Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The status of chain-of-custody certification in the countries of Central and South Europe

  • Original
  • Published:
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The significance of wood and paper products originating from certified sustainable sources has been increasing worldwide during the last two decades paralleling overall interest and concern for global sustainability issues. Forest certification is a voluntary verification tool that has been gaining importance not only as an independent verification tool in the wood processing industry but also as an influencer in private and public purchasing policies and as a component of emerging wood harvesting and trade legality schemes. There are two main types of certification, forest certification for forest management and chain-of-custody (CoC) certification which tracks certified wood through the manufacturing supply chain. This study focuses on the chain-of-custody component. A multinational survey of CoC certificate holders in Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia was conducted to identify the general understanding of certification concepts as environmental, economic and social tools, to determine incentives for CoC certification implementation by companies, and to identify difficulties in existing certified wood product supply chains. Results indicate that respondents demonstrated a high level of understanding of the chain of custody certification concept. Respondents also link forest certification mainly to the issues of legality, tracing the origin source of supply and prevention from illegal logging. The main expected benefits are linked to the improvement of external company image followed by business performance factors such as penetrating new markets, increase of sales volume, expanded market share and the increase of profit margin. The key problems connected to certified supply chains relate to the overpricing of certified material inputs, while respondents reported none or minimum price premiums for their certified products over non-certified alternatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Auld G, Gulbrandsen LH, McDermott CL (2008) Certification schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33:187–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigsby H, Ozanne LK (2002) The purchase decision: consumers and environmentally certified wood products. For Prod J 52:100–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond B, Lyon S, Munsell J, Barrett S (2014) Perceptions of Virginia’s primary forest products manufacturers regarding forest certification. For Prod J 64:242–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Brack D (2014) Promoting legal and sustainable timber: using public procurement policy. Research paper. Chatham House Publishing. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/20140908PromotingLegalSustainableTimberBrackFinal.pdf. Accessed 16 Jun 2016

  • Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future—report of the world commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabarle B, Hrubes RJ, Elliot C, Synnot T (1995) Certification and accreditation: the need for credible claims. J For 93:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter DR, Merry FD (1998) The nature and status of certification in the United States. For Prod J 48:23–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashore B, Stone M (2012) 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 18:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creamer SF, Blatner KA, Butler BJ (2012) Certification of family forests: what influences owners’ awareness and participation? J For Econ 18:131–144

    Google Scholar 

  • De Pelsmacker P, Driesen L, Rayp G (2005) Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. J Cons Aff 39:363–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00019.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2000) The tailored design method. Wiley. New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudík R, Riedl M (2015) 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. WoodEma Publishing. http://www.woodema.org/proceedings/WoodEMA_2015_Proceedings.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2016

  • Durst PB, Mckenzie PJ, Brown CL, Appanah S (2006) Challenges facing certification and eco–labelling of forest products in developing countries. Int For Rev 8:193–200

    Google Scholar 

  • EFI (2011) 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. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/EUTR-Final_Report.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2017

  • European Commission (2003) COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (2003/361/EC). EUR-Lex Publishing. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32003H0361&from=EN. Accessed 19 Jun 2016

  • European Commission (2004) Briefing note No. 04. FLEGT Briefing Notes. Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade. Why the focus on legality, not sustainability? European Commission Publishing. https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/publication-flegt-briefing-note-4-200404_en.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2016

  • European Commission (2016) 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. EUR-Lex Publishing. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010R0995&from=EN. Accessed 16 June 2016

  • FAO (2016) Forestry production and trade. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO

  • Fischer C, Parry I, Aguilar PJ (2005) Corporate codes of conduct: is common environmental content feasible? Discussion paper 05–09, Resources for the future. Resources for the Future Publishing. http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/ Download/RFF-DP-05-09.pdf. Accessed 13 Jun 2016

  • FSC (2015) http://info.fsc.org/certificate.php. Accessed 27 Jun 2016

  • Gavrilut I, Halalisan AF, Giurca A, Sotirov M (2016) The interaction between FSC certification and the implementation of the EU timber regulation in Romania. Forests 7:3–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilani HR, Kozak RA, Innes JL (2016) The state of innovation in the British Columbia value-added wood products sector: the example of chain of custody certification. Can J For Res 46:1067–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halalisan AF, Marinchescu M, Popa B, Abrudan IV (2013) Chain of Custody certification in Romania: profile and perceptions of FSC certified companies. Int For Rev 15:305–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen E, Punches J (1999) Developing markets for certified forest products: a case study of collins pine company. Forest Prod J 4:30–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward J, Vertinsky I (1999) High expectations, unexpected benefits—what managers and owners think of certification. J Forest 97:13–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Holopainen J, Toppinen A, Perttula S (2015) Impact of European Union Timber regulation on forest certification strategies in the finnish wood industry value chain. Forests 6:2879–2896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrabovsky EE, Armstrong JP (2005) Global demand for certified hardwood products as determined from a survey of hardwood exporters. For Prod J 55:28–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard S, Bowe S (2004) Putting value on certified forest products: views from Wisconsin. Wood Wood Prod 57–62

  • Hubbard SS, Bowe SA (2005) Environmentally certified wood products: perspectives and experiences of primary wood manufactures in Wisconsin. For Prod J 55:33–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayasinghe PS, Allen D, Bull GQ, Kozak RA (2007) The status of forest certification in the Canadian value-added wood products manufacturing sector. For Chron 83:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis RA, Davis SR (2015) Forest certification, institutional capacity, and learning: an analysis of the impacts of the Malaysian timber certification scheme. For Policy Econ 52:18–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Dicken KG, Sola P, Hall JE, Sabogal C, Tadoum M, Wasseige C (2015) Global progress toward sustainable forest management. For Ecol Manag 352:47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MP, Covin JG (2000) Environmental marketing: a source of reputational, competitive, and financial advantage. J Bus Ethics 23:299–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore SE, Cubbage F, Eicheldinger C (2012) Impacts of forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and sustainable forestry initiative (SFI) forest certification in North America. J For 110:79–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura M, Takahashi T, Vertinsky I (2001) Why Japanese firms choose to certify: a study of managerial responses to environmental issues. J Environ Econ Manag 42:23–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nor Suryani AG, Mohd Shahwahid HO, Ahmad Fauzi P, Alias R, Vlosky RP (2011) Assessment of Chain-of-Custody certification costs for sawnwood manufacturers in Peninsular Malaysia. J Trop For Sci 23:159–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnaly J (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Owari T, Sawanobori Y (2008) Market benefits of chain of custody certification, perspectives of Japanese suppliers. For Resour Manag Math Mod 7:121–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Owari T, Juslin H, Rummukainen A, Yoshimura T (2006) Strategies, functions and benefits of forest certification in wood products marketing: perspectives of Finnish suppliers. For Policy Econ 9:380–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paluš H (2000) Review on certification of non-industrial private forests in Europe. In Marketing 2000: marketing at break of the millenium. Technical University in Zvolen, Zvolen. Alfa Print Publishing. https://www.tuzvo.sk/files/DF/katedry_df/ kmosl/veda_a_vyskum/zborniky/mao_2000.pdf. Accessed 28 Jun 2016

  • Paluš H, Kaputa V (2009) Survey of attitudes towards forest and chain of custody certification in the Slovak Republic. Drewno 52:65–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Paluš H, Maťová H, Križanová A, Parobek J (2014) Prieskum znalosti značiek lesných certifikačných schém na výrobkoch z dreva a papiera (A survey of awareness of forest certification schemes labels on wood and paper products). Acta Facultatis Xylologiae Zvolen 56:129–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck T (2001) The international timber trade. Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • PEFC (2015) http://www.pefc.org/find-certified/certified-certificates. Accessed 26 June 2016

  • PEFC (2017) PEFC chain of custody certification. The key to sell certified products. https://www.pefc.org/images/documents/brochures/PEFC_Chain_of_Custody_Certification.pdf

  • Perera P, Vlosky RP, Hughes G, Dunn M (2007) What do Louisiana and Mississippi nonindustrial private forest landowners thing about forest certification? South J Appl For 31:170–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Potkanski T, Wanat L, Chudobiecki J (2011) Leadership in time of crisis or crisis of leadership? Implications for regional development. Intercathedra 27:45–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Rametsteiner E, Simula M (2003) Forest Certification—an instrument to promote sustainable forest management? J Environ Manage 67:87–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rickenbach M, Overdevest C (2006) More than markets: assessing Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification as a policy tool. J For 104:143–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Siry JP, Cubbage FW, Ahmed MR (2005) Sustainable forest management: global trends and opportunities. For Policy Econ 7:551–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šupín M (2006) Forest and wood products certification influence on strategies for entering and developing international markets. Intercathedra 22:166–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi T (2001) Why firms participate in environmental voluntary initiatives: case studies in Japan and Canada. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolunay A, Türkoğlu T (2014) Perspectives and attitudes of forest products industry companies on the chain of custody certification: a case study from Turkey. Sustainability 6:857–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trishkin M, Lopatin E, Karjalainen T (2014) Assessment of motivation and attitudes of forest industry companies toward forest certification in northwestern Russia. Scand J For Res 29:283–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuppura A, Toppinen A, Puumalainen K (2016) Forest certification and ISO 14001: current state and motivation in forest companies. Bus Strat Environ 25:355–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulybina O, Fennell S (2013) Forest certification in Russia: challenges of institutional development. Ecol Econ 95:178–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNECE (2015) Forest products annual market review 2014–2015. United Nations, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • UNECED (1992) Non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests. In: Proceedings of the UN conference on environment and development, Rio de Janeiro. UN Publishing. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/ aconf15126-3annex3.htm. Accessed 9 Jun 2016

  • Van Kooten GC, Nelson HW, Vertinsky I (2005) Certification of sustainable forest management practices: a global perspective on why countries certify. For Policy Econ 7:857–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidal N, Kozak R, Cohen D (2005) Chain of custody certification: an assessment of the North American solid wood sector. Forest Policy Econ 7:345–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlosky RP, Ozanne LK (1998) Environmental certification of wood products: The U.S.manufacturers’ perspective. Forest Prod J 48:21–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlosky RP, Gazo R, Cassens D (2003) Certification involvement by selected united states value-added solid wood products sectors. Wood Fiber Sci 35:560–569

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vlosky RP, Gazo R, Cassens D, Perera P (2009) Changes in value-added wood product manufacturer perceptions about certification in the United States from 2002 to 2008. Drvna Industrija 60:89–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Warne RT (2014) A primer on multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for behavioral scientists. Practical assessment. Res Eval 19:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • WWF (2000) The forest industry in the 21st century. Report prepared by the WWF’s forests for life campaign. Branksome House, Godalming

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the support of the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, and the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Grant No. 1/0473/16, “Dynamics and determinants of wood based products market in the Slovak Republic” and the Slovak Research and Development Agency, Grant APVV-14-0869 “Research of the utilization of wood as a renewable raw material in the context of a green economy”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology, Technical University in Zvolen, Zvolen, Slovakia

    Hubert Paluš & Ján Parobek

  2. Louisiana Forest Products Development Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

    Richard P. Vlosky

  3. Faculty of Forestry, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Darko Motik

  4. Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Leon Oblak & Matej Jošt

  5. Faculty of Forestry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Branko Glavonjić

  6. Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

    Roman Dudík

  7. Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland

    Leszek Wanat

Authors
  1. Hubert Paluš
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ján Parobek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard P. Vlosky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Darko Motik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leon Oblak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matej Jošt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Branko Glavonjić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Roman Dudík
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Leszek Wanat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hubert Paluš.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paluš, H., Parobek, J., Vlosky, R.P. et al. The status of chain-of-custody certification in the countries of Central and South Europe. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 76, 699–710 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-017-1261-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-017-1261-0

Search

Navigation