This spring, Evan Bruner joins the GreenBlue team as a Project Associate focused on the Forest Products Working Group and the Environmental Paper Assessment Tool (EPAT). Learn more about Evan in the interview below.
Tell us about your background:
I grew up in Anacortes, Washington on the San Juan Islands in the Pacific Northwest. Being born in such a beautiful area, I was drawn to the outdoors from the days of my early childhood. From hiking in the Cascades to swimming in the Pacific, to this day I can say with conviction I was raised in one of the most beautiful places in our country. Eager to gain knowledge and experience the world, after obtaining my BA from The Evergreen State College in environmental studies, I took advantage of my mother’s French citizenship and moved to the Netherlands. Spending the past three years abroad, I have had the amazing opportunity to grow professionally and academically. Having recently relocated back to the US to be closer to family and nature, I am eager to start the next chapter of life with my new position at GreenBlue!
What inspired you to work in the sustainability field?
As a citizen of the United States and environmental advocate by nature, I’ve grown up standing by as our nation consumes the world’s resources at an astronomical rate with little or no regard for current or future generations. At the same time, we’re the richest nation in the world and we have some of the greatest opportunities of anyone on the planet. Knowing these facts, it is not only impossible, but arguably irresponsible if we do not act. I simply can’t stand by as we slowly self-destruct, rather I aim to make a difference and foster sustainability.
What do you hope to achieve at GreenBlue?
Impact! I want to make an impact by bringing together stakeholders from all sectors to collaborate for sustainable innovation. People want to act, they often just don’t know how or need the motivation, I want to provide the how and be the motivation.
What is the one thing you would like people to know that you do in your personal life to further sustainability?
Currently, I am fascinated by the sustainable seafood space. I’m trying to learn more about this space so that not only I can eat sustainable seafood, but I can help others as well!
For two and a half days, professionals from across the sustainable packaging value chain, as well as academia, and government officials met at SustPack 2016 to discuss the most pressing sustainable packaging issues. SustPack 2016 hosted over 430 delegates, a significant increase from last year’s conference, which was the first collaboration between the Sustainable Packaging Coalition and Smithers Pira. Browse through our SustPack 2016 photo gallery SustPack was held at McCormick Place, Chicago from April 11-13th. Chicago was the perfect setting for a conference that acknowledges the challenges of the present, but looks to a brighter future through collaboration and innovation. SustPack brings together many key players across the packaging value chain, from manufacturers to brands and MRFs to discuss the details of their businesses and how to create a more sustainable future. This year’s agenda was the biggest to date. Over 50 presenters spoke about some of the issues at the forefront of sustainable packaging. The focus on ‘Business Made Sustainable’ led to a lot of interesting discussions on how different brands integrated sustainability into the core of their business. Representatives from leading brands such as Target, SC Johnson, Mars, Ikea, Wegmans, Mars, Nestle USA, Keurig Green Mountain and many more were in attendance. A few of the major themes that came out of this year’s conference were recycling, exciting design innovations, how to promote composting, flexible packaging, and the circular economy. Attendees can browse through what others were saying in Chicago by using #SustPack16 on Twitter. In addition to the presentations, networking and breakout sessions, SustPack 2016 offered attendees interactive workshops focused on building your brand’s sustainable promise and strengthening brand trust with consumers; disruptive design method for sustainable innovation and social change; and our popular Essentials of Sustainable Packaging Course. Attendees also were given exclusive behind-the-scenes tours at some of Chicago’s most sustainable businesses, such as the Method Soap Factory, Goose Island Brewery, and more. We would like to thank everybody who attended SustPack and helped make this the most successful conference yet! We look forward to seeing SPC members at SPC Advance in Portland, Oregon on September 19-21 and we look forward to seeing everyone at SustPack 2017!
Spring has sprung in GreenBlue’s hometown of Charlottesville, Virginia (also the home of Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello) and with the warmer weather comes a lot of exciting events for our staff members. What We’re Hosting
April 11-13th – SustPack 2016. Co-hosted with Smithers Pira, SustPack will bring together over 400 delegates to tackle the most pressing sustainable packaging issues happening right now.
April 26th- Public Webinar: Outcomes of the 2016 Woodland Owner & Brand Owner Summit. Join GreenBlue and the American Forest Foundation for a roundup of the most important themes discussed at our recent forest summit. Hosted by Senior Manager of Forest Products, Tom Pollock.
April 29th- Public Webinar: Introduction to EPAT 3.0. Learn more about our newly launched Environmental Paper Assessment Tool. Senior Manager of Forest Products Tom Pollock will be presenting.
Springtime in GreenBlue’s hometown of Charlottesville, Virginia, also the home of Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello. Where We’ll Be
Sundays in April through December- Charlottesville City Market. GreenBlue will be running the city’s composting program for the second year in a row. GreenBlue staff members Anne Bedarf, Tesia Moore, and Charlotte Dreizen will be helping run our recycling and composting efforts.
April 15th – GreenBlue and SPC Director Nina Goodrich will be speaking at the Tom Tom Founders Festival in Charlottesville, Va during the Environmental Entrepreneurs lunch.
April 20th – GreenBlue Senior Manager Anne Bedarf will be speaking at Dow’s Earth Day event as well as touring their plant in Freeport, Texas.
April 25-27 – GreenBlue and SPC Director Nina Goodrich will be speaking at ReFocus, the Recycling Summit & Expo in Orlando, Florida.
April 20th- The University of Virginia Earth Week Expo. Communications Coordinator Anne Elsea will be speaking with students about how they can become more sustainable.
April 27th- Project Manager Kelly Cramer will be attending Flexapalooza, a specialized training session in South Carolina.
Robert Brown looks over the valley of hardwoods and pine trees that five generations of his family have planted and harvested before him. He points out the multi-million dollar homes that sit on the ridge that backs up to his property. Those houses will probably put him out of business one day, he says. There is a popular vacation destination just over the ridge and those houses are driving up his property taxes. As real estate taxes grow with the influx of higher property values around him, Robert worries that he will be unable to keep his land. Development expanding in the region is not the only challenge he faces as a young woodland owner who is trying to continue the family legacy of managing more than 500 acres of forest land. While some crops such as corn are harvested and regrown annually, trees in the Southeast often take 15 to 30 years to become ready for harvest. Once trees are ready for harvest, finding mills that will buy his timber and pulp at a competitive rate is challenging. Prices for wood and pulp are low, and even if he can nurture and maintain a tree from seedling to fully-grown, environmental factors such as ice storms and hurricanes can wipe out his crop overnight. New tree seedlings are sprouting
One of the biggest concerns family woodland owners shared at the recent Woodland Owners and Brand Owner Summit, hosted by the American Forest Foundation and the Forest Products Working Group, was their concern for the future of the land when the cost of managing it is so high, and the market return is so low. This was exacerbated for landowners that have longstanding family and emotional ties to the land and hope to pass it along, but their children have live away from woods and may not value it in the same way.
“We have concerns about the future of our tree farm. Will our kids be able to inherit a tree farm that they can pass along?” questioned one landowner.
One landowner brought her middle-school aged daughter to the Summit. She wanted for them to learn about sustainable forest management alongside each other, she said. Another landowner talked about the need to educate students about the importance of forests in school. One landowner joked that the younger generations care more about getting a new car than taking over a forest farm.
“I don’t have a crystal ball. I have strong ties to the land because of my parents and I want to see it forward to the next generation, but lives change and I don’t know what the future holds,” said another landowner.
Landowners also expressed concerns about hurricanes, and wildfire, as well as invasive species and insects as a threat to the longevity of their woodlands.
Brand Owners at the event (McDonald’s, Mars,Time Inc, Staples, Havi Global Solutions, andMacmillan Publishing) similarly expressed a desire to ensure the future of the forests that would provide a sustainable source of wood and pulp for their business.
If landowners are unable to keep hold onto their land or keep that land as forests, it may affect the availability of not only the availability of domestic wood supplying supply chains but also the supply of other benefits, like clean water and wildlife habitat for Americans.
“One of our sustainability drivers is making sure we have our supply chains lined up for the long term,” stated one brand owner.
Many of the brand owners at the event represented the sustainability or packaging departments of their respective companies. They cited the fact that domestically-sourced wood from the Southeast was not only environmentally friendly because it won’t have to travel as much to the manufacturer, but also that it was the best quality of wood products of anywhere.
Brand owners also expressed gratitude toward the family woodland owners for sharing their stories because they can leave knowing that they know that they are supporting the legacy of family woodland owners with their purchasing decisions. Together they discussed ways in which they can more broadly share these stories with the public, in order to provide assurance that our forest caretakers are taking the necessary steps for the future.
“I’m hearing conversations about not just years as longevity, but generations. It’s an emotional issue and I get that now,” said one brand owner.
The SPC Executive Committee serves as an advisory group to The Sustainable Packaging Coalition. The EC’s role is to provide advice, act as ambassadors for SPC/GreenBlue, and make recommendations on issues related to the SPC, including its goals, strategies, and projects.
We interviewed our three new Executive Committee members, Liza Blackwell (Nike), Kim Carswell (Target), and Chris Davidson (WestRock) to learn more about them and what they hope to accomplish while serving on the SPC Executive Committee.
I grew up in both England and Jamaica and I was very interested in fishing so I spent a lot of time outside. I went to high school in Jamaica and as I got closer to graduation, I realized I wanted to do something other than, what was in my mind, the typical career path. I was introduced to forestry at a local career fair; they handed out a pamphlet that described different careers, one of which was forestry. That led to me getting a summer job with the Forestry Department, and that experience is what really finalized it for me in terms of deciding I want to become a forester”.
Q: And, from there, how did you get involved in the pulp and paper industry?
I actually started out with plans to work in the industry once I graduated. However, as I got closer to the graduation date for my bachelor’s degree I made the decision to just continue on and go straight into a masters program. At that point I wanted to become an educator, a professor. But my plan was to first go out and get some actual industry experience, then go back, get my PhD and teach. After I finished my masters, I worked in Florida as a land management forester for about 3 years before heading to Virginia Tech to work on my PhD. But I did it in a non-traditional way, working as a research associate full-time and working on my degree part-time, so it took me about 6 years. When I finished I was offered two industry positions and a teaching position at a smaller university. The university was focused on teaching and I really wanted to work at a research institution, so I told myself ‘I’ll just work for a few more years and get some more industry experience, then I’ll and come back to academia’, but as you can see, I’ve stayed in the industry, and it’s been a great decision for me.
Q: Where do you see the most opportunity for sustainability in the private sector? For sustainable packaging?
From a business perspective, there’s more opportunity because brand owners are becoming more educated about sustainability. There’s a greater willingness to partner and work with companies now. You see partnerships today that you would have never seen 10 years ago – forest industry working with brand owners and NGOs on issues that in the past, they were on opposite ends of the spectrum. I think there’s a recognition today that there’s greater opportunity, and greater benefits, if companies, brand owners and other stakeholders work together to try to solve problems, whether it’s on the raw material side or dealing with social issues around sustainability.
Q: What has drove WestRock to join SPC? And what in particular inspired you to run for the SPC Executive Committee?
We are a global packaging company and we make many different types of packaging. The majority of it is wood fiber-based packaging but a part of our business is making plastic caps, closures, and triggers. We are also packaging designers, we make partitions and displays, and we have a recycling business.
We know that the SPC is a well-regarded organization, and it’s a great opportunity to learn about what’s happening in the packaging space globally. Our vision is to be the premier partner and unrivaled provided of paper and packaging solutions globally. That means we need to understand exactly what our customers want, what consumers think about packaging, and potentially, what’s on the horizon. For us, working with an organization like the SPC helps us in each of those areas, it’s as simple as that. I consider myself to be a neophyte on the EC in terms of my packaging experience but I think I bring a lot to the table in terms of my industry experience regarding the raw materials that are used in much of packaging today. I really wanted to be able to develop a greater understanding of the packaging space as well as to continue to help the SPC develop projects and programs that the members find useful.
Q: What would you like to achieve during your time on the EC?
If there were one thing that I would like to be instrumental in achieving during my time on the EC, it would be broadening the understanding of what sustainable packaging means. And by that I mean if you were to go out today and go to a supermarket and ask 10 different people what sustainable packaging means to them, you would probably get 10 very different answers. Much of our packaging is wood-fiber based and there’s a lack of understanding of the benefits of using this particular resource for packaging. I’d like to think that I could potentially help SPC broaden that understanding, not only among the membership base amongst brand owners and consumers as well.
Q: What SPC product are you most excited about?
Well there are a couple, I think the foodservice ILC, obviously forest certification interests me, and then the How2Recycle Label. Working for a company with a recycling business, it’s very clear that one of the limitations to recycling is getting people to put the right thing in the right box, so the How2Recycle label and potentially the How2Compost label is very exciting as well.
“Zero Waste.” Not too long ago that phrase seemed a lofty and unattainable idea. And yet, today many companies are increasingly finding success in diverting waste from landfills and finding the best and most efficient use for the resources. Companies publicly committing to zero waste are, in fact, becoming quite commonplace.
As companies like Toyota, Unilever, and Hershey reach their goal of sending zero waste to a landfill, it’s very likely they will begin to expect the same from upstream suppliers. In fact, as a brand owner or processor, you might have the same goals and expectations of your supply chain. Recognizing that responsibly managing material in the manufacturing phase is an increasing priority for industry, SPI launched the Zero Net Waste Program after an 18-month development process.
This program is a groundbreaking recognition program and tool that helps members decrease the impact of waste in manufacturing by evaluating waste-reducing opportunities and maximizing diversion from landfill. The ZNW program provides plastics companies a concrete set of resources they can use to pursue, and achieve, zero net waste in their facilities and offices. It also recognizes participants for these achievements once facilities demonstrate their progress.
The idea of the program came from the SPI Recycling Committee’s Emerging Trends Subcommittee, chaired by Kathy Xuan, CEO of PARC Corp, and was developed by a broad stakeholder workgroup of SPI members.
“As chair of the subcommittee and a recycler who provides zero landfill services, we feel this program will be instrumental in providing tools and resources to accelerate the industry’s pursuit of zero waste,” said Xuan. Why Zero Net Waste? People will notice that SPI’s program didn’t just adopt the phrase “Zero Waste” to define the program. The phrase “zero waste”, in its purest interpretation, does not allow for diversion through energy recovery. While SPI recognizes energy recovery as a valuable solid waste management tool, we believe that energy recovery should only be used as an end-of-life management strategy for materials that cannot be mechanically recycled. For materials that cannot be mechanically recycled, we believe that responsibly recovering value through energy is the second best end-of-life management option. The SPI workgroup felt that the term “Zero Net Waste” was a better embodiment of the widely accepted “reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover” waste management hierarchy. Guiding Members to Success
The cornerstone of the Zero Net Waste program is the manual, which includes real world, step-by-step tools and resources for companies throughout the plastics value chain to ensure that plastic materials and other byproducts of manufacturing are put to their highest and best use. From building the business case for pursuing zero net waste, to educating employees and offering practical guidance on finding the right service providers, the ZNW program manual is designed to enable companies of all sizes to take immediate steps to begin pursuing zero waste in their facilities.
Companies who participate in the program, and meet requirements of the two-step qualification and verification process will be recognized for their efforts and are allowed to use the Zero Net Waste logo. For those companies that go on to pursue third-party certification for their landfill reduction achievements, embarking on this program will align them for success in eventual certification.
“The Zero Net Waste Program isn’t just for companies looking for zero waste certification,” said Robert Flores, director of sustainability for Berry Plastics. “The accompanying manual is applicable to a wide variety of companies and provides the basics for how get started, as well as how to enhance existing programs that a company already may have in place.” The Benefits of Zero Net Waste
There are a host of benefits that companies can enjoy from their zero net waste activities, both environmental and economic. On the environmental side, companies who reduce what they send to landfill are reducing their operational footprint. They are also being good community members by helping to extend the life of the landfill. The process of citing a new landfill once the old one reaches capacity can be an arduous process. Many communities emphasize the importance of recycling as a tool to extend the life of landfills. Through maximum diversion, our members can help communities achieve this.
The economic benefits of zero net waste can also be numerous. Many companies have not only found success dramatically cutting their garbage and landfill costs, but in some cases, are generating revenue from the sale of scrap materials. Other companies are using their landfill diversion success as a green marketing opportunity and market differentiator. This can translate to strengthening customer relationships and generating new business. In addition, companies that make sustainability initiatives a priority report higher, on average, levels of employee satisfaction and retention. People like working for companies that they feel are good stewards of their communities and the environment. This is a particular priority for millennials entering the workforce today. The Right Direction For the Plastics Industry
Lastly, zero net waste efforts fit in with larger waste management goals nationally and globally. Calls for meaningful change in the way our industry manages our products throughout their life cycle have been building, reaching a crescendo recently at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos earlier this year. During that meeting, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation released the report “The New Plastics Economy – Rethinking the Future of Plastics”, which contended that by 2050, the world’s oceans will have more plastic than fish, by weight. The report calls for “a shared sense of direction, to spark a wave of innovation and to move the plastics value chain into a positive spiral of value capture, stronger economics, and better environmental outcomes.”
This move toward a circular economy and sustainable material management (SMM) thinking is very much in line with SPI values and the reason why SPI has developed the ZNW program.
“These are values being driven by many of the major brand owners in our industry today,” notes Nina Goodrich, Executive Director of GreenBlue. “GreenBlue and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition support SPI’s Zero Net Waste Program. Providing companies the tools and resources to demonstrate leadership in landfill diversion is an important step toward reducing carbon emissions and developing a circular economy.”
While the immediate goal of the program is to drive the plastics industry toward maximizing diversion of resources into the proper recovery channels, it is our larger goal to challenge the supply chain to think more broadly about the disposition of all plastic products, from production all the way through end-of-life. Furthermore, this program seeks to strengthen the link between the makers of plastic products and recyclers, which we believe can lead to more conversations about using recycled plastics, not just recovery of scrap plastics. SPI believes the ZNW program can be a vehicle for further strengthening the role of recycling as a pillar of the plastics industry.
To learn more about the Zero Net Waste program, please visit www.plasticsindustry.org/znw.
This past week GreenBlue’s Forest Products Working Group, and the American Forest Foundation (AFF) hosted a successful, first-of-its kind summit, Woodland Owner and Brand Owner: Opening a Dialogue about Sustainable Forestrythat brought together a diverse set of America’s family forest owners and several well-known marketplace brands, including Mars, Incorporated; McDonald’s USA; Time, Inc; McMillian Publishing; and Staples. The event truly achieved its goal, and opened up dialogue between the two groups about their respective values and challenges relative to sustainable forest management and how they might work together to meet their goals. Family landowners make up the largest ownership group in the United States, collectively owning more than one-third of forests in the country, more than the federal government or corporations. These forest lands belong to 22 million individuals, whom all have unique motivations and reasons for owning land. These family lands are a key source for wood fiber that flows into supply chains that later become coffee cups, paper, candy packaging, and much more. Nationally, the US Forest Service (USFS) estimates 47 percent of all timber removed from forests in the US comes from family lands. In the South, specifically, 51 percent of wood removed from forests and supplying companies comes from family-owned land.
The Forest Products Working Group, last fall, initiated a partnership with AFF, the leading conservation nonprofit in ensuring we have sustainable wood supplies, clean water, and wildlife habitat come from family-owned woodlands. The partnership focuses its work in promoting constructive and transparent dialogue across the forest products supply chain to address shared sustainability challenges and opportunities.
The Summit, which was held in Chattanooga, TN, opened up honest and thoughtful discussions between both ends of the supply chain. To kick off the Summit, woodland owners described why they each owned land, noting family legacy, income, and a love of nature. Responding to questions from brand owners, they also described challenges they face such as insects and disease, natural disasters like wildfire and hurricanes, high management and property costs, and declining markets. Concerns about trust, and the future of the land as it is passed on to future generations were voiced as well.
“I finally feel like I have a seat at the table,” stated one landowner from Georgia. “I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this event and to collaborate on how we can work together.”
Brand owners, in return, shared their distinct company goals, with many encompassing common threads.
Reducing their companies’ environmental footprint was very important, as companies want to be able to provide goods and services, without unintended consequences, or social and environmental impacts. Brand owners also shared a desire to have more visibility into their supply chains to better understand where the fiber is coming from, reduce risks and to be more inclusive of family woodland owners in their sustainability planning process. And brand owners described a desire to build trust with their customers and demonstrate the sustainability of their suppliers and the complex network of indirect suppliers that help them source their materials.
“Its important to my company to know that our supply chain is reducing its impact,” said one brand owner. “We loved hearing directly from landowners, very interesting and insightful.”
Emerging from this session were three key themes: building and maintaining trust, ensuring the long term or future of forests and its sustainable fiber supplies and building new markets – all of which were further explored in roundtable discussions.
Trust, brand owners stated, is vital to developing relationships with their customers, who want to know their products come from sustainable sources. “We use certification now as a tool to demonstrate sustainable and create trust, because it’s the only tool we have, but it does not always satisfy our needs,” said one brand owner.
Land owners described how they conversely desire to feel trusted. “We have been doing good management for years, because it’s in our best interest and we want to leave the land better than we found it.”
Both brand owners and land owners spoke about their desire to ensure the future of the forests and the wood supply that comes from it, particularly in the Southeast. One brand owner said, “we get nearly 95% of our wood supply from the Southeast. There’s less risk sourcing from there and it logistically makes sense. We want to help make sure this supply is available in the future.”
“My landhas been in my family for five generations,”stated a landowner from Tennessee. “I have had to deal with some challenges based on what future generations did, so I want to make sure that my children don’t inherit these issues as well.”
Thinking of the future, opportunities for new markets were discussed in detail as well. “What will happen to that resource [forests] if there isn’t demand for it?”stated a brand owner. “A little competition could have a positive impact.” Emerging markets such as biomass and more green building with cross-laminated timber were noted, as well as the need for further research and development around wood fiber.
Building on insights gained at the Summit, in the coming months, GreenBlue’s Forest Products Working Group and AFF plan to continue the discussion, expanding the dialogue with other key partners in the forestry sector to help inform new strategies or the refinement of existing ones to encourage and verify sustainable forest management in the U.S. This event was made possible through the generosity of our sponsors Staples,McDonald’s and Georgia-Pacific.
The SPC Executive Committee is an Advisory Committee to The Sustainable Packaging Coalition. The EC’s role is to provide advice, act as ambassadors for SPC/GreenBlue, and make recommendations on issues related to the SPC, including its goals, strategies, and projects.
We interviewed our three new Executive Committee members, Liza Blackwell (Nike), Kim Carswell (Target), and Chris Davidson (WestRock) to learn more about them and what they hope to accomplish while serving on the SPC Executive Committee
Q: What are your hobbies?
I’m an outdoors person, which works out really well in the Pacific Northwest. I really love hiking, snowshoeing, camping, or just generally exploring the coast and canyons of Oregon. It’s a great place to get outside. I also enjoy volunteering with a few area animal rescue organizations. Outside of that, being new to home owning, I can be found, more often than I’d like, being mediocre at home repair. Q: What are your favorite activities to do in Portland?
Portland is fantastic for its food and beer scene. You can hit a different restaurant every week, and never be disappointed. Additionally, there is no short supply of interesting places for vegetarians, which I appreciate. Portland also has a fantastic theater community. There are a lot of really great shows here done by smaller companies. You can see everything from gripping crime dramas, to outrageous parodies, to emotional coming of age stories, all with an audience of 30 people or less. It’s a fantastic town. It’s something to consider when we are planning for SPC Advance (in Portland, September 19-21, 2016). Q: Since SPC Advance 2016 is going to be in Portland, what’s the one must-do if you come to Portland and you do nothing else?
Powell’s City of Books would have to top the list. If you do absolutely nothing else, go there. It’s an entire city block, three floors, and is a fantastic experience. If a drink and a movie is more your thing, the quirky and historical McMenamins properties are a-can’t miss. If you can only see one site, the Columbia Gorge would get my vote. The best part is that because Portland is so easy to navigate, you could hit all three in one day and still have time to catch a Timbers soccer match. Q: Can you tell me a little about your role at Nike?
My title is Packaging Sustainability Manager. The responsibilities sound rather broad, and they are. My role is to review and advise the packaging used for any apparel, footwear, or equipment product. This includes any packaging used in transport, consumer-facing packaging, or packaging in a retail environment. I look for opportunities to make design changes, material-usage changes, or process advances that would reflect our commitment to sustainability. I oversee the content management and vendor compliance of our Packaging Restricted Substance List. This is a document that requires our packaging suppliers to remain compliant with Nike packing standards. I also assist with the strategy and facilitation with packaging waste reduction initiatives. Q: Nike was a found member of the SPC in 2004, over 10 years ago. What inspired Nike, and you, to get involved with the SPC?
We believe that no single organization can drive the system change we all desire. When we came to this realization more than a decade ago, we sought like-minded companies and people who were committed to the same goal. At the time we helped found the SPC, packaging was our single largest volume waste stream, and so stimulating industry collaboration to reduce waste, was a necessity. It’s still a necessity today but through the SPC we are making significant progress..
On a personal level, I want to be involved because I benefit by having meaningful discussions with others in our industry. And in my role as a Nike employee, I can bring that information and energy back to Nike and incorporate it into our standards and practices. Worldwide, conversations are happening that will affect the future of our planet. I feel we’re at a tipping point in our stewardship of the environment. And there is more urgency than ever for a responsible packaging industry to drive industry change. Q: Following on to that, how did you first become interested in sustainability?
It goes back to the first question and answer of “what are my hobbies? I like to be outside.” It started for me before the term environmental sustainability was a thing. Professionally, I had been going in the direction of print production and packaging production, and being in packaging production was the first time that I felt like I could make a difference. I could make some choices in my job that directly reflected my personal values. For example, when I started with Nike as a packaging producer, one of the changes I was able to implement was moving all of our golf ball packaging to FSC certified paper. I thought, “This is fantastic. This is possible!” Obviously you’re doing it with support of others. But it was the first time I figured out that one person could actually make a difference. We struggle with that in daily society, where it’s often, “Yeah, I could recycle but really how much is that helping?” In the packaging industry, we know how much it is helping, but your average person, I think, may not understand just how much one person can help. So getting into the packaging industry was a revelation that I can personally make a difference. This is fantastic. Q: What inspired you to run for the Executive Committee?
It’s important for Nike and me to be engaged with the industry, helping to move some of these important industry discussions forward from the front. An example is the biodegradability additives position paper the SPC just released. It’s a great example of an approach in which I’m really interested. I think it’s really important that the industry is making these larger statements about what works in reality for the environment and what doesn’t to both help inform business and the consumer. The opportunity to lead from the front is something I certainly didn’t want to miss. Q: You mentioned the position paper on biodegradability additives. What other initiatives within the SPC are you involved with or planning to get involved with, and what would you like to achieve during your time on the EC?
Right now the one I’m most excited about are the SPC meetings, especially SPC Advance 2016 comes back to Portland. I’m certainly planning on being involved in that! I’m also excited about the educational opportunities that the SPC is providing. A big focus for me will be pulling groups into the SPC who are there as members but are not as engaged as they could be, and of course I’ll be focused on new membership. It’s so important that groups like the SPC can act as an industry driver and as a place where we who come from different industries and different brands can make effective decisions. Whether it’s around chemical or material use, or process and design development, we can all learn from each other. The thing I’m most excited about SPC is the chance to bring industry together to make meaningful progress toward our goals..
Specifically, I’d like to take a good look at how SPC members could use packaging as a potential material source, and how we encourage other organizations to – either on their own or through partnerships – to look at packaging as a potential material source. How can we set up processes that can be duplicated across the industry? And how do we grow the SPC. Involvement and collaboration are key to moving the entire industry forward?
The Sustainable Packaging Coalition recently took a stance against the use of biodegradability additives in petroleum-based plastics. This blog is one in a series of articles about various biodegradability topics and concepts. Plastic pollution in the ocean is a growing global crisis. It goes by many names; plastic smog, ocean litter, marine debris, and marine pollution are all terms to describe the estimate that eight million tons of plastic find a way into the oceans every year, according to Science magazine. That’s as if one garbage truck dumped its contents into the ocean every minute. Once plastic is in the ocean, the waves churn it, the sun shines on it, and other variables like temperature and oxygen levels cause the plastic to break into pieces. Those pieces get fragmented further, and those get fragmented, and so on; eventually there’s millions, billions, trillions(!) of tiny plastic pieces (called ‘microplastic’). Microplastic is ingested by hundreds of species of ocean animals, including zooplankton, salmon, seabirds and fish. They ingest it by accident or mistake it for food. Before the plastic even becomes small enough to get inside ocean animals, it can entangle and kill or hurt them. This has serious potential to cause significant harm. Photo: Chesapeake Bay Program. Microplastics from the Patapsco River are pictured at the laboratory of Dr. Lance Yonkos in the Department of Environmental Science & Technology at the University of Maryland in College Park, Md., on Feb. 6, 2015 (Same author as above). Creative Commons. Given these facts, it’s rational to ask, “can we fix this problem by adding something to make plastic biodegradable?” You’d think that this would be a brilliant human solution, to make it all magically dissolve in the seawater! Something called ‘biodegradability additives’ would seem to precisely do that job, but unfortunately, it’s not quite that straightforward. Biodegradability additives enable or encourage biodegradation of petroleum-based plastic. They are sometimes marketed as a solution to litter, particularly in the developing world. One class of additives (often called “landfill biodegradable additives”) function by encouraging the few types of microbes that naturally biodegrade petroleum-based plastics. The other class of additives (“oxo-degradable” or “oxo-biodegradable”) function, ironically, by expediting the plastic’s ability to fragment into smaller pieces. Unfortunately, biodegradability additives cannot improve the ocean pollution problem for several reasons. First, plastic products and packaging that contain these additives tend to be marketed as “biodegradable,” but that tells us nothing about the environmental conditions necessary for biodegradation, the time frame necessary for biodegradation, or the impacts that may occur before biodegradation is complete. To make matters worse, the word “biodegradable” on packaging may encourage littering of that material. Further, the additives are designed to work slowly, at best, and still present a significant risk to ocean animals in the interim years before the biodegradation process is complete.
‘Biodegradable’ means something much more limited than what most people would think, and people are more likely to litter items marked as biodegradable.
One problem with biodegradability additives is that the term biodegradable doesn’t often live up to its ideal. The concept of biodegradabilitysuggests that nutrients will harmoniously be given back to the earth at the end of the material’s life — and as the UN points out, there are certainly commercial interests at play in marketing this idea. However, just because something’s called biodegradable, it doesn’t mean it will break down in a reasonable amount of time — especially if it’s in a place it’s not designed to be, such as the ocean. Photo: Kobaken++, 2013. Creative Commons. Biodegradability is a highly relative concept. Most packaging that is designated as “biodegradable” has passed one of several ASTM tests for biodegradability, each of which features unique test conditions designed to mimic parameters at specific environments such as a bioreactor landfill (ASTM D7475) or an anaerobic digester (ASTM D5511)—not to be confused with compostability standards, which are different and more stringent. These are very different environments, in terms of heat, oxygen and other factors, than a place like Lake Michigan or the Gulf of Mexico. In other words, a material that has passed one ASTM test should not be assumed to be biodegradable in every environment—especially a marine environment. There’s only one standard for biodegradability in the marine environment (which is currently being revised), but petroleum-based plastics with biodegradability additives have been unable to meet that standard. Considering all these variables, the term “biodegradable” as applied to petroleum-based plastics actually means something much more narrow and limited than what most people would probably ever imagine. Not only do petroleum-based plastics with biodegradability additives fail to meet marine biodegradability standards, but it also makes people more likely to litter something if it’s labeled biodegradable, as Keep America Beautiful discovered in a study in 2009. The UN points out that this behavior allows for the potential for ocean pollution to become worse.
Biodegradability additives do not mitigate harm to ocean animals; they are still subject to serious risk in the time before petroleum-based plastic starts to biodegrade.
Here’s something else to consider: plastics with biodegradability additives are not designed to even commence the biodegradation process for years, sometimes as many as five. Even if these plastics were theoretically able to meet the standard of marine biodegradation (which specifies that at least 30 percent of the material’s carbon content must turn into carbon dioxide within 6 months), the plastic would still present a threat in that interim time to ocean animals through ingestion, entanglement, or potential toxic exposure. Hundreds of species of ocean animals have been known to become entangled by plastic, such as in fishing nets in the photo below. If biodegradability additives are added to petroleum-based plastic fishing nets as the solution to that problem, it causes people to feel a distorted sense of comfort that could encourage more litter. Besides, if it takes years for the biodegradation process to start anyway, that doesn’t help a seal caught in one of those nets today. Photo: NOAA Marine Debris Program, 2012. Creative Commons. Ocean animals are also found with plastic in their stomachs, causing starvation. If the average lifespan of a salmon is 3 to 8 years, and it could take more than 5 years for a petroleum-based plastic with these additives to biodegrade, that won’t help the salmon who are accidentally eating it and experiencing harm to their bodies during their lifetimes. Beyond these serious concerns, a limited number of scientific studies have explored whether ocean animals could be subject to potential toxic exposure when plastic gets inside of them. Studies demonstrate that microplastic is a carrier for toxic pollutants in ambient seawater. In one study, twelve seabirds were examined; all twelve had microplastic in their stomachs. When they looked closer, they found PBDEs (flame retardants applied to plastics and textiles) on the surface of the microplastic. Further science is required to explore if and how those toxins carried by plastic have the potential to migrate into the animals’ body tissues. If future scientific studies confirm that migration of toxins into animal tissue does occur, then the impacts up the food chain could be immense. Bioaccumulation of toxins via microplastic is a theory that is only recently being studied. If real, it could not only have dangerous repercussions for ecologically significant species, but also for the seafood industry and human health. Reducing the number of years that it takes for a plastic to biodegrade creates a false sense of security and could aggregate the plastic pollution problem facing our world’s waters. For this reason, biodegradability additives for petroleum-based plastic are an ineffective band-aid to the ocean pollution problem. Photo: Paul Lim, 2013. Creative Commons. Instead, what we need are solutions that prevent plastic from becoming litter in the first place. We need solutions that reconceptualize how materials should flow through our society, and how technology and infrastructure can evolve to address these issues. We should develop systems that encourage packaging design to be intimately intertwined with the sourcing of recycled materials and how waste management systems operate. For example, it’s better to design packaging that is easier and more valuable to recycle, so that we can keep materials in perpetual use rather than throwing them away. Related to that idea is the need to encourage our culture to perceive waste as a resource instead of a problem. The Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) released a position paper outlining the environmental harm that results from these additives. The SPC seeks to continue the collective work of industry and NGOs to achieve the beneficial end-of-life solutions necessary for the sustainable use of plastics—it’s just that biodegradability additives is not one of them.
The results of a recent survey jointly conducted by the SPC and Packaging Digest show significant differences between SPC members’ and non-members’ approach to sustainable packaging. Compared to the broader collection of industry respondents, SPC members indicated a significantly higher level of understanding of and engagement with sustainable packaging opportunities.
One of the most pronounced differences demonstrated was in respondents’ understanding of the “circular economy” concept and its integration into their companies’ strategies. Non-member respondents were split about half-and-half on their familiarity with the phrase. SPC members, however, were overwhelmingly familiar with the concept – 83% said they were familiar with the phrase and understood what it meant. When asked if the circular economy factored into their companies’ sustainable packaging strategy, 74% of SPC members said yes. Of non-members, only 46% indicated that their company’s strategy was reflective of circular economy thinking. This suggests that SPC excels at staying on the forefront of sustainability thinking.
Perhaps most impressive, SPC members demonstrated superior understanding of the actions needed to realize a more circular economy. Improving recyclability of packaging was shown to be a common goal of all companies regardless of SPC membership status, but SPC members distinguished themselves with the frequency with which they mentioned using post-consumer recycled content (PCR), showing that they embrace not just the “push” but also the “pull” needed to drive recycling. Somewhat surprisingly, increasing PCR usage was the number one most mentioned goal of SPC companies. For non-member respondents, this sank to fourth. SPC members also showed that increasing recycling (and increasing the availability of PCR) requires more than simply putting recyclable packaging in the marketplace. SPC members listed “increasing consumer participation in recycling” as the fourth most prevalent company goal related to sustainable packaging. For non-members, it ranked eleventh.
Although the biggest tenet of circular economy thinking centers on making those connections between end-of-life and beginning-of-life, SPC members indicated that they are far more focused on the full packaging life cycle compared to their non-member counterparts. When asked if their companies focus more on improving end-of-life issues or addressing impacts throughout the life cycle, the number of SPC members who indicated a full life cycle approach was double the number who indicated a primary focus on end-of-life. Of the non-member respondents, those numbers were roughly equal, with respondents split between focusing on the full life cycle versus end-of-life only. This type of thinking was reflected in SPC member companies’ measurements as well, with SPC members responding with much more frequency that they measure life cycle impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions (5 ranks higher than non-members’ indicated company measurements), water quality impacts (4 ranks higher), and water consumption (3 ranks higher).
Why are SPC members outperforming their peers in addressing sustainable packaging? It’s likely that the answer is complex, and while we hope a portion of the credit belongs to the positive impacts of our SPC initiatives and projects, we suspect that a portion of the credit is due to the virtue of having so many leadership companies in the coalition. The survey results suggested one particularly interesting idea: non-member respondents indicated that marketing professionals exert the most influence over sustainable packaging decisions in their companies, while SPC members indicated that R&D professionals were the biggest influencers. In our view, this reinforces the value of the SPC in encouraging innovation and science to back sustainability advancements.
Tell us about your background: 
SustPack was held at McCormick Place, Chicago from April 11-13th. Chicago was the perfect setting for a conference that acknowledges the challenges of the present, but looks to a brighter future through collaboration and innovation. SustPack brings together many key players across the packaging value chain, from manufacturers to brands and MRFs to discuss the details of their businesses and how to create a more sustainable future. 
In addition to the presentations, networking and breakout sessions, SustPack 2016 offered attendees interactive 
Development expanding in the region is not the only challenge he faces as a young woodland owner who is trying to continue the family legacy of managing more than 500 acres of forest land. While some crops such as corn are harvested and regrown annually, trees in the Southeast often take 15 to 30 years to become ready for harvest. Once trees are ready for harvest, finding mills that will buy his timber and pulp at a competitive rate is challenging. Prices for wood and pulp are low, and even if he can nurture and maintain a tree from seedling to fully-grown, environmental factors such as ice storms and hurricanes can wipe out his crop overnight.
EC member name: Christopher Davidson
To kick off the Summit, woodland owners described why they each owned land, noting family legacy, income, and a love of nature. Responding to questions from brand owners, they also described challenges they face such as insects and disease, natural disasters like wildfire and hurricanes, high management and property costs, and declining markets. Concerns about trust, and the future of the land as it is passed on to future generations were voiced as well.
EC member name: Liza Blackwell
Q: Nike was a found member of the SPC in 2004, over 10 years ago. What inspired Nike, and you, to get involved with the SPC?
