Environmental Certification for Plastics

[mattf]

We know of the FSC, SFI and PEFC are certifications for paper. Anyone know of any certifications specifically dealing with plastics?

 

[Craig]

Great, now we'll will need certified shrink films to wrap our certified paper, to place them in a certified box to load on a certified pallet to place in a certified van to drive on a certified highway to deliver with a certified hand truck with a certified delivery person.

Wake up America!!! This is NOT how this country was built, by a bunch of frigging pansy tree huggers looking to make themselves feel all warm and fuzzy with their cute certifications. You wonder why the Chinese are taking over the free world! It's about time some folks grew back a set of stainless steel testicles and told these fruit loops where the door is!!!! And no, I'm not insinuating it's OK to pollute and clear cut like some of you will try to twist this into, but for God's sake do we to be certified with everything?

 

[meddington]

Perhaps if our industry had a decent track record of self regulation rather than simply self interest, these certifications might be unnecessary. Print buyers (and their clients) know better.

 

[Craig]

Who said they are necessary? Times have changed and 99% of American printers are 100% more environmentally conscious than they were 20 years ago and I would also throw out that I bet American printers are far more environmentally conscious than many Asian/Third World printers. Yet we are the ones who take it on the chin all the time. I am just getting tired of everyone making printers out to be some kind of pollution loving industry when it's not.

Would you not agree that the vast majority of the shops are now better than they were just a few years ago? Even if you just factor the lower VOC inks and blanket washes, the greater use of recycled content in our commodity sheets, the fact that new equipment is more efficient to operate, purchasing from mills that are environmentally responsible and sustainable.

To listen to folks you would think we are no greater than North Korea or some other hole in the wall country.

 

[meddington]

Who said they are necessary? Times have changed and 99% of American printers are 100% more environmentally conscious than they were 20 years ago and I would also throw out that I bet American printers are far more environmentally conscious than many Asian/Third World printers....Would you not agree that the vast majority of the shops are now better than they were just a few years ago?

YGood point. You're very right, and I shouldn't have made it seem as if printers haven't made any improvements on their own (though the printing and paper industries remains among the top polluters). And environmental awareness is likely much higher in the US than in many other areas of the world. But to take your Asian example, a LOT of paper comes from Asia (China is the 2nd largest producer next to US): Paper: The Next Trade Skirmish - Forbes.com. And with countries that have a poor track record for environmental responsibility, I think this could make a case that FSC certification can be beneficial, and print buyers want to be reassured that they're not supporting businesses with questionable practices...or using consumables from questionable origins. Certification is not perfect, but its not mandatory.

To mattf, I am not aware of any environmental certification for plastics.

 

[Craig]

Without hijacking this post (sorry OP), my complaint about certification is this. Those who are involved in this certification process come across as if you are not "certified" you are some type of environmental scum bag. Only those who are certified are proven to be better and "print buyers can be reassured that they're not supporting businesses with questionable practices".

It would equate to this. The shop I own is a union shop, I could say that all union printers are better printers than non-union printers because we can print the union label and you can't. We pay dues and have skilled labor that is better trained than non-union shops. Our Quality is higher because, after all we are union. That couldn't be further from the truth, I have seen crap come out of some union shops that we would use for set-up sheets on our press. Again, because I can print the union label and you can't does NOT make me a better printer than you, nor should you being able to print an FSC label make you more environmentally conscious than me.

In my opinion ALL the certifications should stop at the Mills, they are the ones who control where, from what and how the paper is produced. We are simply consumers, just like the print buyer. I agree that the MILLS should be certified!

 

[meddington]

... nor should you being able to print an FSC label make you more environmentally conscious than me.
...
In my opinion ALL the certifications should stop at the Mills, they are the ones who control where, from what and how the paper is produced. We are simply consumers, just like the print buyer. I agree that the MILLS should be certified!

I respect you position, and if all mills (and all variations of output from them) were certified, traceability would be less of an issue. Certifications of mills is certainly important, but traceability of the product is where chain-of-custody certification comes in. Individual mills and converting facilities owned by a larger entity may or may not be certified, and therefore many certified paper companies offer both certified and non-certified products. As printers, we are not just consumers, but suppliers for our clients (and theirs) and therefore should take some responsibility for material traceability (should we so choose). Material traceability is hardly new to other industries and plays a key role in ensuring product quality and accountability (metal alloys, food industry, etc). For printing, end product quality is not really the issue, but for ensuring the components used in manufacturing are aligned with the principles, criteria, and standards that the certifying body mandates (and the end user wants to promote).

I agree, its not perfect, but it fits a niche for those clients who wish to ensure proper component use.


For mattf, since there may or may not be any specific environmental certifications for plastics, you might consider ISO 14001 as a basis for ensuring your company identifies and improves it's environmental impact.

 

[mattf]

I respect you position, and if all mills (and all variations of output from them) were certified, traceability would be less of an issue. Certifications of mills is certainly important, but traceability of the product is where chain-of-custody certification comes in. Individual mills and converting facilities owned by a larger entity may or may not be certified, and therefore many certified paper companies offer both certified and non-certified products. As printers, we are not just consumers, but suppliers for our clients (and theirs) and therefore should take some responsibility for material traceability (should we so choose). Material traceability is hardly new to other industries and plays a key role in ensuring product quality and accountability (metal alloys, food industry, etc). For printing, end product quality is not really the issue, but for ensuring the components used in manufacturing are aligned with the principles, criteria, and standards that the certifying body mandates (and the end user wants to promote).

I agree, its not perfect, but it fits a niche for those clients who wish to ensure proper component use.


For mattf, since there may or may not be any specific environmental certifications for plastics, you might consider ISO 14001 as a basis for ensuring your company identifies and improves it's environmental impact.

Good suggestion, thanks for the input.

Meddington, I can understand the whole "greenwashing" that has gone on within the marketplace. However, I still firmly believe that this type of certification is a good step towards a more sustainable future. Not because the US is doing something wrong, but because we must lead as an example. Companies and societies that lead with an understanding of how to balance their activities to a more long term ideology is not just good business, its stable economically.

This type of certification gives us a system in which to prove to customers we are doing something good. They will hate us without it. Why do you think companies that use wind power use a specific logo or image stating this fact? Just saying it sadly isn't good enough anymore. People want you to prove it. The simplistic way to prove it is to have a logo or tag that shows that you have gone through the steps to make it happen. This shows people that we care, that we want to do something better.

Its not the best situation or the best of circumstances, but we gotta live with it anyway.

 

[Craig]

Using the prove it logic, I am therefore a better printer because I am a Union Printer and can print a union logo (legally). After all everyone knows the best printers are UNION. (said tongue in cheek)

Again I am in agreement that from the tree growers to the mill should be, must be "certified" after that what is the difference, the paper is already made, I can't make it "greener"??? Why would my paper supplier need to be certified? (after all they are part of the mystical chain of custody) All they do is take it from one truck and load it onto another truck to get it to me, what could they possibly do to screw up it's sustainability?

It's just a feel good thing if you ask me.

 

[meddington]

There are probably those clients who prefer to use a union shop. Might not be for quality reasons, just that that's what they want to support. I could say I ran a union shop, but would that be adequate to win work from those clients, or would they want proof? Ultimately we're really going in circles here, and my response is really simply to reread my previous posts, which didn't change your mindset the first time, so Ill respectfully bow out. No hard feelings.

 

[Craig]

Agree at this point it is that we will simply agree to disagree and walk away as "friends".