Table 5.

Benefits and costs of involvement in a multi-stakeholder supply chain approach. (Using RSPO as an example. Based in part on Tennyson & Wilde (2000).)

stakeholder	benefits of involvement	costs and risks of involvement
manufacturers and retailers in importing countries	credible ‘more sustainable’ sourcing without the expense of creating new IP supply chains	no value to manufacturers and retailers where sustainability is not an issue
	benefits derived from a more stable and sustainable supply chain	difficulties buying into standards partly developed by competitors
		product claims based on distinctive sourcing criteria no longer an option
social NGOs	organization develops a wider reach and greater impact, e.g. on pricing schemes for smallholders and employment practices	being seen to ‘fraternize with the enemy’ and having to compromise in order to reach agreement
environmental NGOs	improved chance of conserving high conservation value forest and wildlife corridors providing continuous habitat linkage across landscapes. Good environmental practices such as terracing, cover crops, eco-efficiency become business ‘norms’	difficulties buying into standards partly developed by organizations that do not have the same core interests or priorities
Responsible Plantations and Growers Organizations	more growers invest in the Good Practices already adopted by the more responsible businesses creating a ‘level playing field’	costs of implementation and documentation
smallholder farmers	potential for improved participation, sustainability and business performance	difficulties in having a direct voice in the process. Costs of implementation and documentation
governments/public sector	standards adopted will support local laws and regulations in the producing countries. Involvement in the process provides evidence of responsiveness and accessibility	Potentially reduces the power of local officials