Sustainability Initiatives in Packaging
The Long View
September 16, 2008
Catherine Goodall
Environmental Packaging International
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Environmental Packaging International
• Specialists in global environmental packaging & product stewardship
requirements
• Provide regulatory tracking and other compliance services
• Assist clients with data management to support compliance, corporate
sustainability initiatives, and customer requirements
• Provide training in topics such as Design for the Environment, Regulatory
Compliance, and Wal-Mart scorecard
• Our clients include:
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Environmental Issues are on the FRONT PAGE
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
3
How do we measure performance in the realm of
sustainable packaging and products?
Identify
•
•
•
•
•
•
Develop vision and goals
Benchmarking
Identify metrics
Gather baseline data
Develop tools
Compare data to assess
performance
• Continuous improvement
Vision &
Goals
Benchmarking
Measure Performance
Metrics
Baseline
Data
Develop
tools
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Continuous
Improvement
Compare
data to
assess
performance
Product/Packaging DfE Assessment/Scorecard
Typically, a “green” assessment tool for packaging/products evaluates a
product based on:
• Quality criteria
• Regulatory criteria
• Environmental criteria
• Environmental footprint (GHGs, BTUs)
• Material use/design (PCRC, battery type)
• Packaging impacts
• Energy use/conservation
• End of life (recycling, labeling)
• Hazardous materials
• Social performance criteria
This evaluation must be done against a standard(s) of evidence of
conformance.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Existing Tools & Frameworks
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
World-Wide Packaging Fees: driven by recyclability (in part or in full)
EU Packaging Directive (Essential Requirements): CEN Standards
Sustainable Packaging Coalition Definition
PIQET: environmental assessment tool for packaging systems based on LCA/LCI
principles
EPEAT: Tool for evaluating environmental performance of electronic products
Wal-Mart Packaging Scorecard: comparative environmental assessment tool
for packaging sold to WM stores
GECA, Australian Ecolabel Program: environmental performance system and
criteria
EcoLogo: environmental performance system and criteria for more than 120
product categories
ISO standards for recycled content, degradability, electronics, material labeling
Proprietary tools such as SCJohnson’s GreenList, Alcan Packaging’s ASSETT
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Emerging Tools & Frameworks
• SPC COMPASS: update of Merge with new data and metrics (with help
from EPA and Wal-Mart)
• SPC Packaging Sustainability Metrics Framework
• S=PAC from PAC (Canada)
• Wal-Mart: Phase II International and additional metrics
• Carbon Trust and Carbon Labeling
• New Retailer Requirements (Tesco, Marks and Spencer)
• Internal Company Metrics and Reporting
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Regulatory Framework - a Long-Term Trend
EPR Precautionary
Principle
Essential
Requirements
Japan
Packaging
Canada
Packaging &
WEEE
Australia RoHS &
WEEE
California RoHS
Batteries
EuP
ELV
EU
WEEE
Japan
RoHS
China Packaging
2000
2003
2005
2006
Korea RoHS &
WEEE
Corporate
(Wal-Mart)
USA & Canada
RoHS
China
WEEE
2007
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
2008
2015-2020
8
European Packaging Regulations – Present
Packaging fees or eco-tax
Deposits on one-way containers
Packaging fee and deposit in place. Deposit
containers not subject to fees.
Eco-tax and fee in place. Containers
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
subject
to both regulations.
9
North American Packaging Regulations – Present
Packaging fees or eco-tax
Deposits on one-way containers
Packaging fee and deposit in place. Deposit
containers not subject to fees.
Eco-tax and fee in place. Containers
subject to both regulations.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
10
Asian Packaging Regulations – Present
Turkey
Japan
Cyprus
Israel
South Korea
Proposed in China!
Taiwan
Packaging fees or eco-tax
Deposits on one-way containers
Packaging fee and deposit in place. Deposit
containers not subject to fees.
Eco-tax and fee in place. Containers
subject to both regulations.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
11
Packaging Fees
•
•
•
•
•
•
Packaging fees worldwide
Fees are mainly used to fund recycling systems
In general, fees are based on the amount of packaging (weight) and material
type
More packaging = more $$$ (higher fees)
The more difficult the material is to recycle, the higher the fees
Plastics, laminates and composites can cost up to 500% more than other
materials
Date
Country /
Region
Fees based on
Scheme
1997
Japan
Amount of packaging marketed
JCPRA
2003
Korea
Amount of packaging marketed
Envico
2003
Ontario
Amount of packaging marketed
Stewardship Ontario
2005
Australia
Company turnover
Packaging Covenant
2005
Turkey
Amount of packaging marketed
Cevko
2007
Quebec
Amount of packaging marketed
EEQ
2007
Singapore
Company turnover
Environment Agency
2008
Netherlands
CO2 emissions from production
Tax
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
12
National Variations
„ Packaging types covered
● Some schemes cover Primary packaging only
(e.g. France)
● Other Schemes cover all types of packaging
(e.g. Germany)
„ Thresholds
● Some countries exempt companies putting small
amounts of packaging on the market (e.g. UK)
„ Reporting formats
● Frequency
● Number of material categories
● Split by type of packaging or source of packaging
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
EU Packaging Directive – Reporting Variations
Packaging Report – Germany
Weight in Kg
Few Material
Categories
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
14
EU Packaging Directive – Reporting Variations
Packaging Report – Czech Republic
Report split by
type of
Packaging
Weight in tons
Many Material
Categories
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
15
Packaging System Comparisons
Package 1 – Steel Can 11.5 oz Coffee
Package 2 – Composite Bag 12 oz Coffee
Package 3 – 10 Pack Filter Coffee
Packaging
Description
Weight
Packaging
Functional Unit
Component
Material Type
(grams)
Can
Can
Steel
90.0
Label
Label
PP
1.9
Lid
Lid
PP
5.7
Steel Can
(11.5 oz)
Total Weight
Composite Bag
97.6
Bag
Bag
Composite
14.3
Tie
Tie
Composite
1.0
(12 oz)
Total Weight
15.3
Box
Box
Composite
38.9
Lid
Lid
PP
20.0
Seal
Seal
Composite
2.5
Coffee Pods (10)*
Coffee Pods
Bleached Paper
7.0
10 Pack Filter
(5.4 oz)
Total Weight
68.4
* Coffee Pods were analyzed first as product only, then as packaging only.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
16
Packaging Fee Comparison / 1000 Units
Packaging
System
Austria
Belgium
Canada
(Ontario)
Czech
Republic
France
Germany
Japan*
Poland
U.K.
$35.84
$7.62
$4.66
$8.24
$9.20
$37.49
$1.37
$2.00
$5.44
$11.94
$8.58
$2.07
$3.12
$4.70
$23.76
$2.77
$0.29
$0.53
$52.79
$34.60
$2.84
$13.17
$19.90
$66.17
$3.84
$0.81
$1.71
Steel Can
Composite
Bag
10 Pack
Filter
* Japan has no fees for material types steel and aluminum.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
17
Overview of Environmental Packaging Design
Requirements
• Environmental design requirements in more than 40 countries
• CEN Standards (Europe +) resulting from Packaging Directive
• Empty space and source reduction requirements (Asia/Pacific)
• Recycled content requirements (N. America)
• Recycled content restrictions (Brazil)
• Packaging prevention planning (Europe, Asia)
• Environmental labeling (worldwide; requirements vary)
• Where not mandatory: a useful framework / benchmark
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
18
EU’s Essential Requirements
• The EU Packaging Directive mandates that all packaging sold in Europe
meet a set of “Essential Requirements” related to:
• Source Reduction (mandatory)
• Recovery (must meet at least one)
• Recyclability
• Organic recovery
• Energy recovery
• Reuse (optional)
• Heavy metals in packaging(mandatory)
• Reduction of other hazardous substances(mandatory)
• Packaging that does not comply with these Essential Requirements can
legally be banned from EU markets.
• More enforcement coming in both Western and Eastern Europe
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Heavy Metals: CONEG Model Legislation
WA
VT
ME
MN
NY
IO
CA
WI
MO
PA
IL
VA
NH
RI
CT
NJ
MD
GA
•CONEG model legislation (law in 19 states):
•Max. 100ppm total of Cd, Hg, Pb, CrVI in packaging
•No intentionally-added Heavy Metals (stricter than EU)
•Less exemptions than EU
•South Korea – as of 11/07
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
FL
20
Heavy Metals Restrictions
• In force for more than 10 years in some states, yet no comprehensive testing
& enforcement until recently. Second phase of screening in early 2008.
• Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse (TPCH) screened over 350 packages and
more than 550 components, including shopping bags, mailing and shipping
bags, & packaging for food and beverages, toys and games, electronics, etc.
• 16% of packages contained >100 ppm - mostly cadmium and lead, some
mercury, with levels from 250-800 ppm
• Biggest culprits were:
¾ Clear, flexible PVC pouches and bags
¾ Bags (mostly imports)
¾ Inks on shopping bags
Source: TPCH
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
21
CA Rigid Plastic Packaging Container Law
What is an RPPC?
• Capable of holding between 8 fluid ounces and 5 gallons
• Made entirely of plastic, except caps, lids and labels may be made
of some other materials
• Maintains its shape while holding product
• Capable of multiple re-closures (changes proposed)
• Stores a product for at least (7) days
Exemptions:
• Food
• Drugs
• Medical devices
• Cosmetics
• Toxic or Hazardous Products
• Proposed regulations to modify rules
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
22
Companies that were audited for 2005 sales
3M Company
Advance Group Inc.
Airx Laboratories
Albertson's / Sav-On
Alticor, Inc.
Amer Sports Corporation
Avery Dennison
Corporation
Bar's Products
Bayerische Motoren Werke
AG
Berwind Consumer
Products LLC
Best Buy Co., Inc.
Bio Pac, Inc
Bioforce Enviro-Tech, Inc.
Bi-O-Kleen Industries, Inc.
BISSELL Homecare, Inc.
Bramton Company
Carroll Company
Distributor Alliance
Group
Casio Computer Co. Ltd.
Cellco Partnership
Circuit City Stores, Inc.
Clorox Company
Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
News Corporation Limited
CompUSA Inc.
Huish Detergents Inc.
NIKE, Inc.
Cooper US, Inc.
Nintendo Co., Ltd.
Stater Bros. Holdings
Inc.
DaimlerChrysler AG
ICI Paints North America
c/o The Glidden
Company
Office Depot, Inc.
Super Store Industries
Dorel Industries Inc.
Imation Corp.
TDK Corporation
E. I. Du Pont De
Nemours And
Company
OfficeMax, Inc.
c/o Boise Cascade Corp.
ITOCHU International Inc.
Ohio Art Company
Unified Western
Grocers, Inc.
Ecover, Inc.
ITW Dymon
c/o Illinois Tool Works,
Inc.
Original Bungee Company
Oxyfresh Worldwide, Inc.
Staples, Inc.
Timex Corporation
USA Detergents, Inc.
Electrolux North
America, Inc.
Kelly-Moore Paint Company,
Inc.
Fenway Partners, Inc.
Focus Golf Systems
KIK International Houston Inc. PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc.
PPG Industries, Inc.
Maytag Corporation
Food 4 Less / Foods Co.
McDonald's Corporation
Rite-Aid Corporation
Ford Motor Company
Memorex Products, Inc.
Roman Decorating Products
Fry's Electronics, Inc.
Method Products Inc.
Fuji Film America, Inc.
Royal Dutch Petroleum
Company
Microsoft Corporation
General Motors
Corporation
Mine Safety Appliances
Company
Goodwin Ammonia
Company
Misty Mate, Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Western Family Foods,
Inc.
Harbour Group Ltd.
Mitsubishi Chemical
Corporation
Seaside Naturals LLC
Whirlpool Corporation
Seventh Generation Inc.
Whole Foods Market,
Inc.
Head N.V.
Henry Company
Hewlett-Packard
Company
Permatex, Inc.
Samsonite Corporation
Walgreen Company
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Walt Disney Company
Warnaco Group, Inc
Warren Distribution, Inc.
WAXIE Sanitary Supply
Weider Health And
Fitness
Sara Lee Corporation
Motsenbocker Advanced
Developments Inc.
Sherwin-Williams Company
Nestlé USA, Inc.
Sony Corporation of America
c/o Sony Electronics Inc.
Newell Rubbermaid Inc.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Hillyard, Inc.
Venus Laboratories Inc.
Yamanouchi Group
Holding Inc.
Design Requirements (Asia)
• Taiwan
• Layers - Pastries: 3 layers of packaging or less; Processed foods: 2 layers or
less. Empty space restrictions - based on very complex formula.
• South Korea
• Sets limits on the amount of empty space and the number of layers that
consumer product packaging can have (food: 15% - 35% empty space and 2
or less layers)
• Korea currently bans packaging components that are laminated, press
packaged or coated with PVC, also PVC shrink-wrap. Korea also has banned
PVC wrapping of certain foods, effective 2004.
• Australia
• The Standing Committee on Trade Measurement adopted a Code of Practice
on Deceptive Practices in Packaging of 1990
• Empty space requirements of 25% for Foods
• China - 2007 Draft excessive packaging Standard (e.g., pastries, health foods,
teas & grains)
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
24
California Formaldehyde Emission Standards
(Pallets and other composite wood)
• Effective 1/1/2009 all composite wood products (including Plywood
Pallets) must meet Phase 1 emission standards
• Must be certified by an Air Resources Board approved Third Party
Certifier
• Must be labeled
• Must have documented proof of supply chain certification, going back
to the composite wood manufacturer
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
25
PVC (polyvinyl chloride)
• The use of PVC in certain packaging applications is restricted in many
European and Asian countries. Many of these countries have set a goal of
phasing out PVC through additional taxes and other restrictive policies.
• Although no US federal laws prohibit the use of PVC, several municipalities
have enacted bans on certain types of PVC packaging.
• Public attitude toward its use is increasingly negative.
• There is also a trend among corporations toward substituting other materials
for PVC.
• Many US companies have phased out the use of PVC in their packaging.
• PVC is not considered recyclable in the US. Markets for recovered PVC are
limited, and very few communities accept the material.
• Associated risks, e.g. Heavy Metals, phalates
• The lack of PVC recycling and the limited availability of R-PVC make
compliance with CA’s RPPC law problematic
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
S. Korea EPS Restriction
• EPS ‘buffers’ restricted for packaging of
electrical, office IT and audio-video
appliances of specified packaging
volumes.
• Phased in by packaging volume
(applicability gradually expands from
2004-2008, affecting packages 20,000 –
40,000cm3)
• Applies to in-country mfr & importers
• Requires substitution with a material
other than EPS
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
The Availability of Facilities for Recycling
All Countries
Most Countries
Fewer Countries
Contaminant
Few Countries
Non-Recyclable
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
28
DfE, Retailer Scorecards and Reporting
Requirements
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
29
Increasing role of market drivers in recent
years
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cost Savings
Customer Requirements
Growing Consumer Demand
Brand, Reputation
Insurers
Investors
Shareholder resolutions
Retailer policies
Brandowner initiatives
=> Which are the key drivers for your company?
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Customer and Consumer Demand
•
•
•
Respond to Customer Demand
• The environmental policies and specifications of major customers are one of the key
drivers for a coherent sustainability initiative that extends to specific consumer
products and packages and is communicated effectively.
Meet Growing Consumer Demand
• There is growing consumer demand for products and packaging that are perceived as
healthy, natural, environmentally preferable, or sustainable.
Enhance Brand / Corporate Image
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
15% on GHG/CO2 per ton
15% on Material Value
15% on Product to Package Ratio
15% on Cube Utilization
10% on Transportation
10% on Recycled Content
10% on Recovery Value
5% on Renewable Energy
5% on Innovation
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
31
Wal-Mart Approach to Sustainable Packaging
Packaging Sustainable Value Network Goals
ƒ
ƒ
Eliminate Use of Materials Harmful to Human Health and the
Environment
Reduce Packaging Costs by 5%
Wal-Mart Packaging Sustainability Scorecard
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Weighted, Value-based Analysis by SKU of Packaging Materials
and Practices
Transparency to Drive Competitive Improvement Among
Suppliers
Launched in US February 2008
Next Stages: Canada, UK and Mexico
Followed by rest of world
Data must be provided before SKU delivered to Wal-Mart
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
"If you are a buyer,
sustainability is going
to be your business,"
says Scott.
July 17th 2008, Lee
Scott said: The train
has left the stations
you better be on it.
32
What is the WM selling unit cube?
• To calculate, imagine a box just large enough to hold the WM item number
configuration.
WMSU cube =
SL x SW x SH,
where,
10
5.5
SL = WMSU Length
SW = WMSU Width
SH = WMSU Height
5.5
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
33
Selling Unit & Transport Packaging
Distance Material Traveled?
• Refers to converted material, not raw
• To where = the pack-out facility
• Credit for in-house packaging/vertical integration?
Renewable Energy / Innovations?
• Deals with energy efficiencies / reduction
• Refers to mfg. of packaging materials only
• Must take a weighted average of renewable energy per unit of
total energy
• This should be done on a component basis
• No specific guidelines/list for 3rd Party – but they must
submit LCI to ISO 14000 series standards
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
34
Wal-Mart Scorecard Comparison
Wal-Mart Metric
Weight
Factor
%
Steel Can
Composite Bag
10 Pack Filter
Greenhouse gas emissions from package
production
15%
0.00000119
0.00000010
0.00000147
Evaluation of material type
15%
0.00065999
0.00009915
0.00088423
Average distance to transport material
10%
0.00065999
0.00009915
0.00088423
Product to package ratio
15%
0.00065999
0.00009915
0.00088423
Cube utilization
15%
0.8125
0.8250
0.8750
Recycled content
10%
0.00048959
0.00009915
0.00088423
Recovery
10%
0.00081417
0.00049576
0.00413311
Renewable energy to power each facility
5%
0
0
0
Innovation different from energy standard
5%
0
0
0
6.25
9.00
1.00
Final Normalized Score
* * Number in green denotes a better score, and number in red denotes a worse score
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
35
Wal-Mart Scorecard Comparison
Weight
Factor %
PET – 6 x 24 oz
Alu 12x 12 oz
fridge pack
Glass – 12 x 12
oz
Greenhouse gas emissions from package
production
15%
0.000137
0.000771
0.001644
Evaluation of material type
15%
0.153189
0.144847
3.043135
Average distance to transport material
10%
0.144504
0.138640
3.034169
Product to package ratio
15%
0.950600
0.138640
3.041692
Cube utilization
15%
0.126975
0.635200
0.648500
Recycled content
10%
0.126975
0.088963
2.362450
Recovery
10%
0.410300
0.377882
8.611367
Renewable energy to power each facility
5%
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Innovation different from energy standard
5%
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
6.10000
8.20000
5.20000
Wal-Mart Metric
Final Normalized Score
* * Number in green denotes a better score, and number in red denotes a worse score
Comparison includes secondary/transport packaging. Each system contained 4260 ml
of product; systems were compared directly.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
36
Implications for Converters & Machinery
Questions with most direct impact on converting process:
37
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Implications for Converters & Machinery
What percentage of the packaging manufacturing facility runs on
renewable energy?
• Refers to the total amount of renewable energy used to manufacture the
included packaging components
What percentage of efficiency gain from unique manufacturing
innovations?
• Refers to the percentage different from industry averages used in the
material metrics
• LCI, LCA, ASTM:D6866 certification
⇒ Direct opportunity for process & machinery energy savings to gain credit
⇒ Point of differentiation for machinery manufacturers
⇒ Brandowners / Packers/Fillers may be looking at this more closely for
savings opportunities
⇒ BUT likely focus on scorecard data and items under their direct control
first!
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Implications for Converters & Machinery
What is the name of the third party verification company? (e.g. EPI)
• Refers to the company that verified answers entered to the previous two
questions
• Wal-Mart may audit answers to previous questions.
• Wal-Mart may ask for verification in future if no verification company
entered.
• Enter N/A if no renewable energy or manufacturing innovations are
entered in response to previous two questions.
• Milk Jug Example: LCA Experts verified answers to previous two questions.
Any additional information regarding energy efficiency or
manufacturing?
• Refers to any energy, manufacturing, material and/or other gains that
make the packaging more sustainable and are not already accounted for
by the first two questions in this section
• Not included in score calculation but can influence Wal-Mart’s buying
decisions when evaluating packages/products with similar scores
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Opportunities for Innovation & Collaboration
• Energy savings attempts (temp, speed, etc.)
• Experimentation with new materials
• Source-reduced versions of existing materials
• Recycled content materials
• New polymers
• Alternative fibers (e.g. in molded applications)
• Modifications & retrofits to machinery to facilitate use of alternative
substrates or process changes
• More traditional cost-saving measures to offset higher costs, e.g of
some new materials, certified fiber, etc.
• Redesigns to packages for waste avoidance, streamlining (e.g. same
sizes across a line)
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
41
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
42
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
43
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
44
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
45
Wal-Mart Product Scorecard
ƒ Launch – 2009
ƒ October 21, 2008 announce
index
ƒ Branch – 2009 -2010
ƒ Supplier level scorecards
ƒ Mature (2010-2014)
ƒ SKU level data
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
46
Overview of the Proposed Sustainability Index
Effort
• Walmart has estimated that over 90% of the sustainability related
impacts of its business come from the lifecycle of the products it sells.
• To address these impacts, Walmart plans to launch an Index that would
eventually allow for product by product ranking.
• Walmart’s buyers will use rankings to help make purchasing decisions.
• Walmart believes this effort, properly designed, will uncover new business
opportunities for its suppliers.
• In particular, Walmart seeks to use this initiative to grow the number of
exciting, green products that will generate real consumer interest.
• While Walmart has developed some initial ideas, much remains to be
determined about launch and execution of this effort.
47
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
The Index will likely be organized around the following
impact areas and goals
Across the lifecycle of its products,
Walmart seeks…
Sample topics
included
Energy and
Climate
To maximize the use of renewable energy
and minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
• Energy use / efficiency
• GHG emissions
• Renewable energy
Material
Efficiency
To maximize efficient use of all materials,
close material loops and minimize waste.
• Use / efficiency of all resources
•
Natural
Resources
To promote the integrity of nature and a
safe, reliable supply of natural resources.
• Pollution (except GHG
•
•
People and
Community
To promote quality of life and safeguard
human health.
other than energy (water,
minerals, chemicals, etc.)
Waste, re-use and recycling
•
•
•
•
emissions) and hazardous
waste
Biodiversity
Natural abundance (supply of
fish, wood, etc.)
Toxicity to humans
Nutrition
Livelihoods
Community development
48
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
48
Walmart has proposed that the Index start with supplier metrics
and move to product metrics over time.
U n d er C
onsider
a
Not fina tion;
l
Launch Phase (2009): A focused, common set of metrics would be used to judge all
suppliers regardless of product category. A supplier would fill out one information
sheet for the entire company.
Branch Phase (2009-2010): The Index would branch out to include new metrics that
capture product category-specific challenges. A supplier would complete one
information sheet for each of their major product categories.
Mature Phase (2010-2014): The Index would begin to judge individual products. This
would require a unique information sheet for every product or fineline.
At
Atall
allstages,
stages,the
theIndex
Indexwould
wouldattempt
attemptto
tocapture
capturethe
themost
mostpressing
pressingsupply
supply
chain
issues.
Supplier-level
metrics
does
not
mean
that
metrics
will
focus
chain issues. Supplier-level metrics does not mean that metrics will focuson
on
supplier-owned
supplier-ownedor
oroperated
operatedfacilities.
facilities. Typically,
Typically,the
themost
mostpressing
pressingsupply
supplychain
chain
impacts
impactsare
aredeep
deepininthe
thevalue
valuechain.
chain.
49
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Draft timeline for this effort
2008
August
August 11
•• Outputs
Outputs from
from this
this
meeting
circulated
meeting circulated
Aug./Sept.
Aug./Sept.
•• Governance
Governance
refined
refined
2009
October
October
•• Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart CEO
CEO Summit
Summit ––
Beijing
Beijing 2008,
2008, “Supply
“Supply Chain
Chain
of
the
Future”
(Oct
22)
of the Future” (Oct 22)
•• Announce
Announce intentions
intentions
regarding
regarding Index
Index
•• Evaluation/
Evaluation/ feedback
feedback tool
tool
launched
launched
October
October 77
•• Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart
Sustainability
Sustainability
Milestone
Milestone
Meeting
Meeting
(internal
(internal only)
only)
Mid-November
Mid-November
•• Working
Working model
model
complete
complete
•• Reconvene
Reconvene ‘system
‘system
in
in the
the room’
room’ for
for
refinements
refinements
50
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Q1/Q2 2009
Launch
Version 1.0
Index
Packaging System Comparisons
Packaging Description
Swiffer ®
Dry Sweeping Cloths
(16 wipes)
Packaging Image
Component
Material Type
Box
Coated Unbleached
Paperboard
(5% PP coating)
Total Weight
Wet Ones ®
Moist Wipes
(40 wipes)
Clorox ®
Disinfecting Wipes
(75 wipes)
Windex ®
Glass & Surface Wipes
(25 wipes)
39.7
39.7
Container
HDPE
36.7
Lid
HDPE
16.5
Total Weight
53.2
Container
HDPE
73.2
Lid
HDPE
23.5
Total Weight
96.7
Bag
PP
7.3
Seal
PP
1.4
Total Weight
Endust ®
Anti-Static Wipes
(70 wipes)
Weight
(gram)
8.7
Container
HDPE
46.4
Lid
HDPE
20.3
Seal
Composite
(50% Aluminum
50% PP)
3
Plastic Wrap
PP
2.8
Total Weight
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
72.5
51
DfE Material Health Values (using MERGE)
(normalized for 50 wipes)
Packaging
Description
Energy Use
(BTU)
GHGs
(Gram of CEs)
Material Inputs
(Grams of Raw
Material)
Chemical Bad Actors
(Weighted Grams)
Swiffer ®
Dry Sweeping
Cloths
3165
116
432
18
Wet Ones ®
Moist Wipes
5852
46
80
77
Clorox ®
Disinfecting Wipes
5673
44
77
74
Windex ®
Glass & Surface
Wipes
1601
14
23
23
Endust ®
Anti-Static Wipes
4669
41
67
63
Packaging Image
* Number in green denotes a better score, and number in red denotes a worse score
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
52
Material Health Comparison (based on MERGE)
(normalized for 50 wipes)
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
53
International Packaging Fee Comparison
(normalized for 50 wipes)
Windex ®
Glass & Surface
Wipes
Endust ®
Anti-Static Wipes
$0.0623
$0.0168
$0.0496
$0.0373
$0.0361
$0.0096
$0.0290
$0.0081
$0.0090
$0.0087
$0.0024
$0.0070
France
$0.0297
$0.0210
$0.0194
$0.0084
$0.0179
Germany
$0.0331
$0.1320
$0.1279
$0.0346
$0.1019
Japan
$0.0006
$0.0120
$0.0117
$0.0032
$0.0094
Average Fees
$0.0159
$0.0459
$0.0444
$0.0125
$0.0358
Swiffer ®
Dry Sweeping
Cloths
Wet Ones ®
Moist Wipes
Clorox ®
Disinfecting
Wipes
Austria
$0.0206
$0.0643
Belgium
$0.0034
Canada
Country
* Number in red denotes the highest fee among the five packaging systems, number in green denotes the lowest.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
54
Wal-Mart Scorecard Comparison
Swiffer ®
Dry Sweeping
Cloths
Wal-Mart Metric
Wet Ones ®
Moist Wipes
Clorox ®
Disinfecting
Wipes
Windex ®
Glass &
Surface Wipes
Endust ®
Anti-Static
Wipes
Weight
Factor
%
Greenhouse gas emissions from
package production
15%
0.00000471 0.00000291 0.00000282 0.00000084 0.00000229
Evaluation of material type
15%
0.00547022 0.00293215 0.00284249 0.00076721 0.00228336
Average distance to transport
material
10%
0.00547022 0.00293215 0.00284249 0.00076721 0.00228336
Product to package ratio
15%
0.005470022 0.00293215 0.00284249 0.00076721 0.00228336
Cube utilization
15%
Recycled content
10%
0.00547022 0.00263893 0.00255824 0.00076721 0.00207329
Recovery
10%
0.02188088 0.00208025 0.01136997 0.00306884 0.00922792
Renewable energy to power each
facility
Innovation different from energy
standard
Final Normalized Score
0.19
0.3759
0.3759
0.2775
0.3759
5%
0
0
0
0
0
5%
0
0
0
0
0
2.50
4.00
5.50
9.40
7.00
* * Number in green denotes a better score, and number in red denotes a worse score
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
55
Extensive Data Requirements
• Wal-Mart needs up to 195 data points per SKU (packaging
only)
• Other retailers (Tesco, Marks & Spencer)
• Global Reporting - Packaging, WEEE, RoHS, Batteries etc.
• Customer Reporting
• Consumer Reporting
• In-house DfE benchmarking
• Certifications
• Heavy Metals
• EU ER’s
• CA RPPC
• Recycled content
• Forest Certifications
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
56
Consumer Trends
• March 19, 2008 – Mintel study says over one-third of adults surveyed (36 percent)
claim to "regularly" buy green products (up from 12 percent 16 months ago)
• March 17, 2008 – Nielsen study finds more than half of U.S. consumers would give
up all forms of packaging provided for convenience purposes if it would benefit
the environment, including: packaging designed for easy stacking/storing at home
(58 percent); packaging that can be used for cooking, or doubling as a re-sealable
container (55 percent); and packaging designed for easy transport (53 percent).
Roughly 40 percent of consumers will sometimes think to look for products with
less packaging.
• March 21, 2008 - Americans' appetite for environmentally friendly technologies and
consumer products is grossly underserved, with a potential $104 billion in sales this
year, according to 2007 National Technology Readiness Survey (NTRS)
•
“Wrap Rage”
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
5757
Challenge of Overcoming Misinformation
• Consumer/Customer knowledge: 120 million Americans think
disposable diapers are the leading problem with landfills (they are
about 1% of the problem, with paper products the leading
problem).
• Common areas of confusion about packaging:
Æ Paper or plastic?
Æ Biodegradable/Compostable packaging is “greener” than
traditional.
Æ
= recyclable ? Or recycled content?
Source: “Understanding Environmental Literacy in America: And Making it a Reality, Kevin
J. Coyle,
J.D. President, National Environmental Education & Training Foundation
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Product/Packaging DfE Assessment/Scorecard
Typically, a “green” assessment tool for packaging/products evaluates a
product based on:
• Quality criteria
• Regulatory criteria
• Environmental criteria
• Environmental footprint (GHGs, BTUs)
• Material use/design (PCRC, battery type)
• Packaging impacts
• Energy use/conservation
• End of life (recycling, labeling)
• Hazardous materials
• Social performance criteria
This evaluation must be done against standard(s) of evidence of
conformance.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
What to Track?
Companies are measuring performance in the following areas:
• GHG’s
¾ CO2 for material and
transportation of packaging
• Energy use
¾ Renewable energy
• Recycled content
¾ Pre- and Post-consumer
• Source of fiber-based material
¾ Managed/Certified forests
¾ Old growth forests
• Paper making process
¾ bleaching
• PVC and Heavy Metals use
• Recyclability (Recycling ratio vs.
recycling facilities)
• Material use
• % of products reviewed
• Package minimization
¾ Empty space/product to
packaging ratio
• Reuse
• Chemical bad actors
• Pallet efficiency
• Environmental Labeling
¾ Consumer Education
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Raw Material Health
• Energy
•
•
How much and what types of energy are expended in sourcing
virgin materials?
How much and what types of energy are expended in sourcing
recycled materials?
• Are any renewable sources used to produce the energy?
• Environmental impact during raw material production
•
•
•
Greenhouse gas emissions
Feedstock “Bad Actor” used
Material Input (grams of input per gram of material produced)
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Energy Use of Packaging Materials
Source: MERGE tool documentation
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Energy Use of Packaging Materials
1 bottle weighs 50 grams of virgin
HDPE
Each bottle uses 4,600 Btus of
energy to produce the HDPE
1 million bottles would use
4,600,000,000 Btus or the amount
of energy in 37,097 gallons of
gasoline; enough to run a Honda
Accord for 1,112,290 miles.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Reducing Energy Use of Packaging Materials
Use recycled content materials
Unbleached corrugate box weighing 81
grams
With 100% virgin material uses 1,620 Btus
With 50% post consumer uses 1,073 Btus
With 100% post consumer uses 536 Btus
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Source: MERGE tool documentation
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Packaging
Materials
1 bleached paperboard box weighs
87 grams
For each box, 130.5 grams of CO2 is
emitted to produce it with
bleached paperboard
1 million boxes would use
130,500,000 grams or the amount
of CO2 if 30 cars are driven a year
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Packaging Materials
How can I reduce the impact?
Bleached paperboard box = 130.5 grams
Unbleached box = 81.8 grams
50% Post Consumer Material w/Bleached = 74.84 grams
50% Post Consumer Material w/Unbleached = 60.47 grams
100% Post Consumer Material w/Unbleached = 39.16 grams
Make it smaller and lighter !!!!!
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Source: MERGE tool documentation
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
“Bad Chemical Actors used in Feedstocks to Make
Packaging Material
1 PS tray - 58 grams
Each tray uses 851 grams of these “bad
chemical actors”
If you used a PET tray, you would reduce
the impact to 151 grams
Or you could use no chemical bad actors
by using 100% recycled PET or molded
pulp
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
COMPASS
• SPC updating Merge tool with new data and metrics (with support from
EPA and Wal-Mart). Web-based, currently in beta-testing.
• Comparative design-stage tool based on industry average LCI data –
not a substitute for LCA
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
New language to describe companies, products,
& packaging
• Sustainable
• Eco-friendly
• Green
• Carbon-neutral
• Renewable
• Cradle-to-cradle
• Natural
• Certified
• Bioplastic
• Wind-powered
…not to mention terms like Ecomagination (GE) and Environmentology
(Honda)
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Renewable Materials
•
•
•
•
Include fiber-based packaging, starch-based, textiles, and biopolymers
Many traditional materials such as paperboard, molded fiber
Renewable – one aspect of sustainability
“Renewable” does not automatically mean “sustainable” -- why?
• Energy balance
• Habitat/ land use issues
• Agricultural inputs (water, pesticides)
• Processing, Transport
• End of life - may not be recovered
• Working groups exist for many materials (e.g. Sustainable Cotton
Project, Metafore Paper Working Group, etc.)
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Challenges for Bio-based plastics - Sourcing
• Environmental impact & price of production still driven in part by
petroleum
• Ethanol demands pushing corn prices up
• Concerns over non-food uses of food crops (competition over global
food supply) – currently targeted at biofuels
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Best Practices for Biopolymers & Other New
Materials
Big picture
• Identify the environmental and functional advantages and
disadvantages and compare them to other alternatives
• Prioritize opportunities for material substitution/new material
development (e.g. problematic, expensive, or difficult-to-recover
materials, or to facilitate composting of the product).
• Know your consumer: How/where/when do they use the product and
dispose of the package?
Technical
• Understand the changing technologies and keep an open mind–
technical limitations are changing rapidly
• Be prepared to invest in new technology and new product/packaging
delivery system(s)
• Study the production & supply – is it sustainable?
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Best Practices for Biopolymers & Other New
Materials (cont.)
Communication
• Understand the differences between bio-based, biodegradable, and
degradable; between compostable and home-compostable
• Determine whether biodegradability is an asset for the application
• Labeling: Be aware that “biodegradable” and “compostable” are
regulated terms, packaging labeled as such must meet certain
standards in each jurisdiction
• Know your consumer: What do they think the term means? Educate
them & encourage recycling/composting of the package.
Product Stewardship
• Work with managers of existing recovery systems (recycling,
composting) to ensure that the package will not interfere
• Support development of & investment in recovery infrastructure
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Environmental Labeling Requirements
•
SPI Code (39 States)
•
•
•
SPI coding also used in Mexico, other Lat. Am. Countries
FTC Guideline
Trademark use of the Green Dot
WA
OR
MD
CA NV
AZ
ND MN
SD
WI MI
NE IO
IL INOH
CO
KS MO
KY VA
OK AR TN SCNC
GA
TX
LA MS
FL
ME
MA
RI
CT
NJ
DE
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
76
SPI Coding
Predominant Material Resin Coding
•
•
•
Some states may allow this on a case-by-case basis with evidence
of the container’s recycling compatibility and endorsement by local
recyclers
•
Kentucky passed (April 2008) law allowing predominant code
with written approval by Association of Postconsumer Plastic
Recyclers (APR)
Some states interpret their laws to mean that predominant resin
coding is not allowed
Some states have no known position on predominant resin coding
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
77
Labeling Requirements
•
•
Japan
South Korea
• on all packaging of certain product
types, including foods & beverages,
dairy & fish, agricultural produce, and
foamed resin packaging of electronic
equipment
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
78
UK Voluntary Recycling Labeling - WRAP
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
79
France - Labeling
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
80
The Green Dot
• Symbol means that producer is a fee-paying member of a packaging recovery
organization
• Mandatory in France, Germany, Portugal and Spain
• Voluntary in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey and UK
• Symbol is required on the unit of sales packaging where it is visible to the
consumer
• For use in US, Canada, and UK, must pay trademark license fees
Green Dot symbol causes consumer confusion
“Waste management company Valpak is seeking advice from Trading Standards
over concerns that consumers are being misled by the Green Dot symbol that
features on some supermarket products.” Liz Gyekye
01 Sep 2008 (UK)
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
8181
Getting Tough on “Green Claims Code of Practice”
ASA gets tough on advertising green claims (UK) - 26 June 2007
• The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is warning consumers about
advertising ‘green’ claims that turn out to be little more than hot
air. Coinciding with the Trading Standards Annual Conference, where this
issue is high on the agenda.
• Reminding advertisers of the rules and why it is not always easy being green.
• Over the last few months the ASA has investigated and upheld seven
complaints against advertisers who have made unsubstantiated environmental
claims.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Commissioner, Mr. John
Martin, said
• "In light of the growing number of complaints, the ACCC is taking a closer look
at a number of the green claims that are being made at the moment, and all
businesses need to ensure they are not misleading their customers with such
claims.
• "The ACCC intends to ramp-up its green compliance activities with a
combination of business and consumer educative initiatives and targeted
enforcement action.“ (2007)
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
82
Guidelines for Environmental Labeling
• FTC Guidelines for Environmental Labeling :
• Maintain clarity of qualifications and disclosures (through appropriate language,
type size, context, avoiding contradictions)
• Distinguish between product, package, service
• Qualify claims about benefits (avoid claims of general environmental benefits)
• Make only those claims which you can substantiate
• CURRENTLY UNDERGOING REVIEW
• Canada’s “Environmental claims: A Guide for Industry and Advertisers” –
revised, published June 2008
• WAL-MART wants claims consistent with FTC
Deceptive in the US
Cannot claim that
they’re recyclable
OK, recyclable for
the majority of
consumers
Plastic bag generally not
accepted for recycling
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
83
Recyclability of different material types
Two factors to consider:
• The availability of facilities for
recycling
• The recycling rate
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Recyclability
Hang card w/
bag
Units of Recovery
Material Recovery
Energy
Bleached hang card
HDPE Product tags (x2)
Paper Sizing label
Paper UPC label
Plastic Bag
Most countries
Yes
Few countries
Yes
Bleached open-faced box
Elastic product tags
Most countries
Yes
PET Folding box
Most countries
Yes
PVC Bag
Paper label
Contaminant
Yes
Paperboard Insert
Most countries
Yes
Open faced box
PET box
PVC pouch
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Recycling Streams & Rates
Source: US EPA
Source: Container Recycling Institute
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
86
Claims of Recyclability
• Example: Plastic bottle (accepted at recycling facilities in 35% of US communities)
Deceptive:
• “Recyclable”
• “Recyclable where facilities exist”
Acceptable:
• “This bottle may not be recyclable in your area”
• “This bottle is recyclable in 35% of US communities”
Under US FTC Guidelines, the use of the Möbius Loop (with no other text) constitutes a
claim that the packaging and product are made of 100% recycled materials and universally
recyclable – deceptive unless the claim can be substantiated!
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
87
Claims of Recyclability
Box variants
Percent of communities in
sample that would accept
box for recycling
Percent range of total US
communities that would
accept box for recycling*
73%
50-55%
40%
25-30%
With varnish /spray coat
With film laminate &
metallization
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
88
Limited Composting Infrastructure
Souce: Natureworks LLC
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Recycled Content
Under the FTC Guideline, this logo
may only be used if the package
contains 100% recycled material.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
90
UK’s “Green Claims Code of Practice”
ASA gets tough on advertising green claims
26 June 2007
• The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is warning consumers about
advertising ‘green’ claims that turn out to be little more than hot
air. Coinciding with the Trading Standards Annual Conference, where
this issue is high on the agenda.
• Reminding advertisers of the rules and why it is not always easy being
green.
• Over the last few months the ASA has investigated and upheld seven
complaints against advertisers who have made unsubstantiated
environmental claims.
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
91
Beware the Six Sins of Greenwashing™
1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off
2. Sin of No Proof
3. Sin of Vagueness
4. Sin of Irrelevance
5. Sin of Fibbing
6. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils
Study of 1,018 consumer products that make environmental claims found
that “all but one made claims that are demonstrably false or that risk
misleading intended audiences.”
These forms of deception are reflected in the FTC Guidelines
Source: www.terrachoice.com
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
92
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No silver bullet: think full life cycle, not just one step
Keep it simple, but beware of oversimplification
Think application, not just material type, etc
Recycling collection rates
Developing the market for recycled products
Infrastructure limitations (in particular, composting, but also
recycling)
Consumer education (understanding of terms, processes, etc)
Understanding your supply chain
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Defining a Practical Approach to a Vision
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify issues of greatest value/opportunity for the company/industry
Assign metrics to those issues
Evaluate current position
Benchmarking vs. historical data, industry average
Set company goals – short-term, mid-range, and long-term
Reward continuous improvement
Make sure goals and incentives are integrated into SOP
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
Questions?
Contact EPI at:
Environmental Packaging International
41 Narragansett Avenue
Jamestown, RI, 02835 USA
Direct: (401) 566-4600
Main: (401) 423-2225
Fax: (401) 423-2226
www.enviro-pac.com
cgoodall@enviro-pac.com
This information is copyrighted and cannot be copied or distributed without prior written consent from Environmental Packaging International
95