An investigation by AFP and The Gecko Project has raised serious questions about the environmental credibility of so-called carbon-neutral packaging, after tracing wood from cleared Indonesian rainforest into the supply chain of Asia Symbol, a major pulp and paper producer with a stated no-deforestation policy. The findings centre on plantations in Borneo where large areas of natural forest, including habitat used by endangered orangutans, were converted to industrial timber production and linked to pulp processed for packaging applications.

According to the investigation, wood from plantations that cleared nearly 30,000 hectares of forest between 2016 and 2024 was processed at the Phoenix Resources International (PRI) mill in Indonesia. That mill then supplied pulp to Asia Symbol’s facilities in China. The issue is particularly sensitive because Asia Symbol produces packaging marketed as carbon-neutral, including packaging reportedly used by Haleon, the consumer health group behind brands such as Panadol and Sensodyne. Following the investigation, Haleon said it was cutting ties with Asia Symbol.

The case matters because Asia Symbol and its parent group, Royal Golden Eagle (RGE), have publicly promoted deforestation-free commitments. RGE pledged in 2015 to eliminate deforestation from its supply chain and has continued to present sustainability as a core part of its business model. Yet the reporting suggests that wood grown on land cleared of rainforest continued to enter a mill feeding Asia Symbol, despite previous commitments to tighten sourcing controls and distance the business from forest conversion.

The central challenge exposed by the investigation is not just whether packaging can be labelled carbon-neutral, but whether those claims remain credible when upstream fibre sourcing is linked to the destruction of natural forest.

The consequences described by local communities go well beyond reputational damage. Residents in Central Kalimantan told reporters that forest loss had brought flooding, wildlife decline, damaged crops and loss of traditional livelihoods. Areas once used for farming and forest-based income have reportedly been absorbed into industrial concessions planted with acacia and eucalyptus. Local leaders said the environmental change has been visible in disappearing birds and animals, more severe flood events and growing anxiety over water quality and land access.

Asia Symbol told AFP it remains committed to its no-deforestation policy and said the complexity of its supply chain creates real due diligence challenges. The company also said it had begun a focused review of PRI-related sourcing. However, environmental groups cited in the report argue that the findings point to a wider failure in oversight. For critics, the issue is not only one of technical traceability, but of whether corporate sustainability systems are robust enough to prevent converted rainforest fibre from entering packaging supply chains marketed as responsible.

The investigation also casts a shadow over certification and finance narratives increasingly attached to pulp, paper and packaging groups. RGE has sought to strengthen its sustainability profile and regain Forest Stewardship Council credibility, while also accessing sustainability-linked finance. That makes the allegations especially significant for the wider packaging sector, where environmental claims are becoming more commercially valuable and more closely scrutinised by customers, regulators and NGOs.

For the packaging industry, the case is a sharp reminder that sustainability claims are only as strong as supply-chain verification. Carbon accounting, recycled content and low-impact branding may all have value, but they cannot compensate for weak fibre governance upstream. As packaging buyers place greater emphasis on responsible sourcing, the Asia Symbol case shows how quickly climate-friendly positioning can be undermined when deforestation, biodiversity loss and community impacts remain embedded in the raw material base.