Picking up where the Federal Trade Commission left off in its attempt to devise parameters for sustainability claims, Greener Package has released the industry’s first comprehensive guidelines to packaging sustainability claims. Developed by Environmental Packaging Intl. (EPI), [7] with input from Packaging Knowledge Group LLC (PKG), [8] the Greener Package Guidelines to Sustainability Claims [9] will be used as a basis for the review of claims made by suppliers submitting their product data to the Greener Product Database. (See related story, “Walmart joins GreenerPackage.com in new product database." [10])
Says EPI CEO Victor Bell, whose consultancy, along with PKG, will be reviewing product data at the suppliers’ request at a nominal cost: “Consumer demand for sustainably produced products is a key driver in promoting progress at the manufacturing level. Third-party validation is critical in combating greenwashing, which—if left unchecked—could erode consumer confidence and ultimately the public’s interest in buying sustainable products and packaging.”
Larry Dull, PKG partner, concurs, “The cost for a company to verify their sustainability claims is relatively small, compared to the investment that same company makes to develop, produce, and package more sustainable products. We see verification as a necessary, final step in the process and a point of differentiation for any company selling in a competitive marketplace.”
The Greener Product Database offers consumer packaged goods companies a way to research and compare sustainable packaging materials, containers, and suppliers. Products approved through review will be marked as such within the database and will be given favorable placement. The data will also feed Walmart’s PackagingScorecard Modeling Software.
As Sam’s Club director of packaging Amy Zettlemoyer-Lazar told GP in a May 2009 interview, “There has been a lot of confusion in this space in the last couple of years, and it has the potential to lead to greenwashing. Greenwashing is a concern because we really want to make sure that we are communicating accurate information to our customers and members, and we want to be sure that they have better information to make better purchasing decisions.”
This is a fantastic large step towards authenticity and integrity in the "green" space. Greenwashing has run rampant and the answer on the printing side has created the FSC certification. Now, packaged goods companies can offer their own legitimizing seal of approval to verify "truth in advertising" and build up consumer confidence as to the authenticity of their claims. I can't wait to recommend this to my clients.
The guidelines are helpful, but I see that they skip over the issue of toxicity of compounds used to embue plastic resins with "oxobiodegradability".
An example is Cobalt Stearate aka the active ingredient in EPI, whose decomposed residue has been shown to be toxic to earth worms. Cobalt Stearate is not a well-studied substance, nor is it controlled or classified in the US as toxic. Its MSDS says, mostly, "unknown".
However, having unknown level of danger does not qualify it as safe. We need to have toxicity standards in place for the list's credibility, before we see a potentially highly toxic oxobiodegradable plastic on the approved Green List, and thereby degrade it.
Great effort, indeed, but there are many green claims guidelines that have come before these. Many private consultants and other thinktanks have set guidelines in the past for their clients to work from. All efforts are a step forward. B
A comprehensive cradle-to-grave carbon footprint may be difficult to achieve, but guidelines should take into account transport and processing energy consumption. When gas goes up over $4 a gallon again, this will matter.
Transportation and processing energy are already paramount to this discussion and matter intensely right now.
A much necessary move indeed. Hopefully this will keep those organizations in check and let consumers in on what they are really purchasing.
Jonathan