Advanced Search

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

Volume 7, Issue 1, 2005

Explaining different approaches to voluntary standards: A study of forest certification choices in Norway and Sweden

Explaining different approaches to voluntary standards: A study of forest certification choices in Norway and Sweden

DOI:
10.1080/15239080500251874
Lars H. Gulbrandsena*

pages 43-59

Available online: 18 Aug 2006

Abstract

This paper explores divergent approaches to forest certification in Sweden and Norway. While the NGO-supported Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) has five times the endorsement in Sweden than the industry-dominated Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC), virtually all commercially productive forests in Norway are certified by the PEFC-endorsed Living Forests scheme. The PEFC scheme leaves forest companies with less stringent sustainable forest management standards than the FSC, and greater leeway to apply those standards. Three explanations for the divergent approaches to forest certification are explored: public policy and government support; advocacy-group and market pressures; and industry structure. It is found that although the government in both countries facilitated and legitimized certification processes, environmental group activism and supply chain pressure were more important for certification initiatives. A group of large Swedish forest companies responded to market and advocacy group pressures by choosing the widely recognized FSC scheme. Non-industrial forest owners in both Norway and Sweden rejected this scheme due to narrower market and public exposure and their belief that environmental, social and forest company interests dominate the FSC decision-making process. While showing that states influence non-state governance projects, these findings challenge traditional conceptions of political spaces constituted by sovereignty.

Keywords

 

Details

  • Available online: 18 Aug 2006

Author affiliations

  • a The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Oslo, Norway

Journal news

  • 2010 Impact Factor: 0.951!
  • ©2011 Thomson Reuters, 2010 Journal Citation Report®
Manual of Environmental Policy

Librarians

Taylor & Francis Group