Company choices on sustainable forestry forest certification: the case of JD Irving, Ltd.

Abstract

This paper addresses the emergence of 'non-state sanctioned, market driven' (NSMD) by exploring the choices JD Irving made about forest certification in the Canadian Maritimes and USA Northeast. JD Irving is one of the first North American forest companies to support international, environmental group-supported Forest Stewarship Council (FSC). The two stages of decision making through a historical analysis are explained. The paper is presented in four parts: (1) review of the development of forest certification and the FSC; (2) development of the five explanatory hypotheses; (3) illustrates their validity through a step-by-step historical account; and (4) reflects the implications for the future of NSMD governance.

The Future of Non-State Authority on Canadian Staples Industries: Assessing the Emergence of Forest Certification

“…As we show in the next section, support from Canadian forest companies has mirrored a pendulum of sorts-with strong and unified support for the CSA dissipating as key companies, including JD Irving in the Maritimes (Lawson and Cashore 2001) and six of the top nine industrial companies in BC (Cashore, Auld, and Newsom 2004, chapter 3), direct some serious attention to the FSC. Following standards-setting processes in both regions, however, much of this support dissipated, leaving the CSA and SFI as the preferred programs of most companies.…”

What factors influence obtaining forest certification in the U.S. Pacific Northwest?

“…However, social pressures often pose more requirements than do governments (Aurora and Cason, 1996;Cerin and Karlson, 2002;Elliott, 1996;Kilgore and Blinn, 2004). Some forest managing entities have accepted the public pressure and adopted forest certification, while others have exercised caution in embracing the process (Lawson and Cashore, 2003;Leslie, 2004;Rametsteiner, 2002;Vogel, 2005). An agreed upon view is that companies used to dismiss or manipulate public pressures; later, however, compromise strategies to address public pressure prevailed and companies became more proactive (Cashore et al, 2001;Nasi et al, 1997;Oliver, 1991).…”