OPINION | The deep roots of misconception about forestry, paper and print
By Samantha Choles
August 27, 2025 – Asked to rate the environmental friendliness of eight materials, only 24% of consumers see paper as the most environmentally friendly, whereas 56% consider wood to be among the most sustainable materials. Cue a raised eyebrow: paper is made from wood.
Conducted across key regions by Two Sides and Toluna, the global 2025 Trend Tracker survey examined the opinions of 12,400 consumers. Although the South African-focused research was a small percentage of this, it still provided revealing insights into what consumers believe about printing and paper products.
While environmental awareness continues to shape consumer behaviour, surveys by the paper industry show a persistent paradox of consumer perceptions when it comes to print, paper, paper-based packaging, forestry and wood.
The disconnect is striking: wood is the raw material for paper, and when responsibly sourced, it supports a circular, renewable, and sustainable production cycle.
Unpacking the paradox
The contradictions are stark: half of respondents believe that paper and paper packaging are major contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, and 45% consider the products harmful to the environment.
Some 76% believe that electronic communication is more environmentally friendly; an assumption that conveniently ignores the carbon footprint of digital infrastructure.
Adding to the paradox, 77% of respondents acknowledge that planted forests are not bad for the environment. At the same time, 69% recognised the importance of using paper sourced from sustainably managed forests, demonstrating a growing awareness of sustainable sourcing, and yet still failing to connect these dots in the paper lifecycle.
This is not the first time we’ve encountered these contradictory statistics. A survey conducted by PAMSA in 2024 indicated that 61% believed electronic communication – such as emails, e-readers and online news – is greener compared to using print and paper. But 83% agreed that paper is a renewable resource.
Why the myths, misconceptions and misnomers?
These myths persist because of outdated beliefs, incomplete information, and misleading ‘go paperless’ messaging (greenwashing).
There is also a visibility bias. We’re blind to the hidden environmental costs of our digital use such as the countless terabytes of cloud storage, electricity-hungry applications, messages and emails. Since they feel intangible, one may assume that they have little to no environmental footprint.
However, people will see forestry land being cleared of trees, whether legally or not. They can be forgiven for thinking this is ‘deforestation’ due to the lack of awareness about sustainable forestry. What many may not know, or even see, is that these plots of land will have new trees growing within 12 months. This is especially true in the South African context.
Sustainable forest management is the opposite of deforestation, which is the conversion of forest to another land use – urban, agriculture or infrastructure. (FAO, 2020[i]). Deforestation specifically excludes areas where the trees have been removed as a result of harvesting or logging, and where the forest is expected to regenerate naturally or with the aid of silvicultural (forestry) measures.
In fact, South Africa’s pulp and paper sector sources its fibre from some 676,000 hectares of 850 million trees that are ‘farmed’ in rotation. These plantations are managed according to strict certification standards set out by the likes of the Forest Stewardship Council® and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. And it’s the way the sector has operated for decades.
Digital reality check
Any industry or product should be evaluated within the full life-cycle context – including energy sources, recycling practices and responsible manufacturing. When it comes to computers and devices, the embodied carbon – emissions from materials extraction and manufacturing – is often far greater than the emissions from actual device use.
The production of a single laptop can generate over 200kg of CO₂ emissions before it’s even used – around 331kg[ii]. Add in the electricity required to power the device, the unseen data footprint and the impact of e-waste, and the picture becomes clear: tech is far from the green solution it’s marketed to be.
According to the UN’s fourth Global E-waste Monitor (GEM) Report, the 460 Terawatt hours consumed by data centres in 2022 represented two percent of all global electricity usage, a statistic echoed by the International Energy Agency[iii]. The GEM report states that e-waste is on track to rise to 82 Mt in 2030, and of the record 62 Mt produced in 2022, less than a quarter of this is likely to have been properly collected and recycled.
Let’s be clear: of course we cannot avoid using digital devices and applications – they are fundamental to everyday life, the economy and society, offering us unparalleled accessibility to information, convenience, efficiency and so much more. However, we must stop pretending that the environmental impact of the online world is not negligible, and reject the greenwashing that positions digital as automatically ‘better for the planet’.
We must fell forestry myths with facts
As industry, we are working with Government and advocacy groups to educate consumers and correct misconceptions – particularly around the life-cycle of packaging materials and the true sustainability of paper. The sector is also a significant contributor to the local economy through trade and employment, and invests in the communities that neighbour the operations.
The survey findings highlight an urgent need for greater public understanding of how paper is made, the role of sustainably managed plantations, and the practical and environmental value of paper. Even in a modern and digitally-driven world, paper in its countless forms still has a unique and pivotal place.
The bottom line is this: next time you automatically choose ‘go paperless’, ask yourself whether you’re really saving the planet, or just hiding the environmental cost where you can’t see it.
