Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Printers are weary and wary of FSC and SFI

Printers  are so weary of FSC and SFI

For many printers, particularly medium and smaller printers that I speak to on a regular basis, the honeymoon [if ever there was one] with certification from FSC and SFI is well and truly over, at least for the moment.

While it is absolutely true that many major corporations stipulate that their printers must be FSC or SF I certified, this is not true of the majority of clients in the printing industry and while the trend has certainly been upwards it is by no means generally spread across the markets. The cost of acquiring certification and, in particular, the annual audit fees, have long been a bone of contention for medium and smaller sized printers and the economic downturn has fueled that view.

Printers tell me that they no longer see a benefit nor do they see a long-term change in the market toward greater demand. In fairness FSC have recently introduced a "group certification program" for printers which will bring the prices down significantly. [This was in fact an idea that I suggested to SF I several years back but was blocked because FSC international was unable at that time to put it in practice]. The problem always was that both FSC and SF I were forestry programs that were being applied to the printing industry and while this had perfect sense at its base, it did not take to account the reality of the world of print.

But, and this is a very big but, this is not to suggest in any way that the market for sustainable print is not a growing requirement of the total sustainability market. The problem has been that end-users have had no alternative way of measuring the sustainability of printers with any ease. The mistaken idea { and a mistake that is made throughout the supply chain] that FSC or SF I certification somehow makes printers "green" is simply untrue but unless the end user has a well-informed checklist of what a sustainable printer actually looks like and does there is no easy way to judge those aspects of print performance.

Over the last two or three years, as the sustainable market has grown, there have been various attempts made by bodies like the PIA [Printing Industries of America] and Print Buyers Online [PBOL] to deal with this problem. After all it makes sense that printers should play a leading role in the determination of what is genuinely sustainable print. Arguably the most successful program is the SGPP [Sustainable Green Printing Partnership] which is literally a program designed by printers for the industry. While the costs of acheiving SGPP certification are significantly lower than FSC or SFI [neither of which may I say again have anything to do with sustainable print], the administration at this point appears to be somewhat time-consuming and in an economic downturn this is something that should be hammered out between area printing representatives and the SGPP. Finally that group will have to find a way to persuade corporate end-users that this is the best way to confirm that their printers are practicing environmentally responsible print. FSC and SFI can tell you how hard it is to crack the end user market, but the regional print associations could be well advised to try to steer this one. I think it is very much in their interests.!

Printers are weary and wary of SFI and FSC



For many printers, particularly medium and smaller printers that I speak to on a regular basis, the honeymoon [if ever there was one] with certification from FSC and SFI is well and truly over, at least for the moment.

While it is absolutely true that many major corporations stipulate that their printers must be FSC or SF I certified, this is not true of the majority of clients in the printing industry and while the trend has certainly been upwards it is by no means generally spread across the markets. The cost of acquiring certification and, in particular, the annual audit fees, have long been a bone of contention for medium and smaller sized printers and the economic downturn has fueled that view.

Printers tell me that they no longer see a benefit nor do they see a long-term change in the market toward greater demand. In fairness FSC have recently introduced a "group certification program" for printers which will bring the prices down significantly. [This was in fact an idea that I suggested to SF I several years back but was blocked because FSC international was unable at that time to put it in practice]. The problem always was that both FSC and SF I were forestry programs that were being applied to the printing industry and while this had perfect sense at its base, it did not take to account the reality of the world of print.

But, and this is a very big but, this is not to suggest in any way that the market for sustainable print is not a growing requirement of the total sustainability market. The problem has been that end-users have had no alternative way of measuring the sustainability of printers with any ease. The mistaken idea { and a mistake that is made throughout the supply chain] that FSC or SF I certification somehow makes printers "green" is simply untrue but unless the end user has a well-informed checklist of what a sustainable printer actually looks like and does there is no easy way to judge those aspects of print performance.

Over the last two or three years, as the sustainable market has grown, there have been various attempts made by bodies like the PIA [Printing Industries of America] and Print Buyers Online [PBOL] to deal with this problem. After all it makes sense that printers should play a leading role in the determination of what is genuinely sustainable print. Arguably the most successful program is the SGPP [Sustainable Green Printing Partnership] which is literally a program designed by printers for the industry. While the costs of acheiving SGPP certification are significantly lower than FSC or SFI [neither of which may I say again have anything to do with sustainable print], the administration at this point appears to be somewhat time-consuming and in an economic downturn this is something that should be hammered out between area printing representatives and the SGPP. Finally that group will have to find a way to persuade corporate end-users that this is the best way to confirm that their printers are practicing environmentally responsible print. FSC and SFI can tell you how hard it is to crack the end user market, but the regional print associations could be well advised to try to steer this one. I think it is very much in their interests.!

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

What will be the outcome of the fight between Forest Ethics and SFI?

It is perfectly clear that SFI [Sustainable Forestry Initiative] has come under the full glare of the Forest Ethics spotlight. Office Depot, Staples, Victoria's Secret and Sears have all been subjected to the kind of scrutiny from Forest Ethics which SFI is now facing. The major difference is that it seems there is little SFI can do to effectively rebut the criticism from Forest Ethics that SFI is guilty of 'greenwashing'.

This is a hugely important issue for the timber industry and its allied industries as well as US paper. The majority of forests certified in the United States are certified under the SFI standards and while the FSC [Forest Stewardship Council] program is growing significantly and has the full and, occasionally, exclusive approval of most well known conservation groups groups -  like Forest Ethics, the fact is that, at the very least in pure commercial terms, SFI is a widely accepted practice in the United States and is incidentally approved by the international certification umbrella program PEFC [Program for the Endorsementt of Forestry Certification]. This is not a small consideration as most European organizations with sustainability programs reaching into the forests accept PEFC.Unlike FSC, SFI is an exclusively USA based program.

I know several individual members of Forest Ethics, as indeed I do at SFI, and I know all of those people to be honest and to hold the very best interests of United States forests very closely indeed. There is equally no doubt that SFI can do little to combat the kind of attack which Forest Ethics has chosen to launch. The program is designed to persuade end-users of forestry products, be it wood products or paper, that only FSC is an acceptable forestry-based program. It would be much easier if the criteria which are offered by Forest Ethics were clear and simple to either accept or counter. They are not. For example the Forest Ethics suggestion that SFI is "dominated by members of the industry" and that SFI appoints members of minor conservationist groups to its board as a "sop" to its conservation bona fides may be true, but, only depending on your point of view.

SFI quite rightly points out that with 90% of the world's forests without any form of management, it may seem small minded to attack them when there is so much else to be done in the world of forestry. It is probably true that many of the fundamentals of their program are at least as respectable and respected by conservation groups as well as members of the relevant industries.

FSC meanwhile remains silent, quite content to remain quiet behind the Forest Ethics assault on SFI. In my opinion  having at least two certification programs available to forests in the United States makes pure economic, practical and political sense . Is it too much to hope that SFI and FSC could find some common ground at some point, and achieve solutions to the benefit of our society as a whole?

ForestEthics : Protect Forests and Our Climate : Major US companies join fight against greenwash

ForestEthics : Protect Forests and Our Climate : Major US companies join fight against greenwash