Certifying Forests and Factories: States, Social Movements, and the Rise of Private Regulation in the Apparel and Forest Products Fields

Abstract

Systems of private regulation based on certification have recently emerged to address environmental issues in the forest products industry and labor issues in the apparel industry. To explain why the same regulatory form has emerged across these fields, the author uses a historical and comparative case study approach, closely examining early moments and paying attention to "roads not taken." Two types of factors led to the initial emergence of private certification: (1) social movement campaigns targeting companies and (2) a neo-liberal institutional context. The analysis shows specific ways in which these factors led states, nongovernmental organizations, and companies to build or support certification associations.Recent decades have seen dramatic shifts in the regulation of industries away from traditional "command and control" strategies-based on fixed standards enforced by the state-and toward regulatory forms based on different social control strategies-like market mechanisms, the provision of information, and infor-For comments and discussions on earlier incarnations of this article, I thank

Making Political Consumers: The Tactical Action Repertoire of a Campaign for Clean Clothes

“…In the social movement literature, movements that target other actors and arenas than the state -for instance, multinational corporations and the marketplace -have gained relatively little attention (but see Jasper, 1997;Bartley, 2003Bartley, , 2005Schurman, 2004;Bartley & Child, 2007;Soule, 2009). Consumption practices, however, have long been included on social movements' agendas (Cohen, 2003;Hilton, 2003).…”

Process vs. Performance Standards for Sustainable Meeting and Event Management

“…The result was the emergence of a system of "voluntary private transnational regulatory schemes" (Overdevest, 2009, p.4), in which "coalitions of non-state actors codify, monitor, and in some cases certify firms' compliance with labor, environmental, human rights, or other standards of accountability" (Bartley, 2007, p.298). These actors included non-governmental organizations (NGOs), social movements and trade unions (Bartley, 2003), both national and international (Overdevest, 2009). …”

“…Again looking at the forestry literature, Meidinger (2001) argues that a combination of both process and performancebased approaches is possible and likely inevitable as different standards and certification systems interact and often are purpose-built to compete with one another. Bartley (2003) . These three programs were largely built on the more process-based ISO approach to standard setting with some degree of substantive elements (Meidinger, 2006), but unlike FSC there was very limited involvement by non-industry stakeholders in their development (Gulbrandsen, 2010).…”

“…Bartley (2003) cites this social pressure on companies as one of the primary reasons for the emergence of standards and certification. In the absence of government intervention due to issues of jurisdiction (Black, 2008), standards organizations may actually be more effective in enhancing what Gulbrandsen (2008) calls "transnational accountability" (p.566), which is why NGOs turned their attention to developing these programs in the first place (Bartley, 2003). In other words, the move to create standards demonstrates an inherent desire for accountability (Gulbrandsen, 2010).…”

“…In other words, the move to create standards demonstrates an inherent desire for accountability (Gulbrandsen, 2010). Conversely, Bartley (2003) contends that the private nature of voluntary standards is at odds with the concept of accountability. They have been criticized for sidestepping national and international law, while being non-transparent and undemocratic in their consultation process (Black, 2008).…”