Every week, my personal connection within the US government (the mail carrier) brings me bills, catalogs filled with things I am supposed to want to buy, and, occasionally, hit-pieces sent by candidates in whom I am supposed to have a modicum of interest. Some of these pieces carry the FSC “checkmark-and-tree” logo, and a few are emblazoned with the SFI “leaf” logo, but most are incognito from a certification point of view. I recognize these eco-labels, and know what they supposedly stand for. But I am willing to bet nickels to doughnuts that most of the other people on my street do not. Apart from the cognoscenti in environmental circles, academia, catalog merchandising, and the forest, pulp, paper, and printing industries, not many people know, understand, or, I daresay, care about certification eco-labels on printed pieces. (Don't get me wrong. I am a big fan of forest certification and credible eco-labels. It's how they're used, and who pays the cost, that doesn't make sense.) Eco-labels make sense when they are the means by which a manufacturer communicates directly with a purchaser. If I made wooden chairs from FSC-certified wood, it would likely be in my interests to become chain of custody (CoC) certified so that I could label my finished goods with the FSC logo, and (hopefully) influence customers to buy my “eco-chair” instead of the piece of drek sitting next to it on the sales floor. In fact, if it helped me sell enough product, I would pay almost anything for the privilege of using the logo, and telling my customers about the certified-wood content of my product. Things are a bit different when it comes to eco-labels and printers. It is not the printer that wishes to communicate environmental characteristics of the paper substrate to the reader of the printed piece. Instead, it is the customer – the publisher of the content – that wishes to establish its own environmental good faith, or seek cover from environmental activists (or both). The printer, as Mel Brooks’ character Mongo said, “is just pawn in game of life.” But the printer has to have a CoC certificate to be able to print the eco-label that the publisher wants to show. And this doesn’t  come cheap. To enable the publisher to tout its environmental “bona fides,” the printer has to participate in an increasingly expensive Chain of Custody system (an FSC CoC audit now can cost $3,500 to $5,000 per year, in some cases – hardly chump change). In other words, the printer is expected to pay for something from which the client derives benefit. Hmmm.  You see, in and of itself, the printer’s CoC certification delivers diddly in terms of environmental benefit. It doesn’t even mean the printer is “green,” just that the printer has a materials-handling system in place to track certified paper in and certified paper out. Whether or not the printed piece bears the eco-label, the printer's use of certified paper delivers the same benefits to the forest. No wonder that, in some circles, the cost burden of CoC is considered the “certification shakedown.” Without the CoC certificate, a printer can’t make the bidding short-list. With it, a printer wonders if he (or she) will get enough incremental work to break even. Printers don’t like this certification codependency with their clients, but can’t seem to break the cycle. They are appalled and incensed over the high cost of CoC certification audits. But what to do? On behalf of its members, PIA has asked FSC to reconsider its policy governing group certification, and has asked for a pilot program that would expand that lower-cost option to plants with more employees and higher revenue that current FSC policy allows. That’s one option, but don’t hold your breath waiting for the tide to turn. No certification system is responsible for an individual business’ financial prowess, or lack thereof. Another option printers are taking is to abandon their CoC certifications altogether, because they can’t generate the incremental revenue necessary to warrant the investment. And you know what? They’re right. You can’t be sustainable if you are losing money on your green initiatives. But I don’t see anyone using the third option – putting the cost burden of CoC certification squarely on the shoulders of the customers who want to use the eco-label. The trick is how to do it. A printer that tries to pass costs along will ultimately be undercut by a printer that does not.  So the idea may be horrifically unrealistic. But making customers pony up to use the eco-label that serves their interest is, indeed, a fair proposition. With the exception of our automobiles (which we foolishly allow to be delivered permanently placarded with the name of the dealers from which we purchased them), we do not take kindly to advertising another’s product or service without compensation.  Why should printers subsidize the promotion of their client’s environmental credentials? You want to put your message on cable TV? Pay for it. You want to use an eco-label on a catalog so that you can show the world (including those “pesky environmentalists” and thousands of people who don’t have a clue as to why they are on your mailing list in the first place)  what an environmentally responsible company you are? Great. But you, Mr. Customer, must pay the freight.
This article is presented as editorial opinion.  The comments in this article may not reflect the opinion of WhatTheyThink.com, its management, or its staff.