At the 1992 United Nations Earth

policy Impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Forest Certification in North America Susan E. Moore, Frederick Cubbage, and Celia Eicheldinger ABSTRACT We conducted e-mail surveys of organizations that had received forest management certification under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in the United States and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) in the United States and Canada to determine if forest certification has changed forest management practices and if the changes are practically and statistically different between systems. The results indicate that forest certification prompted substantial changes in practices. On average, firms implemented 13 14 changes in forestry, environmental, social, and economic/system practices to obtain or maintain forest certification. Although there was no statistical difference between systems in the total number of changes, there were many differences in the implementation of specific forest practices, with FSC firms required to make more environmental/forest management changes and SFI firms required to make more economic/system changes. Forest managers believed that the benefits of forest certification were greater than the disadvantages. SFI managers rated the benefits of forest certification higher than FSC managers, but also rated the disadvantages higher. Most organizations felt certification accomplished their objectives and were likely to recertify, thus indicating their endorsement of the process. Keywords: certification, sustainability, evaluation, impacts At the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, all the countries in the world, including the United States, agreed on international accords to protect biodiversity and mitigate climate change. However, they could not agree on a convention for forests, because developing countries refused to forfeit their autonomy and control of their forest resources, and developed countries offered them no financial support to protect forests. Among other, this failure quickly led environmental nongovernment organizations, social organizations, some retailers, and a few forest industries in 1993 to create the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) as a nonstate market-based approach for management and protection of tropical forests (Humphreys 2006, Cashore et al. 2007). Since then, many other state and international forest certification approaches have been developed, including the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) in the United States and Canada. About 323 million ha or 8% of the world s forests have been certified by various forest certification systems. However, this modest area represented almost one-quarter of all the industrial wood production in the world (Auld et al. 2008). In addition, the core forest certification principles of environmental, social, and economic sustainability have become a driving force in discussions of sustainable forest management throughout the world. Despite its prominence, certification still may reach limits in its expansion, especially in the tropics where it was first proposed. Debates remain whether certification has improved sustainable forest management, environmental, economic, or social practices; whether its benefits are worth the costs required; whether there are significant differences among certification systems; and, indeed, whether it leads to green practices or if it is just greenwash. Critics from various perspectives have suggested that certification only attracts firms that already perform well, that the standards are so low that changes are not needed, or that the standards are too strict and impose excessive costs on already marginal forest management operations. Activist environmental interest groups campaign for FSC and denigrate other systems (e.g., Alliance for Credible Forest Certification 2011); and utilitarian groups promote the merits of the alternative systems (e.g., Forestry & Development 2011). These issues have prompted research to Manuscript received June 13, 2010; accepted July 6, 2011; published online February 2, 2012; http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.10-050. Susan E. Moore (susan_moore@ncsu.edu) is extension associate professor, and Frederick Cubbage (fredcubbage@yahoo.com) is professor, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8008, Raleigh, NC 27695. Celia Eicheldinger (eicheldinger@gmail.com) is research statistician, Research Triangle Institute, PO Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The authors acknowledge the staff of the FSC and SFI programs who provided valuable support, as well as all organizations who completed our survey. Copyright 2012 by the Society of American Foresters. Journal of Forestry March 2012 79

assess the merits of forest certification as soft law private voluntary codes of practice to achieve environmental, social, and economically sustainable development (Vogel 2008). This research ranges from theoretical analyses of forest certification as a nonstate market-driven system to practical assessments of the impacts it makes in forest management. The research on effectiveness and direct impacts of forest certification remains limited and many questions have not been answered. Our research examines two of these broad questions for North America: (1) if forest certification has changed forest management practices by certified firms and (2) if these changes are statistically and practically different between the two major forest certification systems the FSC and the SFI. In addition, we examined the topics of firm satisfaction with certification and intention to maintain certification. Forest certification aims at greater efficiency in forest resource use through an expected increase in consumer demand for sustainably produced forest products (Cashore et al. 2004). The basic process of certification encompasses an independent assessment of the quality of forest management in relation to predetermined standards or requirements related to the overall management system. Standards generally govern forest practices such as harvesting, treeplanting, and chemical use; economic, management, and planning systems; stakeholder, community, and worker interactions; environmental protection, biodiversity, high conservation value forests, and aesthetics; and laws, regulations, monitoring, and continuous improvement. Independent auditors determine if management meets or exceeds these standards, and if so, the certifying body provides written assurance that the management system or products conform to certification standards. The two dominant forest certification organizations in the world now are the FSC and the Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), which endorses the SFI in North America, among other systems. FSC was founded in 1993 by environmental and social nongovernment organizations and focused initially on environmental and social values, later adding an economic viability component. The SFI was formed by the American Forest and Paper Association in 1995, building initially on an environmental management system platform focused on production of forest products, and later adding economic, environmental, and social components to that base (Meridian Institute 2001). Both systems have evolved, with FSC developing a diverse set of regional standards and an interdisciplinary governance system, and SFI becoming an independent organization and releasing two sets of new broad standards in the last 10 years. Both systems have comprehensive standards that address economic, environmental, and social components, but debates remain about differences in and merits of the competing systems (Fernholz et al. 2010). As of 2010, about 323 million ha (8%) of the world s 3.9 billion ha of forests were certified. Of this, the PEFC had enrolled about 63% (225 million ha) in forest management certification through participating programs, including 152 million ha in the United States and Canada. In 2010, SFI had 22.8 million ha certified in the United States and 55.4 million ha in Canada. In 2010, FSC had certified about 134 million ha of forests around the world (32% of total certified forest area), 13.1 million ha in the United States and 35.4 million ha in Canada. Given its extent and perceived impacts, some evaluation studies of forest certification have been performed but few have examined and compared different certification systems. To assess the actual changes prompted by forest certification, we collected data in 2007 through e-mail questionnaires to organizations certified by the FSC in the United States and the SFI in the United States and Canada. The surveys provided a means to examine and compare factors regarding the implementation, maintenance, influence on management, perceived effectiveness of and respondents satisfaction with forest certification. Certification Impact Evaluation Directly evaluating the impacts of forest certification is difficult. An ex postevaluation might require complete on-theground assessments of biological, social, and economic impacts of forest certification comparing certified and uncertified firms, preferably drawn randomly from their respective populations. This is difficult and expensive and has been approached by only a few studies (e.g., Hagan et al. 2005, Federation of Nordic Forest Owners Organisations 2005). One also may examine the forest management plans or audit reports of certified forest landowners, and this approach has been applied, in particular, with FSC plans and audits (Newsom and Hewitt 2005, WWF 2005, Newsom et al. 2006). Another approach is to survey public or forest owner opinions about forest certification (e.g., Rickenbach and Overdevest 2006). In addition, some studies examine whether forest certification has indirectly improved general forest practice standards and norms (e.g., Cashore et al. 2004, Auld et al. 2008). Beyond the various approaches to assessing forest certification, one also must determine what changes are attributable directly to certification and what effects might be attributable to generally better practices or performance by certified firms or because of other contextual factors. The literature regarding prior certification evaluations clarifies these approaches and provided a base for this study. Several international studies have examined the effectiveness of forest certification by FSC and PEFC. This includes a series of World Wildlife Fund (WWF) European Forest Programme studies in Latvia, Estonia, Germany, Russia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, resulting in individual country reports (WWF 2005). The WWF summary concluded that FSC certification improved the conservation status and enhanced biodiversity levels in forests. The Federation of Nordic Forest Owners Organisations (2005) examined the effectiveness and efficiency of FSC and PEFC in Finland, Sweden, and Norway. They concluded that forest certification improved sustainable forest management, with the greatest contributions being in the area of environmental protection. This required greater environmental investments by forest landowners, but had not brought significant economic benefits to forest owners to date, although the improved environmental image may enhance market access in the long term. Two field-based surveys of certified and uncertified forestlands in the United States found that environmental practices were better under forest certification schemes. The Texas Forest Service (Simpson et al. 2005) found that implementation of best management practices (BMP) was statistically higher when the timber was delivered to an SFI mill. A Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (Hagan et al. 2005) case study found that landowners who were certified under either SFI or FSC had significantly stronger biodiversity practices than landowners not certified, but did not find a 80 Journal of Forestry March 2012

statistically significant difference between the two systems. Newsom and others analyzed global FSC/SmartWood impacts. They found that FSC certification required operations to make significant changes, and did not simply give a rubber stamp of approval to the good players and industry leaders. On average, certified operations were required to make changes affecting 15 different forestry issues as a result of the forestry assessment (Newsom and Hewitt 2005). In the United States, Newsom et al. (2006) found that of all FSC operations, system elements such as management plans, monitoring, and inventory required change most frequently, followed by required changes in ecological standards addressing high conservation value forests, woody debris, and snag management. BMP changes were required less often in states with forestry BMP regulations than in states with voluntary BMPs, and regional differences in the types of practices changed were evident. Rickenbach and Overdevest (2006) surveyed US forest managers regarding certification expectations and satisfaction with FSC certification. They found that signaling benefits, such as better recognition for one s forest practices and improved public relations, ranked as the highest satisfaction, exceeding expectations. Participants had the greatest expectations for market benefits, but received less satisfaction with those. The category of learning about new forest management practices ranked third in expectations and satisfaction. However, the differences among these categories were moderate. Auld et al. (2008) examined the direct and indirect impacts of certification schemes on forests and forestry in the world. They noted that the area of land certified and the number of chain-of-custody certificates have increased dramatically in the last 15 years. They concluded that audits have ensured that certified forests improve practices, but patterns of adoption that focused more on system changes than on-the-ground practices raised questions about overall effectiveness and the lack of success in tropical forests. Masters et al. (2010) analyzed FSC, SFI, and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA; a PEFC organization) audit conditions and operational changes required to obtain certification. Audit reports for each system differed in both number and focus of requirements. The FSC audits required more changes in environmental, social, and economic themes, and CSA and SFI audit reports emphasized changes in management systems and aquatic ecosystems management. Based on data from the surveys we use here, Cubbage et al. (2009) examined costs of forest certification in the Americas, including systems in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. Average total costs varied considerably depending on forest ownership size, certification system, and country. average total costs ranged from $6.45 to 39.31/ha per year for small tracts of less than 4,000 ha. The large ownerships of 400,000 ha or more had median costs of $0.07 0.49/ha per year. Average total costs for certification were a function of ownership size but did not vary significantly among certification systems or country. These studies broadly indicate that there has been much debate and considerable research on forest certification. In many cases the research has been based on secondary data sources, such as FSC audit reports, with very few field studies of impacts. The research has classed changes as occurring in environmental and forest management practices, social or legal components, and economic or system changes, tracking the three principles of sustainable forest management, and has generally found more system changes than environmental or field changes. In addition, there was far more previous focus on evaluations of FSC than the SFI/PEFC systems and little direct comparison of both systems concurrently. Our present research allowed more evaluation of the broad set of changes after the certification programs had been implemented for a longer time, used primary data sourced from firms certification managers, and allowed comparisons between FSC and SFI in North America. Methods As noted in the literature review, certification impacts could be assessed by field studies, reviews of certification reports, direct surveys, or interviews with field personnel or a combination of these approaches. We used direct surveys of the lead certification managers from certified forest organizations in this study, which assumes that the opinions of respondents are accurate and representative in reporting environmental, social, and economic changes. We conducted an e-mail survey of all certified SFI organizations in the United States and Canada (n 92) and all certified FSC organizations in the United States (n 98) in 2007. The lists of eligible entities (and the appropriate contact persons) were provided by the respective certifying bodies. This included all active forest management certified organizations: for SFI, both landowning firms and procurement organizations were surveyed, for FSC, landowning firms and resource managers were surveyed. Private (industrial and nonindustrial) and public organizations were included for both systems, as well as some organizations that were certified by both SFI and FSC. We did not include auditors or certifiers, because only the certified organizations would know what changes they made before and after receiving certification. An initial draft survey instrument was reviewed by academicians and representatives of several major forest certification systems and individuals in North and South America, where a parallel study was conducted. These included colleagues at North Carolina State University; researchers in Argentina; representatives of the SFI, FSC, and American Tree Farm System; consultants who have analyzed certification costs; auditors who have assessed conformance with forest certification; and researchers with the US Forest Service. The final survey consisted of a Word file with a cover letter, an informed consent for research form, and a 14-page survey with 37 questions. Relevant questions discussed here covered organizational background; three lists asking if any changes were made (yes/no/specify) with certification in specific environmental, social, or system practices; Likert scale questions (1 5) about perceived advantages and disadvantages of certification; and Likert scale questions about satisfaction with certification. The lists of possible changes in practices were determined based on a review and selection of the key FSC and SFI standards. The lists of advantages and disadvantages were determined based on literature and pervasive critiques of the systems. Benefits and costs, achieving objectives, and reenrollment intentions were queried with Likert scale questions. The Dillman (2000) tailored design method was followed for sending the surveys by e-mail to SFI and FSC organizations. A presurvey e-mail was sent announcing the intention to send the survey. The questionnaire was sent a week later as a Word file attached to a personalized e-mail letter from Journal of Forestry March 2012 81

Table 1. Forest certification systems, number of certified entities, number surveyed, and response rates for surveys in North America, 2007. System, type, and country the researchers. were asked to fill out, save, and then e-mail back the survey. Those without working e-mail addresses were sent a hard copy by regular mail. Nonrespondents received a second e-mail letter with the survey 11 days later. Remaining nonrespondents were sent a third e-mail letter and survey 2 weeks later. A final letter and survey were emailed 2 weeks after that to remaining nonrespondents. were offered and sent a summary of the results once compiled. A nonresponse follow-up was conducted by phone several months later, and a follow-up mailing generated seven of the final completed surveys tallied in Table 1. The survey were entered in spreadsheets and tabulated for analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed to estimate general results for summaries and statistical analysis of the differences between the FSC and SFI systems were performed. We used general linear models (SAS procedure GLM, SAS 2010) to test for differences in the cumulative number of (1) environmental/forest management changes, (2) social/legal changes, and (3) economic/system changes among four categories of respondents: (1) FSC landowning firms, (2) FSC resource managers, (3) SFI landowning firms, and (4) SFI wood procurement firms referred to hereafter as certification type. Also included in the models were ownership types (public versus private) and ownership size (acreage). For the individual level data on specific management changes we used a pooled Z test to examine differences in the proportion of FSC respondents compared with SFI responders making the specific change. We used a nonparametric Wilcoxon two-sample test (SAS procedure NPARTTET) to examine whether the Likert (1 5) scale rankings for FSC versus SFI were statistically different. For the Likert scale questions examining the difference between expected and actual Valid address sample size (no.) Completed surveys (no.) Response rate FSC Forest landowning firms, United States 62 38 61 FSC Resource managers, United States 36 18 50 FSC total 98 56 57 SFI Forest landowning firms, United States and Canada 66 41 62 SFI Wood procurement, United States and Canada 26 14 54 SFI total 92 55 60 Overall 190 111 58 benefits with certification, we used the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test (SAS procedure UNIVARIATE). We used 0.1 as our criterion for determining significant differences between the two systems. We conducted a nonresponse analysis with a logistic regression model investigating the probability to respond based on acreage of the certified operation. There was no statistical difference in response rate with regard to size of operation. Results The overall survey response rate was good, at 58% (111 of 190 sent), covering a large share of the certified forest area in each system. When split by forest certification system, 57% of FSC certificate holders and 60% of SFI certificate holders in the United States and Canada responded. The number of certified owners included in the survey, number of respondents, and response rates are summarized in Table 1. Across the four certification types no apparent differences in response rates occurred. Aggregate Certification Effects The total number of changes made was not found to be significantly different for certification system, ownership size, or ownership type. Thus, we focused the subsequent analysis on differences among types of changes made to receive or maintain certification and how they differed by certification system. This comparison was made between two groups of respondents: (1) FSC landowning firms and resource managers and (2) SFI landowning firms (excluding wood procurement firms) because procurement managers did not indicate many land-management changes directly. Management Changes FSC and SFI certified landowners and managers in the United States and Canada made an average of 12.7 and 13.9 total changes, respectively, in their environmental/forest management, social/legal, and economic/system practices to obtain and maintain forest certification. In general, both systems prompted a number of management changes by the organizations that received forest management certification, for all components. This included not only the broad categories, but nearly every individual practice identified was changed by some organizations under each system. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the total number of changes made by each system, FSC organizations made more environmental/forest management changes than SFI (6.6 versus 5.8) and more social/legal changes (3.0 versus 2.6). SFI organizations made more economic/system changes than FSC (5.5 versus 3.1). The most notable changes made for each of these components of forest certification are summarized in Tables 2 4. As shown in Table 2, there were differences between systems regarding which components of environmental/forest management practices were changed most often to obtain or maintain forest certification. For FSC firms, changes required by more than one-half of the respondents included forest management plan (77%), implementation/effectiveness monitoring (54%), and old-growth/high conservation reserves (55%). Of these, the proportion of FSC respondents making forest management plan and old-growth/high conservation reserves changes were significantly higher than the proportion of SFI respondents requiring these changes. For SFI organizations, changes in this category required more than 50% of the time included use and monitoring of BMPs (56% and significantly higher than FSC) and implementation/effectiveness monitoring (61%). Changes regarding meeting green-up standards were also required significantly more often with SFI firms (49%) than with FSC (18%). SFI generally certified large industrial or government owners, most of which probably already had forest management plans, explaining the relative low proportion of changes in this area. FSC firms may have chosen FSC because of a greener management philosophy and therefore already included BMP use and monitoring in their management. Eliminating genetically modified organisms (GMO) was not important under either system to date likely because there were few organizations that use 82 Journal of Forestry March 2012

Table 2. Number of changes and percent of respondents requiring change in environmental or forest management practices by certification system. Change in environmental or forest management practice required? FSC SFI P-value for two-sample pooled Z test of proportions No. of replies 56 41 Forest management plan 43 76.8 10 24.4 0.0001 a Old-growth/high conservation reserves 31 55.4 10 24.4 0.0023 a Implementation/effectiveness monitoring 30 53.6 25 61.0 0.4654 Forest inventory programs 24 42.9 7 17.1 0.0071 a Geographic information systems 20 35.7 13 31.7 0.6818 Sustained yield/allowable cut/adjacency constraints 20 35.7 15 36.6 0.9283 Special sites reserves 20 35.7 15 36.6 0.9283 Prevention of exotic invasives 20 35.7 10 24.4 0.234 Growth and yield calculations 19 33.9 7 17.1 0.0643 a Chemical safety, reduction, and disposal 19 33.9 9 22.0 0.1971 Use and monitoring of BMPs 19 33.9 23 56.1 0.0293 a Threatened species protection 17 30.4 11 26.8 0.7039 Biological diversity planning 17 30.4 16 39.0 0.3735 Soils and inventory maps 16 28.6 10 24.4 0.6455 Determining clearcut size 11 19.6 14 34.2 0.1074 Site productivity protection 10 17.9 4 9.8 0.2627 Meeting green-up standards 10 17.9 20 48.8 0.0011 a Reforestation/afforestation 7 12.5 7 17.1 0.5287 Reduced forest type conversions 6 10.7 4 9.8 0.8808 Meeting plantation guidelines 5 8.9 4 9.8 0.8887 Forest health protection 4 7.1 4 9.8 0.6455 Eliminating GMOs 3 5.4 0 0.00 0.1310 Total of yes 371 238 Average per owner for class 6.63 5.80 a Statistically different percentages at 0.10. Table 3. Number of changes and percent of respondents requiring change in social or legal practices by certification system. Change in social or legal practice required? FSC SFI P-value for two-sample pooled Z test of proportions No. of replies 56 41 Public release of management plan 22 39.3 6 14.6 0.008 a Consulting with communities/neighbors 21 37.5 6 14.6 0.0131 a Public/stakeholder meetings 20 35.7 8 19.5 0.0819 a Legal planning and recordkeeping 16 28.6 11 26.8 0.8493 Program reporting 16 28.6 27 65.9 0.0003 a Protecting indigenous rights 15 26.8 7 17.1 0.2585 Public relations/education 11 19.6 11 26.8 0.4065 Outreach and extension 9 16.1 9 22.0 0.4593 Social impact analyses 7 12.5 5 12.2 0.9601 Offer program workshops 7 12.5 6 14.6 0.7642 Comply with international treaties 5 8.9 1 2.4 0.1902 Ensuring labor rights and practices 4 7.1 0 0.00 0.0801 a Community grants and support 4 7.1 4 9.8 0.6455 Protection from illegal trespass 3 5.4 1 2.4 0.04777 a Compliance with social/worker laws 3 5.4 1 2.4 0.4777 Comply with environmental laws 2 3.6 3 7.3 0.4122 Establishing tenure rights 1 1.8 0 0.00 0.3898 Total of yes 166 106 Average per owner for class 2.96 2.59 a Statistically different percentages at 0.10. GMOs, and they are not prohibited in the SFI system. Per Table 3, program reporting for SFI firms was the only social/legal practice with more than 50% of firms making the change (66%), significantly greater than FSC (29%). The social/legal practice change required most often for FSC organizations was public release of management plan (39% of firms), a significantly higher proportion than SFI (15%). Although required by only a moderate or small proportion of firms, both legal planning/recordkeeping and offer program workshops were statistically higher for SFI firms. Outreach and extension and public relations/education were the next most frequent changes made by both systems, although no significant differences were observed. As summarized in Table 4, many economic/system changes were prompted by Journal of Forestry March 2012 83

Table 4. Number of changes and percent of respondents requiring change in economic or system implementation practices by certification system. Change in economic or system implementation required? FSC SFI P-value for two-sample pooled Z test of proportions No. of replies 56 41 Chain-of-custody implementation 36 64.3 15 36.6 0.0069 a Internal program monitoring/auditing 26 46.4 28 68.3 0.0324 a Natural heritage planning/reserves 24 42.9 15 36.6 0.5353 Implementation committee/program commitment duties 17 30.4 32 78.1 0.0001 a Management review system 17 30.4 26 63.4 0.0012 a Continuous improvement 13 23.2 22 53.7 0.0021 a Customer inquiries/procurement 11 19.6 18 43.9 0.0099 a Logger/supplier training 9 16.1 31 75.6 0.0001 a Economic analyses 8 14.3 5 12.2 0.7642 Forest research/demonstration 5 8.9 13 31.7 0.0044 a Wood procurement plans/practices 4 7.1 14 34.2 0.0007 a Utilization planning and practices 2 3.6 3 7.3 0.4122 Minimizing wood waste 1 1.8 5 12.2 0.0357 a Total of yes 173 227 Average per owner for class 3.09 5.54 a Statistically different percentages at 0.10. SFI certification, with more than one-half the organizations reporting changes in program implementation committee duties (78%), logger/supplier training (76%), internal program monitoring/auditing (68%), management review systems (63%), and continuous improvement (54%). All these changes were required by a significantly higher proportion of SFI firms than FSC firms, likely reflecting the SFI systems management origins. Although required by only one-third of SFI firms, forest research/demonstration changes were required significantly more often with SFI (32%) than with FSC (9%). In this category of potential required changes, only chain-of-custody implementation was significantly higher for FSC (64%) than for SFI (37%) but this is not particularly surprising given that at the time of the survey, the SFI system did not include chain-of-custody tracking. The next most frequently required changes for FSC firms in this category were internal program monitoring/auditing (47%) and natural heritage planning (43%), both not significantly different from SFI. Certification Benefits, Disadvantages, and Satisfaction The respondents ranked the perceived benefits (or advantages) and disadvantages of forest certification with a 1 (not important) to 5 (very important) scale. The order of the ranking was somewhat similar between systems, but there were some notable differences. The highest-ranked benefits, with a mean of 3.0 or more for both systems, included the strategic position of the organization, corporate social responsibility, retaining or gaining market access, marketing/ sales tool, better management systems performance, better planning and implementation, better forest management practices, and fostering continuous improvement (Table 5). There were several statistical differences between FSC and SFI. Of the 29 possible benefits of forest certification listed in the survey, SFI respondents ranked the benefits higher than the FSC respondents 26 times with FSC being only slightly higher in three cases. Eleven of the 29 possible benefits were statistically different, with SFI firms ranking those benefits as more important. These included to prevent direct action challenges/ citizen challenges; credibility with regulatory agencies; less regulation; retain/gain market access; capture new market/marketing/sales tool; attract investors and increase stock prices; better worker safety and training, better records; better public, landowner, and supplier communications; better upper management knowledge or practices, and better self-discovery of problems/nonconformance. Opinions about the possible benefits of forest certification that were not statistically different between SFI and FSC respondents included strategic firm decisions, corporate social responsibility, improved profitability, better timber and product prices, better professional image, better employee morale, better forest management practices, and fostering continuous improvement. were generally positive about the merits of forest certification, with only 4 of the 16 possible disadvantages of forest certification having a mean greater than 3.0 for both systems, although they were important factors (Table 6). These included audit costs, time and preparation costs, added costs for forest management, and too much recordkeeping. Other potential disadvantages generally ranked low, having scores of 2.5 or less, indicating they were not major disadvantages. These included too much openness, too much public interaction, too much planning, more discussion than management, adversarial audit processes, negative changes in forest management, and limits on professional discretion. Of the 16 identified possible disadvantages of forest certification, SFI respondents again provided greater Likert score rankings than FSC respondents in all but two cases, but the means were very similar and not statistically different for the systems. The median score was significantly greater for the SFI of too much public interaction, too much openness, poor morale among workers, too much science/consultations, more discussion than management, capitulation to green groups/lobby, and public disclosure of audit results. As described, we also asked respondents about their opinion of the expected and actual benefits of forest certification, drawing from the approach used by Rickenbach and 84 Journal of Forestry March 2012

Table 5. Ranking of the perceived benefits (advantages) of forest certification to the organization, by certification system. Possible benefit (advantage) of forest certification P-value for Wilcoxon two-sample test Right thing to do/corporate social responsibility 4 3.80 4 3.78 0.8133 Value of public relations 4 3.71 4 4.07 0.1243 Better organizational/professional image 4 3.55 4 3.57 0.987 Strategic position of organization 4 3.54 4 3.91 0.2612 Retain/gain market access 4 3.31 4 3.98 0.0081 a Better management systems and performance 4 3.31 4 3.46 0.7535 Better planning and implementation 4 3.26 4 3.37 0.8246 Satisfy senior management decision 3.5 3.23 4 3.70 0.1011 Better forest management and practices 3 3.19 3 3.26 0.7657 Foster continuous improvement 3 3.17 4 3.56 0.1988 Capture new market/marketing/sales tool 3 3.11 4 3.65 0.0679 a Better records 3 3.06 4 3.43 0.1249 Self-discovery of problems/nonconformance 3 2.92 4 3.61 0.0018 a Better internal communications and discussions 3 2.91 4 3.37 0.0686 a Better use of science in management 3 2.91 3 3.00 0.5199 Improve profitability 3 2.81 3 2.91 0.6987 Better public, landowner, and supplier communications 3 2.81 3.5 3.35 0.0249 a Obtain useful dialogue with external auditors 3 2.77 3 3.19 0.1265 Improve management efficiencies 3 2.75 3 2.98 0.331 Better timber and product prices 3 2.72 3 2.81 0.7275 Better worker training and safety 3 2.70 3.5 3.22 0.0191 a Better morale among employees 3 2.70 3 2.65 0.7509 Upper management knowledge or practices 3 2.57 3 3.26 0.0034 a Credibility with regulatory agencies 3 2.56 3 3.13 0.0104 a Employee empowerment 3 2.47 3 2.80 0.1066 Prevent direct action campaigns/citizen challenges 3 2.38 3 3.17 0.0017 a Less regulation 2 2.37 3 2.96 0.021 a Pilot study or project 2 2.15 2 2.13 0.9463 Attract investors and increase stock prices 1 1.63 3 2.39 0.0032 a Statistically different medians at 0.10. 1 Not important; 2 somewhat important; 3 neutral; 4 important; 5 very important. Table 6. Ranking of the perceived disadvantages of forest certification to the organization, by certification system. Possible disadvantage of forest certification P-value for Wilcoxon two-sample test Audit costs 4 3.93 4 3.87 0.8333 Time and preparation costs 4 3.82 4 4.11 0.1843 Too much recordkeeping, too little action 3 3.18 3 3.09 0.718 Added costs for forest management 3 3.14 3 3.43 0.2846 Decreased returns on investments 2 2.58 3 2.91 0.2768 Negative changes in forest management 2 2.45 3 2.46 0.8056 Limits professional discretion and flexibility 3 2.41 3 2.46 0.7951 Adversarial auditing process 2 2.22 3 2.44 0.3496 Too much planning/paralysis by analysis 2 2.11 3 2.46 0.1183 Poor morale among workers 1 2.00 3 2.43 0.0594 a More discussion than management 1 1.95 3 2.31 0.0901 a Capitulation to green groups/lobby 1 1.91 3 2.85 0.0002 a Too much public interaction 1 1.84 3 2.30 0.0104 a Too much science/consultations 1 1.72 2 2.11 0.05 a Public disclosure of audit results 1 1.71 2 2.24 0.0136 a Too much openness 1 1.51 3 2.26 0.0003 a a Statistically different medians at 0.10. 1 Not important; 2 somewhat important; 3 neutral; 4 important; 5 very important. Overdevest (2006). We used four broad categories of possible benefits of forest certification: (1) strategic position/corporate social responsibility; (2) signaling stewardship commitment to external groups; (3) improved market shares or prices; and (4) better internal management, records, training, morale, and science. The mean and median differences between expected and actual benefits in the Likert scores are reported in Table 7, along with the P-values for the median differences not equal to zero within each system. For both systems, the actual benefit was less than the expected benefit for the strategic, signaling, and market benefits, and the internal management benefits were greater than expected. This was statistically significant for SFI in each case but not for FSC signaling or internal management benefits. In comparing the across the two systems, there were no significant differences in their expectations. The opinions of the respondents as to the merits of forest certification for their or- Journal of Forestry March 2012 85

Table 7. Expected versus actual benefits of forest certification. Possible benefit of forest certification p-value for signed-rank test Ho: 0 0 SFI Score P-value for signed-rank test Ho: 0 0 P-value for Wilcoxon two-sample test Strategic position, indication of corporate 0 0.33 0.0199 a 0 0.56 0.0004 a 0.493 responsibility Signaling stewardship commitment to 0 0.29 0.1817 0 0.56 0.0002 a 0.1441 external groups Improved market shares or prices 2 1.61 0.0001 a 2 1.54 0.0001 a 0.7371 Better internal management, records, training, morale, and science 0 0.30 0.1525 0 0.46 0.0066 a 0.5511 a Statistically different medians at 0.10. Analysis was done on the difference between expected result and actual result; positive values indicate expected benefit was greater than the actual benefit received; negative values indicate actual benefit was greater than expected benefit. Likert scale: for expected benefit before certification, 1 not important at all, 2 somewhat important, 3 unsure, 4 important, and 5 very important. For actual benefit after certification, 1 not at all achieved, 2 minimally achieved, 3 unsure, 4 moderately achieved, and 5 fully achieved. ganization or lands are summarized in Table 8. The mean and median Likert score rankings between SFI and FSC were similar regarding whether certification benefits exceeded costs ( 3.2) and whether certification achieved their objectives ( 3.8) and not statistically different. Organizations that were certified by SFI had a mean score of 4.26 of 5 when asked if they would maintain certification, and FSC organizations had a mean of 3.88. The difference in their median values was significant. Table 8. Summary of regarding certification benefits, objectives, and retention. Certification component P-value for Wilcoxon two-sample test Do certification benefits exceed costs? b 3 3.23 3 3.15 0.6915 Has certification achieved objectives? c 4 3.73 4 3.96 0.7387 Will organization maintain certification? d 4 3.88 4 4.26 0.036 a a Statistically different medians at 0.10. b 5 Benefits greatly exceed costs; 4 benefits exceed costs; 3 benefits equal costs; 2 costs exceed benefits; 1 costs greatly exceed benefits. c 5 Definitely yes; 4 probably yes; 3 uncertain;2 probably not; 1 definitely not. d 5 Definitely yes; 4 probably yes; 3 uncertain;2 probably not; 1 definitely not. Discussion Based on extensive e-mail surveys, forest managers for FSC and SFI forest management firms detailed the changes their organizations made to receive and maintain forest management certification and provided additional information about satisfaction, benefits and costs, and future plans. These survey represent some of the first comprehensive data on the impacts of forest certification that compare similar questions, actions, and opinions between SFI and FSC managers and organizations. FSC and SFI had different numbers of certified organizations that were landowners, procurement organizations, and resource managers in the United States and Canada. The indicate that the changes in practices and opinions from managers within each of the two systems were similar in aggregate, but there were various statistical differences in the specific types of changes that organizations made under each system, as well their views on the merits of forest certification in general. The results indicate that all firms changed many practices in forest management, environmental protection, community relations, public affairs, economic, and environmental management systems to receive certification. The differences in the number and type of specific changes seem to reflect the genesis of each system, with FSC originating with environmental and social nongovernment organizations and SFI originating with a forest industry environmental system approach (Meridian Institute 2001). About one-half the 29 perceived benefits in the survey were considered important or very important, with a rank of greater than 3.0. SFI members consistently ranked the benefits of certification higher than FSC members, with 11 of 29 characteristics being significantly greater. Market share and marketing were statistically more important for SFI, along with better internal and external communications, worker training, and increasing stock prices. FSC and SFI members ranked most other potential benefits similarly, such as forest management, corporate social responsibility, better management and planning systems, and better timber prices. The numerical differences between the two systems were not large, on balance, indicating that certification managers seemed to have more similar than different opinions of program benefits. Differences in perceived program benefits may be decreasing even more because both standards have been substantially revised since 2007, with SFI reorganized as an independent association and FSC developing a general US standard to replace nine regional standards, among other changes (Fernholz et al. 2010). In contrast to the ranking of benefits, only one-quarter of the 16 perceived disadvantages were considered important or very important audit costs, preparation costs, forest management costs, and recordkeeping. Most notable here is that some of the often cited disadvantages of forest certification were almost completely dismissed by FSC managers, with scores below 2.0, which was statistically less than SFI. FSC managers indicated that certification did not have adverse impacts on morale, include too much discussion or science, involve too much capitulation to the green groups, and require too much openness or too much public interaction and unreasonable disclosure of audit results. But neither group gave much credence to these problems. In short, it appears that most disadvantages of forest certification for both systems focus on costs, and the public, social, or forestry issues were not important. Most organizations in both systems believed that forest certification achieved their objectives, and a slight majority felt that the 86 Journal of Forestry March 2012

benefits exceeded the costs. There was no statistical difference between the systems. Most respondents indicated that their organization would maintain forest certification, but fewer FSC firms agreed with this statement than SFI participants, at a statistically significant level. listed program strengths and weaknesses in openended questions. The listed weaknesses indicated that there was more variability in the implementation of FSC standards and among auditors, as well as in the regional standards, and that it did not generate the greater market prices that were promoted by the program. SFI managers listed weaknesses relating more to whether SFI was a credible system and had promoted itself as well as FSC did. Thus, we might speculate that FSC implementation, with confusing regional standards and auditing inconsistencies and perhaps overselling of market benefits, discouraged more of their managers than did the credibility and public relations shortcomings perceived by SFI managers. Consistent with the certification principle of continuous improvement, each system has recognized and tried to reduce possible disadvantages as well in subsequent program revisions, which should improve the perceptions of their program with members. Forest certification prompted many changes in all types of forest, environmental, social, and system management practices for the responding organizations. The largest number of changes for FSC was made in the environmental/forest management component, followed by about an equal number of economic/system changes and social/legal changes. For SFI organizations, economic/ system changes were made most frequently, followed closely by environmental/forest management changes. New forest management plans, old-growth reserves, and forest inventory programs were the most frequent environmental changes, mostly by FSC. Chain of custody, public release of the forest plan, stakeholder meetings, and consulting with communities also changed frequently with FSC, and program reporting changed most with SFI. These individual items reflect both the origins and the philosophy of FSC versus SFI and also that some of the FSC organizations were small and had to make more changes in these basic documentation and public interaction requirements. The larger, more established SFI firms often already had plans, inventory programs, and management systems. Our results corroborate other literature that suggests that forest certification has made differences in management practices (Newsom and Hewitt 2005, WWF 2005, Newsom et al. 2006, Masters et al. 2010). Furthermore, our study extends the findings of earlier research that found mostly economic or system changes and that have focused almost solely on FSC (Auld et al. 2008). Our results indicate that management changes with forest certification in North America occurred across a broad range of certification categories and with both major systems. They also occurred with a wide variety of landowning, resource manager, and procurement organizations. Thus, it appears that forest certification is indeed a robust approach to advancing environmental, social, and economic forest sustainability, reflecting the premise that the standards embody socially accepted sustainable forest management. This result is consistent with the findings of Masters et al. (2010) in their Canadian study. Additional evaluation studies with more field data or better analysis with controls between certified and noncertified organizations (counterfactuals) would be valuable to assess if the actions reported here are shown in field performance as well. Also, we surveyed certification lead managers, who might be more optimistic than field personnel, so research of field implementation and opinions would have merit. The periodic revisions in the SFI standard have strengthened the chain-of-custody approach, as well as international treaties/illegal logging. The FSC standard has evolved with an increased focus on management systems and internal records, so the systems seem to be drawing closer together in these components. Moderate differences in the standards for environmental protection, release of the management plan, high conservation value forests, chemical use, and use of GMOs do remain between the systems. We think that the market perceptions of the programs, their market campaign strategies, and the public perceptions of them differ as well (Sasser et al. 2006, Fernholz et al. 2010). Conclusion To return to our initial study objectives, we first found that both FSC and SFI forest certification resulted in many changes in forest practices in North America. We found that there was not much difference between systems in the total number of changes made, with SFI firms making one more change on average than FSC organizations. But there were some statistical differences in the individual practices changed by each system. Some of these required changes reflect the different origins and objectives of each certification program, and some reflect the fact that SFI respondents often were larger organizations and had more forest management planning and control systems in place before being certified. FSC organizations often had to do more planning and public interaction and make more environmental changes. But there were exceptions to this, perhaps because the FSC system attracts organizations with more natural stand-management techniques and, therefore, needed to change less. Conversely, SFI organizations greatly increased their focus on BMP implementation and meeting green-up standards (whereas the FSC does not have a green-up standard per se.) As noted in the introduction, debate still exists about the merits of forest certification does it prompt forest management or other changes, which systems are best, if it is greenwash, or whether it is worth the costs. Our research and burgeoning literature reviewed here confirm that forest certification is prompting many positive changes in forest management. For example, we found that certified organizations increased their forest management practices of writing forest management plans, implementing forest inventory programs, establishing geographic information systems, controlling exotic invasives, monitoring chemical use safety, using BMPs, and planning for biological diversity. Similarly, respondents reported increased social and community efforts through release of management plans, public consultations, program reporting, public relations, and outreach and extension activities. Likewise, they increased their environmental system chain-of-custody tracking, internal program monitoring, natural heritage planning, management review systems, and commitment to continuous improvement. We conclude that these changes are improvements in forest management practices for the certified organizations, and this perspective is generally shared by their respondents high ranking of the many perceived benefits of forest certification and low ranking of perceived disadvantages of the systems. The broader community acceptance of forest certification by professional organizations (such as sessions by the Society of American Foresters in their state and national programs and conventions), as well Journal of Forestry March 2012 87