Payments for ecosystem services (PES) programs are one prominent strategy to address economic externalities of resource extraction and commodity production, improving both social and ecological outcomes. But do PES and related incentive programs achieve that lofty goal? Along with considerable enthusiasm, PES has faced a wide range of substantial critiques. In this paper, we characterize seven major classes of concerns associated with common PES designs, and use these as inspiration to consider potential avenues for improvements in PES outcomes and uptake. The problems include (1) new externalities, (2) misplacement of rights and responsibilities, (3) crowding out existing motivations, (4) efficiency-equity tradeoffs, (5) monitoring costs, (6) limited applicability, and (7) top-down prescription/alienating agency. As currently practiced, many PES programs are thus of limited benefit and even potentially detrimental to sustainability. From this dire conclusion, we highlight several innovations that might be combined and extended in a novel approach to PES that may address all seven problems. Recognizing that PES necessarily articulate and even normalize values, our proposed approach entails designing these institutions intentionally to articulate rights and responsibilities conducive to sustainability-those we might collectively seek to entrench. Problems remain, and new ones may arise, but the proposed approach may offer a way to reimagine PES as a major social and economic tool for enabling sustainable relationships with nature, conserving and restoring ecosystems and their benefits for people now and in the future.

Optimists contend that crowdfunding, in which project backers use online campaigns to assemble numerous small donations, can democratize access to finance, but there are legitimate concerns that this funding approach remains discriminatory. Drawing on recent readings emphasizing the geographic components of Bourdieu’s field theory, we argue the relationship between crowdfunding teams’ resources and crowdfunding success is mediated by spatial capital—the ability to draw capital from other social spaces due to geographic context. We use logistic regressions predicting success rates for 134,098 campaigns launched in the USA on the Indiegogo platform between 2009 and 2015, combined with other spatial data, to model the relationship between spatial capital and other success predictors. Our models suggest spatial context mediates the relationship between resources and success. Rural areas, in particular, have lower success rates than urban areas, and affluent areas have the highest success rates. Given that only around 10% of Indiegogo campaigns are fully funded, spatial inequalities place significant limits on who can benefit from crowdfunding campaigns, suggesting crowdfunding may not democratize access to finance, as optimists hope.

No abstract

No abstract

Transnational sustainable development efforts often follow a project-based approach, in which funding sources, whether donor agencies, foundations, or firms, sponsor specific development activities, generally undertaken by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or social enterprises

Private environmental standards attempt, in part, to internalize environmental externalities. Offsetting firms’ environmental externalities by buying credits is one option. Another is insetting, in which firms attempt to address externalities and provide positive benefits within their own supply chain. These two approaches to internalizing externalities can be in tension, leading toward different types of sustainable markets. Firms adopting private standards as way of avoiding reputational risks may be more likely to support insetting than offsetting strategies if their primary goal is to distinguish themselves from the rest of their industry, but these strategies can also risk separating the market into niche, high-quality producers alongside a low-quality majority. These tensions play out in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), where offsetting and insetting exist side-by-side. Strategic pressures promoting insetting strategies lead firms to exit the system’s offset market, but this comes with the cost of losing some of the flexibility and lowered entry barriers the offset approach offers. New technologies might allow standards to combine the benefits of both approaches, keeping the reputational benefits of insetting and the flexibility of offsetting.

No abstract

New digital tools for monitoring forest‐ and land‐cover change have made it easier for civil society actors to call firms to account for deforestation. In response, companies in deforestation‐linked global value chains (GVCs) have turned to these technologies themselves. In contrast to many case analyses of technology in GVCs, which focus on how technology changes production processes, forcing governance to adapt, forest‐monitoring technologies change governance directly. Synthesising work on transaction characteristics and power relations in GVCs to address this novel situation, we argue that monitoring technologies’ effects on GVCs will likely depend on their accessibility. Proprietary technologies favour large‐scale operations and already established lead firms, while open technologies could support democratization. Treating forest‐ and value‐chain information as a public good could support more inclusive, equitable and sustainable value chains.