The Perception Analysis of Forest Products Certification in the Wood and Wood Products Sector in Turkey

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2, 120 - 128, 30.11.2017

Osman Komut Atakan Öztürk

Öz

Industrialisation has improved a
manufacturing-oriented comprehension in the forest industry along with the
entire industry sector. The forestry and forest products certification, which
has been developed to ensure a sustainable development and to reduce the
pressure of this comprehension on the forest resources, is gradually gaining
importance. In this research, it is aimed to carry out a perception analysis of
the wood and wood products sector in Turkey towards the forestry and forest
products certification. Therefore, a face-to-face survey has been conducted in
131 managements operating in the wood and wood products sector throughout the
country. In the survey, the problems, which are expected to be encountered with
the effect of certification on sector employees, forestry activities, and
forest products market, are addressed to the participants in such a way that
includes the sub-propositions. As a result of the analysis
conducted, a significant diversity is observed concerning the opinions of
executives on certification and environmental certificate possession status of
managements. It is confirmed that there are noteworthy differences in opinions
of executives about certification in regard to target market status of the
businesses. In addition to this, the location and activity area of businesses
creates significant diversity in views of business executives towards the
certification. On the other hand, it is understood that the operating period,
number of employees and annual sales revenue of businesses don’t influence on
the certification perception of business managers. As a consequence, it has been
determined that forestry and forest products certification perception of the
wood and wood products sector needs to be improved.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Certification, Wood and wood products sector, Sustainable forest management

Kaynakça

• Bozlağan R. 2005. Historical Background of the Sustainable Development Thought, Journal of Social Political Conferences, 50th Book, 1011-1028.
• Büyükkeklik A., Toksarı M. & Bülbül H. 2010. A Research on Environmental Sensitivity and Innovation, Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 15(3), 373-393.
• Durusoy İ. 2002. Certification and Assessment of Potential Bottlenecks and Opportunities to be Encountered in the Process of Possibility, Implementation and Application in Turkey Forestry, Master Thesis, KTÜ Institute of Science and Technology, Trabzon, Turkey.
• Durusoy İ., Türker M. F. & Başkent E. Z. 2003. Forest Certification: Turkish Forestry Sector Perspective, XII World Forestry Congress, Congress Proceedings, A- Forests For People, Quebec City, Canada.
• FSC, 2016. Forest Stewardship Council website. http://info.fsc.org/index.php#result. (accessed 11 April 2016)
• Hansen E. 1997. Forest Certification and its Role in Marketing Strategy, Forest Product Journal, 47(3), 15-24.
• Koomson T. A. 2000. Implications of International Timber Certification for Ghanaian Timber Exports and Sustainable Forest Management, Ph.D. Thesis, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (Tufts University), Massachusetts, United States.
• Marx A. 2010. Forest Certification as a Global Environmental Governance Tool: What is the Macro-Effectiveness of the Forest Stewardship Council?, Regulation & Governance Journal, 4(2010), 408-434.
• Murray B. C. & Abt R. C. 2001. Estimating Price Compensation Requirements for Eco- Certified, Ecological Economics, 36 (2001), 149-163.
• Owari T., Juslin H., Rummukainen A. & Yoshimura T. 2006. Strategies, Functions and Benefits of Forest Certification in Wood Products Marketing: Perspectives of Finnish Suppliers, Forest Policy and Economics, 9(2006), 380-391.
• Özdamar K. 2013. Modern Scientific Research Methods, 1nd ed., Kaan Bookstore, Eskisehir, Turkey.
• Özmehmet E. 2012. Sustainable Development Approaches in the World and Turkey, Yaşar University Journal, 3(12), 1853-1876. PEFC, 2016. The Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification website. http://register.pefc.cz/search2.asp. (accessed 11 April 2016)
• SGK, 2015. Social Security Institution. Monthly Statistical Bulletins. Insured Statistics Month 2013. http://www.sgk.gov.tr/wps/portal/tr/company/statistics/aylik_ statistik_ information. (accessed 10 December 2015)
• Tavşancıl E. 2014. Attitude Measurement and Data Analysis with SPSS. 5th Edition, Nobel Publications, Ankara, Turkey.
• TOBB, 2012. Turkish Forest Products Council Sector Report, TOBB Publication No: 2012/172, Ankara, Turkey.
• Tuppura A., Puumalainen K. & Toppinen A. 2015. Forest Certification and ISO 14001: Current State and Motivation in Forest Companies, Business Strategy and the Environment, (2015), 355-368.
• Türker M. F., Öztürk A. & Pak M. 2001. Investigation of the Concept of Externality in Terms of Forest Resources and Forest Management in Turkey, I. National Forestry Congress, Turkish Forestry Society Publication, Congress Series No: 1, pp. 154-170.
• Türkoğlu T. & Tolunay A. 2013. Opinions of Turkish Forest Products Importer Businesses on Certified Forest Products, SDU Faculty of Forestry Journal, 14, 95-101.
• Trishkin M., Lopatin E. & Karjalainen T. 2014. Assessment of Motivation and Attitudes of Forest Industry Companies Toward Forest Certification in Northwestern Russia, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(3), 283- 293.
• UNECE/FAO, 2015. Forest Products Annual Market Review 2014-2015. United Nations Publications, http://dx.doi.org/10.18356/4f5cd0dd-en. (accessed 22 December 2015)
• Urungu A. 2010. Sustainable Development: Action Area of Applied Anthropology, Journal of Anthropology, 24, 133-164.
• Varangis P. N., Crossley R. & Primo Braga C. A. 1995. Is there a Commercial Case for Tropical Timber Certification?, The World Bank, International Economics Department, Commodity Pollicy and Analysis Unit, Policy Research Working Paper 1479, Washington, USA.