TY - JOUR
T1 - Greenwash or green gain? Predicting the success and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental voluntary agreements
AU - Kerret, Dorit
AU - Tal, Alon
N1 - Funding Information:
The U.S. Geological Survey has provided all funding for production and printing of the Map Supplement. Hughes STX Corporation performed their work under U.S. Geological Survey contract 1434-92-C-40004. Research support for participating University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) staff was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Grant XOO7526-Ol ), the US. Geological Survey, and the UNL Conservation and Survey Division.
PY - 2005/9
Y1 - 2005/9
N2 - This article provides a detailed review of one nation's experience with voluntary environmental agreements and considers how the results should inform the policy and legal debate surrounding environmental contracts as a regulatory alternative. It begins with a brief survey of the American experience in forging environmental agreements as a regulatory alternative for environmental protection. These programs help to illuminate the different contexts in which contracts are drafted and how these circumstances can influence the substantive contents and subsequent implementation of respective agreements. A discussion of different approaches and indicators that might be applied to assess the successes of environmental agreements follows. Due to the large variety of voluntary agreements, a dichotomous categorization of environmental voluntary agreements is first introduced. A distinction is made between strong and weak environmental enforcement agencies, incorporating the broader functions that voluntary agreements can ultimately serve in contrasting contexts. This contrast is further developed in the following section, which presents evaluation criteria and predictors to voluntary agreements. The review draws heavily on the European experience and the existing literature that is emerging there in program evaluation of environmental contracts and agreements. In addition, different effectiveness predictors for each category of voluntary agreements are proposed as a basis for helping decision makers assess the likely future efficacy of new environmental agreements.
AB - This article provides a detailed review of one nation's experience with voluntary environmental agreements and considers how the results should inform the policy and legal debate surrounding environmental contracts as a regulatory alternative. It begins with a brief survey of the American experience in forging environmental agreements as a regulatory alternative for environmental protection. These programs help to illuminate the different contexts in which contracts are drafted and how these circumstances can influence the substantive contents and subsequent implementation of respective agreements. A discussion of different approaches and indicators that might be applied to assess the successes of environmental agreements follows. Due to the large variety of voluntary agreements, a dichotomous categorization of environmental voluntary agreements is first introduced. A distinction is made between strong and weak environmental enforcement agencies, incorporating the broader functions that voluntary agreements can ultimately serve in contrasting contexts. This contrast is further developed in the following section, which presents evaluation criteria and predictors to voluntary agreements. The review draws heavily on the European experience and the existing literature that is emerging there in program evaluation of environmental contracts and agreements. In addition, different effectiveness predictors for each category of voluntary agreements are proposed as a basis for helping decision makers assess the likely future efficacy of new environmental agreements.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33644517563&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.systematicreview???
AN - SCOPUS:33644517563
SN - 1546-3427
VL - 14
SP - 31
EP - 84
JO - Penn State Environmental Law Review
JF - Penn State Environmental Law Review
IS - 1
ER -