraft, Cadburys and Procter
3
Friends of the Earth (2010), Lobby Power,
http://www.foeeurope.org/corporates/news/alter_eu.htm#corporatepower (2011-05-03)
4
RSPO, History, http://www.rspo.org/?q=page/10 (2011-04-21)
5
Greenpeace (2008), The hidden carbon liability of Indonesian Palm Oil,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2008/5/hidden-carbonliability-of-palm-oil.pdf (2011-04-28)
6
Greenpeace (2008), How Unilever Palm Oil suppliers are Burning up Borneo, Greenpeace April 2008
7
Greenpeace (2008), Unilever campaign questions and answers, Background - April 21, 2008
8
It can also be noted that Cescau’s own daughter had been involved as a researcher for the international
advertising and public relations firm Ogilvy & Mather that were responsible for the Dove campaign that
Greenpeace had attacked. Ogilvy & Mather’s had also worked frequently with Greenpeace in a couple of other
campaigns. The Dove parody were however said to be of own origin.
9
Greenpeace (2008), Greenpeace campaign forces Unilever u-turn on palm oil, Press release May 1 2008,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/greenpeace-campaign-forces-uni/ (2011-04-20)
2
and Gamble to support the moratorium. Only a few weeks later on May 21 Greenpeace released a
new thick report that highlighted the need for other actors to support Unilevers call for a
moratorium. In the report a concern was raised about the expansion of biofuels production. This
would according to Unilever and Greenpeace lead to a wider destruction of forests and wildlife in
Indonesia and Brazil. For each ton of palm oil used for biodiesel, and not available for the traditional
customers like Unilever, additional palm oil would have to be grown elsewhere.10
Meeting the 5.75% reference value for 2010 for biodiesel will add further pressure on the availability
of raw material for the food industry.11
These concerns had also been specifically mentioned in Unilever’s review of the EU biofuels directive
two years earlier. One specific problem was that the raw material for biofuels would compete with
the food industry’s own needs. Development of first generation biofuels would have direct impact on
Unilever’s business, something the company wanted to prevent. The prices on rape seed had already
gone up dramatically with 40-45 % since the directive started to get implemented over Europe. This
could according to the rhetoric of Unilever result in health problems as customers would switch from
vegetable oil to products from animal fat.12 The concerns about the availability of raw material were
also included in Unilever’s answer to the EU public consultation Biofuel issues in the new legislation
on the promotion of renewable energy. They stated that this had made them to “undertake several
significant sustainability initiatives in partnership with other stakeholders” as for example taking the
leading role as chairman of RSPO.13 In October 2007 Unilever released the report Promoting
Sustainable Biofuels. In this report they said that they supported the development of renewable
energy but they were concerned with future supply of the raw material as two-thirds of the material
they used came from agriculture. First generation biofuels was considered as neither
“environmentally friendly nor a cost-effective way to reduce emissions.” They dressed the issue even
further in environmental clothing and said that they were concerned that “the use of valuable food
crops for energy purposes will increase pressure on ecosystems and biodiversity”. According to
Unilever it could also lead to deforestation and devastate “the last remaining rainforests in Borneo
and the Amazon region”.14
Unlike Nestlé, Procter & Gamble and Kraft, Unilever has recognised the global problems associated
with palm oil expansion and the need for drastic reform to this sector.15
Greenpeace were in the wake of the sudden shift positive to Unilever and the new report followed
the company’s supply chain comparing Unilever to other big buyers of palm oil. Unilever was
considered to have “recognized the global problems”. The suppliers in Indonesia and Malaysia were
however not living up to the RSPO-certification and this was associated with “risks” for leading
investors due to increased “carbon liability”.16 An impression is that Greenpeace in this report more
10
Greenpeace (2008), The hidden carbon liability of Indonesian Palm Oil
Unilever (2006), Unilever’s contribution to Review of EU Biofuels Directive, Public consultation exercise, April
– July 2006,
12
Ibid.
13
Unilever (2007), Unilever’s response to the European Commission’s Public Consultation exercise (April-May
2007) on “Biofuel issues in the new legislation on the promotion of renewable energy”, June 2007
14
Unilever (2007), Promoting Sustainable Biofuels, Unilever PLC UK
15
Greenpeace (2008), The hidden carbon liability of Indonesian Palm Oil
16
Ibid.
11
3
acted as an affiliate to Unilever and reviewed the company’s suppliers on the giant’s behalf than
acting in their own interest. This u-turn happened within a month after the big campaign aimed
against Unilever started. The release of the report just a couple of weeks after the “sudden” change
of attitude are somewhat remarkable.
Unilever were also involved and cooperating with other environmental NGOs like WWF and Friends
of the Earth (FoE). WWF, had for example, been one of the main partners in the formation of RSPO
and FoE was at the time very involved in the palm oil/biofuels issue on the European level.17 The
former Friends of the Earth director Jonathon Porrit18 who was also a long time adviser and member
of Unilever’s Sustainable Development Group19 now praised Unilever’s commitment against the rush
towards “unsustainable biofuels”.20
We are delighted to see these new commitments on palm oil from Unilever. We've been advising the
company on these issues over the last two years and have been particularly impressed at the way in
which Unilever alerted the world to the consequences of today's unsustainable rush into biofuels.21
According to Porrit Unilever’s new commitment had been discussed for months inside the company
and also discussed with the external advisors.22 The move was praised by WWF International and
their director Rod Taylor who hoped that Unilever’s actions would inspire other actors.23 Unilever’s
commitment were now a part of a greater strategy there they worked “closely and productively with
Greenpeace and other NGOs to promote change within the industry”. They also had assembled an
international coalition consisting of banks, companies and NGOs to achieve their goals of a
sustainable and certified palm oil production.24
Unilever and the GLOBE EU network
Unilever were however not only cooperating with NGOs they also had connections within the
European Parliament. This was especially the case with the cross party parliamentarian network
GLOBE EU25 that consisted of parliament members interested in shaping EU policy in matters of
sustainability, environment and global warming.26 Unilever was one of the corporate partners that
funded GLOBE EU activity. In 2008 this was done directly and later from 2010 through a body called
17
With a couple of other NGOs like Birdlife, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Transport and
Environment
18
Porrit said about Greenpeace that their choice of picking on Unilever seemed odd considering that Unilever
had been lobbying against the increase of biofuels from palm oil for a long time. He wherefore didn’t think that
Greenpeace could be credited for Unilever’s new commitment on palm oil.
19
Consisting of five advisers and chaired by Unilever Executive member, Vindi Banga, President Foods, Home &
Personal Care.
20
Food Ingredients First (2008), Unilever Commits to Certified Sustainable Palm Oil
http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/news/Unilever-Commits-to-Certified-Sustainable-Palm-Oil.html (201104-21)
21
Unilever (2008), Unilever commits to certified sustainable palm oil,
http://www.unilever.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2008/Unilevercommitstocertifiedsustainablepalmoil.asp
x (2011-04-28)
22
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/pages/2008/05/greenpeace.html (2011-05-04)
23
Ibid.
24
Unilever (2008), Sustainable Development 2008: An Overview, Report, Unilever PLC,
http://www.unilever.co.uk/Images/Unilever_Sustainable_Development_Overview2008_v3_tcm28-163522.pdf
(2011-05-01)
25
The Global Legislators Organization
26
GLOBE EU, Board and staff, http://www.globe-europe.eu/index.php/board-and-staff (2011-04-20)
4
the BEE Group consisting of “environmentally responsible” corporate partners. The BEE group
considered themselves to be a “think-do tank”. Unilever, Holcim, Dow, Rockwool and Procter and
Gamble were among the members.27
Closely connected to GLOBE EU was the European Climate Foundation (ECF). This foundation,
launched by a couple of leading American foundations28, in 2008 said “to promote climate and
energy policies that greatly reduce Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions and helps Europe play an
even stronger international leadership role in mitigating climate change” drafted long term strategies
and funded a large number of NGOs and think tanks involved in these issues. If they saw a need they
could also “engage in direct initiatives, such as commission papers, convene meetings or launch a
new organization”. The advisory board consisted of former Unilever CEO Antony Burgmans, Swedish
parliamentarian Anders Wijkman, Jeremy Oppenheim from McKinsey & Co29 and the staff consisted
of a wide range of influential experts from NGOs and business.30 One of the staff and responsible for
their transport program was Martin Rocholl previously the head of Friends of the Earth Europe and
an example of the close bonds that had evolved between big business interests and environmental
organizations.31
GLOBE EU was between 2000-2009 lead by the previously mentioned Anders Wijkman whom
together with another GLOBE EU member, Claude Turmes, were directly responsible as draftsmen
for the renewable energy directive in the parliament. GLOBE EU claimed that the parliaments
thinking about the sustainability criteria for biofuels were developed by their own Biofuels Working
Group. This was especially celebrated by GLOBE EU as a major achievement in the “fight against
global warming”.32 The preparatory work on the renewable energy directive in the European
parliament had begun in early 2006. The sustainability criteria were directly high on the agenda and a
ban of palm oil for biofuels production was first proposed by the parliamentarians and GLOBE EUmembers Satu Hassi, Claude Turmes and Rebecca Harms.33
27
GLOBE EU, GLOBE EU and the BEE Group, http://www.globe-europe.eu/index.php/partners (2011-04-20)
Oak Foundation, ClimateWorks Foundation, CIFF, Arcadia Foundation, The McCall MacBain Foundation, Sea
Change Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
29
European Climate Foundation, Advisory Board,
http://www.europeanclimate.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=63 (2011-04-26)
30
The foundation was lead by Jules Kortenhorst formerly of Shell Oil and McKinsey & Co but was later replaced
by Dr Johannes Meir (also McKinsey & Co).
FMO (2010), FMO’s 40th Anniversary Conference, Jules Kortenhorst,
http://www.fmo.nl/FMO/documents/Events/BIO%20Jules%20Kortenhorst.pdf (2011-04-26)
31
European Climate Foundation, Staff,
http://www.europeanclimate.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=51 (2011-04-28)
32
GLOBE EU, Launch of the GLOBE EU 6th Legislature Legacy Message, 2nd of April, European parliament
(Brussels), Other news, Monday, 23 March 2009, http://www.globe-europe.eu/index.php/other-news/4-othernews/364-launch-of-the-globe-eu-6th-legislature-legacy-message-2nd-of-april-european-parliament-brussels
(2011-04-20)
33
European Parliament (2006), Strategy for biomass and biofuels, Amendments 1-187, Committee on Industry,
Research and Energy, Brussels, 14.9.2006
28
5
Monocultures induced by external demands in developing countries may cause devastating forest
clearance, with environmentally but also socially destructive effects like it happened for example, as
outlined by many NGO's, in South East Asia for the palm oil industry.34
These were also concerns that the environmental committee wrote about in their opinion. In this
they also connected the NGOs as a source to these claims. The concerns and a proposal of a ban on
biofuels from palm oil were later included in the final report from the parliament.35 The
commissioner Andris Piebalgs “understood the logic” about this demand in the debate about the
issue but said that the round table discussions about palm oil had shown differences concerning the
environmental impacts. This was something that had to be considered.36 In 2007 the report on the
roadmap for renewable energy in Europe abandoned the direct demand for a ban but stated that
palm oil “could lead to the devastation of the last remaining rainforests in Borneo and the Amazon
region”. 37
Campaign against palm oil for biofuels
In 2007 a campaign from the leading European environmental organizations in Brussels started.
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth Europe, Birdlife and European Environmental Bureau were
especially concerned with the sustainability criteria and the new biofuels target that was aimed at 10
% of the total energy demand for transportation. These were also questions that the European
Commission had highlighted as important in their public consulting about the new Renewable Energy
Directive. A big focus from the environmental organizations was now raised on the palm oil issue.
The climate and the wildlife habitats were said to be severely threatened and they called for a
lowering of the target to 8 %.
Friends of the Earth Europe called for EU to “reject palm oil for energy and transport fuel” and made
a demonstration at the RSPO-meeting about the sustainability criteria in Brussels in October 2007.
FoE warned about the consequences for the environment and wanted a more strict sustainability
certification. The RSPO-chairman and the director of Unilever’s Sustainable Agriculture Jan Vis Kees
received a mini-banner from FoE:s Paul de Clerk and “said that he fully shared Friends of the Earth's
concerns about biomass and using palm oil for energy”. FoE had investigated Wilmar, a RSPOmember and the biggest palm oil trader in the world and concluded that there were grave
environmental and social problems on their plantations. 38 One of the more important customers to
the Singapore-owned Wilmar was Unilever. The sustainability certification had also been
acknowledged by Greenpeace in their answer to the European Commission’s public consultation
Biofuel issues in the new legislation on the promotion of renewable energy. They stated that the
RSPO still had to prove that it was an “effective mechanism to prevent deforestation” and soon
34
European Parliament (2006), Yttrande över handlingsplanen för biomassa och biobränslen från utskottet för
miljö, folkhälsa och livsmedelssäkerhet till utskottet för industrifrågor, forskning och energi, Bryssel 18.9.2006
35
European Parliament (2006), Report on a strategy for biomass and biofuels, Committee on Industry, Research
and Energy, Brussels, 12.10.2006
36
Europaparlamentet (2006), Europeisk strategi för en hållbar, konkurrenskraftig och trygg energiförsörjning –
Grönbok – Biomassa och biobränsle – Kärnsäkerhetsstöd (debatt)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/seance_pleniere/compte_rendu/traduit/2006/1214/P6_CRE(2006)12-14_DEF_SV.pdf (2011-04-28)
37
European Parliament (2007), Report on the Roadmap for Renewable Energy in Europe, Committee on
Industry, Research and Energy, Brussels, 20.7.2007
38
Friends of the Earth Europe, RSPO: Stop destructive Palm Oil, Press Release 9 October
2007http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2007/Oct9_PDC_RSPO.htm (2011-04-24)
6
started to investigate the matter. The issue was even more excited when the environmental
organizations FoE, Birdlife, Transport and Environment and EEB got hold on a leaked report from
European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. This coincided with the release of the Gallagher
report written for the UK Government. Both reports gave the NGOs more “solid” arguments39 as the
reports discussed the implications that the palm oil expansion could bring.
In Indonesia, for example, government plans for increased palm production for both food and biofuels
through an expansion of current agricultural land. There is a high likelihood that this expansion will
involve the clearance of tropical rain forest and the drainage of peat land. Both of these release
significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere with resultant negative impacts on the emissions
savings from biofuels.40
The expansion of Palm Oil plantations was considered as a problem because of the release of more
carbon into the atmosphere and the clearance of tropical forest. These problems with palm oil had
not been mentioned in the proposal for a directive. FoE and Greenpeace were now both releasing a
couple of press releases and reports about the severe problems they considered to be connected to
the palm oil business. In February 2008 FoE released the report Losing Ground where also human
rights impacts of palm oil plantations were discussed. FoE:s Hannah Griffiths concluded that the
report showed “that as well as being bad for the environment, biofuels from palm oil are a disaster
for people.”41 Two months later Greenpeace released the previously mentioned report How Unilever
Palm Oil suppliers are burning up Borneo and FoE released Sustainability as a Smokescreen. The latter
report investigated the sustainability standards that were used in Latin America. These standards
were according to FoE unsatisfying and open for abuse. To further illustrate the intense campaigning
against biofuels Friends of the Earth in 2008 gave the prize for the worst EU lobbying to “the joint
nomination of agrofuel lobbyists, the Malaysian Palm Oil Council, Brazilian sugar barons UNICA and
energy company Abengoa Bioenergy for their use of misleading information and greenwash.42
Parliamentary debate
The issue was now more thoroughly debated and in the first part of 2008 the commission’s
proposal43 for a directive were worked on in the parliament. The subject was during this time also
discussed in the parliaments committees. In these discussions members from the parliamentarian
network GLOBE EU were particularly active. The earlier effort from the members Turmes, Hassi and
Harms to ban palm oil for biodiesel was not on the table although a stricter certification scheme was
39
Greenpeace (2008), EU biofuels target must go NGOs call for biofuels target to be dropped as UK review calls
for an immediate rethink and MEPs go to vote, Press release - July 7, 2008 http://www.greenpeace.org/euunit/en/News/biofuels-gallagher-report-07-07-08/ (2011-04-11)
40
Renewable Fuels Agency (2008), The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production
http://www.renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/sites/renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/files/_documents/Report_of_th
e_Gallagher_review.pdf
41
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/losingground.pdf (2011-04-25)
42
Friends of the Earth (2008), Agrofuels lobby and Finnish MEP disgraced at Worst EU Lobbying Awards
ceremony, Press release 9 December 2008,
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2008/Dec09_Agrofuels_lobby_and_Finnish_MEP_disgraced_at_Worst_EU_L
obbying_Awards_ceremony.html (2011-05-03)
43
Europeiska gemenskapernas kommission, Förslag till Europaparlamentets och Rådets direktiv om främjande
av användningen av förnybar energi, Bryssel den 23.1.2008
energihttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2008
/0019/COM_COM(2008)0019_SV.pdf (2011-04-14)
7
discussed. The GLOBE EU president and member of the environmental committee Wijkman was
responsible for the opinion of the parliament about the sustainability issue that was released in July
2008 and did now support a drop of the mandatory target to 8 % which had been recommended by
JRC. If EU would stick to the 10 % target it could, according to Wijkman, “have serious implications
for food security, for biodiversity as well as for the rate of rainforest destruction”. This was for
example the case with vegetable oils used for biodiesel. An expansion of this sector could lead to
further use of previously unexploited tropical forests. If however the sustainability criteria would be
developed in “the right way” biofuels “should be able to contribute positively to climate change
mitigation and energy security”. 44
The ultimate goal ought to be the adoption of sustainability criteria that are widely accepted
internationally. The Commission is called upon to broaden the dialogue with other major actors, the
objective being to reach as common an understanding as possible.45
The goal was according to Wijkman an international accepted agreement involving major actors. The
Commission was “called upon” to broaden such a dialogue.46 At the same time Greenpeace and FoE
joined forces with European Environmental Bureau (EBB)47, Oxfam and Birdlife and urged the
members of the parliament to drop the support for biofuel and said that the “expansion of crops for
palm and soy oil” was “one of the primary causes of deforestation in Asia and Latin America “.48
Adrian Bebb at Friends of the Earth stated that the sustainability criteria were a “smokescreen” and
that the food security was threatened. When the environmental committee had their vote about the
proposal for a directive in the summer of 2008, FoE protested by handing out empty lunch boxes to
the parliamentarians.49 The vote went in favour for what FoE and the other environmental
organizations had proposed and Adrian Bebb meant that the vote gave “a clear political signal that
an expansion of biofuels” was unacceptable.50 Unilever was also against the proposed mandatory
targets and had gone out in public to raise their concerns at a meeting with the financial ministers of
the Commonwealth of Nations. The subsidies for biofuels raised the prices for its products and
caused problems for their business.51
At the 11th of September the parliament voted for a drop of the target to 8 % and also for taking “into
consideration indirect climate impact from converting land to grow biofuels”.52 It could be seen as a
victory for the pressure groups environmental concerns and Unilever’s concern for their feedstock.
Both of these demands were however not included in the final directive. As the final negotiations
44
European Parliament (2008), Opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of
energy from renewable sources (COM(2008)0019 – C6-0046/2008 – 2008/0016(COD))
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/envi/avis/2008/406140/ENVI_AD(2008)406140_EN.pdf
(2011-04-25)
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid.
47
EBB was a partner of GLOBE EU
48
Greenpeace (2008), MEPs urged to drop support for biofuels, Press Release July 7, 2008,
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2009-and-earlier/ep-vote-biofuels-target-07-07-08/ (2011-0425) http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2008/Jul07_EU_biofuel_targets_must_go.html (2011-04-25)
49
Friends of the Earth (2008), Euro MPs urged to drop support for biofuels,Press Release 7 July 2008
50
Friends of the Earth (2008), MEPs support reduced EU biofuel target, Press release 7 July 2008
51
Webb, Tim (2008), Unilever comes out against worldwide rush to biofuels, The Guardian, Monday 6 October
2008
52
Friends of the Earth (2008), Euro MPs vote to weaken EU biofuels target, Press Release, 11 September 2008
8
about the sustainability criteria were “hammered out” between representatives from the
Parliament53, the Commission and the French Presidency the issue was further linked to indirect land
use changes (ILUC). Friends of the Earth, Oxfam, Birdlife and Transport & Environment stated that if
ILUC wasn’t included a lot of more greenhouse gases would be released into the atmosphere due to
changes in the use of land. With similarities to the rhetoric’s of Unilever they said that if agricultural
land would be used for biofuels, additional land would be required for other purposes which could
cause “forests to be cleared for food crops”. They went so far to claim that indirect land use changes
could result in a “climate time bomb”. The environmental lobby wherefore supported the
parliaments wish for ILUC to be included in the directive.54 This was also something that the
industrial committee had voted for to be done before the end of 2011.
When the issue was negotiated in the Council the French presidency had given each member country
a veto which blocked a broad agreement on the directive. The parliament had according to FoE in the
end to give up almost every “improvement” on the directive they voted for in September. The drop
of the target to 8 % was scrapped and the inclusion of indirect land use changes came to be been
postponed until 2010.55
Global demand for agricultural commodities is growing. Part of that increased demand will be met
through an increase in the amount of land devoted to agriculture.56
Despite the criticism from FoE the problems with a growing need for agricultural resources were
addressed. The Commission should until 31 December 2010 review the impact of land use changes
and develop a methodology to calculate emissions caused by ILUC.57 It was also stated that raw
material for biofuels production would not be allowed to be obtained from land with high
biodiversity value and high carbon stock. This was for example the matter with continuously forested
areas “with land spanning more than one hectare with trees higher than five metres and a canopy
cover of more than 30 %, or trees able to reach those thresholds in situ”.58
The palm oil issue was also exposed in media as BBCs investigative show Panorama screened the
documentary Dying for a Biscuit where the reporter Raphael Rowe uncovered “evidence” that the
palm oil company Duta Palma was cutting down trees illegally and developed plantations on
protected land”.59 Deforestation was said to release “huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the
global environment”. The documentary was a close cooperation between Panorama and Greenpeace
53
Anders Wijkman and Claude Turmes
Foe (2008), EU risks 'climate time bomb' on biofuels,
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2008/Nov26_EU_risks_climate_time_bomb_on_biofuels.html (2011-04-26)
55
FoE m.fl. (2008), First cars, now renewable – EU governments failing climate tests – Deal on renewables held
up by French mismanagement and undermined by promotion of biofuels, Press Release 4 december 2008
56
European Parliament (2008), Position of the European parliament adopted at first reading on 17 December
2008 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2009/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives
2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (EP-PE_TC1-COD(2008)0016)
57
Ibid.
58
Official Journal of the European Union (2009), DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and
subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC
59
BBC (2010), Panorama, Dying for a Biscuit, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r4t3s (2011-05-04)
54
9
UKs forest team.60 Unilever responded immediately and stopped buying palm oil from the
Indonesian company (also a member of RSPO).61 Unilever had in early 2009 conducted an
independent audit of their suppliers which revealed “several areas of concern” and said that the
proof that Greenpeace had uncovered about their suppliers were “of a nature” which they couldn’t
“ignore”.62 Greenpeace had in late 2007 released the report Duta Palma: The Oil palm industry’s
recipe for climate disaster where one of the big concerns had been the Malaysian and Indonesian
palm oil industry’s “rapid expansion plans” in relation to biofuels. In the report they advised
governments not to support biomass or biofuels that could be “directly or indirectly responsible for
deforestation”.63
As indirect land use change and palm oil was not addressed as specific as the environmental lobby
and Unilever wanted in the directive new campaigns soon started. The implementation of the
directive was now on the agenda. In 2010 the European Climate Foundation funded FoE to work on
the inclusion of ILUC in relevant European Union legislation.64 This was a part of the project “Feeding
and fueling Europe” that also was funded by the European Union. Friends of the Earth acted with the
report “Sustainable” palm oil driving deforestation65 there they investigated Malaysian palm oil
producer Sime Darby. They also started to protest against the redefining of palm oil plantations as
forests. FoE stated that converting rainforests to palm oil plantations would create a “carbon debt”.
The European Union therefore had to “clean up the biofuels legacy”.66 At the same time Unilever
acted in cooperation with a broad range of actors to address the same “problem”. Unilever, Danisco,
Premier Foods, Palsgaard, Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth Netherlands, Shell Oil and couple
of other companies and NGOs wrote a letter to the commissioners Gunther Oettinger and Connie
Hedegaard. They had come together in their shared aim to promote sustainable biofuels. Now the
concern was that the Commission had included palm oil plantations under the definition of
“continuously forested areas” in their draft communication. This was considered as “scientifically
incorrect” by the signing actors and they urged the Commission to exclude palm oil from that
definition.67
The Communication explains that biofuels should not be made from raw materials from tropical
forests or recently deforested areas, drained peatland, wetland or highly biodiverse areas – and how
60
Greenpeace (2010), Dying For a Biscuit - Palm Oil film on TV, http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/groups/activesupporters-unit/event/dying-biscuit-palm-oil-film-tv (2011-05-04)
61
Koswanage, Niluksi (2010), Unilever stops buying palm oil from Indonesian planter, Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/24/us-unilever-palmoil-idUSTRE61N1LE20100224 (2011-05-04)
62
Unilever (2011), Unilever takes stance against deforestation, Unilever PLC,
63
Greenpeace (2007), Duta Palma: The Oil Idustry’s recipe for climate disaster,
64
European ClimateFoundation, http://www.europeanclimate.org/index.php?option=com_grants&Itemid=34
(2011-04-28)
65
Funded by the European Union and European Climate Foundation, Friends of the Earth Europe (2010),
“Sustainable” palm oil driving deforestation - Biofuel crops, indirect land use change and emissions, Briefing
August 2010, http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/resources/biofuels_briefing_palm_oil.pdf (2011-05-01)
66
Friends of the Earth (2010), European Commission plans to sacrifice forests for biofuels, Press Release, 3
February 2010
67
Unilever (2010), Letter to the European Commission, 16 April 2010
10
this should be assessed. It makes it clear that the conversion of a forest to a palm oil plantation would
fall foul of the sustainability requirements68.
In June 2010 the Commission decided about a sustainability scheme and in this they met the
demands from Unilever and the environmental organizations. Conversion of forests to palm oil
plantations would not be considered as “continuously forested areas”. In the end the biofuels
legislation and the sustainability criteria meant that palm oil as raw material for biodiesel was not a
favored option. This was of course in the interest of Unilever as this “solved” their concern about the
availability of palm oil and fear of price hikes that could lower the demand on their products. In the
corporate propaganda it could on the other hand be considered as an act of environmental corporate
responsibility and be used by Unilever as a way to look green, a work for the common good and the
goal of a sustainable future. The Malaysian and Indonesian governments did however not see this as
a way to save the environment. They considered the renewable energy directive to be a regulation
aimed to protect the European market and accused the European Commission and the western
edible oil producers to use environmental organizations as a fifth column in their countries.69
Environmental groups have made palm oil a poster child in a wider campaign to pressure developing
countries to stop converting forest land to productive agro-industries. They are ignoring the
requirement in the Bali mandate that climate change strategies should support, not undermine,
economic development.70
Criticism also came from NGOs like the pro-growth and pro-palm oil orientated organization World
Growth that since 2009 had campaigned against what they considered as misconceptions from
environmental NGOs as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. They meant that the renewable energy
directive was designed in a protectionist manner against palm oil. The founder and Chairman Alan
Oxley did however not address any criticism against Unilever instead advising the palm oil industry to
“fully support” the RSPO initiative.71
Concluding discussion
One explanation to the close connections and cooperation between Unilever, NGOs and the
European policy makers can be found in the realm of environmental management. One of the
environmental advisers to the Unilever Environment Group (UEG) was the former Dutch
environmental minister and senior partner of McKinsey & Co, Pieter Winsemius.72 He was also
advising companies such as Dow Chemicals and was a board member of the influential
68
Rapid (2010), Commission sets up system for certifying sustainable biofuels, Press Release, 10 June 2010,
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/711&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&
guiLanguage=en (2011-04-28)
69
Damodaran, Rupa (2011), EU not supporting NGOs against palm oil, article in Business Time
70
World Growth (2009), NGO Launches New Campaign, Sets Record Straight On Palm Oil, Press Release
September 28, 2009, http://www.worldgrowth.org/palmoil/index.cfm?sec=10&subSec=66&id=36 (2011-05-07)
71
Adnan, Hanim (2010), Up close with pro-palm oil lobbyist Alan Oxley, article in The Star Saturday, August 14,
2010, http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/8/14/business/6853110&sec=business (2011-0507)
72
Together with Björn Stigsson, Rajendra Pauchauri, Daniel Esty and Jonathon Porrit, Unilever (2001), Unilever
Environment Performance Summary Report 2001,
http://www.unilever.com/images/2001%20Unilever%20Environmental%20Performance%20Summary%20Rep
ort_tcm13-5330.pdf (2011-04-28)
11
environmental think tank World Resources Institute (WRI).73 In the early 1990s Winsemius wrote
prominent books like the Trilateral Commission report Beyond Interdependence: the Meshing of the
World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology74 together with the former Brundtland Commission
secretary Jim McNeill. In this book Winsemius presented a model of the policy process concerning
environmental matters. In the model, Policy Life Cycle, he outlined four phases in the environmental
policy process. 1) Recognition of the problem – A potential environmental problem is acknowledged;
often lead by think tanks as WRI, Royal Institute of International Affairs and Worldwatch; Activists
like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace draw public attention to the problem. This is in some cases
followed by a “trigger event” that spurs direct action. 2) Policy Formulation – A debate starts about
how to solve the issue, environmentalists like Greenpeace thinks that proposals are too weak and
late while business interests/lobby try to delay the game. In the end an agreement is reached. 3)
Implementation – the legislation is implemented. The NGOs “draw attention to non-compliance or
neglect” 4) Control – The environmental problem has been solved and put under control. In some
cases it needs to be redone due to inefficiency.75 The book also presented a global strategic plan on
how to achieve certain sustainable development achievements before 2012.
In 2002 Winsemius wrote the book A Thousand Shades of Green: sustainable strategies for
competitive advantage together with Ulrich Guntram that continued with some of these ideas. The
two authors had earlier been responsible for the founding of McKinsey & Co’s global environmental
practice. This book was directed towards leaders of business and gave a number of examples on how
to achieve competitive advantage with the help of environmental management excellence. In the
book it was advised on how business actors could approach the policy process and work with other
actors to achieve certain goals that could benefit their company.
The most successful companies are those that no longer see environmental compliance as a problem
to be handled by isolated specialists within the company. Rather, they factor environmental
opportunity into every business plan as a means of gaining competitive advantage.76
As exemplified in the words of DuPont’s Chairman Edgard S Woolard the environment could be seen
as an opportunity of gaining “competitive advantage”. It was also of importance to build strategic
partnerships with NGOs sharing the same concerns. This was a thing that Unilever had followed to
the script in their cooperation with Greenpeace. Winsemius and Guntram discussed the different
parts of the policy process and how big corporations could act to gain influence over the outcome.
They argued that the problem earlier had been that corporations had been involved to late in the
process. The key was now to develop 3E solutions (Effectiveness, efficiency and equity) and begin to
cooperate with former rivals early in the process.77 Winsemius and Guntram pointed out that 3E
73
He was also advising companies such as Dow Chemicals and was a board member of the influential
environmental think tank World Resources Institute (WRI). In WRI he served together with members such as
Antony Burgmans from Unilever (also an adviser to European Climate Foundation). Bloomberg Businessweek,
Executive Profile Antony Burgmans,
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=506760&privcapId=7658802
&previousCapId=247906&previousTitle=Aegon%20NV (2011-04-27)
74
McNeill, Jim, Winsemius, Pieter, Yakushiji, Taizo (1992), Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the
World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology
75
Ibid. p.
76
Winsemius, Pieter and Guntram, Ulrich (2002), A thousand shades of green: sustainable strategies for
competitive advantage, Earthscan: London, p. 15
77
Ibid. p. 43
12
solution offered a win-win solution with its combination of environmental progress with economic
self interest. The outcome of the European biofuels legislation can very well illustrate this case. Both
Unilever and the environmental organizations could in the end claim to have won influence over the
legislation. The alliance that they formed was successful but their motivations might have somehow
differed. The environmental organizations had been involved in the three parts of the policy process,
raised alarm about the issue, lobbying to strengthen the legislation and followed up the
implementation by investigating these matters in Malaysia and Indonesia. All were measures that
came to work out very beneficial in relation to Unilever’s need to gain competitive advantage.
Through a well performed strategy Unilever has managed to build alliances with key actors in the
environmental arena and has thus influenced the European Union legislation to exclude palm oil as
raw material for biofuels. In the eyes of the public Unilever can be interpreted as a company that has
a high environmental profile and acts in a responsible manner. They have cooperated with NGOs like
Greenpeace and political networks as GLOBE EU in order to work against the use of unsustainable
biofuels and the destruction of the rainforests of Indonesia and Malaysia. This is a deal that fits the
agenda of all of these actors. But behind the green rhetoric another objective that has more to do
with corporate “warfare” and the protection of Unilever’s market shares can be seen. Without the
concerns about the availability and possible price hikes on palm oil Unilever would hardly had been
involved in these campaigns and cooperation. NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have
on the other hand willingly acted together with the stronger actor and policed the fields of Malaysia
and Indonesia in search of suppliers that don’t hold up to the sustainability standards that Unilever
and the European Commission has demanded. Although the environmental and economic benefits
can be seen as a win-win solution from both perspectives it can also be severely misused. It is easy
for a corporation to get tempted to use false pretexts and with the help of their financial power steer
things in a direction where environmental “concerns” are merely a weapon in the battle against
competing business interests.
One question that this paper hasn’t raised is the connections that were undertaken between
Unilever and the European Commission and the role of lobbying from actors like European Biodiesel
Board. That is something that has to be more thoroughly investigated in order to gain a wider
understanding of this issue.
Bibliography
Bloomberg Businessweek, Executive Profile Antony Burgmans,
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=506760&privc
apId=7658802&previousCapId=247906&previousTitle=Aegon%20NV (2011-04-27)
Callon, M. (1986), ‘Some Elements of Sociology of Translation: Domestication of The Scallops and The
Fishermen of St Brieue Bay’, in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action, Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge,
Routledge& Kegan Paul, London, pp. 196-233.
Damodaran, Rupa (2011), EU not supporting NGOs against palm oil, article in Business Time
Europaparlamentet (2006), Europeisk strategi för en hållbar, konkurrenskraftig och trygg
energiförsörjning – Grönbok – Biomassa och biobränsle – Kärnsäkerhetsstöd (debatt)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/seance_pleniere/compte_rendu/traduit/2006/1214/P6_CRE(2006)12-14_DEF_SV.pdf (2011-04-28)
European Climate Foundation, Advisory Board,
http://www.europeanclimate.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=63
(2011-04-26)
13
European Parliament (2006), Report on a strategy for biomass and biofuels, Committee on Industry,
Research and Energy, Brussels, 12.10.2006
European Parliament (2006), Strategy for biomass and biofuels, Amendments 1-187, Committee on
Industry, Research and Energy, Brussels, 14.9.2006
European Parliament (2006), Yttrande över handlingsplanen för biomassa och biobränslen från
utskottet för miljö, folkhälsa och livsmedelssäkerhet till utskottet för industrifrågor, forskning och
energi, Bryssel 18.9.2006
European Parliament (2007), Report on the Roadmap for Renewable Energy in Europe, Committee
on Industry, Research and Energy, Brussels, 20.7.2007
European Parliament (2008), Position of the European parliament adopted at first reading on 17
December 2008 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2009/.../EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending
and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (EP-PE_TC1-COD(2008)0016)
Europeiska gemenskapernas commission, Förslag till Europaparlamentets och Rådets direktiv om
främjande av användningen av förnybar energi, Bryssel den 23.1.2008
energihttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeen
ne/com/2008/0019/COM_COM(2008)0019_SV.pdf (2011-04-14)
FMO (2010), FMO’s 40th Anniversary Conference, Jules Kortenhorst,
http://www.fmo.nl/FMO/documents/Events/BIO%20Jules%20Kortenhorst.pdf (2011-04-26)
Foe (2008), EU risks 'climate time bomb' on biofuels,
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2008/Nov26_EU_risks_climate_time_bomb_on_biofuels.html
(2011-04-26)
FoE m.fl. (2008), First cars, now renewable – EU governments failing climate tests – Deal on
renewables held up by French mismanagement and undermined by promotion of biofuels, Press
Release 4 december 2008
Food Ingredients First (2008), Unilever Commits to Certified Sustainable Palm Oil
http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/news/Unilever-Commits-to-Certified-Sustainable-PalmOil.html (2011-04-21)
Friends of the Earth (2008), Euro MPs urged to drop support for biofuels,Press Release 7 July 2008
Friends of the Earth (2008), Euro MPs vote to weaken EU biofuels target, Press Release, 11
September 2008
Friends of the Earth (2008), MEPs support reduced EU biofuel target, Press release 7 July 2008
Friends of the Earth (2010), European Commission plans to sacrifice forests for biofuels, Press
Release, 3 February 2010
GLOBE EU, Board and staff, http://www.globe-europe.eu/index.php/board-and-staff (2011-04-20)
GLOBE EU, GLOBE EU and the BEE Group, http://www.globe-europe.eu/index.php/partners (201104-20)
GLOBE EU, Launch of the GLOBE EU 6th Legislature Legacy Message, 2nd of April, European
parliament (Brussels), Other news, Monday, 23 March 2009, http://www.globeeurope.eu/index.php/other-news/4-other-news/364-launch-of-the-globe-eu-6th-legislaturelegacy-message-2nd-of-april-european-parliament-brussels (2011-04-20)
Greenpeace (2008), Greenpeace campaign forces Unilever u-turn on palm oil, Press release May 1
2008, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/greenpeace-campaign-forcesuni/ (2011-04-20)
Greenpeace (2008), How Unilever Palm Oil suppliers are Burning up Borneo, Greenpeace April 2008
Greenpeace (2008), MEPs urged to drop support for biofuels, Press Release July 7, 2008,
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2009-and-earlier/ep-vote-biofuels-target-07-0708/ (2011-04-25)
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2008/Jul07_EU_biofuel_targets_must_go.html (2011-04-25)
Greenpeace (2008), The hidden carbon liability of Indonesian Palm Oil,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2008/5/hiddencarbon-liability-of-palm-oil.pdf (2011-04-28)
14
Greenpeace (2008), The hidden carbon liability of Indonesian Palm Oil
Greenpeace (2008), Unilever campaign questions and answers, Background - April 21, 2008
Greenpeace (2008), Unilever's 'Monkey Business' - Greenpeace swings into action, Feature story April 21, 2008
McNeill, Jim, Winsemius, Pieter, Yakushiji, Taizo (1992), Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of
the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology, Oxford Paperbacks: New York
European Parliament (2008), Opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food
Safety on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (COM(2008)0019 – C6-0046/2008 –
2008/0016(COD))http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/envi/avis/2008/406140/
ENVI_AD(2008)406140_EN.pdf (2011-04-25)
Friends of the Earth (2008), Agrofuels lobby and Finnish MEP disgraced at Worst EU Lobbying Awards
ceremony, Press release 9 December 2008,
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2008/Dec09_Agrofuels_lobby_and_Finnish_MEP_disgraced_at
_Worst_EU_Lobbying_Awards_ceremony.html (2011-05-03)
Friends of the Earth (2008), Losing ground, A report by Friends of the Earth, LifeMosaic and Sawit
Watch, February 2008 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/losingground.pdf (2011-04-25)
Friends of the Earth (2008), RSPO: Stop destructive Palm Oil, Press Release, 9 October 2007
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2007/Oct9_PDC_RSPO.htm (2011-04-24)
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/biofuels-gallagher-report-07-07-08/ (2011-04-11)
Koswanage, Niluksi (2010), Unilever stops buying palm oil from Indonesian planter, Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/24/us-unilever-palmoil-idUSTRE61N1LE20100224
(2011-05-04)
Renewable Fuels Agency (2008), The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production
http://www.renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/sites/renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/files/_documents/
Report_of_the_Gallagher_review.pdf
Official Journal of the European Union (2009), DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from
renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and
2003/30/EC
RSPO, History, http://www.rspo.org/?q=page/10 (2011-04-21)
Unilever (2001), Unilever Environment Performance Summary Report 2001,
http://www.unilever.com/images/2001%20Unilever%20Environmental%20Performance%20Sum
mary%20Report_tcm13-5330.pdf (2011-04-28)
Unilever (2006), Unilever’s contribution to Review of EU Biofuels Directive, Public consultation
exercise, April – July 2006,
Unilever (2007), Promoting Sustainable Biofuels, Unilever PLC UK
Unilever (2007), Unilever’s response to the European Commission’s Public Consultation exercise
(April-May 2007) on “Biofuel issues in the new legislation on the promotion of renewable energy”,
June 2007
Unilever (2008), May 2008: Unilever palm oil video,
http://www.unilever.com/sustainability/news/news/unileverpalmoilvideo.aspx (2011-04-27)
Unilever (2008), Unilever commits to certified sustainable palm oil,
http://www.unilever.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2008/Unilevercommitstocertifiedsustainab
lepalmoil.aspx (2011-04-28)
Unilever (2008), Sustainable Development 2008: An Overview, Report, Unilever PLC,
http://www.unilever.co.uk/Images/Unilever_Sustainable_Development_Overview2008_v3_tcm2
8-163522.pdf (2011-05-01)
Unilever (2010), Letter to the European Commission, 16 April 2010
Webb, Tim (2008), Unilever comes out against worldwide rush to biofuels, The Guardian, Monday 6
October 2008
15
Winsemius, Pieter and Guntram, Ulrich (2002), A thousand shades of green: sustainable strategies for
competitive advantage, Earthscan: London
World Growth (2009), NGO Launches New Campaign, Sets Record Straight On Palm Oil, Press Release
September 28, 2009, http://www.worldgrowth.org/palmoil/index.cfm?sec=10&subSec=66&id=36
(2011-05-07)
16