The information below provides insights into the scoring results of Georgia Pacific, Kimberly Clark, Metsä Tissue, Procter and Gamble and SCA Tissue
Scores on actual improvements in recent months 2006
WWF started engagement with the tissue giants in autumn 2004. Since then WWF has been trying to clarify with the companies issues of importance from an environmental perspective and to help them understand what we consider to be best practice. In the 2005 scoring only a few improvements had been made by the companies. This has changed for the 2006 score with the companies having made many more concrete commitments and improvements.
The most important improvements are the following:
WWF welcomes that all companies improved their transparency towards WWF. Most overall progress was made by SCA Tissue. It made further improvements to the new sourcing policy that had been put in place in 2005. The policy now includes an explicit goal not to source from forests which are being converted to plantations. The policy was further significantly strengthened by including sourcing of FSC fibres as an ultimate goal of the company as well as commitments to support and promote FSC to their suppliers. SCA Tissue also increased its overall recycling levels by 1.4% (although unfortunately its consumer product recycled levels fell). It has also set new targets for some clean production parameters as promised in the 2005 score and has further improved the comprehensiveness and detail in its public reporting.
MetsäTissue improved by putting in place a new sourcing policy which included an explicit goal to exclude illegal and controversial sources. Metsä Tissue also improved its public reporting which is now more detailed on clean production and on sourcing. Metsä Tissue further increased the amount of FSC sourced. The company has also provided anecdotal evidence about how their sourcing policy is affecting its supplier relationships – this should be enforced and monitored on a more systematic basis. Metsä Tissue made a significant improvement by increasing levels of TCF pulp to 99%. It has also increased its overall recycling levels by 3% and was the only company to increase its levels of recycled fibres in consumer tissue products.
Kimberly Clark has improved in a range of areas of the scoring, leading to an overall better score than in 2005. WWF notes however that little actual improvements have been made on sourcing where Kimberly Clark still ranks last. It has shared a new draft sourcing policy with WWF which would be a significant improvement on the current policy, but no scores could be assigned for this as the draft policy has not yet been approved. Concretely on improvements, Kimberly Clark increased its overall recycling levels by 1%, but unfortunately its consumer product recycled levels fell. Kimberly Clark has improved post-consumer recycled levels since 2005 and committed to further increase postconsumer recycling levels. The company has followed through with its commitments to set further reduction targets on some clean production parameters (see section on clean production). It has significantly improved its reporting for European Tissue products by putting a European Tissue fact sheet on its website which includes details of the regions from which pulp is sourced, percentages of certification systems used, volume of recycled fibre used, broken down into consumer and away from home, volume of post-consumer waste used; and progress against existing clean production parameters. However this significant improvement in reporting, has been dampened by the company’s public misrepresentation of WWF and Kimberly Clark's relationship (see section on transparency for more information).
Georgia Pacific made a few improvements since 2005. There was a slight improvement in its new sourcing policy, but this still has some serious gaps (see sourcing section). The company reports an increase in FSC sourcing. Georgia Pacific has renewed its commitment to increase levels of recycled fibres and also made a new commitment to increase levels of postconsumer waste. WWF regrets that the company has not followed through with its commitments to produce a European Sustainability report in 2006.
The decrease in scores by the company is due to stricter scoring in some sections (such as clean production which no longer credits transparency to the same extent), but also due to gaps in information provided to WWF which resulted in point reductions. Further, it had gained some points for future promises in the 2005 score (such as on recycling) which remain yet to be fulfilled. The difference in comparison with other companies has further been emphasized by the fact that some more improvements and progress were made by other companies. WWF understands that the company has recently undergone a change of ownership and that its focus on the issues WWF has raised may be low for that reason. WWF encourages Georgia Pacific to follow through with the positive indications it has made and to address the gaps WWF has identified in its score.
Procter and Gamble made a few improvements since the 2005 scoring, in particular its transparency towards WWF. WWF regrets that Procter and Gamble has not yet followed through with improvements that were promised on their 2006 Sustainability Report.
Procter and Gamble reports improvements on sourcing – although the company provided some anecdotal evidence about how their sourcing policy is affecting supplier relationships, WWF cannot identify any changes on the ground resulting from these activities.
Improvements in tracking systems?
Metsä Tissue, Georgia Pacific, Kimberly Clark and Procter and Gamble all report that they have improved on their tracking system, strengthening what they had in place in the 2005. WWF is unable, however, from the information provided to judge whether these systems are able to cover all aspects of the supply chain and also whether the companies’ suppliers have been asked to develop such a system. A key gap for all companies is the lack of third party audit of their systems, which would provide credibility and assurance to their tracking systems. Metsä Tissue, Georgia Pacific, Kimberly Clark and Procter and Gamble have not yet shown WWF that they are screening all their suppliers against all aspects of illegal and controversial sources (this due in part to gaps in their policies). Furthermore, the companies need to show more convincingly how they enforce their policies in a standardized way without loopholes.
For more improvements on clean production please go to the clean production score.