Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

2.1 Introduction

Most businesses have a process for product development that encompasses packaging optimisation or redesign and new packaging design. The process is generally led by a packaging specialist, either within or external to the business. It involves extensive consultation with a range of stakeholders to develop the best solution that meets many potentially conflicting objectives: cost, function, consumer acceptability, transport efficiency, shelf presence, promotion and now sustainable development.

Build Sustainable Development into the Design Process

Designing for sustainability involves considering sustainability objectives as early as possible in, and regularly throughout, the design process. This provides the greatest potential to influence the design to achieve the best sustainability outcomes with least cost (see Fig. 2.1).

Fig. 2.1
figure 1

The design approach. Source: McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry [96]

Full size image

Sustainability Changes the Design Process

Sustainability in packaging design requires new information to be considered including:

  • environmental life cycle of the product and its packaging

  • the role of packaging in achieving sustainable development goals

  • packaging environmental regulatory requirements

  • systems in place for the recovery, use and disposal of packaging at end-of-life.

Increasingly, decision-support and eco-design tools are used to accelerate the integration and consistency of application of sustainable development into the design process. They also help educate the design team and relevant stakeholders on the impact of decisions on sustainability issues.

2.2 Designing Packaging for Sustainability

Packaging is used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery, presentation, promotion and use of products. A number of packaging components make up the ‘packaging system’ (see Table 1.1) with each component selected for a particular purpose (see Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Functions of packaging
Full size table

Aim to Create Economic, Social AND Environmental Value

Strategies to improve sustainable development, such as increased efficiency, recyclability and elimination of toxic components, must be balanced against all relevant performance criteria during production, distribution, storage and use [1]. The idea of ‘balancing’, however, implies trade-offs. While this is often necessary, the aim should be to design and manufacture packaging that simultaneously delivers economic, social and environmental value. This may require a departure from ‘business as usual’ to find ‘win–win’ solutions and new innovative ways of achieving the required objectives. Some examples of potential win–win solutions are provided in Table 2.15.

Table 2.2 Examples of ‘win–win’ packaging sustainability strategies
Full size table

Commit to Innovation

Packaging development has a long history of technical innovation and enabling product innovation [2]. Examples include ready-to-eat fresh meals, re-sealable packs and longer-life packaging. These have taken advantage of advances in materials and food processing technologies and have sought to meet changing consumer tastes and lifestyle choices.

Designing for sustainability requires a commitment to rethink the design of the product-packaging system. There are potential trade-offs between objectives, for example:

  • material efficiency of a plastic pouch vs. the recyclability of a plastic bottle

  • environmental benefits of enhanced recyclability vs. the cost of changing the packaging

  • elimination of heavy metal-based inks or pigments vs. the marketing advantage of vibrant and durable colours.

However, approaches to the design process should begin by rethinking the problem in a more open and creative way. For example, can material efficiency AND recyclability be achieved by concentrating the product and selling it in a much smaller container? Does the recyclable package offer additional commercial or marketing benefits that justify the additional expense of the new design?

Use a Packaging Sustainability Framework

To integrate the new approaches required to address sustainability efficiently and effectively in packaging design, a packaging sustainability framework is useful as a decision-support tool. In this chapter we present and demonstrate the use of a framework that brings together traditional packaging design considerations with triple bottom line sustainability considerations. The framework is the latest evolution of work commenced by the Sustainable Packaging Alliance in 2002 [3]. It has been refined for this book in line with the evolution in thinking about packaging’s role in sustainable development as outlined in Sect. 1.4.

The framework uses four principles to guide decisions about design, manufacturing, transport, use and recovery of packaging. Examples of strategies that can help to achieve these principles are provided together with a detailed case study demonstrating how to use the framework (see Appendix 1).

2.3 Packaging Sustainability Framework

In order to contribute to sustainable development, packaging needs to be (Fig. 2.2):

Fig. 2.2
figure 2

The four sustainable packaging principles

Full size image

  • effective in delivering the functional requirements of the packaging

  • efficient in its use of materials, energy and water throughout its life cycle

  • cyclic in its use of renewable materials and recoverability at end-of-life

  • safe for people and the natural environment.

Each principle is outlined in Sects. 2.3.1–2.3.4 respectively, and practical design strategies and case studies demonstrating their application are provided in Sect. 2. Section 8.2.8 also proposes metrics for aligning the design strategy with corporate sustainable development goals.

2.3.1 Effective Packaging

Effective packaging is fit for purpose and achieves its functional purpose with minimal environmental and social impact.

According to The Consumer Goods Forum [4, p. 11], well-designed packaging meets all its functional requirements while minimising the economic, environmental and social impacts of the product and its packaging. This reflects the concept of the triple bottom line and is a good definition of ‘effective’ packaging. Examples of the triple bottom line benefits of effective packaging are provided in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Potential triple bottom line benefits of effective packaging
Full size table

Demonstrate the Triple Bottom Line Benefits

The effectiveness principle requires designers to:

  • demonstrate how the packaging design is ‘fit for purpose’

  • identify the economic, social and environmental value provided by the packaging

  • re-examine conventional design objectives such as technical performance, convenience, cost and so on from a sustainability perspective.

Packaging must be Essential

Effective packaging fulfils a number of essential functions, such as [1, p. 10]:

  • ensuring the contents are delivered to the consumer in good condition

  • protecting the contents from hazards such as vibration, heat, odour, light penetration, micro-organisms and pest infestation

  • being easy to open (but difficult to open accidentally) and pilfer-resistant

  • allowing liquids to pour without spillage

  • enabling all of the product to be dispensed

  • being as easy as possible to carry

  • for consumer goods, being attractive enough to buy

  • providing information about the product, the business that bears responsibility for it, and instructions for handling or use.

The specific functional benefits of each component of the packaging system and the structure of the packaging system as a whole should be challenged and validated throughout the design process.

Explore New Opportunities

Businesses have always focused on the functional aspects of packaging design, but a focus on sustainability can open up new opportunities or a reassessment of the role of packaging. For example [5]:

  • Are there opportunities to prevent theft in retail stores without relying on the packaging; for example, by modifying fixtures and displays?

  • Is the package fit-for purpose but not over-engineered?

  • Can the cost of the package be reduced through a more efficient design or by using materials that attract lower recycling fees (some countries have differential recycling fees—see Chap. 4 for more information)?

Applying the effectiveness principle should identify new opportunities for innovation including the creation of new product concepts that reduce the need for packaging (see The Keep Cup Case Study 2.1).

Design for Accessibility

‘Design for accessibility’ is becoming an essential design requirement for social sustainability. One of the most important access issues is ease of opening. Stringent requirements for packaging functions such as product protection, tamper evidence, and prevention of theft are often pursued at the expense of openability. Another accessibility issue is the ability of consumers with poor eyesight to read labels.

Design for accessibility has many implications for consumer health and safety including:

  • packaging related injuries: many of these occur when people resort to a knife or scissors to open packages [7]

  • inability to open packaging and thereby access products: consumers with functional disabilities associated with diseases such as arthritis sometimes cannot open packaging, and this problem is increasing as a result of the aging population in Western countries. Companies such as Duracell are redesigning packaging to address the needs of people with restricted strength or movement in their hands (see the Duracell Case Study 2.2)

  • risk of product misuse: the poor readability of small text on labels is a problem—also arising from the aging population—and means that important information such as directions for use, safety warnings and disposal guidelines are sometimes not read.

2.3.2 Efficient Packaging

‘Efficient’ packaging is designed to minimise resource consumption (materials, energy and water), wastes and emissions throughout its life cycle.

A common theme in the sustainable development literature is the need to go beyond incremental improvements and look for ‘step changes’ or significant improvements in eco-efficiency. For example, the authors of Natural Capitalism [10] have argued for ‘radical’ improvements in resource productivity to reduce depletion of resources and pollution and to lower costs’. Some researchers have estimated that for the world’s resource use to be sustainable we need a 75–90% improvement in resource efficiency [11–13]. Examples of the triple bottom line benefits of efficient packaging are provided in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Potential triple bottom line benefits of efficient packaging
Full size table

Apply Life Cycle Thinking

Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies show that minimising packaging and maximising supply chain efficiency are two of the three most important actions that reduce the environmental impacts of packaging [14] (The other is use of renewable energy.)

As a general guide, reducing the weight of packaging by 20% will reduce environmental impacts of the packaging by about 20%. In contrast, recycling, while still desirable for many reasons, such as resource conservation, consumes energy and generates waste and emissions during transport and reprocessing [14].

Economic and Environment Win–Win

The benefits of more efficient packaging include:

  • cost savings in the supply chain, which can be captured by the business or passed on to suppliers, customers and consumers

  • less demand for materials, energy and water, which in some cases are being extracted from the natural environment at an unsustainable rate [15]

  • less pollution and waste that must be absorbed by the natural environment by creating more efficient supply chains.

A number of businesses have adopted efficiency goals for packaging. Walmart, for example, plans to reduce packaging by 5% by 2013 compared to 2008 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 667,000 metric tons annually. This will also create US$10.98 billion in savings, including a US$3.4 billion saving to Walmart [16]. In 2008, Dell announced plans to reduce its packaging by 8.7 million pounds (3,946 tonnes), and by 2010 the company had already made significant progress (see Case Study 2.3).

2.3.3 Cyclic Packaging

‘Cyclic’ packaging is designed to maximise the recovery of materials, energy and water throughout its life cycle.

Match Materials with the Metabolic Cycle

As McDonough and Braungart state in their book Cradle to cradle, there is no waste in nature [19]. To minimise waste, packaging materials should be designed to become ‘nutrients’ for another process. Natural and renewable materials such as paper and wood should become nutrients for the biological metabolism; for example, in organic processes such as composting. Manufactured materials such as glass and plastics should become nutrients for the technical metabolism; for example, in industrial processes such as mechanical (material) recycling [19].

Examples of the triple bottom line benefits of cyclic packaging are provided in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 Potential triple bottom line benefits of cyclic packaging
Full size table

Aim for Closed Loop Recycling

Closed loop recycling involves reprocessing materials back into the same application, e.g. packaging to packaging.

Down-cycling occurs when a material is reprocessed into an alternative, lower value application that often prevents further recycling, e.g. packaging into garden mulch.

It is generally more sustainable to recycle a material back into the same application (closed loop recycling) than down-cycle. A good example is a glass bottle, which can be re-melted in the glass furnace and manufactured back into a new bottle or jar.

Other materials are more difficult to reprocess back into the same application and may need to be ‘down-cycled’ into a lower value applications. For example, recycled plastic might not be suitable for the manufacture of new packaging because it does not meet food contact regulations, or it may not be able to compete with virgin resin because of the higher costs of processing. Therefore, it can only be down-cycled into products such as garden furniture and plant pots.

Design for recyclability aims to remove barriers to closed loop recycling to ensure that recovered materials can be reprocessed into high value applications. Some examples of closed loop material recycling and down-cycling (as well as barriers to them) are given in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6 Recycling options for common packaging materials
Full size table

An emerging technology for the recovery of biodegradable plastic packaging is composting: a form of ‘organic recycling’. These materials can potentially be collected in a source-separated organic stream (garden and/or food waste) for processing into organic products such as soil conditioner or mulch. Some of these materials may also be suitable for home composting.

Avoid Cross-Contamination Between Metabolisms

In Chap. 1 we introduced the work of McDonough and Braungart, who described two recovery mechanisms for products: the biological metabolism such as composting and technical metabolism such as an industrial recycling process. They argue that products should be designed for one of these metabolisms, and with care to ensure that a product designed for one system does not contaminate the other. Contamination could occur, for example, if a biodegradable plastic shopping bag, designed for composting, ends up in a conventional plastics recycling system, or if a polyethylene plastic bag ends up in a composting system.

One company that has carefully considered all of these issues is biscuit manufacturer Gingerbread Folk, which uses a biodegradable material certified to an international standard and advises consumers on appropriate disposal (see Case Study 2.4).

More Economic and Environmental Win–Wins

The benefits of recycling packaging often include significant environmental savings when recycled materials replace virgin materials in production. For example, it has been estimated that recycled aluminium requires only 7% of the energy required for virgin aluminium, and recycled high density polyethylene (HDPE) only requires 21% of the energy required for virgin HDPE [20, p. xi].

2.3.4 Safe Packaging

‘Safe’ packaging is designed to minimise health and safety risks to humans and ecosystems throughout its life cycle.

Designing for sustainability considers a broader range of potential impacts on the health of humans and ecosystems than traditional packaging design, such as:

  • ecological impacts of growing natural raw materials, particularly from land degradation and biodiversity loss

  • ecological and health impacts of pollution from manufacturing processes

  • risks associated with migration of hazardous substances into food and beverages

  • occupational health and safety risks in the supply chain

  • impacts of packaging litter on wildlife, particularly in marine environments.

There are triple bottom line benefits of considering these impacts, as shown in Table 2.7.

Table 2.7 Potential triple bottom line benefits of safe packaging
Full size table

Take Responsibility for Sustainability Impacts of Raw Materials

Ecological and environmental stewardship are terms given to programs that aim to reduce the social and environmental impacts of farming, forestry or fishing practices.

Designing for safety must consider the environmental and social impacts of raw materials, particularly those derived from forestry or farming activities. This is often referred to as ‘ecological stewardship’. Timber, fibre-based packaging materials and biopolymers from agricultural products can impact on biodiversity and the sustainability of natural ecosystems. Forestry operations, for example, may reduce or damage old growth forests. The procurement of ‘renewable’ materials needs to minimise any potential impacts; for example, by only using paper or cardboard from sustainably managed forests. Food security issues also need to be addressed; for example, by investigating the impact of diverting food crops such as corn to manufacture packaging. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certifies materials according to ecological stewardship criteria, and businesses may specify only certified materials, as illustrated in the TetraPak Case Study 2.5.

2.3.4.1 Case Study 2.5 Forest Stewardship Council-Certified Cartons: Tetra Pak

Tetra Pak has been a member of the Swedish Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) since 2006, and their long term goal is to use FSC-certified fibre for all of their liquid food cartons. In September 2009, the company announced that beverage cartons with the FSC logo would be available to customers in Sweden, Denmark and Belgium. The cartons were already available in China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany.

FSC is an independent non-government organisation that promotes responsible management of the world’s forests (more detail is provided in Sect. 2.4.4).

Source: Tetra Pak [21]

Implement and Support Cleaner Production Technologies

Cleaner production aims to reduce waste and emissions in manufacturing by changing management practices, processes and product design, rather than treating waste and emissions before disposal (the traditional ‘end-of-pipe’ solution).

Pollution from manufacturing processes in the packaging industry have a range of environmental and health impacts. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from printing processes contribute to ground-level ozone pollution, and the wastewater from chlorine bleaching of paper during the manufacturing process contains organochlorine compounds such as dioxins.

Designing for safety requires:

  • understanding the processes used in manufacturing and printing packaging

  • changing design specifications to shift to less polluting processes where available.

Validate Safety of Packaging

Food packaging systems must protect the integrity of the product so that consumer health is not compromised. Some constituents in packaging, such as Bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, can migrate in small amounts into food products. While there is scientific uncertainty about their health effects, there is mounting evidence that they are potentially toxic and should be avoided where possible [22]. A risk management approach to packaging safety requires:

  • understanding in detail the materials and constituents used in the packaging

  • obtaining Materials Safety Data Sheets or other documentation from suppliers

  • monitoring the latest published research on migration of substances into food and other consumer products

  • consulting with suppliers, researchers and safety authorities if there are any concerns

  • as a precautionary measure, taking steps to replace any materials or constituents that may pose a health risk.

Design for Safe Handling

The implications of packaging design for occupational health and safety in the packaging supply chain also need to be considered. For example, attention must be paid to any risks associated with storage and handling in the supply chain. Any packaging that requires a knife to open is a potential hazard to workers or consumers. Packaging should be designed for easy opening without the use of sharp instruments. The weight of packed products is also an issue, particularly for work that involves shifting or dispensing products. Weight is generally not an issue at the consumer level, although the larger capacity of reusable shopping bags often results in overloading, making the bags heavier and more difficult to handle by cashiers [23].

Design for Litter Reduction

Packaging litter has many sustainability impacts, including:

  • injury or death of wildlife. It is estimated that 6.4 million tonnes of litter enter the oceans every year [24, p. 101]. While the impact of packaging is relatively small, a number of reports have highlighted wildlife impacts associated with packaging [25]

  • damage to nautical equipment

  • aesthetic impacts in waterways, along beaches and in other public places

  • injuries to people; for example, cuts from broken glass

  • costs of litter clean-ups.

The packaging design team can help to minimise the incidence or impact of litter; for example, by minimising the number of separable components or by communicating an anti-litter message. Litter statistics published by industry associations and/or non-government organisations can be used to better understand the products, packaging and brands that are littered most frequently. This information can then be used to see if any of the business’s packaging portfolio falls within the most littered items.

2.4 Applying the Packaging Sustainability Framework

In this section, design strategies and case studies are presented to illustrate how each of the four packaging for sustainability principles can be addressed:

The packaging sustainability framework is a systematic approach to design that can be applied by assessing each of the four principles and the way they work together. It should be used particularly at the initial ideas stage of the product development process, where there is the most freedom to explore alternative strategies.

The design process should optimise the choice of projects in line with the business’s sustainable development goals and metrics. In practice, the final design decision may require trade-offs to address competing goals and metrics. This is illustrated in the case study about Cadbury (Case Study 2.6) in which more material has been used to improve functionality and recyclability.

2.4.2 Designing for Effectiveness

By focusing on the effectiveness principle the design team confirms:

  • the role of each packaging component and the packaging system as a whole

  • how the packaging protects the product and creates consumer value.

It may also help to generate ideas for new product-packaging concepts with the potential to deliver better value to the business and the consumer with less environmental impact.

Is the Packaging Necessary?

The first challenge is to enquire whether the package is necessary. In the process of answering this question, the design team gains a better understanding of the basic needs met by each package component and the packaging system as a whole [27, p. 21]. In some situations it may be possible to eliminate the package or a component of the packaging system that adds little or no value to the protection of the product.

Market research can be used to understand how and where a product is consumed and whether certain features of the packaging are actually required or used by customers and consumers. For example, fresh salad packaging often includes disposable cutlery because it is intended to be consumed away from home. It is therefore important to know where the salads are actually consumed and the extent to which the cutlery is used. If most salads are consumed at home or in a workplace, with ready access to durable cutlery, then this feature could potentially be removed, saving cost and environmental impact.

Optimise Function of all Components AND the System

Product containment and protection are the primary role of packaging. Depending on the product and its supply chain, the packaging system may need to protect its contents from:

  • climatic influences, such as light, humidity and temperature

  • mechanical hazards, such as impacts, accelerations, abrasions and vibrations

  • gas and odour exchange

  • contamination by micro-organisms or pest-infestation.

Secondary and tertiary packaging facilitates distribution by bundling products together for transport and handling. Secondary and tertiary packaging choices are inter-dependant with the primary packaging, and the complete system must be optimised.

From a sustainability perspective, it is important to ensure that all functional requirements are met without over-engineering the packaging system. Rethinking all of the technical requirements may open up new opportunities to reduce material or energy consumption or to improve productivity in the supply chain (see Case Study 2.7 on a hypothetical product).

2.4.3 Designing for Efficiency

By focusing on the efficiency principle the design team confirms:

  • the amounts of packaging used and required

  • the environmental benefits provided by the packaging through product protection

  • the life cycle environmental impacts of the packaging components and system arising from energy consumption.

Right-sizing is reducing the size or weight of the package but not to the point at which the product becomes vulnerable to breakage or spoilage [27, p. 36].

Is the Packaging Necessary?

The first step in efficient design is to identify any components of the packaging system that are not necessary and could be eliminated (see Case Study 2.8 on Sainsbury’s). This step should be taken when first considering design for effectiveness. A proper assessment of efficiency considers the interaction between all components of the packaging system throughout the distribution chain and looks for any that can be eliminated, keeping in mind that a reduction in the weight of a primary pack may require stronger secondary packaging or result in more product damage. This is why packaging needs to be optimised rather than minimised.

2.4.4 Designing Cyclic Packaging

By focusing on the cyclic principle the design team confirms how to:

  • reduce consumption of virgin materials

  • reduce reliance on non-renewable resources

  • maximise the recovery of packaging materials.

A renewable resource is a natural resource that is depleted at a rate slower than the rate at which it regenerates. Packaging materials that are theoretically ‘renewable’ include wood, paper and some biodegradable polymers (those made from natural products such as corn or cellulose).

Reassess Reusable/Refillable Consumer Packaging

Most packaging was originally reusable or refillable, particularly for beverages. However, in most developed countries reusable glass bottles have been replaced by single-use containers. There are a number of reasons for this shift:

  • the introduction of self-service supermarkets and the decline of home delivery services

  • industry consolidation to achieve economies of scale and the increasing size of distribution networks, particularly international networks, which add to transport costs for the return of empty bottles

  • an increase in the proportion of beverages consumed away from home

  • a decline in return rates for refillable bottles, which reduced their financial viability and environmental benefits

  • the opposition of brand owners and retailers to reusable packaging for a range of commercial, health and safety reasons.

This shift has been less pronounced in countries with specific regulatory measures in place to encourage reusable packaging. In Germany, for example, there is an industry cooperative that supplies refillable glass and PET bottles to over 230 mineral water bottlers [42, p. 212]. The users of this system tend to be small businesses, and the bottled water is generally only transported a few kilometres. In Norway, refillable soft drink containers have a market share of approximately 98%, and their market share for beer is around 44% [42, p. 213].

Self-dispensing systems are common in specialty organic or health stores, where customers are encouraged to bring their own packaging to the store for filling. Recent developments in the United Kingdom indicate that retailers and manufacturers may be willing to introduce refill systems for mainstream products. UK-based organisation WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) has undertaken research on the potential for these to be introduced for beverages in retail stores [43], and in 2009 and 2010 funded a self-dispensing trial for liquid laundry products [44]. This research will be important in determining whether refillable packaging should be reconsidered for some mainstream consumer applications.

Identify Supply Chain Packaging Reuse Strategies

In contrast to consumer packaging, the reuse of secondary and industrial packaging has increased over the past decade [42]. Reusable systems include plastic trays and crates, intermediate bulk containers, wooden or plastic pallets, beer kegs, roll cages and moulded plastic containers for specialty products (see Case Study 2.12 and Case Study 2.13).

Use of Recycled Materials

Every attempt should be made to maximise the use of materials with recycled content as they:

Table 2.11 Suitability of products for returnable packaging
Full size table
Table 2.12 Strategies for reusable secondary or tertiary packaging
Full size table

  • generally consume less energy to manufacture (see Table 2.13)

  • reduce consumption of virgin material and reliance on non-renewable resources

  • often generate less pollution and greenhouse gas emissions because they avoid the manufacture of virgin materials.

Table 2.13 Energy savings from the use of recycled rather than virgin material
Full size table

In some cases recycled material may also offer a cost advantage.

The use of materials with recycled content may be limited by:

  • the function of the packaging or packaged product

  • supply constraints

  • health and safety standards.

Recycled polymers can only be used in direct food contact applications if they meet stringent safety standards. The exception is non-processed fruit and vegetables. In other applications the recycled polymer needs to be certified by the appropriate food safety authority. The test standard that is often applied is the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) standard for recycled materials in direct food contact [51]. Recycled resins that meet the FDA standard have either undergone a feedstock (chemical) recycling process or a ‘super clean’ mechanical process involving several cleaning and decontamination stages. Multilayer co-injection techniques, which provide a functional barrier between the recycled resin and the contents of the container, are more expensive and have largely been replaced by monolayer processes.

Recycled PET (rPET) is generally blended with virgin resin at rates of up to 50% in order to meet the strict technical and aesthetic requirements for food grade packaging. It is increasingly being used for primary packaging; for example:

  • A percentage of rPET is used in Coca Cola bottles in the United States, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Japan and Mexico, and an extensive trial in the United Kingdom established that it can be combined with virgin resin at rates of up to 50% [52]

  • In 2007 McDonald’s Australia replaced its virgin polystyrene dessert cups with PET cups containing 35% recycled content [53]

  • Direct Pack Inc. in collaboration with Global PET began production of its 100% rPET takeaway food containers (‘The Bottle Box’) in California in 2009 [54].

A large scale trial of recycled rPET in retail packaging was undertaken by WRAP in the United Kingdom between 2004 and 2006 [55]. As part of this trial, a percentage of recycled resin was incorporated in a selection of Marks & Spencer’s takeaway salad bowls (50%) and juice bottles (30%), and Boots’ toiletry bottles (30%). The trial demonstrated that rPET could be successfully incorporated within the containers, and both companies expressed their willingness to continue rolling out the use of rPET across additional lines. More detail is provided in the case study on Marks & Spencer’s ‘food to go’ range below (Case Study 2.14).

Recycled PET is also used to make bottles for detergents and other household products, although in these applications PET competes with PVC and HDPE. For this reason the market is highly price sensitive.

Design for Mechanical Recycling

Recyclable means: ‘a characteristic of a product, packaging or associated component that can be diverted from the waste stream through available processes and programs and can be collected, processed and returned to use in the form of raw materials or products’ [61, p. 13].

The recyclability of a packaging material depends on two things:

  • its technical recyclability: the ease with which it can be reprocessed and used to manufacture new products

  • the availability of collection, sorting and reprocessing facilities for the material.

A systems approach is therefore required; one that considers both the design of the package and the availability of a recovery system. A material may be technically recyclable, but if material recovery facilities (MRFs) and recyclers do not have the technology to separate and reprocess it, or if there is no viable end-market for the material, then it is effectively non-recyclable (see Fig. 6.2 for a description of MRFs).

Technical recyclability depends on the characteristics of the material itself as well as recycling technologies. As new technologies are developed and become commercially available, more materials are likely to be considered ‘recyclable’.

Recyclability also depends on the availability of recovery and recycling services, which vary by geographic region (Table 2.14). The packaging materials most widely collected through kerbside and ‘drop-off’ services are glass containers, aluminium and steel cans, selected plastic containers (often PET; sometimes other plastics), paper bags, cartons and corrugated boxes. Milk and juice cartons (liquid paperboard) are also collected in some areas.

Table 2.14 Packaging material recycling rates by geographical region (%)
Full size table

Recyclable packaging is generally collected as a mixed (commingled) stream and then sorted at a MRF, although sometimes individual materials, particularly paper and paperboard, are collected separately. At the MRF, individual materials are sorted and compressed or baled for transport to reprocessors, who then use these materials to manufacture new raw materials or products.

The use of multiple materials can inhibit recycling or cause problems in the recycling process. For example, plastic ‘windows’ on pasta boxes, plastic film on tissue boxes and the moulded plastic on blister packs are separated in the paper recycling process but will end up in the waste stream. Plastic or wax coatings on paper also reduce the amount of fibre that can be reclaimed. An example of a business working to improve the recyclability of its packaging is Amazon (see Case Study 2.16). Its ‘frustration free packaging’ is marketed as easier to open but has a range of other benefits including recyclability.

If more than one material is used (for example, plastics and paperboard), consumers should be advised to separate the two materials before recycling (see Sect. 3.5.2). The use of adhesives to attach different materials, such as foam cushions to corrugated board, should also be avoided. Specific strategies for individual materials are provided in Table 2.15.

2.5 Assess the Role of Biodegradable Polymers

Biodegradable polymers are increasingly used because of their potential benefits at end-of-life; for example, as a raw material for composting processes. Many are also made from renewable materials and could, if widely used, reduce reliance on oil for manufacturing plastics.

Biodegradable polymers may be a good option for:

  • short life products that are insensitive to moisture and oxygen, that do not require heating in-pack, and are non-carbonated [1]

  • packaging that is currently not recyclable through existing material recycling systems, such as film and bags

  • packaging that tends to contaminate food recovery systems (see Case Study 2.17).

2.5.2 Designing for Safety

By focusing on the safe principle the design team will:

  • understand the complete life cycle of their packaging component

  • identify and avoid the use of hazardous substances in their products

  • identify and avoid the production of hazardous substances (including greenhouse gases) throughout the life cycle of the packaging components they use

  • identify strategies to reduce litter and the impacts of litter in relevant ecosystems.

Identify and Avoid Hazardous Substances

Conventional risk management principles involving risk identification and hazard risk analysis should be applied to the selection of materials, inks, pigments, coatings, plasticisers and other substances used to produce or use the packaging. A risk management approach involves the following steps [69]:

  1. 1.

    Define the review mechanism.

  2. 2.

    Identify opportunities, risks and barriers.

  3. 3.

    Assess the factors that are within the control of the organisation.

  4. 4.

    Ensure that those within the control of the organisation are acted on.

  5. 5.

    Report on the process.

The design team needs to fully understand the production and manufacturing processes for their packaging and products. A risk assessment should identify any substances used or emitted at any stage of the life cycle of packaging components and their use, including recovery, reuse and reprocessing, that might be toxic to workers, consumers or ecosystems. Information should then be sourced to appropriately assess the safety risk and ensure that packaging is designed to avoid the substances or, as a minimum, that known public safety standards are met. Information, including acceptable limits where applicable, should be included in life cycle maps and packaging specifications.

Bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates (see below) are two examples of substances that were considered safe but are now the subject of further research and development to overcome potential risks associated with their widespread use.

Bisphenol A

BPA is a chemical used to make polycarbonate and epoxy resins. Polycarbonate is used in the manufacture of reusable baby bottles and reusable outdoor drink bottles, while epoxy resins line most metal food and beverage cans. BPA prevents packaging materials imparting any taste to the product, and it is highly stain-resistant [72].

BPA leaches out of both plastics and has been found at very low concentrations in food and beverages packaged in these materials. For example, a test of canned foods by Consumer Reports in the United States found BPA in almost all of the 19 products tested [73]. It is absorbed by the human body: a study cited by Environment California [74] found that BPA is present in the urine of 95% of Americans. Many peer-reviewed studies have linked these low dosages to a wide range of developmental and health problems, including prostate effects, breast cancer, heart disease, obesity, attention deficit, altered immune system and early puberty. Pregnant women, infants and children have been found to be most at risk. Environment Canada also noted that BPA enters the environment through waste water, washing residues and leachate from landfills, and has potential to build up in waterways and harm fish and other organisms [75].

As a result, some national, state and local governments have moved to regulate the use of BPA in packaging for infants and young children, particularly in baby bottles and infant formula packaging. Walmart, Toys ‘R’ Us and Wholefoods have voluntarily stopped selling baby bottles made with BPA, and some food and packaging manufacturers are investigating alternatives to BPA in their packaging [72] (see the Heinz Case Study 2.18).

Alternative polymers to polycarbonate include polyamide for baby bottles, and tritan copolyester for reusable drink bottles. There are also alternatives to epoxy coatings on metal cans, including polyester coatings and natural oils and resins, but these tend to cost more and are less effective for highly acidic foods such as tomatoes [72]. Japanese businesses voluntarily reduced their use of BPA between 1998 and 2003 after BPA was detected in canned drinks. According to the Environmental Working Group in the United States [76], companies switched to either a PET lining or an epoxy resin with much lower BPA migration. Another option is polypropylene-lined cans [77].

One of the challenges for manufacturers and regulators is the need to ensure that alternatives to BPA are also thoroughly tested and found to be safe.

2.5.2.2 Phthalates

Phthalates are a group of chemicals widely used in personal care products (shampoos, lotions, liquid soaps and so on) and some packaging. They look like clear vegetable oil and are used as ‘plasticisers’; for example, to make PVC more flexible. Phthalates can comprise 10–50% of flexible PVC by weight [79].

Like BPA, phthalates can be absorbed in the body through migration into food (in the case of packaging) or through other forms of contact. They appear to act as endocrine disrupters in the human body, and research studies have linked phthalate exposure to health problems including reduced male fertility and rising rates of testicular and prostate cancer. While it is certain that everyone is exposed to low levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (including phthalates), there is still a considerable amount of scientific uncertainty about their health impacts [79, p. 14]. A particular concern to health advocates and regulators is the exposure of small children to phthalates in toys because they are more likely to put toys in their mouth. Children are more at risk from ingested or inhaled pollutants because they have less well-developed detoxification mechanisms.

Table 2.15 Design strategies to improve recycling
Full size table

Phthalates are also a common environmental pollutant, as they have been used in a wide range of products since the 1940s. However, the toxicity risks are limited because they readily biodegrade in aerobic environments and their concentrations are generally below levels likely to have toxicity or reproductive impacts on living organisms [80].

While restrictions on the use of phthalates have targeted children’s products rather than PVC in general (see Sect. 4.2.3), the risks of using PVC for food and beverage packaging need to be carefully assessed. Based on a comprehensive review of the available data, one academic noted that while ‘there is a lack of scientific evidence showing that phthalates have an adverse effect on humans at levels likely to be encountered either environmentally or during normal use of phthalate containing products…the possibility that such a link will be established in future should not be discounted’ [79, p. 17].

A common application of PVC in food packaging is the ring of rubbery material, or gasket, which forms the seal inside the metal lid of a screw-topped jar. Products packed in glass jars were tested by the Australian Consumers Association for the presence of phthalates. Of the 25 products tested, 12 contained phthalates at levels above the maximum limits permitted in the European Union [81].

There are many different phthalates used in PVC (see Table 2.16), but the most common is DEHP. (See Table 2.16 for the full scientific name of the phthalate and others mentioned in this paragraph.) This is also the most dominant plasticiser found in the environment. In Europe, DEHP is mainly being replaced by DIDP and DINP, which have been given a lower risk rating by the European Union [80, p. 26]. DEHP, DBP and BBP are classified in the European Union as reproductive toxicants [82]. There are three types of non-phthalate plasticiser suggested as replacements for problematic phthalates: adipates, citrates and cyclohexyl-based plasticisers, although these tend to be more costly and are yet to undergo risk assessments in the European Union [80, p. 26]. A recent innovation is the development by Danish company Danisco of a biodegradable plasticiser to replace phthalates in PVC. The plasticiser is manufactured from castor oil and acetic acid and has been approved for food contact in Europe [83].

Table 2.16 Common phthalate plasticisers used in PVC
Full size table
Table 2.17 Examples of heavy metals in packaging
Full size table

Identify and Avoid Heavy Metals

The European Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive specifies that the combined weight of heavy metals (lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavalent chromium) in packaging or packaging components should not exceed a concentration of 100 ppm. ‘Toxics in packaging’ laws in the United States have the same limit but are stricter than the European Directive because they also prohibit the ‘intentional’ introduction of any amount of the four restricted metals. Some recycled materials contain heavy metals, but this is acceptable under the European Directive and similar state laws in the United States.

Testing in Europe and the United States has found continuing use of heavy metal based pigments, inks and stabilisers for packaging (see examples in Table 2.17). US tests have also found high levels of heavy metals in shopping bags, particularly lead, mercury and chromium [84], arising from the use of solvent-based inks. A high percentage of flexible PVC bags have also failed tests, including ‘zipper bags’ used to package bedding and other home furnishings and pouches for pet toys and chews. Almost all of these were imported from Asia.

Table 2.18 Strategies to prevent the incidence or impact of litter
Full size table

Support or Use Cleaner Production Initiatives

A full understanding of manufacturing and printing processes may highlight opportunities to reduce the environmental impacts of packaging with cleaner production technologies. Two common pollutants that can be minimised by changing specifications at the design or procurement stage are discussed below: volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and organochlorine compounds.

Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds

VOCs are natural or synthetic organic substances that have a tendency to vaporise during handling or use, and emissions can be harmful or toxic if inhaled. They can also combine with sunlight and nitrous oxides to generate low-level ozone [85]. Sources of VOC emissions in the packaging industry include solvent-based inks and adhesives (including laminates), as well as cleaners used in printing processes.

Alternatives to solvent-based inks include water-based, ultra-violet curable and litho inks, although these tend to require more energy and may not be suitable for all applications [85, pp. 68–69].

According to Envirowise [85], water-based adhesives or hot melts can be used in some applications instead of solvent-based adhesives to reduce VOC emissions. Hot melt adhesives can cause problems in the paper recycling process, however, because they break up. Because of their similar density to water and fibre, they are difficult to remove. Care should be taken to specify adhesives with a higher or lower density, which are therefore easier to remove from the pulp (such as newer ethylene–vinyl acetate (EVA) hot melts and fast drying polyurethane rubber adhesives). Water-based adhesives do not generate any VOCs but may require more energy for drying and are not suitable for all applications [85].

Henkel has developed a solvent-free lamination adhesive (polyurethane) for food packaging, which according to the company reduces emissions, energy costs and cure times [86].

Chlorine Bleaching Processes for Paper

Elemental chlorine has traditionally been used as the bleaching agent in pulp mills to produce white paper. The wastewater from these mills contains organochlorine compounds such as dioxins that are toxic in the natural environment. Chlorine dioxide is less polluting than chlorine gas and is increasingly used by paper mills. Chlorine combines with lignin (the ‘glue’ that holds the wood fibre together) to create organochlorine compounds that end up in wastewater, whereas chlorine dioxide breaks apart the lignin and creates organic compounds that are water-soluble and similar to those occurring in the natural environment [87]. Processes that have replaced all of the elemental chlorine with chlorine dioxide are referred to as elemental chlorine-free (ECF). While a significant improvement, ECF processes still generate chlorinated compounds, which make the wastewater too corrosive to recycle. The result is that effluent is treated and discharged to receiving waters [60].

There are alternatives to traditional chlorine bleaching:

  • replacing chlorine compounds with oxygen-based compounds in the first stage of the bleaching process, which allows the waste water from this stage to be reused

  • replacing all chlorine compounds in the bleaching process with oxygen-based chemicals such as ozone or hydrogen peroxide, potentially allowing all the wastewater to be reused. (In reality most mills moving to a totally chlorine free process still discharge wastewater to the receiving environment [60].)

Processes that have eliminated all chlorinated bleaching agents are referred to as totally chlorine-free (TCF). The Chlorine Free Products Association in the United States has introduced an eco-labelling scheme for TCF and processed chlorine-free (PCF) products [88]. The PCF logo can be used for recycled papers that meet minimum recycled content standards and are bleached without any chlorine compounds (see Sect. 3.5.6).

To reduce the environmental impact of bleaching processes for paper and paperboard packaging, it is necessary to:

  • use unbleached fibre where feasible, or

  • if white paper or paperboard is required, specify TCF or PCF fibre.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions are generated at every stage of the packaging life cycle: during material extraction or harvesting, manufacturing, filling, transport, use and disposal. Most of these emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, are associated with energy consumption, but methane is also generated when organic materials break down in landfill.

Many of the strategies to reduce energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions have already been discussed, including reducing the size or weight of packaging and using recycled rather than virgin materials. Emissions can also be reduced in other aspects of the business; for example by:

  • undertaking an energy audit, which will identify opportunities to reduce energy consumption in manufacturing, administration and distribution processes

  • purchasing renewable energy or ‘carbon offsets’.

Some businesses are using ‘carbon labels’ to inform consumers about the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of food and packaging (see Sect. 3.5.8). The aim of these labels is twofold: to drive efficiencies in the supply chain and to encourage consumers to purchase lower carbon products.

Ecological Stewardship

It is important to know the source of raw materials, particularly for timber products (pallets and crates) and the fibre used to manufacture paper bags, paperboard packaging and corrugated boxes. Timber and paper products from sustainably managed forests should be specified, with preference for those certified by a third party organisation such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (see Sect. 3.5.7). A number of other national schemes have been assessed and approved by the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, a non-government organisation which has its own labelling scheme for certified products. Demand from pulp and paper manufacturers for woodchips certified by the FSC is starting to drive change in forestry operations. For example, Australian suppliers of wood and woodchips faced a downturn in demand in 2009, particularly from Japanese customers who didn’t want to buy woodchips from native forests [89]. As a result, the Tasmanian state government has asked Forestry Tasmania and the largest woodchip exporter, Gunns, to seek FSC certification.

There are no certification schemes for sustainable sourcing of other packaging materials, but similar issues need to be considered during the design and procurement process:

  • How and where was the material extracted/harvested?

  • How are these impacts managed?

  • Do suppliers comply with all relevant legislation?

Similarly, it is important to understand the raw materials and processes used to manufacture biopolymers. Is the raw material grown using sustainable agriculture principles? Are biopolymers competing for food supplies and helping to drive up prices?

Litter Reduction

Design for litter reduction is important for products likely to be consumed away from home, such as single-serve beverages, sweets, snacks and salads. Structural design can assist by minimising the number of parts that break away from the main pack and are likely to end up as litter. For example, the ‘ring-pull tabs’ on aluminium drink cans used to completely detach from the can after opening. These were sharp and caused cuts when people accidently stood on the tabs. The tab was redesigned so that after lifting it is levered beneath the opening and stays attached to the can [90].

For packaging such as takeaway food packs and straws that often end up in the litter stream, the use of a biodegradable material such as paper or cartonboard is preferable. Biodegradable polymers certified to a relevant standard may reduce the impacts of litter, but there is insufficient public information available on how fast and to what the extent they break down in open environments, such as soil or the ocean, instead of a controlled composting environment. Messages on the label can also be used to encourage consumers to dispose of the packaging appropriately, in a litter or recycling bin (see Sect. 3.5.5). Table 2.18 includes strategies to prevent the incidence or impact of litter.

2.6 Selecting Materials

‘There is no such thing as a fundamentally good or bad packaging material: all materials have properties that may present advantages or disadvantages depending on the context within which they are used’ [91, p. 8].

The choice of packaging materials has a significant impact on sustainability, but it is not possible to say that a particular material should always be avoided or favoured. The impacts and benefits of a material are highly dependent on how and where it is sourced, manufactured, used and recovered.

Table 2.19 Evaluating packaging materials against the four principles of packaging sustainability
Full size table
Table 2.20 Evaluating thermoplastic polymers against the four principles of packaging sustainability
Full size table

Tables 2.19 and 2.20 show how the sustainable packaging framework can be used to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of materials for a particular application. These are generic examples only—the specific benefits will depend on the product, its packaging requirements, the supply chain, the availability of recycling facilities and so on.

A more detailed description of the life cycle impacts of common packaging materials is provided in Chap. 6.

2.7 Conclusion

Design is critical to the achievement of packaging sustainability goals. Most of the decisions that impact on sustainable development, including the choice of materials and processing methods, are made at the design stage. For this reason, life cycle thinking must be embedded in the product-packaging development and review processes to achieve better outcomes.

A framework for embedding sustainable development principles into the packaging design process has been presented in this chapter. However, implementing this framework requires a good understanding of:

  • the function of packaging components

  • the values and expectations of consumers (see Chap. 3)

  • the corporate, brand and product sustainability positioning (see Chap. 3)

  • global packaging regulations and emerging policy trends (see Chap. 4)

  • the environmental life cycle impacts of products, packaging and materials (Chaps. 5 and 6).

The selection and use of appropriate decision-making tools (Chap. 7) to embed sustainable development in product and packaging design processes should also be considered as part of the packaging for sustainability strategy.