Do you boycott Kimberly-Clarke?

[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