While in the past, paper firms could afford to ignore the pressure groups because their customers did not really care where their paper came from, expectations are very different today – it is now much harder to dismiss terms such as ‘corporate social responsibility’. Increasingly, society expects business to behave in an environmentally responsible way, which means paper firms can ill afford to ignore ‘green’ issues.

“What we are seeing is an increase in the amount of environmental product sold, consumed and specified, because of customer demand,” explains Jonathan Tame, the head of Howard Smith Paper Group’s strategic business development team. Tame, who was formerly recycled paper advocacy team manager at the Waste Resources Action Programme (Wrap), cites firms including Sainsbury’s, O2 and Centrica as examples of companies driving this demand. “The big push is coming from the corporates, who are putting pressure on paper suppliers, who are putting pressure on the mills,” he says.

Several years ago, the idea that pressure groups and big corporates would one day be in bed together would have been met with derision. The fact was that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were anti-corporate to the core – their principles were diametrically opposed to those of big business.

But times have changed. For example, a few years ago environmental group Greenpeace clearly believed that the occasional partnership with a corporate player was no bad thing. To help its campaigning in the area of sustainable energy sources, it forged an alliance with npower (part of German utility giant RWE) to market Juice, a renewable energy product, to British consumers. The partnership raised eyebrows. The WWF had always refused to work with RWE on the basis that the energy firm burns coal in power stations and operates nuclear facilities.

Corporate co-operation
Today, however, the phenomenon of NGOs allying with corporations has become commonplace. The WWF is currently working with HSBC on its Climate Partnership, and The Pressure Group, which campaigns to protect people and nature from global threats such as climate change, is also collaborating with paper firms. WWF-UK has set up the Forest & Trade Network (FTN), the UK arm of Worldwide Fund for Nature’s Global Forest & Trade Network, and is working with a number of companies, including paper merchant Robert Horne Group (see case study).

“It’s important we are involved with environmental groups, particularly the WWF,” explains Tim Barker, Robert Horne’s environmental manager. As a member of the WWF’s FTN, Robert Horne must have a responsible paper-purchasing policy and abide by a green claims code of practice. The firm also has to make an annual submission detailing where paper products and fibre products have come from.

“We have also had contact with groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace going back several years,” Barker adds. “We have always taken the approach that it’s good to be open to environmental groups – ultimately we want to work towards the same goal. I like to think we have always been responsible, but we have become more sophisticated in how we demonstrate that. One reason is a growing recognition of environmental and sustainability issues out there, and business has responded to address those.”

An obvious manifestation of business’s engagement with sustainability issues is the uptake in adoption of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) accreditation, which was developed to prevent destruction of ancient forest. It is now widely flaunted by printing firms to demonstrate environmental credentials.

John Sanderson, UK director of regional environmental affairs at paper manufacturer UPM-Kymmene, acknowledges that paper companies are increasingly working with pressure groups to “better understand their way of thinking and to help such organisations understand the industry point of view”.

Customer pressure
Sanderson says that UPM is experiencing a growing demand for environmentally sound products from customers. “Some customers are very keen to source environmentally responsibly produced paper to avoid association with reports of poor supplier performance and behaviour, which pop up occasionally in the media. Customers are interested if there is potential impact on their business, although some are only interested in price. However, the number of customers committed to environmentally sound practices is increasing as they realise the potential benefit to their business in the long term.”

As customer demand for ‘greener’ businesses has grown, so too has the number of dealings that the paper industry has with environmental groups. This in turn has led to maturing relations.

“We have seen changes in the nature of the relationship between the paper industry and environmental groups,” says Charles Whitaker, technical manager and environmental spokesman for Scottish paper maker Curtis Fine Papers. “There have been instances in the past where (in many cases justifiably) environmental groups have called the industry to account. Equally, there have been cases where misconceptions have arisen.”

Robert Horne’s Barker reckons the relationship has been helped by a shift in attitude at both pressure groups and paper firms. “Environmental groups have largely adopted a more constructive, commercial approach in engaging with businesses,” he says. “And industry has adopted a more environmental approach.”

Whitaker agrees. “Environmental groups have developed a presence that has given them real influence over important issues affecting the industry. Curtis can learn from their knowledge and activities, which can inform our own actions,” he says.

He cites a recent example that saw Curtis collaborate with Greenpeace to create a Green Glossary explaining environmental terms to printers, graphic designers and other paper users and urging corporate paper users to consider using eco papers for annual reports, accounts and other documents.

Engagement
UPM’s Sanderson says that while relations between paper firms and NGOs have changed for the better, there are still varying degrees of engagement. “Much depends on the company and the pressure group,” he says. “The various environmental pressure groups have quite different approaches to achieving their aims, some preferring to remain at arm’s length, while others are increasingly willing to enter into dialogue.”

UPM Forest has been involved in a number of joint projects with the ‘green’ lobby including the Black Grouse Project in the UK, in collaboration with the RSPB. It also conducted a project to trace Russian wood imports, a venture carried out with the support of Greenpeace Russia, publisher Guardian Media Group and Axel Springer, German mail order firm Otto and Russian authorities. The venture resulted in the creation of a sustainable forestry microsite linked to UPM’s homepage.

UPM has also been involved in parallel testing of Forest Certification Schemes, where the WWF acted as an observer and external expert, and a ‘bio-indicators’ project in Canada in conjunction with a local environmental organisation, a university and publisher Time Inc.

“The reasons for working with various organisations relate to different skills and competencies that the parties have in specific areas,” Sanderson explains.

Clearly, much of the business case for working with pressure groups and adopting a ‘greener’ stance is based on positive PR, as Barker explains: “There are networking and PR benefits.”

But while positive spin can generate PR capital, firms must avoid spouting ‘greenwash’. David Shorto, print buyer for Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, drives home the point that the misappropriation of environmental claims for marketing purposes is creating a huge barrier to environmental progress.

“According to the DTI’s Green Claims Code, a ‘green’ claim should be truthful, accurate and able to be substantiated,” he says. “It’s worth bearing that in mind next time you read or hear one.”

Although there are clear PR advantages to making ‘green’ claims, Sanderson admits that attributing a monetary value to a corporation’s environmental strategy is tricky. “In the examples mentioned above, the financial benefit or justification is hard to measure,” he says.

But regardless of whether the financial benefits are hard to assess, the voice of the ‘green’ lobby is growing louder, and media, consumers and print customers are becoming more environmentally conscious. With this in mind, the business case for not collaborating with the environmental lobby to inform your environmental policy can only grow weaker.

---

CASE STUDY
Robert Horne Group

Robert Horne Group is an active member of the WWF-UK Forest and Trade Network (FTN), the UK arm of the Worldwide Fund for Nature’s Global Forest and Trade Network. The network strives to improve forest management, link certified forest products with markets, provide support to local and indigenous forest communities and create demand for certified products.

The collection of more than 40 like-minded organisations – including Marks & Spencer, BBC Worldwide, Bovis Land Lease and Sainsbury’s – are committed to the responsible sourcing of wood products, including paper.

As a member of the FTN, Robert Horne is committed to a Responsible Paper Purchasing policy, to increasing how much is known about the origin of fibre in paper products and to ensuring that it comes from well-managed sources. To retain its membership, the company is required to uphold minimum requirements within its paper supply chain and to meet targets for improvement, as agreed with the WWF.Progress is scrutinised by the environmental group and is also open to third-party audits.

Robert Horne’s long-term intention is to source all paper products from well-managed forests that have been certified to credible certification standards.