A tighter focus on the separate businesses will enable each to “unlock their full potential.” What might this mean for packaging?
n June 21, two days ago, Kellogg announced it will be separating into three independent public companies, names to come later, so each can better focus on its specific business:
Global Snacking Co. — fueled by some of the company’s top brands, like Pringles, Nutri Grain, Town House, and Cheez-It. Estimated net annual sales: $11.4 billion.
North America Cereal Co. — the cereals you know and love, such as Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Special K, and Kashi. Estimated net annual sales: $2.4 billion.
Plant Co. — anchored by the MorningStar Farms brand. Estimated net annual sales: $340 million. In the video, Kellogg Chairman/CEO Steve Cahillane admits one possibility is this company might then be sold.
According to Kellogg, the new companies “will all be leaders in their categories, and as standalone businesses, each will have an enhanced focus and will be better able to direct its resources toward its distinct strategic priorities, enabling all three to unlock their full potential.”
Kellogg anticipates that the cereal business might be the first to spin off; followed by the plant-based business. Both are expected to be complete by the end of 2023. In the press release, Kellogg explains that “The proposed spin-offs are intended to result in tax-free distributions of North America Cereal Co. and Plant Co. shares to Kellogg Co. shareowners.”
Plenty of opportunities for packaging staff.
What might this all mean for the brands’ packaging departments and the people working on centralized packaging functions that serve multiple brands, businesses, and/or locations?
A few more details first:
Locations will pretty much stay the same. North America Cereal Co. and Plant Co. will keep their headquarters in Battle Creek, Michigan. Global Snacking Co. will be headquartered in Chicago but will maintain dual campuses in Battle Creek and Chicago. The headquarters of Kellogg Co.’s three international regions — Europe, Latin America, and Asia/Middle East/Africa (AMEA) — will stay where they currently are. My take: Few employees will be left behind because they will not be asked to relocate.
Among the reasons for making this move now is that the separate companies will be better able to execute specific strategies with “increased agility and operational flexibility, enabling more focused allocation of capital and resources in a manner consistent with those strategic priorities.”
According to Cahillane, each new company will prioritize different goals. Because of these priorities, I see different potential impacts for each company’s packaging department:
• Global Snacking Co. plans to focus on building brands and emerging markets. My take: Significant investment in marketing could mean career opportunities in packaging research and development, as well as graphic design. Packaging projects could lean more toward innovation — smart packaging, for example — rather than optimization plans.
• North America Cereal Co. will concentrate on regaining market share and expanding profit margins, with long-term attention to productivity. My take: Look for packaging line optimization and potential investment in new equipment technologies.
• Plant Co. will focus on building awareness and penetration in North America, with international expansion in the future. My take: Remember, one possibility is that this company may be sold. Typically, that means making the balance sheet look as enticing as possible by maximizing profits. And that usually means fewer investment dollars (especially for capital expenditures) and a tightening on expenses. But that status quo would shift decidedly if ownership is maintained.
Additionally, one of the benefits being touted in the press release for Kellogg employees could be more rewarding career opportunities in the new companies. My take: Overall, there probably will be more opportunities for advancement for current staff, as well as more new positions as the Kellogg centralized packaging functions will need to be added at the new companies.
Because these changes will probably open opportunities for packaging professionals, I appreciate and understand Cahillane’s enthusiasm for the future: “After 116 years in business, how cool it is that our best days are absolutely in front of us.”
The proposed Global Plastics Treaty draws more attention to the plastic waste situation around the world. But we need to be more innovative in our packaging solutions.
During the pandemic, the world created about 8 million tons of plastic waste, and most of it is now in the ocean. As one researcher described the problem while visiting a beach on one of the Canary Islands, “I walked up to the edge of the ocean where the waves were breaking on land, and then I looked down and every wave was full of plastic that I hadn’t seen, like confetti. The ocean is literally spitting this material back at us.”
The reality of microplastics is one of the reasons the United Nations (UN) has announced a new treaty, currently in discussions. With support from The Ellen Macarthur Foundation, the proposed treaty seeks to achieve their three founding principles:
During the pandemic, the world created about 8 million tons of plastic waste, and most of it is now in the ocean. As one researcher described the problem while visiting a beach on one of the Canary Islands, “I walked up to the edge of the ocean where the waves were breaking on land, and then I looked down and every wave was full of plastic that I hadn’t seen, like confetti. The ocean is literally spitting this material back at us.”
The reality of microplastics is one of the reasons the United Nations (UN) has announced a new treaty, currently in discussions. With support from The Ellen Macarthur Foundation, the proposed treaty seeks to achieve their three founding principles:https://17bfdc7340f9a8315dd46c29d95810b5.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
1. Eliminate all problematic and unnecessary plastic items we do not need.
2. Innovate to ensure that the plastics we do need are reusable, recyclable, or compostable.
3. Circulate all plastic items we use to keep them in the economy and out of the environment.
To date, the UN has passed a resolution on the proposed treaty titled “End Plastic Pollution.” The UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) Executive Director had this to say about it: “Today marks a triumph by planet earth over single-use plastic.”
In short, the resolution is simply an agreement to start discussions that will convene at the end of 2022.
Can the UN do this?
The UN body at the center of the treaty discussions, UNEP, held a meeting in Nairobi in March 2022, where 175 countries voted “yes” to the “End Plastic Pollution” resolution. The promises are impressive. According to a report on the meeting, a shift to a circular economy can do the following:
● Reduce the volume of plastics entering the oceans by more than 80% by 2040; ● Reduce virgin plastic production by 55%; ● Save governments $700 billion (US dollars) by 2040; ● Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25%; ● Create 700,000 new jobs — mainly in the global south.
To date, I’ve been unable to find affirmation of the above claims, or how the stats were reached.
The resolution’s aim is to enforce a “legally binding instrument.” When I read that, I thought … what does that mean? Can the UN mandate or enforce “laws” on sovereign countries? Can they impose laws on corporations that do business globally?
Treaty effectiveness.
Treaties are a fuzzy area. But the focus seems to be primarily on single-use plastic items. Brands, activists, and governments agree that these are the worst culprits. But before defining the best way forward, let’s take a quick reality check on treaties.
The Council on Foreign Relations noted in a recent piece that the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 was the first “legally binding” climate treaty. It required countries to lower emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels. Plus, a system was put in place to monitor countries’ compliance. But the treaty did not include major polluting nations India or China. The US signed on to the resolution but later withdrew.
Similar story with The Paris Agreement. It required all countries to make emission-reduction pledges. In short, countries pledged to meet goals that prevented the global average temperature from rising 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. The agreement also aimed to reach net zero emissions by the second half of the century. Every five years, countries are supposed to assess their progress. By the way, countries set their own targets, and there are no mechanisms to ensure they meet them. As most know, the US pulled out of the Paris Agreement under the last administration and is in the process of resuming membership. Whether the government ratifies the treaty is yet to be determined.
In addition to the Paris Agreement and Kyoto Protocol, there are other climate treaties that bear scrutiny. A 2021 report on climate treaties cited four global climate “agreements” that were never ratified. These include:
1. The Law of The Sea: This UN Convention set an international framework for managing and protecting the oceans. It was first launched in 1982, signed in 1994, and then never ratified.
2. The Convention on Biological Diversity: Once called “the world’s best weapon in fighting the extinction crisis.” President Bill Clinton signed the resolution; however, it never received the necessary ratification. Still not ratified.
3. The Stockholm Convention: This treaty was designed to protect the environment from harmful chemicals. Today, the treaty regulates nearly 30 harmful chemicals. This means the signers must restrict or ban use of these chemicals in their countries—or come up with strategies to properly dispose of sites contaminated by these chemicals. To date, the U.S. has yet to ratify the treaty.
4. The Basel Convention: This international treaty limits the movement of hazardous waste (including radioactive materials) between nations. It was written to prevent richer nations from shipping waste that can’t be recycled to other countries. The US has not yet ratified.
According to the Oceanic Society: “The push for the “End Plastic Pollution” treaty has the support of more than three quarters of the UN member states, including the US. Other signatories include global brands, such as Coca-Cola, IKEA, L’Oréal, PepsiCo, Philips, Starbucks, Unilever, Walmart, and many more.
But here’s the thing: Brands have been innovating with sustainable packaging for a long time now. The focus, in my opinion, needs to be around more than recyclable or reusable options, but around a game-changing infrastructure that keeps plastic from ever reaching the oceans in the first place.
During the pandemic, the world created about 8 million tons of plastic waste, and most of it is now in the ocean. As one researcher described the problem while visiting a beach on one of the Canary Islands, “I walked up to the edge of the ocean where the waves were breaking on land, and then I looked down and every wave was full of plastic that I hadn’t seen, like confetti. The ocean is literally spitting this material back at us.”
The reality of microplastics is one of the reasons the United Nations (UN) has announced a new treaty, currently in discussions. With support from The Ellen Macarthur Foundation, the proposed treaty seeks to achieve their three founding principles:https://17bfdc7340f9a8315dd46c29d95810b5.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
1. Eliminate all problematic and unnecessary plastic items we do not need.
2. Innovate to ensure that the plastics we do need are reusable, recyclable, or compostable.
3. Circulate all plastic items we use to keep them in the economy and out of the environment.
To date, the UN has passed a resolution on the proposed treaty titled “End Plastic Pollution.” The UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) Executive Director had this to say about it: “Today marks a triumph by planet earth over single-use plastic.”
In short, the resolution is simply an agreement to start discussions that will convene at the end of 2022.
Can the UN do this?
The UN body at the center of the treaty discussions, UNEP, held a meeting in Nairobi in March 2022, where 175 countries voted “yes” to the “End Plastic Pollution” resolution. The promises are impressive. According to a report on the meeting, a shift to a circular economy can do the following:
● Reduce the volume of plastics entering the oceans by more than 80% by 2040; ● Reduce virgin plastic production by 55%; ● Save governments $700 billion (US dollars) by 2040; ● Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25%; ● Create 700,000 new jobs — mainly in the global south.
To date, I’ve been unable to find affirmation of the above claims, or how the stats were reached.
The resolution’s aim is to enforce a “legally binding instrument.” When I read that, I thought … what does that mean? Can the UN mandate or enforce “laws” on sovereign countries? Can they impose laws on corporations that do business globally?
Treaty effectiveness.
Treaties are a fuzzy area. But the focus seems to be primarily on single-use plastic items. Brands, activists, and governments agree that these are the worst culprits. But before defining the best way forward, let’s take a quick reality check on treaties.
The Council on Foreign Relations noted in a recent piece that the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 was the first “legally binding” climate treaty. It required countries to lower emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels. Plus, a system was put in place to monitor countries’ compliance. But the treaty did not include major polluting nations India or China. The US signed on to the resolution but later withdrew.
Similar story with The Paris Agreement. It required all countries to make emission-reduction pledges. In short, countries pledged to meet goals that prevented the global average temperature from rising 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. The agreement also aimed to reach net zero emissions by the second half of the century. Every five years, countries are supposed to assess their progress. By the way, countries set their own targets, and there are no mechanisms to ensure they meet them. As most know, the US pulled out of the Paris Agreement under the last administration and is in the process of resuming membership. Whether the government ratifies the treaty is yet to be determined.
In addition to the Paris Agreement and Kyoto Protocol, there are other climate treaties that bear scrutiny. A 2021 report on climate treaties cited four global climate “agreements” that were never ratified. These include:
1. The Law of The Sea: This UN Convention set an international framework for managing and protecting the oceans. It was first launched in 1982, signed in 1994, and then never ratified.
2. The Convention on Biological Diversity: Once called “the world’s best weapon in fighting the extinction crisis.” President Bill Clinton signed the resolution; however, it never received the necessary ratification. Still not ratified.
3. The Stockholm Convention: This treaty was designed to protect the environment from harmful chemicals. Today, the treaty regulates nearly 30 harmful chemicals. This means the signers must restrict or ban use of these chemicals in their countries—or come up with strategies to properly dispose of sites contaminated by these chemicals. To date, the U.S. has yet to ratify the treaty.
4. The Basel Convention: This international treaty limits the movement of hazardous waste (including radioactive materials) between nations. It was written to prevent richer nations from shipping waste that can’t be recycled to other countries. The US has not yet ratified.
According to the Oceanic Society: “The push for the “End Plastic Pollution” treaty has the support of more than three quarters of the UN member states, including the US. Other signatories include global brands, such as Coca-Cola, IKEA, L’Oréal, PepsiCo, Philips, Starbucks, Unilever, Walmart, and many more.
But here’s the thing: Brands have been innovating with sustainable packaging for a long time now. The focus, in my opinion, needs to be around more than recyclable or reusable options, but around a game-changing infrastructure that keeps plastic from ever reaching the oceans in the first place.
People tend to think that many companies have shifted to using more plastic packaging just because it’s cheaper. It is cheaper, but there are other good reasons why we rely more and more on plastic packaging. Plastic is durable and provides protection from contaminants and the elements. It reduces food waste by preserving food and increasing shelf life. It protects food against pests, microbes, and humidity.
Without this protection, food is more likely to get damaged and become unusable. Since food waste contributes to climate change, water and energy consumption, deforestation, and biodiversity loss, every effort we make to mitigate those effects makes a big difference, and plastic packaging helps make that possible.
That said, look at what brands are doing to innovate and address the problem of single-use plastic packaging.
Big brands are ahead of the game.
Most, if not all, of the big consumer packaged goods companies (CPGs) have made commitments to reduce plastic waste. And the efforts have been in flow for over the past two decades. Some notable names include:
McDonald’s Corp.: A recent post highlights its progress on reducing plastic waste. Among the “Progress Highlights,” McDonalds says that “80% of our guest packaging comes from renewable, recycled, or certified sources.” McDonald’s also pledged to phase out the use of fossil-fuel based plastics in its Happy Meal toys by 2025. The company intends to use more paper and recyclable plastics.
IKEA: The popular home goods retailer, a signatory to the UN “End Plastic Pollution” resolution, has not only committed to use only recycled or reusable plastic products by 2030, it has taken it a step further. It is phasing out single-use plastic, such as plates, cups, and plastic straws. And, it is experimenting with more sustainable plastic sources, such as corn, sugar beets, and sugar cane.
Unilever: In keeping with UNEP’s resolution, Unilever is pioneering refillables with 11 of its most popular brands — delivered at pump stations in retail stores where consumers can refill reusable containers. Unilever is also a founder of The Pulpex Consortium, a partnership of industry members who have developed game-changing technology to produce the world’s first paper-based laundry detergent bottle made from sustainably sourced pulp and designed to be recycled.
Small brands are innovating, too.
Pela: Meet the “world’s first compostable phone case.” Phone cases may not be single use, but they are disposed of in great numbers. Pela promises 80% less waste production. The company offers sunglasses, watch straps, and AirPods cases.
ONYA: Here’s a compostable (non-plastic) dog poop bag, certified compostable to international standards. ONYA also makes bin liners, coffee cups, drink bottle jackets, pet collars, and other compostable and reusable items.
Cleaning up plastic waste will take a unified effort.
A recent report from the World Economic Forum made a series of recommendations on how to address the rising threat plastic represents to our environment. Here are some of the points that focus on reducing the rate of plastic waste leakage:
• Create an effective after-use plastics economy. The mission? Provide a direct economic incentive to avoid leakage of plastic waste into natural systems.
• Radically increase the economics, quality, and update of recycling. Develop a global plastics protocol to set the bar for redesign of materials and after-use systems, improve collection and sorting, and reprocessing technologies.
• Scale the adoption of reusable packaging. Create solutions for business-to-business and consumer applications.
• Scale up the adoption of compostable packaging for targeted applications. These can include garbage bags for organic waste and food packaging for events and fast-food restaurants, canteens, and other closed systems.
• Improve after-use collection.Current plastic packaging offers great functional benefits, but it has an inherent design failure: Its life is typically less than one year and the material lives on for centuries, which is particularly damaging if it leaks outside collection systems, as happens today with 32% of plastic packaging. The ambitious objective is to develop “bio-benign” plastic packaging that reduces the negative impacts on natural systems when leaked, while also being recyclable and competitive in terms of functionality and costs. Today’s biodegradable plastics rarely measure up, as they are typically compostable only under controlled conditions (such as, in industrial composters). Further research and game-changing innovations are needed.
Whatever happened to reducing and reusing?
Every kid remembers the iconic image — the reduce, reuse, recycle symbol featuring the blue circular shape with arrows. Yet these days only one of the directives is focused on — recycling. The fact is, we simply cannot recycle our way into a sustainable future. There are a lot of myths about recycling that are not true. Today, most food and beverage packaging ends up in either a landfill, an incinerator, or the environment. More recycling will not solve the plastic pollution problem.
So, while I applaud the UN for taking a leap with this initiative, it’s time our industry agrees that the solution is not in recycling. It’s in innovations that negate the need for recycling and shift focus to sustainable packaging and plastic reduction. I salute the innovations made by designers who are embracing new materials, such as sugar cane and other biodegradable solutions. I also think reusability will make a significant comeback now that COVID-19 is (hopefully) receding.
Oh, and one last word on the UN treaty makers: A recent photo shows the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres — a major supporter of the “End Plastic Pollution” resolution treaty — exiting his gas-guzzling private plane for an environmental summit … or could it be all-electric? Just saying.
Reclosable features add convenience, prolong shelf life, and reduce food waste while offering tactile and audible engagement.
Reclosable packaging for beverages evolved over the years sparked by 1950s patent filings. The 1970s brought roll-on closure options to beverages while the 1980s saw twist on-off closures go from high-density-polyethylene (HDPE) to polypropylene (PP) components on semi-rigid beverage cartons.
Current movement in beverage packaging is toward tethered closures to ensure that the cap remains with the container after use for recycling while preventing the cap from becoming waste or litter.
In the packaged foods market, today’s consumers are increasingly expecting reclosure with popular flexible packaging. There are three major reasons why that’s happening…
1. The business case is strong: consumers save money with reclosable packaging.
Reclosable packaging inhibits lipid oxidation, moisture loss/gain, and microbial growth by limiting oxygen, water vapor, and microbial contact while retaining food flavor and aroma. This translates to a longer shelf life by consumers simply reclosing the packaging.
The business case for reclose features are brand- and product-specific. Reclosability can be a “must-have” at the top of the switching criteria hierarchy. In this scenario, the business case is strong because more consumers will switch to a product featuring reclosable packaging.
Investment in an optimal reseal feature drives sales or may simply be required for category entry.
As food prices rise, reclosable features migrate from high-value goods to lower-value products. For example, brands that invest in reclose features to protect high-value meat find that only 9% of meat is wasted after consumer purchase.
Consumers are offered an array of reclosing solutions including peel and reseal lidding on meat trays and reclosable semirigid tubs for deli meat that retain meat quality after purchase. The business case for reclosable packaging is strong in many categories.
2. Clearly communicates to consumers the role of packaging in food-waste prevention.
Dairy companies, such as the 113-year-old farmer-owned cooperative Tillamook, are investing in packaging that prevents food waste as part of their sustainability goals. In the video above, Shivira Choudhary, environment and community impact manager at Tillamook, explains. “Creating a package in a way that can be resealed easily and effectively helps prevent food waste and alleviates environmental impacts.”
Communicating the extended shelf life with a reclose feature increases brand value. Steve Marko, Tillamook’s senior director of research and development, provides more context. “Tillamook innovated to make the reclosure for cheese shred bags to be both ‘audible & tactile’ so the consumer could easily tell if the package was securely sealed. Easing the pain point for the consumer directly related to more successful closures, repeat purchases, and less food waste.”
3. Reclosable flexible packaging is ready for implementation.
There’s little excuse not to have reclosure on flexible packaging in 2022. A variety of reclosable features are widely available via essentially the three approaches shown below.
Selected Packaging Reclosure Providers
Applied by Converter Prior to Arrival at Brand Manufacturer
Keeping pace with consumer needs — and better yet, their desires — is a continual challenge in packaging where reclose features are one way that packaging can both prevent food waste and gain consumers. Reclose and other packaging solutions to prevent consumer-derived food waste will be shared at the ReFED Food Waste Summit.
Coca-Cola Great Britain (GB), in partnership with Coca-Cola Europacific Partners (CCEP), has today announced that it is set to reach a significant milestone for its packaging in Great Britain.
The soft drinks giant announced that it will be using 100% recycled plastic in all on-the-go bottles across its entire range, as it continues its progress towards fully sustainable packaging.
The move means that all plastic bottles of 500ml or less in GB are to be made with 100% recycled plastic and will continue to be fully recyclable. The rollout commences in September, when the first 100% recycled 500ml bottles will start appearing on shelves. This milestone means Coca-Cola Great Britain will increase the amount of recycled plastic material in smaller bottles from 50% to 100%.
This milestone means Coca-Cola will have increased the amount of recycled plastic material in smaller bottles from 50% to 100%. Coca-Cola’s use of recycled plastics in Great Britain now saves 29,000 tonnes of virgin plastic each year – the equivalent of 2,292 double decker buses.
This change is another step on Coca-Cola’s journey towards 100% recycled or renewable plastic in all its bottles, and the creation of a circular economy for its PET packaging. The company is also completing the transition from plastic shrink wrap to cardboard packaging across all multipacks. This important action will mean that more than 30 million packs sold to consumers each year will no longer be wrapped in plastic.
Although all of Coca-Cola’s bottles have been 100% recyclable for many years, too many are still not being recycled. To make it easier to recycle plastic bottles Coca-Cola has been working closely with the Scottish and Westminster governments and industry partners on a ‘well-designed Deposit Return Scheme (DRS)’. This will encourage more people to recycle and ensure a greater collection of bottles in a clean, efficient way so that they can be remade into new bottles again and again.
An effective DRS is planned for implementation in Scotland by July next year with England and Wales following thereafter.
Stephen Moorhouse, general manager at CCEP GB, said: “Increasing the amount of recycled plastic we use is a critical point in our sustainable packaging journey and reaching 100%rPET puts us one step closer to achieving our ambition of a world without waste – collecting and recycling a bottle or can for every one that we sell by 2025.”
Environment Minister, Rebecca Pow, said: “I am delighted to see Coca-Cola Great Britain taking this significant step to ensure its on-the-go bottles are made from 100% recycled plastic.
“We are committed to crack down on plastic pollution through our landmark reforms such as a deposit return scheme for drinks containers and making manufacturers more responsible for their packaging. Bold measures of this nature from industry will play a huge role in helping us to achieve this ambition.”
Helen Bird, strategic technical manager, WRAP, said: “It takes 75% less energy to make a plastic bottle from recycled plastic, and with plastic waste significantly contributing to fossil emissions when incinerated it’s never been more important to specify recycled content and keep packaging in a circular system. It’s positive to see Coke, founding members of The UK Plastics Pact, continuing to push the boundaries on design and engaging with its customers to place the bottles in the recycling, since achieving 100% recycled content is going to be strongly reliant on getting those bottles back.”
More broadly, Coca-Cola continues to use the power of its brands and advertising in order to encourage people to recycle more – from launching major advertising campaigns, to including recycling messages on its packaging, in all marketing campaigns and experiential events.
Earlier this month the company launched a new marketing campaign for its GLACÉAU Smartwater brand, encouraging more people to recycle the bottles. Bold messaging on-pack reminds consumers that the bottles are 100% recyclable and made from 100% recycled PET plastic (rPET).
Aptar Food + Beverage has announced a partnership with REBO on a reusable water bottle that uses smart technology to help customers stay hydrated, all while funding the collection of tossed-away plastic bottles in developing countries.
The REBO water bottle uses Bluetooth technology embedded in its cap to track the amount of water consumed. A personalized hydration app (iOS and Android) syncs with the REBO bottle’s smart cap to track health goals. The bottle lights up and sends consumers reminders to stay hydrated.
Meanwhile, every time the user refills the REBO bottle, a credit is produced which funds the collection of a tossed-away plastic bottle. This is part of the business model that REBO has created to enable the funding of ocean-bound plastic waste collections in developing regions
On a macro level, Aptar has committed to increasing the amount of recycled material in its products and improving the recyclability, reusability, or composability of their products by 2025, as aligned with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s New Plastics Economy Commitment.
“Aptar is committed to contributing to a more circular economy that will help our customers and partners achieve their sustainability targets, while creating a positive impact on our people and the planet,” says Jerome Magniet, president of global market development at Aptar.
“The partnership with REBO allows us to advance our market knowledge for emerging trends and leverage our manufacturing, regulatory, and innovation expertise.”
“Progressing on the battle against plastic waste in our oceans is in our hands,” adds PierAndrea Quarta, founder and CEO of REBO. “REBO puts technology in your hands to make an immediate impact on the environment while you drink.”
Earlier this year, REBO joined Adidas and Parley in the fight against plastic waste with the creation of a limited-edition bottle for Run for the Oceans 2021, a movement that sought to unite over 50 million people against plastic waste.
The largest global food packaging company keeps its focus on renewable, low-carbon materials and sustainable machinery
“This is not about a war on plastics. It’s about a war on carbon,” says Trewin Restorick, founder/CEO of Hubbub, a charity that collaborates with communities on campaigns that “inspire ways of living that are good for the environment.”
That’s an interesting take on sustainability today because, over the past several years, plastic packaging waste has become the poster child for what’s wrong with our consumption society and its wasteful actions.https://33f7e3ebd127c61aaef605a85b200d9b.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html
Restorick made this comment during a webinar hosted by Reuters Events Sustainable Business in partnership with Tetra Pak on January 19, 2021. (Restorick also serves on Tetra Pak’s sustainability advisory board.)
At the beginning of the “Redesigning products through a circular lens” webinar, moderator Ms. Terry Slavin, editor-in-chief of Reuters Events Sustainable Business, acknowledges the current negative perception of plastics by many in society. And then she points out that, despite the emphasis on recycling because it is the most visible action for consumers, “We can’t recycle our way out of the plastics crisis.”
Restorick agrees. “Businesses and governments and others need to broaden the conversation,” he says, “so people understand this is more than just about recycling.”
So, what can companies do? Well, let’s look at what the largest food packaging company, Tetra Pak, is doing: Focusing on lowering carbon emissions to mitigate the company’s climate impact, which is the broader, underlying environmental issue.
What story do the numbers tell?
On its quest to become the world’s most sustainable packaging company, in June 2020, Tetra Pak set a new target: To achieve net zero carbon emissions in its own operations by 2030, on its way to reaching net zero carbon emissions across its value chain by 2050.
Like most sustainability journeys, this one takes it a step at a time. Initially, Tetra Pak had decided to cap its 2020 emissions at the level it was in 2010, even though the company has grown more than 15% during that decade. The result? Tetra Pak actually reduced emissions by 11% over those years.
Lars Holmquist, webinar speaker and Tetra Pak’s evp for Packaging Solutions & Commercial Operations, says this proves that “decoupling growth and climate impact is, indeed, possible.”
Tetra Pak expects to reach its 2030 goal of net zero carbon emissions through a four-pronged strategy:
1. Lower energy-related emissions through energy conservation and improvement in energy efficiency. Tetra Pak is currently on track to meet the 2030 goal of using 100% renewable energy, according to Holmquist.
2. Establish partnerships with suppliers and other stakeholders to identify ways to significantly reduce the carbon footprint, and act on them. “[Partnerships are] critical,” says Holmquist. “We cannot do this on our own.”
3. Accelerate development of low-carbon, circular packaging materials — identified as renewable, recyclable, or recycled-content — and equipment to assist customers in meeting their sustainability goals, while also helping to keep food products safe and reduce food waste.
For example, Tetra Pak is working to develop an all-fiber package, made of 100% renewable material, and eliminate the approximately 30% polyethylene and aluminum components that exist in the current package. (The other 70%, give or take, is fiber.) Another benefit of that future pack is that it will be recyclable through existing collection programs for cartons, including curbside.
In the meantime, Tetra Pak is also exploring bio-based and compostable polymers and, if proven to be a viable solution, will include it in the company’s pipeline.
4. Develop sustainable recycling value chains via collaboration with customers, waste management companies, recyclers, municipalities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and others.
The reality of fiber packaging.
What Tetra Pak isn’t doing, though, is looking at reusable packaging, which is getting more legitimacy with American consumers as businesses, such as the Loop circular shopping platform, thrive.
Holmquist isn’t rejecting it as an option per say, asserting that “anything a packaging company can do to reduce, rapidly, the impact that our packages have on the environment is the way to go.” But the company prefers to focus on (1) reducing carbon emissions overall, and (2) expanding renewable, recyclable, and recycled content that is responsibly sourced for two valid reasons:
“Reuse is not the main purpose of a fiber package …” says Holmquist, meaning paper doesn’t hold up in water/wash cycles.
“One important element is about food safety,” he asserts. “We need to make sure — and increasingly so after COVID because of the concerns consumers really do have on food safety in general — that the products we distribute are, indeed, always safe to consume ….”Photo supplied by Tetra Pak
The Tetra Top with Separable Top allows separation of the plastic top and paperboard carton sleeve for easy recycling. Tetra Pak gives customers the option to manufacture Tetra Top with Separable Top at no additional cost to them.
Measurement standards exist.
Regarding how it measures its carbon footprint, Tetra Pak adheres to the GHG Protocol, which Holmquist tells us is “widely acknowledged as the leading methodology for the management of greenhouse gas emissions.”
The Protocol requires Tetra Pak to report on emissions in three areas, or scopes:
• Scope 1: Direct emissions from its own operations, including fuel consumption and the use of solvents and refrigerants. • Scope 2: Indirect emissions related to purchased electricity, heat, steam, or cooling. • Scope 3: Indirect emissions in the company’s value chain from sources not owned or controlled by Tetra Pak.
Currently, most large global companies account and report on the emissions from their direct operations (Scopes 1 and 2). However, Tetra Pak claims that emissions along the value chain often represent a company’s biggest greenhouse gas impacts. That’s why, in June 2020, Tetra Pak set a goal to achieve net zero emissions across the value chain by 2050 (Scope 3), with the intermediate goal of reaching net zero carbon emissions in its own operations by 2030.
For products, the company adheres to The International Organization for Standardization, specifically ISO 14044 “Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines” and ISO 14067 “Greenhouse gases — Carbon footprint of products — Requirements and guidelines for quantification.”
Tetra Pak reports on its GHG emissions according to the GHG Protocol principles through its website, its Sustainability Report, and in the annual CDP Supply Chain Climate Program.
What does the sustainable packaging community think?
The Q&A portion of the well-attended webinar reveals the burning thoughts, concerns, and challenges other people have who are responsible for packaging sustainability.
One participant asked, “There is the need to get the message out about packaging and it needs to be simple. So why can’t we have a traffic light system for carbon?”
According to Holmquist, “In principle, a traffic light system seems useful. However, we need to take a holistic environmental approach to sustainability, rather than focusing on one specific element — such as packaging. Only by seeing circular economy models through a climate-lens will we decarbonize materials fast enough to protect our planet.”
Not all of the questions were answered during the webinar, but the questions themselves are still enlightening. Here is a spattering of other questions participants asked:
“How can we get the message across about plastic not being the devil and that there are circumstances where it is appropriate and beneficial to use??”
“Everything is, given enough time, biodegradable, so this is misleading. Look at the problem in China with biodegradable plastics, which are piling up because consumption doesn’t change and the time to biodegrade it is longer than what the industry can process. How can we change the message to focus on reduce and reuse to change behavior so that the industry can focus on environmental and CO2 neutral packaging?”
“When do we move to regenerative packaging and products?”
“Ahead of mass market biodegradability / compostability being the ‘norm’ potentially in years to come, do you think there is a place for local authorities / consumer representation to engage with brands / private label organisations (sic) at the product design stage to enable greater transparency across the supply chain?”
Takeaways from a global packaging manufacturer and supplier.
To me, the main takeaways from Tetra Pak’s sustainability goals and tactics are:
• The ultimate goal is to minimize a company’s climate impact for the good of the planet. • The best way to measure that impact is through carbon emissions. • A global standard for measuring carbon emissions exists and that’s what Tetra Pak uses. • A company can cut carbon emissions even while growing its business. • Packaging contributions for reducing carbon emissions include more than just using recyclable materials. Minimal, renewable, and responsibly sourced packaging materials, as well as recycled content, also count. Reusability should also be considered, if the packaging material allows for it. • It shouldn’t be a war against plastic packaging, or any other single packaging material, design, or process. • Progress on reaching a sustainability goal can/should be incremental.
“As most of the global greenhouse gas emissions are either directly or indirectly influenced by the corporate sector,” says Holmquist, “companies have a clear role to play in protecting climate and ensuring that the transition to a low-carbon circular economy is smooth and prosperous.”
