Unpacking opportunity recognition for sustainable entrepreneurship

Sustainable entrepreneurs can find solutions to the largest challenges that humanity faces by starting a new company. However, to be able to do that, they first need to recognize a business opportunity. Therefore, I analyse the following question: where, how, and why do entrepreneurs recognize business opportunities for a sustainable business? To recognize a business opportunity is crucial for entrepreneurs, because without a business opportunity, there is no entrepreneurship. Opportunity recognition is essentially a match of (1) resources that the entrepreneur has access to, and (2) a need, interest or want in the market. The entrepreneur combines these into an idea and a plan for a new venture. Sustainable entrepreneurs need to first recognize a sustainability problem and find a market solution to this problem, before they can recognize a sustainable opportunity. My research shows that: (1) sustainable entrepreneurs recognize opportunities at places in the Netherlands where there already is a concentration of entrepreneurs in the same sector, (2) identity, values and problem recognition conjointly explain why entrepreneurs recognize sustainable opportunities, (3) entrepreneurs recognize sustainable opportunities through identity processes and the translation of complex into specific problems, and (4) they create opportunities by fostering a sustainable consumer culture in market niches. These findings help to unpack the concept of sustainable opportunity recognition. The findings can also aid (aspiring) entrepreneurs to recognize new sustainable opportunities, help teachers to learn students to recognize new opportunities and to help policy makers to stimulate sustainable entrepreneurship based on regional characteristics

Educational Needs of Southern Forest Landowners

South-central United States forest landowners were surveyed to determine their forestry-related educational needs and appropriate methods for promoting effective programs covering desired topics. The majority of respondents had not participated in past educational programs because they were unaware of their existence. Therefore, forestry professionals and university Extension personnel should inform and encourage nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners to take advantage of available opportunities. They should also use tax rolls to develop forest landowner databases. Once developed, newsletters, pamphlets, brochures, or letters should be mailed to increase forest landowner knowledge and awareness of forestry-related educational programs and activities

Voluntary Environmental Governance Arrangements

Voluntary environmental governance arrangements have focal attention in studies on environmental policy, regulation and governance. The four major debates in the contemporary literature on voluntary environmental governance arrangements are studied. The literature falls short of sufficiently specifying whether or not voluntary environmental governance arrangements are successful in addressing environmental risks. This is due to the narrow focus of many contemporary studies and a tendency to study the form and content of voluntary environmental governance arrangements in isolation from their contextual settings. In order to gain a better understanding of voluntary environmental governance arrangements, scholars are challenged to study differently structured voluntary environmental governance arrangements in different contextual settings, to move beyond single country or single voluntary environmental governance arrangements studies, and to combine quantitative and qualitative data in studying these arrangements

Experimentation in policy design: Insights from the building sector

The current article questions how experimentation in policy design plays out in practice. In particular, it is interested in understanding how the content and process of policy-design experiments affect their outcomes. The article does so by building on an original study into 31 real-world examples of experimentation in policy design in the building sector in Australia, the Netherlands, and the United States. All examples aim to improve the environmental sustainability of the building sector. The article finds that these 31 examples have attracted moderate to substantial numbers of participants (policy outcome HO.i), but have not achieved substantial numbers of buildings built or retrofitted with high levels of sustainability (policy outcome HO.ii). By carefully unpacking these policy designs into a number of key characteristics, it finds that this mismatch between the two outcomes may partly be explained by flawed policy-design processes. The article concludes with the main lessons learnt and provides some suggestions on how to improve experimentation in policy design

Sertifikasi (akan) Terlahir Kembali: Sisi Lain Ekspor Produk Kayu Tanpa V-Legal

Kementerian Perdagangan Republik Indonesia baru-baru ini menerbitkan Permendag No.15 Tahun 2020 tentang Ketentuan Ekspor Produk Industri Kehutanan, yang tidak lagi menyebutkan V-Legal sebagai dokumen persyaratan ekspor. Peraturan yang akan diberlakukan pada 25 Mei 2020 tersebut dimaksudkan guna memberikan kepastian berusaha, untuk menggenjot ekspor produk industri kehutanan melalui penyederhanaan perijinan. Permendag No.15 Tahun 2020 telah menuai banyak kritik, semisal: pelemahan Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu (SVLK), pelanggaran perjanjian kemitraan sukarela dengan Uni Eropa, hilangnya jalur hijau ke pasar Uni Eropa, dan potensi penurunan kinerja ekspor. Namun ada sisi lain yang tidak banyak disorot. Jika diterapkan, peraturan tersebut akan memberi angin segar bagi pelaku sertifikasi hutan/ lacak balak, seperti skema sukarela Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) dan Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). Rival lamaIni menarik. Dari desain pranata dan tata kuasa, sertifikasi (khususnya FSC), sebenarnya adalah rival lama institusi negara. Ya, sistem pranata sertifikasi didesain oleh lembaga non-pemerintah (pegiat lingkungan internasional) untuk “menyingkirkan” negara/pemerintah. “Kalau institusi pemerintah tidak mampu lagi mendorong pengelolaan hutan yang baik, biar kami yang urus”, mungkin demikian muasal genesis sertifikasi. Selain itu, sertifikasi menggunakan mekanisme pasar (lagi-lagi bukan institusi negara) untuk mendorong adopsi sistem pranata yang telah mereka bangun (Maryudi 2015). Itulah mengapa sertifikasi sering disebut sebagai instrumen kebijakan “non-state market driven” (Cashore et al. 2004). Sangat berbeda dengan verifikasi legalitas yang merupakan instrumen kebijakan yang diluncurkan institusi pemerintah, walaupun sama-sama menggunakan mekanisme pasar.Legalitas “bunuh” sertifikasiOptimisme terhadap sertifikasi sempat membuncah sampai akhir dekade 1990an. Namun perkembanganannya ternyata tidak terlalu menggembirakan, salah satunya diduga karena problematika pengelolaan hutan yang sangat kompleks untuk dapat segera diurai (Cashore & Stone 2012). Sampai awal milenium baru, hanya sekitar 10% hutan dunia yang telah tersertifikasi. Inilah yang mendorong dimunculkannya isu legalitas, yang diwacanakan bisa menjadi kunci dan batu loncatan bagi pengelolaan berkelanjutan (Cashore & Stone 2012). Entah sengaja atau tidak, desain pranata verifikasi legalitas ternyata mengarah kembali pada peran institusi negara. Di Indonesia, SVLK merupakan instrumen kebijakan pemerintah. Melalui Permendag No.25/M-DAG/PER/10/2016, pemerintah mewajibkan pemenuhan dokumen sertifikat V-Legal untuk ekspor produk kehutanan. Peraturan ini mengunci rapat pintu ekspor; hanya dengan V-Legal sajalah produk kayu bisa meninggalkan Indonesia. Tak peduli produk kayu tersebut telah mendapatkan sertifikasi lain. Tak peduli jika end users di pasar internasional lebih bereaksi positif terhadap sertifikasi sukarela.Pintu akan dibukaDengan V-Legal produk kayu Indonesia bisa “lenggang kangkung” masuk pasar Uni Eropa. Hal ini dikarenakan V-Legal telah disetarakan dengan Lisensi FLEGT yang merupakan satu-satunya tiket untuk lewat jalur hijau ke sana. Tanpa Lisensi FLEGT (V-Legal untuk produk Indonesia), menurut European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR), produk kayu harus melewati proses uji tuntas (due diligence) terhadap asal-usulnya. Disinilah sertifikasi sukarela (FSC atau PEFC) dapat mengkapitalasi aturan ekspor yang tidak lagi mewajibkan V-Legal. Pintu yang tadinya dikunci rapat, mulai akan terbuka. Apalagi EUTR merekonignisi potensi sertifikasi sukarela sebagai alat uji tuntas. European Comission (2013) menyatakan bahwa perusahaan pelaku perdagangan “may rate credibly certified products as having negligible risk of being illegal, i.e. suitable for placing on the market with no further risk mitigation measures, provided that the rest of the information gathered and the replies to the risk assessment questions do not contradict such a conclusion.” Secara umum, skema sertifikasi sukarela telah mengimplementasikan prosedur uji asal usul yang dipersyaratkan dalam EUTR, yang mencakup: pengumpulan informasi, penilaian resiko, dan mitigasi resiko (Trishkin et al. 2015; Saunders 2014). Sertifikasi sukarela juga berpotensi untuk diakui di beberapa pasar sensitif lainnya. Beberapa negara tujuan ekspor utama produk kayu Indonesia (Amerika Serikat, Korea Selatan, Jepang dan China), juga telah menerapkan berbagai peraturan yang melarang masuknya produk ilegal. Seperti halnya di Uni Eropa, satu inti dari regulasi legalitas kayu mereka adalah skema uji dan penelusuran secara tuntas atas asal usul kayu.Siapa yang beruntung?Di Indonesia, sampai April 2020, FSC telah mengeluarkan 38 sertifikat pengelolaan hutan (sekitar 3 juta hektar, mayoritas hutan alam), dan 317 sertifikat lacak balak industri perkayuan di Indonesia. Sedangkan PEFC memberikan sertifikat pengelolaan ke 70 perusahaan (termasuk 2 perusahaan hutan tanaman terbesar) dan 47 sertifikat lacak balak, mayoritas industri pulp dan kertas (PEFC 2020). Merekalah yang berpotensi mengakapitalisasi Permendag No.15/ 2020, jika diimplementasikan

An Analysis of Forest Management Non-Conformities to FSC Standards in Different European Countries

The purpose of this study was to assess the most frequent non-conformities identified in different European countries in the processes of forest management certification according to FSC standards. A total of 31 active certificates from five countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Romania, Slovenia and the United Kingdom) were analysed, including all active certificates (as of 1st of June 2014) from three countries along with a sample of 13 FSC certificates issued in the UK and one certificate covering 95% of the certified forest area in Slovenia. 253 non-conformities in relation to FSC standard requirements were identified as formulated by the audit teams and the most frequently identified non-conformities in the certification process were those related to Principle 6 - Environmental impact (34%), Principle 4 - Community relations and worker's rights (17%) and Principle 8 - Monitoring and Assessment (13%). A slight positive correlation was noticed between the FSC certified area and the total number of non-conformities, with a closer link in the case of Principle 9 - Maintenance of high conservation value forests, and Principle 4. The non-conformities related to Principles 4, 6 and 9 appeared to be significantly influenced in occurrence by country development; less often in the UK compared with the other four countries

Certify sustainable retailers?

Third-party eco-certification has received considerable attention by academics and practitioners alike as a new mode of sustainability governance. But there is growing evidence that certification faces a number of limits when applied to producers in developing countries, in particular the weak capabilities of small-holder producers to comply with the standards set out by these certification schemes. When these producers make up between 70% and 80% of the estimated 117 million fish farmers worldwide (Bondad-Reantaso & Subasinghe, 2013; Valderrma, Hishamunda, & Zhou, 2010), we can question how certification can meet its own goals of transforming industries towards sustainability. This chapter extends current debates over the capability of producers to comply with standards by arguing for an alternative certification arrangement. Instead of continuing with the current model of certification that places the ‘burden of proof’ for sustainability on producers, I propose a new form of retail-targeted certification that reverses this burden of proof. Under such a model, it is not small-holders who have to demonstrate sustainability, but instead the buyers and retailers who receive a disproportionate benefit from the marketing and trade of their fish. A retailer certification scheme would reverse this burden of proof by giving recognition and market reward to retailers adopting ‘developmental’ forms of value-chain coordination that foster inclusive and effective support for improving the production practices of small-holders. Such a model might be relevant for any globally traded commodity sector involving small-holder producers in need of (but unable to independently make) improvements towards sustainability