In an emailed statement,\u00a0SFI\u00a0tells\u00a0Corporate Knights\u00a0that \u201cthis complaint has no merit and attempts to create confusion in the marketplace,\u201d adding that \u201ccomplaints like this are used to mislead brands, governments, and the public into the real\u00a0value and impact of the SFI Standard.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Another signatory to the complaint, Peter Wood, is a professor\u00a0in\u00a0the Department of Forest Resources Management at the University of British Columbia. Wood has been studying forestry certification since 1999, first for the province\u2019s Ministry of Forests and later for non-government organizations. <\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Screenshot-2026-04-27-at-11.27.39-AM.png\")
\u201cForest certification initially held a great deal of promise, as a way to bypass government inaction in addressing unsustainable rates of logging and ease pressure on the world\u2019s few remaining primary forests,\u201d he says. \u201cThis is not the way that it has played out.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
In a 39-page complaint submitted to the Competition Bureau, the environmental groups argue that the SFI standard does not require specific environmental outcomes. While the framework outlines steps that could contribute to sustainable forestry, it does not mandate them.<\/p>\n
Wood\u00a0says\u00a0many of the requirements are \u201cvague and discretionary, largely aspirational.\u201d Companies seeking certification hire the auditors who assess them, he adds, and the standards focus on whether companies have programs in place rather than whether those programs produce measurable results.\u00a0As a result, Wood argues, industry-led certification systems have allowed large volumes of wood products to enter the market with sustainability labels, without significant changes to forestry practices.\u00a0<\/p>\n
SFI submitted a six-page response to the Competition Bureau, arguing that the organization is governed by an 18-member board divided equally among industry (including representatives from Canadian forest-product giants Canfor and Irving), conservation, and Indigenous and social sectors. The organization\u00a0says\u00a0it undertakes a standards-revision process every five to seven years, which includes review from technical experts;\u00a0Indigenous groups;\u00a0industry;\u00a0private forest landowners and public forest managers;\u00a0Canadian government agencies,\u00a0including the Ministry of Natural Resources;\u00a0environmental non-profits;\u00a0labour\u00a0unions;\u00a0and others. The public is also given an opportunity to comment on the revisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n
SFI also\u00a0says\u00a0that their \u201cstandards are internationally recognized methodologies\u201d and\u00a0stated\u00a0that disagreement among experts does not mean\u00a0that\u00a0a methodology\u00a0is false or misleading.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cSFI has a very slick website and associated promotional materials, and they make big claims around the label\u2019s ability to provide assurance of sustainable forest management,\u201d Wood\u00a0says. \u201cBut if you take a close look at the forest management standards, upon which all of their claims essentially rest, there\u2019s nothing in there that is capable of assuring a given level of performance.\u201d To illustrate the point, Wood points to SFI\u2019s \u201cperformance measures\u201d that require certified organizations to protect endangered species. The problem?\u00a0They\u00a0require\u00a0only that\u00a0companies to have a program in place that \u201caddresses\u201d this issue, with no reflection on whether a program is effective or what impact logging has had on the species.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
SFI\u00a0tells\u00a0Corporate Knights\u00a0that \u201cwhile SFI sets the standard, independent, third party-accredited certification bodies certify organizations to the SFI Standards\u201d and that a certificate is issued only after the independent certification body determines that an operation conforms to SFI\u2019s requirements. They also say that annual surveillance audits by certification bodies are \u201cmandatory on all certified operations to maintain certification. So, if an organization doesn\u2019t meet the standard, they do not receive a certificate.\u201d Meanwhile, the complainants argue<\/a>\u00a0that\u00a0they have not seen an SFI certification be refused or removed for not meeting the requirements of the process.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n In response, an SFI spokesperson\u00a0says\u00a0that they are aware of 19 certificates that were relinquished between January 2022 and June 2024 by companies\u00a0that\u00a0could not meet new requirements.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201c[The] government has a strong role to play in protecting Canadian consumers from bogus claims made in the marketplace, including the sustainability of the products they buy,\u201d Wood says. \u201cBut this requires pressure from consumers and voters.\u201d<\/p>\n Wood and the claimant\u00a0\u200b\u200b\u200b\u200benvironmental groups consider the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), founded in 1993, to be a stronger\u00a0option. Though smaller by comparison to SFI, certifying just 50 million hectares, Ecojustice\u2019s submission to the Competition Bureau notes that FSC\u2019s structure and governance were designed to give equal voting power to business, environmental and social interests, including Indigenous Peoples. But, Wood says, in the 1990s, the forestry industry put significant effort into creating other options. \u201cIt appeared that these were deliberately trying to detract from the efforts of the Forest Stewardship Council, supported by Indigenous organizations and environmental groups,\u201d Wood says. \u201cI hope the Competition Bureau upholds a high bar in this case and prevents corporations from greenwashing . . . It should not be left up to individual consumers to go around verifying the myriad claims that are made in the marketplace every day, or read the hundreds of pages of standards that support these claims.\u201d<\/p>\n Kegan Pepper-Smith, a managing lawyer on the case at Ecojustice, notes\u00a0the slow pace of resolution. In the three years since the organization brought the complaint, they have not heard anything apart from one meeting soon after the Competition Bureau\u2019s investigation was launched. \u201cThe logging practices under the SFI standard continue, and there\u2019s been no redress for our clients or for the consumers,\u201d Pepper-Smith\u00a0says in a phone interview.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Competition Bureau\u00a0tells\u00a0Corporate Knights\u00a0that the agency is legally obligated to conduct its work confidentially and cannot provide details related to the case or its status. Likewise, SFI\u00a0says\u00a0that no enforcement action has been taken by the Competition Bureau as of writing.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s really impactful for folks who want to speak with their money and make choices about what products they\u00a0buy, and\u00a0are being misled to think that they\u2019re purchasing products that are sustainably sourced,\u201d Pepper-Smith\u00a0says. \u201cIt\u2019s not only about the impact in the forest;\u00a0it\u2019s also about the impact on the consumers and their ability to\u00a0. . .\u00a0[use] their money to support sustainable practices.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Leah Borts-Kuperman is an award-winning journalist based in North Bay, Ontario. Her reporting has been published by Canada\u2019s National Observer, The Narwhal, The\u00a0Logic\u00a0and The Walrus, among others.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Weekly Roundup<\/p>\n Get all our stories in one place, every Wednesday at noon EST.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Torrance Coste spends much of his time in British Columbia\u2019s old-growth forests, building trails,\u00a0hiking\u00a0and camping through the temperate…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":21603,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[17,10765,10766,1892],"class_list":["post-21602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-canada","tag-canada","tag-deforestation","tag-forestry","tag-supply-chain"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21602\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21603"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Screenshot-2026-04-27-at-11.29.05-AM.png\")
<\/p>\n