 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
||
We’ve all heard the terms “sustainability” and “green printing” and “packaging scorecards” by now, but while there’s an awareness of the buzzwords, the implications of sustainable practices on commerce and the printing/packaging industry are things we’re just coming to terms with. Whether we embrace these environmental challenges or run from them, these issues will have a growing influence on the way we conduct business, both now in the short-term, and far into the foreseeable future. This article is an attempt to provide an overview of the sustainability issues facing the printing/packaging industries, how it is that the issue has come before us, and some of the responses that are being made.
Sustainability is not a new concept, but it has only recently captured the public imagination in a big way. In 1992, the UN held what is commonly referred to as the “Rio Summit”, or the “Earth Summit,” to specifically address the issues of planning for a sustainable future, and published their recommendations in a document called “Agenda 21.” In that document, they define sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN, 1992). This emphasis on the future represents a fundamental departure from the way we typically do things. Most of our efforts in manufacturing are oriented towards efficiencies of bringing product to market quickly and cheaply, often with little regard to the needs of the future beyond the next quarterly earnings. Sustainable development calls for us to direct our attention to the long view—thirty, fifty, a hundred years into the future in order to ensure that we don’t dig ourselves a hole that we’ll become trapped in. Now, sustainability, as described in Agenda 21, is more than conservation of natural resources. One commonly finds references to the three E’s of sustainability—Environmental stewardship, social Equity (meaning no exploitation of people), and, of course, Economic success. If we go out of business, we’ve not sustained ourselves. At the bottom line, economic success remains the first order of business. But increasingly, to be a successful business will require us to pay more attention the Triple Bottom Line, to include the people and the planet as well as profits. At the moment, environmental issues are at the forefront on the sustainability movement. Modern environmentalism really got its start when Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in 1962. In her book, Carson established a relationship between the use of the pesticide DDT and declining populations of the American Bald Eagle—no less a call to arms than a threat to our national symbol (which even trumps polar bears clinging to their ice floes). The use of DDT was a classic example of a very effective short-term solution with little regard to long-term impacts. DDT was an outstanding pesticide, tremendously effective at eradicating crop-destroying insects. Unfortunately, the chemical was carried in the run-off from the fields into our streams and rivers, where it was consumed in very small concentrations by countless organisms that are the basis of the food chain. The toxins in DDT bio-accumulate; they become trapped in organic tissue, and as fish and other aquatic wildlife eat the zooplankton and bugs and smaller fish, the toxins that each organism has consumed are passed along up the food chain. It’s like the payback on a pyramid scheme, only they gather poisons. Carson was able to demonstrate that bald eagles were consuming enough DDT through the fish that they ate that it caused their eggs to have very thin shells, creating a high mortality rate and endangering the species (Carson, 1962). Another interesting milestone in water quality was the Cuyahoga river fire of 1969, in which there was so much effluent floating on the surface of the river that it caught fire. When it was featured in Time magazine, it became a national embarrassment, although in fairness it had burned several times in the past, as indeed had a number of rivers throughout the country (Alder, 2004). These are two striking examples of dramatic incidents that captured the public imagination to the point that an environmental movement was initiated. The following year, 1970, saw the first Earth Day, in which millions of Americans took part in cleaning up litter throughout the country. 1970 also saw the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, which over the course of the next decade sponsored a number of legislative acts that have had a tremendous impact on the way we do business—The Clean Air Act, the Water Quality Improvement Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Endangered Species Act, and many more have forced industry to make changes to their operations in order to safeguard our environment and, subsequently, ourselves. Recently, another environmental call went out that has really resonated with the public imagination—the 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth has made the sustainability and global warming issues being discussed in bureaucratic panels in remote places like Rio, Bali, and Kyoto suddenly become visible and real to millions of Americans, and they are beginning to look for solutions and are challenging American industries to demonstrate their concern as well. There are many issues to deal with, but the most pressing deal with sustaining our natural resources and our environment. There is a growing and insistent demand for resources. Oil demand is dramatically increasing as third world countries are becoming more industrialized. Our current global population is in excess of 6.6 billion, and the UN projects it to hit nearly 9 billion in forty years (UN, 2004). Talk about expanding markets! However, it’s a finite planet with a finite amount of resources to be distributed among more and more people. As we move increasingly towards a global economy, as money and resources move into third world economies in order to capitalize on cheap labor, those economies rise. And as their prospects rise, the people begin to look for many of the same goods and services we enjoy, and they demand the resources to produce and power those products. Of course, realizing a global economy means increased transportation of goods and resources, placing more energy consumption demands on the oil market. Energy consumption—and energy generation—is really the crux of the problem on a couple of fronts. In addition to the competition to burn them, petroleum-based fuels inherently release CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming. Alternative, renewable energy sources are in growing demand. The other main issue for the sustainability movement is waste management. There is tremendous, renewed concern about the impact our consumer society is having on the environment. There are concerns about the prospect of global climate change, which is fueled by greenhouse gas emissions, and there are concerns regarding toxicity—the same issues of bioaccumulation that Rachel Carson articulated in Silent Spring have received renewed attention as we consider the affects of groundwater contamination from heavy metals and chemicals leaching from our landfills. Landfills also become an issue as they fill up—32 percent of municipal solid waste is packaging materials; paper and paperboard products (inclusive on non-packaging) are more than 40 percent (Imhoff, 2005). Our current production and consumption models involve throwing away materials after a single use. What had seemed an endless bounty of materials a few decades ago is now regarded as a limited commodity, and waste reduction is a major priority. So what is the impact of all of this on the printing/packaging industry? As public concern over these issues grows, many of our clients (in the form of CPCs and retailers) are anxious to demonstrate that their companies are responsive to those concerns. Savvy marketers want to be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. Wal-Mart’s energy reduction and packaging reduction policies don’t merely save money; they are doing much to buoy public perception of the retailer’s brand. With the integrity of their brands at stake, many companies have appointed Corporate Responsibility Officers to look at the long-term benefits of sustainable practices and finding avenues for increased profitability and positive branding. Ultimately, what will define this movement is the degree to which the world embraces sustainability as a long-term or a short-term project. There is a lot of attention being paid to the immediate benefits of waste reduction and energy conservation. This fits our traditional focus on the economic bottom line. Many companies are realizing immediate savings in material costs (using less), waste removal costs, energy bills and fuel costs by re-examining their practices and through careful investment in technologies. These represent the three R’s most of us are familiar with—Reduce, Reuse, Recycle—and they present a terrific “win/win” in that they can provide savings and they are boasting points for demonstrating one’s commitment to environmental stewardship. Printing and packaging companies will increasingly find that their environmental credentials are being weighed by CPCs and retailers who, in order to show the public their commitment, look to their supply chain to also be green. As the “people, planet” part of the triple bottom line grows in influence, suppliers of print and packaging who can demonstrate that their products are produced with less harmful impact will be favored over other companies. Now, the skeptics looking at the sustainability movement will suggest that in the end, the economic bottom line always outweighs the other considerations. But if a company places value on the perception of its brand as an environmentally responsible product, chances are they will pay for that value. What is certain is that they won’t pay for products that they feel damage their brand. I recently had a conversation with a number of commercial printers about FSC/SFI certification (an auditing process regarding using paper from sustainable sources) in which it was stated that even if the certification hadn’t necessarily brought them new business, it was necessary for them to retain many of the accounts they had. Their clients had demanded that they reach that benchmark. So if other retailers follow the initiative of Wal-Mart’s packaging scorecard, can a packaging company afford not to go green? And if being green is a competitive advantage, then it becomes important to establish what it really means to be green and to provide a means to credibly demonstrate that a company follows those practices. In response to this need, a diverse group of associations—PIA/GATF, the FTA, and SGIA—have pooled their resources to initiate the Sustainable Green Printers Partnership (SGP), a third-party certification process for printers with sustainable practices. Any printing company within the United States and Canada will be able to apply for certification, whether they are members of the founding associations or not. The SGP Partnership envisions sustainability as encompassing three main areas: Product, which includes the design and materials to create the product; Process, which includes all manufacturing processes and byproducts (such as solid waste, wastewater, or air pollution); and Envelope, which includes the facilities, grounds, employees, etc. Certified SGP printers must have formal environmental policies and will be required to demonstrate best practices as established by the SGP Partnership. It is intended that this certification will provide printers who are committed to sustainable practices with an internationally recognized status. To learn more about this initiative, visit www.sgppartnership.org online. In addition to client demands, there is always the concern of increased regulation. The environment is playing an unprecedented role in the political dialogue this election cycle, and one can expect renewed scrutiny of what qualifies as hazardous waste and how those materials are handled and disposed of. Recycling requirements are a possibility as well as landfill issues become a greater concern. But while industry generally chafes at the notion of regulation, a mandate for rigorous environmental standards may well be something to embrace rather than avoid. Looking back to the environmental legislation since the 70s, it can be said that while the medicine may have tasted bad going down, it was good for us in the long run. Significant gains have been made in water and air quality that has enhanced everyone’s way of life. Given the potentially catastrophic consequences of global climate change, aggressive steps to slow that process down are in all of our best interests. And if regulation is coming, doesn’t it make sense to be proactive in the face of change rather than reactive? The sustainability leaders will be the ones shaping the outcome of such regulation when it comes to pass. This does not mean that it is all sacrifice, however. There are tremendous economic benefits to those who can respond to the need for change in an innovative matter. While the three “R”s largely represent the “low hanging fruit” that is readily available to those who care to invest in those solutions, real gains in sustainability (and economic success) will be found through the pursuit of the fourth “R”—redesign. Innovation is required to find alternative solutions to remove toxic compounds from our production processes, or to find materials that can be reused, recycled or composted rather than throwing them away. Beyond invention, though, the sustainability movement may present an opportunity for enhanced competitiveness, particularly where packaging and products are being produced overseas. American business should be promoting public awareness of sustainability concerns. If the public can embrace the triple bottom line in their buying habits, then we can see real benefits. Again, this is the real challenge of the sustainability movement—moving away from a consumer market based solely on instant gratification to one of responsible consumerism, which requires a longer view than satisfying one’s immediate wants. So much of our manufacturing is designed first and foremost to create more, faster, cheaper—can people find priorities besides the price of the product? Can we educate the public to make a distinction between price and cost? The price of products produced overseas may be low, but what is the cost of products if they are produced in countries without environmental restrictions? What is the cost in carbon emissions if the raw materials must be shipped overseas and the products be shipped back? What if the energy used to produce those products is from coal plants without emissions controls? A program of carbon footprinting and life cycle analysis, in which the energy requirements of obtaining materials, transportation, production, and recycling or disposal are recorded, will favor those products that are locally produced. In the end, before making a move towards sustainability, many of us wonder how far can the sustainable drive go—will it be worth the investment? When one speaks of responsible consumerism, what does that even mean? Doesn’t “consume” by definition mean to use up, to devour or destroy? Isn’t our civilization built on commerce stemming from satisfying people’s wants and desires? How can one possibly reconcile meeting the needs of the present without taking away something from the future? However, these questions are ultimately mere sophist arguments. What is clear is that we can do better, and if we can do better, then I think we can agree that we should do better. Making changes to waste less materials and energy is the right thing to do, and it is an investment that will be repaid in both economic savings and in the long-term benefits of being of proud of our practices and being sought out for our services. Cited Resources: Carson, Rachel, 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Imhoff, Daniel, 2005. Paper or Plastic: Searching for Solutions to an Over-Packaged World, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. United Nations, 1992. Agenda 21. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York. United Nations, 2004. World Population to 2300. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. United Nations, New York. About the Author:
Copyright 2008 GravurExchange |
