From Guest Blogger Chloe Taylor: The Green Chain – Is Product Packaging its Weakest Link?
Product packages account for a giant portion of waste that our global capitalist behemoth leaves behind, letting toxic mountains and floating islands roam the nature. In some countries, this part of the supply chain produces one third of the total domestic waste. This trend shows no signs of slowing down or leaving less destruction in its wake. On the contrary, it seems that the amount of convenience foods consumed each year is increasing, and that we are reaching a dangerous threshold.
Making an impact
The chief goal is to lower the environmental impact, and protect the health of the customers. The sustainable packaging is the mainspring of the advance to the untainted, green lands. Indeed, the lifecycle of the packing is full of elements that can, and should be improved, and a tremendous effort has been made to infuse this practice with environmentally responsible solutions. Studies have concluded that 75% of the waste can be sidestepped, but that in order to pull this off, we need to undertake a large-scale infrastructure remodeling.
Inconveniences on the road
There are many obstacles to overcome on the road to a less-wasteful food and drinks industry. Recycling plastic, for example, is more complicated when it is contaminated with food. To make it even worse, there are often several layers laminated together, in which case, recycling becomes a rocket science. Packaging and transportation are definitely the two gravest problems. Still, there are many paragons proving that the leaps and bounds are possible and that it pays off being green.
Something is brewing
Take the example of breweries producing Japanese beer with eco-friendliness in mind. They utilize natural energy, technologies that reduce the C02 emissions, boost the recycling, and conserve the water. The beverages adhering to similar standards are popular in the U.S. as well, and the Honest Tea is officially the pinnacle. This is the only mass-distributed drink to ever receive the Greenopia 4-Leaf Rating. If you are wondering about the test criteria, they involve: Beverage containers, ingredient analysis, toxicity, supply chain sustainability, green building design, etc.
Turning a new leaf
This implies that packaging is just one piece of the puzzle. Take the example of Cola, corporate giant with a 2-Leaf Ranking, due to the sole focus on packaging and supply chain. This is to say that these are necessary, albeit not the only conditions inducing the positive change in the market. The alcohol manufacturing process still takes a toll on the environment. This is related to the sourcing and crop production: Many resources are exploited, and the massive waste generated during the fermentation, product maturation, distillation and transportation.
Vital organs
In Germany, innovative grocery stores are popping up, ones that do not feature plastic bags, nor any kind of bag for that matter. The aim is to let people buy just as much as they need, and eliminate the waste associated with shopping sprees and excessive consumerism. For this purpose, the bulk bin system is put to good use, which means that stocks and shelving differ from what you are used to. Even things like milk are poured from refillable containers. Also, in the original Unverpackt, you will not see any big brand names —the products are organic.
The tide is turning
If you ask me, this is the future of sustainable “packaging”. Those who are not convinced should note that in Germany alone, the food packaging is responsible for 16 million tons of waste on an annual basis. The situation in some other countries is even direr. Also, if you worry about the prices, know that apart from organic products, other groceries are comparable to those in supermarkets. All of this does not mean, however, that we are getting rid of all the dead weight. In fact, doing away with all the wasteful packaging is not a realistic notion.
Pack a few green punches
The manufacturers claim that packaging is necessary for ensuring health and hygiene, and this argument certainly rings true. Bottle folding cartons, for example, use less cardboard, and other manufacturers are striving to take advantage of disposable packaging. Finally, there are also those determined to make the packing lighter and thinner. Although environmental claims disregard these baby steps as inconsequential, it is clear that they do lead to the reduced need for raw materials and energy consumption during transportation and packaging.
Seeds of success
Packaging is, among other things, designed to promote brands and serve as money making machine. Thus, it is a small wonder that many companies are digging in their heels, and are not overly keen on changing their ways. On the brighter note, many organizations are displaying rapid and consistent improvement, leading the way and shaping ambitious environmental goals.
But, great solutions such as fill-your-own containers need more room and recognition. At least the companies that have pulled back on environmental efforts are an exception to the rule, and the business landscape is more inclined to show its green side. After all, green foundations are the fertile ground to plant the seeds of good reputation, and spur stellar brand-building.
Since bins for recycling were deployed here in Albuquerque, NM, I have found that most of the waste I dispose of consists of packing materials. That includes cereal boxes, milk cartons, plastic V8 bottles, and boxes for merchandise received from Internet shopping.
It is hard to see what could be done about some of this without potentially creating hygiene and sanitation problems. However, changing the shape of some containers would reduce the amount of packaging material required. And, is it really necessary for a tube of tooth past to come in a box?
As for boxes received from Internet shopping, quite often the boxes are far bigger than necessary. For example, I recently received a small data cable that came in a large box stuffed with paper. Because it was not fragile, it could have been shipped in an envelope.
Although the supermarket where I shop gives a discount for those of us who use our own bags, the majority of shoppers do not use their own bags. However, depending on what people buy, using their own bags could be unhygienic unless they wash them. And, the cloth bags sold by the supermarket are not sufficiently durable to survive many washings.
It’s obvious that the amount of packing material could be significantly reduced, and should be.
Packaging is the poster child of free enterprise, and the capitalist economic system.
Like the advertising industry, packaging unashamedly promotes infinite variety, individualism, freedom of choice, motivation, glamour and all kinds of merchandising techniques. Packaging is the ultimate point of sale advertising.
Unexpectedly, on-line shopping has actually increased, not decreased, packaging. Goods that were once taken home from the retailer by the purchaser needing little packaging, now need packaging for transport, and that packaging is increasingly designed to promote repeat sales.
Even the most puritanical curmudgeon, can’t help being seduced by the emotional manipulation of the merchandising methods employed by the packaging industry.
It’s an industry we love to hate ! Yes, we all huff and growl about the waste, and claim its seductive appeal only affects weaker minds than our own, but in truth like advertising, much as we hate to admit the fact, we are all susceptible to cleverly designed packaging.
Thank goodness we are susceptible ! Our entire economic consumer society, is based on the concept of multiple choices and freedom of expression. Consumer choice reinforces in it’s own chaotic way the democratic values of our western society and economic system.
Yes, the packaging industry creates conspicuous waste, and promotes conspicuous consumption, but it also creates unprecedented economic wealth and employment. (it even creates employment and opportunities in a huge new industry that recycles and manages waste ! )
All over the world vast sums are being invested in developing better recycled, more bio-degradable packaging. No one is seriously interested in restricting the packaging industry. That sort of thinking disappeared with the collapse of Stalin’s version of a department store, GUM, with its empty shelves and drab, downtrodden consumers queuing for a tin of cabbage soup.
It an industry, the left love to hate. Waste and rubbish disposable are serious problems. Landfills, polluted oceans, litter etc, are all unpleasant by-products of a consumer society.
The solution is not adopting a puritanical pre-industrial economy, but encourage investment in managing waste. In other words, make cleaning up the environment profitable !
Greater opportunists, (and beneficial results) will be derived by promoting the growth of managing waste as an industry, that attempting to restrict economic activity, and employment by castigating the packaging industry.
Marcopolo,
I would rather see waste reduced so that there would be less to recycle later. If that were done, employment would not need to be reduced. Instead, the work week could be shortened and we would be just as prosperous.
Hi Frank,
Let’s see if I understand you correctly. You are advocating that Americans should work less, produce less, consume less, and decrease economic activity, but enjoy more leisure time and this will create more prosperity ?
Well, it’s certainly a novel approach ! I’ll concede there is some truth in your proposition. Modern technology, and economic organization has resulted in some societies needing on a few real workers to produce the essentials of life.
But, people want variety. Infinite variety. Citizens need the satisfaction and discipline gained from the work ethic.
The making of widgets is important to national economies. Nor are Americans isolated. If the US worker doesn’t produce and clean up their own packaging, then American consumers will buy from competitors, thereby transferring wealth, jobs, and opportunity to foreign manufacturers.
The US has financed a lazier, and less competitive lifestyle based on feeling of entitlement, for the last 40 years on borrowed money. ($20 trillion and rising). Look at the consequences. Cities like Detroit have become wastelands, with third world living standards.
Marcopolo,
Reducing the work week is not a novel approach. It has been suggested by a number of economists and environmentalists. At one time the work week was closer to 80 hours and now it is around 40 hours and we are more prosperous. The idea that consumption should increase without limit makes no sense and contributes to our environmental problems. There is a limit to growth although we may not yet have reached that limit. One of the biggest problems now is the greatly increased gap between rich and poor, a gap which continues to increase.
Excess packaging to increase employment makes about as much sense as paying people to dig holes then fill them in, over and over. Your approach to economics reminds me of some attitudes early in the Industrial Revolution. There were strikes because workers feared that mechanization would throw them out of work. Tension was especially great in the textile industry as weavers operating manual looms were replaced by power looms which were far more efficient. Andrew Carnegie’s family was affected by that because his father, a weaver, was thrown out of work and the family migrated to Pittsburgh the U.S. in 1948. But what actually happened was that the Industrial Revolution increased prosperity my reducing the labor required to manufacture various products. Reducing the labor required to make unnecessary packaging would be expected to have the same effect, i.e., there could be temporary dislocations followed by an increase in real prosperity.
As to people’s wanting infinite variety, you should not generalize. In some areas we have far too much variety, much of which is artificial. Here in the U.S., anyone who has shopped for toothpaste is well aware of the problem. We have to choose among cavity reduction, eliminating bad breath, having whiter teeth, having healthier gums, etc. etc. It’s total nonsense. There is no reason that those properties should be mutually exclusive. Then there are a variety of sizes, often so close together that it doesn’t much matter. It just makes shopping for toothpaste a nightmare, and toothpaste is only one example.
Hi Frank,
Thank you for your observations. Of course, you are quite right, the human race doesn’t ‘need’ variety, but it ‘desires’ and ‘demands’ variety.
The whole basis of human civilization is based on variety. The fundamental basis of human economic activity is the creation of surplus. This is much older than the industrial revolution, it dates back to the foundation of UR on the Chades river.
The essentials to merely sustain life for the human race have existed for hundreds of years. (We still over-produce food).
It’s creations of human expression, that are of irreplaceable value. These ‘creations’ were once just objects of vanity, decoration, or even humble utilitarian purpose. Mankind’s greatest treasures are all about mankind! We are by natural design, a self absorbed species.
This has been the essence of our success. Economic theories based on need, not aspiration, will always fail. The rise of the middles class began with the creation of credit. The invention of the ‘mortgage’ created the modern citizen.
A mortgage didn’t just create wealth and a home, it created a committed citizen. A citizen who committed 30 years of life to being a well behaved, non disruptive member of the community. It also created a lifetime commitment to consumer spending, and community involvement.
Breakdown of this type of social structure may benefit a few, but the vast majority will be casualties. When governments assume responsibility for housing and feeding citizens, social disharmony, disconnection and decay begins.
Humans are trapped by the economic model that provided success from the beginning of civilization. We must continue to generate surplus and disguise it as variety, or what do we do with our “surplus” population ?
The true economic value of surplus population in any human civilization has always been (apart from genetic variety) as consumers.
Distribution of surplus (wealth), is a different issue. It’s a basic argument of political philosophy as to how the cake should be divided, but the cake must keep getting larger or the society begins to lose vigor and the ability to inspire and compete. When this occurs, decay and dissolution surely follow.
Once the idea of common purpose and identity are lost, a society either perishes or breaks into smaller units, which can once again inspire growth and community pride.
As humans we are capable of tremendous self-delusion. The ancient Athenians prided themselves on a love of aesthetic philosophy, democracy etc. The fact that 2 out of every 3 inhabitants of Athens was a slave, didn’t occur as an anomaly, any more than it occurred to many of the founding fathers of the US Constitution.
In reality, the most productive citizens of all western nations work far more than 40 hours per week. They may be paid for only 40 hours, but most work 60-80 hours ! These workers are not the down trodden drudges of yesteryear, but the brightest, most motivated members of the community, ambitious and determined to succeed.
These individuals can be found in every walk of life, from the professional Surfer to small business owners. Students, scientists, salespeople, executives, in all walks of life there are those who put in the extra hours and effort often for different overt motivations, but all with common purpose to fulfill their aspirations and sense of duty.
These are the guardians against social decay, the unsung hero’s of any society.