IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbsse/fsii01305.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Policy convergence and policy diffusion by governmental and non-governmental institutions: An international comparison of eco-labeling systems

Author

Listed:
  • Kern, Kristine
  • Kissling-Näf, Ingrid
  • Landmann, Ute
  • Mauch, Corine
  • Löffelsend, Tina

Abstract

The study deals with eco-labeling systems that have spread faster than other types of new policy instruments. The paper focuses on the diffusion of two different types of eco-labels: (1) general eco-labeling systems such as the German Blue Angel (Blauer Engel), and (2) the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification program. We start with three different explanations for policy convergence: international regimes, regional integration, and global policy diffusion. Policy diffusion is gaining in importance due to the diffusion processes triggered by the emergence of international, intergovernmental, and transnational transfer institutions. It is assumed that governmental or quasi-governmental transfer institutions (general eco-labels) and nongovernmental transfer institutions (FSC label) have similar functions and effects. Our main thesis is that labels can diffuse globally, be decided on, and even implemented at the national level without significant state influence. Furthermore, three success factors for the national performance of eco-labeling schemes are analyzed: (1) the characteristics of policy innovations (costs of labeling etc.); (2) the economic, societal, and political-institutional capacities for action; (3) the co-existence and competition between different eco-labeling systems which can result in converging standards. On this basis some conclusions regarding the overall performance of transnational network organizations, such as the FSC, are drawn.

Suggested Citation

  • Kern, Kristine & Kissling-Näf, Ingrid & Landmann, Ute & Mauch, Corine & Löffelsend, Tina, 2001. "Policy convergence and policy diffusion by governmental and non-governmental institutions: An international comparison of eco-labeling systems," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Standard-setting and Environment FS II 01-305, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbsse:fsii01305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/48973/1/340893192.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Salzman, 1997. "Informing the Green Consumer: The Debate Over the Use and Abuse of Environmental Labels," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 1(2), pages 11-21, April.
    2. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-35, January.
    3. Alain Nadaï, 1999. "Conditions of Development of a Product Ecolabel," Post-Print halshs-00159961, HAL.
    4. Collier, David & Messick, Richard E., 1975. "Prerequisites Versus Diffusion: Testing Alternative Explanations of Social Security Adoption," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 1299-1315, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sebastian Koos, 2011. "Varieties of Environmental Labelling, Market Structures, and Sustainable Consumption Across Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Organizational and Market Supply Determinants of Environmental-Labelled Go," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 127-151, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kern, Kristine & Kissling-Näf, Ingrid, 2002. "Politikkonvergenz und Politikdiffusion durch Regierungs- und Nichtregierungsorganisationen: Ein internationaler Vergleich von Umweltzeichen," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Standard-setting and Environment FS II 02-302, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. Kemmerling, Achim, 2006. "Diffusion und Interaktion in der Arbeitsmarktpolitik? Positive und negative Ansteckungseffekte am Beispiel zweier Reformdiskussionen," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Labor Market Policy and Employment SP I 2006-119, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    3. Mitchell Orenstein & Robert Holzmann & Michal Rutkowski, 2003. "Pension Reform in Europe : Process and Progress," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 15132.
    4. Dietmar Braun & Fabrizio Gilardi, 2006. "Taking ‘Galton's Problem’ Seriously," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 298-322, July.
    5. Claude Paraponaris, 2017. "Plateformes numériques, conception ouverte et emploi," Post-Print halshs-01614430, HAL.
    6. Barry Eichengreen and Fabio Ghironi., 1997. "European Monetary Unification and International Monetary Cooperation," Center for International and Development Economics Research (CIDER) Working Papers C97-091, University of California at Berkeley.
    7. Jeanie Bukowski, 2017. "A “new water culture†on the Iberian Peninsula? Evaluating epistemic community impact on water resources management policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 239-264, March.
    8. Mateos-Garcia, Juan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2008. "The institutions of open source software: Examining the Debian community," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 333-344, December.
    9. Catherine Long, 2017. "Delegated Service Authority: Institutional Evolution of PEPFAR Health-Based Program Implementing Units in Tanzania," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(3), pages 303-312, September.
    10. Sandberg, Kristin Ingstad & Andresen, Steinar & Bjune, Gunnar, 2010. "A new approach to global health institutions? A case study of new vaccine introduction and the formation of the GAVI Alliance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1349-1356, October.
    11. Sosay, Gül & Zenginobuz, Unal, 2005. "Independent regulatory agencies in emerging economies," MPRA Paper 380, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Muriel Figuié & Tristan Fournier, 2010. "Risques sanitaires globaux et politiques nationales : la gestion de la grippe aviaire au Vietnam," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 91(3), pages 327-343.
    13. Cynthia Couette, 2024. "Epistemic competition in global governance: The case of pharmaceutical patents," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(3), pages 516-527, June.
    14. Lütz, Susanne, 1998. "Wenn Banken sich vergessen ...: Risikoregulierung im internationalen Mehr-Ebenen-System," MPIfG Discussion Paper 98/5, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    15. Acosta, Matias & Szlamka, Zsofia & Mostajo-Radji, Mohammed A., 2020. "Transnational youth networks: an evolving form of public diplomacy to accelerate the Sustainable Development Goals," SocArXiv 8247s, Center for Open Science.
    16. Yannis Papadopoulos, 2018. "How does knowledge circulate in a regulatory network? Observing a European Platform of Regulatory Authorities meeting," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 431-450, December.
    17. Thor Olav Iversen, 2023. "Boundary experts: Science and politics in measuring the Sustainable Development Goals," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(4), pages 600-610, September.
    18. Elizabeth Caucutt & Thomas Cooley & Nezih Guner, 2013. "The farm, the city, and the emergence of social security," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 1-32, March.
    19. J D Smith & H R Glick, 1995. "The Right to Die: A Cross-National Analysis of Agenda Setting and Innovation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 13(4), pages 479-501, December.
    20. Ole Danielsen & Kutsal Yesilkagit, 2014. "The Effects of European Regulatory Networks on the Bureaucratic Autonomy of National Regulatory Authorities," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 353-371, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbsse:fsii01305. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wzbbbde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.