What have we become in our convenience focused society…. Certainly, it is simple and easy and convenient for us to pick up some food or drink or any other consumable quickly along the way. It is easy to use it and then to throw it away again. Most people – fortunately – still have the courtesy to wait until the next trash can and throw it in there instead of throwing it in any random place from where it easily moves into the ocean leading to the core problem of waste in the ocean, as we face it today. Ideally then the trash is either already pre-separated into different waste types, or it gets separated by smart machines in the background, which fortunately are going through rapid progress in technology.
This throw away culture is not a good development. With the world population having increased from 1 billion in 1804 to 2 billion
in 1927 and 3 billion in 1960 to almost 8 billion today and growing further rapidly, this is a massive issue. Our oceans are finite, our resources are limited. The earth doesn’t get bigger. We need to change our behavior to cope with this and for that education and technology are key. The packaging industry is one important player in this, but the packaging industry alone cannot solve it.
Where I grew up, reusing things was always a key thing to do, it came naturally, even generations back. Sometimes
I do not understand the behavior of some people, but then again we all notice, how convenient the use and throw concept is
(which increases significantly through online shopping). We never bought and threw after using it once. Some even say,
I keep things too long instead of just throwing them away, but in the back of my mind that is how I was brought up.
Why throw something away that, at some point, can be useful again.
Reducing, saving resources and reusing them where possible is not a new concept, at all. It actually is something
totally natural in many societies and was a necessary practice, making use of scarce resources. The wealth and prosperity in recent decades,
which has distributed progress and prosperity over large parts of the globe has brought along this problem. By no means do I want to say
that this only is a problem in developing societies. Just as much in a developed society, some people just randomly throw away their trash.
It is something that needs to be tackled from multiple angles. Education is one of the key levers. Another lever is to rethink the end to end
concept of packaging. Which brings us into the “Reduce”, “Reuse”, “Recycle” approach of Packaging.
Of course, not having any of that (Reduce) is the best option. Wherever it is possible and it makes sense, avoiding/reducing is what we should
aim for. But it’s easier said than done, and we need to be careful, that this is not demanded in a superficial one dimensional view,
not taking into account all relevant aspects: If we go away from a single dimension view of packaging waste into a broader view of
all the aspects and properties, packaging needs to embody. Not to have packaging is sometimes not an option. In Germany,
there is an increasing number of unpacked stores (Unverpackt). For some products, that makes absolute sense. But it may lead to food
getting wasted, because unpacked bulk food naturally tends to have a shorter life cycle, tends to break easier. In times of Covid,
where smear infections have become an increased problem, bulk is a risk (e.g. with buffet food). Where possible, and where the advantages end to end overweigh the disadvantages (e.g. waste of food, hygiene and health – such as viruses, higher CO² footprint for e.g. soy, that has been transported halfway round the globe into Western supermarkets,…). Reducing our packaging to the minimum is a good option, likely the best option. But only, if all relevant factors are taken into account and weighed off end to end.
What many don’t see is that the “reduce” aspect can hinder recyclability: When a package is downgauged, e.g. minimizing the
plastics thickness, you save CO² and you save cost. It is simple and it’s a fantastic message: You can reduce the price of the product
for the consumer AND you can reduce the Carbon footprint AND the total weight/amount of the packaging waste in one go. What
looks and sounds good on the surface unfortunately tends to turn out as quite a short term view and a superficial decision.
Because the disadvantage in Packaging is that thin plastics or other types of package (e.g. steel) becomes more difficult to “reuse” and
also more difficult to recycle if downgauged.
For “Reuse”, you need to re-design a package. A shopping bag that is used over and over again should not be thin, it should be
quite strong to last over a long time. A reusable box,
which we take with us to the supermarket to store bulk groceries in. That type of box, which we use again and again needs to be
thick and rigid to be washable and reusable. So the downgauging part of “reduce” is not the right approach. Also for recycling facilities,
downgauging is a problem. Thick, high density polyethylene (HDPE) is best for recycling, ideally when it comes in a neutral color.
A thin bag breaks easily, is difficult to recycle and has a high likelihood to end up in our environment as microplastics. If that happens,
a good intention of “Reduce” can lead to an even bigger problem.
Re-using – which is a key thing that I have always done. A bag from shopping was never just thrown away, it was always re-used
multiple times. And the stronger the bag was, the longer it was re-used. So in reality any decision on packaging needs to be taken through
the whole lifecycle of the package taking all aspects into account end to end. It is a decision that needs to be made at the start of the chain
taking into account what happens at the end of the package. If the objective is re-use, the package needs to be designed differently.
But also the behavior of the user of the package needs to be different than for re-use or re-cycle. This is a holistic end to end concept,
not something, one player in the chain, the brand owner or packaging producer alone can solve.
And for recycling: Many countries have banned the import of waste. That seems a good step, as in the past, exporting waste into
less regulated markets was a convenient way to get rid of the problems. But this ban also hinders recycling. In many markets, recycled
material or feedstock for recycling (e.g. plastics waste), is disallowed to move between countries. But for the development of an efficient
recycling industry, bundling is important. And for that it must be possible to move “waste” “feedstock” “reusable/recyclable raw material”
between borders.
We live in a superficial world, where 160 characters determine success… It is an art to be concise (not necessarily the key point in this text
I am writing right now), but it is also a great danger to oversimplification. In the end, that is nothing new.
Unfortunately this end to end view so far is seldom seen out there in politics. So far people follow the most simple and best sounding
messaging from the party they support (may it be the Greens or Mr. Trump – they all oversimplify), from the NGO to which they donate,
or to the brand they buy. Anyone in this chain has a self-interest why they say what they say. Important is to take a step back,
take a broad set of factors into account and then make an informed decision. On each individual criteria, that decision will always
be vulnerable, as nothing in this world solves all problems.
Let’s stop politics and marketing – let’s not just sell a message that sounds good to win superficial voters
(e.g. the EU forbidding plastic straws and making a big PR thing about it), earn superficial donations or uninformed consumers and
let’s actually tackle the problem. This is not only a problem, it’s a great opportunity. To turn “waste” into feedstock, to make out of something
“useless” something “useful”, a raw material is a great opportunity. It is a business opportunity, a job creator and a
problem solver if approached in the right way.
“Reduce”, “Reuse”, “Recycle” clearly is key to solve our packaging waste problem. It needs to be looked at holistically end to end
from the “end” of the packaging going backwards in time. If “Reduce” is the main objective, the package will be designed differently than for
“Re-use”. If “Recycle” is the key, then the package again needs to be designed in a different way and go through a different chain.
Best is clearly “Reduce” – minimize - avoid, where it is possible. That decision needs to take into account all factors from a
global perspective, not only from a spoiled Western kids’ perspective, but to be applied in any part of the globe in a meaningful way.
It isn’t easy, but the mindset is changing in the direction of tackling this. I am sure, we will find a good way out of this issue –
let’s continue the discussion. Thanks for the continued meaningful discussion to solve this challenge.
By Henning Weigand
