CHAPTER 8

Less Isn’t Always More

Chris Daly

Vice President, Environmental Sustainability,
Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa, PepsiCo

AS PROMISING AS THE SEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVE PACKaging materials may be, it’s a device to sustain continued demand for consumer packaged goods (CPG), which shows no sign of slowing down. SEE 8.1 They are also known as fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG). The current global market (valued at $8 trillion) is expected to nearly double to $14 trillion by 2025.¹

8.1 The demand for consumer packaged goods, also known as fast-moving consumer goods, shows no sign of slowing down.

Gts/Shutterstock

This projection is based on the segment’s tremendous expansion over the past half century, facilitated in no small part by the complete overhaul in the way these products are packaged.

Products in the food-and-beverage, personal care, wellness, and household industries have been transformed by the practice of lightweighting packaging. This trend shows itself in two ways:

Replacing conventional packaging material with a lighter-weight alternative. A widespread example is the replacement of glass with plastic.

Cutting down on the amount of material used in packaging. This is done by using thinner layers. For example, compared with the 1980s, today’s cans and PET bottles use about 30 percent less material.

Lightweighting: An Overview

Lightweighting provides increased access to goods, as the packaging lowers price tags for consumers as well as production and transportation costs for manufacturers. Plastic currently takes up the largest material share in the CPG packaging industry, with a 37 percent share of the total; glass, paper, and metals make up 11 percent, 34 percent, and 6 percent, respectively. Plastic, a comparatively less expensive material, costs less to make and ship and takes up less space in transport.

Increased global mobility, a rise in spendable incomes, and other geopolitical changes, such as urbanization of developing and impoverished regions, have led to a faster-moving world. Many of today’s lightweighted packages facilitate the function of convenience items. We see this with food pouches that can be microwaved or boiled for meals that are ready to serve, that have spouts and caps for easy pouring, and that can be resealed to preserve the product inside.

We also see this with the use of individual portion packs, or sachets, small, single-use, plastic pouch-like items that are inexpensive to make. They are popular for food, household goods, and personal care products and are used to package everything from condiments and soup starters to shampoo and instant drinks. In industrialized regions they come with our takeout food, as cosmetics samples, and as an easy way to take a vitamin cocktail. SEE 8.2

8.2 Sachets are small, single-use plastic pouch-like items that are inexpensive to make.

TerraCycle

Designed for a single use, many lightweighted packaging items are touted as disposable and designed to be thrown away, eliminating the need to clean, store, or otherwise care for an item. Bottled water is a widespread example of this, and most food packaging, shrink wraps, and cosmetics packaging also fall into this category. This is significant for the convenience aspect because hygiene, cleanliness, and “newness” are of value to consumers, as is the turnkey nature of disposable items.

The evolution of packaging has resulted in lower costs and more convenience, which in turn has contributed to the success of a profitable linear production and “one-way” consumption system. We now see that this is creating massive waste problems. Much modern packaging, because of its multi-component complexity or reduced recyclable value, is not recyclable municipally. This is because recyclers also view it as low value, and the cost to recycle these complex plastics doesn’t make economic sense. Simply speaking, the cost to collect and process them is more than the recovered value. In combination with the lack of meaningful reclamation systems for the single-use material, packaging just continues to pile up as waste.

This one-way, disposable packaging system is not sustainable. The economic factors that have contributed to the success of the linear system are real and significant, but the waste stream that is emerging (and the speed, size, and variety of that stream) is an issue that needs a radical rethink.

Less Weight, More Waste

The consequence of packaging evolution is that the rate of recycling decreases with each step in that evolution. Glass, for example, though heavy and less convenient than aluminum and plastic, has high value in the market for recyclable materials and is recovered for recycling at a significant rate. Plastic bottles and containers, despite being somewhat recyclable, are viewed as disposable and end up in the garbage. Multi-compositional carton technologies are municipally recyclable in only some regions in the United States,² and pouches, sachets, and their ilk are not recyclable at all. SEE 8.3

8.3 Although they are lightweight and help keep perishables fresh longer, flexible plastic pouches and shelf-stable aseptic cartons are considered difficult to recycle because they are multi-compositional—comprising several layers of different types of plastics and metal foils.

Carton Council

In many cases, a lightweighted item, such as a juice pouch, is multi-compositional—composed of several layers of different types of plastics and metal foils. These types of configurations create moisture barriers and protection from UV light, useful in food-and-beverage packaging, but they are difficult to recycle because the components require separating at the material level.

The fitments and closures that give plastic pouches and sacks high function (such as straws, caps, pouring spouts, and spoons) are also not recyclable municipally due to their small size. The loose add-ons fall through the OCC screens at municipal recycling facilities and are missed for recovery—or they just get tossed in the trash along with the packages they’re attached to, as personnel at MRFs rarely take the time to pull these items apart.

Sachets are prone to ending up in waterways due to their light weight and buoyancy. The challenges are of particular difficulty in the Southeast Asian countries, where they are very popular, as the issue is compounded by inefficient waste management infrastructures. Lids, tear-offs, cracker and chip bags, and the plastic films of shrink wraps have many of the same issues, polluting natural environments and being mistaken for food by wildlife.

The companies that profit from the use of these packaging techniques currently do not cover the costs of designing for their end of life, or the negative externalities of waste and pollution that occur as a result. This is lightweighting’s biggest problem: no economic recycling model has yet emerged due to the technical challenges in processing and recovering the base materials.

Maximizing Value for Lightweighted Packaging

Lightweighted packaging technologies do not exist in a vacuum. Single-use, disposable packaging wasn’t invented because manufacturers sought to pollute the earth. These items drive sales and profits because they provide solutions to real problems and, in many ways, make life easier for consumers.

Giving consumers what they want with a light, convenient package that drives value and is sustainable is possible. One way to do this is to choose a lighter-weight material that is highly recyclable. Uncoated paper has been largely replaced by plastic in food packaging. Going back to raw, brown untreated paper for a stand-up granola pouch or bag of coffee beans can create value with a tactile, low-weight package that has a rustic, sensory appeal.

Brown paper bags have pulled their weight for grocery chains such as Whole Foods Market and Trader Joe’s, as well as high-end retailer Bloomingdale’s. More retailers can do the same, using brown paper for bagging produce, as well as for packing up and wrapping per-weight items such as meat and fish, cold cuts, and bakery bread. Communicating the advantages is key to competing with plastic, to which consumers are now accustomed. An in-store chalkboard listing the benefits of brown paper versus plastic, such as the ability to easily recycle it and fewer chemicals touching the food, is one low-cost way to do so.

Packaging consumables in small product units—one way to lightweight—can be done with durable materials such as glass or stainless steel. Again, consumers are used to a price point and level of convenience offered by less recyclable materials, so driving value is critical. Kjaer Weis, a clean beauty brand, formulates products in smart, weighted silver compacts—valuable, far-from-disposable items that are easy to refill. A high-end brand to begin with, the company has done well to establish itself as a leader in both the premium beauty and zero-waste spaces.³

This takes us to the concept of refillables, which are a bold alternative for many products currently sold in lightweighted, disposable packaging. Like buying in bulk, using containers that consumers or retailers provide, refilling is very much contingent on retailers willing to integrate the service, as refilling requires infrastructure (i.e., weighing systems, procedures for quality control) to ease use for buyers and to prevent shrinkage. Retailers today sell refills for everything from filtered water and dental floss to spices, craft beer, body oils, and home cleaning products. SEE 8.4

Harking back to circular systems of reuse, refilling does have promise. But the single-use, one-way method is what allows consumers to buy what they want, when they want, without the work of taking care of a container or remembering to bring it to be refilled. Because these habits will be slow to change, we must continue to focus on improving the packaging that consumers take home and planning better for what happens to it.

8.4 Refilling and buying in bulk does offer a solution for reducing packaging waste, but it requires heavy lifting on the part of both retailers and consumers.

Mattil/Shutterstock

Reusable beverage pods for single-serving brewing systems are refillable, but they are a durable version of a lightweighting innovation that consumers are less likely to throw away. The ones made entirely of stainless steel, versus combinations of mesh and food-grade plastics, are considered somewhat recyclable, though they may be too small for some OCC screens. Durable beverage pods, many of which are manufactured by companies that produce their disposable counterparts, market their competitiveness with disposable plastic items.

Plastic bottles and containers, the most ubiquitous examples of lightweighting, can be made more recyclable and inspire reuse through design. PepsiCo’s premium water brand LIFEWTR features an oblong bottle shape that stands out from other, stouter, bottle-necked brands on the market. Its labels feature bold, colorful graphic designs by emerging artists that rotate in series of three several times a year.⁴ Consumers have been known to refill and reuse the bottle. The striking designs and unique shape give the bottle enough value that a person thinks twice about trashing it and holds on to it to reuse or recycle.

Redesigning packages that have evolved to a form that is no longer easily recycled back into the high-value configurations from whence they came is already happening. With the increasing popularity of premium foods and beverages packaged in glass, such as organic teas and soups, as well as kombucha and other fermented items, we see that consumers are willing to pay a premium for a product presented in a premium package amid a sea of plastic. From a waste perspective, this is a very positive trend.

Glass, heavy and intrinsically high value, is highly recycled but less used today because it is costly and prone to breakage. Plastic has been the mainstream alternative to glass, but other options may exist. For example, packaging in cans what is typically sold in glass is a novel lightweighting tactic that also communicates value through packaging innovation. Many wine and alcoholic cocktail producers have started packaging in cans instead of glass, and from a waste and recycling perspective this is positive when compared with plastic.

Of course, wines are also packaged in cartons, as well as in boxes with unrecyclable plastic bags inside, and these are difficult to recycle. With these and any other unrecyclable packages, recycling options must be improved. Creating, funding, and supporting packaging reclamation systems is essential and is the responsibility of both manufacturers and governments. Producers support such developments through EPR schemes, and these can be much more efficient in driving change.

Small Things Need Real Solutions

For lightweighted items that cannot be recycled through conventional channels, the only solution currently is through supplementary take-back programs and reclamation systems, a responsibility that producers often strive to shirk.

Take-back programs and recycling platforms for items not accepted municipally do exist and should be expanded. For context, some collections, like the ones for e-waste and plastic bags, are often not so much a recycling effort as an attempt to reduce contamination of municipal solid waste streams and ensure proper disposal. Depending on the municipality, drop-off programs are funded by businesses and industry groups, sometimes in partnership with retailers or the local government, hosted at retail locations, municipal buildings, and schools. SEE 8.5

Some of these recycling or disposal programs involve consumers mailing their waste to a centralized location. The companies that administer these programs may do so with a fee associated, which is many times cost-prohibitive. But as we see with regulated waste (light bulbs, batteries) management services⁵ and an emerging market for turnkey recycling boxes⁶ for packaging, there are consumers who care enough to step up to minimize their consumption impacts where the public system falls short.

8.5 Businesses and governments sometimes administer recycling drop-off locations for items that are not accepted through the municipal program.

Jean Faucett/Shutterstock

Because accessibility to recycling programs often comes down to cost, a free, easy solution is key. Brands and retailers today do administer take-back programs that are free to consumers for packaging in a number of waste streams. In the face of increasing demand for more corporate social responsibility and environmental-friendliness, however, the authenticity of some of these recycling programs is questionable.⁷

Take-back programs and in-store recycling promotions are good for business: they generate foot traffic and inspire brand affinity. Hypothetically, a company can incentivize sending in several of its products at a time with the reward of a free item, accepting all brands of its particular waste stream (say, cosmetics packaging) for collection at participating retail locations, and not actually recycle any of it. At little cost to the company, this “greenwashing” engages consumers around a sustainable activity that the company may not even be funding to execute.

Consumers should be vigilant for superficial sustainability claims and, to be sure, ask those companies directly several important questions:

What are they doing with the materials?

When are they planning to share a report on the results and outcomes of the program?

Where is the discarded packaging being processed?

How is it being recycled?

Companies would do well not to greenwash their packaging and instead focus their efforts on actually collecting and recycling it. Despite not having the internal infrastructure or resources to build a recycling program, conscious manufacturers and brands can still provide consumers authentic solutions at low risk. And consumers want to be able to reward the companies that are doing real work.

The challenge with any recycling program, as we know, is cost, so figuring your budget for this type of program will determine how you implement it and in how large a market. The more items there are to recycle, the more resources it will take. Then, look up external vendors you can use to outsource the logistics, labor, and actual processing of the material.

Brands big and small have partnered with TerraCycle, a recycling company that they pay to manage the collection and processing of their post-consumer packaging waste. By outsourcing these services, there is add-on management, infrastructure, and promotion for solutions for companies that may not yet have them internally or that simply wish to leave it to a specialist. The sponsored platform, free to consumers, is often combined with the drop-off format, where retailers, schools, and individuals sign up to collect for their community. SEE 8.6

If companies are going to continue producing the packages consumers demand, solutions to the waste problem come down to recovery systems. Internal or external, reclamation programs cost money, which goes to logistics, personnel, and other operating spends. But the negative externalities of waste must be absorbed by someone besides consumers and the earth. Because consumers are now accustomed to packaging designs that offer high function, low cost, and innovative product experiences, compromises must be made so that the value of packaging compels its return to the value chain.

8.6 Pet food brand Earthborn Holistic partners with TerraCycle to offer retailers the opportunity to host in-store recycling collection as a drop-off for its flexible plastic packaging.

Ashton Brellenthin/Hendricks County Flyer

Smaller Packaging, Bigger Market

Packaging manufacturers, which supply the consumer goods industry with the packaging that is so critical in the production, distribution, and marketing of CPG products, are set for continued profitability as the global population and income levels grow. Analysts forecast the market value for the global packaging industry at $839 billion in 2015, projecting year-on-year growth to reach $998 million in 2020.⁸

Examining the activities that led us to the current, wasteful packaging economy may help us apply solutions that create value where the issues of lightweighting have driven growth. And it’s very important that we do because the way the system is set up now, more sales just generate more consumer waste.

For most of the twentieth century, the beverage industry operated with returnable glass bottles (“the milkman”)—a reuse system, which is one step better than recycling, from a circular- economy point of view. In developed markets the growth of suburbs led to the rise of large grocery stores. The handling of bottles through deposit-and-return systems (setups governed by the bottle bills of today) that had been a social tradition at small mom-and-pop stores became an unwanted activity in large-format retail and less convenient for consumers.

Retailers sought to eliminate this activity and make consumption of bottled goods easier. In 1964 Pepsi introduced one-way glass, which was thinner and lighter than reusable glass; it could not be reused, but it could still be recycled. Other CPG companies followed suit, marking the first real shift away from the circular systems of reuse to the one-way disposable system that we know today.

By 1973 plastic in the form of the PET (#1 plastics) beverage bottle arrived in the market. Within the space of decade, except for beer and wine, PET replaced glass as the standard package in the beverage industry. This was the first step in a packaging evolution that over the next 40 years would reinforce the linear, disposable packaging model.

With the transition from heavier glass to lighter-weight PET, bottlers could ship more and avoid the risk of breakage. In the 1980s both Pepsi and Coke used this to their advantage, knowing that if there was more product in a home, families would consume more. PET bottles offered this opportunity, and as the standard take-home bottle size grew by 50 percent, beverage sales soared.

The second lightweighting activity was reducing the amount of raw materials used to make the package while preserving its functionality. PET was initially more expensive than glass, but with improvements in plastic technologies over time, the plastic content per package was reduced. Reduced plastic meant less waste when the package was thrown out. This perspective meant that disposal, as opposed to recycling, was less of a material value loss and less of a consequence to manufacturers and producers. The average weight of both plastic bottles and cans has been reduced by 35 percent since the 1980s.

The third and last activity was driven by the ambition of CPG companies to make their products affordable to all. By leveraging new packaging types—including multilayer and multi-compositional materials like juice pouches and sachets—producers could offer their products in less expensive packaging or reduced package sizes at more affordable prices. This made products available to lower-income consumers, extending the reach of the brands.

Convenience Is Currency

All the while this lightweighting evolution developed alongside innovative technologies that have been disruptive and fun, moving with changing lifestyles and consumer habits. More consumers are choosing pouches over traditional glass, paper, metal, and rigid plastic packaging as global market demand was projected to hit $37.3 billion in 2017.⁹ Food is the largest and most developed market for pouch use due in great part to rising output and consumption rates worldwide. Pharmaceuticals/medical and beverage are the second- and third-largest markets, respectively.¹⁰

Advancements in seal and barrier technologies for the pouches market are keeping food fresher longer, contributing to a longer shelf life and a greater variety of foods available to consumers. For example, the dairy market segment, which includes yogurt (a product very much in demand), is expected to grow significantly through 2020 with the aid of these high-barrier, aseptic pouches.

In addition to these “wet” goods, which benefit greatly from these seal and barrier pouch technologies, dry goods have also been packaged for convenience. Loose food items such as cookies, nuts, candies, and health supplements are now packaged in stand-up pouches that sit well on shelves or hang from clips in the store, where they had been previously packaged in jars, tins, or envelopes.

As consumers demand quality and ease of use on the go, they also want it at home and in the office. Capsule and pod technologies condense and simplify the preparation of fresh food and beverages and are now common for single-serve, hot-beverage brewing systems, with commercial models for offices, hospitality, and even food service. SEE 8.7

The global market for coffee pods and capsules is forecast to grow 9.55 percent between 2017 and 2021.¹¹ Innovative reclamation systems that piggyback on delivery logistics, collecting from the mailbox where new product is dropped off, turn recycling these items into a premium service for some capsule brands.¹²

The pod and capsule technologies that so successfully disrupted the hot-beverage industry for the greater part of a decade have since been applied to a burgeoning number of food and drink categories, turning food-and-beverage into the most profitable business since software.¹³

Nonfood products are also packaged with thinner, lighter materials that protect the item inside. Electronics, textiles, auto parts, toys, and single-use items like disposable cutlery and straws are often shrink-wrapped with plastic films or a plastic bag.

8.7 The market for coffee capsules and other pod-based technologies for the food-and-beverage industry is only projected to grow.

SandyS/Shutterstock

Environmental Savings

These single-use strategies have had both positive and negative impacts. Each has offered valuable consumer benefits and has been marketed as being more affordable and convenient and having a smaller environmental impact by taking up less volume. The pod and capsule technologies in particular have been touted as generating less food waste by using the single-serving configuration. Combinations of materials allow perishable foods to sit on store shelves longer, and closures allow these items to continue sitting on shelves in cupboards and refrigerators at home.

The environmental implications of pouches in food packaging and other markets are significant. Pouches are smaller and thinner than glass, paper, and metal packaging; use 60 percent less plastic; and are 23 percent lighter compared with traditional rigid packaging on average.¹⁴ Both the stand-up and flat varieties of pouches generally have a higher product-to-package ratio than rigid packaging and require about half the energy to produce.

A lighter package cuts down on the CO2 emissions released during production and during transport. Taking up less space means fewer trucks are needed, reducing fuel consumption and additional CO2 emissions. These are benefits, but of course the downside is a low-value, typically unrecyclable package.

The global population and global incomes will only continue to rise, and collectively we will generate more waste. Significant packaging design and system innovations are needed to drive circular packaging in developed markets. Meanwhile emerging markets must address their infrastructure needs. Waste can be eliminated through a combination of a widening of the compulsory return model (bottle bills), manufacturer- and retailer-administered take-back programs for difficult-to-recycle materials, and the favoring of highly recyclable materials in lighter packaging formats.

Current initiatives aim at reducing or mitigating the negative impacts of the one-way model, but we also need to challenge that model itself. The reasons why consumers migrated to the one-way system, starting around 70 years ago, are today more addressable with new technologies, which producers are in a position to support.

These are all ways to fully close the leaks in the recycling loop, which today remains two-thirds open. Manufacturer investments of time and resources on the design of packages and the systems they flow through will add to the value of your lightweighted package.