Do you boycott Kimberly-Clarke?

[AliBaby]

Just letting you know that my mum worked for this company for many many years (13 in fact) and they actually plant 2 trees for every tree that they take down.

They were one of the first companies to ever have an environmental policy and Environmental Management System.

There is more to it than just taking down trees. Before I post more, I am going to speak to my mum about it again but they do a lot more than what other nappy, toilet paper, tissue, paper companies do.

I wont boycott them. To me they are the best and they do try to be as ethical as they can be.

[Phteven]

IMO you can't replace and old growth forest with a pine plantation and claim to be acting in a sustainable manner. TBH that's just taking the **** - ok we've destroyed a forest that is thousands of years old, exposed the delicate topsoil to the elements so that it is washed and blown away, deprived animals of their habitat and to make up for it we'll plant some pine trees. Replacing an ecosytem with a monoculture is joke and it's insulting that they think that the general public is stupid enough to swallow it.
In the US less than 19% of their pulp is from recycled sources.

There are a number of Australian owned recycled products to wipe your butt on there's no need to support a company that supports clear felling.

[Astrid]

Pine plantations are actually quite destructive to the soil. They basically strip it of any nutrients, so it is useless after that. A very short term fix, with a lot of long term damage. Our last trip to Tassie we could already see the damage appearing.

[Kazbah]

I have moved to recycled toilet paper (can't remember the brand, but it has frogs on it) cause it's also soft.

We were talking to a redgum cabinetmaker who was telling us about the managed plantations for redgums.

[AliBaby]

Brontide- They arent just destroying masses of forests and I would advice you to look at their website before making such misleading statements.

Here are some cold hard facts for you taken from their website. Sustainable forest management – Kimberly-Clark Australia & New Zealand

All Kimberly-Clark Australia’s tissue products are now PEFC accredited.
To achieve certification, Kimberly-Clark has been independently audited to ensure that throughout the production process, the company is able to identify what fibre has gone into its products.

Importantly, its procedures must show the following:
* no wood or fibre comes from illegal operations or controversial sources
* the percentage of fibre which comes from certified forest operations.

Detailed calculations confirm that all Kimberly-Clark Australia tissue products have over 80% of fibre sourced from forests accredited under the PEFC scheme as sustainably managed. We are working with suppliers to aim for 100% of our wood and fibres from certified forests. Wood from all sources is certified, under chain of custody, as legally harvested and not from controversial sources.

Kimberly-Clark Australia’s certification includes the following auditing:
* wood production (plantations/forests) in different countries
* fibre (‘pulp’) production in different countries, and
* tissue manufacture in Australia using different mixes of fibres.

In 2008:
* 87% of the fibre used in KCA mills was sourced from certified forest areas.
* We continued to reduce our water usage year on year.
* 97% of waste was diverted from landfill.

[Lulu]

Whats a 'certified forest area?'

[AliBaby]

Whats a 'certified forest area?'

Here is a link Lulu that explains what a certified forest area is
FCRC: How Forest Certification Works

[Phteven]

Ali, I don't find KC's PR statement very convincing. IMO they are not so much cold, hard fact as spin. They have a massive credibility issue. This is from CNN - a very conservative source that generally sides with big business

Here's the problem, though. It's hard to trust Kimberly-Clark because the company's actions have not lived up to its rhetoric. The company has often said - prominently in its 2005 sustainability report and as recently as March, 2006, in its proxy statement to shareholders - that its corporate policy "prohibits the use of wood fibers from ... ecologically significant old-growth areas, including ... temperate rainforests in coastal British Columbia."

Several months later, Greenpeace researchers who dug into U.S. Customs records and questioned K-C suppliers issued a report called "Chain of Lies" saying that K-C was, in fact, purchasing wood fiber from the coastal forests in British Columbia.

Subsequently and to its credit, K-C did an internal review and found that it had, in fact, "purchased a small amount of wood chips" that were "derived from logs harvested from the British Columbia coastal area."

Oops.

The spin refers to KCA meaning Kimberly Clarke Australia which is a subsidiary company of Kimberly-Clarke. Even if I trusted it's claims in regard to Australia there are still the larger global issues of the destruction of forests in Indonesia and North America. For so long as they continue to turn forests into toilet paper I will continue to boycott them regardless of whether they are Australian forests or forests abroad.

[AliBaby]

No problem Brontide.
I am just putting the facts out there that in Australia they are a reputable compnay that are contantly audited by outside resources.

I wouldnt mind seeing the entire article or a link to it as what you stated didnt convince me. Saying that they have used a small amount of woodchip from british Comlubia coastal areas doesnt really state fact to me. Any reporter can make a generalised comment like that (and what is a small amount???)

[Lulu]

Yeah, but the point is they backflipped and then decided they did use the old-growth forests. It's not just KC doing this sort of thing though.

The next thing I have an issue with is the triple strength dunny paper. People use the same amounts of paper and it's now clogging up the sewer system.

[Phteven]

The entire article is linked in the first post I made. I'm surprised you didn't bother reading it before jumping in to defend them so enthusiastically

TBH I don't even understand why they are boasting about trying to use 100% 'certified forest' products. If they were aiming for 100% recycled then I might be impressed (although probably not because there are some lovely paper with no question marks against them that already use 100% recycled pulp).



LOL Lulu, what is it with the 3 ply. Why does it need to be so 'strong'? It's not like people are writing novels on it.
And the brilliant, blinding white? Does it really need to be super bleached to deserve a place in the bathroom?

ETA - Just being doing some googling re PEFC. Seems that WWF and the Wilderness society aren't fans and that it has certified some pretty unsustainable forest destruction as sustainable. It sucks when the bodies held up as protecting the environment do no such thing