The start of a new year is a good time to look back and reflect on trends that influenced the momentum and direction of sustainability in packaging in 2007. One thing is certain: the sustainable packaging arena was a whirlwind of activity last year.

I think even the most optimistic were surprised by the profound impact that Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth and Nobel Prize had in raising awareness about global warming and bringing reluctant policy makers to the table. We enter 2008 with global consensus that climate change is real, it is happening quickly and human activity is largely responsible. What we lack is any comprehensive plan for what to do about it.

Business is not waiting for the plan. The calculus is not hard—energy is more expensive, carbon is being taxed in many parts of the world, and while our government may be slow-moving, global multinationals cannot afford to be. A year ago, carbon footprinting was novel; now there is the Carbon Trust carbon-reduction label. The label, currently limited to the U.K., is designed to help consumers identify companies with a commitment to reducing their carbon footprint and communicate the carbon footprint of a product from manufacturing, packaging and transport.

In 2007, we also witnessed a transition from defining what sustainable packaging is to figuring out how to measure progress toward it. While Wal-Mart was the first retailer out of the gate in the U.S., sustainable packaging has been a major area of focus for European retailers for some time, and they too have scorecards. onsumer product goods companies and their suppliers are now on the receiving end of a complicated set of environmental expectations from retailers. This is not an enviable position and often not a particularly economically efficient either, especially if the goal is improved efficiency from suppliers.

One of the challenges is that there is currently no broadly accepted set of metrics for this purpose. Standardization would help the entire packaging industry. This year may be the time to consider the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or another consensus-based standard for measures of sustainable packaging. Clear standards might also help establish better guidelines for marketing claims.

Many will remember 2007 for its dramatic headlines about recalls. From pet food to the millions of toys with excessive lead levels, toxins captured mainstream attention. In a matter of months, long-simmering concerns over the presence of toxins in all types of products became a prominent issue for the consuming public. This demonstrates the power of kids and pets. It is not a stretch to see this extending to packaging in the near future. These incidents have severely undermined the confidence in the quality assurance practices of Chinese manufacturers. Companies who were not prepared are scrambling, and rightly so, to figure out what they must do to remedy these issues. Supplier performance and the need for clear standards, expectations, and audits of environmental, health and safety performance are key sustainability issues.

For those on the fence about whether sustainable packaging is just the new flavor of the month, 2007 also provides strong evidence that sustainability is part of the new sonar system for navigating the waters of a rapidly changing business climate that is connected more than ever to critial environmental and social issues. Here’s to making strides toward a more sustainable future in 2008.