FSC certification

[oxburger]

It's a frigging scam that you are all getting sucked into, but if that makes you all "feel good", it's your money.

I agree. It's a complete waste of time and resources. They're saving trees (supposedly), but what about the FSC conference in Cape Town? How much jet fuel was used in getting the delegates there? If they were truly concerned about the environment, they would have had their conference via teleconference. But wait, what's this you say? The computers and phones we're using come from petroleum based plastics and copper and other metals that must be mined....Oh gosh, what will we do? FRET FRET FRET.......

Let's face it, we've messed up this planet beyond repair. You can be sure I'll continue to recycle and use more efficient vehicles to do my part, but do I really think it'll make a difference? Not really.

 

[jbbbarr]

I have been in several of the so called FSC certified print shops in the Austin/San Antonio area and not would actually meet their criteria. It seems to be just a purchased logo. I have even worked in a shop that printed that stupid logo on everything one particular customer (regular stock) did just to retain them. It is very much a joke when it comes to enforcement or auditing, seems the only serious part is the fee

 

[Green Printer]

There are 2721 certificates in the USA.
The Forest Stewardship Council :: Certified Companies :: Chain of Custody Companies

At $4,000 per pop thats $10,884,000.00 and that is low balling the certification cost.

Worldwide there are 11,847 certificates.

Where and who did all that money go to.?

What is the money collected used for?

http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/web-da...tificates_-_type_and_distribution_-_FINAL.pdf

 

[Helene]

More info here

https://www.sgppartnership.org/

 

[doubting_thomas]

I'd be interested to hear from either a FSC representative or a
SCS member on this discussion. I'm wondering about the integrity
of their audits, the transparency of their business practices and
the value one actually gets when paying for usage rights of
their logo. I question their basic honesty at this point.

 

[Craig]

I'd be interested on how they validate the charges and bull$hit hoops you need to jump through. Don't get me wrong, the idea of doing the right thing for both the environment and our bottom lines is great. But look at the carbon foot print I'll leave when I have to open my wallet and pull out the cash printed at the mint. All those VOC's!

 

[mattf]

I'd be interested to hear from either a FSC representative or a
SCS member on this discussion. I'm wondering about the integrity
of their audits, the transparency of their business practices and
the value one actually gets when paying for usage rights of
their logo. I question their basic honesty at this point.

Or better yet, lets go after all 3 of the most popular certifications. FSC, SFI and PEFC.

Or better yet, go after anyone.

Lets go after Green-e. They must not know what they are doing.

Or maybe go after ISO, or TCF, or ECF, or maybe CN, or how about Green Seal. Even better, Go after Tree Free, they use cotton instead of wood pulp that must be even worse for the environment!

Or better yet, lets go after EU Flower because they don't take it far enough.

Or even better, go after the human race because they are always wrong!

/rant

 

[doubting_thomas]

The only certification I've mentioned is the FSC Certification
because that's the only one that I've been through the
process with. If you have an issue with the idea that an
internal audit for that specific certification shouldn't carry
the same weight as an audit done by a third party, or
a FSC/SCS auditor, then perhaps that should be the
subject of your rant.

If you're directing that at me, I'd be curious at what point
this thread became so personal to you. I don't see any
place that I specifically attacked you, or any of the other
certifications you listed.

 

[Craig]

doubting,
This is how the "tree huggers" get when you point out the obvious. It hurts their feelings and they can only react but trying to be-little you. Just like Al Gore and global warming. God forbid you ask FSC to do what they are asking of you!

 

[mattf]

doubting,
This is how the "tree huggers" get when you point out the obvious. It hurts their feelings and they can only react but trying to be-little you. Just like Al Gore and global warming. God forbid you ask FSC to do what they are asking of you!

Tree Hugger? If only I was, then I'd be able to justify what I'm doing was actually going to save the planet!

My rant wasn't meant to be a defense against some attack or a ignorant denial of other peoples point of view on the subject. It was meant to be a sarcastic point on the whole discussion. Guess that got lost in the rant

Thomas, it sucks that your certification process wasn't as complete as most of the companies I have been in contact with. It also sucks that there is negative remarks as regards to the whole agency itself. The whole idea of being a part of a process that manages forests effectively is an idea I know many would get on board with.

Yes paper companies have had a sustainable mindset for many years. For every tree they cut down they've always planted the same or even more. The same goes for printers, we try to use less energy not because we wanted to save the earth but it was cost effective. This includes more efficient lighting, new presses with better energy usage and so on.

Yes FSC has had a bad reputation in regards to their services. A lot of this is basically a PR scheme, but in the end it is based off of specific things. People will ask:

1) How do we know we are managing the forests?
2) How do we know we are printing on sustainable paper?
3) How do we know where the paper came from?
4) How can we prove that all this information is correct?

The chain of custody certification for printers is just one step in the whole process. Whether its FSC or SFI or PEFC doesn't matter. This is a joint effort in order for the end users to track where their products came from, all the way to the forest. This will help customers to insure they know if the forest has practices that are sustainable or not. Granted, we know as the industry itself there are such practices in place, but the documentation of this is key in order to prove it.

And that is all it comes down to. If you don't believe its working then shout about it, ask questions and get some discussion going about how to make it better. Or better yet, create your own certification process on how you would handle it. With that then you could compete with the other big certifications and in the end people would see you have a better system and use your system.

Saying it sucks and its a scam doesn't help at all because all your doing is complaining and not doing anything about it. I at least have been trying these past few months to learn each certification as much as I can to get a better idea of whats going on and what system they have in place for this certification. My own initiative has helped me to understand it better, and maybe I'll come up with a bright idea of creating a better system for them to use. That idea could make life for everyone easier while still keeping the certification process sound.

Who knows, at least I try to be proactive about it all.

 

[Craig]

matt,
I'll take the "Tree Hugger" comment back.

Here is my complaint. Why do we need to pay so much money to be environmentally sound? What makes printing an FSC (or whatever) logo so important? If your company implements sound environmental practices, isn't that enough?

Your comment "The chain of custody certification for printers is just one step in the whole process. Whether its FSC or SFI or PEFC doesn't matter. This is a joint effort in order for the end users to track where their products came from, all the way to the forest. This will help customers to insure they know if the forest has practices that are sustainable or not. Granted, we know as the industry itself there are such practices in place, but the documentation of this is key in order to prove it." says it all.

If the paper comes from an FSC certified mill, in it's FSC marked package, isn't that enough? When will FSC start asking our customers to be "chain of custody" certified? What about that????? When will it end??? Will the garbage man need to be FSC certified as well???? Isn't it enough to have factual records (via the mill) stating the paper was FSC, SFI or PEFC certified???

How can anyone say it's not a scam? I truly can see having a mill "certifying" that they are purchasing from sustainable sources, and publishing that on their packaging. It should end there, period.

 

[meddington]

If the paper comes from an FSC certified mill, in it's FSC marked package, isn't that enough? ... I truly can see having a mill "certifying" that they are purchasing from sustainable sources, and publishing that on their packaging. It should end there, period.

I see both sides on this issue, however, the end user sees us as part of the production chain. If you made widgets and bought parts from an ISO 9000 certified shop, it would be incorrect to say your shop is ISO 9000 certified. After all, you could be assembling these parts incompetently. You might even have a compliant system in place, but without an independent third party auditing your system, there is no evidence that you have proved competence. You could make any claim you wanted without a certificate, but the point is to prove that a third party has witnessed you system in place and deemed it appropriate.

Now if Doubting obtained certification without an independent audit, that's complete bs and the registrar granting the certificate is negligent IMO and should be investigated.

I do see the point though...its a lot of bread to lay down for the priviledge of printing a logo.

 

[doubting_thomas]

I see both sides on this issue, however, the end user sees us as part of the production chain. If you made widgets and bought parts from an ISO 9000 certified shop, it would be incorrect to say your shop is ISO 9000 certified. After all, you could be assembling these parts incompetently. You might even have a compliant system in place, but without an independent third party auditing your system, there is no evidence that you have proved competence. You could make any claim you wanted without a certificate, but the point is to prove that a third party has witnessed you system in place and deemed it appropriate.

Now if Doubting obtained certification without an independent audit, that's complete bs and the registrar granting the certificate is negligent IMO and should be investigated.

This is exactly what my point is. The FSC took our money and gave us the certification without
visiting our shop. It's shabby at best to be certified, though we follow all of the procedures. We
should have been audited by a third party, that's all I'm saying.

ps meddington, your old avatar on PPF was cool, btw. All of the versions of Charles' evolution were disturbing

 

[Craig]

The problem is the certification itself. Why do I (printer) need to be certified to prove I am doing the responsible thing by buying paper from a source that IS certified? What effect does it have with the "chain"? Where will this "chain" end? When will my customer need to be certified to keep the "chain" intact?

I agree it is the responsible thing to do, but do I need to pay to do it???

 

[meddington]

The problem is the certification itself. Why do I (printer) need to be certified to prove I am doing the responsible thing by buying paper from a source that IS certified? What effect does it have with the "chain"? Where will this "chain" end? When will my customer need to be certified to keep the "chain" intact??

The chain ends when the final product is realized. Printers are usually the end of the chain as there is (usually) no more consumables being added to the final product after printing. A "certified" printer has demonstrated that they have a system in place to prevent introducing non-conforming paper into the system and can account for paper purchased, units output, remaining inventory, etc. A non-certified shop can certainly do this as well, just can't use the FSC logo...that requires certification. I disagree that the problem is certification itself, but rather that a perception is projected that FSC equates a "green" establishment when its only a small part.

 

[mattf]

The chain ends when the final product is realized. Printers are usually the end of the chain as there is (usually) no more consumables being added to the final product after printing. A "certified" printer has demonstrated that they have a system in place to prevent introducing non-conforming paper into the system and can account for paper purchased, units output, remaining inventory, etc. A non-certified shop can certainly do this as well, just can't use the FSC logo...that requires certification. I disagree that the problem is certification itself, but rather that a perception is projected that FSC equates a "green" establishment when its only a small part.

You hit it right on the nail. It is only a portion of the process, the paper itself. Some organizations do look at a more broad set of standards. An example:

EU Flower - Eco-Label

They are not only within printed resources, but also textile products, soaps and shampoos, lubricants and hydraulic fluids and so on.

 

[meddington]

ps meddington, your old avatar on PPF was cool, btw. All of the versions of Charles' evolution were disturbing

unfortunately printplanet's avatar limitations restrict all but the most rudimentary "Charles". I can't make him wink or explode or nothin'

 

[pworlledge]

We are new to this but I'm already seeing the folly of it. I always get suspicious of these things so I look at the trail of $$$. As one of the threads point out there is a fairly substantial amount of money in this. I do believe in responsible forestry management but to make companies pay for certification through out the CoC is silly at best. While by some accounts in this thread costs don't appear to be past on you can bet it will be at some point.

 

[mattf]

We are new to this but I'm already seeing the folly of it. I always get suspicious of these things so I look at the trail of $$$. As one of the threads point out there is a fairly substantial amount of money in this. I do believe in responsible forestry management but to make companies pay for certification through out the CoC is silly at best. While by some accounts in this thread costs don't appear to be past on you can bet it will be at some point.

To improve on a system there will always be a need to spend resources.

Whether it is materials, time, money or thinking there will always be something spent on stuff like this. If you are spending 3,000 dollars on an audit or taking time to do a 5S self-audit there will always be a cost to any specific task you try to accomplish, whether you wish to do it or not.

 

[Craig]

To improve on a system there will always be a need to spend resources.

Whether it is materials, time, money or thinking there will always be something spent on stuff like this. If you are spending 3,000 dollars on an audit or taking time to do a 5S self-audit there will always be a cost to any specific task you try to accomplish, whether you wish to do it or not.

And just what improvement am I doing? With or without me (the printer) having the "certification" I can use products that are "certified" and run my business with environmentally sound practices. You (in the broad term) have yet to prove to anyone why it's important for the printer to get "certified".

The only thing I see is money going into some environmental extremist's bank account.

What does it prove that a printer (user of paper) has some magic "chain of custody"? Again I ask, why stop there, why doesn't this magic "chain" go to my customer who may run their letterhead through their copier? After all their printing on this "certified" paper, much the same as I do.

This magical "Certification" does not make one a better printer any more than those of us who are union shops, are better than non-union shops. Just another way to piss your money away and feel better about it.