The Author
Next time an author decides to use the national press to attack publishers for not using recycled paper in the manufacture of their books, they should think again. Because, while no one would argue against the use of sustainable materials in book production, it does not cause of the most environmental damage in the book industry.
The elephant in the room when it comes to publishing’s carbon footprint is not recycled paper, but the one area authors and publishers are equally reticent to mention: returns. So sensitive are publishers about the issue that none will give figures for their returns or even percentage improvements.
Publishers and retailers get particularly twitchy at this time of year when asked about returns. More paranoid than an ex-Soviet spy, they see agendas behind every inquiry. Though none admitted it, there was a definite feeling in the larger houses that I couldn’t possibly be trying to find out about waste for environmental reasons. Instead I must be using a green cloak to hide my “true” intention: to find how many copies of Billy Piper, Chantelle or Jade’s dumped memoir will be pulped in order to fuel yet another celebrity book bashing story.
Well they were wrong, I am as tired of zedlebrities as the next person with a brain. What I was interested in was how the lottery that is book publishing impacts on our environment. Because when books as big as Billy and Pete Bennett go belly up returns rocket – though this time round many publishers saved face thanks to successful post-Christmas sales in the supermarkets.
Publishing is a wasteful business. More art than science goes into estimating a book’s potential. The use of sale or return (SoR), in which booksellers are allowed to return to publishers books they fail to sell, is fundamental to retailers’ willingness to stock titles.
Without SoR, far fewer books would make it into bookshops. But, though it may be good for getting books into stores, it is bad for the environment. Three to six months down the line, if a book does not sell it will be returned and while most end up recycled, some end up in landfill
Though every publisher spoken to for this article vehemently denied their books ever end up in landfill, Stuart Hearn of DHL Exel Supply Chain disagrees. Writing for Publishing News before Christmas, Hearn wrote: “While some publishers will look to feed as much as possible back into the mint stock route, there are still many that simply do not have the resource to manage that process and are obliged to opt for the pulping route, which is not ideal from an environmental perspective.”
He added: “Any reasonable amount of contamination in the pulp process will result in waste having to go to landfill, which is the last place we want books to go.” One industry insider I spoke to also contested publishers’ claims about landfill. “Anyone who visits a plant will see skips of mixed products that cannot be recycled with books in there among the CDs and plastic cases,” he said, “Those are going to landfill.”
An unofficial recycling process has always operated within the industry. Books returned in mint condition are used to replenish stock, but this happens less now than in the past, thanks to a ruthless retail environment in which supermarkets and chains alike give books as little as three weeks to sell. If they don’t take off within that time, they are pulled from promotions. Without the support of the chains and supermarkets for a title, it is unlikely extra stock will be needed and pulping is inevitable.
It is an inefficient system that loads cost into the back end of the supply chain and, thanks to transportation as well as pulping costs, stokes up the carbon footprint of the industry.
When consultants KPMG looked into the book supply chain nine years ago, it found that while the average cost of servicing the supply chain was five to six percent of sales in most other sectors (including supermarkets in the fast moving consumer goods sector), publishers were paying as much as 13 percent.
Back in 1998 servicing the supply chain represented an annual cost to the industry of £100m. Nearly 10 years on from the report, publishers claim they have reduced returns and supply chain costs, but not by much. Though coy about more up-to-date figures, few of the publishers I spoke to reported a massive drop in returns and most admitted the cost of servicing the supply chain remained in double figures, which makes it fair to assume that the cost is not much different to 10 years ago.
One sales director of a large company admitted sheepishly: “The percent is somewhere in the low double figures, which is the norm within publishing.” He added hastily: “But what you don’t understand is that FMCG companies’ costs may be five percent, but you are not comparing apples with apples.” The majority of returns dealt with by FMCG companies are for goods supplied on firm sale, faulty or damaged good, not goods in pristine condition that simply didn’t sell. “We are talking about returns in a completely different context,” he protests.
All this of course is not news to publishers, who are keen to cut costs from their bottom line in order to fuel profit margins under threat from higher discounts to retailers and top end advances that offer little hope of earning back.
An end to SoR seems out of the question. When asked, publishers and retailers alike laughed at the idea. But both sides will have to thrash out a solution, because all three political parties are committed to further legislation aimed at cutting emissions. Manufacturers should act now to limit waste if they are to escape expensive last minute adaptation costs or punitive fines when legislation is passed.
Initiatives are taking place. W H Smith has introduced a local pulping policy and Waterstone’s is looking into what it can do – piecemeal approaches to an industry-wide problem. More significantly, informed sources tell me Faber c.e.o. Stephen Page and Macmillan m.d. David North lead talks with retailers aimed at reducing the cost of returns and the environmental impact of transporting them long distances.
So far, I am told, these efforts for greener trade-wide practices have fallen on deaf ears – or rather, say my sources, retailers have given their standard response: “Great idea, but how much extra margin will you give us?”
The failure of the industry to follow up more meaningfully the 1998 KPMG Supply Chain Review had an environmental impact that should concern us. The failure also offers little hope that the deep divisions within the trade can be overcome for the higher good. Both sides, retailers and publishers, remain suspicious of each other. Both operate in highly competitive environments that militate against co-operation between players within the same sector. Both see their margins eroded and are looking at every way possible to claw back cost.
That suspicion infects authors. Returns are viewed with scepticism, thanks to: the extension to hardbacks of reserve on returns clauses in contracts; the widespread belief that new books sold as second hand on the internet are leaked returns; and the fear that if authors complain about returns, publishers will cut waste by slashing from their lists books without obvious market potential or by authors with diminishing sales and increasing returns.
The extension of reserve clauses to hardback sales reflects another change in the retail market. Instead of disappearing into oblivion, sales of hardbacks have soared. There are simply more hardbacks out there, and publishers and agents agree that reserves, which should never be more than 20 per cent, are needed to insure publishers against late returns of unsold stock.
Authors should be concerned over the practice, more common in the US, in which publishers do not use exact percentages in reserve clauses, but vague terms such as “as the publisher sees necessary”. This gives the publisher the right to hold back 100 percent of royalties as reserve, effectively using the authors’ royalties to fund cash flow. So far, I have not heard of this practice in the UK, let’s hope it is one pernicious US trend that does not cross the Atlantic.
On the subject of policing, publishers and distributors spoken to for this article claim they have security in place to prevent leakage. If an author is convinced returns are turning up on the second hand market, they should ask for a paper audit. One publisher-turned-agent I spoke to for this article recalled that in her entire career she had only heard of two paper audits being done in the business. “There should be more,” she said. “It would explain a lot and also make everyone more accountable for the waste we produce.”
As for protests against returns resulting in authors being dropped, there is no point worrying. The well-reported decimation of mid-list authors from the ranks of large houses is a matter of simple economics not environmental delisting. Authors pushed out of mainstream presses in recent years are victim to retail policies that rely on high octane bestsellers, not quality or niche writing or environmental damage limitation.
Ironically, it isn’t the midlist names that have the biggest impact on the industry’s carbon footprint. They have few copies of their books in store, and once rights issues are sorted out, their returns should be reduced further by improved print-on-demand technology able to supply to order.
The fact is that the big bad wolves on the greenscape are the very big names the trade relies on for big sales, especially zedlebrity soap, pop and reality TV stars. Aimed at vast markets of people who only buy books at Christmas, it is almost impossible to second guess what will work, no matter how good the data programs.
Gut instinct about “stars’” appeal plays a far higher role in gauging print runs and orders than the trade likes to admit. Get it right and they have Peter Kay rocking out of the shops. Get it wrong and they have Chantelle piled high at the back, waiting to be pulped. Authors concerned about the environment, seeing the likes of the latest Big Brother winner waiting to be returned, must feel bitter. The Chantelle’s of this world are unlikely to raise a stink about the carbon footprint of the industry their failed publishing ventures fuel.
So what should authors who care do? A good start is to ask your publisher about their environmental policies (from in-house recycling to paper sourcing). Authors are right to use their profile to raise the issue of waste, but should persuade retailers as well as publishers to take responsibility. Finally, remember, when it comes to environmental politics, returns are not a simple issue, but it is a problem with the power to make hypocrites of us all.