In the absence of strong legal systems and enforcement in some parts of the world, how can consumers know the certified timber they are receiving is legitimate? A commentary from the managing director of a timber company supplies one answer.
Michael Hermens of APP Timber, a company specializing in Asian timber, wrote about an experience he had recently with PEFC and FSC. Hermens noticed an advertisement by a Malaysian company using incorrect logos for the two certification systems. Wanting to protect the value of his own certified product and of the certification systems, he contacted each of them. Finding the incorrect logos, Hermens writes he:
…sent a copy to both PEFC and the Rainforest Alliance (whom is our FSC auditor). The reason I do this is to alert both organisations on companies claiming to be certified but often are not. This happens a lot in China where the illegal use of trademarks seems to be common practice. It is important that companies like us who play by the rules and pay large sums to maintain our certification are protected from those “cheaters”.
Having spent money and time to become certified, his company has an incentive to protect the value of those certification systems.
What comes next is more interesting. PEFC quickly responded that the Malaysian company was, in fact, certified but was using the wrong logo and had been contacted.
The response from FSC, however, flummoxed Hermens. Instead of standing up for the validity of their logo, FSC aimed its fire at PEFC, telling Hermens that companies are “not allowed to place FSC logo in the same position with PEFC logo. PEFC is FSC’s competitor in forest certification.” Hermens feels FSC should not see PEFC as a competitor. I disagree.
Competition among the systems can be quite healthy. Certification systems that compete are encouraged to improve the value of their products, the high standards of their auditing and the value of their brand. The story Hermens tells is a case in point. If timber suppliers begin to feel that FSC’s logo can be easily forged and FSC’s auditors won’t take action to protect it, suppliers will question the value of the system. Why follow rigorous rules when others can simply cheat without consequence?
FSC’s perception that PEFC is a competitor will actually work to improve the value of the brand. It prevents FSC from ignoring threats to its brand and credibility. It forces them to be responsive to their clients, understanding that timber suppliers could go elsewhere. As we’ve written before, the creation of SVLK in Indonesia is a positive step in this process of increasing competitive pressures toward high business and environmental standards.
Hermens frustration is understandable in one sense. He would like to receive multiple certifications to cover his bases. If FSC prevents that, he is put in a difficult position.
Overall, however, competition among the systems is a good thing. In this case it allowed him to pressure the systems to protect their brand, and I am willing to bet that FSC is more likely to be responsive in the future.
Todd Myers is the environmental director at Washington Policy Center, a non-profit, non-partisan public policy research organization in Washington state. He is one of the nation’s leading experts on free-market environmental policy and is the author of the 2011 landmark book Eco-Fads: How the Rise of Trendy Environmentalism is Harming the Environment. He has authored numerous studies on environmental issues. Todd’s in-depth research on the failure of the state’s 2005 “green” building mandate continues to receive national attention. He formerly served on the executive management team at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Todd holds a Master’s degree from the University of Washington.
Have something to say? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.