The “green” movement has had a great impact on world trade and government policy. It originated from concerns about energy independence, global warming, and environmental sustainability. The U.S. hardwood industry has not been immune to these influences. There are two developments in particular that will most likely affect companies in this industrial sector – the increasing adoption of green building standards and the growing demand for forest certification.
The Center for Forest Products Marketing and Management at Virginia Tech recently conducted a study to investigate the impact of the green movement on U.S. hardwood lumber manufacturers, and the perceptions in the industry about green building and forest certification. This survey pointed to some interesting trends as well as challenges. Let’s first define these key terms before exploring the direct results of the survey.
Forest Certification
Forest certification initiatives have the purpose of promoting the sustainable utilization of forests, from an environmental, economic, and social point of view. Forest certification invariably involves verification by a third party, which makes sure that the practices followed do not damage the natural forests.
Several certification schemes exist; the most important in the U.S. are the Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI), the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS), and the Canadian Standard Association forest standard (CSA). There are differences between these systems from a certification process point of view (number of standards, performance measures, or specific practices evaluated), or based on their main constituents (ATFS, PEFC, and SFI are seen as more supportive of industry; while FSC is more aligned with international NGOs)1. It is claimed that forest certification can improve a company’s image, facilitate access to certain markets, and may allow charging of price premiums.
A number of studies have concluded that, contrary to what happens in other regions of the world, the U.S. market has not yet embraced forest certification. A survey among U.S. homeowners concluded that the U.S. customer is still not willing to pay a premium for environmentally-certified wood products2. Similarly, in a focus-group study of customer perceptions, participants stated that environmental concerns were not a major concern for wood products purchasing decision-making3.
Green Building
According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s definition, green building is “the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s life-cycle”4, from design to deconstruction. As for forest certification, a number of programs have been created.
There are about 50 regional and national green building programs in the U.S. Most of them contain guidelines for energy-efficient products, materials, and construction practices; they also promote the use of renewable energy sources and recycling. Similar to forest certification, virtually all green building systems include third-party verification.
Probably the most notable green building systems are the Leadership in Energy Environmental Design (LEED), the Green Globes program, the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Green Building Guidelines, and the EPA’s Energy Star program. Examples of notable state and regional programs are the Austin Green Builder Program, the King County (Seattle) Built Green Program, and the Built Green Colorado Program.
In general, green building programs have been criticized by the wood products industry because most of them require proof of responsible practices (i.e., environmental certification) only for wood, and because some of their prescriptions encourage the use of bamboo by considering it an “environmentally preferable material.” Nevertheless, green building is becoming an important driver for demand of certified wood.
The LEED program only recognizes FSC-certified material, whereas the Green Globe program recognizes all major North American forest certification schemes (SFI, ATFS, CSA, and the FSC). It has been suggested that green building standards need to use globally recognized life-cycle analysis standards to rate the real environmental impact of construction materials. The Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM) has been developing a “scientifically sound database of the environmental and economic impacts” of wood building materials5, from planting to demolition.
Survey of Hardwood Lumber Manufacturers
The Center for Forest Products Marketing and Management at Virginia Tech surveyed 1,216 hardwood lumber manufacturers in the United States to gauge the impact of green initiatives.
The first question was aimed at learning the level of awareness of forest certification and green building systems among hardwood lumber manufacturers. Responses revealed that there is a higher degree of familiarity with forest certification schemes than with green building programs (an average of 3.4 compared to 2.4, in a scale from 1 to 7, see Figure 1). One explanation for this difference is the fact that lumber manufacturers are closer to the source of raw material (forest resources) than to the final customer (residential building). Also, the wood products industry has given little attention to green building programs, probably because these systems are seen as unfavorable to wood as a construction material.
Among forest certification schemes, respondents had the highest degree of familiarity with SFI, followed by the FSC and the ATFS. This is consistent with what is reported by the organizations as total certified area in North America (over 181 million acres for SFI, 109 million for FSC, and 24 ATFS6). Regarding green building standards, the National Green Building Standard and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design programs were the most recognized (2.7 for both).
Also of interest was to determine the extent of chain of custody certification among respondents. Figure 2 shows the results for this question. Overall, 29% of respondents reported to have chain of custody certification under at least one program, and 26% were planning to certify their operations. Regarding a specific certification system, nearly the same proportion of companies was SFI- and FSC-certified, with a slightly higher number of companies being SFI-certified. Only 3.2% of companies had ATFS certification.
Since forest certification and green building standards are voluntary and conceived to be market-driven, it is important that customers are aware of, and willing to purchase certified material, the survey aimed at learning about the frequency with which customers of hardwood sawmills ask for certified lumber and the green building rating of the product (Figure 3). Thirty percent of companies reported being asked for certified lumber by their customer “frequently” or “sometimes,” whereas the corresponding percentage for green building rating was only 8%. Three-fifths of respondents reported not being asked at all about the green building points of their products, which indicates the need of education.
It is important that producers have economic incentives to adopt these programs. These economic incentives can originate from growing demand for certified products, price premiums, and access to attractive markets. Companies that used certification were asked whether they were benefiting financially from it. Three quarters of respondents that reported having some kind of chain of custody certification answered that they were not obtaining any financial benefit from certification.
Green building programs are mostly based on a point system, where a certain number of points are assigned for each verified practice or material used, depending on their environmental impact. Thus, it is important for producers to know how their products rate in this system. Only 11.4% of respondents were aware of the green building points and only 7.7% of those reporting knowledge of this information used it in advertising.
Hardwood lumber producers were also asked their level of agreement with several statements regarding environmental issues. Answers are summarized in Figure 4. Most agree that demand for lumber certified for “green-building” will increase (77%) and that customers are increasingly concerned about the environment (62%). Companies stated that they have reduced their environmental footprint during the last 3 years (68%) and that they are pursuing environmentally-conscious policies (72%). Most respondents do not think certified lumber allows for higher profit margins (81%); most do not believe that green building standards will help their industry (62%).
Lastly, the questionnaire included an open-ended question for respondents to write about what the industry should do to benefit from the green movement. A majority of respondents (36%) stated that efforts should focus on educating the public and promoting hardwood as a “green” material.
Twenty seven percent of respondents thought that standards should be changed to reflect the industry’s reality and that the certification should be streamlined or improved. A surprising number of respondents (24%) expressed their opinion in negative terms, going from “eliminate certification” to “green movement is a hoax.” Other responses were along the lines of making certification more affordable for small operations, charge more for certified products, and improving legislation.
Summary
The green movement will have an impact on the U.S. hardwood industry; however, this impact presents both opportunities and threats. The promised price premiums for environmentally-certified lumber have not materialized, but businesses are increasingly realizing that being perceived by the market as socially and environmentally responsible is in their interest.
Green building standards will become a major driver for forest-certified lumber; however, awareness of green building programs and standards is very low among producers. The industry could greatly benefit by having more public education concerning the environmental benefits of wood as a construction material, and green building standards including in their evaluation of materials the environmental impact from a life-cycle perspective.
Omar Espinoza is a research associate and Dr. Brian Bond is an Associate Professor of in the Department of Wood Sciences and Forest Products at Virginia Tech.
(Endnotes)
1 Hansen, E., Fletcher, R., Cashore, B., & Mcdermott, C. (2006). Forest Certification in North America. College of Forestry – Extension Publication, (EC 1518), 12. http://owic.oregonstate.edu/pubs/EC1518.pdf
2 Ozanne, L. K., & Vlosky, R. P. (2003). Certification from the U.S. consumer perspective: A comparison from 1995 and 2000. [Journal article]. 53(3), 13-21.
3 Teisl, M. F., Peavey, S., Newman, F., Buono, J., & Hermann, M. (2002). Consumer reactions to environmental labels for forest products: A preliminary look. Forest Products Journal, 52(1), 44.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Green Building – Basic Information. Retrieved March 29, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/about.htm
5 CORRIM website www.corrim.org.
6 From: (1) SFI. (2009). SFI and FSC Certification in North America – A Summary Comparison. Sustainable Forest Initiative. (2) American Forest Foundation. (2010). American Tree Farm System – Statistics & FAQ. http://www.treefarmsystem.org/
