How to set the right Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to increase sustainability in Packaging-Henning Weigand

 

Whilst in my story #19 I have elaborated on the meaning of Reduce Reuse Recycle, and my personal preference for the fully circular Reuse model, I would like to focus in today’s story on setting Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for sustainable Packaging.

Clear objectives are key to achieve what the organization is aiming to achieve, for this, clear SMART (Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic Time bound) targets are key to make very clear to the individual what is needed from them to contribute to the overall target. Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are important measures in this context. But how do you measure Sustainability in Packaging? What are the key drivers to be defined as KPI to provide clear targets?  

Although sustainability seems clear and straightforward on the first look, it can in many cases mean different things, depending on the focus. Therefore it is important to make ourselves clear, what the main thing is, which we want to achieve: Do we want to have the lowest possible Carbon footprint or do we want to have the least possible plastics waste or something else. Of course, in the ideal case we minimize both, Carbon and Plastics Waste – the two objectives in many cases are a tradeoff to one another. To me, a KPI therefore in the ideal case focuses not on one, but on 2 separate perspectives, both of which matter:

What goes into producing the pack

This perspective is mainly Carbon footprint related (which includes in a circular model the Carbon footprint for collection, return logistics, processing, cleaning in a Reuse and the additional mechanical or chemical recycling process in a Recycle model)

What happens after the pack is used – mainly polluting the environment with e.g. plastics related

This perspective is mainly “waste” related, depending on what happens with the pack after use.

It is important to look into both perspectives, as the decisions for sustainable packaging can be quite different if solely a) or b) is looked at:

Plastic: Whilst a plastic pack e.g. from the FMCG industry often ends up in household trash or – worst case in rivers and oceans, it is a big challenge from a Respecting Nature perspective. It’s Carbon footprint on the other hand is lower than that of a pack made from paper or metal. Plastics is especially a problem if it is single use – in an efficiently managed fully circular model, it might actually be the lowest carbon solution, if a pack cannot be avoided (of course to avoid a Pack is both, best for Carbon input and avoid waste).  

Paper: Paper in the perception of many people is considered a sustainable packaging material. Because from the perspective of b) mentioned above, paper (uncoated) does not cause negative impacts such as microplastics (often paper is coatet with plastics, which changes this view). Pure paper – both recycled and virgin paper usually disappears from the environment within a year or less. From the perspective of a) mentioned above though the paper industry is a highly carbon intense industry and therefore paper usually has a high carbon footprint to start with. If carbon reduction is the key focus, it might be debatable, if plastics or paper packaging is more sustainable. In my view always both, point a) AND b) need to be considered for any sustainable packaging KPI. A curiosity is, that often recycled paper has a higher Carbon footprint than virgin paper, it therefore is debatable depending on the perspective, which of the 2 is more sustainable. The answer in many cases is: It depends.

Metal: Similar to paper, metal is perceived less problematic than plastics when it comes to point b) as used metal packs do not tend to pollute major rivers and oceans around the globe to the same extent as plastics does. From the perspective of a) it is to note, that Steel/Metal manufacturing/processing has a high carbon footprint  in its production process – often higher than the production of plastics. Similar to paper packaging metal/steel has a high initial carbon footprint, and is not so sustainable from the perspective of a) but it seldom ends up in masses in rivers and oceans. Scrap metal/steel usually has a value, e.g. steel mills use scrap steel feeding into the process of steel manufacturing, which has a positive impact on the production process.

To summarize: When setting KPI for Sustainable Packaging it is important to take into account 2 different aspects in combination: a) what goes into producing the pack (mainly CO² footprint) and b) what happens to the pack after its use. Henning Weigand