Packaging plays an indispensable role in modern society. It allows amultitude of goods to reach the consumer undamaged, safe, in a hygienic

condition and with important brand and product information. Without packaging,it would simply not be possible for people and industry to use most of theproducts that exist today.

Consumers in both the southern and northern hemisphere recognise thefunctional aspects of packaging but feel very differently about packaging whenpurchasing goods.

While the shopper in Western Europe feels good when buying packaged goods(“I am doing my bit for the environment.”) the Australian consumer feels guilty (“What do I do with the packaging? Most of what’s in the bin is packaging.”)

This paper explores the reasoning behind this difference in opinion, what it meansfor New Zealand, and attempts to develop options for dealing with packaging(waste) in New Zealand.

After all, we’d like to know if it is possible to shop guilt free or not.

The Role of PackagingPackaging plays an

indispensable role in modernsociety. It allows a multitudeof goods to reach theconsumer undamaged, safe,in a hygienic condition andwith important brand andproduct information. Withoutpackaging, it would simplynot be possible for peopleand industry to use most ofthe products that exist today.

But isn’t packagingwasteful?Not necessarily: The WestEuropean shopper wouldanswer1: “The packaging Ibuy is fibre-based, a naturallyrenewable and sustainablepackaging material. When Ihave extracted its utility it isideal for recycling, energygeneration and composting.”

It can be: Packaging iswasteful, the Australianconsumer would assert2:“When I return from my

weekly shopping I find mostof what’s in the bin ispackaging. Packaging makesme feel guilty.”

The fact is packagingprevents waste. The WorldHealth Organisation has saidthat food waste in the lesswell-developed parts of the

world can be as high as50%3. This is largely due to alack of infrastructure,including proper packaging.(Note that food waste ismore than just additionalcabbage on the compostheap. It is wasted fertiliserfuel for tractors and trucks. Itis reduced quality of life forthose who don’t get to eat it,and it is potentiallyirreversible loss of biodiversityas more land than isnecessary is converted for

food production.) By contrastfood wastage in moredeveloped countries is around2-3%3. Some estimatespredict that supermarketprices would rise by morethan 20% if there was nopackaging3.

So why is there such adifference inperception when itcomes to packaging?This paper explores thereasoning behind thisdifference in opinion, what itmeans for New Zealand, andattempts to develop optionsfor dealing with packaging(waste) in New Zealand.

After all, we’d like to knowif it is possible to shop guiltfree or not.

Environmental impact of packaging:

Guilty or not guiltyBritta Meltzer, New Zealand Paperboard Packaging Association

Introduction1

After all, we’d like to know if it is possible to shopguilt free or not.

Research findings – Western EuropeThe Institut für Motivforschung,an Austrian based researchcompany, carried out aconsumer survey in 2000 toassess not just rational but alsoemotional attitudes, intuitivefeelings and the special valuesthat packaging evokes inconsumers. In this respect 400qualitative interviews werecarried out amonghouseholders in eight Europeancountries, both men andwomen, aged between 20 and60. The survey revealed thatthe majority of householderspreferred carton packaging fora range of consumer goods.

In particular, when comparedto plastic, the consumersacknowledged that in generalcartonboard not only representsan environmentally friendlypackaging choice but alsobetter fulfils importantpackaging functions.

Charts 1 and 2 showconsumer attitudes towardscarton and plastic for thepackaging of detergents andbiscuits. Respondents ratedcartons as the preferredpackaging material fordetergents because of itspractical aspects such as easy tostack, easy to store, easy topour, durable and sturdy as well

as for its information legibilityand pleasing feel. For biscuitsthe packaging sophisticationand robustness were particularlyhighlighted.

The emotional values setcarton and plastic packagingeven further apart. Cartonpackages were purchased fornaturalness, warmth, reliabilityand safety. Carton packageswere described as a material,which you like to touch, whichbreathes, and which represents‘the good citizen’, or the decent

and reliable person. Consumersspecifically liked cartonpackages, as they were easy todispose of at recycling stationsand were frequently recycledand turned into new packaging.Buying carton packages,consumers felt good: “I amdoing my bit for theenvironment.”

Research findings – Australia

In 2001, Taylor Nelson SofresAustralia Pty Ltd carried out aqualitative survey tounderstand consumer and

trade perceptions of packagingmaterials in Australia. Theresults demonstrated thatconsumers place a higher viewon recycling and theenvironment than trade (i.e.Brand owners and retailers)perceive they do.

As in Europe, the Australianconsumer recognizes thefunction of packaging in termsof containment, protection,storage and transport of goodsas well as product information,product appeal and visualdisplay.

And when it comes toemotional values Australianconsumers describe theirperception of plastic versuscartonboard packaging in asimilar fashion to theirEuropean counterparts: whilethey perceive plastic as casualand careless, cartonboard isseen as environmentallyconscious and responsible.

But unlike the Europeans,Australian consumers feel ahigh degree of underlying guiltassociated with packaging, notat the point of purchase but atthe point of disposal.

The concern comes afterpurchase when returning homefrom the shopping experience."What do I do with thepackaging? Most of what’s inthe bin is packaging".

A Look at the Consumers’ Perception of Packaging in both the Northern andSouthern Hemisphere

2

Buying carton packages,consumers felt good:“I am doing my bit forthe environment.”

Chart 2Chart 1

Basically, it comes down tothe consumer feelingempowered when making apurchase, i.e. knowing thattheir choice will make adifference for theenvironment, as opposed tofeeling helpless as in the caseof the Australian consumer.

So why does the Australianconsumer feel that way?Comments such as ”What doI do with the packaging?Most of what’s in the bin is

packaging.” suggests thatfirstly the consumer is neithereducated enough to make theright (i.e. environmentallyfriendly) packaging choice atthe point of purchase nor isinclined to sort the packagingmaterials afterwards forcollection and recyclingpurposes. But it also stronglyimplies that the Australianshopper might not havesufficient choice ofenvironmentally friendlypackaging at the point of sale.

Hence feeling guilty or notguilty depends on educationas well as legislation and bothare interrelated. The followingexample demonstrates thispoint:

In Germany, environmentaleducation among the publicstarted in the early 80s withactivists like Greenpeace whochallenged corporations tosafeguard the environmentfor future generations. Moreand more young peoplebecame concerned about thestate of the environment andconsequently voted the GreenParty into parliament. Toremain in power, the centralgovernment was forced toadopt ‘green policies’.

Sensitive to the increasingenvironmental awarenessamong consumers and theactual and potential increasein regulation, the fibre basedpackaging industry joinedforces with its Europeancolleagues a few years later toform Pro Carton, a body thatorganises nationwide eventsin order to educate consumersabout the benefits ofrenewable and sustainablepackaging.

All of the above forceseventually led to greenlegislation in the form of the‘Packaging Ordinance’ in1991, strongly supported by the German public / consumers.

The Packaging Ordinancesets a clear hierarchy for thehandling of packaging waste.First and foremost, packagingwaste must be prevented orreduced. Secondly, usedpackaging is to be re-used orrecycled by returning it to theproduction loop. Onlypackaging waste, whichcannot be prevented, re-usedor recycled, may be disposedof by means of incineration orlandfilling. To ensure thattrade and industry walk the

talk, the Packaging Ordinanceplaces a legal obligation onthem to take back and recycletransport and sales packaging.It sets targets for the recyclingof used sales packaging thatdiffer according to the type ofmaterial. Targets areobligatory! Trade can only beexempted from theirindividual take back obligationif they join a nationwide,consumer-oriented system forcollection, sorting andrecycling of used salespackaging. This system iscalled ‘Dual System’ andhands out the trademark‘Green Dot’ to those brandowners who pay a license fee.This license fee is not onlybased on the number ofpackaging units and weightbut also varies according tothe type of packagingmaterial used. For example,the fee for plastic is muchhigher than for a renewableand easy to recycle materialsuch as cartonboard. Inexchange for paying thelicence fee the brand ownersare allowed to print thesystem’s trademark – theGreen Dot - onto theirproduct package. cont…

Why is there such a difference in theperception of packaging?3

Hence feeling guilty ornot guilty depends oneducation as well aslegislation and both areinterrelated.

Graph 3

…But legislation in Germanydoes not only target thetrade: For example inWestphalia, the most denselypopulated state in Germany,consumers’ wheelie bins aretaxed according to their sizeand the number of times theyare emptied. Therefore it is inthe consumer’s interest tochoose goods in thesupermarket that she or hecan easily recycle to get awaywith the smallest wheelie binpossible.

Has the ‘Green Dot’ beensuccessful in triggering thedesired behavioural changeamong industry, trade andconsumers?The answer is a clear yes.

Consumers now activelyseek out the packaged goodsthat show the ‘Green Dot’.They know that if they buypackaging marked with the‘Green Dot’ and sort itseparately for proper disposalthey actively help to saveresources and to protect theenvironment. They arerewarded financially byreduced household wastedisposal costs. Having lived inGermany it is my personalexperience that packagedgoods that do not show the‘Green Dot’ trademark areleft behind on the shelf.

The ‘Dual System’ givesbrand owners an incentive tooptimise packaging by wayof the fees the licensees payfor the use of the Green Dot.Since the licence fee aregoverned by the number ofitems, weight and packagingmaterial, they now opt forlow-waste and recyclablepackaging materials such ascartonboard. The design ofnumerous sale packs has alsobeen modified. Refill packsand concentrates havereplaced voluminous bottles.

More and more products areusing only one packagingmaterial rather than two, toallow for efficient recycling.For example spare partsdisplayed on a hook in ahardware shop are containedin cartonboard only insteadof a blister pack made ofcardboard and plastic. Thefollowing measured resultsspeak for themselves4:

Thanks to the ‘Green Dot’license fee and thesubsequent use of lightweight, recyclable andredesigned packaging bybrand owners, the packagingconsumption per person inGermany has dropped from95.6 kg in 1991 to 82.5 kg in

1999. This is a reduction ofalmost 14% or 1.05 milliontonnes for the wholepopulation of Germany.

Between 1992 and 2002the recycling quantities rosefrom 0.9 million to 5.3million tonnes of salespackaging. Hence the DualSystem has not onlyexceeded the stringentrecycling targets set by thePackaging OrdinanceAmendment of 1998 but insome cases they haveexceeded the targets by alarge margin (see Graph 3).This is because packagingthat is not marked with theGreen Dot also ends up inthe collection containers.

In 2002 the Dual Systemalso introduced itsenvironmental performancebalance in an attempt to

make the eco-efficiency ofrecycling Green Dotpackaging completelytransparent4. This firstcomprehensive ecologicalanalysis of packagingrecycling is based on datafrom all the sorting,processing and recyclingplants in the 537 wastemanagement areas served bythe Dual System. It comparesthe raw materials and energyconsumed as well as theemissions discharged duringthe production of goodsmade from virgin materialscompared to the relevantvalues for recycling (includingtransport kilometres covered).The following figures showthe contribution made bypackaging recycling toenvironmental issues such asenergy conservation andreduced emissions of thegases attributed to globalwarming:

In 2002 the recycling ofused sales packaging saved67.5 billion mega joules ofprimary energy. This isequivalent to 6.3 billionkilowatt-hours of electricalenergy. In addition, it waspossible to prevent theemission of 1.5 milliontonnes of climate-endangering greenhousegases. This corresponds tothe exhaust emissions thatwould be caused by citybuses driving 1.16 billionkilometres.

Finally, the ‘Green Dot’system or principle ofproducer responsibility hasachieved success as aEuropean model: 19 countrieshave adopted the Green Dotsystem for collection, sorting,recovery and recycling todate. A total of 95,000licensees now use the GreenDot trademark.

Between 1992 and 2002the recycling quantitiesrose from 0.9 million to5.3 million tonnes ofsales packaging.

There is no doubt that there isan increasing environmentalawareness in New Zealand,thanks to the messages thatthe Government sends (ZeroWaste strategy, global climatechange, biodiversity protection,reduced landfilling etc.) andthe media coverage of thesetopics. Councils and schoolsalso do their best to encouragethe younger generations inhow to sort the variouspackaging materials forcollection and recyclingpurposes.

But at the same time there isan underlying feeling ofhelplessness and apathyamong the public.Helplessness, in that there ismuch environmental talk at amacro level about dramaticenvironmental changes thatare clearly beyond the scope ofindividual countries to resolve,let alone for the individual.There are few suggestionsgiven to individuals about howthey can contribute effectivelyto reducing environmentalimpact. Apathy, since theconsumers have currently noincentives either emotionally(‘even if I do my bit I doubtmy neighbour will so whybother’) nor financially to dotheir bit for the environment. Itcosts the same in rateswhether I put out a wheeliebin every week or not!

So how can we get thesupport of the public? It is time that the fibre basedpackaging industry tells itsstory. This story will place NewZealanders’ everyday actionssuch as buying and recyclinginto the wider environmentalcontext. It will demonstratethat if the consumers buy withcare they considerablycontribute to New Zealand’senvironment and economy.

The ‘environmental cycle’illustrates the life cycle offibre-based packagingproduced in New Zealand(see Illustration 1). At everyphase of the ‘environmentalcycle’ great care is taken tominimise the environmentalimpacts from forestry, millingand conversion through toconsumption and recycling.

The main raw material offibre-based packaging iswood from renewable andsustainable plantationforestry. Plantation foresterscan ensure that new seedlingsreplace the harvested wood ina continuous rotation.Biodiversity – the range ofplant and animal life in New

Zealand is assisted by a formof productive land use thatprovides a greater range ofhabitats than many others.Natural areas withinplantation forests have beenprotected by way of theForest Accord for over adecade.

Forests are important forour climate as they absorbcarbon from the air as theygrow. The carbon iseventually returned to theatmosphere when theynaturally degrade or throughuse of wood as biofuel. TheFCCC (FrameworkConvention on ClimateChange) recognises forestryas ‘Greenhouse Neutral’. Andlast but not least, forestsprovide areas for all NewZealanders to pursuerecreational activities such ascycling and horse riding,activities which arediscouraged within theconservation estate.

Sawmills turn the logs intotimber and plywood buildingproducts. The thinner logsfrom the tops of trees andslabs are utilised in thepulping process to makecartonboard, corrugatedboard, and paper. The by-products of sawmills and pulpproduction such as saw dustand left over bark are used toproduce energy for the mills.(One major New Zealand Pulp& Paper Business derives 60%of its power from this‘Greenhouse Neutral’ energysource while the surplusbiofuel is sold to otherindustrial heat users.)Bioenergy is ‘carbon neutral’since the amount of CO2

released back into theatmosphere during burning isequal to the CO2 absorbed bythe tree during its growth.

The board and paper issubsequently converted intocorrugated boxes, cartons andpaper bags. Throughout theconverting process all off-cuts(known as Pre-Consumerwaste) are recycled.

Finally, the fibre basedpackaging industry collectsthe Post-Consumer waste, i.e.everything from crates ofcrushed cartons outside retailstores, to weekly kerbsidecollection of household paper.Last year almost 200,000tonnes of paper includingnewsprint and importedpackaging were collected andrecycled within New Zealand,i.e. the collected material isre-pulped and reused to makepaper for corrugated boxes.Annually, this recycling effortsaves 3,298,000 trees andavoids 200,000 m3 cont…

How can New Zealand make the rightchoices in terms of reducing, reusingand recycling?

…there is an underlying feeling of helplessness andapathy among the public.

4

… of packaging waste thatwould normally go to landfill.This is equivalent to an arealarger than the whole of EdenPark stadium filled from thetop of the tallest grandstandroof to the playing surface.

Also financially thepaperboard and packagingindustry contributesenormously to New Zealand’seconomy. It providesemployment for more than9000 New Zealanders andgenerates gross revenues ofmore than $1 billion a year.Further indirect economicbenefits are provided in theform of the transportation andbranding opportunitiescreated for our primaryproducts and manufacturedgoods. Most meat, dairy, fruitand manufactured goodsexported from New Zealandare contained, protected andpresented in innovative, costeffective packaging madefrom both a renewable andsustainable natural resource.This is very important formaintaining the country’sclean and green image, whichhas been calculated athundreds of millions of NewZealand dollars by theMinistry for the Environment.

Is public supportsufficient in changingpurchasing andrecycling behaviour?If consumers make aconcentrated effort inchoosing environmentallyfriendly packaging but do notfind the choice of sustainable,renewable packs on theretailer’s shelf, then all of thewill in the world could nottranslate into the desiredbehaviour change.

That is where tradelegislation could come intoplay. It is true that there issome self-regulation outthere, e.g. in the form of theNew Zealand Packaged GoodsAccord that is up for renewalin New Zealand, butmembership is voluntary andself-imposed recycling targets

do little to convince a scepticalpublic that the industry iscommitted to change. Thepublic attitude to industry’sapproach may be one of thefactors contributing to feelingsof apathy by consumers.

It is important for thepackaging industry to engagehonestly with consumers andthe public on issues of recycling.An example is the differencebetween claims that somethingis ‘recyclable’ as distinct from

that which is actually ‘recycled’.For example, most plastics canbe recycled but it had an actualrecycling rate of only 18% ofconsumption in 2001. Table 1sets out the recovery rates fordifferent types of packagingmaterials5. Across the Tasmanthey seem to be betterorganised to encourage theuse of sustainable and easilyrecyclable packagingmaterials. The National

Packaging Covenant (NPC),which was launched in1999, is backed up by theNEPM or NationalEnvironment ProtectionMeasure, a regulatory safetynet to catch ‘free loaders’,those who do not want tosign up to the Covenant6. Itfocuses on brand ownersand provides ‘take back’requirements of consumerpackaging unless packagingis sourced from a NPCsupplier. Each signatory hasto provide action plansaimed at reducingenvironmental impact byway of increasedrecyclability, down gaugingetc. As a result of theCovenant changes, theincreased use of recycled /recyclable packaging andmoves towards lightweightpackaging have occurred.For example, the Australianfast food outlet Red Roosterchanged its packaging fromplastic to paper. Anotherexample is Patties Bakerywhose full range of productscame in non-recyclablepolypropylene. Thecompany is progressivelyswitching its packaging tocartonboard (see Photo 1)7:

Also financially thepaperboard andpackaging industrycontributes enormouslyto New Zealand’seconomy.

Illustration 1

Packaging Council of New Zealand (Inc.) 2001 Mass Balance Packaging Material Summary Table

MATERIALS PRODUCTION CONSUMPTION COLLECTION COLLECTION (TONNES) (TONNES) (TONNES) AS A

PERCENTAGE OF

CONSUMPTION

Aluminium 6,105 4,525 2,945 70%

Glass 120,035 138,245 61,630 45%

Paper 478,790 306,820 164,010 54%

Plastics 134,110 128,985 23,760 18%

Steel 43,515 28,085 8,640 31%

TOTAL 782,555 606,660 260,985 43%

There are companies in NewZealand who actively seek tomake an effort to reduce theenvironmental impact of theirmanufacturing sites. Nestléstarted a ‘Closed loop recyclingprogramme with Carter HoltHarvey’ in New Zealand 6years ago to optimise the useand disposal of packagingacross its many factories andoffices. Since then they havecollected 740 tonnes, resultingin both environmental benefitsand a saving of NZ$44,000 inlandfill costs.

The fact remains that neitherthe NZ Packaged GoodsAccord of New Zealand northe Australian Covenant havemeasurable targets but onlybroad objectives that can beinterpreted loosely and dolittle to improveenvironmental protectionwithout voluntarycommitment by suppliers.

Legislation should not onlytarget trade and industry butalso consumers. With the best

will in the world, the ability ofindustry to reduce waste isdictated by the consumers’willingness to play a part. Ifconsumers face no directincentive to “do the rightthing” there will be peoplewho won’t! Options might bea tax on wheelie bin sizes toencourage consumers toimprove their recycling habitsas effectively happens inGermany. Alternatively,enforcing consumer recyclingcould be achieved by

introducing smaller wheeliebins nationwide, as happenedin the Auckland region. Thisinitiative by the AucklandRegional Council resulted in anincrease in fibre based wastecollection of 26% over a

period of 6 months followingthe introduction of the scheme.

Legislation is not the onlyanswer. It is also theresponsibility of our fibrebased packaging industry toencourage optimum packagingdesign to further minimise theenvironmental impact. In thisrespect, design competitionsneed to be part of a widermarketing and educationprogramme to trade,educational institutions and thegeneral public. Our presence atthis year’s WasteMINZconference in Nelson (visit theNew Zealand PaperboardPackaging Association stand) isa good starting point forcommunicating the benefits offibre-based packaging. So is our link to theinternational forum, withorganisations such as ProCarton, to explore the currentand future roles of paperboardpackaging in society and toencourage sustainable, planetfriendly choices.

Packaging changes from non-recyclable to recyclable material

Legislation should notonly target trade andindustry but alsoconsumers.

Photo 1 Old New

Table 1

ConclusionPackaging plays an integral part in modern society, and life without packaging isneither practical nor environmentally responsible. It is therefore important to minimisethe environmental footprint of the packaging we all need and use on a daily basis.

Environmental protection is a ‘common property’. The principle of “the tragedy of thecommons” (e.g. fisheries depletion or global warming) dictates that if we leave it upto self-regulation or the market, no one individual will take responsibility. As acountry, we will carry on producing waste until we eventually run out of landfill space.

So how do we get industry, trade and consumers to make the right choices in termsof reduce, reuse and recycle? Europe has moved along this path by aggressivelypromoting recycling and by making society pay the costs of their choices, includingpricing different products on the basis of their record in recycling.

Wherever possible, we should encourage the use of packaging made from renewableand sustainable resources that are grown and recycled within New Zealand and muchbetter reflect our clean, green image.

Maybe one day this will give us an answer to our question raised at the start of thispaper: guilty or not guilty?

For information contact Britta MeltzerMarketing StrategistNew Zealand PaperboardPackaging AssociationTelephone 09-633 1315 or e-mail Britta.Meltzer@chh.co.nz.

Acknowledgements:Murray ParrishEnvironmental ManagerCarter Holt Harvey

1 Source: Institut für Motivforschung (2000), Survey ‘Consumer Attitudes towards Packaging’2 Source: Taylor Nelson Sofres Australia (August 2001), Survey ‘An exploratory study of packaging materials in the Australian Market’,

commissioned by Australian Paper3 Source: The Carton Packaging Fact File (1999), Pro Carton4 Source: Green Dot Home Site, ‘DUAL SYSTEM / Performance Balance / Massflow, Environmental Success Balance and Packaging

Optimisation’, www.gruene-punkt.de, accessed 9 September 035 Source: Packaging Council of New Zealand, www.packaging.org.nz, ‘Packaging Information’, accessed 9 September 036 Source: www.packcoun.com.au, ‘The Covenant / NEPM’, accessed 9 September 037 Source: Gavin Williams – CEO Packaging Council of Australia (2002), ‘The Covenant – The State of Play – The Outlook’, Guestspeaker for

the Packaging Council of New Zealand at the Foodtech Packtech 2002