论文部分内容阅读
文章分析与评价了森林管理委员会(FSC)及森林认证体系认可计划(PEFC)两大主要的森林认证体系。介绍了森林认证的内涵和地理范围,以及FSC和PEFC的起源、资金来源和管理架构等。指出:从价值层面,两套体系类同。整体来看,PEFC与FSC对SFM的定义及各方面的结果相似。两者的根本区别是:FSC是世界自然基金会(WWF)限制商业林业的国际策略之一,而PEFC允许林业经营者证明可持续发展能力。认为森林认证体系在商业经济上一般不可行。剖析了消费者——供应链的最终客户没有确定认证产品的价值,但上游供应链却要求对认证木材和木材生产供应者施加压力的深刻原因,详细阐述了森林认证体系牵涉的商业风险,指出在许多实际企业案例中显示,那些没有做足工作的企业,会发现他们不但没有减缓风险,反而将自己暴露于不同及更大的风险中。
This article analyzes and assesses two major forest certification schemes, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Forest Certification Scheme (PEFC). The connotation and geographical scope of forest certification are introduced, as well as the origin, funding sources and management structure of FSC and PEFC. Pointed out: From the value level, the two systems are similar. Overall, PEFC and FSC have similar SFM definitions and results in all aspects. The fundamental difference between the two is that FSC is one of the WWF’s international strategies to limit commercial forestry and PEFC allows forestry operators to demonstrate their sustainability. Think forest certification system is generally not feasible in the business economy. An analysis of the consumer-supply chain end-customers that failed to identify the value of the certified product, but the upstream supply chain required profound reasons for pressure on certified timber and timber suppliers, elaborated on the business risks involved in the forest certification system, pointed out In many real-world business cases, companies that fail to do enough work find themselves not only mitigating risks but exposing themselves to different and greater risks.