In Response to Hachette Book Group

Recently, we received a letter from the leadership of the Hachette Book Group expressing concerns over our legal dispute with Greenpeace in the wake of the group's misleading "report" on free speech. Resolute CEO Richard Garneau replied with this letter:

June 12, 2017 

Mr. Arnaud Nourry
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Hachette Livre
58 Rue Jean Bleuze
92170 Vanves, France

Dear Mr. Nourry: 

Thank you for your considerate overture and I appreciate the invitation to offer our thoughts on the longstanding, mutual commitment we each have to sustainable forestry. You are among our most valued customers and we take great pride in seeing how your company transforms our dedicated work into the lyrical beauty of the written word on the page. 

I certainly share your chagrin that the various accusations being made by Greenpeace seem difficult to gauge, although it is obvious why Greenpeace should prefer it that way. One wonders whether they assume that the public will simply accept their claims without bothering to examine the details. By making their demands capricious, obscure, and ever-changing, the only yardstick becomes whatever Greenpeace insists. 

Our position and track record by contrast are carefully detailed and wholly transparent, and I would encourage any stakeholder to read more about our sustainability performance here. Here are some recent examples of the broader recognition we have received for our environmental leadership. 

• 2017 Environmental Leader of the Year Award, Environmental Leader Conference (North America) 
• 2017 Mercure award for Sustainable Development (Canada) 
• 2016/2017 Corporate Responsibility Award and Industry Sector Award, Peer Awards for Excellence (UK) 
• 2017 Corporate LiveWire Innovation & Excellence Award, Excellence in Sustainable Forestry (North America) 

We also take great pride in the many proactive steps we have taken that continue to enhance the sustainability of our operations. We derive 74 percent of our energy needs from renewable sources. Several years ago, we committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent below the levels in 2000. We exceeded that commitment, and as of the end of 2016 achieved a best-in-class 73 percent reduction. We have been closely tracking and reporting on carbon, water and forestry through the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). Our scores are above average for the industry in carbon and water, and in 2016, we earned an “A-” in forestry, the highest ranking in the sector for all of North America. Last year, we also joined, as an inaugural member, the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, a voluntary global partnership that seeks to address climate change by putting a market price on carbon. 

We remain committed to maintaining our 100% forest management and chain of custody certifications to internationally recognized standards such as Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI®), Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and Forest Stewardship Council® (FSC®). This ensures all the fiber we process comes from responsible sources. The Canadian government, which owns and oversees the land where we operate, also plays a crucial role in ensuring the forests in which we operate are managed sustainably, and we have a strong record of compliance with both federal and provincial regulations. 

Our dedication to responsible practices also extends to our many stakeholders, including the communities where we work and live, our conscientious employees, and of course our customers. By its own accounting, Greenpeace cheerfully claims it has caused more than $100 million in economic damage. They have also admitted to falsifying staged photos and video about our forest practices. When pressed to justify itself in court, Greenpeace conceded that its claims about Resolute “do not hew to strict literalisms or scientific precision” and instead are “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion and at most…rhetorical hyperbole...not intended to be taken literally." 

Just two weeks ago, Greenpeace issued another admission, saying they “are troubled by the recent job losses announced in the forest industry, which affect workers and their families.” “We do want to talk to the workers who know the conditions on the ground best,” they added, “[and] the men and women in the forest industry must be at the discussion table.” But those workers, their unions, community leaders, First Nations Chiefs and citizens by the thousands have been pleading with Greenpeace for years – and have been utterly ignored. 

In one example among many, thousands of citizens in the town of Saint-Félicien, Quebec marched in the streets to protest the impact of Greenpeace’s conduct. “We extend a hand” for activists to dialogue, the town’s mayor, Gilles Potvin, said at the gathering. Like countless others in communities across the Boreal, they never heard from Greenpeace. 

We are troubled that Greenpeace has devoted its vast resources to cajoling leading publishing houses, yet can’t muster the simple integrity of meeting with the ordinary people they know are being harmed. 

You have my promise that we will continue to uphold the high standards that we have demonstrated in all the years we have enjoyed a relationship with Hachette. Thank you again for the opportunity to have a dialogue. I welcome the opportunity to meet with you personally in Paris to discuss these matters in greater detail. 

Yours sincerely, 

Richard Garneau
President and Chief Executive Officer
Resolute Forest Products 

In Response to Greenpeace Ads in Le Devoir and the Ottawa Citizen

Greenpeace and Stand.Earth recently spent thousands to place misleading advertisements in Le Devoir and the Ottawa Citizen repeating the fiction that Resolute’s litigation is about “trying to silence” the radical environmental organizations. The ads mislead readers about both the nature of our case and our business.

This isn’t about freedom of expression. It’s about holding Greenpeace accountable for a campaign of misinformation that continues, despite Greenpeace’s own admissions that its serial attacks against our company were “hyperbole,” “heated rhetoric,” and “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion” that “do not hew to strict literalism or scientific precision.”

We’ve submitted versions of this letter to the editors of those publications so that their readers understand Greenpeace’s distortions in full context.

Letters to the Editor
Le Devoir / Ottawa Citizen

Dear Editor:

Your publication recently published a full-page ad from the radical environmental organization Greenpeace and its ally Stand.Earth, repeating their egregiously hypocritical claim that our efforts to hold them accountable for their slanders amount to an “attack on public discourse [and] free speech.”

But a simple Google search reveals Greenpeace has been enthusiastically on the side opposing free expression in the two biggest legal cases in U.S. courts in recent years.

Specifically, they have publicly denounced the United States Supreme Court ruling in favor of free speech in the Citizens United case, standing against the American Civil Liberties Union, the Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, the Institute for Justice, the California First Amendment Coalition, and some of the largest trade unions and political groups across the political spectrum. Moreover, they applauded government lawyers for launching a legal assault against groups Greenpeace opposes, using the very same approach their ad now claims is an assault on “the very heart of our democratic society.”

Readers would be right to ask Greenpeace how they square this apparent contradiction. One answer comes from the group’s own web site, where they justify their stance by declaring “Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.” We quite agree with the sentiment, but Greenpeace seems to think it only applies to its own conduct.  

As our legal filings document, Greenpeace has spent years on a campaign of public misrepresentations about our forestry practices—impersonating employees, initiating cyber-attacks on our customers, and harassing companies we do business with, including by threatening them with similar smear campaigns.

But we’ve forced Greenpeace to retract some of its false claims about us, and to admit in legal filings that its serial attacks against our company were “hyperbole,” “heated rhetoric,” and “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion” that “do not hew to strict literalism or scientific precision.” That’s why we’ve taken them to court, and why we won’t waver in holding them accountable for their actions.

Sincerely,
Seth Kursman
Vice President,
Corporate Communications, Sustainability & Government Affairs
Resolute Forest Products

In Response to Now Toronto’s Biased, Misinformed Reporting

A recent article in Now Toronto peddles the fiction that Resolute’s suit against Greenpeace is an effort to silence the radical environmental organization. By omitting key facts and failing to seek out any sort of contrary perspectives on the matter, author Adria Vasil misleads readers about both the nature of our case and our operation.

This isn’t about free speech. It’s about holding Greenpeace accountable for the damage their campaign of misinformation and propaganda. Now Toronto readers deserve the truth.

In an attempt to correct the record, we sent this letter to the editor. Now Toronto acknowledged receiving the letter, but has yet to post it publically or update their story.

Letters to the Editor
NOW Toronto

Dear Editor: 

Adria Vasil correctly notes in a recent story (“Greenpeace's battle royal over the boreal”, May 31, 2017) that Greenpeace has been forced to retract false claims about Resolute Forest Products, and to admit in legal filings that its serial attacks against our company were “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion.” 

But remarkably, Ms. Vasil did not contact us for input or a chance to respond to many other tendentious claims in her story. In a piece about a factual dispute between two parties, what code of journalistic conduct sanctions quoting one side at length while failing even to pick up a phone to contact the other?   

Had Ms. Vasil called us, we would have corrected the record in a number of key respects. 

Perhaps most egregious is the hypocrisy of Greenpeace’s claim that our efforts to hold them accountable for their slanders amount to “shutting down free speech.” We could have pointed Ms. Vasil to a few simple Google searches that reveal Greenpeace has been energetically on the side opposing free expression in the two biggest legal cases in U.S. courts in recent years. 

Specifically, they have publicly denounced the United States Supreme Court ruling in favor of free speech in the Citizens United case, standing against the American Civil Liberties Union, the Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, the Institute for Justice, the California First Amendment Coalition, and some of the largest trade unions and political groups across the political spectrum. Moreover, they have applauded a group of attorneys general for launching a legal assault against groups Greenpeace opposes, using the very same approach that NOW magazine refers to as “extraordinary legal manoeuvring.” 

A more diligent story might have queried Shane Moffat about the glaring contradiction here. 
One potential answer comes from Greenpeace’s own web site, where the group justifies its stance by declaring that “Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.” We wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but note that Greenpeace doesn’t seem to think it applies when they are the defendants. 

As our legal filings document, Greenpeace has spent years on a campaign of public misrepresentations about our forestry practices—impersonating employees, initiating cyber-attacks on our customers, and harassing companies we do business with, including by threatening them with similar smear campaigns. 

Ms. Vasil does reference the site where we detail this sordid history at length. That’s a good start. But NOW readers deserve coverage that confronts these facts fairly and honestly, instead of merely burying them in a hyperlink. 

Sincerely, 

Seth Kursman
Vice President, 
Corporate Communications, Sustainability & Government Affairs
Resolute Forest Products

Setting the Record Straight on Misleading Fast Company Article

We sent this response to an article in Fast Company about our case and asked that it be published. Although the letter details numerous journalism flaws and basic mistakes, the magazine didn’t have the integrity to reply.  That’s why we are publishing the letter in full here, so that readers can make up their own minds with the full facts.

Letters to the Editor
Fast Company

Dear Editor:

Among the many facts omitted from Jeff Beer’s cheerleading story on the latest of Greenpeace’s serial attacks against our company, the most obvious is this – he never contacted us for input or a chance to respond.  In a story that purports to be about the virtue of public discourse, how did editors allow such a slanted piece to get past them without a quote from the subject?

While we await an answer on that journalism fumble, here are some other facts that will help provide a fuller picture for readers.

As our legal filings document, Greenpeace has devoted years to a campaign of public misrepresentations about our forestry practices, impersonated employees, initiated cyber-attacks on our customers, and harassed companies we do business with, threatening them with similar smear campaigns.  They published staged photos and video falsely pretending to show forest areas impacted by our company when in reality those areas were impacted by natural causes.  

In a story that found room for hyperlinks to Instagram artists, unrelated litigation, and something called Free the Nipple, why did Mr. Beer withhold a simple link to our legal case?  Here is the site we have set up to provide full details on the matter.  

As for Greenpeace posturing as free speech martyrs, that too falls apart on closer examination.  Is Mr. Beer unaware that Greenpeace has been energetically on the side opposing free expression in the two biggest First Amendment legal cases in recent years?   

They have publicly denounced the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case and have applauded a group of attorneys general for a RICO investigation launched against groups Greenpeace opposes on environmental issues.  That position stands against the ACLU, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Institute for Justice, AFL-CIO, California First Amendment Coalition, and dozens of groups across the political spectrum. 

A more diligent reporter might have noticed how Greenpeace justifies its stance in those matters, which is helpfully explained on its website: “Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda,” Greenpeace declares.  So it would appear that Greenpeace is all in favor of the RICO statute and litigating false speech. They just don’t like it when they are the defendants.  

The claim that our case is a so-called SLAPP lawsuit is also demonstrably false.   

We suspect however that Mr. Beer himself may have been hoodwinked by Greenpeace.  The “Our Voices are Vital” campaign isn’t quite as original as they led him to believe.  In fact, it closely mimics a campaign we launched in August, 2015 called “Share Your Voice.”  We invited citizens and workers from communities across the boreal to speak out on how Greenpeace’s malicious attacks had impacted them directly.  

Many thousands did just that, in phone calls, on social media, in large public demonstrations, and by old-fashioned snail mail – pretty much the exact same effort except, unlike Greenpeace, we didn’t cajole anyone for a cash donation.  Perhaps that’s not as glamorous as the offices of the New York City-based Big Spaceship agency but apparently worth imitating.  If readers are wondering how Greenpeace responded to that avalanche of heartfelt appeals about the real harm they have caused, the answer is simple: Greenpeace ignored virtually all of them.    

Sincerely,  
Seth Kursman
Vice President, 
Corporate Communications, Sustainability & Government Affairs
Resolute Forest Products 

Greenpeace “Report” is Misleading, Re-hashed, Dishonest

The activists at Greenpeace are at pains to present a recent “report” on their boreal campaign as a major new work of original research, but in fact the document presents no new information, and merely rehashes the many distortions and falsehoods that have littered their irresponsible attacks on us for years.

Quite simply, Resolute has debunked or answered every substantive specific charge laid out in this document, in great detail, as they arose. And in each case we have done so in full transparent view of the public and the many stakeholders in the boreal. To what result? Numerous credible outlets that have investigated our dispute with Greenpeace and its allies—from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post to the National Post to Enquête—have raised questions concerning the group’s mischaracterization of the facts, its questionable tactics, its underlying motivations, or all of the above.

When Enquête, one of Canada’s leading TV news programs, confronted then-Director of Greenpeace Quebec, Nicolas Mainville about falsified images published and then retracted by Greenpeace, he deflected responsibility and responded, “It makes me laugh a bit.”[1]

When the Wall Street Journal asked Greenpeace about its history of distortion and impersonation, Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard responded without addressing the specifics.[2]

And if the verdict of outside observers is not enough, consider that Greenpeace itself, when confronted in court about their many mistruths, was forced to concede in legal filings that the claims they made against Resolute were “non-actionable rhetorical hyperbole.” Strongly stated alarmist positions were described as matters of “non-verifiable subjective opinion,” and characterizations of Resolute’s activities in the region were described as “more figurative than literal.”

But let’s review the specifics once more:

On The Boreal and Climate Change

Greenpeace conflates forest management with deforestation. But Canada has strict laws governing the industry, and Resolute meets or exceeds them. Less than 0.2% of the Canadian boreal is harvested each year - twenty-five times less than what is disturbed annually by natural causes like forest fires and disease.[3] As for real deforestation, it’s practically nonexistent. Canada’s deforestation rate is virtually zero at 0.02%, due largely to commercial development and other industrial uses, not the forest products industry.

Greenpeace goes on to insinuate that Resolute’s harvesting operations in some way impair the boreal forest’s ability to absorb harmful carbon from the atmosphere. What they leave out is that harvesting and responsible forest management are recognized and encouraged by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to improve carbon capture.[4][5]

Greenpeace also attempts to paint Resolute as an unreliable partner for conservationists, noting as an apparent proof point that the company’s partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) had ended. But they grossly mischaracterize the natural course of that partnership.  Resolute was a member of the WWF Climate Savers Program, a five-year agreement in which leading corporations establish ambitious targets to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).  In 2011, Resolute  committed to some of the most ambitious goals in the industry - a 65% reduction of GHG emission levels by 2015 over 2000 levels. We exceeded our goal by the end of the agreement, and as of the end of 2016, we achieved a 73% reduction.  We have also completely eliminated the use of coal on-site. Indeed, we have received North American and global recognition for our commitment to carbon reduction, responsible forest management, and our innovative sustainable development. 

On Collaboration with First Nations Communities

Greenpeace claims to respect indigenous communities’ rights to economic self-determination. But many First Nations communities disagree. As Jack Picard, Band Council Member of the Innu Council of Pessamit put it: “Greenpeace, in our view, is an environmental group that goes to the extreme…We are fully capable of speaking for ourselves.”

Partnerships between Resolute and First Nations communities are also left out of the report. Resolute has strong partnerships with over 40 First Nations communities in regions where we operate, and in 2015 signed a historic Memorandum of Agreement with six First Nations partners resulting in $100 million in new business for First Nations communities.[6]

Greenpeace claims daily “collaboration” with First Nations, governments, and unions “to foster . . . healthy local communities,” but omits its many conflicts with those same groups, including the many representatives who have called out to the organization and its allies to stop campaigns that misinform the public and threaten the livelihood of forestry communities. Greenpeace has ignored stakeholders including First Nations communities, federal and provincial government officials, industry associations, and union leadership representing thousands of employees and retirees.

On Stakeholder Engagement

Greenpeace’s pretense at engagement and accountability is more than just dishonest, it’s insulting to the thousands of stakeholders who have reached out in good faith, imploring an end to the dishonest campaigns causing real harm to boreal communities.

Is it any wonder that, as the National Post reported, Greenpeace personnel need to disguise their identity when they travel in boreal forest communities?[7]

Resolute works with a wide range of stakeholders including First Nations communities, customers, employees, environmental and other non-governmental organizations ((E)NGOs), business partners, government officials, investors, and the general public every day.

On “Threatened Species Habitat” in the Boreal

Greenpeace insinuates that Resolute’s activities harm at-risk caribou populations. But almost 75% of the woodland caribou range is off limits to the forest products industry in the areas we operate, and in the area that is accessible, 38% in Quebec and a further 34% in Ontario have been set aside for conservation and other purposes.[8] 

On Free Speech, “Suppress[ing]…Facts” and “Silencing” Critics

Greenpeace wrongly characterizes our lawsuit in U.S. federal court as an attack on the First Amendment. The lawsuit stems from the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Free speech does not protect libel and slander.

Greenpeace and their allies are trying to have it both ways. When defending their statements in Court, they refer to them as “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion.” When it comes time to fundraise, these same statements are passed off as “facts.” Here is a link to our complaint. 

Greenpeace also claims our suit is a “deliberate effort” to push them out of the public discourse. But the reality is that the litigation specifies actual harm that Greenpeace has caused — damage that Greenpeace itself has claimed exceeds $100 million. 

On Doing Business with Resolute

Greenpeace has the tremendous gall to call out publishers for working with a “controversial company linked to the destruction of intact ancient forests” when the only groups claiming controversy are Greenpeace and its allies. The truth is that the boreal is not in any scientifically relevant sense “ancient”, and according to the United Nations, is in no way “endangered.” Resolute has been internationally recognized for its environmental stewardship and responsible practices in the region.

Greenpeace’s “report” adds up to almost nothing, comprised entirely of warmed over errors that we have already corrected elsewhere. It does nothing to address our serious legal charges, to account for the harm pointed out by so many independent journalists and boreal stakeholders, or to genuinely advance the conversation on sustainability in North America.

Standing up against false statements, threats and intimidation is a moral obligation. That obligation includes supporting our customers, stakeholders and the communities that live and work in the boreal, who stand with us.

[1] 2016. Resolute Forest Products Blog. TV Newsmagazine highlights Greenpeace misinformation. http://blog.resolutefp.com/2016/04/tv-newsmagazine-highlights-greenpeace-misinformation/ 

[2] 2016. The Wall Street Journal. The Case Against Greenpeace. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-against-greenpeace-1466203663

[3] 2014. Government of Canada-Natural Resources Canada. The State of Canada’s Forests: Annual Report 2014. http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications?id=35713

[4] 2016 Resolute Forest Products Press Release. Resolute Files Racketeering Suit Against Greenpeace in U.S. Federal Court. http://resolutefp.mediaroom.com/2016-05-31-C-O-R-R-E-C-T-I-O-N-from-Source-Resolute-Forest-Products-Inc

[5]2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter9.pdf

[6] 2015. Resolute Forest Products Press Release. Resolute Celebrates Ground-Breaking MOA with Six First Nations. http://resolutefp.mediaroom.com/news-releases?item=135452

[7] 2015. Financial Post. Battle for the Boreal.
http://business.financialpost.com/features/battle-for-the-boreal-forest-2

[8] 2016. Resolute calculations. Detailed calculations available upon request. Results from Resolute Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping analysis conducted in Ontario and the Fiche Thématique de Québec from the Quebec Forestry Office. http://www.ec.gc.ca.indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=en&n=8390800A-1#pa3

Companies Should Stand Up To Shakedowns From Activists Like Greenpeace

When activist groups come knocking, the instinct for most corporate leaders is the well-worn path of least resistance. Appease, roll over, give in. Mollify the pot-banging rabble, and shoo them on to the next target down the street.

It’s a menacing pattern that has become so brazen; a common experience among so many leading global companies. The cycle of abuse works like this: use misleading campaigns, vague demands, constantly moving goalposts and an utter lack of scientific grounding, all while using “heated rhetoric” to induce donations. Companies are faced with a choice: capitulate or have their brand identity trashed with smears and false claims.

One of the largest and most aggressive of these groups, Greenpeace, uses a technique it calls “brand-jacking” to assume the identity of popular brands then steer them toward infamy. On its website, Greenpeace brags about how quickly even major companies capitulate, even though the disparagement campaigns remain in full view. Its list of targets reads like a who’s-who of leading companies.

[...]

But when Greenpeace and its allies targeted our company, we decided to draw the line, unapologetically and forcefully defending our integrity.

The Crisis Creation Business

Our company, Resolute, is one of North America’s largest forest products producers...Everything we make relies on one of the world’s most renewable natural resources: trees. Yet despite the many North American and global awards we’ve won for our sustainability leadership, Resolute has been at the center of a cynical, multi-year attack campaign by large, well-funded activist organizations led by Greenpeace and its allies.

While there are conscientious non-governmental organizations with a virtuous cause, others like Greenpeace and its allies exist solely to employ pressure tactics and fundraise off garish publicity stunts. They are, quite simply, in the crisis creation business.

That’s precisely why we felt compelled to stand up to the eco bullies in the first place. It’s one thing for activist groups to participate in the discourse. But it’s quite another to brazenly threaten us and our customers with a nebulous list of imagined crimes that have no measurable, accountable connection to reality. But that’s just the model Greenpeace and partner groups rely on to sustain the self-perpetuating fundraising juggernaut they’ve become.

To give you a sense of what I’m talking about, worldwide, just considering Greenpeace alone, total revenues in 2014 were in excess of €297 million, equivalent at the time to U.S. $409 million. More than one third of that amount—U.S. $147 million—was eaten by “fundraising expenditures” with another U.S. $63 million going to salaries, benefits, and operating costs.

That doesn’t even include the cost of maintaining and operating a big box of expensive, carbon-emitting corporate toys that include helicopters and a small fleet. To cover this much overhead, they have no choice but to use their remaining budget for campaigns with the highest proven fundraising potential.

The pattern of engagement is always the same because most activist campaigns run using the same playbook, which can include tactics like impersonating employees, misrepresenting or doctoring photographs, an endless supply of silly publicity stunts, and selectively using pseudo-scientific findings. Greenpeace accidentally drew the curtain back on these tactics a few years ago when they famously circulated an unfinished activist “fact sheet” stating, “Fill in alarmist and armageddonist factoid here.”

Appeasement Only Expands Their Power

For too many executives, the goal in dealing with bad actors like this is to appease and accommodate, to avoid any hint of controversy, to keep the target off their backs. Never mind that irresponsible activists are making up facts or acting for unprincipled and self-serving motives. It’s easier to give in, pay up, and appease.

But there is no substitute for doing the right thing. In this case, “not to condemn is to condone.” As business leaders, we have a collective responsibility not only to protect the future of our companies, but also to defend the long-term futures of our home communities and the livelihoods of our employees. These are some of the cornerstone principles of good corporate governance.

That’s why we sued Greenpeace and its allies last May under federal RICO laws. As tends to happen with bullies, as soon as we forced them to back up their claims, they are already starting to change their tune. After years of claiming Resolute “destroyed forests,” for instance, Greenpeace and its partners now admit in court filings that this accusation was “figurative rather than literal,” “rhetorical hyperbole,” and “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion.”

Greenpeace and their allies have naturally resorted to rhetorical contortions to explain these sudden reversals, including claiming the mantle of free speech martyrs. It’s unlikely to work. False statements knowingly made are not free speech in a court of law or public opinion. Naturally, Greenpeace sent a fundraising email to its followers calling our litigation “the biggest threat in [our] 45-year history.” It followed up last week with a fundraising video saying the court action could “sue Greenpeace out of existence.”

A great and diverse range of stakeholders and partners have publicly spoken out to support Resolute’s principled position, from unions and workers, regional and national elected officials, First Nations aboriginal communities, and ordinary citizens. They have written letters, engaged in direct mail campaigns, participated in town hall meetings, and even demonstrated in the streets. Impressively, more than 500 municipalities have gone on record, formally taking a stand against activist misinformation.

Resolute is standing with our stakeholders and partners because it’s a moral and ethical obligation. We’re surely not alone. Other companies have demonstrated their own commitment to responsible and sustainable performance and they too should demonstrate the courage of their convictions.

Seth Kursman,Vice President of Communications, Sustainability & Government Affairs at Resolute Forest Products, The Federalist (5/15/2017)