What is the Future for Plastic Packaging?
1.1 Introduction
This dissertation sets out to analyse the complex and competing requirements of a fast-changing plastic packaging industry as it attempts to meet the global requirement to reduce plastic use and eliminate all future plastic waste. Amid growing global awareness, consumer demand and a political will seem finally to be aligned in supporting the plastic packaging companies in innovation and change. This paper sets out the background to the drive to radically reduce single-use plastic packaging, to recycle plastic packaging and to come up with non-oil based compostable alternatives to traditional plastic packaging. Through extensive secondary research this paper will examine the different sorts of plastic packaging available and analyse the benefits and short comings of each. Primary research will provide a focus on consumer attitudes to reducing plastic use, and their views on bio-plastics vs recycled plastic. Primary research will also include in-depth interviews with industry leaders in packaging and packaging recycling Ultimately this paper will attempt to come up with a Blue Print for the future of packaging. (!?!). NB. This bit might change!
1.2 Background
16 years after his 2001 award-winning natural history programme "The Blue Planet," Sir David Attenborough returned with another breath-taking exploration of the world's vast oceans in “Blue Planet II”. Viewing figures in the UK reached over 35 million (the most watched BBC programme of 2017) and attracted global attention in highlighting the damaging impact single-use plastic is having on the world's oceans and environment. At the launch of Blue Planet II Attenborough called for the world to cut back on its use of plastic in order to protect oceans.
Within the context of global warming it is the plastics issue that has been seized upon because, as Attenborough stated in his interview with The Guardian in February 2017, “What we’re going to do about 1.5 degrees rise in the temperature of the ocean over the next 10 years, I don’t know, but we could actually do something about plastic right now.” The War on Plastics – plastic bags and plastic packaging specifically – had begun. (Jackson 2017)
There followed a storm of media coverage and government legislation. News headlines appear daily as PR initiatives by supermarkets, coffee houses and fashion brands are launched and TV documentaries abound: A 5p tax on plastic bags; a ban by the Queen on the use of plastic bottles and drinking straws at Buckingham Palace (Telegraph 2018); Costa Coffee vowed to recycle 5oom takeaway cups by 2020 (Sky News 2018); Coca Cola launched its lighter coke bottle in 2017 and pledged to increase their recycling target to 50% by 2020 following pressure from Greenpeace (Kentish 2017); Tesco announced a commitment “to reducing the total amount of packaging used across our business”. (Gabbatiss 2018)
Delving deeper into these headlines there are many competing views and little consensus as to how the war on plastic can be won. Reducing plastic use, moving to a closed loop (100% recycling) system, and developing new, non-oil based, “bioplastics” are all options. Each have their advantages and limitations. It might be viable to run both approaches side-by-side but there are risks associated with that in that bioplastics cannot be mixed in with recyclable plastic during waste disposal and the consumer is not being clearly enough directed as to what waste to put where.
Door step collection schemes vary across the country, and consumers are not instructed to recycle properly. Recycled plastic is more expensive to produce and to use in packaging than virgin plastic. But, the economic incentive for collection and recycling will become more compelling as the marketing advantages of producing recycled and recyclable plastic (being seen to be green) is increased to meet consumer demand. Every day one or other major company announces a new green initiative or statistics are published about plastic in our oceans. Some of these initiatives are summarised in the Ellen McArthur Foundation announcement at the January 2018 World Economic Forum in Davos where companies such as Unilever, Danone, Evian, Walmart and L’Oréal committed to work towards using 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging by 2025. (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2018)
2.1 Plastic packaging – an explanation of terms
Before going any further in this report, it is necessary to first provide a definition of the is the huge variety of types of plastics used in packaging. The way a plastic is designed and what material it’s made from affects how it can be used for as well as how it can be recycled and disposed of.
Figure 1, Bioplastics Defining Diagram (WRAP)
Plastics can be fossil-based or bio-based i.e. They can be conventional plastics or bioplastics. Both conventional and bioplastics can be nonbiodegradable, biodegradable or (if the right conditions are provided) compostable. A common misconception is that a bio-based plastic or bioplastic automatically will biodegrade. (N.B. This to be tested in Consumer Survey. ‘Do you think bioplastic will biodegrade?’)
The diagram above illustrates that there are three main categories of bioplastics, as well as fuel based conventional plastics. These can be split into two broad categories: fossil-based, and biomass (plant) based plastics.
Bio-based plastics can be split further into two categories:
1. Bio-based or partially bio-based non-biodegradable plastics such as bio-based PE or PP
2. Plastics that are both bio-based and biodegradable, such as biodegradable PLA and PHA or PBS
Fossil based plastics can also be split into two categories:
1. Plastics that are fossil-based and biodegradable, such as PBAT.
2. Conventional plastics that are fossil based but don’t biodegrade.
NOTE: It is with category 3, a plastic that is biodegradable but not derived form bio-mass, that confusion arises as this category is often referred to as ‘bioplastic’. The ‘bio’ in this case referring to its biodegradability, not from its plant-based origins. For the purposes of clarity, I will refer to this category for the rest of this dissertation as degradable plastics and it can be assumed that any reference to bioplastic means plant derived. (WRAP 2018)
An analysis of the pros and cons of both plant-based bioplastics and the pros and cons of petro-chemical, fossil fuel derived plastics is explored below.
2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Bio-Plastics
Advantages:
Bio plastics have a massively reduced carbon footprint in comparison to regular, oil-based plastics. This mainly comes from the production energy saving which is good for the manufacturers as this is a direct cost saving opportunity. The energy saving is around 75% lower than the PET or PS oil-based alternatives. (Pathak, Sneha and Mathew 2014)
This all adds to a potentially much lower carbon footprint; however, this is only the case if the plastic holds onto the carbon it extracted from the air when it was a living plant. It is one thing for the CO2 captured by the plant during photosynthesis to be held by the plastic, but if that plastic is then biodegraded back down to a water and CO2 mixture, the carbon is released again, adding to the footprint of the total lifecycle of the plastic product. So, referring to Figure 1 above, type 1 bioplastic (non-degradable and bio-based) is good because the captured CO2 remains captured. This is not the case for biodegradable or compostable bio plastics (bioplastic type 2 in Figure 1) as during the break down CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. If composted properly (and not allowed to enter landfill) these biodegradable bioplastics are carbon neutral. However, the better of the two in terms of CO2 emission might be argued to be durable bioplastics (bioplastic type 1 in Figure 1), which are not designed to breakdown, but are designed to be recycled and will store their CO2 deposits until they are degraded many years down the line. These durable bioplastics can be recycled several times just as oil-based plastics can, meaning that they are much more useful if an efficient recycling infrastructure is in place. (Yu, J., and Chen, L 2014)
Yu and Chen (Yu, J., and Chen, L 2014) state that bioplastics contribute significantly less greenhouse gases in comparison to oil-based plastics. They report that only 0.49kg CO2 is emitted through production per one kilogram of resin. This is in comparison to 2-3kg CO2 per one kilogram of oil-based resin. That is roughly an 80% reduction from production alone. (Yu, Jian and Chen 2008)
Disadvantages:
Outlined below are some problems with bio plastics.
At the moment, the cost of bioplastics is roughly two times the price of oil-based plastics. The price of bioplastics is, however, likely to decrease as more production facilities are built. This is the case for all new materials or products but could slow down the development of bioplastics due to lack of commitment from manufacturers. The fluctuating oil price means that the relative benefits of switching to bio-based plastics is difficult to forecast at any one time. ‘Price’ is here referring to the cost of resin production (growing of crops vs oil extraction). ‘Price’ might also be taken to mean the opportunity cost of changing land use to biomass production. An upscale in bioplastics would result in a reduction in available land for crop reduction. A high demand may see the price of bioplastic crops being a far more valuable crop for farmers to grow rather than food crops, offsetting food prices and resulting in a lack of affordable food. (Lagaron and Lopez-Rubio 2011)
The other main issue with bioplastics is recyclability. As discussed above there are two distinct types of bioplastic: durable bioplastics and biodegradable bioplastics. The durable bioplastics can be recycled easily and can be mixed in with oil-based equivalent plastics. They can be recycled several times with no diminished quality. The biodegradable bioplastics are designed to break down as easily as possible, so do not survive the recycling process which involves chemical washes and high temperatures. They have also been designed to replicate plastic visually and physically which means that they are hard to sort, identify and extract in the recycling process. Recyclers don’t want biodegradable bioplastics. This means that recycled plastics such as PET can be contaminated very easily by biodegradable bioplastics, making the quality very low and can ruin a whole batch of reprocessed material, making it worthless. This can end up in a massive waste of resource, even though it was trying to help in the first place. Tesco’s chief product officer Jason Tarry stated at an industry conference in 2018, “Ideally we would like to move to a closed loop system… We will work with our suppliers to redesign and reduce all packaging materials and, after consultation with our leading suppliers earlier this year, we will remove all packaging that is hard to recycle from our business by 2019.” He went on to define “hard to recycle” as including biodegradable bioplastics. In other words, from a recycling perspective, biodegradable bioplastics are a significant problem. (Gabbatiss 2018)
The general description of how bioplastics can be disposed of on packaging can be misunderstood very easily. No bioplastic can be composted at home in your back garden. When packaging says compostable it usually means that it can be composted when a certain environment is applied. This is called industrial composting and requires extreme heat and particular moisture levels. Terms such as ‘environmentally friendly’, ‘non-toxic’ and ‘degradable’ are all used by manufacturers in an attempt to ‘green-wash’ their customers who may favour eco products over others. These terms are often misused and are worded to a manufacturers advantage. (Barker and Safford 2009)
There is a big gap in the legislation of bioplastics. Even though 2.1 million tons of material have been produced in 2018 so far, many countries do not have many, if any, laws regarding the manufacture, use and post-use management of the material. This could lead to irregularities in quality and may cause issues for post-use waste streams. (European Bioplastics, Nova-Institute and Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites 2014)
Finally, relating to bioplastics that are fully compostable, the uses are limited. Packaging of food, cosmetics and anything with a high moisture content will have a limited shelf life.
2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Oil-Based Plastics
Advantages:
Oil-based plastics have many advantages over bio alternatives. They are currently very cheap to produce. The process of refining oil into plastic has evolved and improved over many years such that polymer production is highly efficient.
Oil based plastics are very durable. There are many different types developed for different functions, again because the technologies have been developed over a long period of time.
Non-biodegradable oil-based plastics are advantageous precisely because they do not break down; their properties remain constant, prolonging shelf life. Non-biodegradable oil-based plastics, as long as they are not contaminated by other plastic types, can be fully recycled and can be used within a circular economy.
Biodegradable oil-based plastics are advantageous because they do break down quickly if the conditions are right reducing material in landfill.
Disadvantages:
Non-renewable resources are used in the production of oil-based plastics. Oil production and refining contributes to the release of greenhouse gases.
Non-biodegradable oil-based plastics, if not recycled responsibly, end up in landfill and in our oceans.
(Add info from source about landfill volumes and ocean pollution)
3.1 Summary of Secondary Research
In analysing the advantages and disadvantages of both bio-based and oil-based, biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastics it can be concluded that there are a variety of approaches that can be employed to tackle plastic packaging waste. There are three major approaches:
1. To reduce plastic use overall
2. To recycle durable plastics (bioplastics and oil-based plastics) efficiently adopting a 100% circular usage
3. To use, where possible and practical, fully biodegradable and compostable bio-based plastics.
In a perfect world in which plastic labelling and disposal is faultless, the current oil-based plastic would be recycled over and over again (no need for any further oil-based plastic production) and any new plastic products would be either fully biodegradable or fully recyclable.
The way in which the above ‘utopia’ can be achieved is explored through interviews with industry experts on both recycling and plastic packaging producers. (Muller & Enva Interviews)
The confusion over the recycling of different plastics categories will be explored in detail via consumer surveys. The consumer’s understanding of different phrases commonly used on packaging, the different signage and labelling, and their interpretation of what ‘bioplastic’ means will be tested.
4.0 Method
4.1 FMCG Plastic Packaging Manufacturers Sector
4.2 Post-Use Waste Stream Recycling Sector
4.3 Consumer Perceptions Survey