Key elements of sustainable paper procurement: Part 1

This blog appeared on The Digital Nirvana on February 18th.

The environmental impacts of forestry and pulp and paper operations have been extensively investigated, reported and in certain cases exaggerated and dramatized for maximum impact, including images of clear-cut areas of forest, mill sites emitting wastewater and air emissions. But, there is a positive side to communicate as well. Over the last three decades, the pulp and paper industry has come a long way in terms of environmental and social responsibility. In Europe and North America forestry practices and pulp and paper mill environmental performance have improved dramatically. Emissions to air, water and landfills are now a fraction of what they were 30 years ago. These positive changes have been due in part to more strict environmental regulations and major investments by leaders in the industry such as modern mills using best-available-technology (B-A-T) .

However, environmental performance is dependent on individual companies and the regions where operations are located. The strictest level of environmental enforcement is typically seen in developed nations and the least strict in developing nations. The same goes for use of B-A-T. For example, large multi-national companies may have relatively modern mill operations throughout the world whereas small or medium sized pulp and paper producers based in developing countries may still be running old technology and be faced with less regulation. One thing is clear: there has been a more significant focus on the sustainability of paper products in recent years. More paper buyers are now evaluating the environmental and social responsibility of their paper suppliers to minimize risks and develop business relationships with producers who are engaged in sustainability.

Below are some basic tips that help define “sustainable paper” based on procurement policies I have had the opportunity to review and key guidance documents such as the WBCSD / WRI Guide on Sustainable Procurement of Wood and Paper-based Products.

1. Reduce impacts over the life cycle of paper.

Paper has environmental impacts at all stages of its life cycle: raw material procurement including forest management, manufacturing of pulp and paper, paper distribution, transportation, recovery and disposal. The goal of sustainable production should be to lower the environmental impact, or the overall environmental footprint, of paper products over their life cycle. Reporting tools such as EPAT , Paper Profile , and the WWF Paper Scorecard assess product performance across a wide range of indicators such as percentage of certified fibre from sustainable managed forests, recycled fibre use, water and energy use, emissions to air and water, solid waste to landfill, greenhouse gas emissions, social responsibility, certifications and reporting.

2. Show regulatory compliance.

Most people expect companies to be in full compliance with environmental regulations. When problems happen, pulp and paper producers should show how they reacted and how they will prevent re-occurrence. Openness and transparency maintains credibility and good business relationships.

3. Promote sustainable forest management and biodiversity.

One way to prove sustainable forest management is for pulp and paper producers to certify forest land and their fiber tracing system using standards such as PEFC , SFI, and FSC . Additional initiatives can include the implementation of a biodiversity strategy or having policies against forest conversion and old-growth forest protection, to name a few. When paper products are labelled with the PEFC, SFI or FSC logos it is a sign of responsible forest management.

4. Recycle and use recycled fiber sustainably.

Recycling paper is very good practice, but sustainable use of recycled fibre means using it at the right locations and in the right paper grades based on economic and environmental considerations. In general, it makes more sense to use recycled fiber in lower end grades such as cartonboard and paperboard products (ex: packaging) than in graphic papers like magazine and catalog grades. Today, over 80% of recovered paper globally is used in packaging grades because the manufacture of these grades does not typically involve de-inking and / or bleaching (i.e. less cost and environmental impacts). Newsprint and tissue paper is also a large user of recycled fiber.

Other factors to consider are transportation distance of the recovered paper (i.e. usually near areas of large population density) and paper quality needs. In many cases, wood fiber may be a more sustainable choice providing a better balance between economic and environmental considerations. In the papermaking process, wood fiber can be recycled an estimated 4 to 7 times, after which the fiber breaks down and becomes waste. In other words, recovered paper is not an infinite source of raw material. To make the global fiber cycle work, a continual input of 35 to 65% of fresh wood fiber is needed depending on the grade of paper manufactured. If no wood fibre were used then degradation through recycling would result in the world running out of paper in within a period 6 to 18 months depending on the paper grade. Visit PaperLifecycle.org to read more on this topic.

Whether you purchase wood based or recycled paper, engagement in recycling of all paper products should be part of your life and your business. Stay tuned for “Part 2″.

Are environmental campaigns misleading the public? Part 2

This is the second part of a two part blog series where I discuss how a focus on recycled fiber and FSC certified paper may be failing to reduce the overall environmental footprint of paper products.  In part one I looked at: 1) The importance of life-cycle thinking, and 2) The use of recycled fiber in appropriate grades and locations.  My two last points below focus on forest certification specifically.

3.      The forest certification world is not black-and-white

Some groups claim that certain certification system (ex: FSC) are more protective of the environment at a global scale.  However, people should realize that there is variability among the same forest certification standard (e.g. FSC in one region of the world vs another), between different standards (e.g. PEFC Europe vs SFI Canada vs FSC Brazil), and between companies (e.g. company X using SFI and good biodiversity management vs company Y using FSC and no biodiversity management). 

In 2005, UPM-Kymmene conducted an International study to look at "on-the-ground" differences between certification systems in Canada, Finland and the UK.  The study partners were the World Wildlife Fund and DNV (an auditing company).  The key conclusions were the following:

• Five of the standards including PEFC Finland, FSC Draft Finland, FSC Sweden, SFI, and UK Woodland Assurance Standard (recognized by both PEFC and FSC) achieved a balanced approach to promoting the economic, social and environmental management of forests but with slight differences in emphasis.
• There are significant differences between the various standards in the number of criteria used for any one subject area, as well as in the scope and threshold requirements. The differences not only occur between standards in a country, but also between national standards within the same scheme. This reflects the local conditions and the values of the stakeholders who have been involved in standard setting processes.
• UKWAS met the requirements of both FSC and PEFC, proving that the harmonisation of standards at a national level is possible.

The study is available at: http://w3.upm-kymmene.com/upm/infocus/sustainableforestry/downloadables/Parallel_test_report.pdf

The study did not identify any systems as "destructive and inferior" nor did it identify certain systems as "much better", as some environmental campaigns suggested at the time and still today.  Since then, more studies have been conducted and all standards have improved. 

As a private forest owner, my land is surrounded by SFI-certified forests managed by forest products companies. Over the years I have seen FSC, PEFC and SFI forest management at work in the US and Europe.  All forests are managed differently and have different levels of biodiversity which I consider to be a key indicator.  Biodiversity may have little to do with the certification system used and more to do with specific management practices used by landowners or required by government agencies as part of obligatory long-term management plans.  For example, there is a big difference between a paper grade coming from an FSC-certified plantation in South America (perhaps where more biodiverse natural forest were once standing), and a SFI or PEFC or CSA certified grade from a Northern forest where biodiversity is healthy.  The level of conversion from a natural forest to a more "commercial" forest is a key topic to consider and it varies from one region of the world to the next, and from one company to the next.  In countries like Canada there are continually stricter requirements for promoting biodiversity on Crown Land and these go beyond the requirements in any certification standard.  Choosing one certification system over another may not result in significant "on-the-ground" differences given these other factors.

My suggestion is this: spend time in the woods, talk to foresters, learn about biodiversity and forest certification, and don't assume the certification world is black and white.  All the key certification systems can be effective tools to achieve sustainable forest management.  Biodiversity management is a key element of responsible forestry.

4.      Commitments to one certification scheme may not be good for business or communities

Globally, only about 10% of forests are certified.  Of that amount about 65% is under the PEFC umbrella.  In North America, about 75% of all certified forest land is certified to systems other than FSC.  Committing to one system only could reduce purchasing and negotiating options for paper buyers.  Grades that meet certain quality needs and specifications may not be available under a specific certification system.  In addition, some market situations may lead to increased prices of FSC certified grades. 

Commitments to one certification system only may not benefit local communities.  For example, years ago I was involved with a visible campaign that pressured a large US-based corporation to buy recycled and/or FSC paper.  The company eventually made a commitment to FSC and subsequently gave the business to a European mill that was receiving FSC certified wood from the UK.  The end result had absolutely no economic, social or environmental benefits to local communities in Canada or the US.  Commitments to one certification system only can lead to paper being imported instead of developing local North American communities where business and jobs are needed.

To get around these challenges many in the industry, as well as their customers, have adopted an all-inclusive approach to forest certification where they consider all the key certification schemes as credible tools for achieving sustainable forest management.  Competition between the systems has been healthy and has improved all of them.  Supporting inclusive policies may be an effective way to support responsible forest management and ensure price and supply stability.  It would also re-direct efforts to certifying more global forests rather than double-certifying land in the Northern Hemisphere.

Summary

There are many elements to consider in the design and production of sustainable paper.  FSC certification and the use of recycled fiber are key elements but they are not alone.  It is important to apply life-cycle thinking and consider the complexities of recycled fiber use, forest certification and marketplace dynamics.  These points are important to ensure long-term sustainability of business and measurable environmental improvements based on science. 

Are environmental campaigns misleading the public? Part 1

Well-funded marketplace environmental campaigns from groups like ForestEthics in the US have been promoting increased use of recycled and FSC-certified fiber in paper and have led some major paper buyers to change their paper procurement practices. However, the real environmental benefits of these procurement decisions are rarely discussed or investigated. It is assumed that just switching paper to recycled or FSC automatically benefits the planet. This is part 1 of a two part blog series where I discuss why a focus on recycled and FSC may be failing to reduce the overall environmental footprint of paper products, and how environmental campaigns may be misleading the public on forest certification and recycling.

1. Fiber type alone does not reduce the environmental footprint of paper and print products.

Although recycled or FSC-certified fiber are key elements of sustainable paper procurement, it should not be assumed that paper with these fibers will always have a lower environmental footprint than a similar wood-based grade certified to other standards, i.e. SFI, CSA, PEFC. Paper with recycled and/or FSC fiber can have twice the carbon footprint of a wood-based or SFI/PEFC certified grade, just based on fossil fuel use at mill sites and purchased power. They can also be manufactured at mills that have below-average environmental performance compared to industry best practice levels. For example, a de-inked pulp mill producing pulp from recovered paper could be landfilling all of its residual de-inking solids if it isn't equipped with the proper boiler technology to burn solids for energy generation, or if it has no other alternative for disposal. Such mills can have significantly higher costs and environmental impacts related to landfilling than a modern wood-based mill that re-uses most of its solid waste. Such environmental performance issues can also apply to other parameters such as wastewater quality parameters and greenhouse gas emissions, to name a few. Best-available-technology use at mill sites can significantly reduce the impacts of paper regardless of fiber type used.

The environmental footprint of paper depends on many measured indicators across the product life cycle and it is also very site-specific, i.e. it depends on forestry practices, environmental impacts of raw material suppliers, mill emissions to air, water and soil, waste to landfill, water and energy use, carbon footprint, chemicals used, etc... Life-cycle-analysis (LCA) experts typically weigh the importance of environmental impacts in the following order of importance: 1) global warming 2) eco-toxicity 3) acidification 4) ozone depletion 5) carcinogens 6) particulates, and so on. By focusing on reducing these impacts more sustainable paper products can be developed. Switching fiber type may not be the most cost-effective way to reduce the overall environmental load of paper products.

If decisions are made based only on single elements of the life cycle, like specific types of fiber used, companies will be excluding wood-based paper grades that are certified to other systems (i.e. PEFC, SFI, CSA) and have a lower overall environmental footprint than the recycled or FSC grades.

2. Ensure that recycled fiber is used sustainably

Paper recovery has several environmental benefits, but the sustainable use of recycled fiber to make new products must consider economic and environmental factors that vary depending on location, technology and the type of product manufactured.

In 2007, most recovered paper (about 82%) was used as a raw material in packaging grades such as carton board and paper board. About 6% of the global supply of recovered paper was used in printing and writing grades, and this is expected to stay stable or decrease slightly by 2025, although the total volume of recovered paper used will increase significantly. One key reason for this fiber distribution is that the manufacture of carton and board grades does not usually involve de-inking and/or bleaching. Hence, the processing is less costly and may also have less environmental impacts than when de-inking and bleaching of pulp are required for graphic paper production. Other factors to consider are transportation distance of the recovered paper and paper quality needs. Mills that are located near large population densities can acquire recovered paper more cost-effectively than mills in remote areas that are closer to forest resource. In many cases, wood fiber may be a more sustainable choice for papermaking, i.e. a better balance between economic and environmental considerations.

In the papermaking process, wood fiber can be recycled an estimated 4 to 7 times, after which the fiber breaks down and becomes waste. In other words, recovered paper is not an infinite source of raw material. To make the global fiber cycle work, a continual input of 35 to 65% of fresh wood fiber is needed depending on the grade of paper manufactured. If wood fiber was not used then degradation through recycling would result in the World running out of paper within a period 6 to 18 months depending on the paper grade.

Summary

Look beyond fiber and adopt life-cycle thinking. Sustainable product design and responsible paper sourcing should include use of recycled fiber in appropriate grades and locations, promoting paper recovery and using a life-cycle based environmental scorecard to evaluate product footprint (see Ten Ways to Green your Paper). Pressuring the marketplace to use certain fiber types when it doesn't make sense may not benefit the environment or the economy.

In the next blog I will discuss key points related to the forest certification debate.

Sustainable product design: why? what? how?

There is a growing market for sustainable products. Paper and print buyers are increasingly evaluating the environmental and social performance of their products by using a variety of scorecards or product declarations such as EPAT, Paper Profile, the WWF Paper Scorecard, or their own customized ones (i.e. P&G, Walmart). Organizations like SAM, which ranks companies for the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and Global 100 both use a survey- and interview-based process to evaluate companies for overall sustainability based on financial, environmental and social engagement and performance.

Why not be a step ahead of the growing trend and design more sustainable products? Some companies with strong R&D and innovation strategies have been doing this for years. One of my favourite examples is from P&G who used product life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies to determine that washing with warm water detergent used a significant portion of home electricity. This led to the development of cold water detergent and a significant success by capturing the lion's share of that growing market. Sustainable product design leads to innovation and business opportunities.

No hard and fast rules

There is no hard and fast definition for a sustainable product but I have made an attempt at outlining below some of the key features. In very simple terms, I believe corporate sustainability is an ongoing journey where companies commit to operating within a framework of continual improvement in financial, social and environmental responsibility. So, a sustainable product should follow this general framework, and:

- Be manufactured so that it is profitable but is also made by companies who respect global financial rules and systems (i.e. SOX) and are not being associated with fraud, corruption, etc...which vary widely from one country to the next. This would include suppliers as well.

- Have a low environmental footprint over its life-cycle. As an example, the basic life cycle of a printed product is covered by raw material input for pulp and paper making (including forest management), manufacturing, transportation, printing, distribution and final disposal. Along this life-cycle there are emissions to air, water and soil, and there is use of energy, water and other resources. The evaluation of this environmental load and its impacts is what needs to be considered. Techniques such as life-cycle inventories (LCI) and life-cycle assessments (LCA) are used to quantify this environmental footprint.

- Be manufactured in a socially responsible way, including the raw materials used to make the product. If a product has a low environmental footprint, but some of its raw materials are coming from operations where human rights are abused, then there is a problem. Some of the key social categories are: 1) Health and safety performance, 2) Corporate citizenship /philanthropy, 3) Labour practice indicators (ex: labour and human rights), 4) Human capital development (ex: human resource practices, non-discrimination / diversity, equal remuneration male/female, talent attraction & retention, layoffs), 5) Stakeholder impacts, needs of local communities and indigenous people.

If you visualize the entire supply chain of a product, and its activities and impacts on society and the environment, the picture can be overwhelming. Nevertheless, that is the impact of products we use, whether it's a sheet of paper or a computer. In the case of paper and print, sustainability and environmental footprint goes much beyond single features like using recycled fiber, fiber from FSC certified forests and a low carbon footprint. Focusing on isolated parts of the product life-cycle tells us little about the total environmental footprint of the product, and even less about the sustainability of the product. A narrow view of environmental and social impacts can be misleading, and can even lead to results that are opposite of what we intend. Here are a few examples from my past, to illustrate my point:

- An office paper grade being switched from Kraft fiber to a portion of recycled content and marketed as "green", but the carbon footprint of the product almost doubling due to fossil fuels used in energy production at the de-inking facility as opposed to the low carbon footprint of the Kraft mill where a high percentage of renewable biomass energy was used.

- A paper company marketing paper as "green" due to FSC certification whilst the mill site uses chlorine gas bleaching (known to produce chlorinated organics such as dioxins in mill effluent)

- Green labels given to several paper products containing recycled content when mill environmental performance (emissions to air, water, etc) is worse than modern mills using virgin fiber.

- An FSC and recycled content grade made locally, with twice the carbon footprint of a similar wood-based grade coming from Scandinavia.

Life-cycle thinking is essential, and it should include the design stage of paper and print products since designers and product development teams have a great opportunity to reduce downstream paper and printing impacts by thinking sustainably.

Developing a scorecard

A pro-active approach could include the following: 1) engagement and education about sustainable product design and understanding how your products rank in sustainability or environmental scorecards / evaluations 2) adopting or developing a scorecard system to evaluate product sustainability; and 3) integrating sustainable design into existing and new product development. An internal scorecard can be adopted or customized to include impacts over the product life cycle for environmental and social indicators. By having a complete (but practical) scorecard, companies can prioritize improvements that will increase their ranking or scoring. The proper weighting of the various indicators is important and should be science-based. For example, environmental life-cycle assessment studies will often weight key impacts as follows in order of priority: 1) global warming 2) eco-toxicity 3) acidification 4) ozone depletion 5) carcinogens 6) particulates, and so on. Existing product declarations, scorecards and sustainability evaluations such as the ones mentioned above should be used to help identify the key categories to track along the product life cycle for paper and/or print. In the end a customized sustainability index can be developed, in the same way Walmart is designing one for the products they are buying.

The development of a sustainable product scorecard and the use of techniques like life-cycle inventory and life-cycle assessment requires engagement and resources but it will prove useful in improving product design.

Key Links

1. https://www.epat.org/
2. http://www.paperprofile.com/
3. http://www.pgsupplier.com/environmental-sustainability-scorecard
4. http://wwf.panda.org/how_you_can_help/at_the_office/reducing_paper/paper_toolbox/tools_for_paper_buyers/wwf_paper_scorecard/
5. http://www.walmartstores.com/download/4055.pdf
6. http://www.sustainability-index.com/07_htmle/assessment/infosources.html , http://www.sustainability-index.com/07_htmle/assessment/overview.html
7. http://www.global100.org/