Archive for the ‘sustainability’ Category

E-communications have a significant impact, too

Friday, August 12th, 2011

Surprised that the world hasn’t switched exclusively to e-communications? After all, electronic communication methods seem to promise to carry words and images to any location anywhere in the world with none of the environmental costs of print communications.

Yet while e-communications have grown over the past decades for a number of reasons, they have not made paper obsolete. In part, that’s because the electronic medium carries significant environmental impacts of its own, both in terms of the hardware needed to produce and process the communications, and the power needed to transmit and store them.

Let’s start with the desktop computer. Most are made of ingredients that are increasingly scarce, such as many used in flat-screen and other newer technologies, not to mention a host of materials classified as hazardous that have the potential for negative environmental impact. And the manufacturing of desktop computers involves energy-intensive production processes. One study says that the manufacturing of a computer and monitor weighing 53 pounds requires 530 pounds of fossil fuels, 50 pounds of chemicals and 3,330 pounds of water.6

Over 200 million items of e-waste are thrown away every year in the U.S.

The National Safety Council estimates that more than 63 million computers were disposed of in 2005, generating about three billion pounds of e-waste. When you take into account the fact that a computer monitor can pack up to seven pounds of lead, it’s not the kind of thing anyone wants to see going to our landfills and potentially leaching into the water table.

But going into our landfills they are. The United States now dumps between 200 and 300 million electronic items per year, and less than 20 percent are recycled. E-waste represents an estimated 25 percent of waste in U.S. landfills and 70 percent of toxic waste found there. It’s easy to see why—because computer processing power doubles roughly every two years, many old computers are simply being abandoned. In 2005, only two percent of the world’s discarded computers found their way to a second user.8

70% of toxic waste in U.S. landfills comes from e-waste.

In addition, large amounts of e-waste are sent to China, India and Kenya, countries where environmental standards for disposal are lax. Unprotected workers in these countries, including children, are exposed to hazardous materials like mercury and lead in the process of burning electronics in search of copper and aluminum to resell.

8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

via E-communications have a significant impact, too – Ed #13 Balance – Ed Lives Here.

Posted in sustainability | No Comments »

Debunking the Myth of Trees vs. Direct Mail

Friday, August 5th, 2011

Debunking the Myth of Trees vs. Direct Mail

By Evelyn Milardo

OK, direct mail has an environmental impact. Almost everyone still receives and sends mail, creating a footprint for sure. But what’s myth and what’s reality?

In 2007, there were 212 billion pieces of mail. Of those, households received 150.9 billion pieces — or about 71 percent. The balance of the mail was received by business, government and nonprofit entities. Households also sent 21.1 billion pieces of mail, with the balance of the mail sent by nonhouseholds. In 2008, the average U.S. household received less than three pieces of direct mail per day.

According to the USPS Household Diary Study, 16 percent of households choose not to read their mail. The vast majority (81 percent) of households read or scan the direct mail they receive. Almost all mail eventually is discarded, thus it’s vital to have recycling options available at the community level.

Direct mail is printed communication. Thanks to sustainable forestry practices throughout North America, the amount of forested lands has grown significantly in recent years, providing for a steady, responsible supply of the fiber used to make paper. Trees are harvested and replanted on a continuing basis, with most trees harvested for paper measuring about 8 inches in diameter — it’s more cost effective and productive to use larger trees for lumber or pole production.

Today, we have more forests in the U.S. than we did 50 years ago, and about the same as we had 100 years ago. Old-growth forests aren’t harvested to make direct mail paper, and the marketplace is beginning to certify paper that originates from sustainably forested lands. Only 14 percent of the wood harvested throughout the world each year is used for paper production.

In 2007, the Federal Trade Commission gave direct marketing businesses and organizations clearance to begin including “Recycle Please” messaging on catalogs and direct mail pieces, in large part because 65 percent of U.S. residents have access to local recycling collection options. Discarded catalogs classify as “old magazines,” and are highly valued for the long, strong fiber they contain, making them a perfect candidate for reuse as recycled paper in office papers and newsprint. Discarded direct mail most often classifies as “mixed paper,” and is recycled as tissue paper.

What happens to undeliverable as addressed (UAA) mail largely depends upon its class. Most First Class UAA mail is forwarded or returned, while most Standard UAA mail is handled as waste. Discarded direct mail represents just 2.4 percent of municipal solid waste, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). The country’s recycling recovery rate has grown by nearly 700 percent since 1990. That said, almost 10 billion mail pieces were UAA. Of these 10 billion pieces, almost 2 billion were forwarded, 1.6 billion were returned to sender and 6.1 billion were treated as waste. Overall, UAA mail comprised 4.7 percent of the mail stream.

According to the EPA, 35.8 percent of discarded Standard Mail was recovered for recycling in 2005 — a near sevenfold increase since 1990, and an 11.9 percent increase since 2003. And while direct mail volume in the U.S. has grown 57 percent in 15 years, the amount of discarded mail sent to landfills has remained virtually unchanged.

Direct mail also earns eco-points during mail cycle stages — the inputs (e.g., paper and plastics) through to the endpoints (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions). Since 1980, the U.S. paper industry has reduced emissions of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides by 37 percent and sulfur dioxide by 68 percent. U.S. paper mills reuse a large portion of the water they use in the pulping and paper-making process. The outcome: water consumption rates have decreased by more than 65 percent over the past 30 years.

Let’s not forget that more than four in 10 Americans make shop-at-home purchases. By shopping (and donating) direct, consumers and businesses are using the convenience of their homes and offices to research and make purchase decisions. They rely on courier companies and the USPS to deliver the goods, creating a highly efficient distribution of goods and services.

So, why is direct mail still important, even in a digital age? Because it’s more targeted than ever, and by measuring response, companies and organizations know that direct mail works. Response rates to today’s targeted direct mail campaigns are still measured in whole, single and double-digit figures.

Even permission-based email response rates rarely surpass that of well-strategized, targeted direct mail offers. Compare that to the estimated worldwide total of 62 trillion spam emails that were sent in 2008 — with the average business email user responsible for 131 kg of carbon dioxide per year in email-related emissions, 22 percent being spam-related — and it’s now clear we need to turn our attention to our digital footprints as well.

Claims that have been made about direct mail’s impact on the environment have been uniformly negative, with a significant level of misinformation. In fact, the reality is that the mailing industry, through its investments in programs and initiatives to address and further reduce the environmental impact associated with all six lifecycle stages of letter mail, deserves some recognition for its efforts.

Posted in printing, sustainability | No Comments »

Print Grows Trees

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011

Printed paper is made from a renewable resource. Trees can be replanted in places where they were harvested and also in places where they don’t currently grow. As much as we love our electronic devices, they don’t grow on trees or anywhere else.

54.7 percent of all paper in the U.S. is currently recycled.

Printed paper can be recycled, recovered and reused. The systems that are in place for these processes are widely available and have become more efficient and sophisticated over the many years they have existed. In contrast, electronic devices are much more complex and expensive to recycle, recover and reuse due to the toxic nature of many of their components, and current systems are still in the early stages.

The average data center serving our electronic devices consumes the same amount of energy as 25,000 households.

The paper we use to print in the U.S. is made from more than 60 percent biofuels. Paper mills use what’s left over from the manufacturing process to generate bioenergy on site. This serves to:

Divert waste from landfills
Decrease the overall carbon footprint of paper products
Decrease dependency on coal and other fossil fuels
Help meet green energy goals in America

By contrast, server farms that power computers have become the fastest growing users of fossil fuel in the world, and the amount of energy they use is doubling every year.

Modern commercial printing employs more sustainable practices. From recycling to energy usage, commercial printers are making great strides in reducing their environmental footprints by implementing such practices as:

Purchasing products, materials and services from individuals and organizations that demonstrate a commitment to sustainability
Gaining third-party certification credentials
Reducing the impact of chemicals by using vegetable-based inks, eco-friendly soy inks, alcohol-free chemistry and aqueous coatings
Sequencing print jobs by ink color, saving ink changes and waste
Using biodegradable packaging materials and waste paper instead of petroleum-based foam peanuts
Using a higher percentage of paper grades that are recycled, post-consumer and third-party forest certified to be from responsible sources
Reducing the impact of energy loads on the electric grid by staggering production start times and effectively avoiding operating at full load during peak run time hours
Using alternative power, such as wind or solar, in many locations where it is available
Educating employees on environmental information, recycling procedures and certification training
Equipping presses with ink monitoring devices to reduce waste
Recycling printing plates, soda cans, cell phones, batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, old computer equipment, tin, glass and plastics

via Print Grows Trees | Printing & Paper Facts.

Posted in sustainability | No Comments »

More Printing & Paper Facts

Monday, August 1st, 2011

Printed paper also serves many economic and social benefits. Millions of U.S. jobs – from tree farming to advertising – depend on print. Printing and related jobs are projected to decline by 16 percent and newspaper publishing by 23.2 percent by 2018. That’s a lot of people out of work, and, in the case of places where paper is manufactured, sometimes represents entire communities that are economically devastated.

According to the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), between 2007 and 2008, 35 paper mills were closed and 79 paper machines were permanently shut down. To read a personal account of how that has affected one papermaking community, please order a copy of the San Francisco Panorama, a McSweeney’s publication, and read Nicholson Baker’s article, “Can a Paper Mill Save a Forest? The strange possibility that the transferring of information digitally is more environmentally destructive than printing it.”

Print helps businesses stay profitable. Research has shown that direct mail is still the most effective way of targeting the right customers with the right message – especially for small businesses. Print helps small business owners get and keep customers. And digital advertising works better when it is mixed with print. New techniques in printing, such as print on demand (POD) and digital printing mean that fewer pieces of print can have a greater economic effect while decreasing impact on the environment. And when consumers are through with direct mail pieces, catalogs or magazine, they can be recycled, recovered and reused.

Print serves those who don’t have constant access to computers. It may seem that everyone, everywhere has access to digital communications, and can afford the energy costs required to power them, but there are still millions of people in the world who depend on books and newspapers to learn and stay connected. For example, only 84 percent of U.S. households own computers.

A recent survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project suggests that a majority of American adults — 61 percent — report feeling overwhelmed by modern technology and some actively resist the push toward the hyperactive, hyper-connected mobile lifestyles that today’s devices enable.

Print can be a more relaxing way to get your information. Getting information from print can serve as a welcome relief from technology. Think of it as a more natural way – easier on the eyes and easier on the environment.

via Print Grows Trees | More Printing & Paper Facts.

Posted in sustainability | No Comments »

All communications leave a footprint

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

Keep in mind too that all communications media leave a carbon footprint. Making a CD or DVD, both of which are difficult to recycle at best, generates around 300 to 350 grams of CO2 per copy9, while printing a 100-page four-color annual report releases about 80 grams.10 Even Web-based communications have a carbon impact—both in terms of the electricity needed to power the computers involved and the metals, plastics and other materials that go into their construction.

Burning a CD produces 4 times as much CO2 as printing a single annual report.

Then there are data centers built to handle the rising flood of e-communications around the world. The power needed to heat, cool and power a data facility is enormous. According to the New York Times, data centers around the world consume more energy in one year than the entire country of Sweden. From 2000 to 2005, the use of electricity by data centers doubled, and the increase shows no sign of abating. Expansion of Internet businesses, along with new data retention and compliance agreements, new accounting standards and other trends, fuel the demand.

There are other, less-obvious drawbacks, too. E-communications have not really created the paperless office as many would assume. In fact, it often seems to promote the spread of paper use. Even in today’s age of the Blackberry® and iPhone, people like to print things out—many just find it easier to read and easier to navigate on paper. But converting e-communications to print is often very inefficient. Imagine the number of times a 50-page PowerPoint presentation is printed out and distributed, when the information would probably be better boiled down and produced as a print-on-demand brochure.

Electronic media have no tactile feel, and communication materials residing there continue to draw electrical power as long as they are in the system. And even today, not everyone is computer savvy or has access to a computer. For example, if your a local arts center, you may see enrollment drop off if you replace your paper catalog of course offerings by an on-line only version—because the older members of your client base are not used to operating that way. An integrated marketing strategy that includes both print on-line components spans preferences and generations, allowing all to get the message.

Spam emails sent annually, have the footprint of driving a car around the globe 1.6 million times.

Then there’s spam. It’s not just a nuisance—many see it as a major source of global climate change. It is hard to measure, but some calculations say that each spam message, including the energy required to delete the message, represents the energy equivalent of driving three feet. Multiply that by yearly volume and it is equivalent to driving around the world 1.6 million times.11

9 http://www.finsbury.com.au/NewsDetail.aspx?p=15&id=64

10 http://www.printnet.com.au/verve/_resources/AP_NOV_p42.pdf

11 Source: McAfee, The Carbon Footprint of Email Spam Report

via All communications leave a footprint – Ed #13 Balance – Ed Lives Here.

Posted in sustainability | No Comments »

The Fundamentals of a Corporate Sustainability Program

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011

I saw this great article By Andrew Winston Published February 28, 2011 on Greenbiz.com, and am continuosluy impressed with the steps industry leaders such as Kodak are doing in regards to the environment:

Recently Xerox, Waste Management (WM), and Arizona State University hosted the Executive Sustainability Summit, a conference for managers in the private and public sectors working on environmental and social issues. I was asked by Xerox to attend and give my thoughts on what I heard and saw.

The day kicked off with some big picture thoughts on sustainability from WM SVP Duane Woods and Xerox’s global vice president of Environment, Health and Safety, Patty Calkins PDF file . As a long-standing sustainability exec and thought leader, Calkins has a good perspective on what it takes to implement a successful environmental strategy. She laid out four “critical fundamentals to any sustainability program.”

Calkins’ four principles are:

Take a quantitative approach. As she said, even though we’re sick of hearing it, the old saying “what gets measured gets done” has proved to be true every time.
Keep a value-chain focus. Think beyond the four walls of the company to look at impacts up the supply chain and down through customer use and end of product life.
Be economically driven. If initiatives don’t help the business, they won’t be sustainable by any definition.
Seek quick payback and easy wins. Show success quickly.

I agree in principle on these, but wanted to elaborate on them and add my perspective. Starting with good quantitative data is critical, and marrying that with a value chain perspective creates a powerful starting point for sustainability thinking. These are definitely the two big fundamentals. Really knowing where your footprint lies – and it rarely is centered within your own operations – helps identify the true risks and opportunities for your business.

The third and fourth principles are solid, but are more nuanced in execution. Yes, sustainability has to be economically viable — to be obvious, if a company did things that weren’t profitable, it wouldn’t survive, so it wouldn’t be around to provide environmental or social benefits. But we need a broader sense of what’s included in the “economics” of strategic and tactical sustainability actions.

The typical cost/benefit analysis that most companies use is fundamentally broken in two ways: it doesn’t take into account either long-term benefits (strategic investments that pay off later) or intangible value (brand enhancement or customer and employee loyalty, for example). The “hurdle rates” we apply to capital investments are ignored for many common strategic decisions, such as investing in innovation and R&D, building a presence in a new geographic or product market, or engaging in brand-building activities and advertising. These all may have longer payback periods than the typical two-year hurdle rate. Like these investments, sustainability initiatives can also be both “economically-driven” and take larger strategic benefits into account.

For example, sustainability leaders are helping customers lower their environmental impacts, which may entail using less of their product (in my next article on this event, I’ll explore how both Xerox and Waste Management are doing exactly that). This kind of cutting-edge initiative is absolutely economically driven — maintaining or growing market share by satisfying customers is a good thing — but it could take time to make the transition.

<!–pagebreak–>On the fourth principle, “seek quick payback,” I agree that easy wins are important for a number of reasons. First, they’re everywhere – even the leanest companies continue to find new, innovative, sometimes head-slappingly obvious ways to save money by cutting energy and waste. (See a recent announcement, for example, about GE helping GM’s factories reduce energy by timing all the power-using devices — lights, heat, pumps, and so on — to coordinate with the actual movement of the conveyor. As the Reuters reporter said, “it’s a wonder nobody thought of it before.”)

Second, these quick wins help win over internal skeptics — easy money is hard to argue with. And third, the freed-up capital can be invested in bigger changes. And here’s where I’d add something to the focus on easy wins. Incremental change can get you pretty far if you keep doing it, but sustainability leaders are also going to find disruptive, heretical solutions to their customers’ problems– big leapfrog changes in how a business or industry works. So a truly robust sustainability strategy needs to balance the two — incremental and heretical — to greatest effect.

I’d also add two more core items to Calkins’ four principles. First, top-level support for sustainability efforts is critical, but I suspect it went unsaid at this event because Xerox has clearly had CEO support for green initiatives for years. Second, employee engagement is an essential element in executing sustainability strategy. Luckily, most companies find that as soon as they mention wanting to do more on green, employees pour out of the woodwork wanting to help. Sustainability is one of the greatest engagement tools out there.

Moving past the core principles, I wanted to also share Calkins’ “Top 10 Reasons to Act Sustainably” because they capture the core logic of green business, and they fit very well into my framework of four buckets of value creation — cost reduction, lowered risk, higher revenues, enhanced brand — from the book I co-authored, Green to Gold. Here are her 10 reasons, with my buckets in parentheses:

Eliminate visits from your friendly regulator (risk)
Reduce lawyers on staff (risk/cost)
Capture bottom line cost reductions (cost)
Improve business process efficiency (cost)
Avoid shareholder resolutions (risk)
Enhance brand value (brand)
Retain/attract top/key talent (brand)
Grow revenue (revenue)
Drive innovation (all)
“We have not inherited the world from our forefathers…we have borrowed it from our children”

The last point is a proverb credited to indigenous peoples. Calkins makes the point that in the end, sustainability is the right thing to do for our children, and our future selves. The moral argument usually sits outside of the business world, but why? Businesses are part of society and the people working in them want to do the right thing, so it’s a good reminder.

In the end, what’s good for society — creating a sustainable economy and civilization — is good for business too. The same fundamental principles apply to both.

source: greenbiz.com

Posted in sustainability | No Comments »

The Lacey Act & Print Procurement :: 90 minute Video

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

• Presented By: Target Marketing and Printing Impressions

• Sponsored By: NewPage Corporation
• Duration: 90 minutes

• Speakers: Andrea Johnson , Director of Forest Campaigns, Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA); Elinor Colbourn , Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice; Rick Merdan , Marketing Strategy Manager – Environmental, NewPage Corp.

• Moderator: Hallie Mummert , Editor in Chief, Target Marketing

• View this Webinar Opens in a new window

Is the paper you purchased for your next direct mail or catalog campaign imported? How about the fiber used to make the paper? Did you perform due diligence to determine if all parties in the supply chain legally sourced and imported the paper that you bought? If not, YOU could be in violation of the Lacey Act.

The Lacey Act, a 100-year-old statute originally passed to stop wildlife crimes, was amended in May 2008 by the U.S. Congress to also now ban the commerce of illegally sourced plants, timber and wood and paper products. Companies that import or domestically source such environmentally harmful products may face seizure of goods, fines and jail time.

To stay on the right side of the law, protect your company’s reputation and be a good corporate citizen of the world, you need to understand the requirements of this legislation and how they affect your role in paper sourcing NOW.

Posted in printing, procurement, sustainability | No Comments »

The Lacey Act & Print Procurement :: Part Dos

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

As mentioned before – I’m a tree-hugger, but a realist. I think the Lacey act is a great extension of that realistic approach.

When the first wave of environmental awareness struck our industry in the late ’80′s I was a pressman. I recall vividly the first press okay for what was then a small boutique hair care company (it is now a major brand, owned by a F100 corporation) when a recycled logo was used. We were running on one of the first “premium” sheets available that had been touted as recycled, and it sucked. The sheet was off-color, the printing was “picking”, and there were “hickeys” everywhere. The solution? We pulled it off press, pulled some premium (non-recycled) paper out of our inventory and ran the job – complete with all the “recycled” logos and mentions all over it. The client doing the press-okay told me at that point “Oh – the end user will never know – they just throw these in the trash anyway.” Since that point – I hated recycled paper, and regarded he majority of the people using it as hypocrites – the more and more I read up on it – found out about the de-inking process, looked at the amount of additives (chemicals with 15 syllable names ) we needed to use in the pressroom to make the paper “work”, I soon started preaching about the detrimental impact of the paper.

Boy, how times change – the recycled process has much improved, and now I love, and was an early adapter of, the idea of sustainable paper and printing. The reason I love it is the accountability afforded to the printer and the end user by the multiple COC’s available. Part of that love has provided me the opportunity to help my clients (as a partner), printers (as a consultant), and local municipalities (as an environmental advocate) develop a “plan” to procure “Green” print as part of their triple bottom line.

When I work with an individual buyer or a corporation, I offer the following advice in regards to paper. With the Lacey act going into effect Aril 10, these recommendations are even more relevant:

When obtaining an estimate, always specify a specific sheet of paper, or a specific grade of paper with appropriate environmental annotations, for example: “100# McCoy Gloss Book, FSC” or “100# Gloss Book, #1, FSC Certified”
If your printer replies on their estimate with “100# House Gloss Book”, make sure you know what they are going to use as their house sheet as many printers do not have an actual “house” sheet, but often time use that to describe a “best buy” sheet, which is normally a standard grade/sheet that they were able to negotiate a better price on.
If you are specifying an FSC/SFI/PEFC sheet of paper, make sure your printer is certified to use the appropriate logo. Again, this may seem like a no-brainer, BUT, there may be some unethical printers out there. Also, as our industry continues to face unprecedented strain, a lot of printers who were able to obtain certification three years ago, may not have the fiscal resources required to keep their certification current.
If you are large consumer of paper (Large Corporations, procuring more than 2MM in print annually on a national scale is a base line I use for pre-qualifying this particular approach) I recommend partnering with a paper company (such as Xpedx) to develop a paper buying strategy. This strategy, when properly executed, provides your printers ample flexibility, and the reporting metrics you need to quantify your environmental impact.
Ask questions – ask for swatch books – ask for options. Let your printer do some leg work for you – its their job!

By following these suggestions – you can be relatively assured that you are going to be properly protected from any of the negative impacts of the Lacey Act.

Posted in printing, procurement, sustainability | No Comments »

The Lacey Act & Print Procurement :: Part Uno

Monday, February 8th, 2010

The Lacey Act was originally signed into law in 1900, it was then the first piece of conservationist legislation. It was intended to stem the trade and commerce of threatened and endangered wildlife. I am not sure, but I think Al Gore was a cosigner of the bill at that time.

The bill itself has been modified over the years, most recently in 2008 when, as part of the Farm Bill, it was amended to include the “prohibition of commerce, domestic and international, of products containing illegally sourced plants and plant products” (such as paper).

The new law became effective May 22, 2008, although one of its requirements, an import declaration form, is being phased in and will not be enforced for paper, and ultimately the people who buy paper, until April 1, 2010.

How the Lacey Act Will Affect Paper/Printing:

The Lacey Act now makes it unlawful to “import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant taken or traded in violation of the laws of a U.S. State, or most foreign laws.”

For the paper and printing industry, the law affects all of us who use paper, but has specific requirements for those who import paper, purchase imported paper, sell imported paper, print on imported paper (printers!), or obtain final ownership of the imported paper.

The U.S. Department of Justice , which will continue prosecuting violators of the Lacey Act, expects companies to perform “due care” in determining the origin of the paper products they use. Elements of “due care” include, but are not limited to, chain of custody certifications, country of origin, types of species, and supplier reputation.

How Will You Know the Paper You Purchase Complies with the Lacey Act?

Starting in April, importers will be required to complete an import declaration form for paper (already required for raw wood) that species the genus, species, country of origin, and the amount of each plant component. Note that the requirement for paper products containing recycled content is that it must include the average percent of recycled content.

What Are The Consequences for Violations?

The DOJ expects companies to perform “due care” in determining the origin of the paper products they use. Due care is defined as “that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.” There is no “innocent owner provision” in the ruling. That is, claiming they “didn’t know about it” won’t get companies off the hook.

Consequences depend on the magnitude of the violation and the level of “due care” taken. Companies in violation are subject to fines up to $500,000 and forfeiture of the imported products.

Win/Win for Chain-of-Custody Certified Paper?

Existing chain-of-custody certification programs (FSC, SFI, PEFC) already have systems in place to monitor socially and economically responsible forest harvesting and to track the source of paper back to its original forests. Therefore, the passage of this amendment may further enhance the value of and demand for chain-of-custody-certified wood.

Okay – so now you have me freaked out – what can I do?

The first thing any end-user (client side, not printer side) can do is to make sure they are dealing with a reputable printer. I know that seems like an over simplification of the process, but in reality that is where it all starts.

Most printers rely on their paper merchants to provide to them all proper documentation, and as such – as long as you have your printer specify, in writing, at the time of estimate the exact sheet of paper they are using to produce your job, and when your PO is placed you either reference that estimate, or spell out the specifics contained therein (paper) you should have your bases adequately covered. (Of course – there are printers out there that may be less than ethical, and may opt to “sub” paper, or purchase paper from a resource that can not provide adequate chain of custody documentation, so buyer beware.)

Over my career I have been fortunate to work with several clients to develop their sustainable printing goals and objectives, and provide them with a basic “road-map” on how to “green” their print procurement process – in the next post, I will share some ideas on paper sourcing as it may relate to the Lacey Act.

(the old guy in the picture? John F Lacey, Civil War Hero, Congressman, Freemason, and early tree-hugger)

Posted in printing, procurement, sustainability | 3 Comments »

Tree-Huggers Rejoice! Sustainable Forestry Initiative Releases New Standard

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

From: WhatTheyThink Going Green » Sustainable Forestry Initiative Releases New Standard.

By Gail Nickel-Kailing on January 12th, 2010

Sustainable Forestry Initiative Releases New Standard

Sustainable Forestry Initiative® released a new forest certification standard supporting sustainable forest management. The result of an 18-month public review, the new SFI 2010-2014 Standard includes revisions that:

Improve conservation of biodiversity
Address emerging issues such as climate change and bioenergy
Strengthen fiber sourcing requirements to broaden the practice of sustainable forestry and avoid controversial or illegal offshore fiber sources
Embrace the Lacey Act amendments to prevent illegal logging
Expand requirements for logger training
Expand requirement for support for trained loggers and certified logger programs

The Standard is based on 14 core principles (5 more than the previous standard) that promote sustainable forest management, including measures to protect water quality, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, species at risk, and forests with exceptional conservation value. The Standard also has 20 objectives, 39 performance measures, and 114 indicators.

Some of the revisions include:

Illegal logging: Strengthens illegal logging provisions and includes a definition of illegal logging consistent with amendments to the Lacey Act in the US.
Fiber sourcing: Strengthens fiber sourcing requirement. SFI program must require the use of trained loggers and resource professionals when fiber is sourced from lands in North America that are not certified.
Logger training: Has expanded logger training requirements to address invasive exotic plants and animals, special sites, and emerging technologies and markets such as carbon offsets and bioenergy.
Certified loggers: Recognizes the emergence of logger certification programs, and requires, where possible, that program participants promote and support these programs.
International labor laws: Ensures that activities in SFI-certified forests respect the rights of workers and labor representatives according to the core conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO).
Research: Expands the definition of relevant research to include environmental and social benefits, and environmental performance of forest products.
Best Management Practices: Program participants must follow best management practices, which means there are fewer issues around water quality and soil disturbance.
Forests with Exceptional Conservation Value: Clarifies the term “Forests with Exceptional Conservation Value,” and makes it clear they include areas with critically imperiled and imperiled species and communities.
Biodiversity: Promotes the conservation of biodiversity hotspots and high-biodiversity wilderness areas as defined by Conservation International.
Emerging Topics: Recognizes that sustainable forestry makes an important contribution to addressing climate change and adapting to changing ecosystems.
Biotechnology: Addresses the use of genetically modified trees under the research objective, because genetically modified trees are not commercially grown or available in North America.
Public Reporting: Requirements for public reporting have become a new objective for greater emphasis and transparency.

The SFI 2010-2014 Standard took effect on January 1, 2010 and participants have up to one year to implement the changes. The review process was launched in June 2008 and included two public comment periods and seven regional workshops

Watch for the interview with Kathy Abusow, President and CEO of SFI, to be published shortly.

Posted in sustainability | No Comments »