Social Impact in Sustainable Finance: A Critical Review of Ethical Issues and Social Sustainability Challenges in the Malaysian Palm Oil Industry

Sustainable finance has become a major way of promoting responsible investment and long-term value creation by integrating Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors into financial decision-making processes. From the three ESG dimension, the social dimension has attracted more attention considering the increasing concerns about labour rights, human rights, stakeholder welfare and corporate accountability. This report focuses on the social impact dimension of sustainable finance in the Malaysian palm oil sector. The study focuses on key ethical issues affecting social sustainability such as labour welfare issues, migrant worker management, stakeholder engagement, transparency in ESG reporting and profit maximisation versus social responsibility conflict. The report uses Stakeholder Theory, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the Triple Bottom Line framework as theoretical bases for analysis of ethical challenges for the industry. The findings indicate that the Malaysian palm oil industry has a vital role in creating employment, rural development, and national economic growth but still faces several social sustainability issues that impact stakeholder welfare and ESG performance. This report gives an industry-wide view on social sustainability challenges across the Malaysian palm oil plantation industry. The analysis addresses the ethical issues that plantation companies are generally faced with such as labour welfare, the use of migrant workers, stakeholder engagement, transparency in ESG reporting and the tension between profit maximisation and social responsibility. The analysis reveals that labour welfare, protection of human rights, transparency and stakeholder’s engagement are important factors influencing the organisational sustainability and investor confidence. Based on the findings, a few recommendations are made including to strengthen labour protection, improve migrant worker welfare, enhance stakeholder engagement, increase transparency in ESG reporting, and conduct independent social audits. In addition, this study proposes an ethical framework based on human rights, stakeholder inclusiveness, transparency, social justice and long-term value creation. The report finds that social sustainability should be seen as a strategic part of sustainable finance, rather than a secondary business consideration. Organisations that can strike a balance between profitability and the welfare of the stakeholders are more likely to achieve long-term sustainability, maintain investor confidence and contribute positively to sustainable development.

Sustainable Finance, Social Sustainability, Ethics, Social Impact, Environment Social and Governance (ESG)

1. Amnesty International. (2016). The great palm oil scandal: Labour abuses behind big brand names. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Carroll, A. B. (2021). Corporate social responsibility: Perspectives on the CSR construct's development and future. Business & Society, 60(6), 1258–1278. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211001765 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cramb, R., & McCarthy, J. F. (2016). The oil palm complex: Smallholders, agribusiness and the state in Indonesia and Malaysia. NUS Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Elkington, J. (2018, June 25). 25 years ago I coined the phrase “Triple Bottom Line.” Here’s why it’s time to rethink it. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Euler, M., Krishna, V., Schwarze, S., Siregar, H., & Qaim, M. (2017). Oil palm adoption, household welfare, and nutrition among smallholder farmers in Indonesia. World Development, 93, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. European Commission. (2021). Strategy for financing the transition to a sustainable economy. European Commission. https://finance.ec.europa.eu [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Freeman, R. E., Phillips, R., & Sisodia, R. (2020). Tensions in stakeholder theory. Business & Society, 59(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318773750 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Global Reporting Initiative. (2021). GRI universal standards 2021. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Harrison, J. S., Barney, J. B., Freeman, R. E., & Phillips, R. A. (2020). The Cambridge handbook of stakeholder theory. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. International Finance Corporation. (2023). Creating value through ESG integration. International Finance Corporation. https://www.ifc.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. International Labour Organization. (2022). Labour rights and decent work in agricultural supply chains. International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. International Sustainability Standards Board. (2023). IFRS S1 general requirements for disclosure of sustainability-related financial information. IFRS Foundation. https://www.ifrs.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0111 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Malaysian Palm Oil Board. (2024). Malaysian palm oil industry annual report 2024. Malaysian Palm Oil Board. https://www.mpob.gov.my [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. (2024). Impact report 2024. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. https://rspo.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. SD Guthrie Berhad. (2024). Sustainability report 2024. SD Guthrie Berhad. https://www.sdguthrie.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. United Nations Development Programme. (2023). Sustainable development goals report 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. United Nations Development Programme. https://www.undp.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. United Nations Global Compact. (2023). Communication on progress guidance. United Nations Global Compact. https://unglobalcompact.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. (2024). Principles for responsible banking: Progress report 2024. UNEP Finance Initiative. https://www.unepfi.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2020). CBP issues withhold release order on palm oil produced by Sime Darby Plantation Berhad due to forced labor indicators. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.cbp.gov [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. World Bank. (2023). Malaysia economic monitor: Leveraging sustainability for growth. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. World Economic Forum. (2024). The global risks report 2024 (19th ed.). World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Financial Technology (Fintech): Current Research at The Cutting Edge
• Reforming Corporate Governance in Malaysia to Address Fraudulent Financial Reporting Cases
• Stock Market Efficiency and Economic Diversification in Nigeria and South Africa
• Financial Stability and Financial Performance of Small and Medium Tiered Deposit Taking Savings and Credit Cooperatives in Kenya.
• Regulator Sandboxes for DeFi: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Effectiveness in the EU, US, and Asia Pacific