The information below provides insights into the scoring results of Georgia Pacific, Kimberly Clark, Metsä Tissue, Procter and Gamble and SCA Tissue
Scores on reporting and transparency 2006
YELLOW: showing encouraging signs but still major issues to address
RED: need substantial improvements
Without adequate public reporting it is very difficult to monitor the environmental performance of companies and to ensure thorough accountability.
Companies should show progress against targets by providing information that is sufficiently detailed and in a format that is readily understood.
No company is perfect, but they should show how they are at least trying to do their best and how they are improving against baseline environmental standards. This would enable the consumer to make an informed choice.
In the transparency score WWF has measured the clarity and comprehensiveness of the information provided for this evaluation along with improvements in reporting in annual reports and on the companies’ websites.
The Scoring results:
WWF has investigated how the companies deal with this issue with the following results…
- All companies have significantly improved their transparency towards WWF – the information provided for this evaluation was of much higher quality than in 2005. WWF appreciates this increase in transparency. Georgia Pacific was the only company that lost points in this section due to gaps in some of the information provided. It was also the only company that did not provide updated mill data for the 2006 score.
Reporting to the public on sourcing:
- SCA Tissue has published a sustainability report that describes in detail how the company is working to ensure that its wood fibre is responsibly sourced. SCA Tissue could improve its reporting by also making public more comprehensive details of the timber-producing regions it sources from and the percentage of certification systems used.
- Although Metsä Tissue has improved its website since 2005 by making a more detailed sourcing policy publicly available, sourcing is still one of the weaker parts of its public reporting. More detail is needed on the timber-producing regions it sources from, on the certification systems which are used, and on the steps the company is taking to enforce its policy and monitor its actions.
- Kimberly Clark has made a significant improvement to its transparency on sourcing for European tissue production. A detailed European Tissue fact sheet can now be found on its website which includes details of the pulp-producing regions it sources from, the percentage of certification systems used and levels of recycling. Kimberly Clark's new draft sourcing policy needs to be approved and made public. The to-be-published policy should include details of the steps the company will take to enforce the policy and monitor its actions.
- Procter and Gamble has not changed its public reporting since 2005 – so the same criticisms apply now as in 2005. It does not provide Europe and tissue specific information and in general does not provide sufficiently detailed information. WWF is disappointed that the company was unable to follow through its promise in 2005 to improve its reporting. WWF urges Procter and Gamble to deliver on its renewed promise that the next sustainability report will include more information.
- Georgia Pacific has not made any improvement in public reporting since 2005. The company’s publicly available information does not currently explicitly include Europe, and it does not contain details on tissue. In general, the information provided is not at a sufficient level of detail.
Reporting on recycling to the public
- The most comprehensive publicly available information on the levels of recycling in European Tissue production is currently provided by Kimberly Clark, with its new web-based European tissue fact sheet. Kimberly Clarkis the only company that details the levels of recycling for consumer and away from home products separately as well as its current use of post-consumer waste.
- The only companies that make comprehensive mill by mill data on clean production available online are currently Metsä Tissue and SCA Tissue. WWF welcomes the improvements Metsä Tissue has made in this area since 2005.
- Kimberly Clark has improved its reporting on clean production by detailing its achievements against its clean production targets over time for European Tissue production.
Although the companies made some improvements in transparency towards the public, there are still significant gaps in their reporting that prevent them from being fully publicly accountable for their actions.
No misleading the public!Providing accurate information to the public is an indication of the degree of responsibility and commitment of a company.
At this year’s Kimberly Clark Annual Shareholder meeting, a presentation and statements were made that implied that Kimberly Clark has a partnership with WWF. WWF clarifies that no such partnership exists with Kimberly Clark.
Further, Kimberly Clark refers to WWF in its Sustainability report as well as the forestry fact sheet in a manner which could be misread so as to imply more involvement between Kimberly Clark and WWF than exists through this scoring exercise.We consider this use of WWFs name by Kimberly Clark as contrary to the intention of transparency the scoring section is aiming at. WWF has therefore deducted points from the transparency score.
The tissue giants need to show transparency in the following ways: