You can’t manage what you can’t measure, therefore taking averages when calculating such a complex thing as carbon footprint is not helpful for achieving business goals, or benefitting the environment.
The UK Governments Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy (March 2021), specifies packaging company data on CO2e must be granular, accurately calculated, and results must be transparent. Alongside this should be on-pack consumer carbon labelling.
It does not take much scratching below the surface to realise the challenges faced by packaging businesses. Most business ERP solutions were designed to identify data based on a top-down approach to meet business overall reporting standards. Whilst this dashboard approach undoubtedly meets the needs of business leaders, it drives an immeasurable reliance on spreadsheets to identify and calculate the details. One must also consider the unreliable nature of the spreadsheet. Some variables that must be factored into thought are: what was the level of granularity on data input?; the original author may move on, leaving potential for calculations to be interpreted incorrectly by subsequent users. Therefore, it must be considered how granular and reliable the data actually is.
A business that manufactures the same product daily, week after week, may see limited energy, time, material and wastage variability. However, producing packaging typically requires small batch production, often only a matter of hours. The process therefore typically requires many change overs, some less complex than others as producers will often try to mitigate common attributes into campaign runs. The carbon impact of the consumer pack can be significant: take two typical crisp wrappers, ready salted and beef flavours. These may be made on the same manufacturing process, E.g., print, laminate, slit, packed, stored, and delivered the same. Material and thickness may be the same, as well as the number of colours and possibly the percentage of ink coverage, albeit some colours will be different. This often still leaves the biggest CO2e variable: order quantity for each SKU. Waste in the manufacturing process will undoubtedly be amortised over the production volume, leading to a different CO2e for every SKU (crisp wrapper). The typical printer and converter are constantly changing, some if not all the above, from one SKU to the next. This situation is often exacerbated by brands and packer / fillers, who endeavour to reduce working capital by reducing their order quantities of each SKU. In this environment it is inconceivable to use a simple average for a crisp wrapper, let alone applying an average number used to report anything larger. Accurate calculation at the SKU level is therefore critical in helping consumers make informed decisions.
Growing demand for transparency from consumers, means brands and retailers are keen to demonstrate sustainability credentials to their customers and look to the packaging industry to provide the transparency that in turn reaffirms brand equity. However, consumers are also becoming wary of some of the claims being made by brands which in some cases lead to accusations of greenwashing. This is so much so that the UK Government has now published a Green Claims Code which is enforceable by law, regulated by the CMA. This means that the implications for the packaging industry are that all CO2e data pertaining to the materials produced should be reported transparently and accurately.
For the brand or the retailer to be confident they comply with the Green Claims Code, they need to be reassured the data they receive from producers is indeed authentic, and for this there needs to be annual audits and certification. The brand or retailer can then share the results via their websites, and depending on the business they may choose to simply publish the annual certification. However, if their objective is to inform or positively influence consumer behaviour they may choose to publish the results at the SKU level.
A solution lies in Life Cycle Analysis, but this is not cheap; as it is provided by professionals, calculations are pretty much conducted manually. So, a limitation lies in that what is true on the day of analysis may not be months down the line. So, while the process is granular, in terms of data gathering and accuracy at the time of analysis, one might well question the trustworthiness of a result. One would also query the consistent approach and calculations to the scope that has been measured: scope 1, 2, 3 etc.
Many software solution providers are emerging, purporting to offer low-cost generic data solutions whereby companies can calculate results for themselves. The upstream data used here typically relies upon limited scientific research data e.g. Ecoinvent. Even if this approach is audited and certified annually it should nevertheless be challenged for its lack of granularity, accuracy and whether as a result, marking your own homework is considered as trusted data. This is why, at Benchmark, our consistent approach to how we calculate every SKU provides granularity, accuracy, and transparency.
To enable informed decisions ultimately the consumer should be considered in all this; not all will have the time to check the detail. This is why an on-pack label, similar to the nutritional information seen on food packaging is the best solution. However, carbon labelling is different to other labelling solutions as it needs to represent not only the pack CO2e but also the businesses journey towards Net Zero. It is unlikely carbon neutrality will happen overnight as the Net Zero journey is very much a process and perhaps over many years.
As a result of this, our label solution is simple and quick to identify, as an on pack traffic light system. It contains the pack CO2e value for the SKU, along with a QR code for web-based auditing and further information for the curious consumer. The results of the data are provided by the brand / retailer brand on their websites and the reflecting traffic light colour represents the businesses success on their journey to net zero.
How might the colour be influenced? Take the example, if the CO2e for 2021 was indexed to 100, and assuming a net zero target of 2035. The journey will take 14 years, a business needs to be recognised during this journey, else most businesses will be red for quite some time and as a result this might not attract the right consumer behaviour.
One should also consider a pharmaceutical complex foil verses a simple PE wrapper around a pack of e.g. toilet rolls – the former will never achieve the same CO2e value as the latter. But the journey may well be better for the planet. Therefore, assuming a +7% cumulative improvement year on year, the label awarded would be green. If the figure was between 4-7% it would be amber, and with less than a 4% improvement, the label would be red. In this way the focus is always keeping the end goal in mind.
Benchmark is able to deliver the triple bottom line business success criteria: Profit, People and the Planet. We know how Packaging businesses need to make meaningful improvements, benchmarking of alternative locations, suppliers, materials and processes that enable informed decisions to both commercial and CO2e.
Get in touch with us today to see how we can help your business!
Recent Comments