FOREST PRODUCT PROCUREMENT: THE INFLUENCE OF EUROPEAN CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCUREMENT ON FORESTRY PRACTICE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES HOW, in Europe, the development of partnerships between environmental NGOs and business has led to 'green' corporate demand for the procurement of certified wood and paper products that has made a significant contribution to the 'greening' of forestry practices in British Columbia. 'Green' in this article refers to policies and practices that improve care and sensitivity to the environment and promotes sustainability. The article examines the environmental NGO confrontation with wood product retailers in the UK that led to environmental NGO/business partnerships in Europe to secure environmental procurement of wood and paper products. Documented is the forest certification debate that led to the establishment of the environmental NGO/business partnership in the global Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standard and the 'buyers' groups' such as the WWF 95+ Group in the UK. This examination looks at the forest 'sustainability' measures taking place in BC; the reaction of the BC forest industry to proposed forest certification (the global FSC system in particular); the influence in BC of green buyers' groups in Europe; and the reaction in BC to a boycott of BC forest products in Europe as the result of an international campaign against existing and proposed forestry practices in part of the BC temperate rain forest (the Great Bear Rainforest). The article concludes with highlights of the globalisation of environmental procurement within the networks of one industrial sector and its implications for BC. These include the influence of an environmentally sophisticated regional market, with its unique drivers for green corporate customer demand, on global forest product procurement and forest practice. Also included is the role of environmental NGOs in successful confrontation with business which led to a positive partnership with business to help achieve forest sustainability. The proven use of a market mechanism to contribute to sustainable forest management in BC is also highlighted. Forest product certification and procurement Forest product certification and green forest product procurement came about in the late 1980s because certain sectors of the public, government, business and environmental NGOs were concerned about the perceived destruction of global tropical rainforests, temperate forests and temperate rainforests. There was also concern about industrial forestry practice such as clear felling and use of monoculture forest plantations. These concerns occurred at a time when environmental NGOs (such as WWF, Greenpeace, foe, Rainforest Alliance) were initiating campaigns to protect the quantity and the quality of world's forests. The environmental NGOs were particularly dissatisfied with international and national government commitments and legislation and industry's Good Practice Codes, most of which failed to protect forests or ensure quality through sustainable management. There was also some consumer demand for sustainable wood products at a time when there was consumer dissatisfaction with wood product green labelling. Labels were not trusted, since they were regarded as being inconsistent, lacking both credibility and independence. In particular the 'chains of custody' of wood products were not clear. Furthermore there was some corporate interest in forest certification and certified wood products. The result of this interest was the founding of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in 1993 as an international non-profit organisation of diverse members from environmental and social groups, the timber trade and the forestry profession from around the world. As a response to this interest competing forest certification schemes were developed - in Europe, Pan European Forest Certification; in Canada, the National Sustainable Forest Management System (SFM); and in the United States, the Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI). The process of forest certification is concerned with the definition and validation of a sustainable forest. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».