PEFC or FSC – which certification to choose and how do they differ?

Companies entering the world of forest certification face a choice between the two largest systems in the world: PEFC and FSC. Both have the same objective – to confirm the sustainable origin of timber and wood products – but they differ in terms of their origins, structure, scope and requirements. The choice between them depends on the company’s business profile, target markets and the requirements of its trading partners.

Origins and philosophy – two different approaches to forest certification

PEFC and FSC were established around the same time, but for entirely different reasons and within different contexts.

FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) was founded in 1993 on the initiative of environmental organisations, the timber industry and social movements as a response to the growing problem of tropical deforestation. From the outset, FSC was a grassroots project, with a strong emphasis on the rights of local communities, the protection of biodiversity and strict environmental standards. Today, the FSC certifies over 160 million hectares of forest worldwide.

The PEFC was established in 1999 as a response by European forest owners to the FSC’s requirements, which were difficult to meet in the context of Europe’s fragmented private forestry sector. PEFC adopted a federative model – instead of a single global standard, it recognises and accredits national forest certification schemes, provided they meet the minimum requirements of PEFC International. Today, PEFC is the world’s largest forest certification scheme in terms of certified area – over 290 million hectares.

Similarities – what the two systems have in common

Despite their philosophical and structural differences, PEFC and FSC have much in common from the perspective of a company considering certification.

Both systems require the implementation of Chain of Custody (CoC) certification for companies processing and trading in timber products. Both are based on audits carried out by independent third-party certification bodies. Both require the maintenance of material records, traceability of raw materials and the use of declarations on sales documents. Both prohibit the use of timber from illegal logging and controversial sources.

For a company that has already implemented one of the schemes, extending to the other is a relatively straightforward process – the documentation structures are similar, and audits can be conducted jointly by certification bodies accredited for both schemes.

Differences – what determines the choice in practice

Which system is better recognised by consumers? FSC enjoys higher consumer recognition, particularly among environmentally conscious customers and in Western European markets. The FSC logo is frequently cited in consumer awareness surveys as one of the most recognisable eco-labels on products. PEFC is less well-known among end consumers, although it is equally recognised within the business community of the timber and paper industry.

Which system dominates the Polish market? PEFC is by far the dominant system in Poland – all State Forests hold PEFC certification, and most of the raw material available on the Polish market comes from forests certified under this system. For companies purchasing domestic timber, PEFC certification is the natural choice, as it ensures access to certified raw material without the need to seek out foreign suppliers.When is it worth choosing FSC? FSC is preferred by some retail chains and premium brands, particularly in the furniture, office supplies and packaging sectors in Western European and North American markets. Companies exporting to Scandinavia, Germany or the UK often find that their customers prefer FSC. FSC is also a standard required by some global corporations as part of their sustainable procurement policies.

When is it worth holding both certificates?

Holding both PEFC and FSC certificates is becoming increasingly common among companies operating in multiple markets or working with clients who have varying requirements. Dual certification – as holding both certificates is known in the industry – is not as costly as one might think: audits can be conducted jointly, the documentation is largely shared, and the cost of maintaining the second certificate is marginal compared to the first.

For a Polish timber, paper or printing company that serves both domestic clients (where PEFC dominates) and Western European or global clients (where FSC is preferred), dual certification is the optimal solution, eliminating the risk of exclusion from tenders due to the lack of one of the certificates. The decision to be certified under one or both schemes should be preceded by an analysis of the requirements of current and potential customers – it is market requirements, rather than the technical characteristics of the standards, that are in practice the main selection criterion.