Skip to content
Menu Search

Bumi Teknokultura Unggul Tbk (BTEK)

Timber and pulp assessment
  • Latest update: July 2019
  • Next scheduled: July 2020

  • About this company:

    Headquartered and with forestry operations in Indonesia, Bumi

  • Parent company:
    Golden Harvest Cocoa Limited (GHCL)
  • Landbank
    223,920 hectares
  • Market cap:
    245,425,082 USD
  • Thomson Reuters ticker:
    BTEK.JK
  • Bloomberg ticker:
    BTEK:IJ
  • ISIN:
    ID1000098106
  • Website:

Company assessment: Bumi Teknokultura Unggul Tbk (BTEK) – July 2019

Assessment date:

Total: 4.4% 5.5 / 124
  • Sustainability policy and leadership Sustainability policy and leadership
    0.5 / 11 4.5%
    • 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?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      5. Percentage or number of women board members?

      50% - The company does not explicitly report the percentage of women board members, but a photo indicates that two of four Directors are women

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      7. Sustainability report published within last two years?

    • 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
    2.5 / 21 11.9%
    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      12. Lists countries and operations?

      In 2017, the company reported having logging operations in West Papua, Indonesia. However, it also referred to being involved in 'Planted Forest Industries' but did not specify where this occurred. It appears the company divested from all forestry operations in June 2018, but information on the company website and in the 2018 Annual Report refers to having forest concession and logging operations. Therefore partial points have been awarded

    • Yes
      1 / 1

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

      223,920 - The company reports this figure for forest concession rights as of December 2017, and reports divesting subsidiaries holding these rights in June 2018

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      14. Total area of forest plantation (ha)?

    • 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)?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      18. Area of Intact Forest Landscape (ha)?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      19. Number of Forest Management Units (FMUs)?

      2 - Two of the company's subsidiaries are listed in the GFW natural forest concessions dataset, but it is unclear if this represents all operations as the number of FMUs is not stated on the company's website

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      20. Maps of forest management units (FMUs)?

      Two of the company's subsidiaries are listed in the GFW natural forest concessions dataset, including maps, but it is unclear if this represents all operations as the number of FMUs is not stated on the company's website

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      21. Forest management plans available for all FMUs?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      22. Monitoring of forest management plan implementation?

    • 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 does not 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 does not own pulp or paper mills. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      28. Number of company owned sawmills?

    • 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?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      33. Procedures to trace raw materials to FMU level?

    • No
      0 / 2
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 2
      No source

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

  • Deforestation and biodiversity Deforestation and biodiversity
    0 / 12 0%
    • 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?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      42. Commitment to biodiversity conservation?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      47. Commitment not to use genetically modified organisms?

  • HCV, HCS and impact assessments HCV, HCS and impact assessments
    0 / 9 0%
    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      49. HCV commitment applies to all sourcing?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • 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?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • 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
    0 / 14 0%
    • 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)?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      64. Commitment to zero burning?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      65. Commitment to zero burning applies to all sourcing?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      66. Evidence of management and monitoring fires?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • 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
      No source

      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 does not 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 does not 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 does not 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 does not 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
    1.5 / 22 6.8%
    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      86. Commitment to human rights applies to all sourcing?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      88. Commitment to respect legal and customary property rights?

    • 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?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      92. Examples of local stakeholder engagement to prevent conflicts?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      93. Details of process for addressing land conflicts available?

    • 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?

      The company reports it constructs roads and restores places of worship to improve the social facilities in the forest where the company operates, but does not have a commitment to provide service so partial points have been awarded for this indicator

    • 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
      No source

      97. Commitment to respect all workers' rights?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      98. Reference to Fundamental ILO Conventions?

    • 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?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      102. Percentage or number of women employees?

    • 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?

      The company reported an occupational accident rate in 2017, resulting in one casualty, but it is unclear what the data relate to

    • 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 reports that it provides safety equipment, and runs training in "Health & Work Safety" but it is not clear that this is provided for all employees therefore partial points have been awarded for this indicator

  • 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
      No source

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

    • 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
      No source

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

  • 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
    1 / 6 16.7%
    • Yes
      1 / 1

      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
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 2
      No source

      131. Details of grievances disclosed?

Media monitor: Bumi Teknokultura Unggul Tbk (BTEK)

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: Bumi Teknokultura Unggul Tbk (BTEK)

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)