OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil

RSPO

RSPO is a not-for-profit that unites stakeholders from the 7 sectors of the palm oil industry: oil palm producers, processors or traders, consumer goods manufacturers, retailers, banks/investors, and environmental and social non-governmental organisations (NGOs), to develop and implement global standards for sustainable palm oil.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Catarina Vieira (Member of the European Parliament)

25 Mar 2025 · Info meeting on trade agreements with Indonesia

Meeting with Leonard Mizzi (Head of Unit Directorate-General for International Partnerships)

22 Jan 2025 · Introduction of new of RSPO Public Affairs staff in Brussels; Discussion of relevant activities and projects in the palm oil sector

Meeting with Lukas Mandl (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Dec 2024 · EU development work

Response to Environmental claims based on environmental footprint methods

12 Jul 2023

RSPO Feedback to the European Commission on the proposed directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive). The RSPO welcomes the proposal for this directive as an important step to tackle misleading claims and greenwashing and as an opportunity for legitimate, robust and scientifically supported claims and voluntary schemes to distinguish themselves and to create an equal playing field for companies using them. As a member of ISEAL a global leader in defining best practices for sustainability standards and certification schemes we support stricter rules for sustainability claims as well as the establishment of minimum criteria for credible and transparent labelling schemes. With the aim of contributing to the improvement of the proposal, we submit to you the following concerns and requests for clarification, in order to facilitate the implementation of the directive for companies and to leverage the extensive experience of existing environmental standards, which are robust, transparent and in line with the governance criteria of the proposal. 1). Unclear definition of environmental label Paragraph 1.2 (page 6) of the proposal states that This proposal is however limited to environmental labels only, i.e. those covering predominantly environmental aspects of a product or trader., which is mirrored in Article 2.8 of the proposal which defines an environmental label as a sustainability label covering only or predominantly environmental aspects of a product, a process or a trader. The RSPO and many other recognised voluntary schemes maintain a holistic view on sustainability and incorporate both social and environmental requirements in its standard. It is unclear if/to what degree this proposal impacts such holistic schemes and what their responsibilities under the current proposal are. 2.) Aggregated score Art.7.2 states that only environmental labels awarded under environmental labelling schemes established under Union law may present a rating or score of a product or trader based on an aggregated indicator. The RSPO certification is awarded on the basis of a wide range of criteria (both social and environmental) that must be met before the certificate is granted. . RSPO therefore does not give a specific score or rating We read this proposal as such that it does not ban robust existing schemes such as the RSPO from the market as they are not designed with rankings or scorings. Nonetheless it would be good if this could be clarified in the text to avoid miscommunication and to prevent a situation where the EU throws away decades of experience by recognized robust schemes and industry initiatives. 3) Clarifying/harmonising the requirements for existing environmental labelling schemes RSPO supports the idea of introducing a verification mechanism for environmental labelling schemes in order to create legal certainty, an equal playing field and eliminate sub-level schemes from the EU market. However Article 8.3 - Art. 8.6 consistently refer to schemes that are established after the coming into force of the legislation. It is unclear what the responsibilities are for existing (private) schemes and how they can be incorporated into the Commissions list of officially recognised labels from art. 8.7. Furthermore we see a risk to effective implementation in the fact that some key elements of the verification procedure seem to be left to the discretion of Member States, which poses a significant risk of distortions and opportunities for authority-shopping for the easiest market entrance. As the world's leading standard for the production and trade of sustainable palm oil the RSPO will follow this dossier with interest and remains at your disposal if you have further questions on the effect of specific wording for the supply chain of sustainable palm oil to Europe.
Read full response

Response to Effectively banning products produced, extracted or harvested with forced labour

21 Nov 2022

With over 5000 members The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is the worlds leading certification for sustainable palm oil. Welcoming the continuous efforts to ensure the implementation of EUs 2020-2024 action plan on human rights and democracy, the RSPO would like to raise the following concerns and further clarifications are needed. For the full text of our feedback we refer to the attached document uploaded to the Commissions website: 1. The EU should ensure that due process is fully accorded throughout the process of investigation and that investigation should be substantial as opposed to mere desktop research.The requirement of substantiated concern must be backed with cogent evidence before action is taken against a product or supplier. 2. The establishment of a database of forced labour risk areas or products as well as an Union Network Against Forced Labour Products that is aimed at serving as a platform to ensure structured coordination and cooperation does make it necessary for proper investigation, research and evidence based allegations. 3. Given the large economic and social ramifications of this proposal the RSPO notes with concern that the Commission has decided to deviate from its own principle and has not executed an impact assessment with its only justification that there is a need for urgent action. RSPO finds that this argument,is not sufficient for the omission of an impact assessment, especially with regard to the impact of the proposal on smallholder farmers. 4. In supporting the objectives of the Commission to effectively prohibit the placing and making available on the EU market and the export from the EU of products made with forced labour, including forced child labour, the RSPO would like to submit the following questions: a) Can the Commission elaborate on when it will consider a submitted concern of non-compliance to be substantiated? b) In preambule 26 the Commissions states that Competent authorities should bear the burden of establishing that forced labour has been used at any stage of production, manufacture, harvest or extraction of a product and that to ensure their right to due process, economic operators should have the opportunity to provide information in their defence to the competent authorities throughout the investigation. Can the Commission explicitly confirm that this means a presumption of innocence on the side of the economic operator until the Competent authorities have proven otherwise? c) Given the size and value of certain shipments (for instance in the case of palm oil) the economic ramifications of ships not being able to unload their cargo are huge. With up to possible 60 days between there being an indication of non-compliance and the decision on launching a formal investigation and a presumption of innocence on the side of the operator can the Commission explain what will happen with the goods that are waiting to be imported onto the EU market in the meantime? d) Competent authorities are requested to reach a conclusion within a reasonable time frame on the case notified to them by the customs authorities. To avoid undue delay which have commercial implications, the Commission may wish to set the range for what is deemed as reasonable time frame? e) Does the Commission envisage Human Rights Dialogues being undertaken with key voluntary certification schemes as part of its efforts to have international cooperation with authorities of non-EU countries and beyond just States? f) How does the Commission evaluate the value of voluntary certification schemes as supporting evidence for companies to illustrate compliance? g) Can the Commission elaborate on its efforts to reach out to producing countries of palm oil and other risk commodities to make sure the EU legal instrument takes into consideration their efforts to address and eradicate forced labour? We thank the EC for this opportunity and look forward to further engagement.
Read full response

Meeting with Diana Montero Melis (Cabinet of Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen) and Stichting Fair Trade Advocacy Office and

17 Sept 2021 · the forthcoming proposal on deforestation-free regulation

Meeting with Eglantine Cujo (Cabinet of Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius) and European Round Table for Industry and

21 May 2021 · The value of certification in due diligence systems

Meeting with Anthony Agotha (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Stichting Fair Trade Advocacy Office and

21 May 2021 · The value of certification in due diligence systems’