(2006). Forest Certification in Developing and Transitioning Countries: Part of a Sustainable Future? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development: Vol. 48, No. 9, pp. 6-25. doi: 10.3200/ENVT.48.9.6-25

Higher education institutions have an unavoidable responsibility to address the looming economic, environmental and social crises imperilling humans and ecosystems by placing ‘education for sustainability’ at the heart of their concerns. Yet, for over three decades, the practice of ‘higher education for sustainability’ (HEfS) has encountered significant barriers to implementation, begging the question as to why. Drawing on a diverse, interdisciplinary literature, we identify four structural impediments to implementing HEfS: (1) disciplinary contestation, which creates confusion over what ‘sustainability’ means; (2) institutional fragmentation, which prevents the interdisciplinary dialogue that sustainability demands; (3) economic globalisation, which transforms higher education into just another market opportunity; and (4) ‘fast and frugal’ habits of reasoning, which steer time-pressed academics towards poorly integrated decisions and unsustainable positions. Our analysis highlights that wider structural change within and beyond the academy will be required if higher education institutions are to meet their responsibilities and drive the necessary social transformation.

In the 1990s, civil society organizations partnered with business to “green” global supply chains by setting up formal sustainability standard-setting organizations (SSOs) in sectors including organic food, fair trade, forestry, and fisheries. Although SSOs have withstood the long-standing allegations that they are unnecessary, costly, nondemocratic, and trade-distorting, they must now respond to a new challenge, arising from recent developments in technology. Conceived in the pre-Internet era, SSOs are discovering that verification systems that utilize annual, expert-led, low-tech field audits are under pressure from new information and communication technologies that collect, aggregate, interpret, and display open-source “Big Data” in almost real time. Drawing on the concept of governmentality and on interviews with experts in sustainability certification and natural capital accounting, we argue that while these technological developments offer many positive opportunities, they also enable competing alternatives to the prevailing “truth” or governing rationality about what is happening “on the ground,” which is of critical existential importance to SSOs as guarantors of trust in claims about sustainable production. While SSOs are not helpless in the face of this challenge, we conclude that they will need to do more than take incremental action: rather, they should respond actively to the disintermediation challenge from new virtual monitoring technologies if they are to remain relevant in the coming decade.

Research in both public administration and place development has identified a need to develop more participatory approaches to governing cities and regions. Scholars have identified place branding as one of several potential policy instruments to enable more participatory place development. Recently, academics working in diverse disciplines, including political studies, public administration, and regional development have suggested that an alternative, bottom-up, more participatory approach to place branding could be employed. Such an interdisciplinary approach would use iterative communication exchanges within a network of diverse stakeholders including residents to better foster stakeholder participation, contribute to sustainable development, and deliver substantive social justice and increased citizen satisfaction. Building on this research and using an exploratory, qualitative, case-study methodology, our aim was to observe and analyze such interactions and communicative exchanges in practice. Drawing on the experience of the Australian state of Tasmania, we studied stakeholder reactions to the participatory place branding approach. We found that although participants were initially skeptical and identified many barriers to implementing participatory place branding, they simultaneously became excited by its possibilities and able to identify how many of the barriers could be transcended.

Purpose: Place branding research has recently focused on developing more inclusive models to better capture the co-creation of place identities. This paper aims to investigate stakeholder communication interactions in place branding processes to inform alternative, participatory, network governance models of stakeholder engagement.Design/methodology/approach: The literature on stakeholder engagement in place branding processes is sparse. Through a regional case study of the Australian island state of Tasmania, the paper combines participatory action research (PAR) with the method of sociological intervention (SI) to investigate how participants individually and collectively reflect on their practices and patterns of engagement.Findings: By combining PAR with SI, participants were enabled to gain a greater appreciation of how cooperation and collective self-reflection enhance effective place branding practices. Furthermore, by facilitating participants to compile a list of impediments to collaboration, the research informs efforts to develop more inclusive governance models for place branding. Finally, the PAR/SI method itself served as a practical tool to encourage enhanced stakeholder engagement in applied settings.Research limitations/implications: The approach is based on a single case study in a particular regional context and the findings require replication in other jurisdictions.Practical implications: PAR/SI is a practical tool to achieve greater stakeholder engagement and enhance collaborative social action through a process of collective, critical reflection in applied settings.Originality/value: The paper advances understanding of ways to operationalize participatory place branding through more inclusive, multistakeholder governance arrangements.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health restrictions temporarily disrupted food supply chains around the world and changed the way people shopped for food, highlighting issues with food systems resilience and sustainability. The aim of this study was to explore consumer-driven strategies towards a more resilient and sustainable food system in Australia, learning from experiences during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: During May–June 2020, a cross-sectional, online survey was conducted in Tasmania, Australia in a non-random sample of adults aged 18 years and over. The survey collected demographic data and posted the open-ended question: “How could Tasmania’s food system be better prepared for a disaster in the future?” Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the demographic data and thematic analysis was employed to analyse the qualitative data. Results: Survey respondents (n = 698) were predominantly female (79%), over 55 years of age (48%), university educated (70%) and living with dependents (45%). Seven key themes were identified: (i) balance food exports with local needs; (ii) strengthen local food systems; (iii) increase consumer awareness of food supply chains; (iv) build collaboration and connection in the food system; (v) embed clear contingency arrangements; (vi) support community capacity building and individual self-sufficiency; and (vii) the food system coped well. Conclusions: The consumer-driven strategies identified indicate multiple opportunities to increase resilience and sustainability in the food system to avoid future supply disruptions. Our findings indicate that considerable popular support for more resilient, local and sustainable food systems may be emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic.