Harry Potter is known to tens of millions of readers as a figment of J. K. Rowling’s imagination. One of the good guys, he is a gifted apprentice magician and budding wizard. Harry and his pals have bested evil wizards in tale after tale and many movies, including the following:

• Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone

• Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

• Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows But the story that most do not know is how Harry Potter dealt with the green brigade and, with a wave of his real wand, made a very tangible difference to society.

In 2003, the so-called green brigade—a collection of environmental groups and tree huggers, including Greenpeace and others—declared success in getting Harry Potter’s U.K. publisher, Bloomsbury, to print Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix “on paper made from 10% post consumer waste recycled paper, and the adult version of the book on 20% recycled paper.”1 Their objective was stated as follows:

“Greenpeace wants to see books in the marketplace with much more recycled content and with any virgin fibre used in the paper coming from well managed forests, certified to the standards of the Forest Stewardship Council.”2 The Canadian hardcover edition, copublished by Raincoast Books and Bloomsbury was printed on 100% postconsumer, chlorine-free paper, resulting in the following ecological savings:

• 39,320 trees

• 64,435,801 liters of water (water to fill forty-two Olympic-sized swimming pools) • 854,988 kilograms of solid waste

• Electricity to power the average home for 262 years

• Greenhouse gases equivalent to driving a car 5.3 million kilometers3 Finding enough recycled paper was not easy, and it finally was sourced from Wisconsin. According to Rainforest Alliance spokesperson Tessa Vanderkop, Using the so-called Ancient Forest Friendly Paper, which is 100 percent post-consumer recycled, chlorinefree paper and fibre, costs about an additional three percent per book.

On the Potter project, that worked out to an extra cost of \($200,000\) for Raincoast,…

“We’ve completed this huge first run on the paper,” she said Wednesday. “We’re hoping the high profile of the Harry Potter books will raise awareness get other publishers on board. That would help drive the price down and make it more affordable.”4 J. K. Rowling was pleased and urged other publishers to do what Raincoast had done. Even so, the pressure was kept up. In 2005, Greenpeace and the National Wildlife Federation called for a boycott of the U.S. edition of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which was being published by Scholastic Inc. Instead, they encouraged people to purchase the Raincoast edition that used 100% postconsumer waste.5 The big breakthrough came in 2007, when Scholastic Inc. made the following announcement about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:

In agreement with the Rainforest Alliance, Deathly Hallows pages will contain a minimum of 30% post consumer waste fiber. In addition, 2/3 of the paper will be approved by the Forest Stewardship Council.

In their news statement, Scholastic claimed that, “This historic commitment is the largest purchase of FSCcertified paper to be used in the printing of a single book title.”

Scholastic also announced that there will be a special deluxe edition of the book that will be printed entirely on 100% recycled paper.6 When Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows came out in July 2007, it sold 11 million copies in the United States and United Kingdom on the first day.7 No wonder one conservationist remarked, “If we get Harry Potter and the Bible, that pretty much covers the best sellers.”8

Questions:-

1. If the cost of printing Harry Potter books on recycled paper added 3%
to the cost, was the publishing company really serving the interest of its shareholders given that the demand for Potter books was so high that all copies would probably have been sold in spite of any boycott? Explain why and why not, and come to a conclusion.
2. There is the possibility of huge environmental savings by shifting to recycled paper. Would the savings be even greater if books were published in digital format? Should publishers move to the 100% digital mode immediately?
Why and why not?
3. What do you think would be a reasonable environmental strategy to recommend to authors and publishers for books to be published in the next five years?