美国的自愿环境项目:谁的利益得到了服务

T. Steelman, Jorge Rivera
{"title":"美国的自愿环境项目:谁的利益得到了服务","authors":"T. Steelman, Jorge Rivera","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1931001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The appeal of voluntary environmental programs (VEPs) lies in their promise to mutually serve government, industry, and environmental interests because they can reduce administrative burdens, provide flexibility to decide how to implement environmental improvements, and work toward superior environmental performance. In practice, however, one interest may be served to the exclusion of others, and this is a charge that often has been leveled at VEPs in the United States. If VEPs are used to serve some interests at the expense of others, they are likely to lose their value as alternative policy instruments. This article details a framework involving procedural, substantive, and practical tests to determine whether the common interest has been served. This assessment framework is applied to two different VEPs in the United States: the Forest Stewardship Council Certification and the Sustainable Slopes Program.","PeriodicalId":378017,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Environment (Topic)","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"57","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Voluntary Environmental Programs in the United States: Whose Interests are Served\",\"authors\":\"T. Steelman, Jorge Rivera\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1931001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The appeal of voluntary environmental programs (VEPs) lies in their promise to mutually serve government, industry, and environmental interests because they can reduce administrative burdens, provide flexibility to decide how to implement environmental improvements, and work toward superior environmental performance. In practice, however, one interest may be served to the exclusion of others, and this is a charge that often has been leveled at VEPs in the United States. If VEPs are used to serve some interests at the expense of others, they are likely to lose their value as alternative policy instruments. This article details a framework involving procedural, substantive, and practical tests to determine whether the common interest has been served. This assessment framework is applied to two different VEPs in the United States: the Forest Stewardship Council Certification and the Sustainable Slopes Program.\",\"PeriodicalId\":378017,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PSN: Environment (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"57\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PSN: Environment (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1931001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Environment (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1931001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 57

摘要

自愿性环境项目(vep)的吸引力在于它们承诺为政府、行业和环境利益提供相互服务,因为它们可以减轻行政负担,为如何实施环境改善提供灵活性,并努力实现卓越的环境绩效。然而,在实践中,一种利益可能会被排除在其他利益之外,这是美国副总裁经常被指控的罪名。如果副总裁被用来为某些利益服务,牺牲其他人的利益,他们可能会失去作为替代政策工具的价值。本文详细介绍了一个框架,包括程序、实质和实际测试,以确定是否已服务于共同利益。该评估框架适用于美国的两个不同的副总裁:森林管理委员会认证和可持续斜坡计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Voluntary Environmental Programs in the United States: Whose Interests are Served
The appeal of voluntary environmental programs (VEPs) lies in their promise to mutually serve government, industry, and environmental interests because they can reduce administrative burdens, provide flexibility to decide how to implement environmental improvements, and work toward superior environmental performance. In practice, however, one interest may be served to the exclusion of others, and this is a charge that often has been leveled at VEPs in the United States. If VEPs are used to serve some interests at the expense of others, they are likely to lose their value as alternative policy instruments. This article details a framework involving procedural, substantive, and practical tests to determine whether the common interest has been served. This assessment framework is applied to two different VEPs in the United States: the Forest Stewardship Council Certification and the Sustainable Slopes Program.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信