Letters, feedback, get it off your chest: 25 October 2011
This week’s postbag is dominated by a strong response to Finsbury Green’s Victorian Government print management contract, and the green group criticism of the PEFC standard as greenwash.
Re: Transparent Gov print tender breaks new ground
I’d be interested to know how this model is “more transparent” than the Stream model? It’s a bold claim, not supported by any information in the article.
Keith Millar
Business Development Manager ACT
Toll Priority
----------------------------------------
Where is the transparency?
- How was this contract awarded without going to tender?
- At the initial Government Outsourcing a briefing a few years ago, which was eventually awarded to Stream Solutions, it was categorically stated that “a Printer would not be awarded this contract” due to conflicts of interest. What has changed to allow this horrendous decision?
- The contract Finsbury has with the State Government only covers 10 departments, which they are not allowed to print themselves directly. In contrast Finsbury are in fact selling their services to all Government, Semi Government and Government funded organisations under the guise of this contract. When in fact at a later date Finsbury can redirect all this business to their own printing company.
- Finsbury have already contacted some of our clients under the guise of this contract. Even telling our clients we are one of their printers. This is unethical and we are not one of their printers because we printed a job, which happened to go through the Finsbury Books.
- Under the Finsbury system we as printers are expected to break down our costs, giving our opposition full knowledge of our pricing structures so they can target all our clients. Even without the breakdown, as a printer it would be invaluable information to know where all your opposition sits in regards to pricing on different styles of work.
- Under the previous system you had to pack jobs in Stream cartons, which was an insult in itself. Under this new contract as printers we are expected to pack our product in the oppositions cartons. Are we are now expected to advertise our print under the Finsbury banner?
The whole contract should be deemed invalid until reviewed by the ACCC, due to its anti-competitive nature and the anti-competitive conduct of Finsbury.
John Edwards
General Manager
Adams Print
----------------------------------------
Re: Greens attack printing paper standard as greenwash
The joke here is that the spokesperson is supporting FSC, the ‘rival certification program’, but is able to question PEFC’s credibility unchallenged.
As an industry, we are not served by having multiple standards applying to chain of custody.
Paper manufacturers and printers should lobby for a single international standard that is not aligned with either the forestry business or the wilderness / wildlife / green agitators.
Brian Robson
Sales Operations Manager
Hannanprint
----------------------------------------
Re: Australian Forest Standard draws Green fire
I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to look at who exactly is behind the FSC organization – I understand some of the world’s largest consumers of Palm Oil are represented, Mars Confectionery and Coca Cola, which if true also represents a conflict of interest.
I think this discussion can be taken much further, including a closer look at where the money comes from for the WWF.
However, this planet certainly needs bodies such as FSC and PEFC. We just need to make them better, because timber is a renewable resource and the world is becoming very crowded.
Tony Haag
National Commercial Analyst - Strategic Business
GEON print & communication solutions