Also, check out our Sustainability Terms Glossary, where we’ll add key terms from each of our Deep Dives over time. Bookmark this page for future reference!
In Part 1 of this Deep Dive, we gave an overview of store drop-off (SDO) programs for plastic films. In Part 2, we’ll discuss when it makes sense for companies to use SDO-eligible films and when it may not make sense.
As many brands have made commitments to using more sustainable packaging, a top priority tends to be shifting to recyclable or compostable packaging where possible. For brands who rely on flexible plastic films for their packaging, this can pose a challenge because of the lack of infrastructure in the U.S. to recycle these films through curbside programs. Given this challenge, companies are left with a few options to shift their packaging to:
- Curbside-recyclable, fiber-based flexible packaging
- Compostable flexible packaging
- Rigid plastic packaging that is generally accepted for curbside recyclability
- Store drop-off, mono-material PE plastic
In other words, switching to an SDO-eligible film is just one option companies have when considering how to make their plastic film packaging more circular. So, when does it make the most sense to switch to each kind?
Curbside-recyclable, fiber-based flexible packaging
An excellent option for applications with low performance requirements
Paper-based packaging can sometimes be an excellent replacement for flexible plastics when the technical requirements are minimal. The place we see this occur most often is in e-commerce, where paper mailers, cushioning, and dunnage now compete with plastic. We love these switches because they can often result in an e-commerce order where all the tertiary packaging is curbside recyclable. Oftentimes, fiber used in these situations can also be made with post-consumer recycled (PCR) material, which may help satisfy more sustainability goals.
Other places where fiber might replace plastic films may be more technical and require the paper to meet various performance requirements. For example, in trying to replace shrink bundling film with a curbside-recyclable fiber with our Canopy ™ solution, we have needed to source special types of paper and apply special adhesives that keep the bundle contained, all while maintaining recyclability.
Sometimes these switches are feasible, but other times they are not. This is particularly true when the paper requires substantial coatings to meet performance requirements, which occurs often with food-contact packaging. The packaging is doing substantial work to maintain shelf life and food safety, and today’s fiber-based options typically don’t satisfy the desired performance requirements. A prime example of this is with raw meat, where we often see plastic films used to maintain food safety and increase shelf life. Using a paper alternative for raw meat would be extremely challenging because substantial engineering with coatings would need to be done to even approach the freshness plastic is able to achieve, not to mention that those coatings and the food residue would almost certainly render the paper unrecyclable.
While raw meat is an extreme example, there do exist some food applications where fiber may be a suitable replacement for plastic films. Dry goods such as nuts, which often come in plastic pouches, may be able to be packaged effectively in fiber that doesn’t require substantial coatings and may be able to be curbside recyclable. The ability to use fiber-based packaging, particularly recyclable fiber-based packaging, is entirely dependent on application.
Compostable flexible packaging
Promising, but needs much more innovation and development
The examples above raise the question of where compostable plastic films may be good solutions instead, and indeed, there are compostable films on the market today to replace stand-up pouches, shrink bundling films, and many others. As we covered in our Deep Dive series on compostables and bioplastics, however, it is generally understood that the most appropriate use of compostable packaging is in food-related applications since the packaging helps to divert food scraps to compost, and that packaging would likely not be able to be recycled anyway.
So, should we be replacing all films in food packaging with compostable versions? Many sustainability advocates would say this is a great goal, especially if composting infrastructure and access can be scaled substantially. The main issue we face today, though, is the performance of compostable films. Most available on the market today don’t provide the same barrier properties that traditional plastics do, and/or there are issues running the films on today’s equipment. To go back to our raw meat example, a compostable film may not give the same shelf life as traditional plastics, which would cause disruptions in the supply chain and, likely, more food waste as food spoils faster. Knowing that food waste is one of the most harmful sources of methane emissions, we want to avoid this outcome. That said, there may be other food applications, such as with dry goods or produce, where compostable films work just fine, and these should be examined.
Compostable films for other non-food applications present a challenge in assessing the sustainability benefits. There are several compostable films on the market for things like air pillows for e-commerce, poly bags for apparel, and shrink bundling film, and these films may meet the technical requirements the brands need. Assessing whether they are more sustainable than their traditional plastic incumbents depends entirely on what you are optimizing for (e.g., global warming potential, water use, prioritization of using renewable feedstocks, etc.).
Our priority, and often that of our customers, is to prioritize circularity, or keeping the material out of landfills, incinerators, and the environment while using as many renewable resources as possible. While using compostable materials often helps use more renewable resources, it would be difficult to claim today that a compostable film used in a non-food application is destined for a better end-of-life (EOL) than traditional plastic. This is because compostable packaging only becomes compost if it’s composted, and this is not very likely for these applications. BPI, the certifying body for compostable packaging in the U.S., does not even certify packaging for non-food applications, and composters are quick to say that they do not want to take non-food packaging anyway. As such, much of the compostable film for non-food applications is destined for landfill anyway, where it will degrade and release methane — a greenhouse gas that is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide. If leaked into the environment, it may or may not have a better EOL than traditional plastic. (For more information, check out our Deep Dive on the most appropriate uses of compostable packaging.)
For all these reasons, we see some applications, particularly in food, where compostable films may be a great replacement for traditional plastic films, but there needs to be much more development and investment in the technologies to have the films perform adequately.
Rigid packaging that is generally accepted for curbside recyclability
Will increase recyclability but also increase total material usage
Another path some companies take, rather than using plastic film, is to switch to another kind of rigid packaging that is generally curbside recyclable. For example, a brand selling screws in a plastic pouch, perhaps with a paper hang tag, may decide to eliminate the difficult-to-recycle film by putting the screws in a PET thermoform clamshell. PET thermoforms are sometimes, but not always, curbside recyclable today, but they are substantially more recyclable than plastic film. However, the trade-off here is that the brand would almost certainly be using more plastic with a PET clamshell than they would to use a plastic film.
Ironically, many companies moved to plastic films to reduce material usage away from rigids, so some sustainability advocates see a move to rigids as a regression. It is, of course, also an option to switch to a rigid container that is not made of plastic, such as a paper carton or glass jar, depending on the application. Regardless, a plastic film tends to be the lightest weight, so companies trying to reduce their packaging material usage have a difficult time moving away from plastic films if they have goals surrounding material reduction. If their goal is specific to plastic reduction, they may find it is worth switching to another rigid material that isn’t made from plastic even though the packaging will likely be heavier.
Whether or not to switch to a rigid container from a plastic film depends, again, on what one is trying to optimize for from a sustainability point of view, so this is ultimately a subjective decision balancing between the desire for curbside recyclability and material usage. While there is much we do not yet know about what incentives packaging EPR will create, we do think it will ultimately reward source reduction over all else, so it will likely be in companies’ best interest to stick with the package that uses the least materials.
Store Drop-Off, mono-material PE plastic
Makes sense in niche situations
This leaves us with our final option: using a traditional plastic that is eligible for SDO. As covered in Part 1, a film eligible for SDO would be a mono-material PE film.
In some cases, switching from whatever film the brand was using before to a mono-material PE film is an easy replacement with few issues of lower performance. Like the switch to fiber, we see this often with less “technical” packaging applications such as air pillows and dunnage. There is a plethora of SDO-eligible options on the market for these. Our perspective tends to be that, if a brand can switch to a curbside recyclable fiber-based option for these, that is preferable to an SDO-eligible film since curbside recycling is more convenient for consumers than SDO. However, if brands cannot make the switch to fiber for whatever reason, moving to an SDO option, particularly one that has some PCR in it, may be a good back-up.
There are other cases where the mono-material PE film might perform as well as the incumbent film but the application does not lend itself to SDO eligibility. This happens most often with food-contact applications where residue is left on the film. Residue can render the material unrecyclable, and How2Recycle may decline to label the material for SDO as a result. This may also be the case where product residue requires substantial effort for the consumer to clean off, so realistically, How2Recycle will be reluctant to grant it an SDO label. In these cases, we do not think it makes sense to switch to a mono-material PE film if it can’t be eligible for SDO unless there is some other compelling reason to do so, such as if the mono-material film resulted in lower material usage. However, we rarely see instances in which moving to mono-material PE results in lower material usage than whatever the incumbent material is. Changing to an SDO-eligible film, in our experience, almost always results in needing to increase the gauge of the film.
This leads to another scenario we often see where the switch to a mono-material PE film would result in (1) higher material usage, (2) more product waste, and/or (3) worse runnability on machines. We have had several situations where customers have wanted to move to an SDO-eligible film but doing so would require a thicker film or one that doesn’t run well on their existing machinery, resulting in more waste in production. In these situations, we tend to lean toward sticking with the lowest-gauge, best performing material possible rather than switching to an SDO-eligible film. Ultimately, the number of consumers who will bother to recycle the film in-store is likely not worth the additional material needed and waste created in production. Sometimes, a helpful middle ground for companies trying to achieve their sustainability goals is to instead incorporate some PCR into the film rather than aim for SDO, assuming that adding the PCR does not result in higher material usage, worse runnability, etc.
It is important to mention that part of our rationale for prioritizing the film that results in the lowest material use, even if it’s not eligible for SDO, is packaging EPR. Thus far, the packaging EPR regulations in the U.S. seem that they will first and foremost prioritize source reduction. We don’t yet know the fees on various materials, but we do know that that the top way to avoid paying unnecessary fees is to avoid unnecessary package weight.
In summary, this leaves a pretty niche checklist of when SDO-eligible films make sense, from our perspective. If switching to an SDO-eligible film does the following, it may be worth considering:
- The switch is for an application that could not switch to a curbside-recyclable option instead
- The change still allows the packaging to perform at the minimum threshold required (e.g., maintaining product shelf life)
- The new mono-material PE film requires a similar gauge of film (i.e., so more material doesn’t need to be used to accommodate the change)
- The new film runs on existing machinery in a way that does not create more waste in production
- The application is for a product that does not leave oily/greasy/powdery residue