Sustainability by any other name would be just as Sustainable
- Filed in:
- Additives,
- Adhesives, coating & inks,
- Bags & pouches,
- Blisters & clamshells,
- Bottles,
- Boxes,
- Cans,
- Carded packaging,
- Closures,
- Containers, rigid,
- Flexible packaging,
- Folding cartons,
- Labels,
- Protective packaging,
- Resins,
- Shipping platforms/bulk,
- Thermoformed packaging,
- Trays,
- Bioplastics,
- Corporate strategy,
- Greenwashing,
- Supply chain,
- Compost & Biodegrade,
- Optimization,
- Recycling,
- Renewable resources,
- Source reduction,
- Recycled content,
- Walmart scorecard,
- Certifications,
- Clean manufacturing,
- Green resources,
- Green marketing,
- Material health,
- Metrics, standards, and LCA,
- Packaging machinery,
- Regulations,
- Reusability,
- Beverage,
- Food,
- Non-food,
- Personal care,
- Pharmaceutical
One of the most interesting aspects of sustainable packaging has been talking, listening and reading what everyone is saying about it. Like a new car, there is a make and model of sustainability for everyone. Some believe in PLA as the right direction, while others focus on light weighting, while yet others look at recycle content (pre and post consumer) and still others look at recyclability and/or compostability. Of course, many look for more than one of these benefits, so the number of options is mind boggling. Thankfully, you can not program your GPS for destination of “Sustainability” because there is no one place to go to reach your destination. Sustainability is like a traveling carnival, constantly moving, never in one place.
So, where are we going? How do we get “there”. Truth be told, I don’t think we know enough yet to determine where that destination truly is. And when we figure it out and get there, will that really be it, or will that target keep moving, shifting? This isn’t a sprint, and I’m not sure if this is a marathon either. Sometimes, you have to wonder, as you watch everyone running down different sustainable paths, should I just stop, sit here and watch and see which path is truly the right path? Does this make organizations hesitant to fully commit to one path? You invest capital to drive down a path, only to find out in three years that the tide is now moving in a different direction. Remember the days of VCR vs BETA Tapes? Many at the time in the electronics industry would tell you that BETA offered higher quality of picture and sound, yet VCR was victorious. But now, we don’t have to choose between two, there are numerous options!
So, I ask, which is “better”:
A. Light weight material that isn’t recyclable?
B. A package that is twice the weight but is recyclable?
I don’t believe there is a right and wrong answer, and I ask for your opinions to be posted as to which one they believe is a better option. Tell me what you think!
* indicates an article that was submitted directly to this Web site by the supplier, and was not handled by the Greener Package editorial staff.
Greener Package may share your contact information with our sponsors, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. Greener Package will not share your information with a sponsor whose content you have not reviewed. The members of the Advisory Board and Expert Network do not review, approve or endorse advertisements on this Web site.
Interesting reflections, Thomas! The Harvard Business Review just published a great article about sustainability as a business megatrend that might interest you. It's available here: http://hbr.org/2010/05/the-sustainability-imperative/ar/1.
I'm constantly asking myself which package is "better" than the next for our clients at Empty Boxes. I think that weight and recyclability alone are arbitrary unless both packages share identical life cycle traits. The greatest impact of a package is usually found elsewhere -- how far the package travels, the raw material's relative abundance in nature, the impact of the manufacturing process, end-of-life options, etc.
If you'd like to discuss your options, you can reach me at miranda@emptyboxes.com.
Thomas -
I think the correct answer is that both are "better." There currently is no truly sustainable packages out there, everything has an impact. What we call sustainable packaging is actually just more sustainable packaging. They are designed to minimize the impact of the package on the environment, society, and drive profits (all three legs of the sustainability stool). So in either case that you listed (moving to a lightweight non-recyclable or moving to a recyclable heavier package) if you assume that the original package is heavy and non-recyclable, both are better from where we were from an environmental standpoint. The next factors to weigh are impact on society as well as financial impact to the company. If the light weight non-recyclable material costs 45% less than current and the heavy recyclable material costs 200% of current, those definitely have to be taken into consideration.
It is also important to remember that in most products the package actually has a significantly smaller impact than the product it is protecting when you compare LCAs, so you must make sure that you don't impact shelf life negatively, increase damage during shipping, change scrap rates, yields, or OEE as you are running as those all effect the overall impact of the package (i.e. if the lightweight non-recyclable package increases scrap by 10%, decreases efficiencies by 10%, shortens the shelf life by 10% and increases damage by 10% where the heavier recyclable package does none of those things the discussion is very different).
The third thing to consider is the availability of the recycling infrastructure of the material you are considering. Just because it can be recycled doesn't mean it is recycled (PLA is a great example, it is not difficult from a technology stand point to recycle, and facilities are actually being looked at to do this, but it does not have wide amounts of collection necessary to truly claim recyclability...yet). If you are making the change to truly be more sustainable the actuals of the recycling need to be important (if you are doing it to solely make a claim, they may be less important to you...I'm not saying they should be less important, but they may be). In addition recycling rates are important in determing impact. If you are doubling the weight from current, and that material is only recycled at a 20% rate, then you have probably made a negative impact because you have introduced 200% more material, of which only 20% is getting recycled.
A great question to be posed, and hopefully a great discussion starter. It is a complex topic, with lots to consider. Depending on the company's values, relative stances on similar issues (i.e. have they made huge investments and partnerships in the recycling industry and its values? Have they focused all their other work on lightweighting?), and potential risks my recommendation to them would vary on which is truly "better."
Paper, PET, and HDPE are recycled, but other materials are not, to any significant extent. You can have your cake and eat it to with micro-biodegradable plastic. See http://earthnurture.com to learn more.
Sustainability differs from situation to situation and person to personal.But here I found a different meaning of sustainability.I think this is one new concept added here to attract viewers towards them in a short time.
Post new comment