Transparency in Nonstate Certification: Consequences for Accountability and Legitimacy

Graeme Auld and Lars H. Gulbrandsen
Additional contact information
Graeme Auld: Graeme Auld is an Assistant Professor at Carleton University in the School of Public Policy and Administration. He is co-author (with Ben Cashore and Deanna Newsom) of Governing through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Nonstate Authority (2004) and co-author (with Lars H. Gulbrandsen and Constance L. McDermott) of a chapter in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources (2008) entitled "Certification Schemes and the Impacts on Forests and Forestry." His research examines the emergence and evolution of non-state and hybrid forms of governance, with particular attention to social and environmental certification in the agriculture, forest and fisheries sectors.
Lars H. Gulbrandsen: Lars H. Gulbrandsen is a Senior Research Fellow at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Norway. His research examines the emergence and effectiveness of non-state governance and corporate social responsibility initiatives, with particular focus on the forest, fisheries and petroleum sectors. He is author of Transnational Environmental Governance: The Emergence and Effects of the Certification of Forests and Fisheries (2010).

Global Environmental Politics, 2010, vol. 10, issue 3, 97-119

Abstract: Nonstate certification programs have formed in the past 20 years to address social and environmental problems associated with production practices in several economic sectors. These programs embody the idea that information disclosure can be a tool for NGOs, investors, governments, and consumers to support high performers and hence, advocates hope, place upward pressure on sector-wide practices. Many unanswered questions remain, however, about information disclosure's practices and outcomes. We compare the use of procedural and outcome transparency in the rule-making and auditing processes of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). We highlight key differences in how transparency relates to accountability and legitimacy of the programs. The MSC uses transparency and stakeholder consultation instrumentally, whereas the FSC treats them as ends unto themselves. This underscores the importance of considering transparency alongside other governance aspects, such as who the eligible stakeholders are and who gets decision-making power. (c) 2010 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Date: 2010
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (33)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/GLEP_a_00016 link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:10:y:2010:i:3:p:97-119

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://mitpressjour ... rnal/?issn=1526-3800

Access Statistics for this article

Global Environmental Politics is currently edited by Steven Bernstein, Matthew Hoffmann and Erika Weinthal

More articles in Global Environmental Politics from MIT Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by The MIT Press ().