challenges

X

Towards Sustainable Packaging

i. Origins of Sustainable Manufacturing:

Sustainability

ii. Sustainable Manufacturing

iii. Sustainable Manufacturing Concepts &

Examples

a. Principles of Sustainability

b. Methods/Guidelines/Regulations

c. Metrics/Indicators

d. Tools/ Software

X

Towards Sustainable Packaging

i. Origins of Sustainable Manufacturing:

Sustainability

ii. Sustainable Manufacturing

iii. Sustainable Manufacturing Concepts &

Examples

a. Principles of Sustainability

b. Methods/Guidelines/Regulations

c. Metrics/Indicators

d. Tools/ Software

ORIGINS OF SUSTAINABLE MANUFACTURING:

SUSTAINABILITY

Manufacturing





Consumables





Workforce



Tools



Product

Complexity

Impacts

Facilities



Part

Precision

Sustainable Manufacturing

 Manufacturing is known as a ―process by which materials are removed, conserved,

and added for the purpose of making products.‖ [after Dorfeld, 2008] This has

traditionally been an inefficient process which is resource and energy intensive and

has not yet reached a sustainable state.

 There are many contemporary frameworks which exist to guide understanding and

application of sustainable practices in the world of manufacturing. There are also

many tools, methodologies and collections of metrics used apply these frameworks.



 One can think of sustainable manufacturing as a

salad of concepts and practices. Many different Principles, Methods & Metrics

ingredients can be thrown into a bowl of social,

economic and environmental issues related to

manufacturing.

 Such a mix of sustainable manufacturing

concepts can be broken apart and examined in

many different ways.

 In order to explore the concepts associated with

sustainable manufacturing we are going to break

the salad apart in one way (by principles,

methods and metrics) but just as there are other

ways to examine a salad‘s contents and related

parts (whether by food groups, nutritional

values, or color) there are other ways to analyze Social, Economic & Environmental Themes

this domain.

X

Towards Sustainable Packaging

i. Origins of Sustainable Manufacturing:

Sustainability

ii. Sustainable Manufacturing

iii. Sustainable Manufacturing Concepts &

Examples

a. Principles of Sustainability

b. Methods/Guidelines/Regulations

c. Metrics/Indicators

d. Tools/ Software

SUSTAINABLE MANUFACTURING CONCEPTS & EXAMPLES

 Principles embody certain collections of

values which have come to be associated with

sustainability concerns at different scopes and

scales.



(Analytical) methods, (action-oriented)

Principles



guidelines/scorecards/criteria/decision-

making strategies and (evaluatory)

regulations/standards are guided by

principles. Some agencies create a variety of

Design Guidelines

principles, methods, standards, and

Scorecards, Checklists & Criteria regulations that work to address their cause

throughout the product lifecycle.

Analytical methods





Regulations & Standards  Collections of metrics are used by methods

and make up regulations





Metrics

 The values embedded in all of these concepts

evolve from sustainability's core which requires

balancing issues related to

ecology/environment, economy/employment

and equity/equality

X

Towards Sustainable Packaging

i. Origins of Sustainable Manufacturing:

Sustainability

ii. Sustainable Manufacturing

iii. Sustainable Manufacturing Concepts &

Examples

a. Principles of Sustainability

b. Methods/Guidelines/Regulations

c. Metrics/Indicators

d. Tools/ Software

Principles

guide analysis and action

 Design  Definitions

 Biomimicry/ Principles of Ecological  SCP - Sustainable Packaging

Design  SJC – Sustainable Packaging

 Sanborn Principles  Wal-mart - Sustainable

 Design for Disassembly Packaging

 Community/Labor &Ecology  SPA – Sustainable Packaging

 Houston Principles  Sustainable Biomaterials

 Waste Reduction (Affects the Biosphere Collaborative – Sustainable

and Business) Packaging

 Circular Economy

 Cradle to Cradle

We are currently working on an

spreadsheet to collect and

 Industrial Ecology compare principles, their

 Management of Natural Resources in the identifying characteristics and

Biosphere and in Commerce (Managing source.

Impact while Balancing Interests and

Values)

 Precautionary principle

 Natural Step

 5 Capitals Model

 Triple Bottom Line

 Environmental Health & Safety

 Green Chemistry

 Toxicology

Houston Principles

 State that the future of a healthy economy and environment are tied, and

that labor, environmental and community groups need to work together to

take action against corporate power, the undermining of democratic

processes and ensure that interests in long-term sustainability are the aim

of short-term actions.

 Created to hold corporations

accountable for their impact

on:

 Working people,

 Communities and

 The Environment



 Purpose:

 ―Remind the public that the original purpose behind the creation of

corporations was to serve the public interest - namely working people,

communities, and the earth.

 Seek stricter enforcement of labor laws and advocate for new laws to

guarantee working people their right to form unions and their right to

bargain collectively.

 Make workplaces, communities and the planet safer by reducing waste

and greenhouse gas emissions.

 Demand that global trade agreements include enforceable labor and

environmental standards.

 Promote forward-thinking business models that allow for sustainability

over the long term while protecting working people, communities, and

the environment.‖

Cradle to Cradle

“The goal is a delightfully diverse safe and just world with clean air

soil power and water economically, equitably, ecologically and

elegantly enjoyed.”  In Cradle to Cradle,

McDonough and Braungart

(2002) note that a

regenerative environment

like a cherry tree is

sustainable.

 It is a closed loop where

Waste (of the system)=(the

same system‘s) Food.

 A manufacturing system can

function under those same

ideals.

 This concept stresses eco-

effectiveness, quality prior to

quantity, and biological and

technical resource cycles

which recycle in a manner

that instead of ―downcycling‖

the quality of materials,

upcycles or regenerates.

SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING COALITION

DEFINITION

“to advocate and communicate a positive, robust environmental vision for packaging and

to support innovative, functional packaging materials and systems that promote

economic and environmental health through supply chain collaboration”

– Sustainable Packaging Coalition



Sustainable packaging:

 Is beneficial, safe & healthy for individuals and communities

throughout its life cycle;

 Meets market criteria for performance and cost;

 Is sourced, manufactured, transported, and recycled using

renewable energy;

 Maximizes the use of renewable or recycled source materials;

 Is manufactured using clean production technologies and best

practices;

 Is made from materials healthy in all probable end of life

scenarios;

 Is physically designed to optimize materials and energy;

 Is effectively recovered and utilized in biological and/or industrial

cradle to cradle cycles.

SCJ SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING DEFINITION



 Sustainable packaging:

 Is capable of being produced indefinitely by the

planet;

 Does not pollute the planet or damage the

environment;

 Is sourced, manufactured, transported and

recycled using renewable energy sources which

are non-polluting; and

 Meets the market criteria for performance and

cost or the trade-off for environment

friendliness is minimal.





 Goals:

 SCJ set 5 year goal to achieve 34% improvement in raw materials

score of products as measured by Greenlist™ process (by 2012)

WAL-MART‘S SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING PRINCIPLES

 Goals:

 Reduce packaging across global supply chain by 5 percent by 2013

($3.4 billion of savings)

 ―The primary goal of the Packaging Sustainable Value Network is to

be packaging neutral by 2025, which means all packaging recovered or

recycled at our stores and Clubs will be equal to the amount of

packaging used by the products on our shelves.‖

 Also: 100% Renewable Energy, Zero Waste, Sustain Environment and

Resources

 Principles: ―7 R‘s‖

 Remove

 Reduce

 Reuse

 Renew(able)

 Recycle(able)

 Revenue

 Read



Image from “The Greening of Wal-Mart”

SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING ALLIANCE -

SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING PRINCIPLES





 4 sustainability principles need to be met by

packaging:

 effective - provide social and economic benefits;

 efficient - provide benefits by using materials, energy and

water as efficiently as possible;

 cyclic - be recoverable through industrial or natural

systems; and

 safe - non-polluting and non-toxic.

SUSTAINABLE

BIOMATERIALS

COLLABORATIVE

 They define a sustainable biomaterial as:

 (1) sourced from sustainably grown and harvested cropland or forests,

 (2) manufactured without hazardous inputs and impacts,

 (3) healthy and safe for the environment during use, and

 (4) designed to be reutilized at the end of their intended use such as via recycling or composting.

 Core principles include:

 Reduce the amount of material, product and  Encourage agricultural systems that are

packaging used; sustainable for farmers, the environment,

 Eliminate single-use products that can be farm workers and communities;

neither recycled or composted;  Support small- to mid-sized family owned and

 Avoid fossil-fuel-based materials in favor of operated farms;

materials and products derived from  Do not use genetically modified organisms in

renewable feedstocks; agricultural feedstock production;

 Address sustainability across the life cycle  Use chemicals that meet the 12 Principles of

of the material: the growing of the feedstock, Green Chemistry

manufacturing of the biomaterial and final  Avoid engineered nanomaterials and

product, using the product and reclaiming chemicals that have not been tested for

the material at the end of its original use; environmental and public health effects across

 Define sustainability to include issues of the lifecycle; and

environment, health, and social and  Decentralize production and buy local to

economic justice; reduce the environmental footprint of

 Design and use products that are reusable, production, transportation, and consumption.

recyclable or compostable;

“We call it



Plan A

because there is no Plan B.” – Marks & Spencer



 A 5 year plan based on 100 Points

 5 Pillars, each with a primary goal for 2012:

 Climate Change - Become carbon neutral

 Waste - Send no waste to landfill

 Sustainable Raw Materials - Extend sustainable sourcing

 Health - Help improve the lives of people in our supply chain

 Fair Partner - Help customers and employees live a healthier

life-style



 Goals with Regard to Packaging

 Reduce Use of Packaging by 25 %

 Use materials from sustainable or recycled sources (cardboard,

metal, glass and plastic)

 Restrict range of materials to ones that are easy to recycle or

compost (focus on PLA, PP, PET, PE

 Print simple symbols on packaging

 Reduce use of carrier beds by 33% and make all bags from

recycled plastics

X

Towards Sustainable Packaging

i. Origins of Sustainable Manufacturing:

Sustainability

ii. Sustainable Manufacturing

iii. Sustainable Manufacturing Concepts &

Examples

a. Principles of Sustainability

b. Methods/Guidelines/Regulations

c. Metrics/Indicators

d. Tools/ Software

METHODS

 Action-oriented Design Guidelines

 SPC

 Design guidelines

 WRAP

 Oriented around principles

 Wal-Mart Package Modeling

 Meant to be simple

 Johnson&Johnson

 Aided by decision-making tools

 IPEN Guidelines

 Often voluntary – used by private

 Scorecards, Checklists & Criteria companies, gov and ngo

 Wal-Mart Scorecard  Scorecards

 SCJohnson  Quantitative

 Analytical Methods  Often used to check progress

 Lifecycle Analysis (Process, EIO LCA,  Hard to compare tradeoffs

Hybrid)  Implicit assumptions

 Footprints (Ecological, Carbon, Water)

 Innovative changes often not

 SPC COMPASS captured

 BASF  Analytical tools

 SPA  Company specific data, processes,

 Evaluative Regulations & Standards assumptions etc.

 European Commission  Used to track improvement

 Extended Producer Responsibility  Regulations

 Environmental Product Declaration  Give direction or target for

 Sustainable Product Standard industry

 Ecolabeling  Specific goal(s) (EOL, waste etc)

 EPA  Top-down rather than bottom-up

approach

 Management Tools

 Strength Weakness Opportunities

Threats Analysis (SWOT Analysis)

 Environmental management system We are collecting details on these any many other

 Integrated chain management (ICM) methodologies related to sustainable packaging to

compare in spreadsheets.

Design Guidelines



 Includes various design strategy sections:

 Design sustainably

 Design for transport

 Design with environmental best practice

 Design with fair labor and trade practices

 Design with renewable virgin materials

 Design for reuse

 Design for recycling

 Design for composting





 SPC also provides:

 The Essentials of Sustainable Packaging Curriculum

 Packaging Design Library

 Communications

 Environmental Technical Briefs

WRAP‘s Guide to Evolving Packaging Design

 Waste & Resources Action Programme

(WRAP) runs programs to support UK

government legislation and private

initiatives.

 Design Guidelines focus on waste

reduction and material checklists,

specifically:

 Waste hierarchy is applied to

packaging

 The material checklist weighs pros

and cons of each material

 Future plans

include aiming for

specific goals

beyond waste

reduction,

(incorporating

measures of

―carbon, recycled

content,

recyclability and

behavioral

change.‖) [Five

Winds International]

Responsible Packaging Code of Practice



 From the UK, 2nd ed. in 2003.

 7 parameters:

 Function of packaging

through the supply chain

 Honesty in presentation

 Convenience in use  Innovation in materials and

 Instructions, guidance and products (resource efficiency)

System considerations (packaging

information



should improve sustainability of

 Legal requirements

system and reduce was through

system)

 Health, safety and  Space and weight efficiency (for

transportation)

consumer protection  Re-use

 Environmental aspects  Process waste (at all points in

supply chain)

 Best practice with materials

(enable recovery)

 Energy recovery and material

recycling

 Litter

‘s Sustainable Packaging Scorecard



 Scorecard is based on the

MERGE Tool template

 A supplier‘s score, whether for

secondary, tertiary or primary

packaging follows this formula:

 15% based on carbon dioxide

per ton of production (only

material manufacturing

emissions are measured)

 15% based on material value

 15% based on product-to-

package ratio

 15% based on cube

utilization

 10% based on transportation

 10% based on recycled

content

 10% based on recovery value

 5% based on renewable

energy

 5% based on innovation

SCJ GreenlistTM Packaging Criteria

 Rates raw materials on 8 criteria (focus on

material, supplier practices and product

EOL)

 Packaging Minimization

 Design for Recyclability

 Design for Reusability

 Sound Materials Selection

 Increased Use of Post Consumer

Recycled Content

 Use of Renewable Resources

 Selection of Printing Methods and

Materials

 Selection of Environmentally Conscious

Supply Partners



 Each of these criteria has additional metrics associated with different

packaging materials (glass, paper, rigid plastic, metal).

 Final score is made by averaging each criteria score (0-317)

 Products are categorized on a ―better,‖ ―best‖ scale

 Used to phase out materials, and will license to others

Life Cycle Analysis

 Three scopes

 Cradle to gate

 Cradle to grave

 Cradle to cradle



 Three types

 Process LCA (addresses

environmental inputs and

outputs)

 EIO LCA (addresses

economic inputs and

outputs)

 Hybrid



 LCA moving into an open

(Open LCA), more

integrative (LEED) etc.

PROCESS LCA VS.

ENVIRONMENTAL

INPUT-OUTPUT LCA

 Strengths  Strengths

 bottom-up approach  top-down approach

 Focus on environmental  able to use economic tables

impacts of individual  sector-focused

components/products  large picture, grand scheme

 detail-oriented view

 Weaknesses  Weaknesses

 Does not include second

order, only on-site  assumes price, output and

data/processes carbon homogeneity for

 Identification of boundaries sectors

of analysis is more difficult  sectors can only be split up to

for large organizations

examine so far

HYBRID LCA

 Current best practice

 Embeds process systems inside input-output tables

 There is danger of double counting

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS

 An ecological footprint is a measure of

resource management/use which refers to

the amount of global hectares* required

to sustain the life/practices being

examined. Global hectares are hectares

with average global productivity.

 The measure is calculated by comparing

the biological resources available in a

given region (accounting for its ability to

create food and absorb waste using status

quo technology and practices) to resource

demands of an activity/population

 Ecological Footprint Standards have been developed and adopted by the

majority of users. Details of these standards are available at

www.footprintstandards.org, which is managed by the Global Footprint

Network.

 Standards help to address calculation nuances, including conversions, measure

of land/sea parcels, address nuclear power, varying data sources, import/export

data and biodiversity etc.

 Origin of the per capita ecological footprint (EF) (to highlight differences in

lifestyles), carbon footprint (emphasizing the climate change trigger Co2),

water footprint (water-centric metric)

 Similar to a metric of a more complete life cycle analysis but for the conversion

to global hectares.

 Use with the Living Planet Index of biodiversity from the WWF, or a

adaptation of the footprint like Lenzen & Murray‘s calculation for

Australia is suggested in order to compensate for the metric‘s omissions.

CARBON FOOTPRINTS









 A carbon footprint calculation measures the total amount of

carbon dioxide emissions caused by the activity/instance being

measured. This includes direct and indirect emissions.

 Scope varies

 ―As commonly used today, for example, the term ‗carbon footprint‘

often refers to the number of tonnes of carbon emitted by a given

person or business during a year, or to the tonnes of carbon emitted in

the manufacture and transport of a product. In Ecological Footprint

accounts, the ‗carbon Footprint‘ measures the amount of biological

capacity, in global hectares, demanded by human emissions of fossil

carbon dioxide.‖ - Global Footprint Standard

 Others may address all GHG, only carbon, include/exclude CO, and

reflect lifecycle of goods and services (Haven, 2007)

 Measures differ

 "weight" vs. "footprint―

 Weight already used in calculations, therefore it does not require

additional conversions to area measures

 Emphasizes need for carbon ―diets‖

WATER FOOTPRINT

―The water footprint of a nation is defined as the total volume of freshwater

that is used to produce the goods and services consumed by the people of the

nation. Since not all goods consumed in one particular country are produced in

that country, the water footprint consists of two parts: use of domestic water

resources and use of water outside the borders of the country.‖ - [Hoekstra, A.Y.

2007,p 36]

The concept was created to serve as an indicator of

water use, as related to consumption. The calculation

takes into account direct and indirect use and is

calculated by volume evaporated/polluted in a period of

time. It is related to the concept of virtual water,

―defined as the volume of water required to produce a

commodity or service.‖



 Calculations require determining three different water footprints:

 blue water = surface water and ground water

 green water = rainwater stored in the soil as soil moisture.

 In the 2 above cases, the associated footprint is the volume of

water that evaporated from the water type‘s total.

 The grey water footprint is the volume of polluted water that

associates with the production of all goods and services for the

individual or community.

BASF Eco-efficiency Analysis Tool

SEEBalence SEECube









 A decision-making analytical tool which uses LCA standards

 Notes economic , environmental and social metrics

 6 environmental parameters:

 Raw materials consumption

 Energy consumption

 Land use

 Air and water emissions and disposal methods

 Potential toxicity

 Potential risks

EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE 94/62/EC

ON PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE





 Requires that systems to deal with used packaging must be created to

meet % goals by weight. For example:

 ―by no later than 31 December 2008, between 55 and 80% by weight of packaging

waste to be Recycled‖

 A target-setting process is repeated every five years to keep the goals up

to date.

 Focuses attention on:

 Total amount of packaging recovered, recycled or incinerated

 Packaging volume and weight

 Minimize noxious and other hazardous substances and materials

 Legal requirements for limits of cadmium, hexavalent chromium (chrome IV), lead

and mercury

 Compostability

 Biodegradability

 European Standards Institute (CEN) created 6 standards to help

companies improve the environmental status of their packaging.

Addressed: manufacturing, composition reuse, recycling, energy

recovery, composting, and the application of the management systems

approach.

COMMON ELEMENTS

 Only a few organizations worked to create principles, methods and

metrics meant to support a coordinated vision

 Social indicators of sustainability were largely ignored

 Ability to provide guidance and educate at the same time, in a time

effective manner was lacking

 Wide audiences made targeted guidance (whether for consumers, or

on material use for designers etc.) rare

 There was a lack of procedural guidance for action and decision

making, rather than high-level suggestions on examining the entire

product system.

 Different regulatory traditions influence effectiveness

 Information gathered by relevant agents is not always freely available

 Striking the balance between promoting change, facilitating change,

and measuring change had not been reached

 Methodologies included a collection of important metrics/indicators

 Large investments in time and upkeep are required

 Varying levels of academic rigor

 The methods were created by varied stakeholders and often for

multiple audiences

 Multiple parts of the lifecycle were addressed, if not all

X

Towards Sustainable Packaging

i. Origins of Sustainable Manufacturing:

Sustainability

ii. Sustainable Manufacturing

iii. Sustainable Manufacturing Concepts &

Examples

a. Principles of Sustainability

b. Methods/Guidelines/Regulations

c. Metrics/Indicators

d. Tools/ Software

Metrics/Indicators

 We are currently working on populating an excel spreadsheet with a

collection of indicators and metrics used by packaging

manufactures in their methods, or considered important by relevant

stakeholders.

 Importance

 Data to information

 Inferences from quantitative analysis



 In this report an indicator is a qualitative value which can be

assigned different metrics and a metric can be calculated in

different ways

 sustainablemeasures.com notes 4 ways to organize indicators:

 Category or issue lists – easy to comprehend

 Goal/indicator matrix – emphasis comprehensiveness

 Driving force-state-response tables – emphasis on impact

 Endowments, liabilities, current results, and processes table categories-

emphasis on longer term

 Issues with measures – much depends on use

 How variables are weighted or optimized,

 Picking the right number to use can be difficult

 Openness and transparency increases credibility

Sustainable Metrics

Project



 Recently launched

 Developing a core set of performance indicators

to measure the sustainability of packaging and

packaging systems.

 Will publish after feedback from SPC members

COLLECTIONS OF METRICS

 Currently we are working to compare collections of metrics on an

excel spreadsheet. Some of our sources include:

 International

 UN

 UN Indicators of Sustainable Development

 National

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA‘s) Science Advisory

Board

 NGO

 Cradle to Cradle Certification Matrix

 Global Reporting Initiative

 Living Planet Report

 Global Footprint

 Redefining Progress

 Industry

 Metrics from the Wal-mart Scorecard

 SCJ GreenlistTM Packaging Criteria for Specific Materials

 MERGE Metrics

X

Towards Sustainable Packaging

i. Origins of Sustainable Manufacturing:

Sustainability

ii. Sustainable Manufacturing

iii. Sustainable Manufacturing Concepts &

Examples

a. Principles of Sustainability

b. Methods/Guidelines/Regulations

c. Metrics/Indicators

d. Tools/ Software

TOOLS/ SOFTWARE

 There are many tools and software available. We are working on collecting a list and characterizing those that exist. For example:

 Tools

 Asbey

 The Environmental Impact Estimator - by the ATHENA™ Sustainable Materials Institute.

 BEES 3.0 - by National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) Building and Fire Research Laboratory.

 CMLCA - by Centre of Environmental Science (CML) - Leiden University..



 Sustainable Packaging Coalition- COMPASS –*Coming Soon*

 Eco-Indicator 99 - by PRé Consultants.

 ECO-it 1.3 - by PRé Consultants.

 EcoScan 3.0 - by TNO Industrial Technology.

 Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment - by Green Design Initiative of Carnegie Mellon.

 EDIP PC-tool (http://www.mst.dk/activi/08030000.htm) - by Danish EPA.

 The Environmental Impact Estimator - by the ATHENA™ Sustainable Materials Institute.

 EPS 2000 Design System - by Assess Ecostrategy Scandinavia AB.

 GaBi 4 Software System and Databases - by PE Europe GmbH and IKP University of Stuttgart.

 GEMIS (Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems) - by Öko-Institut.

 GREET Model- The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Transportation

 IVAM LCA Data 4.0 - by IVAM.

 KCL-ECO 4.0 - by KCL.

 LCAiT 4 - by CIT Ekologik.

 LCAPIX - by KM Limited.

 MIET 3.0 - Missing Inventory Estimation Tool - by Centre of Environmental Science (CML).

 REGIS - by Sinum.

 SimaPro 7 - by PRé Consultants.

 SPOLD Data Exchange Software - by The Society for Promotion of Life-cycle Assessment.

 TEAM™ - by Pricewaterhouse Coopers Ecobilan Group.

 Umberto - by Institute for Environmental Informatics, Hamburg.

 WISARD™ - by Pricewaterhourse Coopers Ecobilan Group.

 Data

 The Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME)

 The Boustead Model 5.0 - by Boustead Consulting.

XI

Closing

 Summary: Themes

 Packaging Needs and Challenges

 Next Steps

 Conclusion

SUMMARY: THEMES

 The influence of qualitative principles can be directly and

indirectly seen through design guidelines, analytical

methodologies, and regulations.

 Methods can address economic, environmental or equity concerns,

with unique scopes and emphasis

 Approaches, users, and lifecycle stages covered are varied

 Tools are numerous and for as many purposes and audiences as

there are methods

 There is no one solution

 Identification of goals, scope, audience is crucial to developing

benchmarks and quantitative indicators

 Necessities are not often distinguished from best practices

FINAL THOUGHT: Complex Tradeoffs





―Would a carbon label on every product help us?‖

he asked. ―I wonder. You can feel very good about

the organic potatoes you buy from a farm near

your home, but half the emissions—and half the

footprint—from those potatoes could come from

the energy you use to cook them. If you leave the

lid off, boil them at a high heat, and then mash

your potatoes, from a carbon standpoint you

might as well drive to McDonald‘s and spend

your money buying an order of French fries.‖



-Murlis, quoted in an article by M.

Specter , ―Big Foot.‖ The New

Yorker. February 25, 2008

NEXT STEPS

 Join SPC, speak to them about overlapping work

 Flesh out basic information with multitude of sources (already

obtained)

 Biopolymers, metrics associated with methods etc.

 Details of LCA, footprint calculations etc.

 Integrate critiques of methods explored

 Visually illustrate connections from principles to methods and methods

to metrics

 Continue to analyze information we have collected with regard to

trends and needs.

 Continue to collect information on methods and associated metrics.

 Build up excel spreadsheets to better visualize and compare

importance of varied indicators.

 Tease necessities from best practices

CONCLUSION

 The packaging industry is not sustainable

 Motivating factors for packaging manufacturing

changes include

 Regulatory Mandates (stick)

 Economic Advantage (carrot)

 Change is hindered by a vague regulatory

environment, lack of informed customers and

missing infrastructure

 Qualitative guidelines exists, but concrete

quantitative guiding measures, optimized for

sustainable packaging, are needed

 Further detailed analysis is needed to correlate

qualitative concepts with quantitative metrics

and parse best practices from necessities

XII

More Resources

 About SPS

 Academic Departments

 Academic Journals



 Conferences



 Industry Actors, Publications & Forums



 National Government Organizations



 NGOs



 In progress Bibliography at

http://packagingproject.wordpress.com/

wp-admin/edit-pages.php

ABOUT SPS

 The Sustainable Products and Solutions (SPS) program is

centered at the Center for Responsible Business at UC

Berkeley's Haas School of Business, in partnership with UC

Berkeley's College of Chemistry. Initial financing for SPS was

provided with a five year $10 million contribution from the Dow

Chemical Co. Foundation. This project hopes to achieve the

aims of the SPS program in the area of packaging including:



 Reducing and measuring the carbon footprint of packaging,

 Production of bio-based materials and feedstocks for plastics,

 Sustainable market-based solutions for packaging,

 Measuring the lifecycle environmental footprints across a supply chain,

 Decreased emissions (air, water & land) and non-useful by-products,

 Public Policy implications of ―sustainable solutions‖ for packaging





More details can be found at

 http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/responsiblebusiness/SPSProgram.htm

 Principals: D. Dornfeld (ME), PI, M. Taylor

(GSPP) Berkeley, J. Greene (ME) CSU-Chico

(Contact Person: D. Dornfeld,

dornfeld@berkeley.edu)

 Industrial Partner: Roplast Industries, Oroville

CA

 Collaborator: California Film Extruders and

Converters Association (CFECA)

ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS



 California Polytechnic State University

 Clemson University www.clemson.edu/pkgsci

 Fashion Institute of Technology www.fitnyc.edu

 Indiana State University www.indstate.edu/imt/bs_pt.htm

 Michigan State University School of Packaging www.packaging.msu.edu

 Rochester Institute of Technology

www.rit.edu/%7E719www/PROGRAMS/BS?ps.htm

 San Jose State University www.engr.sjsu.edu

 School for Military Packaging Technology www.smpt.apg.army.mil

 University of California - Berkeley

 University of Florida www.ifas.ufl.edu

 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign www.fshn.uluc.edu

 University of Missouri-Rolla www.umr.edu

 University of Wisconsin-Stout www.uwstout.edu/programs/bsp

 Virginia Tech www.fst.vt.edu

 Western Michigan University

www.wmich.edu/pci/programs/papr_description.htm

ACADEMIC JOURNALS

 Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

 Journal of Packaging Technology and Science

 Journal of Sustainable Product Design

 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/lca

 European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

 Ecoinvent – Swiss Center For life cycle inventories

http://www.ecoinvent.ch/

 Journal of Cleaner Production?

 International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management

 Australasian Bioplastics Association (ABA

 www.carbonlabelca.org

 http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail/case_studies_research/index.html

 Journal of sustainable product design

 Environmental Impact Assessment Review

 Management of Environmental Quality

 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

 Journal of Cleaner Production

 Journal of Industrial Ecology

CONFERENCES/WORKSHOPS



 Natureworks LLC http://www.innovationtakesroot.com/

 Nutec: Nutrients - Upcycling - Triple Topline - Effectiveness -

Community http://www.nutec.de/

 European Bioplastics Conference www.european-bioplastics.org

 Sustainable Packaging Essentials

http://www.sustainablepackaging.org/essentials/

 Sustainable Packaging Forum www.packstrat.com

 (Past) Developing Sustainable Approaches to Design-Make-Serve

Cambridge, UK

INDUSTRY PUBLICATIONS & FORUMS

 ADHESIVE/SEALENTS

 Adhesive & Sealent Council

 Pressure Sensitive Tape Council www.pstc.org



 BIODEGRADABLE

 Biodegradable Products Institute



 CLOTH

 Textile Bag manufactures association



 GLASS

 Glass Packaging Institute www.gpi.org

 Glass Products Institute

 Glass Technology Services (GTS): www.glass-ts.com

 British Plastics Federation (BPF): www.bpf.co.uk



 LABELS

 Packaging and Label Gravure Association www.plga.com

 Printing Industries of America, INC www.gain.net

 Private Label Manufactures Association www.plma.ocom







 METALS

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS

 U.S. Business Council for Sustainable Development

 CA Integrated Waste Management Board Robert Carlson

 EPA – Office of Solid Waste

 Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

www.defra.gov.uk

NGOs

 Container Recycling Institute

 Environmental Defense

 Green Blue

 Green Peace

 IERE

 Keep America Beautiful

 National Recycling Coalition

 Rocky Mountain Institute

 The Design Council www.design-council.org.uk

 Envirowise: www.envirowise.org.uk

 Forest Stewardship Council (FSC): www.fsc.org

 Forum for the Future: www.forumforthefuture.org.uk

 London remade / Closed Loop London:

www.londonremade.com

EOL for this

presentation

MATHEMATICALLY MODELING MULTI-

OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION

 Once the pertinent input and output factors of sustainable packaging

production have been identified, decisions must be made in the presence

of possibly conflicting objectives. For instance, smaller, more easily

palletizable products may be achieved with increased manufacturing

(and hence higher energy use). In addition, producers will continue to

have other performance objectives which they seek to maximize when

incorporating sustainable objectives.

 The solution to such problems often results in multiple possibilities (i.e.

a set, known as Pareto points) of optimal choices. This is because

improvements in one objective occurs at a trade off with the worsening

of another objective.

 Solving the multiobjective problem is almost always done by combining

the multiple objectives into one scalar objective function. A well-known

combination is the weighted linear sum of the objectives. One specifies

scalar weights for each objective to be optimized, and then combines

them into a single function that can be solved by any single-objective

optimizer (such as SQP, pattern search etc.)

NON-SUSTAINABILITY FACTORS OF PACKAGING OF

IMPORTANCE TO MANUFACTURERS & CONSUMERS



 Price

 Barrier protection:

 Toughness

 Tensile strength

 Thickness

 Seal-ability

 Permeability (oxygen can cause changes in product color,

odor and taste; and nutrient loss, product rancidity and

microbial spoilage)

 Surface friction

 Shrink-ability

 Aesthetics: color, transparency, & clarity