Call it “Pulp Faction,” perhaps. At issue, whether the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) is as neutral and impartial as it claims, as set forth in a much-bruited ForestEthics report (link opens PDF) called SFI: Certified Greenwash that concludes that:

SFI’s greenwash does more than confuse and misrepresent — it damages the very forests, communities, water and wildlife that are essential for our health and quality of life. SFI exists to serve the interests of the paper and timber industry, and its claims of independence are deceptive and misleading. Neither its standards nor its audits exhibit the rigor that we should expect based on SFI’s marketing claims, and its green seal of approval for environmentally harmful practices undermines the value of truly green products.

SFI has responded with a statement on its Web site saying, in part:

ForestEthics continues to peddle pulp fiction about the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, repeating the same old inaccurate and misleading information.  With several credible forest certification standards in the marketplace, there are many paths to the same goals.  While we respect businesses making choices, the real damage from ForestEthics’ campaign is the uneven playing field that it creates for well-managed domestic forest practices and products.  ForestEthics pushes organizations to buy FSC only, but the vast majority of FSC’s supply is offshore.  Global trade in forest products is fine, but domestic products managed to high standards shouldn’t be shut out due to misinformation campaigns and pressure tactics.  That can hurt our forest communities and cost jobs.

The latest in the battle of the eco-labels is the recent news (via Fast Company) that:

Since ForestEthics released its report, companies like Aetna, Allstate, and Office Depot have begun to phase out SFI-certified paper.

It should be pointed out that the FSC is also not without its detractors either, such as FSC Watch. So which is it: SFI or FSC? Or both? Or  neither? This battle does a great disservice to the individuals and companies who are trying to follow sustainable practices, but worse than that, it creates even more confusion in the minds of those who are valiantly trying to educate themselves. Commitment to environmental sustainability is a fairly fragile thing right now—especially given the economic troubles of the past couple of years, and especially in the printing industry which is beset by enough woes right now. (I’ve been to enough industry events to see the rolling of the eyes take often takes place when anyone brings up environmental issues.) These sorts of disputes fuel the cynicism that is already out there and can make people and companies wonder how much they should even bother—if the certification agencies themselves are guilty of “greenwashing,” what hope is there? Or are they even guilty? Can we believe the claims of greenwashing? See how frustrating it can be? Who should we trust? As the author of the Fast Company article points out: “it’s difficult to discern which labels are trustworthy and which promote greenwashing.” True dat. So what’s the solution? Well, Fast Company suggests, “One general rule that companies might try to follow: Avoid using controversial eco-labels to begin with. That way, you don't have to ditch them later.” I dunno; that seems like barking up the wrong tree (sorry). Over at GreenBiz, they offer a second option:

Eco-labels are supposed to guide consumers to environmentally friendly choices, but they have become so numerous—more than 300, by some estimates—and so confusing that consumers now need their own guides to eco-labels, like this Greener Choices website from Consumer Reports. Meanwhile, organizations that create standards have formed their own organization, called the ISEAL Alliance, to separate good standards from the not-so-good. It's like a Good Housekeeping seal for other seals. ... Perhaps independent ratings systems -- like Good Guide, the Sustainability Consortium or UL Environment -- will bring clarity to the debate about what products are environmentally preferable.

Now, I am certainly not trying to “dis” SFI; to second the GreenBiz post’s author, they do some good work, and I’m not cynical enough to see them as some nefarious entity out to hoodwink everyone. But, like many other certification agencies they (or their auditors) are in a position of accepting money from the companies they audit. That will inevitably lead to conflicts of interest. Which is why a third-party organization that already has a good reputation for independence and impartiality—like a Consumer Reports or Underwriters Laboratories—probably makes the most sense. That and soliciting the opinions of companies and individuals you know and trust. Some retailers or other end users have a very good reputation for their supply chain sustainability. Maybe do as they do. Sure, it adds another layer to the certification onion, but it seems like the fairest, most sensible approach. As consumers we have to make informed choices—but the key to that is having access to reliable information without having to get a Masters degree in forestry. Your thoughts?