Think Inside the Box May 1, 2004 12:00 PM
, Karen Berman
JobZone
Search and post jobs for the Multichannel Merchant. Including jobs for brand & agency marketers, e-commerce, catalog marketers, ops & fulfillment, direct marketing and more.
“It's here, it's here,” chorus the children, when their much-anticipated catalog order arrives. As the youngsters rip open the parcel, their parents catch sight of a notice proclaiming that all the packaging materials used are 100% recyclable. “How nice,” says Mother to Father. “Eco-friendly packaging.” And they gather up all the wrappings and throw them in the trash.
Therein lies one of many quandaries of environmentally friendly packaging. Just because a particular packaging material can be recycled does not guarantee that it will be. And that is just the beginning of the complexities surrounding the issue.
“It's complex because everything that's done has an impact on the environment,” says Susan Selke, Ph.D., interim director of the School of Packaging at Michigan State University in East Lansing, MI. “What we're talking about is trying to minimize that impact. It's often difficult to quantify and compare ecological impacts. Deciding what is ecologically friendly depends on what you give value to.”
NOT WHAT THEY SEEM
The phrase “ecologically friendly” is typically used to describe a single attribute, says Bill Armstrong, technical development manager for Saddle Brook, NJ-based Sealed Air Corporation. “If it's landfill avoidance, that's one thing. If it's depletion of renewable resources, that's another thing. It's very complex and it gets to be very emotional.”
Armstrong, who is based in the company's Danbury, CT, office, was formerly a business representative to Connecticut's Municipal Solid Waste Advisory Council. He cites two products made by his own company: Jiffy Bags, which are mailing pouches padded with recycled newspapers (the shredded gray material), and Jiffy Light, mailing pouches lined with plastic bubble wrapping material. To a general public taught to suspect plastic, Jiffy Bags might seem the obvious ecologically friendly pick.
“The product was originally developed because newsprint was cheap,” says Armstrong. “The ecological value [of using recycled material] is obvious.” But that, he continues, is only the start of the evaluation process. “The Jiffy Bag's weight is heavier than that of the plastic padded alternative, so it takes more fuel to haul it,” he explains. The Jiffy Light requires less volume in hauling and in the warehouse, and, if it ends up there, in the landfill. It lacks, however, the easy recyclability of newsprint-based products. Both products are considered good candidates for waste-to-energy incineration, although plastic has a higher energy BTU content. “Very seldom is the issue as clear-cut and straightforward as we'd like it to be,” says Armstrong.
Selke believes that “people often don't take a systems approach to the issue.” For that, she says, issues like the amount of fossil fuel required to produce a particular kind of package and the amount of water needed to clean a reusable or recyclable package — indeed, the entire life cycle of the product — must be considered, along with the methods used to dispose of it. Then, she says, “the issue is, how do you translate these impacts into criteria for decision-making?”
BACK TO THE EARTH
Disposal is a major factor in whether a packaging material (or any product) can be considered environmentally friendly. Today, the major disposal paths are landfill, waste-to-energy incineration, and recycling. The latter might seem to offer the best solution, as it does not add to landfill sites that are already near or at capacity, or, like waste-to-energy incineration, create carbon dioxide, which some scientists believe contributes to global warming. The problem with relying on recycling is that as a nation, we're not there yet. While many communities mandate newspaper, bottle, and can recycling, few require — or have the facilities to handle — recycling of packaging materials. And then there's the issue of consumer compliance.
Selke points to the case of corrugated cardboard, which, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has the highest recycling rate of any packing material at around 70% of the total produced. “While the business community has demonstrated an admirable commitment to recycling its corrugated,” says Selke, “once it gets to the consumer, it's not nearly as likely to get recycled.”
Betsy Steiner, executive director of the Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers, based in Crofton, MA, reports similar experiences. Her organization represents the manufacturers of expanded polystyrene, the high-impact-bearing white foam packaging that is used to protect appliances and electronic equipment. The industry reports a 13% recycling rate — high for the plastics market, Steiner says. About two-thirds of the expanded polystyrene foam that gets recycled (it is ground and reformulated into more packaging) comes from the industrial-commercial sector. The alliance's efforts to encourage recycling by individual consumers have not been very successful.
“People like to think that it's being recycled, but they don't necessarily want to take action to recycle it themselves,” says Steiner. The alliance has targeted selected communities during the holiday season — when large numbers of households receive and throw away huge amounts of expanded polystyrene foam — with disappointing results. “Great strides have been made, but much of it is at the corporate and the government level,” Steiner says. “At the consumer level, there's a long way to go between voicing a concern and acting on the concern.”
