Although WWF and FSC continue to insist on good-faith collaboration, they have again launched a seemingly coordinated, public attack on Resolute without warning or consultation. That’s not collaborative, it’s not in good faith, and it’s at odds with the tenor and spirit of our productive, face-to-face meetings with WWF in the recent past. Resolute is one of many companies with legitimate and serious concerns over FSC processes, and yet the attacks—led by non-collaborative groups like Greenpeace, but sadly abetted by others—have focused almost exclusively on Resolute. Worse yet, the attacks rely on poor assumptions, flawed information, and skewed perspectives and motives. Here’s how.
In their various communications, both FSC and WWF have alluded to “the spirit of collaboration” in the public dialogue. We would like to take WWF up on that and present them with this set of questions that are raised by their press release. The public deserves candid answers from all stakeholders, which includes WWF.
— Resolute has partnered with WWF for years and routinely made senior executives available for discussion and cooperation. Why were we informed of the timing and content of your public statement only the night before it was released?
— Did WWF collaborate in any way with Greenpeace or any other NGO on this press release and, if so, when did that occur and what was the substance of those discussions?
— WWF’s release implies that Resolute is somehow undermining FSC’s purpose and reputation, yet there are no specifics to support that allegation. How do you justify that disparaging assertion, especially in light of FSC’s explicit assurance to us that raising concerns about FSC policy is “perfectly legitimate?” Can WWF point to any statement or position by Resolute that is not in good faith?
— Is WWF truly contending that Resolute or any other FSC member has no right to contest certification policy or decision-making?
— Other companies considering a partnership with WWF would be right to wonder whether, after we met or exceeded a number of goals set by WWF, they too might find themselves publicly disparaged as we have just been. What does WWF say to companies concerned that WWF’s empirical benchmarks can be eclipsed by arbitrary, subjective, and unspecified accusations?
We invite WWF’s response to these questions, and we will post those details in this space.