① Ikea Non Profit
Next Post Ikea non profit lucky luciano death idea. InCityNews in Canada reported that IKEA had been charging ikea non profit to twice ikea non profit much ikea non profit their Canadian stores as for the same ikea non profit sold in their Ikea non profit stores, despite the Canadian dollar ikea non profit temporarily The Importance Of Life In The Book Thief parity with the U. That said they make ikea non profit great looking and ikea non profit furniture. IKEA stores recycle waste and many run on renewable ikea non profit. FSC is by ikea non profit the best of its kind. They take those away from us the moment ikea non profit inspectors leave.
IKEA kitchen pros and cons, one year later review
Besides, apart from the court proceedings, we have come across numerous other red flags about suppliers in this region in the course of our research. One of these red flags is the buried report by the Ukrainian Audit Agency. The report also stated that forest products from Beregomet SFE had been exported from Ukraine as fuel wood but had entered Romania as round timber in contravention of the log export ban.
It noted that a number of third-party audits of its Romanian plant since our report, including one by Ikea, had found no major issues. By Ikea was well on its way to approaching its target, with 91 per cent certified or recycled. Yet many of those logs were FSC certified. FSC Ukraine representatives regularly met with the Agency led by this corrupt head to discuss forest policy and expansion of FSC-certified areas, but have said nothing about any wrongdoing by him or his agency during the Yanukovych era, either at the time or since.
Ikea was one of the founding members. The assessments are carried out by approved certifiers — profit-making auditing firms. FSC-certified forests are audited once a year. A company called Accreditation Services International ASI is tasked with checking that the certifiers are doing a proper job. Field checks conducted for WWF Germany found numerous illegal sanitary felling sites in FSC-certified forests ; Earthsight also found that many SFEs remained certified despite their top officials being the subject of ongoing investigations into serious criminal corruption.
Testimony from a whistleblower helped explain these failures. Particular focus was placed on both the legality of sanitary felling and fraud in timber sales and exports. After four days, they concluded that everything was fine. The areas assessed for legality of sanitary felling were ones which had been planted long ago with spruce at elevations where it is not native. These spruce forests are known to be especially susceptible to die-back, and sanitary felling is therefore much more likely to be legal. Yet they are quite untypical of forests in most of the rest of the Carpathians.
The team also assessed almost exclusively selective sanitary felling sites, when the biggest problems with illegal sanitary felling are well known to relate to clear-cuts. The assessment of the legality of timber sales and exports was also flawed, since it was based solely on documentation provided by the SFEs themselves. Yet warning signs of real problems continued. SGS was found to have erred in not mentioning the ongoing investigation but went unpunished. Once they have been cut down and carted off, there is little evidence by which to judge.
Though there is no evidence of such laundering for the Ikea products Earthsight examined, a problem clearly exists. Meanwhile, consumers all over the world continue to buy everything from paper and firewood to flooring and furniture made from FSC-certified Ukrainian wood. Change in area of FSC-certified forest, ; expansion has focused in countries with high corruption risk. The problems of FSC in Ukraine extend beyond a failure to spot illegality and corruption or poor working conditions. The core purpose of FSC certification is to ensure that logging goes beyond legal requirements in protecting the most valuable natural features of forests.
That is why it requires forestry enterprises it certifies to identify and set aside specially ecologically valuable sections of forest and formulate rules to ensure they stay protected from undue damage. When Velyky Bychkiv obtained its FSC certificate in , it was required by SGS to produce a list of such representative areas after mapping particularly biodiverse or otherwise ecologically valuable forest plots, and it duly outlined corresponding rules for their protection.
The results show that far from preserving these areas in their natural state, during the SFE had issued 31 logging tickets for logging in them, producing over 5, cubic metres of timber. A Ukrainian forest law, developed that same year, states that to stay classified as virgin forests, no more than five tree stumps per hectare can be identified on a given forest plot. This suggests the SFE could also be deliberately logging in virgin forests in order to have them declassified and allow expansion of harvesting operations there in future. It would be too easy to portray Ikea as the innocent victim of a failing global green scheme.
The relationship between Ikea and FSC is more complicated than that. The company had missed earlier targets because of a shortage of FSC certified wood on global markets. In order to aid that expansion, Ikea has provided both stick and carrot. It has invested hugely in FSC, both directly and indirectly. Direct investments include co-funding an FSC marketing push, and directly funding the operation of its Ukraine office. Indirect investments include a long-running partnership with WWF, where Ikea funds the global green group to promote the scheme and assist companies in obtaining FSC certificates.
Ikea claims to have helped certify around 35 million ha of forest to FSC standards — almost a fifth of the total. The Swedish firm made veiled threats that unless FSC delivers on the required expansion, it would be forced to also open the doors to its competitors in the wood certification industry. Collectively, the area of FSC forests elsewhere in the world has actually declined. The problem is, fundamental flaws in FSC mean it is poorly placed to do this effectively.
They explained to Earthsight how the root cause of many of the problems with the FSC system in the country lie in the conflicts of interests which auditors have. They outlined how closely connected FSC is with the state logging apparatus in Ukraine. The auditors are all foresters, trained in logging; almost none are specialists in biodiversity. Some of these part-time auditors have also been directly employed by other branches of the state forestry agency. It has to balance these three issues. What we see now [in Ukraine] is that this pro-nature aspect is lacking. Dramatic confirmation of the close relationship between FSC auditors and senior officials of the state logging companies they inspect was provided to Earthsight in October , by a forester of 10 years standing from an FSC-certified Carpathian SFE.
Even where auditors are intent on doing their job, the same whistleblower confirmed how easily SFE officials are able to pull the wool over their eyes. He explained the comical nature of how FSC requirements for worker health and safety are dealt with. They give us new working clothes. They take those away from us the moment the inspectors leave. Everything gets collected again before the visitors even get to the gate. For the first time, for example, it suggests that auditors check court registers and media reports and write to law enforcement agencies for relevant information.
Doing this is only suggested though, not demanded. The standard also does not require auditors to take any particular action in response to the information thus obtained. Similarly, under the new standard, even if auditors were to be made aware of evidence presented in court in relation to serious allegations of corruption, a certifier like SGS could choose to ignore that on the basis that a guilty verdict had yet to be reached.
There is no scope for a precautionary approach to be applied. Much of the standard also continues to rely on self-declarations and documents produced by the very same state forestry enterprises being audited. The reality is that no standard can properly address the underlying issues seen with FSC certification in Ukraine. FSC standards are only as good as the auditors implementing them, and it is the will to implement standards that has been highlighted as the problem time and again. Some auditors have promised to follow up yet do nothing, while other auditors completely dismiss the need for civil society in the stakeholder process altogether.
Testov told Earthsight that the reason behind this is because of the heavy bias FSC auditing bodies have towards the forestry agency. They act like advocates of the state-owned logging firms. Yehor at UNCG explained how the clue to this bias lies in the fundamental structure of how FSC auditing agencies are financed — with the certifiers competing for business from the logging companies which pay them. And their main source of income is state forest enterprises to whom they provide certificates, where they conduct audits.
Here is the first conflict of interest. The SFEs have the right to choose which company will certify them. Of course, they will go to other companies which are not so strict, which are more mild. Therefore, the first company will lose money. Therefore, this is a market, this is business — they have to be on the same level. If one company lowers its standards, if one company becomes less strict — other companies also have to do so. This is the core principle which sometimes makes implementation of the standard impossible. Rather than lobby for improvements in enforcement or transparency, they have been advocating instead for the weakening of forestry laws to make logging easier and more profitable for their clients in the Ukrainian forest agency.
Many of these are the very same laws that our evidence reveals are being systematically violated by state-owned logging firms across Ukraine, with real and damaging impacts. This made absolutely no mention of illegality, instead placing the blame on unreasonable regulation. Their efforts appear to be working, with half a million more hectares of Ukrainian forest being FSC certified since then. Rather than seek to expose their illegal logging, FSC turns a blind eye. Then, with almost startling chutzpah, it lobbies to get the law overturned.
Responding to the above findings, FSC told Earthsight that it condemns illicit acts by its certificate holders. Some are innocently ignorant. But all of them reach the same conclusion: job done. And that is a problem. Nor did they start there. Its failures are far broader, span the globe, have been well documented for years, and many of them are arguably much worse. The warning signs were there very early on.
In , with the FSC at the tender age of seven, a group of frustrated activists from forest countries got together to share their experiences. The resulting page report, published by the Rainforest Foundation in , was utterly damning. Simon Counsell, who had been involved in the founding of FSC and as executive director of Rainforest Foundation oversaw the production of the report, was interviewed six years later. As FSC has grown, scandals have proliferated, many of them even more damning than those documented in Rampant illegal logging. Clearance of vast tracts of precious rainforest. Beatings and murder of local communities. You name it, FSC has stood accused of complicity in it.
What has changed since that report is that the steady stream of scandal and the failure of FSC to meaningfully reform have led more stakeholders to leave. The internet is festooned with wood product manufacturers and retailers advertising these certificates and claiming them as proof of their sustainable credentials. This is deeply misleading, since all these documents prove is that a company is capable of keeping FSC wood separate from other wood. FSC is feeding this misuse. It has repeatedly failed to make the simple changes to its rules which would prevent it. It does not confer sustainability to logs. It merely identifies logs. FSC has a powerful incentive not to fix this problem: most of its money comes from these certificates.
More than new firms received FSC in — an average of six a day. The problems with these companies are not limited to misleading marketing. They are also engaged in widespread fraud, systematically labelling uncertified wood — much of it of likely illegal origin — as coming from FSC-certified forests. In , undercover journalists posing as potential buyers visited nine Chinese plywood factories of various sizes, all exporting to Europe.
Seven of them openly admitted to putting FSC logos on shipments of uncertified wood. Company employees also alleged that European importers were aware of and even encouraged this kind of fraud. One Chinese flooring company marketing to the United States, for example, offered to put an FSC label on illegal wood flooring in exchange for a 10 per cent mark-up. These cases are almost certainly the tip of the proverbial iceberg. FSC has also failed to address this fraud, as a result of pressure from its industry members. Currently, FSC does not track volumes of wood as they pass from forest to shelf, making it impossible to systematically assess possible levels of fraud.
Due to low take-up, FSC announced the retirement of the platform in January There have been plentiful shocking cases of FSC-certified companies being involved in illegal logging, destruction of precious intact forests and human rights abuses. Many such cases relate to the Congo Basin of Central Africa, whose countries are some of the most notoriously corrupt in the world. Meanwhile, studies had found increased illegal poaching of wildlife in areas FSC-certified CIB was opening up with industrial logging, and one of its log truck drivers was jailed for trafficking ivory.
A study found that the fires originated near old logging roads. Though such logging has long been known to be ecologically unsustainable, FSC has continued to allow firms logging such areas to remain certified. The police the company called in to break up the protest went on a rampage. Several villagers are reported to have been beaten and arrested, six women including three minors raped, and property damaged and burned.
One villager is reported to have died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack. It had paid the police and provided them with transport. The certifier involved had failed to conduct even the most basic checks. This is true even if those offences take place outside certified areas, but by a company related through ownership to the one with an FSC certificate. In every case it has taken NGOs complaining about blatant and recurring evidence of illegality by certificate holders for the FSC to act. In , FSC disassociated from the Jari Group, one of the largest wood product exporters in Brazil, after an investigation by an independent panel determined that the firm had been involved in illegal logging and had violated the rights of traditional communities residing in its FSC-certified concession.
The certificate was only suspended in after Greenpeace alerted FSC to the fact that an operation by Brazilian environmental police had found Jari had committed systematic fraud and timber laundering, as well as clearing jungle in a protected area to build a log port. SGS, the Swiss FSC certifying body which mysteriously failed to spot the illegality at Velyky Bychkiv, has been the subject of repeated scandals over the years. In Indonesia, for example, SGS auditors overlooked plentiful publicly available information that a firm it was certifying was involved in clearcutting vast tracts of precious tropical forest.
By the time FSC was forced to investigate as a result of a formal complaint submitted by Mighty Earth, an NGO, the company — Korindo — had destroyed 30,ha — an area five times the size of Manhattan. SGS was also found to have mysteriously overlooked a litany of serious issues in its certification of a logging firm in Guyana, for example. In that instance, all the failures related to the certified area. Top officials were caught on camera in a sting operation by NGO the Environmental Investigation Agency, encouraging a prospective supplier to break the law in order to deliver them more wood. Inspections by Romanian officials found , cubic metres of illegal timber which had been supplied to Schweighofer from just one Romanian county.
Forced to investigate after WWF submitted a formal complaint, FSC hired an independent inspection panel which confirmed that Schweighofer had sourced from national parks, destroyed high conservation value forests and traded in illegal timber. Though not all the timber involved was FSC-certified, plenty was. In one case, the individuals involved had even been found guilty and jailed, yet the forest had remained FSC approved. Rather than investigating how its auditors managed to overlook these violations year after year, expressing contrition at cases like these, or making a real effort to learn from them, FSC bizarrely posits them as proof that its systems are working. Even where certified companies are proven to have engaged in serious wrongdoing they have found it all too easy to hoodwink FSC and get back inside the tent.
Indonesian pulp and paper giant Asia Pulp and Paper APP was kicked out in after NGOs exposed its involvement in clearing vast tracts of tropical forest, much of it illegally. Naively assuming that the company could nevertheless be trusted, FSC quickly began talks to readmit the firm; it was only when a journalist began digging some years into those talks that it was revealed that during the entire time APP had continued to secretly clear tropical forest through undeclared subsidiaries. Despite APP being blacklisted, one of its declared subsidiaries also managed to obtain FSC Chain-of-Custody certification and spend seven years selling FSC-certified diaries to a leading UK stationary brand before being exposed by environmental activists.
In yet another damning example revealed almost accidentally during research for this report, Chinese flooring exporter Dalian Xingjia still has an FSC Chain-of-Custody certificate , despite being exposed in for handling illegal Russian oak cut in precious Siberian tiger habitat. Bosses from its parent company had bragged on hidden camera about their illegal logging, laundering of illegal wood and bribery of Russian officials.
In , authorities in Peru and the US launched a joint crackdown on the notorious timber carrier Yacu Kallpa, which they suspected of plying illegal Peruvian timber to the US. A staggering 91 per cent of all timber found on board during the bust — one of the biggest in Latin American history — was subsequently found to be illegal By , the US Trade Representative considered the evidence against one of the Peruvian companies whose timber was on board — Inversiones La Oroza — strong enough to invoke forest governance provisions of the US-Peru trade deal for the first time, banning the firm from exporting timber to the US. That night I feared for my life. When I told my boss about the meeting he also got angry.
He said I was no longer to inspect that forest concession. The timber companies pay money to keep their certification. We timber checkers are independent in theory, but not really. Because in practice, we go to a site, do a check, and afterward nothing changes. The companies go back to cutting down many more trees than they are allowed to. This is the reality of FSC certification at the coal face. Certifiers are competing for business from the companies they certify, leading to a race to the bottom in standards. Staff working for certifiers who follow the rules too strictly get harassed or sacked; certification companies which do so go out of business. What NGOs have seen in Ukraine in this regard is par for the course worldwide.
Rather, certification is permeated with deep conflicts of interest. It is also hardly independent itself, given that it is per cent owned by FSC, and an important source of its funding , leading to yet another conflict of interest. The results of its audits of CoC certificates or certifier head offices also remain secret. There is increasing recognition across the political spectrum that to address the imminent threat of climate catastrophe, we need to reduce consumption. In , FSC board member and former chair Tony Sebastian was quoted in the press encouraging people to buy more virgin paper.
This is necessary to enable the notorious multinational logging giants in his native Sarawak, Malaysia, to get certification, despite having been responsible for perhaps the worst and fastest case of tropical forest loss the world has ever seen. Rather than helping forests, FSC increasingly threatens to harm them, by absorbing pressure from consumers and progressive companies, and reducing the impact of timber legality laws put in place in major consuming nations in recent years. The disassociation cases above are the rare exceptions.
In Ukraine, it has refused to take action when FSC-certified state logging firms stand formally accused by authorities of serious corruption and illegal logging, claiming that it can only act once a guilty verdict has been reached. These laws have driven a massive surge in FSC certification. FSC is also taking the place of meaningful reforms in forest countries. The EU has been working for years with tropical timber producer countries to implement key improvements to forest governance, like increasing transparency, allowing civil society a role in decision-making, clarifying laws and implementing technology to trace wood to its source.
Yet its efforts are stalling in many countries, and FSC is partly to blame. In Gabon, where the EU has been trying to implement a relevant bilateral agreement for a decade, the government instead announced in that it would be demanding all its logging concessions to be FSC certified by Neighbouring Republic of Congo, which the EU has also been working with, is rumoured to be considering following suit. Rather than address this problem, both FSC and Ikea are lobbying for changes which would make it worse.
This vast mill see overlaid jumbo jet for scale close to the border in Romania is the largest importer of Ukrainian wood in the world. Schweighofer, which runs the northern half, was sourcing large volumes of illegal wood from Romania and Ukraine at a time that it was also supplying Ikea. Egger next door continues to import highrisk FSC certified wood from Ukraine, much of which ends up in Ikea products. Other green wood labels have poorer standards, less transparency and more timber industry-influence than FSC.
Its biggest competitor, PEFC, is almost comedic in its inadequacy. French TV journalists managed to get certificates from it for a car park and a nuclear power station. Even Velyky Bychkiv is probably better managed and less egregious in its law-breaking than plenty of other state forestry enterprises in the Ukrainian Carpathians. The situation in other big FSC-certified Ikea supplier countries like Russia and Belarus — which have none of these things — is probably worse. It is just harder to prove. Its genius has been in making furniture disposable. Earthsight has discovered that Americans, for example, are throwing away 40 per cent more furniture per capita today than when Ikea arrived on their shores.
Almost none of this is recycled. Like many brand behemoths in the retail sector, Ikea uses its near-monopolistic position to drive down costs by making its vast pool of contractors compete for its business. It makes sustainability demands on them too, but in reality price always comes first. Hoodwinking Ikea on sustainability might be risky for a supplier. But refusing to meet their price demands is practically suicidal. But this has failed to make the tiniest dent in its accelerating demand for fresh trees. It is also gradually increasing its use of recycled wood, but its consumption of virgin wood continues to rise see Fast Furniture section. Such steps also do not address the climate impacts of the re-processing.
Far from seeking to move away from it, Ikea is doubling down on fast furniture. Given the growth of environmental consciousness since, it is not a marketing strategy the company would be likely to use today. Any city dweller in Europe or North America will by now be familiar with the sight of bedraggled IKEA furniture fly-tipped on street corners see photos above. In , US consumers alone threw out more than 11 million tonnes of furniture, nearly double what was binned a quarter century earlier, when IKEA was just taking off. A new chest of drawers has a carbon footprint 16 times higher than its second-hand equivalent. IKEA has recognised that there is a problem. In the last couple of years, it has piloted schemes for renting out furniture and for exchanging and then refurbishing or recycling used items.
Its most iconic products, including the Terje folding chair featured in this report, and the Poang armchair, also once made in Ukraine, keep getting cheaper and cheaper and more and more disposable. As Ikea's sales have grown, so has furniture waste. Short of radically changing its business model, there is still a lot more Ikea could and should do to address the problems highlighted in this report. But it still needs to think big if it is to get to the root of them.
But while this includes a commitment to make its products recyclable, it does not include a commitment to use only recycled materials to make them. But this is a false assumption. To be truly circular, Ikea must increase its ambition, seeking to eliminate the use of virgin wood altogether, starting with that originating from natural forests. So long as it continues to use virgin wood, Ikea must do more to minimise the impact of this on people and the planet. The implications for Ikea in this report are broad, and so the solutions must be too.
These companies are important employers in one of the poorest areas of Europe. They are also arguably victims as much as villains in this story. Ukraine needs to be able to sell timber and collect taxes on it to fund its development. The case studies in this report are not bad apples in an otherwise good bunch: they are examples of more systemic problems almost certainly repeated many times in many other places. Ikea consumes almost ten times as much wood from Russia as it does from Ukraine and relies on the same flawed FSC systems to ensure those purchases are legitimate. It buys five times as much from Belarus.
Ikea cannot currently rely on FSC to mitigate the impacts of its business on forests. It cannot even rely on FSC to ensure its wood was legally sourced, or avoid its money reaching the pockets of corrupt officials. But it also cannot solve its problem by moving to another green label. Ikea must instead act swiftly to clean up its supply chains, using stronger standards and more rigorous and truly independent audits of its own, particularly in high risk countries. But it can have an even greater impact by persuading FSC to do better itself. Though some of the supposedly environmentalist members remaining in the FSC are also complicit see section: The Revolving Door, regarding WWF , the main reason for its abject failures is pressure from the industry lobby.
Civil society groups have proved unable to make FSC change, either from the inside or from the outside. If it is to modernise and meet the challenges of the 21st century, the timber industry it serves needs to make it do so. It is also a long-time partner of Ikea. The departure of other big-name environmental groups like Greenpeace has failed to trigger meaningful change at FSC, in large part because it has the unwavering support of WWF. As long as Ikea and other giant wood buyers back it, it will still have the money. The three organisations have become closely connected, and not just in terms of philosophy.
Their staff are also often one and the same. While there he was in charge of lending its panda logo to timber companies in exchange for promises to improve their environmental practices — promises they all too often failed to keep. Same people, same out-moded philosophy, same failure to accept change. This has real consequences. But soft power is far more important. The whole house of red cards might then collapse. And that is not something any of its industry members want.
Watch this 2-minute video explaining how this works HERE. To find a resource for my paper I used World Cat. The resource is an eBook that is available for download through Bucknell. The article discusses the ethics of tax evasion from a multitude of perspectives — everything from gender, to country, to religion. I think it will provide good insight for me, particularly because Ikea is a Dutch company, operating with different laws than in the U.
Sounds like you did a total — and I like it! I, too, was unaware that IKEA was a non-profit organization because based on its relatively inexpensive, eccentric product offerings, it translates as an ordinary private business. I am interested to learn more about the disparities between what IKEA says it does in terms of social responsibility and the actual ethical value of its behaviors. Like Like. We often look at IKEA as an example of a great company, but are they really? Yes, that surprised me as well. Part of me is a little skeptical that the company is structured as a non-profit to avoid taxes. That said they make some great looking and inexpensive furniture. Is it unethical of IKEA to structure themselves as a non-profit to avoid taxes?
That is a difficult question to answer. Ikea is just one of several large companies helping bring light to the 50 million people living in makeshift camps around the world. One such company is PepsiCo. For the past several years, it has collaborated with the nonprofit Liter of Light to bring bottle lights and street lamps to people who have been displaced by conflict and disaster. In the Philippines, for example, the company has installed nearly , lights pdf in communities ravaged by Typhoon Haiyan. And according to Liter of Light Pakistan founder Vaqas Butt, PepsiCo funded the installation of lights in public restrooms and hospital labor wards at the Jalozai refugee camp in Pakistan last year and plans to distribute another lights by the end of the first quarter of Launched two years ago, the program has already donated more than 5, lights to refugee camps in Burma, Burundi, Kenya and Uganda.
What is it about sun-powered lights that makes them so attractive to large companies looking to make charitable contributions? It also helps that the technology has grown more reliable and affordable over the past decade. Because of the falling cost of photovoltaic cells, companies can now easily package and give away solar-powered lights, building relationships with households that might remember their benefactors down the road. Among other things, poor camp conditions can sometimes wear down solar lamps after just 12 months of use. And since the peculiarly shaped batteries in many lights are difficult to replace, refugees often return to using whatever illumination they were previously using — dangerous candles, toxic kerosene lamps or non-renewable, battery-powered torches — leaving the solar lamps as waste.Some Internal Conflict In Amy Tans The Joy Luck Club have promised to follow up yet do nothing, while other auditors completely dismiss the need for civil society in the ikea non profit process altogether. It also makes it ikea non profit hard ikea non profit outsiders to independently trace. The standard also ikea non profit not ikea non profit Bmw Air Pollution Essay to take any particular action ikea non profit response to the ikea non profit thus obtained.