Overpackaging - Greenwash on a Worldwide Scale

Posted on 11 Mar 2024

Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, Diageo, Carlsberg, Fever Tree, Heineken, etc, etc. All these companies, and many, many more, are now selling their drinks in bigger and bigger compilation cardboard packaging. Meanwhile they are simultaneously promoting their companies as environmentally sensitive by claiming to minimise the negative effects of their operations on the Environment. For example:

Anheuser-Busch The World’s largest brewer with 500 brands worldwide, claims:-

Environmental Policy ‘We aim to leave our planet and communities better than we found them’ ??

Coca-Cola The World’s largest soft drinks manufacturer with 500 brands worldwide, claims:-

Environmental Policy ‘We will conduct our business in ways that will protect and preserve our environment, whilst reducing our environmental footprint’.  – Really!!

Both of these environmental policies, like all the other companies mentioned, are simply ‘Greenwash’! If they were genuinely true to their claims, these companies would not be using millions of tonnes of unnecessary cardboard for their packaging, nor would they be using glass bottles when plastic bottles are perfectly capable of preserving and presenting their drinks.

The following photograph shows two alternative methods of liquid packaging. Glass bottles with cardboard overlap, plastic bottles with shrink wrap.

This table shows the environmental differences in the packaging

(All GHG figures using UK Government conversion factors) 

These results highlight that when using glass and board in place of plastic for packaging:

• Glass bottles are 790% heavier (Thus, 8 x more packaging waste produced)
• Cardboard boxes are 1200% heavier (12 x more packaging waste produced)
• Glass bottles create 300% more GHG emissions (Virgin)
• Recycled glass bottles create 220% more GHG emissions
• Recycled cardboard creates 500% more GHG emissions
• NOW MULTIPLY THESE ADITIONAL WASTE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY BILLIONS! That’s how many of these 4,6,8,12, even 24 compilation packs are sold in every supermarket and drinks retailer worldwide.

Anheuser-Busch and Coca-Cola are just two of the thousands of drinks companies selling compilation packs around the world. IF compilation packs are to be used, they should be plastic shrink-wrap, whilst all the glass bottles could/should be plastic. That is IF these companies were serious about their ‘environmental policies’. 

Additional water use and deforestation – Cardboard vs Plastic

For evidence of deforestation due to the growth in cardboard packaging we can reference the recent report by the European Environmental Agency (among others) highlighting that paper/cardboard packaging was the largest source of packaging waste in the EU at 32.7 million tonnes.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to quantify just how much of this cardboard is simply over packaging of drink compilations plastic replacement policies by supermarkets and brand owners. But there is no doubt they will have made a significant contribution.

According to research by Profundo (Sept 2023) some 3 billion trees are cut down each year for paper / board packaging, thus as the demand grows year by year, increasing deforestation is inevitable, as it takes 12-15 years to grow a tree and many of these compilation and plastic replacement strategies are new thus requiring millions more trees to be cut down.

It also takes 4 x as much energy to make paper / board than plastic (NIA Report), whilst the production of the paper/board uses 3 x more water than that used to make plastics. Interestingly, the pulp and paper industry is the worlds 3^rd largest consumer of water and 5^th largest consumer of energy. (Profundo Research Sept 2023 – IEA). This water and energy consumption is growing year by year. 

Summary

These environmental comparisons highlight that when using glass and cardboard in place of plastic, more waste is produced, more energy is required, more greenhouse gas emissions are produced, and more of the Earth’s natural resources of available land and water are required. Yet, virtually all the companies that choose to replace plastic with alternative materials present this replacement as Environmentally Beneficial, this is ‘Greenwash’. They knowingly deceive their customers with deceptive PR to gain market share. 

The role of WRAP

In the UK, we could anticipate that WRAP would condemn these companies, as their plastic replacement adds to both waste and global warming, Instead, we have WRAP promoting the ‘Plastic Pact’, encouraging plastic reduction and plastic substitution, both of which are contrary to WRAP’s declared objectives.

WRAP was established to reduce food and packaging waste and subsequently tackling the climate crisis (their words, not mine – WRAP website). Yet there is no glass or cardboard reduction pact, nor any criticism of the companies who replace plastic with alternative materials creating a negative environmental effect.

As a consequence, ‘Greenwash’ goes unchallenged, not only in the UK but, on a worldwide scale with no end in sight.

As ever, I welcome your thoughts and opinions on any of the points made and why not join me on LinkedIn for more recyclable updates.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/barry-twigg-3a440b53/

#DontHatePlastic