Page 57 - Demo

achievable and can be personally controlled. However, the barriers to change remain, such as cost, lack of knowledge, lack of availability and lack of credibility of options.” Mr Orive believes this presents an opportunity for brands to support consumers as they seek change, by helping them overcome such barriers. When consumers were asked where the responsibility for environmental issues lies and given possible responses including personal responsibility, government/politicians, scientists, brands or retailers, 71 per cent of consumers surveyed indicated they believe they are personally responsible. This sense of responsibility is certainly a significant opportunity for manufacturers, particularly as 54 per cent of the surveyed consumers also indicated they feel they can personally drive environmental change. Brands that can show commitment and a clear intent to environmentally responsible, sustainable manufacturing practices will be attractive to the increasing number of consumers seeking to make a difference through their buying choices – and many consumers say they’re willing to pay more as a way to drive such a change. However, Ms Pagdato says the biggest consumer trends are contradictory, which presents a challenge. “On one hand, consumers are demanding convenience and premiumisation and they’re willing to pay more for things that make their life easier,” she said. “These products come with more processing and packaging, which is the exact opposite of the other trend, whereby people don’t want processed package foods. People want things as close to natural as possible, which is an interesting paradox. “Recyclability is considered the number one trait for many consumers. Recyclability is also the joint top association with environmentally sound products and the third most appealing descriptor of a food or drink product overall.” Unfortunately, for any manufacturer serious about being environmentally responsible, the problem is far more complicated than simply using recyclable packaging. “Focusing on recycling alone isn’t enough,” Ms Pagdato said. “For true climate impact, let’s start to look at the whole lifecycle of the product. This means looking at the impacts of packaging beyond disposal, from source of material right through the entire value chain.” An upstream issue Heath Dickson, Senior Brand Manager for Flavour Makers, a family owned Australian food development and manufacture business, agrees we must look beyond packaging disposal. The company is a signatory to the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, which aims to deliver the best possible solutions to packaging efficiency and sustainability in Australia. Yet there are major challenges Flavour Makers – and other manufacturers – must contend with in the quest for more sustainable packaging solutions. “Some consumers have been living and breathing accountability for 10 years or more, while others are only now coming to the party,” Mr Dickson said. “People are at different stages along the journey and having lots of conversations around plastic and its recyclability or non-recyclability, but what isn’t always understood is all food packaging has an environmental impact. “There’s not a lot of conversation happening about the total energy input, or even the reduced carbon footprint, for other types of packaging such as the plastic pouches in which we have a large majority of our product. “In reality, the carbon footprint of our plastic pouches when compared with glass or non-flexible packaging is far smaller in terms of the transportation, the production and the water required. Both glass and non-flexible packaging have a much greater carbon footprint.” To give some context, Mr Dickson says if he were to buy 100,000 glass bottles and use them for their (limited) lifetime there would be a need to manufacture them, ship them to the food manufacturer, fill them, ship them to the store, return to collect those that customers had returned, ship that reduced number back to the factory, rinse and sterilise them and then start the cycle again. A total of 100,000 200ml bottles would require the use of about 35 pallets, and with each rotation requiring three or four trips, that’s certainly a significant impact in terms of carbon footprint. On the other hand, the non-recyclable plastic pouches, such as those used by Flavour Makers, require about one tenth of the space of glass bottles and are shipped only once, from the factory to the supermarket, before being thrown out by consumers. The upstream impact of manufacturing and using/reusing glass or non-flexible packaging is certainly a critical environmental factor, but to date this hasn’t registered on the consumer’s radar. Instead, a key driver for the existing consumer movement is the far more visible ‘downstream’ problem of single-use plastics and plastic bags: something we can’t ignore. European Commission research has TO PAGE 56 PACKAGING & DESIGN “People are having lots of conversations around plastic and its recyclability or non-recyclability, but what isn’t always understood is all food packaging has an environmental impact. “ APR, 2020 RETAIL WORLD 55