The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the Performance of Voluntary Environmental Programs: Does Certification Matter?
Abstract
The promotion of voluntary environmental programs (VEPs) as alternative approaches to traditional environmental regulation has fueled numerous researchers to evaluate VEP performance. However, these studies have focused on assessing the environmental performance of a single VEP. As yet, we know little about the overall environmental benefits of these programs. Moreover, questions remain about whether VEPs designed with different monitoring regimes—related to whether programs are self‐monitored or undergo external certification—vary in their ability to improve environmental conditions. Using meta‐analysis methodology, this article evaluates the aggregated environmental outcomes of U.S. VEPs drawing on data from nine studies and over 30,000 firms. We show that collectively VEP participants do not improve their environmental performance over nonparticipants. Rather, nonparticipants improve their environmental performance by 7.7 percent more than VEP participants. Additionally, nonparticipants improve the environment 24 percent more than participants in self‐monitored VEPs, whereas participants in International Standards Organization 14001 as a group exhibit inconclusive environmental performance improvements.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705 · Cited by 7,766
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
Cited by
Busch, T., & Friede, G. (2018) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.1480 · Cited by 345
Transnational corporations, biosphere stewardship, and sustainable futures
Österblom, H., Bebbington, J., Blasiak, R., Sobkowiak, M., & Folke, C. (2022) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-120120-052845 · Cited by 70
Metadata
- Authors
- Darnall, N., & Sides, S.
- Venue
- Policy Studies Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 95-117
- ISSN
- 0190-292X (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0072
- OpenAlex
- W3124690259
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 52.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the Performance of Voluntary Environmental Programs: Does Certification Matter? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00255.x
- The paper
- Darnall, N., & Sides, S. (2008). Assessing the Performance of Voluntary Environmental Programs: Does Certification Matter? Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00255.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.