Hey! 

The second session of day one at Sustainability in Packaging was titled “Global Packaging Project and the Proliferation of Tools: How to Quantify the Data and Choose the Tools that Work,” including presentations from Procter & Gamble, RMIT University, UC Berkely, and PepsiCo.

First up was Alan Blake of Procter & Gamble, to present on “Practical Applications of the Global Packaging Project.”

Blake began by contextualizing the work of the Global Packaging Project, which as I have blogged about before, grew out of the Consumer Goods Forum and looks to develop a common language for packaging and sustainability. The action plan of the GPP was to begin by developing common metrics and indicators for assessing sustainable packaging; after which, test the established framework and measurement system via pilots. Consequently, pre-existing internationally recognized metrics balanced across the spectrum of sustainability were investigated, culminating in the GPP’s “dictionary of metrics;” this consists of 13 environmental attributes, 14 LCI indicators, 2 economic indicators, and 11 social indicators. After conducting 30 pilots via Walmart and P&G participation, the GPP released the Guidelines, which are intended to aid firms in answering specific business questions in the context of packaging/product environmental performance. Blake suggested visiting the GPP’s website, http://globalpackaging.mycgforum.com/ concluding, “GPP metrics should be integrated into the way you work today.” 

Next Blake moved onto a discussion of how the Guidelines are actually applied via several case studies that began with a specific business question:

Case study 1: what is the benefit of 20% less HDPE in a bottle? Bottle= 100 g –> 80 g 

GPP Common Metrics

Current

Proposed

Packaging Weight and Minimization

315 g

195 g

Case study 2: What is the benefit of 2X compacted product?

GPP Common Metrics

Current

Proposed

Packaging Weight and Minimization

315 g

195 g

Transport Packaging Cube Efficiency

75%

68%

Packaging to Product Weight Ratio

4.92g/load

3.04/g/load

Climate Change (GHG)

 

Transportation savings? 

Case study 3: What is the benefit of HDPE sourced from sugar cane? Bottle= petro –> renewable

Attributes of business question include: renewable content, material waste, chain of custody, water from stressed resources, environmental management system, energy audits.

The life cycle indicators of business question include all life cycle metrics (14); the social indicators of business question include all social metrics (11); therefore, in order to answer this business question, a total of 31 GPP metrics need to be consulted. 

Blake states, “The range of metrics depends on the business question.”In the first case study where the proposed packaging change was light-weighting, only 1 GPP metric pertained; in the second case study where the proposed change was compaction, 4 GPP metrics pertained; and, in the third case study where the proposed change was new HDPE source, 31 metrics needed investigation. Therefore, depending on your business sustainability strategy and sustainable packaging policy, different business questions re: sustainable packaging will appear more “appealing” than others due to the commitment required with data collection inherent in the different changes proposed.

Blake finishes his discussion by providing the following template for using the Guidelines of the GPP:

1. Define question

2. Determine scope

3. Select metrics

4. Gather data

5. Review data quality

6. Communicate business decision

My next post will discuss Dr. Karli Verghese’s presentation, “Developing the Corporate Strategy or Packaging Sustainability and Integrating Tools into the Product-Packaging Development Process.” Dr. Verghese is the Program Director of the Sustainable Products and Packaging Center at the Centre for Design at RMIT University. 

Hey guys!

The 6th Annual Sustainability in Packaging Conference was held at the Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate, Florida, March 12th-14th. The first day of the conference was reserved exclusively for intensive workshops that were not included in the price of registration. I attended this event last year when, as a speaker, I got to attend the workshops for free! It was here I met Dr. Ramani Narayan, who lectured on the value proposition of bio-based plastics for four hours (see my post from March 24th, 2011)! Anyway, the titles of this years’ workshops include: “Four Things Green Marketing Gets Wrong” (Shelton Group), “Understanding and Implementing Sustainable Packaging Concepts—Using Biobased Carbon Content and Design for End-of-Life Options” (Michigan State University), Packaging your Sustainability Strategy (PAC NEXT), “End of Life Options and Challenges” (Darby Marketing), and “Plastics—Sustainability from Use through End-of-Life” (ACC).

The first day of the conference began with opening remarks from John Kalkowski of Packaging Digest, who reflected on the past six years of the Sustainability in Packaging conferences. Beginning with a “what the heck is sustainability” mentality, Kalkowski explained how, with each passing year, the dialogue became more sophisticated, the number of registered attendees increased, and science moved to center stage. For Kalkowski, “it’s exciting to see how its grown,” which speaks to the industry’s commitment to sustainability.

He concluded his introductory remarks by highlighting the main theme we were sure to hear resonate from the various voices included in the conference agenda: that sustainability drives innovation, and visa versa. 

The first panel titled “Driving Packaging Innovation in the Supply Chain to Keep the Value Proposition” included presentations from PepsiCo, S.C Johnson and Nestle.  

First up was Tony Knoerzer of PepsiCo—he is the gentleman responsible for the Sun Chips compostable bag. In explaining his experiences bringing the compostable bag from R&D to market, Tony provided insight into how PepsiCo integrated innovation into the supply chain. Here are a couple presentation take-aways:

Knoerzer touched on the age-old debate of using food (corn) to produce compostable plastics—as in the case with the PLA-based Sun Chips bag—when so many people are starving, by emphasizing the importance of “context.” According to Knoerzer, in the US, 40% of the corn grown is harvested for conversion into ethanol due to governmental subsidies. Therefore, it is in PepsiCo’s opinion that compostable plastics should not be targeted for compromising the food supply because so much more is being harvested for ethanol when compared with that used for PLA production.

Knoerzer inquired, “How do you create value in supply chains?”

Historically, it has been by leveraging scale in order to attain operational excellence and organizational capability. Innovation, however, by its nature lacks scale; therefore, organizations need time to achieve organizational excellence.

The way to facilitate this transition is through collaboration with suppliers with whom you develop a shared knowledge strategy. This relationship looks to build trust and a long-term agenda; to replace anecdotal data with hard facts; and, allow for the interaction of technology, which rests entirely on the ability to move past a pre-competitive strategy. “A supplier is not a grocery store of technology to be acquired. Invest in what you need to know, with the right horsepower; if you think knowledge is expensive, try ignorance.”

A low chuckle murmurs throughout the crowd. After an enthusiastic applause, Will Archer of S.C. Johnson takes to the podium.

Archer’s presentation is titled “Sustainable Packaging Advances in the Marketplace” and looks to demonstrate how S.C. Johnson’s approach to sustainability works to meet the sustainability needs of the consumer AND the company simultaneously.

A couple presentation take aways:

Archer asked, “What is sustainable product development?” 

There is the “green brand approach,” which looks to develop a “sustainable product” for the conscious consumer; and, the “holistic approach,” which looks to “green the whole company.” S.C. Johnson is of the later camp. It’s logo “People Planet Profit” represents the firm’s value driver that “sustainability is about sustaining the company as well as the planet.”

Archer referenced the case study of S.C. Johnson’s cleaning product concentrates as example of how both the sustainability needs of the consumer and company were met:

Cleaning product concentrates use less packaging, decreasing shipping impacts and reducing waste. However, US consumers prefer not to refill their cleaning bottles; this has resulted in stores refusing to stock concentrates and companies hesitant to create them.

Taking this into consideration, S.C. Johnson launched its Windex mini concentrates, which sold online paired with a trigger bottle in each package. This approach to selling cleaning product concentrates resonated with the consumer, who found ease with purchasing online and appreciated the “starter kit” format. S.C. Johnson also quantified the environmental savings for the consumer, including language like, “Using the Windex mini concentrates instead of the traditional Windex product is the equivalent to removing xxxx cars off the road…”

Archer concluded, “It’s about progress, not perfection.”

Next up was Lars Lunquist of Nestle. The name of his presentation was “Driving Packaging Research in the Health Food and Wellness Industry.” He began,

“There is need for alignment around common principles, definitions…the role of packaging in the supply chain.”

When understanding “sustainability” as it pertains to food packaging, it is important to understand the following context: The three industries with the largest degree of environmental negative impact, from least to most, are furnishings, transport, and food. Recent studies by WRAP and others have shown we waste 40% of food in developing countries before it reaches the consumer due to inefficient logistics. Food product packaging represents only 21% of the food product total LCA. Therefore, packaging protecting and preserving the food product is key when discussing issues of sustainable packaging in the food industry.

Then Lundquist moved onto a discussion of the structure of Nestle’s packaging research program:

“For a company with 10,000 products, LCA is not the appropriate tool to feed innovation.” It is too slow, and it usually comes at the end of product development when the cost of change is extremely high.

Therefore, Nestle uses PIQUET—a LCA-based assessment tool tailored to food and beverage packaging—in the product/packaging developmental process. This tool allows Nestle to understand its impact categories, isolating hot spots and areas of improvement.

Lundquist then moved onto a discussion of end-of-life management for packaging. Consider the following take-aways:

“Bioplastics—are they compostable or renewable or both?”

For Lundquist, compostability is inherently interpreted as good for the environment, though few understand the environmental impact of composting. Aerobic composting “doesn’t deliver any value; it is one of the worst end of life scenarios.”

There is more potential in the renewable aspect of these materials. But, one must take into account the agro-related impacts i.e. eutrophication, water, mineral and biotic consumption, etc.

With recycling, people talk about it as though it is the panacea of waste management practices for packaging. However, “there are limits to recycling.” We need to consider waste-to-energy and other recovery options.

Lundquist concluded by emphasizing the need for a “holistic approach” to understanding packaging and sustainability, referencing the work of the Global Packaging Project.

For the GPP, Lundquist explained, the emphasis is not on the packaging exclusively, but the interaction between the package and product and packaging system through which the item is fulfilled, distributed, and recovered.

My next post will move on to a discussion of the following panel titled, “Global Packaging Project and the Proliferation of Tools: How to Quantify and Choose the Tools that Work.” 

Misc. updates FUN

September 20, 2010

Happy Monday Funday!

Before I get to the meat of today’s post, which will either discuss biodegradable plastics OR the SPC meeting (I haven’t decided yet…) I wanted to provide you with a recap of Dordan’s various sustainability initiatives and miscellaneous tid bits…

Composter update:

First, our composter is totally finished; last week compost Phil added a retractable roof to keep the critters our and the smell in. She’s a real beaut! Now we are in the process of getting separate bins in the cafeteria for our employees to place their food scraps in, thereby providing our compost pile with the nitrogen required for success! Pictures to come!

Zero-waste update:

Because I have been so busy with miscellaneous Pack Expo tasks (check out Dordan’s exciting 2010 Pack Expo-only Show Specials at: http://www.dordan.com/dordan_2010_pack_expo_only_show_specials.shtml) the zero-waste initiative was placed on the backburner. Now that I am back and don’t have any plans to travel in the near future, I am in the process of creating a zero-waste action plan. More details to come but I assume another waste audit is on the horizonL.

Victory Garden Update:

Emily and Phil have staked out the plot for their organic farm next spring. While it was smaller than anticipated, they are very excited about Dordan donating the use of its land to the production of organics for local restaurants. Due to their intentions of growing an organic garden on Dordan’s land next spring, we have cancelled plans to spray our land with pesticides, which in the past has been done to preserve our yard and trees from annoying infestations. Emily has plans to plow the area this fall to determine the quality of the soil prior to retiring for the winter. In addition, she and I are researching how to build a greenhouse as she expressed a desire for a warm room to start her seedlings in before moving them outside with the start of the growing season next spring.

Grassroots education update:

I am going to the Woodstock High school this Wednesday for their first meeting of the Environmental Task Force. The ETF is made up of administrative folk and one student representative and its task is to develop and implement various sustainability initiatives in D200 schools. I have been invited to pitch my desire to teach students about recycling to the various principals and deans that sit on the Committee and see what other ways I can get involved in the community.

SPC Executive Committee update:

As some of you know, I have been nominated for the Executive Committee of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. To recap, the SPC is…

…An industry working group dedicated to a more robust environmental vision for packaging. Through strong member support, an informed and science-based approach, supply chain collaborations and continuous outreach, we endeavor to build packaging systems that encourage economic prosperity and a sustainable flow of materials.

The Exec Committee, therefore, is described as follows:

Our Executive Committee consists of nine elected members and one GreenBlue representative, all of whom are dedicated to the SPC and our mission. As a project of GreenBlue, the SPC is ultimately governed by the charter and Board of GreenBlue. The Executive Committee is an advisory committee to GreenBlue and the SPC Director. In this advisory capacity, they provide strategic and fiscal guidance on meetings, events, projects, and all aspects of the Coalition. The Executive Committee is required to have a minimum representation from the supply chain and elections are held once a year in the fall. Members serve three-year terms.

Here is a list of the current Exec Committee:

Scott Ballantine, Packaging Project Manager, Microsoft

Alan Blake, Associate Director, Procter & Gamble

Scott Carpenter, Senior Research Engineer, SC Johnson

Humberto Garcia, Packaging Manager Ice Cream and Beverages, Unilever

Sara Hartwell, Environmental Specialist, U.S. EPA

Lance Hosey, President and CEO, GreenBlue

Jennifer McCracken, Environmental Manager, HAVI Global Solutions

Shanna Moore, Sustainability Director, DuPont

Karen Proctor, Professor, Rochester Institute of Technology

Gerald Rebitzer, Sustainability Leader, Amcor Flexibles Europe & Americas

According to the SPC website,

…The SPC 2010 Executive Committee elections will be held online following the Fall Members-Only Meeting and each member company is entitled to one vote. There are three positions open in this election. The terms are for three years, beginning in October 2010. We are required to have at least one Executive Committee representative from each of these major supply chain groups that make up the majority of SPC members. These groups include: Material Manufacturer, Packaging Converter and Brand Owner/Retailers.

At the meeting in Phoenix last week I was introduced as a candidate for this election, along with the other nominated parties. My face was also in the brochure with a small bio, which was sort of funny. Check it out here: http://sustainablepackaging.org/uploads/Documents/SPC_Fall_2010_EC_Committee_Nominees.pdf.

Granted I am very excited and honored to be nominated for this Committee, I honestly don’t think I even stand a chance as most of those who I am running against have been in the sustainable packaging industry for longer than I have been alive! I actually feel kind of silly to be listed alongside these truly outstanding people as I have so little experience; oh well, now is not a time to get sheepish—if I don’t get nominated this year there is always next year and the following year and the following year etc. until I am as experienced and renowned as those who have won a seat on this coveted Committee. Three cheers for perseverance!

And, this is totally ridiculous but AWSOME: An industry-friend who is also running for the Exec Committee sent the following email to those parties vested in the outcome of the election; HILARIOUS!

Subject: Exec Committee Elections … maybe this isn’t for prime time but I thought I’d kick it over to those of you I know for a laugh

Hello fellow SPC members

As some of you may know, I have been nominated by at least … oh, I don’t know, a hundred people or so for the exec committee at the SPC. I have developed some great relationships with many of you as we travel in small circles within the sustainable packaging community.  From sitting across each other and watching the tumbleweeds blow down the aisle at the Wal-Mart expo, touring stinky MRF’s as members of SERDC, hiking around Asia on the US Delegation for ISO and making fun of some of the applications on the GreenerPackage judging committee.

But, the purpose of this email is to talk about something much more serious.  Now, I’ve been told to run a clean campaign and I intend to do so but there are some things going on with some of the other candidates that I must bring to your attention.

 Why, just the other day someone sent me this snapshot of Chandler Slavin.

Upsetting, I know. I thought I knew chandler well but it appears that she has a few stamps on her passport to Kabul and I just don’t know what to say.

The author of the email then goes on to display silly pictures of all the other candidates running, followed by a “vote for me” call to action. Why I outta…

Sustainability logo design update:

Dordan has finally decided on a sustainability logo, which was developed in an attempt to brand Dordan’s 2011 Sustainability Efforts. We are in the process of polishing it up prior to giving it to our web designer for incorporation on Dordan’s homepage. Look out for our new logo in the upcoming weeks; I hope you like it!

Traditional Dordan logo redesign:

We have currently put off plans to re-do Dordan’s traditional logo (4 D’s) because, as I moved into the position of Marketing Manager this summer, I began to feel as though we/I had bitten off more than is chewable, or something like that. Also, to transition Dordan’s traditional aesthetic to a new one right before Pack Expo may be confusing for those just starting to become familiar with the Dordan brand, as this is the first year since the eighties that we have done any branding marketing in the form of print ads.

National TV Show update:

In a recent post, I described how Dordan was contacted by a National TV Show that is looking to do a series on Sustainable Business Solutions for the 21st Century and was interested in covering Dordan’s Story to Sustainability in a 5 minute segment, hosted by an entertainment personality. After several interviews and conversations between me, Dordan’s CEO, and the Assistant Producer of this show, it was explained that we would have to pay a “booking fee” to be featured as a “guest” on this segment. After a lot of reflection, we decided to let this opportunity go; I still don’t know if this was a scam or not…

Speaking opportunity:

Guess what: Yours truly has been invited to present at “Sustainable Plastics Packaging 2010” in Atlanta on December 8th-9th about my work on recycling clamshells! Again, for those of you who have not read it, visit http://www.greenerpackage.com/recycling to download my report on recycling. This is the result of a year’s research and draws on my involvement with Walmart-Canada, though it is an independent work. It is a concise yet technical treatment of why thermoforms are not recycled in most American communities, with suggestion for the industry. The name of my presentation will be the name of my report (Recycling Report: the truth about clamshell/blister recycling in America with suggestions for industry) and I am required to fill a whole 30 minutes; yikes! While I am getting better at public speaking, I consider myself no pro, so I am actually very nervous about this and plan to practice the yet-to-be-made presentation daily until the presentation itself! Overkill? I think not!

As an aside, I am in the process of copyrighting this Report and spent all day Thursday emailing it to those I thought would be interested in the content. Below is an email from one recipient, who provided the best feedback I have received to-date. While I can’t disclose his name and/or position, he is a governmental official for the waste management industry and has been a featured speaker at two conferences I have attended this y ear about recycling and issues related to extended producer responsibility.

Hi Chandler,

It was great to see you in Phoenix and now after reading your paper (finally!), I wish we had found more time to talk. I actually think this topic would make a very interesting and insightful session at a packaging conference because, as you have done with your piece, it would be instructive as to all the kinds of things that need to come together for any type of package to become recyclable.

Your paper is very thoughtful and well-researched and you clearly hit on the chicken-and-egg dilemma. I think the steps you identified for more information are on target and I believe other folks are thinking the same way. To that end, how much interactions have you had the APR’s rigids sub-committee? Their current activities are revolving around the same issues – the need for data, bale specs, etc. I’ve been a pretty detached member of the committee of late, with a number of other things on my plate (including preparation for the EPR discussions), so I cannot tell you any details about the current work. It strikes me, though, that if you have time and resources to do so, you are a natural to participate in that committee.

Here are some other observations, for what they are worth. I agree with you that achieving critical mass of material is the leverage point of recyclability. For thermoforms, we may have to accept a regimen for at least awhile of MRFs generating mixed rigid plastic, non-1 and 2 bottle bales and relying heavily if not exclusively on export markets for those bales. I think the export market remains pretty forgiving and still hungry for mixed resin bales, resting on the ability of low labor cost markets to do the sortation.

So if there can continue to be the gradual expansion of collection of this material and the marketing of truckload quantities from mostly larger MRFS, eventually there could be enough to attract the development of domestic, mixed resin, mixed product plastic reclamation facilities. These would in turn take pressure off the MRFs to spend capital and make room within limited footprints for more differential sorting and storage, both of which are expensive.

In a nutshell, then, I see the export market as critical to the incubation of material market for non-bottle rigids. There is also a broker[I know] that seems to have a pretty good handle on exporting as he sources different kinds of mixed bales for Asian markets – you might find it interesting to talk to him…

Once again, I think you are being very thoughtful about this whole thing and I commend you for taking on the challenge. You already know there are no easy answers but that hasn’t stopped you from working hard on the issue, which I really admire.

Not sure when our paths will cross again – I’m only going to the packaging shows when I am invited to come. So far apparently I have not worn out my welcome. But if you have the travel time and money, I would recommend thinking about coming to one of the Plastic Scrap conferences or APR meetings. I will be going to the one next March in New Orleans. Maybe I’ll see you there!

All the best!

Rely on export markets, he says…very interesting. I will let you all marinate on this and I will comment on this in a future post.

Below is a list of confirmed speakers for the conference:

  • Arno Melchior, Global Packaging Director, RECKITT BENCKISER GROUP PLC
  • Chandler Slavin, Sustainability Coordinator, DORDAN MANUFACTURING CO. INC.
  • Dailey Tipton, Global Leader of Sales & Marketing, FIRSTCARBON SOLUTIONS
  • Suzanne Shelton, CEO, SHELTON GROUP
  • Michael Sansoucy, National Sales Manager OR Rick Shaffer, President, NETSTAL MACHINERY
  • Patty Enneking, Group Director Global Sustainability and Environmental Affairs, KLOCKNER PENTAPLAST GROUP
  • Barbara G. McCutchan, Ph.D, Associate, PACKAGING & TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS LLC
  • Aaron L. Brody, Ph.D, President and CEO, BRODY INC.
  • Scott Steele, Vice President – Global Analytical Labs, Global Training and Enterprise Projects, PLASTIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Dave Clark, Director of Sustainability, AMCOR RIGID PLASTICS
  • Katherine O’Dea, Senior Fellow, GREENBLUE

Walmart-Canada MOC meeting update:

I have been invited to the next MOC meeting at the Walmart-Canada headquarters on November 20th…this also corresponds with the Walmart-Canada SVN meeting, but I don’t know if I will receive approval to attend this event(s) from upper management. I did send my Recycling Report to my co-lead, who forwarded it on to Walmart-Canada’s new sustainability packaging coordinator. I have not heard back from him nor have my notes, which I wrote summarizing the conversation from our last meeting in June, made it through Walmart legal yet…go figure.

GPP meeting update:

I believe my dream of wearing a suit in Paris in the fall has been blown to smithereens as I don’t think I will be allowed to attend the annual meeting of the Global Packaging Project scheduled for October 14th-15th in Paris. Waaaaaa!

Plane tickets are over $2,000.00!

And, the objective of this annual meeting of the GPP is to report on the success of the pilots, which were implemented by various member companies in hopes of determining the feasibility of the recently release metrics for assessing the sustainability of a package. Because Dordan had nothing to do with the development of the metrics or volunteered to test their validity via a pilot, it is difficult to justify sending a representative to this event; I have been arguing, to the dismay of our CEO, however, that it would do wonders for my insight into sustainable packaging metrics, though I hardly believe it will justify the expense!

SOOOO that’s what going on in the world of Dordan; exciting stuff!

And I know I said I would provide a recap of the SPC meeting/present my findings on biodegradable plastics today but I have exhausted my time dedicated to blogging for the day. I apologize!

See you tomorrow! You know they say Tuesday is the most productive day of the week; here’s hoping!

Happy Monday Funday! I hope everyone had a nice weekend and one full of relaxation!

As most industry-folk know, the Global Packaging Project released its “A Global Language for Packaging and Sustainability: A framework and a measurement system for our industry” a week ago-ish, which discusses, as the title implies, a global metric for assessing the sustainability of a given package or packaging system. Pack World’s/Greenerpackage.com’s Anne Marie Mohan provides a good summary of the project here with the report(s) available for download: http://www.greenerpackage.com/metrics_standards_and_lca/gpp_releases_global_framework_measurement_system_sustainability.

As Mohan explains, the GPP looks to create a GLOBAL metric for quantifying the “sustainability” of a package/packaging system. While the Walmart Scorecard and the SPC’s Metrics for Sustainable Packaging exist in isolation, this project looks to be the over-arching governance on sustainable packaging metrics, absorbing the work of both the SPC and Walmart. From what I believe, if a new metric wishes to be added to the Walmart Scorecard, it must first be presented to the GPP for consideration and validation.

For those of you unfamiliar with the concept of “sustainable packaging metrics,” a “metric” can be understood as an “attribute” that a given package or packaging system has in the context of the environment from a life cycle approach. For instance, packaging weight could be a metric taken into consideration when trying to quantify the environmental profile of a given package, as is the case with the SPC’s COMPASS packaging life cycle assessment modeling software and the Walmart Scorecard (packaging weight informs the energy required to transport the product/package throughout the supply chain and consequentially impacts GHG emissions, fossil fuel consumption, etc.)

Unlike the Scorecard and COMPASS, however, this global set of metrics takes into account social and economic indicators, in addition to the environmental ones; in my opinion, this integration makes the GPP’s approach to assessing packaging sustainability a much more holistic and therefore efficient tool than those currently in use.  

Taken together, the GPP proposes 52 metrics that need to be recognized in the discussion around issues pertaining to packaging and sustainability. 52, isn’t that wonderful!!!

And here are some of my favorites:

Environmental—chain of custody: This questions if the production/cultivation of the feedstock (cellulous vs. fossil fuel) is done so “sustainably.” Think Forest Stewardship Council…AWSOME!

Environmental—water used from stressed sources: This metric questions where the water comes from that facilitates the production/cultivation of the packaging feedstock. Check out the Global Water Tool, based on several independent sources, which provides a global water scarcity mapping function for the identification of production activities occurring in stressed or scarce watersheds:

http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=MTUxNQ&doOpen=1&ClickMenu=LeftMenu=LeftMenu

There’s this, too:

http://www.ifu.ethz.ch/staff/stpfiste/index_EN

Economic—packaged product wastage: this metric questions the value of packaged product lost due to packaging failure. I like this one because it is so simple; it reaffirms the number one function of packaging, which is, to protect the product. In a time when “smaller product to package ratio”, “material reduction” and “downgauging” has become, for the most part, our industries’ approach to “sustainability,” it is nice to be reminded of the necessity for excess…

Social—community investment: This metric questions the role a corporation plays in its community. Because Corporate Social Responsibility reports are so in vogue, it’s nice to see that such efforts will be quantified with this assessment, hopefully influencing purchasing decisions.

For the other 49 metrics, check out the report here:

http://globalpackaging.mycgforum.com/allfiles/TCGF_Packaging_Sustainability_Indicators__Metrics_Framework_1.0.pdf

Ok folks, that’s all I got for today. I am researching how to perform a waste audit so we can determine what type of composter would be the most appropriate for Dordan’s food and yard waste generation. Details to come!

Good afternoon world! Thought I would catch you all before the late-afternoon slump, which is when I am accustomed to blogging. Second cup of Joe, here I come!

Today’s post takes a slight detour from the world of recycling: I wish to briefly discuss how one quantifies the environmental benefits of sourcing packaging material from recycled resin versus virgin; and, the associated environmental burdens of using inks, laminates and adhesives on fiber-based packaging.

First, the environmental benefits associated with making packaging out of recycled resin versus virgin is kinda a no brainer…one would assume that sourcing post-consumer material yields environmental benefits when compared with sourcing virgin. Luckily, the Franklin Associated recently determined that recycling plastic significantly reduces energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. According to their work, the generation of cleaned recycled resin required 71 trillion Btu less than the amount of energy that would be required to produce the equivalent tonnage of virgin PET and HDPE resin (Killinger, ACC). In other words, the amount of energy saved by recycling PET and HDPE containers including bottles in 2008 was the equivalent to the annual energy use of 750,000 U.S. homes. The corresponding savings in greenhouse gas emissions was 2.1 million tons of C02 equivalents, an amount comparable to taking 360,000 cars off the road (Killinger, ACC). You can download the full report here:  Final Recycled Resin HDPE PET Life Cycle Inventory Report.

So this is great because it finally provides justification for moving into PET and RPET packaging as that is the most readily recycled and recyclable. However, how do we show how this data actually impacts the LCA of a package? In other words, if I wanted to measure the environmental benefits associated with sourcing my packaging from RPET as opposed to PET, how would I?

And enter COMPASS, which is the SPC’s packaging environmental life cycle modeling software, which allows you to compare the “footprint” of different packaging materials and types in the design phase. Now that Franklin has provided LCI data about RPET used in packaging, COMPASS should be able to integrate the data into its software, thereby allowing users to compare packaging made from recycled PET versus virgin.

Here’s the email I sent to the creator of COMPASS:

Hey,

I hope this email finds you well.

I had sent you an email asking when COMPASS was going to be updated with the LCI RPET data released by the ACC/APR/NAPCOR, etc. This email is to follow up on that inquiry. As thermoformers of RPET, it is very important for us to be able to quantify the environmental benefits of sourcing an RPET clamshell versus a PET clamshell.

In addition, is COMPASS intending on including metrics for inks, laminates, and adhesives i.e. clay coated SBS board? A lot of research I am finding is that these chemicals greatly impact the environmental profile of a package; when will COMPASS be able to quantify these components?

Thanks for your time.

Chandler

And his response:

Hi,

See below.

Hey,

I hope this email finds you well. Thanks doing well indeed. And you?

I had sent you an email asking when COMPASS was going to be updated with the LCI RPET data released by the ACC/APR/NAPCOR, etc. This email is to follow up on that inquiry. As thermoformers of RPET, it is very important for us to be able to quantify the environmental benefits of sourcing an RPET clamshell versus a PET clamshell. As you may know, we do not add data until they are third party verified. There has been a lot of activity on the data front of late and the data verification is coordinated by the EPA, and rPET and rHDPE are among them. Once we get the go ahead, we will begin work to model the data for COMPASS. This is anticipated to start towards the end of Q3 2010.

In addition, is COMPASS intending on including metrics for inks, laminates, and adhesives i.e. clay coated SBS board? A lot of research I am finding is that these chemicals greatly impact the environmental profile of a package; when will COMPASS be able to quantify these components? The secondary materials you mention may indeed be of concern and they are on our radar, however, since GreenBlue does not collect primary LCI data, we cannot add information until they become available and are verified. There is a lot of talk in the industries about the need for such data, and the best way to convey the information. We may have spoken on this before, but coatings, inks, glues etc are generally used in a very small quantity relative to the primary materials, and the existing display mechanism may need to change to record the results for the secondary materials. Also, since LCA is not a very good mechanism for conveying toxicity, the entire secondary materials module may require some detailed thought prior to implementation. I do not have a timeline for these materials as yet since much of the work in preliminary talk stage only.

Groovy…

I then sent a similar inquiry to another contact who knows a thing or two about sustainable packaging metrics and modeling software:

Hello,

This is Chandler Slavin with Dordan Manufacturing. I hope this email finds you well.

At the meeting, a participant asked if you intended on including any metrics for the inks, laminates and adhesives used in many fiber-based packaging materials. You replied that unless you had scientific evidence that illustrated that such a metric had an impact on the overall environmental profile of a given package, you did not intend on including said metrics in the Scorecard.

I found the following statement in the U.S. E.P.A.’s TRI (Toxics Release Inventory) report, 1996:

…Coated and laminated paper products are also associated with significant reporting of releases and other waste management of TRI chemicals…Pollutants associated with various coating materials and processes have included emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and discharges of wastewater containing solvents, colorants, and other contaminants.

Download the report at: http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri96/pdr/chapt5_ry96.pdf

That being said, what are your thoughts on the inclusion of some type of metric that would attempt to quantify the environmental burdens associated with the utilization of inks, laminates, and adhesives on packaging?

Thank you for your time.

Chandler Slavin

And her response:

We aren’t opposed to including but we need to have details on what to include and how much they impact the total Life Cycle of the package.  In studies that I have seen on packaging the impact by these materials to the total package LCA are small in comparison than other parts like production of raw materials and transportation.  Prior to us adding to the scorecard we would need the data proving they are a big portion of the LCA and publicly available LCI to add to the scorecard.

Thanks for reaching out sharing some of your questions and concerns.

Hmmmmmm…

I replied the following:

During the meeting, you and your team discussed the ambiguities surrounding the “sustainable material” metric and participants articulated the desire for a “material health/toxicity” metric, in addition to, or as a component of, the “sustainable material” metric. Have you and your team given any thought to the inclusion of such a metric that does not rely on an LCA-based approach, but another “mechanism for conveying toxicity?”

I look forward to your response; thanks again for your time!

And her response:

Yes, we are analyzing the GPP metrics through the Pilot process as discussed at the meeting. 

She then provided me with a link to their website and other pertinent information; what a doll!

The GPP is the Global Packaging Project and it is super awesome! It looks to provide global metrics for quantifying the environmental profile of a material, packaging type, conversion process, etc. Tons and tons of CPGs and retailers and manufactures and packaging converters are members of this organization. I believe they are currently in a pilot phase, which is attempting to collect LCI data from primary processes.

I reached out to a representative from the GPP and she was really nice. She told me about their work and provided me with access to said work—I feel like I hit a gold mine! Unlike the Scorecard, the GPP will cover a multitude of different metrics, toxicity being among them. SOOOO I guess I am definitely not the only one interested in this and eventually, we will have much more thorough tools to measure the environmental repercussions of our packaging purchasing decisions.

Consequently, it’s only a matter of time until the greenwashers get phased out. I feel like we are in the Wild Wild West of packaging and sustainability and that eventually, some governance will come to maintain order—hopefully the GPP.

AND GUESS WHAT: The GPP is having a conference in October in PARIS. That’s right, Paris, the most romantic city in the whole wide world. I would kill to be able to go; hopefully I can make a good enough case for my Superior to consider it…

The last email that I sent along this theme was to the wonderful Robert Carlson of CalRecycle.

I wrote,

Hello there!

Question: why is an LCA-based approach not appropriate for trying to quantify the environmental ramifications of secondary materials i.e. inks, laminates and adhesives? In addition, what “other mechanisms” exist for quantifying these ramifications? How do you foresee the inclusion of this information in environmental modeling tools going forward?

Do chemical manufactures have to report their releases to the US EPA? If so, where/how can I access this information?

AND, I was reading the back of one of our competitors’ packages and the following verbiage was displayed: “This product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects and other reproductive harm.” WHAT THE WHAT? What is this, where can I find out more?

Thanks buddy!

And his response:

Ok…let me try to take this piece by piece and see what I can help you with:

As far as the competitors’ package goes, there are LOTS of chemicals that require that warning, it’s all part of prop 65 (see the attached PDF for the complete list and their website http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html ).  There is very likely a Material Safety Data Sheet available for that product…you might check on their website.

As far as manufacturers reporting their emissions to US EPA…I’m not really sure but I don’t think they do generally.  There are very likely specific situations that are regulated and are required to report emissions to EPA…but I’m not familiar enough with them to tell you which ones are required to be reported on.

Now…on to the meat of your question…the inks, laminates and adhesives…  I’m not sure what you meant with the comment that LCA is not a good mechanism for conveying toxicity…  Perhaps it has to do with the fact that usually LCA don’t get into exposure…  If a product emits 1.2 grams of a toxic substance, that’s all that is reported…it doesn’t really get into whether it’s emitted close to people, if people have long contact time with it or short, if sensitive sub-populations are exposed or not, if the toxin is persistent or not, if workers are exposed or consumers, etc…  That may be what was meant…  It could be that a combination of an LCA (to determine the releases at various points in the process) and a toxicological assessment of some kind (to determine exposure and risk assessment) would be a better way to approach LCA for these kinds of materials.

 There are always data gaps…there always will be.  To some extent, you can’t measure what you don’t know…  BUT somebody has to collect that data!  Eventually!  So somebody is going to have to step up and foot the bill…the problem of course comes in the sense that nobody trusts industry and government is broke…

How’d I do?  Make any sense???

You did wonderful, Robert, thanks!

That’s all for now. Tune in tomorrow to learn more about packaging and sustainability and the feasibility of recycling PET thermoforms in North America.

Tootles!