Assessment of Chain-of-Custody Certification in the Czech and Slovak Republic
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- According to the survey results, there are no significant differences among certified companies from the Czech and Slovak Republics in the sphere of the company size, certification scheme, and forest products sector;
- in general, except for the below mentioned exceptions, company level factors such as size or sector have no statistically significant influence on respondents’ attitudes toward CoC certification in both countries. However, in relation to the understanding of SFM concept and objectives of a particular certification scheme, several differences were identified between the PEFC and FSC certified companies;
- Respondents have a high level of understanding of the CoC certification concept and mainly link it to the issues of legality, tracing the origin source of supply, and promotion of sustainable utilisation of wood. The main benefits are expected from the improvement of external company image, penetration of new markets, and an increase of sales volume. The key problems related to the certified supply chain are connected to the sufficient quantity of certified forest products, low margins, and overpriced certified material inputs;
- In total, 49% of the respondents pay extra money for certified inputs. However, none of them pays more than 20%. There is a statistically significant difference supporting the finding that the respondents have extra cost in case they are involved in the FSC certification system or have double certification, rather than solely PEFC certification;
- Respondents reported none or minimum price premiums for their certified products over non-certified alternatives. However, several differences in the level of price premium paid for certified inputs were identified between the PEFC- and FSC-certified companies as well as the different forest products sectors.
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rametsteiner, E.; Simula, M. Forest Certification—An Instrument to Promote Sustainable Forest Management? J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 67, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peck, T. The International Timber Trade; Woodhead Publishing Ltd.: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Durst, P.B.; Mckenzie, P.J.; Brown, C.L.; Appanah, S. Challenges facing certification and eco–labelling of forest products in developing countries. Int. For. Rev. 2006, 8, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siry, J.P.; Cubbageb, F.W.; Ahmedc, M.R. Sustainable Forest Management: Global Trends and Opportunities. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 551–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perera, P.; Vlosky, R.P.; Hughes, G.; Dunn, M. What do Louisiana and Mississippi Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners Thing about Forest Certification? South J. Appl. For. 2007, 31, 170–175. [Google Scholar]
- Auld, G.; Gulbrandsen, L.H.; McDermott, C.L. Certification Schemes and the Impacts on Forests and Forestry. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008, 33, 187–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, R.A.; Davis, S.R. Forest Certification, Institutional Capacity, and Learning: An Analysis of the Impacts of the Malaysian Timber Certification Scheme. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 52, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mac Dicken, K.G.; Sola, P.; Hall, J.E.; Sabogal, C.; Tadoum, M.; Wasseige, C. Global progress toward sustainable forest management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 352, 47–56. [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]
- Cabarle, B.; Hrubes, R.J.; Elliot, C.; Synnot, T. Certification and Accreditation: The Need for Credible Claims. J. For. 1995, 93, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Bigsby, H.; Ozanne, L.K. The Purchase Decision: Consumers and Environmentally Certified Wood Products. For. Prod. J. 2002, 52, 100–105. [Google Scholar]
- Hayward, J.; Vertinsky, I. High expectations, unexpected benefits—What managers and owners think of certification. J. For. 1999, 97, 13–17. [Google Scholar]
- Rickenbach, M.; Overdevest, C. More than Markets: Assessing Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification as a Policy Tool. J. For. 2006, 104, 143–147. [Google Scholar]
- Van Kooten, G.C.; Nelson, H.W.; Vertinsky, I. Certification of sustainable forest management practices: A global perspective on why countries certify. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 857–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulybina, O.; Fennell, S. Forest certification in Russia: Challenges of institutional development. Ecol. Econo. 2013, 95, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WWF. The Forest Industry in the 21st Century. Report Prepared by the WWF’s Forests for Life Campaign; Branksome House: Godalming, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Hansen, E.; Punches, J. Developing Markets for Certified Forest Products: A Case Study of Collins Pine Company. For. Prod. J. 1999, 4, 30–35. [Google Scholar]
- Hubbard, S.; Bowe, S. Putting Value on Certified Forest Products: Views from Wisconsin. Wood Wood Prod. 2004, 57–62. [Google Scholar]
- Gilani, H.R.; Kozak, R.A.; Innes, J.L. The State of Innovation in the British Columbia Value-Added Wood Products Sector: The Example of Chain of Custody Certification. Can. J. For. Res. 2016, 46, 1067–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potkański, T.; Wanat, L.; Chudobiecki, J. Leadership in time of crisis or crisis of leadership? Implications for regional development. Intercathedra 2011, 27, 45–52. [Google Scholar]
- Tuppura, A.; Toppinen, A.; Puumalainen, K. Forest Certification and ISO 14001: Current State and Motivation in Forest Companies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2016, 25, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayasinghe, P.S.; Allen, D.; Bull, G.Q.; Kozak, R.A. The status of forest certification in the Canadian value-added wood products manufacturing sector. For. Chron. 2007, 83, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owari, T.; Juslin, H.; Rummukainen, A.; Yoshimura, T. Strategies, functions and benefits of forest certification in wood products marketing: Perspectives of Finnish suppliers. For. Policy Econ. 2006, 9, 380–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vlosky, R.P.; Ozanne, L.K. Environmental Certification of Wood Products: The U.S. Manufacturers’ Perspective. For. Prod. J. 1998, 48, 21–26. [Google Scholar]
- Vlosky, R.P.; Gazo, R.; Cassens, D. Certification Involvement by Selected United States Value-Added Solid Wood Products Sectors. Wood Fiber Sci. 2003, 35, 560–569. [Google Scholar]
- Vlosky, R.P.; Gazo, R.; Cassens, D.; Perera, P. Changes in value-added wood product manufacturer perceptions about certification in the United States from 2002 to 2008. Drvna Industrija 2009, 60, 89–94. [Google Scholar]
- Hrabovsky, E.E.; Armstrong, J.P. Global demand for certified hardwood products as determined from a survey of hardwood exporters. For. Prod. J. 2005, 55, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
- Bond, B.; Lyon, S.; Munsell, J.; Barrett, S. Perceptions of Virginia’s Primary Forest Products Manufacturers regarding Forest Certification. For. Prod. J. 2014, 64, 242–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vidal, N.; Kozak, R.; Cohen, D. Chain of custody certification: an assessment of the North American solid wood sector. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miles, M.P.; Covin, J.G. Environmental marketing: a source of reputational, competitive, and financial advantage. J. Bus. Ethics 2000, 23, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PEFC Chain of Custody Certification. The Key to Sell Certified Products. 2017. Available online: https://www.pefc.org/images/documents/brochures/PEFC_Chain_of_Custody_Certification.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2017).
- Trishkin, M.; Lopatin, E.; Karjalainen, T. Assessment of motivation and attitudes of forest industry companies toward forest certification in northwestern Russia. Scand. J. For. Res. 2014, 29, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Tolunay, A.; Türkoğlu, T. Perspectives and Attitudes of Forest Products Industry Companies on the Chain of Custody Certification: A Case Study from Turkey. Sustainability 2014, 6, 857–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Regulation (EU). No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 Laying Down the Obligations of Operators Who Place Timber and Timber Products on the Market. 2016. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010R0995&from=EN (accessed on 10 April 2017).
- Gavrilut, I.; Halalisan, A.F.; Giurca, A.; Sotirov, M. The Interaction between FSC Certification and the Implementation of the EU Timber Regulation in Romania. Forests 2016, 7, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Forest Institute. Support Study for Development of the Non-Legislative Acts Provided for in the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying down the Obligations of Operators Who Place Timber and Timber Products on the Market. Final Report. 2011. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/EUTR-Final_Report.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2017).
- Holopainen, J.; Toppinen, A.; Perttula, S. Impact of European Union Timber Regulation on Forest Certification Strategies in the Finnish Wood Industry Value Chain. Forests 2015, 6, 2879–2896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cashore, B.; Stone, M. Can legality verification rescue global forest governance? Analyzing the potential of public and private policy intersection to ameliorate forest challenges in Southeast Asia. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 18, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dudík, R.; Riedl, M. The Possibilities of Using C-O-C Certifications in the Czech Republic. In Wood Processing and Furniture Manufacturing Challenges on the World Market and Wood-based Energy Goes Global, Proceedings of Scientific Papers; WoodEma: Zagreb, Croatia, 2015; pp. 229–233. [Google Scholar]
- Paluš, H. Review on certification of non-industrial private forests in Europe. In Marketing 2000: Marketing at Break of the Millenium; Technical University in Zvolen: Zvolen, Slovakia, 2000; Available online: https://www.tuzvo.sk/files/DF/katedry_df/kmosl/veda_a_vyskum/zborniky/mao_2000.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2017).
- Paluš, H.; Maťová, H.; Križanová, A.; Parobek, J. Prieskum znalosti značiek lesných certifikačných schém na výrobkoch z dreva a papiera. Acta Facultatis. Xylologiae Zvolen. 2014, 56, 129–138. [Google Scholar]
- Šupín, M. Forest and wood products certification influence on strategies for entering and developing international markets. Intercathedra 2006, 22, 166–169. [Google Scholar]
- Paluš, H.; Kaputa, V. Survey of attitudes towards forest and chain of custody certification in the Slovak Republic. Drewno 2009, 52, 65–81. [Google Scholar]
- Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. Find Certified. 2015. Available online: http://www.pefc.org/find-certified/certified-certificates (accessed on 26 June 2016).
- FSC. Public Certificate Search. 2015. Available online: http://info.fsc.org/certificate.php (accessed on 27 June 2016).
- Dillman, D.A. The Tailored Design Method; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NJ, USA, 2000; p. 464. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 6 May 2003 Concerning the Definition of Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (2003/361/EC); EC: Brussels, Belgium, 2003; Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32003H0361&from=EN (accessed on 10 April 2017).
- Owari, T.; Sawanobori, Y. Market benefits of chain of custody certification, Perspectives of Japanese suppliers. For. Resour. Manag. Math. Model. 2008, 7, 121–132. [Google Scholar]
- Takahashi, T. Why Firms Participate in Environmental Voluntary Initiatives: Case Studies in Japan and Canada. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Cananda, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnaly, J. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic. Zpráva o Stavu Lesa a Lesního Hospodářství České Republiky V Roce 2014; MZ ČR: Praha, Czech Republic, 2015; p. 108. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic. Report on Forestry in the Slovak Republic Per Year 2015; MPaRV SR: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2016; p. 76. [Google Scholar]
- Brack, D. Promoting Legal and Sustainable Timber: Using Public Procurement Policy. Research Paper. 2014. Available online: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/20140908PromotingLegalSustainableTimberBrackFinal.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2017).
- Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. Chain of Custody of Forest Based Products—Requirements (PEFC ST 2002:2013) Second Edition. 2013. Available online: https://www.pefc.org/resources/technical-documentation/pefc-international-standards-2010/2006-chain-of-custody-of-forest-based-products-requirements-pefc-st-2002–2013-second-edition (accessed on 26 June 2016).
- Forest Stewardship Council. Chain of Custody Certification. FSC-STD-40-004 V3-0. 2016. Available online: https://ic.fsc.org/en/what-is-fsc-certification/chain-of-custody-certification (accessed on 10 April 2017).
- Hajdúchová, I.; Giertliová, B.; Šulek, R. Specifics of forest enterprises’ performance measurement. Austrian J. For. Sci. 2017, 134, 23–40. [Google Scholar]
- Carter, D.R.; Merry, F.D. The nature and status of certification in the United States. For. Prod. J. 1998, 48, 23–28. [Google Scholar]
- Hubbard, S.S.; Bowe, S.A. Environmentally certified wood products: perspectives and experiences of primary wood manufactures in Wisconsin. For. Prod. J. 2005, 55, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
Country | Contacted Companies | Adjusted Response Rate | |
---|---|---|---|
N | % | % | |
Czech Republic | 342 | 70.23 | 23.68 |
Slovakia | 145 | 29.77 | 34.48 |
Parameter n = 131 | Czech Republic | Slovakia | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | ||
Company size | micro | 16 | 19.75 | 8 | 16.00 |
small | 24 | 29.63 | 18 | 36.00 | |
middle | 32 | 39.51 | 17 | 34.00 | |
large | 9 | 11.11 | 7 | 14.00 | |
Sector | primary | 39 | 48.15 | 25 | 50.00 |
secondary | 7 | 8.64 | 9 | 18.00 | |
trade | 35 | 43.21 | 16 | 32.00 | |
Certification scheme | PEFC | 40 | 49.38 | 20 | 40.00 |
FSC | 31 | 38.27 | 18 | 36.00 | |
both | 10 | 12.35 | 12 | 24.00 |
Understanding n = 131 | Mean | Std. Deviation |
---|---|---|
CoC certification concept | 4.37 | 0.914 |
SFM certification concept | 3.82 | 1.193 |
PEFC objectives | 3.82 | 1.214 |
FSC objectives | 3.69 | 1.208 |
Certification Scheme n = 131 | Group/Mean | |
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
FSC | 3.51 | |
Double certification | 3.73 | |
PEFC | 4.10 |
Certification Statement n = 131 | Mean | Std. Deviation |
---|---|---|
Ensurance of legal origin of wood | 4.13 | 1.055 |
Assurance of traceability to a sustainable source | 3.95 | 1.087 |
Promotion of sustainable utilisation | 3.93 | 1.083 |
Promotion of forest management | 3.79 | 1.123 |
Confidentiality in sourcing of timber | 3.56 | 1.104 |
Prevention from illegal logging | 3.48 | 1.303 |
Improvement of market access | 3.34 | 1.162 |
Improvement of communication | 3.18 | 1.087 |
Improvement in efficiency of internal material flow systems | 2.94 | 1.142 |
Improvement in efficiency of corporate management | 2.89 | 1.139 |
Expectation n = 131 | Mean | Std. Deviation |
---|---|---|
Improvement of external company image | 4.11 | 1.020 |
Seeking to increase sales volume | 3.63 | 1.132 |
To penetrate new markets | 3.53 | 1.291 |
Business owner commitment to environmental issues | 3.52 | 1.198 |
Seeking to expand market share | 3.44 | 1.229 |
Seeking to increase profit margins | 2.98 | 1.283 |
Seeking to diversify product line | 2.58 | 1.228 |
Problem n = 131 | Mean | Std. Deviation |
---|---|---|
Sufficient quantity | 2.85 | 1.235 |
Margins are too low | 2.81 | 1.053 |
Overpriced | 2.80 | 1.091 |
Consistent supply | 2.44 | 0.912 |
Punctual delivery | 2.18 | 0.890 |
Contract fulfilment | 2.18 | 0.975 |
Product quality | 2.13 | 0.980 |
Transportation | 2.11 | 0.897 |
Price Premium Paid n = 131 | Do not Pay More | 1–5% | 6–10% | 11–15% | 16–20% | Over 20% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. of respondents | 67 | 38 | 19 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
% | 51.14 | 29.01 | 14.50 | 3.82 | 1.53 | 0.00 |
Certification Scheme n = 131 | Group/Mean | |
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
PEFC | 1.28 | |
FSC | 2.10 | |
Double certification | 2.27 |
Forest Products Sector n = 131 | Group/Mean | |
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Trade | 1.43 | |
Primary processing | 1.91 | |
Secondary processing | 2.19 |
Price Premium Received n = 131 | No Premium | 1–5% | 6–10% | 11–15% | 16–20% | over 20% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. of respondents | 121 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
% | 92.37 | 7.63 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
© 2017 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
Paluš, H.; Parobek, J.; Dudík, R.; Šupín, M. Assessment of Chain-of-Custody Certification in the Czech and Slovak Republic. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1898. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101898
Paluš H, Parobek J, Dudík R, Šupín M. Assessment of Chain-of-Custody Certification in the Czech and Slovak Republic. Sustainability. 2017; 9(10):1898. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101898
Chicago/Turabian StylePaluš, Hubert, Ján Parobek, Roman Dudík, and Mikuláš Šupín. 2017. "Assessment of Chain-of-Custody Certification in the Czech and Slovak Republic" Sustainability 9, no. 10: 1898. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101898