Tag Archives: waste

NextWave Plastics expands consortium.

Global brands consortium NextWave Plastics has announced consumer technology company Logitech and ocean-bound plastic suppliers Prevented Ocean Plastic and #tide ocean material have joined the network.

NextWave Plastics expands consortium on reducing plastic waste

NextWave Plastics is a consortium of multinational technology and consumer brands to collaborate and promote transparency to help decrease the volume of plastic litter by developing a global network of ocean-bound plastic supply chains.

A growing number of its member companies across a range of industries are collaborating to reach their shared goal of diverting a minimum of 25,000 metric tons of plastic, equivalent to 2.7 billion single-use plastic water bottles, from entering the ocean by the end of 2025.

Adrian Grenier, the co-founder of Lonely Whale, said: “The addition of Logitech and ocean-bound plastic suppliers Prevented Ocean Plastic and #tide ocean material adds to the strength, diversity of knowledge, experience, and potential of the NextWave consortium to create even greater impact and transformational change within and across industries.”

Logitech joins the ranks of NextWave member companies like HP and IKEA; in addition to its pledge to avoid single-use plastic packaging whenever possible, Logitech was the first consumer electronics company to make the commitment to provide detailed carbon impact labeling on product packaging across its portfolio, with its first carbon labeled products hitting shelves back in April 2021.

Prakash Arunkundrum, global head of operations and sustainability, Logitech, said: “At Logitech, we are committed to continuing to expand our efforts to eliminate single-use plastic and we are increasingly using post-consumer recycled plastic as our preferred material at scale as we design for sustainability across our portfolio.”

How is a circular economy different from a linear economy?

A circular economy is fundamentally different from a linear economy. To put it simply, in a linear economy we mine raw materials that we process into a product that is thrown away after use. In a circular economy, we close the cycles of all these raw materials. Closing these cycles requires much more than just recycling. It changes the way in which value is created and preserved, how production is made more sustainable and which business models are used. These aspects are explained in more detail below.

How is a circular economy different from a linear economy?

From new raw materials to value preservation.

The circular system and the linear system differ from each other in the way in which value is created or maintained. A linear economy traditionally follows the “take-make-dispose” step-by-step plan. This means that raw materials are collected, then transformed into products that are used until they are finally discarded as waste. Value is created in this economic system by producing and selling as many products as possible.

What else is there in a circular economy? A circular economy follows the 3R approach: reduce, reuse and recycle. Resource use is minimized (reduce). Reuse of products and parts is maximized (reuse). And last but not least, raw materials are reused (recycled) to a high standard. This can be done by using goods with more people, such as shared cars. Products can also be converted into services, such as Spotify sells listening licences instead of CDs. In this system, value is created by focusing on value preservation.

From eco-efficiency to eco-effectiveness.

The perspective on sustainability is different in a circular economy than in a linear economy. When working on sustainability within a linear economy, the focus is on eco-efficiency, which means we try to minimise the ecological impact to get the same output. This will extend the period in which the system becomes overloaded (Di Maio, Rem, Baldï, and Polder, 2017). Within a circular economy, sustainability is sought in increasing the eco-effectiveness of the system. This means that not only the ecological impact is minimized, but that the ecological, economic and social impact is even positive (Kjaer, Pigosso et al., 2019). When we focus on eco-effectivity to create a positive impact, we strengthen the ecological, economical and societal systems by using them.

We can illustrate the difference between eco-efficiency and eco-effectivity with an example about the production of beef. Raising cows for beef results in emissions of methane gas, a strong greenhouse gas. In a linear economy, the production of beef is made more sustainable by changing the way cows are fed, so that they emit less methane gas for the same amount of meat. This makes production more eco-efficient.

In a circular economy, production is made more sustainable by not making beef from cows, but for example by creating a meat substitute. For the beef substitute, plants are then grown that contribute to biodiversity, employment and landscape management. In this way, the ecological, economic and social impact of the same production of ‘beef’ is increased.

In order to achieve eco-effectiveness, residual flows must be reused for a function that is the same (functional recycling) or even higher (upcycling) than the original function of the material. As a result, the value is fully retained or even increased.

Other business models.

A linear model deals with raw materials in an inefficient way, because the emphasis is not on their conservation. In a circular economy, this is the focus. This means that other business models are also used in a circular economy, with more emphasis on services rather than products. An example of a model that facilitates the transition to the circular economy is a product-service combination (Product-As-A-Service System), which is seen as a model to integrate products and services (Michelini, Moraes & Cunha et al., 2017). A widespread example of a product-service combination is the Xerox printer system, in which companies receive a printer free of charge and pay per copy. This system fits well within the circular economy, because as a manufacturer, Xerox has an interest in ensuring that the printer will last a long time, by being able to repair and update it. In the linear sales system, the manufacturer often benefits if the product breaks down quickly so that it can sell a new product.

 

The difference’s between a linear and a circular economy:

  Linear Circular
Step plan Take-make-dispose Reduce-reuse-recycle
Focus Eco-Efficiency Eco-Effectivity
System boundaries Short term, from purchase to sales Long term, multiple life cycles
Reuse Downcycling, Upcycling, cascading and high grade recycling.
Business model Focuses on products Focuses on services

 

Unease over governments plastic packaging plan

Critics have hit back at the government’s 25-year plan with concerns over its litter strategy and a lack of praise for packaging’s role in combating food waste.

Unease over governments plastic packaging plan

Prime Minister Theresa May set out the government’s vision on the environment and wanted to end the “scourge” of plastic packaging in waterways and oceans. She outlined plans for a tax or charge on single-use packaging and urged retailers to introduce plastic-free aisles.

However, in a statement, the British Plastic Federation (BPF) said that it was “very disturbed” at the tone of the Prime Minister’s language and it did not recognise the 170,000 jobs that the plastics industry brings to the UK.

The BPF added: “To stop plastics entering the sea from the West, the plastics industry would like to see a tougher stance on littering. It is highly doubtful that simply providing alternative materials will actually reduce littering in the UK, as this is an issue of personal behavior. It should be noted that the types of products that enter the marine environment from the UK tend to be those that have been irresponsibly littered — not packaging materials for fresh produce that are typically consumed at home and then disposed of responsibly.

“Plastics should not be in the sea and it is right that the UK, alongside other developed nations, should set an example of best practice. As has been pointed out, the vast quantity of plastics in the seas arrive there from the less developed economies of Asia, which have rudimentary waste management systems. Plastics get into the seas by a number of routes and each route needs to be dealt with separately.”

Martin Kersh, executive director of the Foodservice Packaging Association, was also disappointed that the national litter strategy wasn’t mentioned. He added that food waste should form part of the government’s strategy.

“Food waste was not referred to by the Prime Minister along with the role that packaging has played in extending shelf life,” said Kersh. “Whatever we do [in regards to plastic packaging] we must not risk increasing food waste.”

He added that May’s speech did not place enough emphasis on the recycling of all materials and said that the packaging industry would “100%” provide evidence for the proposed tax on single-use plastic packaging.

“What we would like to see is PRN reform on the terms of reference,” said Kersh. “We would be disappointed if this was not the case.”

Lorax Compliance chief operating officer Michelle Carvell said that “real opportunities” had been missed to create a joined-up policy to tackle “the UK’s mounting waste crisis”.

“As it stands, the government’s plan is little more than a kneejerk reaction which works as a placeholder prior to the looming policy changes ahead in our post-Brexit landscape,” said Carvell. “It says very little and promises to deliver even less, with no legal force included in the strategy.”

Gillian Garside-Wight, packaging technology director at Sun Branding Solutions, said that a “holistic approach is required to address a very complex issue”.

She added: “In our experience when our clients have switched to more responsible packaging solutions this has required investment from product development through to supply chain alterations which may or may not be cost neutral.  The ongoing debate remains – who will pick up this cost?

“Consumers are the catalyst driving change, now along with the government pledge (not just us), this will result in big changes to consumer behavior and the retail environment.  Brands and retailers need to move faster to respond to their customers’ demands.  This is a good start, however, there’s lots of other challenges to be resolved. For example, back of store packaging that consumers never see. We must not forget the primary function of packaging is to contain, protect, preserve and promote and we must continue to ensure it does not damage the environment we live in.”

The government’s strategy was welcomed by David Palmer-Jones, chief executive of Suez Recycling and Recovery. He said that the plan “rightly places our environment at the heart of government strategy”.

He added: “Having invested heavily in new facilities to support the move away from landfill over the last decade, we are pleased that this plan recognises the important role energy recovery facilities have played in this transition and the ambition to make these facilities more efficient by identifying ways to increase the use of the heat they produce.

“Overall, the plan represents an important first step towards policies that will support the growth of our industry and enable it to play a pivotal role in the development of a more resource efficient, sustainable economy.  Systemic change is needed to tackle the complex issues facing us and ensure coordination with national infrastructure plans and the Industrial Strategy.  We urge Government to work with our industry on the detail of its new Resources and Waste Strategy to develop a world-leading approach for the UK.”

The Campaign to Protect Rural England. Samantha Harding, litter programme director said: “It’s impressive the government has chosen to respond so emphatically to the plastic plague that is already putting our countryside, cities, and oceans at risk of irreversible harm.

“The charge on plastic bags has shown that we easily adapt to financial incentives, so the prospect of further charges or taxes that could eliminate products like plastic straws and stirrers is really positive news. And promoting innovation amongst producers will be critical to ensuring we eliminate unnecessary single-use items, as well as making sure that they are taking financial responsibility for the impact these products have.”

Aluminium Can gets most recycled drinks container

Aluminium beverage cans have been made the world’s most recycled drinks container at a recent Smithers Pira conference.

Aluminium Can gets most recycled drinks container

The Smithers Pira Sustainability in Packaging Europe Conference heard stats from Metal Packaging Europe indicating seven out of 10 drinks cans sold in the UK are recycled and 75% of all aluminium ever produced is still in use today.

Steel for packaging recorded an average European recycling rate of 78% in 2015, which included five countries exceeding 85%.

With the greater focus being placed on packaging, consumers are now more concerned about waste produced and want to be informed of the most up to date recycling statistics.

Martin Constable, chairman of the Can Makers, said: “The news that aluminium cans are now confirmed as the most recycled drinks packaging in the world is great news for environmentally concerned consumers. The can is the ideal packaging of choice for brands to meet their own sustainability targets as well as meet customer demand for ‘greener’ packaging.”

Whilst these numbers are encouraging, there remains much to do to reach the 2020 metal packaging industry ambition of an 80% European average rate.

Analysts have called for a legislative framework to create a functioning circular economy.

New chemicals guidance for waste packaging

New chemicals guidance for waste packaging, guidance to assist companies in meeting waste packaging obligations.

New chemicals guidance for waste packaging

This guidance document “The assessment and classification of waste packaging” was developed by trade associations representing companies operating in the chemicals supply chain that uses packaging.

The Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and Scottish Environment Protection Agency have welcomed the development of this guidance and have agreed to its adoption in England, Wales and Scotland.

The document provides guidance for assessing whether packaging to be taken offsite is waste or not and if waste, whether it is waste packaging or not and whether it should be classified as hazardous or non-hazardous. It includes a method that allows for the weight of the packaging to be taken into account and is intended to be complementary to the joint environment agencies’ Technical Guidance WM3.  

The guidance will also support companies in the context of resource efficiency and the concept of the circular economy.