Pushing the Sustainable Packaging Movement Forward

By Kevin Williams


What the organic industry has accomplished in the past 50 years is nothing short of a revolution—a social, economic, operational, environmental and even spiritual revolution of the institutions that govern our economy-driven, consumption-based society. And, we would all agree that with approximately a 3 percent share of the food market, and less in other segments of consumer goods, that the fight has only just begun. With the overwhelming body of evidence relating to health and environmental integrity, one might wonder why organic has not gained even greater market share. As awareness has grown, why hasn’t the rate of conversion grown exponentially as well?

The answer is that there is a tremendous force at play working to maintain the status quo and preserve the conventional system of production and consumption. The consumer goods market is an institution and like any institution, it exists to serve itself. To change an institution requires a major paradign shift. People need to see that the old system is no longer functional, and even dangerous. The organic industry needs to raise the consciousness of the constituents, ignite their feelings of injustice and inspire action until the collective voice demands a change.

The concept of sustainable packaging now faces the same challenges that the organic movement faced back when it was gaining momentum, when it moved out of the back country co-ops, farm stands and small independent health food stores to mainstream market acceptance. Heightened awareness of sustainable solutions has made packaging a hot topic among consumers, retailers and manufacturers and that is fueling momentum. However, the packaging industry (a subset of the institutional system of consumer products) is an institutional system as well and adoption of significant sustainable packaging solutions into the packaging complex is meeting obstacles that are preventing adoption of new and innovative solutions. Manufacturers are slaves to existing standardized packaging methodologies, while being fearful of upsetting consumers unwavering demand for convenience.

Obstacles with Current Eco-Packaging Comparison Systems
In an earlier article, Breaking Down Sustainable Packaging Options, (OP, March/April 2008), it was suggested that companies should conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to identify the environmental impact a package system has through all the stages of its “life,” from sourcing raw materials, processing and shipping, all the way to disposal or reuse. Although this methodology has increased efficiencies in operations and material use, this practice can actually help perpetuate existing systems instead of encouraging innovative development. As examples in this article will illustrate, to determine a carbon footprint the typical LCA process uses industry metrics that require long-term data and favor efficiencies that can only be attained with larger-scale production, thus giving the big guys an upper hand when the numbers are tallied. Plus, many new, innovative companies cannot even afford to do a LCA, which can be very costly.

Ranking packaging based on LCAs alone can especially become a problem when large corporations like Wal-Mart use scorecards that focus primarily on these numbers. This encourages manufacturers to choose existing materials with low LCA numbers, rather than investing in innovation and helping push it to the next level of efficiency. Overall, this type of strictly “by the numbers” ranking often supports existing packaging materials in existing manufacturing processes through existing distribution channels.

In order to move forward, companies need to look beyond the existing production mentality and support truly evolutionary change in packaging systems versus just optimizing the old. The founders of the organic movement did not approach the food system this way. They didn’t say, “How can I reduce the amount of harmful pesticides on my crops, mono-crop more sustainably or apply GMOs to less acreage?” They identified the ideal, the “gold” standard and ruthlessly pursued it outside the existing institutions, slowly gaining converts among both suppliers and consumers.

We need to reinvent systems that are relevant to the problems of our time. In his presentation to the Industrial Society back in 1999, Bruce Sterling, the forward-thinking founder of the Viridian Design Movement, spoke passionately about the need for this change in thinking: “New, not cut-and-pasted from the debris of past trends. Forward-looking and high-tech. About abundance of clean power and clean products, not conservative of dirty power and dirty products. Expansive, not niggling. Mainstream, not underground. Creative of a new order, not subversive of an old order. Making a new cultural narrative, not calling an old narrative into question.”

New Tools, Same Obstacles
This spring, the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) will introduce its latest packaging comparison software COMPASS (formerly called MERGE). According to Minal Mistry of the SPC, COMPASS will allow developers to evaluate their material choices using a set of eight environmental criteria, and then will offer alternative and possibly better packaging solutions. The COMPASS database will consist of an aggregated collection of packaging materials that have each already gone through standardized LCAs, so the assessments can be based on common denominators. The COMPASS tool is designed to become increasingly effective as more data becomes available.

COMPASS will certainly prove to be a great resource to manufacturers, especially smaller companies that do not possess the institutional knowledge to efficiently make these kinds of materials assessments. However, as it stands, the tool will serve as an enabler to the status quo, perpetuating the existing system. When asked, Mistry confirmed that the database cannot account for newer materials that have not gone through an official LCA. This effectively sustains older materials (albeit better choices than one might find without the tool) and reduces the likelihood of success for newer, potentially more sustainable, materials.

Although the resources SPC is creating represent a huge step in the right direction, the organic industry, as leaders in the sustainability movement, needs to be aware of the self-imposed limits on innovation that are created by implementing tools that enable the existing system. The following section illustrates several examples of how this can happen.

Eco-Packaging Innovations and Barriers to a Sustainable Future
EarthFirst Packaging cartons and labels made of “Earthboard” employ a limestone topcoat over 100 percent post-consumer waste paperboard, yet maintain the look and feel of a virgin board stock such as Solid Bleach Sulfate (SBS)—the very white board stock used in many personal care products.

“Earthboard does not use the bleach, formaldehyde or the substantial amounts of water that are used in virgin stock paperboard, thereby reducing contamination of the most valuable resource that we take for granted—water.” says McCarthy Hanger, president of EarthFirst Packaging. “13 ounces of water is consumed for every letter-size piece of virgin stock paper.”

Based on information provided by the Environmental Defense Fund, swapping out virgin paperboard for Earthboard would result in:
• 2,300 trees saved
• 860,200 gallons water saved
• 19,205 lbs. solid waste prevented
• 27,140 lbs. air emissions eliminated
• 4,200 gallons of water waste not created
• 2,875,000 million BTUs of energy saved

However, EarthFirst Packaging is faced with a challenge that many other leading edge packaging materials face—it’s too new to have historical, quantifiable data that would be used in a LCA, eliminating it for consideration in the evaluation process.

McCarthy said that on numerous occasions, opportunities with manufacturers are lost because purchasing departments have a set of sustainability guidelines hinging on the Total Offset Assessment set up by the packaging industry. These standards are established specifically to address scorecards put in place by major retailers like Wal-Mart.

This sentiment was reiterated by Andy Sweetman, global marketing manager of sustainable technologies for Innovia Films. Purchasing agents are requiring that suppliers provide LCA numbers for their materials that correlate to the major retailer initiatives which drive purchasing decisions.

So far, the company has conducted two full “cradle to gate” LCAs, at a price of about 30,000 Euros, and has also purchased the software licenses to run the process in-house going forward. But, the problem, according to Sweetman, is that at present the LCAs favor conventional and unsustainable materials such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP), two very common plastic films derived from non-renewable resources.

Biopolymers are new to the packaging industry, having become commercially available within the last five years, and therefore they do not have the history of data or the efficiencies of manufacturing compared to conventional plastics. Innovia’s NatureFlex films are derived from the wood pulp of managed plantations that are following sustainable forestry principles and are certified biodegradable and compostable in accordance with EN 13432 and ASTM D6400 norms. This gives them an added advantage in a carbon footprint assessment, a metric associated with LCA.

But efficiency of processing proves to be a major delineator, as conventional PE and PP producers benefit from economy of scale that tips the offset measurements in their favor. As Sweetman described, conventional plastic production webs can be up to 10 meters wide, whereas most biofilms are produced in narrower form (i.e., NatureFlex machines are currently 1.5 meters wide). This results in significant differences in the energy-intensive portion of materials processing.

That said, carbon footprint assessment of the biopolymers has been steadily declining as volumes increase, said Sweetman, as opposed to conventional polymers whose footprint is flat.

A further challenge stemming directly from major retailers is the demand for a publicly available LCA. Both Sweetman and Hanger explain that because their products are based on proprietary intellectual property, publishing a LCA would compromise their competitive position.

Public Perception and Participation—Keys to Change
Another challenge eco-packaging faces is public understanding and participation. BioBag is a manufacturer of biodegradable plastic packaging using the Mater-Bi polymers produced by Novamont, an Italian research company dedicated to environmental alternatives.

As per Mark Williams, president of BioBag, the growing segment of his company’s business is film plastics used for frozen foods with such clients as Whole Foods. However, much of its customer base is in Europe where there is a much higher level of consumer participation in sustainable programs. Interestingly, studies suggest that sustainability is a high concern among U.S. consumers. According to a poll from Zogby/Technet, 75 percent of American shoppers say their purchasing decisions have been influenced by a desire to save energy and improve the environment.

Public opinion is the largest segment of our consumption-oriented, institutional system and is the lever to create change. The double-digit growth of the organic market has been spurred forth by an awakening of consumer consciousness not purely a shift in manufacturing operations. Sadly though, in spite of high opinion polls, evidence suggests that there is a lack of public willingness to participate.

Much of the rapid growth recycling experienced in the United States was due to the growing number of municipalities adopting curb side recycling programs. However, it reached saturation by the late 90s and recycling participation capped out at the same time at around 30 percent for the most recycled items like plastic PET bottles. The rest goes into the waste stream.

One of the challenges the sustainable packaging industry faces is public apathy being driven in large part by confusion, which is often fueled by the industry itself due to conflicting statements perpetuated by manufacturers.

According to Williams, a growing amount of bio-plastics make claims of being biodegradable such as “oxi-biodegradables” which are polyethylene with oxidizers that promote the break down of the material but the polymer stays intact instead returning to its fundamental elements (water and carbon dioxide), the standardized definition as per ASTM 6400 and 6868. The result is that these products enter municipal composers and contaminate the systems. In response California has enacted labeling laws restricting any reference to biodegradability and requiring all compostable plastics to adhere to the ASTM standards.

What Does the New Sustainable Packaging Look Like?
Is it possible to establish a gold standard that we can aspire to? The challenge for the industry is there is no set language or practice for what defines the ideal—where packaging programs can be evaluated for the value they offer today in the existing system while also moving us forward to a more ideal reality.

This new reality would reward the groups that are reshaping a system beyond the reduction mindset to renewable, recyclable, and inert (no solid waster or toxicity). This goes beyond the scope of the supplier and manufacturer relationship to include the government, local municipalities, and the most pivotal component of the consumer products system…the public.

Communication was the very challenge the organic food movement faced prior to the establishment of the USDA NOP standard, which may be argued as being imperfect depending on your point of view, but gives us a platform to work from. There needs to be a convention of understanding for these disparate groups to become aligned. We need to give as much credit as possible to the Sustainable Packaging Coalition for taking the first steps toward creating the tools required to move in this direction. And as the leaders in the sustainability movement, we need to be mindful that it’s our responsibility to push for the gold standard.

Get involved in further peer-to-peer discussion of these issues at www.purebranding.com/blog. The communication goals with this blog are to brainstorm ideas on: 1)creating a properly weighted assessment for packaging that encourages us to move beyond the existing paradigm and push the next generation of sustainable solutions forward, 2)help standardize communication to reduce confusion and public apathy, and 3)encourage consumers, through responsible branding and communication, to wake up, take ownership, and be a part of the sustainable solution—not passive enablers.

Kevin Williams is the principal brand strategist of Pure Branding LLC (www.purebranding.com), a brand consultancy that exclusively supports natural and organic companies to achieve their social and financial missions. Through the practice of authentic brand strategy, Pure Branding helps companies find their true voice and use that voice—through all aspects of advertising, marketing and packaging—to inspire consumer participation and create authentic brand connections. Clients include leading international natural and organic brands in the food, personal care and nutraceutical segments. Kevin can be reached at kevin@purebranding.com.


Supporting Sustainable Innovation

Here are some packaging suppliers that are providing innovative sustainable solutions. Find out more at the Biodegradable Products Institute website (www.bpiworld.org/BPI-Public/Approved/4.html).

Evlon Compostable Plastic Film (www.evlon.ca)
Bi-Ax International
Material: made from NatureWorks biopolymer polylactide resins (PLA)
Sustainable Claim: industrial compostable
Sourced: corn feedstock
Application: can be used in place of Oriented Poly Propollene (OPP)

Clarifoil (www.clarifoil.com)
Material: cellulose diacetate
Sustainable Claim: listed as biodegradable
Sourced: trees and cotton
Application: labels, carton windows

Earthcycle Packaging (www.earthcycle.com)
Material: palm cellulose
Sustainable Claim: biodegradable and compostable
Sourced: waste product of palm oil production
Application: trays

NatureFlex
Innovia Films (www.innoviafilms.com)
Material: wood cellulose
Sustainable Claim: biodegradable and compostable
Sourced: wood pulp
Application: heat seal films for bags

Plantic Films (www.plantic.com.au)
Plantic Technologies Limited
Material: chemically modified high amylose corn starch
Sustainable Claim: biodegradable, compostable, non-GMO
Sourced: non-GMO corn feedstocks
Application: sheet films and injection molded trays

EarthFirst (www.earthfirstpla.com)
Material: NatureWorks biopolymer polylactide resins (PLA) neutral polymer Ingeo
Sustainable Claim: industrial compostable
Sourced: corn feedstock
Application: shrink sleeve, carton window, flexible packaging

EarthBoard (www.earthboard.net)
Material: limestone and 100 percent PCW paperboard
Sustainable Claim: low footprint (no bleach, no formaldehyde, less water, recyclable)
Sourced: 100 percent PCW paperboard and limestone
Application: paperboard cartons

Other resources:
• Sustainable Packaging Coalition • http://www.sustainablepackaging.org/
• Sustainable Green Print Partnership • https://www.sgppartnership.org/