Recycled and wood fiber in printing papers: both can be equally sustainable

The topic of using recycled fiber in printing papers is being discussed more actively within the Two Sides network these days due to the notion that “more recycled content in printing papers is better for the environment”.

I would add: “it depends on the situation”.  I say this because generalizing the benefits of recycled fiber use can be misleading due to the many environmental and economic factors at play in the life cycle of paper products.  In other words, wood-based paper grades can be equally or more sustainable if they are being produced responsibly.

We do need to talk about sustainability in this case because buying paper to make printed products involves both economic and environmental considerations. (1)

Recovering and recycling paper products is a good thing.  It reduces waste to landfill and extends the use of a valuable raw material.  In turn, recovered paper should be re-used as a raw material in products in the most sustainable way possible.  That may or may not include high-end printing papers (ex: catalogs and magazines).

There are industry arguments on both sides of the coin.  There are many who say that one of the most sustainable ways to use recovered paper is in lower quality grades of paper (ex: carton board, paperboard) where less processing and no de-inking is needed.  This typically also means less cost and less environmental concerns.  Others point out that high quality recovered paper (if available) should be re-used to make printing papers due to its high content of long (Kraft) fibers.  In either situation, the right conditions must be in place to make it environmentally and economically sustainable.

The environmental footprint of a grade of printing paper depends entirely on its specific life cycle (forestry practices, environmental performance of pulp and paper mills and suppliers, transportation, etc.).  In our industry, many of the environmental indicators associated with this life cycle are measured and reported in terms of emissions to air, water, soil and solid waste to landfill, among many others.  For companies committed to sustainability, tracking these indicators and improving performance is a key method used to reduce the overall environmental footprint of their paper products.

The environmental performance of the pulp and paper industry varies widely between countries, between companies and between manufacturing facilities.  This is because environmental performance depends on the use of best available technology and the commitment to sustainability of a given company or facility.

Each product life cycle is also associated with other elements such as forest biodiversity and the ecosystem services of a well-managed forest (water filtration, air purification and carbon sequestration), recreational benefits, jobs created and community spin-offs from forestry and manufacturing, the cost of de-inked pulp, paper quality considerations, the distance needed to transport recovered paper and de-inked pulp for processing, and more.

Although Life-cycle Assessment (LCA) studies can be useful tools to help understand the environmental footprint of paper products, they have limitations and they cannot consider many of the environmental and economic considerations listed above.  Results should be communicated with caution across product categories and they should not be seen as an indication of overall “sustainability”.

The two graphs below show the variability in solid waste generation from two different types of integrated printing paper mills: ones using wood-based mechanical pulp (left) and ones using de-inked pulp (right).  Each data point (squares and circles) represents a pulp and paper mill site.

The range, from low to high, is similar in both cases and it is very possible to have an integrated mechanical pulp and paper mill site with better performance than an integrated recycled mill site.  Based on industry benchmarking studies I have participated in, the same is true for other environmental indicators as well.

Another example would be an increased carbon footprint of an office paper grade due to switching from a low-carbon Kraft pulp supply to a de-inked recycled pulp supplier that relies heavily on fossil fuels.  Kraft pulp can have a relatively low carbon footprint due to low reliance on fossil fuels and use of renewable, carbon-neutral energy (biomass and black liquor).  Sappi’s most recent eQ Journal, Rethinking Recycling, also discusses this topic.

The above examples illustrate the potential risks of generalizing the benefits of using recycled fiber without looking into the environmental performance of specific paper products and manufacturers. For certain grades of paper, it can lead to over-stating the environmental benefits of one raw material (recycled fiber) over another (wood fiber) and this appears to contravene the US Federal Trade Commission Green Guides.

My point is that wood-based paper grades can have a lower environmental footprint than grades containing recycled content just because of the specific situation and life cycle that surrounds each paper grade, and vice-versa. One can also be more economical to produce than the other depending on the situation (ex: proximity and cost of fiber).

Recycled fiber and wood fiber from well-managed forests can be equally sustainable raw materials for papermaking.  If we want to evaluate environmental performance, we should be spending less time debating about which fiber type to use and more time measuring real product-specific environmental performance indicators.  Several tools, such as environmental scorecards and declarations, are available to collect specific data on companies, mill sites and paper grades (ex: Environmental Paper Assessment Tool, Paper Profile, WWF Paper Scorecard or customized scorecards).

(1) Sustainability involves three pillars: economic, environmental and social demands.  The simple definition is: “sustainability is improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems” (Wikipedia).

Additional recommended reading:

• www.thepaperlifecycle.org
• Sustainable use of recycled fiber
• Sustainable Procurement of Wood and Paper-based Products
• WRI interactive website on sustainable procurement
• Two Sides Myth and Fact on this topic
• Two Sides detailed fact sheet on this topic

Phil Riebel
President and COO
Two Sides US, Inc.

Read Full Post »

Google and Paperless2013: Thank you for removing your “anti-paper” environmental claims!

If you are a Two Sides follower, you may recall our open letter (and press release) to Google Chairman urging him and Google to re-consider their participation in the Paperless2013 initiative, and especially to consider removing or changing the negative environmental claims being made related to paper.  By this we mean the reference to “saving trees” and promoting the perception that switching from paper-based to electronic communications will help protect the environment without having any verifiable or factual information to support the claims.

Challenging and correcting misleading environmental claims related to print and paper has been a focus of Two Sides in Europe for a number of years and more recently in the US after we launched our campaign in July 2012.  Since then, we have approached over 50 US companies to engage with them and discuss best practices for environmental marketing related to print and paper.  Although Google was not on our list, the start of Paperless 2013 in January this year required our quick response.

What followed was unexpected.  Our letter received a lot of coverage, perhaps in part because it was addressed to the Chairman of Google.  Others also became engaged with their views regarding Paperless2013, including PIA who also sent a letter.  PrintMediaCentr was very active on social media and this had a major impact in engaging people to the point where the Twitter feed for Paperless2013 was dominated with tweets in favor of paper!

The good news is: changes have been made.  There are no longer any environmental claims on the Paperless2103 site or Twitter home page and all pictures of trees or forests have been removed.  The main tag line now is “Take the paper out of paperwork”, instead of “Save money. Save time. Save trees”.   The screenshots before and after are shown below and in more detail here.

For this we would like to thank the Paperless 2013 coalition.  It is all we were expecting and we appreciate the positive actions taken.

The “paperless” message may never go away because it is a fact that paper, in some cases, can be replaced with electronic media.  Depending on the situation digital can be more practical, faster and cheaper.  But it is not always more sustainable, when considering the life-cycle of both forms of communication, including their environmental and social pros and cons.  The temptation of marketing departments to include environmental claims to promote digital services is often misleading and unnecessarily damaging to the print, paper and mail value chain.

The term  ‘Paperless’ is also  deceptive. Our own recent pilot survey of consumers reveals that more than 55% of people print some of their e-bills at home or at the office, and about 25% of people print more than 30% of their e-bills.  Other research tells us that print on paper is still the medium of trust and 70% of consumers prefer to read from paper instead of  from a screen. So, instead of encouraging users to ‘go paperless’, organizations should  be enabling a choice of outputs – if they really want to consider their customers preferences.

Furthermore,  let’s not forget that 20% of US adults and 20% of UK households do not have access to the Internet.  In fact, 45% of Americans over the age of 65 don’t own a computer. Mail and paper-based communication is a vital service for this segment of the population.

Two Sides will continue its initiative to engage with companies regarding environmental claims. Our approach to date has been to engage 1-on-1 and encourage open discussion.  Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn’t.  Some ignore us or don’t respond…so other tactics may be needed.

Phil Riebel
President and COO
Two Sides US, Inc.

Read Full Post »

Tree-free Paper Better for the Environment?

The idea of using alternative fibers to make paper isn’t new, but it has regained media attention of late with actor Woody Harrelson promoting Prairie Pulp and Paper, a Canadian venture he co-founded to make paper using wheat straw (the waste from wheat harvests that typically is burned) instead of wood.  See http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/10/25/woody-harrelson-paper-plan.html.

Finding an innovative, economical way to convert waste to new, usable products is terrific, and Mr. Harrelson and his partners are to be commended for their Step Forward Paper™.    But please Woody, save the marketing hyperbole for Hollywood.   Calling logging “barbaric” and wishing we would “get to the point where we never use trees to make paper” is a naïve view of papermaking that ignores the science of sustainable forest management and the economic drivers that make paper made from trees one of the most sustainable products on earth.

Mr. Harrelson is quoted as saying that “much of the paper used” is from “threatened and endangered forests.”  That’s simply not true.   Sure, there are a few bad actors in less developed parts of the world, but U.S. paper companies require their wood suppliers – including millions of small, family owned tree farms – to manage their land responsibly.    And the demand for sustainably sourced paper provides an important financial incentive for tree farmers to manage their forestland responsibly rather than selling it off for development – the number one cause of forest loss in the United States according to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).

The U.S. paper industry plays a key role, not only in helping landowners learn and implement sustainable harvesting and best management practices, but also in encouraging certification to credible sustainable forest management standards.  In its 2010 Report on Sustainable Forests, the USFS says it’s the “loss of an active forest management focus and the revenue streams that accompany it” – not the paper industry’s sustainable forest management – that “threatens the survival of U.S. forests and their associated ecosystem services.”

Given that more U.S. trees are regenerated than harvested each year, the whole “tree-free paper protects forests” argument just doesn’t hold water.  Besides being made with a renewable resource, wood-based paper is the most recycled commodity in the country – more than plastics, metals and glass – according to the U.S. EPA.    In 2011, some 66.8% of U.S. paper produced was recovered for recycling.   And U.S. paper mills generate about 65% of the energy they use from renewable, carbon-neutral biomass.

To substantiate its claim that “Step Forward™ paper is significantly more sustainable, from an environmental perspective, than the typical North American virgin tree fiber paper types,”  Prairie P&P released the results  of a life cycle assessment (LCA) conducted by Canadian carbon management firm Offsetters.   The wheat-based paper was reported to consume half the energy of North American 100% virgin wood copy papers and released 40% less greenhouse gas emissions.   This is because wheat straw, like most alternative fibers, contains less lignin, the natural glue-like substance that holds the fiber together.   Less lignin, less energy needed to break it down.

There are many issues of concern related to the use of agricultural crop alternatives to wood fiber (the fact that they are monocultures, deplete soil quality, and require intensive management to eliminate competing plants and pests, for example) and about this study in particular.  Instead of using current data on specific paper products, the Offsetters LCA includes secondary data on “typical North American virgin tree fiber paper” from a well-known tool called the Paper Calculator.  This data uses paper industry averages to make generalizations about environmental performance.

In a January 2012 white paper, Effect of Methodology on the Life Cycle Analysis of Paper Products, Professor Richard Venditti of North Carolina State University reviewed several paper LCAs including the conclusions of the Paper Calculator (The Paper Task Force Study) used by Prairie P&P.  He correctly concluded that, “Industry average data are useful for an industry to benchmark its overall performance, but the use of industrial averages of environmental impacts to promote a specific paper product relative to other similar paper products is not reasonable.”   His conclusion is based on the fact that there are very large ranges of environmental performance for one type of paper product from manufacturing site to site.  Due to this large range, “It’s imperative to base environmental claims on site- and product-specific LCAs using established protocols like ISO 14040:2006,” Venditti says.

Furthermore, globally accepted life cycle accounting standards, including the World Resources Institute Greenhouse Gas Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard cited in the Step Forward™ study, admonish those who conduct even the strictest of life cycle assessments not to use results to make generalizations across broad product categories.

My intent here is not to offer a point-counterpoint review of the Step Forward™ study or to in any way suggest that Step Forward™ paper is not a welcome addition in a world that must pursue sustainable, economically viable solutions to meet the needs of a growing population.    If companies like Prairie Pulp and Paper, and more recently Eco-Paper, want to give consumers a wider choice of sustainably produced paper products, that’s great.  But don’t portray the U.S. wood-based paper industry as the great destroyer of the world’s forests in the process.   The facts just don’t support it.

For a good, concise overview of how sustainable forest-based products like paper are encouraging global economic, environmental and social sustainability, take a look at this short video from last year’s Rio+20 conference.  It describes how the sustainable production and consumption of forest-based bio-products “will be a game changer in moving us toward a greener economy.”

Kathi Rowzie is a Two Sides guest blogger and a sustainability communications consultant with The Gagliardi Group in Memphis, Tennessee.

Read Full Post »

Our letter to Google: quick update and thanks!

As many of you may know we issued a letter to Google on January 8, urging the company to re-consider its participation in the paperless2013 campaign and reminding them that using vague and unsubstantiated environmental claims and images (i.e. save a tree) to promote electronic media over paper is a form of greenwashing.

Many of you liked the letter and decided to cover it as a news item, distribute it or even write your own letter.  On behalf of Two Sides I would like to thank everyone who helped raise awareness on this important topic.  Special thanks go to the PrintMediaCentr  for their engagement and assistance in reaching a much wider audience.

This was another great example of many of us in the graphic communications value chain standing up to defend the sustainable features of print and paper.

The economic value of our combined sectors is something that corporations and groups such as the Paperless2013 Coalition should not forget.  In summary:

1.  8.7 million Americans rely on the print, paper and mail value chain for their livelihood (1.1 trillion dollars in revenue).
2. In the US there are over 10 million US family forest owners, many of whom rely on income from their forestland to continue managing it sustainably.
3. Most of us are customers of Google and their “paperless 2013” allies and we don’t appreciate the “anti-paper” messaging.  It is damaging to our industry and our livelihood.
4. The money we spend on their services and products comes from the print, paper and mail value chain.
5. There are thousands of US college students who are studying paper science and engineering, graphic communications and other programs where print and paper is essential to their future careers.

Switching from paper to electronic products or services doesn’t necessarily result in a more sustainable outcome from an environmental, social and economic point of view.  It depends on many factors and product lifecycle aspects that many companies are failing to consider when they make environmental claims related to going paperless.

Electronic gadgets rely on a growing supply of non-renewable and often rare materials, and the recycling rate of electronic is low compared to paper.  E-waste is growing at an alarming rate and becoming an environmental and social problem in many developing countries.   Online communications may not be as effective as print on paper for “deep reading” and understanding concepts.

For many applications, print and paper is hard to beat.

Two Sides believes that many, even Google, recognize the value of print and paper.  In fact, they just won a USA today print advertising competition.  To quote Robert Wong, Chief Creative Officer at the Google Creative Lab in New York:

“Every medium has its strengths, and for print, they include immediacy in that a newspaper is good for news…a full-page ad in a newspaper says the ad is important.”

Ironic isn’t it.

All we ask is that companies stop spouting negative environmental messages about print on paper to promote electronic media and services which also have pros and cons.    Both media can co-exist and have great synergies.  In many ways they complement each other.  Rather that creating us vs. them scenarios, we need to focus on responsible production and use of all products and services. It’s not just good for the environment and for the U.S. economy… it’s the right thing to do.

Phil Riebel, President, Two Sides U.S.

Read Full Post »

Two Sides: A Unique Supply Chain Approach

Chuck Ruffing, Director, Health, Safety, Environment and Sustainability for Eastman Kodak Company

For many, fall begins the annual budget cycle and the opportunity to review freshly worded business justifications for employee headcounts, initiatives, capital spends, subscriptions and, yes, memberships.  With a year’s experience behind us, an ongoing membership in Two Sides is a commitment I can make without hesitation. Some might think Two Sides is an unusual choice for Kodak.  In fact, as I write we are one of a very few printing equipment company in its US membership.

Like many companies, we buy a lot of paper for our own use.  And, some may not realize it, but we also sell a lot of paper including inkjet paper, photographic paper, proofing paper and paper used in packaging and manuals. As Two Sides members, we enjoy access to research, tools and experts that have helped us strengthen our product standards for purchased and manufactured papers, and enhance our supplier selection process. Although this has been immensely valuable, it’s not the whole story.

Industry associations come in many styles. Some bring laser focus to one sector’s specific needs, while others are designed to expose a broad membership to the very best practices in industry. Two Sides is of a third, perhaps rarer, variety focusing on a single, complete supply chain. A natural complement to Kodak’s own life cycle-based product philosophy, Two Sides, like Kodak, believes the best solutions come from looking across every stage from materials selection to end-of-life management.  Kodak is clearly not as big a player in the world of paper as many of the other Two Sides members, but when you take the life cycle view, you see that paper is clearly a big player in the world of printing equipment.

In addition to its focus on the entire supply chain, Two Sides prioritizes balanced, credible and science-based approaches; values Kodak also shares.  Without hesitation, we immediately utilized the Two Sides educational materials with customers and at trade shows enhancing our promise to be full partners in our customers’ pursuit of sustainability. Membership has meant we stay focused on our B2B customers knowing Two Sides is educating consumers and other sectors through initiatives like its soon-to-be-launched “No Wonder You Love Paper” and Get the Facts campaigns. It’s a unique partnership that I believe is only possible when we take a supply chain view.

Kudos to Steve Brocker of Western States Envelope & Label who defined the issue so well in his Oct 16^th Two Sides blog.  We have not done a very good job of educating the public on the environmental story of paper, which should be the ultimate case study on forest preservation, economic benefit and life cycle analysis. We (and I mean the entire supply chain) need to change the perception of print and paper.  With credibility and objectivity, Two Sides is tackling that. I fully expect their efforts will contribute to a change in understanding that will flow through the value chain to sustain the printed word.

Chuck supports compliance to both operations and products at Kodak worldwide, as well as coordinating sustainability initiatives throughout the company.  Chuck is also a member of the board of trustees for the Central and Western New York chapter of The Nature Conservancy.  He also writes for Kodak’s “Grow Your Biz”.   

Read Full Post »

Go Green, Go Paperless, Go Jobless?

When I went online a couple of days ago to change some of the features of my phone service, the first thing I saw after I logged on was a pop-up asking if I’d like to “go green and go paperless.”   It made me think about the broad implications of that choice.   On its face, clicking “sign me up” would probably seem pretty innocuous to most people, generating the feel-good, albeit unsupported, vibe that corporate marketers intend.  But there’s a hidden consequence in using unsubstantiated environmental claims to promote paperless communication:  potential job loss for millions of Americans.

Millions of Americans?  It sounds like a stretch until you consider how many U.S. families depend on the paper, print and mailing industries for their livelihoods.   A 2010 U.S. Mailing Industry Jobs Study conducted for the Envelope Manufacturers Association found that the U.S. mailing industry supports 8.7 million jobs.   These are people who are directly employed in forest products, paper, printing, direct mail design, mail management and mail delivery jobs, 91.7 percent of them in the private sector.   Include supply chain jobs, many in small companies that would go belly-up if print and paper go away, and the reach of a collective online click extends even further.   (Be on the lookout for updated survey data from EMA).

There are also some 10 million family forest owners who depend on income from the wood they supply for pulp and papermaking.   These folks are the backbone of the print and paper industry, filling the demand for the sustainably grown wood fiber used in printed phone bills, bank statements and other customer communications.  In fact, 60% of the wood used to manufacture paper in the United States comes from these small family owned tree farms.   According to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), family forest owners account for 92 percent of all private forest owners and 62 percent of the private forestland (35 percent of all forestland) in the United States with the average family farm holding at around 25 acres.   For more see the USDA report.

Without the demand for sustainably grown wood to make paper and the income it provides, many families would be tempted to sell their land for development, the leading cause of U.S. forest loss, rather than continue to manage it responsibly.   This is especially true in today’s tough economic times.  The USFS says U.S. family forest owners have held their land an average of 26 years.   Should these people on the front lines of sustainable forest management be forced to make the difficult financial choice to sell long-held family land when a drop in paper demand results from green marketing claims that don’t hold water?

If companies want to encourage a switch from paper to electronic communication because it’s speedier or more cost-effective, I can’t argue with that.   But don’t tout that electronic bill or monthly statement as the greener alternative because it’s just not true.  (To avoid greenwashing, companies should follow best practices for environmental marketing and ensure that environmental claims are based on “competent and reliable scientific evidence” as stated by the US FTC Green Guides)  The fact is that both paper and electronic communications have environmental trade-offs and both have valuable consumer benefits.  Chief marketing officers who have thumbs up or down power to end the proliferation of “go paperless” messaging should think long and hard about that.   Millions of their customers do … the millions who depend on print and paper to put bread on the table each day.

Kathi Rowzie is a Two Sides guest blogger and a sustainability communications consultant with The Gagliardi Group in Memphis, Tennessee.

Help Two Sides promote best practices related to environmental marketing claims about print and paper.  If you find claims that concern you, let us know at pnr@twosides.info.

Read Full Post »

Environmental Marketing Best Practices for Print and Paper: Two Sides posts new web page

This week we posted our new resource page on Environmental Marketing Best Practices for Print and Paper.

The objective of this page is to provide marketers with some guidelines, tools and advice on how to promote the environmental benefits of print and paper products, and avoid “greenwashing” (the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service – see Terrachoice).  This resource page also supports our current nationwide educational campaign to help companies better understand the sustainability of print and paper and to create greater awareness of best practices for environmental marketing.

As part of this effort, Two Sides has compiled a detailed FAQ sheet to answer the most frequently asked questions about environmental marketing best practices and a list of resources to help companies navigate green marketing do’s and don’ts.

To access a PowerPoint (PDF) version of “Self-declared Environmental Marketing Do’s and Don’ts”, click here.

The U.S. FTC Summary of the Green Guides is a must read and can be found here.  It outlines the key highlights of the new FTC guide for environmental marketing.

To date, one of the best tools I have found for applying proper sustainable marketing is a series of checklists developed by CSR Europe.  The basics of proper environmental marketing are similar throughout the world and I recommend this tool for anyone who wants to follow best practices.

Below are a few key facts to consider:

• Marketers should not make broad, unqualified general environmental benefit claims like “green” or “eco-friendly”.  Broad claims are difficult to substantiate, if not impossible.
• Claiming “green, made with recycled content” may be deceptive if the environmental costs of using recycled  content outweigh the environmental benefits of using it.”

              Summary of the Green Guides – U.S. FTC

• A self-declared environmental claim shall be: accurate and not misleading; substantiated and verified;  relevant to that particular product, and used only in an appropriate context or setting; presented in a manner that clearly indicates whether the claim applies to the complete product, or only to a component part or packaging, or to an element of a service.

              Self-declared environmental claims  (ISO 14021:1999)

• The most common of the Seven Sins of Greenwashing is the “sin of no proof,” which is defined as an environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable third-party certification.

              The Seven Sins of Greenwashing 2010, Terra Choice

I hope you find our new resource useful and I always appreciate feedback of any kind.

Phil Riebel
President and COO
Two Sides U.S., Inc.

Read Full Post »

Greenwashing or Just Sloppy Marketing?

Some Companies are Ignoring Environmental Marketing Best Practices When it Comes to Print and Paper

The potential consequences of misleading marketing claims – from negative public relations and customer dissatisfaction to legal action and financial penalties – make rigorous factual and legal scrutiny of product and service claims a fundamental step in today’s corporate marketing process.  So why are many otherwise diligent companies skipping this step and shooting from the hip when it comes to making environmental claims about the use of print and paper?

In part, I think the answer lies in the fact that the “go paperless, saves trees” mantra has been repeated without effective challenge for so long that many, including corporate gatekeepers, have come to accept it as fact.   If paper comes from trees and we use less paper, we save trees and protect our forests, the reasoning goes.   And since using less paper is good for the environment, the electronic bills, statements and other customer communications that replace it must be a better environmental choice, right?  Wrong.  But lots of big-name U.S. companies are making this unsubstantiated leap as they encourage their customers to switch from paper to electronic communications, ironically sidestepping best practices for environmental marketing under the banner of going green.

Two Sides recently initiated an educational campaign to engage and encourage major U.S. corporations to adopt best practices for environmental marketing established by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14021:1999) and to end the use of unsubstantiated claims about the sustainability of print and paper. Both sets of standards are quite detailed, but in a nutshell they say that environmental marketing claims should be accurate, substantiated by competent and reliable evidence and should not suggest environmental benefits by using broad, vague terms like “green” and “environmentally friendly.”

What I especially like about the Two Sides effort is that it doesn’t try to establish a “pixels versus paper” scenario but instead recognizes that both print and electronic communications have attractive benefits and environmental consequences.   It’s a straightforward approach that simply says, “Dear Mr. CEO, your company is making unsubstantiated marketing claims about the environmental attributes of print and paper. Here are the facts about print and paper sustainability. We encourage you to follow best practices for environmental marketing from the FTC and others and put an end to your misleading claims.”

Citing facts from well-known, credible sources, Two Sides makes the case that paper is made from a natural resource that is renewable and recyclable and that these features, combined with the U.S. paper industry’s advocacy of responsible forestry practices and certification, use of renewable, carbon-neutral biofuels and advances in efficient papermaking technology, make paper one of the most sustainable products on earth.   It’s a compelling argument founded in sound science.

The process of contacting companies will take some time, so it will be a while before results of the campaign are known.  But the results of a similar effort in the United Kingdom were pretty impressive.  At the outset of the campaign, 43 percent of the major U.K. banks, 70 percent of telecoms and 30 percent of utilities were using misleading environmental claims to support e-billing and statements.   As a result of Two Sides efforts, over 80 percent of these companies either eliminated the claims or now use wording that doesn’t include misleading statements.   You can keep up with results of the U.S. campaign and other print and paper sustainability news by following Two Sides on Twitter at twitter.com/twoside.us or visiting www.twosides.us.

Kathi Rowzie is a Two Sides guest blogger and a sustainability communications consultant with The Gagliardi Group in Memphis, Tennessee.

Read Full Post »

Two Sides U.S. Reports on Progress since Start-up

The text below is taken from our first annual report published here

Two Sides U.S. Annual Report (July 2011 – July 2012)

The past year has been a busy and exciting time for Two Sides.  Our membership continues to grow as companies across the Graphic Communications Supply Chain recognize the value of speaking with one clear voice about the sustainability of print and paper.   Our reach and effectiveness continue to grow, too.   With our master strategy approved by the Two Sides U.S. Board of Directors and an ambitious Marketing/Communications Plan in place, we’ve effectively used in-person presentations, the news media, advertising, targeted campaigns,  printed materials, social media and our website to share the news that Print and Paper Have a Great Environmental Story to Tell. 

Membership – As of July 31, 2012, Two Sides U.S. has 43 commercial members  from across the Graphic Communications Supply Chain, including paper producers, merchants, printers, envelope manufacturers and a host of allied organizations and partner members.  Internationally, the Two Sides network includes more than 1,000 members in over 12 countries.

Website – Following our initial membership effort in 2011, the Two Sides website, www.twosides.us, officially launched in January 2012.  The site is a vast and valuable resource for members and the general public, providing the latest news, research, case studies, tools and useful facts about the sustainability of print and paper.  The site is update twice monthly and members receive email notification of new items that have been added.  For the quarter ended June 30, 2012, the website had more than 5,000 visits.  There are about 420 visits per week or roughly 60 visits per day to the site.

Member Support – Two Sides supported its members’ efforts to promote the responsible production and use of print and paper throughout the year with a variety of presentations, materials and other resources available on the Member Only sections of our website

Research – In September 2011, Two Sides commissioned Ipsos, a global market research company, to conduct a multi-country survey that included 500 U.S. respondents classified by age and gender.  The survey found that 70% of Americans, including 69% of 18- to 24-year-olds, say it’s nicer to read print and paper communications than reading off a screen.   Most of those surveyed also believe that paper records are more sustainable than electronic record storage (68%) and that paper is more pleasant to handle and touch than other media (67%).  But survey results also showed that many Americans still have misconceptions about the environmental impacts of print and paper.  Survey results were publicized in the news media and on Two Sides social media sites.

Ad Campaign –To address the misconceptions identified in the Two Sides research, the No Wonder You Love Paper ad campaign was designed to educate consumers that print media is sustainable, made from a renewable resource, supports sustainable forest management, and to promote the reading experience and enjoyment of printed magazines and newspapers.   The campaign which will be launched in the summer and fall of 2012, includes a very user-friendly companion consumer website.   Two Sides is seeking free advertising space in business and trade magazines and newspapers.

Paperless Claims Initiative – Two Sides launched this nationwide education effort in July 2012 to encourage leading U.S. companies to end the use of unsubstantiated marketing claims that electronic billing and customer communications are better for the environment than paper communications.  The campaign will engage about 100 companies, primarily in the financial services, telecommunications and utilities industries and will run through December 2013.   This effort is patterned after a similar, highly successful program conducted by Two Sides in the United Kingdom.

Myths and Fact Sheets – Two Sides published and regularly updates a series of fact sheets that cite well-known, credible sources to dispel the common myths about the sustainability of print and paper.  The fact sheets are available to anyone on the Two Sides website at www.twosides.us/mythsandfacts.

Myths and Facts Brochure – To make it easier members to share the Myths and Facts about print and paper, Two Sides developed a customizable brochure version of its Myths and Facts series.  High resolution artwork is available to members on the Two Sides website; a low resolution version is available to anyone.

News Media – Two Sides distributed news and information through the media and was featured in a number of business and trade publications.

Social Media – Outreach via social media includes regular posts to LinkedIn, Twitter (twitter.com/twosidesUS) and the Two Sides blog (twosidesus.wordpress.com).  Two Sides currently has approximately 370 LinkedIn group members, 740 Twitter and blog followers.

Conference Participation – Two Sides presented at/participated in more than five conferences and industry meetings over the past 12 months, including 2011 Graph Expo, 2011 and 2012 Gravure Association of America Environmental Workshop, Envelope Manufacturers Association 2012 Spring Meeting, Paperweek  2012, Paper Distribution Council 2011 Meeting, and the 2012 Boise Sustainability Summit.

Webinars and Presentations to Member Companies – Two Sides hosted over a dozen webinars and face-to-face presentations to introduce its members and others to the organization, and to review the many features available on the Two Sides website.  Two Sides also hosted webinars for members and other stakeholders on topics related to the sustainability of print and paper.

Member Satisfaction Survey – In June 2012, Two Sides conducted its first annual member satisfaction survey to gauge member attitudes about the organization’s progress and guide it in refining and expanding its efforts.  We received great feedback and results show that we are on the right track.  Members can access the full report on our Member Page.

World Resource Institute (WRI)/Forest Legality Alliance (FLA) – In July 2012, Two Sides joined the WRI-FLA, a global network dedicated to promoting the demand of forest products of legal origin, and to working with stakeholders along the supply chain to meet that demand.

Join us

Linked In Group , Twitter

Read Full Post »

Two Sides U.S. joins the Forest Legality Alliance

Two Sides U.S. has joined the Forest Legality Alliance (FLA) as a commitment to advancing the responsible production and use of print and paper, one of the core elements of the Mission of Two Sides U.S.

The press release was issued today and can be found at this link.

The Alliance is a joint effort of the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the Environmental Investigation Agency, supported by the United States Agency for International Development and companies in the forest sector.  FLA’s diverse membership includes organizations such as Staples, Ikea, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the Retail Industry Leaders Association.

The goal of FLA is to reduce illegal logging and eliminate illegal fiber in paper products.  To achieve this, FLA engages in the following activities:

• Outreach and dissemination – providing information and building capacity on legality aspects including the 2008 U.S. Lacey Act amendments.
• Information and analysis – compiling information and generating new analyses to help buyers understand the context in the countries of origin of their raw materials.
• Demonstrating feasibility – through case studies, showcase best practices and examples of how companies are addressing and meeting legality requirements.

Our engagement with FLA also gives us an opportunity to work much more closely with WRI staff.  For the past year, Two Sides U.S. has been looking to collaborate more closely with reputable science-based environmental organizations that have experience and knowledge in the environmental impacts of forest products over their life cycle.  WRI meets this need perfectly as their experience in the sustainability of forest products is world-class.  They have worked with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, NCASI and others to produce documents which are now industry standards, such as:

• the Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Pulp and Paper
• the Sustainable Procurement Guide for Wood and Paper-based Products

Over the next few months, we will be featuring these tools and others more prominently as we develop our dedicated web pages on Responsible Production and Use of Print and Paper.

Forest Legality Alliance staff will also help provide training and education services to Two Sides U.S. member companies on topics related to illegal logging and associated trade, including legal requirements in global marketplaces and the sourcing of legal and sustainable paper products. FLA will also provide peer review for Two Sides materials including web content, blogs, printed publications and promotional materials.

This new initiative will not only benefit our members, but also will strengthen our mutual efforts to promote the responsible production and use of paper.  When fiber is sourced legally from well-managed forests and paper is manufactured and printed responsibly, print on paper is a sustainable way to communicate.

Phil Riebel

President, Two Sides U.S., Inc.

Read Full Post »