Talk:Asia Pulp & Paper/Archives/2012

Attack page

I am the Deputy Director of Sustainability and Stakeholder Engagement at Asia Pulp & Paper (APP). I am new to the Wikipedia editing process and I recognize that there exists an inherent COI with me making any edits to the page about the company I work for. If I have made any procedural errors I apologize in advance and ask that someone direct to the proper venue for this complaint. In an effort to approach this in an honest and upfront manner, I have not made any edits to the page. I recently came across the Wikipedia entry on APP and I believe it meets the Wikipedia description of an “Attack page.” I recommend that the article be reduced to a neutral “stub” immediately and a more appropriate, neutral and encyclopedic article be created over time and added. I would like to submit some suggested material for consideration in the article to the WikiProject Business and allow for it to be reviewed and edited by neutral editors with no COI. I believe that a simple reading of the article will show that it is clearly meant to disparage the company it is about. I recognize that there is a high level of controversy regarding APP and certain issues, including the environment and financial issues. I respect the rights of any and all to express their opinions on these subjects freely, but as I understand it, Wikipedia is to be a source of neutral and encyclopedic information and not a soapbox for the views of individuals or organizations. An article on APP should certainly include mention of the controversy and the issues, but in a more balanced and accurate way. Additionally, a more encyclopedic article might include more information on the history of the company and the area in which it operates. I would also, like to make clear my specific concerns with the article, the following are quotes from the article and my specific concern with them and a suggested neutral change:

• “their record of consistent breaches of environmental laws and agreements has lead many companies to terminate contracts with them[2].” – Even in the article quoted “consistent breaches of environmental laws and agreements” is not mentioned. The article says, “large paper sellers in the U.S., Europe and Asia, including Office Depot Inc., stopped buying from APP in recent years because of alleged environmental misdeeds.” The entry should use the wording from the quote which would be an acceptably neutral phrasing, “alleged environmental misdeeds.” In fact, APP does not have a record of consistent breaches of environmental laws and agreements.
• “has been convicted of being involved in Illegal Logging in Cambodia, Yunnan province in China, and in Indonesia, and has breached agreements with three major environmental organizations.” – First, there is no citation for this sentence and claim (though similar claims later in the entry quote sources). Second, APP has never been convicted of Illegal Logging anywhere. There have been allegations and even investigations into Illegal Logging, but never has the company been convicted of Illegal Logging. I believe that stating that APP has been convicted of such a crime could be considered libel. Finally, none of the articles quoted in the entry claim that APP has ever been convicted of Illegal Logging, they discuss investigations or allegations of Illegal Logging, but none say that these allegations or investigations have resulted in any kind of conviction. An appropriate phrasing would be to say that “APP has been investigated for Illegal Logging,” or “there have been allegations of Illegal Logging by APP.”
• “The company is also well known for defaulting on debt repayments in 2001, leading to a collapse in confidence of South Asian assets.” – The company is well known for defaulting on debt repayments in 2001. However, it is difficult to make the claim that this lead “to a collapse in confidence of South Asian assets.” Again, the source quoted to back this claim does not say or imply this. I would recommend removing or at the least attributing the claim that the default lead to such a collapse in confidence.
• In a broader context the “Environmental Issues and Illegal Logging” section presents the views and opinions of environmental NGOs and groups with a long record and history of attacking APP without contextualizing it, or presenting other views on the subject. The entry seems to present these views as fact and uses Wikipedia as an outlet to promote these opinions. A more balanced article would note the controversy and contextualize it appropriately, possibly presenting the APP view on the subject.

I have other more specific complaints with language and tone, but prefer to limit this initial post on the topic to the major issues. I believe a neutral party would agree that this article meets the “Attack page” requirements as described by Wikipedia and should be reduced to a neutral stub while an appropriate, encyclopedic article is developed. I am posting this on the entry’s “Discussion” page and the WikiProject Business “Talk” page. I have also alerted the editor who added this information to the entry to alert him/her of my concerns. If more experienced Wikipedia editors and users believe there is another, more appropriate venue or method for this discussion or I have in any way breached standard procedure please let me know. As mentioned earlier, I am new to this aspect of Wikipedia and would appreciate any guidance. My goal in this is not to use Wikipedia as venue for promotion but simply to ensure that a balanced, neutral and high quality encyclopedia article is created for APP.
Dewi bramono (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct to bring your concerns here, and if this article is, as you say, an attack page, then by examination of the sources cited in the article, it should be possible to discern whether or not the accusations are verifiable and the whether the sources cite are reliable. We will need to examine the sources one by one.

Speedy declined (since it's not a clear cut case). AfD might shine some light on this. -- Luk ^talk 14:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here Dewi, it's great that APP are engaging on these issues. This article does show a one sided view of APP's record on the environment, however this was a view that was until recently largely correct. I suggest that you could draft a few lines here summarising the positive steps that APP has taken recently towards greater environmental responsibility.

As you point out, there is some controversy in this area, and APP clearly haven't yet managed to take hold of the press coverage surrounding their activities (see here http://news.google.co.uk/news/more?um=1&ned=uk&cf=all&ncl=dBAW0utmsHbt0KMly0oaiJd1HVJ7M for 162 articles from around the world with largely negative reporting on APPs latest project), but the article should certainly give details of the other side of the story, where possible. Hectorguinness (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for quickly responding to my post and ammending some parts of the article already. APP is engaged in a number of sustainability initiatives and I will be happy to provide you with more information on this and the company in general in the coming days so that a more complete and accurate Wikipedia entry can be developed. I am currently working on this, and will post my information on the WikiProject: Business and here once I have it compiled. I do still feel the current page should be reduced to a stub as it is clearly designed to disparage its subject, but I respect your opinion and desire to investigate prior to making any change of this nature. Dewi bramono (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

---

It has been more than two months since my initial post and I am wondering why there have not been further changes or responses to my original inquiry. I have noticed a few changes and appreciate them, as well as the note that the neutrality of the article is disputed.

In spite of the serious reputational damage being caused by misleading and inaccurate information contained in this article I have not made any changes to the article. Out of respect for the procedures established by Wikipedia, I would like to submit potential contents for the article and hope you will all take the time to review them and add them to the article.

I have included a proposed content structure as follows:

I. Introduction
II. About the Company
III. Operations
a. Pulp and Paper Production
b. Fiber Supply
c. Contribution to the Indonesian Economy
IV. Conservation Initiatives
V. Corporate Governance
VI. APP and the Asian Debt Crisis (Previously: “Financial Issues “)
VII. Environmental Criticism (Previously: “Environmental Issues and Illegal Logging”)
VIII. Third Party statements: Ecolable, LEI, PEFC

This framework should provide a more well rounded coverage of the company and not just focus on financial and environmental issues.

For the first section, introduction, I would like to submit the following content to be incorporated into the article.

Introduction
Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), headquartered in Jakarta, Indonesia, is one of the largest pulp and paper manufacturers in Asia. According to a third-party audited Corporate Social Responsibility Report, APP has an annual combined pulp, paper and paperboard capacity in Indonesia of more than seven million tons and its products are marketed in over 65 countries1. While APP has received criticism from environmental NGOs over alleged environmental misconduct, it maintains that it is committed to environmental sustainability in its operations and is involved in numerous conservation efforts2.
APP, a paper brand representing a group of pulp and paper production facilities in Indonesia, has five operating companies:
PT. Lontar Papyrus Pulp & Paper Industry (“Lontar Papyrus”) with one mill
PT. Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Tbk. (“Indah Kiat”) with three mills
PT. Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills (“Pindo Deli”) with two mills
PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk. (“Tjiwi Kimia”) with one mill
PT. Ekamas Fortuna (“Ekamas Fortuna”) with one mill

Together, these companies operate a total of eight mills in Indonesia. The Lontar Papyrus and Indah Kiat Perawang pulp and paper mills are located on the island of Sumatra. The remaining six mills produce paper only and are located on the island of Java.

In 2007, sales for the five APP companies totaled in excess of US$4.3 billion and had an estimated total employment of over 71,000 persons1.

The major pulp and production facilities has obtained Chain of Custody (CoC) certification from Ecolabeling Institute of Indonesia (LEI) and PEFC for the use of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) certified fiber3. 30% of APP’s pulp consumption is of certified origin, significantly above the global standard considering that less than 10% of the world’s forest is certified4.

APP also consumes around 1 million ton of Post-Consumer Waste (PCW) to produce recyled paper1.

References:
1. APP’s 2007 Corporate Social Responsibility Report
(http://www.asiapulppaper.com/portal/APP_Portal.nsf/Web-MenuPage/5BFB083D5FD9781C472575EF0035E314/$FILE/APP_2007_SR.pdf)
2. ProPrint, June 19, 2009 “APP gets UNESCO backing for Indonesian biosphere”
http://www.proprint.com.au/News/148106,app-gets-unesco-backing-for-indonesian-biosphere.aspx
3. APP Stakeholder Update June 2008
(http://www.asiapulppaper.com/portal/APP_Portal.nsf/Web-MenuPage/CCCFD67AA65CC579472574B8001F00FB/$FILE/080902APPStakeholderUpdate05-08.pdf)
4. www.sfiprogram.org/files/pdf/PEFC-international-2009-02.pdf


Furthermore I would like to direct you to some recent articles on the major steps forward with regards to sustainability and conservation made by APP. The Giam Siak Kecil – Bukit Batu Biosphere Reserve (GSK-BB BR) was recently approved by the UNESCO Man and Biosphere program. It is the first such reserve initiated by the private sector, and it was initiated by APP and its exclusive fiber supplier Sinar Mas Forestry. As the UNESCO website explains, the GSK-BB BR, “is a peatland area in Sumatra featuring sustainable timber production and two wildlife reserves, which are home to the Sumatra tiger, elephant, tapir, and sun bear.” (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=45450&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html) Here are some additional articles on the subject http://www.i-grafix.com/index.php/news/asia/app-sponsored-reserve-receives-government-approval.html; http://thejakartaglobe.com/news/unesco-names-riau-conservation-area-as-countrys-7th-biosphere-reserve/312634.
Finally, with regards to some of the recent news found on your Google search I would direct you to the following http://www.newsmaker.com.au/news/1130.
More information to follow. Thank you for your attention. Dewi bramono (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

FDiehl (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First thing: I concur that the article in its current form is not an objective report on the APP's history and current state. Nonetheless, it IS important to gather all the facts on APPs policies on environmentalism and especially its work with the indonesian government. The biosphere reserves are UNESCO-certified, which means that the indonesian forests are something which is important for all humanity. Therefore I think that on a free and independent encyclopedia such as Wikipedia it is vital to give information of both sides, so the reader can make up his own mind. Mr. Dewi Bramono: I'd recommend you expand your drawt of the APP article you posted above by recognising the following links: [1] [2]

Another disturbing fact which disturbs me, is that the mainmatter of the mammals which are claimed to be protected by creating the biosphere are living in the so-called buffer-zone - the flat land which is ideal for logging and poaching. The heart-land of the biosphere which is hilly and ragged is not suited for logging - neither by APP or any other legal or illegal logging. But, this heartland is also not suited for the animals mentioned above. It is thus window-dressing to claim to have created a biosphere for endangered species, while the actual undisturbed biosphere is unsuited for such animals.

I'd like you to make a neutral and objective statement on those issues - I understand nonetheless that you are speaking for a big company for which it is the main goal not to preserve our world for future generations, but for simply making profit and creating employment for a growing population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDiehl

This page reads like an advertisement, which normally might not be so obvious if this was not one of the most notorious companies. This page should have a discussion of the Wijaya family (friends of Suharto), a discussion of the bankruptcy (and the Wijaya's role in it, as well as a clear oversight of the significant DE-forestation and environmental damage this company has a history for. This page is far from that, as the PR department at APP is changing the page to reflect it's interests. Wiki admins should consider locking this page if another solution is not found. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Confused

This is really weird, the entry on Asia Pulp & Paper is really negative, without even mentioning how APP compare to other logging companies or even a "see also" section referring to a page that shows the bigger picture. I came here because I learned of the new Greenpeace campaign aimed at KFC because of KFC's connection with APP. I was hoping to learn something, but I didn't. Then I went to check the Talk page, hoping to see an argument about the subject, but there isn't one, there's just a rant from APP's PR person.

So, here goes. Dear PR person, feel free to make changes to your own page by adding positive facts, as long as you can show us (us being everyone who views this page) where you found your information. Information from your own company including its research department doesn't count. Cite your sources and you'll be fine. This practice is only discouraged because it's easy to get carried away and add "facts" that you can't prove. 82.74.193.75 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bump. This page feels like it has been written by Greenpeace. Can we have some neutral authors in here? To many pages are being molested by these tree hugging people, while the companies can't defend themself because they do abide the rules on wikipedia. We can see APP hasn't got the environment on an high spot in its agenda, but this page reads really subjective instead of objective. 82.101.210.107 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this needs a serious rewrite, and revision. I'll watch it, and see if I can add more balance. Ottawakismet (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't mistake facts for 'attack'. I've gone through the citations and they seem to stand up. The wording is rather blunt but I haven't found an error or outright lie so far. Can hardly be surprised a company rep would rather have this page reduced to a stub. Regardless I'll continue doing some background reading on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.60.100 (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)