{"title":"Conflicting interests in the standard setting process of the PEFC forest certification scheme in Finland","authors":"Tiina Piiroinen, Minna Pappila, Anna Ott","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"181 ","pages":"Article 103641"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125002205","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍:
Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.