You may have seen the recent news that Coca-Cola is ramping up its production of PET made with plant-based glycol instead of petroleum-derived glycol. In the language of sustainability, this would be described as replacing a non-renewable feedstock with a renewable feedstock. This isn’t a new concept for those of us who are immersed in the sustainability community, but this beginning-of-life change introduces a bit of complexity when it comes to the end-of-life for the PET. What does sustainable recovery look like for this material?
Let’s first refresh our memories on the basic concept of sustainable recovery. The SPC’s Definition of Sustainable Packaging refers to both biological closed loop cycles as well as technological closed loop cycles, which are two distinct concepts. The idea behind a biological closed loop cycle is that living things are built from nature’s inputs, and when they die they must give those inputs back to the natural environment. This ensures that nature won’t run out of inputs for new living things–nature’s closed loop, if you will.
Conversely, the idea behind a technological closed loop cycle is that non-living things don’t automatically renew themselves (at least not at a rate that’s anywhere close to being useful), and their use will only be sustainable in the long run if we keep using the finite amount that exists and avoid total depletion. Therefore instead of giving these materials back to nature (“discarding” might be a better word than “giving”), we must keep them in use by people–a technological closed loop.
So what about this PET with its plant-based constituent? The first complexity is that only a portion is plant-based, so the PET is also composed of some things that ought to stay within a technological closed loop. There’s no easy way (yet) to separate the different constituents and put them in their respective preferable recovery systems.
The other complexity is that there must be a mechanism by which the plant-based material may return to nature and participate in the biological cycle. Even if the first complexity were resolved by making PET entirely from plant-based materials (which is not truly possible today, considering all the catalysts and polymer chemistry whatsits that are not made from plants), the PET would still be an inherently non-biodegradable material. While that helps traditional PET stay in the technological cycle, it prevents it from returning to the biological cycle. I wonder, could the always-controversial biodegradability additives finally have a home? Probably not, but it still makes one wonder what the answer would look like.
Fortunately for Coca-Cola, and anyone else who’s thinking big and making major changes to the way packaging is made, innovation is crucial and the “complexities” can usually be worked out in time. Right now we don’t have a perfectly sustainable way of making and recovering plastic at all, regardless of whether it’s made from plants or petroleum. In the long run, it certainly can be argued that plant-based feedstocks are a step in the right direction. To get there, we just have to keep innovating away the complexities.
Category: Sustainable Packaging Coalition
A few weeks ago, nearly 200 Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) members came together for the annual 2012 SPC Fall Members Meeting. While the Fall Meeting has always been a chance for members to roll up their sleeves and shape SPC project work, this year’s meeting in Pittsburgh also gave members a chance to step back and think about the bigger picture: the future direction of the SPC.
When the SPC was formed in 2004, we had nine members and the sustainability landscape was a wide open frontier. Now in 2012, we have 200 members and counting, but the sustainable packaging landscape is also much more crowded. It was time for our members to look back at our origins in order to move forward. We began as a small group of committed companies who gave their time, effort, and funding to create a space where members could collaborate and learn from each other about leading edge sustainability practices both in packaging and also across the rest of their businesses.
Today, we are a large group of companies, but one thing I have learned over the past four years is that companies who choose membership in the SPC are nothing if not passionate about collaborating on sustainability! That characteristic has remained a key feature distinguishing SPC members from the industry at large–a claim that is confirmed year after year by the results of our annual survey of the packaging industry conducted with Packaging Digest magazine.
At this year’s Fall Meeting, member companies presented case studies demonstrating how their membership in the SPC has helped them collaborate and actually spread sustainable packaging practices up and down their supply chains and deeper within their own companies. They heard the latest about SPC-led projects, shaped by members and designed to benefit the whole industry, such as:
- The How2Recycle label now appearing on packaging on store shelves
- Plans to integrate SPC’s COMPASS life cycle packaging design software with Esko’s design software
- Creation of a Voluntary Packaging Design Guide with Éco-Enterprises Québec coordinated through PAC Next
- SPC Member-Led Working Groups starting to tackle issues such as small package recycling (think lip balms and travel sizes) and the sustainability of inks, adhesives, and coatings that are applied to packaging.
This type of project work, from the germ of a theory all the way to concrete changes in packaging available on store shelves, happens nowhere else but the SPC. This desire for real, meaningful change is truly unique to this passionate group of companies.
So, eight years later, our members continue to be leading edge companies eager to hear the latest advances and unbiased information about sustainable packaging. They don’t shy away from difficult issues and instead get down to work and ask, “Where do we start?” As positive influencers with a common vision who want to spur broad change in the marketplace, SPC members tell us that the SPC is their go-to place to share and solve problems. I speak for the entire SPC staff when I thank our members for all of their hard work over the years and say that I look forward to starting to work together on the next eight years of sustainability in packaging. And we’ll see you all in San Francisco for our 2013 SPC Spring Meeting!
This article by GreenBlue Senior Manager Minal Mistry appeared in this month’s issue of Packaging Digest, which features a monthly column by GreenBlue staff on packaging sustainability. Read the original article.
As I was sitting at a local coffee shop on a nice summer afternoon, I overheard a conversation about “all the waste in society” at another table. What stuck with me was a comment that waste was “merely an externality” of the modern on-the-go lifestyle. The notion occupied me on the walk back to the office as it relates to my work with the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, particularly to the optimization of packaging design and life-cycle analysis. From a design perspective, where does good design end and where do externalities begin?
In economics, an externality is a cost or benefit that is not fully captured in the price of a good or service and is incurred by a party who was neither the buyer nor the seller. An externality can also be viewed as an unforeseen or unintended consequence accompanying a process or activity. Of course, there are positive and negative externalities that hold true for packaging.
Often, a design captures the specified parameters for cost, performance and aesthetics, yet these parameters may not be sufficient to minimize the negative externalities associated with packaging. Improving the positives while diminishing the negatives is the art of design optimization.
For packaging, externalities exist in terms of litter, municipal solid waste (MSW) collection and processing costs, pollution and habitat destruction resulting from material sourcing as we examine the entire life cycle of the material flow. However, are these truly externalities associated with the modern world? The definition of externalities draws attention to unforeseen or unintended consequences, and that is where the nexus of optimization occurs. However, all of these impacts associated with the life cycle of a package or product are already known within the industrial supply network. So, setting aside the price discussion, the question becomes: Are these truly unforeseen or unintended outcomes?
In the U.S., the latest MSW data suggest that 38 percent of aluminum, 31 percent of glass and 14 percent of plastic packaging is recovered. Knowing these statistics going into the design optimization process, can we truly attribute the remaining discarded portions that end up in landfills as an externality? One can argue the systemic inefficiency of material flow cannot be viewed as an externality. However, it does represent significant economic, environmental and social burdens that are externalized to members of the wider community. The significance of a negative externality may change over time, yet the principle that bad design perpetuates significant negative external costs seems sound. Some of these costs are a result of market failures, while others can be attributed to the misalignment of design and other areas such as end-of-life material reclamation.
Within the packaging community, several efforts are attempting to address these issues and some are involving the social sector through direct citizen participation or policy mechanisms. The solution to bridging the gap between the packaging materials placed in the market and the subsequent recovery of those materials at a systems level resides in the engagement of all the relevant actors and in the art of optimization. Design optimization has a role in capturing the systemic needs upfront. All the while, industry and society must work together to improve the overall system. At its core, this is the spirit of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. The challenge is to come together with this spirit to honestly tackle tough issues, like externalities, and come to solutions that serve the best interests of the whole.
This year’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition Fall Members Meeting kicks off today at the Sheraton Station Square Hotel in Pittsburgh. We are expecting to have over 180 packaging and sustainability professionals in attendance, and we have a very exciting agenda planned for the next two days. The meeting begins today with two exciting tour options: Greenstar Recycling Center, a municipal and commercial single stream processor in the Pittsburgh area, and AgRecycle Industrial Composting Facility, the largest industrial composter in Pennsylvania.
At this week’s meeting, we celebrate eight years of groundbreaking collective work as the SPC, and we are looking to our members to shape the future of the organization. As we continue to work together to advance sustainable packaging, we look forward to a robust discussion on the future of the SPC as we focus on strategic planning for the next five years. Woven throughout the sessions, our meeting’s theme is “Success Through Supply Chain Collaboration.” Look for this theme in sessions that showcase SPC members working together and along their supply chains, as well as the SPC partnering with other organizations. This theme also includes our SPC Member-Led Working Groups, who will be providing updates on each group’s progress. You can find the complete agenda and session descriptions on the meeting website.
As in previous years, we are co-locating our meeting with the Sustainable Packaging Forum, which will be held September 11-13. This year’s Fall Meeting is generously hosted by SPC member companies Dow Chemical Company, PepsiCo, and Solo Cup Company, and we are very grateful for their support and leadership. For those members who are joining us in Pittsburgh, we hope you enjoy the city and the SPC Fall Meeting!
Visionary Leader in Packaging and Sustainability to Take the Helm of GreenBlue’s Flagship Project
We are delighted to announce the appointment of Nina Goodrich as Director of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC).
Goodrich is an internationally recognized leader in the packaging industry with expertise in sustainability, innovation, and organizational development. She was previously Program Director for PAC NEXT in Toronto, an initiative of The Packaging Association that strives towards a “world without packaging waste.” At PAC NEXT, Goodrich built a strong reputation for facilitating constructive collaboration throughout the packaging value chain to promote end-of-life solutions that improve recovery, re-use, and diversion of packaging. Goodrich also founded consultancy Sustainnovation Solutions to inspire industry to understand the opportunity side of sustainability and the role it can play in re-inventing competitive corporate strategy.
Founded in 2002, GreenBlue was one of the first sustainability nonprofits to work exclusively in collaboration with business. For the past decade, the organization has successfully served various industries, including packaging, forest products, chemicals, textiles, and building products. GreenBlue has a strong track record in convening industry working groups to create whole-market solutions for the most pressing sustainability challenges. GreenBlue’s flagship project, the SPC (sustainablepackaging.org), is a working group of companies from across the packaging supply chain that has grown from nine to nearly 200 members since 2004 and is now recognized as the leading voice on packaging sustainability.
“We are thrilled to have Nina Goodrich join GreenBlue and are looking forward to seeing how her insights on value innovation can be incorporated into the work of the SPC,” said GreenBlue Board Chair Guy Gleysteen, a Senior Vice President at Time Inc.
The SPC Director selection process was led by a review committee made up of representatives from the SPC Executive Committee and GreenBlue’s Board of Directors and staff, who worked together to evaluate candidates and ultimately selected Goodrich for the position.
“Nina brings not only exceptional experience in packaging and sustainability to the organization, but also valuable expertise in innovation and a tremendous amount of personal energy,” said SPC Executive Committee member Jeff Wooster of The Dow Chemical Company. “We are excited to have Nina leading the SPC as we implement the strategic plan for our 2020 Vision.”
Goodrich will be introduced as the new SPC Director to the Coalition membership at the upcoming SPC Fall Members Meeting, which will be held in Pittsburgh on September 10-11.
“I am delighted to be joining the SPC/GreenBlue family. I have had the opportunity to work with the SPC as an industry member and as a project team member and am thrilled to have been chosen to lead the SPC into its next chapter,” said Goodrich. “I am looking forward to working with members and staff to continue the great work in education, action, and opportunities for global packaging sustainability initiatives and beyond.”
About Nina Goodrich
Prior to joining GreenBlue, Nina Goodrich was Program Director for PAC NEXT, an initiative of The Packaging Association, a non-profit trade association based on building industry collaboration. Nina was also the Principal of Sustainnovation Solutions, a consultancy she founded to link innovation and sustainability. In addition, she was a Senior Associate with The Innovolve Group, a boutique sustainability consulting firm where she provided sustainable packaging insight and expertise. Prior to forming Sustainnovation Solutions, Nina held the position of Director, Sustainnovation in the Growth and Innovation Organization of Alcan Packaging, where her role included sustainability strategy and mobilization. Preceding her sustainability role at Alcan, Nina was Director of Innovation at Alcan Global Pharmaceutical Packaging, where she advanced the technology agenda for pharmaceutical packaging. Nina has held additional leadership positions with Amcor, The Guelph Food Technology Center, Magic Pantry Foods, and The Technology Management Group of Pugh-Roberts Associates. She has done graduate work in technology management and holds a BA in Molecular Biology from Wellesley College in Massachusetts. Regarded as a thought leader in the field, Nina speaks and writes frequently on the convergence of sustainability, innovation, and technology.
The SPC member reporting initiative was a short term project intended to help measure progress toward packaging sustainability and capture member advancements in measuring and reducing environmental impacts. The result of this project is a newly released report entitled Member Annual Reports: Statistics from SPC Members. The goals of this report were to a) identify the number of SPC members currently collecting and reporting data on sustainability metrics, b) identify which metrics they are collecting and reporting on, and c) build on the collected data to help illustrate sustainability efforts currently applied by the packaging industry.
All active SPC members as of August 11, 2011 (199 in total) were considered in this report, and the data collected is from publicly available annual reports, member companies’ websites, the 2011 SPC Member Survey, and the 2011 Sustainability in Packaging survey conducted by Packaging Digest and the SPC. Comparing the information that we obtained from the publicly available reports with the information captured in surveys, we found that many companies are interested in collecting and monitoring environmental performance but may not be reporting on these efforts. This may be a result of the general nature of the organization (public vs. private ownership), inadequate infrastructure to monitor impacts, the inability to justify the costs associated with producing and releasing an official report, or the complexities associated with collecting information within regional or international divisions.
Seventeen metrics are highlighted in this report, and data is reported by position on the supply chain and by relative size of an organization. This information can be applied as a benchmarking tool by companies using or starting to implement data collection efforts on environmental performance. The following figure is a sample of the kind of information captured in the report:
Seventeen metrics are highlighted in this report, and data is reported by position on the supply chain and by relative size of an organization. This information can be applied as a benchmarking tool by companies using or starting to implement data collection efforts on environmental performance. The following figure is a sample of the kind of information captured in the report:
As the information contained in this report is specific to SPC members, this report is not open for public release and is only available to active SPC members. We ask that this information not be shared with companies, individuals, or organizations outside of the SPC. All current SPC members can now download the report at no cost from the Member Resources section of the SPC website
This blog post by GreenBlue Project Associate Danielle Peacock originally appeared on the 1800RECYCLING.com blog, which covers a variety of recycling topics. Read the original blog post here.
Far too often, we see confusing and misleading (though perhaps hopeful) recycling claims on packaging. This leads to either false contentment with current recycling systems or cynicism on the part of the consumer. Unclear labeling, inaccurate recycling claims and variations in recycling programs make proper recycling a challenge. In response, the How2Recycle Label was created to provide consistent and transparent on-package recycling information to consumers.
How2Recycle is a label and associated website that helps consumers understand how to recycle their packaging materials. How2Recycle is a project of GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC). The goal of How2Recycle is to provide clear, consistent recycling information to consumers, and it is used across all material types and shapes.
Over the last three years, the SPC has consulted with various stakeholders to develop the label, including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, local and state governments, companies, trade associations, recyclers and consumers. The label is adapted from a successful program developed in the U.K., the “On-Pack Recycling Label,” which has improved consumer understanding.
How2Recycle labels each component of a package using one of four categories: Widely Recycled, Check Locally (not recycled in all communities), Not Yet Recycled and Store Drop-off (recycled at retail locations). The Store Drop-off label is specifically for plastic bags and films accepted at retail locations. These categories are determined by national-level access to recycling data. Consumers are provided with resources on how to “check locally” at the how2recycle.info website, which is printed on each label.
Some of the most frequent questions we receive regard the Resin Identification Codes (RICs), often referred to as the “recycling number on plastics.” RICs are often misused as a way to communicate recyclability to consumers. Yet the RICs were never intended as a consumer communication tool. Consumers misinterpret their meaning, from indicating recycled content, to the popularity of the plastic. However, the RICs only indicate the type of plastic, and have no indication of the recyclability of an item. For example, PET (#1) bottles are accepted in the majority of communities, yet PET (#1) thermoformed containers, like clamshells, are not.
RICs will continue to appear on packages to satisfy state legal requirements and identify the material type. But, our goal is for the How2Recycle label to replace RICs as a consumer communication tool.
One of the biggest challenges to this project is the vast variability in municipal system collections. There are a number of factors that impact recycling. While certain items like plastic bottles and metal cans can be recycled in the majority of communities (meaning they are a part of the “Widely Recycled” category), other items, like plastic clamshells, can only be recycled in certain areas (the “Check Locally” category). No labeling system would make sense without encouraging consumers to understand their local system.
We believe that by encouraging consumers to “Check Locally” on packaging types such as plastic clamshells and gable-top cartons, How2Recycle will help drive both education and market development for other materials not currently in the “Widely Recycled” category. How2Recycle is best suited to convey actual recyclability, tell consumers how to recycle a package and encourage localized recycling education.
We welcome your feedback through our consumer survey, and you can follow our progress at how2recycle.info and on our Facebook page.
This article by GreenBlue Senior Manager Anne Bedarf appeared in this month’s issue of Packaging Digest, which features a monthly column by GreenBlue staff on packaging sustainability. Read the original article.
The recent PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) report, “Sustainable Packaging: Myth or Reality,” struck a nerve with some of us working to make packaging sustainability a reality. The conclusion of the report, that sustainable packaging is no longer relevant, having been replaced by “a more balanced view of efficient packaging,” made me pause and reflect on what “sustainable packaging” really means and how efficiency plays a role.
PWC declares, “The idea that anyone…can come up with a single meaningful definition of sustainable packaging is largely proving to be a red herring and has been consigned to history.” Yet, one of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s first endeavors-seven years ago-was to create such a definition. The SPC’s definition of sustainable packaging describes eight criteria that have since been adopted widely.
The SPC definition also reflects a range of economic, social and environmental tenets. The “more balanced view” espoused by PWC is actually much narrower, consisting of five goals for minimizing materials and waste. As important as these are, they exclude some of the essential aims of sustainability, such as promoting human health by eliminating toxicity. Efficiency is imperative, but it is not a panacea to a sustainable world, or even sustainable packaging.
PWC declares that sustainability is “too broad a term to be useful at a practical level.” Yet, there has been tremendous progress toward sustainability in packaging, measured a variety of ways. The SPC’s Sustainable Packaging Indicators and Metrics Framework, and the subsequent release of the Global Protocol on Packaging Sustainability (GPPS), sought to develop a common framework for measuring the advancement of more sustainable practices.
Nonetheless, it is true that sustainability isn’t always “practical.” As the Canadian Standards Assn.’sEnvironmental Claims: A Guide For Industry and Advertisers tells us, “The concepts involved in sustainability are highly complex and still under study. At this time there are no definitive methods for measuring sustainability or confirming its accomplishment. Therefore, no claim of achieving sustainability shall be made.”
Today, no package or product can realistically be described as sustainable, but this is the whole point. The SPC definition acts as a cohesive set of visionary goals describing the essential properties a sustainable package would have (if it existed).
The other major theme in PWC paper is that sustainable packaging is no longer a “stand-alone concept,” which coincides with the SPC’s perspective. The only SPC member company interviewed for the report, Procter & Gamble, is quoted as saying that package sustainability considerations of the past “…have been replaced by a more holistic debate around the product, the package, and their use from inception to post-consumer use.” While this is absolutely true, in no way does it diminish the concept of sustainable packaging, particularly since many products and their packages are designed independently of each other.
Many SPC members have referred to packaging as “the gateway drug” that provides a manageable way to first consider sustainability within their businesses. We’ve witnessed that the focus on packaging has helped to catalyze the industry towards broader corporate social responsibility practices.
Ultimately, the concept of sustainability is about people and our relationships. The ultimate social sustainability impact has proven to be the most difficult area to develop metrics around-how can we meaningfully measure the impacts of hunger, lack of clean water or clean air, or other basic human needs at the individual, company, political or any other level? It’s understandable to want to more narrowly scale the conversation to everyday business goals that seek efficiency at all levels, but ultimately the concept of sustainability is one that needs to remain visionary to continue to drive innovation, awareness and real progress.
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?
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:
