Publication: Certification and roundtables: do they work ?
Certification and roundtables: do they work ?
| dc.contributor.author | World Wide Fund for Nature | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:58:38Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:58:38Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/1095 | |
| dc.title | Certification and roundtables: do they work ? | en |
| dcterms.abstract | Multi-stakeholder Sustainability Initiatives (MSIs) are voluntary market-based approaches that aim to transform business practices by developing more responsible production, sourcing, and manufacturing practices for a given sector or product. This review asks the question: are MSIs measurably and permanently shifting markets towards improved economic, environmental and social outcomes? | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Open access | |
| dcterms.bibliographicCitation | WWF, 2010. Certification and roundtables: do they work? WWF. | en |
| dcterms.issued | 2010 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.license | Copyrighted; all rights reserved | en |
| dcterms.publisher | World Wide Fund for Nature | |
| dcterms.type | Report | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| fsc.issue.environmental | Deforestation, tree cover loss | |
| fsc.subject | Forest Structure | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.subject | Logging | |
| fsc.subject | Regeneration | |
| fsc.subject | Silviculture | |
| fsc.subject | Sustainable Management | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.funderType | Unreported | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.region | North America | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Interviews/surveys with certified entities and their representatives and workers/producers | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Company/certified entities /co-op data records | |
| is.evaluation.dataSource | Intergovernmental data (World Bank, UN, FAO data) | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Although compliance with NSMD governance is often less than that achieved through public conservation efforts such as national parks, NSMD policies tend to do a better job in targeting high-deforestation properties. As a result, NSMD governance may serve as a useful complement to traditional, government policies. Finally, greater collaboration between environmental and industry interests in establishing NSMD standards is likely to improve the environmental performance of the resulting policies. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | The authors also state that FSC certification, as a product of multi-stakeholder negotiations, represented the most collaborative governance regime: "Nearly all of the companies certified by FSC in its first 5 years of operation in Chile actively participated in the rule-making process for the development of FSC's Chilean standards. In contrast, the CERTFOR certification scheme sought to demonstrate that industry could self-regulate, without participation from civil society. Given their exclusion from the CERTFOR standard-setting process, several NGOs expressed concern over the certification scheme's environmental rigor. Finally, the JSP was developed through a combination of confrontational and collaborative strategies. Initially instigated through negative publicity by NGOs, industry and NGO interests eventually collaborated to develop the JSP's commonly agreed-upon standards." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Finally, the results "indicate that FSC certification was more effective in slowing forest conversion than either the more industry-friendly CERTFOR standard or the JSP moratorium. Furthermore, the CERTFOR certification standard, which arguably had the least engagement between companies and civil society, was the least effective NSMD policy." | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | They also find that “the existence of FSC certification may have increased the rigor of environmental safeguards in the final CERTFOR standards.” This is similar to what was observed in several cases, described for example by several scholars, and described as one of the “spill-over effects” of FSC-triggered processes. | |
| is.evidenceSubType | Synthesis paper - literature review | |
| is.evidenceType | Synthesis paper | |
| is.focus.products | Forestry products | |
| is.focus.sdg | SDG 12 - Responsible Production and Consumption | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Social | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Environmental | |
| is.focus.sustainLens | Multiple certification | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Cost of inputs | |
| is.focus.sustainOutcome | Governance Mechanisms | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE outcomes and impacts | |
| is.focus.systemElement | MandE performance monitoring | |
| is.identifier.code | Impacts | |
| is.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international410 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.link.url | https://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/wwf_msireview_sept_2010_lowres.pdf |