Skip to content
Menu Search

Toba Pulp Lestari Tbk PT

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

  • About this company:

    Established in 1983, Toba Pulp Lestari is an

  • Parent company:
    Pinnacle Company Limited
  • Landbank
    239,850 hectares
  • Market cap:
    55,240,807 USD
  • Thomson Reuters ticker:
    INRU.JK
  • Bloomberg ticker:
    INRU:IJ
  • ISIN:
    ID1000094303
  • Website:

Company assessment: Toba Pulp Lestari Tbk PT – July 2019

Assessment date:

Total: 32.9% 41.5 / 126
  • Sustainability policy and leadership Sustainability policy and leadership
    4 / 11 36.4%
    • Yes
      1 / 1

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

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      2. Sustainability policy or commitment applies to all sourcing?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      3. High-level position of responsibility for sustainability?

      The company states it has an independent team to ensure the transparency and implementation of sustainability policies. However, no further details are given

    • 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?

      1 (20%) - Only photos of board members are available

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

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

      0 (0%) - Only photos of board of commissioners available

    • 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?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

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

      The company has worked with academic institutions and a foundation but these partnerships do not focus on improving 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
    6 / 21 28.6%
    • Yes
      1 / 1

      12. Lists countries and operations?

      Indonesia (forest concessions and mill)

    • Yes
      1 / 1

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

      185,016

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      14. Total area of forest plantation (ha)?

      54,834

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

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

      8,828 - The company's 2018 annual report states an area of 8,828 ha community plantations (PKR). However, it is unclear if the company's natural forest concessions include community forests

    • No
      0 / 1

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

    • No
      0 / 1

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      18. Area of Intact Forest Landscape (ha)?

    • No
      0 / 1

      19. Number of Forest Management Units (FMUs)?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      20. Maps of forest management units (FMUs)?

      Maps are available for seven of the company's FMUs on Global Forest Watch

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      21. Forest management plans available for all FMUs?

    • No
      0 / 1

      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's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • 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's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • 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's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      26. Number of company owned pulp and paper mills?

      1

    • No
      0 / 1

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

    • 28. Number of company owned sawmills?

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

    • 29. Maps or addresses of company owned sawmills?

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

    • 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 states that it has a process to trace wood to the mill and forest levels but no details are given on the process. The company's mill has PEFC CoC certification, but it 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 states that it has a process to trace wood to the mill and forest levels but no details are given on the process. The company's mill has PEFC CoC certification, but it only covers traceability for the certified portion of its supply

    • No
      0 / 2

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

      The company states that it has strict chain of custody system to ensure that all incoming wood can be traced to its source. However, it does not provide data on percentage traced

    • No
      0 / 2

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

      The company states that it has strict chain of custody system to ensure that all incoming wood can be traced to its source. However, it does not provide data on percentage traced

  • Deforestation and biodiversity Deforestation and biodiversity
    2.5 / 12 20.8%
    • No
      0 / 1

      36. Commitment to zero conversion of natural forest?

      The company only commits to eliminate deforestation from its supply chains

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      37. Zero conversion commitment applies to all sourcing?

      The company only commits to eliminate deforestation from its supply chains

    • No
      0 / 1

      38. Commitment to minimise the impact of logging roads?

    • No
      0 / 1

      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?

    • No
      0 / 1

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

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

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

      The company has a commitment to conservation of ecosystem within the landscape. No evidence of implementation could be identified

    • No
      0 / 1

      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

      47. Commitment not to use genetically modified organisms?

  • HCV, HCS and impact assessments HCV, HCS and impact assessments
    4 / 9 44.4%
    • Yes
      1 / 1

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

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      49. HCV commitment applies to all sourcing?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      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

      51. High Conservation Value (HCV) assessments available?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • Yes
      1 / 1

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

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      54. High Carbon Stock (HCS) assessments available?

    • No
      0 / 1

      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's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

  • Soils, fire and GHGs Soils, fire and GHGs
    3.5 / 14 25%
    • No
      0 / 1

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

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      59. Commitment to reduced impact logging?

      The company commits to implement low impact logging but no details on the practices are provided

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

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

      The company has a commitment to no new development that applies to forested peatland only. Non-forested peatlands are not fully covered by the peatlands commitments

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      61. Commitment on peatland planting applies to all sourcing?

      The company's peatland commitments are passed onto their suppliers and subcontractors. However, these commitments do not fully cover non-forested peatlands

    • 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?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      64. Commitment to zero burning?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      65. Commitment to zero burning applies to all sourcing?

    • No
      0 / 1

      66. Evidence of management and monitoring fires?

      The company states it is improving its fire protection system and conducts fire safety training but this only relates to the company's mill operation

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • No
      0 / 1

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

      The company only states that it will monitor and reduce its overall emissions, without setting a specific time-bound target or mentioning GHG emissions explicitly

    • 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
    2.5 / 12 20.8%
    • Yes
      1 / 1

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

      The company states that BOD and COD levels are below the limits set by the government

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

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

      The company only reports a COD reduction of 43.2% in 2017 compared with 2016

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

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

      The company states to treat waste water but does not mention pulp and paper production explicitly

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

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

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

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

      The company has a commitment to water conservation but it is not time-bound and does not refer to water use intensity

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

      78. Progress towards commitment on water use intensity?

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • 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
    11.5 / 22 52.3%
    • Yes
      1 / 1

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

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      86. Commitment to human rights applies to all sourcing?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

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

      The company commits to respect indigenous rights but no reference to UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (no. 169) given

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      88. Commitment to respect legal and customary property rights?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

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

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      90. FPIC commitment applies to independent suppliers?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      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?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      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?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      95. Commitment to provide essential community services and facilities?

    • 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's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      97. Commitment to respect all workers' rights?

      The company states that it respects the International Labor Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

      98. Reference to Fundamental ILO Conventions?

      The company does not refer to minimum age (No. 138), equal remuneration (No. 100), or the right to organise and collective bargaining (No. 98)

    • No
      0 / 1

      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's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • 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?

    • Partial
      0.5 / 1

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

      The company's commitment does not reference ILO Code of Practice on Safety and Health in Forestry Work

    • No
      0 / 1

      106. Time lost due to work-based injuries?

      The company reports the number of accidents recorded each year (34 in 2018, 31, in 2017), but does not provide data on time lost due to work-based injuries

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      108. Provision of personal protective equipment and related training?

  • Certification standards Certification standards
    3.5 / 14 25%
    • Yes
      1 / 1

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

      100% - SVLK

    • 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?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

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

      100% - SVLK

    • 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%)?

    • Partial
      1.5 / 2

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

      177,448 (74%) - 117,448 ha (74%)

  • Smallholders and suppliers Smallholders and suppliers
    1 / 5 20%
    • 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?

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

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

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      123. Suspension or exclusion criteria for suppliers?

      The company states in its Sustainability Policy that it 'will source our raw material only through suppliers or subcontractors that abide by this policy and are transparent and provide a traceable supply (e.g. SVLK)'

    • No
      0 / 1
      No source

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

  • Governance and grievances Governance and grievances
    3 / 6 50%
    • 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's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • 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's reporting broadly suggests that it doesn't operate in a geography currently covered by Open Timber Portal. Please note that ZSL has been unable to confirm this

    • Yes
      1 / 1

      129. Whistleblowing procedure?

    • Yes
      1 / 1

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

    • No
      0 / 2

      131. Details of grievances disclosed?

Media monitor: Toba Pulp Lestari Tbk PT

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: Toba Pulp Lestari Tbk PT

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)