In one of the latest packaging sustainability initiatives in the CPG sector, Pepsi-Cola North America is lightweighting its non-carbonated beverage bottles.

Like most earlier packaging weight loss programs, the Pepsi push is focused exclusively on the container – its thinner walls, shorter/lighter neck finish, grams of resin not needed and energy that will be saved in the next year. And, like most of the earlier announcements, Pepsi doesn’t say whether the PROCESS behind the lightweighting is more or less resource conserving. Did the secondary packaging have to be beefed up in anyway to compensate for the loss of vertical compression strength? Pepsi points out that the bottles have 10% smaller labels and 5% less shrink film on the 12- and 24-count multipacks. The label size reduction was, no doubt, something the marketing folks did not give up easily; and presumably there was SOME cost to redesign the label graphics and copy and adjust the labeling system. The shrink film reduction is something the supply chain folks will be keeping a close eye on. Will less film mean more damage, higher unsaleables, more spilled product waste? Is more or less energy consumed for the “enhanced nitrogen dosing system” that gives the thinner-walled bottles the desired rigidity? Have provisions been made to eliminate the eruption/spilling/waste of liquid when the nitrogen-pumped bottles are opened? And, what adjustments/changes to the bottle blowing, filling, labeling, capping, casing equipment did the new, lighter spec require?

Packagers who enthusiastically point to their packages on the shelf and proudly proclaim the energy/resource savings of their “sustainable” packages without acknowledging that the savings that are visible on the shelf are not without costs on the production line – or impacts in the distribution chain – are walking a thin line here. Touting the savings without tallying the costs is an almost irresistible temptation for retailers to ask that the claimed savings be passed along to them.

And that, ultimately, is not a very sustainable business model.

The new pasta sauce pouches from Unilever are being marketed to consumers as more convenient than their glass jar predecessors. Yet, if you consider the energy required to produce, fill, seal, label, pack and transport the pouches its evident there is a huge sustainability play at work here. The energy needed to produce glass jars, metal vacuum caps and paper labels is significantly greater than that required to convert polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate into printed flexible film and subsequently into stand-up pouches. And, the energy needed to ship a truckload of glass containers from wherever they were produced - we think they come from Mexico) to the facility where they're cleaned, filled, capped and labeled is very likely greater than that needed to convert the requisite raw materials into film, ship the rolls to wherever they're made (and probably filled and sealed) into pouches. The lighter shipments of pouches from point of filling to distribution centers and grocery outlets no doubt consumes less energy than that required to transport an equivalent volume of tomato sauce in glass jars. Traditionalists will see the switch from glass jars to flexible pouches as a decision made for marketing and economic reasons. What's sustainability got to do with it?, they might ask. But the truth of the matter is that anything you do to extend your ability to continue is a sustainability initiative. And Unilever's migration into flexible pouches for sauce is an effective sustainability packaging strategy. Whatever the motivation, the move to lighter packages will definitely be seen as a positive sustainability play.

Since the first Earth Day (April 22) in 1970, it's often passed almost without notice. Not this year. The flurry of announcements from consumer packaged goods companies, packaging converters, trade associations and others show what a strong increase there has been in concern about the environment. In fact, figures from the Grocery Manufacturers Association indicate 75% of consumer goods companies say that sustainable packaging is more important this year than last, 62% expect to change their packaging within the next year with sustainability being a key consideration.

Another telling indicator of the importance sustainable packaging has gained is the shift by DuPont to instruct judges of the 20th DuPont Awards for Packaging Innovation to select winners based solely on sustainability criteria. It appears to be time to go green.