Sustainable packaging explained

Sustainable packaging is the development and use of packaging which results in improved sustainability.[1] This involves increased use of life cycle inventory (LCI) and life cycle assessment (LCA)[2] [3] to help guide the use of packaging which reduces the environmental impact and ecological footprint. It includes a look at the whole of the supply chain: from basic function, to marketing, and then through to end of life (LCA) and rebirth.[4] Additionally, an eco-cost to value ratio can be useful[5] The goals are to improve the long term viability and quality of life for humans and the longevity of natural ecosystems. Sustainable packaging must meet the functional and economic needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.[6] Sustainability is not necessarily an end state but is a continuing process of improvement.[7]

Sustainable packaging is a relatively new addition to the environmental considerations for packaging (see Packaging and labeling). It requires more analysis and documentation to look at the package design, choice of materials, processing, and life-cycle. This is not just the vague "green movement" that many businesses and companies have been trying to include over the past years. Companies implementing eco-friendly actions are reducing their carbon footprint, using more recycled materials and reusing more package components.[8] They often encourage suppliers, contract packagers, and distributors to do likewise.

Environmental marketing claims on packages need to be made (and read) with caution. Ambiguous greenwashing titles such as green packaging and environmentally friendly can be confusing without specific definition. Some regulators, such as the US Federal Trade Commission, are providing guidance to packagers[9]

Companies have long been reusing and recycling packaging when economically viable. Using minimal packaging has also been a common goal to help reduce costs. Recent years have accelerated these efforts based on social movements, consumer pressure, and regulation. All phases of packaging, distribution, and logistics are included.

Sustainable packaging is not focused on just recycling. Just as packaging is not the only eco target, although it is still top of mind for many. Right or wrong, the packaging is frequently scrutinized and used as the measure of a company's overall sustainability, even though it may contribute only a small percentage to the total eco-impact compared to other things, such as transportation, and water and energy use.

Environmental Impacts

Impacts of packaging originate from three main stages including feedstock sourcing, production of polymers and packaging, and the end of life treatment of the packaging. Emissions from each stage contribute to climate change, air pollution, acidification, and other environmental issues. Food waste is another prominent issue as one third of food meant for human consumption is lost. Sustainable packaging aims to address properties of food, for example chemical and microbiological properties, in order to limit packaging and food waste.

Criteria

The criteria for ranking and comparing packaging based on their sustainability is an active area of development. General guidance, metrics, checklists, and scorecards are being published by several groups.

Government,[10] standards organizations, consumers, retailers,[11] and packagers are considering several types of criteria.[12] [13] [14] [15]

Each organization words the goals and targets a little differently. In general, the broad goals of sustainable packaging are:

  1. Functional[16] – product protection, safety, regulatory compliance, etc.
  2. Cost effective – if it is too expensive, it is unlikely to be used
  3. Support long-term human and ecological health

Specific factors for sustainable design of packaging may include:

The chosen criteria are often used best as a basis of comparison for two or more similar packaging designs; not as an absolute success or failure.[21] Such a multi-variable comparison is often presented as a radar chart (spider chart, star chart, etc.).[22]

Benefits

Some aspects of environmentally sound packaging are required by regulators while others are decisions made by individual packagers. Investors, employees, management, and customers can influence corporate decisions and help set policies. When investors seek to purchase stock, companies known for their positive environmental policy can be attractive.[23] Potential stockholders and investors see this as a solid decision: lower environmental risks lead to more capital at cheaper rates. Companies that highlight their environmental status to consumers can boost sales as well as product reputation. Going green is often a sound investment that can pay off.[24]

Alongside the environmental benefits of adopting sustainable packaging, eco-friendly packaging can increase sales, reduce packaging cost, and increase the image of a company's brand alongside the rising awareness spread regarding environmental impact. There has also been found a direct correlation between a company's implementation of sustainable packaging and a more sustainable supply chain management.[25] Alternatives such as bio-based plastics that are abundant, low cost, and biodegradable, offer a possibility of reducing use of petroleum resources and carbon dioxide emissions.[26]

Alternatives to conventional plastics

See main article: Bioplastic.

See main article: Biodegradable plastic. Plastic packages or plastic components are sometimes part of a valid environmental solution. Other times, alternatives to petroleum and natural gas based plastic are desirable. Materials have been developed or used for packaging without plastics, especially for use-cases in which packaging can't be phased-out – such as with policies for national grocery store requirements – for being needed for preserving food products or other purposes. A plant proteins-based biodegradable packaging alternative to plastic was developed based on research about spider silk which is known for its high strength and similar on the molecular level.[27] [28]

Researchers at the Agricultural Research Service are looking into using dairy-based films as an alternative to petroleum-based packaging. Instead of being made of synthetic polymers, these dairy-based films would be composed of proteins such as casein and whey, which are found in milk. The films would be biodegradable and offer better oxygen barriers than synthetic, chemical-based films. More research must be done to improve the water barrier quality of the dairy-based film, but advances in sustainable packaging are actively being pursued.[29]

Sustainable packaging policy cannot be individualized by a specific product. Effective legislation would need to include alternatives to many products, not just a select few; otherwise, the positive impacts of sustainable packing will not be as effective as they need in order to propel a significant reduction of plastic packaging. Finding alternatives can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from unsustainable packaging production and reduce dangerous chemical by-products of unsustainable packaging practices.[30]

Another alternative to commonly used petroleum plastics are bio-based plastics. Examples of bio-based plastics include natural biopolymers and polymers synthesized from natural feedstock monomers, which can be extracted from plants, animals, or microorganisms. A polymer that is bio-based and used to make plastic materials is not necessarily compostable or bio-degradable. Natural biopolymers can be often biodegraded in the natural environment while only a few bio-based monomer bio-based plastics can be. Bio-based plastics are a more sustainable option in comparison to their petroleum based counterparts, yet they only account for 1% of plastics produced annually as of 2020.[31]

Costs

The process of engineering more environmentally acceptable packages can include consideration of the costs.[32] Some companies claim that their environmental packaging program is cost effective.[33] Some alternative materials that are recycled/recyclable and/or less damaging to the environment can lead to companies incurring increased costs. Though this is common when any product begins to carry the true cost of its production (producer pays, producer responsibility laws, take-back laws). There may be an expensive and lengthy process before the new forms of packaging are deemed safe to the public, and approval may take up to two years.[34] It is important to note here, that for most of the developed world, tightening legislation, and changes in major retailer demand (Walmart's Sustainable Packaging Scorecard for example) the question is no longer "if" products and packaging should become more sustainable, but how-to and how-soon to do it.

ISO standards

The ISO's series of standards relating to packaging and the environment were published in 2013:[35]

Criticism

Efforts toward “greener” packaging are supported in the sustainability community; however, these are often viewed only as incremental steps and not as an end. Some people foresee a true sustainable steady state economy that may be very different from today's: greatly reduced energy usage, minimal ecological footprint, fewer consumer packaged goods, local purchasing with short food supply chains, little processed foods, etc.[36] [37] [38] Less packaging would be needed in a sustainable carbon neutral economy, which means that fewer packaging options would exist and simpler packaging forms may be necessary.[39]

See also

Further reading

Notes and References

  1. Ibrahim . Idowu David . Hamam . Yskandar . Sadiku . Emmanuel Rotimi . Ndambuki . Julius Musyoka . Kupolati . Williams Kehinde . Jamiru . Tamba . Eze . Azunna Agwo . Snyman . Jacques . Need for Sustainable Packaging: An Overview . . 2022 . 14 . 20 . 4430 . 10.3390/polym14204430 . 36298009 . 9609329 . free.
  2. Zabaniotou. A. Kassidi . August 2003 . Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made from polystyrene and recycled paper . Journal of Cleaner Production . 11 . 5 . 549–559 . 10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00076-8 .
  3. Web site: Franklin . Life Cycle Inventory of Packaging Options for Shipment of Retail Mail-Order Soft Goods . April 2004 . December 15, 2008 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20081217063517/http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/packaging/LifeCycleInventory.pdf . December 17, 2008.
  4. Jedlicka, W, "Packaging Sustainability: Tools, Systems and Strategies for Innovative Package Design", (Wiley, 2008),
  5. Wever . R . Vogtlander, Joost . Eco-efficient Value Creation: An Alternative Perspective on Packaging and Sustainability . Packaging Technology and Science . 26 . 4 . 229–248 . June 2013 . 10.1002/pts.1978. 53682432 . free .
  6. Web site: World Packaging Organization . Position Paper on Sustainable Packaging . 17 April 2008 . 6 February 2009 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20100108041242/http://www.worldpackaging.org/uploads/paperpublished/3_pdf.pdf . 8 January 2010.
  7. Web site: What is Sustainable Packaging? Our Vision . EUROPEN, European Organization for Packaging and the Environment . May 2009 . 23 September 2011.
  8. Amcor (2014). Sustainability Review 2014. (http://www.amcor.com/sustainability/). Retrieved 10 January 2015.
  9. Web site: Environmental Claims . 17 November 2008 . Federal Trade Commission. 2008-11-17 .
  10. Web site: Packaging, Product Stewarship. 2008-12-18. US Environmental Protection Agency .
  11. Web site: Wal-Mart Unveils Packaging Scorecard to Suppliers . 2008-04-29. November 2, 2008 . Wal-Mart .
  12. Web site: Sustainable Packaging Metrics and Indicators Framework . Sustainable Packaging Coalition . December 2009 . PDF . 14 December 2009 . https://web.archive.org/web/20111006020858/https://www.sustainablepackaging.org/resources/default.aspx . 2011-10-06 . dead.
  13. Web site: COMPASS, Metrics for Rating Packages . Sustainable Packaging Coalition . 2011 . 6 September 2011 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20111109233229/http://sustainablepackaging.org/Uploads/Documents/COMPASS_v2_brochure_070110.pdf . 9 November 2011.
  14. Web site: Towards Sustainable Packaging. Sustainable Packaging Alliance. October 2002. 22 December 2008. dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20080719210900/http://www.sustainablepack.org/database/files/filestorage/Towards%20Sustainable%20Packaging.pdf. 19 July 2008.
  15. Web site: PRINCIPLES, STRATEGIES & KPIs FOR PACKAGING SUSTAINABILITY. Sustainable Packaging Alliance. July 2010. 5 September 2011. dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20120317064856/http://www.sustainablepack.org/Database/files/filestorage/Sustainable%20Packaging%20Definition%20July%202010.pdf. 17 March 2012.
  16. anon: "Packaging Matters", Institute of Packaging Professionals, 1993
  17. Jason DeRusha. "The Incredible Shrinking Package". 16 July 2007. WCCO.
  18. Wu . F . Challenges and new opportunities on barrier performance of biodegradable polymers for sustainable packaging . Progress in Polymer Science . 117 . 2021. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2021.101395 . 12 September 2023 . free .
  19. ASTM D6400, Standard Specification for Labeling of Plastics Designed to be Aerobically Composted in Municipal or Industrial Facilities
  20. Ammala . Anne . An overview of degradable and biodegradable polyolefins . Progress in Polymer Science . 2011 . 1015–1049. 36. 8 . September 21, 2018 . 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.12.002 .
  21. Al-Kindi . Green packaging for durable engineering products in Iraqi markets . IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science . 2021. 14 October 2023.
  22. Svanes . Erik . Mie . Vold . Hanne . Møller . Marit . Kvalvåg Pettersen . Hanne . Larsen . Ole Jørgen . Hanssen . Sustainable Packaging Design: a Holistic Methodology for Packaging Design . Packaging Technology and Science . 23 . 3 . 161–175 . 2010 . 10.1.1.940.8394 . 10.1002/pts.887. 110967877 .
  23. Web site: Benefits For Being Green . 2008-12-12 . 2008-11-07 . https://web.archive.org/web/20081107035851/http://www.nef.org.uk/greencompany/benefits.htm . dead .
  24. Web site: More Benefits For Green Companies . 2008-12-12 . 2008-09-07 . https://web.archive.org/web/20080907111313/http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/aug2008/bs20080817_557068.htm?campaign_id=rss_null . dead .
  25. Ker[en]Xin. Wong. Kar Sen. Yap. Devi Rajendran. Salini. 2019. A study on the benefits of eco-friendly packaging on sustainable supply chain management in fast moving consumer goods industry. E3S Web of Conferences. 136. 04092. 10.1051/e3sconf/201913604092. 2019E3SWC.13604092K . 239218240. 2267-1242. free.
  26. Mendes. Ana C.. Pedersen. Gitte Alsing. June 2021. Perspectives on sustainable food packaging:– is bio-based plastics a solution?. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 112. 839–846. 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.03.049. 234870300. 0924-2244.
  27. News: 'Vegan spider silk' provides sustainable alternative to single-use plastics . 11 July 2021 . phys.org . en.
  28. Kamada . Ayaka . Rodriguez-Garcia . Marc . Ruggeri . Francesco Simone . Shen . Yi . Levin . Aviad . Knowles . Tuomas P. J. . Controlled self-assembly of plant proteins into high-performance multifunctional nanostructured films . Nature Communications . 10 June 2021 . 12 . 1 . 3529 . 10.1038/s41467-021-23813-6 . 34112802 . 8192951 . 2021NatCo..12.3529K . en . 2041-1723.
  29. Web site: Potential of Dairy-based Wraps Outlined. USDA Agricultural Research Service. January 22, 2010.
  30. Book: Verghese. Karli. Packaging for Sustainability. Lewis. Hellen. Leanna. Fitzpatrick. Springer. 2012. London. 156–163. 9780857299871 . English.
  31. Mohammadhosseini. Hossein. Alyousef. Rayed. Abdul Shukor Lim. Nor Hasanah. Tahir. Mahmood Md. Alabduljabbar. Hisham. Mohamed. Abdeliazim Mustafa. Samadi. Mostafa. June 2020. Waste metalized film food packaging as low cost and ecofriendly fibrous materials in the production of sustainable and green concrete composites. Journal of Cleaner Production. 258. 120726. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120726. 213933899. 0959-6526.
  32. Manuel . Seidel . Shabazpour, Tedford . Sustainability in Practice, a case of environmental packaging for ready to assemble furniture . Talking and Walking Sustainability . The New Zealand Society for Sustainability Engineering and Science . 2007 . Auckland, New Zealand . 23 December 2008 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20081014051758/http://www.nzsses.auckland.ac.nz/conference/2007/papers/SEIDEL.M-Sustainability%20in%20practice.pdf . 14 October 2008.
  33. Web site: Packaging - Global Citizenship . H-P . 23 December 2008 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20080720001659/http://h41111.www4.hp.com/globalcitizenship/it/it/environment/productdesign/packaging.html . July 20, 2008 .
  34. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn6207/is_20080916/ai_n28113730 Is Going Green Worth It
  35. [Standards New Zealand]
  36. Book: Kunstler , James Howard . Too Much Magic; Wishful Thinking, Technology, and the Fate of the Nation. Atlantic Monthly Press. 2012. 978-0-8021-9438-1.
  37. Book: McKibben. D. The Post Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st Century Sustainability Crisis. Watershed Media. 2010. 978-0-9709500-6-2.
  38. Book: Brown , L. R. . World on the Edge . Norton . Earth Policy Institute . 2012. 9781136540752.
  39. Book: Speigleman, H, and Sheehan, B. . Climate Change, Peak Oil, and the End of Waste. McKibben. D. The Post Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st Century Sustainability Crisis. Watershed Media. 2010. 978-0-9709500-6-2.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Sustainable packaging".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.