This document provides an overview of sustainable packaging. It discusses how packaging has environmental impacts throughout its lifecycle from extraction of raw materials to disposal. It explores how stakeholders like government, industry and consumers are pushing for more sustainable packaging solutions. Specifically, it examines definitions of sustainable packaging, the waste problems caused by packaging, stakeholder roles in addressing sustainability, and approaches like eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness.

1. Introduction
Canadians rely on packaging for the safe delivery of a vast array of products
consumed every day: milk cartons made of corrugated paper, plastic water bottles, glass and
steel food containers, aluminum pop cans and foil wrapped take-out food.i This packaging,
however, has a useful life measured in seconds or minutes and will enter a recycling bin as
waste moments after the product is opened. The environmental impacts of packaging through
its use, disposal and recovery include the extraction of raw materials, energy and water
consumption during manufacture and transportation, and the generation of wastes and
emissions throughout its lifecycle.
Throughout the 1990s, municipal government’s efforts contributed greatly to reductions
in packaging waste and increased material recovery rates as they sought to control landfill
capacity and rising waste collection liabilities. More recently, industry, reacting to pressure
from government and consumers, has achieved further reductions in packaging material and
energy flows and has consequently reaped the financial and reputational gains associated
with sustainability efforts.ii A truly sustainable pathway, however, requires stakeholders to look
beyond the current approach of reducing or recovering packaging materials and embrace new
forms of production which improve the environmental performance of packaging and stimulate
the demand for innovative materials and technologies.
This paper takes an exploratory approach to place packaging within the context of the
sustainable development journey, and delves into the approaches necessary to move
packaging from its current position as a societal and environmental liability, to that of a
materials recovery opportunity. The paper is divided into two sections. The first section first
highlights the challenge of defining the ever evolving notion of sustainable packaging and
discusses the social and environmental drivers behind the push for sustainable packaging.
This section concludes with a survey of the stakeholders involved in pressing for greater
sustainability in packaging. The second section focuses on the future of sustainable
packaging. This discussion centers on how the transition to an undefined future of sustainable
packaging may be navigated, both in the long-term and near-term.
What is Sustainable Packaging?
Definitions of sustainability differ across nations and locales, often informed by social
consensus and varying perspectives; thus, as Kemp and Martin argue, the criteria for
sustainability cannot be scientifically determined as ‘objective knowledge’, but are instead

2. drawn from normative valuations developed through social interaction.iii Sustainable
packaging can be defined simply as that sourced from renewable materials and renewable
energy. However, this narrow definition, while useful for setting clear targets and objectives,
disregards the difficult choices and trade-offs inherent in sustainable packaging, for instance,
the potential for a non-renewable material to be more effective, use fewer resources, and last
longer than its renewable counterpart.iv Moreover, as noted by Toner and Bell, two additional
aspects must be considers in any form of production: what gets produced, and how it is
produced; products and processes respectively.v
In absolute terms, sustainable packaging is difficult to define; however, it is clear that, it
is a long-term, open ended journey that supersedes the short horizons favoured by industry
and government. It requires a framework for decision-making that considers a broad set of
factors, such as resource consumption, GHG generation, toxicity, and impacts on human
health and the environment throughout the packaging materials life cycle. Furthermore, the
energy and materials used in the extraction of raw inputs, manufacturing, transportation and
consumption, through to disposal or reuse all must be considered.vi Two progressively
sustainable approaches have been applied to packaging, eco-efficiency and eco-
effectiveness, which help to place sustainable packaging within its current context.
The idea of eco-efficiency was first linked to sustainable development in the World
Commission on Economic Development’s Bruntland Report, and later championed by the
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). It is the continued delivery of
goods and services while reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity throughout the
material life-cycle.vii Through dematerialization, the impacts of packaging production and
consumption have been minimized by reducing the thickness of packaging (down-gauging),
reducing void space, and switching to bulk or reusable packaging.viii As a result, it has been
widely accepted by business and governments alike. The focus on ‘eco-efficiency’ is
misdirected, argue McDonough and Braungart in Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we
Make Things. It is a supply-side approach which, by reducing the amount of a material used
or chemicals emitted, ensures only that natural resources and ecological capacity are
depleted less quickly; the linear take-make-waste model remains unchanged. Worse still,
argues Masterton, the applied technology approach of eco-efficiency has enabled greater
consumption by placing economic concerns over those of the environment, while
simultaneously increasing the capacity of the existing production system.ix Regardless, it is

3. generally agreed the value of eco-efficiency cannot be overlooked as a transitional strategy. It
has slowed the unintentionally depletive production and consumption system, captured the
attention of stakeholders and spurred innovate technologies and approaches for the next
phase of production.x
McDonough and Braungart, move beyond end-of-pipe solutions and consider the
recovery and reuse of materials with an innovative cradle-to-cradle approach.xi Eco-
effectiveness, a natural complement to and progression from eco-efficiency, is proactive and
promotes a production system based on substantial recovery and continuous cycling of
materials. This is achieved by ensuring material purity through one of two ‘metabolisms’
without cross-contamination: a biological metabolism, such as composting; or a technical
metabolism, such as an industrial recycling process. Based on the concept of industrial
ecology, eco-effectiveness similarly aims to transform industrial processes from the dominant
open-loop system to a cyclical, interdependent and closed-loop system where waste products
become inputs for new processes.xii Careful materials management ensures the two
components remain separate and facilitates efficient collection and reprocessing of used
materials for re-use as high value products. Effective recovery preserves the embodied value
of materials throughout their life-cycle and represents a transformational change towards
sustainable packaging.xiii
Among the many attempts to define sustainable packaging two widely accepted
examples capture the essence of the eco-effective approach. The Australian based
Sustainable Packaging Alliance (SPA) has identified four principles for packaging—‘effective’,
‘efficient’, ‘cyclic’ and ‘clean’— which highlight the idea that sustainability is a process of
continuous improvement rather than a pre-determined endpoint.xiv Similarly, the Sustainable
Packaging Coalition (SPC) broadly defines sustainable packaging as beneficial, safe and
healthy for individuals and communities. The SPC considers the material life cycle, the use of
renewable energy as the material undergoes various transformations, and the use of
renewable or recycled source materials. Most importantly, this definition seeks to ensure
materials used for packaging are healthy in all probable end of life scenarios and that these
materials can be effectively recovered and utilized in biological and/or industrial cradle-to-
cradle cycles.xv In doing so, the adverse impacts generated by the existing unsustainable
packaging cycle explored in the following section can be mitigated.

4. The Waste Dilemma
Each resident of Ontario throws away nearly a tonne of solid waste annually, of which
packaging makes up approximately 25 per cent by weight.xvi Despite significant steps in the
1990s to reduce packaging waste and increase recycling efforts, waste levels in Canada have
continued to rise.xvii A range of social, demographic and economic trends threaten to
exacerbate growing waste levels; population growth, shifting employment and lifestyle
patterns, and technology advancements are driving an increase in demand for highly
packaged items, such as convenience and takeaway meals.xviii This waste, and the embodied
energy of packaging materials, carries an enormous ecological footprint; sustaining the global
population at the consumption levels of the average Canadian would require four additional
planets of similar size and wealth as our own.xix Human activity is altering ecosystems more
rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time and packaging, as a subset of
the larger industrial system, contributes to this undue stress on the ecological capacity of the
planet.xx
Disposing of packaging waste has become a significant burden for local governments,
exceeding $2.6 billion in 2010.xxi Nonetheless, packaging material continues to be destined
for landfills, a less expensive option than diversion programs, even as viable and sustainable
waste disposal options become increasingly rare.xxii Packaging waste also contributes to the
leaching of inorganic matter and heavy metals into ground and surface water, as well as the
estimated 27 megatonnes of CO2e and 20 per cent of national methane emissions generated
by landfills.xxiii
A common alternative for disposing of packaging, particularly plastics, is incineration
with energy recovery, otherwise referred to as “waste-to-energy”. At least a dozen Canadian
municipalities and regions are currently considering this option.xxiv Although at this time only 3
per cent of municipal solid waste disposal is incinerated, it continues to be perceived to be as
a beneficial method of disposal. Incineration, however, merely transforms solid waste into
ash, gases, heavy metals and toxic compounds while wasting the energy embodied in the
package.xxv
Recycling has proven beneficial in mitigating the environmental impacts of solid waste;
however, there are physical limits to recycling. Most of it is “down-cycled” into lesser-grade
materials which, after several cycles, becomes degraded and loses its value. Valuable sub-
materials such as copper, manganese and chromium, as well as paints and chemicals are

5. also lost as they are melted down or chemically stripped by introducing new toxins, resulting
in a paradoxical environmental process.xxvi
New developments in the composition of packaging materials are also contributing
greater complexity to packaging waste disposal. The mix of chemical compounds which
increasingly make up various packaging types, referred to as ‘monstrous hybrids’ by
McDonough and Braungart, combine both technical and biological nutrients. As a result,
valuable technical nutrients are rendered unrecoverable, and life-giving biological nutrients
are lost to landfills.xxvii The use of biodegradable, compostable, or hybrid plastic packaging
has also become more common in recent years. Offered as ‘green’ alternatives these well-
intended materials appear similar to other plastics; nevertheless, their inclusion in recycling
negatively impacts the market value of the recycled material by contaminating existing
material streams.xxviii At the same time, they are rejected by composting operators and,
because of the difficulty in distinguishing compostable from non-compostable plastics, are
sent to landfills where they contribute to GHG emissions.xxix A new approach taken by Coca-
Cola with the introduction of the PlantBottleTM, a recyclable type 1 PET, holds promise that
non-oil based materials can exist in a closed-loop material recovery system. The innovative
bottle is chemically similar to hydrocarbon based products and as a result is fully recyclable
within existing infrastructure.xxx
Bottled water, a visible symbol of waste, offers some insight into the resources
consumed and GHG emissions generated throughout the package lifecycle. In 2006
Americans bought 31.2 billion litres of bottled water. According to the Pacific Institute, the PET
plastic used for bottling the product consumed more than 17 million barrels of oil, not
including the energy for transportation, embodied three times more water than it contained,
and generated more than 2.5 million tons of CO2.xxxi Although an aggregate measurement of
the energy and GHG emissions embodied in packaging is beyond the scope of this paper it
certainly merits future consideration.
The opportunity costs of diversion and other efforts extract greater value from post-
consumer waste is often overlooked. These actions divert resources from preventative waste
reduction activities as resources are allocated to build recycling infrastructure, capacity, and
public support.xxxii Simply put, end-of-pipe approaches applied to mounting waste issues are,

6. indeed, an unsustainable liability.
Stakeholder Roles
Converging interests are driving momentum for a more sustainable model of
packaging. Three primary actors are involved: government, seeking to fulfill sustainable
production and consumption objectives, increasingly recognizes reducing packaging waste
can improve resource efficiency and reduce pressure on landfills; motivated by eco-efficiency
savings and under pressure by consumers and retailers, industry is focusing on sustainability
throughout their supply chain; and, consumers are reacting to increased media focus and a
growing societal and environmental consciousness and demanding sustainable packaging.xxxiii
The following section highlights the roles each of the three major parties - government,
industry, and civil society – have played in advancing the sustainability performance of
packaging.
Government
In Canada, solid waste management falls under the shared jurisdiction of
provincial/territorial and municipal governments. Each province maintains the jurisdiction to
create and enforce waste management related legislation while individual municipalities are
responsible for waste collection and recycling programs.xxxiv Despite the lack of a federal
mandate to oversee a national waste strategy progress towards sustainable packaging has
been made, albeit with wide variations among provincial approaches. The Canadian Council
for Ministers of the Environment (CCME) first introduced the successful National Packaging
Protocol (NaPP) in 1990. The voluntary agreement, developed collaboratively with industry,
surpassed its goal of halving packaging waste from 1988 levels four years ahead of schedule,
in 1996.xxxv The CCME then endorsed an innovative set of principles for packaging
stewardship which declared consumers, industry and governments mutual interests in
reducing packaging waste. Although aspirational and lacking a firm commitment, the
declaration was an important shift that introduced Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in
Canada.
Based on the concept of product stewardship, a policy that ensures shared
responsibility for reducing the health and environmental impacts of a product, EPR was finally
realized in the 2009 Canada-wide Action Plan on Extended Producer Responsibility and A
Sustainable Packaging Strategy.xxxvi The CCME defines EPR as “an environmental policy

7. approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer
stage of its life cycle.”xxxvii EPR, theoretically, will result in innovative packaging materials
practices, such as dematerialization, the elimination of toxics, and the re-use of products and
packaging, as it enforces the polluter-pays principle and returns the financial burden of
material recovery to the packaging industry.xxxviii
Individually, many provinces have introduced some form of EPR, often similar to Ontario’s
highly successful system of deposit refunds for beer bottles which has close to a 99 per cent
return rate for its bottles, which are then reused up to 20 times. Ontario, Quebec and British
Columbia all have some form of EPR. These include: municipal recycling programs for retail
packaging material that are co-funded industry, legislated EPR requiring industry’s full
responsibility for selected products, and mandated diversion rates for regional government.
Nova Scotia, in a unique approach, has legislated an outright disposal ban on beverage
containers, corrugated cardboard and steel/tin/glass food containers in landfills. xxxix
Most developed countries have seen recycling rates for packaged goods climb steadily
since the introduction of recycling in the 1960s, reaching a plateau more recently at which
one-third to one-half of all packaging consumed is not recycled. Moreover, recycling rates, for
example those set by Waste Diversion Ontario, are not established on an escalating scale nor
are they mandated to reduce or phase out hazardous materials in packaging.xl Although there
are numerous flaws in most jurisdictions recycling programs there is promise for moving the
sustainable packaging agenda forward. Leveraging existing infrastructure and consumer
participation alongside increased diversion rates, well designed EPR, and packaging take-
back programs offers promise for the effective recovery of packaging material to be reused
within a closed-loop production system.
All levels of government in Canada appear reluctant to go beyond ‘soft’ policy and
apply a regulatory approach to packaging waste, instead pursuing a supporting role by
recognizing and supporting leading packaging initiatives. This role of facilitator suits Pal’s
notion that government should ‘steer not row’xli by coordinating with other levels of
governments, supporting organizations and by investing in educating consumers.
Industry
Generally speaking, there has been a proliferation of corporate leadership initiatives on
improving packaging performance driven by two factors. First are ‘push factors,’ shifting

8. societal or political expectations, and potential benefits realized in terms of risk management
and innovation. The second are ‘pull factors,’ the potential for internal improvements: reduced
energy, waste, and material cost, as well as demand for superior packaging by consumers
and investors.xlii Moreover, sustainable packaging initiatives reduce the effort associated with
regulatory compliance, as pollution and emissions are reduced and hazardous materials
eliminated from processes. Corporate Social Responsibility objectives also benefit through
supply chain management and new opportunities to engage in dialogue with proponents and
critics alike.xliii Regardless of the motivating forces, industry enthusiastically supports
sustainable packaging; year after year the Packaging Digest/SPC industry survey finds three-
quarters of respondents believe their organization is emphasizing sustainable packaging;xliv
The ability to communicate packaging achievements is driving a growing interest in the
development of design guidelines and life cycle analysis tools by private companies,
governments and multi-stakeholder collaborations.xlv Properly used, life cycle assessment
(LCA) tools and supplier sustainability assessments, or scorecards, provide a data driven
analysis of the overall performance of packaging. This approach avoids 'burden shifting' by
quantifying all material requirements and environmental impacts associated with the
packaging system.xlvi
The scorecard approach enables quantitative assessments which are more easily
expressed and clearly illustrate progress over time, and overcomes criticisms that a limiting
element for sustainable industrial process has been the absence of sustainability metrics.xlvii
Wal-Mart’s Packaging Scorecard, for example, evaluates the sustainability of product
packaging used by suppliers based on factors such as product-to-packaging ratio, the amount
of renewable energy used to manufacture the packaging and the recovery value of the raw
materials. Critically, Wal-Mart also helps suppliers understand how packaging sustainability
can be improved.xlviii
Retailers, representing over $900 billion in purchasing power, are also shaping
sustainable packaging decisions. Stalwarts, such as Amazon, Costco and CVS, are among
the leading retailers tackling sustainable packaging, with approaches ranging from eliminating
clamshell packaging at the retail level, to eliminating excess shrink wrap at the manufacturing
level. Retailers are embracing the opportunity to push for greater sustainability throughout the
supply chain by acting as the ‘pivot point’ between suppliers and consumers.xlix Most notable

9. is the Wal-mart Supplier Assessment of 2009, intended to integrate sustainability into the core
business, bring transparency to the supply chain, drive product innovation and help
consumers make sustainable choices.l Private labels, such as Joe Fresh and President’s
Choice, also encourage suppliers to comply with restricted substances list and design
requirements for packaging, leveraging the $90 billion dollars in business they bring to
retailers.li
Consumers and Civil Society
Proactive retailers and consumer goods companies continue to capture the growing
environmental conscience of consumers through improved packaging. However, lack of
consumer pull is an oft cited reason for the lack of sustainable packaging designs.lii Retailers
and brand owners continue to find that although a dedicated segment of consumer’s base
purchasing decisions on package and label information, the persistent lack of impartial
information and lack of clarity regarding what makes a package sustainable frustrates
consumer decision-making.liii Furthermore, consumers often make subjective decisions based
on primary product packaging on store shelves, rather than secondary and tertiary packaging,
used for grouping and transporting products, further undermining industries sustainable
packaging efforts.liv Sustainability oriented organizations must make consumers aware of their
efforts; consumers can then reward those companies and avoid what Windolph identifies as a
‘market for lemons’.lv
Sustainable packaging initiatives reflect the composition of the packaging sector as a
whole and thus require a focus beyond regional and national markets; managing complex,
transnational supply chains, and materials management and impacts of disposal (including
export markets for recycled material), require concerted global action. A number of common
elements, however, are shared among sustainable packaging approaches, including:
development of tools or guidelines using a multi-stakeholder, consensus-driven approach, a
life cycle perspective applied to package materials, and inclusion of key performance
parameters to measure achievements.lvi Appendix A provides a brief overview of the many
ongoing packaging initiatives and illustrates the wide range of actors and approaches.

10. Overview
As Dunphy et al. describe, there are six stages in the evolution and engagement of
stakeholders in sustainable development. These stages include:
 Rejection: potential constraints on corporate activities are actively opposed;
 Non-responsive: business is unaware or ignorant of environmental consequences;
 Compliance: reaction to environmental issues based on regulatory/social expectations,
 Efficiency: reducing cost and increasing efficiency are emphasized;
 Strategic pro-activity: sustainability viewed as potential for competitive advantage; and,
 The sustaining corporation: Sustainability integrated into the core values and practices
Packaging, as the previous section has demonstrated, has moved beyond the first three
stages. A growing awareness of ecological pressures combined with eco-efficiency derived
savings has led to dematerialization of the linear production model and a nascent material
recovery system; however, to continue this trajectory entails a number of challenges.lvii The
following section will discuss the long-term implications of this transition to a system of
sustainable production, as well as near-term steps to advance the journey of sustainable
packaging.
Continuing the Sustainable Packaging Journey
The 1987 World Commission on the Environment and Development, Our Common
Future, declared, “sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a
process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the
orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with
future as well as present needs.”lviii Indeed, since the Bruntland Report first called for a
fundamental change to our production and consumption systems the sustainable packaging
journey has steadily progressed. Introduction of the 3R’s – Reduce, Reuse, Recycle – marked
the first effort to stem the growing concern of post-consumer waste and recover valuable
resources. Next, industry-led eco-efficiency helped dematerialize production and introduced
the lifecycle approach to packaging. Packaging systems have now reached a point of ‘doing
less bad' and getting greater value from fewer materials.
Packaging is a highly visible component in distribution, retail and consumption through
a variety of levels and actors and, thus, needs to be considered within the larger system of

11. production and consumption. The scope and scale of change, however, is unprecedented. In
order to cope with the enormity of change required and avoid paralysis of indecision the
journey must progress along two tracks. These tracks are explored in this section, the long-
term, guided by a vision of a sustainable future, and the near-term, in which current
operational challenges must be addressed. This section discusses the theoretical and
operational challenges facing the next stages of this journey.
Navigating a Paradigm Shift
Toner and Bell define sustainable production as, “an industrial system that would
maximize resource efficiency, minimize environmental impacts, and replenish natural
capital.”lix Realizing this objective, however, requires a dramatic shift in the way humans
interact with the environment and life-supporting systems of the planet. Balancing society’s
productive capacity with life sustaining ecosystem services requires society’s values,
institutions, actions and governance systems reconnect with the dynamics of the biosphere.
Hawkens et al. identified the values critical to a production system aware of the
interdependence of economic and natural capital in Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next
Industrial Revolution. They include:
 extracting maximum value out of fewer resources through radical resource productivity;
 imitating nature through bio-mimicry and eliminating the idea of waste;
 seeking new relationships between producers and consumers; and,
 a re-investment in natural capacity.lx
From today’s perspective achieving such a radical transformational in values is nearly
inconceivable; however, sustainable production is not an end point to which a single radical
societal leap is required. Instead, it is a pragmatic and goal-oriented journey of incremental
change advanced and guided by an awareness of the key linkages between natural world and
social processes.lxi This extensive journey is expected to be unpredictable, challenged and
fluctuate in momentum. Moreover, the processes of societal change exist within the untidy
reality of multiple self-interested actors operating on different levels and with diverging time
scales; the result is great uncertainty.
When applied to sustainable packaging or production, the concept of ‘transition
management’ offers a useful approach which may guide the long-term, incremental
adaptation of the myriad of systems, approaches and frameworks which exist today.
Recognizing the futility in attempting top-down control of various actors or societal problems,

12. such as municipal waste management or hyper-consumption, the approach aims to adjust,
adapt and influence existing processes which can contribute to the end goal of sustainable
production.lxii
As Loorbach describes, the basic idea behind transition management is to influence the
speed and direction of large-scale social change, such as sustainable production, based on
the concepts of social transitions and sustainable development.lxiii The collaborative approach
adopts a long-term perspective, 25 years or more, as a framework for short-term actions, and
retains flexibility to remain resilient and adaptable to unanticipated change. Furthermore,
social learning and support for innovative approaches are critical to encouraging stakeholders
to actively participate in shaping society’s vision of sustainability.lxiv This approach is well-
suited to the existing packaging landscape, comprised of entrenched material recovery
infrastructure on the one hand, and innovative designers rapidly introducing new materials to
the market on the other. This perspective holds that policy should be less concerned with
short-term outcomes and more concerned with long-term outcomes. Ultimately the objective
is a safe, healthy closed-loop production system. Thus, while they must still contribute to
sustainable packaging the various approaches government, industry and, by extension,
consumers employ are secondary.
A Challenge to Stakeholders
Managing the long-term processes required to redefine the existing production model is
beyond both the scope and capacity of either government or market forces. Achieving a new
paradigm of sustainable packaging requires effective leadership able to re-conceptualize
issues, generate ideas and solutions, and bring together various sectors and levels of
governance.lxv The journey opens exciting new opportunities for a diverse collection of actors
and institutions: government, markets, innovators in policy, business, science, and NGOs,
and, of course, consumers to contribute and participate. Meadowcroft identifies several
techniques each of these actors may employ in their sustainability journey, regardless of their
pace or objectives. These include:
 exploring alternative trajectories, and encouraging innovation through current policy
informed by long-term objectives;
 challenging and transforming the status quo where unsustainable practices are deeply
embedded;
 participating in active, practical and productive dialogue with actors who share a
common interest in sustainable practices; and,

13.  participating in pragmatic risk taking in a ‘learning-by-doing’ approach.lxvi
Guiding the overarching vision and mobilizing society to orient change in desired
directions is the duty of governments at all levels. In the words of Toner and Bell, “government
can and must play a number of different roles in helping ‘bend the curve’ toward
sustainability.”lxvii Furthermore, government is uniquely positioned to advance sustainable
production through strategic experiments and programmes, making material recovery a new
social norm -mandatory, convenient and financially attractive - and ensure policy better
reflects the costs of production and resource recovery. This challenge requires leaders to look
beyond the horizon of the election cycle and thus may prove to be a perpetual issue within the
existing system.
Industry too, has an obligation to lead. McDonough and Braungart write, “Inspired
business leaders together possess the collective power to reverse our environmental woes in
a way governments cannot.”lxviii Companies can demonstrate their commitment tr sustainable
packaging, enhancing prosperity on numerous levels, working towards social equity, and
steadfastly pursuing environmental health. Moreover, companies can do so regardless of their
sector in the knowledge that engaging in transformational change of closed loop production
benefits the bottom line. Sustainable packaging can only succeed when it sustains ecological
and social revenue, as well as economic revenue.lxix
Opportunity Abounds
Developing a system of production which mimics nature’s highly effective cradle-to-
cradle system of nutrient flow and metabolism, effectively maximizes resource potential and
recovery, and invests in natural capital is a daunting task. This ideal is fundamentally different
from our present state and, therefore, inherently risky as a result of the scale of change and
uncertainty of success. The complexity is exacerbated by potential capture by special interest
groups, inadequate institutions, path dependence, and the need for collective vision for the
future and tradeoffs among segments of society and across generations.lxx These many
challenges, however, underline the importance of maintaining a diversity of options, and
enhancing social learning to facilitate adaptation to changing conditions. Moreover, a pro-
active, dynamic approach offers the opportunity to shape future conditions, rather than have
them dictated to us.

14. The challenges should be viewed as an opportunity to reinvigorate the original 3R’s,
the beginning of the journey to reduce the harmful chemicals, material and energy waste of
the current production system, to re-use materials in innovative cyclical approaches which
maintain technical nutrients, and to recycle biological nutrients by returning them to add value
to the environment. As McDonough and Braungart imagine, the sustainability journey is an
opportunity for the celebration of life, bringing together a broad collective of innovators in
policy, business, science, and civil society to define an alternative vision of the future based
on the potential to delight in safe, healthy abundance.lxxi
Actions for Today
There is no single approach to sustainable packaging or production; various
implementations are informed by available resources, cultural and social perspectives.
Diversity, rather than being a detriment, should be viewed positively as it encourages
learning-by-doing through multiple approaches from which best practices are gleaned. It is
futile to suggest a narrow policy approach that may, or may not, apply to the various
approaches operating within the vision of sustainability; however, several operational barriers
exist in the current packaging and overarching production landscape which are common to
many markets. The following section explores these challenges and measures already
underway to address them.
A Common Understanding
The concept of sustainability constantly evolves with new information and social
values. A common language, however, is required to define and progress toward a shared
objective. First and foremost, government, industry, and consumers alike require a common
understanding of the flow of packaging through the material lifecycle and a clear and
consistent packaging language. Clear communication is critical to define a common objective
and strategic vision that can overcome the fragmented approach to packaging materials and
recovery that currently exists.lxxii
A number of the organizations discussed thus far are seeking to overcome the lack of a
firm definition as a barrier to progress. The Consumer Goods Forum has initiated the Global
Packaging Project, comprised of transnational members representing all sectors. The
framework relies on 52 “sustainability indicators” such as packaging volume, recycled content,
recyclability, carbon footprint, and resource consumption as the basis for a common language

15. to enable informed discussion.lxxiii The group has engaged in a pilot project intended to
influence the speed and direction of large-scale changes towards the sustainable packaging
future the industry envisions. It includes leading businesses such as Procter & Gamble,
PepsiCo., SC Johnson, Nestlé’s and more. The project is intended to prove the applicability
and value of a common language to shape discussion and create visions of a better world
together through improved sustainability performance.lxxiv Although efforts are directed at a
common language, diversity of applied approaches to sustainability is encouraged. This
aspect is critical, as noted by Kemp and Marten, sustainability requires diversity in technology,
institutions, and ways of thinking and should be encouraged as a benefit to accommodating
the preferences of local circumstances.lxxv
Dialogue intended to find a common objective and language also has the potential to
spur innovation, a key component driving the transition. Frey argues collaborative discourse is
likely to positively influence the perspectives of design professionals and foster systems
thinking. The result is improved chances for innovation and implementation of sustainable
practices at all levels.lxxvi Indeed, ideas regarding the sustainability journey are intended to be
positive and anticipatory. The process of defining what comprises healthy, safe packaging
which has a net positive value on the environment will undoubtedly cascade over to other
components of the production and consumption system.lxxvii
Viable Material Recovery Markets
Neither the current production system nor waste management systems are designed
for efficient material recovery and, thus, ignore the compelling value of closed-loop material
flows.lxxviii Moreover, the preference for local responsibility of waste management has resulted
in an uncoordinated patchwork of practices. Each municipality applies varying approaches to
what materials are collected and made available to secondary markets and re-processors.
Conversely, an effective material recovery system needs to be coordinated beyond the local
or regional level to cost-effectively capture and re-sell valuable materials necessary to support
an end market for recovered material. Without this consistent supply of material,
manufacturers will not include these materials in their packaging processes and innovations
based on recycled material cannot develop, thus a vicious cycle results.lxxix The cost
implications of material recovery must also be considered. New materials require the recovery
system to be flexible in the collection, sorting, and reprocessing infrastructure, however, these
costs must be weighed equally against disposal costs for end-of life infrastructure such as

16. landfills and waste-to-energy incinerators, including externalities.
In addition to EPR approaches discussed previously, the EU Waste Framework
Directive, and the American Environmental Protection Agency, have both attempted to
coordinate the recovered materials market using an aggregate approach. Both employ a
harmonized policy approach based on the waste hierarchy, tailored to a jurisdiction’s
preference for disposal options, end-of-life options and priority in materials to be diverted from
landfills. Jurisdictions can apply an outright ban on specific materials, such as aluminum cans,
plastic bottles, or as in the case of Wisconsin ban outright the most common packaging
materials from landfills.lxxx Although blunt, this approach has the effect of forcing innovative
design and recovery methods.
Canadian governments at all levels have also contributed to the development of
secondary markets through ‘green procurement’ policies; this approach contributes to the
organizations efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of their supply chains.lxxxi Although
the federal government developed a Policy on Green Procurement in 2006 such initiatives
have been led by municipal governments. The potential impact on recovered material markets
is substantial given that the combined buying power of Ontario municipalities alone is more
than 30 billion dollars.lxxxii
Although all levels of government in Canada have introduced limited fiscal measures to
promote sustainable development, deposit-refund schemes for bottles and municipal waste
disposal charges for example, ecological fiscal reform has been slow to gather strength in
Canada.lxxxiii Signaling support for sustainable production through the federal fiscal regime
would clearly enforce the polluter-pays principle and counter the current trend of few fiscal
mechanisms in place to deter unsustainable packaging products from entering the market in
the first place. Governments can most effectively influence closed-loop materials flows by
eliminating economic incentives and regulatory frameworks which facilitate the take-make-
waste production model applied to packaging through low-cost electricity, infrastructure, and a
tax system which favours resource extraction. Demanding the cost packaging represent the
true costs associated with resource extraction, and associated externalities, will spur
innovative packaging and materials with re-use in mind.lxxxiv
Education and awareness
Sales of sustainable products and packages and state-of-the-art recycling
infrastructure will fail to increase material recovery without public support and participation.

17. Clearly communicating the value of packaging materials through public education is critical to
the success of material recovery systems. Consumers want to recycle, buy sustainably
packaged products and reduce the amount of waste they generate. Demonstrating innovative
recycling programs and technologies, how different types of recovery programs work, and the
value of recovered packaging materials motivates consumers to do so.lxxxv Various
stakeholders working in concert can effectively develop and distribute information and
educational materials to the public, municipalities, and the business community.
On-package labels inform consumers of disposal options; however, North American efforts
are lagging. The numerous packaging recovery labels in use are confusing, inconsistent
across material types, and regularly applied to only certain packaging materials or package
components. For example, the popular Mobius loop used to identify a material’s recyclability
is highly recognizable; however, this symbol can be misleading. Although all seven variations
of plastic are technically recyclable only #1 and #2 are accepted in most Canadian recycling
programs.lxxxvi Recycling labels, at a minimum, should guide consumers recycling efforts and
are best when coordinated among jurisdictions, such as the multinational EU Waste Directive.
Education and awareness programs are not only for consumers. Educational programs
can include guidelines, such as the SPC’s Design Guidelines for Sustainable Packaging,
sector based educational materials highlighting best practices, online resources, and
educational resources such as the Wal-mart ‘Sustainable Packaging’ Tradeshow. Recognition
programs can also provide models of best practices for other producers, provide incentives
for producers to improve their packaging systems, and highlight sustainability leaders to
customers. Recognition programs can include award programs, such as the Packaging
Association of Canada’s ‘Sustainable Packaging Leadership Awards’, which highlight
innovative new packaging design or ‘Top Runner’ programs, which highlight the most
sustainable packaging solutions.lxxxvii
Education is identified by Frey as a critical component to changing the product design
mentality towards sustainability as this phase influences 80 per cent of both the economic and
environmental costs of the product.lxxxviii Investing in the quality of designer ‘mindware’ is an
irreversible trend and holds the potential to stimulate innovation over the careers of product
design professionals. When combined with the creation of diverse, multi-disciplinary networks

18. professionals’ can enhance their knowledge of sustainability and extend their range of
influence. Investments in education should also extend to the institution, contends Frey. By
resolving their own internal sustainable production issues institutions can tap the ‘hidden
curriculum’, sharing the practical application of sustainable production techniques and
processes with students along the way.lxxxix
Closing Thoughts
Sustainable packaging is neither a roadmap nor an end point; rather, it is a path for a
new model of sustainable production and consumption. Challenges such as material
selection, predicting end of life scenarios, and understanding complex transnational supply
chains are shared amongst all stakeholders. All three levels of government—federal,
provincial and municipal—and all sectors of society must prioritize strategies, translate
strategy into action, and invest in programs strategically to take advantage of opportunities for
change on supply and demand side; Smart choices in priorities, policies and investments
which define a common language, support viable markets for recovered materials, and
ensure materials are handled appropriately can advance the sustainable packaging agenda.
Forward-thinking policy guidance from government (local, provincial, national, or regional),
industry leadership, and consumer buy-in can can encourage holistic design and close gaps
in existing recovery systems and ensure both packaging and products add value to
consumers and the environment alike.
Sustainable packaging is an opportunity to showcase a production system that is
regenerative, instead of depletive. Stakeholders, recognizing the cost of externalities
associated with the packaging life-cycle, have already advanced the sustainable packaging
agenda through product stewardship and efficiency programs. To become truly sustainable,
new processes and alternative technologies must be implemented which reduce or eliminate
packaging waste by maximizing the use of renewable resources through material recovery
and contribute positive value to the biological cycle.
In the context of packaging, this paper has outlined ways in which the existing system
is trapped in an undesirable state of linear resource consumption and end-of-life waste versus
the fundamentally different and mutually beneficial alternative of sustainable production. The
transformation towards sustainable models of production and consumption can be achieved
through adapting and shaping existing systems in the short-term, guided by a shared vision of
an overarching objective. The journey ahead is long and holds many challenges; these

19. challenges, however, are not insurmountable. Modern society has the opportunity to apply an
unprecedented level of knowledge and resources with which to achieve the sustainable future
desired.

20. Appendix
Appendix A: Overview of Packaging Initiatives
Initiative Origin & Membership Purpose
The Sustainable
Packaging Coalition
(SPC)
A project of GreenBlue with 100
organizations ranging from small
businesses to large corporations
An industry group intended to advocate and
communicate a positive, robust environmental vision
for packaging and support innovative, functional
packaging through supply chain collaboration
WRAP - UK’s Waste &
Resources Action
Programme (WRAP)
Backed the UK government and
Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland.
WRAP develops programs to support legislated
targets. WRAP seeks voluntary engagement with
retailers, brand owners and their supply chain
Courtauld Commitment 24 major retailers, brands and
suppliers in the UK including
Tesco, and Marks & Spencer.
Leading organizations joining together to identify
collaborative approaches towards reducing the
amount of packaging waste and carbon intensity.
EUROPEAN DIR.
94/62/EC ON
PACKAGING &
PACKAGING WASTE
EC Environment Directorate-
General (DG) new environmental
legislation to be put into practice in
the EU Member States.
Adopted in to harmonize national measures in order
to prevent or reduce the impact of packaging and
packaging waste.
SC Johnson
Greenlist™
SC Johnson will license the
approach royalty free.
A raw material rating system to transform the way
the company measures, tracks and improve
packaging and reduce its environmental burden.
INCPEN UK Packaging
Federation, the Food &
Drink Federation, the
British Retail
Consortium and the
Industry Council for
Packaging & the
Environment
Endorsed by the UK Government
Members include: 85% of UK
packaging chain companies,
Gillette, Unilever, Duracell, Coca
Cola, Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Tetra
Pak
Produced the first edition of Responsible Packaging
Code of Practice in 1998. The 7-point Code was
designed to help manufacturers improve their
packaging at the design stage by addressing
environmental concerns, consumer needs, and
functional considerations.
Wal-Mart Sustainable
Packaging Value
Network
200 representatives from the
global packaging industry, includes
representatives from government,
NGOs, academia and industry
The packaging network set a goal to reduce
packaging in the Wal-Mart supply chain by 5% by
2013. Reaching that goal would prevent 660,000
tons of CO2 and save $3.4 bn.
Sustainable Packaging
Alliance
Early adopters of Sustainable
Packaging
SPA launched PIQET, a life cycle assessment (LCA)
based tool used by packaging technologists by
brand owners in Australia
The Consumer Goods
Forum
650 global retailers, mftrs, service
providers and other stakeholders.
The Global Packaging Project (GPP) aims to
provide a common language to enable intelligent
and informed discussion between businesses on
sustainable packaging.
The International
Standards Organization
(ISO)
(ISO 18602 and ISO
18604)
26 countries developed six
standards aligned with the
European CEN standards to
promote responsible packaging
development.
Volunteer agreement that seeks to harmonize
localized approaches to minimizing the
environmental impact of packaging by offering
packaging suppliers, brand owners, and retailers a
common set of requirements for compliance.
i

21. CCME, (2009). A Canada-Wide Strategy for Sustainable Packaging. Canadian Council of Environment
Ministers. Accessed July, 1st
2013.
ii CCME, (2009);
iii Kemp, R. and Martens, P. (2007). Sustainable development: how to manage something that is
subjective and never can be achieved? Sustainability: Science, Practice, Policy. Vol. 3, Issue 2.
iv Kemp & Marten, 2007.
v Bell, D., and Toner, G. (2006). “New century ideas and sustainable production.” In Glen Toner (ed.), Sustainable
production: Building Canadian capacity. (Vancouver: UBC Press).
vi CCME, (2009).
vii FiveWinds International. Eco-effiiency learning module. World Business Council for Sustainable
Development
viii McDonough & Braungart, 2002.
ix Masterton, B. (2006). “From eco-efficiency to eco-effectiveness: Private sector practices for sustainable
production,” in Glen Toner (ed.), Sustainable production: Building Canadian capacity. (Vancouver: UBC Press)
x MacBride, Samantha, (2011). Urban and industrial environments: Recycling reconsidered : The present
failure and future promise of environmental action in the United States. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.; Masterton,
2006; McDonough W., and Braungart, M. (2012). Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability-Designing for Abundance.
North Point Press, New York.
xi McDonough & Braungart, 2002.
xii Conference Board of Canada (2013) Municipal Waste Generation, Retrieved
from http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/environment/municipal-waste-generation.aspx
xiii Lee, Marc, Legg, Ruth, Maxwell, Sue., Rees, William. (2013). Closing the Loop: Reducing Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Creating Green Jobs through Zero Waste in BC. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Vancouver, BC.
xiv Sustainable Packaging Alliance. (2010). Principles, strategies & kpi’s for packaging sustainability.
Collaborative development of SPA, RMIT University, Helen Lewis Research, Birubi Innovation and Victoria
University
xv Sustainable Packaging Coalition, 2011
xvi Ibid.
xvii Ministry of the Environment. (2004). Ontario’s 60% Waste Diversion Goal – A Discussion Paper. (2004).
Lee et al. cite comparable American trends show packaging waste as a percentage of total municipal solid waste
(MSW) rising from 34% of MSW in 1960 to 40% in 2008
xviii Sustainable Packaging Alliance, 2011.
xix Wilson J, Anielski M. Ecological footprints of Canadian municipalities and regions. The Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, !http://www.fcm.ca/english/communications/eco.pdfO; 2004 [accessed October 1,
2004].
xx Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005); Cambridge University Press; UNEP. (2011). Keeping track
of our changing environment. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi
xxi Conference Board of Canada, 2010; Statistics Canada, (2008). Waste management industry survey:
Business and government sectors.
xxii Conference Board of Canada, 2013.
xxiii Environment Canada. (2013). Municipal solid waste and greenhouse gases. Government of Canada.
Retrieved from: http://www.ec.gc.ca/gdd-mw/default.asp?lang=En&n=6F92E701-1;
xxiv Nelson, J. (2010). Waste-to-energy incineration is both noxious and expensive. Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives.
xxv Lee et al. , 2012.
xxvi McDonough & Braungart, 2002.
xxvii McDonough & Braungart, 2012.
xxviii NYC Department of Sanitation: Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling. (2010). Bioplastics
Retrieved from: nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/resources/plastics_bio.shtml
xxix CCME. (1996). Extended producer responsibility and stewardship: packaging stewardship principles.
Environment Canada/Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
xxx Irving, T. (2013). The many faces of bioplastic: The world of eco-friendly, recyclable plastics is more
complex than it appear on its slick, shiny surface. Chemical Institute of Canada Magazine, July/August 2013.
xxxi Pacific Institute: (2006). Bottled water and energy fact sheet. Retrieved from:

22. http://www.pacinst.org/publication/bottled-water-and-energy-a-fact-sheet/
xxxii Macbride, 2011.
xxxiii Five Winds International, (2008). Inventory of Sustainable Packaging Initiatives and Proposed Approach to
Develop Sustainable Packaging Guidelines. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
xxxiv Statistics Canada, 2008.
xxxv Ministry of the Environment, 2004.
xxxvi CCME, 2009.
xxxvii Ibid, p. 26.
xxxviii Lee et al., 2013.
xxxix Information sourced from both CCME, 2009; Lee et al. 2013.
xl CCME, 2009.
xli Pal, L. (2010). Beyond Policy Analysis: Public issue management in turbulent times. Nelson Education
Press.
xlii Windolph, S. (2011). Assessing Corporate Sustainability Through Ratings: Challenges and Their
Causes, in Journal of Environmental Sustainability. Volume 1
xliii Popof, F., DeSimone, Livio. (2000).Eco-efficiency: The Business Link to Sustainable Development. The
MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts and London, England.; World Business Council for Sustainable
Development
xliv Kalkowski, J. (2011). Fifth annual survey shows sustainability remains a driving factor in packaging
decisions. Packaging Digest. Retrieved from: http://www.packagingdigest.com
xlv Brady, K. (2010). Retail: A pivot point for sustainability. Five Winds Strategic Consulting. Retrieved from:
http://www.fivewinds.com/english/resources/publications/retail-a-pivot-point-for-sustainability.html
xlvi Chien-Chung Huang*, Hwong-Wen Ma, (2004). A Multidimensional Environmental Evaluation of
Packaging Materials. Science of the Total Environment 324 (2004) 161–172
xlvii Masterton, 2006.
xlviii CCME, 2009.
xlix Brady, 2010.
l Walmart, (2013). Sustainability Index. Found at: http://walmartstores.com/Sustainability/9292.aspx
li Bernick & Guth, 2010.
lii FiveWinds, 2008.
liii Lewis, 2003.
liv Global Packaging Project, (2011). Global protocol on packaging sustainability 2.0. The Consumer Goods Forum.
lv Windolph, 2011.
lvi FiveWinds, 2008.
lvii Dunphy D, Griffiths A, Benn S (2003) Organisational change for corporate sustainability. Routledge,
London
lviii World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press. – Point 30 of the Global Challenge: Successes and Failures.
lix Bell, D., and Toner, G. (2006). P.7 The authors also indicate the need for safe and satisfying employment
opportunities.
lx Lovins, A. Lovins, H., Hawken, P. (1999) Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution.
Little, Brown & Company
lxi Chapin, F., Carpenter, S., Koflnas, G., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W., Olsson, P., Smith, M., Walker, B.,
Young, O., Berkes, F., Biggs, R., Grove, J., Naylor, R., Pinkerton, E., Steffen, W., Swanson, F. (2009).
Ecosystem stewardship. Sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
Vol. 25, No. 4.
lxii Loorbach, D. (2007). Governance for sustainability in Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy. Volume
3, Issue 2. Retrieved from: http://ejournal.nbii.org
lxiii Ibid.
lxiv Kemp & Marten, 2010.
lxv Chapin, 2009.
lxvi Meadowcroft, J. 2005. Environmental political economy, technological transitions, and the state. New
Political Economy10(4):479-498
lxvii Toner & Bell, 2006. P. 7
lxviii McDonough & Braungart, 2012. P. 187.

23. lxix Ibid. P. 188
lxx Chapin, 2009.
lxxi McDonough & Braungart, 2012.
lxxii Lewins, H., 2003.
lxxiii CCME, 2009.
lxxiv The Consumer Goods Forum (2010) A global language for packaging and sustainability. Paris
lxxv Kemp & Marten, 2010.
lxxvi Frey, C. (2006). “Innovation, architecture and design professionals.” In Glen Toner (ed.), Sustainable production:
Building Canadian capacity. (Vancouver: UBC Press). *The authors also indicate the need for safe and satisfying
employment opportunites.
lxxvii McDonough & Braungart, 2012. P. 70
lxxviii Lee et al., 2013.
lxxix Ibid.
lxxx Verghese et al., 2012.
lxxxi Ibid.
lxxxii Clean Air Partnership. (2012). Green procurement policies and actions scan. Clean Air Council.
lxxxiii Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2004 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development, Chapter 3, “Sustainable Development Strategies: Using the Tax System and
Managing Office Solid Waste,” Ottawa, 2004
lxxxiv Lee et al., 2013.
lxxxv FiveWinds, 2008.
lxxxvi CCME, 2009.
lxxxvii Ibid.
lxxxviii Frey, C. (2006). P. 116.
lxxxix Ibid.