Greenpeace is using Ken and Barbie to protest against Mattel's relationship with APP

What do you think of Barbie? Well, no matter what you have in mind, Greenpeace has news for you:

"Barbie has a nasty deforestation habit - she is trashing rainforests in Indonesia, including areas that are home to some of the last tiger, orang-utans and elephants, just so she can wrap herself in pretty packaging."

Apparently, Ken wasn't aware of it either:



Greenpeace started this campaign against Mattel, the manufacturer of Barbie, accusing it in contributing to deforestation in Indonesia "by using paper packaging for the world's most famous toy from Indonesia's most notorious rainforest destroyer Asia Pulp and Paper (APP)."

Not only that Greenpeace calls supporters to tell Mattel to stop destroying rainforests for toy packaging, but they also extended the protest to Mattel HQ, as our friend, Ralf Skar reported on Greenpeace USA website:

"Wearing baby blue formal wear, Ken and a few buddies paid a visit to the Mattel HQ in Los Angeles today. And, by ‘pay a visit’, I mean they climbed on top of the building, strapped on climbing gear, dangled off the roof outside the windows of awe-struck employees, and hung a 2,500 square foot banner reading “It’s OVER” for Barbie to see. I guess you could say the guy has a flair for the dramatic."

You can see photos of the protest at Mattel HQ on Greenpeace's flickr page.

More articles on Greenpeace and APP:

Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) - good or bad? ITS is saying APP is good and actually Greenpeace is bad!

Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) - good or bad? Rolf Skar of Greenpeace is replying to Ian Lifshitz

APP - good or bad? An interview with the sustainability manager of the world's most controversial paper company

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

Disney and HarperCollins - RAN is just behind you!

We are following for some time after RAN's campaign aiming to ensure children's books are not printed on paper linked to Indonesian rainforest destruction. Their efforts, which included the release of a detailed report report a consumer guide, are focusing now on two publishers that are still: Disney Publishing and HarperCollins.

We were curious to hear how's the campaign is going and asked Robin Averbeck, RAN's forest campaigner and Lafcadio Cortesi, RAN's forest campaign director to tell us more about it.

Hi Robin and Lafcadio. Can you tell us more about this campaign and what you achieved so far?

RAN started this campaign in early 2010 by fiber testing three books printed in China on coated papers from each of the top ten U.S. children's book publishers. We were surprised to find mixed tropical hardwoods and/or acacia fiber, both from the clearing and conversion of Indonesia's rainforests, in 60% of the books we tested. We released these findings in a report in late May and followed it up with a lot education and outreach to publishers.

After a period of education and engagement with publishers, we decided to release a consumer guide in November, which ranked publishers based on their commitments related to Indonesian rainforests and their broader environmental policies and practices. We gave each publisher one of three designations: Recommended, Can do better, or Avoid. Recommended publishers were publishers that committed to phase controversial Indonesian fiber and suppliers APP and APRIL until reforms are achieved and had a comprehensive paper policy or a commitment to create one.

This group included Scholastic, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, Pearson/Penguin Group, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Macmillan, and Candlewick Press. Publishers that can do better include Random House and Sterling Publishing. Both made commitments to improve their paper practices and phase out controversial Indonesian fiber until reforms are achieved but had not committed to eliminating controversial suppliers APP and APRIL. Lastly, publishers to avoid are Disney Publishing and HarperCollins, and they have made no commitments to protecting Indonesia's or other endangered forests.

When we started this work, only one company, Scholastic, had taken formal action to eliminate ties with APP and APRIL and phase out controversial Indonesian fiber from their supply chain, but after engaging the others through the report and consumer guide process, we helped the vast majority of major U.S. children's book publishers to realize their impact on Indonesia's forests, understand the severity of the problem, and take action. We plan to ensure that publishers really follow through and implement their commitments and also keep up the pressure on the remaining laggards of the industry, HarperCollins and Disney Publishing. Here’s a blog we just wrote about Disney’s recent paper policy, which sadly falls short for Indonesia’s and other forests.

Why do you think Disney Publishing and HarperCollins don't agree to join the other publishers in taking steps to protect Indonesia's rainforests?

The only way to really know is to ask Disney Publishing and HarperCollins. If I were to speculate, I would guess they haven't taken action because it costs more money to be environmentally and socially responsible, and they believe they can get away with business as usual by simply paying lip service to these issues rather than taking meaningful action.

Do you think readers care about this issue? If they do, is there any evidence that they're willing to take these concerns into consideration when buying children's books?

I know readers care about this issue. From our first emails about this work to our most recent blog posts, people are following this campaign and have a lot to say. Mostly, people are shocked to discover that some of their favorite books (even those about environmental issues) are being printed on papers contributing to destruction of some of the world's most precious rainforests. People downloaded our book guide in large numbers, and many contributed to our rainforest-safe book database by going out to their local bookstores and sleuthing for books printed on recycled and FSC-certified papers.

From your experience in this campaign - What are the most effective ways to increase book lovers' awareness and get them to do the right thing?

Well, book lovers by and large are people who already care about the environment. For us, any sort of educational outreach has been met with a very positive response. However, to some extent consumer choice is different in the category of books than it is for other paper products, like toilet paper for example.

If someone wants a certain book but it is printed on environmentally unsound paper, they can't just buy a different book and get the same product. That's why it's so important that consumers put their concerns directly to the publisher to advocate for changes. Right now, we have an email campaign to Disney where people can voice their concerns, but picking up the phone, sending personal emails and letters, writing concerns on publishers' Facebook pages, etc. are always great too.

Of course, buying used books or using the local library are also good environmental options that we support. However, for a reader, these options won't always yield the book that is wanted, so again, it’s essential for consumers to voice concerns directly to the publishers.

It’s also very important for authors to learn about and talk with their publishers about these issues – requesting that their books be printed on environmentally responsible paper. The authors we’ve spoken with care and some have already taken action.

What do you tell supporters who ask you whether buying e-books won't be the most simple way to solve the problem and hence publishers should be encouraged to move from paper books to e-books?

Well, we know that electronic devices don't solve our environmental problems, they usually just present a different set of challenges related to mining, disposal, etc. We haven't done a lifecycle analysis to compare environmental impacts of e-reader vs. paper, so we can't speak to comparative pros and cons. We can say, however, if you're using paper, make sure it's good paper.

What will be your next steps in this campaign?

RAN will continue to track the progress of publishers we included in our first consumer guide as well as others. We also plan to keep up the pressure on the remaining laggards of the industry, HarperCollins and Disney Publishing. You can look forward to more from us in the months ahead, and for anyone who would like to keep up with us, they can join our Rapid Responder list.

Thank you Robin and Lafcadio!

To learn more visit http://www.ran.org/bookguide

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!


* Photos courtesy of RAN

Why RAN's rainforest-safe children's books campaign might not mobilize consumers to take action?

Rainforest Action Network (RAN) released yesterday a new report grading 11 of the largest children’s book publishers in the US. Their grades were given based on their paper policies and purchasing practices. It was also accompanied by a consumer guide, asking consumers to choose books from publishers who are committed to rainforest protection.

Both the report and the consumer guide follow a report launched by RAN in May, which found that a large number of kids’ books sold in the US are now being printed in Asia using paper that is closely linked to the loss of rainforests in Indonesia.

This is a very important campaign and we applaud RAN for their efforts to ensure that books will be printed sustainably and won't be contribute to the destruction or Indonesian rainforests. This campaign is clearly aiming at mobilizing consumers to buy rainforest-safe children's books this holiday season (and in general), but we have to ask ourselves - is it really effective? is it really change consumers' behavior?

First, let's look into what RAN's guide include. According to their press release,RAN’s guide recommends that consumers buy from industry leaders that have taken action publicly to decrease their forest and environmental footprints by creating time-bound commitments to phase out controversial Indonesian paper fiber and paper suppliers. The recommended companies include Hachette Book Group, Candlewick Press, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, MacMillan, Penguin Group (Pearson), Scholastic and Simon & Schuster. (the last three publishers, by the way, took part in the Green Books Campaign).

Some top publishing companies have yet to take public action to protect Indonesia’s rainforests. These companies have failed to make public commitments or adopt purchasing policies that improve their environmental footprints and ensure the papers they buy are not linked to Indonesian rainforest destruction. RAN’s guide recommends that book buyers avoid these companies this year: Disney Publishing Worldwide and HarperCollins.

So this is the message. Loud and clear - buy books published by the recommend publishers and avoid the ones that got a Failed grade. What tools RAN is using to get the message out to consumers? You got the following:

- A pocket-size shopping guide, which can be downloaded and printed. You can also share it with friends on Facebook and tweet it.

- There's the full report you can read online: Rainforest-Safe Kids' Books: How do Publishers Stack Up?

- Rainforest-Safe Book Database

- 'Roar At the Store' week - from December 6th-12th, hundreds across North America will hand out rainforest-safe guides in front of their favorite bookstores.

This is an impressive campaign. But will these tools help the campaign to meet its goals? Will it mobilize people to take action and buy only rainforest-safe children's books? I'm not sure about it and there are couple of reasons that makes me worry that the campaign won't be as effective as it could be:

1. The first step in mobilizing consumers into action is to get them aware of the campaign and its messages. RAN makes an effort to make it social network friendly and to have presence in bookstores during the first week of December, but I wonder how many consumers will actually hear about it.

First, a growing number of consumers buy online (online spending this holiday season is expected to grow by at least 9% according to analytics firm comScore), and the chances they will hear about the campaign are relatively slim. Second, even though RAN will have presence in hundreds of stores during the first week of December, they will still be able to reach to only a small percentage of the buyers.

What can be done? The best option would be to collaborate with book retailers such as Amazon, B&N, Indigo, Borders and the American Booksellers Association. If even one of them would agree to collaborate with RAN, there's a much better chance to reach a much greater number of consumers both at brick and mortar stores and online.

But I guess that's not going to happen as no retailer would agree to call his customers to avoid books they're selling. It just doesn't makes sense for them. So if we're looking at RAN's options realistically then I believe their best option then is to go viral - a viral campaign, just like what Greenpeace did with their 'Ask Nestle to give rainforests a break' campaign is the only way to get the word out effectively and reach a large number of consumers.

2. The most problematic part is how to mobilize consumers into action. OK, so you got people to hear about the campaign and let's assume many of them really relate to the message and care about the rainforests in Indonesia. Will it be enough to convince them to prefer books published by "good" publishers and avoid ones published by "bad" publishers? I doubt.

And the reason I doubt is that according to the rules of green marketing there's a good chance it won't work. Now, you can wonder why an activism campaign should look into rules of green marketing - RAN is not a company and it doesn't try to sell anything. That's true, but at the same time it tries to influence consumers' behavior and get them to buy a "green" product over a "non-green product", which is exactly what green marketing is all about.

One of the basic rules of green marketing, according to green marketing expert Jacquelyn Ottman, is to avoid trade-offs and if you can’t, make sure the cost to consumers of the green attribute doesn’t outweigh the product’s benefits.

Let's look for a moment at the equation here. The cost is very clear - you need to avoid certain books, even you wanted to buy them in the first place because of their publisher's practices. Instead you're being asked to buy books from a list of rainforest-safe books of publishers who got a Recommended grade. The benefit is that by doing that you're supporting publishers who help to protect Indonesia's rainforests.

Would this benefit be enough to persuade consumers to pay the price? Not to most of the consumers. This is unfortunate of course, but that's the reality. For the majority of the consumers you need actual benefits and not just the good feeling of doing the right thing to outweigh the costs. These benefits can be for example a discount on the recommended books, an hard to resist deal such as buy two recommended books and get the third one for free, discount coupons, etc. Without such benefits that will reward consumers for taking green actions you will be able to persuade only a small percentage of consumers to do the right thing.

What can be done? Again, the best way is collaborating with retailers, but since it's not realistic, maybe RAN should check with the recommended publishers how to create an hard to resist deal or provide consumers with discounts (maybe through websites like groupon). Another way to incentivize consumers is to find a green sponsor that will give a coupon for every purchase of a recommended book (RecycleBank is an inspirational example of this concept).

Another way to change the equation is to reduce the costs. The shopping guide is really small and informational, but still it's a hassle to check every book with the list of the publishers on it (especially when each one of them has many imprints). How about an App, where you can scan the ISBN of the book on your mobile phone and get an immediate YES/NO recommendation? This can also be a convenient way to provide coupons or discounts.

I'm sure that such an App will significantly increase the number of consumers that will use the guide and take it into consideration, as it will lower the cost they need to pay for taking a positive green action.

In all, we wish RAN all the best with this important campaign, but because of its importance and the effort they already put into it, I do hope they'll take into consideration some of the comments made here and will make this campaign as effective as it can possibly be.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting Sustainable Reading!

Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) - good or bad? ITS is saying APP is good and actually Greenpeace is bad!

We had an interesting discussion going on here on the paper company APP and its operations in Indonesia.

We interviewed Ian Lifshitz, APP's Sustainability & Public Outreach Manager at Asia Pulp & Paper. Ian presented in the interview APP's point of view regarding the company's activities and the accusations against it. One of the issues discussed in the interview was a Greenpeace report "How Sinar Mas is pulping the planet", where Greenpeace claimed that APP "is destroying Indonesia’s rainforests and carbon-rich peatlands."

Afterwards we interviewed Rolf Skar, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace, who responded to the interview with Ian and presented Greenpeace's position in this case.

Now, we have a third party that is getting involved in this debate, defending APP and accusing Greenpeace in making false accusations against APP. This is International Trade Strategies Pty Ltd, trading as ITS Global Asia Pacific (ITS Global), which consults on dynamic international issues. According to their press release, ITS Global focuses on four core areas: international trade, environmental policy, development aid and strategy and communication. ITS skills are research, policy analysis and corporate affairs and communications strategies.

ITS is claiming to present a peer-reviewed audit. According to the press release, "the audit systematically analyzed 72 Greenpeace claims against APP that included more than 300 footnotes and approximately 100 references. The evidence shows that Greenpeace provided quotes that don’t exist; maps that show concessions that don’t exist; and used source material with high margins of error that was cited as absolute fact, said Alan Oxley, chief executive office of the Melbourne-based ITS Global."

The press release adds that "ITS Global commissioned two independent academic experts, one in forestry and economics and the other in agricultural science, to review Greenpeace’s claims. The audit shows that both describe the Greenpeace report as “highly misleading." No names attached.

You can see Alan Oxley, Managing Director of ITS and the Chairman of the Australian APEC Study Centre and Founder of WorldGrowth presenting ITS' audit in this video:



The audit itself is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38102388/ITS-Global-Greenpeace-Audit-Report

So what do you think? Is this audit the crucial proof APP was looking for to show that they're right and Greenpeace is wrong? I don't know..One thing I do know is that this is not the final word in this debate. We'll try to have Rolf's response to this audit and see what Greenpeace has to say about these allegations against its report.

UPDATES:

1. Check out what Rehtt Buttler at Mongabay.com has to say about this audit ("Asia Pulp & Paper hires its PR firm to do a hit job on Greenpeace but comes up short"). Thanks to Peter Nowack (@printleadership) for the reference to this excellent article!

2. Here's Greenpeace's response to the audit -http://photos.mongabay.com/10/Greenpeace-Response-to-ITS-Global-Sept-2010.pdf

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) - good or bad? Rolf Skar of Greenpeace is replying to Ian Lifshitz

Last month we interviewed here Ian Lifshitz, Sustainability & Public Outreach Manager at Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), one of the largest pulp and paper companies in the world that has also long been a target of green groups for its logging practices.

Ian presented in the interview APP's point of view regarding the company's activities and the accusations against it. One of the issues discussed in the interview was a Greenpeace report "How Sinar Mas is pulping the planet", where Greenpeace claimed that APP "is destroying Indonesia’s rainforests and carbon-rich peatlands."

Following the interview, we got a request from Rolf Skar, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace, to respond to the interview and we happily agreed, as we want to use this blog as a platform to promote a better understanding of the issues discussed and hopefully contribute to the creation of solutions.

Hello Rolf. What were your thoughts after reading the interview with Ian Lifshitz?

My first reaction was that the interview demonstrates just how out of touch APP remains. Our evidence, based on Ministry of Forestry data, satellite imagery analysis, aerial surveillance and on the ground documentation shows how APP continues to clear natural forests and peatlands. The evidence is simply overwhelming. This is a company that fails to meet even its own sustainability targets to stop using natural forest fiber for its products.

The apparent APP preference for rhetoric over substantive change has led every NGO that has tried to engage with the company to conclude that the company is not serious about sustainability. An example is when the auditing organization Rainforest Alliance broke off relations in 2008, concluding that “we do not wish to be used by APP again in order to mislead the public and the consumers.”

I was also not surprised to see Ian mention his role as a spokesperson to “educate North American audiences about the balanced approach developing countries…need to take between social and economic priorities.” I hope Ian will recognize that though Greenpeace campaigns have tremendous impact in North America and Europe, our campaign to protect Indonesian rainforests is guided and led by our Indonesian staff – people who know very well the complicated economic, social and environmental realities of their native land.

Ian Lifshitz described your report on APP's operations in Indonesia "unequivocally inaccurate and deliberately misleading" - what is your response?

I would like Ian to show evidence that Greenpeace is “unequivocally inaccurate.” His main claim seems to be about the expansion issue, for which the source of our evidences was an internal Sinar Mas Group presentation, by the APP pulpwood supplier Sinarmas Forestry. It was presented as an “area development project for supporting mill license capacity” in 2007. The project was sponsored by Aida Greenbury’s boss and head of APP, Teguh Ganda Widjaja, and his brother, head of Sinarmas Forestry, Muktar Widjaja.

I assume Ian was not party to this plan, and encourage him to take a look at the excerpts form this presentation included in our recent report, Empires of Destruction.

It appears like Ian is not the only one raising questions about your report. APP reported last month to its shareholders that the (yet unreleased) audit of the international accounting and auditing firm Mazars found that "the facts contained in the APP report were accurate and, therefore, the allegations made by the environmental NGOs were indeed baseless, inaccurate and without validity." - What's your reply to Mazars' findings?

The first thing to note is that the quote you referenced is from APP. It is their interpretation of the Mazars report, not what Mazars concluded. Given the liberties APP takes with the facts, this is an important distinction.

Second, it should be noted that Mazars essentially audited whether a specific APP report met generally accepted standards for CSR reporting – things like whether the claims were properly footnoted or referenced. Mazars made no attempt to assess the accuracy of our specific claims against APP.

Mazars is not in a position to audit APP mills or concession areas to make judgements about sustainability. This is not its area of expertise. Further, a number of the “key facts” they highlight are not referenced and therefore cannot be evaluated. APP’s attempt to use this audit to justify their activities will, frankly, not convince any stakeholder with even a basic understanding of sustainability.

Did you try in the past to communicate with APP?

Greenpeace has written to APP on a number of occasions and has typically received long, puzzling responses from Aida Greenbury, the APP sustainability and stakeholder engagement director. Instead of a meaningful response, we have consistently received rhetoric designed to justify their business as usual approach. It is difficult to engage with a company that refuses to acknowledge it has a problem.

Greenpeace activists unfurl a giant banner “APP-Stop destroying Tiger Forests” to expose ongoing forest destruction by pulp giant Asia Pulp & Paper (APP). The banner was deployed in an area of active clearing by PT. Tebo Multi Agro (TMA), an affiliate of APP, on the southern part of the Bukit Tigapuluh landscape. © Greenpeace / Ardiles Rante

What are the demands of Greenpeace from APP? What are the steps that Greenpeace would like APP to take to meet these demands?

To be clear, our campaign is about stopping deforestation, not opposing APP. Greenpeace is asking that APP pulpwood supplier, Sinar Mas Forestry, immediately halt further clearance of natural forest and peatland in Indonesia. We will continue to encourage responsible companies to stop all business with APP until the company takes this action.

A wide range of international companies including Nestlé, Kraft and Unilever, are in the process of implementing global sustainability policies that will exclude APP products unless it makes substantial improvement to its fiber supplies. Many others, like Kimberly-Clark, have never purchased from APP and have reaffirmed commitments to keep APP out of their supply chains.

Greenpeace is well known in its ability to transform activism and campaigns against companies into collaboration and joint work with these companies - is this the case here as well?

We have an informal motto that we have “no permanent friends and no permanent enemies.” This allows us to work with companies that are doing the right thing, regardless of histories. The fact that we do not accept corporate or government contributions allows us to stay independent, flexible and fair.

From the Canadian Boreal forest to the Amazon, Greenpeace has a long history of working collaboratively with companies we had previously butted heads with. We are open to this with APP as well, but we will need to see a genuine commitment to change that has to date not been evidenced.

APP will have to realize that business as usual is no longer an option for industry leaders. As long as to APP fails demonstrate basic criteria – like fulfilling its own sustainability commitments, or agreements reached with NGOs – it will be difficult to move forward. This is not just something Greenpeace has experienced. Back in 2008, the last major corporate who tried to engage with APP – office giant Staples – gave up, concluding that APP was a “great peril” to the their brand. I am not sure what it will take for APP to decide it is time to move forward. Until that day, Greenpeace campaigning will intensify pressure on the company and its customers.

If you would have sat with Ian to the same table - what would you like to tell him?

I don’t want to sound severe, but Ian is either being very badly misled by his employers, or is simply not interested, for any number of reasons, in sustainability. If it is the former, I would invite him, and senior management at APP, to come to the field with Greenpeace to see for themselves the reality of APP business practices. If it is the latter, I would most likely not have a productive conversation with him; we would continue talking past each other, and the status quo would continue. When APP is genuinely ready to talk, Greenpeace will be too.

I would like to thank Rolf for taking the time to reply my questions and I would also invite you all to add your comments, questions and any other feedback you have on this issue.

The interview with Ian Lifshitz is available at http://ecolibris.blogspot.com/2010/08/app-good-or-bad-interview-with-worlds.html

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!