Meeting the Sustainability Objectives of Brand Owners Without Compromising Performance Co-Authors: Weijia Zhang and Dante Ferrari

Transcription

1 Meeting the Sustainability Objectives of Brand Owners Without Compromising Performance Co-Authors: Weijia Zhang and Dante Ferrari The importance of sustainability is very clear. From consumer demands to brand owner needs, from retailer requirements to public policy, sustainability is being approached from many different directions at once. Numerous studies are being conducted to understand how a consumer perceives sustainability and how important it is to them. Striking, but not surprising, one study found American consumers are among the least concerned with the amount of packaging and whether it is sustainable. Another study found that 57% of consumers claim to be willing to pay more for a green product. Retailers like Walmart and Asda have set up metrics and indicators to determine how sustainable their products and their suppliers are. The Sustainability Product Index measures not only material, energy and water usage, but product safety, social compliance and community development. From there on, brand owners have taken on the challenge by setting their own objectives. Though there are many metrics and indicators, such as those set out by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, a common goal amongst brand owners is to achieve a company wide reduction in the amount of material used, energy used and CO 2 emissions produced. As converters, we need to understand how to help brand owners achieve these goals. Converters across the industry are setting their own goals and initiatives in their attempt to be sustainable. In addition, tracking greenhouse gas emissions, waste, water and energy usage is moving from being just an internal measurement to being a legislated and administered requirement. In this paper, Celplast looks at our own expertise barrier packaging structures and compares them on a relative scale with respect to the three metrics mentioned above. Downgauging metallized PET from 48 gauge to 40 gauge allows for a 17% reduction in material without change to barrier properties. Improved metallization techniques allows for less aluminium to be applied and for boats to be run with less power. A decrease from 2.3 OD to 2.0 OD is possible without change in barrier properties. Layer elimination is possible by combining performance properties of a sealant layer and a metallized layer into a single metallized sealant layer. Not only are there material savings, but process energy and CO 2 emissions reductions as well. In solvent based laminations, energy savings of 30.8% and CO 2 emissions savings of 33.5% can be achieved. Alternatively, from an operational standpoint, installing higher efficiency lighting can results in significant energy and cost savings. Switching from T12 to T5 lightbulbs increased brightness at the plant floor level while saving 241,857 kw hr per year. Motion sensors to keep unnecessary lights off add an additional 122,107 kw hr of to that number per year. Additional energy savings initiatives have allowed for a total energy savings of 766,816 kw hr each year. In Ontario, this is equivalent to saving 551 MT of CO 2 from being released! The importance of sustainability is very clear. So are the requirements set out by brand owners, retailers and consumers. There are many tools available at our disposal to meet these objectives and create a more financially, socially and environmentally sustainable flexible packaging industry. Because after all, less is more.

2 Sustainable Packaging Meeting Brand Owner Objectives Without Compromising Performance Presented by: Weijia Zhang Business Development Engineer Celplast Metallised Products

3 OUTLINE Sustainable Packaging Driving Forces Down the Value Chain: From Consumers to Converters How Flexible Packaging Fares Key Metrics for Brand Owners What Converters Can Do Material Usage & Landfill Diversion Energy Usage CO 2 Emissions Conclusions

4 SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING DRIVING FORCES

5 DRIVING FORCE #1: CONSUMERS April 2009 Opinion Research Corp. study 57% of consumers claim to be willing to pay more for a green product 2009 Shelton Group study of occasional green buyers 59% of green consumers listed economy as top concern, 8% chose environment Home energy reduction is mainly motivated by bill/cost reduction (73%), while environmental impact is only 26%

6 DRIVING FORCE #1: CONSUMERS 2009 DataMonitor study across 15 countries American consumers are among the least concerned with amount of packaging and whether it is sustainable In a recession, consumers are forced to buy less and prefer more cost-effective packaging 2009 Sage Group survey of US consumers Sustainable packaging = recycled packaging Hard packaging and over-packaging are negatively viewed Gen Xers more environmentally conscious than Millenials or Boomers

7 DRIVING FORCE #2: LEGISLATORS Under the Western Climate Initiative, 7 US states and 4 Canadian provinces will require converters to start tracking greenhouse gas emissions as of Jan. 1, 2010, and start official reporting by 2011, as part of a regional cap-and-trade program Activist government In Britain the Local Government Association (representing over 350 town councils) has demanded retailers make more information available regarding amount of packaging they produce Attempts to implement plastic bag bans or punitive taxes have failed in many North American jurisdictions, but consumer consciousness has been raised

8 DRIVING FORCE #2: LEGISLATORS Like consumers, legislators want to avoid greenwashing by brand owners Want green claims to be substantive and verifiable In California, Bill AB1972 passed in 2008: Truthful Environmental Advertising for Plastics Requires plastic bags and containers to meet specific ASTM specification standards in order to label packaging as biodegradable, degradable or compostable Eg. Compostable products must meet ASTM D6400 standard

9 DRIVING FORCE #3: RETAILERS Wal-Mart: The Packaging Scorecard 15% based on greenhouse gas emissions per ton production 15% based on material value 15% based on product:package ratio 15% based on cube utilization 10% based on transportation 10% based on recycled content 10% based on recovery value 5% based on renewable energy 5% based on innovation

10 DRIVING FORCE #3: RETAILERS Wal-Mart: The Sustainable Product Index (SPI) On July 16, 2009 introduced plans to produce a global SPI, based on supplier input and independent material LCA This will provide a sustainability score for all the products it sells Score will be displayed on products as a number, color code or some other simple form Cited objectives: raise quality, reduce costs and provide consumers with sustainability information Items #1-4: greenhouse gas emissions Items #5-8: plant waste & plant water usage Items #9-10: product safety, environmental compliance Items #11-15: social compliance, community development

11 DRIVING FORCE #4: BRAND OWNERS Kraft In April issued report listing sustainability goals, with targets for 2011 using 2005 as a baseline Reducing CO 2 emissions and plant energy usage by 25% Reduce water consumption and plant waste by 15% Eliminate 150 million lbs of packaging Met by end of 2009 Frito Lay Committed to Sun Chips product line in a fully compostable 100% PLA bag by Earth Day 2010 Using solar power to run Modesto, CA plant Grupo Bimbo, Natrel Using oxo-biodegradable additives in plastic packaging

12 DRIVING FORCE #4: BRAND OWNERS Proctor & Gamble Sara Lee Using 2002 as a baseline, achieve 40% reduction in environmental footprint of its operations globally by 2012 No specific targets, but as a member of Sustainable Packaging Coalition are committed to the 5R s (Remove, Reduce, Reusable, Recyclable, Renewable), and cite examples such as eliminating secondary packaging for transport & downgauging Phasing out PVC in its household & beauty care products Unilever Committed to the 5R s, minimizing use of PVC Focus on creating sachets that use less material or material with less environmental impact

13 DRIVING FORCE #4: BRAND OWNERS The Consumer Goods Forum Led by Roger Zellner (Kraft Foods) and Sonia Raja (Tesco) Collection of 650 retailers, manufacturers/brand owners and service providers globally Met in January to establish a common language for packaging and sustainability To agree on principles for packaging and sustainability To agree on a set of metrics and indicators, adapted from those recently released by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (Dec. 09)

14 PACKAGING FORMAT COMPARISON

15 DRIVING FORCE #5: CONVERTERS What do converters want? Whatever brand owners & retailers want! Individually and through associations like FPA and SPC, converters are touting the sustainable value proposition of flexible packaging Many converters are starting to track GHG emissions, plant waste, water usage, and asking this of their suppliers as well All major converters have an articulated Sustainability strategy or commitment on their website, focusing on driving waste out of operations and creating innovative sustainable packaging

16 DRIVING FORCE #5: CONVERTERS Examples of individual converter initiatives Sonoco: targeting 15% voluntary reduction in GHG emissions from their 121 manufacturing sites in Canada and the US within next 5 years Curwood: touts forming films, shrink bags & cheese films that offer 10 25% material reduction vs. traditional materials Amcor: using 2006 as baseline, targeting GHG emission reduction of 10% by 2011, 60% by 2030, 100% long-term goal Coating Excellence: purchases renewable energy through the Wisconsin Public Service NatureWise program, and will be carbon-neutral by year-end 2009

17 DRIVING FORCES: SUMMARY Legislators want to be green without increasing taxes: consumers & producers will foot the bill Consumers don t know what they want Wal-Mart will tell us what we want The Packaging Scorecard has become more clearly defined, but it is not clear what Wal-Mart will do with it As there is no clear weighting or prioritizing of metrics with the new Sustainable Product Index, all items need to be treated equally

18 DRIVING FORCES: SUMMARY Brand owners taking different approaches, but a few common themes: Focus on reducing the amount of packaging used & landfilled Focus on reducing plant waste (energy, water, etc.) Focus on reducing CO 2 emissions For converters, this means driving waste out of operations (energy, material, GHG emissions), and innovating with an eye to the Sustainable Product Index and the Packaging Scorecard

19 REDUCING MATERIAL USAGE, IMPROVED LANDFILL DIVERSION

20 REDUCING MATERIAL USE: DOWNGAUGING PET

21 REDUCING MATERIAL USE: DOWNGAUGING PET

22 REDUCING MATERIAL USE: DOWNGAUGING PET Moving from 48 g PET to 40 g PET 17% material reduction in layer For a 3-ply PET/m-PET/LLDPE laminate, impact on feel of package is generally negligible If overall structure is 2.6 mil, this gives a total material reduction of 3% on the finished package 40 g PET area cost is generally better than 48 g PET

23 REDUCING MATERIAL USE: LAYER ELIMINATION Consolidate the metallized & sealant layers in a 3-ply structure, use a 2-ply instead Layer Description Material Weight (g/msi) Layer Description Material Weight (g/msi) Reverse printed 48 g PET 11.7 Adhesive lamination g metallized PET barrier layer 10.9 Reverse printed web 11.7 Adhesive lamination 0.8 Adhesive lamination mil sealant web mil metallized sealant 22.8 Total Material Weight (g/msi) 47.0 Total Material Weight (g/msi) 35.3 Savings with metallized sealant 24.9%

24 LANDFILL DIVERSION: BIODEGRADABLE FILMS PLA films are still the only commercially viable ASTM D6400 certified compostable films on the market Number of municipal compost facilities is growing, but still relatively small Other products such as oxo-biodegradable and omni-biodegradable meet ASTM biodegradation guidelines, but it is still uncertain how these claims will be accepted at a state level Compostable copolyester films are being looked at more closely today PHA is on the horizon

25 REDUCING ENERGY USAGE

26 HIGH EFFICIENCY METALLIZING PROCESS

27 HIGH EFFICIENCY METALLIZING PROCESS

28 HIGH EFFICIENCY METALLIZING PROCESS High efficiency metallizing process Apply less aluminum to PET film without compromising barrier performance Run boats cooler Draw fewer amps over boat life No visual difference in metallized film appearance Energy savings = 359,271 kw-hr per year

29 METALLIZED SEALANT Transport and Processing Energy Usage 1 (MJ/Ream) CO2 Equivalent 2 (Kg/Ream) Solvent-less Water Based Solvent Based lbs LDPE (15um) lbs LDPE (20um) lbs LDPE (30um) Metallizing Life Cycle Inventories for Flexible Packaging Lamination, Rick DiMenna, Rohm & Haas. 2 Ontario power carbon footprint of kg CO2 eq./mj, How it Works: Electricity Generation, OPG, 2009.

30 REDUCING ENERGY WITH A METALLIZED SEALANT Consider a solvent-based print + 2-pass solvent-less lamination Layer Description Energy Usage (MJ/ream) Layer Description Energy Usage (MJ/ream) Reverse printed 48 g PET 203 Adhesive lamination g metallized PET barrier layer 50 Reverse printed web 203 Adhesive lamination 37 Adhesive lamination mil sealant web mil metallized sealant 50 Total Processing Energy (MJ/ream) 327 Total Processing Energy (MJ/ream) 290 Savings with metallized sealant 11.3%

31 REDUCING ENERGY WITH A METALLIZED SEALANT Consider a solvent-based print + 2-pass solvent-based lamination Layer Description Energy Usage (MJ/ream) Layer Description Energy Usage (MJ/ream) Reverse printed 48 g PET 203 Adhesive lamination g metallized PET barrier layer 50 Reverse printed web 203 Adhesive lamination 203 Adhesive lamination mil sealant web mil metallized sealant 50 Total Processing Energy (MJ/ream) 659 Total Processing Energy (MJ/ream) 456 Savings with metallized sealant 30.8%

32 CELPLAST S S OPERATIONAL ENERGY REDUCTION INITIATIVES High efficiency lighting Switch from T12 s to T5 s throughout plant Double brightness as measured in foot-candles at plant floor Improved quality, improved cleanliness Energy savings = 241,857 kw-hr per year Motion sensors on lights Only have lights turn on when needed in offices, warehouse and some production areas 30 activation radius in tow motor area, 3 minute on-time Energy savings = 122,107 kw-hr per year

33 CELPLAST S S OPERATIONAL ENERGY REDUCTION INITIATIVES Centralized chiller system Relocate five chiller systems to a centralized area, feeding into a single glycol tank All metallizers and auxiliary heat exchangers fed with glycol from central tank Honeywell controller runs each chiller on demand, so only the chillers & pumps required are turned on Energy savings = 43,581 kw-hr per year High efficiency metallizing process Run boats cooler, draw fewer amps over boat life Energy savings = 359,271 kw-hr per year

34 CELPLAST S S TOTAL ENERGY REDUCTION INITIATIVES Energy savings summary High efficiency lighting = 241,857 kw-hr per year Motion sensors = 122,107 kw-hr per year Central chiller = 43,581 kw-hr per year High efficiency metallizing = 359,271 kw-hr per year Total savings = 766,816 kw-hr per year

35 REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS

36 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS PET CPP HDPE LDPE Cradle to Gate Resin Non Renewable Energy (GJ/t) Cradle to Gate Film GHG Emission (kg CO2 equivalent/kg)

37 REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS WITH A METALLIZED SEALANT Consider a solvent-based print + 2-pass solvent-less lamination Layer Description CO2 Equivalent (kg/ream) Layer Description CO2 Equivalent (kg/ream) Reverse printed 48 g PET 32.0 Adhesive lamination g metallized PET barrier layer 23.6 Reverse printed web 32.0 Adhesive lamination 2.0 Adhesive lamination mil sealant web mil metallized sealant 20.3 Total CO2 Equivalent (kg/ream) 77 Total CO2 Equivalent (kg/ream) 54 Savings with metallized sealant 29.7%

38 REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS WITH A METALLIZED SEALANT Consider a solvent-based print + 2-pass solvent-based lamination Layer Description CO2 Equivalent (kg/ream) Layer Description CO2 Equivalent (kg/ream) Reverse printed 48 g PET 32.0 Adhesive lamination g metallized PET barrier layer 23.6 Reverse printed web 32.0 Adhesive lamination 11.1 Adhesive lamination mil sealant web mil metallized sealant 20.3 Total CO2 Equivalent (kg/ream) 95 Total CO2 Equivalent (kg/ream) 63 Savings with metallized sealant 33.5%

39 TOTAL CO 2 REDUCTION INITIATIVES Total operational energy savings = 766,816 kw-hr Operational CO 2 reduction = 551 MT CO 2 reduction from film yield improvements = 182 MT Total CO 2 reduction = 733 MT Equivalencies (based on US EPA website) 134 passenger vehicles 66 homes total energy used 166 acres of pine forest carbon sequestration 1,704 barrels of oil 3.9 railcars of coal

40 CONCLUSIONS With consumers not leading the way, retailers and brand owners are developing their own sustainability strategies Converters have generally done a good job establishing and communicating sustainability strategies as well Converters have many opportunities to give the brand owner what they want: Innovative products = reduced material usage, reduced converting energy usage, more landfill diversion Operational excellence = less waste, lower CO 2 emissions

41 Thank you PRESENTED BY Weijia Zhang Business Development Engineer Celplast Metallised Products Please remember to turn in your evaluation sheet...