Unit for Measuring Environmental Protection?

© Chris Martin Bahr / WWF-Canon

View large image in a photo gallery

“Climate change” and “sustainability” are the buzzwords of our day ranking second right after the term “financial crisis”. Relatively new in the debate is the term “carbon footprint” which is now also becoming more and more widely used in the packaging industry. In the United Kingdom the first retail chains have started featuring the CO2 footprint on their sales packaging. However, there is (as yet) no international and uniformly defined measuring unit for environmental friendliness.

The current debate on sustainability presents the international packaging sector with new challenges. The demands made by the public and retail trade now raise the question whether the carbon footprint (which denotes the CO2 emitted in the production of both the packaging and the product it contains) will assert itself as an evaluation criteria for sustainable business.

The United Kingdom is the pioneer in terms of the Product Carbon Footprint (PCF). However, this issue has also long been addressed in the rest of Europe and beyond. The aim of the carbon footprint is to calculate all greenhouse gas emissions generated in the manufacturing and distribution of a product and to compile these in one figure. This process is based on a standardised method for identifying the release of climate-polluting gases across the entire product lifecycle – from raw materials and production to distribution, consumption and disposal and/or reuse/recycling. The result can be communicated by the participating companies in the form of a label on the packaging or in any other way. Packaging has an extremely high impact on the product-related CO2 footprint. Which is why packaging material producers, in particular, are called upon to improve their CO2 balances – and make this visible to their customers. Efforts can include optimised formulas, the use of renewable raw materials, process improvements in manufacturing and greater energy efficiency in production.

Uniform identification demanded

For instance, in the Netherlands packaging manufacturers have since May 2008 been subjected to a packaging tax – one which is already calculated on the basis of the average CO2 emissions generated in the manufacturing process. The Netherlands can expect to generate annual tax revenue of EUR 365 million through this. Some examples: for glass packaging 6.6 cents per kilogram are charged, for carton packaging 7.3 cents and for aluminium and plastic packaging 87.6 and 43 cents, respectively. The effort involved in such a procedure is high since first the climate impact must be investigated and assessed – and there is no uniformly defined measurement unit for environmental friendliness (as yet). In France and the United Kingdom the CO2 balance, i.e. the carbon footprint, was introduced for assessment purposes in the meantime, while in Germany the eco-balance is made reference to as a basis. If there were a uniform international calculation unit for the carbon footprint goods could be labelled accordingly.
Leading enterprises worldwide have, however, long understood the opportunities that active climate protection offers for business success. The prerequisite being the knowledge of one’s own emissions along the value chain. This is why a uniform identification of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production, use and disposal of goods and services must be guaranteed. Offering low-emission products can give companies a clear competitive edge on the growing market for climate-friendly goods.

At a conference of AGVU (Working Party Packaging and Environment e.V.) in November 2008 it was made clear that the carbon footprint concept consitutes a simplification over the well-established eco balances because it fails to include a number of other important environmental aspects. In Europe, the conference found, there are a growing number of different carbon footprint initiatives. The greatest problem with these initiative is that methods are developed without precisely explaining the purpose of the CO2 footprint. It was stressed that unharmonised, contradictory labelling of packaging on the European internal market be avoided because it impairs goods movement and confuses rather informs consumers.

Consumers demand information

Modern consumers, however, demand precisely this information: so far they have scarcely stood a chance of identifying climate-friendly products and services when making purchasing decisions. For the time being there are no uniform and retraceable labels for fast-moving consumer goods although “green” products are trendy and consumers are becoming ever more critical.
As early as March 2007 the Carbon Trust in the UK joined forces with some brands to initiate a pilot project aimed at computing product carbon footprints using a uniform method. As a result of this analysis the emissions along the entire value chain can be reduced and this result can then also be communicated via a CO2 Label. In other European countries such as France, Austria and Switzerland the identification and labelling of the climate impact of consumer goods is also being debated.
Even in Germany there is body offering selected companies the chance to participate in a pilot project such as this. The firms are given the opportunity to produce and communicate their own product-related greenhouse gas balances based on internationally recognised methodology thereby informing consumers in a facts-based manner and assisting them in their climate-conscious shopping decisions.

back