My article on Triple Pundit about the 7 companies that have just moved away from SFI

Here's an update on a new article I published yesterday on Triple Pundit with the latest news on the SFI forestry certification. This time it's about 7 companies, including Pitney Bowes, Ruby Tuesday, Phillips Van Heusen, and US Airways are taking action to avoid the use of the SFI label. It also includes a short interview with Aaron Sanger, Director of U.S. campaigns at ForestEthics.

The article is entitled '7 More Companies Reject SFI'. Here's the first part of the article:

When you see a headline about a new batch of companies moving away from something, you usually can bet it’s either APP, the paper company operating in Indonesia, or SFI, the forestry certification. This time it’s SFI, and the list is of seven companies, including Pitney Bowes, Ruby Tuesday, Phillips Van Heusen, and US Airways that are taking action to avoid the use of the SFI label. Ruby Tuesday, for example, has made a commitment to avoid any use or promotion of the SFI logo and name in conjunction with its brand, products or services, and US Airways has committed to avoid any use or promotion of the SFI logo or SFI certified products.

To read the full article go to http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/05/7-companies-moving-away-sfi-tipping-point-getting-closer/

Links to other articles I wrote for Triple Pundit can be found at http://www.triplepundit.com/author/raz-godelnik/

To read more on the fight between FSC and SFI, visit our website at http://www.ecolibris.net/SFI_or_FSC.asp

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant trees for your books!

My article on Triple Pundit about the help SFI certification gets from Maine Governor Paul LePage

Here's an update on a new article I published today on Triple Pundit with the latest news on the new battleground between SFI and FSC certifications.

This time it's Maine, where Governor LePage signed an executive order directing that that “any new or expanded state buildings shall incorporate ‘Green Building’ standards that give certification credits equally to forest products grown, manufactured, and certified under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard, Forest Stewardship Council, American Tree Farm System, and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification systems.”

The article is entitled 'Maine’s Governor Helps SFI Win an Important Battle Over FSC'. Here's the first part of the article:

I have to admit that I got it wrong. Last September, I wrote here about the battle between the competing forest products certification Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Forest Stewardship Council (SFI). I thought that the fact that seven large companies decided to reject the SFI certification meant that SFI is going to lose this battle, unless it worked with environmental organizations to improve its credibility. I didn’t take into consideration one factor that can change this balance of power and help SFI swiftly recover: friendly politicians.

To read the full article go to http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/12/sfi-wins-battle-fsc-maine-timber-friendly-governor/

Links to other articles I wrote for Triple Pundit can be found at http://www.triplepundit.com/author/raz-godelnik/

To read more on the fight between FSC and SFI, visit our website at http://www.ecolibris.net/SFI_or_FSC.asp

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant trees for your books!

SFI is losing another battle against FSC with seven companies deciding to stop using it

ForestEthics announced earlier this week that seven companies, including five Fortune 500 companies has joined a growing corporate movement against the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), a controversial forestry certification.

Here is a summary of actions or commitments by these seven companies as provided by ForestEthics:

• Sprint will shift all billing statement paper from SFI to Forest Stewardship Council, a more rigorous label, and will phase out use of the SFI logo on billing envelopes. Finally, Sprint has committed to give purchasing preference to FSC-certified paper.
• Norm Thompson Outfitters removed all references to SFI in print materials and websites and committed to avoid promotion of SFI.
• King Arthur Flour stopped using the SFI logo on its catalogs and switched to FSC certified paper.
• AT&T committed to avoid using the SFI logo and name in its materials, and to give purchasing preference to FSC certified products for all new paper purchases.
• State Farm changed the paper for its biggest promotional item, the State Farm Road Atlas, from SFI to FSC – and committed to state a preference for FSC when the company revises its comprehensive paper policy.
• U.S. Bank committed to avoid using the SFI name and logo on printed materials and other company communications, and to use only the FSC seal when a forest eco-label is used.
• Comcast committed to steps that will avoid future company promotion of SFI.

You can read my analysis on the latest round in the fight on the credibility of the SFI certification and its implications on Triple Pundit.

More articles on this issue:

SFI has released an upgraded standard. Will it be enough to compete with FSC?

ForestEthics is fighting the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certification

You can find more resources on our page - SFI vs. FSC

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant trees for your books!

SFI has released an upgraded standard. Will it be enough to compete with FSC?

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) is a forest certification program, which so far was considered by many not as credible or effective at conserving forest resources as the FSC certification. Now SFI has released a new and upgraded standard. Will it change anything? Will SFI become equal to FSC?

The SFI certification program was founded in 1995 by timber and paper companies as an alternative to FSC program, which was formed in 1993 by international environmental groups. On the SFI website you can read that the SFI® label is "a sign you are buying wood and paper products from a responsible source, backed by a rigorous, third-party certification audit." Others see it a bit differently, like ForestEthics, who argues that the SFI "promotes lax industry-manipulated standards".

A good place to learn more about the claims against the SFI is http://credibleforestcertification.org. This site was launched by the Alliance for Credible Forest Certification, which is comprised of non-profit conservation organizations and others dedicated to credible certification and other market-based solutions for protecting and restoring forest ecosystems, including American Lands Alliance, Dogwood Alliance, ForestEthics, Greenpeace, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Council Maine, Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club.

This website includes links to many comparisons between FSC and SFI. The conclusion of all of them is similar - SFI is not as credible as FSC. Here's one example from iGreenBuild.com:

In 2004, the Forests & European Union Resource Network (FERN) released “Footprints in the Forest: Current Practice and Future Challenges in Forest Certification.”2 The report examined eight certification systems from around the globe. While the report raised concerns with all the systems, FERN found the FSC “remains by far the most independent, rigorous and, therefore, credible certification system” and “only the FSC…deserves the confidence of consumers.” FERN found the SFI “[is] probably one of the least credible of all schemes researched” and fails to rely on performance based standards, consult with stakeholders, and use chain-of-custody product tracking.

And now what? Kathy Abusow of SFI updated that "You’ll see our new standard improves conservation of biodiversity, recognizes emerging issues such as climate change and bioenergy, and expands logger training in North America. It has made our fiber sourcing requirements stronger, and complements SFI activities aimed at avoiding controversial or illegal offshore fiber sources."

As reported on Environmental Leader, the standard also has 20 objectives, 39 performance measures and 114 indicators, which is up from 13 objectives, 34 performance measures, and 102 indicators in the previous version. To be certified, forest operations must be third-party audited by independent and accredited certification bodies, says SFI.

You can find a detailed summary of significant revisions in the SFI 2010-2014 Standard on this link.

Will these changes be satisfactory? We'll have to wait and see, but a good indication will be the decision of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), who is considering to revise its current practice not to give points for wood certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). Currently the FSC is the only certification system whose wood qualifies for points under the LEED green construction system. If the USGBC will decide to approve SFI-certified wood as well, it will definitely give the revised SFI certification the Kosher stamp it is looking for.

More related stories:
ForestEthics is fighting the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certification

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting sustainable reading!

ForestEthics is fighting the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certification

Two weeks ago we reported here on a new report released by ForestEthics and Dogwood Alliance.

The report, entitled "Green Grades 2009" looked at and grades the paper sourcing policies of 12 office retail, general retail and wholesale/distribution companies. The report didn't try to hide the authors opinion on the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) saying:

"Still, there is much work to be done. Some of the companies do not have meaningful paper policies, are sourcing large amounts of paper from controversial sources, and are perpetuating the greenwashing of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and other industry-driven “certification” schemes. And since most companies still have at least some Endangered Forest fiber somewhere in their supply chain, consumers should buy Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and recycled content paper regardless of where they shop."

Now, according to the New York Times, ForestEthics is moving forward to challenge the credibility of the S.F.I. certification in court.

Mireya Navarro reports on the NYT ("Environmental Groups Spar Over Certifications of Wood and Paper Products") about the growing debate on the validity of the the SFI certification. According to the article, the accusations against the SFI certification program are of "lax standards and deceptive marketing intended to obscure the standards and the S.F.I.’s financial ties to the forest industry."

This move might be connected with the fact that the United States Green Building Council, which rates buildings as environmentally sustainable under its so-called LEED system, will begin accepting other types of certified wood next year, as it has proposed to do pending a vote by its membership. This move can harm the demand for FSC-certified products, as this certification is much tougher than the SFI certification.

The fact that the FSC certification has more rigorous standards is not accidental. The main claim against the SFI certification is that the forest industry created a green certification system to promote their sales, as Peter Goldman, director of the Washington Forest Law Center in Seattle, the legal firm that filed the complaints explains in the article. Therefore it makes sense it will be less demanding from the industry than the FSC certification, which is more independent (although we have to mention that it includes forest industry representatives on its board).

So who's right? the lawyers of ForestEthics who claim that the SFI certification S.F.I. has confused the marketplace or SFI whose spokesman said that the certification program was sound and that it had met all legal requirements as a nonprofit?

I have to say it's impossible to demand from consumers, as well as printers and publishers, to judge this dispute. What we can say for sure is that the fact that is indisputable is that FSC certification is considered as the best practice standard for forest management. Therefore, I believe printers, publishers and customers shouldn't compromise on less than that no matter if it's lumber, furniture, or virgin paper they're considering buying.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting sustainable reading!

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!