Beyond Loop: Quickly Scaling the Use of Re-Usable Packaging for ALL Consumer Goods
Shantanu Bawari ?????? ?????
Leader | Storyteller | Circular Economy Proponent | Sports Enthusiast | ex-CEIBS | ex-AIESEC
I am a little late in talking about this. This announcement at the World Economic Forum a couple of weeks ago related to an experiment called "Loop" about the use of re-usable packaging for consumer goods is a very exciting development. This follows a recognition that recycling is not working, actually failing, and that we are better-off not creating any waste in the first place.
How to solve the world’s plastics problem: Bring back the milk man
The need is clear: we cannot afford to keep creating waste at the current rate of consumption. Re-usable packaging for ALL consumer goods is the way to go. The need for elimination for all single-use packaging has never been more pertinent, so one way or another we need to find a way to scale this quickly.
As someone who has been working in the re-usable packaging space, and helping build sustainable supply chains for the better part of the last decade, I think there are a few other developments of the last half a century that need to be challenged in the process –
1. Can we do away with the idea of packaging being an extension of the brand? Standard packaging units that can be shared and re-used across supply chains is at the heart of efficient re-usable systems. Are there smart ways to incorporate essential elements of a brand in standard packaging?
2. Can we create efficient models of decentralised manufacturing? Re-usable packaging will be heavier than single-use packaging, which means more trucks will be needed to move the same quantum of goods, which would likely chip away at any environmental savings. At what volumes and distances from points of consumption will a production facility be climate positive?
3. How can we, starting now, price goods at their true cost, including their environmental cost, not just their economic cost? When implemented it would become the incentive system for all players in the value chain to look at re-usable packaging options, which then intuitively should become the "cheaper" alternative. What roles do governments, regulatory bodies and consumers have to play in getting there?
I would love to hear your thoughts on all or any of the above questions.
---------------------
Footnote: Image Credit
Daniel Müller / Greenpeace “Greenpeace together with the #breakfreefromplastic coalition conduct a beach cleanup activity and brand audit on Freedom Island, Para?aque City, Metro Manila, Philippines.” 2017 https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/welcome-ground-zero-ocean-plastic-pollution-crisis/
Supporting a better chemicals strategy, focusing on the phase out of animal testing (EU and beyond). Animal welfare as key driver?????? (and since day one, advocating for equal North-South development efforts.)
6 年Adrienna Zsakay
可持续发展、领袖力、创新
6 年Hey Shantanu - Glad to see the conversations from our days at CEIBS are continuing!? It's interesting to see the range of responses to LOOP, especially now that the announcements have worn off and a more? critical analysis of the merits of the program can take place. So, a few thoughts: 1) LOOP is an interesting concept that was built for the West, and not for the rest.? It is branded, would work well within a closed loop like Amazon, and has a base of "woke" people who are looking for "solutions" like these.? 2) I find it interesting that we are looking for a "new" model to packaging after all the effort that was spent doing away with a model that required minimal packaging (i.e. wet/dry markets in Asia).? 3) The problem with pricing the externalities is that there needs to be more than a general awareness of the externalities, particularly when those externalities aren't localized.? For plastic, this is the perfect storm where everyone recognizes the issue, and agrees "they should do more", all the while knowing that they will never likely be held accountable at a level that would threaten their business model. 4) End of day, regs are not going to bring the action needed.? It is going to come down to the choices that we choose to make, and or the innovations that we invest into.? I'm placing my bets on innovation, only because I have seen how hard it is for people to make (and maintain) "better" decisions even when the consequences are well known. So, to that end, while I am not a huge fan of LOOP myself, I fully support Tom's investment to bring a different approach to the challenge.? His firm, Terracycle, has a much wider portfolio of activity, and through each I believe they are able to take away lessons that over the long term will help drive firms towards solutions that address your three questions above. Taipei based Miniwiz, run by Arthur Huang, would be the other I know of.... and what he is doing is simply amazing. Hope all is well.? Happy New Year of the pig! Rich
Partner at ELP Network | Realising Breakthroughs
6 年Great questions Shantanu. For question 1, there are entire degrees/disciplines dedicated to packaging design :) This is touching an orthodoxy in the business, where packaging has become an essential part of the product itself. I'd be curious to see if the players in Loop would pool their supply chains together or if a player such as Terracycle, would make it so attractive for them to shift to more standardized packaging with more minimal branding. I think that there starts to be less need for packaging as a differentiator on the shelf as you have other ways to be touched by the brand.?
Portfolio Manager
6 年Interesting. Although what you propose is a good idea, it will be difficult to implement due to the narrow interest of individuals and businesses. Reminds me of the story where there was a town with a pond... And the pond could only sustain a certain level of fish... And while all the villagers knew of this fact, none of them wanted to give up on their daily supply for the fear of someone else getting more fish than they could... And over a period of time, there was no fish left in the pond... The entire village lost - but no one was willing to work together in everyone's common interest - it was not about greed - but the fear that someone else would take advantage even if you were following the rules... Further, in the current context, reverse logistics and/or reusable packaging is often more expensive (both in terms of economic and environmental costs) than "use and throw". Therefore, unless we are able to reduce economic costs/ incentivise such reusable packaging, or increase the regulatory costs for single use packaging, a shift will be difficult... And any regulation to this effect may be politically disastrous.