Book Industry Environmental Trends January 2013 A research Report by the Book Industry Environmental Council and Green Press Initiative

Introduction and Executive Summary One of the key priorities of the Book Industry Environmental Council (BIEC) when it was established in 2008 was to track environmental trends in the U.S. Book industry. In 2008, Green Press Initiative (GPI) and the Book Industry Study Group (BISG) released Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts: Findings from the U.S. Book Industry. This provided the industry with a baseline for several key environmental metrics and for the first time calculated the carbon footprint of the U.S. book industry. In the spring of 2011, the Book Industry Environmental Council (BIEC) administered surveys to book publishers, book printers, and manufacturers of book papers. This report details the results of those surveys and also examines how some measures of environmental performance have changed since the GPI/BISG report in 2008.

the amount of recycled fiber reported by paper manufacturers has increased from an average of about 5% in 2004 to about 24% in 2010.

Paper manufacturers accounting for about 44% of market share responded to the surveys and approximately 36% of paper consumers (Publishers and Printers), by market share participated. The data collected from these surveys combined with data reported in Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts: Findings from the U.S. Book Industry shows significant progress in the U.S. book industry across a variety of environmental metrics. For example the amount of recycled fiber reported by paper manufacturers has increased from an average of about 5% in 2004 to about 24% in 2010.

Likewise the average amount of FSC certified papers produced for the book industry has increased from negligible levels in 2004 to over 16% in 2010.

*Preconsumer fiber was not tracked prior to 2009 and the prior year’s data are estimates based on averages for the printing and writing sector.

An analysis of environmental policies also shows that 82% of publisher respondents have an environmental policy or have committed to environmental goals. This is a significant increase from the 59% of publisher respondents who had “completed or intended” environmental policies in 2006. Interestingly, the percentage of publishers that have specific targets for increasing the use of recycled fiber has declined slightly from 54% in 2006 to 52% in 2010.

Recycled and FSC numbers vary significantly among the three sectors of the industry that were surveyed (publishers, printers, and paper manufacturers). This could be due to a combination of factors including the potential for reporting on different groups of paper, and the possibility that some data may have inadvertently been calculated or reported incorrectly.

the industry has experienced at least a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Based on the increase in recycled fiber reported by paper manufacturers and the reduction in paper consumption estimated by RISI, the industry has experienced at least a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2006 and 2010 and resulted in harvesting 5.25 million fewer trees annually.

Environmental Progress Reported by Paper Manufacturers Environmental Metric Total Paper Consumption Average Recycled Content* Percentage of FSC Certified Paper Industry Greenhouse Gas Emissions**

2006

2010

1,763,698 tons 5% 320% 9,009,190 metric tons ->25%

The table highlights some of gains the U.S. book industry has achieved across several environmental metrics over a four year period as reported by paper manufacturers. The full report which begins on the following page will describe detailed results from this study including data from a broader range of environmental metrics, corporate environmental policies and more detailed analysis regarding trends over time and the implications for the U.S. book industry’s environmental footprint.

The data from this study paints a picture of a book industry that has taken significant steps to understand and reduce social and environmental impacts throughout the supply chain.

The data from this study paints a picture of a book industry that has taken significant steps to understand and reduce social and environmental impacts throughout the supply chain. Over a four year period there has been a substantial increase in the use of recycled fiber and third party certified paper while at the same time paper consumption has decreased dramatically as a result of both a slow economy and an ongoing transition to e-books. These factors have combined to result in more than a 25% reduction in the industry’s carbon footprint, surpassing the BIEC’s goal of achieving a 20% reduction by 2020 many years ahead of schedule.

The environmental benefits of increasing the industry’s use of recycled fiber to 24% as indicated by paper manufacturers represents some of the most significant reductions in impacts as illustrated by the table below.

Annual Environmental Benefits of 24% Recycled Fiber Trees Saved Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.25 Million 1.02 Million Metric Tons

Energy Saved

2.28 Million BTUs

Solid Waste Prevented

223 Million Pounds

While these gains are impressive, there are still areas where improvement is needed to further reduce impacts on climate change, forests and communities around the world. This includes continuing to increase the use of recycled fiber and paper that is certified by FSC and credible third parties, and to eliminate the use of paper and fiber that is potentially sourced from Endangered Forests or regions where communities are negatively impacted or forced from traditional lands by pulp and paper companies. The details of the report which begins on the following page will provide more information about the surveys and the results and will compare them to previous surveys and studies to paint a picture of the changes that have occurred in the book industry in recent years.

Methodology Three Separate Surveys were created and distributed using Survey Monkey. The first survey was designed to be completed by publishers, the second for printers and the third for paper manufacturers who supply the book industry. The surveys were targeted towards U.S. publishers and their suppliers in the U.S. and Canada. The Tracking Committee of the BIEC researched the largest U.S. publishers as well as the largest printers, and paper manufacturers supplying U.S. publishers. Members of the BIEC, especially members of the Tracking Committee were able to identify contacts at most of these companies and several emails with links to complete the surveys were sent to the contacts identified at these companies as well as other publishers, printers and paper manufacturers that were included in Green Press Initiative’s database. The links for the surveys were also promoted in book industry trade magazines, websites and newsletters of various book industry trade associations. The surveys remained open from May 4th until July 11th, 2011 and requested data for calendar years 2009 and 2010. Surveys were conducted through Survey Monkey and were completely anonymous except in cases where participants choose to provide optional contact information. An independent contractor was hired to collect and aggregate the data from Survey Monkey. In an effort to avoid publishers and printers from double counting the same paper, publishers were asked to report the total amount of paper they used only if they were purchasing paper directly from a paper manufacturer or merchant and printers were asked to exclude paper that was supplied by a publisher. However, paper manufacturers were asked to indicate the total amount of paper they produced that was suitable for use in books. It should be noted that there were many additional responses that were not included in the data presented in this report because the surveys were not submitted by the participant. Survey Monkey collects and reports data even if the participant does not reach the end of the survey and click submit. It is worth noting that had data from these incomplete surveys been included the results would be substantially different than those reported below. To be clear, for the purposes of this report the terms complete/incomplete surveys refers to whether or not the participant reached the end of the survey and clicked submit. Most of the questions on the surveys did not require the participant to submit an answer to continue thus it would be possible for a participant to leave one or more questions unanswered but still submit a response in which case the survey would be defined as completed. The decision not to include data from incomplete surveys was based on two factors. First it is possible that a participant could begin the survey on one computer but not finish, and then start again from the beginning on another computer in which case some of the information they report would otherwise be double counted (A participant who returned to the survey on the same computer would find that the information they had already submitted had been saved unless cookies had been deleted or disabled on that computer). The second reason why incomplete surveys were not included in the reported data is because of the possibility that people would not realize that data was being collected from incomplete surveys. In such a case someone who just wanted to preview the surveys to complete at a later time may (not realizing that incomplete survey data was collected) enter made up information. In fact it is known that BIEC members involved in designing the survey did just that in an effort to determine that the surveys were working properly and also to demonstrate the surveys to others (it was not known at the time that Survey Monkey was collecting data from incomplete surveys). Because it was known that at least some and possibly much of the data from the incomplete surveys was inaccurate, the decision was made to include only data from completed surveys.

Limitations This study is limited by the participation of the publishers, printers and paper manufactures who responded to the surveys. Paper manufacturers who participated in the surveys account for about 44% of the paper used in the industry and paper consumers (publishers and printers) who participated account for about 36% of the industry’s paper consumption based on estimates of apparent book paper consumption by RISI. Additionally there may have been some selection bias in that companies that have strong environmental policies may have been more likely to participate in the surveys. There were also significant differences between the results of each sector. As discussed in more detail in the discussion and analysis section there are different ways this data can be interpreted and there are several potential reasons for the differences. One likely cause of the discrepancies is the fact that printers and publishers may have been using paper from suppliers who did not participate in the surveys and likewise paper manufacturers may have provided paper to publishers who did not participate.

Results In total there were 57 completed responses: six from paper manufacturers, 12 from book printers and 39 from book publishers. Several of the responses were determined to be anomalous or likely to have been entered in error. In such cases the data in question was removed however the responses to other questions were left in the data set.

Anomalies

The total tonnage reported by one publisher was removed because the total amount of paper reported would have been excessive for one of the largest publishers (more than 300,000 tons) and the total revenues reported for the company was $1-10 Million. As a result the data relating to fiber type and third party certification was also removed for this publisher because the weighted averages reported are dependent on the total tons of paper supplied. Responses to questions relating to electronic books were also removed for two publishers because the answers to two questions were contradictory. In both cases the publishers reported that 0% of books were delivered electronically, but in another question stated that a very high percentage of the books they produced were available only in electronic format. Finally the third party certification data for one publisher was discarded because the percentages for each type of certification added up to 175% when a total sum of 100% should have been the maximum possible based on how the question was worded. No anomalies were identified in any of the responses for paper manufacturers or printers.

Paper Manufacturers

In total, six paper manufacturers completed the survey; however, one did not report total tonnage for either 2009 or 2010 so their data was excluded from the weighted averages relating to fiber type and third party certification. The total tonnage of book paper produced by the five manufacturers that provided this data was 537,568 tons in 2009 and 520,563 tons in 2010. RISI reports that apparent book paper consumption (book paper manufactured plus imports minus exports) was 1.24 million tons in 2009 and 1.159 million tons in 2010. Based on this information, the paper reported by the five mills accounts for 43 % and 45% of total book paper consumption in 2009 and 2010 respectively.

The different types of fiber used by the five mills reporting tonnage is indicated in Figure 1 below. These averages are weighted by total paper consumption reported by each mill. Total recycled fiber (preconsumer plus postconsumer) accounted for 24% of all fiber of which 63% was postconsumer recycled. In 2010, 24% of fiber used to manufacture book papers by the mills surveyed was from recycled sources with postconsumer recycled fiber again accounting for 63% of the total recycled fiber. No agricultural or alternative fiber was used by any of the participating mills in 2009 or 2010.

Fig. 1 Fiber Type Reported by Paper Manufacturers in 2009 and 2010

*Preconsumer fiber was not tracked prior to 2009 and the prior year’s data are estimates based on industry averages.

Figure 2 shows the average amount of third party certified fiber that was used by paper manufacturers who reported tonnage in 2009 and 2010. As can be seen, the amount of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified fiber remained constant at 16% while the amount of fiber certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) increased from 32% in 2009 to 40% in 2010. No dual certified fiber or fiber certified to standards other than FSC and SFI were reported to have been used by participating paper manufacturers in 2009 or 2010.

Fig. 2 Third Party Certified Fiber Reported by Paper Manufacturers in 2009 and 2010

Other Single Certification

Almost all of the fiber used by paper manufacturers reporting tonnage (greater than 99%) was sourced from North America. Less than 1% of the total fiber reported was sourced from South America in 2009 and 2010 and no fiber was sourced from any other regions in 2009 or 2010. Figure 3 illustrates the geographic distribution of the fiber sources for manufacturers that reported tonnage.

Fig. 3 Geographic Source of Fiber Reported by Paper Manufacturers in 2009 and 2010

All of the paper manufacturers that returned completed surveys had an environmental policy in place at the time the surveys were conducted and five of the six participating paper manufacturers had calculated a carbon footprint. The charts below describe the nature of these policies regarding goals for recycled fiber, certified paper and reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Fig. 4 Recycled Fiber Targets for 2014 or Sooner Reported by Paper Manufacturers

Fig. 5 Social and Environmental Goals in Policies of Paper Manufacturers

Fig. 6 Third Party Certification Goals in Policies of Paper Manufacturers

Fig. 7 Certification Standards Counting Towards Goals of Paper Manufacturers

Fig. 8 Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions Targets of Paper Manufacturers

Of the six paper manufacturers, two had annual revenues from book paper of $10-$50 million, two had book paper revenues of $50-$100 million and two had book paper revenues of $100-$250 million as indicated in figure 9.

Fig. 9-Paper Manufacturer Revenues from Book Paper

Printers In total, 12 book printers completed and submitted surveys and 11 of the 12 reported paper tonnage. As was the case with paper manufacturers, the results of the one printer that did not provide tonnage are excluded from any responses where a weighted average would require knowing their total paper tonnages such as average recycled content and third party certified fiber. The total weight of the book paper reported by the 11 printers that provided tonnage information totals 72,527 tons in 2009 and 69,823 tons in 2010. Based on RISI estimates of 1.24 million tons of book paper consumed in 2009 and 1.159 million tons in 2010, the total tonnage purchased by participating printers represents 6% of total book paper consumption in 2009 and 2010. It should, however, be noted that the tonnage reported by printers does not include paper that was purchased directly by publishers. As a result, while this number accurately reflects the quantity of paper that was purchased by the printer, it is substantially lower than the total tonnage of paper that was used by these printers to manufacture books. Paper purchased by publishers will be captured in the data from the publisher surveys. The average percentage of the various fiber types that made up the papers used by printers are indicated in figure 10 below. The graph is based on a weighted average and is calculated using the total tons of paper reported by each printer and the average recycled content each reported. In 2009 on average 81% of fiber in paper purchased by printers was sourced from virgin tree fiber, 17% was postconsumer recycled fiber, 1% was preconsumer recycled fiber and 1% was agricultural or alternative fiber. In 2010 on average 82% of fiber in papers reported by printers was sourced from virgin tree fiber, 16% was postconsumer recycled fiber, 1% was preconsumer recycled fiber and none of the papers contained agricultural or alternative fiber.

Fig. 10-Fiber Sources of Papers Reported by Printers in 2009 and 2010

For the papers from printers that reported tonnage of paper used, in 2009 23% were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), 47% were certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), 3% were dual certified by FSC and SFI and none were certified by any other certification bodies. In 2010, on average 27% of the papers reported by printers were FSC certified, 51% were SFI certified, 3% were dual certified by FSC and SFI and none were certified by other certification bodies.

Fig. 11-Third Party Certification Reported by Printers in 2009 and 2010

Other single certification

It should also be noted that at the time the surveys were conducted, 9 of the 12 participating printers had FSC chain of custody certification and 5 of the 12 reported that they had chain of custody certification from SFI or some other certification body as indicated in figure 12. The fact that the total number of printers reporting FSC, SFI or other chain of custody certification is more than the total number of printers responding to the surveys indicates that some printers possessed multiple chain of custody certifications.

Fig. 12- Printer Chain of Custody Certification

Nearly all of the paper reported by printers was sourced from North America. In 2009, less than 1% of paper was sourced from Asia and 1% was sourced from Europe. No paper was sourced from South America or other regions in 2009. In 2010 less than 1% of paper was sourced from Asia and none was sourced from Europe or South America. Less than 1% was sourced from other regions.

Fig. 13-Geographic Sources of Paper Reported by Printers

Only six of the twelve printers answered the question “Does your company have an environmental policy or has your company otherwise committed to environmental goals?” All six of the printers responding to this question indicated that they did have an environmental policy or had committed to environmental goals. It is not clear if the other six printers do not have environmental goals or policies, or if they do but chose not to answer the question. Printers were also asked to estimate the percentage of the total ink that they used that contained 5% or less volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A weighted average of these responses (based on paper purchased) resulted in a weighted average of 39% ink used by printers containing low levels of VOCs. Because no questions asked about total ink consumption, it was not possible to weight these responses by ink use. Instead paper purchases were used as a proxy for ink use which may have two problems. First it is possible that ink consumption is not well correlated to paper consumption. For example, a printer that does a high percentage of its printing in books that have large numbers of images and graphics may use more ink than a printer that mostly prints books that contain pure text. Additionally paper purchases may not be well correlated with the quantity of paper that is used to print books at a facility. Because the printers are excluding paper supplied by the publisher, a printer that is used by many large publishers (who tend to supply most of the paper to the printer) may purchase less paper from the printer but print significantly more units than a printer that works mostly with smaller publishers who tend to purchase paper from the printers. 11 of the 12 printers reported having an environmental policy at the time the surveys were administered and 4 of the 12 reported having calculated a carbon footprint for their company.

Fig. 14- Number of Printers that Have Environmental Policies and Have Calculated a Carbon Footprint

The environmental goals in the printers’ policies as they relate to recycled fiber, certified paper, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and other efforts to reduce social and environmental impacts are detailed in the charts below

Fig. 15- Recycled Fiber Goals in Printer Policies

Fig. 16- Printer Policies-Goals to Reduce Social Impacts

Fig. 17- Printer Third Party Certification Policies/Goals for 2014 or sooner

Fig. 18- Printer Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets for 2020 or sooner

Of the 12 printers that participated in the survey, 2 had annual revenues from books of $10 million or less, seven had annual book revenues of $10 million to $50 million and 3 had annual book revenues of $50 million to $100 million.

Fig. 19-Annual book revenues of printers

Publishers A total of 39 publishers completed the surveys, however only six purchased paper directly from a paper manufacturer or merchant. Five of the six publishers that purchased paper directly reported tonnage. The total paper reported by these five publishers was 370,042 tons in 2009, accounting for 30% of total book paper consumption estimated by RISI and 339,710 tons in 2010, accounting for 29% of total book paper consumption estimated by RISI. Weighted averages relating to recycled fiber and FSC certified paper are based only on the responses of the five publishers that provided tonnage. Data for paper that was purchased from the printer is excluded from the publisher section because it was captured in the printer’s surveys. In 2009, 92% of the fiber in paper purchased by the five publishers reporting tonnage was virgin tree fiber,5% was postconsumer recycled fiber,3% was preconsumer recycled fiber and no fiber was sourced from agricultural or alternative fiber. In 2010, 89% of the fiber reported by publishers was virgin tree fiber, 7% was postconsumer recycled fiber, 3% was preconsumer recycled fiber and no agricultural or alternative fiber was included in paper purchased directly by the publishers reporting tonnage.

Fig. 20-Fiber type reported by publishers

In 2009, 10% of paper used by publishers reporting tonnage was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), 7% was certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), less than 1% was dual certified by FSC and SFI and 1% was dual certified by other certification bodies. In 2010, 10% of paper reported by publishers was FSC certified, 16% was SFI certified, less than 1% was FSC/SFI dual certified and 2% was dual certified by other certification bodies.

Fig. 21-Third Party Certified Paper Reported by Publishers

Other single certification

Publishers were also asked what percentage of the books they planned to sell in the United States were printed in five regions—North America, South America, Asia, Europe and other regions. An unweighted average based on the responses of the 38 publishers that answered this question revealed that in 2009, 89% of books were printed in North America, less than 1% of books were printed in South America,10% were printed in Asia, 1% were printed in Europe and no books were printed in other regions. In 2010, 91% of books were printed in North America, less than 1% were printed in South America, 9% were printed in Asia and 1% were printed in Europe. As in 2009, no books were printed in other regions in 2010.

Fig. 22-Printing Location Reported by Publishers (Unweight Average)

Publishers were asked a number of questions about the percentage of books that were delivered electronically, the types of printing methods, the percentage of books that were returned to the publisher by retailers, and the percentage of books that were discarded, and the fate of discarded books. The responses to these questions are summarized in the graphs below

Fig. 23-Electronic Delivery of Books

Fig. 24-Printing Methods

Note for Fig. 24: The total percentage of print on demand plus traditional print methods adds up to nearly 100% for 2010, but only adds up to about 96% for 2009. It is not clear if there was some other print method that some publishers felt was neither print on demand nor traditional printing, or if one or more publisher may have entered an error for the 2009 data.

Fig. 25-Book Returns Rate

Fig. 26-Discarded and Remaindered Books

Fig. 27-Fate of Discarded Books

Of the 39 publishers that participated in the surveys, 32 stated that their company either had an environmental policy or had otherwise committed to environmental goals and seven stated that their company had not committed to environmental goals. Nine publishers stated that their company had calculated its carbon footprint and 30 stated that their company had not done so. Details of the environmental goals and targets with the environmental policies of responding publishers are illustrated in the charts below.

Fig. 28-Publishers That Have Environmental Policies and Calculated Carbon Footprint

Fig. 29-Publisher Recycled Fiber Goals for 2014 or sooner

Fig. 30-Publisher Requirements/Goals to Protect Critical Ecosystems and Reduce Social Impacts

Fig. 31-Publisher Goals for use of 3rd Party Certified Papers by 2014 or Sooner.

Fig. 32-Certification Types Included in Publisher Goals.

Fig. 33-Publisher Goals for reducing GHG emissions by 2020 or Sooner.

Of the 39 participating publishers, 15 had revenues from books of less than $1 million, 14 had book revenues between $1 million and $10 million, six had book revenues between $10 million and $100 million, one had book revenues between $100 million and $500 million and three had book revenues greater than $500 million.

Fig. 34-Publisher’s Annual Revenues from Books

Discussion and Analysis It is clear from the results of these surveys that there has been significant and continuous improvement across a wide range of environmental indicators in the U.S. book industry. One of the best examples of this is the continued growth in the use of recycled fiber among manufacturers of book paper. As can be seen in figure 35, below, the average total recycled content reported by paper manufacturers has increased from about 5% in 2004 to nearly 24% in 2010. While pre-consumer recycled content was not reported prior to 2009, it is believed that it was a very small portion of total fiber on book paper in 2004.

Fig. 35-Recycled Content Reported by Paper Manufacturers

*Preconsumer fiber was not tracked prior to 2009 and the prior year’s data are estimates based on averages for the printing and writing sector.

While It is clear from all of the data above that there are many companies in the book industry that have made environmental responsibility a key priority, there appears to be some significant differences in the data between paper manufacturers and publishers and printers with regards to key metrics like recycled fiber content and third party certification. There are three possible explanations for these discrepancies and it is likely that all three are affecting the data to varying degrees. The first and probably the most significant factor is the fact that less than 50% of the market for each sector is represented in the survey results. If close to 100% of the market share were represented in the surveys, it would be expected that the combined data of the publishers and printers should be nearly identical to that of the paper manufacturers since they would be consuming the same paper the manufacturers produced. However, since less than 50% of market share participated in each survey it is very likely that some participating paper manufacturers are providing paper to publishers and printers who did not participate in the surveys and, conversely, some printers and publishers are using paper supplied by manufacturers who did not participate. As a result, the paper suppliers (manufacturers) are not necessarily reporting on the same paper as the paper consumers (printers and publishers) and there could be considerable differences between the two sets of paper each group is reporting on.

The second factor that could be contributing to these discrepancies is inadvertent reporting error. This could occur for example if a publisher did not realize that a paper they used contained some recycled fiber, if a respondent included papers other than book papers, or if a respondent accidently miscalculated a percentage or unintentionally entered the wrong values into the online survey. The third factor that could explain the discrepancies in results between paper suppliers and paper consumers is the fact that paper manufacturers were asked to report on paper that could be used in books. In many cases it is not possible for paper manufacturers to know the final use of a paper they produce, and the survey for manufacturers asked them to include all paper that could potentially be used in books. It is likely some of the paper that manufacturers reported on in the surveys was never used in books and therefore contributed to the problem that suppliers and consumers were not reporting on the same group of papers.

It is clear from the results of these surveys that there has been significant and continuous improvement across a wide range of environmental indicators in the U.S. book industry.

Because there are different estimates for recycled content and third party certified paper for suppliers and consumers, it can be difficult to produce an estimate for the entire industry. From one perspective it may be best to look only at the data of the paper manufacturers. Some factors that add legitimacy to this way of analyzing the data include the fact that paper manufacturers had a higher participation rate (by market share) than any other sector, and the fact that the manufacturers are the source of the paper and details about the paper are more likely to be incorrectly reported as the paper moves through the supply chain and further from that source. For example it is unlikely that a paper manufacturer would incorrectly report the recycled content of the paper it produced. However, it is possible that a publisher may not know that a paper it is using contains a certain percentage of preconsumer recycled fiber, or that the paper has been awarded third party certification. Using this method to estimate recycled content would result in an industry average of 24.6% total recycled fiber in 2010 (15.2% postconsumer recycled) and 16.1% FSC certified papers An alternative perspective would be to look at the paper supplier results in conjunction with a combination of the printer and publishers results which would provide averages for paper consumers (combining printers and publishers results will not result in double counting because publishers were asked to exclude paper purchased through the printer and printers were asked to exclude paper supplied by publishers). It would then be possible to have both a producer and consumer average and report either a range or the midpoints as estimates of the industry’s environmental performance. Using this approach, the producer number (based on manufacturer data) would again be an average of 24.6% total recycled fiber in 2010 (15.2% postconsumer recycled) and 16.1% FSC certified papers. The resulting consumer average would be 11.8% recycled fiber (8.8% postconsumer recycled) and 11.4% FSC certified paper. The table below shows industry wide estimates for recycled fiber and FSC certified paper based on manufacturer (producer) data, and the producer- consumer range and midpoint.

Table 1-Estimates of Industry Wide Environmental Performance Measurement Producer Only Producer-Consumer Range Producer-Consumer Mid-Point

Total Recycled Content 24.6% 11.8%-24.6% 18.2%

Postconsumer Recycled Content 15.2% 8.8%-15.2% 12.0%

Preconsumer Recycled Content 9.4% 3.0%-9.4% 6.2%

FSC Certified Paper 16.1% 11.4%-16.1% 13.8%

Environmental Savings By Increasing the average recycled content in book paper to over 24% in 2010, the book industry Harvested 5.25 million fewer trees each year.

Assuming that the book industry as a whole were at about 24% recycled fiber, this would represent an impressive reduction in environmental impacts. According to RISI, in 2010 apparent U.S. consumption of book paper was 1.159 million tons. At that level of paper consumption, increasing the average recycled content of book paper from 5% in 2004 to over 24% in 2010 would result in the book industry harvesting 5.25 million fewer trees each year. There are also other environmental benefits to this increase in recycled content including an annual reduction in energy consumption of 2.8 million BTUs (enough energy to power more than 30,000 homes), the prevention of more than 223 million pounds of solid waste each year, and an annual reduction in carbon equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of about 1.02 million metric tons per year (equivalent to removing about 203,000 cars from the roads)1.

Environmental Benefits It is also clear from the data that all sectors of the industry are taking a closer look at the sources of the virgin fiber that are used to make paper and books. While data is not available, it is fair to assume that a small percentage of paper used to manufacture books was third party certified in 2004. However, in 2010, based on the manufacturers’ surveys, more than 16% is now FSC certified. Additionally manufacturers report that more than 40% of book paper produced is SFI certified which means that more that 56% of book paper manufactured for use in books is certified by a third party. Additionally many companies in all sectors of the industry have policies or goals to eliminate fiber from areas of social conflict or only source fiber from areas with effective social laws. Taken together this shows an increasing degree of attention among book industry stakeholders about the sources of fiber used in books. While there is clearly a positive trend toward more certification and a higher awareness of social and environmental impacts of paper, there is still a significant quantity of uncertified virgin fiber that is used in book papers. Based on the figures reported by mills, 56% of papers manufactured are certified by a third party and an average of 24% of fiber used in book papers is recycled fiber. This means that at least 20% of fiber used to manufacturer book papers is neither recycled fiber nor is it in a paper that has been certified by any third party. Looking at only FSC certification, at least 60% of fiber is neither recycled nor in an FSC certified paper. Because many certified papers also contain recycled fiber these estimates represent a minimum level of uncertified virgin fiber in book papers and the actual figures are almost certainly considerably higher than these minimums. Eliminating or reducing the quantity of uncertified virgin fiber in books represents an opportunity for all sectors in the industry to make great strides towards reducing social and environmental impacts.

There is a positive trend toward a higher awareness of social and environmental impacts of paper, there is still a significant quantity of uncertified virgin fiber that is used in book papers.

The Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts report from 2008 did not ask specific details about targets of environmental policies; however, it did ask if companies had “completed or intended” environmental policies and it also asked whether or not publishers’ environmental policies included a quantitative target for increasing recycled fiber use. In the environmental trends report, the total percentage of responding companies from all sectors with environmental policies was reported to be 59% of respondents. When the results of all sectors are added up from the current surveys a total of 86% of companies responding reported having an environmental policy or having committed to environmental goals. This represents a significant increase in the percentage of companies in the book industry that have made formal commitments to reduce environmental impacts. Environmental savings for trees, energy and solid waste calculated using the Environmental Paper Network Paper Calculator available at www.papercalculator.org. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions were calculated by Green Press Initiative and include forest carbon loss.

1

Another interesting trend relating to publisher environmental policies is the fact that, surprisingly, the percentage of publishers that have quantitative targets for recycled fiber compared to those that have a general goal to increase the use of recycled fiber or do not address recycled content in their environmental policy, has not changed significantly since 2008. In 2008, 54% of publishers had quantitative targets for increasing recycled fiber, 42% addressed recycled fiber but had no target and 4% of publishers did not address recycled fiber in their environmental policies. In 2010, the percentage of publishers with targets for recycled fiber had decreased by two percentage points to 52%, while the percentage of publishers that had goals to increase recycled fiber but no specific target increased three percentage points to 45%. The number of policies that did not address recycled fiber decreased by one percentage point to 3%.

Fig. 36-Trends in Publisher Environmental Committments

A key priority of the BIEC is to help the industry achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (from a 2006 baseline) by 2020. As stated previously, the increase in recycled content in book paper has helped the industry make a significant step towards this goal. However, there is another important factor at play that has also contributed greatly to reduce the book industry’s carbon footprint. According to RISI, there was a 28% reduction in apparent book paper consumption from 2006 to 2010 (1.6 million tons to 1.159 million tons tons). Even if the recycled content of book paper had remained flat at 5% during that time period total the carbon footprint of the industry would have been reduced by 21% solely as a result of the decrease in paper consumption. If paper consumption had remained constant between 2006 and 2010 at 1.6 million tons, an increase in recycled content from 5% in 2006 to 24% in 2010 would, by itself, reduce greenhouse gas emissions of the industry by nearly 11%. The total reduction when both the reduction in paper consumption and increase in recycled fiber are both accounted for is somewhat less than the sum of reduction of each in isolation (this is because a reduction in paper consumption has fewer benefits as recycled content increases and vice versa), but the combined reduction from those two factors is still an impressive 29% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2006 and 2010.

The industry's total carbon footprint reduction resulting from increased recycled content and reducing paper consumption would still be greater than a 25% reduction after the impacts of additional e-books are accounted for.

It should be noted that this 29% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is based on several assumptions, most notably that all other factors (excluding recycled content and tons of paper used) impacting the industry’s carbon footprint have remained unchanged between 2006 and 2010. One of the largest changes affecting the industry during that time frame has been the steady increase in sales of e-books. While no data regarding unit sales was available for e-books in 2006 AAP reports in various press releases that e-book unit sales totaled 114 million in 2010. Other press releases by AAP state that sales of e-books totaled $54 million in 2006 and $441 million in 2010, or about a 717% increase over the 4 year period. If e-book unit sales and revenues increased at a corresponding rate, it could be inferred that e-book unit sales were around 14 million in 2006. Using these assumptions and a recent unpublished study by Hewlett-Packard which estimates the average carbon footprint of an e-book under baseline conditions at 0.92kg of carbon equivalent greenhouse gas emissions, the total impact of e-books would have been 12,880 metric tons of carbon equivalent emissions in 2006 and 103,972 metric tons of carbon equivalent emissions in 2010. Based on this it can be assumed that the annual carbon footprint of e-books increased by 91,092 metric tons between 2006 and 2010. Based on data from the Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts report commissioned by Green Press Initiative and the Book Industry Study Group, this increase in emissions from e-books is less than 1% of the total carbon footprint of the book industry in 2006 (12.4 million metric tons). It should however be noted that there are other estimates of the impacts of paper books. In a report published by Hewlett-Packard titled The Environmental Case for Digitally Printed Books, the carbon footprint for two types of paperback books (a “best seller” selling 500,000 copies over 2 years and “classic” book selling 5,000 copies over 2 years) was estimated using several types of printers under several different distribution models. Under the assumption and scenarios used in this study, the carbon footprint of a single printed book ranged from about 1.0 to 1.2 Kg of carbon equivalent emissions per book. Using the lower end of this range and multiplying it by the number of books sold in 2006 would result in an industry wide carbon footprint for paper books of 3.09 million metric tons—about a quarter of the estimate from the Environmental Trends Report. The difference between the two estimates is a result of several factors including the fact that the Trends report was based on industry averages and included the impact of carbon released from trees used to make paper, while the HP report was based on specific types of books with specific types of printers under specific scenarios and did not include forest carbon loss. Even if the book industry’s carbon footprint in 2006 were estimated using the lower level from the HP report, the additional 91,092 tons of carbon introduced by e-books represents less than 3% of the total impact. Under these assumptions, the industry’s total carbon footprint reduction resulting from increased recycled content and reducing paper consumption would still be greater than a 25% reduction after the impacts of additional e-books are accounted for.

Conclusion The results of these surveys indicate steady and continual improvement across a broad range of environmental metrics including recycled and certified fiber and the number of companies in the industry with environmental policies. It is however clear that a number of challenges remain to further increase recycled fiber usage to above 30% (A target set by many publishers and the Book Industry Treatise on Environmentally Responsible Publishing), further increase the use of FSC certified and other certified papers and eliminate fiber sourced from areas where harvesting trees results in social conflict or damage to critical ecosystems. Identifying and eliminating sources of uncertified virgin fiber pose the greatest opportunities to continue to reduce the environmental impacts of the book industry. There are also a number of tools to help publishers, printers and paper manufacturers evaluate the environmental performance of the papers they are using or manufacturing including the Environmental Paper Network Paper Steps, the Publishers’ database for Responsible Environmental Paper Sourcing (PREPS), an overseas paper risk assessment database from Green Press Initiative and the Pulpwatch Database maintained by the Environmental Paper Network. NGOs that have expertise on forest and paper issues may also be a resource for publishers, printers and paper suppliers seeking to minimize their environmental footprint. A variety of free tools and resources are also listed in the resources section below: While the surveys discussed in this report are limited by lower participation than was initially hoped for, the resulting data still provide meaningful insight into the present environmental impacts of the book industry, how those impacts have changed over time, and the various endeavors on the part of publishers, printers and paper manufacturers to minimize social and environmental impacts. As these surveys are issued in the years to follow, and the identical questions are answered year after year, ideally with continuously increasing participation rates, the picture of the industry’s environmental performance will continue to become clearer and more defined.

The results indicate steady and continual improvement across a broad range of environmental metrics including recycled and certified fiber and the number of companies in the industry with environmental policies.

Resources BIEC Climate Guides for publishers, printers, and Paper Manufacturers (developed in partnership with Green Press Initiative) BIEC Book Industry Climate Calculator (developed in partnership with the Green Press Initiative) Green Press Initiative Paper and Supplier Listings Green Press Initiative Overseas Paper Risk Assessment Tool Environmental Paper Network Paper Steps Environmental Paper Network Paper Calculator Environmental Paper Network Pulpwatch Database