How to Sustain "Green" Packaging
11.07.2007
Sustainable packaging’ is getting a lot of attention. But what does it mean, and how can it appeal to consumers?
When it comes to packaging, “environmental friendliness” has now become “sustainability.”
That’s the new buzzword for responsible packaging. It received a great boost when Wal-Mart introduced its sustainable packaging initiative last year. Other major retailers are introducing similar initiatives, including Tesco in the United Kingdom.
There are different facets of a package’s ultimate impact on the environment. Some of the most commonly considered ones include source reduction, recyclability, recycled content, carbon footprint and biodegradability. How do each of these facets relate to the others? Which ones are most likely to make significant impacts on consumers? And which ones do consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies see as practical?
Designers, end users and others involved with consumer goods packaging agree that one of the most significant aspects of today’s “sustainability” approach is the way the different environmental aspects of packaging are intertwined. Bill Franklin, director of the Franklin Associates division of Eastern Research Group, calls it “lifecycle analysis.”
“It’s an accounting system that starts with the extraction of resources from the Earth and follows all steps of development through use and end of life,” Franklin says.
Different priorities
However, the emphasis on these different aspects has been evolving. The last big push on “environmentally friendly” packaging took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the most conspicuous aspect was the fear that the U.S. was running our of landfill space. Other concerns have now pushed that one to the background.
The most conspicuous such concern is air pollution. Global warming has become arguably the most high-profile environmental issue today. That affects packaging in two main ways: the use of petrochemicals to make packaging and the amount of energy required to process and transport it.
The Wal-Mart metric, for one, tries to quantify this by, for example, asking the retailer’s suppliers to specify the distance packaging has to travel before and after its use. But relating energy use to packaging can be tricky, because packaging can affect energy use in many ways.
Ralph Jerome, vice president of research and development for snack food for Mars Inc., notes the necessity of considering all the environmental effects of a packaging change.
“The key challenge is to consider the complete system in the design process to arrive at a balanced and effective solution,” Jerome says. “For instance, reducing corrugated weight saves material, but if it sub-optimizes truck loading due to reduced stacking strength, the resulting increase in fuel usage and greenhouse gas generation could be a net negative for sustainability.”
Roger Zellner, director of sustainability for global technology and quality at Kraft Foods, points out that understanding sustainability in packaging requires evaluating both product and package with a holistic perspective.
For example, he asserts that protecting the product is one of the most important environmental benefits of packaging. “The product’s environmental footprint in terms of growing, harvesting, processing and distributing is generally larger than that of the package,” he says. “If you have packaging that allows damage and does not sufficiently protect the product, you’re increasing the amount of product loss and environmental impact.”
Another example of holistic understanding is having the right size product portion and corresponding package. Even though more packaging may be needed, the total environmental footprint can be reduced since less unused product may go to waste.
Nonetheless, packaging reduction, when done properly, is one of the most promising and popular sustainability strategies for several reasons. It has a positive impact on other aspects of sustainability. Zellner explains, “Less material typically requires less energy to produce and transport, and takes up less disposal space.”
Reduced packaging can be tangible and conspicuous to the consumer, especially if there’s a contrast on retail shelves with a competing product that has more packaging. Additionally, reducing packaging, in most (not all) cases, means reducing packaging costs.
“Reducing the environmental footprint often has the benefit of reducing cost, which is one reason why material reduction has been highly encouraged,” Zellner says.
That’s why some of the major consumer goods companies have instituted packaging reduction initiatives. Examples include:
• In the U.S., Kraft has reduced the weight of the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles used for its Crystal Light and Fruit20 beverages by 18%, a move the company estimates will save 8.7 million pounds of plastic.
• In Mexico, Kraft has instituted packaging reduction of 30% for Tang powdered beverages, with consequent reductions in the size of the shipping and display case, which will end up saving an annual total of 325 metric tons of film and fiber materials per year.
• The Milka chocolate tablets sold in Europe have been switched from a foil wrap in a paperboard sleeve to a one-layer flow pack, reducing packaging materials by 90 metric tons per year. Other such initiatives have taken place for coffee in Germany and powdered dessert in Brazil.
• Procter & Gamble has reduced the plastic in its prizewinning canister for Folgers coffee since its 2003 introduction, saving about a million pounds a year.
• P&G recently introduced Neat Squeeze tubes for Crest toothpaste, which eliminate the need for an outer carton. The Neat Squeeze comprises an outer and an inner tube, a structure that allows the outer tube to return to its original shape after each use while efficiently evacuating the product from the inner one.
• Coca-Cola plans to alter the shape of the bottle and closure for its Dasani water to save 7% in materials.
• Nestlé Waters North America claims to have saved 20 million pounds of paper by narrowing the labels for Poland Spring, Deer Park and other water brands. It also reduced its half-liter bottles to 12.5 grams.
High-profile recycling
The use of sustainable materials is another popular strategy. This encompasses materials that are recycled, recyclable and/or derived from environmentally benign sources.
Mars Inc. has shifted 1.2 million pounds of snack cartons from virgin, solid bleached sulfate paperboard to coated recycled board. The company also is reusing internal transfer cases for multiple trips, thereby eliminating 3 million corrugated cases annually.
Johnson & Johnson recently converted its Aveeno Positively Ageless line of moisturizing products to high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles with 30% post-consumer recycled content and thermoformed trays with 100% recycled PET. It also switched the paperboard for Band-Aid boxes, 90% of which are produced in Latin America, to fiber from certified renewable forests, which the company estimates saved 1.8 million old-growth trees last year.
J&J also has committed to eventually stop using polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in all of its consumer products, because of PVC’s use of chlorine in manufacturing and its poor potential for recycling. To that end, it converted Neutrogena glycerin soap from PVC to PET, cutting its PVC use by 20,000 pounds annually.
The use of recyclable materials like PET is a good way to connect with consumers, because recycling is even more visible to consumers than source reduction and other sustainability strategies.
“Probably the one thing [consumers] are confident that they can do that actually helps the environment is putting something into a recycling bin,” Zellner says. “They often don’t see reduced packaging. It’s hard for them to realize what they don’t have.” (For a look at recycling that weighs each household’s contribution and rewards it appropriately, see “RFID helps spur household recycling” in Business News, p. 11.)
On the other hand, recycling has daunting practical difficulties. Mixing plastics can ruin a recycling batch, which makes it hard if not impossible to recycle laminated and coextruded materials. And recycling programs across the U.S. are highly inconsistent in terms of what they take, from whom and how much work the consumer is expected to do.
The degree to which consumers will sacrifice is one of the most vexing variables in sustainable packaging. How much can a consumer goods company ask consumers to give up, in terms of cost, convenience or any other desirable aspect, for a more sustainable package?
Zellner notes that some consumers have shown a willingness to pay more for products they perceive as more environmentally friendly, such as organic food or hybrid vehicles, indicating a desire to make conscientious choices. So does Hana Zalzal, president of Cargo Cosmetics.
“I believe there is some flexibility on the part of the consumer on the price factor, absolutely,” Zalzal says. “I think we’ve seen that from organic foods, which have grown as a sector and are significantly more expensive. If there is an additional value to the consumer or the planet, then there is a group of consumers that would pay more.”
Others, however, are skeptical that consumers’ commitment to sustainability runs deep into their wallets.
“I think it’s pretty well understood that a lot of people will talk green and environmental, but if it’s another 25 or 50 cents [more], people won’t do it,” says Robert Wilkes, president of the Wilkes Creative design agency.
Barry Seelig, president of the consultant group applebrandsource, agrees. “There is not a burning interest” in sustainability, Seelig says. “If it comes to convenience over sustainability, they’re going to pick convenience.”
No tradeoffs
This state of affairs leads many leading consumer goods companies to be wary of asking consumers to do too much in the name of sustainability.
“We are unwilling to have any tradeoffs,” says Clifford Henry, associate director of global sustainability for Procter & Gamble. “Our primary goal is to delight consumers. I’ve heard others say you can provide products that aren’t as nice or make some compromises, but we’re not willing to do that…. The bottom line for us is, no tradeoffs in trying to understand the packaging.”
In many cases, it’s easier to implement sustainable packaging initiatives overseas, especially in Europe, than in the U.S. This is partly because European consumers generally place a higher priority on environmental issues, and partly because European regulations are more stringent.
In some cases, fundamental differences in business practices account for the difference in approaches between the U.S. and other countries. Procter & Gamble recently eliminated corrugated cases for its hair-care products in Europe in favor of slip sheets. But this was not an option in the U.S., Henry says: The U.S. product is more likely to be broken down at distribution centers and reassembled into customized pallet loads, which can only be done with corrugated cases. (P&G was able, however, to switch to wraparound corrugated for many products, which afforded some material savings.)
Sustainability in packaging is also more of a fit with certain products, such as organic or “natural” foods and personal care items, that appeal to consumers who are inclined to care about environmental issues.
“You have to be smart about the way you market this to consumers,” says Mike Maggio, vice president for global strategic design operations for Johnson & Johnson. “Although we’ll be looking at this for every brand, I think certain brands have an inherent connection to sustainability, like Aveeno. Aveeno is a natural brand, so I think the customers and consumers who buy Aveeno are looking for a natural answer. I think the strategy of sustainability and natural fits very well together.”
But when considering how they should think about sustainability, Zellner says, some consumers today may feel overwhelmed and become skeptical. “Consumers hear or see a lot of different terms such as recyclable, recycled content, renewable, biodegradable, compostable,” he says. “One of our goals is to better understand how to communicate environmental packaging benefits that resonate with consumers and help them make environmentally friendly choices.”
Seelig suggests that when it comes to sustainability, consumer goods companies may have to take more initiative than they’re used to doing.
“I think you have to have a radical change within the CPG [consumer packaged goods] companies,” he says. “It doesn’t happen with one division. It doesn’t happen with the innovation group or your sustainability group. It really has to be a totally new mindset from top to bottom.”
Subscribe to our news in social networks and newsletter:
Source:
All rubric articles All articlesSearchManufacturers and suppliers of production
- Extrusion blowing machines for making PE, PP, PVC, PET bottles and containers (148)
- Aluminum bottles (11)
- Plastic bottles (148)
- Ceramic bottles (7)
- Glass bottles (64)
- Plastic raw materials (1086)
- Bottle, jars filling and capping machines (179)