Green Grades 2009 - which company earned top grade for paper policy and what was Amazon's score?

One of the most interesting reports was released few days ago by ForestEthics and Dogwood Alliance. The report, entitled "Green Grades 2009" looks at and grades the paper sourcing policies of 12 office retail, general retail and wholesale/distribution companies.

Among the evaluated companies you can find FedEx Office, Office Depot, Staples, Target, Costco and Amazon.com. The report evaluates the companies environmental performance in six crucial forest-related categories: Chain of Custody, Endangered Forests, Plantations and other controversial sources, responsible Forestry/FSC certification, recycling and education and
other leadership.

The companies were rated in accordance with their performance in these categories. The best scores were given in the office retail sector - FedEx Office got A- and Office Depot got B.

FedEx Office excelled especially in the categories of responsible Forestry/FSC certification and other leadership as the report details:

"The company was also the first with a solid preference for credibly-certified paper (i.e., FSC), and has just announced that most of the paper used in its copy centers will be from FSC sources in the US. FedEx Office has also done the most to encourage its suppliers and governments to manage their forests more sustainably."

Office Depot also got kudos from the report's authors:

"Office Depot does the best job of tracking its forest sources, has the most detailed paper policy, has been the most systematic about avoiding paper from Indonesian Endangered Forest logger Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), and does the best job of tracking its use of post-consumer recycled paper."

Two issues that got the authors attention were usage of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), or other certification labels that according to the authors greenwash Endangered Forest logging and other controversial practices (examples for SFI users: OfficeMax, Xpedx), as well as sourcing paper from International Paper, which according to the report is involved with controversial Endangered Forest logging and has a role in converting forests to sterile tree plantations (examples for customers: Costco, WalMart/Sam's Club).

I was very interested in the scores of Amazon.com, which is the most related company among the companies evaluated to the book market. Unfortunately their scores were disastrous, or in other words their score was F. Here's what the authors had to say on Amazon.com:
"Amazon.com does not have a meaningful paper policy or other key paper- and forest-related sustainability measures, but appears to have no problem with buying and selling paper from Endangered Forests and other controversial sources in the Boreal, Southern US, and Indonesia. The giant online retailer ignored our survey, so questions remain about their paper sourcing practices."

Although I'm not sure how much paper Amazon purchases I have to say these results are disappointing and far from what one can expect from Amazon.com. I was especially disappointed from the fact they totally ignored the survey - that's not the way to treat stakeholders.

In all, though we get a mixed updates - some companies are better, some are worst - the bottom line is optimistic. The authors see the half full glass.

"Companies are using their purchasing power to benefit the environment. Most of the retailers are making large shifts away from controversial sources to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified paper. Several companies took steps to avoid using paper from endangered caribou habitat, and to encourage Canadian governments and forestry companies to better protect caribou in the Boreal Forest."

It looks like there's still a lot to be done, especially when it comes to wholesalers, distributors and retailers. Still, my hope is that this report will follow the example of Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics which gave the companies evaluated in it a real incentive to better their practices. We promise to follow it closely and report as soon as the fourth report will be released.

Thanks again to ForestEthics and Dogwood Alliance for this ongoing effort and for providing us with this important information.

You can find the repot at

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting sustainable reading!

International Paper believes that paper is greener than pixels. Is this really the case here?

International Paper published yesterday a press release on a new brochure in their Down to Earth environmental series, entitled "Pixels vs. Paper: Are pixels greener than paper?"

The goal of the 6-page brochure is explained as follows: "More and more people are communicating with electronic media. But are electronic devices the most effective environmental choice for getting information? Get the facts before you decide"

Not surprisingly their findings are favorable of paper use in comparison with electronic devices. But is it really so?

They're looking into couple of factors:

Raw materials - IP explains that paper comes from a renewable resource - trees, whereas electronic devices are typically made of plastics and other non-renewable resources and often contain chemicals and metals.

They also mention that "every day the paper and forest products industry plants more than three times the number of trees than are harvested -- paper is truly renewable and sustainable." What they don't say there is what trees are cut down and what trees are planted instead.

Mandy Hagith, author of the recommended book "Paper Trails: From Trees to Trash - The True Cost of Paper" helps to clarify the picture:

"No one likes to think of trees being felled, but many of us have a cosy image in our heads that it all comes from recycling or "sustainable" woodlands growing in neat rows, perhaps somewhere in Sweden. It's a myth. Globally, 70 per cent of the 335 million tons of paper the world uses each year comes from natural, un-farmed sources. In Canada, the UK's biggest source of pulp, 90 per cent of its output comes directly from its ancient forests."

The planting part of the equation is no better in some cases, as you can read about on the Green Press Initiative's website. Here's one example:

"In the Southeast U.S., highly diverse forests are being converted into single-species tree farms at an alarming rate. Already 15% of southern forests (32 million acres) consist of plantations...Tree plantations are not inherently bad, and can be part of a sound forest management plan. However, this is not what is occurring in the southeastern U.S. where vast areas of diverse forest are converted to plantations. Included in this region is the Cumberland plateau, which has been designated as a “biogem” by the Natural Resource Defense Council."

Afterwards IP adds in the brochure that "20 percent less CO2 is used per year by person reading a daily printed newspaper versus a person reading web-based news for 30 minutes a day". They don't quote the resource for this fact, but they make it look very conclusive although there are others who claim the opposite.

For example, one comparison of 'Dear Science' got to the conclusion that "if you're reading on an inefficient desktop PC, a mere two hours online may equal the carbon impact of the print edition," and another comparison at Fat Knowledge found out that "reading the physical version of the NY Times for a year uses 7,300 MJ of energy and emits 700 kg of co2. Reading it on a Kindle uses 100 MJ of energy and emits 10 kg of co2."

Energy consumption - the brochure mentions that "The amount of electricity to run a computer for only five months could produce enough paper for the average person to use for an entire year." They also write that "our industry is one of the biggest users of renewable, low-carbon energy in the world".

Interesting fact they don't mention is that "The paper industry is the 4th largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions among United States manufacturing industries, and contributes 9% of the manufacturing sector's carbon emissions." (from '15 Facts About the Paper Industry, Global Warming and the Environment')

End of Life - According to the brocure paper is biodegradable and nearly 60 percent of all paper in the U.S. is recycled, whereas only 18 percent of all electronic devices are currently recycled and E-waste constitutes the single largest waste export in the U.S. Here are two more interesting facts to be considered: Paper accounts for 25% of landfill waste and one third of municipal landfill waste (from '15 Facts About the Paper Industry, Global Warming and the Environment') and when paper degrades in a landfill it releases methane, a greenhouse gas emission that is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide (resource: The Green Press Initiative).

International Paper encourages you to ask the right questions before you choose between electronic media and paper and they're certainly right. It's important to get all the facts right on the environmental impacts of both options, especially when there are so many misconceptions about the impacts of both paper and electronic devices.

But as the information is still inconclusive, as we can tell from watching this debate for some time (you are welcome to check our eBooks vs. Paper Books to check research and articles on this issue), it is important to bring ALL the facts and not choose only those that are a good fit with your business.

If IP really wants as they say to "provide thought provoking educational pieces that help our customers better understand important environmental topics", they should add to their brochure some more facts that will give readers the whole picture and not just parts carefully chosen from it.

Yours,

Raz @ Eco-Libris
www.ecolibris.net