Product eco-labels have long been a source of contention in the paper industry, but more confusion is likely before the dust settles

by Leslie Webb

Can't see the paper for the labels

In the last two years, product eco-labels have maintained a low profile with one prominent exception - the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme. For a time, some paper product eco-labels required that wood be sourced from sustainably managed forests, usually by reference to one of a number of schemes that laid out general guidelines, such as the Helsinki agreement for European forests. Unfortunately, the value of this criterion was undermined by the absence of any agreed standards for assessing the relevant wood sources.

Despite widespread dislike of eco-labels in many sectors of the paper business, it was recognized that the industry did need to correct some of the perceptions that consumers had about forest management. This led to a number of wood product labeling initiatives and/or forest certification schemes. These were either led by the paper industry or had its active cooperation. One notable exception is the International Standards Organization (ISO). This group has continued its work to develop standards for eco-labels and in the related area of life cycle assessment.

Labeling of paper products now covers most mainstream paper grades, except packaging grades, which in one form or another account for almost half of the global paper/board production (Table 1).

Although the Nordic Swan scheme is developing an eco-label for packaging papers, the only one running at present is Germany's Blue Angel program, which has a category for recycled cardboard. For all its paper labels, the vision of the Blue Angel scheme remains distinctly myopic, still largely recognizing the use of recycled fiber as the principal criterion, plus some restrictions on chemical use. Given the pressure to recover and recycle used packaging (PPI October 1997, pp 53-59), an eco-label for packaging paper/board should recognize grades based on both virgin and recycled fiber. It should also address recoverability issues such as design for recycling and other secondary uses.

Green wipes

Tissues and towels form one set of products that feature in all the main eco-label schemes, but they are assessed on a diverse range of criteria (Table 2). A number of the schemes stipulate that only recycled fiber can be used, usually on the grounds of lower water/energy use and lower emissions compared to virgin pulp. While this often true, it is not necessarily always true everywhere. Other schemes, such as those run in Canada and the European Union (EU), engineer the same result by dictating key parameters that can only be achieved through a high recycled content. Unsurprisingly, the industry tends to dislike being told what type of fiber to use, but the minimum use of virgin fibers makes some sense in products that are essentially non-recoverable.

There has been no substantive change in the nature of the tissue/towel eco-labels, except within the EU scheme. This program has consolidated the two separate categories of toilet paper and kitchen towels into one covering all tissue products. The previous complex points scoring system across seven parameters has been simplified so that only four parameters are now used over a linear scale. The new formula is:


There are also maximum limits set at 45 kg COD/ton, 0.5 kg AOX/ton, 2.5 kg SO2/ton (as S) and 3,750 kg CO2/ton. The hurdles are much less than the previous levels for COD and SO2, the same for AOX and somewhat higher for CO2. A qualifying product must score less than four points, but there is also a requirement for the manufacturer to have a documented and externally verified system for dealing with solid waste.

Although it is easier for a product based on recovered paper to get the label, it is also possible for a virgin pulp-based product. In the latter case, the forestry criterion kicks in, which requires a forest management plan covering at least reforestation and for the pulp mill to keep details of all wood supplies. This eco-label is not as fair to all fiber sources as the Nordic Swan label for tissues, which uses different benchmark levels for different types of pulp. For example, the benchmark COD is 12 kg/ton of recycled fiber compared to 35kg/ton of bleached chemical virgin pulp.

So far, only one product that meets the requirements of the new scheme is on the market and the manufacturer - Dalle Hygiene in France - was one of only two companies that received the original EU eco-label for tissue/towel. Previously, there was only one tissue product that achieved the original Nordic Swan eco-label that mandated at least 90% recycled fiber content. But 11 licenses have now been issued for the revised eco-label, which has no inherent constraint on fiber sourcing.

Tissue suppliers with the Swan label include Fort James, SCA Hygiene and Metsä Tissue. Despite the 100% recycled fiber requirement, the Blue Angel and Green Seal schemes have attracted considerable interest. They have over 200 labeled products between them. The Green Seal list includes products from Kimberly-Clark, Fort James and Wisconsin Tissue.

An eco-label paper eco-label?

It is becoming increasingly difficult to compare labels within the printing/writing sector as some move to create labels for sub-categories, while others consolidate into super-categories. Newsprint was one of the first printing papers to get its own eco-label, but most schemes (Blue Angel, Austrian, Environmental Choice and Green Seal) focus on recycled content. Like Nordic Swan two years previously, the Canadian eco-label is moving to a single label for all printing/writing papers (including newsprint). This scheme is only in draft form at present, but looks to use a modified version of the multi-parameter formula first used for the tissue eco-label in 1994.

The Nordic label for printing papers remains unchanged. The number of licenses has increased to 75, but this is still well behind the 300-plus approved for Blue Angel's general recycled paper category.

Copier paper standards in Holland's Milieukeur scheme have been reviewed and tightened marginally for pulp COD, but there are still just five suppliers with this label for their products. Copier paper is one of the few grades in the Dutch scheme where some use of recycled fiber is not essential. The most recent grade covered by this scheme is uncalendered offset printing paper, where at least half the fiber content has to be recycled.

Whereas the quantitative emission criteria for all the other papers in the Dutch scheme are based on the paper area (eg g COD/m), the criteria for offset papers have reverted to the more common weight basis (eg kg COD/ton) used in all other eco-labels. As in the copier paper label, emission criteria for the pulping and papermaking stages are judged separately, eg <45 kg COD/ton from pulping and <5 kg COD/ton from papermaking. The other parameters are the same as those in the label for copier paper, ie no use of EDTA, alkylphenolethoxylates or chlorine-containing bleaches (except in "closed" systems). For reasons that are not clear, the amount of fresh water used is considered to be an important criterion only for tissues in the Netherlands.

The papers within this wide category are used to make many converted paper products, as well as being used directly for communication purposes. Envelopes have been singled out within three schemes and there is also a draft set of criteria within the EU eco-label. A logical approach to develop an eco-label for envelopes would allow the use of base papers that meet the requirements of existing paper labels, to which would be added further criteria for the converting step. This is the approach adopted in the Canadian envelope eco-label, which has criteria covering six areas - paper, printing, inks, adhesives, recyclability and discharges at the envelope manufacturing plant.

In contrast, the EU scheme decided that it had to re-investigate the manufacture of pulp and paper and propose new standards for the pulp/paper manufacturing stages in terms of forest management, energy use, wastewater COD/AOX and emissions of sulfur to the atmosphere. This is despite the fact that it had been done several times before. It did manage to come up with one genuinely new criterion though. Namely, that converting waste had to be less than 15% of the total paper input. The recommended draft eco-label is now being digested by the European Commission.

Standardized eco-labels

ISO 14001 on environmental management systems (EMS) was the first standard published within the ISO 14000 series and some 2,300 sites were certified worldwide by mid-1998. The standards on environmental auditing (14010-14012) were published at the same time in 1996, together with another on general EMS guidelines and principles (14004). One of only two other standards published so far is ISO 14040 on the principles and framework for life cycle assessments (LCAs), something which is often used (or purported to have been used) to support eco-label standards. A standard on the critical inventory aspect of LCAs (14041) should be published as a final standard before the end of this year with ISO 14042 on the impact assessment of LCAs following in 1999.

There is another set of standards looming within the ISO 14000 series, this time specifically about eco-labels. The first is ISO 14020, which is due to be published before the end of 1998. This puts forward nine guiding principles for environmental labels and declarations and this is likely to be followed in mid-1999 by ISO 14021 on self-declared environmental claims (so-called type II labels).

Consolidated into this one document will be two standards that were originally going to be separate - 14022 on symbols and 14023 on testing and verification. One of the controversial elements within this standard has been whether or not it would give official backing to the use of the Mobius loop (Figure 1) for the confusing connotations - meaning "recyclable" or "made from recycled materials". As an aid to recycling, it is also used with distinguishing letters and numbers on plastic goods to denote the type of plastic material.

After lengthy discussions, the final standard looks as though it will allow the Mobius loop to be used for either of its main meanings. This will cause some problems within the EU, which had put forward its own, unique symbol for recyclability within the framework of its packaging directive.

The other two standards in the 14020 series are 14024 on type I labels (for national programs like those summarized above) and 14025 for type III labels (report cards). ISO 14024 should be published in its final form in early 1999. At the recent annual meeting of the ISO committee responsible for the 14000 program (TC 207), it was decided to change the direction of work on type III labels from a standard to a technical report.

Despite this apparent stumble, Sweden has recently adopted a regulation encouraging companies to produce report cards, while the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association has already pioneered this approach with its Environmental Profile Data Sheet (EPDS). This is a standardized three-page form that can be completed by pulp and paper mills for any product, although it is recognized that some parameters (eg wastewater emissions) reflect mill-wide practices and are not product-specific.

The aspects covered by the EPDS are summarized in Table 3, from which it is evident that most of the parameters are covered in many eco-label schemes. However, the key difference between a report card and a type I/II eco-label is that no comparative judgements are made about the product's environmental performance. In the CPPA scheme, mills cannot simply fill in the form. The information has to be externally verified, a task carried out by the company that runs the Environmental Choice program - Terra Choice.

Labels reach the forest

Not all of the developing schemes to certify wood products will generate labels that can be attached to specific products. The pulp and paper industry generally continues to distance itself from the pioneering scheme run by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which now has over 10 million ha (an area about the size of Hungary) of forest certified to its 10 Principles and Criteria of Natural Forest Management. There is one notable exception though. AssiDomän has 3.3 million ha in Sweden certified to the FSC principles.

FSC-certified bleached chemical pulp from AssiDomän's Karlsberg mill is being used to make a range of paper products - toilet tissue produced by Celtech in the UK, wallpaper made by Dresden Papier and Kammerer in Germany, and graphical papers from Inveresk in the UK. Both the tissue and graphical grades contain deinked pulp, which cannot exceed 75% of the paper's fiber content in order to meet the FSC policy for using its trademark.

In January 1998, Sweden became the first country to get its national standards approved by FSC. These adapt the general FSC principles to suit the conditions in Sweden and make some of the commitments more specific, such as:

• in terms of indigenous people's rights, consideration must be given to reindeer husbandry by the Sami people, including respect for places of cultural and religious significance

• during felling, trees of high biodiversity should be protected with some wind-resistant trees being left standing (about 10/ha) and broad-leaved trees protected during thinning

• where practicable, natural regeneration after selective felling is used with the aim of reducing the dominance of spruce in some zones and no use of genetically-modified seedlings/seeds.

During the development process, many small-scale landowners, especially in the family-owned forest units that predominate in southern Sweden, concluded that the FSC scheme would not be workable for them and opted out. Södra, a collective of over 30,000 small forest owners and a major supplier of bleached chemical pulp, has since developed its own forest certification process suited to such forests.

For forest holdings up to 20 ha, this involves preparing a "green" forest management plan in accordance with Södra's standards covering conservation of habitats, retention of trees with biodiversity values, the retention of deadwood, maintaining a minimum proportion of broad-leaved trees and restricted logging in wetlands. Södra hopes to include its forests within its EMAS registration as and when this becomes possible.

A key difference between this and the FSC scheme is that Södra products will not bear a certification label as this approach is not viable when dealing with so many suppliers. Instead, the overall proportion of wood derived from certified forests will be published annually in Södra's environmental report.

There is clearly much in common between the FSC and Sodrä approaches. Both involve measurable criteria for forest management, which is also included in the system under development in Finland. After successful pilot testing in three forest areas in 1997, the Finnish certification scheme is currently being refined with a view to becoming fully operational by the end of this year. The key feature of this scheme is that as well as allowing certification of individual forests holdings, group certification is also possible at two different regional levels. This is considered to be the only real difference with the FSC scheme and is also the main bone of contention in Sweden. So there is still scope for a rapprochement at the administrative level between these approaches.

The Nordic countries are not the only place where work on forest certification is underway. Motivated by what was seen as unbalanced criticism of some of its forest management practices, Canada has been at the forefront of work in this area and published its agreed standard on Sustainable Forest Management back in 1996.

The certification process is applied to a defined forest area. Like the Finnish scheme, this allows a number of separate holdings to be bundled together for the certification purposes. The standard brings together the performance-based framework (such as in the FSC scheme) with the management systems approach being developed by ISO in what will shortly be the ISO 14061 technical report "Information to assist forestry organizations in the use of ISO14001/14004". As such, neither of these schemes will allow wood products to be labeled as originating from certified forests, but the information can obviously be used in other ways. For example, an independent eco-label scheme could require that at least a proportion of the wood used in qualifying products must originate from land certified to a particular standard, whether this is performance-based, management-based or both.

Labels for sale

As with environmental management systems and environmental reporting before, sustainability issues are slowly beginning to be recognized within eco-labels, notably those dealing with forest products. Notwithstanding the progress made with wood certification, there are a number of issues dividing the various stakeholders in this debate. For example, the Canadian standard has been criticized for being relatively weak on the social affairs side compared to forest ecology. This was one of the factors that led to the withdrawal of a number of environmental groups from the development process.

In the last 12 months, something has emerged that should plug one of the gaps in company social policy. A verifiable standard called Social Accountability (SA) 8000 has been developed by the US-based Council on Economic Priorities with the support of businesses such as Avon, Reebok and KPMG Peat Marwick. It has been designed as a complimentary module to the ISO 9000 and 14000 series standards and is not therefore an eco-label. However, it can still be utilized to demonstrate that production conditions meet certain criteria in areas such as use of child labor, health and safety practices, disciplinary practices, working hours, etc.

The EU scheme is in the process of being reviewed, largely as a result of its less than sparkling record over the last five years - there are still only 12 product groups with eco-labels. The amendments put forward by the environment commissioner, Ritt Bjerregaard, cover three main areas:

• to set up a private European Eco-label Organization to run a self-financing scheme

• to outlaw national eco-labels for products with EU eco-label criteria

• to abandon the pass/fail approach in favor of a graduated scheme with three rating levels.

The European Parliament didn't like any of these ideas, so the future course of the program looks somewhat uncertain. Given the paper industry's frosty stance toward eco-labels and its warm view of management systems, it is rather surprising that no one has publicly suggested making a link between them. An eco-label could require the manufacturing site(s) to [a] have ISO 14001, [b] produce an environmental report (eg EMAS statement or other) and [c] possess another qualifying national eco-label.

In a pass/fail scheme, this would be an absolute requirement or, in a graduated eco-label system, marks could be given for each element satisfied. This would avoid introducing yet more numerical criteria and support management systems/reporting. In the meantime, it looks as though working for any of the national competent bodies responsible for implementing the EU scheme will continue to be one of the best definitions of a sinecure.