The information below provides insights into the scoring results of Georgia Pacific, Kimberly Clark, Metsä Tissue, Procter and Gamble and SCA Tissue
Scores on emissions/effluents/resource use 2006
YELLOW: showing encouraging signs but still major issues to address
RED: need substantial improvements
Tissue production, like all paper production, uses a huge amount of natural resources including energy and water, produces pollution with emissions into air and water, and both hazardous and solid waste.
WWF has not established a "best measure" for clean production as there are a range of trade offs depending on factors such as the amount of recycling used etc. As a minimum reference for this evaluation WWF used targets in the "Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Pulp and Paper Industry" issued by the European Commission December 2001. Although we use the Best Available Techniques (BAT) targets as a reference point, WWF recognises that they were set over 5 years ago, and they do not reflect best current performance. One particular concern is that the targets permit emissions of Dioxin (AOX), something that WWF believes should have a zero target. (please refer to WWFs policy on bleaching – contact: Dpollard@wwfint.org)
Some change in the scoring method on clean production
In the 2006 scoring WWF put particular emphasis on the use of Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) bleaching methods in which no chlorine compounds (AOX) are used.
In 2005 WWF credited the transparency of companies in this section about their effects on the environment through their production. In the 2006 score on clean production WWF gives significantly less credit for transparency as we consider this to be a minimum requirement.
Therefore the scores for clean production reflect mainly current pollution and resource usage levels as well as future commitments and targets to reduce the impact on the environment.
The tissue giants need to be part of the solution.
They need to
- be transparent about the amount of natural resources they use, the waste they produce and the relevant emissions into air and water.
- set reduction targets for each of the clean production parameters and to publicly monitor progress over time.
- use the most environmentally friendly TCF bleaching method
The scoring results:
WWF has investigated how the companies handle this issue with the following results…
To what an extent do the tissue giants use the most environmentally friendly Totally Chlorine Free bleaching method?
- Metsä Tissue has shown the most leadership on this issue by increasing the amount of TCF bleached pulp used to 99%. WWF applauds the company for this development.
- None of the other companies show any significant progress on the issue of bleaching.
- SCA Tissue, which is second best on the issue of bleaching, reports as in 2005 that it uses only TCF bleaching in its own pulp production and sources 50% TCF pulp from external pulp sources.
- Procter and Gamble scores the same as in 2005 for using 42%TCF pulp
- The percentage of TCF pulp used by Georgia Pacific and Kimberly Clark is minimal and below the indicator level for achieving any points.
How do the companies compare against the European "Best Available Techniques" levels for clean production?
- WWF acknowledges in general the progress made by the pulp and paper industry towards clean production in the last 20 years. However, comparison against the conservative BAT levels shows that standards of mills across Europe vary significantly and more needs to be done.
- All the companies improved their reporting against the BAT levels for the 2006 score. WWF welcomes this increase in transparency. SCA Tissue, Metsä Tissue and Kimberly Clark were able to show very good systems for tracking achievement against the BAT levels.
Renewable energy use
- Of the three companies which reported positively about the use of renewable energy systems, SCA Tissue demonstrated the most convincing use of renewable energy, followed by Metsä Tissue and Georgia Pacific. Procter and Gamble and Kimberly Clark do not appear to put any emphasis on renewable energy.
- The greatest degree of compliance against the BAT levels for emissions to water was achieved by Metsä Tissue and Kimberly Clark both with compliance on 5 parameters. Please note that WWF was unable to evaluate on this issue due to its high use of market pulp, which means that emissions to water happen somewhere other than in Procter and Gamble mills.
There are currently no BAT levels for emissions to air and waste and hence WWF was unable to assign a meaningful score to the companies for their reported levels.
Market pulp – export of a problem?
- Many companies in the pulp and paper sector use market pulp for their production. WWF puts a lot of emphasis on the accountability of companies for the effect of their emissions, regardless of where they are produced. Market pulp means that emissions are often generated in producer regions such as Latin America. The companies have a responsibility to ensure that the pulp they buy does not come from sources which pollute rivers, the air and surrounding communities in source countries. WWF will place greater emphasis on this issue in the 2007 scoring.
Improvements on actual emissions levels since 2005
- SCA Tissue and Metsä Tissue were able to show progress on 7 (out of 12) emissions parameters. Procter and Gamble, Georgia Pacific and Kimberly Clark were able to show progress on 4 (out of 12) emissions parameters.
WWF’s recommendation for clean production levels
Do the companies have Europe wide reduction targets for each of the above parameters?
- WWF considers measurable and time bound reduction targets to be an important indicator, showing that a company is serious about taking strategic and effective steps to reduce its effects on the environment and to monitor progress over time. Where there is no target, progress is far less likely, in particular with regard to the clean production parameters which do not have immediate cost saving effects - such as emissions to water or air.
Measurable reduction goals for Water and Energy use
- Procter and Gamble, Kimberly Clark and SCA Tissue have measurable and time bound water use and energy use reduction targets. Whereas Procter and Gamble and Kimberly Clark already had such targets in 2005, SCA Tissue followed up on the positive indications made in 2005 by setting such targets. WWF welcomes that Kimberly Clark has fulfilled its promise to further reduce their water use reduction benchmark in its 2010 process.
Measurable reduction goals for emissions to water and air
Unlike target setting for water and energy use that are also cost saving measures, the companies still put little emphasis on setting reduction targets for emissions to air and water.
- Improvements on target setting for emissions to water were made by SCA Tissue and Kimberly Clark who both followed through on the positive indications they had made in 2005 to set emissions targets with clear timeframes – SCA Tissue set a measurable reduction target for 1 emissions parameter and Kimberly Clark for 2 parameters (out of 7 parameters).
- WWF notes that Georgia Pacific has not followed through with positive indications in 2005 that its Sustainability Framework in 2006 may lead to specific targets on individual parameters.
- The only company with a clear measurable target for the reduction of emissions to air (on Co2) is Procter and Gamble.
Measurable reduction goals for solid and hazardous waste
- The companies with overall measurable targets for the reduction of solid waste are Procter and Gamble and Kimberly Clark. Kimberly Clark has improved on this since the last score and followed through with their positive indications in 2005. None of the companies set a reduction target for hazardous waste.