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/

Ten Ways to "Green" your Paper

DOWNLOAD THE FULL WHITE PAPER HERE

Every year, more organizations are evaluating the environmental performance and social responsibility of their paper suppliers. The use of policies or guidelines for sustainable paper procurement has become more common for large paper buyers, for instance, Time Inc, JC Penney, Unilever and McGraw-Hill.

A systematic approach to sustainable paper procurement can help paper buyers minimize risks such as buying paper with fiber from illegal logging activities and impacts on forest biodiversity. Sustainable procurement can also create business opportunities for paper producers who have made efforts to lower the environmental footprint of their products.

Ten ways to "green" your paper

Tip 1: Remind people of the sustainability features of paper

The World Wildlife Fund states:

"WWF believes that Paper is a valuable product that has been an integral part of our cultural development. Paper is made from mostly renewable resources and is an essential part of modern life, helping to increase levels of literacy and democracy worldwide."

Also:

The main raw material for papermaking, wood fiber, comes from a renewable and natural resource - trees (the product of sunlight, soil, nutrients and water).

Paper is recyclable and over 40% of paper fiber used in the world today comes from recovered paper.

The pulp and paper industry globally only contributes 1% of greenhouse gases and paper is often manufactured using a high percentage of renewable energy such as biomass.

Sustainably managed forests have numerous social and environmental benefits, including mitigating climate change by taking up carbon.

Few products that surround us today have these unique features. Many are more dependent on non-renewable resources and have lower recycling rates.


Figure 1: Ecosystem goods and services of sustainably managed forests. Source (1).

Tip 2: Reduce impacts over the life cycle of your products

As all products, 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. Paper buyers are gradually becoming more systematic at integrating this life cycle environmental performance into purchasing decisions by using product scorecards or environmental product declarations such as these:

- Environmental Paper Assessment Tool (EPAT)
- Paper Profile
- Proctor & Gamble, Environmental Sustainability Scorecard
- WWF Paper Scorecard
- Walmart Supplier Sustainability Scorecard

These reporting tools assess product performance across a wide range of indicators such as percentage of certified fiber from sustainable managed forests, recycled fiber use, water and energy use, emissions to air and water, solid waste to landfill, greenhouse gas emissions, social responsibility, certifications and reporting.


Figure 2: The life-cycle of paper. Courtesy: UPM-Kymmene Group.

Tip 3: Show regulatory compliance

Most customers expect full compliance with environmental regulations. It is best to be open and clear about any regulatory problems as soon as possible rather than your customers hearing it via a news release or a competitor. When problems happen, show how you reacted and how you will prevent re-occurrence. Openness and transparency maintains good business relationships.

If performance is good and there is a wide gap between your emission levels and the regulatory requirements, then that is key message to send to customers.

Tip 4: Promote sustainable fiber use and biodiversity

Sustainably managed forest and recovered paper are expected to continue being the main sources of raw material for an increasing global need in paper products. Alternative fibers (non-wood based) made up only 4% of the global fiber supply in 2008, and this is forecasted to decrease to 2.8% by 2025, although volumes used will increase. As a result, non-wood fibers are not readily available for most papermaking. At a global scale, the use of more recovered paper will not result in a decrease in forest management. In fact, the opposite is true due to the forecasted growth in paper consumption. Hence, more paper recovery is needed in many regions of the globe, as well as more sustainable forest management.


Figure 3: The abundance and diversity of bird species is a good indicator of sustainable forest management and attention to biodiversity. Photo: Pileated woodpecker building nest (Copyright Phil Riebel).

Tip 5: Clean production will help your score

Paper scorecards typically include the following environmental indicators that relate to the performance of pulp and paper mill sites:

- Air emissions (e.g. SO2, NOx, TRS)
- Energy use
- Wastewater emissions (e.g. COD, BOD5, TSS, nitrogen, phosphorus)
- Solid waste to landfill
- Greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2 from use of fossil fuels, methane emissions from landfills)

Depending on how these indicators are weighted within a scorecard, they can significantly influence the final score. Therefore, good performance of pulp and paper mill facilities can help obtain more business if other product features are also competitive.

Tip 6: Have a strategy to lower your carbon footprint

The carbon footprint of paper can be defined as greenhouse gas emissions emitted to the atmosphere during the entire life-cycle of paper production and distribution. The most common methods used for greenhouse gas inventories in the pulp and paper industry are those of the World Resources Institute, the British Standards Institute, and CEPI.

Based on results of recent carbon footprint and life-cycle assessment studies, it is clear that pulp and paper mill sites using a high percentage of renewable energy such as biomass and "green" electricity from the grid can significantly reduce the carbon footprint of their paper products, up to 80% in some cases. Reducing organic waste to landfill avoids methane production (a powerful greenhouse gas). Land filling paper products can contribute up to 15% or more of the carbon footprint over the life cycle of the final product.


Figure 4: Efficient use of forest biomass for energy can help reduce the carbon footprint of paper products. Photo: Roadside thinned wood in Finland (Copyright Phil Riebel).

Tip 7: Show social responsibility

Social responsibility is also a key element of sustainability, and social indicators are included in some paper scorecards like the EPAT. Certain voluntary reporting initiatives like the Dow Jones Sustainability Index also rank companies based on their social, environmental and financial performance. A good standing on the DJSI can help companies demonstrate sustainability leadership. Certification to the SA8000 International standard for social accountability is another way to show good management of social issues. Given that health and safety issues are a top priority in the industry, many companies have certified their occupational health and safety management system under the OHSAS 18001 standard.

Tip 8: Promote certification and eco-labels

The use of third-party verified certification systems and eco-labels is a sign of environmental commitment and performance. The most well know of these labels is the Mobius Loop indicating recycled fiber content or recyclability of products. Although there are many standards and labels in use globally, the most common ones are included below.

Sustainable forest management based on standards from:

- Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and its affiliate programs throughout the world (e.g. SFI in North America)
- Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
- Chain-of-custody and use of eco-labels for fiber use (standards from same organizations as above)
- Environmental management system (ISO 14001 standard, Eco-management Audit Scheme or EMAS)
- Eco-labels for overall environmental performance (EU Eco-label, Ecologo - Canada, Green Seal - USA) Reporting standard (Global Reporting Initiative)


Figure 5: Some common environmental labels used the show product environmental stewardship and transparent reporting.

Tip 9: Be open and transparent in sustainability reporting

Open and transparent environmental reporting is a sign of sustainability leadership. Annual environmental or sustainability reports are produced by many companies, either at the facility level, corporate level, or both. Guidelines of the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) are often cited as a standard for sustainability and environmental reporting. Third party independent verification of reports can add credibility to reporting initiatives, as done under the EU Eco-management Scheme (EMAS) or GRI.

In addition to annual reports, sustainability information can also be reported on a voluntary basis to outside organizations (e.g. DJSI, Carbon Disclosure Project) that will rank companies based on their sustainability performance and/or reporting.

Tip 10: Provide top environmental service

Providing expert environmental support to customers can add value to certain business relationships. Services offered can include: answering inquiries, training on key environmental topics, assistance in developing sustainable paper procurement policies, developing environmental partnership projects.

Finally, the above suggestions will only generate marketplace benefits with effective environmental marketing and a visible presence. Ensuring that your employees are knowledgeable and environmentally aware is a great way to demonstrate sustainability of your company and products.

More information can also be found by visiting the following links:

1. World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute. 2009. Sustainable Procurement of Wood and Paper-based Products: Guide and Resource kit, Version 1.1. http://www.wri.org/publication/sustainable-procurement-wood-and-paper-based-products

2. Forest Products Association of Canada, Pricewaterhouse Coopers. 2008. A buyer's guide to sustainable forest products, 2008. http://www.fpac.ca/publications/FPAC_BuyerGuide-Eng08.pdf

3. The DMA Green 15 Toolkit. http://www.the-dma.org/Green15Toolkit/

4. European Commission Green Public Procurement (GPP) Training Toolkit - Module 3: Purchasing Recommendations. Copying and Graphic Paper: Background Product report. 2008. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/toolkit/paper_GPP_background_report.pdf