pdf - 5.01 MB - Rainforest Alliance

427 Pages·2012·5.01 MB·English

The Roles and
Toward
Limitations
Sustainability of Certification
FINAL REPORT
INcLudINg EXEcuTIVE SuMMARY
ANd APPENdIcES
June 2012
Prepared by
the Steering committee
of the State-of-Knowledge
Assessment of
Standards and certification
Steering Committee
Toward
Mike Barry
Sustainability
Head of Sustainable Business, Marks & Spencer
The Roles and Ben Cashore
Professor, Environmental Governance and Political Science;
Limitations
Director, Governance, Environment and Markets (GEM) Initiative; and
of Certification Director, Program on Forest Policy and Governance; Yale University
Jason Clay
Senior Vice President, Market Transformation, World Wildlife Fund
Michael Fernandez
Director of Public Policy and Global Partnerships, Mars, Incorporated
Louis Lebel
Director, Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai University
Tom Lyon
Director, Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise, University of Michigan
Patrick Mallet (Steering Committee chair)
Director of Credibility, ISEAL Alliance
Kira Matus
Lecturer in Public Policy and Management,
London School of Economics and Political Science
Peter Melchett
Policy Director, Soil Association
Michael Vandenbergh
Professor of Law, Tarkington Chair in Teaching Excellence;
Director, Climate Change Research Network, Vanderbilt University
Jan Kees Vis
Global Director, Sustainable Sourcing Development, Unilever
Tensie Whelan
President, Rainforest Alliance
RESOLVE Staff
Abby Dilley
Vice President of Program Development
Jennifer Peyser
Senior Mediator
Taylor Kennedy
Senior Program Associate
For more information, please visit www.resolv.org/certificationassessment
or contact RESOLVE, the Secretariat organization, at 202.944.2300 or
[email protected].
Citation information: Steering Committee of the State-of-Knowledge Assessment of Standards and Certification. (2012). Toward sustainability: The roles
and limitations of certification. Washington, DC: RESOLVE, Inc.
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ES-1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 1: Setting the Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Chapter 2: Why and How Actors Engage in Standards and Certifi cation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Section A: The Roles and Drivers of NGOs and Civil Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Section B: The Roles and Drivers of Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Section C: The Roles and Drivers of Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Chapter 3: The Impacts of Standards and Certifi cation on Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Chapter 4: Pathways to Impact: Synergies with Other Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Chapter 5: Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Chapter 6: Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY: THE ROLES AND LIMITATIONS OF CERTIFICATION
Appendix A: Introduction to the Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Appendix B: Toward More Sustainable Production and Consumption,
by Kai Lee and Ruth Norris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-6
Appendix C: How Certifi cation Matters: Examining Mechanisms of Infl uence,
by Tim Bartley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-13
Appendix D: An Early Assessment of the Effectiveness of Aquaculture Certifi cation
and Standards, by Claude E. Boyd and Aaron A. McNevin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-35
Appendix E: A Literature and State-of-Knowledge Review of Fisheries Certifi cation
and Standards, by California Environmental Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-70
Appendix F: Forestry Review, by Ben Cashore and Graeme Auld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-88
Appendix G: Agricultural Standards and Certifi cation Systems, by Louis Lebel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-125
Appendix H: Testing a BMP-Based Approach for Assessing Gaps in Certifi cation
Impacts Research, by Deanna Newsom, Elizabeth Kennedy, Joshua Miller,
Volker Bahn, and Shishir Adhikari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-146
Appendix I: Recommendations for Improving Research on Certifi cation Impacts,
by William Crosse, Deanna Newsom, and Elizabeth Kennedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-169
Appendix J: Addendum to the Business Section: The Drivers and Barriers
that Shape Business Engagement in Certifi cation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-181
Appendix K: Why Do Firms Voluntarily Comply with Sustainability Standards?
The Drivers and Enabling Conditions of Voluntary Certifi cation,
by Bogdan Prokopovych . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-194
Appendix L: Innovations in Governance: A Functional Typology of Private
Governance Institutions, by Tracey M. Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-209
Appendix M: Timeline of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-256
Appendix N: Steering Committee Selection Process, Expectations, and Biographies . . . . . . . . . . .A-259
Appendix O: Peer Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-267
Appendix P: Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-270
Appendix Q: Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-292
TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY: THE ROLES AND LIMITATIONS OF CERTIFICATION
Preface
in 2008, the david and lucile Packard foundation of certification systems and ecolabels and the
and the walton family foundation were both apparent lack of any existing systematic review of
seeking to understand the impacts and efficacy of the on-the-ground impacts of these systems—
their support of the marine Stewardship Council that important questions regarding standards
(mSC)—which certifies wild-caught fisheries— and certification could benefit from collabora-
and related nongovernmental initiatives. both tive study. in particular, with the rising uptake of
foundations had made substantial investments certification, we believed it essential to provide
in the mSC in an effort to move seafood mar- producers, supply-chain actors, and the environ-
kets toward greater sustainability. although it mental community with a solid assessment of
was clear that mSC-certified seafood was gaining what is known and not known about this means
market share, the impact of that shift on marine of moving toward sustainable use.
ecosystems and fishing communities remained
we thus joined forces in late 2008 and early 2009
anecdotal.
around a common interest in an independent,
at the same time, mars, incorporated—one of robust assessment of the state of knowledge
the world’s largest food companies—was look- regarding voluntary standards and certification
ing for ways to encourage environmentally and systems that promote product sustainability.
socially sustainable production practices across our organizations provided grant support for
its diverse, agriculture-based supply chain. in reSolVe, a respected nonprofit mediation and
april 2009, the company also announced its com- facilitation organization, to serve as Secretariat
mitment to purchase 100 percent of its cocoa for the assessment. we worked with reSolVe to
from sustainable sources by 2020. They believed recruit a balanced Steering Committee composed
that certification—a means of providing assur- of representatives from business, civil society,
ance that the cocoa they purchased complies with and academia. The Steering Committee com-
agreed-upon sustainability criteria—would be a missioned analyses of the literature by academic
critical tool for helping to achieve that goal and researchers, in addition to drawing on their own
ultimately to improve the lives of cocoa farmers. knowledge and deep experience with standards
and certification.
as representatives of these organizations, we
began to talk with each other and realize that we asked the Steering Committee to design and
we shared the belief that certification can and direct the assessment. The findings, conclusions,
does play an important role in transforming and recommendations of the resulting study are
markets. we also agreed—given the proliferation those of the Committee. Committee members
Toward SuSTainabiliTy: The roleS and limiTaTionS of CerTifiCaTion i
PrefaCe ii
served without pay, and they participated as ▪ what factors do businesses, governments,
individuals, rather than as representatives of nGos, foundations, and consumers take into
their organizations. as we observed the discus- account when using or deciding whether to
sions and read drafts, it was clear to us that the use or support certification?
assessment was indeed the work of persons with
▪ what is known about the environmental,
strong views and deep expertise, who listened
social, and economic impacts of voluntary
to one another and reached vigorously debated,
standards and certification systems?
well-founded conclusions. we thank the members
of the Steering Committee for their generosity of ▪ how do other forces—such as government
time and intellect. regulation—interact with certification systems,
and how do those interactions affect outcomes?
we believe this final assessment report is a
significant contribution to a field that is already our intent in publishing this assessment report
making tangible contributions and could bring is for businesses, governments, foundations, and
about significant progress toward a sustainable nGos to make use of its findings and recommen-
economy. The report provides usable knowledge dations in their decision making and investments.
that can inform firms, governments, and civil soci- we also hope the assessment spurs research that
ety in their continuing search for more sustainable will further expand learning, leading to better use
practices. in particular, the report helps to answer of certification and other tools to induce more
questions such as the following: sustainable production and consumption.
Signed,
Scott burns michael fernandez Kai n. lee
walton family foundation mars, incorporated david and lucile Packard foundation
Toward SuSTainabiliTy: The roleS and limiTaTionS of CerTifiCaTion
Acknowledgements
The Steering Committee wishes to thank the
many individuals who contributed to this report.
we especially wish to thank the funders—Kai The Guardian), Tim bartley (indiana university),
lee of the david and lucile Packard foundation; Tim benton (university of leeds), Claude boyd
Scott burns and Sheree Speakman of the walton (auburn university), william Crosse (rainforest
family foundation; and michael fernandez of alliance), matt elliott (California environmental
mars, incorporated—for making this assessment associates), Julia Jawtusch (fibl), aaron mcnevin
possible, and for their ongoing support, encour- (mansfield university), Joshua miller (wright
agement, and wisdom. Similarly, without the State university), Valerie nelson (university
immense commitment of abby dilley, Jennifer of Greenwich), deanna newsom (rainforest
Peyser, and Taylor Kennedy (reSolVe) in facilitat- alliance), urs niggli (fibl), bogdan Prokopovych
ing this process and keeping us on track through (university of rhode island), Tracey roberts
our deliberations, we would not have been able to (university of louisville), and anne Tallontire
deliver this report. (university of leeds). we also thank david Steele
and Jeremy mullem of duke university for their
ruth norris (resources legacy fund) commit-
assistance in reproducing Tracey roberts’ article,
ted many hours of writing and many nuggets of
which was published in the Duke Environmental
wisdom in preparation of the assessment, and lisa
Law and Policy Forum.
monzon (david and lucile Packard foundation)
offered particular insight on the evaluation of elizabeth Kennedy (rainforest alliance), in addi-
certification systems. we wish to thank them both tion to contributing original research, also spent
for lending their time and expertise. many hours with the Steering Committee dis-
cussing the challenges of and research priorities
many other colleagues provided logistical support
for evaluating methodologies and measuring
and assistance, and we thank emily anderson and
impacts. we thank her and her team for their
aJ becker (mars), allegra brelsford (world wildlife
insights and continuous support.
fund), ria de Groot (unilever), leanne rivett
(marks & Spencer), Kristen Vissers (rainforest for sharing their time, experience, and candid
alliance), will walker (yale university), and feedback, we thank all who participated in meet-
Christine williams (Soil association). ings with the Steering Committee on September
29, 2010, in london and on october 14, 2010, in
we commissioned research by several excellent
washington, dC.
scholars and practitioners. we are grateful for the
contributions made by: Shishir adhikari (wright we thank our peer reviewers, whose thoughtful
State university), amy mathews amos (Turnstone and constructive critiques challenged the Steering
Consulting), Graeme auld (Carleton university), Committee to produce a better report: Christophe
Volker bahn (wright State university), oliver béné, allen blackman, nadine block, hank Cauley,
balch (journalist for Ethical Corporation and michael Conroy, abigail daken, andre de freitas,
Toward SuSTainabiliTy: The roleS and limiTaTionS of CerTifiCaTion iii
aCKnowledGemenTS iv
rebecca dewinter-Schmitt, dominique Gautier, the design of the report’s infographics. we thank
James Griffiths, aldin hilbrands, alison Kinn, Kate melanie dougherty (melanie dougherty design)
lewis, Peter macQuarrie, errol meidinger, Katrina for her graphic contributions early in the report
nakamura, dara o’rourke, Charlotte opal, ben development process.
Packard, Jason Potts, Carsten Schmitz-hoffmann,
we wish to express our gratitude to our Chair,
Philip Schukat, yalmaz Siddiqui, dan Vermeer,
Patrick mallet, for his above-and-beyond contribu-
and oliver von hagen.
tions and for all he did to maintain our momentum
we wish to thank graphic design consultants Cat in decision making and report development.
Sanders and Quinn Peyser for their wonderful
last, but certainly not least, we are grateful to our
suggestions and work to translate hundreds of
fantastic editor, Jennifer Thomas-larmer (larmer
pages of text into final layout. we are also grateful
Consulting), whose skillful hand turned our work
to niki belkowski of world wildlife fund for donat-
into a significantly more readable narrative.
ing many hours and immense creativity toward
Toward SuSTainabiliTy: The roleS and limiTaTionS of CerTifiCaTion
THE Twenty years ago, civil society and business leaders launched a move-
ment to establish market preference for sustainable goods. They led
ASSESSMENT initiatives to certify forest products, seafood, chemicals, buildings,
electronics, jewelry, and other materials and services. Over two decades,
AT A
certifi ed products have become increasingly common in the market-
place. For example, recent studies have reported that 20 percent of
GLANCE
world exports of bananas and 7 percent of global wild landings of fi sh
for human consumption were certifi ed.
As certifi cation and labeling systems have proliferated, interest in their
impact and potential has also increased. In a globalized market where
quality is diffi cult to assure and supplies are insecure, market-leading
fi rms are developing business cases for improving social and environ-
mental sustainability, including using standards and certifi cation in
ways not foreseen a decade ago.
This State-of-Knowledge Assessment sought to discover what is known
and what is most important to learn about the performance and
potential of voluntary standards and certifi cation. It found substantial
evidence of improvements in social, environmental, and economic
practices resulting from certifi cation at the site level, as well as some
instances of unintended effects, positive and negative. However, much
of the evidence is case specifi c, preventing generalizations, and in many
cases, it is diffi cult to attribute outcomes directly to certifi cation.
It appears that voluntary standards and certifi cation are most effective
as part of a suite of integrated public and private sustainability tools.
Standards and certifi cation can bring about rapid changes in production
practices when fi rms use them to support better practice and perfor-
mance by their suppliers. They can also complement regulation, by
fi lling gaps and introducing mechanisms for adapting to technological
and social change.
The report concludes with recommendations that actors engaged in
certifi cation redouble their efforts to improve the effectiveness of these
tools, give more attention to designing them to work in concert with
other approaches, and work together to research the impacts of certifi -
cation and alternative or complementary approaches.
TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY: THE ROLES AND LIMITATIONS OF CERTIFICATION
Executive Summary
In today’s marketplace, consumers facing an in-store or online display of products typically
have to choose from among items produced in distant places under unknown conditions.
High-profi le cases of contaminated food, child labor, animal welfare problems, and the
collapse of fi sheries and other resources have raised consumer concerns about how
products are made or harvested.
Companies also face challenges in assuring that their sources of supply will be avail-
able over the long term and that their brands and reputations will thrive. Major global
brands have been called into question concerning practices associated with their
products. Certifi ed products—such as sustainable seafood, organic food, fair trade
coffee, and responsibly harvested wood—are often presented as part of the solution.
But are certifi ed products really better for the environment? Are they better for
people and communities? Can they catalyze more sustainable production and
consumption across whole sectors? Under what circumstances do they promote
sustainable practices? This document summarizes the fi ndings of an assessment
of the state of knowledge available to companies, investors, practitioners, and
consumers seeking answers to questions about the performance and potential of
certifi cation and voluntary standards.
The full Assessment report can be found at www.resolv.org/certifi cationassessment.
The page numbers noted
The page numbers noted in parentheses throughout this summary indicate where
in parentheses throughout
the corresponding topic is discussed in more detail in the full report.
this summary indicate
The Certifi cation Movement
where the corresponding
topic is discussed in more Voluntary standards and certifi cation systems have existed for decades to affi rm
detail in the full report. product safety, quality, and production practices. In the 1990s, forest certifi cation
was one of the fi rst large-scale applications to address a global social, economic,
and environmental challenge. (See pp. 6–7.)
At that time, certifi cation became the preferred tool of a coalition of philanthropic
foundations, environmental advocates, and business partners. International advo-
cacy for a global forestry treaty had failed, and there was little hope for national
regulations favoring timber harvesting practices with less environmental damage.
Coalition leaders sought to shift the forum of action and the strategic approach.
They would establish a new form of governance—standard-setting by representa-
tives of social, environmental, and economic interests, with third parties accredited
to certify when the standards had been met. The idea was to generate enough
demand for standards-compliant products that certifi cation would become a de
facto condition for market access. Figure 1 illustrates this model.
TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY: THE ROLES AND LIMITATIONS OF CERTIFICATION