This past September, we held the Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s 2012 Fall Members Meeting at the Sheraton Station Square hotel in Pittsburgh. Upon checking in, I was informed about Sheraton’s “Make a Green Choice” program. To participate in this program, I would be required to hang a special tag on my doorknob each day I wanted to participate and agree to skip all housekeeping for that day. In turn, I would be rewarded with either a $5 credit to spend in the hotel or extra Starwood reward points.
At first, I didn’t like the idea. I mean, I already reuse towels during my hotel stays, and isn’t one of the nice things about staying in a hotel that someone makes your bed for you? But after talking to the front desk staff, I decided to try it out. Reusing towels is great, but housekeeping changes your sheets every day whether they need to be changed or not. I don’t need clean sheets daily, and I can certainly make my own bed (and do so every day in my own house). According to Sheraton, participating in this program for even one night will save a lot of water, electricity, chemicals, and detergents. Multiply these conservation benefits by each night and each guest room and it can really add up.
So why is “Making a Green Choice” different than all the other hotel chains that post a placard in the shower suggesting you hang your towels and reuse them, or place a card on your bed to avoid having the linens changed? The daily rewards, for sure. But the really interesting twist is the public aspect of the doorknob tags. Leaving my room for the day, I made sure my hangtag was on the door, and as I walked down the hall to the elevator, I was able to see which of my fellow guests were also “making a green choice.” I think that the peer pressure aspect of the program encourages people to participate who would otherwise not think to do so. Maybe it was the fact that the hotel was full of diligent Sustainable Packaging Coalition meeting attendees, but on my floor, I would say that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the rooms sported the hangtag. That printed notice in the shower about the towels? Well, no one sees whether or not you dutifully hang your towels or have them all replaced every day.
The only downside I can see to this program is a potential negative effect on housekeeping jobs. So let’s remember to tip the housekeeping staff appropriately when we do use their services at check-out! But environmentally speaking, I like the peer encouragement and public awareness aspect of this program. What do you think about these new hotel programs that incentivize conservation through rewards and peer pressure?
The relevance of the plastic “numbers”—officially known as the “Resin Identification Codes” or RICs under ASTM D7611—depends on who you ask. Adamant recyclers often believe they are useful, while time and time again both research and anecdotes show that at least half of the population is confused by them, and this confusion can result in recycling stream contamination.
While participating in the ASTM process for the RICs, I found that there is no clear answer as to whether supply chain players actually find the RICs useful. Brand owners and retailers? Not really, as specification requirements for packaging are much more detailed than a number. MRF and recovery facilities? Not really, as lines move too fast for numbers to be identified during hand-picking, and optical sorters certainly don’t use them. Reprocessors? Not really here either, as density and converting technology are more relevant factors. This presents a conundrum: while the RICs were never intended for consumer communication and generally fail at efforts to do so, it seems that consumer communication is the only real potential usefulness of the RICs.
In particular, the widely understood chasing arrows appearing as part of the RIC contribute greatly to the confusion. There has been discussion and pushback on the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR’s) “education without the numbers” campaign (see Plastics News articles here and here for more information), which represents an effort based on solid evidence that shape/format is a much better way to help consumers understand what to recycle. This creates another conundrum, in that certain formats, such as thermoformed clamshells, are made from a variety of resins and thus the differentiation of resin type is often necessary where mixed plastics are not currently accepted. Couple that with the fact that so many local governments and recyclers do educate the general public using the RICs, and the RICs aren’t going away anytime soon.
These conundrums were taken into consideration when the SPC designed the How2Recycle Label. For the “Check Locally” version of the Label—for those materials that have between 20 and 60 percent consumer access—the RIC will likely remain an indicator that local recyclers use to answer recyclability questions regarding packaging bearing this label. The how2recycle.info website includes extensive information on the RICs for consumers, and many people ask us questions on the topic of the RICs through our consumer survey.
Simultaneous to the development of the design of the Label, the SPC became involved in the ASTM group working on RICs and continues to advocate for an upgraded system that replaces the chasing arrows and brings more clarity to issues such as varying types of PET and bio-resins. Neither the SPC or APR are advocating for abandoning the RICs, however their use as a primary communication tool for recyclability is necessarily being questioned. The SPC’s and APR’s tools provide a path forward that allows these communication efforts to peacefully co-exist with an updated version of the RICs.
Categories
A Fond Farewell to Theron (and Pela!)
After nearly three years at GreenBlue, Theron Jourdan, Project Manager for GreenBlue’s Forest Products program, recently relocated back to his hometown of Portland with his wife, Kelsey, and their dog, Pela, a frequent office visitor. Theron came to GreenBlue as part of our acquisition of Metafore in late 2009, which was the foundation for GreenBlue’s Forest Products program. Theron worked across various Forest Products initiatives and projects. Notable, under Theron’s dutiful management, EPAT underwent numerous upgrades and has continued to grow, both in terms of companies using the tool to evaluate the environmental performance of the paper they use, and mills reporting data.
All of us here at GreenBlue are sad to see Theron go, and a few of us offered up some words to thank Theron for all that he has done for GreenBlue during his time here. First up, we interviewed Tom Pollock, Theron’s colleague from the Forest Products program, on what he has learned about Theron over the years and what he will miss most.
Tom Pollock
How long have you worked with Theron? What was your first impression when you first met?
I’ve been working with Theron for a bit over five years now. My first impression of him was that he was cool customer who was willing to ready to contribute to the work we were doing straight away.
What do you see as Theron’s greatest professional accomplishments to date, whether at Metafore or GreenBlue?
I’ve always been really impressed with Theron’s ability to take the time to understand a complex issue or technical problem and then apply what he learned into the context of what we’re working on. For example, getting into the detail of how water quality is measured at various pulp mills around the world and bringing that information into a business and sustainability context. A lot of what we do is around innovation and new ways of thinking about things, and Theron has been really impressive in his ability to move with the issues and learn what’s needed. Specifically, Theron has many accomplishments in his time at Metafore and GreenBlue, but I would have to say that his work on the Environmental Paper Assessment Tool (EPAT) and all of his work with forest certification has been impressive.
Have you come to learn any fun facts about Theron over the years that the rest of us may not be aware of?
Where do I start? There’s too many to tell. Theron is an accomplished kayaker for anyone who doesn’t know and has even won two “best director” awards for his kayaking films at a reputable film fest in Portland, Ore. Theron has fought off a bear. He doesn’t wear shoes unless he has to. He’s a pretty good fisherman. I would even say he is good enough to probably be the second best fly fisherman at GreenBlue.
Theron is pretty unflappable. Have you ever seen him get mad? (If yes, can you tell us what the reason was?)
Never have. He probably even reasoned with the bear that charged him.
As a friend (and former bartender in college), what drink would make Theron happiest to find sitting in front of him?
Probably any good IPA. But as an active guy, it would definitely be an IPA after a day rafting or kayaking.
What will you miss most about working with him?
There’s a lot, but at the end of the day, Theron is just a really great guy. He is fun to work with and it was a blast to share the challenges, successes, and accomplishments with him over the years.
Geneva Hodges
Good luck on the west coast, Theron! We will miss your calm demeanor, witty one-liners, and dedicated work ethic. You were an amazing addition to the team, and I wish you all the best at Nike! On a selfish note, hopefully there won’t be any random bear attacks at the office now that you are gone…fingers crossed!
Minal Mistry
I guess Pala was the ambassador for the Forest Products group…I’ll miss the two thumps from when she would run through the office. First, of her head bashing the door, and then of her head on my desk asking for a treat. Of course eventually Theron would come around looking for her and find her under my desk.
James Ewell
1. Obviously the bear story is a pretty riveting inside joke.
2. I appreciated how mellow Theron’s personality is and the calming influence he had on the office as a “Buddha Boy.”
3. Pela was our mascot and our “slobbery joy.”
Anne Bedarf
I will miss both Theron and sweetie dog Pela!
Anne also provided this picture of Theron and Pela (and some of Pela’s friends) taken at GreenBlue’s annual “Bring Your Dog” to work day:
While we will all miss Theron’s presence in the office tremendously, the work of our Forest Products program continues under Tom’s leadership. Look out for the first official report from the Forest Products Working Group, which will provide clear, science-based guidelines to inform decision-making for paper design, procurement, use, and recovery, to be released within the coming weeks.
Please join us in wishing Theron the best of luck in his future endeavors!
This article by GreenBlue Project Manager Adam Gendell appeared in this month’s issue of Packaging Digest, which features a monthly column by GreenBlue staff on packaging sustainability. Read the original article.
Recycling is a growing industry, and it has become clear that it has a sibling-like relationship to the packaging industry. Like a younger sibling, the recycling industry is supported largely by the packaging industry; and like an older sibling, the packaging industry wants to see the recycling industry succeed.
The packaging community has moved past the notion that recycling is simply good for the planet. In this modern era of striving for sustainability, the packaging community recognizes that businesses that sell goods will only prosper in a responsible manner if the packaging industry and recycling industry both thrive. If we want them to succeed, we just have to examine the laws of supply and demand. For a higher quantity of transactions (that is, more recycling), supply and/or demand has to increase. The packaging industry, it turns out, has the ability to positively influence both supply and demand.
Supply can fundamentally be thought of as the willing ability of recyclers to sell their recovered material at a given price. It’s a no-brainer that it’s preferable for them to sell at a certain price if their costs are lower. That’s where the packaging community can help.
The recycling industry incurs a tremendous expense in their sorting operations and filtration of undesirable contaminants. If the packaging industry can create packaging that is easily sorted and not likely to introduce potential contaminants, then it makes the recycling industry’s job easier and ultimately reduces their costs. When their job is easier, supply of recovered materials will increase.
Likewise, supply will increase if consumers give recyclers access to used packaging in greater quantities and without undesirable contaminants. Proper on-package messaging from the packaging industry can help consumers help recyclers, which in the end helps the packaging industry. Improvements to packaging will eventually come around that improve access to recycled materials.
Demand, on the other hand, is the measure of how badly the packaging industry wants to buy recycled materials. Packagers have already embraced recycled content as a means to improve the environmental attributes of their packaging. It’s easy to think that an increasing demand from consumers for greener products will trickle down and increase demand from the packaging industry for recycled materials. Again, proper on-package messaging from the packaging industry can educate consumers about the importance of recycled content.
Certain changes can even increase demand from the packaging industry independently of consumer demand. For example, investment into new manufacturing technologies will help overcome the challenge of using less-than-perfect quality materials. It is also plausible we will see recycled materials become consistently cheaper than virgin raw materials. True cost accounting that takes into account the environmental costs of extracting raw materials might make that future an instant reality today.
Unfortunately, the recycling and the packaging industries do occasionally act like bickering siblings. Recyclers might argue that the burden lies on the packaging industry to put forth packaging that is optimal for their current systems. Meanwhile, the packaging industry might feel like the recycling industry needs to modify their systems to keep pace with new packaging innovations. Recyclers want packagers to better cope with less-than-perfect recycled materials.
Packagers want recyclers to reduce contamination. The packaging industry wants the recycling industry to increase its supply. The recycling industry wants the packaging industry to increase its demand. Both industries would appreciate if the other would take the reigns on consumer education. At the end of the day, the siblings of this sometimes-dysfunctional family must find a way to get along. Fortunately for the packaging industry, they have more than one way to help their little sibling.
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.
Categories
A Need for More Context?
With significant interest around monitoring, collecting, and reporting sustainability metrics, a recent Sustainable Brands article draws attention to some of the shortcomings of conventional sustainability metrics. The article, which is largely based on research coming out of the Center for Sustainable Organizations, suggests that conventional (absolute and relative) metrics only “occasionally, if not randomly correlate with the true sustainability performance of organizations.” The alternative—context-based metrics—take social, economic, and environmental limits and thresholds into account, and can be used to truly understand an organization’s sustainability performance.
There is also an effort underway to get context-based metrics reporting guidance into the Global Reporting Initiative’s fourth generation of Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, G4. If you’ve read these articles, or even if you haven’t, I encourage you to weigh in on the discussion. Which metrics does your company use for sustainability reporting, and which are more useful in driving sustainability?
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!
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. Back to school sales are the second highest consumer spending period for retailers behind the winter holidays. The average family with children in grades K-12 reportedly spends nearly $700 on back to school items. When adding the K-12 sales to college spending, the total sales are expected to reach over $80 billion.
2. In the US, roughly 480,000 school buses bring students to and from school every day. Cumulatively, these drivers log about 5.8 billion miles each year and save communities an estimated $7.7 billion that would have been realized if these students rode to school in private vehicles.
3. The cost of a four-year education has more than doubled (real values) from 1980 to 2010. The average price of a 4-year education in the US is just over $32,000.
4. On average, school systems spend just over $11,000 on each of the 50 million students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools. In the upcoming school year, this is anticipated to hit around $570 billion in total.
5. In 2011, about 32 million students participated in the National School Lunch Program at a total cost of nearly $11.1 billion.
