By Martin Bayliss
In a world where lies and corruption permeate daily existence, few are free from suspicion. Who has not wondered, from time to time, if some politician, policeman, government employee, even (horror) journalist might not be guilty of offering favours in return for that extra lump of sugar in his tea? Cynicism is a growing feature of today’s world, sad but understandable.
The fact is that the incorruptible of this world – or those who seem so – are rare birds. And a reputation for incorruptibility, deserved or not, is an asset beyond price. That is why it was a bit surprising last month when Greenpeace gave it seal of approval to Kimberly-Clark, a company that it has criticized relentlessly for its environmentally unacceptable forestry practices for many years.
We are not suggesting for a moment that Greenpeace or K-C is involved in any kind of dishonesty here, just that perceptions of both organizations are bound to change as a result of such an unexpected change of tack. After all, Greenpeace is one of those NGOs that are held in high regard precisely because they are thought not to compromise their ideals.
For years, Greenpeace has criticized K-C because the tissue company cuts down old-growth forest. In early August, that changed (we think). It endorsed K-C for setting “a goal of obtaining 100% of its wood fibre for tissue products, including the Kleenex brand, from environmentally responsible sources. By the end of 2011, it [K-C] will ensure that 40% of its North American tissue fibre – representing an estimated 600,000 tons – is either recycled or FSC certified, an increase of more than 70% over 2007 levels.”
Forest destruction
The change in approach is particularly
unexpected because Greenpeace North America
has been highlighting the plight of the northern
forests on its web site recently. In early September,
it proclaimed that “Canada’s forests have reached
a crisis point. Previously untouched ancient and
endangered forests are being opened to clearcutting.
More and more forest-dwelling wildlife
are added to endangered species lists each year.
The number of conflicts about use of forests in
Canada is increasing. The need for a change in
the way we value our forests is urgent . . .
“Consumers can also do their part to protect
forests in Canada: Reduce your personal and
professional consumption of wood and paper
products. Buy paper products including toilet
paper, office and writing paper, facial tissue,
paper towels and wrapping paper that has a high
post-consumer recycled content: 100% postconsumer
recycled is best. These products are
available at regular grocery stores and office
supply stores.”
Also in early September, a month after it
endorsed K-C, it was still possible to read on the
same web site that “Kleenex, one of the most
well known brands of tissue products in the world,
is destroying the ancient forests of North America.
Its manufacturer, the Kimberly-Clark corporation,
the largest tissue product company in the world,
continues to destroy ancient forests to manufacture
tissue products that are used once and then thrown
away or flushed down the toilet . . .
Fearless honesty
“Kimberly-Clark uses over 3 million tons of
virgin tree fibre each year to manufacture millions
of tons of tissue products and generate sales of
over $14 billion. Most of the tissue products sold
in local grocery stores under Kimberly-Clark's
various brands names, including Kleenex, contain
very little recycled fibre, if any at all. Kimberly-
Clark actually seems proud that its facial tissue,
toilet paper and napkins are made solely of virgin
tree fibre - much of which comes from ancient
forests that have existed for over 10,000 years.”
Marcal Paper is certainly not impressed by
the (somewhat confusing) change of approach
from Greenpeace. "Since when is 40% a passing
grade?" asked Tim Spring, Marcal CEO. "While
I understand the negotiating process, Greenpeace
needs to rethink these standards . . .It is
unnecessary to kill even a single additional tree
to manufacture toilet paper, facial tissue, napkins
or paper towels."
Another twist: Greenpeace's web site is now
posting: "Did you know that K-C competitors
Georgia Pacific and Procter & Gamble currently
have policies that fail to protect the world’s
forests?"
What’s going on here? Am I wrong to feel
that cynicism has just been given a little leg-up
from one of the organizations whose very
existence depends on its reputation for consistent,
fearless honesty? Or is it just a case of the right
hand not knowing what the left is doing? Either
way, Greenpeace’s image emerges a little less
dazzlingly white.
