What question did this study set out to answer?

The study aims to understand stakeholder perceptions of certification schemes' credibility and performance in the bioeconomy.

April 22, 2026Open Access

Stakeholders’ perspectives on credible certification schemes and labels for a sustainable EU bioeconomy

Key Points

The study aims to understand stakeholder perceptions of certification schemes' credibility and performance in the bioeconomy.
Conducted an online survey with 58–82 responses per question.
Performed seven in-depth expert interviews to gather insights.
Utilized ISEAL credibility principles to assess CSL functioning.
Respondents view certification schemes as vital for sustainability assurance but express concerns about their credibility.
Key issues include proliferation of schemes, weak assurance systems, and lack of transparency.
Identified critical factors for improvement, including stakeholder representation and collaboration among actors.

Abstract

Certification schemes and labels (CSLs) are essential instruments for promoting sustainability across borders and managing risks in biomass supply chains. Their relevance in the EU bioeconomy is growing, yet concerns regarding their credibility and functioning persist. Existing studies on these issues are often fragmented and case-specific. The experiences and views of stakeholders across various biobased value chains regarding the credibility and performance of CSL are rarely reported. This study examined stakeholder perspectives across the bio-based value chain to identify critical factors influencing CSLs’ credibility and functioning via an online survey (58–82 responses per survey question), followed by seven in-depth expert interviews. Credibility and functioning of CSLs were assessed using the ISEAL credibility principles. Most respondents consider CSLs essential for providing sustainability assurance. However, they raised crucial concerns that are perceived to undermine CSL functioning and credibility: proliferation of CSLs, weak assurance systems, impartiality of the system, limited value creation and inadequate impact demonstration. The findings show that perceptions of CSL credibility differ across stakeholder groups and between CSLs in general and specific schemes. Our study identified interrelated factors on which CSLs could act to address the concerns raised: (1) imbalances in stakeholder representation; (2) conflict of interest, particularly dependencies between auditors, CSL owners, and certificate holders; (3) lack of transparency in the certification process; (4) lack of collaboration amongst CSLs and value chain actors; (5) limited scope and low ambition; (6) limited demonstration of measurable progress; and (7) limited value creation for producers. By examining these perspectives, our findings highlight opportunities for targeted improvements for CSLs and greater collaboration among stakeholders.

Demander à l'IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Khairani et al. (Sun,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e864866e0dea528dde95e9 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-026-01841-9

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

Demander à l'IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper