# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
In the woke wars, there are no winners | Financial Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In the woke wars, there are no winners | Financial Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Plastic recycling firm Archwey winds down; staff from Singapore headquarters let go and pursuing salary claims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic recycling firm Archwey winds down; staff from Singapore headquarters let go and pursuing salary claims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic recycling firm Archwey winds down; staff from Singapore headquarters left off and pursuing salary claims

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
IFRS to Take Over Responsibilities of the TCFD - ESG Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The IFRS Foundation's International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) will take over responsibility for monitoring progress of companies' climate-related disclosures from the Financial Stability Board's (FSB) Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) as of next year, following a request from the FSB.

The transfer of responsibilities marks a significant step in the ongoing consolidation of sustainability reporting standards, following the publication last month of the ISSB's global standards for sustainability and climate reporting.

The TCFD was established by the FSB in 2015, with the goal of developing consistent disclosure standards for companies, in order to enable investors and other stakeholders to assess the companies' climate-related financial risk. The recommendations were published in June 2017, and have until now effectively been serving as the industry standard for climate-related disclosure.

The TCFD recommendations were also broadly incorporated into the requirements of the ISSB's climate related disclosure standard.

The ISSB was launched in November 2021 at the COP26 climate conference, with the goal to develop IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards, driven by demand from investors, companies, governments and regulators to provide a global baseline of disclosure requirements enabling a consistent understanding of the effect of sustainability risks and opportunities on companies' prospects.

In its plenary meeting last week, the FSB said that the publication of the new ISSB standards "can be seen as a culmination of the work of the TCFD."

The FSB added that it "thanked the TCFD for its work over the years and the major contribution it has made to the progress in improving climate-related financial disclosures around the world," and requested that the work of monitoring and reporting on progress in companies' climate-related disclosures be taken over by the ISSB following the delivery of the TCFD's 2023 annual status report.

In a statement from the IFRS Foundation confirming that it will take over the TCFD's responsibilities, ISSB Chair Emmanuel Faber said:

"The ISSB has built from and consolidated the market-leading investor-focused sustainability-reporting initiatives to deliver the ISSB Standards, with the TCFD recommendations at the heart of this. As such, the ISSB welcomes the FSB's request to transfer the TCFD's monitoring responsibilities to the ISSB from 2024 and the opportunity to build on TCFD's legacy. This announcement provides yet further clarification of the so-called 'alphabet soup' of ESG initiatives for companies and investors."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IFRS to Take Over Responsibilities of the TCFD - ESG Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The IFRS Foundation's International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) will take over responsibility for monitoring progress of companies' climate-related disclosures from the Financial Stability Board's (FSB) Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) as of next year, following a request from the FSB. The transfer of responsibilities marks a significant step in the ongoing consolidation of [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Singapore Proposes Mandatory Climate Reporting for both Public and Private Companies - ESG Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Public and large private companies in Singapore will be required to provide climate-related disclosures aligned with the IFRS' newly published ISSB disclosure standards, according to a proposal by Singapore's business reporting, accounting and corporate services and markets regulators Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo).

The plan for mandatory climate-related reporting was recommended by the Sustainability Reporting Advisory Committee (SRAC), jointly launched by the regulators last year to advise on a sustainability reporting roadmap for Singapore companies.

According to a statement by the regulators, the proposal for mandatory climate reporting aims to maintain Singapore's position as a global business hub, while also contributing to the Singapore Green Plan 2030, the government's sustainable transition strategy aimed at strengthening Singapore's commitment to the UN's 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

ACRA Assistant Chief Executive Kuldip Gill said:

"Trusted and consistent climate reporting is essential to drive accountability and decisive actions by companies. It will also rally companies towards contributing to Singapore's net zero emissions commitments, expediting our transition to a green economy."

Currently, Singapore only requires listed companies in select sectors including finance, agriculture, food, forest products and energy to provide TCFD-aligned climate reporting, with all other listed issuers required to apply TCFD on a 'comply-or-explain' basis.

Under the new proposals, all listed issuers, including those incorporated overseas, as well as business trusts and REITs, would be required to report climate-related disclosures beginning in fiscal year 2025, with non-listed companies with at least $1 billion in revenues beginning in FY2027.

The regulators added that they plan to conduct a review in 2027 on plans to extend the climate disclosure requirements to non-listed companies with revenues of at least $100 million, with reporting to begin around FY2030.

Michael Tang, Head of the Sustainable Development Office, SGX RegCo, said:

"SGX-listed companies have been at the forefront of sustainability reporting. That Large Non-Listed Companies should start climate reporting will complement the progress of listed companies. As a whole, these efforts create a virtuous cycle of lifting standards all round and enabling Singapore corporates to make an outsize contribution towards global sustainability."

The committee recommended that companies' reporting mirror the requirements in the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards, with additional reliefs on complex disclosures such as additional time to implement Scope 3 emissions reporting. The ISSB released the finalized versions of its new sustainability and climate-related reporting standards earlier this week.

The recommendations also propose requiring external assurance on Scope 1 and 2 GHG reporting, beginning in FY2027 for listed issuers and FY2029 for large private companies.

SRAC Chairperson Esther An said:

"With more countries pledging for net zero and the rising carbon cost globally, climate strategy and reporting can help companies, listed or non-listed, to mitigate and adapt to risks in the transition to a low carbon economy. What gets measured gets managed. There is a strong business case for climate reporting as it has helped many businesses to improve performance and create stronger competitive advantage by capturing growth opportunities."

The regulators have launched a consultation into the new mandatory climate-related reporting rules, which will remain open until September 30. Click here to access the consultation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore Proposes Mandatory Climate Reporting for both Public and Private Companies - ESG Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Public and large private companies in Singapore will be required to provide climate-related disclosures aligned with the IFRS' newly published ISSB disclosure standards, according to a proposal by Singapore's business reporting, accounting and corporate services and markets regulators Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, who faced intense backlash for championing ESG, says he’s ‘ashamed’ the topic has become politicized

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, who faced intense backlash for championing ESG, says he’s ‘ashamed’ the topic has become politicized

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The billionaire CEO of the world’s largest asset manager said ESG has become politically “weaponized.”

# data[].attributes.body
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman that she should bring her own shopping bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this GO GREEN  revolution thing back in my earlier days."
"
The cashier responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.
Back then, we returned milk bottles, pop bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so they could use the same bottles over and over. Yes, they really were recycling.
We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen; and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.
But, we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up the stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every shop and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But, she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's nappies because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an 'energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts;' wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.
But, that young lady is right. We didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And, the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the county of Yorkshire .

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the post, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn petrol just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.

We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But, she's right. We didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank water from a fountain or a tap when we were thirsty instead of demanding a plastic bottle flown in from another country.

We accepted that a lot of food was seasonal and didn’t expect that to be bucked by flying it thousands of air miles around the world. We actually cooked food that didn’t come out of a packet, tin or plastic wrap and we could even wash our own vegetables and chop our own salad.

But, we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the tram or a bus, and  rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their mothers into a 24-hour taxi service.

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances.

And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.
But, isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Do not be fooled by 'compostable' plastic, says French consumer group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A French consumer group has warned so-called 'compostable' plastic does not help limit pollution as much as people have been led to believe.

UFC-Que Choisir said consumers should be aware that plastic dubbed 'compostable' will not biodegrade outside of compost heaps or of "precise industrial conditions" and still constitutes pollution if discarded on beaches or in the woods, for example.

"Faced with this major pollution problem, compostable plastic packaging seems to be a good idea at first," it said. "But in reality, it's not that simple."

The group referred to the French agency for ecological transition, Ademe, which said: "Plastic, even a compostable kind, is still plastic."

It also highlighted Ademe's research that concluded: "Half of the objects found on beaches in the European Union are single-use plastic objects, especially packaging and containers."

'Be careful not to confuse composting and recycling'

UFC-Que Choisir added consumers must be careful not to "confuse composting and recycling". It said that compostable plastic still emits carbon dioxide or methane when it degrades. Both of these are powerful greenhouse gases.

It said compostable plastic is not the same as biodegradable products (such as those often used for food containers) and does not have any fertilisation value for plants.

UFC-Que Choisir highlighted Ademe only believes that compostable plastic has one truly relevant use: when used as a container for green waste. For example, compostable bags used for collecting food waste or coffee capsules made from more than 95% paper.

Ademe states: "Choosing compostable plastic packaging is not a solution to the environmental pollution caused by plastics."

Gaelle Haut, EU affairs coordinator at Surfrider Foundation Europe, told AFP: "People tend to believe they're contributing to the protection of the planet while buying these products, but it's not at all the case."
Read also: How to recycle in France: Seven common questions answered
What is the difference between compostable and biodegradable?

UFC-Que Choisir said:

Compostable: Biodegrade under composting conditions that meet specific standards, but not in the natural environment.

Biodegradable: Decompose via micro-organisms, into CO2 or methane, and possibly into by-products (residues, biomass).

Biosourced: Made up in whole or in part of polymers derived from biomass (all living organisms, e.g. plant, animal, bacterial). Compostable plastic is not necessarily bio-sourced and vice versa. Some may also still contain some fossil fuel-derived products.

Recyclable: Can be reused in another form or another product.

Biodegradable plastics break down faster than compostable ones, but both need to be disposed of properly to give them the best chance of breaking down safely. If not, they will end up in landfill centres or in nature, just as normal plastic does.

And normal plastic does not ever really break down. It instead becomes microplastic, which is known as a 'forever pollutant', and has been found in oceans, food products, soil, tap water, and even human blood and breast milk.

What should consumers do instead?

The consumer group recommended several tips.

Reuse packaging where possible (e.g. returnable bottles)

Recycle as much packaging as possible, rather than composting it

Reduce your consumption of packaging of any kind, by eliminating it (bulk) or reusing it (deposit)

Read also: How to cut down on yoghurt pot plastic pollution
It also advised:

Put packaging in the yellow recycling bin, even if it is labelled 'compostable' or 'biodegradable'. (From January 1, 2023, all packaging must be thrown away in selective sorting bins).

In areas where the local authority provides the right waste collection service, only compostable plastic bags or coffee capsules made of 95%+ paper should be disposed of as biowaste

If you have a voluntary collection point or home composter, do not put any plastic in it, even if they are labelled as 'compostable' or 'biodegradable'.

Read more: Change to recycling rules in France and what can go in yellow bins
It comes after the European Commission said in November that "biodegradable plastics must be approached with caution"

"They have their place in a sustainable future, but they need to be directed to specific applications where their environmental benefits and value for the circular economy are proven," it said.

Related articles
How does recycling work in France? US firm to build 'hard-to-treat' plastic recycling plant in France

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do not be fooled by 'compostable' plastic, says French consumer group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A French consumer group has warned so-called 'compostable' plastic does not help limit pollution as much as people have been led to believe. UFC-Que Choisir said consumers should be aware that plastic dubbed 'compostable' will not biodegrade outside of compost heaps or of "precise industrial conditions" and still constitutes pollution if discarded on beaches or in the woods, for example.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The latest green plea? Put less in the recycling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Households will be urged to keep soggy cardboard, half-finished takeaways and plastic bags out of their recycling bins as part of a government drive to end "wishcycling".

Ministers plan to ask people in England to put less in their recycling bins because too much of what we throw away is contaminating the system.

Officials are concerned that misguided recyclers are putting in items such as crisp packets, toothpaste tubes and juice cartons in the false hope of helping the environment, when in fact they are doing the reverse. Those items can make subsequent separation and recycling significantly harder and, sometimes, impossible.

The guidance will be published in the summer, the i newspaper reported. The government will also seek to clear up some of the confusion

Households will be urged to keep soggy cardboard, half-finished takeaways and plastic bags out of their recycling bins as part of a government drive to end "wishcycling".

Ministers plan to ask people in England to put less in their recycling bins because too much of what we throw away is contaminating the system.

Officials are concerned that misguided recyclers are putting in items such as crisp packets, toothpaste tubes and juice cartons in the false hope of helping the environment, when in fact they are doing the reverse. Those items can make subsequent separation and recycling significantly harder and, sometimes, impossible.

The guidance will be published in the summer, the i newspaper reported. The government will also seek to clear up some of the confusion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The latest green plea? Put less in the recycling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Households will be urged to keep soggy cardboard, half-finished takeaways and plastic bags out of their recycling bins as part of a government drive to end "wishcycling". Ministers plan to ask people in England to put less in their recycling bins because too much of what we throw away is contaminating the system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Plastic recycling is failing - here's how the world must respond

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recycling was once considered the obvious solution to the excessive amount of new (or virgin) plastic produced each year. This is no longer realistic. Global recycling capacity simply cannot keep up with the taking, making and wasting of natural resources.

Growing mountains of plastic waste are accumulating in the poorest countries as affluent nations such as the UK ship their recycling overseas. But some nations are importing far more plastic waste than they can possibly recycle.

The recycling process itself also creates problems. A new report by Greenpeace and the International Pollutants Elimination Network has revealed how plastics which are made with or come into contact with toxic chemicals, such as flame retardants, can contaminate the recycling process by spreading these toxins through subsequent batches of plastic waste. Another recent study showed that recycling facilities can release hundreds of tonnes of microplastics into the environment each year.

Only 6-9% of all plastic ever produced has been sent for recycling. Although plastic and other waste is collected for recycling in most countries, the amount of material that is remade into the same or similar products (what is called closed-loop recycling) is extremely low. Only 2% of plastic waste is recycled in a closed loop and not turned into something of lower quality, which is called downcycling. Recycling can not fully replace virgin material as it can only be recycled twice before losing necessary properties, and so most recycling results in a downgraded material that cannot be used for the same purpose.

A more sustainable approach would prioritise preventing plastic waste by taking action at earlier stages of a plastic product's lifecycle: reducing how much plastic is ultimately made, reusing what exists and replacing plastic with alternative materials where appropriate.

Reduce

Manufacturers must stop making so much unnecessary plastic to reduce the amount entering the economy. There is no case for making plastics that are impossible to collect, reuse or recycle, or are toxic. Yet they are abundant: think multilayered sachets, thin films and wrappers. These should be phased out as a priority.

Global caps on plastic production could restrict its use to reusable products and packaging, reducing the pressure on recycling systems.

You can refuse single-use packaging when shopping if alternatives are available and affordable. Choose loose vegetables, or products wrapped in packaging that can be refilled.

Reuse

Using the plastic you already have for as long as possible reduces the amount of new products and packaging that need to be made and how much waste is ultimately sent for recycling.

Roughly 250 billion single-use coffee cups are used worldwide every year - a figure that could be slashed by governments setting national mandates for reusable cups and bottles. This might involve shops, cafés and other venues providing reusable packaging for any products they sell and ensuring each one is used, tracked, washed, returned and replenished for the next consumer cycle.

Substitute

Metals, glass, or paper can be used instead of plastic, but there is no universal sustainable alternative. The most appropriate material depends on the item's use.

The environmental consequences of any material should be rigorously assessed across its entire life cycle - from production to use and disposal - to ensure it does more good than harm. And such assessments must consider all social, environmental and economic costs.

Read more: Ranked: the environmental impact of five different soft drink containers

The true cost of making, distributing and disposing of plastic is estimated to be more than ten times greater than what the customer pays for the product. Including the hidden costs of environmental damage and human misery arising from pollution in the price of virgin plastic, by taxing manufacturers or retailers for instance, could boost the economic case for alternatives.

Recycling can still be useful

Not all plastics can be reused, especially medical devices. When all alternatives have been exhausted, recycling keeps material in the economy and temporarily delays the need for more virgin plastic. But the existence of recycling shouldn't justify making more plastic.

Recycling must not pollute. Manufacturers should only make plastics which can be recycled via methods proven to be safe and clean, and ban toxic additives. Simple labelling can help consumers make informed decisions about how, where and what to either reuse or recycle, which would help prevent recycling loads becoming contaminated with non-recyclable waste and toxins.

Plastics sent for recycling should be treated in the most socially and environmentally responsible way. High-income countries which export waste to poorer countries for cheap recycling do so without guarantees that infrastructure exists to manage this waste where it ends up. The result is waste leaking into the environment, and toxic plastic blocking drainage channels and causing floods. Some of this is burned outdoors, which comes with its own risks to health and the environment. Banning or restricting exports would help.

Precarious workers in the informal waste sector collect, sort and sell recyclable materials and carry out 60% of global recycling. Waste reclaimers endure poor health and low pay but their extensive knowledge is invaluable and must be acknowledged. Policies to protect their rights and improve their livelihoods are needed.

Read more: Waste pickers risk their lives to stop plastic pollution - now they could help shape global recycling policies

Countries meeting in Paris for the second of five rounds of negotiations for an international treaty to end plastic pollution will discuss all areas of the plastic lifecycle - from the extraction of material to manufacturing, use and disposal. Banning unnecessary plastics, toxic additives and waste exports should be high on the agenda, along with schemes to encourage reuse and repair.

Don't have time to read about climate change as much as you'd like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 10,000+ readers who've subscribed so far.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic recycling is failing - here's how the world must respond

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recycling was once considered the obvious solution to the excessive amount of new (or virgin) plastic produced each year. This is no longer realistic. Global recycling capacity simply cannot keep up with the taking, making and wasting of natural resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
3 little-known reasons why plastic recycling could actually make things worse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This week in Paris, negotiators from around the world are convening for a United Nations meeting. They will tackle a thorny problem: finding a globally binding solution for plastic pollution.

Of the staggering 460 million tonnes of plastic used globally in 2019 alone, much is used only once and thrown away. About 40% of plastic waste comes from packaging. Almost two-thirds of plastic waste comes from items with lifetimes of less than five years.

The plastic waste that escapes into nature persists and breaks up into smaller and smaller pieces, eventually becoming microplastics. Plastics now contaminate virtually every environment, from mountain peaks to oceans. Plastic has entered vital systems such as our food chain and even the human blood stream.

Governments and industry increasingly acknowledge the urgent need to reduce plastic pollution. They are introducing rules and incentives to help businesses stop using single-use plastics while also encouraging collection and recycling.

As a sustainability researcher, I explore opportunities to reduce plastic waste in sectors such as tourism, hospitality and meat production. I know how quickly we could make big changes. But I've also seen how quick-fix solutions can create complex future problems. So we must proceed with caution.

Read more: Here's how the new global treaty on plastic pollution can help solve this crisis

Plastic avoidance is top priority

We must urgently eliminate waste and build a so-called " circular economy ". For plastics, that means reuse or recycling back into the same type of plastic, not lower grade plastic. The plastic can be used to make similar products that then can be recycled again and again.

This means plastics should only be used where they can be captured at their end of life and recycled into a product of the same or higher value, with as little loss as possible.

Probably the only example of this to date is the recycling of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) soft-drink bottles in Norway and Switzerland. They boast recovery rates of 97% and 95% respectively.

The waste management pyramid below shows how to prioritise actions to lessen the waste problem. It is particularly relevant to single-use plastics. Our top priority, demanding the biggest investment, is prevention and reduction through redesign of products.

Where elimination is not yet achievable, reuse solutions or recycling to the same or higher-level products can be sought to make plastics circular.

Read more: With better standards, we could make plastics endlessly useful - and slash waste. Here's how

Unfortunately, a lack of high-quality reprocessing facilities means plastic waste keeps growing. In Australia, plastic is largely "downcycled", which means it is recycled into lower quality plastics.

This can seem like an attractive way to deal with waste-plastic stockpiles, particularly after the recent collapse of soft-plastics recycler RedCycle. But downcycling risks doing more harm than good. Here are three reasons why:

1. Replacing wood with recycled plastics risks contaminating our wildest natural spaces

An increasing number of benches, tables, bollards and boardwalks are being made from recycled plastic. This shift away from timber is touted as a sustainable step - but caution is warranted when introducing these products to pristine areas such as national parks.

Wood is naturally present in those areas. It has a proven record of longevity and, when degrading, does not introduce foreign matter into the natural system.

Swapping wood for plastic may introduce microplastics into the few remaining places relatively free of them. Replacing wood with downcycled plastics also risks plastic pollution through weathering or fire.

2. Taking circular plastics from their closed loop to meet recycled-content targets creates more waste

Clear PET bottles used for beverages are the most circular plastic stream in Australia, approaching a 70% recovery rate. When these bottles are recycled back into clear PET bottles, they are circular plastics.

However, the used PET bottles are increasingly being turned into meat trays, berry punnets and mayonnaise jars to help producers meet the 2025 National Packaging Target of 50% recycled content (on average) in packaging.

The problem is the current industry specifications for plastics recovery allow only downcycling of these trays, punnets and jars. This means that circular PET is removed from a closed loop into a lower-grade recovery stream. This leads to non-circular downcycling and more plastic sent to landfill.

3. Using "compostable" plastics in non-compostable conditions creates still more plastic pollution

Increasingly, plastics are labelled as compostable and biodegradable. However, well-intended use of compostable plastics can cause long-term plastic pollution.

At the right temperature with the right amount of moisture, compostable plastics breakdown into soil. But if the conditions are not "just right", they won't break down at all.

For example, when a landscape architect or engineer uses a "compostable" synthetic fabric instead of a natural alternative (such as coir or jute mats) they can inadvertently introduce persistent plastics into the environment. This is because the temperature is not hot enough for the synthetic mat to break down.

We must also differentiate between "home compostable" and "commercially compostable". Commercial facilities are more effective at composting because they operate under more closely controlled conditions.

Learning from our mistakes

Clearly, we need to reduce our reliance on plastics and shift away from linear systems - including recycling into lower-grade products.

Such downcycling may have a temporary role in dealing with existing plastic in the system while circular recycling capacity is being built. But we must not develop downcycling "solutions" that need a long-term stream of plastic waste to remain viable.

What's more, downcycling requires constantly finding new markets for their lower-grade products. Circular systems are more robust.

So, to the negotiators in Paris, yes the shift to a circular plastics economy is urgent. But beware of good intentions that could ultimately make things worse.

Read more: Plastic action or distraction? As climate change bears down, calls to reduce plastic pollution are not wasted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 little-known reasons why plastic recycling could actually make things worse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week in Paris, negotiators from around the world are convening for a United Nations meeting. They will tackle a thorny problem: finding a globally binding solution for plastic pollution. Of the staggering 460 million tonnes of plastic used globally in 2019 alone, much is used only once and thrown away.

# data[].attributes.headline
Monetary Authority of Singapore SR 2021/22

# data[].attributes.subject
Monetary Authority of Singapore SR 2021/22

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Temasek Poly sets 2050 net-zero target for sustainability road map

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Temasek Poly sets 2050 net-zero target for sustainability road map

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is one of the first few institutes of higher learning to develop plans for net-zero emissions. Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.headline
Raffles Medical Group Sustainability Report 2022

# data[].attributes.subject
Raffles Medical Group Sustainability Report 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Domestic recycling rate in Singapore lowest in over a decade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Domestic recycling rate in Singapore lowest in over a decade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2021 and 2022, the overall recycling rate for food and plastics - which are among the priority waste streams - remained relatively unchanged. Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Recycling doesn't make you eco-friendly: 10 habits that aren't actually sustainable

# data[].attributes.headline
There should be a balance between the rejection of plastic and embrace of paper.

# data[].attributes.subject
There should be a balance between the rejection of plastic and embrace of paper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many companies are guilty of 'greenwashing,' the act or practice of making a product, policy, or activity appear to be more environmentally friendly than it actually is

Many companies claim to be champions of sustainability, but, in reality, they are the complete opposite. This practice is known as "greenwashing," a term used to describe a false or misleading claim or action made by an organization about the positive impact that a company, product or service has on the environment. The European Commission wants to confront these practices and has proposed legislation to punish the deceptive eco-friendly image that hundreds of brands have adopted in recent years.

But the sustainability discourse has also changed the habits of the general population, influencing the way many of us think about what is good for the environment. The truth is that mindless recycling does not make you eco-friendly. Here are 10 habits that are not actually sustainable.

Buying organic (but pre-distressed) jeans

Fabricating a pair of jeans requires between 2,000 and 4,000 liters of water. Brands have begun marketing jeans that use little or no water. But what is rarely mentioned is the process of fading indigo, which usually requires toxic compounds that cause chronic illnesses in garment workers. For a short time, the media warned about the stone-washing technique, which causes silicosis in workers. And recently, a video went viral on Twitter showing a woman in a mask bleaching and distressing a pair of jeans, her face and arms covered with blue fiber and dye.

Not everything natural is sustainable

Natural dyes may be biodegradable, but that doesn't mean that cultivating them is good for the planet. The Higg index, one of the most used ways of measuring products' sustainability, considers, for example, that the production of silk is devastating for the planet, due to the quantity of water involved and the "hole" it causes in biodiversity: silkworms are killed and their cocoons saved to make the fabric. But cashmere takes the prizes. Considered one of the finest and most luxurious knits that exists, its demand has led to the mistreatment of goats. The industry also threatens biodiversity in Mongolia and some parts of China. The cheaper the cashmere, the more cruelty there tends to be in its creation.

There are no cosmetics without chemicals

The trend of organic beauty is full of shadows. The "cruelty-free" label doesn't mean much: animal testing has been illegal in the US and EU for years, and it isn't possible to make cosmetics without chemicals. In fact, creating a molecule in a lab causes less pollution than large-scale cultivation of ingredients that will later be mixed with chemicals in the same lab.

Out-of-control recycling

Another increasingly common practice with a shadowy side. Currently, garments that are made with a mix of materials cannot be recycled, so depositing them in their own container is a waste of time. According to the Organization of Consumers and Users, only 0.1% of clothes dropped off for recycling in Spain is recycled. "Upcycling" is done with excess fabric, not transformed garments. The best bet, in this case, is donating, not recycling.

Labels with half-truths

Greenwashing has steered the discourse about sustainability towards a focus only on raw materials. But not everything organic is eco-friendly, and recycled products aren't necessarily completely recycled. And, of course, not everything eco-friendly uses fair labor. We have gotten used to reading labels only for the material and not the origin: "organic" garments made in Bangladesh or Cambodia, "eco-friendly" knits mass-produced in China. Even if the labor conditions in those regions were humane, which does not tend to be the case, how much pollution is caused by transporting and distributing them? It's the same as buying sustainable agricultural products from other continents.

A plastic bag isn't a big deal

Several studies by the European Union have concluded that making a plastic bag causes three times more pollution than making a paper one. The latter should be used three times to match the impact of the former. Though paper is biodegradable, and plastic isn't, after the last decade of anti-plastic campaigns, almost everyone uses the material multiple times, while throwing out single-use paper bags and cups. There is no clean solution in this case, but there should be a balance between the rejection of plastic and embrace of paper.

A cloth bag doesn't make you eco-friendly

"Do you know what it means to produce that cloth, transports it? All that cotton that we don't know where it's produced, we don't know where it's assembled, we don't know where it's dyed, do you think it's more eco-friendly than plastic?" The video artist Rodrigo Cuevas explained in a video last fall why he would not include more tote bags among his merchandise. The alternative to plastic or leather isn't so great, taking into account that they're now passed out on every corner, we accumulate them in closets and no one asks how they're made. Logically, producing a cotton bag uses more resources than producing a plastic one. To mitigate the impact, we should use the same cloth bag 7,000 times. Do the math.

Do we have to reject synthetics?

There aren't answers to this question yet, but it's true that synthetic fabrics like nylon and polyester, though they aren't biodegradable, are the easiest to recycle. The case of so-called vegan leather, however, is more complicated: most of it is made with acrylics that are highly polluting (almost as much as the toxic mass curing of leather). The solution lies in avoiding leather, both natural and synthetic. If buying the latter, make sure that it comes from plants.

Unofficial stamps

If supposedly sustainable fashion likes one thing, it's certifications, whether for quality, use of organic materials or the absence of pesticides. But few of these certifications are official. Many of them are made up by the brands themselves or related organizations. Only those managed by governmental organizations, like the Cradle 2 Cradle certificate - which certifies that a garment is completely recycled and recyclable - are trustworthy, but legal frameworks around the issue are still lacking.

The plastic water bottle
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
Used plastic water bottles seem like fashion's favorite element today. Brands advertise how many they've turned into fabric. But wouldn't it be more useful to turn those used bottles into new bottles?

More information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Recycling doesn't make you eco-friendly: 10 habits that aren't actually sustainable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many companies are guilty of 'greenwashing,' the act or practice of making a product, policy, or activity appear to be more environmentally friendly than it actually is Many companies claim to be champions of sustainability, but, in reality, they are the complete opposite.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shell Plastic Waste Management and Initiatives

# data[].attributes.subject
Shell Plastic Waste Management and Initiatives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Shell, along with many others, is concerned about global plastic waste. In places where waste management infrastructure or plastic waste is not managed appropriately, it can end up as litter. Plastics don't belong in our oceans, rivers or landscapes; and industry, governments and customers need to work together to address this issue.

Shell supports the need for improved circularity of global plastics markets - encouraging reduce, reuse and recycle where possible to mitigate the release of plastic into the environment.

Principles of reduce, reuse, recycle in plastic management

Plastic products have many benefits - they help to improve living standards, are present in almost every part of modern healthcare, and are used in many of the products we rely on every day. They also play a key role in the energy transition by helping to lower carbon emissions - from components of solar panels and wind turbines, to building insulation and lightweight materials for vehicles.

Plastics are often associated with disposable items, but they are also used to make many products like pipes or window frames that have long-term uses, use fewer resources and have a lower-carbon footprint than the glass, paper and metal they have replaced.

Investing and innovating in technology that uses plastic waste to create new products and fosters a circular economy

Collaborating with industry partners, customers and others to support solutions that tackle and stop plastic waste leakage

Finding ways to reduce, reuse and recycle plastic waste in areas of our supplying chain

The circular process of recycling plastic waste

Powering Plastic Circular Economy in Singapore

The Alliance's investments and project are founded on four strategic pillars:

Infrastructure:

Catalyse investment in enhanced waste infrastructure to prevent plastic from reaching the environment.

Innovation:

Innovate new sustainable materials, designs, technologies and business models based on sound science and economics.

Education:

Engage and collaborate with governments, industry and consumers to drive effective solutions.

Clean-up:

Develop solutions to address and clean up areas of existing plastic waste in the environment.

Take a look at our global projects:

While at more than 1,000 (15%) of our Shell-owned service stations we have completely removed single-use plastic bags and instead offer either a reusable tote bag or a recyclable alternative such as paper. Our service stations in the UK are now also 100% free from plastic cutlery.

In the Philippines , in 2021 we opened our first retail station built completely with eco-bricks made from plastic waste. The station was constructed using 26,500 eco-bricks made from 1,200 kg of plastic waste, equivalent to 80,000 lubricant bottles. More than 30 of our retail sites in the Philippines are partly built with eco-bricks.

At our Pennsylvania Chemicals Project we are collaborating with local groups to encourage more plastics collection, recycling and education; and in our global offices we have activities in place to help reduce, reuse and recycle items like cutlery and drinking cups.

Chemicals are the key ingredients used in products that shape our modern world. They benefit every aspect of our lives. They help us live, work, care and respond to climate change.

Shell Retail wants to reduce and reuse waste while empowering people and communities across its 43,000 fuelling stations worldwide. Watch the film to see an example of how this ambition is being realised through a retail promotion in partnership with The Plastic Bank.

See how just a few simple changes could help you meet your sustainability goals without having to sacrifice business performance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic waste management and initiatives at Shell | Plastic Waste Reduction & Recycling | Shell Global

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Shell, along with many others, is concerned about global plastic waste. In places where waste management infrastructure or plastic waste is not managed appropriately, it can end up as litter. Plastics don't belong in our oceans, rivers or landscapes; and industry, governments and customers need to work together to address this issue.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shell on Plastics in Sustainability Report 2022

# data[].attributes.subject
Shell on Plastics in Sustainability Report 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Powering progress

We will work with our suppliers and contractors to help end plastic waste in the environment:

By 2030, we will increase the amount of recycled plastic in Shell-branded packaging to 30% and ensure that the packaging we use for our products is reusable or recyclable.

We will increase the amount of recycled materials used to make our products, starting with plastics.

Shell supports the need for improved circularity of global plastics markets and encourages reduction, reuse and recycling of plastics. We are a founding member of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, which helps governments to assess and improve waste collection and waste management. In 2021, we set a commitment to work with our suppliers and contractors to help end plastic waste in the environment.

Due to market factors, such as lack of available feedstock and progress in technology development, Shell's ability to profitably meet its 1 million tonne plastic waste ambition by 2025 is unfeasible. Consequently, we expect to provide further insights later in 2023.

Reducing, reusing and recycling our packaging

We continue to explore ways to reduce, reuse and recycle packaging across our supply chains and introduce sustainable packaging.

In 2022, more than 30% of Shell-owned service stations had eliminated unnecessary single-use plastic including cutlery, straws and stirrers; and almost 40% had completely removed single-use plastic bags. In China and North America, our bag-in-box lubricants use 89% less plastic than 1-litre plastic bottles; and in Europe, around two-thirds of the packaging used for our Shell Car Care products (screenwash, wax, shampoo, coolant and others) is recyclable.

Recycling plastic waste as chemical feedstock

We are focusing on chemical recycling where we break down hard-to-recycle plastics into raw materials through a technique called pyrolysis. The pyrolysis oil can then be used as feedstock in our chemical plants, replacing traditional hydrocarbon feedstock. This contributes to our circular economy ambition and prevents waste that would otherwise have gone to landfill or incineration.

In 2022, we announced plans to build a new pyrolysis oil upgrader at the Shell Chemicals Park Moerdijk in the Netherlands. The plant, which is expected to start operating in 2024, will have the capacity to produce up to 50,000 tonnes of pyrolysis oil per year.

We are also building a pyrolysis oil upgrader, with a production capacity of 50,000 tonnes per year, at our Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Singapore. Along with our joint-venture partner BlueAlp, we are building two hard-to-recycle plastic waste conversion units in the Netherlands, which are designed to convert more than 30,000 tonnes of plastic waste a year into pyrolysis oil. All three facilities are expected to start production in 2024. Shell companies also have pyrolysis oil agreements with companies in Europe, Singapore and the USA.

Find out more about how we transform plastic waste into chemical feedstock at Chemical recycling: tackling plastic waste | Shell Global.

Discover more about waste and our circular economy approach at www.shell.com/sustainability/environment/circular-economy-and-waste.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastics - Shell Sustainability Report 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We will work with our suppliers and contractors to help end plastic waste in the environment: By 2030, we will increase the amount of recycled plastic in Shell-branded packaging to 30% and ensure that the packaging we use for our products is reusable or recyclable.

# data[].attributes.headline
Waste and Recycling Statistics in SG for 2021

# data[].attributes.subject
Waste and Recycling Statistics in SG for 2021

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB)

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The CDSB Framework for reporting environmental and social information is designed to help organisations prepare and present environmental and social information in mainstream reports for the benefit of investors. It allows investors to assess the relationship between specific environmental and social matters and the organisation's strategy, performance and prospects.

The first CDSB Framework, the Climate Change Reporting Framework, released in 2010, focused on the risks and opportunities that climate change presents to an organisation's strategy, financial performance and condition.

In 2015, following two public consultations, the CDSB Framework for reporting environmental and climate change information was released. The CDSB Framework was updated in April 2018 to align with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures and other key mainstream reporting requirements, helping to streamline the reporting cycle for many organisations.

In light of changing market and user demands, the scope of the CDSB Framework was expanded to include social as well environmental, including climate change, information. Following public consultation, the CDSB Framework for reporting environmental and social information was released in 2022.

Through the provision of robust environmental and social information, CDSB hopes to encourage analysis and decision-making by investors that recognise the dependence and impacts of economic and financial stability on natural, human and social capital.

The objectives of the CDSB Framework are to:

Help companies translate their sustainability information into long-term value;

Provide clear, concise and consistent information to investors, connecting the organisation's sustainability performance to its overall strategy, performance and prospects;

Enable and encourage informed investor-decision making on the allocation of financial capital; and

Add value to an organisation's existing mainstream report, while minimising the reporting burden and simplifying the reporting process.

The Framework also:

Supports compliance with regulatory reporting requirements with current & emerging requirements for sustainability reporting, (e.g. the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive);

Forms part of the evidence base as the ISSB develops its IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards. The CDSB Framework and technical guidance on Climate, Water, Biodiversity and Social disclosures will remain useful for companies until such time as the ISSB issues its IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards on such topics;

Aligns and complements the objectives of financial reporting by providing environmental and social information that is connected with financial information;

Aligns with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures;

Builds on the most widely used reporting approaches, such as CDP, GRI, SASB, IFRS;

Encourages standardisation of environmental and social information reporting;

Supports the rigour that is appropriate for information provided to investors; and

Helps prepare assurable reports.

The development of the CDSB Framework has been overseen by the CDSB Technical Working Group, consisting of representatives from the largest accounting firms, reporting organisations, companies and academia.

Why we need a framework

Voluntary and mandatory reporting schemes on sustainability have multiplied, but there is no single standard about how companies should identify relevant information on natural, social and human capital and how users of such information can interpret it. As such, the information available is inconsistent and financial institutions are not taking account of environmental and social factors in their decision-making.

"As investors we find it instrumental to be able to evaluate and compare companies on their sustainability performance. The lack of a standard that creates alignment in the reporting of environmental & natural capital information makes it hard to do so. We hope that others will get behind the CDSB Framework for reporting environmental information & natural capital so that it can evolve to become the standard the investor community needs." - Marcos Mancini, Director of Sustainability, Banorte

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Framework for reporting environmental and social information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The CDSB Framework for reporting environmental and social information is designed to help organisations prepare and present environmental and social information in mainstream reports for the benefit of investors. It allows investors to assess the relationship between specific environmental and social matters and the organisation's strategy, performance and prospects.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Understand integrated reporting

Founded on integrated thinking, an integrated report communicates how an organization's strategy, governance, performance and prospects, in the context of its external environment, create, preserve or erode value in the short, medium and long term.

Transition to integrated reporting

Reduce silos and complexity in corporate reporting. Enhance trust, accountability and transparency and improve decision-making with integrated reporting.

Learn from emerging practice

See illustrations of how different organizations from around the world are implementing integrated reporting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Founded on integrated thinking, an integrated report communicates how an organization's strategy, governance, performance and prospects, in the context of its external environment, create, preserve or erode value in the short, medium and long term. Reduce silos and complexity in corporate reporting. Enhance trust, accountability and transparency and improve decision-making with integrated reporting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CDP is a not-for-profit charity that runs the global disclosure system for investors, companies, cities, states and regions to manage their environmental impacts. The world's economy looks to CDP as the gold standard of environmental reporting with the richest and most comprehensive dataset on corporate and city action.

In 2021 we launched our new five-year strategy: Accelerating the Rate of Change - find out more here.

Our vision and mission

We want to see a thriving economy that works for people and planet in the long term. We focus investors, companies, cities and governments on building a sustainable economy by measuring and acting on their environmental impact.

Our values

1. We default to transparency

2. We place accountability at our heart

3. We learn and improve

4. We succeed together

The challenge

We must act urgently to prevent catastrophic climate change and the irreversible loss of nature and habitats. That starts by being aware of our impact so that investors, companies, cities and governments can make the right choices now.

In 2020, we celebrated our CDP's 20th anniversary - watch our story now.

Why 'CDP'?

CDP was established as the 'Carbon Disclosure Project' in 2000, asking companies to disclose their climate impact. Since then, we have broadened the scope of environmental disclosure, to incorporate deforestation and water security, while also building our reach to support cities, states and regions. By shortening our name to 'CDP' (in 2013) we have been able to both preserve the global brand we were known for and address the necessity of understanding wider environmental impact.

In 2021 we launched a new strategy that expanded our horizons further still to cover all planetary boundaries. Our ambition continues to grow, expanding to new areas such as biodiversity, plastics and oceans, and recognising the interconnectedness of nature and earth's systems.

How we are governed and funded

CDP Global is an international non-profit organization comprising of CDP Worldwide Group, CDP North America, Inc. and CDP Europe AISBL. It is directed by a board of trustees and board of directors respectively. As an international organization, CDP receives funding support from a wide range of sources.

Where we are based

CDP have regional offices and local partners spanning 50 countries. There are now companies, cities, states and regions from over 90 countries disclosing through CDP on an annual basis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CDP is a charity that runs the global disclosure system for investors, companies, cities, states and regions to manage their environmental impacts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)

# data[].attributes.subject
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures | TCFD)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The TCFD has developed a framework to help public companies and other organizations disclose climate-related risks and opportunities.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)

# data[].attributes.subject
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.sasb.org/about/global-use/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SASB Standards connect business and investors on the financial impacts of sustainability.

SASB Standards guide the disclosure of financially material sustainability information by companies to their investors. Available for 77 industries, the Standards identify the subset of environmental, social, and governance issues most relevant to financial performance in each industry.

Effective August 1, 2022, the Value Reporting Foundation-home to the SASB Standards-consolidated into the IFRS Foundation, which established the first International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). SASB Standards are now under the oversight of the ISSB. The ISSB will build upon the SASB Standards and embed SASB's industry-based standards development approach into the ISSB's standards development process. The ISSB actively encourages preparers and investors to continue to provide full support for and to use the SASB Standards until the SASB Standards become the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards.

What's unique about SASB Standards?

The Evolution of SASB Standards

For decades, financial accounting standards provided a common language for companies and investors to talk about financial performance. However, traditional accounting was developed in a world where tangible assets comprised most of the market valuation of companies.

In today's economy, sustainability issues are global business issues that impact the financial condition, operating performance, and enterprise value of companies. Data security-a social issue-is important to companies in the software industry. Water management-an environmental issue-is essential to a beverage producer. Managing conflicts of interest-a governance issue-is critical for an investment bank. Effectively managing these issues over the long-term is likely to improve business performance in the form of reduced operating costs, enhanced reputation, greater resilience to risks, the potential for competitive advantage, and increased long-term enterprise value.

SASB was founded as a nonprofit organization in 2011 to help businesses and investors develop a common language about the financial impacts of sustainability. Over the years, the corporate sustainability disclosure landscape became very complex. Many global businesses and investors called for simplification and clarity in this landscape. In response, in November 2020 the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) announced their intention to merge into the Value Reporting Foundation, which was officially formed in June 2021. By integrating two entities that were focused on enterprise value creation, the merger signaled significant progress towards simplification.

The Value Reporting Foundation offered a comprehensive suite of resources-including Integrated Thinking Principles, the Integrated Reporting Framework and SASB Standards- designed to help businesses and investors develop a shared understanding of enterprise value. The Value Reporting Foundation Board of Directors oversaw the strategy, finances, and operations of the entire organization, and appointed the members of the SASB Standards Board. The SASB Standards Board was an independent board that was accountable for the due process, outcomes, and ratification of the SASB Standards

In November 2021, the IFRS Foundation announced its plans to establish the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) to develop a comprehensive global baseline of high-quality sustainability disclosure standards to meet investors' information needs. The IFRS Foundation also announced plans to consolidate with the Value Reporting Foundation and the Carbon Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB). The VRF officially consolidated into the IFRS Foundation on August 1, 2022.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SASB Standards guide the disclosure of financially material sustainability information by companies to their investors. Available for 77 industries, the Standards identify the subset of environmental, social, and governance issues most relevant to financial performance in each industry.

# data[].attributes.headline
True packaging sustainability: Understanding the performance trade-offs

# data[].attributes.subject
True packaging sustainability: Understanding the performance trade-offs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sustainable-packaging efforts are often centered around a desire to decrease leakage, improve circularity, reduce carbon footprint, or a combination of the three. Although brand owners, retailers, and regulators are aware of the need for sustainability, there is no global alignment on how to measure sustainability across these interlinked elements. Recently, major consumer-facing companies have ambitiously committed to goals of zero or significantly reduced greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions to improve their overall corporate sustainability performance. At the same time, their focus on packaging has so far mainly been around improving recyclability and increasing recycled content. To understand the true carbon footprint of packaging, we believe it is important to take an end-to-end view of the value chain and apply a science-based approach to quantifying emissions profiles. To do this, we have developed a methodology that recognizes both the direct and indirect impact of packaging materials. In this article, we will focus on the carbon-footprint aspect of packaging sustainability and its trade-offs with recyclability and recycled content. One key finding, which is not always well understood by consumers, consumer-facing companies, and regulators, is that the lowest-carbon material does not always have the highest recyclability or use of recycled content, requiring a decision on which aspects of packaging sustainability get prioritized. Against this backdrop, we offer three key lessons to help packaging players stay ahead of the game.

Three elements of packaging sustainability

Sustainability in packaging can be broken into the following three main elements: eliminating leakage of packaging into the environment, increasing the recyclability and use of recycled content in the packaging, and reducing the carbon footprint of packaging (Exhibit 1).

For brand owners and retailers, the focus for packaging has been primarily around circularity-recyclability and recycled content-but there is growing interest in carbon footprint and elimination of waste leakage. Furthermore, it's important to recognize that all three sustainability elements are interlinked and that, in fact, there are some important trade-offs to consider when thinking about how to optimize overall sustainability in packaging.

To understand the true carbon footprint and overall sustainability performance of different packaging materials, we have developed a science-based methodology that links leakage elimination, circularity, and carbon footprint, quantifying the entire direct- and indirect-carbon impact from end to end of the value chain (see sidebar "Methodology"). In this article, we will focus on the carbon-footprint aspect of packaging sustainability and its trade-offs with recyclability and recycled content.

Sustainability benchmarking: Two illustrative use cases

Let us take a look at two relevant use cases: beverage containers, such as those used for carbonated soft drinks, and food-service cups for cold drinks (Exhibit 2). Both of these segments are sizable and under increased regulatory and public scrutiny.

Beverage containers' higher recyclability does not necessarily equal a better carbon footprint. Viewed through a "recycled and recyclable" commitment lens from brand owners, aluminum cans and glass containers perform relatively well-70 percent versus 46 percent global recycling rates, respectively. However, consumer perception is only partially aligned with this view: consumers rank glass as among the most sustainable materials but metal cans among the least sustainable. Moreover, if we instead prioritize carbon impact, PET (polyethylene terephthalate) plastic bottles appear more favorable because aluminum cans and glass packaging have two to six times, respectively, the direct and indirect carbon footprint when compared with PET plastic bottles. This is largely the result of the more carbon-intensive production processes and transportation of these materials, which are difficult to offset even with higher overall recycling rates.

Food-service cups' greater reusability can advance carbon-reduction goals. Recycling rates for food-service cups are relatively low across our three example substrates. In terms of direct and indirect carbon footprint, a single-use paper cup has a significantly lower carbon footprint compared with a single-use plastic cup, due to the overall low carbon emissions of producing a paper cup. Switching from single-use consumption to multiuse consumption using a glass container would further cut the carbon footprint by 50 to 60 percent, while also reducing waste by extending the product's lifetime. This reflects a current market trend around introducing more returnable or refillable containers and packaging in personal care, food service, and other areas. That said, scalability has yet to be proved for many of these models, and refill-and-reuse approaches are still in their infancy.

Three key lessons about true sustainability performance

Sustainable-packaging efforts are often centered around a desire to decrease leakage, improve circularity, and reduce carbon footprint. These three elements are not always easily combined, and it's important to consider the full life-cycle impact as companies make choices regarding which materials to use to advance carbon-footprint and broader sustainability goals. In fact, some actions might lead to unintentional conflicts, such as introducing nonrecyclable lightweight packaging with a lower carbon footprint. Therefore, it is important to provide greater transparency and put forward a more robust and fact-based approach around the sustainability performance of packaging so that we can help consumers, companies across the value chain, and regulators make more informed decisions on packaging. We offer the following three lessons for any proactive participant in the packaging value chain:

Educate your consumers and customers. Get the sustainability narrative of your product right by bringing forward a fact-based assessment of where your packaging product stands versus next-best alternatives across the various sustainability elements-and make sure you highlight the trade-offs.

Fully assess the trade-offs among sustainability goals. Take a full view of the value chain to quantify your footprint, recognizing both direct and indirect carbon impacts and incorporating all the pros and cons associated with each material choice. Further, note that new business-model setups, such as reusable concepts, might also drive further carbon-emissions reduction.

Prepare for external uncertainty. Recognize that there is uncertainty in how packaging sustainability is interpreted and that the external environment may change (for example, new regulation focused on one dimension of sustainability could be introduced, potentially at the expense of others). To do this, you should consider all sustainability dimensions, including the impact from other powerful packaging trends that are driving change and uncertainty, and create a contingency plan for packaging products.

Sustainability in packaging is a key industry-shaping trend for the whole packaging value chain, but it's also a rapidly evolving area. Customers and consumers are concerned, but they remain confused about what sustainable packaging means. Actual sustainability performance will depend on which element is prioritized. A proactive approach will be required to stay ahead of the game.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
True packaging sustainability: Understanding the performance trade-offs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sustainable-packaging efforts are often centered around a desire to decrease leakage, improve circularity, reduce carbon footprint, or a combination of the three. Although brand owners, retailers, and regulators are aware of the need for sustainability, there is no global alignment on how to measure sustainability across these interlinked elements.

# data[].attributes.body
Acepac participating in Sustainability Impact Award

# data[].attributes.headline
Sustainability Workshop by Singapore Environment Council

# data[].attributes.subject
Sustainability Workshop by Singapore Environment Council

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sustainability Workshop by Singapore Environment Council

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
We put dozens of trackers in plastic bags for recycling. Many were trashed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trackers in plastic bags for recycling

# data[].attributes.subject
Trackers in plastic bags for recycling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For more than a decade, Courtney Williams and her family have lived in the shadow of the Wheelabrator waste-to-energy incinerator, located along the Hudson River in Peekskill, New York.

"We go outside, we open the door, and the ... kind of burning plastic smell hits us," Williams told ABC News.

A low income and mostly minority community, the city is also around a decommissioned nuclear power plant, a sewage disposal facility and multiple chemical plants.

Despite loving the people and riverside culture in Peekskill, living beside so many sources of pollution has often led Williams to second guess her decision to move her family there.

"My biggest regret is buying this house and moving to this community because I worry what risk I put my children in," Williams said, alluding to recent state health reports showing Peekskill has higher asthma rates and hospitalizations than the rest of the state and surrounding Westchester County.

She says her concerns only deepened after it was revealed to her that a tracking device ABC News attached to a plastic bag intended for recycling last pinged at the trash incinerator near her home.

"It makes me furious," Williams said. "Companies that are supposed to be properly disposing of this stuff are exacerbating these conditions and making it worse for my community."

The tracker was one of dozens ABC News deployed at retailers across 10 states in collaboration with nine ABC owned stations and affiliates as part of the largest investigation of its kind into the effectiveness of America's recycling streams for plastic bags.

The American Chemistry Council, a trade association that represents plastic manufacturers and other companies, has promoted the Wrap Recycling Action Program, or WRAP, to urge the public to recycle plastic bags - one of the top sources of plastic pollution worldwide - at nearly 18,000 drop-off locations nationwide, including many Walmart and Target locations.

Plastic is difficult and expensive to recycle to begin with and bags are even more so because they can get ensnared in equipment at most recycling centers - causing costly delays.

The WRAP Program and store drop-off concept were meant to provide a way to help reduce plastic waste by collecting plastic bags through retail and grocery stores to facilitate their collection for recycling.

"We want to make it easy, simple, and convenient for consumers, so that they can do the right thing that they want to do, which is recycle more products," said Joshua Baca, the vice president of American Chemistry Council's Plastics Division.

Yet of the 46 trackers placed in bundles of plastic bags that ABC News dropped off at stores across the country, the vast majority - after months - had not ended up at locations associated with plastic bag recycling.

"I think if a lot of people really made the connection between what they put in the recycle bin, what they put in the garbage and the fact that they're going to breathe it, we'd have folks paying a lot closer attention," Williams said. "It's not enough for you to put your recyclables in the recycling bin."
From bins for plastic to landfills and incinerators
After dropping off the plastic bags with trackers in bins specifically labeled for plastic bag recycling at Walmart and Target locations, ABC News and its collaborating stations monitored each tracker's location multiple times a day for months. The trackers pinged whenever they were near a compatible digital or mobile device.

The trackers were super glued and wrapped inside multiple layers of clean plastic bags. ABC News checked every location the trackers pinged from on their journey and determined that they likely did not encounter plastic bag sorting en route that could have potentially separated a tracker from a bag.

One of the first trackers to move was one deployed at a Target store in Kingston, New York, in December 2022. It showed up about a week later deep inside the Seneca Meadows Landfill in Waterloo, New York - as we deployed additional trackers over the next couple months, many other trackers also made their way to landfills.

Fast forward to May 2023, and half the trackers launched last pinged at landfills or trash incinerators; seven stopped pinging at transfer stations that do not recycle or sort plastic bags, and six last pinged at the store where they were dropped off and haven't been heard from in months, while the locations of three other trackers in the U.S. were inconclusive.

Three other trackers last pinged thousands of miles overseas - in Asia.

"No responsible waste company in the United States, no responsible local government should be exporting plastic waste to other countries," Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics and former EPA regional administrator, told ABC News.

One tracker dropped off at a New York Walmart last pinged in Indonesia, and other trackers dropped off at one Walmart location in Florida and another Walmart in Kansas last pinged in Malaysia - places known to be struggling with plastic waste imports from around the world.

"It's the Wild West of exporting plastics, and it's causing real damage, particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia, and other countries that have not entirely closed their doors to plastic imports," Enck said.

In all, only four of ABC's trackers last pinged from U.S. facilities that say they are involved with recycling plastic bags.

Asked what he thought of ABC's findings, Baca said, "I don't know all of the logistics that went on to make that a reality or not. But here is the point that I can defend: Plastic film today, in particular, is designed to be recyclable. Is it being recycled at a rate that is sufficient? The answer's 'no.'"

Baca admitted the store drop-off concept for plastic bag recycling "doesn't work to the scale that we want." The American Chemistry Council tells ABC News its position on best ways to recycle plastic has been evolving -- the industry will change course - renewing its push for adapting curbside recycling for plastic bags - an issue WRAP was originally designed to provide an alternative for.

"We made a commitment a handful of years ago that says, "100% of the plastic packaging we make by 2030 will be recyclable or recoverable," Baca said. "We're putting our money where our mouth is," he added, claiming the council has invested $8 billion to date on various types of recycling technologies.
'I think we have to be honest'
The tracker result is no surprise to those familiar with the plastic recycling industry.

Across the globe, less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled, according to the most recent data from 2018 published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Erin Simon, the head of Plastic Waste and Business at environmental advocacy group World Wildlife Fund, told ABC News there are various efforts across the country to reduce plastic waste, but what is needed is more transparency in the system.

"I think we have to be honest about what they can and cannot do because that transparency is going to help us improve those programs," Simon said. "Not being transparent about it is only going to lead to more distrust in the system."

A part of that distrust, critics say, comes from the fact that some of the most vocal advocates of plastic recycling are the same deep-pocketed plastic industry stakeholders that aggressively fight against restrictions on the production and use of plastic.

And the American Chemistry Council is at the forefront of both efforts.

The council not only aggressively lobbies Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies to challenge plastic restrictions at the federal level, but has also supported lobbying efforts against local bag bans. Last year, the American Chemistry Council also teamed up with the big oil industry to steer an international treaty discussion away from plastic production restrictions, according to a Reuters report.

Walmart and Target, some of the biggest retail partners WRAP promoted, both declined ABC News' interview requests as well as requests to see what happens at their stores to plastic bags they collect for recycling. Instead they issued the below statements:

"Walmart offers in-store recycling bins for plastic bags as an option for customers who may not have access to curbside recycling. We are also pursuing initiatives to reduce the use of single-use plastic including plastic bags, and working with policy makers, waste management companies, non-profits and other retailers to reduce demand for single-use plastic bags. To date, Walmart has helped remove over 2 billion single use bags from circulation and we are working across our omnichannel network to continue shifting to more sustainable choices," Walmart said in a statement to ABC News.

Target stated, "Our intention is to make it easy for our guests to recycle clean and empty plastic bags and packaging in our stores. We're proud of the recycling impact we're making - last year, we recycled nearly 24 million pounds of plastic bags and plastic film materials from our in-store recycling bins and across our store and distribution center operations. We take seriously the role we play in reducing waste and we're committed to looking at our processes to improve our recycling efforts."

After learning about ABC News' observations from the trackers, the research company that manages the online directory of the 18,000 recycling drop-off locations promoted by WRAP told ABC News hours before the publication of this report that they "removed" all Walmart and Target locations from its list "until they can confirm that their store drop-off film and bag material is being recycled rather than landfilled or incinerated."

Target did not provide additional comment on this development and Walmart did not respond in time for publication.

As the plastics industry continues to thrive, with the United Nations expecting production to double by 2040, dozens of experts, stakeholders and industry insiders throughout the recycling process tell ABC News that the current plastic recycling system does not seem to be working.

"We cannot recycle our way out of the plastic pollution crisis," Enck said, stressing the need for restrictions on plastic production and use.

And as long as new plastic remains cheaper than recycled plastics, experts say the vast majority of plastics we use will continue to end up in landfills and incinerators.

Back in Peekskill, the smokestack of the Wheelabrator incinerator where one of ABC's plastic bag trackers last pinged is still a prominent sight that Courtney Williams' children can see from their bedroom. The facility's operating contract is not expected to expire for another six years.

"If instead of recycling, they burn it there, then what happens?" Williams asked her son, who turned 11 on Tuesday.

"We breathe it in," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We put dozens of trackers in plastic bags for recycling. Many were trashed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For more than a decade, Courtney Williams and her family have lived in the shadow of the Wheelabrator waste-to-energy incinerator, located along the Hudson River in Peekskill, New York. "We go outside, we open the door, and the ... kind of burning plastic smell hits us," Williams told ABC News.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The public sector will lead the way to pursue sustainable development with the GreenGov.SG initiative.

Formerly known as the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) initiative, the GreenGov.SG initiative forms a component and enabler of the Singapore Green Plan 2030.

The name "GreenGov.SG" reflects the cross-cutting role of the Government in supporting the national sustainability agenda mapped out in the Green Plan.

Under GreenGov.SG, the public sector will strive to attain ambitious sustainability targets in carbon abatement and resource efficiency, and be a positive influence and enabler of green efforts. Every public officer will be encouraged and supported to embrace sustainable practices.
GreenGov.SG has three pillars:
a) Excel with new and more ambitious targets:

The public sector has committed to peak emissions around 2025 and achieve net-zero emissions around 2045. This is ahead of the national target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

By 2030, the public sector aims to reduce energy ¹ and water ² use by 10 per cent from the average of 2018 - 2020 levels, and to reduce the amount of waste disposed ³ by 30 per cent from 2022 levels. ⁴

The public sector has also set targets for buildings, information technology, transport, and solar deployment. For instance,

All new and existing buildings (upon major retrofit) are to achieve Green Mark Platinum Super Low Energy (SLE) standards or equivalent, where feasible.

All cars procured and registered are to be clean energy vehicles with zero tailpipe emissions, starting from 2023.

For all the above, the scope of GreenGov.SG will be expanded to include public sector infrastructure and operations, such as public transport infrastructure and healthcare facilities.

b) Enable a sustainable economy and green citizenry, by embedding sustainability in our core business:

We will require Government agencies to purchase products that meet high efficiency or sustainability standards. This will apply to electrical appliances, water fittings, printing paper and building materials for interior use.

We will factor in companies' sustainability-related policies and practices when evaluating government tenders, starting with large construction and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) tenders.

We will incorporate sustainability features at public spaces, such as hawker centres and community clubs to raise public awareness. We will also educate our community on sustainability issues through our school curriculum and community programmes.

c) Excite public officers to contribute actively to sustainability in Singapore:

There will be regular sharing sessions organised within the public sector to promote the exchange of ideas, best practices, and the latest technological solutions, so as to inspire and support public officers to champion ground-up initiatives.

We will organise campaigns to raise awareness and encourage public officers to take simple steps to lead a more sustainable lifestyle.

As we embark on GreenGov.SG, the public sector will look to private sector leaders in the sustainability space, for innovations, best practices, and partnerships.

While the public sector is taking the lead, achieving our goal of sustainable development is a whole-of-nation endeavour. With the refreshed GreenGov.SG initiative, the Government hopes to inspire our people and partners to embrace green practices and make sustainability a way of life. Together, we can chart our way towards a low-carbon and sustainable future for Singapore.

As part of the Green Plan, GreenGov.SG is a living plan. We will continue to refresh the specific targets, strategies and initiatives over time, as new opportunities avail themselves.

¹ Energy used per unit area.
² Water used per person per day.
³ Waste disposed of per person per day.
⁴ The baseline for energy and water takes into account operations under pandemic circumstances, while the baseline for waste is aligned with the timeline to implement standardised waste measurement for all public waste collection contracts.

In support of SDGs:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GreenGov.SG reflects the public sector's commitment to be a positive enabler for green efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mr Lawrence Wong, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, and Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Deputy Chairman, today announced the launch of MAS' Finance for Net Zero (FiNZ) Action Plan at the opening of the Sustainable and Green Finance Institute of the National University of Singapore.

# data[].attributes.headline
SGX Group Practice Note 7.6 Sustainability Reporting Guide

# data[].attributes.subject
SGX Group Practice Note 7.6 Sustainability Reporting Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Practice Note 7.6 Sustainability Reporting Guide | Rulebook

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.globalreporting.org/how-to-use-the-gri-standards/get-started-with-reporting/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are a team of dedicated sustainability specialists committed to working alongside companies to understand the business risks and opportunities that sustainability issues pose, and how best to apply those within existing company structures and strategies. Paia has a solid reputation as the leading consultancy in Singapore, and work on a retained basis with the majority of our clients. We have a depth of expertise that is unparalleled locally.

Rich local experience

Established in Singapore since 2002, we have focused our work on clients in the Southeast Asian region. We are extremely honoured that many of the companies leading sustainability locally are our clients. We have a solid understanding of sustainability in the SE Asian context and are regarded as the leading experts in this field.

Technical knowledge

We pride ourselves on adding value through our deep knowledge of environmental issues. Our team also comprises of experts on social and governance issues, embedding sustainability across organisations and stakeholder engagement. We provide practical sustainability solutions, based on detailed knowledge and vast client experience.

Global expertise

We have an international team and share knowledge with our partner firms. Together, we strive to bring global best practices and world-class information to you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are a team of dedicated sustainability specialists committed to working alongside companies to understand the business risks and opportunities that sustainability issues pose, and how best to apply those within existing company structures and strategies. Paia has a solid reputation as the leading consultancy in Singapore, and work on a retained basis with the majority of our clients.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Oops! Your browser is out-of-date.

Please download one of these up-to-date.

Your browser's Javascript functionality is turned off. Please turn it on so that you can experience the full capabilities of this site.

At FLOR, our rugs are designed with the Earth in mind. Our innovative planet positive practices go beyond doing less harm, and actively benefit our environment. Learn how we live Earth Day every day and show us how you act #FLORtheFuture on social.

74,180+

carpet tiles recycled in 2021

6.8K

metric tons of carbons offsets purchased in 2021

100%

of electricity used in our manufacturing site is from renewable sources

Go Carbon Negative

Rugs with this symbol are carbon negative, meaning they draw more carbon from the atmosphere than is released to make them. The carbon negative materials in our CQuest™BioX backing, in combination with ECONYL® yarn, and our tufting processes, result in carbon negative rugs.

Find Out More

CQuest™GB

This backing is made of post-consumer carpet tiles, bio-based elements, and pre-consumer recycled materials that are net carbon negative.

CQuest™Bio

This non-vinyl backing is made with biopolymers, plus bio based and recycled fillers that are net carbon negative.

CQuest™BioX

Our most sustainable backing, this has the same material makeup as Interface's CQuestBio with a higher concentration of carbon negative materials.

We set a goal to have no negative impact on the Earth by 2020 - and we declared success one year early in 2019. At FLOR, we aim to do business in ways that give back whatever is taken from the Earth. We've worked hard to make sure all of our carpet tiles are manufactured with renewable energy, and recyclable too. Through our Return & Recycle program, we keep millions of pounds of carpet out of landfills each year.

Recycle Your Rug

Nature is our muse at FLOR, and not just for our Earth-inspired rugs. Nature has the power to self-regulate the climate, and we want to do the same. That's why we're exploring ways to run our factories more like ecosystems. Our pilot program, Factory as a Forest, aims to go beyond doing less harm, and start actively benefiting our planet.

Read More

We are actively using and exploring raw materials that use plant-derived carbon or sequester carbon to make our products. Guided by materials science, we've added new thinking and innovative materials to develop backings with a negative carbon footprint.

Shop Now

As we think about tomorrow, today, we know business cannot be conducted as usual. We're constantly reinventing our business models to make a positive impact. By using Aquafil's ECONYL® regenerated nylon, made from nearly all recycled waste, like fishing nets or textile scraps, we work towards lowering the environmental impact of brand new nylon that uses new resources. This supports our sustainability goals to source recycled content for our carpet tiles.

Learn More

Send us your old carpet tiles and we will recycle them.

At FLOR we have been actively collecting and recycling post-consumer vinyl backed carpet tiles for over 15 years, and now all of our CQuest™ backed carpet tiles are 3rd party certified as recyclable by GreenCircle Certified. Since 1995, the Interface family of brands continues to keep millions of pounds of carpet out of landfills each year.

Recycle Your Rug

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eco-Friendly Responsible Rugs Made from Carpet Tiles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We offer sustainable area rugs made of carpet tiles with carbon negative backing and our products are carbon neutral across their entire lifecycle. Learn more about our efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donated in Singapore, sold in Indonesia: Dow shoe ‘recycling’ scheme exposed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recycling programme spearheaded by the Singapore government and US petrochemicals giant Dow Inc promised to transform old shoes into jogging tracks and playgrounds. But the donated shoes keep turning up for sale in Indonesia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside Nespresso's pod recycling project

# data[].attributes.headline
Coal- Energy for Sustainable Development

# data[].attributes.subject
Coal- Energy for Sustainable Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dig deeper

Find out more about each side of the butterfly diagram - the biological cycle and the technical cycle. These pages focus on the different stages of the two cycles and explain the concepts used.

The circular economy system diagram, known as the butterfly diagram, illustrates the continuous flow of materials in a . There are two main cycles - the and the . In the technical cycle, products and materials are kept in circulation through processes such as , repair, and recycling. In the biological cycle, the nutrients from biodegradable materials are returned to the Earth to regenerate nature.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The butterfly diagram: visualising the circular economy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The butterfly model illustrates the main cycles in a circular economy system creating a continuous flow of materials.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shell build Asia's largest... transform plastic waste to chemicals

# data[].attributes.subject
Shell build Asia's largest... transform plastic waste to chemicals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Shell will build a new pyrolysis oil upgrader unit that improves the quality of pyrolysis oil, a liquid made from hard-to-recycle plastic waste that would have gone into a landfill, and turns it into chemical feedstock for its plant. Slated to start production in 2023, the unit at Shell's manufacturing site on Pulau Bukom will be the largest in Asia and Shell's first globally, with a capacity of 50,000 tonnes per annum (tpa). What it processes is equivalent to the weight of about 7.8 billion plastic bags.

Shell will use the treated pyrolysis oil to produce circular chemicals that are used in hundreds of useful, everyday products, from tyres to mattresses. This responds to growing customer demand and Shell has already signed its first circular chemicals agreement in Asia with Asahi Kasei.

The new investment is a key element in the transformation of the Bukom manufacturing site into the Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Singapore. The Energy and Chemicals Park will be fully integrated with Shell Jurong Island and together will focus on the low-carbon energy and sustainability needs of our customers today and in the future, supplying biofuels, circular chemicals, bitumen, advanced lubricants and renewable energy.

In line with the company's global targets, Shell Singapore will accelerate its transition and cut its own emissions from its operations by half in 2030 from 2016 levels. As Shell reduces production of traditional fuels in Singapore, including halving its crude processing capacity, it is developing plans to produce sustainable aviation fuel and set up a carbon capture and storage hub, which would capture and safely store emissions for Shell and its customers in the region.

"The Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Singapore is a key driver in our Shell Singapore strategy to transform our business, reduce our own emissions and those of our customers as we move to a low-carbon economy together," said Chairman of Shell Companies in Singapore, Aw Kah Peng. "We have been progressing with the country for 130 years. The transformation that we are embarking on is unprecedented for the industry here. We will be bold, we will innovate, and we are committed to provide the low-carbon and sustainable products and solutions that our customers want here and around the world."

Singapore's Minister for Trade and Industry Gan Kim Yong officiated the ground-breaking ceremony for the new pyrolysis oil upgrader unit, noting the Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Singapore's relevance to Singapore's Sustainable Jurong Island plan he unveiled.

"Shell's strategy is to accelerate our transformation into a provider of net-zero emissions energy products and services. As a key global hub for Shell, Singapore has a very important role to play in this. Together, these investments will help us to cut carbon emissions at our operations and provide the low-carbon and circular solutions that our customers want, in sectors ranging from chemicals to automotive to aviation," said Shell Downstream Director, Huibert Vigeveno, who was also speaking at the event.

The Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Singapore is exploring a range of projects to deliver low-carbon energy solutions to customers in the region and globally, and meet the target of halving its own emissions by 2030:

Shell is exploring a regional carbon capture and storage (CCS) hub and will work with a range of customers, including the power sector in Singapore, to reduce the CO₂ emissions from their existing operations. Not only will this help Singapore cut its carbon footprint , CCS will also become a cornerstone of the Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Singapore, enabling Shell to design and produce innovative lower carbon fuels, chemicals, and energy solutions like hydrogen.

Subject to a final investment decision, a 550,000 tpa biofuels facility is planned, where hydrogen made from renewable resources and bio-feedstock, such as used cooking oils and animal fats, can be turned into low-carbon fuels, such as sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), renewable diesel for road transport or renewable chemicals.

Shell's actions will contribute to Singapore's delivery of its enhanced nationally determined contribution (NDC) for 2030 and Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS) for 2050 under the Paris Agreement and its strategy to achieve a low-carbon transition through the transformation of industry and adoption of advanced low-carbon technologies.

Notes to editors

In November 2020, Shell Singapore outlined a 10-year plan for how the company could make significant investments in people, assets and capabilities to repurpose its core business and aim to cut its own CO₂ emissions in the country. In line with Shell's global targets, Shell Singapore will accelerate its transition and cut its emissions from its operations by half in 2030 from 2016 levels.

Shell's transformation in Singapore includes a pivot away from processing crude, as Shell aims to reduce the production of traditional fuels globally by 55% by 2030.

Shell Bukom has installed solar panels to provide energy for its canteen and offices. It is also working on electrifying the ferries that bring people between the island and the mainland

By 2025, Shell aims to annually process one million tonnes a year of plastic waste globally. Shell's chemical recycling capability will also include two units in Asia that will convert waste plastics into pyrolysis oil for the Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Singapore. This is part of an agreement with BlueAlp, which was announced in September.

Shell has an ambition to produce around 2 million tonnes of SAF a year by 2025, and aims to have at least 10% of the global aviation fuel sales as SAF by 2030.

CCS can play an important role in decarbonising harder-to-abate sectors like power generation, which today accounts for almost 40% of Singapore's CO₂ emissions and could increase with continued electrification of our economy. CCS involves the integration of proven technical elements - CO₂ capture, compression and transport, and storage. Shell has a proven track record of helping to develop large-scale commercial projects that involve the full carbon capture utilisation and storage value chain. These include:

Building and operating Quest in Alberta, Canada that has safely stored more than 6 million tonnes of CO₂ since 2015 under budget and ahead of schedule,

Partnering with Equinor and Total in Norway on project Northern Lights to transport CO₂ from industrial sources by ship to a central receiving hub and then send the CO₂ through pipeline to an offshore store, and

Capturing our CO₂ emissions from our Pernis site as part of project PORTHOS in the Port of Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Shell is a leader in bitumen technology and has more than 200 bitumen and asphalt related inventions. It focuses on increasing the recyclability and reducing the environmental impact of bitumen with technology that lowers energy consumption, emissions and odour.

Shell has also taken final investment decision on a 35,000 tpa polyols unit at Shell Jurong Island which uses the company's proprietary processes to improve energy efficiency. It will start production from 2023 to meet growing demand for performance chemicals from customers in the Asia Pacific region. Polyols are the raw materials used in the manufacture of high-quality foams in furniture, bedding and the automotive industry.

Singapore has long been a talent hub for the Shell group. As part of the transformation, reskilling its people will be a vital part of the change journey. Shell supports staff for selected SkillsFuture courses under Upskill ShellSG. For our frontline employees, such as process and maintenance technicians across our businesses in Singapore, we have worked together with the union (SSEU) and the National Trades Union Congress to design and offer courses in new skillsets, such as digital literacy and data analytics, under the Joint Capability Council.

About Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Singapore

The Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Singapore is located at Pulau Bukom (Shell Bukom), which measures about 2.4 square km or equivalent to about 330 football fields. At Shell Bukom, we aim to produce cleaner energy products, such as biofuels, incorporating circularity, like waste plastics for feedstock, as well as being run on and supplying renewable energy. It is Shell's only energy and chemicals park in Asia. Shell Bukom houses a world-class Ethylene Cracker Complex and is integrated with one of the world's largest mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) plants at Shell's petrochemical site at Jurong Island to supply energy and chemical products to meet the growing needs of customers in the region and beyond. Shell Bukom is one of the first sites in Shell globally to deploy the digital twin technology to create a virtual representation of the site, with the ambition to enable its engineers to operate the plant remotely via augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies. When fully implemented, the digital twin will enable the Park to operate more safely, competitively and innovatively, delivering new levels of efficiency, and plant intelligence. www.shell.com.sg.

Enquiries
Hsu Lin, Ninemer Communications P L: hsulin@ninemer.com Ca-Mie De Souza, Media Relations Lead & Deputy Head, Corporate Relations, Shell Companies in Singapore: Ca-Mie.DeSouza@shell.com Serene Loo, Head, APAC Media Relations, Shell: Serene.Loo@shell.com
Cautionary note

The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this announcement "Shell", "Shell Group" and "Group" are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words "we", "us" and "our" are also used to refer to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These terms are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular entity or entities. "Subsidiaries", "Shell subsidiaries" and "Shell companies" as used in this announcement refer to entities over which Royal Dutch Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. Entities and unincorporated arrangements over which Shell has joint control are generally referred to as "joint ventures" and "joint operations", respectively. Entities over which Shell has significant influence but neither control nor joint control are referred to as "associates". The term "Shell interest" is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in an entity or unincorporated joint arrangement, after exclusion of all third-party interest.

This announcement contains the following forward-looking Non-GAAP measure: Adjusted Earnings. We are unable to provide a reconciliation of these forward-looking Non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP financial measures because certain information needed to reconcile the above Non-GAAP measure to the most comparable GAAP financial measure is dependent on future events some which are outside the control of the company, such as oil and gas prices, interest rates and exchange rates. Moreover, estimating such GAAP measures with the required precision necessary to provide a meaningful reconciliation is extremely difficult and could not be accomplished without unreasonable effort. Non-GAAP measures in respect of future periods which cannot be reconciled to the most comparable GAAP financial measure are calculated in a manner which is consistent with the accounting policies applied in Royal Dutch Shell plc's consolidated financial statements.

Shell's operating plan, outlook and budgets are forecasted for a ten-year period and are updated every year. They reflect the current economic environment and what we can reasonably expect to see over the next ten years. Accordingly, Shell's operating plans, outlooks, budgets and pricing assumptions do not reflect our net-zero emissions target. In the future, as society moves towards net-zero emissions, we expect Shell's operating plans, outlooks, budgets and pricing assumptions to reflect this movement.

This announcement contains forward-looking statements (within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management's current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management's expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as "aim", "ambition", "anticipate", "believe", "could", "estimate", "expect", "goals", "intend", "may", "objectives", "outlook", "plan", "probably", "project", "risks", "schedule", "seek", "should", "target", "will" and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this announcement, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell's products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including regulatory measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; (m) risks associated with the impact of pandemics, such as the COVID-19 (coronavirus) outbreak; and (n) changes in trading conditions. No assurance is provided that future dividend payments will match or exceed previous dividend payments. All forward-looking statements contained in this announcement are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional risk factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell's Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2020 (available at www.shell.com/investors and www.sec.gov). These risk factors also expressly qualify all forward-looking statements contained in this announcement and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this announcement, November 23, 2021. Neither Royal Dutch Shell plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement.

LEI number of Royal Dutch Shell plc: 21380068P1DRHMJ8KU70

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Investment in Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Singapore to bring circular chemicals to Asia Pacific customers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Singapore – Shell Eastern Petroleum (Pte) Ltd (Shell) today announced a new investment that supports the growth of the plastic waste to chemicals industry in the region.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shell and JTC plan solar farm the size of 112 football fields on Semakau Island

# data[].attributes.subject
Shell and JTC plan solar farm the size of 112 football fields on Semakau Island

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shell and JTC plan solar farm the size of 112 football fields on Semakau Island

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It will be more than twice the size of the Tengeh Reservoir solar farm announced earlier this year Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn basics of materiality, how to conduct an assessment, and how to create an ESG materiality map.

# data[].attributes.headline
Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC)

# data[].attributes.subject
Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition brings together leaders from across government, the private sector and civil society to share experience working with carbon pricing and to expand the evidence base for the most effective carbon pricing systems and policies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Tragedy of the Commons Explained in One Minute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A company that provided services to both Woolworths and Coles that spectacularly collapsed late last year owes $5 million to creditors, financial records have revealed.

Melbourne-based REDcycle, which offered Australia's largest soft-plastics recycling program, went under after it was revealed hundreds of millions of bags and other soft plastics were secretly stored in warehouses and not recycled.

Launched in 2011, the company was declared insolvent after it failed to pay storage fees on the thousands of tonnes of plastic, despite earning $20 million from the Coles and Woolworths program that had run for the previous decade.

In February, Woolworths and Coles said they would take on responsibility for tonnes of stockpiled soft plastic being stored in 32 sites - but secret stockpiles of plastic bags continue to be found.

At least a dozen new sites have been located in the past month, including in Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia.

"To date, we have identified a total of 44 sites where REDcycle had been stockpiling soft plastics without our knowledge," a spokeswoman for Coles and Woolworths told The Sydney Morning Herald.

"We have contacted the operators of every site to develop an action plan to ensure this material is stored safely.

"With new information continuing to come in, we're navigating a complex range of sites and challenges, and we know this process will take time."

With a "limited" soft plastic recycling capacity in Australia and the potential that some material will no longer be suitable for recycling, it's possible parts of the stockpile could go to landfill.

However, Woolworths and Coles have a year to find a viable mass recycling option after the NSW Environment Protection Authority allowed the temporary storage of the plastics, rather than sending them straight to landfill.

Meanwhile, the full extent of REDcycle's debts have been revealed.

They included more than $62,000 outstanding in entitlements to former employees and $411,000 in unpaid taxes, while the largest creditor is recycler iQRenew which REDcycle had planned to merge with and is owed $1.6 million.

However, according to a director's report supplied to the liquidator, at the time of the company's collapse it was still owed $24,000 from Procter & Gamble, $34,000 from Johnson & Johnson and $27,500 from JB Hi-Fi.

REDcycle ran a program where it charged fees for its branding to be used by companies on their soft plastics packaging and promotional materials.

The company's demise comes at a torrid time for a range of sectors across Australia, with food and delivery start-ups, retail and construction firms and other businesses collapsing.

Late last month, gourmet food start-up Colab, which offered ready-to-cook meals from more than 150 restaurants, went under after it failed to secure funding.

Also in March, Australian fresh food distribution company In2Food went bust for a second time in less than two years with up to $20 million in debt and 1000 creditors owed money.

One of Australia's largest home builders Porter Davis Homes collapsed suddenly sending more shockwaves through the problem-plagued construction industry and placing 1700 building projects in jeopardy across Victoria and Queensland.

Beauty and wellness business BWX, which owns Zoe Foster Blake's Go To skincare company, was also placed into administration after it reported a $100 million loss for the first half of the financial year.

Meanwhile, e-commerce brand EziBuy, which has an online presence across Australia and New Zealand, fell apart in April while popular Sydney music venue HiWay Enmore was forced to shut its doors permanently.

Read related topics: Coles Woolworths

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A company that provided services to both Woolworths and Coles that spectacularly collapsed late last year owes $5 million to creditors, financial records have revealed. Melbourne-based REDcycle, which offered Australia's largest soft-plastics recycling program, went under after it was revealed hundreds of millions of bags and other soft plastics were secretly stored in warehouses and not recycled.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sustainability in packaging: US survey insights

# data[].attributes.subject
Sustainability in packaging: US survey insights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How are attitudes to sustainable packaging evolving as consumers emerge from COVID-19 to face a new set of uncertainties in their daily lives? To find out, we launched a global survey and conducted interviews with an extensive range of executives from across the packaging value chain.

Among US consumers, five key findings emerge:

1. Price, quality, and convenience are still consumers' top buying criteria for products, while environmental impact continues to be one of the lowest-ranked factors (however, this is not true for all consumer groups).

2. While respondents named hygiene, food safety, and shelf life as the most important characteristics for product packaging when making a purchase, 43 percent of consumers still say environmental impact is an extremely or very important packaging characteristic when making purchasing decisions. That said, the overall relative importance of environmental factors for consumers has decreased somewhat.

3. Among concerned consumers, the impact of ocean litter has become the primary environmental issue across all generations, regions, and neighborhoods; all other concerns have decreased in importance since 2020.

4. Most consumers do not have a strong understanding of which packaging types are more sustainable but seem to favor compostable and plant-based packaging.

5. Most consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable packaging. In fact, in each end-use category surveyed, 4 to 7 percent of consumers are willing to pay a premium well above 10 percent.

The key takeaway from our work is that winning in sustainable packaging in the US market will require a granular approach. Done right, products with clear environmental credentials are clearly outgrowing their peers. However, there is no universal solution.

The next normal of sustainable packaging

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, we conducted a global survey across ten countries to research consumers' views on sustainable packaging. Since then, significant further disruptions have occurred, such as economic uncertainty-including the highest inflation in decades-the war in Ukraine, an energy crisis, and volatility in financial markets. Surveys have shown that consumers are worried and jittery as these pressures sap their confidence. With such challenging new realities in their daily lives, how have consumers' attitudes toward sustainable packaging changed? To answer this question, we launched a comprehensive survey in the first quarter of 2023 across 11 countries around the world to explore consumer sentiments toward sustainable packaging. This was complemented by interviews with executives at retailers, fast-moving-consumer-goods companies, and packaging organizations in major end-user markets and across the main packaging substrates. We will share the insights that have emerged from this work in a variety of publications over the coming months, starting with this article on US consumers.

In the mind of the US consumer

The US consumer survey resulted in five main findings:

1. In general, consumers are less concerned about the environmental impact of products than about other factors, but this is highly dependent on geodemographics

As in our 202o survey, when we asked consumers about the most important factors influencing their purchasing behavior of the products they buy, they ranked environmental aspects among their lowest priorities. Instead, price, quality, and convenience are the most important buying criteria for US consumers when purchasing a product (Exhibit 1). This is not surprising given that more than two-thirds of consumers say inflation is their top concern, especially with regard to high prices for necessities such as food. Interestingly, however, the importance of environmental considerations as a key buying factor varies depending on age group and locality. In fact, 37 and 39 percent of Gen Z and millennial consumers, respectively, and 40 percent of those living in urban neighborhoods cited environmental impact as an extremely or very important factor when making their purchasing decisions. By contrast, only 18 percent of baby boomers and 21 percent of consumers living in rural areas stated the same.

2. In packaging, US consumers are most concerned about hygiene, food safety, and shelf life

In terms of sustainability, 39 percent of consumers indicated that the environmental impact of packaging is extremely or very important to their purchasing decisions. However, as with other factors, this too has declined in importance since 2020 (by four percentage points).

3. For environmentally concerned consumers, ocean litter emerges as the key issue

In 2023, a different picture has emerged. Today, US consumers across generations, regions, and neighborhoods clearly rank the environmental impact of ocean litter as their most important concern. This factor has gained significant importance since 2020, while other factors relating to the environmental impact of packaging (such as climate change and deforestation) have dropped in importance among survey respondents. For example, climate change has seen a decline in importance of 11 percentage points since 2020.

Among conservation activities, our survey showed that recycling is extremely common across groups, while home composting is most popular among Gen Zers. However, two-thirds of consumers have little to no confidence that they know which product packaging is recyclable, while 17 percent find it difficult or very difficult to know if something is recyclable. This highlights a long-standing gap in consumer knowledge and education on sustainability more broadly, including recycling, compostable products, and so on.

Moreover, about 70 percent of consumers say they have limited or no understanding of their local sustainability regulations. Meanwhile, one-third of consumers feel there should be more regulations related to packaging sustainability and view brand owners as the most responsible for propelling packaging sustainability.

4. US consumers lack clarity on the most sustainable packaging materials

Most US consumers do not have a strong understanding of which packaging types are most sustainable (Exhibit 3). While consumers see compostable and plant-based products as providing the most sustainable packaging (72 percent and 70 percent, respectively), there are several other packaging types that at least half of consumers rank as extremely or very sustainable. As in 2020, consumers rank packaging that combines plastic, paper, and aluminum foil among the least sustainable options; nevertheless, 29 percent of consumers consider this type of packaging to be extremely or very sustainable.

Roughly two-thirds of consumers say sustainable packaging is at least somewhat important when making a purchase. For consumers, packaging type is a strong indicator of product sustainability, but product ingredients are ranked as the top factor when determining whether a product is sustainable.

5. About half of consumers claim to be willing to pay more for sustainable packaging, although most are willing to pay only a small premium

In all categories surveyed except one (clothing), more than half of respondents at least sometimes purchase products based on the sustainability of the packaging. The highest-ranked categories are within fresh fruit, vegetables, and produce, as well as beverages. About half of US consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable packaging: across different end-use areas, about 50 percent of consumers are willing to pay 1 to 3 percent more, 25 percent are willing to pay 4 to 7 percent more, and about 12 percent are willing to pay 7 to 10 percent more. In each category, 4 to 7 percent of surveyed consumers said they are willing to pay a significantly higher premium than 10 percent. Conversely, 5 to 8 percent of consumers surveyed across different categories said they were not willing to pay any price premium.

Winning in sustainable packaging

It is encouraging to see that in each food and nonfood category surveyed there is a subset of consumers highly concerned about sustainability with a considerable willingness to pay a premium for green packaging. Since our survey in 2020, consumers seem to have developed a clearer view of which environmental issues are of the highest concern.

Nevertheless, our survey results clearly show there is there is not a universal solution for packaging players-consumers today have diverse views on packaging sustainability. For example, in some of our segments, consumers rank fiber packaging as the most sustainable, and in others, they rank compostable plastic film as the most sustainable. Hence, a truly granular understanding of end-user segments will be critical to win the sustainable-packaging race. Packaging players need to not only understand how consumers buy and use products, as well as how the packaging is disposed of, but also consider how to improve the pain points (for example, the hassle of recycling by cleaning packaging and bringing it back to the store). Such insights will be the starting point to offering sustainable packaging with a high fit for different end uses. Our recommendation is to apply an incremental approach, and don't wait to have the perfect solution in place from the start.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sustainability in packaging: US survey insights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How are attitudes to sustainable packaging evolving as consumers emerge from COVID-19 to face a new set of uncertainties in their daily lives? To find out, we launched a global survey and conducted interviews with an extensive range of executives from across the packaging value chain.

# data[].attributes.headline
The potential impact of reusable packaging

# data[].attributes.subject
The potential impact of reusable packaging

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The concept of reusable packaging is not new. Over the past century, reusability systems were in place for commodities such as milk and wine, among others. Today, as industries around the world aim to reduce their carbon emissions in response to increasingly bold climate targets, reusable packaging has once again gained significant interest.

Despite this renewed interest, many trials in the pilot phase are unable to scale. One simple explanation for this is that there are several limiting factors within the current packaging value chain, mainly linked to a lack of acceptance, a lack of infrastructure, regulatory pushes for reductions in overall packaging, product safety, and cost.

This article aims to further the dialogue on packaging choice and broaden the available fact base related to reusable versus single-use packaging (see sidebar "An overview of sustainability in packaging"). With this in mind, we modeled two different potential use-case scenarios in Europe pertaining to environmental footprint and the cost impact of switching from a single-use-packaging model to a reusability model.

The use-case scenarios, one for takeaway food and one for e-commerce packaging, were selected to compare today's paper-based packaging with reusable plastic made with polypropylene (PP). The modeling indicates that stakeholders can further investigate the enabling conditions needed before reusable packaging outperforms single-use packaging across environmental, social, and economic factors. These conditions are not always inherent to the packaging itself.

The challenges of scaling reusable packaging

the economic impact of reusability solutions versus alternatives (for instance, accounting for the packaging itself, handling, and costs of logistics)

the environmental impact (that is, CO₂ emissions) of reusable-solution materials and the actual reusability system (that is, emissions from item production as well as emissions from rotation)

the societal implications for stakeholders (such as single-use packaging producers, reusable packaging operators, merchants, and consumers) resulting from the introduction of reusability systems

Accounting for these three dimensions, our reusable-packaging use-case scenarios focused on incumbent alternatives in Europe, including the effects of use cycles and total product life cycles.

Scenario modeling for reusable packaging in e-commerce and takeaway food service

We analyzed two diverse use-case scenarios applying to Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulations targets in two different markets-e-commerce packaging in Germany and takeaway food service packaging in Belgium-assessing cost, total CO ₂ emissions, and water consumption (see sidebar "About the use-case models"). The chosen number of rotations was set to 20, based on the minimum number of uses needed to be close to the emissions of the single-use version.

Scenario one: E-commerce deliveries for nonfood sectors in Germany

This scenario focuses on nonfood e-commerce sectors such as fashion, electronics, and beauty products. Germany's e-commerce market is one of the largest in Europe, with approximately 2.3 billion deliveries per year. However, the share of reusable packaging is negligible; a few examples exist, but the penetration rate is close to zero. We modeled a shift from padded-paper mailer bags and boxes to protective-plastic mailer bags or boxes using PP, which is recyclable. In the model, we set up a collection of the reusable items from collection points close to residents for redistribution to the next use cycle, excluding a washing stage. The model shows a significant increase in the amount of transportation needed because of the need to return packaging to reusable-packaging operators, third-party logistics centers, or distribution centers. In fact, for packages that achieve 20 rotations, transport will likely account for more than 75 percent of costs and more than 65 percent of CO ₂ emissions (Exhibit 1). Based on the e-commerce modeling, reusable packaging that exceeds 20 rotations can be competitive from an environmental perspective, and further rotations could be needed if cleaning operations create more emissions.

Accounting for the fact that infrastructure for e-commerce returns is already in place and functioning-facilitating the implementation of a reusability model in e-commerce-the cost increase of shifting to reusable packaging for e-commerce in this scenario is more than 50 percent for mailer bags and nearly 200 percent for boxes. Making every tenth parcel reusable adds around €30 million in costs for the total market in Germany. However, the volume of reusable items in the system could bring additional challenges to the logistics infrastructure.

Meanwhile, CO ₂ emissions could grow by 10 to 40 percent, given that handling of reusable items per rotation and transport alone are estimated to exceed emissions of single-use products. Because reusable packaging will include a standardized choice of mailer bags and boxes, overpackaging could also increase, adding additional costs and CO ₂ emissions because of inefficiencies in loading and transport. In addition, washing might be needed to reach a high number of rotations because water consumption and carbon emissions are likely to increase. By 2040, using zero-emissions transport (such as electric vehicles) can help reduce the CO ₂ footprint for collecting items and redistributing them to warehouses for further use. However, the actual CO ₂ footprint of transportation and distribution when using electric vehicles depends on the share of renewable sources in the electric grid, where the German electricity mix has a large environmental footprint.

Scenario two: Takeaway food service in Belgium

Generally speaking, convenience has been the main driver for a thriving takeaway market in many countries. In Belgium alone, more than a half a billion cups and containers are sold in takeaway food businesses per year. However, a significant disadvantage is that takeaway food bought from outlets often results in consumers discarding used packaging in households, offices, public locations, and on public transportation.

This scenario assumes that consumers receive food or drinks packaged in reusable food containers or cups, either at a food service location or via home delivery. To facilitate the returning of reusable packaging, the model assumes that collection points are established. These would likely be located at restaurants and cafés as well as at or close to various common destinations for takeaway food, such as private homes and offices, enabling consumers to drop off their reusables while carrying out other errands. Finally, the model was built on the basis that system service providers (whether incumbents or new players) collect items, clean them, and redistribute them back to restaurants and cafés.

The modeling shows that a reusability solution can double the cost per use of container or cup (Exhibit 2). And emissions will likely increase more than costs-by more than 150 percent-on account of the higher share of fossil components in materials, transport, and energy use. The combined impact on Belgian takeaway businesses could raise costs by more than €10 million while adding five kilotons of CO ₂ emissions and increasing water consumption by at least 20 million liters.

At the target number of 20 rotations, single-use alternatives made primarily from paper are still more cost-effective and result in lower carbon emissions, even at recycling rates of 30 percent by 2030. Thus, a system service provider of reusability solutions would need to prove a much higher number of rotations (and a low percentage of losses) to achieve economic viability (but not environmental viability based on today's transport modes and energy mix).

For solutions in takeaway and home delivery, cleaning the packaging at the café or restaurant could reduce transport emissions and costs for containers and cups, compared with a centralized cleaning model delivered by system service providers. Notably, tableware at dine-in food service premises (not included in this scenario) would also need to change from single-use to reusable items, for which cleaning would be done at restaurants and with no additional transport required.

Beyond the direct implications of the modeled switch to reusable packaging, there are a number of wider societal impacts to consider. The major considerations for food service are the challenge to maintain a high level of food safety and the increased cost of packaging that will potentially be passed on to consumers (making it more expensive to eat) or lead to cost savings elsewhere. At the same time, consumers would need to learn new behaviors as they adjust to a different system. The implied reusability model would require customers to store, potentially rinse (leading to extra water consumption), and return items to a collection point or reverse vending machine, similar to deposit return schemes for bottles and cans.

The impact of reusable packaging will depend on execution and behavior: Key questions to address

Our two use-case scenarios indicate that reusability can add costs to the system and increase the use of fossil components in terms of materials, transport, and energy. In addition, they indicate that reusability can best be implemented where long-distance transport and washing can be avoided, where many rotations can be guaranteed, and where companies and consumers do not have to invest in parallel setups or add unnecessary complexity to the supply chain.

The following key questions can help shape decisions over whether reusable packaging is the better option in terms of environmental, societal, and economic impact.

How many use rotations are needed?

What is the average distance reusable packaging will travel?

In a reusability setup, packaging needs to be returned to the system after each rotation. Between use cases, the average distance can vary significantly, potentially adding more emissions costs and thereby key disadvantages compared with single-use packaging. In densely populated areas, collection, cleaning, inspection, and redistribution of reusables will be similar to last-mile deliveries, which are also reported as having significant costs and emissions. Indeed, the learning curve entails understanding how to become efficient and shift to low-carbon transport. Further, standardized packaging can lead to inefficiencies because of overpackaging. Companies would likely need to use reusable packaging within cities and avoid excess volumes to become cost and carbon efficient.

What recycling rates can be achieved?

What adaptation to operating modes will be required?

In most sectors, except glass beverage bottles in countries with deposit return schemes in place, reusability brings a significant change for both businesses and consumers. In food service, there is a need for a new format in the value chain to include reusable packaging, for which collection and reverse logistics hardly exist today. In many use cases, there is a need to invest in reusability setups for filling lines, warehouses, retailers, and other locations while maintaining existing packaging setups for single-use packaging in the medium term. Whether or not customers adapt their daily behaviors will affect the successful implementation of reusability solutions versus single-use packaging. The easier that reusable items can be returned, the easier a reusability circle can be maintained.

Reusability models in packaging have been flagged as a solution to minimize waste. However, our use-case scenarios reveal that there are still a number of challenges to be resolved before the benefits can be realized and scaled. Companies' deep understanding of where to implement, when to offer, and how to execute these changes will depend on complex research and decision making. Getting this right could help create an operating model in which reusable packaging can deliver both environmentally and economically.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The potential impact of reusable packaging

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The concept of reusable packaging is not new. Over the past century, reusability systems were in place for commodities such as milk and wine, among others. Today, as industries around the world aim to reduce their carbon emissions in response to increasingly bold climate targets, reusable packaging has once again gained significant interest.