Manuscript mr pease

1. A
call
for
an
International
definition
of
‘Environmentally
Sustainable
Industrial
Packaging’
A
proposal
presented
to
the
15th
International
Conference
on
Industrial
Packaging
in
Vancouver,
Canada
on
4th
June
2015
by Phil Pease C.Env
A
brief
history
The
term,
“sustainable
development”,
was
popularised
in
‘Our
Common
Future’,
a
report
published
by
the
World
Commission
on
Environment
and
Development
in
1987.
Also
known
as
the
Brundtland
report,
it
included
the
“classic”
definition
of
sustainable
development:
“development
which
meets
the
needs
of
the
present
without
compromising
the
ability
of
future
generations
to
meet
their
own
needs.”
Acceptance
of
the
report
by
the
United
Nations
General
Assembly
gave
the
term
political
salience;
and
in
1992
leaders
set
out
the
principles
of
sustainable
development
at
the
1992
United
Nations
Conference
on
Environment
and
Development
in
Rio
de
Janeiro,
Brazil.
From
carbon
footprint
to
community
infrastructures
and
the
many
environmental
challenges
that
businesses
face,
there
are
a
number
of
ISO
standards
that
can
help
businesses
and
organisations
all
over
the
world
make
progress
in
the
three
key
aspects
of
sustainable
development:
environment,
economy
and
society.
However,
despite
of
having
some
of
safest
and
the
most
environmentally
efficient
packaging
design-­‐types
available
on
an
international
scale,
we
have
yet
to
develop
a
standard
that
defines
‘sustainability’
for
Industrial
Packaging.
The
ISO
started
work
in
2009
to
develop
new,
international
standards
for
Packaging
&
Environment
–
encompassing
all
packaging
types,
including
both
domestic
/
retail
and
also
industrial.
These
standards,
under
ISO
18601
to
18606,
were
published
in
2014.
Whilst
these
new
ISO
Standards
provided
much
needed
clarity
on
Packaging
Optimisation,
Reuse,
Recycling
and
Recovery,
there
is
no
current
standard
to
define
“sustainable
industrial
packaging”.

2. 2
In
October
2010
members
of
the
US
Steel
Drum
Council,
asked
RIPA
and
IPANA
to
develop
a
draft
proposal
describing
the
characteristics
of
a
“sustainable”
55-­‐gallon
steel
drum.
RIPA’s
research
concluded
that
there
are
no
commonly
accepted
definitions
for
the
terms
“sustainable
packaging”
or
“packaging
sustainability.”
However
it
is
generally
agreed
that
these
terms
mean
(in
respect
to
packaging),
that
a
packaging:
(1).
is
capable
of
fulfilling
its
inherent
functions,
including
protection
of
contents,
health
and
environmental
safety,
transmittal
of
key
information
(e.g.
contents,
health
and
safety)
and
ease
of
handling;
(2).
Is
designed
to
optimise
the
use
of
materials
in
initial
construction;
(3)
is
able
to
ensure
an
environmentally
optimal
life
cycle,
including
reuse
and
recycling
(4)
can
be
recovered
and
managed
in
an
environmentally
sound
manner
at
the
end
of
its
life
cycle.
Understanding
sustainability
Since
the
Brundtland
report
and
the
Rio
Summit,
governments
and
organisations
have
taken
up
sustainable
development
as
a
desirable
goal
and
developed
metrics
for
sustainable
development,
however
practical
implementation
has
proven
difficult.
Matthews
and
Hammill
(2009:
1119)
noted
that
main
problem
since
the
Rio
Summit
has
been
“in
designing
the
move
from
theory
to
practice”.
In
June
2006,
the
European
Council
adopted
a
“Renewed
Strategy
for
Sustainable
Development”
that
said
sustainability
in
any
form
has
three
pillars;
these
being:
Planet
–
Environmental
protection
People
–
Social
equity
and
cohesion
Profit
–
Economic
prosperity
The
widespread
relevance
of
the
issues
is
evident
in
the
sustainable
development
strategies
of
106
national
governments
in
2009
(UN
General
Assembly,
2010,
p.
11).
Local
governments
have
also
responded,
with
over
6,400
local
governments
in
113
countries
involved
in
local
Agenda
21
activities
in
2001
(International
Council
for
Local
Environmental
Initiatives,
2002,
p.
4).
For
our
own
industry,
the
concept
of
sustainable
packaging
fits
these
3
pillars
very
well.

3. 3
Sustainable
packaging
protects
our
environment;
ensures
safe
containment
and
delivery
of
product,
displays
product,
safety
&
health
information,
and
is
a
key
component
of
continuing
global
economic
function.
We
are
confronted
by
many
terms
applied
to
the
protection
of
our
environment.
Even
the
term
“environmentally
friendly”
is
widely
misunderstood
–
typically
due
to
misuse
or
abuse
for
the
sake
of
political
or
corporate
promotion.
Packaging
Terminology,
linked
to
environmental
protection,
has
many
titles,
including:
Life
cycle.
Defined
in
ISO
14040
(Life
Cycle
Assessment)
as;
“consecutive
and
interlinked
stages
of
a
product
system,
from
raw
material
acquisition
or
generation
from
natural
resources
to
final
disposal.”
Carbon
footprint.
This
concept
is
generally
less
rigorous
than
life
cycle
assessment
and
focuses
only
on
emissions.
The
British
Standards
Institute
define
Carbon
Footprint
as;
“the
sum
of
all
greenhouse
gas
(GHG)
emissions
occurring
at
each
stage
of
the
product
life
cycle
and
within
the
specified
boundaries
of
the
product.”
Recycling.
More
accurately
known
as
‘Material
Recycling’
and
as
defined
in
ISO
18604:
2013
as;
“reprocessing,
by
means
of
a
manufacturing
process,
of
a
used
packaging
material
into
a
product,
a
component
incorporated
into
a
product,
or
a
secondary
(recycled)
raw
material;
excluding
energy
recovery
and
the
use
of
the
product
as
a
fuel.”
Reuse.
Defined
in
ISO
18603:
2013
Packaging
&
Environment
as:
“operation
by
which
packaging
is
refilled
or
used
or
the
same
purpose
or
which
it
was
conceived,
with
or
without
the
support
of
auxiliary
products
present
on
the
market
enabling
the
packaging
to
be
refilled.”
Reusable
Packaging
Defined
in
ISO
/
DIS
21067-­‐2
Packaging
Vocabulary
as:
“packaging
or
packaging
component
which
has
been
designed
to
accomplish
or
prove
its
ability
to
accomplish
a
minimum
number
of
trips
or
rotations
in
a
system
for
reuse.”

4. 4
Concerns:
It
is
true
that
many
companies
have
been
driven
to
evaluate
their
packaging
from
an
environmental
perspective
due
to
the
rise
in
public
environmental
concerns
and,
in-­‐turn,
Governmental
Policies
such
as
the
1994
European
Directive
on
Packaging
and
Packaging
Waste
(94/62/EC).
However,
these
regulations
are
in
many
respects
flawed,
with
most
requirements
being
based
upon
the
ability
to
recycle
rather
than
reuse.
The
public
and
governmental
demand
for
corporations
to
demonstrate
environmental
performance
has
led
to
a
number
of
measuring
‘tools’,
such
as
the
respected
“Dow
Jones
Sustainability
Index,”
established
in
1999
and
now
globally
recognised
as
a
leading
scheme
to
rank
the
environmental
performance
of
many
business
operations.
However,
whist
packaging
is
referenced
there
are
no
metrics
to
measure
the
performance
of
commercial
and
industrial
packaging
activity.
In
spite
of
the
above
(and
many
additional)
terminologies,
there
remains
no
single
economic
or
environmental
definition
of
the
term
“sustainable”
so
far
as
packaging
is
concerned.
Many
argue
that
their
products
are
“environmentally
friendly”
or
even,
more
accurately;
“environmentally
efficient”,
in
that
the
product
is
designed
to
be
lightweight
or
returnable
and
reusable,
or
even
simply
recyclable.
Some
even
argue
their
product
is
“carbon-­‐neutral”.
A
number
of
car
manufacturers,
currently
offer
to
plant
numerous
trees
to
offset
the
impact
of
their
manufacturing
process.
This
is,
at
best
a
marketing
smokescreen,
as
offsetting
the
impact
of
a
process
does
not
make
either
the
process
or
the
product
environmentally
efficient
or
sustainable.
It
remains
critically
important
that
we
continue
to
promote
and
educate
the
virtues
of
industrial
packaging
and
the
environmental
benefits
must
stand
alongside
those
of
safety
and
value
–
again
representing
the
three
pillars
of
sustainability.
However,
we
must
carry
this
out
with
consideration
of
the
wider
impact
and
long-­‐term
viability
of
our
products.
It
is
clear
that,
whilst
some
may
promote
environmental
improvement
through
lighter-­‐weight
products,
which
aid
cost
reduction
and
recycling
this
can
often
be
at
the
cost
of
optimal
use
and
reuse
and
hence
an
increased
environmental
impact.
Simply
put,
a
more
robust
packaging
design
may
have
a
slightly
increased
up-­‐front
impact
on
energy
consumption
and
cost,
but
allow
a
significantly
extended
life-­‐cycle
incorporating
much
lower
overall
energy
use,
improved
safety
margins,
less
risk
to
contained
products
and
still
remain
suitable
for
remanufacturing
or
recycling
at
the
end
of
the
primary
cycle.
The
industrial
packaging
sector
is
of
course
a
fraction
of
the
overall
packaging
market,
with
retail
packaging
taking
the
lion’s
share.
This
is
not
only
the
case
for
the
general
market,
but
also
for
market
perception,
with
many
regulators
and
legislators
understanding
“packaging”
only
so
far
as
the
day-­‐to-­‐day
domestic
products
they
buy
in
the
high
street.

5. 5
When
trying
to
explain
the,
very
different,
dynamics
of
industrial
packaging
to
a
regulator
or
enforcement
agency,
they
often
simply
do
not
understand
–
typically
thinking
‘industrial
packaging’
relates
to
commercial
packing
of
larger
household
items
such
as
kitchen
appliances.
As in Europe, the US set state goals for waste (source) reduction and recycling. Reuse was not
initially a stated option in this waste management paradigm, and was not made a part of the EPA
waste management triad until the early 1990’s. Even today, however, the US EPA views reuse as
a category of source reduction.
Additionally, as in Europe, commercial and industrial packaging has generally fallen outside the
regulatory purview of state and federal agencies, and highly efficient private recycling and reuse
systems are in place for commercial and industrial packaging.
Currently,
in
the
UK,
The
Industrial
Packaging
Association
continues
discussions
with
the
Government’s
Environment
Agency
to
achieve
a
better
definition
of
packaging
waste.
In
a
number
of
cases,
it
is
agreed
that
packaging
destined
for
reuse
stands
outside
the
title
of
‘waste’.
However,
the
UK
regulator
references
the
old
CEN
Standard
definition
of
‘reuse’
which
requires
packaging
to
be
‘designed
for
reuse’
if
it
is
not
to
be
considered
waste
after
the
first
use.
Apart
from
being
an
outdated
perception,
in
consideration
of
the
new
ISO
Packaging
&
Environment
definition,
and
contrary
to
supporting
environmental
performance,
this
does
demonstrate
the
need
to
develop
new
standards,
specific
to
industrial
packaging.
Recent
Packaging
Papers:
With
such
emphasis
on
environmental
performance,
and
sustainability,
there
are
inevitably
a
number
of
studies
on
how
packaging
performs.
However,
none
of
these
have
ever
focused
on
determining
the
environmental
performance
and
sustainability
of
industrial
packaging,
although
they
may
be
useful
when
considering
such
a
standard.
For
example;
a
paper
was
published
entitled
“The
Global
Protocol
on
Packaging
and
Sustainability”.
The
Consumer
Goods
Forum
carried
out
this
work,
although
not
specific
to
industrial
packaging,
it
did
include
participants
from
the
whole
supply
chain
and
referenced
the
CEN
and
ISO
packaging
and
environment
suite
of
standards.
This
can
be
downloaded
from:
http://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/download-­‐global-­‐protocol-­‐on-­‐packaging-­‐sustainability-­‐gpps
The
introductory
element
contains
a
useful
item
on
the
use
of
the
term
“sustainable”
and
the
issues
concerning
claims
of
achieving
sustainability.
Also,
the
British
Standards
Institute
have
developed
a
standard;
BS
8905
"Framework
for
the
assessment
of
the
sustainable
use
of
materials
–
Guidance”.
This
also
contains
useful
information
on
what
the
standard
terms
a
“sustainability
assessment”.
Of
particular
interest
for
packaging
is
the
work
of,
Richard
Inns,
who
followed
up
the
publication
of
BS
8905
with
a
report
titled
"PEC
Partnership
Ltd
case
study
–
Assessing
how
BS
8905
can
be
applied
in
the
packaging
sector”.
Once
again,
however,
this
is
significantly
weighted
toward
the
retail
packaging
sector.

6. 6
Industrial
Packaging
specifics
Industrial
packaging
has
an
enviable
record
in
meeting
the
requirements
of
the
three
pillars
of
sustainable
development
on
a
truly
global
scale.
The
safety
record
of
industrial
packaging
is
well
documented,
despite
being
subjected
to
lengthy
and
arduous
transport
conditions,
extremes
of
weather
and
temperature,
poor
handling,
impact
and
much
more.
The
economic
record
of
industrial
packaging
is
proven,
containing,
transporting
and
dispensing
a
massively
varied
range
of
products
from
sensitive
foods
and
pharmaceuticals,
to
hazardous,
dangerous
chemicals,
solids
to
liquids
serving
global
markets.
Our
environmental
record
must
therefore
be
not
only
maintained,
but
fully
promoted
and
properly
documented.
To
do
this,
we
must
of
course
ensure
that
the
published
international
standards
accurately
reflect
what
we
our
products
are
capable
of
and
ensure
a
wider
understanding
by
those
that
wish
to
use
our
packaging
or
regulate
our
activities.
The
recently
published
range
of
Packaging
&
Environment
Standards
under
ISO
18601
–
18606
involved
over
60
packaging
experts
from
across
20
countries
representing
all
packaging
types
and
materials.
Industrial
Packaging
was
represented,
although
by
only
one
or
two
experts
–
despite
which,
we
did
manage
to
gain
a
much
bigger
influence
than
the
numbers
suggest.
Industrial
packaging
is
standardized
for
use
&
reuse
across
global
markets
with
most
countries
having
excellent
take-­‐back
schemes
for
refurbishment
and
repeated
re-­‐use
–
even
for
hazardous
products
through
UN
Approval
&
Certification
schemes
operated
by
the
National
Competent
Authorities.
Where
not
directly
reusable,
many
industrial
packaging
designs
can
be
remanufactured
–
further
extending
their
life
cycle.
Typically
unheard
of
for
retail
packaging.
It
is
estimated
that
95%
or
more
of
the
steel
drums
emptied
in
the
U.S.
are
collected
and
reconditioned
for
reuse
or
cleaned
for
scrap
recycling
every
year.
It
is
proven
that
both
plastic
and
steel
drums
can
achieve
in
excess
of
6
cycles
of
use
before
being
either
remanufactured
or
recycled
back
into
more
drums.
It
is
a
fact
that
fibre
drums,
with
their
raw
material
effectively
being
a
crop,
originating
from
managed
forests,
can
not
only
be
reused,
but
also
composted
following
a
lifetime
of
product
transport
and
protection.
Industrial
Packaging
deserves
to
be
properly
recognised
for
a
long-­‐standing
role
in
support
of
the
environmental
performance
of
companies,
with
standardised
designs
working
across
established,
proven
use
and
repeated
reuse
markets
for
many
differing
products
on
a
truly
global
scale.

7. 7
Future
considerations:
Global
producers
of
packaging
and
consumer
goods
agree
that
a
positive
environmental
profile
is
now
a
marketing
requirement.
There
is
also
consensus
that
the
best
way
to
defend
against
overly
intrusive
governmental
regulations
is
to
lead
the
way
by
creating
a
set
of
global,
responsible
environmental
packaging
standards.
Corporations
now
operate
within
a
global
regulatory
system
that
imposes
varying
fees
on
producers
for
the
management
of
waste
packaging
(Europe);
imposes
limitations
on
environmental
claims
(Europe
and
the
U.S.);
and,
enforces
laws
that
define
key
terms
and
activities
differently.
In
the
UK,
the
Industrial
Packaging
Association
has
achieved
better
understanding
of
industrial
packaging’s
with
the
Environmental
Authorities,
resulting
in
a
very
significant
cost
reduction
for
movement
of
used,
empty
industrial
packaging
with
hazardous
residues,
when
sent
for
reconditioning
and
reuse.
In
Germany,
the
Industrial
Packaging
sector
has
successfully
argued
that
the
return
of
used,
emptied
industrial
packaging
for
reuse
is
not
considered
to
be
waste.
In
the
USA,
RIPA
have
reported
that
the
best
hope
for
promoting
additional
reuse
of
reusable
industrial
packagings
may
rest
with
the
development
of
the
following
initiatives:
-­‐
Creation
of
a
non-­‐profit
education
association
(e.g.
commercial
and
industrial
packaging
sustainability
alliance)
for
the
purpose
of:
i.
Working
with
relevant
federal
and
state
governmental
agencies,
as
well
as
other
non-­‐
profit
groups,
such
as
AMERIPEN
and
Friends
of
the
Earth.
ii.
Obtaining
grants
to
pursue
research
activities
(e.g.
life
cycle
analysis)
iii.
Educating
state,
federal
and
international
decision-­‐makers
about
commercial
and
industrial
packaging
issues.
-­‐
Establish
working
relationships
with
EPA
(packaging
program)
and
Council
on
Environmental
Quality
(Senior
Sustainability
Officers
in
key
agencies).
-­‐
Develop
list
of
sustainability
contacts
at
major
corporations.
-­‐
Perform
life
cycle
and
economic
models
for
sustainable
commercial
and
industrial
packaging
purchasing.
Global
companies
took
the
lead
in
the
International
Standards
Organisation
(ISO)
work
defining
environmental
packaging
terms
and
systems
for
the
world.
This
completed
set
of
global
standards
work
will
impact
all
packaging
types,
i.e.
consumer,
commercial
and
industrial.
The
Industrial
Packaging
sector
was
represented
and
worked
hard
to
ensure
existing
commercial
and
industrial
packaging
systems
will
not
be
adversely
impacted
by
these
standards.
As
an
industry
we
need
to
ensure
we
maintain
our
integral
role
in
the
development
of
the
reuse,
recycling
and
optimization
standards.

8. 8
Example
definitions
of
Sustainable
Industrial
Packaging:
RIPA definition of sustainable steel drum and plastic drum
A sustainable steel or plastic 220 L drum has the following physical attributes:
(a) Constructed in accordance with a recognized international standard (e.g. ANSI – MH 2;
JIS Z-1601; ISO 20848 – 2, etc.)
(b) Capable of withstanding the reconditioning process and accomplishing more
than one use-rotation after the initial rotation (i.e. filled and refilled) for the same purpose
for which it was produced.
(c) Designed to be capable of transporting both hazardous and non-hazardous
materials initially and in each reuse rotation.
(d) Capable of withstanding anticipated global storage and handling processes.
(e) Capable of being cleaned and safely recycled after its useful life.
Suggestions
for
other
design
types:
A sustainable fibreboard drum has the following physical attributes:
(a) Constructed in accordance with a recognised international standard
(e.g. BS EN 12710: 2006 / BS EN 14768: 2005 / EN 14053: 2003)
(b) Manufactured from natural or recycled raw materials, such as Kraft Fibre, obtained
from either managed forests, capable of being replenished without displacement of
naturally occurring hardwoods, or as recycled material from approved reprocessors.
(c) Designed to ensure optimal environmental performance as defined by ISO 18602: 2013
(d) Capable of withstanding anticipated global storage and handling processes.
(e) Capable of being cleaned and safely reused or recycled after its useful life.