Publication: Forest certification and Institutional Governance: An Empirical Study of Forest Stewardship Council Certificate Holders in the United States
Forest certification and Institutional Governance: An Empirical Study of Forest Stewardship Council Certificate Holders in the United States
| dc.contributor.author | Overdevest, C. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Rickenbach, M.G. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-23T18:56:43Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-01-23T18:56:43Z | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://open.fsc.org/handle/resource/820 | |
| dc.title | Forest certification and Institutional Governance: An Empirical Study of Forest Stewardship Council Certificate Holders in the United States | en |
| dcterms.accessRights | Public | |
| dcterms.accessRights | Limited access | |
| dcterms.issued | 2006 | |
| dcterms.language | en | |
| dcterms.type | Journal Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| fsc.evidenceCategory | FSC impact-related | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Political, legal, systemic | |
| fsc.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| fsc.issue.economic | Benefits, motivations, reasons for certification | |
| fsc.subject | Forests | |
| fsc.subject | Investments | |
| fsc.subject | Forest Plantations | |
| fsc.subject | Certification | |
| fsc.subject | Fuelwood | |
| fsc.subject | Degraded Lands | |
| fsc.subject | Sustainable and Responsible Investment | |
| fsc.subject | Classification | |
| fsc.subject | ESG | |
| fsc.topic.political | Governance | |
| is.availability.fullText | Full text available | |
| is.contributor.member | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.coverage.country | United States of America | |
| is.coverage.countryAlpha2 | US | |
| is.coverage.region | North America | |
| is.evaluation.collection | Case studies | |
| is.evaluation.counterfacts | No | |
| is.evaluation.notes | Critical view on FSC based on a survey of US certificate holders, that are disappointed by the benefits of FSC certification.The high expectations weren't fulfilled, only in regard to meet ecological standards the landowners were satisfied. (written in 2006) | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Respondents were disappointedin certification's ability to earn price premiums, tocreate new market opportunities, and to gain access to certified markets. They reported both low expectations and satisfactions with how certification operates to differentiate their products on international marketsor increasing client demand | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Others have suggested that a primary function ofcertification is to transfer knowledge and good practiceto forest owners. The evidence suggests that landownerswere not motivated by such considerations inchoosing the FSC certification in the U.S., nor werethey satisfied with the services certification providedin this regard. | |
| is.evaluation.quotes | Only on one learning item did landownersplace high expectations, and get strongreturns. Certification was reported to help landownersmeet high ecological standards. As meeting high ecologicalstandards is one of the most fundamentalhopes for certification across the theoretical perspectivesconsidered, it is reassuring that certificationprovides satisfaction with benefits in this respect. | |
| is.evidenceType | Empirical study | |
| is.extent.pages | 93-102 | |
| is.extent.volume | 9 | |
| is.focus.sectors | Agriculture | |
| is.focus.sectors | Forestry | |
| is.focus.sustainDimension | Economic | |
| 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.forpol.2005.03.014 | |
| is.identifier.fscdoi | http://dx.doi.org/10.34800/fsc-international464 | |
| is.identifier.schemeName | Forest Stewardship Council | |
| is.identifier.schemeType | Voluntary Sustainability Standards | |
| is.item.reviewStatus | Peer reviewed | |
| is.journalName | Forest Policy and Economics |