Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A call for an International definition of ‘Environmentally Sustainable Industrial Packaging’
A proposal presented to the 15th International Conference on Industrial
Packaging in Vancouver, Canada on 4th June 2015 by Phil Pease C.Env A brief history
The term, “sustainable development”, was popularised in ‘Our Common Future’, a report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987. Also known as the Brundtland report, it included the “classic” definition of sustainable development:
“development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Acceptance of the report by the United Nations General Assembly gave the term political salience; and in 1992 leaders set out the principles of sustainable development at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
From carbon footprint to community infrastructures and the many environmental challenges that businesses face, there are a number of ISO standards that can help businesses and organisations all over the world make progress in the three key aspects of sustainable development: environment, economy and society. However, despite of having some of safest and the most environmentally efficient packaging design-‐types available on an international scale, we have yet to develop a standard that defines ‘sustainability’ for Industrial Packaging. The ISO started work in 2009 to develop new, international standards for Packaging & Environment – encompassing all packaging types, including both domestic / retail and also industrial. These standards, under ISO 18601 to 18606, were published in 2014. Whilst these new ISO Standards provided much needed clarity on Packaging Optimisation, Reuse, Recycling and Recovery, there is no current standard to define “sustainable industrial packaging”.
2
In October 2010 members of the US Steel Drum Council, asked RIPA and IPANA to develop a draft proposal describing the characteristics of a “sustainable” 55-‐gallon steel drum. RIPA’s research concluded that there are no commonly accepted definitions for the terms “sustainable packaging” or “packaging sustainability.” However it is generally agreed that these terms mean (in respect to packaging), that a packaging: (1). is capable of fulfilling its inherent functions, including protection of contents, health and
environmental safety, transmittal of key information (e.g. contents, health and safety) and ease of handling;
(2). Is designed to optimise the use of materials in initial construction; (3) is able to ensure an environmentally optimal life cycle, including reuse and recycling (4) can be recovered and managed in an environmentally sound manner at the end of its
life cycle. Understanding sustainability
Since the Brundtland report and the Rio Summit, governments and organisations have taken up sustainable development as a desirable goal and developed metrics for sustainable development, however practical implementation has proven difficult. Matthews and Hammill (2009: 1119) noted that main problem since the Rio Summit has been “in designing the move from theory to practice”.
In June 2006, the European Council adopted a “Renewed Strategy for Sustainable Development” that said sustainability in any form has three pillars; these being:
Planet – Environmental protection
People – Social equity and cohesion
Profit – Economic prosperity
The widespread relevance of the issues is evident in the sustainable development strategies of 106 national governments in 2009 (UN General Assembly, 2010, p. 11). Local governments have also responded, with over 6,400 local governments in 113 countries involved in local Agenda 21 activities in 2001 (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, 2002, p. 4).
For our own industry, the concept of sustainable packaging fits these 3 pillars very well.
3
Sustainable packaging protects our environment; ensures safe containment and delivery of product, displays product, safety & health information, and is a key component of continuing global economic function. We are confronted by many terms applied to the protection of our environment. Even the term “environmentally friendly” is widely misunderstood – typically due to misuse or abuse for the sake of political or corporate promotion. Packaging Terminology, linked to environmental protection, has many titles, including: Life cycle. Defined in ISO 14040 (Life Cycle Assessment) as; “consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material acquisition or generation from natural resources to final disposal.” Carbon footprint. This concept is generally less rigorous than life cycle assessment and focuses only on emissions. The British Standards Institute define Carbon Footprint as; “the sum of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions occurring at each stage of the product life cycle and within the specified boundaries of the product.” Recycling. More accurately known as ‘Material Recycling’ and as defined in ISO 18604: 2013 as; “reprocessing, by means of a manufacturing process, of a used packaging material into a product, a component incorporated into a product, or a secondary (recycled) raw material; excluding energy recovery and the use of the product as a fuel.” Reuse. Defined in ISO 18603: 2013 Packaging & Environment as: “operation by which packaging is refilled or used or the same purpose or which it was conceived, with or without the support of auxiliary products present on the market enabling the packaging to be refilled.” Reusable Packaging Defined in ISO / DIS 21067-‐2 Packaging Vocabulary as: “packaging or packaging component which has been designed to accomplish or prove its ability to accomplish a minimum number of trips or rotations in a system for reuse.”
4
Concerns: It is true that many companies have been driven to evaluate their packaging from an environmental perspective due to the rise in public environmental concerns and, in-‐turn, Governmental Policies such as the 1994 European Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (94/62/EC). However, these regulations are in many respects flawed, with most requirements being based upon the ability to recycle rather than reuse. The public and governmental demand for corporations to demonstrate environmental performance has led to a number of measuring ‘tools’, such as the respected “Dow Jones Sustainability Index,” established in 1999 and now globally recognised as a leading scheme to rank the environmental performance of many business operations. However, whist packaging is referenced there are no metrics to measure the performance of commercial and industrial packaging activity. In spite of the above (and many additional) terminologies, there remains no single economic or environmental definition of the term “sustainable” so far as packaging is concerned. Many argue that their products are “environmentally friendly” or even, more accurately; “environmentally efficient”, in that the product is designed to be lightweight or returnable and reusable, or even simply recyclable. Some even argue their product is “carbon-‐neutral”. A number of car manufacturers, currently offer to plant numerous trees to offset the impact of their manufacturing process. This is, at best a marketing smokescreen, as offsetting the impact of a process does not make either the process or the product environmentally efficient or sustainable. It remains critically important that we continue to promote and educate the virtues of industrial packaging and the environmental benefits must stand alongside those of safety and value – again representing the three pillars of sustainability. However, we must carry this out with consideration of the wider impact and long-‐term viability of our products. It is clear that, whilst some may promote environmental improvement through lighter-‐weight products, which aid cost reduction and recycling this can often be at the cost of optimal use and reuse and hence an increased environmental impact. Simply put, a more robust packaging design may have a slightly increased up-‐front impact on energy consumption and cost, but allow a significantly extended life-‐cycle incorporating much lower overall energy use, improved safety margins, less risk to contained products and still remain suitable for remanufacturing or recycling at the end of the primary cycle. The industrial packaging sector is of course a fraction of the overall packaging market, with retail packaging taking the lion’s share. This is not only the case for the general market, but also for market perception, with many regulators and legislators understanding “packaging” only so far as the day-‐to-‐day domestic products they buy in the high street.
5
When trying to explain the, very different, dynamics of industrial packaging to a regulator or enforcement agency, they often simply do not understand – typically thinking ‘industrial packaging’ relates to commercial packing of larger household items such as kitchen appliances. As in Europe, the US set state goals for waste (source) reduction and recycling. Reuse was not initially a stated option in this waste management paradigm, and was not made a part of the EPA waste management triad until the early 1990’s. Even today, however, the US EPA views reuse as a category of source reduction. Additionally, as in Europe, commercial and industrial packaging has generally fallen outside the regulatory purview of state and federal agencies, and highly efficient private recycling and reuse systems are in place for commercial and industrial packaging. Currently, in the UK, The Industrial Packaging Association continues discussions with the Government’s Environment Agency to achieve a better definition of packaging waste. In a number of cases, it is agreed that packaging destined for reuse stands outside the title of ‘waste’. However, the UK regulator references the old CEN Standard definition of ‘reuse’ which requires packaging to be ‘designed for reuse’ if it is not to be considered waste after the first use. Apart from being an outdated perception, in consideration of the new ISO Packaging & Environment definition, and contrary to supporting environmental performance, this does demonstrate the need to develop new standards, specific to industrial packaging. Recent Packaging Papers: With such emphasis on environmental performance, and sustainability, there are inevitably a number of studies on how packaging performs. However, none of these have ever focused on determining the environmental performance and sustainability of industrial packaging, although they may be useful when considering such a standard. For example; a paper was published entitled “The Global Protocol on Packaging and Sustainability”. The Consumer Goods Forum carried out this work, although not specific to industrial packaging, it did include participants from the whole supply chain and referenced the CEN and ISO packaging and environment suite of standards. This can be downloaded from: http://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/download-‐global-‐protocol-‐on-‐packaging-‐sustainability-‐gpps The introductory element contains a useful item on the use of the term “sustainable” and the issues concerning claims of achieving sustainability. Also, the British Standards Institute have developed a standard; BS 8905 "Framework for the assessment of the sustainable use of materials – Guidance”. This also contains useful information on what the standard terms a “sustainability assessment”. Of particular interest for packaging is the work of, Richard Inns, who followed up the publication of BS 8905 with a report titled "PEC Partnership Ltd case study – Assessing how BS 8905 can be applied in the packaging sector”. Once again, however, this is significantly weighted toward the retail packaging sector.
6
Industrial Packaging specifics Industrial packaging has an enviable record in meeting the requirements of the three pillars of sustainable development on a truly global scale. The safety record of industrial packaging is well documented, despite being subjected to lengthy and arduous transport conditions, extremes of weather and temperature, poor handling, impact and much more. The economic record of industrial packaging is proven, containing, transporting and dispensing a massively varied range of products from sensitive foods and pharmaceuticals, to hazardous, dangerous chemicals, solids to liquids serving global markets. Our environmental record must therefore be not only maintained, but fully promoted and properly documented. To do this, we must of course ensure that the published international standards accurately reflect what we our products are capable of and ensure a wider understanding by those that wish to use our packaging or regulate our activities. The recently published range of Packaging & Environment Standards under ISO 18601 – 18606 involved over 60 packaging experts from across 20 countries representing all packaging types and materials. Industrial Packaging was represented, although by only one or two experts – despite which, we did manage to gain a much bigger influence than the numbers suggest. Industrial packaging is standardized for use & reuse across global markets with most countries having excellent take-‐back schemes for refurbishment and repeated re-‐use – even for hazardous products through UN Approval & Certification schemes operated by the National Competent Authorities. Where not directly reusable, many industrial packaging designs can be remanufactured – further extending their life cycle. Typically unheard of for retail packaging. It is estimated that 95% or more of the steel drums emptied in the U.S. are collected and reconditioned for reuse or cleaned for scrap recycling every year. It is proven that both plastic and steel drums can achieve in excess of 6 cycles of use before being either remanufactured or recycled back into more drums. It is a fact that fibre drums, with their raw material effectively being a crop, originating from managed forests, can not only be reused, but also composted following a lifetime of product transport and protection. Industrial Packaging deserves to be properly recognised for a long-‐standing role in support of the environmental performance of companies, with standardised designs working across established, proven use and repeated reuse markets for many differing products on a truly global scale.
7
Future considerations: Global producers of packaging and consumer goods agree that a positive environmental profile is now a marketing requirement. There is also consensus that the best way to defend against overly intrusive governmental regulations is to lead the way by creating a set of global, responsible environmental packaging standards. Corporations now operate within a global regulatory system that imposes varying fees on producers for the management of waste packaging (Europe); imposes limitations on environmental claims (Europe and the U.S.); and, enforces laws that define key terms and activities differently. In the UK, the Industrial Packaging Association has achieved better understanding of industrial packaging’s with the Environmental Authorities, resulting in a very significant cost reduction for movement of used, empty industrial packaging with hazardous residues, when sent for reconditioning and reuse. In Germany, the Industrial Packaging sector has successfully argued that the return of used, emptied industrial packaging for reuse is not considered to be waste. In the USA, RIPA have reported that the best hope for promoting additional reuse of reusable industrial packagings may rest with the development of the following initiatives: -‐ Creation of a non-‐profit education association (e.g. commercial and industrial packaging sustainability alliance) for the purpose of: i. Working with relevant federal and state governmental agencies, as well as other non-‐
profit groups, such as AMERIPEN and Friends of the Earth. ii. Obtaining grants to pursue research activities (e.g. life cycle analysis) iii. Educating state, federal and international decision-‐makers about commercial and
industrial packaging issues. -‐ Establish working relationships with EPA (packaging program) and Council on Environmental Quality (Senior Sustainability Officers in key agencies). -‐ Develop list of sustainability contacts at major corporations. -‐ Perform life cycle and economic models for sustainable commercial and industrial packaging purchasing. Global companies took the lead in the International Standards Organisation (ISO) work defining environmental packaging terms and systems for the world. This completed set of global standards work will impact all packaging types, i.e. consumer, commercial and industrial. The Industrial Packaging sector was represented and worked hard to ensure existing commercial and industrial packaging systems will not be adversely impacted by these standards. As an industry we need to ensure we maintain our integral role in the development of the reuse, recycling and optimization standards.
8
Example definitions of Sustainable Industrial Packaging: RIPA definition of sustainable steel drum and plastic drum A sustainable steel or plastic 220 L drum has the following physical attributes: (a) Constructed in accordance with a recognized international standard (e.g. ANSI – MH 2; JIS Z-1601; ISO 20848 – 2, etc.) (b) Capable of withstanding the reconditioning process and accomplishing more than one use-rotation after the initial rotation (i.e. filled and refilled) for the same purpose for which it was produced. (c) Designed to be capable of transporting both hazardous and non-hazardous materials initially and in each reuse rotation. (d) Capable of withstanding anticipated global storage and handling processes. (e) Capable of being cleaned and safely recycled after its useful life. Suggestions for other design types: A sustainable fibreboard drum has the following physical attributes: (a) Constructed in accordance with a recognised international standard
(e.g. BS EN 12710: 2006 / BS EN 14768: 2005 / EN 14053: 2003) (b) Manufactured from natural or recycled raw materials, such as Kraft Fibre, obtained
from either managed forests, capable of being replenished without displacement of naturally occurring hardwoods, or as recycled material from approved reprocessors.
(c) Designed to ensure optimal environmental performance as defined by ISO 18602: 2013 (d) Capable of withstanding anticipated global storage and handling processes. (e) Capable of being cleaned and safely reused or recycled after its useful life.
