Circularity advocates using resources to produce products, keeping those products in use for extended periods, and disposing of them via recycling. Circularity contrasts itself with linearity, a system of resource extraction, processing, consumption, and disposal. Circularity is being promoted by oil companies/resin producers and regulatory agencies as a response to plastic pollution and its tie to the existential threat of climate change.
The pursuit-worthiness of circularity notwithstanding, CPGs need to determine what opportunities and challenges circularity poses for them. For decades, CPGs have strategized around sustainability, along with associated concepts, such as the 3-Rs (reduction, recycling, reuse), the 3-Ps (planet, people, profits), and LCA (life cycle assessment).
It’s not that circularity conflicts with these concepts—to the contrary, circularity is all-encompassing, and therein might lie a problem. That’s because CPGs, more so than other vested entities, communicate their sustainability credentials directly to consumers. The typical medium is the packaging, with its claims of recycled content, reduced material usage, etc. Attempts to reeducate consumers with new terminology carries risks—especially if the nuances among the accustomed and the new might not be easily perceived (or even trusted) by those consumers. And it’s not just the lay consumer who is subject to confusion. Even an industry insider might ponder the difference between circularity and the older concept of a zero-waste society.
Packaging in general, and plastic packaging in particular, unavoidably will be in the crosshairs of any initiative aimed at solving environmental pollution. The reason ironic. Packaging is a target because of its contributions to the quality-of-life that is a hallmark of modern societies. Packaging makes possible mass production, mass marketing, mass distribution, and mass consumption, making packaging a convenient culprit for mass pollution.
Yes, despite its benefits, packaging is a component of solid waste, especially what’s derived from households. It shouldn’t be overlooked, however, that packaging also prevents waste, especially of the agricultural variety. In a different but related example, packaging technology helps lesser-developed countries increase their value-added exports, thereby reducing reliance on commodity exports. A balanced perspective about packaging is warranted, something not subscribed to by critics who regard packaging as dispensable, without naming its replacement.
Across sectors, CPGs have made good-faith efforts to minimize the environmental footprint of their packaging. But CPGs must operate within the constraints of certain facts. Fact: the demand for packaging is derived from the demand for the product contained therein. Fact: packaging, therefore, is an expense, impacting profits. Fact: no company should spend more on packaging than is necessary to fulfill the application-specific functions of that packaging. Fact: straight-thinking CPGs don’t oppose sustainability/circularity, recognizing its potential for a competitive advantage. Fact-of-facts: CPGs can’t ignore consumers’ demands for convenience.
Single-serving packaging might not be favored by environmentalist, but it is favored by certain consumer demographics, just as multiple-serving and multiple-use packaging is favored by environmentalist but not by some consumer demographics. Smaller packages have a higher packaging-to-contents ratio than do larger packages, but consumers will make purchase decisions based on lifestyle factors. And specific to plastics, features such as lightweight, shatterproof, clarity, and shape diversity close the deal with many consumers. The point is that CPGs are tasked with having to satisfy consumers with environmentally responsible packaging that is both technologically feasible and economically feasible.
For that, CPGs need a strong assist from the supply side, particularly from suppliers of raw materials like resins. An oft-mentioned factor explaining paltry recycling rates is the lack of infrastructure. Individual discussions about other factors would exceed this article’s planned length, but combined, they can make the processing of recycled plastic more expensive than that of virgin resin.
To reverse that relationship, plastics industry giants are promoting circularity, along with chemical or molecular recycling. The technology takes waste plastics and reduces them to a molecular state, either gas or liquid. Molecular reduction even can be used for laminations, without the need to first separate layers. The technology, therefore, widens the capabilities of traditional recycling. The molecules are fed into processing operations where they are mixed with virgin resin, resulting in raw material of a targeted recycled content.
But how would prospective CPGs use packaging made with molecular recycling, for example, in communicating to consumers the percent of recycled content? It’s a fair question. Molecules of the same chemical structure, as to which ones came from waste plastic and which ones came from virgin resin, are indistinguishable.
The answer is called mass balance. It tallies the quantity and composition of the feedstocks, providing a calculated percent of recycled content. That content is attributed to all packaging materials made from a given batch of molecular recycling, even if the packaging varies (plus or minus) from the mass balance calculation. As a result, CPGs can certifiably communicate sustainability claims to consumers.
Admittedly, there’s a futuristic aspect to circularity, in that its promise is not going to be fulfilled in the near term and perhaps not even in the intermediate term. In the interim, CPGs should ready a list of questions for exploration. One such question should be, ‘are there limits to how many times plastics can be recycled without any degradation to performance and safety?’
Sterling Anthony, CPP, consults in packaging, marketing, logistics, and human-factors. A former faculty member at the Michigan State University School of Packaging, his contact info is:100 Renaissance Center, Box-176, Detroit, MI 48243; 313/531-1875; [email protected]
