'Game-changing' green innovations win Greener Package Awards

The first-ever Greener Package Awards prove that sustainable packaging has hit the mainstream, with innovations that promise to change the face of packaging forever.

Launching the first annual Greener Package Awards during a recession may have been a risky proposition for organizer Greener Package (www.greenerpackage.com [1]), the online sustainable-packaging knowledge exchange from the publisher of Packaging World.

[2] But the 51 entrants to this debut competition proved that where sustainable packaging is concerned, economics are no barrier to innovation. In fact, sustainability’s reach into major, mainstream brands over the past year and a half signals its use as a driver toward greater economic sustainability in the future.

The 10 winners of the 2009 Greener Package Awards—including eight winners in the Greener Package category, one in the Clean Manufacturing category, and one in Retail Leadership—represent the best practices

[3] in sustainable packaging from a range of industries, including food, pharmaceutical, personal care, and household care.

Greener Package Award
Entropy Solutions [4] -- Greenbox thermal management*
Estee Lauder [5]--Aveda Vintage Clove Shampoo & cap collection program
Bryce Corporation [6] -- Sunchips bag from 33% PLA
Robbie Mfg. [7]--Hot N Handy Bio-Pouch
ConAgra [8] -- rPET in CPET trays for Healthy Choice
Ampac [9] -- Patch Perfect
Rexam PLC [10]--rPET in APET drug ovals
Unisource Worldwide [11]--recycled toys with 100% recyclable packaging

Critical to the credibility of the awards program, the Greener Package Expert Network—comprising packaging experts from across the value chain—designed the competition with categories and criteria specifically and uniquely suited to packaging sustainability. Members of the network also judged the 51 entrants in the first annual competition. Among this year’s judges were the following:

Lisa Baer [14]*, President, Baer Design Group
Dean Bellefleur [15], President, D-idea
John Bernardo [16]*, President, Sustainable Innovations
Timothy Bohrer [17], Owner, Pac Advantage Consulting
Scott Carpenter [18], New Products Division - New Ventures Team, SC Johnson
Ron Cotterman [19]*, Executive Director, Sustainability, Sealed Air
John Delfausse [20]*, Vice President, Package Development, Estée Lauder
Jack DiMartino [21], Packaging Engineer, Stonyfield Farms
Scott Dyvig [22], Engineering Manager, Protective Packaging, Sears
Eric Hartman [23], Director of Technology and Development, Product Ventures
Michael Larocca [24]*, Packaging Development Manager, GlaxoSmithKline
Sharon Reiter Lindberg [25], Senior Design Manager, Unilever
Pamela Long [26], Director/Client Services, Little Big Brands
Steve Mojo [27], Executive Director, Biodegradable Products Institute
Thomas Oris [28], Procurement Manager, Morton Salt
David Padula [29], Material Procurement Manager, Paramount Home Entertainment
Adam Pawlick [30]**, Corporate Engineering Manager, Palermo’s Pizza
Frank Perkowski [31], Founder/President, Business Development Advisory
Brad Rodgers [32], Manager - Sustainable Pkg. & Advanced Materials Research, Frito-Lay
Barry Sanel [33], President, Barry Sanel Packaging Advisors
Paul Earl-Tornianen, [34]Packaging Engineer, General Mills

* Member of the Greener Package Awards Executive Committee
** Chairperson of the Greener Package Awards Executive Committee

September 30, 2009, Anonymous (not verified) wrote:

very cool.
congrats on the recessionary launch. Hats off to you.

1 minute ago, Anonymous (not verified) wrote:

Interesting choices. Let's take one example- SunChips w/ 33% PLA. Let me say that again 33% PLA! PLA's pretty interesting, always has been but it is rife with controversy. Whole Foods officially hates it. What exactly was achieved by laminating 33% PLA to the Sunchips bag? The laminated structure is not sustainable, recyclable, compostable or biodegradable. Just 1/3 of the package comes from a 'natural' resource and many argue that because of GMO present in ALL corn that even this small amount isn't 'natural'. There are a lot of revolutionary new eco-friendly materials out there but none won any awards here!

So again, I ask how the hell did these guys win an award when so many other (albeit 'smaller' players) didn't even get nominated? Well, just take a look at the judges... BPI (Biodegradable Products Institute)- owned by Cargill (the makers of PLA), Frito-Lay, and other 'corporate' sponsors, er I mean 'sustainability experts'. Talk about Greenwashing! Greener Package, you should be ashamed! By the way, I wonder who the shareholders of Greener Package are...

October 14, 2009, Pamela Long wrote:

I'd like to address the comments raised by 'anonymous' regarding judging of the Greener Package awards. I'm proud to sit on the GP advisory board and I also participated in the award judging. My association with Frito Lay/Sun Chips lies solely in the grocery store. I equally support Doritos, Pringles, and a host of other salty treats, but can say with a clear conscience that my snacking issues had absolutely no effect on my ability to impartially judge these awards.

While I agree with you that there are many new materials and innovations out there, we are just in our infancy when it comes to sustainability. And while these materials might be revolutionary - are they available, are they affordable, do they meet the needs of the potential company/brand? All that aside though, you are absolutely, 100% right that many great examples of sustainability DID NOT win Greener Package awards. And it had nothing to do with the judging being flawed, it's simply because those folks didn't enter the awards. You can't win, if you don't play.

I'm personally proud of our award winners and want to thank them for taking the steps they have (and are taking) to move our industry in a more sustainable direction. Sustainability is a journey, and no company is perfect. Big or small, niche or mass market, I believe our winners all demonstrate commitment to that journey and to finding solutions that work from a business perspective and make a positive impact on our society.

Let me end by saying that I think comment and criticism is good all around - it helps us make the process better for the future. I personally want to work on encouraging more companies to enter the awards next year, and address any barriers that inhibited folks from entering this year.

(And just an FYI - we're all pretty nice people on here. For most of us, it would be a whole lot easier to take your comments seriously if they were a little less hostile, and a little less anonymous.)

October 12, 2009, David Newcorn wrote:

"So again, I ask how the hell did these guys win an award when so many other (albeit 'smaller' players) didn't even get nominated?"

The awards are open to anyone and everyone. No one chooses the nominees except the nominees themselves. Smaller guys and bigger guys alike can nominate themselves. No evil cabal or conspiracy here, I'm afraid. I'll let the Greener Package Judges address your other charges.

October 12, 2009, Paul Earl-Torniainen wrote:

An anonymous reader suggests that there was judging bias because novel materials from small companies did not win awards.

As David points out, any company can nominate themselves - there is no inherent bias against small companies. It's my hope that many more companies, small and large, will submit entries for next year's awards.

In the meantime, material suppliers (small and large) can consider submitting data for the greener package database - use the link "Packaging Suppliers: Sign up to be notified when you can submit your data". I think this a great way for material suppliers to highlight the benefits of their materials or package systems to a large audience of potential customers.

Regarding how the entries were judged, I can tell you that I rated entries on novelty, impact, and how challenging it was to implement. Given the reader's criticism, I have examined my thought processes and discovered a bias that I didn't realize before. I am biased towards materials/solutions that have data to support their claims. I think this is appropriate in a field where unsubstantiated claims are common and there is never a single choice that is sustainable in all aspects. However, I do see how this could make it more challenging for small companies marketing novel materials - perhaps they don't have the resources to conduct testing to assess their material's environmental footprint. (To be clear, I did not encounter this dilemma judging the 51 entries for this year's awards.) There is a webcast on Oct 26 to learn more about 3rd party review of claims - this could be helpful for small companies to learn about what kind of data is required to make substantive claims.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the reader for challenging us. I believe that the judging process was indeed fair and the award winners represent the best of the entries.

October 12, 2009, Thomas Oris wrote:

Yesterday, an unnamed individual raised some interesting questions related to the judging and the winners. Allow me to address these issues, because they have some validity.

First issue that was raised was the Sun Chips with 33% PLA. While I don't really like the presentation of his/her opinion, I happen to agree with the viewpoint for similar reasons. Their isn't much I can say to that.

Related to the judging, I would like to share my thoughts. Sustainability is still rather broad in definition and as such it can mean different things to various people and industries. For me personally, I focused on specific criteria which included the use of post consumer materials, weight reduction and the use of truly recyclable materials (not just items the are recyclable, but materials that truly are reclaimed). Others I am sure have different criteria and I am not in position to say their criteria is any more or less significant than mine. It illustrates the wide range of improvements that can be made in packaging as related to our environment.

I do wonder if we could have tightened the criteria or broken down the awards into more categories. For example, perhaps an award for the use of post-consumer material (or transition to post-consumer material). A second thought would be to have more set criteria. An example could be an award that would be based as follows: 20% based on post-consumer material, 20% on weight reduction, 20% green energy, etc... As for the judges, I will not go down the path of prejudice against any judge's evaluation. I believe the judges, including myself, are passionate about sustainability and were fair and impartial in their voting. That said, and I did mention this to David Newcorn earlier today, that we must avoid any conflict of interest in our voting, even the perception of conflict, as we vote going forward. This is not to say that any judge was biased, but we also must understand the perception.

All this said, all this reflection is GOOD! As a judge and a member of the Greener Package Panel, I am very proud of what has been done to date. Many people spent countless hours preparing for the launch of the website, most of us dedicated our time because of our passion for sustainability and the only compensation was in helping to raise awareness. Was the 2009 awards perfect? I don't know. I think we recognized some great projects. I think all the entrants submitted are great projects! These awards represent a lot of hard work for all those involved in the projects as well as those who worked on the website and the judging!

In closing, to Anonymous; I appreciate the passion and the concerns. You raise some valid points although I wish you could present your concerns in a less hostile tone. I believe we will discuss your concerns going forward for next year's award and sincerely hope that you will continue to support Greenerpackage.com.

October 12, 2009, Brad Rodgers wrote:

Let me address a few of the comments by "Anonymous." Use of 33% PLA in the Sun Chips packaging structure is part of a much bigger picture to introduce such packaging to the marketplace in a large scale fashion. Please visit Sunchips.com for a much more detailed overview of Frito Lay's plan - we are not trying to hide anything.

As most of us know that are in the packaging industry, our choices for material use are limited based on availability. There can be the greatest material ever invented, but if it's only produced in the laboratory then we can only make a few packages out of it - not very sustainable. The biopolymers field is in its infancy stage and we can support it and encourage it to grow or we can throw rocks at the first truly commercial material available in an effort to shut it down before it really gets started. Making the new polymer is only the first step, the next big step is to find ways to convert it into usable materials such as films. To date only a small handful of converters and film manufacturers have actually done this with PLA. Furthermore, of those suppliers only a small few have actually produced and sold any "real" volume. I applaud Bryce and SKC for stepping up and committing assets to support Frito Lay's effort in wanting to make a difference. By supporting the biopolymer's industry in purchasing significant quantities of this material we are actually encouraging the whole industry to bring out their best efforts and isn't that what makes America great - competition.

Now, Anonymous mentions that there are a lot of revolutionary new eco-friendly materials out there - well I say you are right. And the best way Frito Lay and other large companies can support the growth of those materials is to find ways to use them in their packages. I can tell you whole-heartedly that I am fully engaged in finding as many ways as possible to use the right materials to achieve environmental improvements. It just has to be backed up with scientific evidence, available in reasonable quantities and meet the performance expectations required to protect the product inside. So bring it on - I look forward to seeing these new materials develop into the commodity packaging that the whole industry needs.

February 17, 2010, Marc Aurelius (not verified) wrote:

I think the Greener Package Awards were fairly judged and I think each of the winners has a great potential of revolutionizing eco-friendly packaging. Marc Aurelius