Many printing firms around the world are taking matters into their own hands when it comes to environmental reporting. A few companies have developed their own, in some cases incredibly detailed methods, of working out how their business is impacting on the environment.
I have been reading some of the work these companies have done in the UK, Japan, New Zealand and Australia. The amount of detail is impressive. But the point is how sustainable is the reporting when it done in such minute detail?
No SME printer could justify spending such effort to report on every single variable in the sales, design, pre-planning, production and post-production and delivery stage of the business, as well as calculating the recycling impact of products they manufacture. But some companies have done just that. Why?
As a general rule in lifecycle analysis, if a part of the production process is only going to have 5% or less impact on the outcomes, there is no need to count it in the total calculation. For example, there are often comments about the impact of transport on the CO2 footprint of inputs such as paper. The amount of CO2 per tonne of paper may be so little compared to the production that it really doesn’t require reporting.
One area that often gets raised is the environmental impact of printing ink. Once again, the volume of the ink used in the production system is very low compared to other parts of the process, so in regards actual CO2 emissions, a printer’s ink consumption is not worth counting.
There are good reasons for taking this approach. While the individual printing firm is a very small user of products like ink, the ink industry is a large manufacturing sector. Therefore any counting of CO2 emissions and other ecology issues such as eco-toxicity is best done at the point of bulk production (the ink factory). This avoids double counting.
Ink manufacturers have done a great job over the past 20 years reducing the footprint of both the products they make and the way they make them. There has been a reduction in volatile hydrocarbons that cause air pollution. VOCs have been reduced by using a different type of petroleum oil and also incorporating vegetable oils in formulations. Ink makers have also removed heavy metals. Another significant change has been how ink is delivered. At the individual printing firms, these changes amount to almost very small improvements, but across the entire ink manufacturing sector it is very important.
When an SME, or in fact any printing firm, is going to engage on reporting the eco impact of their business, the best and most efficient method of reporting on inputs such as ink is to refer to the manufacturer. The printer might only use a few kilograms of ink per tonne of paper, so the actual CO2 value for the ink will be hardly measurable. There is really only a need to have a statement from the ink manufacturer that outlines how their manufacturing has improved its eco performance. That way, when a company engages in environmental marketing, they don’t create a monster and they keep the report sustainable.
Phillip Lawrence is a consultant and speaker who specialises in print and the environment
Comment below to have your say on this story.
If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at editorial@sprinter.com.au.
Sign up to the Sprinter newsletter