Vox Pop: Is the carbon the best eco-measure for packs

No: But carbon is better than weight. Packaging’s environmental impact should be measured by how effectively it delivers and protects products. Like delivery lorries, packaging is part of the system for getting products to the shops. 
How heavy or how much embedded carbon it contains is dictated by the protection products need, which in turn is dictated by the stresses and strains of the delivery system and consumers’ needs and preferences.
If we were all self-sufficient, we wouldn’t need packaging. Since we aren’t, food and other products are produced in one place and used somewhere else. Packaging – and lorries – enables that to happen.
Using just one measure (whatever it is) to decide between packs only shows a small part of the big picture.
The best measure is a checklist that puts the product at the centre and considers what resources – energy, water, materials – are needed at each stage of production, delivery, use and recovery.

James Crick, business development director, Nampak Plastics
Yes: Moving the focus of the Courtauld Commitment away from exclusively weight-based measurement is definitely a positive step. However, the focus is still misplaced given that packaging represents only 2% of the total carbon footprint of the UK, and in terms of an individual product the packaging contributes approximately 10% or less.
Similarly, by focusing on a limited number of criteria to judge the environmental impact of packaging – whether it is weight or carbon footprint – the Courtauld Commitment negates other important considerations, such as secondary packaging, product loss and ultimately end use.
To get a more accurate measurement of the true impact of packaging, the Courtauld Commitment should look at it in the context of the total carbon footprint of a product – from raw materials, manufacture and storage, through to product usage, waste and recycling. This is clearly not going to be easy, but to simply focus on the carbon footprint of packaging is to ignore the bigger picture.

Mike Webster, senior consultant, Waste Watch
Maybe: We fully support the aims of the Courtauld Commitment and applaud Wrap for reaching out to the retail sector in this way – we believe it has had benefits beyond its original remit, encouraging many retailers to take more responsibility for their waste as well as to start a debate with their consumers.
Climate change is now, without question, the main driver behind how we tackle waste and any change in the Courtauld Commitment’s focus must reflect this. In carbon terms, the greatest gains are made by reducing waste across the board, so we would encourage further measures to promote the lightweighting of packaging. To make this more effective, we would couple it with material-specific targets to focus on those materials with a larger carbon footprint.

David Workman, director general, British Glass
No: The difficulty in shifting the emphasis to carbon emissions is that the methodologies currently being developed to calculate them are open to serious doubt.
Any meaningful lifecycle analysis needs to be based on a full cradle-to-cradle assessment of impacts, from extraction of raw materials to the final disposal of waste. How do we also calculate the carbon content of the increasing volume of products which we import?
I think the debate needs to move on even beyond carbon to include resource efficiency, sustainable consumption and production, and overall environmental impact. Glass should emerge in a strong position given its inertness, the fact that it is made from locally sourced and plentiful raw materials and its recycled content.
However, we shall continue to reduce the weight of glass packaging because environmentally and commercially it makes sense

Popular Articles