Why?

It is remarkable with the economy worldwide at its (probably) deepest point, that there is an avalanche in verbal positioning of multinationals and international organisations, to defend the status of the packaging industry, to pronounce their views for the future, to promote effective measurements for recycling and sustainability and in general to justify the overall use of packaging.

If you think the recession will temper consumer interest in sustainability, you think wrong. Packaging development programmes focussing on sustainability and degradability - in other words ‘green packages’ - will probably accelerate.

Why? Despite the economic recession, nearly 60 per cent of the consumers pay attention to the environmental friendliness of the food and drink packaging during their grocery shopping, claims a new survey released during the recent Anuga FoodTec in Cologne.

Why? Because, according to Tony Burns, associate director, sustainability, for Proctor & Gamble’s Global Package and Device Development (GPDD) group:
“About 80 percent of our consumers tell us that environmental sustainability is important. That [in] itself is reason for us to engage in this and to meet the needs of the consumers. They may not pay additional money right now for more sustainable packaging, but it’s important to them. Whatever benefits they are buying our brands for, we want to make sure that we package that in the most sustainable fashion possible.” and continues, “At times it does feel like packaging is becoming ‘the villain’, when in reality it is a small player in the overall environmental footprint of the product. However, viewed through the lens of our consumers, packaging is the first thing and also the last thing that they experience with our brands. Therefore if it is important to our consumers, then it is important to us.”

Why? Because when the US credit market collapsed, iconic institutions went belly up and corporations begged for handouts, something snapped in the public consciousness. Average people everywhere wanted someone or something to blame for the colossal mess, argues Mary Aichlmayr in her article “Can we live in a one-dimensional world?”
And continues to say (and I quote her in an edited version, cursive words are mine, to suit this blog):
“And, it changed everything.

Companies - the smart, perceptive ones, anyhow—started describing business objectives in three dimensions. Instead of focusing only on the financial bottom line—which consumers saw as the evil that got us into trouble—they used the term “triple bottom line.”

Turns out the phrase was coined back in 1994 by John Elkington, founder of London based business consultancy SustainAbility. He said there were three ways to measure a company’s progress: environmental impact, contribution to society and economic strength. Yes, that last one is profit - the original bottom line.

Clearly, one bottom line isn’t enough anymore. We now have three. Businesses have to think three dimensionally, linking disparate practices into one big survival strategy.

One-dimensional thinking is traditional, transactional and commodity focused. It’s the slap-and-ship mentality that says green is just a feel-good slogan. It’s appearance, not action. It’s talking, not doing.

Appearances only get you so far. The commitment has to be woven into the fabric of corporate strategy.

And, packaging plays a crucial role in a company’s long-term performance. Innovative and sustainable packaging design depends on simultaneously meeting the demands of three primary business dimensions: customers, employees and supply chain partners.

The buying public is sizing up your responsibility scorecard. The next generation of employees demands corporate accountability. Your supply chain partners just might force it on you”.
end quote Mary Aichlmayr

In our ongoing series of industry views which include (see previous posts) the visions of Dow Chemical in: “Dow Challenges Packaging Industry to Work Together Toward 100% Recyclability” and of IPPO in: “Packaging is the Answer to World Hunger”, we continue with the view of Dupont in the next post:
“Innovation is Key to Sustainable Packaging, DuPont Leader Tells Industry Experts”





Japanese Fashion: Recycled PET-bottles

Dow Challenges Packaging Industry to Work Together Toward 100% Recyclability

This is a paper I received from Dow Chemical and publish here unabridged as it is of importance for the future of packaging.

Plastic packaging is an important part of the solution in the big picture of sustainability, waste and the environment, according to The Dow Chemical Company. In a strong message first delivered to a recent gathering of packaging industry leaders, Dow is challenging packaging value chain members to work together toward 100 percent recyclable packaging solutions - and asking consumers to challenge their misconceived view of plastic packaging as "waste."

"Plastic packaging is viewed by many consumers as waste, or a problem, or in some cases as unnecessary," said Glenn Wright, commercial vice president for Dow's North American Basic Plastics business. "But if you dig a little deeper, a very different story unfolds, and you realize that plastic packaging can be very much a part of the solution to many challenges facing society. In reality, packaging should be viewed as a waste reducer. It contributes to the extended shelf life of many food products and reduces the amount of product lost to contamination. Through material science advances, companies like Dow are also creating opportunities for thinner and lighter-weight packaging, which can translate into tangible resource savings."

Raising the ante for the packaging industry as a whole, Wright added: "All the players in this industry need to work together to demonstrate the concept of life-cycle thinking when it comes to plastic packaging - from first uses to multiple re-use or traditional recycling, and eventually to the concept of recycle-to-energy - sometimes known as energy-from-waste. This last idea is exciting because it could potentially allow us to make two good uses of plastic packaging, first to save resources when used in a package and second as a source of energy that we could harness.

"As I think about these energy-producing possibilities, I ask myself, why do we mine coal for energy, yet bury plastic, even though plastic has nearly twice the energy value, according to the American Chemistry Council?" Wright observed. "Wouldn't it be great if we could help society view used packaging in its true light - a renewable energy resource, not waste?"

While the goal of 100 percent recycling, all the way to recycle-to-energy, is a bold consideration, Dow is calling on industry leaders to join it in challenging the status quo and find ways to initiate this industry-changing concept. For instance, with all rigid packaging materials being recyclable, could the recycling number on packaging be eliminated to reduce confusion and increase public participation in recycling? Could improved product marking for consumers also help them better understand the energy content (or second life value) of plastic packaging?

"The energy content of plastic packaging is significant," Wright said. "If we recycle the petroleum resources we've used back into energy, then we could actually get two uses out of the packaging in the end. Retailers and consumers could then experience these changes most noticeably in terms of energy- and purchase-related cost savings."

For example, thanks to the increased shelf life packaging provides, a grocery store can save 10 percent of energy costs associated with refrigeration *). These savings translate into decreased use of natural resources, which could be used to provide a family with electricity for more than 12 years**).

*), **) Sources (Equation Data): American Chemistry Council; U.S. Energy Information Administration

source: Dow Chemical
90321