Supporting or sabotaging sustainable development? State policy responses to environmental certification schemes.

Market-based, consumer-oriented certification and labelling schemes have their origin in environmental concerns centred on the future health of natural resources. In the case of the world’s forests, for example, the problem is deforestation and forest degradation (Gale 1998a; Gale and Burda 1998b); in the case of fisheries, it is unsustainable, illegal, catches of certain fish stocks as well as concerns over food safety (Haward 2003; Bache, Haward and Dovers 2000; Haward and Potts 2001). These and other sectors have developed market-based certification and labelling schemes to meet growing consumer demand for goods produced through environmentally responsible means.

As the number of certification schemes and ‘eco-labels’ proliferates, however, competition is emerging among schemes over the credibility of the claims made and the legitimacy of their composition and procedures. Moreover, because obtaining environmental certification gives firms a marketing advantage, states are being lobbied by industry to favour some schemes over others.

Our project investigates state policy responses to environmental certification and labelling schemes. Focusing on the forestry and fisheries sectors, we examine how governments are responding to the challenges posed by such market-based approaches to environmental sustainability.

The project uses a comparative methodology to examine the response of selected governments to environmental certification and labelling. Governments face a quandary when considering certification and labelling schemes. In theory, such schemes are market-based instruments, the success of which depends entirely on whether they are supported or not by market actors including consumers. On the other hand, certification and labelling schemes have important consequences for domestic regulatory arrangements and for local and regional economies, meriting some level of government oversight.