The act of cycling, if used to replace motorised transport, is green. But so much about our sport and industry is far from green. Tyres are a prime example. Those black rubber hoops wrapping our rims are actually a mix of natural rubber from the Pará rubber tree – the extraction of which comes with serious environmental concerns, synthetic rubber, and a host of other ingredients many of which are derived from petrochemicals and energy intensive processes.
All told, tyres – one of the most frequently replaced components on a bike – are also one of the most harmful elements of cycling for the environment, from the initial extraction of their raw materials to the energy-intensive manufacturing and even pollution that occurs as tyres wear down, releasing microplastics into the environment.
As such, while we debate performance issues such as widths, rolling resistance, and puncture protection, the conversation arguably should also be focused on the environmental issues associated with the single part of our bikes in contact with the earth beneath us.
That’s where the automotive industry is at, with practically every manufacturer implementing sustainability and environmental targets of some sort. The cycling industry is (slowly) following suit, but is it all tick box and lip service, or are our tyres becoming less of an environmental issue than they used to be?
One of those initiatives is Pirelli’s, as some of Pirelli’s P Zero Race tyres now come with a universally recognised sustainability logo in the shape of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) tick and tree shaped label on the sidewall and packaging.
What follows is a dive into what that FSC label on Pirelli’s tyres means and what other manufacturers are doing. It’s a look at the merits of these sustainability claims, what’s driving this sudden change of heart, and how forests/trees are linked to our tyres in the first place. Lord knows the planet needs us all to live more sustainably and the biggest corporations to change how many still operate, but tick box exercises are of no use to anyone, as we end up paying a premium for products that don’t actually deliver on their sustainability claims. I wanted to know if that FSC logo should be a factor in our tyre purchasing decisions and what’s being done to make our tyres less harmful for the planet.
The irony of flying me across the Atlantic to discuss a sustainability topic is not lost on me. However, I have to take at least part of the responsibility for that. Pirelli had initially requested a US-based editor attend this event, but given 1) Escape doesn’t currently have a US-based tech editor and 2) my position as chief F1 nerd and work I was already doing looking into what the future holds for bicycle tyres, I pushed for my own attendance.
What is FSC
The FSC is an international non-profit organisation that promotes responsible management of the world’s forests. Established in 1993 by a group of environmental organisations, businesses, forest owners, and community leaders led primarily by the WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature), FSC was created in response to the growing concern over deforestation, illegal logging, and unsustainable forest practices. The FSC sets standards for sustainable forestry that aim to balance environmental conservation, social equity, and economic viability.
The FSC logo on a product is essentially a pledge that the materials in that product are sourced in an environmentally, socially, and economically responsible way.
To use the FSC logo, manufacturers must complete a certification process that includes checks and standards on environmental protection, social responsibility, and material segregation, along with regular third-party audits to ensure transparency.
The FSC provides three certification labels: FSC 100%, FSC Recycled, and FSC Mix. Each label guides consumers in choosing products that support sustainable forestry:
- FSC 100%: Products made entirely from materials sourced from FSC-certified forests, meeting strict environmental, social, and economic standards.
- FSC Recycled: Products made from 100% recycled content, including post-consumer and pre-consumer materials, helping reduce demand for virgin resources.
- FSC Mix: Products containing a blend of FSC-certified, recycled, and responsibly sourced materials, though not all materials are FSC-certified. This label allows for flexibility in sourcing while still supporting sustainable practices.
The FSC Mix label now appears on some of Pirelli’s tyres, indicating partial sourcing from responsibly managed sources. So does that mean Pirelli has taken the easiest option with FSC’s lowest level of certification? Not quite.
The FSC offers two main certifications: Forest Management (FM) and Chain of Custody (CoC). FM certification is for forest owners, ensuring their operations meet FSC standards for biodiversity, community support, and economic sustainability. CoC certification applies to companies in the supply chain, like Pirelli, to guarantee that FSC-certified materials are tracked and verified from forest to final product.
Pirelli holds CoC certification, and its natural rubber suppliers have FM certification. As FSC focuses only on forest-sourced materials, Pirelli’s cycling tyres carry the FSC Mix label, meaning only a portion of the materials in a given tyre, specifically the natural rubber (23% of tyre weight in Pirelli’s case), meet FSC standards. The remaining materials include synthetic rubber (~15-20%), nylon and various fabrics (~30%) and chemicals (often used in the rubber blend to meet performance targets) and aren’t directly part of the FSC’s focus.
Monika Patel, FSC Canada’s director of communications and marketing, said that other forest-based materials must meet a minimum set of criteria on issues like illegal logging, human rights violations and clearing natural forests in order to be allowed to be mixed into FSC-certified products. That allowance exists, Patel explained, because there “simply isn’t enough FSC-certified forest in the world” right now. But in the case of tyres, natural rubber is the only forest-based ingredient in the product, and those so-called “controlled fibre” parameters don’t apply.
The FSC is not without its detractors, not least of which is Greenpeace International.
A founding member of FSC International, Greenpeace International ended its membership in 2018, citing concerns over compromised integrity and credibility due to weak governance and implementation, particularly regarding controlled wood and the FSC Mix label. Although Greenpeace credited the FSC for being “far more robust than other systems’ corresponding requirements” it said the FSC’s standards and oversight “remain insufficient,” especially on FSC Mix.
The environmental advocacy group’s 2021 report “Destruction: Certified” criticised certification schemes, including the FSC, for often failing to prevent deforestation, biodiversity loss, and human rights abuses.
Specifically related to the FSC Mix label, Greenpeace said FSC has “a heavy reliance on mixing non-certified sources into labelled products (coupled with weak and inconsistent safeguards against controversial sources),” and more generally criticised FSC what it sees as a “failure to consistently disassociate from companies associated with deforestation and human rights abuses, and insufficient product traceability.”
Despite those criticisms, Greenpeace recognised FSC as “the most credible and effective forestry certification scheme” currently in existence, citing its multi-stakeholder governance, Indigenous and workers’ rights standards, an early cut-off date on natural forest conversion, and GMO bans as strengths. And, while Greenpeace International is no longer affiliated with the FSC, Greenpeace national branches in Canada, China, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA remain FSC members.
Asked what FSC is doing to ensure certified forests more faithfully represent the true sense of sustainability, Patel accepted the FSC isn’t perfect and pointed to its diverse group of stakeholders – including environmental organisations, forest and supply chain companies, and social groups – that develop the FSC standards and the fact these are revised every five years to incorporate the latest science as a safeguard to ensure it is delivering on its initial goals.
Patel also emphasised the importance of annual third-party auditing process to verify compliance at both the forestry and manufacturer levels. However, third-party auditing in various industries, including apparel and chocolate, is notoriously unreliable. In forestry, Greenpeace raised concerns over a “potential conflict of interest that can undermine the independence and objectivity of the audits” given the auditors are hired by the same organisations seeking audit (a similar system exists in several other industries). Greenpeace also suggests the certifying bodies independence “is compromised” given the FSC fee for Chain of Custody certificates is “calculated based on the sites’ aggregated annual sales of FSC products” and thus “a negative audit result will lead to reduced sales and thus reduced CB (Certification Bodies) income.”
Other reports suggest that while FSC certification has been most effective in regions like Europe and North America, where forest management practices are already stricter, it is not sufficiently transforming practices in areas where it is most needed in tropical regions where deforestation is a greater concern. A 2019 report by Pirelli states the company sources most of its natural rubber from Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia, and also buys a small amount from China and Brazil. In 2023 Pirelli also acquired 100% of Hevea-Tec, the biggest independent processor of natural rubber in Brazil.
Patel noted that while some may criticise the FSC for not doing enough, it operates as a voluntary system, indicating those participating choose to do so, which encourages companies to go above and beyond government regulations.
Schwalbe has taken a different approach, working with Fair Rubber, an organisation focused on ensuring fair wages and working conditions for smallholder rubber producers in developing regions. Fair Rubber does not have strict criteria or auditing processes in place specifically aimed at preventing deforestation but it does support sustainable and ethical practices in the rubber industry by setting fair trade standards and providing a premium that directly benefits local communities. In Schwalbe’s case, it pays a premium of €0.50 per kilogram of rubber directly to certified smallholders and tappers.
Rubber alone is not enough
So that’s what that little FSC logo on your tyre means and how it gets there, but is it enough? To answer that, we must first go back to the ingredient list we mentioned earlier.
To recap, the FSC certification in Pirelli’s tyres applies only to the natural rubber component of the tyres, typically around 23% of the tyre by weight, and half the total rubber content.
This begs the question: what else can and is being done? Are tyre manufacturers doing anything to reduce the environmental impact of the other materials required to manufacture a tyre? Specifically, I asked Pirelli, if there are environmental concerns surrounding the other materials used in tyre production and if it has other environmental initiatives that complement this FSC move, or is it an isolated effort?
Pirelli’s answer was, yes, in time. “We are working on all,” Claudio Zanardo, CEO of Pirelli North America said, but don’t expect results overnight. Zanardo laid out the company’s plan to have 80% sustainable materials in their P-Zero E automotive tyre line within the next six years, encompassing both FSC-certified natural rubber and bio-based or recycled alternatives.
Of course, two things are notable about that target: 1) it’s not 100% and 2) it’s not now. Asked why we can’t aim for a 100% “sustainable tyre” now, Zanardo explained that the process for developing the sustainable materials requires research, development, and testing to ensure the quality and the required performance and safety characteristics are maintained. “It’s not just something that you can go and pick and put on the tyre,” he said. Sam Bressan, Pirelli’s head of global marketing put it a bit more succinctly: some of the materials they need to meet those goals don’t exist yet in large commercial quantities.
“There are a lot of different materials and we are working on them all,” Zanardo said of Pirelli’s efforts to find more sustainable replacements for the current list of tyre ingredients, explaining, “It’s a matter of technology, testing and trying new materials” to get to a 100% sustainable tyre.
Bressan provided some examples of work already happening. Silica is a reinforcing filler used in tyres primarily to improve performance characteristics like rolling resistance, wet grip, and durability. Pirelli is already using rice husk silica, which, thanks to its use of agricultural waste and lower energy requirements, is considered a more sustainable option than traditional sand-derived silica. However, as always, and beyond the scope of this article, the overall environmental benefits depend on efficient processing, regional production practices, and how it fits into a broader circular economy approach.
The same is true of “carbon black.” A vital component in tyre manufacturing, it contributes to improved durability and grip, but given virgin carbon black is typically derived from fossil fuels and made from incomplete combustion of heavy petroleum products, carbon black production is energy-intensive and creates significant carbon emissions.
Some tyre manufacturers, including Michelin and Pirelli, are exploring so-called “recovered carbon black” from recycled end-of-life tyres that go through a pyrolysis process that involves heating used tyres in a low-oxygen environment to break them down into reusable components, including carbon black, steel, and oil. However, Pirelli is not yet using recovered carbon black in bicycle tyres as it does not yet meet its performance requirements on durability, grip, and rolling efficiency standards. The Schwalbe Recycling System (which we’ll dig into in more detail in a bit) extracts carbon black from recycled bicycle tyres and tubes, although specific details on the volume or quality of the recovered carbon black and its exact applications within Schwalbe’s product line have not been widely disclosed.
Tyre manufacturers are also working on incorporating recycled nylon into the tyre casing. Using recycled nylon helps reduce waste and dependence on virgin materials without compromising tyre strength or flexibility. Pirelli is also replacing conventional plasticisers with bio-based alternatives, such as bio-resins made from plant seeds (e.g., sunflower or canola) or forest-based resins. Bio-circular polymers made from monomers derived from used cooking oils or tyre pyrolysis oil are being explored to create more sustainable and circular tyre production processes.
Dandelions could provide a better solution. Continental introduced the Taraxagum urban bicycle tyre in 2019, featuring natural rubber derived from the Russian dandelion (Taraxacum kok-saghyz). This plant, which grows in temperate climates and requires minimal maintenance, produces a high yield of natural rubber. By cultivating it closer to production facilities, Continental aims to prevent ongoing tropical deforestation and cut transportation emissions. While this rubber is now available in that commuter tyre, it has not yet seen widespread use on the performance side due to challenges in scalability, cost, and performance consistency.
Finally, tyre maker Bridgestone is experimenting with another alternative source of natural rubber called guayule, a hardy evergreen shrub that was first used for rubber in World War II but fell out of favour with the rise of synthetic rubber. Bridgestone has made automotive tyres with guayule rubber since 2015 and tests them in high-performance settings on the IndyCar circuit.
Why now?
It’s these new developments, and others we don’t yet know about, that might make Pirelli’s 80% sustainable tyre a possibility. But Goodyear and Michelin have gone a step further, with Goodyear targeting a 100% sustainable tyre by 2030 and Michelin aiming for 100% sustainability in 2050.
While that 2050 date seems a long way off, Michelin also plans to reach 40% sustainable materials across its product lines by 2030; in other words, a similar timeline to Pirelli’s 80% target. But the most crucial difference is that, where Pirelli and Goodyear are targeting a single automotive tyre (or line of tyres), Michelin’s targets are across all its tyres for all uses, and broader in scope.
Michelin’s 2050 targets also include achieving carbon neutrality across all operations, and it will transition to renewable energy in its factories and reduce CO₂ emissions in the tyre production process to achieve this. Pirelli also aims to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, as do Continental, Bridgestone, Goodyear, and Yokohama, all on the automotive side.
If you’re spotting an automotive and 2050 trend emerging you are not imagining it. Many tyre manufacturers – and companies across various industries – are targeting 2050 for net-zero emissions at least partially (read primarily) because this timeline aligns with international climate agreements and the long-term goals set by governments and regulatory bodies globally. Not least of those is the Paris Agreement, signed by nearly 200 countries in 2016 with a goal of limiting warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels; reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 is a primary means to achieve this.
Will these goals trickle down to bicycle tyres? That question is yet to be answered, but with the automotive tyre market dwarfing the bicycle side of the market, that is absolutely the right side to target first. Furthermore, if Pirelli’s introduction of FSC-certified rubber on automotive tyres three years ago is any indicator, then we could eventually see the same broader approach reach our bicycle tyres.
Pirelli makes some 74 million tyres annually across its automotive and bicycle range. That’s a lot of rubber, and so arguably, any move to more sustainable practices is long overdue. Why did it take so long, and why are they implementing these changes now?
Bressan explained that achieving FSC certification is far from a simple tick-boxing exercise and much more of a wholesale and complex change to how Pirelli operates and a continual process. “it takes years of investment and planning at the industrial level to be able to sell a product with the FSC logo,” Bressan said, explaining “the entire supply chain has to be set up and audited to meet the FSC requirements.”
However, natural rubber is only one component in a complex blend of ingredients that make up a tyre. Because Pirelli’s tyres bear the FSC Mix label, the same segregation of non-certified materials that applies throughout the supply chain must also be incorporated into Pirelli’s own manufacturing process and facility.
While there are FSC-certified tyres on the automotive side, currently, Pirelli’s high-performance P-Zero TLR and P-Zero TLR RS are the only FSC-certified bicycle tyres. This isn’t because sustainable tyres inherently perform better – though we’ll soon discuss the balance of performance and sustainability – but rather because, according to Bressan, Pirelli’s new cycling-specific Milan factory is the company’s first bike facility designed to be “FSC-ready” with segregation and tracking at every stage specifically for the purposes of achieving the FSC certification.
To its credit, Pirelli has achieved FSC certification; will other manufacturers follow suit? They may well be forced to with new EU rules set to roll out soon.
The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) is designed to prevent deforestation-linked goods, such as rubber used in tyres, from entering the EU market by forbidding materials for these products to come from land deforested after December 31, 2020. To prove compliance, companies must provide detailed traceability data with penalties for non-compliance reaching up to 4% of the company’s annual EU revenue.
Initially scheduled for implementation over an 18-month period beginning June 2023, the European Commission recently proposed delaying enforcement to December 2025 for large companies and June 2026 for smaller ones in response to requests for more time to meet stringent traceability and reporting standards from manufacturers. This delay aims to aid smooth compliance, though reactions are mixed, as some view it as compromising the EU’s Green Deal goals.
So is there an argument Pirelli’s FSC endeavours are simply in preparation for when EUDR does arrive? Not so according to Zanardo, who explained Pirelli were already working on integrating FSC-certified rubber for many years before its first FSC-certified automotive products were available on the market in 2021. Zanardo also claims that in some cases the FSC certification requirements are much higher than those the EUDR proposes. (The EUDR regime was first proposed in June 2020, less than a year before Pirelli introduced its FSC-certified P Zero automotive tyres.)
A question of demand
Then, finally, there is us: the market.
As important as the environment and sustainability are to me and influence many of my purchasing decisions and lifestyle choices; race day is one area I am certainly guilty of prioritising performance over sustainability. That’s not to say I am in any way perfect on non-race-days, but it’s a simple fact that for many of us performance is still a critical – often primary – requirement.
Pirelli could produce the most environmentally friendly tyre ever made, but if it doesn’t meet our performance demands … it won’t sell. Ultimately, Pirelli is a business, and if its sustainable product doesn’t sell, those products will simply cease to exist.
These realities mean a sustainability drive must be, according to Bressan, matched with “equal or better” performance.
Of course, “performance” means many things to many riders; for a commuter, high performance might mean zero punctures and good grip, while a time trialist might sacrifice puncture protection for decreased rolling resistance.
For the purposes of this article, let’s focus on road or drop bar performance. Any newcomer to this market segment has to balance all of the above: durability, rolling resistance, weight, and puncture protection. Simply ensuring the rubber used comes from FSC-certified and thus hopefully more sustainably managed forests shouldn’t alter the performance characteristics of that product, but it is a topic we’ll delve into in a bit as we explore the broader sustainability question for Pirelli. Nevertheless, Pirelli tells me ensuring compatibility between FSC-certified natural rubber and the other materials that go into a tyre without impacting performance is challenging.
Performance is one thing; communicating that performance and marketing in general is another. Critics argue certification logos like the FSC label may be used primarily as marketing tools rather than genuine commitments to sustainability by brands seeking ways to appeal to environmentally conscious consumers without making broader sustainability efforts.
There’s little doubt the inclusion of the FSC certification on its packaging enhances a brand’s environmental reputation, but according to Pirelli, its adoption of FSC-certified rubber is a genuine attempt to improve sustainability, even though it comes at a financial cost to the company. While the company is now eager to shout about its use of FSC-certified rubber, Bressan pointed to the much quieter rollout of FSC-certified P Zero tyres earlier this year as an indication of Pirelli genuine intentions, specifically mentioning its P Zero TLR range, which is fully FSC-certified but doesn’t yet carry the logo (Pirelli hasn’t yet updated the mould).
If there is one certainty it’s that implementing FSC certification increases costs at every step of the production pathway, which in turn presumably leads to increased prices at the checkout. Bressan acknowledged as much, stating “it’s not proving any financial benefit. It’s a cost.” That’s not to mention concerns from critics like Greenpeace that simply having the FSC logo on a forestry product carries a premium earlier in the supply chain passed on to the end user.
So are the increased prices on our shelves justified by the environmental benefits? Yes, according to both Pirelli and the FSC, who acknowledged that certification does increase the costs for tyre manufacturers, which could potentially be passed on to consumers, but argued that the benefits justify the higher prices.
The FSC’s Patel explained that while there may be a price premium on FSC-certified products, that premium goes back through the supply chain to the companies and foresters investing in sustainability. Although consumers may see a higher price, the price premium helps offset the costs of certification and supports these sustainable practices.
Pirelli’s Zanardo explained that the company believes consumers are increasingly demanding sustainable products and wants to be ready to meet those demands, but primarily the shift to FSC-certified rubber is “an ethical topic” and “a matter of innovation and sustainability.”
While it is all a step in the right direction, there’s no silver bullet here. It strikes me that like so much in this modern world, we can make tyres more sustainable and more environmentally friendly, but they are always likely to be a draw on the planet.
Tyre production is on the rise across all sectors. That growth creates additional demand for all the ingredients, including natural rubber, which in turn puts additional pressure on the land. But, as highlighted by Greenpeace, certifications such as FSC’s can mislead consumers “giving the impression that a certified product is ‘green’ and ‘sustainable,’ no matter how much of it is produced and consumed.”
As such, while combining these sustainable practices and materials in tyre production will be necessary for a meaningful impact, arguably the best thing any manufacturer could do for the environment is to target durability and thus decrease demand. At the risk of stating the obvious: more durable tyres that last twice as long get replaced half as often.
It’s this reality that has me reconsidering my own performance demands. High performance tyres are usually lighter, softer, and less durable than slower but longer-wearing tyres. As nice as it is to roll on the plushest of rubber, my training wouldn’t suffer from reserving those tyres for race day only. The sheer price of tyres probably has many of us already doing as much for fear of cutting a race-day tyre in training, but more and more of us are using our best tyres day in day out, especially with the introduction of tubeless in recent times making swaps more difficult.
Arguably the worst tyre for the environment is the tyre that cuts and fails on the first ride or two. It uses/consumes all the same environmental costs as any other tyre, but doesn’t then provide the service life to offset that cost.
Which gets us to the end-of-life issues. FSC-certification doesn’t tackle end-of-life disposal and currently bicycle tyres are challenging, at best, to recycle with limited programs specifically for bike tyres.
On the car tyre front, Pirelli already participates in programs where tyres are shredded and used for energy in cement kilns (yeah, cement – not exactly a beacon of light in the environmental discussion) or processed into materials for construction and other industries. In F1, Pirelli collects and ships used tyres to Britain for repurposing into materials for road surfaces, playgrounds, and sports facilities. These initiatives aim to reduce landfill waste and support a circular economy, though challenges remain in fully recycling tyres due to material complexity, and the company offers no such program for its cycling division or bike tyres.
Schwalbe does, though, with its Schwalbe Recycling System, a program focused on collecting and recycling used tyres and inner tubes. Partnering with dealers and shops, Schwalbe collects old tyres and tubes, which are then processed to recover materials like rubber and steel. This closed-loop system is claimed to reduce landfill waste and the environmental impact associated with tyre disposal, although it is currently only available in select countries in Europe.
Conclusion:
To no surprise of anyone who has made it this far, there is no simple conclusion. Tyres are complex and efforts to make them and the companies that produce them more sustainable and environmentally friendly are neither easy nor quick.
I think my initial reaction upon first hearing that Pirelli would offer an FSC-certified tyre was a shrug of some sort. Not that I don’t or didn’t care, but a shrug based on what I will call “label overload-induced scepticism.” In researching this article it became clear Pirelli could have taken easier routes if it simply wanted a sustainability-box-ticking label; the FSC isn’t perfect, but as even critics like Greenpeace allow, it’s the best in that space right now.
That said, I am far from convinced that Pirelli, a global company specialising in tyres for the automotive industry with a €6.6 billion turnover and some 31,000 employees does anything out of the goodness of its heart and its targets are mostly just inline with the rest of the industry.
I can’t help but feel some combination of the Paris Agreement, forthcoming EU Deforestation Regulations, and consumer sentiment forced a decision to look at sustainability options rather than it being an entirely ethical move to simply do the right thing … and that’s ok. The main thing is these actions happen. Whatever combination of motivations led to this, Pirelli is the first brand to produce an FSC-certified bicycle tyre – more than one, and in its high-performance road line at that – which is a significant achievement. What will set Pirelli apart is if it can build on and complement its FSC certification.
As for that initial question, would I buy a Pirelli because it’s FSC-certified? Again, the answer isn’t clear cut, but broadly speaking, yes. Like the FSC itself, it’s not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. FSC-certified rubber alone will not save the planet, but I am hopeful such moves make the entire industry better. Pirelli may be the first to produce an FSC-certified tyre, but others are making strides in other areas. The hope is these prove to be just early steps on each manufacturer’s long and winding path of right things that need done. The best we can hope for is that consumer demand, regulation, and corporate morality force these paths to merge somewhere up the road and these currently individual efforts combine for the most meaningful of impacts.
Did we do a good job with this story?