Transparency in Nonstate Certification: Consequences for Accountability and Legitimacy

TLDR

Nonstate certification programs have emerged over the past two decades to address social and environmental problems in production practices, relying on information disclosure to influence stakeholders, yet many questions remain about how disclosure practices affect outcomes and governance. The study compares procedural and outcome transparency in the Marine Stewardship Council and Forest Stewardship Council and highlights how transparency influences their accountability and legitimacy. The authors compare procedural and outcome transparency in the rule‑making and auditing processes of the MSC and FSC. The MSC employs transparency and stakeholder consultation instrumentally, while the FSC treats them as ends in themselves.

Abstract

Nonstate certification programs have formed in the past 20 years to address social and environmental problems associated with production practices in several economic sectors. These programs embody the idea that information disclosure can be a tool for NGOs, investors, governments, and consumers to support high performers and hence, advocates hope, place upward pressure on sector-wide practices. Many unanswered questions remain, however, about information disclosure's practices and outcomes. We compare the use of procedural and outcome transparency in the rule-making and auditing processes of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). We highlight key differences in how transparency relates to accountability and legitimacy of the programs. The MSC uses transparency and stakeholder consultation instrumentally, whereas the FSC treats them as ends unto themselves. This underscores the importance of considering transparency alongside other governance aspects, such as who the eligible stakeholders are and who gets decision-making power.