Author
Listed:
- Piiroinen, Tiina
- Pappila, Minna
- Ott, Anna
Abstract
This study investigates the revision of the PEFC forest certification standard, a multi-stakeholder process, using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). It addresses changes in the standard's ecological criteria and the factors affecting them. Ten members of the standard working group were interviewed, supported by a document review. Three advocacy coalitions—forestry, environmental, and social— were identified, contrasting with prior studies on Finnish forest policy. The forestry coalition outnumbered the other two coalitions in their policy-relevant resources. Decision-making authority and opportunities for equal participation were perceived as weak by the others. It had sufficient resources to invest in strong participation, access to information and skilful leadership. The historical dominance of the forestry coalition when it comes to Finnish forest policy persisted, and the revision process indicated a lack of trust and a divide between coalitions. Dissatisfaction with the ecological criteria led to the withdrawal of the environmental coalition representatives from the standard working group. Changes in the ecological criteria between 2014 and 2022 were minor, despite the urgent need to reverse impairments from previous updates of the standard. The influence of ecological science on the revision was weak. Attempts to weaken criteria on old-growth forests were observed, raising questions about the forestry coalition's commitment to biodiversity protection. The level of environmental, social, and economic sustainability in PEFC standards were largely determined by the forestry coalition.
Suggested Citation
Piiroinen, Tiina & Pappila, Minna & Ott, Anna, 2025.
"Conflicting interests in the standard setting process of the PEFC forest certification scheme in Finland,"
Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
Handle:
RePEc:eee:forpol:v:181:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125002205
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103641
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:181:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125002205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.