According to research from PMMI Business Intelligence, compostable packaging materials are predicted to increase by 15-16% over the next decade. Historically, acceptance of these materials has been stymied by a lack of widespread infrastructure in the U.S. to process both food waste and other compostable waste such as certified compostable packaging. 

Yet as more municipalities understand the urgency and climate-related benefits of diverting food waste from landfills, a new narrative is starting to emerge. The Sustainable Packaging Coalition has tracked the growth of expansion of food waste recycling programs for the past three years. This year, access to composting programs and facilities continued to grow, and the trend shows no signs of slowing down. 

In 2023, at least 35 towns, cities, and counties across 20 states increased residential access to composting programs for food scraps, and in some cases, compostable packaging. Across the country, at least 9 facilities grew their operations, retrofitted their processes to accept food waste or break material down more quickly, and experimented with new technologies. 

This is comparable to data from 2022 indicating that at least 38 towns, cities, and counties across 18 states increased residential access to composting programs for food scraps, and at least 13 facilities grew or expanded their composting operations. In 2021, data showed a similar story – at least 37 towns, cities, and counties across 19 states increased residential access to composting programs for food scraps, and in some cases, compostable packaging.

Read more about the new and/or expanded programs and facilities below. 

MUNICIPALITIES

• Chicago, IL
• Los Angeles, CA
• Alexandria, VA 
• Oʻahu’, HI 
• Durango, CO
• Bourne, MA 
• Riverhead, NY
• Newtown, CT 
• Bow, NH 
• Fairfax County, VA
• Charleston, SC
• Athens, GA
• Knoxville, TN
• Miami-Dade (FL) County
• East Hampton, NY
• Decatur, GA
• Columbus, OH
• Springfield, MO
• Nashville, TN 
• West Haven, CT 
• Princeton, NJ
• Washington County, OR
• Ann Arbor, MI 
• Middletown, CT 
• Troy, NY
• Toledo, OH 
• Boston, MA 
• Frederick, MD 
• Aspen, CO 
• New York City, NY
• Washington, D.C.
• Baltimore, MD 
• San Diego, CA 
• Bozeman, MT
• Loudon County, VA

FACILITIES

1. Brattleboro, VT
2. Shakopee, MN 
3. Twin Cities, MN
4. Oak Bluffs, IL 
5. Falls Township, PA
6. Rutgers University (NJ)
7. Marshall University (WV)
8. White Plains and Westchester County, NY
9. Iowa City, IO
10. Shelton, WA

BACKGROUND ANALYSIS

New 

1. Chicago / more
2. Los Angeles launches citywide organics service 
3. Alexandria, VA 
4. Oʻahu’, HI  / Manufactured compostable waste to be accepted in Oahu’s
5. Durango, CO
6. Bourne, MA 
7. Riverhead, NY – Long Island’s food scrap dilemma 
8. Newtown, CT 
9. Bow, NH 
10. Fairfax County, VA
11. Charleston, SC
12. Athens, GA
13. City of Knoxville (TN): A comprehensive, multi-scale community composting program for residents, businesses, and nonprofits in Knoxville that will provide outlets, supplies, education, and ongoing support for three different scales of composting.
14. Miami-Dade (FL) County: Two-year pilot project that aims to accelerate and scale the services of three small locally owned composting companies by expanding existing service capacity by 50% over one year, obtaining a renewable 18-month pilot project permit, developing a commercially viable compost product for use by Miami-Dade County
15. East Hampton, NY
16. Decatur, GA
17. Columbus, OH
18. Springfield, MO
19. Nashville, TN piloting curbside compost program to reduce landfill waste 
20. West Haven, CT 
21. Princeton, NJ
22. Washington County, OR
23. Ann Arbor, MI 
24. Middletown, CT 
25. Troy, NY
26. Toledo, OH / Toledo, OH 

Expansion 

1. Boston, MA  / more Boston
2. Frederick, MD 
3. Aspen, CO 
4. New York City
5. DC To Pilot Curbside Composting Pickup This Summer | DCist 
6. Baltimore, MD 
7. San Diego, CA – San Diegans are recycling more than twice as much organic waste” Initial statistics comparing July 2022 to July 2023, the first month where nearly the whole city had green bins, show the amount of green recycling collected by the city increased from 3,100 tons to 6,900 tons.
8. Bozeman, MT

NEW / EXPANDED INFRASTRUCTURE 

• Recology diverts 1.3 million tons from landfills – American Recycler News, Inc.
• The First Community Composter Census – BioCycle 

1. Brattleboro, VT  / Grant will be used to expand compost facility in Brattleboro
2. Shakopee, MN 
3. Twin Cities, MN
4. Oak Bluffs, IL 
5. Falls Township, PA
6. Rutgers University (NJ)
7. Marshall University (WV)
8. White Plains and Westchester County, NY
9. Iowa City, IO
10. Shelton, WA

SORTATION

• Hyperspectral Imaging Identifies Compostable Plastics for Sorting “Advanced technology, including AI, is playing a growing role in helping make composting more efficient and more easily able to handle compostable plastics; developing new compostable materials; and even helping to change consumer behavior.”
• We Desperately Need to Compost More to Save the World; How AI & Data Can Help Sorting is often a manual and expensive process. But AI is changing that; equipped with machine vision, robotic sorters can quickly remove contaminants from trucks of compostable waste.

KEY LEGISLATION

• Minnesota Composting Industry Scores a Win with Passing of Labeling Bill | Waste Advantage
• Colorado governor approves pair of bills to improve compost feedstocks | Waste Dive
• Maryland governor signs EPR, organics and electric vehicle laws | Waste Dive
• New Hampshire Adopts Food Waste Disposal Ban | BioCycle

PREVIOUS YEARS

2022: At least 38 towns, cities, and counties across 18 states increased residential access to composting programs for food scraps, and in some cases, compostable packaging.  Across the country, at least 13 facilities grew their operations, retrofitted their processes to accept food waste or break material down more quickly, and experimented with new technologies. 

2021: At least 37 towns, cities, and counties across 19 states increased residential access to composting programs for food scraps, and in some cases, compostable packaging.

Last month the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) held its first-ever event in Minneapolis, Minnesota to spur action within the compostable packaging sphere. Various stakeholders from material manufacturers, composters, brand owners, legislators, compost certifiers, to local and national municipality representatives were in attendance and ready to participate during the 2-day summit.

Attendees were able to learn from 10 sessions featuring leaders in the composting space. SPC staff walked away with two key takeaways: (1.) By educating and motivating the public about composting, we will be able to (2.) successfully minimize contamination, cleaning the composting stream to produce a high quality output.

Here’s what we learned…

Compost Contamination

 “We can’t make a high quality end product if low-quality compost is what’s coming in.” – Dustin Montey

One of the recurring themes throughout the Summit was the challenge of contamination. During the Compostable Packaging Partnerships session, the Compost Council of Canada highlighted contamination as a large issue composters face. This is not unique to Canadian infrastructure; several US composters who attended the conference shared the same sentiments around contamination from non-compostable packaging materials.

“oxodegradable, biodegradable, eco-friendly, and all-natural are not standards and can be very misleading for consumers” – Erin Skelly

Erin Skelly and Dustin Montey of the SMSC Organics Recycling Facility discussed how greenwashing and lack of consumer education can easily lead to contamination. A non-compostable product may appear compostable based on the product’s messaging, color, or look, leading consumers to place non-compostable items in their compost bins. There may even be compostable messaging used on items that have not passed any certification, which can exacerbate the contamination issue. During their presentation, Skelly and Montey stated “oxodegradable, biodegradable, eco-friendly, and all-natural are not standards and can be very misleading for consumers” when seen on packages. [To learn more, read SPC’s position statement on greenwashing here.]

Difficult to identify, poorly-labeled compostables can also be part of the problem if they fail to display clear compostability indicators like certification logos. To minimize potential contamination, the current standard practice is to pick out non-BPI certified items, since it is hard to verify the compostability of non-certified products. Without a standardized identifier like the BPI label or the How2Compost label, both the consumer and the hauler will have difficulty recognizing what can be composted versus what needs to be landfilled to mitigate contamination.

“We spend a lot of time screening regular plastic bags out of the compost stream” – Tim Dewey-Mattia

Tim Dewey-Mattia of Napa Recycling and Waste Services reported spending a lot of time screening regular plastic bags out of their compost. Waste Service workers open every compost shipment that arrives in compostable bags to make sure the organic matter inside can be successfully composted. Collectors have noticed that people will put non-compostable items in these bags simply due to a lack of knowledge or caring.

So how do we improve the system?

Improving the System Through Education & Motivation

To combat contamination we need to go to the root of the problem –  education and motivation. In the Compostable Packaging Myths session, composting representatives from SMSC, City of St. Louis Park, and Organicycle agreed that education for people and companies about compost contamination would be a successful way to engage in positive behavior change.

 “Compost is a starter engine for regeneration.” – Finian Makepeace

The Minneapolis Organics Recycling Program has piloted a way to keep its residents accountable for properly disposing of food waste and other compostables. During their project, they had field staff look into residents’ curbside compost bins to see if they contained contaminated materials. If so, the field staff were to place a tag on the resident’s bin with an explanation of what was considered contamination and why their bin was rejected from pick-up. If a second offense occurs, the Minneapolis Organics Recycling Program follows up with a letter in the mail reiterating why the bin was rejected. If the contamination continues, the final course of action may result in the curbside bin being removed. This pilot was a great way to personally engage with people, make them aware of what is considered compost contamination, and then provide guidance on how to change their behavior in the future.

“It’s helpful to want to work with people in our tent instead of taking aim at them.” – Susan Antler

SPC staff found BPI’s first Summit highly informative and a great meeting ground for stakeholders throughout the composting supply chain. As Susan Antler from the Compost Council of Canada said, it’s helpful to “want to work with people in our tent instead of taking aim at them.” Compostable packaging events like this are a great way to bring awareness to what other organizations are trying, have learned, and what to do better to create contamination-free compost.

For more information on BPI and their excellent work, check out their website, here.

Flexible film packages are ubiquitous in consumer’s lives today. From buying food at the grocery store to ordering furniture online, there is a good chance at least some part of the package is a plastic bag, pouch, or wrap. Despite its prevalence, recycling this material remains challenged. For the majority of the US population, curbside bins are a familiar system to putting recyclable items to be collected. However, when it comes to flexible films, most of us cannot (and should not!) put this material type into our curbside bins. Instead, there are options like Store Drop-off and specialty collection programs that were developed to successfully recover flexible films.

Highlighted during the SPC Advance 2023 session, “The Role of Specialty Recycling Programs as a solution to Hard-to-Recycle Packaging”, were speciality collection programs designed to capture and properly recycle flexible films. While these collection programs are not widespread yet, some communities may have access to centers that accept hard to recycle materials for a fee. To find a location near you, research your local municipality services for information on your specific recycling options. 

Other individual localities or businesses may collect challenging materials through partnerships with organizations like TerraCycle. Consumers around urban areas may have access to pick-up subscription services to collect items that cannot go into the curbside bin, such as a program like Ridwell whose top collection categories are polyethylene (PE) plastic films and multilayer plastic (flexibles made of a variety of materials that may or may not include PE). If you have access to a speciality collection program, these are great for giving new use to multilayer films and keeping them out of landfills.

During SPC Advance, attendees heard from Dow and Waste Management (WM) in their session “Advancing residential recycling for hard-to-recycle plastic films through a bold new collaboration” where they highlighted their partnership to pilot a new project focused on collecting flexible films curbside. Over the next 3 to 4 years, up to 8% of households in the US will have access to this pilot. Dow and WM are hopeful for the success of this program as it utilizes an already familiar system, the convenient curbside collection process, meeting consumers where they are and avoiding asking consumers to take additional steps to recycle flexible films. This pilot aims to address the problems that currently prevent flexible films from being collected curbside.

Today, flexibles remain a contaminant in Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs). The equipment at MRFs are designed to sort rigid materials and can become jammed by flexibles, creating slow downs and potentially lowering yields of rigid recyclable material. Additional equipment to specifically capture flexibles has been trialed in various MRFs but has not been widely adopted due to inefficiencies and lack of connection from MRFs to end markets.

Speciality recycling programs help close the gap to end markets by bringing flexible materials to reclaimers to create new items, such as construction materials like composite boards. While the system is not perfected yet, the progress of these programs to keep more materials out of landfills is a worthy endeavor. Currently, the biggest barriers with specialty collection programs are their size and accessibility; they are not available at scale and some even have a subscription cost associated with them. But there is good news–one type of  flexible film, polyethylene (PE) film, has a free and readily accessible pathway to recycling for most Americans; the Store Drop-off program.

As we learn about new methods of collecting PE film, and until pilots graduate to widespread systems, it is important to keep supporting the Store Drop-off stream to ensure these materials remain out of landfills. Store Drop-off programs exist where retailers voluntarily set up collection bins in individual stores and this is available to the majority of Americans. Continue to put clean, dry PE films in Store Drop-off bins and look for the How2Recycle label if you’re unsure where your flexible film should go.

For more information on how to recycle flexible films and other materials check out How2Recycle.

Since 2017, the Sustainable Packaging Coalition has been recognizing meaningful contributions and advancements towards more sustainable packaging through its annual SPC Innovator Awards. As a long-standing awards platform celebrating advancements in sustainability, the Awards have showcased the impressive efforts of more than thirty organizations. 

In 2024, the SPC Innovator Awards will look to celebrate innovations in packaging materials and designs with the Innovation in a Product or Material category. In addition to this longstanding category, two new categories will shine a spotlight on innovations in the broader recovery and packaging ecosystems. 

The introduction of the two new categories is intended to accelerate our industry’s progress on sustainable packaging. As the waste and climate crises stand at our doors, it is time to encourage and celebrate more ambitious collaborations across the supply chain. To meet this critical moment, the SPC believes it is time for more than improvements to package designs. Today, true innovation lies in transforming how the packaging industry engages with recovery infrastructure, educates consumers, and tackles broader sustainability challenges head-on. 

Today, true innovation lies in transforming how the packaging industry engages with recovery infrastructure, educates consumers, and tackles broader sustainability challenges head-on.

Submissions will open on October 11, 2023 for the 2024 awards cycle. SPC Member Companies with innovations in the following three categories are encouraged to submit their work: 

1. Innovation in a product or material

This category will recognize breakthroughs in the procurement and use of more sustainable materials. This includes new materials and novel uses of materials in challenging applications, as well as improvements to conventional materials and sourcing practices. 

See examples of past innovations in sourcing practices, design optimization, and recoverable packaging here – https://sustainablepackaging.org/engagement/spc-innovator-awards/award-winners/ 

2. NEW – Innovation in a recovery technology or practice

New for the 2024 awards cycle, this category is intended to recognize innovations that are increasing the quantity or quality of recovered packaging. This includes celebrating partnerships whose aim is to advance recovery practices and increase consumer participation in recycling and composting, as well as recognition for efforts to create end markets for difficult-to-recycle materials. 

3. NEW – Innovation in an overall packaging system

New for the 2024 awards cycle, this category will recognize breakthroughs that reduce the need for single-use packaging, such as through reuse and refill offerings. It will also recognize design improvements that solve broader sustainability challenges, such as the prevention of food waste through improved packaging formats. The SPC is also looking to recognize efforts to educate consumers and drive specific behaviors, such as through advancements in labeling paired with education campaigns. Finally, this category intends to recognize breakthroughs that radically break the mold of a current packaging category through wholesale redesign. 

With a realigned focus on celebrating companies’ efforts to directly engage with recovery infrastructure and elevate the sustainability of the package-product system, the SPC hopes to catalyze more rapid systems change in the sustainable packaging space.

Submissions for our 2024 SPC Innovator Awards will open October 11th, 2023.

At SPC Impact 2023, Jason Bell with Sustainability Solutions and David Brabham from Georgia-Pacific took to the stage to talk about Decarbonizing Paper Production.  As the title suggests, there is a clear opportunity for the industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting in lower carbon emissions for packaging. The speakers provided their perspectives on what we may see for both near-term and long-term transitions.

In his opening remarks, Brabham framed three supply chain levers for driving change:

•   Raw Materials
•   Manufacturing
•   End of Life

RAW MATERIALS

Regarding raw materials, there have been numerous studies that correlate a demand for forest products with increasing support for well-managed forests. In other words, landowners need markets for whatever is grown on their land – and if there is no demand for wood products, they may choose to grow other crops, or to develop land for commercial or residential purposes. In regard to other renewable fiber sources, most stakeholders agree that agricultural residues (like bagasse from sugar cane) are responsible choices for fiber because those residues would otherwise be wasted. However, Brabham pointed out that “We shouldn’t be replacing forests with other purpose-grown crops.”

MANUFACTURING

As for the manufacturing footprint of papermaking – both speakers agreed that for the next ten years or so, the industry will continue investing in opportunities to increase efficiency (using less energy) as well as fuel switching to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The industry has long led other sectors in the use of biobased fuels (primarily wood residuals like bark and black liquor). Bell suggested that a cultural change is needed from the ground up similar to the longstanding efforts on workplace safety. “Like safety, we need to see a cultural shift around greenhouse gas reductions. Operators see data on safety, uptime and quality on the shop room floor every day”, Brabham explained. By providing operators visibility to key performance indicators like energy and emissions per unit of production, operators could see the effects of their work in real-time – much like they do now for safety and other performance indicators.

Looking further out, Bell commented that new technologies like electric boilers and heat pumps will come into play. And Brabham noted that the industry is in a unique position related to carbon sequestration. While some industries may look at offsetting or sequestration in hopes of achieving carbon neutrality for fossil fuels– it is conceivable that the pulp and paper industry could achieve a carbon-negative status by sequestering emissions from biofuels.

END OF LIFE

Regarding end-of-life, the industry has a strong track record of recycling and use of recycled fiber. However, there are still millions of tons of paper-based packaging and food service products ending up in US landfills every year. In order to recapture some of this fiber, Georgia Pacific recently commercialized a new technology called Juno, based on a massive autoclave, that allows for the recovery of paper fiber from commercial and residential waste streams. The process has also proven that it can handle challenging products such as poly-coated papers and materials with high food residue. While the autoclave uses higher levels of energy than traditional sortation processes, life cycle studies have shown that the process does result in a significant net reduction of emissions – while also recovering additional recyclables (e.g. cans and bottles) from the waste stream.

In short, the pulp and paper industry continues to drive efficiency improvements, adopt fuel switching, and support sustainable forest management. While the industry is quite mature, we also continue to see technology advancements, like Juno. Looking ahead, it is conceivable that with the advent of sequestration technology papermaking could become carbon negative. Indeed, it seems there is a road to reducing the emissions associated with industrial manufacturing; and that road will be lined with trees.

When it comes to digital printing, how far have we come and what can the industry do to take advantage of the many benefits these technologies offer? Victoria Hattersley reports.

A number of circularity organizations have collaborated to launch PRFLEX, an effort to improve flexible plastic recycling in Canada. 

The Recycled Material Standard (RMS) has seen a rapid increase in certified participants and activity over the last few months. At the recent SPC Impact conference in Austin, TX, the RMS team highlighted new certification resources and RMS participants shared the stage to discuss their successes in leveraging different RMS tools.

Perspectives from Early Adopters

An overflowing room of attendees listened as Cherish Changala of Revolution Plastics, Richa Desai of Graham Packaging, and Martha Issa of Veritiv shared insights into their companies’ experiences with RMS. A panel discussion explored the three companies’ experiences as early adopters of strategic avenues to utilize the standard, including traditional recycled content claims supported by a chain of custody, mass balance allocation, and Attributes of Recycled Content (ARC) trading.

“It was so comprehensive. It’s a new way of looking at certification.”

Revolution was among the first companies to achieve RMS certification and has used average content claims for certified post-consumer and post-industrial materials. While Revolution has been certified to other standards in the past, Changala said the company wanted to be an early adopter of the RMS because “it was so comprehensive. It’s a new way of looking at [certification].”  She noted that certification is important to Revolution because it helps their customers feel confident in their products.

Graham Packaging is now working with the newly-accredited certification body DNV Business Assurance USA to pursue certification for two facilities in York, Pennsylvania. Desai noted a few features of the RMS that have helped the process go smoothly. Graham was able to use the new RMS toolkit to ease the burden of preparing for certification, unlike other certification processes that required the assistance of a consultant. Compared to other standards, the opportunity for multi-site certification via RMS has also helped reduce the audit burden, so the company doesn’t have to audit every site every year.

Like Revolution, Graham sees the value in certifying both post-consumer and post-industrial materials. Desai noted that post-industrial materials can help customers with goals to reduce virgin plastic use while maintaining the quality and performance of packaging.

Graham is the first RMS participant to pursue the use of mass balance allocation.  According to Desai, there are a few key advantages. First, mass balance gives Graham the flexibility to use materials processed through mechanical recycling and advanced recycling. Second, the company hopes to leverage non-food-grade PCR into food-grade applications. Given the lack of supply of food-grade PCR, especially for polyolefins, this flexibility will help Graham’s customers meet their recycled material use targets. Mass balance will also give Graham the flexibility to match its specific investments in the use of recycled materials with its customers’ variable goals.

“We now have EPR as an instrument to drive investment in recycling [collection and sortation]  infrastructure.  I truly believe that we need mass balance to increase the amount of PCR in products.”

Desai pointed out that PCR cannot be incorporated into packaging overnight – it takes investment, infrastructure, testing, and more to incorporate PCR, especially in food-grade applications. Graham’s customers have different goals and different willingness to pay for recycled materials, especially as new regulatory requirements are being put in place, so mass balance will enable Graham to meet those requirements while efficiently managing its inventory and capital investments.  Desai sees mass balance as key to advancing the use of recycled materials: “We now have EPR as an instrument to drive investment in recycling [collection and sortation]  infrastructure. I truly believe that we need mass balance to increase the amount of PCR in products.”

“For me, it was very easy to buy into the concept, because I had in mind that the end goal is to invest in infrastructure for more recycled content.”

Meanwhile, as a distributor of packaging, Veritiv was excited about the ability to create a pipeline for recycled content without becoming certified directly through the RMS. When Issa first heard about ARCs, the new environmental commodity created by the RMS to support investments in recycling, she thought the idea was brilliant. “For me, it was very easy to buy into the concept, because I had in mind that the end goal is to invest in infrastructure for more recycled content.”  The bigger challenge was to explain the new concept to stakeholders within her company.  Two of the main concerns they expressed were: how can you be sure that investments in ARCs are truly investments in recycling infrastructure, and how can you be sure that claims based on ARCs aren’t greenwashing? For Issa and her colleagues, the RMS was able to provide that assurance. Since every ARC is tied to materials reprocessed by a specific audited project that must meet additional criteria, Veritiv was assured that their investment was credible.

“This is not about offsetting or buying our way out.  We need recycled content, there is not enough. This is a step forward to doing that.”

The RMS also gives guidelines on marketing claims so that ARC purchasers like Veritiv can avoid greenwashing. Ultimately, the holy grail is to have more post-consumer recycled plastic, and Issa sees investment in ARCs as a step on the path to get there: “This is not about offsetting or buying our way out. We need recycled content, there is not enough. This is a step forward to doing that.”

These companies’ experiences highlight the importance of the flexibility and adaptability of the RMS, even as it provides robust assurance of the validity of claims. By offering different pathways, RMS can assure validity of both post-consumer and post-industrial content claims, give companies the flexibility to meet their goals through mass balance accounting and facilitate scalable investments in new recycling infrastructure through ARC trading. With the new resources that are now available to participants, these opportunities will become accessible to even more companies that are working to advance the use of recycled materials.

New Resources for Companies Considering Certification

Dr. Laura Thompson kicked off the first RMS session by introducing the RMS participant toolkit developed with the support of McDonald’s. The session helped companies considering certification think through the process, answering questions like:

• What key internal stakeholders need to be involved in the certification process?
• How might a company align their certification approach with their strategy?
• How should a company define the intended scope of their certificate, including covered sites, products, and types of claims?
• How can the scope of a certificate evolve and grow over time as companies and their supply chain partners make progress on their recycled material goals?

Thompson’s session also touched on some less obvious certification opportunities such as the ability to certify post-industrial scrap (and potentially track any post-consumer content that may be present) and use mass balance for all types of recycling – not just chemical – offering flexibility and simpler inventory management.

Beyond the toolkit, the RMS team has other resources for current and prospective participants, including one-page brochures suitable for sales trading and educating customers on the RMS and a brief video on the often-confusing topic of mass balance allocation.

A glimpse into the Balcones Resources tour that took place at SPC Impact 2023; what it showed us, and how, to succeed, we must collaborate to tackle packaging waste at scale.  

Since 1994, Balcones Resources has worked to tackle the waste conundrum in innovative ways, largely as a result of fostering meaningful partnerships with their customers, from small business to municipalities and everyone in between. Originating in Austin, Texas, Balcones Resources has since expanded their operations to six locations (and counting) across the country, making them the largest independent recycler in the United States. During SPC Impact 2023, attendees heard from Joaquin Mariel, Chief Commercial Officer of Balcones Resources, on the Main Stage in his TED Talk The MRF’s Role in the Circular Economy (Figure 1).  SPC Impact attendees also got a chance to tour their Austin facility during its operations on Day 2 of the conference.

Figure 1: Joaquin Mariel speaking on the Main Stage on Tuesday at SPC Impact 2023

With 30-35 tons of material processed every hour, to say there were a lot of moving parts is an understatement. This amount of material speaks to the scale of consumer recycling, how it has evolved and continues to grow. Beginning at the mountain of intaken material shown in Figure 2, the Balcones Resources tour guides led SPC Impact attendees through each step of the sortation process all the way to the final product: bails upon bails of separated materials (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Pile of intaken material being loaded in by trucks          Figure 3: Separated paper bails

Conveyor belts carry the intaken volume through various types of machinery and isolate it by material type (glass, paper, metal, and plastic). For example, the Eddy Current Separator (Figure 4) uses magnets to sort out metals, and the Fiber and Plastic Optical Sorters (Figure 5) separate materials based on color and/or packaging type using air pressure.

Figure 4: Eddy Current Separator                                                                Figure 5: Optical Sorter

Meanwhile, Balcones Resources workers oversee the flow of materials and pull out items by hand that might have been missed by the (mostly) automated machines. Toward the end of the tour, attendees got a glimpse into “last chance” area (Figure 6), which sends materials through a Plastic Optical Sorter to recover any last stragglers it may have missed previously. Unfortunately, this is where you see many of the materials that simply can’t be recycled at the facility (i.e. soft or small bits of plastic, bowling balls, etc.) putting into perspective the need to optimize how we design packaging.

Figure 6: “Last Chance Area”

Common contaminants, such as plastic bags (the largest source of contamination at Balcones Resources in Austin, TX) and electronic waste (which can cause explosions and fires), are where collaboration and coordinated innovation come in. When packaging materials can’t be sorted production slows and costs (in the form of tax dollars) rise for MRFs (Municipal Recycling Facilities). Much of the materials that cannot be sorted are due to the inability to access recycling in underserved communities, and organizations launching new products without informing recyclers. Mariel referenced this frustration on the Main Stage at SPC Impact, calling out companies for launching one-off solutions. Despite good intentions, these innovative solutions cannot be implemented successfully and at scale without comprehensive communication between the companies that create them and the MRFs that process them.

MRFs are often required to maintain and upgrade their machinery to most effectively sort their volume. Similarly, we as members of the packaging community must design and label our materials to match the capabilities of MRFs, as well as the end market needs of their customers. Packaging producers and recyclers need a better understanding of how each other operates to create a mutually beneficial relationship that subsequently betters the planet too.

It is vital to understand that while many materials can be recovered, it does not mean they necessarily will be recovered. The sustainable packaging industry has the power to both provide MRFs with the volume they need to flourish and design the materials that make up that volume to be truly circular. In order for this to happen, all stakeholders need to join forces. SPC Impact, and this tour in particular, brought together a diverse group of key players in the industry, in an environment that thrives on both collaboration and innovative thought.

Figure 7: Balcones Resources Tour Group #2 at SPC Impact 2023

Jon Smieja, PhD | VP of Circularity at GreenBiz Group.

For many of us working in sustainability, Earth Day can be frustrating. First off, Earth Day is every day for us. I know that’s cliché, but that’s the reality of our jobs when you consider all the threats our world is facing and the weight of all the interrelated systems that are crumbling around us. Like many other sustainability initiatives, a day for the Earth can seem like far too little, far too late.

In addition to the reasonable level of dread and despair we live with, we often spend precious time and resources in the lead up to Earth Day planning events for our companies, often only to see low participation rates. There are park clean ups, tree sapling giveaways and green team tables. All these activities often “speak to the choir” and don’t bring in too many new faces. In other words, it can be a struggle to engage a broader audience.

Not the inspiring message you usually read on Earth Day? Keep reading, there are brighter messages ahead.

This Earth Day I challenge all of us to address the day with authenticity, no matter where we work or what role we have. Let’s start by acknowledging all the existential risks we face from climate change to biodiversity loss, oceans full of plastic waste to oceans full of melted ice, and everything in between. Once we acknowledge it, let’s be realistic about the hard work it is going to take to fix the mess our species has created. I, for one, view Earth Day through a realist’s lens. Yes, it is a time to celebrate all the great work we do, but maybe more importantly, it is a time for us to reflect on all the hard work yet to be done.

To end on a high note, we asked some of our favorite sustainability trailblazers to share their own thoughts on what this holiday means to them. Enjoy reading their thoughts, and happy Earth Day!

“I am grateful that Earth Day gives us all an opportunity to pause and consider our place in the future of our world. As climate change accelerates it is more important than ever to elevate Earth Day as a way to for action and accountability. GreenBlue welcomes any opportunity to highlight the threat of climate change and Earth Day has become a perfect time to check in with members on goals and progress.”

– Paul Nowak, Executive Director @GreenBlue

“Earth Day is a chance to not only reflect on our progress but to catalyze solutioneers with a renewed focus powered by ambitious goals. It’s a chance to declare that we are stronger as a community by sharing our resources. We find out that we are not alone on this journey. The activities around this day are meant to inspire, encourage, and equip us for the challenges ahead. ”

– Priscilla Johnson, Chief Innovation Officer @Upstream Solutions

“We don’t love our moms only on Mother’s Day, and the same with Mother Earth on Earth Day, but it’s similarly a reminder of a life-giving force we often take for granted. That’s the point of stopping to celebrate our planet, with all its wondrous beauty and grave threats, a reminder that what gives us life and sustains us is worth both celebrating and protecting at all costs.”

– Joel Makower, Chairman and Co-Founder @GreenBiz Group

“I look at Earth Day as a time to celebrate all the beauty and splendor of the world we live in today, and it is also a time to think about how our actions impact the planet. As a corporate citizen, we feel it is our responsibility to ensure we have sustainable operations that minimize the impact on the surrounding communities and the planet, at large, through efforts to reduce GHG emissions and water usage, minimizing waste from our facilities, designing packaging that is more sustainable, educating our employees, and being engaged with our local communities. Personally, I believe it will take all of us making individual decisions and commitments to doing the right thing for the environment, not just on Earth Day but every day, to sustain our beautiful planet.”

– Elizabeth Rhue, VP of Global Environmental, Sustainability, & Technical Services @Sonoco

“Living more sustainably starts with awareness of the problems that exist, and the possible solutions to address them. That’s precisely why Earth Day is so important—it brings the conversation into the mainstream. Luckily, that awareness and inspiration spreads far beyond Earth Day, which is essential to help reinforce sustainable behaviors like remembering to use items designed for reuse or recycling, and to compost food scraps—even the messy and stinky ones.”

– Rhodes Yepsen, Executive Director @BPI

Chemical recycling – the technologies as well as the terminology – is controversial.

Seeking answers, I immersed myself in chemical recycling conversations with leaders in the space by attending the AMI Chemical Recycling Conference last month. At over 200 attendees, this third iteration of the conference was the largest it had been so far, which speaks to the growing interest in the topic of chemical recycling. In addition to attendees representing chemical companies or chemical recycling companies, other attendees less familiar with chemical recycling came to the conference to learn.

Presentation topics spanned policy, feedstock sourcing and sorting, certification, life cycle impacts, and collaboration. It was especially informative to hear about all the activity in bridging technologies that decontaminate or “upgrade” pyrolysis oil to be suitable for refining or steam cracking steps. Throughout the conference, there was quite a bit of discussion on whether material from chemical recycling will “count” as recycled material and what kinds of claims can be made when using mass balance accounting. Other topics that circulated included chemical recycling project finance, the logistics of scaling up from lab/pilot scale to commercial scale, and microwave-based technologies.

A highlight of AMI’s conference was hearing from Dr. Fernando Gómez, Head of Energy, Materials, and Infrastructure Industry Communities at the World Economic Forum, on a panel that discussed driving circularity. Gómez asked attendees to consider, “What is the best combination of our available capabilities?” He challenged us to imagine what the manufacturing and recycling industries would look like if we could design them from scratch and urged us to shift our mindset from value chains to “value cycles.”

“What is the best combination of our available capabilities?”

On the last day of the conference, I presented a talk entitled “Stakeholder Perspectives on the Role of Chemical Recycling in the Circular Economy” based on the work of SPC’s Chemical Recycling Collaborative. Since its launch in late 2021, the Chemical Recycling Collaborative has been tackling a long list of questions submitted by participants in response to the prompt, “What questions about chemical recycling do you find hardest to answer?” I invited conference attendees to reflect on when they were first introduced to the concept of chemical recycling and what questions they find hardest to answer about it, then shared a distilled version of the many questions, concerns, and opinions on chemical recycling I have heard from SPC members and other stakeholders as leader of the SPC Chemical Recycling Collaborative.

At the end of 2022, Collaborative participants expressed that they feel more informed about the types of chemical recycling technologies and how the technologies work, but they are much less certain about the answers to questions on impacts, tracking materials through chemical recycling processes, environmental justice concerns, material aggregation, and economic viability of the technologies. Many of these areas of uncertainty are still evolving or suffer from a lack of clear, credible information. For instance, there are significant disparities in how the environmental impacts of chemical recycling technologies are characterized, depending on the source of the information. Binary answers are often tempting, but the “hardest to answer” questions from SPC Chemical Recycling Collaborative participants are hard precisely because they require nuance and context, and non-binary thinking.

“What future are we aiming for? And how do we get there together?”

I encouraged conference attendees to take questions and criticisms that arise about chemical recycling as helping to identify areas of improvement. I hear significant interest from SPC members in chemical recycling and how these technologies might help them meet their sustainability goals. At the same time, the plastic industry, the chemical industry, and by extension, the chemical recycling industry, are sometimes viewed as a hindrance to sustainability rather than part of the solution.

My advice to the chemical recycling industry was threefold. For chemical recycling to scale sustainably and to reach its full potential in the circular economy, the industry needs to:

1. use green chemistry,
2. be transparent, and
3. match technologies with the right applications.

I asked attendees, “What future are we aiming for? And how do we get there together?” Chemical recycling can serve as a tool to help create circular and sustainable systems for plastics, but the industry has work to do to get there.

In the conversation around what technologies can be considered recycling, yet another term has entered the mix: biorecycling. What is biorecycling? A quick google search may tell you that biorecycling involves adding particles from waste plastic to tattoo ink so that those particles can be broken down by the human body – an original concept for sure, but since no new product comes out of this process, it’s a stretch to call it recycling.

The more commonly accepted usage of the word biorecycling is as a synonym for enzymatic degradation. Enzymatic degradation is a kind of depolymerization process, which falls under the larger umbrella of chemical or molecular recycling.

So what is depolymerization? Firstly, polymerization is linking molecular units called monomers together to form long chains. Depolymerization sounds like the exact opposite of polymerization, and it often is, but not always. Depolymerization includes processes that break polymer chains back down to the original monomers and also processes that result in shorter molecular fragments that are not the same as the original monomers.

The easiest polymers to depolymerize are those that contain carbon-oxygen or carbon-nitrogen bonds in the polymer backbone, such as polyesters, polyamides, and polyurethanes. The carbon-oxygen or carbon-nitrogen bonds in these polymers are naturally susceptible to reacting with other chemicals they come in contact with. Under the conditions where these materials are used on an everyday basis, however, this type of reaction is extremely slow.

To employ depolymerization as a method of recycling plastics, these bond-breaking reactions have to be sped up dramatically, and speed can be achieved by using heat, using a chemical catalyst like an acid or base, or using a biological catalyst, also known as an enzyme.

Enzymes are known for being extremely selective and efficient. In the field of synthetic biology, scientists aim to harness enzymatic activity to build molecules that would be challenging to make using traditional synthetic chemistry methods, and scientists can employ enzymes in a similar way to deconstruct molecules.

Working with enzymes comes with its own challenges, however. Enzymes have had all of evolutionary history to specialize to their own particular roles in organisms, so adapting enzymes to serve human purposes takes significant time and effort. At least as far back as the 1970s there were reports in the scientific literature of enzymes that could partially degrade or depolymerize synthetic polymers, but these were specialty polymers and the degradation efficiencies were low. Enzymes were identified that could depolymerize certain polyesters, but the downside of enzyme specificity meant that even these enzymes could not depolymerize polyethylene terephthalate (PET) despite the linkage containing the carbon-oxygen bond (the ester) being the same.

In 2016, a discovery made by a group of researchers in Japan generated a frenzy in the press about plastic-eating bacteria and launched a new era of biorecycling. Analyzing the soil near a bottle manufacturing facility, these researchers found a type of bacteria that contained a pair of enzymes that could depolymerize PET. The bacteria were found to be capable of almost completely degrading a PET sample in six weeks, a major milestone but still much too slow for a scalable recycling technology. Since then, researchers have been studying this enzyme pair (called PETase and MHETase), screening other enzymes for PET degradation capabilities, and altering the enzymes for improved speed and stability.

So where does biorecycling or enzymatic depolymerization stand today? Is it the solution to all our plastic problems? In addition to enzymes requiring intensive research efforts to adapt them for the jobs we want them to do, they are also costly and rather delicate compared to traditional chemical reagents. Only one company, Carbios, is currently scaling a biorecycling process, which speaks to the challenges of this approach. And although biorecycling could apply to a range of polymer types, today it is largely focused on PET. Carbios did previously conduct research on enzymatic recycling of polylactic acid (PLA) and has mentioned possible future investigation of enzymes that could break down other polymers. At least one other chemical recycling technology company was founded on the concept of biorecycling but later pivoted to a chemical approach as being more feasible for recycling their target input, waste polyethylene.

Still, we continue to see innovation and investment in biorecycling, and persistence with biorecycling technologies may yet pay off.

A recent analysis of the technical, economic, and environmental performance of plastic recycling technologies laid out the strengths and weaknesses of enzymatic recycling of PET compared to other chemical recycling approaches, mechanical recycling, and virgin production. Current technology for PET biorecycling performs well on technical metrics such as quality of the output and robustness to contamination (from other types of plastics as well as non-plastic contaminants like biomass and metal). However, it performs worse than the alternatives on environmental metrics such as waste generation, toxicity, and water use. Taking these trade-offs into account, the analysis concludes that enzymatic recycling is the most suitable technology available today to recycle heavily contaminated PET when high-quality output is a priority.

We need to continue to improve the capabilities of biorecycling and evaluate how it best fits into a circular system for plastics. The same technical, economic, and environmental analysis points to a number of opportunities for optimizing enzymatic depolymerization of PET specifically, and also calls out actions like switching to renewable energy that would improve environmental performance not just of biorecycling but of recycling technologies across the board.

Biorecycling by itself isn’t the answer to plastic waste – rather, we should consider how it can play a role in bolstering larger systems of plastic sustainability and circularity. There will never be a single solution to plastic waste, but biorecycling is a promising tool to have in our toolbox.

Paper packaging and paper products are currently more likely to be recycled than plastics. This is due to a more established paper recycling infrastructure and a more uniform material stream. However, a facility designed to turn cardboard boxes into new cardboard is not always able to recycle molded fiber bottles, paper-based snack wrappers, or other new and innovative paper packaging formats. As packaging material sustainability and circularity receive increased attention, many companies are evaluating whether paper-based packaging can help them meet their sustainability goals. This is where paper recyclability testing, the topic of a recent webinar hosted by SPC, is key.

Tom Pollock, Director of Strategic Partnerships at GreenBlue, moderated the webinar alongside presenters Maria Georgiadou, Recycling Manager at the Confederation of European Paper Industries (Cepi), and Guy Lacey, Operations Director at DS Smith.

Georgiadou introduced Cepi, a paper industry association representing close to 500 companies and 900 mills across Europe. Several years ago, Cepi recognized the need for a test method for paper recyclability that would enable the industry to quantify improvements in paper recycling and inform consumers of those improvements. The first version of Cepi’s paper recyclability test method was published in 2019, and then in 2022, Cepi released an updated version of their testing methods developed with input from Lacey and other industry experts.

What is Cepi’s test method?

Cepi’s method is meant to indicate whether a package can be successfully recycled at a “standard mill,” where the input stream is classic cardboard and paper. The test process starts with a representative sample cut from the package in question.

• This sample is disintegrated to simulate the repulping process that would happen at a mill, then filtered.
• The filtrate (the liquid portion) is examined to determine how much material is dissolved and what would be entering the water stream in a recycling process.
• The retained material from the filtration undergoes coarse screening to remove anything larger than 5 mm.

Certain types of robust paper packaging, such as the multi-ply kraft paper board used in beer carriers, are known to be recyclable in mills but difficult to break down in this lab-scale test process. For this reason, if the “rejects” portion from the coarse screening is mainly composed of fibrous material, it will be subjected to the disintegration step again.

• After coarse screening, a sheet of paper is formed with the “accepts” portion. Forming a sheet of paper at this stage is not part of the paper recycling process, but for test purposes, this step gives a first impression of any issues with adhesion or visual appearance.
• The next step is fine screening through 150-micron slots, and again evaluation of the “rejects” and sheet formation with the “accepts.”
• Macrostickies analysis is the last, but optional, step in the test method.

Once results have been obtained from this test method, how is recyclability determined?

There is more to recyclability than reprocessing, so this kind of test method cannot give an absolute yes-or-no answer to the question “Is this package recyclable?” But what a test method can do is identify any red flags that could prevent a package from being reprocessed successfully.

Cepi’s test method looks at factors like sheet adhesion and fiber pullout, as well as the visual quality of the test sheets. Visual quality is ranked using a decision tree, where factors like wax stains or many metalized particles would indicate potential problems if the package were to enter a recycling facility.

“Innovation in packaging design is moving more quickly than recycling technologies”

Test method results can help guide packaging designers to choose materials and formats that have a high likelihood of being compatible with current recycling infrastructure.

How widely applicable is the test method? 

DS Smith’s Lacey described the work that went into minimizing lab-to-lab variation so that consistent results would be obtained from the method regardless of where it’s performed.

Considering the policy outlook in Europe, a consistent method to assess recyclability will be even more important in the coming years. More specific requirements on packaging recyclability are likely on the horizon as part of the European Green Deal and Circular Economy Action Plan, and packaging recyclability performance is also likely to be tied to eco-modulated fees in extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes.

Cepi’s test method was developed with harmonization in mind, and it is an excellent tool to drive paper-based packaging recyclability in and beyond Europe. Currently, however, paper recyclability test methods in North America differ from those in Europe, sometimes resulting in different pass/fail results for the same package. Further coordination is still needed among test methods to ensure that you get the same answer to “Is this package recyclable?” regardless of where the question is asked and which test is used. Widespread use of existing test methods and increased harmonization as the test methods continue to evolve will help provide clarity upfront on whether an innovative paper package can truly be recycled.

To learn more about the landscape of paper packaging recyclability test methods in Europe and North America, check out SPC’s report, “How to Know If Your Paper Packaging is Recyclable: Introduction To Paper Packaging Recyclability Test Methods & Specifications.”

35% of all food goes unsold or uneaten in the United States. If this fact doesn’t shock you, it’s probably because you’ve heard it before. America’s food waste problem is common knowledge among stakeholders in the food and beverage industry. So are the environmental, social, and economic issues linked with this gargantuan inefficiency.

When the topic of chemical recycling comes up at SPC events, it’s no surprise that the conversation typically focuses on how these technologies apply to plastic packaging. Part of the promise of chemical recycling, though, is the ability to recycle polymers in numerous forms such as in carpets, mattresses, durable plastics, and other items not well-suited for mechanical recycling. In the “Chemical Recycling Beyond Packaging,” session at SPC Advance 2022, Jodie Morgan, CEO of Nexus Circular, Holli Alexander, Strategic Initiatives Manager for Global Sustainability at Eastman, and Thomas Philipon, CEO of TotalEnergies Corbion, came together on stage to talk about the benefits of cross-sector collaboration in chemical recycling.

First… what is “chemical recycling”?

The session began by level-setting around the term “chemical recycling.” While each industry professional in the space likely has their own preferred term, we used the terms chemical recycling, advanced recycling, molecular recycling, and non-mechanical recycling interchangeably for this session. Importantly, when using any of these terms that include the word “recycling,” we are referring to processes where the outputs feed back into materials like plastics and not processes where the outputs are used as fuels.

Among chemical recycling technologies, there are three main categories: purification, depolymerization, and conversion. This session focused on depolymerization and conversion technologies, which are more likely to be used for moving material among different applications compared to purification technologies. Since purification technologies use physical processes that do not change the underlying polymer structure, the output material must be used in applications where the properties or specifications match those of the input material. In contrast, material from depolymerization and conversion can be used to construct new polymers with properties different from the inputs. Depolymerization technologies that produce monomers provide an opportunity to construct new polymers with different chain lengths (determining properties such as intrinsic viscosity and melt flow) and/or different combinations of monomers. The outputs from conversion are even more versatile in terms of what applications they can be used for, as the basic chemicals produced by these technologies can feed back into chemical manufacturing processes in a similar way to petrochemical feedstocks.

Polymers and processes

With the stage set, each panelist introduced their company’s chemical recycling process(es), shared what polymers their processes handle, and listed some applications aside from packaging that also use these polymers.

First, Morgan explained that Nexus Circular operates a commercial-scale pyrolysis facility in the Atlanta area that produces what they call “circular liquid.” The process takes polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and polystyrene (PS) feedstocks. Morgan named the automotive industry as another large user of these materials in addition to packaging.

Next, Alexander spoke about Eastman’s work in both the depolymerization and conversion spaces. Eastman currently operates a facility in Tennessee where polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is depolymerized via a glycolysis process and has recently built a facility to depolymerize PET via methanolysis. The monomers from these “polyester renewal” technologies are used to make new types of polyesters that can go into products such as reusable water bottles. Eastman’s “carbon renewal technology” is a gasification process that takes mixed plastics among other feedstocks to produce basic chemicals that are then used to make cellulosic plastics. These cellulosic plastics have been used in items such as eyeglass frames and textiles.

Last, Philipon shared that TotalEnergies Corbion (a 50/50 venture between TotalEnergies and Corbion) uses a hydrolysis process to depolymerize polylactic acid (PLA). TotalEnergies Corbion operates a facility in Thailand where lactide monomer is made into new PLA. Although PLA is produced and used on a smaller scale compared to other plastics in packaging, it has multiple other applications. Philipon mentioned 3D printing as another industry where PLA plays a role.

Ecosystem of plastics recycling

Although many challenges remain for plastic packaging to be collected, sorted and ultimately recycled, it’s miles ahead of other plastic products in that at least some plastic packaging fits into established curbside collection models. Still, taking lessons from other sectors is key to finding solutions for hard-to-recycle plastic packaging. Philipon described material recovery as an ecosystem—where many players have important roles, and players are highly interconnected and dependent on each other. Rather than pin the journey to plastic circularity on any one company, we have to collaborate and find ways to bolster the entire system. Alexander brought up the many items that are currently listed as “not accepted” in curbside recycling guidance and asked which of these items might be accepted curbside in the future. She acknowledged that we won’t be recycling everything overnight but encouraged aiming for acceptance of more items in curbside collection rather than fewer. Collaboration in this materials ecosystem also includes collaboration between chemical and mechanical recyclers to match materials with the right process. Morgan mentioned that items such as plastic containers for motor oil or paint are contaminants in mechanical recycling processes but can enter a pyrolysis process with no problem.

So how do we enable this collaborative, resilient plastic recycling ecosystem? Morgan shared that although chemical recyclers can take different materials or formats than mechanical recyclers, design for recycling is still critical. Chemical recycling is not a catch-all, but rather each company has its own specifications for the material streams it accepts. For instance, components other than PE and PP in multilayer packaging can cause issues for Nexus Circular’s process and need to be limited. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) was called out as undesirable for all the technologies represented. Philipon identified mass balance accounting as a key enabler for building up the plastics recycling ecosystem. He emphasized that it’s imperative for recycled material accounting practices to be credible. Policy also came up in the discussion. Alexander told us that Eastman recycles carpet collected through California’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme for carpets. Currently, this carpet is being sent to Tennessee for recycling, and Alexander highlighted the need for expanding the network of recycling options and localizing recycling efforts through more widespread EPR.

Outlook

The conversation closed by talking about what the future holds and what role we can expect chemical recycling to play. Morgan pointed out that the scale of plastic waste generation is outpacing the capacity and capabilities of mechanical recycling. Mechanical recycling can be expected to accommodate some of this growth, but we are going to need multiple approaches. In terms of the timeline for chemical recycling technologies to scale, Morgan estimated it will take 10-20 years for chemical recycling to be available at a level that begins to match the scale of plastic waste. Alexander brought up supply chain problems that have made scaling even more challenging. She stated that Eastman’s methanolysis plant took three years to build for this reason.

The panelists all shared the sentiment that further education around and understanding chemical recycling technologies are important for these solutions to be dispatched most effectively. Alexander added that we don’t know what emerging recycling technologies will be capable of in the future. She encouraged thinking about the spectrum of chemical recycling technologies based on principles—especially for policymaking, prioritizing reduction, then reuse, then recycling will be a better guide than attempting to make binary judgments on specific technologies. Philipon expressed that so much is still unknown but that we can start from what we know, and going forward we will have to learn by doing, by trialing and iterating ideas, to make chemical recycling and the entire recycling ecosystem work better.

The overarching theme in this session was that this is a space where no company (or even sector) can be successful by striking out alone. In such an interdependent economy, getting out of step with the rest of the system likely means being stranded without reliable feedstocks or reliable markets. Collaboration is absolutely crucial. Collection, sortation, and recycling innovations and infrastructure need to grow together, in sync, for the circular plastics ecosystem to thrive.

Want to know more about developments in the landscape of chemical recycling technologies? SPC members can continue learning about chemical recycling by viewing past resources or joining future meetings of the SPC Chemical Recycling Collaborative.

Our own Director of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC), Karen Hagerman, and folks from ChemFORWARD recently shared the initial results from the Safe + Circular Materials Collaborative via a webinar format. This year-long supply chain collaboration explored the challenges of circular packaging and solutions to accelerate the transition to safer alternatives. Read the full article and watch the free recording here.

On the second day of SPC Advance in Atlanta, the Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s Flexible Packaging Recovery Collaborative convened to workshop the future of flexible packaging recovery. Led by Ruth Maust, a Project Manager of GreenBlue, the collaborative broke from its usual format of a seminar and discussion about opportunities and resources in the flexible packaging recovery space to meet in person. 

Alison Keane, President, and CEO of the Flexible Packaging Association, opened the session by discussing the challenges their members are facing. Currently, both suppliers and converters are reporting talent and labor shortages, raw material procurement challenges, and sustainability initiatives as the primary areas of focus. As the packaging industry continues to move from sustainability goals of source reduction to goals that include circularity, creating end markets and improving recyclability are increasing in priority. Current trends indicate two popular sustainability initiatives in this space: “recycle ready” mono-material polyethylene designed for the store drop-off stream and incorporating post-consumer recycled content. 

Kristina Hansen, President of Plastics Forming Enterprises, focused her portion of the opening presentation on the importance of testing. Specifically, Plastics Forming Enterprises has programs to pilot recycling processes and provide certified testing for various recyclability standards. The goal of this work is to support the package design process to improve recyclability while it is still early enough in the production process to make adjustments to the design. 

The second half of the session was devoted to discussion between workshop participants. Topics included: What is the number one thing you want to see for flexible packaging circulatory in the future?  What do you see as the biggest barrier to getting there? What project of initiative in this space are you most excited about or think has the most potential impact? Where do you see the biggest gap or opportunities that no one seems to be working on? 

Overall, the themes of discussion centered around infrastructure investment for collection and sortation, work to incentivize the integration of post-consumer recycled content (potentially into non-food grade film applications) and working towards the goal of widespread curbside collection of films in the United States. The group identified significant barriers, including a lack of standardization in access to recycling and in what degree of product residue renders a package unrecyclable.  

As is becoming more common, policy and chemical recycling were both brought up as potential paths to reaching these goals. Other initiatives to watch include: the efforts to increase flexible medical packaging by the Healthcare Packaging Recycling Council and regionalized circular film economy efforts in Minnesota. 

Questions posed by participants to ponder in future meetings include: Is there a path to recyclability for mono-material polypropylene film? How can films be sorted in a MRF without causing issues? Do consumers have an appetite for education or would simple, clear, instructions be better received? How can we balance the need for progress with desire for perfection without allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good?

To join in on these conversations, click here for more information on getting involved with the Flexible Packaging Recovery collaborative!

Contributors:

Lucy Pierce, Project Manager, SPC

Nina Goodrich, Consultant, GreenBlue

Laura Thompson, Director, Recycled Material Standards (RMS)

How2Recycle is a standardized labeling system in the United States and Canada that clearly communicates recycling instructions to the public. The How2Recycle Store Drop-off label is contingent upon the extensive retail take-back infrastructure to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) access guidance. Store drop off programs collect front of house consumer films and wraps and combine them with the films and wraps generated from store operations. Leveraging retail back haul efficiencies, these materials are transported to aggregation sites, typically distribution centers, where they are baled and sold to recyclers. 

Phase 1 of a national research project to update bag and film recycling access is currently underway with Stina Inc. In the Spring of 2022 GreenBlue enlisted Resource Recycling Systems (RRS) to develop a California specific study  as a way to determine the bag and film recycling landscape in California. The study was originally intended for internal review. However, given the  recent concerns about bag and film recycling  in California, we’ve released the study to help provide robust data for the public. You can read our condensed 2-page document summarizing the results of the study here.

It is important to note differences between the BagandFilmRecycling.org directory and this study. Stina manages the film drop-off directory and adds and removes stores from the directory on an ongoing basis based on input from chains, consumers, and other local sources. During Covid, a number of stores from BagandFilmRecycling.org were removed based on changing store drop off policies and public health concerns. The SPC is beginning work with Stina and RRS to confirm bin placement and add back retail locations contacted in this access study. This study represents the results of conversations with the major retailers listed in the study and store spot checks. The list of stores accepting bags and films from consumers is always dynamic based on a variety of factors and post-Covid has shifted significantly. There is a density of retail drop off locations, especially in highly populated areas and many of the stores listed have locations near each other. This creates redundancy and additional confidence in the access maps.

Study Objectives

• Document consumer access to recycling for LDPE film and flexible packaging within the state of California.
• Determine quantity and quality of LDPE films and flexible packaging collected and reclaimed within the state of California.

The study looked at two pathways for bag and film recycling: MRF collection and retail Store Drop-off. The study confirmed that LDPE film and flexible packaging is  managed outside the curbside system in California. Material that is collected through the MRF infrastructure is badly contaminated and usually sent to landfill.

The bulk of the data in the report relates to retail Store Drop-off and consumer access. 

RRS identified stores that accept films and bags and compared the store locations to California’s population density.

Consumer Access was analyzed using three different measures: 

• Radial Distance
• Driving Distance
• Driving Time

RESULTS

Radial Distance 

Heat map shows radial distance to the nearest PE bag and film retail drop off location. Access to retail store drop off using straight population of less than 3 miles is 87.6%

Driving distance

Heat map shows driving distance to the nearest PE film and bag retail drop off location. Access to retail store drop off using straight population is 78.1%

Driving Time

Heat map shows driving time to the nearest PE film and bag retail drop off location. 92.9% of California consumers have access to retail store drop off within a 15 minute drive (≤15 minutes from home).

PART 2 RESULTS

Characterization and Quantity Estimates

In all instances, retail drop off films and bags are combined with the films from back of house operations and hauled using reverse logistics to retailer distribution centers (DCs) where they can be baled and/or prepared for market. Thus, most volumes are reported from the DC level, not the store level. Furthermore, to understand post consumer film collection levels, individual store-level audits would need to be performed. 

In the table to the right, estimated volumes use both retailer specific data and modeled per store generated data when specific values were not shared by retailers.

SUMMARY

• Total estimated volume of PE films and bags collected in California  for recycling is 17.45 MM lbs per year. RRS estimates that 14.8 and 15.7 MM lbs are reclaimed. 
• The end market for this material has a high yield and it is estimated that 85-90% of the collected material ends up in the final product or packaging.
•  The principal end market for store drop off films is composite decking materials. 
• There has been substantial growth in PE film reclamation capacity in CA, with most reclamation capacity growth focused on Grade A films. 
• The success of retail store drop off for bags and films is based on consumer convenience (as drop off is a part of grocery shopping routine) and retailers are providing backhaul and aggregation services along with positive economics compared to landfill. 

If you are interested in learning more you can read the entire California Regional Film and Bag Study here.

Reaching the launch date of a new innovation through a collaborative process is exciting, but it takes many internal and external stakeholders working together to achieve that goal. Day 2 of SPC Advance 2022 continued to highlight the role of collaboration with sustainable packaging development with a panel about qualifying innovations into the recycling stream. The key takeaways of the discussion included: 

1. Collaboration is the only way to have a holistic approach that involves all necessary stakeholders. If you miss a critical stakeholder, you waste your resources. 
2. Start with understanding the market needs and the definitions of recyclability so that you can target the problems with the research and data that meet the actual needs of your market. 
3. Working and sharing transparently across the supply chain is important. 
4. Accelerating knowledge and change can mean choosing not to keep technology proprietary. 
5. Consensus on what the standards are and being able to quantify what specifications are necessary. We need to be designing for the future; thinking about the world in 2025 and designing packaging for that world (not the present). 

This panel was moderated by Patrick Keenan of General Mills and featured: Linda Roman from Kraft Heinz, Brian Hawkinson of the American Forest & Paper Association, Barak Bright of Clearwater Paper, Martin Grandjean of Tembo paper, and Megan Robison representing the How2Recycle team. The panel featured members at different stages of the value chain and focused primarily on fiber packaging materials. 

One point mentioned early in the discussion was the importance of seeking out material “agnostic” equipment. Standards are evolving and it’s not possible to replace or change out equipment as often as the packaging materials advance. If a possible solution affects the runnability of a design, it is unlikely to be accepted. Thus, investing in material-agnostic equipment that can handle different substrates and materials is an important strategy to building future capacity. 

Likewise, the panel highlighted the importance of collaboration with mills and other reprocessors, especially in the absence of standards. The mills ultimately determine if paper gets recycled, so any efforts to increase circularity through recycling need to incorporate stakeholders from the mills. This is especially crucial as consensus on what standards determine recyclability remains a challenge. More standards for different paper-based formats are needed so that it is clear what the benchmark is. Without specific standards, it is not possible to measure whether or not something is still not recyclable or if it’s been iterated into something that works.

Food residue remains a messy issue in paper recyclability. Recent Westrock research on pizza boxes shows the power of questioning urban legends about recycling. With data from paper mills on acceptance combined with re-processability testing, the study demonstrates that residual grease and cheese are not an issue for reprocessing. Other food residues still need that same level of investment in research to determine whether or not specific product residue is an issue. 

Looking to the future, the panel stressed the importance of working on dual paths for innovation. Without multiple alternatives for innovating recyclability, the timelines of bringing an innovation to market can mean the strategy is obsolete before the innovation is fully introduced, and valuable time was wasted. Dual paths are required so that we can be ready for the future that arrives, rather than relying on a single possible outcome. 

Achieving the goals industry has set around recyclability and incorporation of recycled content will take all members of the value chain working towards increased recycling rates. In order to make packaging go from recyclable to consistently recycled, each member of the value chain must be willing to support others with data sharing, transparency on challenges (and solutions), and pre-competitive collaboration. 

Reaching the launch date of a new innovation through a collaborative process is exciting, but it takes many internal and external stakeholders working together to achieve that goal. Day 2 of SPC Advance 2022 continued to highlight the role of collaboration with sustainable packaging development with a panel about qualifying innovations into the recycling stream. The key takeaways of the discussion included:

1. Collaboration is the only way to have a holistic approach that involves all necessary stakeholders. If you miss a critical stakeholder, you waste your resources.
2. Start with understanding the market needs and the definitions of recyclability so that you can target the problems with the research and data that meet the actual needs of your market.
3. Working and sharing transparently across the supply chain is important.
4. Accelerating knowledge and change can mean choosing not to keep technology proprietary.
5. Consensus on what the standards are and being able to quantify what specifications are necessary. We need to be designing for the future; thinking about the world in 2025 and designing packaging for that world (not the present).

This panel was moderated by Patrick Keenan of General Mills and featured: Linda Roman from Kraft Heinz, Brian Hawkinson of the American Forest & Paper Association, Barak Bright of Clearwater Paper, Martin Grandjean of Tembo paper, and Megan Robison representing the How2Recycle team. The panel featured members at different stages of the value chain and focused primarily on fiber packaging materials.

One point mentioned early in the discussion was the importance of seeking out material “agnostic” equipment. Standards are evolving and it’s not possible to replace or change out equipment as often as the packaging materials advance. If a possible solution affects the runnability of a design, it is unlikely to be accepted. Thus, investing in material-agnostic equipment that can handle different substrates and materials is an important strategy to building future capacity.

Likewise, the panel highlighted the importance of collaboration with mills and other reprocessors, especially in the absence of standards. The mills ultimately determine if paper gets recycled, so any efforts to increase circularity through recycling need to incorporate stakeholders from the mills. This is especially crucial as consensus on what standards determine recyclability remains a challenge. More standards for different paper-based formats are needed so that it is clear what the benchmark is. Without specific standards, it is not possible to measure whether or not something is still not recyclable or if it’s been iterated into something that works.

Food residue remains a messy issue in paper recyclability. Recent Westrock research on pizza boxes shows the power of questioning urban legends about recycling. With data from paper mills on acceptance combined with re-processability testing, the study demonstrates that residual grease and cheese are not an issue for reprocessing. Other food residues still need that same level of investment in research to determine whether or not specific product residue is an issue.

Looking to the future, the panel stressed the importance of working on dual paths for innovation. Without multiple alternatives for innovating recyclability, the timelines of bringing an innovation to market can mean the strategy is obsolete before the innovation is fully introduced, and valuable time was wasted. Dual paths are required so that we can be ready for the future that arrives, rather than relying on a single possible outcome.

Achieving the goals industry has set around recyclability and incorporation of recycled content will take all members of the value chain working towards increased recycling rates. In order to make packaging go from recyclable to consistently recycled, each member of the value chain must be willing to support others with data sharing, transparency on challenges (and solutions), and pre-competitive collaboration.

This annual award celebrates the people and organizations behind the biggest achievements in sustainably innovative packaging.

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA — For over five years, the SPC Innovator Awards have featured companies’ dedication to continually improve sustainable packaging. The goal of these awards is to highlight novel solutions and inspire other organizations within the space to test and scale sustainable packaging innovations.

The Sustainable Packaging Coalition congratulated the winners of the 2022 SPC Innovator Awards on the first day of SPC Advance during an awards ceremony sponsored by Trayak. Upon taking the stage, the winners spoke to what stood out to them among the innovations this year: collaboration. Forming new partnerships, working with different parts of the supply chain, and investing in new technology all strengthened the winning innovations.

We are thrilled to announce the three 2022 SPC Innovator Award winners in Responsible Sourcing, Design Optimization, and Recovery innovation categories. Read more about what the winning companies are working on below.

Innovation in Responsible Sourcing Winner
Flöter Verpackungs-Service GmbH | AirWave PaperWave

Starting to develop this idea in 2018, Flöter Verpackungs-Service GmbH’s inflatable paper cushion solution actively works to replace plastic e-commerce cushions. The company made it a point to focus on compostability in addition to recyclability, recognizing that composting can be a global end-of-life scenario. Flöter Verpackungs-Service GmbH developed a solution using Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified paper and a potato starch lining, designed to be both curbside recyclable and compostable. Their hope is to end their own plastic-based production and transition to air and paper-based materials in the near future.

The Importance: Because the air cushions are produced directly at the packing station, additional energy expenditure and CO2 emissions are saved during transport. PaperWave can be disposed of in both the organic waste or paper recycling bins. When disposing of it, the consumer is able to easily identify that it is paper, and the product also bears the RESY mark as well as the sorting symbol 22PAP, common symbols in the European market. In addition, the product has been certified by the Paper Technology Foundation in Munich (PTS) as recyclable.

Innovation in Design Optimization Winner
WestRock | KD-Fold

During their acceptance speech, WestRock spoke to how they brought many parts of the supply chain together and worked closely with FedEx to endlessly trial and test their design for a winning solution. Outperforming a standard plastic mailer, the KD-Fold was recognized for its operational efficiencies. It effectively minimizes fiber material with a tight fit that avoids the use of void fill. This design not only improved efficiency but storage space on the shipping pallet as well.

The Importance: The KD-Fold uses an average of 50% less paper than a small, corrugated box needed for the same contents. KD-Fold is both Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and FSC certified. It is also curbside recyclable. The Pak On Demand mailer system produces custom, sustainable fiber-based mailers on demand and seals the package for shipment. This system has a footprint of only 5 feet by 12 feet, requiring less space in back-of-store operations or space used for e-commerce order fulfillment. Since only one operator is needed for the Pak On Demand, labor reduction and savings are possible.

Innovation in Recovery Winner
AMP Robotics | How AI and Producer Collaboration are Influencing Recovery and Driving Increased Recycling Rates

AMP Robotics’s winning innovation turned to the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to successfully sort through the messiest of recycling streams. In partnership with Sonoco, a global packaging provider, AMP Robotics created a new material category within its neural network specific to rigid paperboard cans—items like Pringles cans and coffee, nut, and snack containers. The partnership drives increased recycling rates for spiral-wound paper canisters with steel and paper bottoms produced by Sonoco and other manufacturers. In addition to being a manufacturer, Sonoco is a recycler, operating more than 40 recycling facilities globally. The company has deployed an AMP Cortex intelligent robotics system in one of its facilities, with a second planned in another; this recycling relationship enables Sonoco to directly test and leverage AMP’s technology.

The Importance: AMP is working with companies across the spectrum of recyclable materials to adapt its AI platform to the specificity of a manufacturer or brand and disperse the sorting capability to materials recovery facilities (MRFs) with its robotic sorting systems. After beginning testing in 2021, their AI is now able to successfully identify and sort 50 billion packaging types and will only improve with more technological advancements. With more and more companies setting PCR commitments, AMP Robotics went through an iterative series of real-world MRF trials to recover more and more materials from the waste stream. Any MRF with an AMP Cortex system can now accurately and efficiently sort Sonoco’s paper can to the desired stream. This enables manufacturers to directly influence what’s recoverable and take advantage of the ability to capture more of their specific packaging.

A big thank you to the multitude of companies who submitted their ideas and current work in the sustainable packaging space. The twelve 2022 finalists can be found in our archive library at the bottom of the page here. This archive dates back to submissions from 2017 if you find yourself curious about just how far the ideas in the past five years have come.

Beginning as the Trashies in 2015, and transitioning to the SPC Innovator Awards in 2017, we are continuing to evolve the SPC Innovator Awards to accelerate sustainable packaging designs and recovery systems. Stay tuned for more information about the next round of the awards on our website.

Common concerns in sustainability goal setting include: Are we aiming high enough? Are we targeting the right problems? Are we successfully communicating our efforts to our customers and stakeholders? In July of 2022, at SPC Engage in Montreal, Olga Kachook, Director of Bioeconomy and Reuse Initiatives at GreenBlue, and Frances Mazur-Batistoni, Senior Consultant, Anthesis Group, introduced a framework for assessing public-facing sustainability goals.

FASTER is built on the FAST goal setting framework proposed by Charles Sull and Donald Sull at the Sloan Business School at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). FAST stands for frequently discussed, ambitious, specific, and transparent. This framework was developed to account for some of the shortcomings of the popular SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely) goals framework. SMART is a useful tool for developing goals that are designed first and foremost to be achieved. This can be helpful in addressing shortcomings and empowering individuals and teams to perform better but is not necessarily helpful in exceeding expectations in the long run. 

FAST is a framework designed to foster both ambition and achievement. “Frequently discussed” means the goal is embedded into regular communications, not relegated to infrequent check-ins. Frequently discussing a goal keeps it front of mind and more likely to be consistently worked towards.

 “Ambitious” does not mean impossible to reach, but that the goal itself is a stretch from the current state. For something to be ambitious, oftentimes exactly how to achieve the goal at the outset is unknown and must be determined once the target is set. 

“Specific” is one area of overlap between FAST and SMART goals. Specificity is in the targeting of a single performance indicator. We can’t effectively reach goals if we are uncertain about their scope. Being specific in goal setting can mean setting multiple goals for different indicators rather than lumping multiple indicators into one goal.

 The last letter in FAST stands for “transparent” meaning everyone on the team knows what goal they are working towards both individually and as a team. This encourages both accountability and partnership in reaching goals. 

 While it may sound counterintuitive to think that a goal designed to be achieved could be a shortcoming, ambition is lost when too much focus is placed on being realistic. Goal setting research has found that people are more likely to perform higher when given ambitious goals, rather than told to “do their best.” Thus, it could be argued that focusing primarily on setting goals that are most likely to be achievable is actually limiting potential, rather than encouraging it. The benefit of the FAST framework’s “A for Ambitious”  is that it explicitly calls out ambition as a good thing. This is especially useful for sustainability goals because we need to go further, faster, and not plod along with business-as-usual with incremental changes to the status quo.

As shared by Kachook and Mazur-Batistoni at SPC Engage 2022, FASTER builds on the FAST framework by including the components of Easy to Understand and Relevant as considerations for making a goal available to a wider audience. 

Ease of understanding to a broad audience is critical when making goals public. If goals are too “in the weeds”, communication to a broad audience might actually be closer to greenwashing instead of informing them on the progress and values a company is working towards. If a sustainability goal is written in a way that is not easy to understand, a consumer could interpret it outside the intended scope or be unduly swayed by something that sounds like a good idea but might not actually be best practice. Under this framework, goals that are well written do not need to be explained and they should matter to your stakeholders. 

Relevant means the goals should be important to your stakeholders and material to the industry’s impacts. If you are a personal care brand, public social sustainability goals around improving access to hygiene could make sense, but it might not make sense for you to have public goals around “ending hunger”, as it won’t be perceived as authentic. Increasingly, ambitious goals are also more relevant. Easy, table-stakes goals aren’t seen as relevant by sustainability conscious consumers anymore. If you’re leaving big issues like climate change or plastic pollution unmentioned in your sustainability commitments, they are less likely to be relevant to that audience. Likewise, goals that might not be relevant for a wider audience include: highly technical and/or material-specific goals, optimization goals that are not explicitly linked to environmental impact, goals that are in conflict with publicly made commitments, or goals that function primarily as virtue signaling.

As sustainability goals continue to evolve within the sustainable packaging industry, this framework could help organizations determine whether or not it makes sense to publish their existing goals and ensure that they will be meaningful to outside stakeholders. The FASTER framework is designed to help evaluate whether or not a goal makes sense for external communications or if it might be better suited for internal communication with more knowledgeable partners. If a goal is a good fit for being shared externally, keeping the FASTER framework in mind can help create meaningful conversation about sustainability efforts, rather than confusing consumers.

Recycling research is vital to making data-informed packaging and sustainability decisions. Different approaches to methodology and measurement in recycling research have, however, led to some disagreement within the sustainability field.

When Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) initially published its Centralized Availability of Recycling Study in 2016, no comprehensive study of its kind had ever been completed. The research informed and guided meaningful conversation on recycling programs and packaging acceptance for recycling in the years since. Today, SPC releases a comprehensive update of this study.

This study investigates residential recycling programs across 1,950 communities in the United States to gather information on the availability of curbside and drop-off collection programs and the acceptance of 32 types of packaging formats in those programs.

Understanding the acceptance of packaging in residential recycling programs is one vital aspect in assessing the likelihood that a certain packaging type will be recycled. This information serves a variety of purposes, including guiding improvements to recycling systems, informing packaging decisions, and substantiating one aspect of packaging recyclability claims.

KEY FINDINGS

• This study found that 91% of US residents have access to either curbside and/or drop-off recycling programs that accept packaging materials. This is a decrease from the 94% of US residents who had access to either curbside and/or drop off recycling programs in our 2016 Centralized Study on Availability of Recycling.
• Access to recycling programs varied by housing type; 23% of US residents who live in multi-family housing had no access to recycling programs, while only 3% of US residents who live in single family homes had no access to recycling programs that accept packaging materials.
• US residents’ access to recycling programs for specific packaging formats was also assessed. Access to recycling declined for all package types as compared to the 2016 study.
• Package formats with the greatest amount of recycling access included: steel food cans (87%), aluminum beverage cans (with deposit 90%, without deposit 89%), corrugated boxes (88%), paperboard boxes (84%), PET bottles (beverage bottles with deposit 88%, other PET bottles without deposit 87%), and HDPE bottles (87%).
• Package formats with the least amount of recycling access included aluminum foil and foil packaging (37%) and rigid PS packaging (45%).

How might something as small as a produce sticker help divert more food scraps and prevent methane in landfills? One solution involves compostability. In part 2 of this produce sticker series, we explored compostable produce stickers as one possible alternative to traditional plastic produce stickers. While there are just a handful of compostable sticker options currently available on the market, more investment and brand commitment could make compostable produce stickers a promising tool to compost more food, improve compost quality, and eliminate this common non-recyclable plastic. 

What are the benefits of transitioning to compostable produce stickers? 

Addressing a big problem at composting facilities.

By some measures, produce stickers are part of the “big three” of contaminants at composting facilities. In the Washington report on contamination, facilities identified non-compostable produce stickers as one of the top five most persistent contaminants in their facilities, i.e., items that resist identification and/or removal, showing up in finished compost. Composters spend a significant amount of time educating their customers about the need to remove plastic produce stickers, as well as dealing with the stickers when they inevitably come into their facility. 

According to European Environment Agency briefing documents, replacing conventional plastics with certified compostable plastics for items that are often mixed with, or attached to, food waste can help reduce contamination with conventional plastics, and produce stickers are a key place to start. 

Enabling more composting, which in turn reduces methane emissions.  

Because of the contamination problems outlined above, compostable produce stickers would make it easier for composters to accept food waste from pre-consumer and post-consumer sources. Composting has numerous benefits for the environment, including helping to divert food waste out of landfill, where they generate methane emissions, and instead create a soil amendment that helps sequester carbon. Today’s composting is hampered by contamination issues, and proactively addressing them would enable more material to be processed at composting facilities. 

Serving as an “olive branch” to composters. 

Some composters feel that they are being forced to accept compostable packaging, such as compostable food serviceware and bin liners, while receiving little support to deal with contamination or increased processing costs. By addressing one of composters’ biggest contaminants, the compostable packaging and produce industries would be supporting the profitability and viability of the composting industry. This would help create a more positive relationship between groups, demonstrating care for the quality of finished compost, and serve as an example for other compostable products. 

Given these compelling benefits for composters, consumers, and society’s circular economy goals, it’s worth trying to understand why compostable produce stickers haven’t yet reached scale. Research on this question is limited, but a number of factors appear to be at play. These barriers to adoption include: 

Limited number of solutions providers.

A key barrier to scalability is that there are a limited number of solutions providers. In 2017, a Washington State Organics Contamination Reduction Workgroup report determined that “although there are compostable stickers available, the market has not yet reached sufficient scale to provide a viable alternative to conventional stickers.” Since that time, the landscape of manufacturers has not changed substantially, although more retailers have trialled solutions. Presumably, this means that today’s compostable produce stickers are also cost-prohibitive. As more solutions come on the market and are adopted more widely, they become more cost-effective to manufacture. 

Cost and logistical challenges to adoption for retailers and packers.

In one survey of 63 fruit processors, sticker manufacturers, and other stakeholders, respondents felt switching to more sustainable alternatives to produce stickers would be made more challenging by infrastructure, machinery, and product efficiency and large-scale application. For example, the sticker applicator and substrate are often sold together, so switching to an alternative product may require costly changes to equipment. Compostable stickers themselves are also likely to be more expensive – according to a source at Sinclair, the price of the Sinclair EcoLabel is about two times that of standard labels manufactured by the company. While this is in part due to today’s low demand and production, it is likely that price parity will not be achieved until adoption is much more widespread.

Misaligned incentives and limited demand.

The cost-savings associated with compostable produce stickers are expected to be seen primarily by composters, rather than the growers and retailers who implement these solutions. Although compostable produce stickers may be in line with these companies’ sustainable packaging goals to use less non-recyclable plastic, produce stickers are not yet widely recognized as an unnecessary single-use plastic. This creates a misalignment of incentives, whereby growers and retailers are the ones paying more for compostable produce stickers in the short-term and receiving more intangible benefits in the long-term. In the same survey of processors and manufacturers, “lack of demand” was named as a barrier to alternative produce stickers. 

These barriers have prevented compostable produce stickers from gaining widespread adoption, but change is on the horizon. Bans on plastic produce stickers are set to go into effect, consumers are likely to grow increasingly frustrated, and composters may become stricter about not accepting stickered food waste. 

The time has come for retailers, packers, and the produce value chain to turn to alternative solutions. By setting goals to phase out plastic produce stickers, the produce value chain can signal it’s ready to explore new innovations that benefit consumers and help keep more food waste out of landfills.

—— 

If you’d like to join the conversation about produce stickers, reach out to Olga Kachook, Senior Manager, olga.kachook@greenblue.org 

Why did straws become the poster child for single-use plastic pollution? Perhaps it was because  they are unnecessary for most consumers, nearly impossible to recycle, and commonly littered. Interestingly, many of these same characteristics apply to produce stickers, which are well-positioned to become the “next straw” in the fight against single-use plastics. 

Just like straws, plastic produce stickers are frustrating to many consumers and cause waste management problems. Because they contaminate the composting process, plastic produce stickers cause real environmental damage, dooming stickered produce to continually end up in landfills. The benefits, challenges, and current state of plastic produce stickers was discussed in the first part of this series on plastic produce stickers. 

With new legislation banning these items on the horizon, it is time for retailers, packers, and the produce value chain to turn to alternative solutions to plastic produce stickers. Through partnerships and investment, the produce value chain can explore some of the following innovations. 

What are some alternatives to plastic produce stickers? 

Laser Printing

The most promising alternative to using produce stickers is laser printing, sometimes also known as “natural branding”. This method uses laser light to mark fruit and vegetables, and can add both letters and images to a piece of fruit or vegetable by removing the pigment from the peel’s outer layer. It is a superficial process that does not affect the product’s flavor, aroma, or shelf life, and the laser-tagged part remains edible. 

Laser printing has made notable advancements in Europe, with interest shown to the technology as early as 2010 through the EU’s Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme. According to the EU-funded project, laser labeling could actually be faster than the standard method. Laser printing technology also eliminates the need to use paper, plastic, ink, adhesives, and the large scale application of this technology may enable reduction of GHG emissions. 

A number of European retailers have been trialing these laser technologies. In 2016, Netherlands-based laser technology company Eosta and Swedish supermarket ICA ran a trial of organic fruit and vegetables with natural branding, which they claimed replaced millions of pieces of plastic packaging. In 2017, Delhaize was the first retailer in Belgium to use laser printing, and in 2021 it reported that it will be making the switch to laser printing for 12 of its organic products. In 2018, Dutch supermarket chain Jumbo debuted the process on its organic ginger, zucchini, and butternut squash. In 2019, Austrian grocer SPAR introduced laser-labeled mangoes, after having initially piloted laser-labeled avocados in 2017 but ultimately scrapping the program due to “under-developed technology.” 

While the advantages of using laser printing seem great, a key downside is that it requires a wholesale switch from stickering equipment to laser printing equipment, with subsequent changes in cost and labor. Laser printing is not suitable for delicate produce, such as tomatoes. Some of the laser printing technologies may also not be suitable for produce such as oranges, mandarins, lemons and pomegranates, because the peel of those fruits can heal the laser imprint, rendering the marking invisible after some time. However, it is possible to counter this by spraying liquid on the fruit skin after the mark has been made by the laser to trigger a reaction that becomes visible. 

Ink-based Printing

Printing ink on the fruit or vegetable directly eliminates the need for face stock resources and adhesives. Vegetable ink-based tattoos are considered safe and do not pose any health concerns. Capexo in France has developed a process for printing food-grade ink on the skin of almost all fruit and vegetables, adding a barcode, price or any other consumer information. It works well for fruits and vegetables with a relatively smooth skin, such as mangoes. This technology would not work as well for other types of more rough produce, such as pineapple or avocado. Another drawback is that ink labels are not entirely moisture resistant and can potentially rub off when coming in contact with water or moisture.

Compostable Produce Stickers

Compostable produce stickers are not yet widely available. However, at least two manufacturers have market-ready compostable produce stickers. In 2015, Elevate Packaging, a sustainable packaging and label technology company, entered into an exclusive distribution agreement for North America with Bio4Life, a Dutch company that produces compostable adhesive products and labels under the brand name PURE Labels. These labels are certified to the European compost standard EN13432 for industrial composting, the North American BPI certification for industrial composting, and are approved for direct food contact. 

Sinclair, a large produce labeling company, has been trialing compostable stickers since 2008, and produced its first 100% certified compostable sticker, called EcoLabel, in 2019. All the components, including the face stock, adhesive, and ink passed testing to show compliance with EN 13432, and is certified by TÜV Austria under the OK Compost – Industrial and Seedling certification. 

A handful of retailers and growers have explored using compostable stickers, primarily in New Zealand, Ireland, and the Netherlands. In 2019, produce importer Fyffes launched a banana band made from paper that was fully compostable and sourced from certified Forestry Stewardship Council approved sources. It was successfully trialled in real-life market conditions in retail outlets in Ireland.

In 2019, Bostock New Zealand, an organic apple grower, said it planned to roll out more industrially-compostable stickers in 2020 after a successful trial. It claimed to be the first apple grower in the Southern Hemisphere to do so. New Zealand kiwi marketer Zespri also reported that it had been trialling the Sinclair EcoLabel prototype since 2010, but planned to use the labels commercially in 2020 on all of its organic kiwi fruit.

In 2020, PLUS, a Netherlands-based co-op of nearly 270 stores, reported that it was now offering Fairtrade bananas wrapped with a compostable band and Dutch apples and pears with “biodegradable” stickers. The Dutch fruit cooperative Fruitmasters also offers a brand of apples that use compostable produce stickers. These apples were showcased to the Dutch royal couple in 2019 as part of innovations in “fully plastic-free fruit packaging”. 

Though not yet mainstream, innovations and alternatives to plastic produce stickers are being developed by pioneering manufacturers, produce brands, and retailers. In our final post, we’ll explore the benefits of compostable alternatives to produce stickers, and the barriers that need to be overcome in order for solutions to scale.