The one big missing option in packaging
With all the talk of making packaging biodegradable, compostable, recycled and recyclable, one option seems to have been left out of the party: reusable.Once a commonplace practice–far before green, sustainability, even environmentalism were a part of the mass consciousness–this simple, practical, common sense use of resources occurred in several sectors, milk being the most common. But even beer often included a 1-2 cent rebate for returning bottles (or so my Pop tells me!)
Now it’s barely a part of the conversation. Why is this? Have we become so convenience oriented that having to do anything more than put something in the blue bin is too much effort?
It’s not completely off the map, as milk in returnable glass jars is still practiced by Strauss Family Creamery on a regional basis. Pay a deposit amount for the bottle, get it credited back when you buy the next bottle. Growlers are another example, being large resealable glass bottles of beer you can buy from brewpubs, getting a deal on subsequent refills.
But in both cases, these are locally focused. Could something like this happen on a national level? I can hear you coming up with a ready list of why not. I say to you, why not work around these obstacles, or create a whole new way to make packaging reusable, “repurposable”?
What if you created packaging that was designed to be reused from the start? Think beyond food here. Think beyond glass jars. And think beyond the green motivated. How can you make reusing your packaging as convenient as throwing it away? This has to be considered, as we can’t expect everybody to be motivated by more than their immediate interests. Could a package being designed so it had a second life after the consumer finished with its first use?
To make packaging that is reusable benefits both the environment and a company’s bottom line. How? Less materials needed for new packaging, goodwill and self generated word of mouth publicity, and repeated exposure to your company’s brand.
Could reusable packaging work for your products? Or tell us why not.
.
Essy commented:
Your wesbite has to be the electronic Swiss army knife for this topic.
Robert commented:
Though it’s a bit more of a socialist idea, Germany passed legislation about 20 years ago which stated that anything you made or sold, you had to take back and take responsibility for disposal thereof.
This was particularly effective: it introduced design-for-disassembly (manufacturers had to think about how to take apart components they put together). It meant retailers needed to get really organized about how to sort/recycle stuff they sold, and distribute it back to the manufacturers.
In the short term, such legislation introduces new costs. In the long term, there is significant economic and ecologic benefit to the country.
Those who think we’ll solve everything through short-term economic benefits are being naive. Personal and private gain is not the same as societal gain.
This type of thinking is why we bailed out banks, but didn’t build infrastructure.
We didn’t always think that way. Our National Park system is the best in the world, not because someone was ‘privatizing’ it or looking for ‘economic gain’ but because far-sighted and courageous individuals saw the long-term benefit to our nation of preserving Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon and many other beautiful places.
While recycled materials are a type of ‘resource’ which need to be addressed like any other ‘resource’, they’re not always pure and inert materials, like glass. And the systems we have in place to ‘mine’ recycled materials are terribly inconsistent. Each community is different. A lot of packaging put into recycling facilities ends up in the landfill simply because it can’t be sorted well.
We need to start thinking long-term about the problem.
dan commented:
Building a package robust enough for re-use does NOT imply material savings. Recycle is re-use.
Specialty Bottle commented:
The Heinekin WOBO beer bottle/brick?
EverythingPackaged.com commented:
“Have we become so convenience oriented that having to do anything more than put something in the blue bin is too much effort?”…YES! We need to focus on biodegradable and compostable because it’s our culture. Don’t misunderstand me here, reusable containers are the right choice but its like asking someone who owns a car to ride a bike…maybe a few will enjoy the ride but most would rather drive around the block. Its unfortunate, but unless properly motivated (think $$ here, either give it or take it) most wont change. Good Luck, i’m in your corner for this one!
Alika commented:
Ironically, people in ex-Soviet Union had one of the most sustainable lifestyles. They grew their own vegetables and fruits at “dachas,” cleaned with baking soda and soap, and used the same clothes/shoes for years.
As for reusable packaging - sure, it was on a huge national scale that people would bring back all kinds of bottles (milk, lemonade, beer, vodka, even sour cream small jars). Not doing so would have been a waste, as they got some money back. Yet, then, all bottles were standard as there was no market economy. Even scarier childhood memory - everybody would drink “gazirovka” (carbonated sweet water) from the same glass at coin operated machines.
Perfumes are already doing refills. It is possible that personal care products can be next. In fact, some liquid soaps already offer such options.
greenguy commented:
Not only could reusable work for our cleaners and personal care products but it should. The big cost is packaging and the specialty closures especially with foamers. Refill of existing packaging would be a great benefit..
