Research team under Göttingen leadership questions claims of large companies
Many companies work hard to present an environmentally responsible image to the public. But how well does this work? A research team led by the University of Göttingen has investigated the French Michelin Group's claim regarding the sustainability of its rubber plantation, especially environmental protection and fair payment. The team then compared these claims with the effects described by the local population in the village of Muara Sekalo in Indonesia. The villagers reported on land rights conflicts and the destruction of ecosystems and the habitat of elephants. The researchers also found that the payment on the rubber plantation could not be considered fair. The results have been published in the Journal of Land Use Science.
The long-term cooperation with Indonesian researchers (within the framework of the German-Indonesian Collaborative Research Centre EFForTS - Ecological and Socio-Economic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems) enabled the research team to interview the local people. To this end, it conducted interviews in 2017 in the village of Muara Sekalo near the "Bukit Tigapuluh" National Park in Indonesia. They then analyzed the content and studied the media coverage of Michelin's plantation project.
The "Sustainable Natural Rubber Policy" of the French Michelin Group was developed in cooperation with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Michelin has established rubber plantations in Indonesia as a pilot project to show that sustainable rubber cultivation is possible. The tire industry consumes around 75 percent of the world's natural rubber, making it a globally lucrative business. Michelin claims, among other things, that the model plantations are ecologically and socially sustainable. The United Nations Environment Programme adds that the project is wildlife-friendly and jobs are created under fair conditions. The company also uses the term "zero deforestation", which could give the impression that no forests are being cut down.
The experiences of the villagers and farmers told a different story. They reported, among other things, about conflicts over land use as well as environmental destruction caused by deforestation. As a result, elephants that had lost their habitat invaded the villagers' plots in search of food and destroyed their crops. Some farmers, they reported, were forced to abandon farming because they could not afford replanting. Moreover, Michelin's "zero deforestation" strategy only commits the company to not harvesting certain areas - no primary forest, protected forest or particularly valuable areas.
"We see that some villagers have benefited from the company's presence because new jobs have been created. Nevertheless, this project can by no means be regarded as sustainable," says Fenna Otten from the Department of Human Geography at the University of Göttingen and first author of the study. "Just because a product is labelled or even certified as environmentally friendly or sustainable does not mean that local conditions actually meet our expectations. There is a clear discrepancy between what many people understand by sustainability and what is really happening," Otten continues. "We welcome the introduction of sustainable production processes. However, it is crucial that it is not just a company PR strategy and corporate greenwashing."
www.uni-goettingen.de