I often get asked by customers to quote for their job on Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) accredited paper. There is a widespread perception that this is the most environmentally friendly option. That isn’t necessarily the case.
The FSC accredit three types of certified products:
FSC 100% – All the fibre is from an FSC accredited forest
FSC recycled – All the fibre is recycled from post-consumer waste.
FSC mixed sources– The fibre is a mixture from the following sources:
i) From an FSC certified forest
ii) Recycled from post-consumer waste
iii) Controlled sources, which exclude unacceptable forestry.
Of those the FSC recycled is the most environmentally friendly (see my earlier post on papers). There are, however, a number of papers available that are also 100% recycled from post-consumer waste and do not have accreditation from the FSC, they are equally environmentally friendly.
FSC 100% is made from virgin fibre and therefore not as green as a recycled stock. It should be added that FSC accredited forests have the most stringent controls of any producing virgin fibre. That means that of virgin fibre sheets FSC 100% accredited are probably better for the environment than any other virgin fibre sheets.
Finally the mixed sources sheets are a mixture of recycled fibre, virgin fibre from FSC accredited forests and other fibre from controlled sources.
Another issue with FSC is the chain of custody and the associated costs of accreditation. For your printed work to have the FSC logo printed on it, the forest needs to be accredited, the paper mill needs to be accredited, the paper merchant needs to be accredited and the printer needs to be accredited.
On one level this is reasonable. Certainly the forest and the mill need to be accredited. The cost of accreditation for the merchant and the printer is high, given all that is really being checked is that packets and pallets of paper, which are FSC accredited, don’t get mixed in with others which aren’t.
In this week’s Print Week David Dawson of Rosefox Paper is quoted as saying “I am not 100% in agreement with the chain of custody itself … If a stock has been produced by a recognised or certified manufacturer and it displays a label showing this accordingly, it should be valid as an environmentally sound stock. The fact a chain of custody needs to be evident does seem a little financially orientated.” I am inclined to agree with that.
In summary if you want to be environmentally friendly you should specify a paper that is recycled and with a high post-consumer waste content. As with so many things the content is more important than the label.
