The numerous services we receive from nature don’t typically come with a price tag that’s easy to see. Unfortunately, without that price tag, our economic system makes it difficult to appreciate these ecosystem services or take them into account when a competing business opportunity comes up.
Wetlands and mangrove forests provide us with (free!) flood control and nurseries for fish and crabs. Vegetation near streams provides (free!) nutrient filtration for our waterways. Forests and soils sequester carbon from the atmosphere (for free!) when we burn fossil fuels. Honeybees pollinate many of our food crops (for free!). But how can we value that flood control, those fish, tons of carbon sequestered, or crops pollinated? If we had to step in and provide these “free” services in lieu of nature, it’s obvious that we wouldn’t continue to consider these services “free.”
Tourism and recreation dollars are an incredibly valuable benefit for local communities that practice land and water preservation. For example, around the world, protected nesting beaches for sea turtles have drawn thousands of tourists who want to catch a glimpse of this amazing animal–along with millions of their dollars for local communities. Figuring out nature’s price tags is an increasingly effective way for scientists, economists, and conservationists to work with communities and convince them to forgo short-term economic gains in favor of a more lucrative long-term plan that preserves nature in the bargain.
We’re familiar with tradable permits designed to reduce air pollution, and markets around the world have started putting a price on carbon emissions. The latest in the effort to put a price tag on nature? Surfonomics. This article in the Washington Post explains how we have now started to put a price tag on a perfect wave, this time in Puerto Rico. You can find out more about Surfonomics from the Save the Waves Coalition.
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.
Categories
Brundtland at 25
This year marks the 25th anniversary of Our Common Future, commonly known as the “Brundtland Report.” Named for Gro Harlem Brundtland, former prime minister of Norway and Chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), the UN-sponsored study almost singlehandedly put sustainability on the map. A quarter century later, how has it fared?
First, it was an important precursor to the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, eight ambitious objectives for the year 2015 that all developed nations have signed. More generally, Brundtland defined how we talk about sustainability. One line from the report has become possibly the most-often cited definition of sustainable development: “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” Many take this to mean we cannot squander current resources and leave nothing for our heirs. In his oft-cited 1992 address to the United Nations, Native American leader Oren Lyons urged societies “to make every decision on behalf of the seventh generation to come; to have compassion and love for those generations yet unborn.” Our legacy should be one of hope, not destruction.
Yet, the Brundtland definition invariably is taken out of context and rarely, if ever, discussed in terms of social and cultural implications, though the report itself focused on global community and human fulfillment in relation to the earth’s capacity, as another passage makes clear: “Sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to fulfill their aspirations for a better life.” Brundtland intends everyone to have the opportunity not merely to subsist but also to pursue their ambitions, to live out their dreams.
These are very broad aims. Today, however, public discourse about sustainability defines both the questions and the answers narrowly—the problem is global warming, the cause is emissions from outmoded energy mechanisms, and the solution is smarter mechanisms. For example, the November 2009, cover story of Scientific American was titled “A Plan for a Sustainable Future,” which suggests a comprehensive look at improving the relationship between humanity and the earth. Yet, the subtitle was much more specific: “How to get all energy from wind, water, and solar power by 2030.” Does a “sustainable future” mean merely ridding the world of greenhouse gases?
So, while Our Common Future has been very influential in spurring public debate, its original aspirations seem to have been lost. Let’s hope the next quarter century embraces a more inclusive approach to sustainability.
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.
Categories
Top Five Fun Facts: August
Eric DesRoberts continues his monthly series of facts and tidbits he’s uncovered during his research to better understand products and packaging. You can also check out his past Fun Facts here.
1. The Federal Railroad Administration reports that there were nearly 1,500 train derailments in all of 2011. From January to April of this year, there were 389 derailments, which is an improvement when compared to more than 500 during the same period last year.
2. 3.6 million pounds of retired US currency gets shredded annually. Ford is looking for ways to use this material to reinforce plastics used for interior trim in their automobiles. This will help offset some of the estimated 300 pounds of plastic used in the average car.
3. Over 10 million tons of waste is generated every year by the 78 million dogs living in the US. Dog waste carries parasites that can be transmitted directly to humans. Two or three days worth of droppings from just 100 or so of these canines can contribute enough bacteria to temporarily close a bay and all watershed areas within a 20 mile radius of the waste.
4. Facebook generated 285,000 metric tons of GHG emissions in 2011. The same impacts could be realized from all Facebook users consuming about 3 bananas over the course of the year.
5. In 2011, the US Postal Service processed 167.9 billion pieces of mail, racking up 1.2 billion miles driven by letter carriers and truck drivers. This equates to about 48,000 trips around the world or 2,500 round trips to the moon.
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:
The first year-long Charlottesville Better Business Challenge has officially come to an end. This year’s competition included 107 Charlottesville-area organizations competing in six categories: Waste Reduction, Water, Transportation, Energy, Purchasing, and Leadership. Organizations earning 150 points or more were eligible for the Winner’s Circle. GreenBlue finished in the Winner’s Circle, in addition to being nominated for awards in the categories for Kilowatt Crackdown, Biggest Loser, Green Leader, Top Innovator, and Overall Champion among medium-size organizations. We were, in fact, the only business to be nominated for an award in every category.
On June 21, the Challenge hosted an awards ceremony where everyone walked the “green carpet” at the Paramount Theater here in downtown Charlottesville. Several local area restaurants and wineries donated wonderful food and drinks for the event. I am very proud to announce that at the awards ceremony, GreenBlue won two awards: Kilowatt Crackdown and Biggest Loser (waste reduction).
In most cases being considered the Biggest Loser would not be cause for celebration. However, in this case we are thrilled to have won in this category. This title means our organization had the greatest reduction in waste generated in the office among all participating businesses. We accomplished this by increasing our composting and recycling efforts, and in total we were able to reduce our waste by 40%.
We strive to recycle as many products as we can as an office. Our current recycling initiatives cover not only the usual paper/cardboard, plastics, glass, and metals, but also CFL bulbs, batteries, ink and toner cartridges, electronics, and plastic bags. We have taken electronics and other products to our local Best Buy for recycling and have used Freecycle to find homes for no longer needed items. We’ve bartered items on Craigslist and offered unused lanyards and nametags to a local Girl Scout council. We’ve found that most things can be reused in some manner, it’s just a matter of finding the right place. Although this sometimes can take a bit of research to find the appropriate location, it is definitely worth the effort.
We also started a partnership with the C&O Restaurant to compost our organic waste together. Some of our food waste is taken home to feed a staffer’s chickens, and at times they can be some mighty well fed birds! The remainder of our food products, compostable packaging, and paper towels are now collected and combined with the food waste from the restaurant. We are very appreciative that the C&O houses the large compost collection can and agreed to share the cost with us. We believe this type of partnership could benefit other organizations and restaurants in the community and we actively encourage other local businesses to seek out similar opportunities.
Black Bear Composting recycles our compostable material into products for healthy soil. Once the organics have finished composting, the end product–finished compost–has several benefits:
- Returns nutrients to soil: nutrients derived from the soil in the form of vegetation are returned to the soil to restart the growing cycle
- Revitalizes soil: compost also provides structural and biological benefits to soil that improves soil health
- Reduces chemical needs: soil-amended with compost reduces the need for chemical fertilizing and pest control
- Retains water: compost enhances water absorption of soil, which reduces irrigation needs.
We would like to offer our congratulations to all organizations that participated in the Challenge and a heartfelt Thank You to the Challenge organizers and sponsors that worked so diligently during the past year. For more information on the awards and photos of the awards ceremony, please visit the Better Business Challenge website. You may also want to check out the media coverage sponsored this year by Earless Rabbit. Although sustainability can be challenging to implement, we are proud to have participated in this year’s Better Business Challenge and do our part in ensuring a healthy future for our planet and the next generations.
