Procedural Factors Influencing Forest Certification Audits: An Empirical Study in Romania
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background of FSC Auditing Process and Romanian Forest Certification Context
2.1. FSC Auditing Process
2.2. Forest Certification in Romania
3. Methods
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis of NCs
4.2. Correlation Analysis of the Number of NCs Detected in the Audits
4.3. Regression Analysis of the Number of Minor and Major NCs Detected in the Audits
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Florian, D.; Dalla Vecchia, I.; Masiero, M. FSC® Forest Management Certification. In Forest Management Auditing: Certification of Forest Products and Services; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rametsteiner, E.; Simula, M. Forest certification—An instrument to promote sustainable forest management? J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 67, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebeling, J.; Yasué, M. The effectiveness of market-based conservation in the tropics: Forest certification in Ecuador and Bolivia. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1145–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Suryani, A.N.; Shahwahid, H.M.; Fauzi, P.A.; Alias, R.; Vlosky, R.P. Assessment of chain-of-custody certification costs for sawnwood manufacturers in Peninsular Malaysia. JTFS 2011, 23, 159–165. [Google Scholar]
- Halalisan, A.F.; Marinchescu, M.; Popa, B.; Abrudan, I.V. Chain of Custody certification in Romania: Profile and perceptions of FSC certified companies. Int. For. Rev. 2013, 15, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basso, V.M.; Jacovine, L.A.G.; Nardelli, A.M.B.; Alves, R.R.; da Silva, E.; Silva, M.L.; Andrade, B.G. FSC forest management certification in the Americas. Int. For. Rev. 2018, 20, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maletz, O.; Tysiachniouk, M. The effect of expertise on the quality of forest standards implementation: The case of FSC forest certification in Russia. For. Policy Econ. 2009, 11, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roberge, A.; Bouthillier, L.; Boiral, O. The influence of forest certification on environmental performance: An analysis of certified companies in the province of Quebec (Canada). Can. J. For. Res. 2011, 41, 661–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halalisan, A.F.; Popa, B.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Ioras, F.; Abrudan, I.V. Drivers, perceived benefits and impacts of FSC Chain of Custody Certification in a challenging sectoral context: The case of Romania. Int. For. Rev. 2019, 21, 195–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Trolliet, F.; Vogt, M.; Kleinschroth, F. How does FSC certification of forest management benefit conservation of biodiversity? In Sustainability Certification Schemes in the Agricultural and Natural Resource Sectors: Outcomes for Sociey and the Environment; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2019; pp. 93–110. [Google Scholar]
- FSC. Facts & Figures, Forest Stewardship Council. Available online: https://fsc.org/en/facts-figures (accessed on 3 October 2020).
- FSC. General Requirements for FSC Accredited Certification Bodies (FSC-STD-20-001 Standard V4-0 EN). Available online: https://fsc.org/en/document-centre/documents/resource/280 (accessed on 3 March 2020).
- PEFC. Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes. Available online: www.pefc.org (accessed on 20 January 2021).
- Espach, R. Private regulation amid public disarray: An analysis of two private environmental regulatory programs in Argentina. Bus. Politics 2005, 7, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulbrandsen, L.H. Dynamic governance interactions: Evolutionary effects of state responses to non-state certification programs. Regul. Gov. 2014, 8, 74–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paluš, H.; Parobek, J.; Vlosky, R.P.; Motik, D.; Oblak, L.; Jošt, M.; Glavonjić, B.; Dudík, R.; Wanat, L. The status of chain-of-custody certification in the countries of Central and South Europe. Eur. J. Wood and Wood Prod. 2018, 76, 699–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paluš, H.; Parobek, J.; Šulek, R.; Lichý, J.; Šálka, J. Understanding Sustainable Forest Management Certification in Slovakia: Forest Owners’ Perception of Expectations, Benefits and Problems. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Galati, A.; Gianguzzi, G.; Tinervia, S.; Crescimanno, M.; La Mela Veca, D.S. Motivations, adoption and impact of voluntary environmental certification in the Italian Forest based industry: The case of the FSC standard. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 83, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maesano, M.; Ottaviano, M.; Lidestav, G.; Lasserre, B.; Matteucci, G.; Scarascia Mugnozza, G.; Marchetti, M. Forest certification map of Europe. iForest 2018, 11, 526–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nebel, G.; Quevedo, L.; Bredahl Jacobsen, J.; Helles, F. Development and economic significance of forest certification: The case of FSC in Bolivia. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, S.E.; Cubbage, F.; Eicheldinger, C. Impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Forest Certification in North America. J. For. 2012, 110, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klarić, K.; Greger, K.; Klarić, M.; Andrić, T.; Hitka, M.; Kropivšek, J. An exploratory assessment of FSC chain of custody certification benefits in Croatian wood industry. Drv. Ind. Znan. Čas. Pitanja Drv. Tehnol. 2016, 67, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karsenty, A. Certification of tropical forests: A private instrument of public interest? A focus on the Congo Basin. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 106, 101974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehrenberg-Azcárate, F.; Peña-Claros, M. Twenty years of forest management certification in the tropics: Major trends through time and among continents. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 111, 102050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackman, A.; Raimondi, A.; Cubbage, F. Does forest certification in developing countries have environmental benefits? Insights from Mexican corrective action requests. Int. For. Rev. 2017, 19, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermudananto; Romero, C.; Ruslandi; Putz, F.E. Analysis of corrective action requests from Forest Stewardship Council audits of natural forest management in Indonesia. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 96, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piketty, M.-G.; Garcia Drigo, I. Shaping the implementation of the FSC standard: The case of auditors in Brazil. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 90, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rafael, G.C.; Fonseca, A.; Jacovine, L.A.G. Non-conformities to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards: Empirical evidence and implications for policy-making in Brazil. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 88, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dick, G.P.M.; Heras, I.; Casadesús, M. Shedding light on causation between ISO 9001 and improved business performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2008, 28, 687–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heras, I.; Arana, G. Alternative models for environmental management in SMEs: The case of Ekoscan vs. ISO 14001. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 726–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Dogui, K.; Boiral, O. Shedding light on ISO 14001 certification audits. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 51, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sampaio, P.; Saraiva, P.; Guimarães Rodrigues, A. A classification model for prediction of certification motivations from the contents of ISO 9001 audit reports. Total. Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2010, 21, 1279–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boiral, O. Managing with ISO systems: Lessons from practice. LRP 2011, 44, 197–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Boiral, O. ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a research agenda on management system standards. IJMR 2013, 15, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biazzo, S. The new ISO 9001 and the problem of ceremonial conformity: How have audit methods evolved? Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2005, 16, 381–399. [Google Scholar]
- Karapetrovic, S.; Willborn, W. Quality assurance and effectiveness of audit systems. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2000, 17, 679–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiarini, A.; Vagnoni, E. A proposed audit pattern for the shop-floor processes in TQM, Lean Six Sigma and ISO 9001 environments. IJSOM 2014, 18, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Quality and the Service Economy; SAGE Publications: Sauzend Oaks, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- McDermott, C.L. Trust, legitimacy and power in forest certification: A case study of the FSC in British Columbia. Geoforum 2012, 43, 634–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernstein, S. Legitimacy in global environmental governance. J. Int’l L Int’l Rel. 2004, 1, 139. [Google Scholar]
- Dogui, K.; Boiral, O.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. Audit fees and auditor independence: The case of ISO 14001 certification. Int. J. Audit. 2014, 18, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Power, M. Evaluating the Audit Explosion. Law Policy 2003, 25, 185–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamber, E.M.; Iyer, V.M. Auditors’ identification with their clients and its effect on auditors’ objectivity. Audit. J. Pract. Theory 2007, 26, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kouakou, D.; Boiral, O.; Gendron, Y. ISO auditing and the construction of trust in auditor independence. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2013, 26, 1279–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dror, I.E.; Pierce, M.L. ISO standards addressing issues of bias and impartiality in forensic work. J. Forensic Sci. 2020, 65, 800–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FSC. Forest Management Evaluations (FSC-STD-20-007 Standard V3-0 EN). Available online: https://fsc.org/en/document-centre/documents/resource/279 (accessed on 10 October 2020).
- FSC. FSC Directive on FSC Forest Management Evaluations (FSC-DIR-20-007). Available online: https://fsc.org/en/document-centre/documents/resource/394 (accessed on 10 October 2020).
- ASI. Assurance Services International—ASI. Available online: https://www.asi-assurance.org/s/ (accessed on 14 October 2020).
- Dragoi, M.; Popa, B.; Blujdea, V. Improving communication among stakeholders through ex-post transactional analysis—Case study on Romanian forestry. For. Policy Econ. 2011, 13, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abrudan, I.V. A decade of non-state administration of forests in Romania: Achievements and challenges. Int. For. Rev. 2012, 14, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouriaud, L.; Marzano, M. Conservation, Extraction and Corruption: Is sustainable Forest Management Possible in Romania? In Natural Resources Extraction and Indigenous Livelihoods. Development Challenges in an Era of Globalization; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 221–241. ISBN 978-1-4094-3777-2. [Google Scholar]
- Popa, B.; Niță, M.D.; Hălălișan, A.F. Intentions to engage in forest law enforcement in Romania: An application of the theory of planned behavior. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 100, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halalisan, A.F.; Ioras, F.; Korjus, H.; Avdibegovic, M.; Maric, B.; Malovrh, S.P.; Abrudan, I.V. An analysis of forest management non-conformities to FSC standards in different European countries. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2016, 44, 634–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buliga, B.; Nichiforel, L. Voluntary forest certification vs. stringent legal frameworks: Romania as a case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nichiforel, L.; Keary, K.; Deuffic, P.; Weiss, G.; Thorsen, B.J.; Winkel, G.; Avdibegović, M.; Dobšinská, Z.; Feliciano, D.; Gatto, P.; et al. How private are Europe’s private forests? A comparative property rights analysis. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 535–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FSC Public Search. Available online: https://info.fsc.org/ (accessed on 20 June 2020).
- Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.G. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boiral, O.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Brotherton, M.-C. Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: The auditors’ perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 155, 703–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boiral, O.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Brotherton, M.-C.; Bernard, J. Ethical issues in the assurance of sustainability reports: Perspectives from assurance providers. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 159, 1111–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Description of Variables | Type | |
---|---|---|---|
Year of certification for audited entities | Year of issuing the certificate | Audited entity variables | Independent |
Area | Area under the scope of certification | ||
Type of assessment | MAs, SAs, RAs | Audit procedure variables | |
Number of days | Auditing days on site location | ||
Number of auditors | Audit team members | ||
Foreign members | Auditors from other countries | ||
ASI witness assessment | Presence of accreditation body | ||
Nonconformities | Results/findings of audit | Audit findings variables (outcomes) | Dependent |
Grade of nonconformities | Major–minor | ||
Standard reference | FSC principles | ||
NCs method of detection | Document verification, field checks, or stakeholders’ interviews |
Year of Certification for Audited Entities | Type of Assessment | Assessment Code | Minor NCs Average Number | Major NCs Average Number | NCs Average Number | Number of Reports |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Main assessment | MA | 8.35 | 0.27 | 8.61 | 26 |
2 | Surveillance 1 | S1 | 3.25 | 0.15 | 3.40 | 20 |
3 | Surveillance 2 | S2 | 2.32 | 0.21 | 2.53 | 19 |
4 | Surveillance 3 | S3 | 2.67 | 0.67 | 3.33 | 12 |
5 | Surveillance 4 | S4 | 2.78 | 0.22 | 3.00 | 9 |
6 | Re-assessment 1 | RA1 | 2.86 | 0.14 | 3.00 | 7 |
7 | Surveillance 1 | S1-RA1 | 2.75 | 0.00 | 3.75 | 4 |
8 | Surveillance 2 | S2-RA1 | 1.67 | 0.00 | 1.67 | 3 |
9 | Surveillance 3 | S3-RA1 | 3.00 | 0.00 | 3.00 | 2 |
10 | Surveillance 4 | S4-RA1 | 2.50 | 0.00 | 2.50 | 2 |
11 | Re-assessment 2 | RA2 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1 |
Total | 4.10 | 0.24 | 4.34 | 105 |
Variable | Mean | Standard Deviation | Main Assessment | Reassessment | Surveillance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Minor | 4.10 | 4.23 | 8.35 ** | 2.62 ** | 2.72 ** |
Major | 0.24 | 0.71 | 0.27 | 0.12 | 0.24 |
Document verification | 1,89 | 3.28 | 4.09 * | 1.50 * | 1.15 * |
Field checks | 2,26 | 2.32 | 4.23 ** | 1.12 ** | 1.66 ** |
Interviews | 0,19 | 0.46 | 0.35 | 0.12 | 0.14 |
P1: Compliance with laws and FSC principles | 0.25 | 0.44 | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.21 |
P2: Tenure and use rights and responsibilities | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
P3: Indigenous peoples’ rights | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
P4: Community relations and worker’s rights | 0.92 | 1.20 | 1.77 * | 0.62 * | 0.65 * |
P5: Benefits from the forest | 0.19 | 0.51 | 0.42 ** | 0.00 ** | 0.13 ** |
P6: Environmental impact | 1.82 | 2.17 | 3.81 ** | 1.12 ** | 1.17 ** |
P7: Management plan | 0.48 | 0.93 | 0.77 | 0.50 | 0.37 |
P8: Monitoring and assessment | 0.45 | 0.90 | 0.85 * | 0.12 * | 0.34 * |
P9: Maintenance of high conservation value forests | 0.25 | 0.66 | 0.61 ** | 0.12 ** | 0.13 ** |
Total | 4.34 | 4.51 | 8.61 ** | 2.75 ** | 2.96 ** |
Variable | No Foreign Auditor Members | Foreign Auditor Members | No ASI Witnesses | ASI Witnesses |
---|---|---|---|---|
Minor NC | 3.56 | 4.78 | 4.06 | 5.25 |
Major NC | 0.07 ** | 0.43 ** | 0.20 * | 1.25 * |
Document check | 1.77 | 2.04 | 1.85 | 2.25 |
Field | 1.64 ** | 2.96 ** | 2.19 | 4.00 |
Interviews | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.25 |
Principle 1 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.23 * | 0.75 * |
Principle 2 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
Principle 3 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Principle 4 | 0.73 | 1.14 | 0.87 * | 2.50 * |
Principle 5 | 0.07 * | 0.33 * | 0.19 | 0.25 |
Principle 6 | 1.30 ** | 2.41 ** | 1.81 | 2.00 |
Principle 7 | 0.54 | 0.41 | 0.48 | 0.25 |
Principle 8 | 0.56 | 0.33 | 0.45 | 0.50 |
Principle 9 | 0.11 * | 0.41 * | 0.24 | 0.50 |
Total | 3.59 * | 5.20 * | 4.26 | 6.50 |
No. of NCs | Certification Year | Certified Area | Main Assessment | Days | No. of Auditors | Foreign Members | ASI Witnesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average per report | 7.92 | 128,322 | 0.25 | 3.17 | 2.12 | 0.53 | 0.04 |
Standard deviation | 2.47 | 440,261 | 0.43 | 0.99 | 1.16 | 0.62 | 0.19 |
Minor | 0.35 ** | 0.18 | 0.54 ** | 0.25 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.21 * | 0.05 |
Major | 0.01 | 0.43 ** | 0.02 | 0.48 ** | 0.17 | 0.32 ** | 0.28 ** |
Document verification | 0.24 * | 0.33 ** | 0.308 ** | 0.36 ** | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.02 |
Field checks | 0.32 ** | 0.00 | 0.49 ** | 0.10 | 0.37 ** | 0.30 ** | 0.15 |
Interviews | −0.02 | 0.01 | 0.19 * | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.03 |
Principle 1 | 0.15 | −0.01 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.21 * |
Principle 2 | 0.06 | −0.04 | 0.08 | −0.02 | 0.23 * | −0.10 | −0.03 |
Principle 3 | 0.00 | −0.03 | −0.06 | −0.02 | 0.07 | 0.08 | −0.02 |
Principle 4 | 0.25 ** | 0.21 * | 0.43 ** | 0.19* | 0.35 ** | 0.25 ** | 0.24 * |
Principle 5 | 0.21 * | 0.11 | 0.26 ** | 0.20 * | 0.22 * | 0.22 * | 0.02 |
Principle 6 | 0.32 ** | 0.245 * | 0.53 ** | 0.30 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.32 * | −0.02 |
Principle 7 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.04 | −0.03 | −0.05 |
Principle 8 | 0.22 * | 0.12 | 0.26 ** | 0.14 | −0.08 | −0.09 | 0.01 |
Principle 9 | 0.23 * | 0.25 ** | 0.33 ** | 0.40 ** | 0.10 | 0.24 * | 0.08 |
NCs | 0.34 ** | 0.25 * | 0.55 ** | 0.31 ** | 0.27 ** | 0.25 * | 0.10 |
Variables | Number of Minor NCs | Number of Major NCs | Total Number of NCs | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 1 | Step 2 | |
Audited entity variables | ||||||
Year of certification for audited entities | 0.74 ** | 0.20 * | 0.01 | 0.69 ** | ||
Certified area | 0.41 ** | 0.43 ** | 0.14 * | |||
Audit process variables | ||||||
Main assessment | 0.48 ** | - | 0.42 ** | |||
Number of days | 0.45 ** | 0.51 ** | ||||
Number of auditors | - | - | - | |||
Foreign members | - | - | - | |||
ASI witness assessment | - | 0.29 ** | - | |||
Model information | ||||||
R2 | 0.54 | 0.67 | 0.26 | 0.35 | 0.56 | 0.66 |
F for the regression | 123.98 ** | 104.56 ** | 18.46 ** | 17.99 ** | 66.19 ** | 101.59 ** |
F for the step | 123.98 ** | 104.56 ** | 11.43 ** | 18.58 ** | 66.19 ** | 101.59 ** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hălălișan, A.-F.; Popa, B.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Boiral, O.; Arana-Landín, G.; Nicorescu, A.-I.; Abrudan, I.V. Procedural Factors Influencing Forest Certification Audits: An Empirical Study in Romania. Forests 2021, 12, 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12020172
Hălălișan A-F, Popa B, Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Boiral O, Arana-Landín G, Nicorescu A-I, Abrudan IV. Procedural Factors Influencing Forest Certification Audits: An Empirical Study in Romania. Forests. 2021; 12(2):172. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12020172
Chicago/Turabian StyleHălălișan, Aureliu-Florin, Bogdan Popa, Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria, Olivier Boiral, Germán Arana-Landín, Adelin-Ionuț Nicorescu, and Ioan Vasile Abrudan. 2021. "Procedural Factors Influencing Forest Certification Audits: An Empirical Study in Romania" Forests 12, no. 2: 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12020172
APA StyleHălălișan, A.-F., Popa, B., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Boiral, O., Arana-Landín, G., Nicorescu, A.-I., & Abrudan, I. V. (2021). Procedural Factors Influencing Forest Certification Audits: An Empirical Study in Romania. Forests, 12(2), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12020172