Phil talks about the downsides of well-funded campaigns that skim the surface of complex issues, and lead consumers to believe that something as simple as using paper that’s recycled or certified to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) automatically yields environmental benefits.

In his second blog – Are environmental campaigns misleading the public? Part II – Phil challenges claims that certain certification standards, such as FSC, are more protective of the environment at a global scale. Phil says a 2005 international study (the World Wildlife Fund was one of the study partners) looked at on-the-ground differences between certification schemes in Canada, Finland and the UK, and did not identify any as “destructive and inferior” nor did it identify any as “much better” as campaigners would have us believe.

He says competition has been healthy and improved all certification programs, and this in turn supports responsible forest management as well as price and supply stability. It encourages more certification and is more likely to benefit communities in countries where campaigners and most of their supporters live.

Committing to one scheme could reduce purchasing and negotiating options for buyers, and disadvantage local communities in North America. Phil recalls a campaign where a large U.S.-based corporation was pressured to buy recycled and/or FSC paper, and eventually gave its business to a European mill that received FSC-certified wood from the UK.

Phil’s call to action is simple: Consider the many elements involved in the design and production of sustainable paper to ensure long-term sustainability of business and measurable environmental improvements based on science. “Pressuring the marketplace to use certain fiber types when it doesn’t make sense may not benefit the environment or the economy,” he says. I absolutely agree.

Only 10 percent of the world’s forests are certified so the growing convergence among certification programs is good news for responsible consumers. A recent UN market review says: “Over the years, many of the issues that previously divided the (certification) systems have become much less distinct.”

TerraChoice’s 2010 Sins of Greenwashing report includes certification labels like SFI, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification on a limited list of “legitimate” environmental standards and certifications. It is just one of many respected organizations around the world that accept SFI as a legitimate certification standard.

This reality stands in sharp contrast to misinformation being disseminated by market campaigners. Their tactics mislead and confuse consumers, and do nothing to improve forest management. While SFI and FSC differ in approach and the level of depth assigned to different topics, one thing is for certain: both standards have led to improvements in forestry and conservation.

At SFI, we understand forest management demands a multi-faceted, science-based, and inclusive effort involving people from all walks of life. We have a forest standard with rigorous requirements, and we make sure program participants meet them. But we go a lot further – looking for ways to help our partners improve knowledge and practices related to forest management and procurement, and strengthen communities and build partnerships that support responsible forest management. This is the most honest approach, and it is the best way to benefit the environment AND our communities.  After all, isn’t that the point?

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI Inc.) promotes responsibly managed forests in North America and around the world.  Consumers can look for the SFI label to know they are buying paper or wood from responsible sources – whether it is reams of paper, packaging, lumber or furniture.

Next time you head out to pick something up from the store; don’t limit yourself to looking only for a recycled label on the packaging.  By looking for both recycled goods and products from well-managed forests, you are encouraging responsible forest management, protecting woodlands for the future and showing you truly care about our forests and the communities that they support.

There’s a lot of angst in the marketplace these days about greenwashing – for good reason. Everyone wants to be green, whether it is justified or not.

The SFI program welcomes government and consumer programs that expose misleading labels and claims, because we believe there has to be mechanisms to help consumers differentiate solid programs with third-party certification audits from whimsical claims lacking integrity and substance.

A recent Green Living Online article, Will New Green Guidelines Help Consumers?, referenced two watchdog groups – the Competition Bureau of Canada and TerraChoice Environmental Marketing – that both accept SFI certification as a credible program.

In an environmental labeling standard issued a year ago, Environmental Claims: A Guide for Industry and Advertisers, the Competition Bureau says sustainability is hard to verify so the best thing to do is identify forest products as having come from a forest certified to a standard such as SFI, the Canadian Standards Association, the Forest Stewardship Council or the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes.

And just this year, in its Seven Sins of Greenwashing report, TerraChoice says SFI labels meet its criteria as an eco-label that can be trusted because we are third party certified, have a publicly available standard and a transparent standard development process.

The Green Living Online article asked if the Competition Bureau’s advertising guidelines mean consumers can be more confident they are getting a straight bill of goods. It quotes TerraChoice President Scott McDougall as saying yes, as long as the guidelines are enforced.

Scott knows what he is talking about. In research for its latest report, TerraChoice found that 98 percent of more than 2,000 product claims misled consumers in some way.

I absolutely agree with him. We need rules, and they have to be enforced. The value of credible brands is diminished by false claims that cannot be trusted.

For example, there are claims in the marketplace that pretend recycled paper is “tree free”. This is not just confusing for consumers it is misleading because recycled paper still has a significant portion of fiber derived from trees. These claims should stick with the facts. If the paper contains recycled content, say that – don’t pretend it is something it is not. Misleading claims like these undermine credible claims of recycled content and cast a cloak of uncertainty over other claims and programs that are credible and helpful to consumers.

Of course, recycling is an issue that’s important to us at the Sustainable Forestry Initiative because all recycled content begins as virgin fiber. Which means even recyclers need to care about the origin of fiber and how the forests it came from were managed – whether it is being used for the first time or the fifth. It’s one of the many reasons we must focus on sustaining our forests and that is what SFI is all about.

Prior to the event, I was able to sit down with David Refkin, President of the National Recycling Coalition to ask him about his views on recycling, sustainability and future policy issues – as well as background on the award Staples received. His answers regarding multiple content streams and the (possibly) pending cap and trade issue are particularly insightful.