This audio is generated automatically. Please let me know if you have any comments.
Many brand owners and packaging processors believe that with the right innovation, legal support and nuanced understanding of sustainability, it is possible to further reduce packaging sources by around 5-10% within the next five years. compromise plan.
That’s according to a survey of dozens of companies conducted for a report released this month. AmeripenWritten by Smithers, Consumer Brands Association and Consumer Technology Association.
However, given the overall increase in production and the need to ensure packaging is adequately protected, there are concerns about what is possible in the future.
The reality check comes as jurisdictions like California call for a 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging by 2032 as part of SB 54, an expanded producer law.
The report defines: Physical reduction of packaging weight for products for the same purpose, resulting in reduced sources. This is different from simply replacing new materials with recycled content, for example.
The report argues that companies have already made notable progress in pursuing the benefits of sustainability and lower material costs. Ameripen, CBA and CTA certified Industry-led source reduction efforts will reduce U.S. packaging volume by approximately 5 million metric tons from 2019 to 2024, despite growing demand for packaging from e-commerce.
by numbers
2014: 85.8 million metric tons
packaging volume in the united states
2019: 88.4 million metric tons
packaging volume in the united states
2024: 83.5 million metric tons
U.S. packaging volumes are down from 2019 levels despite a 10 million increase in population and the e-commerce boom caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Without the industry’s resource reduction efforts, packaging capacity would have increased to 88.9 million metric tons, Smithers estimates.
2029: 82-89 million metric tons
Smithers estimated expected packaging volume in the U.S. based on projected population, GDP and e-commerce growth.
Respondents reported that most of this progress came from lightweighting and changes to secondary and protective packaging.
Examples highlighted in the report include Coca-Cola’s efforts to: Lightening its plastic bottle portfolio, reducing cardboard boxes at Amazon in favor of flexible paper mailers, and implementing refillable packaging options at Unilever.
“This report shows that our industry has made significant progress in its efforts to reduce its pollutants,” John Hewitt, senior vice president of packaging and sustainability at the Consumer Brands Association, said in a press release. “As we look to the future, we must not sacrifice consumer or product safety for continued progress.”
Challenges ahead
Brands see consumer preferences as the biggest driver of their sustainability efforts, while packaging manufacturers cited policy and regulation. But companies also have competing trade-offs when it comes to radar.
Compostable packaging is one example. According to the report, while it could reduce the amount of food packaging going to landfill, compostable materials can be thicker than conventional products, which could be in direct conflict with reducing pollution sources.
As another example, EPR policies are driving companies to place greater priority on the recyclability of their packaging. This may not necessarily be a benefit of source reduction.
““Brands may be limited in their material choices, which may limit their path to optimizing source reduction while maintaining recyclability based on today’s infrastructure and market access,” the report said.
“At the same time, regulatory requirements for recycled content are forcing brands to test the limits of packaging integrity. In some cases, increased recycled content may require the use of more or heavier new materials to achieve packaging integrity, which puts it in direct conflict with source reduction goals and forces potential trade-offs,” the report explains.
How brands and packaging companies actually track source reduction is also an issue. While 79% of respondents said they were already tracking and measuring source reduction data, 51% said they lacked automated methods for capturing data.
