Skip to content
Menu Search

Groupe Blattner Elwyn

Timber and pulp assessment
Total score: 3.8%
  • Latest update: July 2019
  • Next scheduled: July 2020
  • About this company:

    Groupe Blattner Elwyn is headquartered - and owns

  • Landbank
    1,200,000 hectares
  • Thomson Reuters ticker:
    Private company
  • Bloomberg ticker:
    Private company
  • Website:
    http://www.gbedrc.com

Company assessment: Groupe Blattner Elwyn – July 2019

Assessment date:

Expand all categories
Total: 3.8% 4.5 / 117
  • Sustainability policy and leadership Sustainability policy and leadership
    0 / 9 0%
    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      2. Sustainability policy or commitment applies to all sourcing?

    • No
      0 / 1
      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. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • 5. Percentage or number of women board members?

      This indicator is disabled as the company is not publicly listed. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      7. Sustainability report published within last two years?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      10. Climate risks assessment available?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      11. Natural capital assessment available?

  • Landbank, mills and traceability Landbank, mills and traceability
    3 / 22 13.6%
    • Yes
      1 / 1
      Source

      12. Lists countries and operations?

      The company states that it has forest concessions and production facilities in DRC

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

      1,200,000 - This figure is from an undated source

    • 14. Total area of forest plantation (ha)?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it does not produce wood/wood fibre from plantations. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

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

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it does not produce wood/wood fibre from plantations. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      18. Area of Intact Forest Landscape (ha)?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1
      Source

      19. Number of Forest Management Units (FMUs)?

      10 - One FMU is listed in WRI Forest Atlas dataset as currently under the company's subsidiary, SIFORCO; nine additional FMUs are listed under SIFORCO in GFW forest titles dataset, one of which is also reported on Open Timber Portal. However, it is unclear whether this represents the full scope of company operations

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1
      Source

      20. Maps of forest management units (FMUs)?

      A map of one FMU under subsidiary SIFORCO is available on Open Timber Portal

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      21. Forest management plans available for all FMUs?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      22. Monitoring of forest management plan implementation?

    • Yes
      1 / 1
      Source

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

      100% - Score of SIFORCO in this OTP category.
      Please note: company scores on Open Timber Portal are updated daily. Visit the OTP website to review the company's current performance by clicking on the source link

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

      0% - Score of SIFORCO in this OTP category.
      Please note: company scores on Open Timber Portal are updated daily. Visit the OTP website to review the company's current performance by clicking on the source link

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

      0% - Score of SIFORCO in this OTP category.
      Please note: company scores on Open Timber Portal are updated daily. Visit the OTP website to review the company's current performance by clicking on the source link

    • 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
      Source

      28. Number of company owned sawmills?

      1 - The company states that its subsidiary SIFORCO (which controls timber operations) has one sawmill, but this information is from an undated source

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      29. Maps or addresses of company owned sawmills?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      30. Number of supplier mills?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      31. Maps or addresses of supplier mills?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      33. Procedures to trace raw materials to FMU level?

    • No
      0 / 2
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 2
      Source

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

  • Deforestation and biodiversity Deforestation and biodiversity
    0.5 / 11 4.5%
    1 media report
    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      36. Commitment to zero conversion of natural forest?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      37. Zero conversion commitment applies to all sourcing?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1
      Source

      38. Commitment to minimise the impact of logging roads?

      The company's subsidiary SIFORCO lists steps taken to minimise the impact of logging roads in one forest management plan, as part of Reduced Impact Logging activities, but this clearly does not cover all operations

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      39. Commitment to protect forest areas from illegal activities?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      40. Evidence of monitoring deforestation?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      41. Amount of deforestation recorded?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      42. Commitment to biodiversity conservation?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • 47. Commitment not to use genetically modified organisms?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it does not produce wood/wood fibre from plantations. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

  • HCV, HCS and impact assessments HCV, HCS and impact assessments
    0 / 7 0%
    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      49. HCV commitment applies to all sourcing?

    • 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
      Source

      51. High Conservation Value (HCV) assessments available?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

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

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it does not produce wood/wood fibre from plantations. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • 54. High Carbon Stock (HCS) assessments available?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it does not produce wood/wood fibre from plantations. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

      0% - Score of SIFORCO in this OTP category.
      Please note: company scores on Open Timber Portal are updated daily. Visit the OTP website to review the company's current performance by clicking on the source link

  • Soils, fire and GHGs Soils, fire and GHGs
    0.5 / 9 5.6%
    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1
      Source

      59. Commitment to reduced impact logging?

      The company's subsidiary SIFORCO states in one FMP that it adopts several techniques to reduce the impact of skidding and logging, but this does not cover the company's full operations

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

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it does not produce wood/wood fibre from plantations. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • 61. Commitment on peatland planting applies to all sourcing?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it does not produce wood/wood fibre from plantations. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • 64. Commitment to zero burning?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it does not produce wood/wood fibre from plantations. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • 65. Commitment to zero burning applies to all sourcing?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it does not produce wood/wood fibre from plantations. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      66. Evidence of management and monitoring fires?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      69. Progress towards reducing GHG emission intensity?

    • 70. Report GHG emissions from land use change?

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it does not produce wood/wood fibre from plantations. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      71. Methodology used to calculate GHG emissions?

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

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      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
      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
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      83. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

  • Community, land and labour rights Community, land and labour rights
    0.5 / 24 2.1%
    10 media reports
    • No
      0 / 1
      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
      Source

      86. Commitment to human rights applies to all sourcing?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      88. Commitment to respect legal and customary property rights?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      90. FPIC commitment applies to independent suppliers?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      92. Examples of local stakeholder engagement to prevent conflicts?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      93. Details of process for addressing land conflicts available?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      95. Commitment to provide essential community services and facilities?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

      0% - Score of SIFORCO in this OTP category.
      Please note: company scores on Open Timber Portal are updated daily. Visit the OTP website to review the company's current performance by clicking on the source link

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      97. Commitment to respect all workers' rights?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      98. Reference to Fundamental ILO Conventions?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

      0% - Score of SIFORCO in this OTP category.
      Please note: company scores on Open Timber Portal are updated daily. Visit the OTP website to review the company's current performance by clicking on the source link

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      101. Percentage or number of temporary employees?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      102. Percentage or number of women employees?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      103. Payment of minimum wage?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      104. Reporting of salary by gender?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      106. Time lost due to work-based injuries?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1
      Source

      108. Provision of personal protective equipment and related training?

      The company's subsidiary SIFORCO refers to the provision of safety equipment in one FMP, but this does not include training or cover all employees

  • Certification standards Certification standards
    0 / 12 0%
    2 media reports
    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 2
      Source

      115. Percentage area (ha) FSC FM certified?

    • No
      0 / 2
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 2
      Source

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

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

      This indicator is disabled as the company's reporting broadly suggests that it does not operate in a country with a PEFC-endorsed SFM standard. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

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

      119. Programme to support outgrower scheme smallholders?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      120. Percentage of outgrower scheme smallholders involved in programme?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      123. Suspension or exclusion criteria for suppliers?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

  • Governance and grievances Governance and grievances
    0 / 8 0%
    5 media reports
    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      125. Commitment to ethical conduct and prohibition of corruption?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

      0% - Score of SIFORCO in this OTP category.
      Please note: company scores on Open Timber Portal are updated daily. Visit the OTP website to review the company's current performance by clicking on the source link

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

      0% - Score of SIFORCO in this OTP category.
      Please note: company scores on Open Timber Portal are updated daily. Visit the OTP website to review the company's current performance by clicking on the source link

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

      129. Whistleblowing procedure?

    • No
      0 / 1
      Source

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

    • No
      0 / 2
      Source

      131. Details of grievances disclosed?

Media monitor: Groupe Blattner Elwyn

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:
Reset
Search:

October 2019

Yalisika trial: SOPALI-IGED denounces the deception of homicide and rape of women

Visit external site

May 2019

Procès Yalisika : les accusés condamnés en appel à des peines allants jusqu’à 6 ans de priso(Yalisika trial: defendants sentenced on appeal to up to 6 years in prison)

Visit external site

April 2019

Conflit forestier en RDC : procès en appel des policiers et soldats pour violences(Forest conflict in the DRC: police and soldiers on appeal for violence)

Visit external site

July 2017

African great ape bushmeat crisis intensifies; few solutions in sight

Visit external site

March 2017

Unethical behavior of multinationals in conflict zones

Visit external site

December 2015

DRC forest conflict: five soldiers and police officers convicted of smears

Visit external site

December 2015

Greenpeace Africa reacts to verdict on DR Congo torture case in Yalisika

Visit external site

October 2015

DRC: Trial of abuses in Yalisika village resumed

Visit external site

October 2015

Mbandaka: the Yalisika trial again suspended

Visit external site

October 2015

Mbandaka: Siforco to appear as accused in Yalisika trial

Visit external site

July 2015

'Chaos' in Congo's logging sector

Visit external site

June 2015

Illegal logging: from Congo to the European market, through Spain

Visit external site

June 2015

Logging companies plundering Congo's rainforest: report

Visit external site

June 2015

Lucrative Congo timber trade linked to rape and murder

Visit external site
No article found for the selected categories.

Scoring criteria: Groupe Blattner Elwyn

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.

Download scoring criteria
Timber and pulp assessment summary

Assessment summary

How transparent are all 97 timber and pulp producers in the latest SPOTT assessments?

Assessment summary
Download the data

Download the data

Access the SPOTT Dashboard to download CSV data on company assessments and scores

Download the data
Nominate companies

Nominate companies

Are we missing companies that interest you? Please nominate them for future assessment

Nominate companies
Scoring criteria

Scoring criteria

View the full list of indicators and scoring criteria that inform SPOTT assessments

Scoring criteria
About SPOTT and ZSL
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Contact the SPOTT team at ZSL
Terms and conditions
SPOTT is a ZSL initiative.
Zoological Society of London (ZSL)
Back to top

The Zoological Society of London (ZSL) is incorporated by Royal Charter. Registered Charity in England and Wales no. 208728. Principal Office: England - Company no. RC000749. Registered address: Regent's Park, London NW1 4RY, UK.

Please accept these Terms and Conditions to continue using the SPOTT Website

You are free to view and use the SPOTT Website and download SPOTT Data (i.e. all company assessment related data), including for commercial use under the following conditions:

Restrictions – you may not, under any circumstances, repost, redistribute, transmit or sub-license the data in any way, part or form, including in derivative products created by altering, transforming, or building upon the content or data.

Attribution – you must attribute the data in the manner specified by ZSL (but not in any way that suggests that ZSL endorses you or your use of the work).

Waiver – any of the above conditions can be waived if you get written permission from ZSL. Contact us here.

By clicking any link on this page, you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.