News

I read with interest last month’s profile on Rexam’s Leslie Van de Walle (Packaging News, April 2008), particularly his reference to aluminium being “more environmentally friendly” than steel because it is “much more recyclable”.

Considering that steel is 100% recyclable without any loss of quality, this came as news to me.

In fact, when you look at the lifecycles of different materials, there are few that can challenge the steel can’s sustainability credentials. Steel is one of the most recycled materials in the world, with at least 50% of all the steel you see around you having already been recycled once.

This impressive performance is reflected in the UK packaging recycling rates, where it has been set an ambitious target of 69% over the next three years. However, having surpassed the European target of 54% two years early, and with a current UK rate of 57.5%, we are confident that this will be met.

Furthermore, with an established end-market for recovered steel and more than 95% of local authorities collecting steel packaging at kerbside, Corus only wishes the targets for steel were even more ambitious.

In light of the excellent recycling performance of steel, both in the UK and in Europe, the conclusion of Mr Van de Walle that aluminium is more recyclable and therefore more environmentally friendly, is not based on hard evidence. While no one could argue against Rexam addressing its environmental responsibilities, Mr Van de Walle should remember that to get the most accurate reflection of sustainable performance, the entire lifecycle of the packaging material should be considered.

Nicola Bennett
Sustainability projects manager
Corus Steel Packaging Recycling