SCA and IKEA are defending their Swedish timber sourcing after Greenpeace questioned the environmental credentials of forests supplying the furniture industry. The dispute centres on the evidence linking individual forests to finished products and the criteria used to decide which forests should remain uncut.<\/p>\n
IKEA has responded directly. Ulf Johansson, the company\u2019s head of raw materials, told Swedish media that the forests concerned had been harvested in accordance with Swedish legislation and the FSC standard. Swedish media also reported that, in this investigation, Greenpeace was calling for stricter purchasing requirements rather than alleging that IKEA had broken existing rules.<\/p>\n
Johansson went further in comments to Swedish media. He said IKEA had to consider environmental, social and economic interests when making sourcing decisions. He also disputed the assumption that a forest classified as continuity forest automatically required protection, arguing that further assessment on the ground was needed to establish its conservation value.<\/p>\n
Greenpeace\u2019s investigation, published on November 3, followed logs from eight harvested areas in northern Sweden during spring 2026. Tracking devices led investigators from six areas in Norrbotten to SCA\u2019s Munksund sawmill and from two areas in V\u00e4sternorrland to Bollstabruk.<\/p>\n
The organisation then used company information, customs records, product labels and site visits to identify commercial connections with IKEA manufacturers. These included Hedlunda, which produces IVAR shelving, and Tr\u00e4Team, which manufactures HEJNE shelves. Greenpeace argues that the combined evidence makes it highly likely that timber from the forests concerned enters IKEA furniture production.<\/p>\n
The tracking devices established the journey to the sawmills. The subsequent connections were reconstructed using other evidence. A documented relationship between a sawmill and a furniture manufacturer establishes a supply route; proving that timber from a particular harvesting site entered a particular finished product requires further evidence.<\/p>\n
FSC made that point in its own response. The certification organisation said the investigation documented movement through part of the supply chain but did not verify the complete connection between the harvesting sites and the specific products featured. It said the findings warranted examination, while cautioning against conclusions stronger than the evidence supported.<\/p>\n
SCA\u2019s criticism focuses heavily on the classification of the forests themselves. Ola K\u00e5r\u00e9n, its head of forest management, told Swedish media that Greenpeace had drawn incorrect conclusions from insufficient evidence.<\/p>\n
According to K\u00e5r\u00e9n, the mapping used in the investigation identifies probable or potential continuity forest, drawing partly on historical aerial photographs. He argued that evidence of tree cover in the 1960s did not, by itself, establish exceptional conservation value today. A managed stand approaching harvesting age could also have been wooded at that time.<\/p>\n
K\u00e5r\u00e9n questioned whether the investigation provided adequate field evidence to support its conclusions about the sites.<\/p>\n
Official mapping does distinguish between levels of certainty. The Swedish Forest Agency\u2019s revised biodiversity report describes probable continuity forest as a category checked through interpretation of aerial photographs and sample fieldwork. Potential continuity forest is identified through remote sensing without the same manual verification. Treating those categories as interchangeable would overlook differences in the underlying evidence.<\/p>\n
There is nevertheless a substantial conservation issue behind the disagreement. The same Forest Agency report says remaining continuity forests and areas with high conservation values are important for biodiversity, and that continued harvesting threatens Sweden\u2019s environmental objectives. Its conclusions support stronger protection of these habitats. They do not establish the condition of every individual stand featured in Greenpeace\u2019s investigation.<\/p>\n
Field observations also require careful description. At the site near Junsele visited by local media, protected orchids were shown in a section of forest retained beside the harvested area. Local conservationists believed the species could also have occurred in the felled section. The location of those observations is relevant when assessing what was retained, what was harvested and whether the measures taken were adequate.<\/p>\n
Greenpeace wants IKEA to exclude timber from forests it considers in need of protection, including Sweden\u2019s remaining continuity forests, even where harvesting satisfies current legal and certification requirements. Its argument is that those requirements provide insufficient protection for habitats that take generations to develop.<\/p>\n
The Swedish dispute follows an earlier confrontation over Romanian sourcing. In October, Greenpeace linked timber from the Rusca Montan\u0103 area in the southwestern Carpathians to a depot supplying an IKEA manufacturer. The organisation said the forest was within a Natura 2000 site and had been identified for possible strict protection before harvesting took place.<\/p>\n
IKEA disputed the allegations. Mattias Hennius, press officer at Inter IKEA Group, told Swedish media that the harvesting concerned an area designated for timber production, where forestry was permitted under the applicable management plan.<\/p>\n
Hennius said IKEA\u2019s review included a visit by forestry experts and discussions with its supplier, the local forest manager and FSC. The company concluded that it should monitor regeneration and ensure that new forest became established. It maintained that the harvesting complied with applicable legislation.<\/p>\n
IKEA also invited Greenpeace to a \u201cscience-based dialogue\u201d on strengthening biodiversity and exchanging experience. That invitation was reported in October, before the Swedish investigation was published.<\/p>\n
For sawmills and furniture manufacturers, this creates a practical purchasing problem. An additional exclusion rule needs a workable definition, reliable boundaries and an agreed method of verification. Suppliers need to know before harvesting which timber their customers will accept. Buyers need evidence they can use consistently across thousands of purchases.<\/p>\n
Certification remains central to that process, although it cannot settle every disagreement about conservation policy. FSC acknowledged that certification cannot guarantee the absence of breaches and said credible allegations must be investigated, with corrective action or suspension where justified. It also said work to strengthen Sweden\u2019s standard and its implementation was already under way.<\/p>\n
The strongest response from industry would be to make the relevant forest assessments and sourcing checks available for scrutiny. Equally, demands to exclude suppliers or products should identify precisely what the evidence establishes. Clear criteria and verifiable findings give buyers a basis for changing procurement; unresolved classifications leave suppliers facing commercial consequences without a shared basis for resolving the dispute.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
SCA and IKEA are defending their Swedish timber sourcing after Greenpeace questioned the environmental credentials of forests supplying the furniture industry.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":100520,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"Default","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5204],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100519","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-daily-news"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n