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 Eliminate Use of Materials Harmful to Human Health and the Environment Reduce Packaging Costs by 5% Wal-Mart Packaging Sustainability Scorecard 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 Launch – 2009 October 21, 2008 announce index Branch – 2009 -2010 Supplier level scorecards Mature (2010-2014) 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