Sustainability 2010, 2(8), 2617-2620; doi:10.3390/su2082617
Commentary

Comments on ‘Straka, T.J.; Layton, P.A. Natural Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment and Forest Certification and Sustainability Issues. Sustainability 2010, 2, 604–623’

Ben Gunnebergemail
PEFC International, 10 Route de l’Aéroport, CP 636, 1215 Genève, Switzerland
Received: 13 June 2010 / Accepted: 17 August 2010 / Published: 18 August 2010
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment)
PDF Full-text Download PDF Full-Text [94 KB, uploaded 18 August 2010 14:10 CEST]
Abstract: Unreferenced statement on page 608: “A fundamental difference between FSC and PEFC is the stakeholders. While FSC was founded mainly by environmental groups, PEFC had strong forest industry and trade groups among its founders. This is one reason FSC is not a member of PEFC. Both the ATFS and SFI are recognized by PEFC as acceptable standards”.

Article Statistics

Click here to load and display the download statistics.

Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Gunneberg, B. Comments on ‘Straka, T.J.; Layton, P.A. Natural Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment and Forest Certification and Sustainability Issues. Sustainability 2010, 2, 604–623’. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2617-2620.

AMA Style

Gunneberg B. Comments on ‘Straka, T.J.; Layton, P.A. Natural Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment and Forest Certification and Sustainability Issues. Sustainability 2010, 2, 604–623’. Sustainability. 2010; 2(8):2617-2620.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gunneberg, Ben. 2010. "Comments on ‘Straka, T.J.; Layton, P.A. Natural Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment and Forest Certification and Sustainability Issues. Sustainability 2010, 2, 604–623’." Sustainability 2, no. 8: 2617-2620.

Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert