Search results

AbstractResearch has recognized that states enable or constrain private governance initiatives, but we still know too little about the interactions between private and public authority in the governance of various social and environmental problems. This article examines how states have responded to the emergence of forest and fisheries certification programs, and how state responses have influenced the subsequent development of these programs. It is argued that historical and structural differences in the management of forest and fisheries have resulted in divergent state responses to certification programs, but that both trajectories of interaction have led to a strengthening of the non‐state program. The article draws upon these cases to inductively identify types of interaction between state policies and non‐state certification programs, the causal mechanisms that shed light on interaction dynamics, and the conditions under which state involvement is likely to result in either strengthening or weakening of non‐state programs.

This article explores the influence of scientific knowledge in rule-making processes to enhance environmental protection in Swedish and Norwegian forestry. It examines the mapping and protection of small reserves; the development of plans for protection of large reserves; and rule-setting in voluntary forest certification schemes. The analysis shows that Sweden has enacted more stringent environmental protection policies on all measures examined. Whereas variation in the state of knowledge about environmental protection needs does not explain these differences, variation in the access to the science-policy dialogue and in the distribution of costs and benefits in the forestry sector does help explain the differences in the stringency of Norwegian and Swedish forest policy. I conclude that the influence of knowledge depends on the process by which it is created. Although scientific information usually has little influence when strong economic counter-forces are involved in the decision-making process, this problem can be ameliorated by facilitating processes of coproduction of knowledge among scientific experts, practitioners, and decision-makers.

This paper analyses accountability arrangements in the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and other organizations that set standards for certification and eco-labelling. It focuses on two types of accountability that are likely to be achievable and important to non-state standards organizations: control and responsiveness. In setting a global standard based on a multi-stakeholder governance structure, FSC established a model for other certification schemes, specifically within the forestry and fisheries sectors. By creating the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), FSC-supporters exported the certification model to the fisheries sector. Industry-led forest certification schemes that were initiated to compete with FSC and offer an industry-dominated model have come to mimic procedural accountability arrangements initially established by their competitor. However, they have carefully filtered out the prescriptions that could reduce their influence in standard-setting processes. The paper argues that while certification schemes could enhance control of corporate environmental and social performance, some of the industry-dominated schemes adopt popular and fashionable accountability recipes to divert criticism of their activities instead of acting responsively to external constituents such as environmental and social groups.

This article explores the influence of scientific knowledge in rule-making processes to enhance environmental protection in Swedish and Norwegian forestry. It examines the mapping and protection of small reserves; the development of plans for protection of large reserves; and rule-setting in voluntary forest certification schemes. The analysis shows that Sweden has enacted more stringent environmental protection policies on all measures examined. Whereas variation in the state of knowledge about environmental protection needs does not explain these differences, variation in the access to the science-policy dialogue and in the distribution of costs and benefits in the forestry sector does help explain the differences in the stringency of Norwegian and Swedish forest policy. I conclude that the influence of knowledge depends on the process by which it is created. Although scientific information usually has little influence when strong economic counter-forces are involved in the decision-making process, this problem can be ameliorated by facilitating processes of coproduction of knowledge among scientific experts, practitioners, and decision-makers. Adapted from the source document.

Comparing the practice of two certification schemes in Swedish forestry, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and a forest owner-dominated competitor, the author explores the capacity of forest certification to ameliorate environmental degradation in forestry while attending to different stakeholder interests. Although the inclusiveness and stringency of the FSC might impede its ability to attend to industry needs, it has a greater capacity than the forest owner-dominated scheme to enhance environmental protection in forestry. Second, although competition for support and rule-making authority has resulted in convergence of the two schemes, the forest owner-dominated program has not adopted decision-making rules and structures to reduce the influence of forest owners in standard development and operation. Third, effective implementation of non-state forest governance schemes requires national forest law enforcement and well-functioning government administrations. This helps explain why forest certification initiatives have been more successful in Sweden and other developed countries than in developing countries.