Processing
Pushing the Sustainable Packaging
Movement Forward
By Kevin Williams
What the organic industry has accomplished in the past 50 years is nothing
short of a revolution—a social, economic, operational, environmental and even
spiritual revolution of the institutions that
govern our economy-driven, consumption-based society. And, we would all agree that
with approximately a 3 percent share of the
food market, and less in other segments of
consumer goods, that the fight has only just
begun. With the overwhelming body of evidence relating to health and environmental
integrity, one might wonder why organic has
not gained even greater market share. As
awareness has grown, why hasn’t the rate of
conversion grown exponentially as well?
The answer is that there is a tremendous
force at play working to maintain the status
quo and preserve the conventional system of
production and consumption. The consumer
goods market is an institution and like any institution, it exists to serve itself. To change an
institution requires a major paradign shift.
People need to see that the old system is no
longer functional, and even dangerous. The
organic industry needs to raise the consciousness of the constituents, ignite their feelings
of injustice and inspire action until the collective voice demands a change.
The concept of sustainable packaging now
faces the same challenges that the organic
movement faced back when it was gaining
momentum, when it moved out of the back
country co-ops, farm stands and small independent health food stores to mainstream
market acceptance. Heightened awareness of
sustainable solutions has made packaging a
hot topic among consumers, retailers and
manufacturers and that is fueling momen-
tum. However, the packaging industry (a subset of the institutional system of consumer
products) is an institutional system as well and
adoption of significant sustainable packaging
solutions into the packaging complex is meeting obstacles that are preventing adoption of
new and innovative solutions. Manufacturers
are slaves to existing standardized packaging
methodologies, while being fearful of upsetting consumers unwavering demand for convenience.
Obstacles with Current Eco-Packaging
Comparison Systems
In an earlier article, Breaking Down Sustainable Packaging Options, (OP, March/April
2008), it was suggested that companies should
conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to
identify the environmental impact a package
system has through all the stages of its “life,”
from sourcing raw materials, processing and
shipping, all the way to disposal or reuse. Although this methodology has increased efficiencies in operations and material use, this
practice can actually help perpetuate existing
systems instead of encouraging innovative development. As examples in this article will illustrate, to determine a carbon footprint the
typical LCA process uses industry metrics that
require long-term data and favor efficiencies
that can only be attained with larger-scale production, thus giving the big guys an upper
hand when the numbers are tallied. Plus,
many new, innovative companies cannot even
afford to do a LCA, which can be very costly.
Ranking packaging based on LCAs alone
can especially become a problem when large
corporations like Wal-Mart use scorecards that
focus primarily on these numbers. This en-
