Summary
This commentary is in response to the recent article by Zachlod et al. (2025) in Communications Earth & Environment, which concludes that Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification leads to reduced plantation efficiency in Malaysia. While the study raises an important discussion on the unintended consequences of certification, its findings are undermined by substantial methodological and analytical limitations. We identify four critical areas of concern. First, the study suffers from omitted variable bias failing to control for well documented drivers of yield variation including climatic anomalies (El Niño/La Niña events), aging plantations, replanting cycles, COVID-19 related labor shortages and land-use policy constraints which are not adequately accounted for, despite their well-documented effects on palm oil yields. Secondly, the interpretation of correlation as causation overstates the evidence based solely on temporal correlation; rigorous econometric strategies were not employed to establish any causal links. Third, reliance on a pseudonymous company using tree coverage as a proxy for efficiency, rather than actual metrics like yield, and limited economic controls further weaken the analysis. Finally, the heavy reliance on remote sensing without adequate field validation risks misclassification of normal plantation dynamics as certification effects. We conclude that robust, multidisciplinary methods are needed before drawing policy-relevant conclusions about RSPO’s impact on productivity.