by kevin, on February 12th, 2010
Image from Montana Ghost Wood web site
We regularly troll the Web for new construction material sourcing leads. Whenever we see a company we’ve not heard, we’re excited to research and investigate. Several months ago such a new material source caught my attention. Posted on a LinkedIn Green Building Products group discussion board, someone mentioned a company called Bitterroot Valley Forest Products and their product line called Montana Ghost Wood. At first glance, I was surprised by their product and how it simulates the appearance of reclaimed wood – primarily barn board. The photos are beautiful. I was encouraged by what appeared to be their environmentally friendly efforts. As an example, they are concerned with the destruction of Montana’s historical ghost town structures which are often good targets for reclaiming processes. In their view, although no longer used, these buildings represent a valuable link to their heritage – once destroyed or dismantled those buildings can never be experienced again. The company supports smaller local lumber yards who source from beetle killed or fire damaged tree stands, they donate to causes seeking to protect the valley watershed, and they secure raw material from SFI and FSC certified sources. All are incredibly noble efforts.
But the more I explored their web site, the more disturbed I became with the language used to describe the product. To boil down their marketing pitch, they are selling newly harvested wood made to look like reclaimed boards in order to save historical structures from being dismantled. If that alone where their message, I would have no problem. In fact, reclaimed wood from old barns has many potential hazards, such as lead-based paint residue. Manufacturing newly harvested wood to look like reclaimed may not be a bad idea by itself. Where I think they went a step too far was an attempt to extend their message into one of eco-friendliness. It’s that effort where I am most troubled.
Image from Montana Ghost Wood web site
I posted a comment on the discussion board suggesting that other members should be careful because I thought the Montana Ghost Wood web site includes some potentially misleading language. The two most worrisome elements of the company site are a claims that Ghost Wood is as green and eco-friendly as reclaimed wood, and the product has been truly reclaimed by Mother Nature. There is no data on the site to support the first claim. My first reaction, knowing a little bit about reclaimed, salvaged, and other wood sourcing options, was incredulity. How can that be true? How can newly harvested wood be as green and eco-friendly as reclaimed wood? The second claim I just don’t understand. I assume they’re suggesting the beetle killed and fire damaged wood is somehow reclaimed by Mother Nature. But it’s an unusual and confusing statement.
A few weeks passed and a representative from Bitterroot Valley Forest Products responded to my comment, but my concerns were only increased instead of diminished. To quote from the response, “using dead standing timber from beetle kill or forest fire killed logs is no different than using sunken logs in a lake or river.” That might be true. However, the web site does not compare Ghost Wood to sinker logs, it says their product is equal to reclaimed wood. That’s different than salvaged wood. Is this just a question of semantics? I don’t think so. The product intentionally looks like reclaimed barn board, the marketing material suggests environmental parity with reclaimed wood, and they’re trying to save old ghost town structures from being reclaimed. There’s no way so many references to reclaimed wood can be confused with salvaged wood. The primary different is that reclaimed wood is essentially post consumer, and salvaged wood is pre-consumer. Aleida discusses the difference between the two sources in a number of previous posts (here and here). I believe Bitterroot Valley Forest Products are attempting to create a mental connection in the mind of potential consumers between their product and reclaimed wood in a manner that cannot be supported.
In my LinkedIn discussion comment, I also questioned marketing language concerning their sourcing of SFI and FSC certified timber as raw material. Their response was that “the majority of our timber is sourced from small local sawmills that are logging the millions of acres of dead standing timber in Montana. Their logging practices are no different than the giant sawmills that can afford to pay for FSC certification.” I hate to break it to them, but just as good as FSC certified is not the same as certified. Harvesting dead trees that could otherwise serve as fuel for potentially damaging forest fires may be beneficial activity, but if the logging practices are not certified then they are making a deceptive claim by suggesting the wood is equal to FSC certified. Their response to my comment goes on to say that their first choice for raw material supply is to support, “the local Montana community by purchasing from small sawmills cutting dead standing timber, our second choice is supporting local medium sized sawmills in Montana with SFI certification, and our third choice is buying from larger sawmills not in Montana that are FSC certified.” That does not jive with their web site language which suggests the majority of their sourcing is FSC certified. On top of that, I don’t know anyone other than a sawmill with financial interests at stake who would suggest that SFI is as good as FSC.
Where am I going with this? I believe this illustrates a tricky dilemma we’ll all face in our effort to broadcast our sustainability initiatives. Without clear standards for communication, there are bound to be situations where a company’s good intentions can get communicated in such a way that leaves them vulnerable to claims of greenwashing. Do I think Bitterroot Valley Forest Products are intentionally being deceptive? No. Instead, I think they allowed their environmental zeal to overplay and overstate some of their good efforts. It leads people to reach the wrong conclusion and suspect their motives. I would really like the company to rework their marketing language, be more receptive to constructive critique, and be less defensive when someone who could be a potential customer questions their marketing message and the veracity of their claims.
Take a look at their web site (here). Let me know what you think. Is their language an example of greenwashing? Am I being too critical? Am I judging too harshly? Have you worked with this company? If so, let me know what you think. If you’ve seen any questionable claims you would like us to investigate, please let me know.
For the record, I attempted twice to speak directly with the company representative rather than using the LinkedIn public forum to clear up any confusion, but did not receive a reply.
Kevin I wouldn’t disagree entirely but I think you may be a bit harsh. Certifications are what they are in most cases people, businesses and practices can be certified based on some sort of criteria. Agree or not many are guidelines that are sometimes less verified than others even LEED. I say all of this because if a product saves ANYTHING it can be assumed to be GREEN by some, THATS THE PROBLEM! The lack of coherent and consistent DEFINITION of what Green IS. They seem to be a company doing something that they see as a creating a product that you have a choice to use or not, for me it would have much more to do with the cost ratio and performance then I’d evaluate the Green of it. That’s just the way I see it and the problem with in the industry.
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your comment and feedback. Unfortunately, there is no consistent definition for sustainably produced products, or green attributes. It’s up to the consumer to decide what they think it important. And that’s where I think we need to be especially careful and critical. When we see something that doesn’t look right, or doesn’t jive with the evaluation criteria we’ve decided to use, we cross it off the list as a potential. What I thought was interesting in this particular case was how I tried to engage them as a designer who may potentially specify their material for a project and dig a little deeper to validate their claims, yet I was met with a very defensive posture. That instantly raised concerns about what was behind such a response. Having asked similar questions to many dozens of manufacturers and suppliers, it’s usually a good indication of something less than honest communication. Thanks for weighing in.
Just wanted to let you know I truly enjoyed this article, and sympathize with the frustration about the lack of clear and enforceable language when it comes to “green” products. I am currently a marketing student interested in exactly these types of issues. I am also part of a company called Centennial Woods, and we reclaim wood from old Wyoming snowfence for interior and exterior applications. If you are interested, we have a great website and would love to get in touch or send some product samples!
Erin