Certification Involvement by Selected United States Value-Added Solid Wood Products Sectors
Keywords:Certification, value-added, wood products
AbstractA study was conducted in the spring of 2002 to determine attitudes of a selection of value-added wood products manufacturers with regard to current and potential participation in forest certification. A convenience sample of 1,482 members from four national associations that actually sold wood products was surveyed. Results indicate that respondents do not have a very clear understanding of certification or of chain-of-custody requirements. On average, 2% of respondents from the four associations combined completely understand certifiers' services and objectives and a third of respondents have no familiarity with major U.S. certifiers. Further, respondents seem to be ambivalent about the issue of both temperate and tropical forest certification. Nearly half would not be willing to pay a premium for certified raw materials with an additional 20% of respondents stating that they would be willing to pay a premium of 3% or less.
Anonymous. 2002. Certification—Implementation issues and options research study 2002. Canada Ministry of Forests. Forest Management Certification Homepage: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/het/certification/'>http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/het/certification/nAnonymous. 2002a. Overview of forest certification. Canada Ministry of Forests. Forest Management Certification Homepage: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/het/certification/'>http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/het/certification/nAnonymous. 2002b. Certified Forest Products Council. 2002. FSC Certified Forests List. http://www.certifiedwood.org'>http://www.certifiedwood.orgnAnonymous. 2002c. The sustainable forestry initiative. American Forest and Paper Association. Website: http://www.afandpa.org'>http://www.afandpa.orgnAnonymous. 2002d. Who are we? Forest Stewardship Council Homepage: http://www.fscoax.org/principal.htm'>http://www.fscoax.org/principal.htmnAnonymous. 2002e. What is pan European forest certification? PEFC Homepage: http://www.pefc.org'>http://www.pefc.orgnAnonymous. 2002f. Architectural Woodwork Institute (AWI) Homepage: http://www.awinet.org'>http://www.awinet.orgnAnonymous. 2002g. Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer's Association (BIFMA) Homepage: http://www.bifma.org'>http://www.bifma.orgnAnonymous. 2002h. National Association of Store Manufacturers (NASFM) Homepage: http://www.nasfm.org'>http://www.nasfm.orgnAnonymous. 2002i. Kitchen Cabinets Manufacturer's Association (KCMA) Homepage: http://www.kcma.org'>http://www.kcma.orgnDillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys—The total design method. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.nForsyth, K. 2002. Certified forest products markets. Presented to the UNECE Timber Committee Sixtieth Session. September 24, Geneva, Switzerland.nForsyth, K., D. Haley, and R. Kozak. 1997. Customer attitudes towards environmentally sound wood products in the British Columbian home improvement market. Working Paper, Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.nHayward, J., and I. Vertinsky. 1999. High expectations, unexpected benefits: What managers and owners think of certification. J. Forestry97(2):13-17.nIrland, L. 2002. The Northeastern market for "green certified" wood products. Unpub., presented at Forest Products Society meeting, June 2002, Madison, WI.nJensen, K., P. Jakus, B. English, and J. Menard. 2002. Willingness to pay for environmentally certified hardwood products by Tennessee consumers. Department of Agricultural Economics Study Series No. 01-02. University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station.nKärnä, J., E. Hansen, H. Juslin, and J. Seppälä. 2002. Green marketing of softwood lumber in western North America and Nordic Europe. Forest Prod. J.52(5):34-40.nOzanne, L. K., and P. M. Smith. 1998. Segmenting the market for environmentally certified wood products. Forest Sci.44(3):379-389.nOzanne, L. K., and R. Vlosky. 1998. Environmental certification of wood products: An examination of U.S. consumer gender differences. Women in Natural Resources19(3):4-8.nOzanne, L. K., and R. Vlosky. 2003. Certification from the U.S. consumer perspective: A comparison of 1995 and 2000. Forest Prod. J.53(3):15-21.nRickenbach, M. G. 2002. Forest certification of small ownerships: Some practical challenges. J. Forestry100(6):43-47.nSinclair, S. A. 1992. Forest products marketing. Mc-Graw-Hill, New York, NY. 226 pp.nStevens, J., M. Ahmad, and S. Ruddell. 1998. Forest products certification: A survey of manufacturers. Forest Prod. J.48(6):43-49.nTeisl, M. F., S. Peavey, F. Newmann, J. Buono, and M. Herrmann. 2002. Consumer reactions to environmental labels for forest products: A preliminary look. Forest Prod. J.52(1):44-50.nVlosky, R. 2000. U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and state forester perspectives on forest certification. Forest Prod. J.50(3):21-27.nVlosky, R., and L. K. Ozanne. 1997. Environmental certification: The wood products business customer perspective. Wood Fiber Sci.29(2):195-208.nVlosky, R., and L. K. Ozanne. 1998. Environmental certification of wood products: The U.S. manufacturer's perspective. Forest Prod. J.48(9):21-26.nVlosky, R., and L. K. Ozanne. 1999. Certification: Perspectives of industrial forest landowners in Louisiana. Working Paper #34. Louisiana Forest Products Laboratory. LSU Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA.nVlosky, R., and J. Granskog. 2001. Certification: A comparison of perceptions of industrial and non-industrial private forestland owners in Louisiana. In L. Teeter, B. Cashore, and D. Zhang, eds. Forest policy for private forestry: global and regional challenges. CABI Publishing, United Kingdom.nVlosky, R., N. P. Chance, P. Monroe, D. Hughes, and L. Blalock. 1998. An integrated market-based model for value-added solid wood products sector economic development. Forest Products J.48(11/12):29-35.nVlosky, R., L. K. Ozanne, and R. J. Fontenot. 1999. A model of U.S. consumer willingness to pay for environmentally certified products. J. Consumer Marketing.16(2):122-140.n
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.