Paper Environmental Scorecards and Declarations

Many corporate paper buyers have developed environmental policies or guidelines for paper procurement which typically involve evaluating the environmental performance and social responsibility of their paper suppliers, or the environmental footprint of the paper grades they purchase.  The most commonly used product declarations and scorecards appear to be the following:

Ø  Environmental Paper Assessment Tool (EPAT) (1)

Ø  Paper Profile (2)

Ø  WWF – Check your Paper (3)

Ø  PREPS – Publishers Database for Responsible Environmental Paper Sourcing (4)

Based on several discussions over the years and recent interviews, it is clear that none of these voluntary systems are dominating the global marketplace, and none of them are recognized as an industry standard.  Many companies still develop their own environmental and social responsibility surveys to gather the information required from paper suppliers. 

A look at the history of these tools and some of their pros and cons may shed more light on opportunities for improvement.   For additional information on this topic, publications by WBCSD (5) and NCASI (6) are recommended.

Environmental Paper Assessment Tool (EPAT)

EPAT was developed by a non-profit sustainability organization (GreenBlue), in collaboration with several North American paper buyers and suppliers.   EPAT is based on the following seven desired outcomes for environmentally preferable paper:

1. Efficient use and conservation of raw materials

2. Minimization of waste

3. Conservation of natural systems

4. Clean production

5. Community and human well-being

6. Credible verification and reporting

7. Economic viability

Each one of these outcomes is measured by a series of associated performance indicators that include supply chain information.  EPAT is a web-based tool (https://www.epat.org) for member companies only.  Suppliers can enter data online and then give specific buyers access to the data.    Tom Pollock from GreenBlue explained that “EPAT reports on 20 key performance indicators across the life cycle of paper products and is designed specifically to not have emphasis on any single indicator. Because it is data-driven, EPAT relies on specific mill data and up-to-date industry benchmarking information to generate results. Companies can weight indicators according to their goals and purchasing realities, but there are also default weight sets for certain paper types, which some companies choose to utilize as a guide to create their weight sets.”    EPAT is currently the most comprehensive of all the scorecards and declarations in its coverage of environmental and social responsibility indicators. 

Most major pulp and paper producers in North America are signed up to EPAT, as well as several large corporate paper buyers such as Time Inc., J.C. Penney, Hearst Corporation, Bank of America, REI, Best Buy, Sears, Staples Inc., Starbucks Coffee Company, Transcontinental, FedEx Office, and Best Buy.  Laura Thompson, Director of Technical Marketing and Sustainable Development at Sappi Fine Paper North America explains: “The various scorecards are good informational tools but none of them capture the whole life cycle of paper.  Sappi currently supports the EPAT tool because we believe it is the most comprehensive resource available. Furthermore, EPAT does not build in a bias toward recycled fiber usage or FSC-only certification but rather it acknowledges all of the major forestry certification programs.  That said, customer inquiries and custom-made surveys are still the most common method of reporting our data to customers.”

The use of EPAT by J.C. Penney illustrates how scorecards can influence purchasing decisions.   Kim Nagele, Senior Buyer for J.C. Penney, states:  “We like the EPAT because it is fact based.  We have participated in the program since its early days and have done internal studies to become familiar with the scorecard and also decide how to weigh the various indicators.  We use a weight set based on a balanced approach that focuses on measured performance indicators instead of giving preference to certain fiber types.  EPAT scores now make up a fixed percentage of our total paper purchasing scorecard.  So, good environmental performance can definitely pay off for our suppliers.”

Pros

·        Thorough in its coverage of indicators and categories.

·        Mostly data driven.

·        Used by several large corporations in North America.

Cons

·        Weighting can be changed by the user and this influences scores.

·        There are some subjective indicators that can influence scoring.

·        Requires training related to its use and the environmental aspects of the paper supply chain.

·        Its use is restricted to North America.

Paper Profile

Paper Profile is a voluntary product declaration that covers relevant environmental aspects related to pulp and paper production including product composition and emissions, wood procurement and environmental management as average data within a specific reporting period.  It was developed by European paper producers and current participating companies are Arctic Paper, Burgo Group, Clairefontaine, Grycksbo Paper, Holmen Paper, International Paper, LECTA, Lenzing Papier, Mondi AG, M-real, Myllykoski, Norske Skog, Papierfabrik Scheufelen, Portucel Soporcel, Sappi, SCA Forest Products, Stora Enso, UPM and VIDA Paper.

Paper producing companies can apply for membership with Paper Profile and there are some costs.  Collecting and compiling the information for the Paper Profile is based on standardized calculation guidelines that are based on life-cycle inventory.  For example, reported environmental loading always includes loading from purchased pulp, in addition to mill site loading.  The paper profile only reports data and does not provide any system for ranking or scoring suppliers.  For more see:  http://www.paperprofile.com/index.html

“In Europe, the Paper Profile is popular and is used by many pulp and paper companies” says Sami Lundgren, Director of Environmental Services at UPM-Kymmene.  He adds “UPM is currently using the WWF Check Your Paper tool, EPAT and Paper Profile to satisfy customer demands. But the Paper Profile is the one we have used most widely over the past decade. In 2008, UPM was the first company to add a Carbon Profile (showing a paper grades carbon footprint) to the environmental information package available to customers. Recently, we have created a similar environmental information package for the pulp we sell to the market.”

Pros

·        Factual, only based on measured indicators.

·        Includes environmental loading from purchased pulp – an important element in the footprint of paper.

·        Can be expanded by suppliers to include other data (ex: carbon footprint).

Cons

·        Some key indicators are missing such as water use or effluent flow.

·        Requires technical understanding of the indicators presented.

·        Data calculations (i.e. LCI) are time-consuming.

·        Used mainly by European producers.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – Check Your Paper

Check Your Paper (CYP) is an updated version of the previously launched WWF Paper Scorecard and it is presented as an on-line paper rating scheme where paper producers, merchants and other distributors can input data, and pulp and paper buyers can search for products in the following categories: uncoated, coated, newsprint, tissue, packaging, specialty and pulp.  The database is open and transparent to the public and can be accessed at http://checkyourpaper.panda.org/

CYP focuses on a limited number of major impacts including: 1) forest impacts through wood harvesting, 2) greenhouse gas emissions, 3) water pollutants, and 4) wastes.  Each impact is allocated a maximum of either 10 or 20 points, adding up to a maximum potential 100 points.  The total rating is shown as a percentage figure and according to WWF this illustrates the total environmental impact of the product. 

Forty points are given to the fibre sourcing category and sixty points are given to environmental indicators from the mill sites, such as emissions to air, water and solid waste to landfill.  To earn maximum points on fibre sourcing, a paper product must contain high proportions of post-consumer recyled fibre and/or virgin fibre originating from FSC certified forests.  PEFC and its associated schemes (ex: SFI, CSA, other National Standards) meet WWF’s criteria for legality but not for certification and controlled sources.  So, paper without recycled content and certified under those schemes can score 10% at best in the fiber sourcing category. 

A scoring system that favours certain raw materials like recovered paper and FSC certified wood fibre may be limiting the use of CYP in the marketplace since many grades still contain virgin wood fiber and the certification system covering the most global forest area is PEFC and its affiliated standards (see www.pefc.org).  A brief review of some grades posted on WWF’s CYP web site showed the following:

·        Light-weight coated paper:  4 companies listed and a total of 12 paper grades.  The companies are SCA, UPM, Leipa and Steinbeis.

·        Uncoated woodfree paper:  5 companies and 20 paper grades (Mondi, M-real, Arjowiggins Graphic, Steinbeis, Lenzig Papier)

·        Pulp:  Sodra Cell AB was listed with 7 pulp grades.

Pros

·        Environmental data based on EU Eco-labelling scheme for paper.

·        User-friendly and simple scoring system.

·        Open and transparent.

·        The data for papers listed on the website is third-party audited and WWF strongly encourages independent third-party auditing.

Cons

·        Key indicators missing, like water use or effluent flow, air emissions like sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and particulates.

·        Rating is biased towards the use of FSC and recycled fiber.

Publishers’ Database for Responsible Environmental Paper Sourcing (PREPS)

PREPS is a joint initiative from nineteen leading publishers and includes a database of technical specifications and details of the pulps and forest sources for several paper grades. 

PREPS was developed and is managed by Acona, a UK CSR management consultancy.  Neil Everett, senior partner at Acona explains “PREPS was developed as a result of some of our key customers in the publishing industry needing more information related to forest sources of their purchased paper.  We developed the system to engage with mills and printers in order to collect relevant data that can be used by publishers in decision making.  The initiative is driven by the members who decide how they are going to use the information to influence purchasing decisions.  It includes information on forest sources and certification as well as quality indicators like basis weight, opacity, and brightness.  The database can be searched for key criteria and it now houses between 4,500 and 5,000 paper grades.”

PREPS currently benefits from the support of key global publishers such as Egmont, Cambridge University Press, Hachette, Harper Collins, McGraw-Hill, Oxford University Press, Reed Elsevier, Scholastic, Wiley-Blackwell, and others.  There are different levels of membership and associated fees which are outlined in the process manual found on the PREPS web site (http://prepsgroup.com/home.php).

Papers are awarded a grading of 1 to 5 stars based on a system developed by Egmont UK and Acona Ltd.  The grading system currently focuses only on fiber sourcing and does not include other elements of the life-cycle of paper.  However, improvements are underway to gather supplier data on water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.  PREPS gives preference to FSC certified fiber and recycled fiber as proof of responsible fiber sourcing, and only awards 3 out of 5 stars to papers certified using other third-party forest certifications schemes such as PEFC and its national affiliates.

Pros:

·        Simple scoring system.

·        Supported by several large publishing companies.

·        Covers several paper grades and several regions of the world.

Cons:

·        Rating is biased towards FSC and recycled fiber.

·        Missing important environmental indicators that make up the environmental footprint of paper.

Summary

Each of the above systems has, to some extent, been designed to meet the needs of their creators.  This can be seen by the selection of environmental indicators, and the way indicators are weighted to score or rate paper grades.  Out of the four systems reviewed, the most objective one is the Paper Profile which is based on measurable data and life-cycle inventory calculations.  This approach avoids the controversy related to weighting environmental indicators.  A similar approach was also used years ago by CPPA (now FPAC) in developing the Environmental Profile Data Sheet (EPDS).  Michael Bradley, Sustainability Director at Canfor Pulp who has been involved with a number of industry LCA studies explains: “The system that most followed a true life-cycle inventory approach was the EPDS.  Canfor Pulp still uses a modified EPDS to report environmental data to the marketplace.  It includes all the key data indicators, there is no weighting, it is product specific and it is independently audited.  The downside of the EPDS is that it requires a significant amount of time to gather the data and make the calculations.  None of the other scorecards or systems used today match the level of rigour that EPDS has.”(7)

These various viewpoints and preferences may explain why the uptake of these systems has been inconsistent.  The following features may increase the likelihood that some tools become used more widely:

·        Ensuring that key environmental indicators in the life-cycle of paper are included.

·        Avoiding bias towards certain fiber types used as raw materials.

·        Focusing on measurable data and life-cycle-inventory, instead of subjective indicators.

·        Offering a low cost and user-friendly system, including time required to complete.

·        Requiring mandatory third-party verification of the scorecard or declaration.

·        Getting endorsement from environmental organizations.

If weighting is to be included, LCA specialists would claim that it should be fixed (not open to modification by users) and developed using a multi-stakeholder panel of experts in life-cycle-assessment, environmental impact assessment and environmental management in the forest products industry (8).  This approach ensures credibility and also avoids “greenwashing” as explained by Terrachoice:  “The Sin of the Hidden Trade-off is committed by suggesting a product is “green” based on a single environmental attribute (the recycled content of paper, for example) or an unreasonably narrow set of attributes (recycled content and chlorine free bleaching) without attention to other important, or perhaps more important, environmental issues (such as energy, global warming, water, and forestry impacts of paper). Such claims are not usually false, but are used to paint a “greener” picture of the product than a more complete environmental analysis would support.”(9)

References

1.     https://www.epat.org

2.     http://www.paperprofile.com

3.     http://checkyourpaper.panda.org/

4.     http://prepsgroup.com/home.php)

5.     http://www.wri.org/publication/sustainable-procurement-wood-and-paper-based-products

6.     National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI).  2007.  Comparative Review of Environmental labelling programs.  Special report No. 07-06.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.  National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

7.  www.terrachoice.com/Home/Validation%20products/Pulp%20&%20Paper%20EPDS

8.     F. Cornejo, M. Janssen, C. Gauldreault, Rejean Samson, P.R. Stuart.  2005.  Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a Tool to Enhance Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA).  Department of Chemical Engineering, École Polytechnique – Montréal, (Québec).

9.     http://www.terrachoice.com/files/6_sins.pdf

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″.