In Story #19, I elaborated on the meaning of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and my personal preference for the fully circular Reuse model. In today’s story, I would like to focus on setting Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for sustainable packaging.
Clear objectives are crucial to achieving organizational goals. To this end, SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound) targets are essential for clarifying what is required from individuals to contribute to the overall target. Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are important measures in this context. But how do you measure sustainability in packaging? What are the key drivers that should be defined as KPI to provide clear targets?
Although sustainability may seem straightforward at first glance, it can mean different things depending on the focus. Therefore, it is important to clarify what the primary objective is: Do we want the lowest possible carbon footprint, the least possible plastic waste, or something else? Ideally, we aim to minimize both carbon and plastic waste, though these two objectives often conflict. In my view, a KPI should focus on two separate perspectives, both of which are important:
- What goes into producing the pack This perspective is mainly related to the carbon footprint, which includes the carbon footprint for collection, return logistics, processing, and cleaning in a Reuse model, and the additional mechanical or chemical recycling process in a Recycle model.
- What happens after the pack is used—mainly concerning environmental pollution, such as plastic waste This perspective is mainly “waste” related, depending on what happens with the pack after use.
It is important to consider both perspectives, as the decisions for sustainable packaging can differ significantly if only perspective a) or b) is considered:
Plastic: While plastic packaging, such as that from the FMCG industry, often ends up in household trash or, worst case, in rivers and oceans, posing a significant challenge from a Respecting Nature perspective, its carbon footprint is lower than that of packaging made from paper or metal. Plastic is especially problematic if it is single-use. In a well-managed, fully circular model, plastic might actually be the lowest carbon solution if packaging cannot be avoided. Of course, avoiding packaging is best for both carbon input and waste reduction.
Paper: Many people perceive paper as a sustainable packaging material because, from the perspective of b), paper (uncoated) does not cause negative impacts like microplastics (though often paper is coated with plastics, which changes this view). Pure paper—both recycled and virgin—usually disappears from the environment within a year or less. However, from the perspective of a), the paper industry is highly carbon-intensive, and paper generally has a high carbon footprint from the start. If carbon reduction is the key focus, it may be debatable whether plastic or paper packaging is more sustainable. In my view, both points a) AND b) need to be considered for any sustainable packaging KPI. An interesting point is that recycled paper often has a higher carbon footprint than virgin paper, making it debatable, depending on the perspective, which of the two is more sustainable. The answer often depends on the specific case.
Metal: Similar to paper, metal is perceived as less problematic than plastic regarding point b) since used metal packaging does not tend to pollute major rivers and oceans to the same extent as plastics. However, from the perspective of a), it is worth noting that steel/metal manufacturing/processing has a high carbon footprint, often higher than that of plastic production. Like paper packaging, metal/steel has a high initial carbon footprint and is not particularly sustainable from the perspective of a). However, it seldom ends up in large quantities in rivers and oceans. Scrap metal/steel usually has value, for instance, steel mills use scrap steel in the steel manufacturing process, which positively impacts the production process.
To summarize: When setting KPIs for sustainable packaging, it is important to consider two different aspects in combination: a) what goes into producing the pack (mainly CO² footprint) and b) what happens to the pack after its use.
