|
 |
Seven more brands move away from SFI
4 October 2011
The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) held its annual conference 13-15 September 2011 under the theme “The Bigger Picture”, referring to their claims of supporting social and environmental values in North America. In May 2011, SFI launched a report by the same title.
However, in conjunction with the conference, the organisation ForestEthics released several announcements questioning the commitment of SFI to fulfilling its brand promise in practice and hence its market value as an eco-label.
Large companies distance themselves from SFI
Earlier this year, ForestEthics announced that seven major US brands had vowed to move away from SFI. Now the NGO has announced that the next seven companies are making the same move. These are Sprint, Norm Thompson Outfitters, King Arthur Flour, AT&T, State Farm, U.S. Bank and Comcast.
 The companies have not committed to complete exclusion of SFI products from their supply chain, but they have pledged to phase out their use of the SFI logo and name, give preference to FSC when buying paper and/or switch to FSC-labeling in general or on specific high-visibility materials.
For example, AT&T – one of the largest companies in the US and a leader in telecommunications – has pledged to avoid the SFI logo and name on its materials and to preference FSC-certified paper for all of its new paper purchases. U.S. Bank, regarded as the fifth largest commerical bank in the US, has committed to use the FSC label as its only forest eco-label.
The decision by these companies is a response to the on-going debate about the credibility of the SFI scheme. Endorsed by PEFC, SFI covers large forest areas in North America. “SFI’s greenwashing of business-as-usual forest destruction is toxic for companies with strong environmental values and commitments”, said US Campaign Director Aaron Sanger of ForestEthics in a press release. “These brands want tools and certifications that build their credibiliity in the marketplace, not tools like SFI that are being investigated for misleading consumers”.
North American NGOs ask SFI to “stop greenwashing”
The announcement was accompanied by a petition from 21 North American NGOs to the CEO of SFI Kathy Abusow, asking SFI to move away from greenwashing. Aside from ForestEthics, the signatories include prominent environmental NGOs such as Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defence Council.
The letter claims that there is a lack of transparency regarding the funding of SFI; the NGOs suspect that the scheme has strong financial ties with the timber industry and therefore question the current legal status of SFI as a charity organisation. They recommend that SFI reverts to its original form, that of a Trade Association, which they deem “less confusing to the public”.
.jpg) In addition to these points, the NGOs rebut the validity of the SFI scheme in delivering assurance for sustainable forest management. The letter reads: “No individual or company seeking a forest product with an eco-label would think that the paper or wood came from logging in endangered species habitat or on extremely steep and unstable slopes near salmonbearing streams and above population centers, yet these are all things that SFI has permitted”.
Campaign against SFI on ForestEthics' website
The NGOs also maintain that SFI’s fiber sourcing label is misleading consumers: “We know that SFI acknowledges on its website (and presumably elsewhere) that the SFI fiber sourcing label actually does not require a process that would identify the sourcing of the fiber in the product bearing this label. But that acknowledgment does not correct what appears to be a clear intent to mislead consumers”.
Earlier this year, ForestEthics launched the report “SFI: certified greenwash” that further describes these points. Two years ago, the organisation filed formal complaints against SFI with the Federal Trade Commission and the Internal Revenue Service, alleging that SFI misleads the public through deceptive marketing and operates as a non-profit charity even though it primarily serves private for profit interests. These complaints are still being processed.
 In its online response to the allegations, “Setting the Record Straight”, SFI defends itself, partly by pointing out that the SFI scheme is recognised or endorsed by several organisations such as PEFC and the UK Central Point of Expertise on Timber (CPET), and that SFI is included in a list of ‘legitimate’ environmental standards published by the organisation TerraChoice’s “Sins of Greenwashing” report from 2010.
A dubious shade of green?
The NGO letter also questions the legitimacy of SFI claims to NGO support: “By signing this letter, we are also demonstrating that SFI’s program is opposed—not supported, as SFI claims—by ‘conservation groups across North America’”, the signatories declare.
Being able to demonstrate broad NGO support is a major asset and a crucial part of the credibility merits of any forest certification scheme. NGOs are generally seen as independent stakeholders who will only support schemes that are sufficiently aligned with and promoting their goals.
 In its press release, ForestEthics highlights how “mainstream NGOs” that were previously engaged with SFI – such as The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited and Trust for Public Land - have withdrawn from SFI’s board. Those that remain – e.g. the Ruffed Grouse Society and Bird Studies Canada - are “not exactly a who’s who of the environmental movement”, according to Forest Ethics. Countering this, SFI claims that people have left the board largely because they had served the maximum term.
ForestEthics claims that some of the NGOs on SFI’s board have strong financial ties to SFI and the timber industries. The organisation has produced a list of examples underpinning this point.
Related stories
Seven major brands move away from SFI (6/4 2011)
Certification showndown in the US (31/3 2010)
|
 |
|
|
