Publication: A qualitative meta-synthesis of the benefits of eco-labeling in developing countries
A qualitative meta-synthesis of the benefits of eco-labeling in developing countries
| dc.contributor.author | Carlson, A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Palmer, C. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:57:04Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:57:04Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/877 | |
| dc.title | A qualitative meta-synthesis of the benefits of eco-labeling in developing countries | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | Carlson, A., Palmer, C., A qualitative meta-synthesis of the benefits of eco-labeling in developing countries, Ecological Economics, 127, 2016, p.129-145 | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2016 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Political, legal, systemic | |
| fsc.issue.economic | Benefits, motivations, reasons for certification | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.subject | Accessibility | |
| fsc.subject | Finance | |
| fsc.subject | Legality and due diligence | |
| fsc.subject | Supply chain benefits | |
| fsc.subject | Transparency | |
| fsc.topic.economic | Price premium | |
| fsc.topic.economic | Market access | |
| fsc.topic.economic | Improved management | |
| fsc.topic.political | Corruption and taxes | |
| fsc.topic.social | Consultation, participation, empowerment | |
| fsc.topic.social | Training and education | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contact.email | akbcarlson@gmail.com | |
| is.contact.email | c.palmer1@lse.ac.uk | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.geographicLevel | Global | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Literature review | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Meta-synthesis | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.notes | This article presents a review of the literature to examine the different types of benefits associated with eco-labeling (FSC and MSC) in developing countries. It includes 28 FSC case studies, among which 13 were actually included in a meta-synthesis (i.e. a statistical procedure aimed at analyzing qualitative studies and detect categories of, for instance, benefits associated with FSC certification). | |
| is.evaluation.notes | The Introduction section includes an interesting overview of commonly cited benefits and limitations associated with FSC certification in developing countries. | |
| is.evaluation.notes | The results suggest that “the hypothesis that certification results in substantial benefits for producers, beyond immediate financial benefits, that have the potential to offset the costs of certification” is confirmed. In all case-studies producers expressed satisfaction with the certification, mostly due to governance and social benefits. Especially, three categories of benefits have been detected: learning, government support and empowerment, and reputation. | |
| is.evaluation.notes | Note that the method used cannot identify causal relationships between certification and the benefits detected; it simply detect a correlation. Moreover, the study is limited in that it only focuses on studies that present certified producers and does not perform a comparison between certified and uncertified producers. Therefore, it fails to provide counterfactual scenarios and to draw robust conclusions by attributing positive impacts to certification. | |
| is.evaluation.notes | The authors propose to conduct further research “to understand the type of government support offered, the intensity of this support over time (pre- and post-certification), and whether support to some firms encouraged other firms to consider certifying.”, and to compare “the benefits of both certified (adopters) and uncertified producers (non-adopters).” | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | More particularly, “learning was the most prominent and generalizable benefit of certification to emerge from our analysis […] all case studies showed evidence that certification promoted heightened producer awareness of environmental issues and the impact of their activities on the environment.” Moreover, “Learning was also manifested through both increased stakeholder participation, including increased formal training opportunities, and improved management efficiency […] derived primarily from the deployment of new management techniques, enhanced monitoring, and enhanced data collection. This benefit (improved management efficiency) was experienced by 92% of the forestry firms […] and by both industrial and small-scale firms. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | A second broad theme that emerged from our analysis concerns the interrelated issues of improved governance and producer empowerment. […] This finding suggests a heightened awareness of the role government might play […] in over 76% of the forestry studies. Government support of certified firms tended to take the form of regulatory relief, tax benefits, public good provision, and preferential treatment in the allocation of resource access rights. […] Certification also provided stakeholders with more information about their rights, helping them to obtain legal recognition of customary land tenure. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | A final theme that emerged from our analysis is that producers benefitted from certification through improved reputation and prestige […] in 62% of the FSC studies. […] this benefit was much more common in cases involving small-scale firms. […] improved worker self-esteem and pride, even though they lack immediate private economic benefits, may in some cases be sufficient to drive continued sustainable resource management. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Regarding financial benefits, improved market access was reported by only 38% of the producers (i.e. not generalizable), and this was especially prevalent (60%) for industrial-scale companies compared to community-managed forests (only a third of them). Only two case-studies reported evidence of a price-premium and several others explicitly stated that no price premium was detected. There is therefore limited evidence for private economic benefits. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | benefits from price premiums and market access appear to be limited | |
| is.evidenceResourceType | Primary | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Synthesis paper - systematic review with meta-analysis | |
| is.evidenceSummary | This journal article explores producers benefit from certification. Authors have selected a range of case studies through a qualitative meta-synthesis approach on the evidence on producer benefits reported of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification, in developing countries. results show limited benefits from price premiums and market access, and more common less tangible benefits including learning, governance, community empowerment, and reputational benefits. | |
| is.evidenceType | Synthesis paper | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 11 - Sustainable Cities and Communities | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 12 - Responsible Production and Consumption | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 14 - Life Below Water | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sectors | Fishing | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Forests and other ecosystems | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Freshwater and oceans | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Participant costs and benefits | |
| is.focus.sustainIssue | Rights of indigenous peoples and local communities | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Accessibility | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Finance | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Legality and due diligence | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Supply chain benefits | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Transparency | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Community development and infrastructure | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Knowledge | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Land rights | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Market access | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Price premiums | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Training | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.020 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international735 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Marine Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Ecological Economics |