GUARDIAN MEDIA GROUP AND CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Guardian Media Group plc is a UK media business with interests in national newspapers, community newspapers, magazines, radio and internet businesses. The company is wholly-owned by the Scott Trust.

The Scott Trust was created in 1936 to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity. Guardian Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Guardian also publishes GuardianUnlimited and the Observer.

We are very much a values-led company and seek to apply the journalistic principles of “honesty, integrity, courage, fairness and a sense of duty to our readers and the community” to the way we manage our own economic role, our environmental impacts, and our social responsibilities.

Our flagship division, Guardian Newspapers Limited (GNL), is a leader in the field of corporate social responsibility and produces an award-winning annual social, ethical and environmental audit. Our other three divisions are also now in the process of preparing similar reports.

Our activities in this field are independently audited by Richard Evans of ethics etc. He concluded that GNL “is not only providing a beacon for British media companies but setting standards in disclosure for the whole corporate sector.”

One of the areas we take seriously is the effect we have on the environment. We face the same issues as many other companies, in seeking to improve our use of energy, water and waste disposal.

But it is clearly our use of newsprint where we have the largest impact. In 2005 we used 200,937 tonnes of paper to produce our stable of newspapers and magazines.

Our decision to form a partnership with UPM on the Russian traceability project came out of our keen desire to take more of a leading role in improving the sustainable management of forestry resources.

We do not claim to be a leader in this field and realise we have much to learn from others who have played an active role for many years, such as Axel Springer.

This is not a process that can be hurried, but it does need attention and commitment. We have started the journey and are committed to playing a more active role in the future.

PPML, our paper purchaser, is owned jointly with the Telegraph Group. In 2004 recycled paper made up 69.5% of the raw material bought on behalf of GMG.

While the UK newspaper industry as a whole has taken great strides forward in the area of recycled newsprint, we are conscious of the need to constantly review our consumption of virgin paper.

Most newspaper companies, including GMG, do not have accurate data on how much of our newsprint comes from certified sources and do not yet have developed strategies in place for tackling this.

In 2004, we commissioned consulting firm csrnetwork to advise on the responsible sourcing of paper. It concluded that whilst the majority of our suppliers were reputable, we were at the time unable to guarantee that “all the fibre used to produce its newsprint comes from reputable sources.”

This was a spur to action. We presented our concerns to the Newspaper Publishers Association in the UK, and commissioned csrnetwork to carry out a further body of work.

Firstly we asked them to create a robust questionnaire to send out to our suppliers to find out exactly where the tonnage we purchase comes from and how much of it really is certified. PPML plans to send out this survey along with its supply contracts in February 2006. This will encourage the development of a dialogue with the mills to encourage the development of sustainable practices.

The public debate over the sourcing of fibre has focused on two issues. Firstly, on the need for credible third party certification as a means of demonstrating acceptability of forest sources and many such schemes now exist. Secondly, upon the need for robust systems that provides confidence over the traceability of timber, from the forest stand to the paper mill and beyond.

Perceptions of the various certification schemes’ credibility vary, however, particularly amongst environmental NGOs. Currently one scheme, provided by the Forestry Stewardship Council(FSC), is most frequently cited as the most acceptable, although efforts are under way to achieve mutual recognition of other credible schemes. In total, however, less than 5% of the world’s forests are covered by any certification scheme and only a proportion of these are used for sourcing paper.

Most of GMG’s paper is sourced from traditional markets in North America and Northern Europe/Scandinavia, where the large majority of forest operations are well managed.

Concerns therefore centre on the new markets that are now opening up, for example in Russia and the Baltic States as well as China and South America. Certification arrangements are unlikely to be agreed in many of these markets for some time.

This is not a reason to avoid purchasing from these geographical zones. Income derived from forest operations play a significant role in economic development, providing an opportunity to improve the lives of those involved in the value chain and paradoxically helping to preserve forests. History shows that where local people cease deriving economic benefit from forests they tend to be destroyed for other purposes, e.g. low grade farming activities such as cattle ranching. Nevertheless, there are risks in purchasing forestry products from emerging economies and it is no longer acceptable for buyers to ignore the impacts of these on their supply chains.

It is with these issues in mind that we welcome the opportunity to join forces with UPM with regard to their Russian operations. We hope that the leadership being shown by UPM will act as a pressure point on competitors to “raise their game.”

We have looked carefully at UPM’s traceability project to ensure that it is robust and have been impressed by the company’s approach.

We also welcome the company’s openness in working directly not only with customers but also with NGO’s such as Greenpeace Russia, which take a tough stance in this area. In our view, it is also important that the project is independently audited as this is the only mechanism that is able to ensure that good words are followed up with good actions.

We have been very clear with UPM that we are not be involved in this project to gain a PR advantage and that we will always seek to be a critical friend, by questioning and challenging the company to do more.

This partnership must not be a ticking box exercise we just put our name to, but should form part of a long-term relationship.

We intend to encourage UPM to develop clear, measurable learning objectives for the programme, through which we can assess its success. One of our priorities is the question of how sufficient assurance can be created for stakeholders around the acceptability of wood entering the supply chain. In order to deliver this benefit we want to understand whether the checks that UPM has put in place are sufficient to provide customers and their consumers with the assurance that they seek. In particular, we will encourage UPM to explore the future role of independent Chain of Custody certification, as an additional safeguard.

We also recognise that seeking to build a robust traceability system is not an easy matter, because there is the ever-present danger of falsification of information.

We intend to work with UPM and its other stakeholders in identifying programme objectives and also to ensure that the results of measurement against them are made public through this web-site.