1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

3. Results

3.2. Social Capital Practice

Social capital refers to the amalgamation of potential resources related to the ownership of a network of institutional relationships that are based on mutual acquaintance and recognition [49,50]. Landowners and palm oil plantations should maintain a good relationship to realise their expectations. A good social capital corresponds to favourable relationship quality, trust, norms and networks [51]. This dimension also contributes to the construction of high-quality relationships between individuals and groups [52,53,54].

3.2.1. Trust

The lack of trust of landowners towards the company may be due to the lack of communication between these parties. Communication plays a key role in achieving the goals of both parties. The relationship between landowners/farmers and the company needs to be improved by promoting openness or communication. One landowner commented,

‘In the past, when the company started clearing land and planting palm oil, it always engaged in socialisation with the local community. However, the company stopped socialising with the community after it started producing palm. The company was not open, and the production results did not meet the conditions agreed upon by both parties’.

Most of the landowners (73%) believed that they have the same goals in this partnership. Whilst the majority of them no longer trust the company, a small percentage (27%) still showed confidence in the company. Due to their dissatisfaction, some farmers started staging demonstrations, which reflect the lack of trust of the community towards the company. The local government acts as a facilitator in resolving this matter. One respondent shared,

‘The community often reports to the government, but the government only listens and accepts the concerns of the community. The community waits for a response from the government, but the government takes no action. So, the community immediately went to the field to demonstrate at the company and shut down is operations. The company only responded to the community after the demonstration. But now, people must wait for the results from the company because they are tired of reporting to the government and holding demonstrations’.

Communication breakdowns and weakened mutual trust have a reciprocal relationship. Specifically, lack of communication weakens mutual trust, and a weakened mutual trust creates communication barriers. In other words, minimal or interrupted communication leads to minimal trust, which in turn hinders the formation of social networks and affects community participation. Therefore, the company should create a space to communicate with landowners and openly discuss their problems. As partners, landowners should also participate in the activities of the company, especially those related to land productivity. Yue et al. (2019) describe trust as a bridge that transforms people into leaders whose success greatly relies on communication. They also confirm that transformational leadership and transparent communication are positively related to organisational trust, which in turn influences openness.

Trust also determines leadership success and business agility [56], and lack of trust in the public can lead to failure [57]. Kolot et al. (2020) find that trust, as a dominant structure of social wealth, is significantly related to socioeconomic development.

The low level of trust of farmers towards the company may be ascribed to their lack of communication and education regarding the technical and economic aspects of palm oil manufacturing. However, the company communicated with landowners from time to time, such as at the beginning of palm oil production and when informing landowners that they still owe money to the company. Landowning farmers should be able to measure the productivity of their land, and the company should prioritise its business whilst improving the knowledge and skills of landowning farmers. Improving such capacity can also enhance the capabilities of farmers to achieve equality with the company and the government. Having rich resources also promotes the trust of farmers in their partner company. Besley and Dray (2022) argue that trust in government leads to greater policy compliance, thereby increasing state capacity, whilst Manoj et al. (2020) emphasise the importance of trust within and between institutions in capacity building. In sum, trust is one of the keys to enhancing community and institutional capacity.

3.2.2. Social Networking and Participation

Scherp et al. (2009) define a social network as a social structure of actors tied by specific relationships or interdependencies. Thilagam (2010) proposes various types of social networks, including friendship, collaboration and business. Trust is an important component of close friendships on social networking sites that are established through similar activities and signals [63]. Carchiolo et al. (2007) propose an approach for building trust in social networks that highlights the importance of gathering information and opinions from friends to build trust towards new acquaintances. Paletto et al. (2015) emphasise the significance of similarity and trust in forming groups on social networks, with trust being more valuable than similarity in the group formation process.

Farmers have very weak social networks for managing palm oil business partnerships, especially in partnerships that adopt the profit-sharing model. Data from the FGD show that the weakness of these social networks and farmers’ participation is due to economic, social and institutional dimensions. As for the economic dimension, farmers do not have the power to market their palm oil production given their contractual obligations with the company , and they accumulate with debt from investment and operational costs. As for the social dimension, landowners/farmers do not have a strong social network to work together with individuals and groups, and they have no leader to whom they can turn to whenever they have a problem. Their individual capacity also influences how they build networks amongst themselves. As for the institutional dimension, community leaders and village heads do not function optimally given the absence of farmer groups or combinations of farmer groups, village-owned enterprises or cooperatives.

Palm oil farmers also do not have good relationships with their fellow farmers. They tend to go their own way, thus discouraging collaborative actions against the company. They are also not informed about the amount of palm oil being produced and the presence or absence of any assistance.

‘There are no farmer groups, so we have no one to talk to if there is a problem. We have no leader or chairperson, and the village government is unreliable. We hope that a farmer group will be formed to help its members. We are unable to communicate with the company when we have a problem’.

A good social network is characterised by good interaction, communication and community [66]. Interaction is an important aspect of a good social network [67,68]. Cramton and Doyle (2017) discuss the concept of open access markets, which can help manage the growing demand and remove the barriers for service providers, thus allowing for increased competition and access to market resources. Soria (2015) highlights the benefits of social networks for small and medium-sized businesses and emphasise the ease of accessing information and the marketing potential they offer.

Table 4. Table 4. Respondents’ assessment of Social Networks and stakeholder participation in the Sustainability of Partnership Model Palm Oil Plantation Businesses.

Table 4. Table 4. Respondents’ assessment of Social Networks and stakeholder participation in the Sustainability of Partnership Model Palm Oil Plantation Businesses.

Respondents’ Social Networks and Participation	Respondents’ Assessments (Score=1-5)
	SPL DJL (N=100)	DJL (N=109)	PTPN 14 (N=111)
Economics	Score/(N)	Score/(N)	Score/(N)
Access to companies related to employment opportunities Productivity transparency of plasma/community palm oil plantations Access market price information Family participation in savings and loan cooperatives	4 (95) 3 (100) 2 (85) 2 (50)	4 (105) 3 (43) 2 (60) 2 (15)	4 (80) 2 (77) 2 (55) 2 (35)
Ecology	Score /(N)	Score /(N)	Score /(N)
Involvement of environmental NGOs Government attention to the environment Farmer participation in protecting environmental pollution Cooperate in preventing land damage	4 (81) 3 (83) 3 (75) 3 (97)	4 (89) 3 (92) 3 (105) 3 (87)	3 (50) 3 (90) 3 (75) 3 (93)
Social	Score/(N)	Score/(N)	Score/(N)
The education level of farmer families increases Intensity of agricultural extension There is communication between farmers Communication between the community and the company Communication between farmers and community leaders	4 (85) 3 (72) 3 (85) 2 (70) 4 (98)	4 (60) 2 (68) 3 (78) 2 (39) 4 (92)	4 (60) 3 (70) 4 (82) 2 (41) 4 (90)

Source: Data from research results after processing. Description: value 1 (bad); score 2 (not good); score 3 (fairly good); value 4 (good); score 5 (very good), N=Total of Respondents’.

Social Networks and Participation Respondents in economic sustainability showed varying values; generally, the farmer’s assessment was quite good, and the respondents generally agreed that the presence of the company introduced employment opportunities in the community. However, the company shows poor transparency in disclosing prices and its production results to landowners. The participation of landowners in cooperatives is also low. Regarding ecological sustainability, social networks and farmer participation can be ranked as good, and farmers always participate and collaborate in protecting the environment. NGOs also positively contribute to environmental issues. With regard to social sustainability, the existence of the company has benefitted farming families by increasing their access to education, their income and the availability of employment opportunities.

The communications between farmers and companies and amongst landowners, the government and community leaders are all positive. However, the three aspects of sustainability still warrant improvement to contribute to the implementation of social capital.

Ruggeri and Samoggia (2018) identify several factors that influence the social networks and participation of palm oil farmers. One of these factors is access to information. Palm oil farmers generally access the latest information about cultivation techniques, market prices and innovation technology from their social networks. Improving their access to information can thus increase their production efficiency and support their economic sustainability. Social networks also provide farmers with better access to financial services, including credit and insurance, which are essential for their investment in innovation and risk mitigation. Peng et al. (2021) and Rizal and Nordin (2022) argue that leadership, organisation and communication technology all influence the social networks and participation of palm oil farmers in economic sustainability. These results highlight the importance of the centrality of communication networks and other aspects, such as individual perception, political engagement, involvement in affiliations and sustainable use of natural resources [74,75].

3.2.3. Social Solidarity

Social solidarity refers to the reciprocal relationship amongst individuals [76]. This type of solidarity is often observed in groups characterised by respect, reciprocal feelings, trust, selflessness, pride and suffering from loss or betrayal [77]. In other words, social solidarity refers to an act of cooperation based on a mutually beneficial relationship. The establishment of the company in the study area did not change the habits of the local community; residents remained open and continued helping one another and working together in their local language. This form of social solidarity is called ‘Pepekoaso/Meronga-Meronga’, which is particularly evident at times of natural disasters, deaths and marriages. The palm oil company offered many contributions to the community, to which the local community reacted favourably. In other words, companies that respect the community receive favourable treatment from the community in return. By maintaining the culture or norms of indigenous communities, companies can engage in their business sustainably. Results show that public openness to what is expected from the Company, which will be an input in making operational decisions for the future.

Table 5. Stakeholder statements are expected to receive a good response from the Company.

Table 5. Stakeholder statements are expected to receive a good response from the Company.

No	Stakeholder	Stakeholder Statement of Solidarity in Palm Oil Plantation Business
1	Land Owners (Farmers)	Landowners/farmers hope for support or facilities from companies to be facilitated by the government
2	NGOs	NGOs hope that the role of palm oil companies can protect the environment and ensure fair welfare for land owners/farmers.
3	The Government	The Government of the Regent of North Konawe, through the Plantation and Horticulture Service, instructed the Company to commit to fulfilling permits as a condition for building the factory. The parties need to help investors continue to operate.
4	Academics	Provide support so that companies are committed to realizing the welfare of farmers/land owners who are their partners while still paying attention to institutional strengthening, improving cultivation technology and waste management for the benefit of increasing palm oil productivity, Provide a role in managing palm oil processing factories, providing labor wages and capacity-building training to farmers/land owners. Moreover, the sustainability aspect should not be ignored from an ecological perspective. Recommend that the government really strengthen the position of farmers, especially in terms of implementing regional minimum wages for workers, disclosing information on palm oil prices, and launching Regional Regulations on Sustainable Palm Oil Management.
	Regional Legislative Member	Increase awareness of environmental issues and strengthen institutions. The existence of an oil palm plantation company shows its commitment to realizing the welfare of partner farmers, utilizing palm oil products from the North Konawe Regency. .
	Youth Farmers (Young generation)	The younger generation (land-owning families) specifically want their parents to improve their skills in managing oil palm plantations

Source: Data from research results after processing on FGD meeting.

Stakeholder statement refers to the commitment of stakeholders towards working together to achieve their goals, such as improving community welfare and protecting the environment. Maintaining the environment is a duty for all stakeholders [78,79,80]. Through CSR, the company can contribute to improving the local economy and ensuring environmental sustainability [81,82].

3.2.4. Reciprocal Benefits

As a social construct of the agrarian society in North Konawe, reciprocal benefits involve the provision of mutual benefits and building of intimate relationships. This concept has been equated to the main principle of cooperation (‘medulu-medulu’ in local language). The partnerships amongst the company, plantations and landowners/farmers are expected to produce reciprocal benefits. Christiawan and Limaho (2020) state that palm oil companies provide new insights and skills for the community, whilst Snashall and Poulos (2023) suggest that the social responsibility of these companies is considered a reciprocal benefit for the community.

Results of the interviews and FGD show that the company and the landowners/farmers need to improve their understanding of the importance of maintaining equal position and justice to receive benefits. These parties need to show their concrete efforts and commitment towards achieving open, equal communication patterns that are based on transparency and accountability, especially regarding production costs, production and prices. Data from the FGD highlight the importance of mediators, who also act as independent supervisors and auditors. Relying on the government may lead to biased perceptions for both parties. Stakeholders have different opinions regarding palm oil plantations in North Konawe and generally hold favourable perceptions towards the benefits they offer to the community. Some statements from these stakeholders as revealed in the FGD are tabulated in Table 1.

Table 6. Record of FGD results related to the mutual benefits of farmers/land owners and palm oil plantation companies in North Konawe.

Table 6. Record of FGD results related to the mutual benefits of farmers/land owners and palm oil plantation companies in North Konawe.

No.	Stakeholder	Informant statement
1	Land Owner 01	I feel that from the first year to 2019, almost the same results, or there is no increase in results There are still fewer employees in companies who get BPJS for employment.
2	Land Owner 02	Company PT. SPL and PT. DJL operate because of the kindness of the landowners, in this case, the farmers, who do not own the core land until now. Care or maintenance of oil palm plants should be done seriously Improvement of garden roads to facilitate the transportation of palm oil. Not consistent in revenue sharing and should be by the agreement.
3	Land Owner 03 (Land in Wiwirano Village)	The oil palm industry promised a factory, but so far, it has not been realized The workforce is a concern for the Company Forming BUMDES as a medium for increasing the capacity of farmers,
4	Village Head in Mantasole Village	The price is the first point we should pay attention to; far from what is expected. The price is not negotiable. There is a need for training for farmers by companies and extension workers
5	Land Owner 04	I am very grateful to the PTPN XIV oil palm company because my son’s school, which was stopped for a while, can return to school again. By reactivating cooperatives, farmers can help each other overcome existing problems.
6	PTPN Nusantara XIV Kebun Asera Unit	There is no factory yet for the sale of Tandang Buah Segar (TBS) from farmers; we work with partner companies SPL and DJL to buy TBS from us, but there are farmers who jointly do not sell to their partner companies, and as a result, credit instalments are not smooth.
8	Public Relation PT. SPL	The system used is for profit, Another problem with the Company is that this community freely cuts palm oil on the ground to be used as a vegetable at the festival. Even though the palm oil they cut is still productive The Company PT. SPL is about to share a small yield from year to year due to natural factors or a large harvest in the rainy season, but the road is damaged, so it cannot be reached, and the fruit rots.
9	Public Relation PT. DJL	a. There is no core garden yet b. The soil is not fertile, so production is low
10	Head of North Konawe Horticulture and Horticulture Department	The need for consistency on both sides (businesses and farmers) related to the MOU that was agreed upon. The Company must transparently convey related costs, namely a) investment costs, b) general costs, and c) operational costs. Optimizing the role of agricultural extension
11	Executive Director of WALHI Sultra	The flood was caused by the impact of plantations and mining. The good Company will follow the process by the existing provisions and rules. There is injustice and a lack of transparency in the Company . d. In developed countries, farmers are respected. We are here; being a farm labourer has no honour. Entrepreneurs use the centralized autonomy of this region to invest in stakeholders and those stakeholders to exploit the region.
12	Lepmil) /NGO	If the regulations are not changed, the community’s well-being will remain unchanged. Why did mines dare to change the regulations? Why didn’t oil palm plantations issue a revision of the law so that they could no longer send CPOs abroad? Why don’t we make the industry in Indonesia? Should Southeast Sulawesi farmers send to their own industry, or should they send to India or Malaysia? We are laborer’s forever. There is no government control over fertilizers and prices. No government controls the community and always loses in negotiations. The principle is that if the old paradigm is still used and the method used is still a dream, it will not be achieved
13	North Konawe DPRD Member)	In the House of Representatives, the people are devising regional regulations regarding recognizing territories elsewhere. If in Konawe Utara’s “Customary rights to land,” it is true that he is almost marginalized in North Konawe as a whole because his land is handed over to companies whose contracts will dominate for 30 years. So, this society needs to be in a stronger position. Companies that invest in North Konawe to be cooperative with the regional government
14	North Konawe DPRD Member	There is a need for proper socialization because Malaysia can develop its country with oil palm, so why not us? We must encourage the birth of a regional regulation, especially in North Konawe. There is no clear legal basis that provides protection to oil palm companies and farmers so that they both benefit equally. I have had many discussions with farmers. They desire to plant oil palm, but they are thinking about where our oil palm products will be marketed. d. Farmer institutions at the level of BUMDES have become a media source of information and capacity building for farmers.
15	Academic from North Konawe	The benefits of palm oil for the community include: The openness of the community’s vision and mindset so that many sons and daughters are sent out of the district for school, It used to be a remote region (difficult access). Now the access is better, Dormant land (unproductive) becomes cultivated/open, and The community obtains a permanent job (as an employee) who previously cultivates the fields (suitable for cash crops and long-term crops) and searches for rattan (locally called pa ratan) and hunts jong (deer).” Farmers’ Farmers’ institutions are needed to increase farmers’ capacity.

3.3. Social Capital in the Sustainability Dimension of Palm Oil Plantations

The agricultural community in North Konawe shows distinctive characteristics that still apply today. Firstly, kinship relations in North Konawe remain strong and intimate after the establishment of the company due to the fact that the heads of families are related by blood and marriage even though they come from different ethnicities, such as Tolaki, Bugis/Makassar, Java/Bali and Muna/Buton. The residents in each village know one another very well. Secondly, the livelihoods of people in the local community are almost similar, including farmers (e.g. sedentary farmers, agriculturalists, forest product gatherers and labourers), and their work is greatly influenced by nature (e.g. weather and climate). Thirdly, these people have a harmonious relationship with nature (e.g. forests, rivers and seas) and depend on their natural surroundings to support their economy. They often use technology or simple agricultural equipment to adapt to natural conditions. This characteristic starkly contrasts those observed in industrial societies (including the plantation industry with the use of advanced (modern) technology). Fourthly, given the small population, the settlements in North Konawe are not dense. Lastly, the village community is homogeneous, where people have similar livelihoods, religions and customs even though they are of different ethnicities. However, cultural acculturation is also observed in the community due to co-residence relationships and inter-ethnic marriages. As previously explained, people of North Konawe represent a typology of agricultural society.

Based on the information presented in Table 2, the social capital practices of the community in North Konawe serve as important attributes in each dimension of sustainability as a characteristic of the social capital inherent in business partnerships between farmers/landowners and the company.

Table 7. Social Capital in the Sustainability Dimension Attributes of Partnership Model Palm Oil Plantation Businesses.

Table 7. Social Capital in the Sustainability Dimension Attributes of Partnership Model Palm Oil Plantation Businesses.

Variables	Social Capital Indicator	Information Related to Sustainability Dimensions of Palm Oil Management Partnership Models	Information Source
Social Capital		Economic
	Trust	Transparency of palm oil TBS prices Management of oil palm land Palm oil production	Farmers (land owners) Company
	Social Networks and Participation	Productivity of plasma/community oil palm plantations Farmer participation in cooperatives Influence of external information on palm oil TBS	Farmers (land owners) Company
	Local Wisdom	Employment recruitment Community and government cooperation Involvement of community leaders	Farmers (land owners) Company Local government
	Social Solidarity	Determination of profit-sharing Maintain good communication with the Company Support company programs Help fellow farmers	Farmers (land owners) Company
	Reciprocity	Job opportunities TBS payments on time Farmer's income level	Farmers (land owners) Company
		Ecology
	Trust	River water quality management CSR environmental care program The Company continues to maintain the fertility of the land	Local Government Farmers (land owners)
	Social Networks and Farmer Participation	There is involvement of environmental NGOs Farmer participation in environmentally friendly farming. Cooperation between farmers is lacking in the management of pam Oil;	NGOs Local government Farmers (land owners)
	Local Wisdom	Soil fertility treatment Proportion of forest area to plantation land Has a tradition of maintaining plantation and food crops, animal husbandry, and fisheries.	Farmers (land owners) Local government
	Social Solidarity	Help preserve river borders Help each other in dealing with flood disasters Support company environmental programs •	Department of Agriculture Farmer Academic
	Mutual Benefits	Reduced negative environmental impacts Public health and environmental sustainability	NGOs Local government Academic
		Social
	Trust	Institutional management of farmers Land ownership status Company leadership	Farmers (land owners) Company
	Social Networks and Participation	Farmer education level Participation of agricultural extension workers Participation in farming management • Farmers (land owners).	Farmers (land owners)
	Local Wisdom	Livelihood Farmer cooperation	Farmers (land owners)
	Social Solidarity	Protection of farmers and environmental issues Attention of government agencies Implementation of CSR	Farmers (land owners) government
	Reciprocal	Availability of labour Assistance with public facilities Social assistance	Farmers (land owners) Company Local government

Source: Research results data after processing, 2023.

Local wisdom in the community is reflected in the positive cooperation between formers and the company and the former’s support for the latter’s programmes. Community involvement as employees in the company by showing good performance and motivation from old habits that have a tradition of maintaining plantation and food crops as well as animal husbandry and fisheries. Being one of the driving factors for helping and collaborating with companies is a positive element and reciprocal benefit.

Social solidarity in the community is reflected in the people’s actions and the government’s support for environmental protection. Given its concern for the community and various environmental issues, the company organised different activities that focused on environmental aspects. The government also supervises the environmental management of companies in accordance with the existing regulations. One way for the company to demonstrate its commitment to social, economic and environmental responsibility and carry out environmental management practices is by arranging CSR programmes, which involve different stakeholders, including the community, government and NGOs. The benefits of these programmes, albeit not optimal, are also enjoyed by local communities. The success of CSR programmes is generally determined by the current production profits and the commitment of the company. When engaging in CSR, companies introduce job opportunities, commit to timely payments and increase the income of farmers. The positive impact obtained by local communities from farmer solidarity actions greatly benefits the company and the farmers themselves.

4. Conclusions

References

1. Saswattecha, K.; Kroeze, C.; Jawjit, W.; Hein, L. Assessing the Environmental Impact of Palm Oil Produced in Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 100, 150–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Silalertruksa, T.; Gheewala, S.H.; Pongpat, P.; Kaenchan, P.; Permpool, N.; Lecksiwilai, N.; Mungkung, R. Environmental Sustainability of Oil Palm Cultivation in Different Regions of Thailand: Greenhouse Gases and Water Use Impact. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 1009–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Limaho, H.; Sugiarto; Pramono, R. ; Christiawan, R. The Need for Global Green Marketing for the Palm Oil Industry in Indonesia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Ayompe, L.M.; Schaafsma, M.; Egoh, B.N. Towards Sustainable Palm Oil Production: The Positive and Negative Impacts on Ecosystem Services and Human Wellbeing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Syahza, A.; Irianti, M. Formulation of Control Strategy on the Environmental Impact Potential as a Result of the Development of Palm Oil Plantation. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2021, 12, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Mesmin, T.; Miaro III, L.; Mboringong, F.; Etoga, G.; Voundi, E.; Ngom, E.P.J. Environmental Impacts of the Oil Palm Cultivation in Cameroon. In Elaeis guineensis; IntechOpen, 2021 ISBN 183962762X.
7. Ward, C.; Stringer, L.C.; Warren-Thomas, E.; Agus, F.; Crowson, M.; Hamer, K.; Hariyadi, B.; Kartika, W.D.; Lucey, J.; McClean, C. Smallholder Perceptions of Land Restoration Activities: Rewetting Tropical Peatland Oil Palm Areas in Sumatra, Indonesia. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2021, 21, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Chang, X.; Xing, Y.; Wang, J.; Yang, H.; Gong, W. Effects of Land Use and Cover Change (LUCC) on Terrestrial Carbon Stocks in China between 2000 and 2018. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 182, 106333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Kotowska, M.M.; Leuschner, C.; Triadiati, T.; Meriem, S.; Hertel, D. Quantifying Above-and Belowground Biomass Carbon Loss with Forest Conversion in Tropical Lowlands of S Umatra (I Ndonesia). Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 3620–3634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Koh, L.P.; Wilcove, D.S. Is Oil Palm Agriculture Really Destroying Tropical Biodiversity? Conserv. Lett. 2008, 1, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Comte, I.; Colin, F.; Whalen, J.K.; Grünberger, O.; Caliman, J.-P. Agricultural Practices in Oil Palm Plantations and Their Impact on Hydrological Changes, Nutrient Fluxes and Water Quality in Indonesia: A Review. Adv. Agron. 2012, 116, 71–124. [Google Scholar]
12. Ganser, D.; Denmead, L.H.; Clough, Y.; Buchori, D.; Tscharntke, T. Local and Landscape Drivers of Arthropod Diversity and Decomposition Processes in Oil Palm Leaf Axils. Agric. For. Entomol. 2017, 19, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Chao, S. The Beetle or the Bug? Multispecies Politics in a West Papuan Oil Palm Plantation. Am. Anthropol. 2021, 123, 476–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Dompreh, E.B.; Asare, R.; Gasparatos, A. Stakeholder Perceptions about the Drivers, Impacts and Barriers of Certification in the Ghanaian Cocoa and Oil Palm Sectors. Sustain. Sci. 2021, 16, 2101–2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Syahza, A.; Asmit, B. Regional Economic Empowerment through Oil Palm Economic Institutional Development. Manag. Environ. Qual. An Int. J. 2019, 30, 1256–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Cancino, N.; Rubiños, C.; Vargas, S. Social Capital and Soil Conservation: Is There a Connection? Evidence from Peruvian Cocoa Farms. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 94, 462–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Koomson, F.; Enu-Kwesi, F. Social Capital: The Missing Link in Ghana’s Development: Social Capital: The Missing Link in Ghana’s Development. Oguaa J. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Himanshu, H.; Arokiasamy, P.; Talukdar, B. Illustrative Effects of Social Capital on Health and Quality of Life among Older Adult in India: Results from WHO-SAGE India. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2019, 82, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Putnam, R.D. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. 1994.
20. Jia, X.; Chowdhury, M.; Prayag, G.; Chowdhury, M.M.H. The Role of Social Capital on Proactive and Reactive Resilience of Organizations Post-Disaster. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 48, 101614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Al-Omoush, K.S.; Simón-Moya, V.; Sendra-García, J. The Impact of Social Capital and Collaborative Knowledge Creation on E-Business Proactiveness and Organizational Agility in Responding to the COVID-19 Crisis. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Wu, C. Social Capital and COVID-19: A Multidimensional and Multilevel Approach. Chin. Sociol. Rev. 2021, 53, 27–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Saptutyningsih, E.; Diswandi, D.; Jaung, W. Does Social Capital Matter in Climate Change Adaptation? A Lesson from Agricultural Sector in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Land use policy 2020, 95, 104189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Jundiani, J. Globalisasi: Tantangan Dalam Penyediaan Ruang Terbuka Hijau Dan Konservasi Sumber Daya Air. Bina Huk. Lingkung. 2018, 3, 127–136. [Google Scholar]
25. Rahmah, M.; Sulistyono, A. The Integration of Traditional Knowledge and Local Wisdom in Mitigating and Adapting Climate Change: Different Perspectives of Indigenous Peoples from Java and Bali Island. In Traditional Knowledge and Climate Change: An Environmental Impact on Landscape and Communities; Springer, 2024; pp. 61–80.
26. Hatu, D.R.R.; Wisadhirana, D.; Susilo, E. The Role of Local Wisdom as Social Capital of Remote Indigenous Communities (RIC). Politico 2019, 19, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Grossmann, I. Wisdom in Context. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 12, 233–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Kohsaka, R.; Rogel, M. Traditional and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Empowering the Indigenous and Local Communities of the World. In Partnerships for the Goals; Springer, 2021; pp. 1261–1273.
29. Halstead, J.M.; Deller, S.C.; Leyden, K.M. Social Capital and Community Development: Where Do We Go from Here? Community Dev. 2022, 53, 92–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Ogahara, Z.; Jespersen, K.; Theilade, I.; Nielsen, M.R. Review of Smallholder Palm Oil Sustainability Reveals Limited Positive Impacts and Identifies Key Implementation and Knowledge Gaps. Land use policy 2022, 120, 106258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Saleh, K. The Role of Social Capital in Improving the Welfare of Rice Farmers in Tangerang Banten Regency. Budapest Int. Res. Critics Institute-Journal 2022, 5, 29648–29657. [Google Scholar]
32. Rocca, L.H.D.; Zielinski, S. Community-Based Tourism, Social Capital, and Governance of Post-Conflict Rural Tourism Destinations: The Case of Minca, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022, 43, 100985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. King, B.; Fielke, S.; Bayne, K.; Klerkx, L.; Nettle, R. Navigating Shades of Social Capital and Trust to Leverage Opportunities for Rural Innovation. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 68, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Saz-Gil, I.; Bretos, I.; Díaz-Foncea, M. Cooperatives and Social Capital: A Narrative Literature Review and Directions for Future Research. Sustainability 2021, 13, 534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Hrytsaienko, M.; Hrytsaienko, H.; Andrieieva, L.; Boltianska, L. The Role of Social Capital in Development of Agricultural Entrepreneurship. In Modern Development Paths of Agricultural Production: Trends and Innovations; Springer, 2019; pp. 427–440.
36. Alghababsheh, M.; Gallear, D. Socially Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Suppliers’ Social Performance: The Role of Social Capital. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 173, 855–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Shibli, R.; Saifan, S.; Ab Yajid, M.S.; Khatibi, A.; Azam, S.M.F. Social Capital, Agriculture Extension Services and Access of Resources toward Innovation Adoption in Household Farming in Malaysia. AgBioForum 2021, 23, 102–112. [Google Scholar]
38. Grabs, J.; Garrett, R.D. Goal-Based Private Sustainability Governance and Its Paradoxes in the Indonesian Palm Oil Sector. J. Bus. Ethics 2023, 188, 467–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Ng, K.Y.N. Effects of Organizational Culture, Affective Commitment and Trust on Knowledge-Sharing Tendency. J. Knowl. Manag. 2022, 27, 1140–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Paterson, R.R.M.; Lima, N. Climate Change Affecting Oil Palm Agronomy, and Oil Palm Cultivation Increasing Climate Change, Require Amelioration. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Merten, J.; Röll, A.; Guillaume, T.; Meijide, A.; Tarigan, S.; Agusta, H.; Dislich, C.; Dittrich, C.; Faust, H.; Gunawan, D. Water Scarcity and Oil Palm Expansion: Social Views and Environmental Processes. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Santika, T.; Wilson, K.A.; Meijaard, E.; Budiharta, S.; Law, E.E.; Sabri, M.; Struebig, M.; Ancrenaz, M.; Poh, T.-M. Changing Landscapes, Livelihoods and Village Welfare in the Context of Oil Palm Development. Land use policy 2019, 87, 104073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Gatto, M.C.; Zerboni, A. Holocene Supra-Regional Environmental Changes as Trigger for Major Socio-Cultural Processes in Northeastern Africa and the Sahara. African Archaeol. Rev. 2015, 32, 301–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Suparnyo Cooperatives in the Indonesian Constitution and the Role in Empowering Members: A Case Study. J. Leg. Ethical Regul. Isses 2019, 22, 1.
45. Butarbutar, D.D.; Wijaya, M.M. Cooperative And Msme Empowerment Strategies in Economic Recovery During The Covid-19 Pandemic in Bogor Regency Indonesia. 2021.
46. Hunecke, C.; Engler, A.; Jara-Rojas, R.; Poortvliet, P.M. Understanding the Role of Social Capital in Adoption Decisions: An Application to Irrigation Technology. Agric. Syst. 2017, 153, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Karim, A.; Musa, C.I.; Romansyah Sahabuddin, M.A. Regional Economic Growth the Role of BUMDes Institutions in Enrekang Regency. Int. J. Creat. Res. Thoughts 2020, 8, 225–229. [Google Scholar]
48. Sufi, W.; Saputra, T. Implementation of Village Empower Program in Supporting Form of Institutions of Village Business Institutions (BUMDes)(Study on Dayang Suri Village Bungaraya Sub District Siak Regency Riau Province). J. Perspekt. Pembiayaan dan Pembang. Drh. 2017, 5, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. Toyon, M.A.S. The Three’R’s of Social Capital: A Retrospective. FWU J. Soc. Sci. 2022, 16, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
50. Jackson, T.M. We Have to Leverage Those Relationships: How Black Women Business Owners Respond to Limited Social Capital. Sociol. Spectr. 2021, 41, 137–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Gannon, B.; Roberts, J. Social Capital: Exploring the Theory and Empirical Divide. Empir. Econ. 2020, 58, 899–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Calcagnini, G.; Perugini, F. Social Capital and Well-Being in the Italian Provinces. Socioecon. Plann. Sci. 2019, 68, 100668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Yan, J.; Leidner, D.E.; Benbya, H.; Zou, W. Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Online User Communities: One-Way or Two-Way Relationship? Decis. Support Syst. 2019, 127, 113131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Chetty, R.; Jackson, M.O.; Kuchler, T.; Stroebel, J.; Hendren, N.; Fluegge, R.B.; Gong, S.; Gonzalez, F.; Grondin, A.; Jacob, M. Social Capital I: Measurement and Associations with Economic Mobility. Nature 2022, 608, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Yue, C.A.; Men, L.R.; Ferguson, M.A. Bridging Transformational Leadership, Transparent Communication, and Employee Openness to Change: The Mediating Role of Trust. Public Relat. Rev. 2019, 45, 101779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. Akkaya, B.; Bagieńska, A. The Role of Agile Women Leadership in Achieving Team Effectiveness through Interpersonal Trust for Business Agility. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Dwyer, J.; Bidwell, D. Chains of Trust: Energy Justice, Public Engagement, and the First Offshore Wind Farm in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 47, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Kolot, A.; Kozmenko, S.; Herasymenko, O.; Štreimikienė, D. Development of a Decent Work Institute as a Social Quality Imperative: Lessons for Ukraine. Econ. Sociol. 2020, 13, 70–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59. Besley, T.; Dray, S. Trust as State Capacity: The Political Economy of Compliance; WIDER Working Paper, 2022; ISBN 9292672681.
60. Manoj, M.; Brough, R.; Kalbarczyk, A. Exploring the Role and Nature of Trust in Institutional Capacity Building in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. 2020.
61. Scherp, A.; Schwagereit, F.; Ireson, N.; Lanfranchi, V.; Papadopoulos, S.; Kritikos, A.; Kopatsiaris, Y.; Smrs, P. Leveraging Web 2.0 Communities in Professional Organisations. In Proceedings of the W3C workshop on the future of social networking; 2009.
62. Thilagam, P.S. Applications of Social Network Analysis. Handb. Soc. Netw. Technol. Appl. 2010, 637–649. [Google Scholar]
63. Olavarria-Gambi, M. Poverty and Social Programs in Chile. J. Poverty 2009, 13, 99–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
64. Carchiolo, V.; Longheu, A.; Malgeri, M.; Mangioni, G.; Nicosia, V. An Approach to Trust Based on Social Networks. In Proceedings of the Web Information Systems Engineering–WISE 2007: 8th International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering Nancy, France, 2007 Proceedings 8; Springer, 2007, December 3-7; pp. 50–61.
65. Paletto, A.; Hamunen, K.; De Meo, I. Social Network Analysis to Support Stakeholder Analysis in Participatory Forest Planning. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2015, 28, 1108–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
66. Williams, H.T.P.; McMurray, J.R.; Kurz, T.; Lambert, F.H. Network Analysis Reveals Open Forums and Echo Chambers in Social Media Discussions of Climate Change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 32, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
67. Felmlee, D.; Faris, R. Interaction in Social Networks. In Handbook of social psychology; Springer, 2013; pp. 439–464.
68. Frank, K.A.; Penuel, W.R.; Krause, A. What Is a “Good” Social Network for Policy Implementation? The Flow of Know-how for Organizational Change. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 2015, 34, 378–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
69. Cramton, P.; Doyle, L. Open Access Wireless Markets. Telecomm. Policy 2017, 41, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
70. Soria, K.M. Welcoming Blue-Collar Scholars into the Ivory Tower: Developing Class-Conscious Strategies for Student Success. Series on Special Student Populations.; ERIC, 2015; ISBN 1889271969.
71. Ruggeri, A.; Samoggia, A. Twitter Communication of Agri-food Chain Actors on Palm Oil Environmental, Socio-economic, and Health Sustainability. J. Consum. Behav. 2018, 17, 75–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
72. Peng, J.; Li, M.; Wang, Z.; Lin, Y. Transformational Leadership and Employees’ Reactions to Organizational Change: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2021, 57, 369–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
73. Rizal, A.R.A.; Nordin, S.M. Smallholders Participation in Sustainable Certification: The Mediating Impact of Deliberative Communication and Responsible Leadership. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 978993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Vamuloh, V.V.; Kozak, R.A.; Panwar, R. Voices Unheard: Barriers to and Opportunities for Small Farmers’ Participation in Oil Palm Contract Farming. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 121955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
75. Pasaribu, S.I.; Vanclay, F.; Zhao, Y. Challenges to Implementing Socially-Sustainable Community Development in Oil Palm and Forestry Operations in Indonesia. Land 2020, 9, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
76. Balwin, T.; Ford, J.K. Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future Research. Personal Psychology, 41 (1), 63-105 1988.
77. Doktorova, D.S. Theoretical Review of Manifestations and Features of Social Solidarity. Наукoвo-теoретичний альманах Грані 2018, 21, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
78. Wardhani, R.; Rahadian, Y. Sustainability Strategy of Indonesian and Malaysian Palm Oil Industry: A Qualitative Analysis. Sustain. Accounting, Manag. Policy J. 2021, 12, 1077–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
79. Dewi, G.D.P. Multi-Stakeholder Engagement in the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) Framework. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing, 2021; Vol. 729; p. 12085. [Google Scholar]
80. Imbiri, S.; Rameezdeen, R.; Chileshe, N.; Statsenko, L. Stakeholder Perspectives on Supply Chain Risks: The Case of Indonesian Palm Oil Industry in West Papua. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
81. Septiyarini, D.; Kusrini, N.; Kurniati, D. Sustainability of Palm Oil Company CSR in Supporting Village Status Change. Econ. Dev. Anal. J. 2022, 11, 165–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
82. Christiawan, R.; Limaho, H. The Importance of Co-Opetition of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Palm Oil Industry in Indonesia. Corp. Trade Law Rev. 2020, 1, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
83. Snashall, G.B.; Poulos, H.M. ‘Smallholding for Whom?’: The Effect of Human Capital Appropriation on Smallholder Palm Farmers. Agric. Human Values 2023, 40, 1599–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
84. Dahliani, D. Local Wisdom Inbuilt Environment in Globalization Era. Local Wisdom Inbuilt Environ. Era 2010, 3. [Google Scholar]
85. Obie, M.; Pakaya, M. Oil Palm Expansion And Livelihood Vulnerability On Rural Communities (A Case In Pohuwato Regency-Indonesia). Humanit. Soc. Sci. Rev. 2020, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
86. Schoneveld, G.C.; Van Der Haar, S.; Ekowati, D.; Andrianto, A.; Komarudin, H.; Okarda, B.; Jelsma, I.; Pacheco, P. Certification, Good Agricultural Practice and Smallholder Heterogeneity: Differentiated Pathways for Resolving Compliance Gaps in the Indonesian Oil Palm Sector. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 57, 101933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
87. McCarthy, J.F.; Gillespie, P.; Zen, Z. Swimming Upstream: Local Indonesian Production Networks in “Globalized” Palm Oil Production. World Dev. 2012, 40, 555–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
88. Syahza, A. The Potential of Environmental Impact as a Result of the Development of Palm Oil Plantation. Manag. Environ. Qual. An Int. J. 2019, 30, 1072–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
89. Yunus, S.; Jalil, F. Government Policy in Strengthening Social Capital for Poverty Reduction of Farmers. J. Posit. Psychol. Wellbeing 2021, 5, 1011–1025. [Google Scholar]
90. Cofré-Bravo, G.; Klerkx, L.; Engler, A. Combinations of Bonding, Bridging, and Linking Social Capital for Farm Innovation: How Farmers Configure Different Support Networks. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 69, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
91. Martin, S.; Rieple, A.; Chang, J.; Boniface, B.; Ahmed, A. Small Farmers and Sustainability: Institutional Barriers to Investment and Innovation in the Malaysian Palm Oil Industry in Sabah. J. Rural Stud. 2015, 40, 46–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
92. Nupueng, S.; Oosterveer, P.; Mol, A.P.J. Governing Sustainability in the Thai Palm Oil-Supply Chain: The Role of Private Actors. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2022, 18, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
93. Awan, U.; Kraslawski, A.; Huiskonen, J. Governing Interfirm Relationships for Social Sustainability: The Relationship between Governance Mechanisms, Sustainable Collaboration, and Cultural Intelligence. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
94. Kelly, M.E.; Duff, H.; Kelly, S.; McHugh Power, J.E.; Brennan, S.; Lawlor, B.A.; Loughrey, D.G. The Impact of Social Activities, Social Networks, Social Support and Social Relationships on the Cognitive Functioning of Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review. Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
95. Bayrakdar, S.; Yucedag, I.; Simsek, M.; Dogru, I.A. Semantic Analysis on Social Networks: A Survey. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 2020, 33, e4424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
96. Vallor, S. Social Networking Technology and the Virtues. In The ethics of information technologies; Routledge, 2020; pp. 447–460.
97. Araújo, L.; Teixeira, L.; Ribeiro, O.; Paul, C. Social Participation, Occupational Activities and Quality of Life in Older Europeans: A Focus on the Oldest Old. Handb. Act. ageing Qual. life From concepts to Appl. 2021, 537–547. [Google Scholar]
98. Jalil, A.; Yesi, Y.; Sugiyanto, S.; Puspitaloka, D.; Purnomo, H. The Role of Social Capital of Riau Women Farmer Groups in Building Collective Action for Tropical Peatland Restoration. For. Soc. 2021, 5, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
99. Skaalsveen, K.; Ingram, J.; Urquhart, J. The Role of Farmers’ Social Networks in the Implementation of No-till Farming Practices. Agric. Syst. 2020, 181, 102824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
100. Chaudhuri, S.; Roy, M.; McDonald, L.M.; Emendack, Y. Reflections on Farmers’ Social Networks: A Means for Sustainable Agricultural Development? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 2973–3008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
101. Yuliani, E.L.; De Groot, W.T.; Knippenberg, L.; Bakara, D.O. Forest or Oil Palm Plantation? Interpretation of Local Responses to the Oil Palm Promises in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Land use policy 2020, 96, 104616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
102. Futemma, C.; De Castro, F.; Brondizio, E.S. Farmers and Social Innovations in Rural Development: Collaborative Arrangements in Eastern Brazilian Amazon. Land use policy 2020, 99, 104999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
103. Charatsari, C.; Lioutas, E.D.; Koutsouris, A. Farmer Field Schools and the Co-Creation of Knowledge and Innovation: The Mediating Role of Social Capital. In Social innovation and sustainability transition; Springer, 2022; pp. 205–220.
104. Nawipa, S.; Ramandei, L. The Impact of the Existence of Palm Oil Company (PT. Sinar Mas) on the Community Social Welfare in Mansaburi Village Masni District Manokwari Regency West Papua Province. Int J Arts Huma Soc. Stud. 2022, 4, 9–16. [Google Scholar]
105. Apresian, S.R.; Tyson, A.; Varkkey, H.; Choiruzzad, S.A.B.; Indraswari, R. Palm Oil Development in Riau, Indonesia: Balancing Economic Growth and Environmental Protection. Nusantara 2020, 2, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
106. Morgan, G.; Pulignano, V. Solidarity at Work: Concepts, Levels and Challenges. Work. Employ. Soc. 2020, 34, 18–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
107. Pye, O. Commodifying Sustainability: Development, Nature and Politics in the Palm Oil Industry. World Dev. 2019, 121, 218–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
108. Alexandro, R.; Haridison, A.; Thomas, O.; Simpun, S.; Hariatama, F. Dissociative Social Interaction of Plasma Farmers and Palm Oil Companies in East Kotawaringin. J. Ilmu Sos. dan Hum. 2023, 12, 474–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
109. Kamal, M.A.; Utomo, M.R.; Hakim, M.L.; Qurbani, I.D.; Ikram, A.D. Peatland Management Based on Local Wisdom Through Rural Governance Improvement and Agroindustry. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Soc. Sci. 2023, 4, 774–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
110. Astuti, R.; McGregor, A. Indigenous Land Claims or Green Grabs? Inclusions and Exclusions within Forest Carbon Politics in Indonesia. J. Peasant Stud. 2017, 44, 445–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
111. Brandi, C.; Cabani, T.; Hosang, C.; Schirmbeck, S.; Westermann, L.; Wiese, H. Sustainability Standards for Palm Oil: Challenges for Smallholder Certification under the RSPO. J. Environ. Dev. 2015, 24, 292–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
112. Carlson, K.M.; Heilmayr, R.; Gibbs, H.K.; Noojipady, P.; Burns, D.N.; Morton, D.C.; Walker, N.F.; Paoli, G.D.; Kremen, C. Effect of Oil Palm Sustainability Certification on Deforestation and Fire in Indonesia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2018, 115, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]