Forest represents around 39% of the overall land cover in Europe (FAO, 2020), with a highly variable distribution across the continent (Maesano et al., 2016; Maes et al., 2023). Northern Europe has the largest amount of forest land at 54%, while Central-East and Central-West Europe have the lowest percentages at 27 and 28%.South-East and South-West Europe have varying percentages at 32 and 36%, respectively (FOREST EUROPE, 2020). Overall, Europe has experienced an increase in forest area in the past few decades as the result of additional afforestation programmes and natural regeneration initiatives on less productive lands (Forster et al., 2021; Maesano et al., 2018).

Forests provide a wide range of ecosystem services, such as climate regulation, carbon sequestration, habitats that support biodiversity and hydrological cycle regulation besides being the focus of livelihoods for millions of people worldwide, with important economic outcomes, such as wood production, non-wood forest products, and ecotourism (FAO and UNEP, 2020; Ontl et al., 2018; Ontl et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2023; Gutiérrez and Lozano, 2022). In Europe, the forest sector contributes for approximately 1% of the overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employs closely to 2.6 million people (Eurostat, 2023). Climate changes, the expansion of the agriculture dedicated areas and the livestock grazing pressure, the intensive exploitation of forests and frequent wildfires have been causing additional damages to forests (Hansen et al., 1979). These major challenges intensify deforestation and forest degradation, significantly decreasing their global regulating role and the potential benefits to humankind, while increasing the unwanted greenhouse gas emissions, loss of biodiversity, and degradation of soil quality (Curtis et al., 1979; Prevedello et al., 2019).

Sustainable forest management and its relationship to most relevant worldwide goals, such as a low-carbon economy, halt the loss of biodiversity and the mitigation of climate change by contributing to climate neutrality, has boosted the growing interest in certified forest-based products (Yamamoto et al., 2014; Liu and Liu, 2023). This has been driven mainly by public policies that promote sustainable procurement practices for enhancing forest ecosystem services and related environmental benefits, along with the increasing need for design and production of renewable biomaterials (Michal et al., 2019a). European forest policies are highly driven by broader regulatory frameworks. One example is the Regulation on land, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF), which establishes criteria for how the land use sector may contribute to the climate goals of the European Union. The LULUCF Regulation, revised in 2023 for the period of 2024–2030, sets new goals to promote more sustainable land management practices and enhancing carbon sequestration of European forests (Ellison et al., 2014; European Commission, 2018). Additionally, the recent implementation of the Nature Restoration Law further emphasizes the commitment of the European Commission to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration (European Commission D-G for E, 2022). In response to those and other regulatory frameworks and related policies and, to the consumer awareness and demand for sustainable products many companies have now adopted sustainable sourcing policies that require them to rethink the whole value chain and products from certified forests (Zubizarreta et al., 2021).

Forest certification was developed as a tool to promote sustainable forest management practices and to reduce the negative impacts of exploiting forests and their ecosystems (Maesano et al., 2018). Historically, forest certification has emerged as an initiative from the private sector to fill the gaps of public policies and as an alternative to state-driven regulation (Cashore et al., 2004). The two main forest certification schemes globally are the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of the Forest Certification (PEFC) (Maesano et al., 2018; Yamamoto et al., 2014; Cashore et al., 2004; Wolfslehner et al., 2019). The FSC, established in 1993, was the first certification scheme to set standards for responsible forest management (FSC, 2023). The PEFC provides a framework for forest certification standards (PEFC I, 2014), allowing national structures to develop their own guidelines adjusted to local conditions and priorities. In addition to forest certification, European policies and guidelines like the EU Forest Strategy, which was revised in 2021, have placed a strong emphasis on sustainable forest management (European Commission, 2021). Moreover, an international commitment to sustainability has been established based on the concept that sustainable development represents an urgent need that should be aimed and accomplished by all countries through the coordinated efforts of a variety of individuals and organizations (Wolf et al., 2022; UN, 2023). As forests play an essential role in sustainable development and have a direct impact on the carbon cycle, climate change, and biodiversity (FAO and UNEP, 2020; Ontl et al., 2018, 2020; Silva et al., 2023; Gutiérrez and Lozano, 2022), they were considered in the original definition of sustainability, and their impacts were integrated into sustainable indicators and metrics (Kadam et al., 2021). For example, the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) aims to measure the environmental health and ecosystem vitality as well as climate change mitigation, both at the national level for hierarchical purposes (Wolf et al., 2022) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) give focus to the social, economic, and environmental sustainability (UN, 2023). The emphasis on sustainability addressed by EPI and SDG are very relevant and, as stated in UN 2030 SDG’s Agenda: “In sharp contrast to the MDGs, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are uniformly applicable to all countries of the world, removing the “developing “concept in sustainability criteria.

The forest sector must be sustainable and resilient in all its aspects including economically, and the certification procedures comprise additional costs to producers and forest managers (Michal et al., 2019b). The standards and policies related to forest sustainability are based on the concept that investing in sustainable forests can result not only in environmental but also in economic benefits (WEF, 2021). It is this potential valorization and economic return that is yet undefined and that needs to be further investigated. A recent study found mixed results regarding the economic viability of forest certification. It noted that while there are generally positive impacts on forest management practices, the economic benefits are less clear and often vary by region and certification scheme (Wolff and Schweinle, 2022). In Europe there is a limited understanding of the economic impacts of forest certification at country level. While much research has focused on the environmental and social benefits of forest certification (Rametsteiner and Simula, 2003; Ghazoul, 2001; Lehtonen et al., 2021; Elbakidze et al., 2016; Hain and Ahas, 2011; Ozinga, 2004; Mikulková et al., 2015; Ghidiu Bîta, 2011), there is still insufficient data on the economic viability of forest certification for forest owners, managers, and investors. It is not well understood how certification contributes to the overall economic growth in the European forest sector. Research specifically focused on the economic constraints and benefits of certification remains crucial. Understanding the economic implications and potential benefits of forest certification is essential for forest owners, managers, and investors. This economic perspective is not only important for encouraging greater adoption of certification schemes but also for ensuring that they can be scaled effectively. By providing valuable insights into the financial viability and profitability of certified forestry, such studies can help stakeholders make informed decisions, thus supporting the growth of sustainable forest practices while balancing environmental and economic objectives.

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of forest certification across Europe by combining economic and environmental indicators at country level. While previous studies have examined individual aspects of certification, such as its impact on sustainable forest management or environmental conservation (Ghazoul, 2001; Lehtonen et al., 2021; Elbakidze et al., 2016; Hain and Ahas, 2011; Ozinga, 2004; Lombardo and Maetzke, 2019; Kadam et al., 2021; Malovrh et al., 2019; Paluš et al., 2018; Rametsteiner and Simula, 2003; Dias et al., 2013; Melo et al., 2014), this study aims to help bridging the existing gap by exploring the connections between certified forest areas and economic indicators across different countries. Additionally, it uses a broad range of data sources, including technical reports and public data, to provide a nuanced understanding of how forest management practices and certification schemes influence national economic performance in the forest sector. The aim of this study is to provide an analysis of the levels of forest certification across Europe and identify potential correlations between certified forest areas and economic indicators related the forest sector, at country level. Particularly, the objectives of this study are (1) to evaluate the extent of forest certification across different European countries, focusing on the variation in certified forest areas and (2) to explore potential relationships between the amount of certified forest area and key economic and environmental indicators related to the forest sector at the country level. In this context, the present study explores the available information from technical reports, policy documents, and other reliable public data sources associated with forest certification and related economic indicators by country in Europe and infers the impacts they have depending on the types of forest management and certification schemes in the different member states.

The forest coverage and the certified forest area varied greatly across European nations, as well as their related economic indicators. This fact results from a variety of reasons such as, but not only, different types of forests, landscapes and climates, distinct ownership and management approaches, and diverse national forest policies (Kauppi et al., 2022). Despite variations in forest coverage across countries, statistics showed that between 2000 and 2018, the quality of more than 60% of the forest in Europe has increased (Maes et al., 2023). Forest certification has made significant progress in Europe by promoting sustainable forest management practices (FOREST EUROPE, 2020; EIB, 2022), a concept that has been growing in acceptance and popularity in both national forest plans and international forest policy (MacDicken et al., 2015). Our results demonstrated that the pattern observed within European countries in relation to forest coverage is not yet fully reflected in the proportion of certified forests (Figure 12). Even though Finland had the highest percentage of forest area and more than 80% of certified forests, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Austria, despite having lower forest cover had even higher certification rates. Several studies on forest certification have highlighted some of its environmental, social, and economic impacts (Lehtonen et al., 2021; Elbakidze et al., 2016; Loveridge et al., 2021; Wiersum et al., 2013; Skulska et al., 2020; Sánchez-Almendro et al., 2018). For example, Lehtonen et al. (2021) reinforced that certification schemes significantly contribute to enhance biodiversity conservation and protection of ecosystem services. Similarly, Loveridge et al. (2021) emphasized that certification promotes better labor opportunities, human welfare and community engagement, although the social benefits are often more pronounced in regions where forest s are owned, managed, or used by local communities. Although various studies have addressed the economic impacts of certification (Wolff and Schweinle, 2022; Muthoo, 2012; Zubizarreta et al., 2023; Panico et al., 2022; Rametsteiner, 2002), results and outcomes remain unclear.

More than 98 million hectares of the European forest, representing around 50% of the total forest area in Europe, are certified according to one or both two certification schemes, FSC (2023) and PEFC (2014, 2023), with more area PEFC certified than FSC within the analyzed countries. Results from this work indicated also that few countries were certified according to the two organizations at equivalent rates, most of the countries presented a prevalence of one of the certification schemes and the drivers and motivations for these might also be relevant for additional insights into policy instruments to drive sustainable forest management. This last result agrees with the findings reported by other authors (Maesano et al., 2018; Gomez-Zamalloa et al., 2011; McDermott et al., 2023). Some countries continue to have a more common certification standard (e.g., in Austria and Finland is more frequently used the PEFC, and in Croatia prevails the FSC). Other countries, like Ireland, have an almost equal percentage of forest with certification from both organizations. Ireland and Portugal who, according to Maesano et al. (2018), had no forest area with PEFC certification, now present forest certified according to the standards of this organization (59 and 10% respectively) obtained since 2004 (PEFC Portugal, 2024). Increasing the share of PEFC certified forests may have specific strategic, economic, and regional considerations (Michal et al., 2019a,b). PEFC was established with strong support from European forest owners and industry stakeholders, particularly in countries where it continues to hold a leading position, such as Austria and Finland, to mitigate challenges faced by The adequacy of FSC and PEFC standards, which integrate adaptability to local conditions and group certification mechanisms as strong features (Zubizarreta et al., 2024; Eggers et al., 2014), varies based on the environmental and socioeconomic context of a nation or sector, as well as the stakeholder perspectives on effectively addressing the main obstacles of forest certification (McDermott et al., 2023). In countries like Croatia, where most of the forest is managed by the state (Halder et al., 2014), forest certification is frequently considered as a means of validating the quality and competence of state forest management organizations (Cashore et al., 2006), but also one of the major procedures influencing wood exports (Bičanić et al., 2011). Particularly, FSC certification in Croatia plays a crucial role in enhancing their wood market competitiveness and exports (Klarić et al., 2016). On the other hand, the external credibility of companies with greater efficiency and economic profitability, as well as the access to international markets, have been significant drivers of entry into PEFC certification (Zubizarreta et al., 2021; Paluš et al., 2019). This tendency to increase the presence of both standards in many European countries is often a requirement to have access to international markets and a response of companies to the market trends, as the two schemes have no mutual recognition (Maesano et al., 2018; Zubizarreta et al., 2023; Burivalova et al., 2017) and different consumer markets may prefer different certification brands.

From an economic perspective, Czechia stood out as the country with a higher expense (IC) for certified forest area, but also with larger outputs from forest sector and connected secondary activities. These results may be justified by the implementation of historical national policies that favored conventional management techniques, focusing mostly on the production of timber and other wood products instead of more ecologic-oriented management models (Fanta and Petřík, 2018). The levels of those variables were noticeably lower in Italy and Spain. According to Martinho and Ferreira (2021), the production obtained from forest-related activities for the period of 2012–2017 was higher in Germany, Czechia, Slovakia, Austria, and Slovenia when weighted by the total land area of the respective country. Considering total revenues for that period (2012–2017), France, Germany, and Sweden proved to have the capacity to successfully explore economically their forest land (Martinho and Ferreira, 2021). Both studies supported the importance of forests in Czechia, but weighting the economic indicators by the ratio of certified forest area it was possible to better understand the dynamic between forest certification and the economy of the sector in that country. As expected, results from the current study indicated that in terms of GVA and NVA, Czechia continued to be the top-ranked nation, followed by Netherlands and Slovakia. Croatia, a country with all its forest land FSC certified, had a mean GVA value (116 €. ha⁻¹), suggesting some inefficiency to successfully and fully explore, and increase the outcomes, of its forested territory. Such economic pattern may be the effect of (lack of) internal policies, adequate incentives, and the predominance of the public ownership of the forest territory (Halder et al., 2014).

The results also show that CFC is higher at the high-income countries, such as Switzerland or Denmark. As CFC values are much lower than IC values, this may suggest that investment is needed in forestry sector, as claimed by authors in different regions (Brancalion et al., 2017; Degnet et al., 2018). Forest certification has been identified as one of the main factors that might contribute for supporting the investment in forestry (Chudy and Cubbage, 2020); yet objective data regarding the measurement of the amount of investment that forest certification fosters is lacking. Additionally, a rise in investment and the formation of green jobs has also been observed in nations with variable levels of forest coverage, from those with little to those with a large and established portion of their territory covered by forest (Martinho and Ferreira, 2021). In fact, forest and forest management have become further economically relevant as the result of the high number of jobs associated with the forest industry and the rising demand for certified and sustainably managed forest derived products from significant international markets for timber and pulpwood (Kauppi et al., 2022; Chudy and Cubbage, 2020).

The overall analysis of both consumption expenditures variables (IC and CFC) demonstrated a tendency for costs to rise along with the increment of certified forest area, supporting the fact that the certification process is often expensive, particularly at a small scale (Maesano et al., 2018; Di Lallo et al., 2016). However, this rise tends to plateau after a certain scale is reached within certification coverage (e.g., around 70% area certified) probably implying that it is indeed possible to sustain at scale a profitable certification scheme where costs are controlled, and outputs may be further increased (Kauppi et al., 2022). The forest output pattern evidenced a positive bias, increasing with the ratio of forest with certification, but quite divergent among countries with more than 50% of the area certified. This is most probably due to not only, different management and exploitation options in each country, but mostly to external conditions specific to each country, such as market access and political and industrial adequate frameworks, as economic benefits of forest certification are varied and context-dependent (Wolff and Schweinle, 2022). In terms of the relationship of both economic gains variables, GVA and NVA to certified forest area, it is generally the case that the more certified forest area, the higher the economic value of the country’s forest (Wolff and Schweinle, 2022), which supports market, political and industrial framework in the forestry sector. Our results clearly demonstrate that the correlation between the economic output indicators and forest certification is stronger with the output (gains) variables than with the input (costs) variables. This suggests that certification has a higher influence on the revenues from forests than on the associated costs. This result has, per se, a relevant impact on forestry management and can guide decision making processes on the type, extent and model of forest certification scheme to be adopted per country. National governmental authorities and their forest regulations have a significant impact on the economy of the forest sector, but the market context and access in the different European countries is also of crucial importance (Maesano et al., 2018; Cashore et al., 2006). Particularly, markets for timber and pulpwood encourage landowners to make expenditures in forest management to increase not only market value but also forest productivity (Chudy and Cubbage, 2020; Lehtonen et al., 2021; Loveridge et al., 2021; Wolff and Schweinle, 2022; Muthoo, 2012; Zubizarreta et al., 2023; Panico et al., 2022; Rametsteiner, 2002). In the last years, forest certification helped to promote the shift of forest management from timber and productivity to a wider range of other ecosystem services such soil conservation and water regulation, that further impact the productivity of the forests themselves, using novel approaches to forest governance that involve the interaction of public and private stakeholders (Schwaiger et al., 2019; Malek and Abdul Rahim, 2022), targeting goals completely aligned with those established within the EPI and the SDG (Wolf et al., 2022; UN, 2024; FSC, 2023; PEFC, 2023).

The findings from our work show no relation between the EPI (general) and the ratio of certified forest, with all the investigated countries presenting a score equal or higher to 50. The only exception was Bosnia and Herzegovina who scored 39. These results demonstrate the inadequacy of a general indicator like the EPI to address the impacts of forest certification at national level, as the contribution of forest sector is, in some way, diluted within the overall contributions of other sectors impacting the environment, such as ocean or other land-based ecosystems. The EPI ranks 180 nations worldwide on their progress towards enhancing environmental sustainability using 40 performance indicators within 11 categories (Wolf et al., 2022). Results from the EPI-TBG indicator, connected to global protection of terrestrial ecosystems in biodiversity and habitat (Wolf et al., 2022), reinforced the absence of link with the ratio forest certification of the European countries already observed with the general EPI. Countries like Italy and Spain, with circa 10% of certified forest area, scored the same value as countries like Lithuania, with 60% of forest with certification, and Croatia, with all its forest certified. Once more, Bosnia and Herzegovina recorded the lowest value, being the second country in terms of ratio of certified area and EPI-TBG value of 4.5. Not all the terrestrial ecosystems are forest-related, varying greatly in type, number, and dimension across countries. Since EPI aggregates data from countries with wildly varied environmental, social, and economic contexts across continents, it is inaccurate in identifying smaller variances between European countries. In general, European forest ecosystems are productive, well-integrated into surrounding forest ecosystems through ecological corridors, and successfully incorporated into the landscape (Maes et al., 2023). Having a rate of certified forests of nearly 50% across all EU just emphasizes these conclusions. Also, it points out the need to design and define further subsets of more comparable and informative indicators for the European reality.

Higher variation was observed between the selected countries when considering the SDG 15 indicator, target 15.2.1, proportion of forest area within legally established protected areas. This indicator focuses specifically on protected forest areas, which have a different status and focus than certified forest areas. Except for Italy and Spain, where the percentage of protected forest vastly exceeded the percentage of forest with certification, the trend among the nations with less than half of certified forest was for protected areas to follow along with the growth of certified forest area. No trend was seen over that threshold of the certified area. The area of planted forest is growing in Europe, along with the demand for wood and other services as carbon sequestration provided higher by forest plantations in relation to native forests (Freer-Smith et al., 2019; Baral et al., 2016). Although forest plantations are often related to the conservation and recovery of natural forests (Tomé et al., 2021), most of forest plantations are still mainly managed for wood production and tend to have low ratios of protected areas (Brockerhoff et al., 2013). The target addressing the proportion of forest area under a long-term management plan showed that Croatia, Finland, Czechia, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Hungary had all their forest area covered by such planning, regardless the percentage of their forest area with certification. Except for Italy, Luxembourg and Bosnia and Herzegovina (no data available), only Austria and Norway had ratios of forest area under a long-term management plan inferior to the certified forest. Scientific studies have highlighted the importance of long-term management plans in ensuring effective forest management: well-developed forest management plans are essential for achieving certification goals and promoting sustainable forestry practices (Rametsteiner and Simula, 2003; FSC, 2023; Florian et al., 2018). Additionally, the quality and implementation of management plans are linked to the effectiveness of certification in addressing mainly environmental and social aspects (Marx and Cuypers, 2010). These findings suggest that, although forest certification can be a main driver in both sustainable commercial exploitation of forest areas, as well as, developing long-lasting management plans, in general, European countries have a main concern to define and implement sustainable management forest strategies beyond forest certification, covering specific protected forest areas. The sustainable management of forest plantations, both at stand and landscape levels, is the most effective way to maintain the economic benefits of forest plantations while promoting their multifunctionality and the synergy between ecosystem services (Freer-Smith et al., 2019; Tomé et al., 2021). Forest certification schemes are critical for enhancing the multifunctionality of forest plantations by ensuring that sustainable practices protect both economic benefits and ecosystem services (Rametsteiner and Simula, 2003; Paluš et al., 2021; Kuuluvainen et al., 2019; Alix-Garcia and Wolff, 2014; Vallauri et al., 2022; Asbjornsen et al., 2022). Certification creates opportunities to monetize ecosystem services through mechanisms such as carbon credits or payments for ecosystem services (Alix-Garcia and Wolff, 2014; Vallauri et al., 2022; Asbjornsen et al., 2022). Italy and Spain have pioneered the certification of forest areas for ecosystem service verification, demonstrating that certification can facilitate new financial incentives for sustainable forest management (Vallauri et al., 2022). The attainment of sustainability in the forest sector in Europe differs significantly between nations (Raihan, 2023). This variation is influenced not only by the level of forest certification, but also by the definition and adoption of case-specific measures and national policies (FOREST EUROPE, 2020; Freer-Smith et al., 2019).

Overall, findings from our study reinforced that certification can help enhance the economic performance of forest investments in Europe, mitigating the risks and improving the trust of investors and allowing the access of forest industries to international and highly competitive markets. Regardless of whether forests are publicly or privately owned, if a sustainable economic gain is desired these results suggest that it is highly recommended that the various actors in the sector move towards forest certification (Wolff and Schweinle, 2022; Thorning and Mark-Herbert, 2022). Although countries with higher forest certification rates were not the ones with the highest economic inputs, Italy and Spain, both presenting the lower forest certification percentual values, were consistently the ones with minor economic revenues from forest. Through complementary methodological approaches, our contribution confirmed the relevance of forest certification in creating economic value for forest sustainable exploitation. Nevertheless, the decision to obtain certification as well as the direction of forest management practices can be strongly influenced by ecological and socioeconomic factors. These factors can operate as certification barriers in areas with less economically productive forests or where there are major obstacles to certification, such as limited resources or access to markets (Becker and Laaksonen-Craig, 2006). Our contribution aims to put the economic benefits of forest certification on the academic agenda and relate them to SDG 15. As our study focuses on the most recent data point (2020), this study acts as a starting point for further research by modelling the linkages between certified forests, economic value and environmental sustainability in a longitudinal approach.

Continuing to monitor forest certification and promote harmonized economic data in the future is crucial to accurately determine the economic impact of forest certification in Europe through specific and robust methods, and to design adequate policies promoting sustainable forest management. However, it is evident that there is a lack of studies more focused on enhancing forest certification and sustainable management with direct economic benefits to their nations. Moreover, the access to more detailed information related to forest certification and the production of forest wood and non-wood products, particularly at spatial scale, along with the development of more specific and adjusted economic indicators is essential for properly quantifying the impact of forest certification. These developments can significantly advance the state of the art and open new lines of research, such as researching regional differences in certification impact and exploring comparable and adequately measured long-term economic benefits of sustainable forest management practices. Our work provides further insights and a more comprehensive understanding of how forest certification influences economic outcomes in Europe and helps guide future policy and supporting investment decisions.

The study demonstrates that forest certification has the potential to enhance the economic performance of European forests and that more accurate data is needed to link certification schemes with direct environmental benefits for nations. Forest certification has a stronger positive impact on economic output (gains) indicators than on economic input (costs) indicators, showing that certification increases revenue generation while having a scale related effect on the costs. Although certification costs rise with forest area they tend to stabilize at larger scales, indicating economic scale sustainability of the certification process, often due to group certification. In practice, forest owners/managers can align their strategies with broader economic trends, optimizing their operations to benefit during economic upturns or mitigating risks during economic downturns. Additionally, forest certification helps to manage and mitigate risks related not only to major environmental and social concerns, such as deforestation, human rights violations, and biodiversity loss, by providing assurance that forest operations are managed in a responsible and sustainable manner, but also reputational risks. Risk mitigation can be particularly relevant for investors who are seeking to align their investments with these values and contribute to positive social and environmental outcomes, but also to more conservative investors, as it supports the production and valorization of timber and non-timber forest products in a responsible manner. Forest certification also leads to favorable social and environmental results by satisfying market demand for sustainable and responsible produced goods and at the same time providing access to international and more demanding markets from European forest managers and products developers. A deeper analysis of the obtained database, specifically correlating economic with environmental indicators, framed with European strategies and policies in place, like LULUCF and the Nature restoration Law, as well as the internal relevant national policies of the selected countries, could help to effectively quantify the degree of impact that forest certification has at European level and how European polices can help boost and balance the economy and sustainability of the forest sector across countries. Moreover, the findings highlight the importance of continuing data monitoring and harmonization, detailed spatial analysis, and developing specific forest related economic indicators to guide effective policy and investment decisions, ensuring long-term economic benefits and sustainability in the forestry sector.

Nevertheless, this work presents some limitations, as well as new opportunities for future research. First, using the year of 2020 as the reference year, mainly justified by data availability, may not provide a comprehensive temporal analysis, and future studies should explore trends over longer periods of time. Secondly, this study excludes social indicators such as, e.g., employment rates, which could offer a more holistic understanding of the impact of forest certification. Furthermore, the study does not account for the role of the different types of forest certification, as for example the Chain of Custody certification, which may be crucial for understanding the broader implications of forest certification.