The Business of Sustainability for Paper and Print

Published on The Digital Nirvana - Feb. 11, 2011.

Guess what? Being “green” and being “sustainable” are not the same thing.  Sustainability includes three elements, or three “pillars”: environmental responsibility, social responsibility and financial responsibility.  Sustainability takes into account the realities of our economy and our society.  In other words, it means that organizations or individuals should operate in a financially sound framework but also be socially and financially responsible in their activities and operations.

Think of the “environment” or being “green” as just one of the three pillars, and don’t dismiss the other two.  For example, a company may have a good environmental record but they may be faced with difficult social issues in some regions, like human rights abuse and a high incidence of workplace accidents, as an example.  Likewise, the financial status of the company may be of concern.  Corporate sustainability is about how organizations are able to effectively balance social, environmental and financial responsibility.

Sustainability is an endless journey of continuous improvement.  Profitability can always improve and so can air emissions, water and energy use, workplace safety, and so on.  Some companies are further ahead on this journey than others.

A few years ago I was involved with a study that attempted to identify the key traits of corporate sustainability leaders.  Here is what we found:

• Visible and active commitment from the top-down.  Is the CEO talking about sustainability?
• Engagement that brings external knowledge into the company, and/or effect positive change (ex: partnerships with non-profit environmental organizations).
• A set of sustainability principles that lay the framework for the sustainability program.
• Short-term and long-term sustainability targets (a visible commitment to future performance is key).
• Demonstrating continuous improvement.
• Addressing performance across the life cycle of products, processes and activities.
• Innovating, learning by doing, being prepared to try new things.
• Sharing, learning, influencing, setting standards.
• Transparent and credible communications that inform and teach (less “bragging”).

Some of the above signs should be visible on a company web site.  Below are some additional features that show engagement in sustainability:

• Large publicly-owned corporations who have been identified as sustainability leaders are typically part of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index , FTSE4Good Index , and Global 100
• An annual sustainability report covering environmental, social and financial elements, written based on GRI guidelines (Global Reporting Initiative) guidelines
• Recognitions or awards related to sustainability, or environmental and social responsibility.
• Certifications and eco-labels such as:
• Sustainable forest management certifications and eco-labels, ex: PEFC , SFI , FSC
• Environmental management certifications, ex: ISO 14001 standard , EMAS
• Eco-labels that cover the product life-cycle. ex: EU Eco-label ,Ecologo, SA8000
• Certification for social accountability OHSAS 18001  for occupational health and safety management.

• Voluntary reporting for key initiatives like the Carbon Disclosure Project.

In 2010 the following companies ranked among the top on the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes:

• Fibria Cellulosa SA – Brazil .  This pulp producer ranked as Forest and Paper Sector leader in 2010.
• Stora Enso Oyj and UPM-Kymmene Corporation , both from Finland, also ranked among the top companies in the global sector.
• Weyerhaeuser was the only Forest and Paper company included on the DJSI for North America.

Companies are usually selected for the following reasons:

• Above-average environmental performance due to modern pulp and paper mill assets, i.e. lower emissions to air, water, landfills, energy-efficiency, lower carbon footprint.
• Above-average financial performance due to low production costs and availability of raw materials at a competitive cost.
• Well-developed social responsibility and philanthropic programs.

To find out more about corporate engagement in sustainability people need to look beyond the environmental marketing that companies are doing.  Environmental advertising, claims and eco-labels only represent a small portion of corporate sustainability.  Company web sites should be reviewed to see how open transparent companies are when reporting of environmental and social performance. The sustainability of the companies you do business with affects your own sustainability measures and your reputation.

Key elements of sustainable paper procurement: Part 2

This blog was published on The Digital Nirvana on February 25th.  Part 1 focused on four key elements of sustainable paper procurement.  Below are the remaining tips.  For an excellent resource document see the WBCSD / WRI Guide on Sustainable Procurement of Wood and Paper-based Products.

Good pulp and paper mill performance reduces the footprint of paper (clean production)

Paper manufacturing is a key part of the environmental life-cycle of papermaking because it uses raw materials and resources including fiber, energy, and water, and also generates emissions to air, water and landfills.  The operational “eco-efficiency” of pulp and paper mills varies from one site to the next, based on local regulations and how mills have used best-available-techniques.  The age of the mill and the amount of investments made to upgrade technology and equipment will often drive environmental performance.  For example, final mill effluent quality and chemical use can be influenced by bleaching method used (e.g. elemental chlorine free (ECF), enhanced ECF with pre-bleaching steps, total chlorine free or TCF, hydrogen peroxide, etc.).  Greenhouse gas emissions are influenced by switching to renewable energy sources instead of using fossil fuels.  Achievable levels are well defined in the EU BREF Document for companies using best-available-techniques.

Environmental management systems, such as described in the ISO 14001 standard and the EU Eco-Management Scheme (EMAS), allow more efficient management of activities and processes to reduce environmental impacts.  Companies can become certified to ISO 14001 and EMAS to demonstrate continuous improvement in environmental management and performance.

A low carbon footprint is a good sign

Given that climate change is a critical global environmental issue, more and more companies are developing energy and climate strategies, and calculating the carbon inventories of their products and supply chains.  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 major contributor to the carbon footprint of paper is carbon dioxide (CO2) generated from combustion of fossil fuels (i.e. coal, oil, gasoline, diesel, natural gas).  However, disposing of paper in landfill sites, and subsequent breakdown and production of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) can also add to the carbon footprint.  This is another reason why paper recycling is beneficial for the environment.  A review of the literature and personal experience shows that pulp and paper mill sites that use a high percentage of renewable energy such as biomass and “green” power from the grid can significantly reduce the carbon footprint of their paper products.  Time Inc. commissioned a carbon study of some of their magazines that can be accessed here.

Other ways to reduce the carbon footprint of paper include:

·         Promoting sustainable forestry as a way of deterring deforestation, and ensuring that forests continue taking up carbon and mitigating climate change.

·         Efficient use of wood raw material.

·         Energy efficiency of operations and logistics.

·         Waste reduction and recycling.

Social responsibility is a key part of sustainability

Voluntary reporting initiatives like the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexrank companies based on their social, environmental and financial performance.  A good standing on the DJSI can help companies demonstrate sustainability leadership.  Given that health and safety issues are a top priority in the industry, many companies have certified their occupational health & safety management system under theOHSAS 18001 standard.   More detail on social responsibility indicators can be obtained by consulting the web sites of the ILO, the UN,AA1000, and SA8000.

Look for eco-labels that cover the product life cycle

Eco-labels are 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.  However, besides the sustainable forest management labels (FSC, SFI, PEFC) discussed in part 1 of this topic there are labels that cover more elements of the paper life cycle.  These include the EU Eco-label, the Ecologo, and theGreen Seal.  Of these three, the EU Eco-label and Ecologo appear to be the most thorough in their coverage of environmental elements.

Environmental claims can also be made as long as they are factual and verifiable.  For example:  “This paper was manufactured at a mill facility that has an ISO 14001 certified environmental management system”.  Claiming that single elements (like recycled fiber use) lower the footprint of the product can be seen as a form of “greenwashing” and can be avoided by following recommendations for environmental marketing such outlined in the Seven Sins of Greenwashing.

Check for open and transparent reporting

Open and transparent environmental reporting is a sign of sustainability leadership.  Annual environmental or sustainability reports should be available on web sites.  A growing number of companies report according to the standard guidelines published by the Global Reporting Initiative and undertake third-party independent verification of reports to ad credibility.  Finally, sustainability information can be reported on a voluntary basis to outside organizations (e.g. DJSI, Carbon Disclosure Project that will rank companies based on their performance and reporting.

The bottom line is that sustainable paper procurement is not as simple as most people would like and it goes much beyond buying recycled paper.  Your choices and your environmental footprint will depend on how engaged and educated you become about the topic.

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.