Has the ‘war’ on plastic gone too far?
By Zomo S Y Fisher and Sapphire Jones
Consumers and NGOs alike are still ‘at war’ with plastic, especially considering recent high-profile anti-plastic campaigns and media attention. Just in the last year, we’ve seen consumers respond in a big way, with regulation following not far behind, including:
· The UK city of Manchester announcing that it aims to be plastic-free by 2020
· Sky’s #PassOnPlastic campaign reaching over 2.5 million impressions on Twitter
· Kenya imposing a USD 40,000 fine for producing, selling or using plastic bags
· The ban on manufacture and sales of rinse-off cosmetics containing plastic microbeads in the USA
We’ve also seen how corporations are starting to tackle plastic issue, making applaudable new ambitions, such as:
· Brewer AB InBev committing 100% of their product packaging to either be returnable or made from majority recycled content by 2025
· Evian pledging to make all their bottles from 100% recycled PET by 2025
· Unilever’s new project with Ioniqa and Indorama Ventures to develop transparent, food-grade plastic packaging from recycled PET
· Lego substituting fossil-based plastic with sugarcane to produce their botanical brick range
In our last blog (Life in plastic, not so fantastic?), we explored some of the opportunities for businesses to design out, use alternatives, extend the lifecycleand improve recyclability of plastic. But what are the potential drawbacks of these solutions? Could eradicating plastic be counter-productive? Does switching to alternatives create new headaches?
This second blog in our three-part series looks at some of the unintended consequences of the ‘war’ on plastic, outlining three key considerationsthat businesses should make when looking at solutions to the plastic problem.
1) Look at the full picture
The overall carbon footprint of fossil-fuel based plastic is not as bad as you may think. ‘One-way’ glass bottles (i.e. not returnable or reusable) can have up to three times the carbon footprint of single use plastic bottles across a typical lifecycle, according to our research. However, to caveat that, returnable glass bottles can have half the emissions of a single use plastic bottle, due to their repeated use.
Bio-based plastic alternatives may have a lower carbon footprint, but are not a straight-forward solution. Bioplastics generally do use less energy to produce than their fossil-based alternatives. But one study found that although bio-based PET bottles can have an overall carbon footprint one fifth smaller than fossil fuel-based plastic bottles, they perform worse in terms of overall ecotoxicity — e.g. from water pollution from fertilizer use in agriculture. They may also increase competition for land and food resources, and have been linked to deforestation. What’s more, businesses are put off as some bioplastics carry a hefty price tag. This is particularly relevant with what is arguably the most environmentally sound bioplastic form — so-called ‘third generation’ bioplastics, which don’t compete with agriculture. These innovative alternatives such as algae-based bioplastics, are still relatively expensive compared to their corn and sugar cane-based counterparts.
Help consumers understand the alternatives. A third of consumers are unsure about which bioplastics can be recycled, creating a real barrier to effective recycling. When confused, three-quarters of this group automatically send plastic to landfill. Such widespread confusion could be put down to the fact that there are many types of bioplastics, with different properties:
- Just because a plastic is made from renewable materials (e.g. sugarcane) instead of fossil fuels, does not necessarily mean it is easily biodegradable
- Bio-based plastics deal with the environmental impact of creation — their carbon is all derived from renewable feedstocks, i.e. plant-based sources
- In contrast, biodegradable plastics deal with the footprint related to their disposal, being scientifically proven to break down and return to nature within a short time
Take Coca Cola’s bio-based PlantBottle as an example: Like many durable bioplastics, whilst being made partially from sugarcane, it is actually chemically identical to conventional PET plastic. This means it can be produced with lower carbon emissions than fossil-fuel based plastics and still recycled normally, but will not break down easily if composted.
Some biodegradable plastics on the other hand, such as polylactide acid (PLA — a flexible bioplastic most commonly used for food packaging and disposable tableware) cannot simply be thrown in your compost heap alongside all your other food scraps. It requires specific conditions to biodegrade. These bioplastics cause headaches for many recycling facilities across the world as they can contaminate traditional plastic recycling streams, and often aren’t even compostable as many areas lack industrial compositing facilities. As a result, calls have been made for the EU to invest in separate recycling streams for bioplastics, given their predicted market growth of 20% over the next five years.
This is indeed a complex topic. So, in our third blog, we’ll try to give our verdict on the bioplastics issue!
2) Think globally, act locally
What problem are you actually trying to solve? Plastic waste causes globalpollution, breaking down and entering our food chain. But solutions need to also be intercepted at a local level, if they are to have any lasting impact. Businesses need to focus on the problem at hand. In markets where plastic pollution (e.g. on beaches, in water bodies…) is the key issue, then no matter how much we focus on design and innovation upstream, we will still not have solved it. Solutions in this case need to focus on waste reduction and the building the right local infrastructure and conditions.
You can have the most sustainable packaging in the world, but you’re destined to fail without regulatory support. In both developed and emerging markets, companies need to work with regulators and consumers together to incentivise behavioural change. One great example is the rising popularity of container deposit schemes (CDS). Norway’s CDS has allowed them to achieve an impressive plastic bottle recycling rate of 97%, a figure much higher than in countries without CDS schemes.
Some markets are special. In less developed countries, where recycling infrastructure is still a pipedream, designing out harmful plastics altogether should be the focus, or choosing truly biodegradable options that don’t need UV light or high temperatures to break down. These technical solutions do exist, for example Florida-based Saltwater Brewery’s ground breaking innovation producing six-pack can rings from brewery waste (which are also edible by marine life)!
3) Understand your exposure
Make the invisible, visible. Not all plastic is visible to the end consumer. In fact, it is sometimes not even visible to the company making the product. Complex supply chains and multi-channel sales result in ‘hidden’ secondary and tertiary packaging, such as shrink wrap, plastic ties, polystyrene and other cushioning, that are not considered in packaging decisions. This hidden culprit is both upstream, such as in the assembly and delivery of intermediate products; and downstream, for instance when products are re-packaged by wholesalers before ending up on shop shelves. How can businesses ask consumers to make informed decisions on their packaging purchases, when they can’t see the full picture?
Map out plastic consumption across the full value chain. Look at where your materials flow, and where they’re likely to end up. What materials are used? Are they recyclable? How about per geography? You may find that in some locations, even the purest materials are more likely to end up breaking down in waterways than in recycling facilities due to infrastructure restrictions. Could this lead to potential branded litter concerns?
Identify the problem areas. Once waste streams are properly understood, it becomes easier to determine exposure to risks. Are you using the wrong type of plastic? Where are your recycling bottlenecks and barriers? Many high-risk hotspots often go unnoticed until it’s too late. Take the UK city of Manchester, for example: Scientists have only recently discovered that one of Manchester’s rivers has the worst level of microplastic pollution ever recorded in the world.
Determine the value at stake. Understanding the size of the opportunity (and the risk of inaction) is key to finding the right solution to the problem. Externalities borne by third parties, such as waste clean-up and recycling costs, are increasingly costing companies directly due to regulation internalising these costs, such as Extended Producer Responsibility fees. On the flip side, eco-conscious consumers are willing may pay more for sustainable alternatives, so companies should look to see if this presents a new revenue opportunity.
Our next blog…
Today we have explored why looking at the full picture is important when developing approaches to mitigate the ‘plastic problem’. The last thing you want to do is create a whole new problem with your solutions. It’s also important to think of local answers to the problem — where plastic waste is most visible to stakeholders. And in developing solutions, it is critical for companies to fully understand both their visible and invisible impacts and measure their value at stake.
Up next, in our final blog of this series, we shall be looking to the future and diving deeper into new technologies and transformative solutions that could champion the ‘war’ on waste. We will also give our final verdict!
Written by Zomo S Y Fisher and Sapphire Jones
All thoughts expressed are our own and no reflection of our employer.
