A couple of weeks ago, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) released a report titled Sustainable Packaging, Myth or Reality. It seems, however, the report doesn’t really debate the myth or reality question, but jumps right to the conclusion that “sustainable packaging is dead” and is being replaced by “efficient packaging.” How fortunate that would be for the “business as usual” crowd if it were true. But, having worked in the sustainability field for 20 years with a good deal of focus on sustainability in packaging for the past five years, I think PwC got it wrong.
I’ll concede that sustainable packaging doesn’t exist today, but the pursuit of sustainable packaging is alive and well, and we’ve already witnessed tremendous strides towards sustainability in the packaging community. Examples include: The Coca Cola Company’s plant bottle, Dell’s elimination of polystyrene dunnage via the use of mushroom and bamboo cradles, Seventh Generation’s redesigned fiber bottle, Puma’s reusable cloth shoe bag vs. traditional paperboard box, not to mention the dozens and dozens of “right-weighted” packaging examples like Nestlé Waters “lightest waterbottle in the UK” and increasing examples of high recycled content packaging including Aveda’s 100 percent HDPE cosmetic bottles and 80–100 percent co-polyester cosmetic jars, Earthbound Farms’ 100 percent PET clamshell, and McCormick Distilling Company’s 100 percent PET vodka bottle, just to cite a few. So, Kudos to Andrew Speck, of the iconic sustainability leadership company Marks & Spencer, who politely disagreed with the notion that sustainable packaging is dead when he commented in an article about the report saying, “Under Plan A we’ve made significant progress in making our packaging more sustainable, but we’re not complacent and know the bigger challenges to make a truly sustainable packaging supply chain a reality still lie ahead.”
That also seems to be the belief held by the roughly 200 member companies of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC), which actually defined sustainable packaging back in 2005 (see the SPC’s Definition of Sustainable Packaging for more details), debunking the assertion PwC put forth that “the idea that anyone can come up with a single meaningful definition of sustainable packaging is proving to be a red herring.” For the record, no one from PwC contacted any staff members of the SPC while conducting background research for this report.
The study goes on to say that some packaging professionals are celebrating the “death of sustainable packaging,” suggesting that a more balanced view of packaging may rise from the ashes. This suggests a lack of awareness or understanding about the SPC Definition, because it is nothing if not balanced. The definition defines eight key criteria that address the full life cycle and supply chain of packaging, including:
1) performance and cost
2) benefit to individuals and communities
3) responsible material sourcing
4) optimization of renewable and recycled materials
5) optimization of energy resources and use of renewable energy
6) elimination of toxics in packaging
7) clean (lean and green) production and transport
8) material recovery.
Moreover, the SPC definition does not attribute greater weight to any one criterion over another, providing, as was intended by the stakeholders who helped author the definition, a truly balanced vision for sustainable packaging.
The PwC report equates “balance” with “efficiency.” Yet, while efficiency is certainly important, even as broadly defined as in the PwC report, it does not equate to a truly balanced perspective. Judge for yourself: Efficient packaging, according to PwC, means “Taking into account efficiencies that can be made during the entire life cycle of the product, including a packaging solution that uses the minimum amount of resources, produces the minimum amount of waste, while also protecting the product. And beyond that transport and display efficiency, and what happens after the product is used is also taken into account.” That explanation of efficiency covers five aspects of the SPC definition, but it fails to address four criteria that are essential to sustainability: benefit to consumers and communities, elimination of toxics and other materials of concern, responsible material sourcing, and opportunities to optimize the use of renewable energy sources. That is to say, PwC’s interpretation of efficient packaging focuses on driving economic gains and therefore represents business as usual. But it stops there. What about protecting consumers and the ecosystems that yield the resources required to sustain our entire socioeconomic system?
Are PwC and the packaging industry leaders and professionals who are praising this report really advocating for a least common denominator approach for improving packaging? What do you think?
Month: July 2012
Check out this adorable video of Kids’ Science Challenge Zero Waste winner Joshua Yi bringing his fun packaging idea to life with the help of SPC members Steve Mahler of Caraustar Industries Inc. and Laura Tufariello of Design and Source Productions:
The first year-long Charlottesville Better Business Challenge has officially come to an end. This year’s competition included 107 Charlottesville-area organizations competing in six categories: Waste Reduction, Water, Transportation, Energy, Purchasing, and Leadership. Organizations earning 150 points or more were eligible for the Winner’s Circle. GreenBlue finished in the Winner’s Circle, in addition to being nominated for awards in the categories for Kilowatt Crackdown, Biggest Loser, Green Leader, Top Innovator, and Overall Champion among medium-size organizations. We were, in fact, the only business to be nominated for an award in every category.
On June 21, the Challenge hosted an awards ceremony where everyone walked the “green carpet” at the Paramount Theater here in downtown Charlottesville. Several local area restaurants and wineries donated wonderful food and drinks for the event. I am very proud to announce that at the awards ceremony, GreenBlue won two awards: Kilowatt Crackdown and Biggest Loser (waste reduction).
In most cases being considered the Biggest Loser would not be cause for celebration. However, in this case we are thrilled to have won in this category. This title means our organization had the greatest reduction in waste generated in the office among all participating businesses. We accomplished this by increasing our composting and recycling efforts, and in total we were able to reduce our waste by 40%.
We strive to recycle as many products as we can as an office. Our current recycling initiatives cover not only the usual paper/cardboard, plastics, glass, and metals, but also CFL bulbs, batteries, ink and toner cartridges, electronics, and plastic bags. We have taken electronics and other products to our local Best Buy for recycling and have used Freecycle to find homes for no longer needed items. We’ve bartered items on Craigslist and offered unused lanyards and nametags to a local Girl Scout council. We’ve found that most things can be reused in some manner, it’s just a matter of finding the right place. Although this sometimes can take a bit of research to find the appropriate location, it is definitely worth the effort.
We also started a partnership with the C&O Restaurant to compost our organic waste together. Some of our food waste is taken home to feed a staffer’s chickens, and at times they can be some mighty well fed birds! The remainder of our food products, compostable packaging, and paper towels are now collected and combined with the food waste from the restaurant. We are very appreciative that the C&O houses the large compost collection can and agreed to share the cost with us. We believe this type of partnership could benefit other organizations and restaurants in the community and we actively encourage other local businesses to seek out similar opportunities.
Black Bear Composting recycles our compostable material into products for healthy soil. Once the organics have finished composting, the end product–finished compost–has several benefits:
- Returns nutrients to soil: nutrients derived from the soil in the form of vegetation are returned to the soil to restart the growing cycle
- Revitalizes soil: compost also provides structural and biological benefits to soil that improves soil health
- Reduces chemical needs: soil-amended with compost reduces the need for chemical fertilizing and pest control
- Retains water: compost enhances water absorption of soil, which reduces irrigation needs.
We would like to offer our congratulations to all organizations that participated in the Challenge and a heartfelt Thank You to the Challenge organizers and sponsors that worked so diligently during the past year. For more information on the awards and photos of the awards ceremony, please visit the Better Business Challenge website. You may also want to check out the media coverage sponsored this year by Earless Rabbit. Although sustainability can be challenging to implement, we are proud to have participated in this year’s Better Business Challenge and do our part in ensuring a healthy future for our planet and the next generations.
When we hear about responsible sourcing in the context of sustainable packaging, it’s usually an advocacy for using either renewable resources from well-managed sources, or non-renewable resources from the recycling stream instead of virgin sources. This broad guidance certainly covers the major considerations of responsible sourcing, but an upcoming U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission vote led me to believe that there are greater dimensions for us to consider.
The vote applies to a provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that would require companies to disclose their usage of conflict minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo and the surrounding region. There are four basic minerals of concern: gold, wolframite (source of tungsten), columbite-tantalie (source of the element tantalum), and cassiterite, which is the most important source of tin. Most of the scrutiny around these minerals occurs with makers of electronics, and at first glance there’s not much of a connection to packaging. My thinking was “definitely no gold in packaging, can’t imagine there’s any tungsten, no clue what tantalum is, and tin might only show up in small amounts in tin cans (which are made almost entirely from steel, in case you didn’t know).” Yet, life cycle inventory data always reveals a host of materials that one wouldn’t normally associate with the major packaging materials, and sure enough, there’s a measurable amount of tin used to make most kinds of packaging.
Organic compounds containing tin can be used as catalysts, stabilizers, or polymerization aids to make plastics. Tin is an alloying element in aluminum. Glass containers have a coating of a tin-bearing compound. And yes, tin cans are indeed coated with tin. On a kilogram-by-kilogram basis, it’s actually glass containers that use the most tin. Second place? Recycled folding boxboard. Of all the materials, I have no clue how tin factors into making recycled folding boxboard – if you know, fill me in, please.
Even so, the amount of tin used is relatively tiny. Using the example of glass containers, a rough calculation tells me that about 52 kilograms of tin were used in all the container glass produced in 2010 – that’s 52 kilograms of tin to make 8.5 billion kilograms of container glass. 52 kilograms of tin? That’s not much. To put that in perspective, Wikipedia tells us that almost 300 million kilograms of tin were produced in 2006.
Wikipedia also tells us that somewhere around 80-90% of the world’s tin is produced in China and Indonesia. So what are the chances that the tin used in packaging comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where it is alleged that the sale of minerals goes to funding the conflict there? Probably pretty low. Nonetheless, it seems quite plausible that somewhere in someone’s packaging supply chain, there’s at least a miniscule occurrence of conflict tin. Addressing our usage of tin in packaging probably ought not to be high on our list of ways to make packaging more sustainable, but it’s something to keep in mind.
My takeaway is this: there is an absolute plethora of materials that go into making packaging. If we want packaging to be truly sustainable, we have to examine every input. We can’t overgeneralize packaging and improve our usage of only the biggest raw materials. Things like tin, however small our usage is, can’t be ignored, especially when lives may hinge on it.
Be sure to check out this great article in Triple Pundit if you’d like to learn more about conflict minerals.
This article by GreenBlue Project Associate Danielle Peacock appeared in this month’s issue of Packaging Digest, which features a monthly column by GreenBlue staff on packaging sustainability. Read the original article.
In May 2012, GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) announced that five new companies joined the soft launch of the How2Recycle Label, a voluntary recycling labeling system developed by the SPC to provide clear recycling information to consumers, while conforming to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “Green Guides.”
SPC members General Mills (Yoplait), Esteé Lauder Companies (Aveda) and Sealed Air, as well as additional participants BJ’s Wholesale Club and manufacturer Ampac, have joined the soft launch. These companies join SPC members ConAgra Foods, Costco Wholesale, Microsoft, REI and Seventh Generation in introducing the label over the course of the soft launch, which will last through early 2013. May’s announcement also included endorsements by the state of North Carolina, New York City’s Department of Sanitation, StopWaste.Org (Alameda County, CA) and Keep America Beautiful.
Companies using the How2Recycle Label have shown leadership in advancing recycling initiatives, are willing to demonstrate transparency to consumers and eventually will contribute to cleaner recycling streams. Feedback and consumer testing show that consumers value this transparency and will still purchase a product that includes the “Not Yet Recycled” version of the label.
Consumers are faced with an array of labels in the market that are often misleading or incomplete. According to Ecolabel Index, there are more than 430 different eco-labels currently available globally. Despite this confusion, consumers still want to see on-package instructions for recycling. A study by Mintel shows that consumers are more interested in seeing recycling information than fat, sugar and calorie content on packaging.
A nationwide recycling label must account for regional variations in recycling programs while considering the nationwide (and in many cases, global) nature of product distribution. The result for the How2Recycle Label was the creation of a tiered labeling system and a corresponding website (www.how2recycle.info), guiding consumer action.
If an item is in the “Widely Recycled” category, more than 60 percent of the U.S. population has access to recycling for that package. If an item is labeled “Check Locally,” between 20 and 60 percent of the U.S. population has access to recycling for that package. Any item that can only be recycled by less than 20 percent of the U.S. population is in the “Not Yet Recycled” label category.
Consumer testing also shows that all versions of the How2Recycle Label stimulate interest in recycling. We look forward to seeing how these research findings play out in the marketplace.
When the “Check Locally” version of the label is used, our goal is to direct consumers to action with the www.how2recycle.info website, which helps consumers become familiar with their local options.
The How2Recycle Label will not solve all recycling problems, but it is an important piece of the puzzle. To move recycling forward, we must improve infrastructure, develop recycling markets, encourage and increase the use of recycled content, and continue to educate and combat cynicism. Feedback in this phase of the How2Recycle soft launch has been overwhelmingly positive, and we look forward to further stakeholder engagement and consumer feedback as we look towards widespread implementation in 2013.
President & CEO Lance Hosey recently delivered a keynote address at the Sustainable Brands 2012 conference on his latest book, The Shape of Green, which was released this past June. In his keynote, Lance makes the case for why beauty is inherent to sustainability and outlines core principles for the aesthetics of sustainable design. You can check out the presentation in its entirety below:
The original version of this video is available on the Sustainable Brands website.
Making packaging more sustainable is not an easy task. The sustainability of any given package is the result of a complex series of interactions—between retailers and brand owners, converters and raw material suppliers, waste management companies and consumers—and more sustainable packaging can only be realized if sustainability considerations are deeply embedded across the entire supply chain. Packaging World
Categories
Top Five Fun Facts: July
Eric DesRoberts continues his monthly series of facts and tidbits he’s uncovered during his research to better understand products and packaging. You can also check out his past Fun Facts here.
1. The average vehicle is immobile roughly 95% of the time. This requires about 600 million parking spots worldwide, which is an issue addressed in Eran Ben-Joseph’s book Rethinking a Lot.
2. Some 98% of conventional apples have detectable levels of pesticides. This is some of the latest information observed in the Environmental Working Group’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce.
3. Hydroelectricity accounted for roughly 16% of global electricity generation in 2011. Hydropower has been steadily increasing over the last four decades and produced 3.5 trillion kWh of electricity last year. The average US home uses about 11,500 kWh of electricity annually.
4. Americans consume an estimated 20 billion hot dogs a year. Independence Day accounts for about 150 million of these.
5. In 2010, fireworks caused an estimated 15,500 reported fires, eight reported civilian deaths, and roughly $36 million in direct property damage. There are additional concerns associated with potential exposure to the chemicals and toxins used to create these awe inspiring explosions. Happy 4th of July!
In May 2012, GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) announced that five new companies joined the soft launch of the How2Recycle Label, a voluntary recycling labeling system developed by the SPC to provide clear recycling information to consumers, while conforming to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “Green Guides.” Packaging Digest
At May 2012 Sustainable Cosmetics Summit in New York, CEOs from various natural and organic cosmetic and personal care companies said one big issue with eco-friendly packaging is it’s not attractive. Apparently these CEOs are not the only ones who think green products need a face lift. GreenBlue’s CEO, Lance Hosey, also agrees that sustainable products (across the green gamut, not just packaging) needs some style. Inside Cosmeceuticals
