Comparing forest certification schemes: the case of ratcheting standards in the forest sector

233 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Assembling an experimentalist regime: Transnational governance interactions in the forest sector (2014, background): “Thus the industry-sponsored schemes initially lacked multi-stakeholder governance structures, independent audits, stakeholder consultations, regular revisions and performance-based principles and assessment criteria (Overdevest 2005, 2010).”
Biofuel sustainability and the formation of transnational hybrid governance (2015, background): “…institutions, and other actors – with particular attention to the early stages of institutionalisation, the compromised outcomes that ensue (Bartley 2007, Auld 2014), and the conditions that can lead to enhanced outcomes (Guldbrandsen 2010, Overdevest 2010, Cashore and Stone 2014).”
‘Roundtabling’ sustainability: Lessons from the biofuel industry (2014, background): “In the forestry sector, these interactions are said to be leading to the ‘ratcheting up of standards’ through benchmarking and public comparison (Overdevest 2010).”
The Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change (2012, background): “For example, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) collaborates with ‘strategic partners’ in fi elds such as accounting, consultancy, and data management and receives funding from government agencies, foundations, fi rms, and CSOs.”