Skip to content
Menu Search
  • About this company:

    Founded in 1976, AMCEL is a subsidiary of

  • Parent company:
    Nippon Paper Industries, NYK - Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha
  • Landbank
    310,000 hectares
  • Thomson Reuters ticker:
    Private company
  • Bloomberg ticker:
    Private company
  • Website:

Company assessment: AMCEL – July 2019

Assessment date:

Total: 16.9% 20.5 / 121
  • Sustainability policy and leadership Sustainability policy and leadership
    0 / 9 0%
    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      1. Sustainable forestry policy or commitment for all its operations?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      2. Sustainability policy or commitment applies to all sourcing?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      3. High-level position of responsibility for sustainability?

    • 4. One or more board members have responsibility for sustainability?

      This indicator is disabled as the company is not publicly listed

    • 5. Percentage or number of women board members?

      This indicator is disabled as the company is not publicly listed

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      6. Percentage or number of women in senior management team?

    • No
      0 / 1

      7. Sustainability report published within last two years?

      The parent company, Nippon Paper Group, produced a sustainability report in 2018 which covered AMCEL's operations, but AMCEL itself neither makes reference to these, nor produces its own sutainability report

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      8. Member of multiple industry schemes or other external initiatives to improve forest management or transparency?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      9. Activities with government, NGOs or academic institutions to improve the sustainability of forest products?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      10. Climate risks assessment available?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      11. Natural capital assessment available?

  • Landbank, mills and traceability Landbank, mills and traceability
    5 / 21 23.8%
    • Yes
      1 / 1

      12. Lists countries and operations?

      The company has forestry operations in seven municipalities within Amapá state, Brazil

    • No
      0 / 1

      13. Total area of natural forest designated for wood/wood fibre production (ha)?

      180,000 - It is not clear whether the company has any natural forest areas under its ownership. The company reports having 180,000 hectares of "native forest", but the exact meaning of this is unclear and the figure is undated

    • No
      0 / 1

      14. Total area of forest plantation (ha)?

      130,000 - Contradictory figures are reported. The company reports having 130,000 hectares of plantation on its website, but this figure is undated

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      15. Area of plantation/natural forest within outgrower schemes (ha)?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      16. Unplanted (areas designated for future development as plantation forest) (ha)?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      17. Conservation set-aside and/or HCV area (ha)?

      81,306.5 - A figure for total conservation area of 81,306.54 is listed in the 2018 FSC audit report. However, this report does not cover all of the company's operations so it is not clear if this is all the conservation area the company has

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      18. Area of Intact Forest Landscape (ha)?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      19. Number of Forest Management Units (FMUs)?

      5 - The company does not report a clear figure for the number of FMUs it has. It has operations in seven municipalities, and its summary management appears to show forestry operations in at least five municipalities. Its FSC certificate covers only one FMU

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      20. Maps of forest management units (FMUs)?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      21. Forest management plans available for all FMUs?

      The company provides a general summary management plan, but it is not clear whether it covers specific FMUs or all FMUs

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      22. Monitoring of forest management plan implementation?

      The company discusses various monitoring activities, but it is unclear if these relate to specific management objectives, and whether the management plan covers all FMUs

    • 23. Company has provided valid legal documents to Open Timber Portal on use rights (at the time of SPOTT assessments)?

      This indicator is disabled as the company reports that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal

    • 24. Company has provided valid legal documents to Open Timber Portal on forest management (at the time of SPOTT assessments)?

      This indicator is disabled as the company reports that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal

    • 25. Company has provided valid legal documents to Open Timber Portal on timber harvesting (at the time of SPOTT assessments)?

      This indicator is disabled as the company reports that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal

    • 26. Number of company owned pulp and paper mills?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't own pulp or paper mills. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • 27. Maps or addresses of company owned pulp and paper mills?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't own pulp or paper mills. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      28. Number of company owned sawmills?

      1

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      29. Maps or addresses of company owned sawmills?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      30. Number of supplier mills?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      31. Maps or addresses of supplier mills?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      32. Procedures to trace raw materials to country of harvest?

      The company has some FSC CoC certification which only covers traceability for the certified portion of its supply

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      33. Procedures to trace raw materials to FMU level?

      The company has some FSC CoC certification which only covers traceability for the certified portion of its supply

    • No
      0 / 2
      No source

      34. Percentage of supply traceable to country level (above 80%)?

      Although the company appears to only have production operations in Brazil, it is not clear whether it has suppliers which source from other countries

    • No
      0 / 2
      No source

      35. Percentage of supply traceable to FMU level (above 75%)?

  • Deforestation and biodiversity Deforestation and biodiversity
    3.5 / 12 29.2%
    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      36. Commitment to zero conversion of natural forest?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      37. Zero conversion commitment applies to all sourcing?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      38. Commitment to minimise the impact of logging roads?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      39. Commitment to protect forest areas from illegal activities?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      40. Evidence of monitoring deforestation?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      41. Amount of deforestation recorded?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      42. Commitment to biodiversity conservation?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      43. Examples of species and/or habitat conservation management?

      The company reports examples of various habitat and species monitoring activities it has conducted, including surveys of flora and fauna, community education on species, monitoring and rehabilitation of HCV areas, erosion control and invasive species management

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      44. Implementing a landscape-level approach to biodiversity conservation?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      45. Identified species of conservation concern referencing international or national system of species classification?

      The company reports it has carried out flora and fauna surveys to identify species, but does not reference a classification system for determining the threatened status of species identified

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      46. Commitment to sustainably manage the use of non-timber forest products (NTFPs)?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      47. Commitment not to use genetically modified organisms?

      The company has committed to not be directly or indirectly involved in the introduction of genetically modified organisms in forestry operations. This commitment is made through the FSC Policy for Association (FSC-POL-01-004)

  • HCV, HCS and impact assessments HCV, HCS and impact assessments
    1.5 / 8 18.8%
    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      48. Commitment to conduct High Conservation Value (HCV) assessments?

      The company does not have a direct commitment to conduct HCV assessments across all of its operations. However, the company has committed to not be directly or indirectly involved in the destruction of high conservation values in forestry operations. This commitment is made through the FSC Policy for Association (FSC-POL-01-004). For this half points are awarded

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      49. HCV commitment applies to all sourcing?

      The company has committed to not be directly or indirectly involved in the destruction of high conservation values in forestry operations. This commitment is made through the FSC Policy for Association (FSC-POL-01-004). For this half points are awarded

    • 50. Commitment to only use licensed High Conservation Value (HCV) assessors accredited by the HCV Resource Network's Assessor Licensing Scheme (ALS)?

      This indicator is disabled until sufficient number of HCV ALS licensed assessors are available for the location where the company operates

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      51. High Conservation Value (HCV) assessments available?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      52. High Conservation Value (HCV) management and monitoring plans available?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      53. Commitment to the High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approach?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      54. High Carbon Stock (HCS) assessments available?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      55. Commitment to conduct social and environmental impact assessments (SEIAs)?

      The company refers to conducting assessments on its environmental and social impacts, but there is not a clear commitment to conduct these before all new development

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      56. Social and environmental impact assessments (SEIAs) available?

    • 57. Company has provided valid legal documents to Open Timber Portal on impact assessments (at the time of SPOTT assessments)?

      This indicator is disabled as the company reports that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal

  • Soils, fire and GHGs Soils, fire and GHGs
    2 / 14 14.3%
    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      58. Commitment to best management practices for soils and/or peat?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      59. Commitment to reduced impact logging?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      60. Commitment to no planting on peat of any depth?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      61. Commitment on peatland planting applies to all sourcing?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      62. Landbank or planted area on peat (ha)?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      63. Evidence of best management practices for soils and/or peat?

      The company mentions "visual monitoring" of erosion and provides a photograph of activities carried out

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      64. Commitment to zero burning?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      65. Commitment to zero burning applies to all sourcing?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      66. Evidence of management and monitoring fires?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      67. Details/number of hotspots/fires in FMUs controlled by the company?

      The company provides details of fires from 2012-17, but more recent data could not be found. The scope of area covered by this reporting is also unclear

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      68. Time-bound commitment to reduce GHG emissions intensity?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      69. Progress towards reducing GHG emission intensity?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      70. Report GHG emissions from land use change?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      71. Methodology used to calculate GHG emissions?

  • Water, chemical and waste management Water, chemical and waste management
    0 / 9 0%
    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      72. Time-bound commitment to improve water quality (BOD and COD)?

    • No
      0 / 1

      73. Progress towards commitment on water quality (BOD and COD)?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      74. Commitment to protection of natural waterways through buffer zones?

    • 75. Evidence of treatment of pulp and paper mill effluent?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't own pulp or paper mills. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      76. Evidence of sawmill run-off containment and wastewater treatment?

    • 77. Time-bound commitment to improve water use intensity?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't own pulp or paper mills. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • 78. Progress towards commitment on water use intensity?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't own pulp or paper mills. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • 79. Commitment to eliminate chlorine and chlorine compounds for bleaching?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't own pulp or paper mills. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      80. Commitment to minimise the use of chemicals, including pesticides and chemical fertilisers?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      81. No use of World Health Organisation (WHO) Class 1A and 1B pesticides?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      82. No use of chemicals listed under the Stockholm Convention and Rotterdam Convention?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      83. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      84. Chemical usage per ha or list of chemicals used?

  • Community, land and labour rights Community, land and labour rights
    8.5 / 22 38.6%
    • Yes
      1 / 1

      85. Commitment to human rights, referencing the UN Declaration on Human Rights or UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights?

      The company has committed to not be directly or indirectly involved in the violation of human rights in forestry operations. This commitment is made through the FSC Policy for Association (FSC-POL-01-004), which defines human rights as those established through the UN Declaration of Human Rights

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      86. Commitment to human rights applies to all sourcing?

      The company has committed to not be directly or indirectly involved in the violation of human rights in forestry operations. This commitment is made through the FSC Policy for Association (FSC-POL-01-004), which defines human rights as those established through the UN Declaration of Human Rights

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      87. Commitment to respect indigenous and local communities' rights?

      The company has committed to not be directly or indirectly involved in the violation of human rights in forestry operations. This commitment is made through the FSC Policy for Association (FSC-POL-01-004), which encompasses the rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples as established by the ILO Convention 169

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      88. Commitment to respect legal and customary property rights?

      The company has committed to not be directly or indirectly involved in the violation of traditional rights in forestry operations. This commitment is made through the FSC Policy for Association (FSC-POL-01-004), which encompasses customary rights. This policy does not reference legal rights, but the company has also made an explicit commitment to "recognise and respect the legal rights of traditional communities to own, use and manage their lands, territories and resources"

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      89. Commitment to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC)?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      90. FPIC commitment applies to independent suppliers?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      91. Details of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) process available?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      92. Examples of local stakeholder engagement to prevent conflicts?

      The company provides examples of stakeholder engagement activities to prevent conflict, including direct consultation days with communities and lectures held

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      93. Details of process for addressing land conflicts available?

      The company refers to a procedure for conflict resolution, but very few details are given and its purpose and scope are unclear

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      94. Commitment to support the inclusion of women across forestry operations, including addressing barriers faced?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      95. Commitment to provide essential community services and facilities?

      No commitment could be found, but the company provides examples of projects it is conducting, relating to school education and vocational training for young people

    • 96. Company has provided valid legal documents to Open Timber Portal on population rights (at the time of SPOTT assessments)?

      This indicator is disabled as the company reports that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal

    • No
      0 / 1

      97. Commitment to respect all workers' rights?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      98. Reference to Fundamental ILO Conventions?

      The company has committed to not be directly or indirectly involved in the violation of any of the ILO Core Conventions. This commitment is made through the FSC Policy for Association (FSC-POL-01-004)

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      99. Commitment to eliminate gender related discrimination with regards to employment and occupation?

    • 100. Company has provided valid legal documents to Open Timber Portal on labour regulations (at the time of SPOTT assessments)?

      This indicator is disabled as the company reports that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      101. Percentage or number of temporary employees?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      102. Percentage or number of women employees?

      36 - This figure is reported in an FSC audit report and does not clearly cover all company operations

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      103. Payment of minimum wage?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      104. Reporting of salary by gender?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      105. Commitment to address occupational health and safety, referencing the ILO Code of Practice on Safety and Health in Forestry Work?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      106. Time lost due to work-based injuries?

      7.74 - The company reports this accident frequency rate for the period May 2017 - May 2018 for one FMU. For the same FMU it also reports an accident severity rate of 47.74, but does not clarify the units for this figure

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      107. Number of fatalities as a result of work-based accidents?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      108. Provision of personal protective equipment and related training?

      The company provides relevant training to its employees, but it is not clear if personal protective equipment is provided

  • Certification standards Certification standards
    0 / 14 0%
    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      109. Time-bound plan for achieving 100% third-party legality verification of FMUs or achieved?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      110. Time-bound plan to source only wood/wood fibre that is in legal compliance verified by a third party?

    • No
      0 / 1

      111. Percentage area (ha) verified as being in legal compliance by a third party?

      The company has some FSC and CERFLOR certification but it is not clear what percentage of its landbank this covers

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      112. Percentage of all wood/wood fibre supply traded/processed verified as being in legal compliance by a third party?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      113. Time-bound plan for achieving 100% FSC FM certification of FMUs or achieved 100% FSC-certification of FMUs?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      114. Commitment to source only wood/wood fibre that meets FSC Controlled Wood requirements?

    • No
      0 / 2
      No source

      115. Percentage area (ha) FSC FM certified?

    • No
      0 / 2
      No source

      116. Percentage of wood/wood fibre supply from outgrower scheme and/or independent suppliers that is FSC FM certified?

    • No
      0 / 2
      No source

      117. Percentage of all wood/wood fibre supply traded/processed that are FSC certified (above 75%)?

    • No
      0 / 2

      118. Percentage area (ha) PEFC certified (excluding FSC certified area)?

      214,004 - The company's CERFLOR (PEFC-endorsed standard in Brazil) certified landbank stands at 214,004.28 ha, but it is unclear what percentage of the total operational area this accounts for, or how much of this landbank is also certified under FSC

  • Smallholders and suppliers Smallholders and suppliers
    0 / 6 0%
    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      119. Programme to support outgrower scheme smallholders?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      120. Percentage of outgrower scheme smallholders involved in programme?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      121. Process used to prioritise, assess and/or engage suppliers on compliance with company's policy and/or legal requirements?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      122. The company has a Due Diligence System (DDS)?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      123. Suspension or exclusion criteria for suppliers?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      124. Percentage of suppliers assessed and/or engaged on compliance with company requirements?

  • Governance and grievances Governance and grievances
    0 / 6 0%
    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      125. Commitment to ethical conduct and prohibition of corruption?

    • 126. Company has provided valid legal documents to Open Timber Portal on legal registration (at the time of SPOTT assessments)?

      This indicator is disabled as the company reports that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      127. Disclosure of the company's management approach to tax and payments to governments?

    • 128. Company has provided valid legal documents to Open Timber Portal on taxes, fees and royalties (at the time of SPOTT assessments)?

      This indicator is disabled as the company reports that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      129. Whistleblowing procedure?

    • No
      0 / 1

      130. Own grievance or complaints system open to all stakeholders?

    • No
      0 / 2
      No source

      131. Details of grievances disclosed?

Media monitor: AMCEL

SPOTT gathers reports and stories from global media sources, covering specific company activities related to the assessment indicator categories. ZSL does not assess the validity of these reports.

Category filter:
No article found for the selected categories.

Scoring criteria: AMCEL

Scoring criteria guide how ZSL conducts SPOTT assessments and allocates scores to ensure a fair and consistent approach, setting the expectations for companies on how they should publish ESG data. The full indicator framework contains 131 indicators across 10 categories.

SPOTT is a ZSL initiative.
Zoological Society of London (ZSL)