Sustainable Paper and Print

Some of my recent work

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Riebel) — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:56:00 +0000

Over the past few years things have been busy:

I have participated in starting up Two Sides U.S., Inc. which is taking up much of my time these days. For more go to www.twosides.us
Two Sides also has it's own blog here: http://twosidesus.wordpress.com/
I have been writing technical material for some clients. For an example of that please go to: http://www.na.sappi.com/eQ/insights.html

A number of my other contributions can be found below.

Regards,

Phil

Five environmental impacts of electronic communications

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Riebel) — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:28:00 +0000

Below is a brief look at some key environmental impacts over the life cycle of computers and their various accessories, with the objective of introducing some of the environmental challenges that the ICT industry faces, especially given the perception that replacing paper and print with digital communication is "better" for the environment (1). The following information is based on a brochure produced by NewPage (2) supplemented by other references.

Overview of the life cycle

1. Raw material extraction

Computers contain several non-renewable natural resources extracted from the earth and processed, often requiring a significant amount of resources and energy. These include sand (to make glass for screens), oil (used for plastics), and several metals used in wiring and circuitry. The type of metals depend on the age of the components and can include lead, gold, iron, aluminum, zinc, nickel, tin, magnesium, silver, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium and others. Some of these are becoming increasingly scarce and sometimes their supply chain leads to operations with questionable social and environmental issues. For example, coltan is a rare metal that contains tantalum, a key component of electronic circuitry in computers, smart phones and e-readers. The global tantalum capacitor market is worth about $2 billion annually. Based on an article by the Globe and Mail (3), a significant amount of coltan is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo and helping finance a civil war.

2. Material manufacturing

After extraction and processing, raw materials are then used in the production of other raw materials for the computer's components. A publication by the United Nations University (4) has estimated that the manufacture of a computer and monitor weighing 53 lbs (24 kg) requires 10 times the amount of fossil fuels (over 530 lbs or 240 kg), 50 lbs (23 kg) of chemicals and 3300 lbs (1497 kg) of water. For an automobile or refrigerator, for example, the weight of fossil fuels used for production is roughly equal to their weights.

3. Computer and accessory manufacturing, packaging and transport

Compnent materials are then made into parts such as hard drives, screens and plastic housings. More often than not, these parts are shipped elsewhere for assembly into the finished computer. The computer or accessories are then packaged, usually in plastics and cardboard for protection during transit.

Packaged computers and their accessories are shipped all over the world, many travelling large distances from where they were manufactured. This influences the carbon footprint of the product, with truck transport contributing the most and rail or ship the least (per kg or lb of product).

4. Use

The volume of data being generated, transmitted and stored as a result of Internet use has exploded, and Web server farms or data centers have grown with it. Each facility draws a significant amount of power to run and cool the thousands of computers it takes to keep up with 24-hour-a-day fast-growing demand. It is estimated that the production and running of the ICT sector equates to 2% of global GHG emissions, similar to the airline industry, and this is expected to double by 2020 (5). As an example, every year 62 trillion spam emails are sent, contributing greenhouse gases equivalent to two billion gallons of gasoline, or enough to drive a car around the globe 1.6 million times (6).

5. End of Life

Based on the U.S. EPA, the U.S. is discarding older electronic products faster than ever due to the short life-span of electronics (7,8). In 2005, 26 to 37 million computers became obsolete. In 2007 about 1.5 to 1.8 million tons were primarily disposed in landfills and only 18% of e-waste was recycled. A total of 61% were exported for remanufacture or refurbishment.

Some of the constituents, such as lead, nickel, cadmium, and mercury, could pose risks to human health or the environment if mismanaged at their end-of-life. The U.S. EPA strongly supports keeping used electronics out of landfills to recover materials and reduce the environmental impacts and energy demands from mining and manufacturing (8). For example:

Recycling 1 million laptops saves the same amount of electricity used by 3,657 US homes in a year.
One metric ton of circuit boards can contain 40 to 800 times the concentrations of gold ore mined in the US and 30-40 times the concentration of copper ore mined in the US.

One concern is that large amounts of e-waste are sent to China, India and Kenya where workers may be unprotected and exposed to hazardous materials like mercury and lead in the process of burning electronics in search of copper and aluminum to resell. Greenpeace USA, the Basel Action Network (BAN) and The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition currently lead campaigns focused on e-waste issues (9,10,11).

Opportunities

Buying from a company that is making efforts to be sustainable is a good start. For example, the electronic tools used to produce this blog were made by Acer, NEC and Hewlett-Packard. All three companies have thorough sustainability programs outlined on their web sites, showing engagement with the key environmental and social issues (12,13,14). Anyone interested in "green" electronics should also be aware of the EPEAT Registry for Green Electronics (15). In addition, consider turning off your computer at night and weekends, donating old computers and recycling your electronics.

All manufacturing sectors have challenging environmental issues and are working to improve the situation. Paper, print and e-media will co-exist for many years to come. They all have either negative or positive environmental, social and economic impacts that can be continuously improved. Given the fact that forest products have such unique environmental features (renewable, recyclable, carbon capture and storage, supporting sustainable forest management), perhaps there are unique partnership opportunities with the ICT sector, especially in the area of sustainable product design. Server farms could easily be powered by renewable biomass from sustainably managed forests. With emerging research on nano-cellulose, wood-plastic composites, and bio-diesel, perhaps the forest products from my woodlot will also one day be valued, not only for pulp and timber, but for biochemicals extracted from woody biomass to make renewable plastic and bio-diesel fuel used in computer manufacturing.

References

http://www.payitgreen.org/

Paper has a head start – the public ought to know

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Riebel) — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:15:00 +0000

When made responsibly, it's difficult to find a more sustainable product than paper due to its unique features:

It is the most recycled product in the world.

It is based on a renewable resource - trees that can be managed responsibly to retain the environmental, social and economic benefits of forests.

It is produced using a high percentage of renewable biomass energy.

It can be re-used for many other applications.

It is relaxing to read, and simple to use.

It is more effective for learning and literacy.

Look around you. How many products have these environmental and social features? Most are based on non-renewable materials, have much lower recycling rates.

But yet we are bombarded with slogans like "Go paperless - Go Green", "Paper kills trees", and other negative and misleading messages regarding paper and print. At a recent NHL hockey game I attended with my son I even saw an ad (on the big suspended screen) claiming that the use of recycled content tissue paper is saving forests and "nature". It essentially told 20,000 people that "using wood to make paper is bad"!

Beware the Seven Sins of Greenwash

As a starting point we should agree that all products have an environmental impact over their life-cycles and all products should be manufactured in the most sustainable way possible. With that in mind, less consumption is better for the planet, especially given dwindling resources and rising populations. However, communicating the environmental benefits and disadvantages of products needs to be done with the product life-cycle in mind, and it should not mislead people. It needs to be factual, verifiable and not exaggerated (as per environmental marketing guidelines) (1). Claiming that a product is "better for the environment" due to one feature only (i.e. recycled fiber), is considered one of the Seven Sins of Greenwashing (2).

The sustainable use of recycled fiber to make paper products is good practice. However, by making recycled a "gold" standard and talking about "saving trees" we are doing our industry a disfavor. Here are some key points again regarding recycled fiber use in paper (3):

Recycled fiber is based on wood fiber. Without the use of wood, recycled disappears.

Recycled fiber breaks down after 4-6 times of recycling, it becomes waste.

A minimum of 40% wood fiber is needed to make the global fiber cycle work.

Without wood, the production of paper ceases in a time period between 6 and 18 months depending on the paper grade, including toilet paper.

Over 80% of recovered paper in the world is used for carton and paperboard, only 6% in printing and writing grades.

The message people need to get is that the world needs a sustainable fiber cycle made up of well-managed forests and recycled paper. We need both to make all the various paper and board products used today. In fact, they will both continue to be the main source of fiber for papermaking for the next two decades and beyond (4). We need to keep our working forests and we need to manage them responsibly, or else they will eventually be replaced by shopping malls and highways because there is no incentive for landowners to keep them. Forest conservation today only covers 12% of the global forests (5). In other words, sustainable forest management and developing incentives to keep our forests is critical for our environment. Replacing forest products with products made from non-renewable materials that involve more intrusive land uses to extract (mining, oil extraction) is perhaps not a more sustainable choice over the long term.

Paper already has a head start

In the past two years, the positive messaging regarding the sustainability of paper and print has gained momentum. Two sides (http://www.twosides.info/), a non-profit focused on telling the positive environmental story of paper and print has had good success and is present in 12 European countries and working on a start-up in the US. One of their success stories has been a campaign to convince major corporations against using misleading environmental messaging related to e-billing (i.e. the go paperless - go green message). The web site is worth a visit to view myths and facts about paper and print, as well as many case studies and resources for download.

Both Domtar (www.paperbecause.com) and International Paper (http://www.internationalpaper.com/apps/gopaper/index.html) have launched initiatives to promote the sustainable features of paper and make the connection between paper and well-managed forests. Here are a list of some other publications and web sites on this topic:

FFIF (Versatile Paper brochure) http://www.forestindustries.fi/Infokortit/Versatilepaperbrochure/Pages/default.aspx

NewPage (Ed brochure on "Balance") http://edliveshere.com/content/balance/25/introduction/

UPM-Kymmene (Forest Life Interactive Site with Video) http://www.upmforestlife.com/

International Paper (The Little Green Book) h ttp://www.internationalpaper.com/Apps/GreenBook/EN/index.html

WBCSD (The Sustainable Forest Products Industry, Carbon and Climate Change) http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/X1ZvkdDg4I9bOXKoXW8P/sfpi-carbon-climate.pdf

The tide may be slowly turning on the perception of paper and print. A stronger international voice led by organizations like Two Sides may be a logical next step, given that paper and print is everywhere and touches almost every person on the planet. This type of global network would strengthen the credibility, expertise and reach of a positive message.

In the end, it's not a question of paper vs other products (i.e. e-media, plastic) but rather a combination of products, produced in a way that continuously reduces overall impacts on the planet and meet our society's needs. However, paper does have a head-start on many other products due to its unique environmental features.

References

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm,http://www.csreurope.org/pages/en/sustainablemarketing_guide.html

http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/greenwashing-report-2009/

Metafore. 2006. The Fibre Cycle Technical Document. Summary Report, March 2006. 14 p.

Pöyry 2009. World Fibre Outlook up to 2025, 2009 edition, Volume 1, Executive Report (Confidential Report).

http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/

Paper Environmental Scorecards and Declarations

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Riebel) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:54:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Riebel) — Fri, 20 May 2011 14:15:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Riebel) — Fri, 20 May 2011 13:46:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Riebel) — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:49:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Riebel) — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:45:00 +0000

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

. 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

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

. The end result had absolutely no economic, social or environmental benefits to local communities in

Canada

or the

. 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

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Riebel) — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:47:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Riebel) — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:36:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Riebel) — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 22:24:00 +0000

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